State of the Union

[Raavak]

Originally Posted by Lojik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

...The problem is that there are workers who are not skilled enough to make a certain amount of money...

Right. The CEO won't take a paycut to employ a minimum wage worker... The people who lose are the ones who could and should work for less, because equilibrium wage for what they do is below minimum wage. And now this unemployed unskilled worker has to live in a higher cost of living environment.

No one is really for "slave" labor, but pay a worker what the job is worth.

[Blink]

Originally Posted by Raavak [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Right. The CEO won't take a paycut to employ a minimum wage worker... The people who lose are the ones who could and should work for less, because equilibrium wage for what they do is below minimum wage. And now this unemployed unskilled worker has to live in a higher cost of living environment.

No one is really for "slave" labor, but pay a worker what the job is worth.

You do realize you are more than likely debating with said unskilled worker right? You are not going to convince a "victim" he doesn't deserve more.

[hatelore]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's not that simple. I know your Econ 101 professor sounded totally convincing and you feel confident parroting his perceived expertise everywhere you go, but sometimes (often) economists are wrong, or at the very least inaccurate or only marginally applicable to real circumstances.

This is some Alan Greenspan tier-"Financial regulation is bad!" followed by "I was wrong, sorry about that"-level horseshit.

Pull your head out of tea party ass and learn to think on your own

I will agree with one thing regarding minimum wage... A worker working an hour for 2 gallons of gas sucks ass.. That I agree.

But what happens when it is raised? Do you think these corporations are just going keep all of there workers? No, there will be layoffs. raising it from 7 whatever to 10 is a pretty big jump. They will reduce there workforce and require more from the smaller workforce. These corporations that have a large amount of lower wage workers already have to deal with in an increase from obamacare, which will in turn cause more lay offs.

What makes a fruitful economy? Ask yourself that.. Here is a scary fact, All we have done since 2004 is artificially prop up our economy. The unemployment rate is also artificially propped up. We have propped up our economy with so many fucking fake tools that is truly is scary. Did you know the federal government buys 90% of our treasury bonds? This whole idea that if we increase minimum wage it will help our economy is bogus lies told to you by the same liars that run our country...

And to think this guy has the gall to get up on a fucking podium and tell us that we need to pass legalization for illegal aliens? That we need to up the number of migrant workers coming in each year so they can compete against American's who truly do need the fucking job?

Its all a smoke and mirror show here kids. The government has sold out to big business a long time ago, the rats on both sides, not just the democrats, both sides.

I will be honest. I truly do hope the republicans are stupid enough to go against the American people and grant Amnesty to illegals. That will be the end of the Republican party, and hopefully..... It will produce a new party of true conservatives, not a party full of fake ass rhinos.

That's just my 2 cents, I don't sit on here claiming I know it all or that I am an economist. But I am a solid worker who has been a part of the American workforce for almost 20 years. Things are not looking better, no matter what the President or the New Your Times tries to tell you. We are in for a big hurting from what the past two presidents have done to this country.

[Raavak]

You raise minimum wage.... where does the money for the wages come from? Its a fairly simple answer. If you think it comes from managements wages, overhead, R&D, or anything like that you are clueless. There are two answers.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raavak [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You raise minimum wage.... where does the money for the wages come from? Hurr durr this is the only approach to the problem simplistic enough for me to understand, so I'm going to ignore anything outside the confines of my false dichotomy etc etc derp

From here:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And here:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by Raavak [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I've been doing this for decades now... I've had to deal with a number of minimum wage increases. The first reaction we have is to slim down, and get rid of lower performing employees. The second is to raise prices. In a steady-state dream world we will always be at maximum efficiency and would only raise prices because everyone would be necessary. But we are fairly large, and unproductive people come and go.

But in the long run what happens, prices go up, cost of living goes up, taxes go up along with the deadweight losses therein... so purchasing power of a minimum wage worker actually decreases despite being paid more.

Your bullshit doesn't mesh with a reality where a more highly compensated workforce is demonstrably more conducive to total economic prosperity in a developed economy. Take your bullshit anywhere else where labor is paid a living wage and you'll be laughed back to Ameristan.

You're living in the smoldering ruins of Reaganomics and you're still stupid enough to keep trying to sell it.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

From here:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And here:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
... (probably something meaningless said down here)

I love when people use graphs use two different scales for a single axis. Makes it easier to figure out which posts I don't need to read further on.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I love when people use graphs use two different scales for a single axis. Makes it easier to figure out which posts I don't need to read further on.

That's a valid complaint about the graphs--the first one is particularly misleading-- but it doesn't warrant ignoring the truth of the situation. It's oriented that way because employee compensation is naturally a much larger % of GDP... the profit axis nearly doubled itself, which wouldn't have otherwise been adequately portrayed.

Basically what you can take away is that compensation/GDP dropped roughly 10%, while corporate profits/GDP increased roughly 5%. This is a well known trend and you don't need to rely on a shitty graph to recognize it.

But none of it really matters anyway because you're a libertarian and won't be happy until the State of the Union is sponsored by Coca Cola

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's a valid complaint about the graphs--the first one is particularly misleading-- but it doesn't warrant ignoring the truth of the situation. It's oriented that way because employee compensation is naturally a much larger % of GDP... the profit axis nearly doubled itself, which wouldn't have otherwise been adequately portrayed.

Basically what you can take away is that compensation/GDP dropped roughly 10%, while corporate profits/GDP increased roughly 5%. This is a well known trend and you don't need to rely on a shitty graph to recognize it.

But none of it really matters anyway because you're a libertarian and won't be happy until the State of the Union is sponsored by Coca Cola

Yes, because as everyone knows, there's nothing a libertarian loves more than when government and corporations are in bed together. Oh wait. No. That's the domain of the two major parties. So are you part of team corporate fascism or team corporate socialism?

[Raavak]

I've been doing this for decades now... I've had to deal with a number of minimum wage increases. The first reaction we have is to slim down, and get rid of lower performing employees. The second is to raise prices. In a steady-state dream world we will always be at maximum efficiency and would only raise prices because everyone would be necessary. But we are fairly large, and unproductive people come and go.

But in the long run what happens, prices go up, cost of living goes up, taxes go up along with the deadweight losses therein... so purchasing power of a minimum wage worker actually decreases despite being paid more.

[hatelore]

Originally Posted by Raavak [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I've been doing this for decades now... I've had to deal with a number of minimum wage increases. The first reaction we have is to slim down, and get rid of lower performing employees. The second is to raise prices. In a steady-state dream world we will always be at maximum efficiency and would only raise prices because everyone would be necessary. But we are fairly large, and unproductive people come and go.

But in the long run what happens, prices go up, cost of living goes up, taxes go up along with the deadweight losses therein... so purchasing power of a minimum wage worker actually decreases despite being paid more.

I completely agree with this.