Started By
Message
re: Poli Board - Get your poop together Atlanta
Posted on 4/15/17 at 7:36 am to fibonaccisquared
Posted on 4/15/17 at 7:36 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
but there isn't really data to support the claim.
It's literally one of the first things taught in a 101 Econ class.
2
Posted on 4/15/17 at 7:55 am to FinleyStreet
Posted on 4/15/17 at 8:30 am to fibonaccisquared
I have to disagree with you.
Fair market wage play works. By definition, it would not help the wage gap, though. I'm not sure why you were explicit that fair market wage setting would have some sort of magical, equitable distribution of wealth.
Look at baseball and healthcare to see how good/bad fair market wage setting works.
In human circumstances where "winning" and being the "best" matters, there is an extremely high demand for top talent (see CEO pay structures as well). There is not a top end check for the highest earners. Just a bidding war where the fattest wallet wins.
But at the bottom end, there is an opposite pressure to hire the least qualified. A cashier at McDonald's can be replaced by thousands of other people in that city. And if need be, the cashier can be replaced by a phone app. To artificially inflate that salary does not help the cashier. It helps the app makers. Less jobs. Not more.
This is the same problem with Healthcare. People with money (insurance) don't worry about cost. They worry about obtaining the best care for themselves. And this drives up demand for top professionals and services. There is little pressure to keep the cost down. Why would there be? I'd challenge someone to help me out on what pressures there are to keep healthcare in check. The result is double-digit annual inflation on services regardless of universal or private health insurance.
Fair market wage play works. By definition, it would not help the wage gap, though. I'm not sure why you were explicit that fair market wage setting would have some sort of magical, equitable distribution of wealth.
Look at baseball and healthcare to see how good/bad fair market wage setting works.
In human circumstances where "winning" and being the "best" matters, there is an extremely high demand for top talent (see CEO pay structures as well). There is not a top end check for the highest earners. Just a bidding war where the fattest wallet wins.
But at the bottom end, there is an opposite pressure to hire the least qualified. A cashier at McDonald's can be replaced by thousands of other people in that city. And if need be, the cashier can be replaced by a phone app. To artificially inflate that salary does not help the cashier. It helps the app makers. Less jobs. Not more.
This is the same problem with Healthcare. People with money (insurance) don't worry about cost. They worry about obtaining the best care for themselves. And this drives up demand for top professionals and services. There is little pressure to keep the cost down. Why would there be? I'd challenge someone to help me out on what pressures there are to keep healthcare in check. The result is double-digit annual inflation on services regardless of universal or private health insurance.
Posted on 4/15/17 at 9:38 am to FinleyStreet
quote:
It's literally one of the first things taught in a 101 Econ class.
Therein lies your problem. The real world is not Econ 101. I simplified my response to the previous poster who mentioned that it was because an increase in supply, since he was pulling the wrong lever on the simple supply/demand curve... however, *real world* data doesn't fit on a simple supply and demand curve.
quote:
SUMMARY
Since the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, business interests and conservative politicians have warned that raising the minimum wage would be ruinous. Even modest increases, they’ve asserted, will cause the U.S. economy to hemorrhage jobs, shutter businesses, reduce labor hours, and disproportionately cast young people, so-called low-skilled workers, and workers of color to the bread lines. As recently as this year, the same claims have been repeated, nearly verbatim.
Raise wages, lose jobs, the refrain seems to go.
If the claims of minimum-wage opponents are akin to saying “the sky is falling,” this report is an effort to check whether the sky did indeed fall. In this report, we examine the historical data relating to the 22 increases in the federal minimum wage between 1938 and 2009 to determine whether or not these claims—that if you raise wages, you will lose jobs—can be substantiated. We examine employment trends before and after minimum-wage increases, looking both at the overall labor market and at key indicator sectors that are most affected by minimum-wage increases. Rather than an academic study that seeks to measure causal effects using techniques such as regression analysis, this report assesses opponents’ claims about raising the minimum wage on their own terms by examining simple indicators and job trends.
The results were clear: these basic economic indicators show no correlation between federal minimum-wage increases and lower employment levels, even in the industries that are most impacted by higher minimum wages. To the contrary, in the substantial majority of instances (68 percent) overall employment increased after a federal minimum-wage increase. In the most substantially affected industries, the rates were even higher: in the leisure and hospitality sector employment rose 82 percent of the time following a federal wage increase, and in the retail sector it was 73 percent of the time. Moreover, the small minority of instances in which employment—either overall or in the indicator sectors—declined following a federal minimum-wage increase all occurred during periods of recession or near recession. That pattern strongly suggests that the few instances of such declines in employment are better explained by the overall national business cycle than by the minimum wage.
These employment trends after federal minimum-wage increases are not surprising, as they are in line with the findings of the substantial majority of modern minimum-wage research. As Goldman Sachs analysts recently noted, citing a state-of-the-art 2010 study by University of California economists that examined job-growth patterns across every border in the U.S. where one county had a higher wage than a neighboring county, “the economic literature has typically found no effect on employment” from recent U.S. minimum-wage increases.[1] This report’s findings mirror decades of more sophisticated academic research, providing simple confirmation that opponents’ perennial predictions of job losses when minimum-wage increases are proposed are rooted in ideology, not evidence.
quote:
Our findings are quite clear: in the nearly two dozen instances when the federal minimum
wage has been increased, employment the following year has increased in the substantial
majority of instances.
This pattern of increased job growth following minimum-wage increases holds true both for
general labor-market indicators as well as those for industries heavily affected by minimum wage
increases:
* In the 22 instances when the federal minimum wage went up, the change in total private
employment after one year was positive 15 out of 22 times (68.2 percent).
* In the 16 instances when the federal minimum wage was increased since 1964 (the
earliest year for which this data is available), total hours worked increased 10 out of 16
times (62.5 percent).
* In the leisure and hospitality sector, which includes restaurants, hotels, and amusement
parks, employment rose one year after a minimum-wage increase 18 out of 22 times (81.8
percent).
* In retail employment, positive changes occurred 72.7 percent of the time after an increase.
What’s more, looking more closely at the relative handful of instances in which employment
decreased—whether total employment, or employment in our key indicator sectors—it is
also clear that those declines were likely driven by factors other than the higher minimum
wage.
Specifically, in five out of eight instances where either total or industry-specific employment
took a negative turn during the one-year period following a minimum-wage increase, the
employment decreases happened during periods when the U.S. economy was officially in
recession.
LINK (I don't *love* the source here, as they obviously have a slant, but the alternative is *suuuper* dry economic dissertation style papers, which none of us really want to wade through.)
LINK (Drier than a fricking bone... so if you don't really love statistics, I wouldn't recommend this one.
Posted on 4/15/17 at 9:38 am to meansonny
The income gap has been driven by the fed and their monetary policy since 1971. The creation of money and credit out of thin air has enabled the inflationary forces that have driven many of the problems we have today.
When capital had to be borrowed from savers at a reasonable rate it created an efficient use of capital and restraints on prices and. wages. Easy money creation benefits the top 1% and this is easy to see in any graphs showing average income, income gaps, total debt, etc. They all explode after we left the gold standard in 1971.
The argument shouldn't be about whether the minimum wage should exist, be $7 or $25. The question should be why does it always go up and still never seems to be enough.
When capital had to be borrowed from savers at a reasonable rate it created an efficient use of capital and restraints on prices and. wages. Easy money creation benefits the top 1% and this is easy to see in any graphs showing average income, income gaps, total debt, etc. They all explode after we left the gold standard in 1971.
The argument shouldn't be about whether the minimum wage should exist, be $7 or $25. The question should be why does it always go up and still never seems to be enough.
Posted on 4/15/17 at 9:46 am to SquatchDawg
Remember how Obama was always trying to raise taxes on cigarettes? In part as a way to reduce the number of smokers by making it too expensive for people to purchase cigarettes?
But remember also how Obama simultaneously believed that you can increase the price of another good called "labor" (through a minimum wage increase), but that the rules he applied to tobbacco prices suddenly didn't exist anymore?.....and that this other price increase wouldn't reduce the number of min wage jobs by making it too expensive for some employers to purchase labor?
This is the dishonesty and hypocrisy and idiocy we are dealing with.
This is why hacks that have never created a job or ran a business or had to meet payroll have to try and obfuscate with R2D2 coefficient bullshite graphs and dishonest condescending gimp logic and other jibberish.
Its all a smokescreen to try andd disguise and ignore and hide from the baisc fundamental laws of gravity. In order to keep a vote-buying scheme going at someone eles's expense basically. That's all the minuimum wage things is. A vote-buying scam for psychopaths that want more power.
But remember also how Obama simultaneously believed that you can increase the price of another good called "labor" (through a minimum wage increase), but that the rules he applied to tobbacco prices suddenly didn't exist anymore?.....and that this other price increase wouldn't reduce the number of min wage jobs by making it too expensive for some employers to purchase labor?
This is the dishonesty and hypocrisy and idiocy we are dealing with.
This is why hacks that have never created a job or ran a business or had to meet payroll have to try and obfuscate with R2D2 coefficient bullshite graphs and dishonest condescending gimp logic and other jibberish.
Its all a smokescreen to try andd disguise and ignore and hide from the baisc fundamental laws of gravity. In order to keep a vote-buying scheme going at someone eles's expense basically. That's all the minuimum wage things is. A vote-buying scam for psychopaths that want more power.
Posted on 4/15/17 at 10:07 am to Jefferson Dawg
Politicians meddling with the economy are why we're in this mess.
Can't finance your wars and deficit spending? Decouple from the gold standard and create money from thin air. Hello inflation.
Need growth? Surpress interest rates. Hello McMansions and the rising cost of keeping up with the joneses. Just borrow more for that bigger house and SUV...as credit fueled demand drive the prices up on everything.
Everyone should go to college so we'll pay for it or you can just get a loan - hello soaring education costs as easy credit and state funding drives the prices up across the board.
Oh...and now your doctor and all of the hospital staff wants the McMansion and the nice car - and needs more money for the cost of living - and needs to pay off those student loans. NTM real estate to build that new heart center isn't cheap and if you get it done there's a big bonus in it for you and Exec team.
This also applies to the execs at the health insurance company, drug companies, etc. In addition, the govt never needed to worry about the pending Medicare disaster because deficits are cool and they could just borrow more ...so that's putting on pressure as well. Hello rising healthcare costs!
In the meantime the savers have been getting peanuts for their cash - as they're no longer needed to fund for capital expansion. The same capital expansion that has funded all of the national chains and acquisitions of smaller companies by larger ones. frick you middle class - you've been downsized.
But hey - we can borrow to build more $500m stadiums so I guess it's not all bad...
Can't finance your wars and deficit spending? Decouple from the gold standard and create money from thin air. Hello inflation.
Need growth? Surpress interest rates. Hello McMansions and the rising cost of keeping up with the joneses. Just borrow more for that bigger house and SUV...as credit fueled demand drive the prices up on everything.
Everyone should go to college so we'll pay for it or you can just get a loan - hello soaring education costs as easy credit and state funding drives the prices up across the board.
Oh...and now your doctor and all of the hospital staff wants the McMansion and the nice car - and needs more money for the cost of living - and needs to pay off those student loans. NTM real estate to build that new heart center isn't cheap and if you get it done there's a big bonus in it for you and Exec team.
This also applies to the execs at the health insurance company, drug companies, etc. In addition, the govt never needed to worry about the pending Medicare disaster because deficits are cool and they could just borrow more ...so that's putting on pressure as well. Hello rising healthcare costs!
In the meantime the savers have been getting peanuts for their cash - as they're no longer needed to fund for capital expansion. The same capital expansion that has funded all of the national chains and acquisitions of smaller companies by larger ones. frick you middle class - you've been downsized.
But hey - we can borrow to build more $500m stadiums so I guess it's not all bad...
Posted on 4/15/17 at 10:10 am to SquatchDawg
Agree to disagree about the fed and income gap.
It is the nature of short supply economics (how many pitchers win the Cy Young in a season...how many teams/cities want a Cy Young award and are willing to bid against each other for a commodity in the sum of 1 on an annual basis. It is the same for CEOs that run billion dollar revenue businesses. It is the same but with larger supply for Healthcare. Would you pay more for better care? Yes. So would the other 300 million Americans with health insurance all bidding for the same hospital beds and oncology doctors.
It is the nature of short supply economics (how many pitchers win the Cy Young in a season...how many teams/cities want a Cy Young award and are willing to bid against each other for a commodity in the sum of 1 on an annual basis. It is the same for CEOs that run billion dollar revenue businesses. It is the same but with larger supply for Healthcare. Would you pay more for better care? Yes. So would the other 300 million Americans with health insurance all bidding for the same hospital beds and oncology doctors.
Posted on 4/15/17 at 10:36 am to meansonny
quote:
Fair market wage play works. By definition, it would not help the wage gap, though. I'm not sure why you were explicit that fair market wage setting would have some sort of magical, equitable distribution of wealth.
Well, I would say you have to define what "works" means. If your end desired goal is that less skilled laborers elect to vacate the market place because the market pressures make their "value" more or less equal to welfare, then sure it works... but the same proponents of this system inevitably want to point to those who do this as lazy or leeches. They are simply making a cost benefit analysis and selecting the better option. I would argue that *should not* be the desired outcome though it's possible that it's unavoidable given current trends.
quote:
But at the bottom end, there is an opposite pressure to hire the least qualified. A cashier at McDonald's can be replaced by thousands of other people in that city. And if need be, the cashier can be replaced by a phone app. To artificially inflate that salary does not help the cashier. It helps the app makers. Less jobs. Not more.
Not sure where you're going here. I've said numerous times that strictly increasing the minimum wage is an ill designed attempt to assist, that ultimately will not provide the desired results. That doesn't change the fact that "fair market wages" on the bottom end don't work well for the people getting paid them. Take it out of human terms for a moment and think about say a Wal-Mart who can and does frequently push suppliers to provide goods at a loss, simply due to their position in the marketplace. For low cost goods, it's essentially a race to the bottom, if I don't do it, my competitor will and those market pressures can and do put companies out of business. Similarly, for low skill employees, it's a race to the bottom in the favor of the employer as the available pool for low skill employees (be they legal residents or not) is higher than the "supply" of those jobs (and that differential will likely increase regardless of minimum wage increases, as automation becomes more and more prevalent).
quote:
This is the same problem with Healthcare. People with money (insurance) don't worry about cost. They worry about obtaining the best care for themselves. And this drives up demand for top professionals and services. There is little pressure to keep the cost down. Why would there be? I'd challenge someone to help me out on what pressures there are to keep healthcare in check. The result is double-digit annual inflation on services regardless of universal or private health insurance.
Not sure I followed the jump here. There is certainly a lack of direct accountability for cost of healthcare for individuals with insurance plans like PPO or HMOs. I'm actually both in favor of and utilize an HDHP plan... I would say though that poor education on healthcare services, options, and understanding of associated costs is a very real contributor to those trends as well.
As far as keeping healthcare in check, costs are somewhat destined to increase over time due to advancements in technology as well as simple inflationary response. Even though I've seen the stat thrown out a few times, this graph is always a little disturbing:
I'm not sure what cost check metrics are in place elsewhere, but they seem to be managing it better than we are currently.
Ultimately, I'm not even a proponent for a minimum wage increase... would much rather see some kind of carrot/stick approach for employers to actually develop non-skilled labor into skilled labor...
Posted on 4/15/17 at 10:38 am to meansonny
My point is that the More that these people demand would be much less than what the More is due to our fractional banking system and fed policy.
Look at Graceland - this was the home of the biggest entertainer in the world and by today's standards it wouldn't make the ARB review for most end Atlanta suburbs.
Look at Graceland - this was the home of the biggest entertainer in the world and by today's standards it wouldn't make the ARB review for most end Atlanta suburbs.
Posted on 4/15/17 at 10:41 am to Jefferson Dawg
quote:
This is why hacks that have never created a job or ran a business or had to meet payroll have to try and obfuscate with R2D2 coefficient bullshite graphs and dishonest condescending gimp logic and other jibberish.
Exactly. I feel like common sense has been lost in translation here.
Even the CBO admits minimum wage hikes can increase unemployment. LINK
But let's be honest. Studies are biased toward the groups who pay for them. So the question is this: If the minimum wage goes from 7.50 to 20.00 are employers more or less likely to lay people off?
Posted on 4/15/17 at 10:47 am to SquatchDawg
Raising capital has never been an issue.
You make it sound like companies never went public. Or that banks never loaned before the fed. Or that leveraging is a new phenomenon. People/companies have always borrowed against real estate and capital equipment.
As for the lack of savings accounts... the average person saves through the stock market (be it a 401k/403b, tax advantaged IRA, or day trading). Company match and tax deferred savings have made the point of a savings account/cd only for the retired or retiring.
You make it sound like companies never went public. Or that banks never loaned before the fed. Or that leveraging is a new phenomenon. People/companies have always borrowed against real estate and capital equipment.
As for the lack of savings accounts... the average person saves through the stock market (be it a 401k/403b, tax advantaged IRA, or day trading). Company match and tax deferred savings have made the point of a savings account/cd only for the retired or retiring.
Posted on 4/15/17 at 10:48 am to Jefferson Dawg
quote:
This is why hacks that have never created a job or ran a business or had to meet payroll have to try and obfuscate with R2D2 coefficient bull shite graphs and dishonest condescending gimp logic and other jibberish.
First... good assumption you imbecile. Incorrect as usual. Notice you're the only one treated with derision or condescension... you bring it upon yourself you dolt.
quote:
Its all a smokescreen to try andd disguise and ignore and hide from the baisc fundamental laws of gravity. In order to keep a vote-buying scheme going at someone eles's expense basically. That's all the minuimum wage things is. A vote-buying scam for psychopaths that want more power.
This is how stupid you are. You think I'm arguing *for* a minimum wage increase. Let that sink in for a moment you dumb inbred jackass. Just go back to telling us how private property rights solve all disputes. You were more entertaining then.
This post was edited on 4/15/17 at 10:52 am
Posted on 4/15/17 at 9:15 pm to fibonaccisquared
I'm dumb, inbred, and make hats with Reynold's Wrap.
Meanwhile, this simple concept you've pranced on for two pages is not a diffuclt one. It doesn't take your R2D2 coefficient graphs and all the other extraneous bullshite you pile on top of it to explain or to understand or to unlock.
But that's how you tried so hard to make it. All to create prance opportunities.
I don't know. Maybe you paid some university a shite load of money to unneccessarily complicate common sense for you . Or maybe it's just your instinct to do that. Very gross.
Meanwhile, this simple concept you've pranced on for two pages is not a diffuclt one. It doesn't take your R2D2 coefficient graphs and all the other extraneous bullshite you pile on top of it to explain or to understand or to unlock.
But that's how you tried so hard to make it. All to create prance opportunities.
I don't know. Maybe you paid some university a shite load of money to unneccessarily complicate common sense for you . Or maybe it's just your instinct to do that. Very gross.
Posted on 4/15/17 at 9:31 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
Politicians meddling with the economy are why we're in this mess.
Amen.
Posted on 4/15/17 at 9:32 pm to FinleyStreet
quote:
I feel like common sense has been lost in translation here.
Common sense is tin foil hat and probably inbred.
Posted on 4/15/17 at 10:12 pm to fibonaccisquared
Healthcare as a percent of GDP is what the graph shows, but is mislabeled as "health care costs".
Posted on 4/15/17 at 11:12 pm to deeprig9
quote:
Healthcare as a percent of GDP is what the graph shows, but is mislabeled as "health care costs".
Agreed. It should say Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP, though it's still interesting. We're obviously the highest per capita by a wide margin, but I haven't seen that data displayed well over time to illustrate growth over time.
Posted on 4/15/17 at 11:36 pm to Jefferson Dawg
quote:
I'm dumb, inbred, and make hats with Reynold's Wrap.
Glad we could agree on something.
quote:
Meanwhile, this simple concept you've pranced on for two pages is not a diffuclt one. It doesn't take your R2D2 coefficient graphs and all the other extraneous bull shite you pile on top of it to explain or to understand or to unlock.
But that's how you tried so hard to make it. All to create prance opportunities.
If you have some thought as to why anything that I've shared is invalid, please feel free to provide something other than a simple supply/demand graph from an Econ101 course. Notice that other people have come to the table with a viewpoint and we've discussed things like adults... sometimes we agree. Sometimes we don't... That's how things work in the big boy world Jeff. I know that formulating cogent thoughts and providing support for things isn't exactly your strong suit, so I mean anything other than your random musings might be a good start. Just because *you* don't understand something doesn't invalidate it.
As usual, you've attempted to dodge the fact that your accusation has no basis. I don't support increased minimum wages... I simply don't ascribe to the idea that simple supply/demand graphs as related to wages adequately explain real world data. The actual data doesn't support it at least as far as any of the studies that I've seen. I've certainly seen *projections* around a 10% increase in minimum wage leading to a ~2% increase in unemployment in low skill labor (not the same as a 2% increase in total unemployment)... but generally speaking, historically this has not actually borne itself out.
quote:
I don't know. Maybe you paid some university a shite load of money to unneccessarily complicate common sense for you
Common sense would dictate that you look beyond simple graphs when the actual historical data doesn't back up said graphs. Natural curiosity spurs this thought process. I do have multiple degrees, but neither of which have anything to do with this particular conversation. That you are disgusted by something that requires anything more than a surface level assessment likely surprises no one on these boards. If pointing out how big of an arse you make of yourself is prancing, I suppose that makes me a fricking reindeer.
Posted on 4/15/17 at 11:44 pm to Jefferson Dawg
quote:
I feel like common sense has been lost in translation here.
So let's back that train up a bit. Where specifically do you feel that common sense has been abandoned? If you're referring to simple supply/demand economics, common sense doesn't quite get you where you'd like it to. Human behavior simply doesn't operate in a vacuum and historically speaking, minimum wage hikes have not actually created the expected result as seen in the graph that was provided earlier. Beyond the actual statistical analysis, where in that statement is common sense lost? Seriously... I'm open to the idea that there are additional studies out there that support this notion... again, I'm happy to use it the next time I argue *against* minimum wage hikes with some of my more liberal friends... I've got plenty of ammo for that subject, but never hurts to round out the arsenal so to speak.
quote:
Common sense is tin foil hat and probably inbred.
Sure Jeff. You're chock full of common sense.
Page 7 of 8
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News