Bernanke on TV says jobless rate to stay high

TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
hanimmal said:
To just make it look like they are doing something. It is politics. The new Minimum wage is $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. Less than what people get paid. I am sure that in cali the price of everything is higher so it is a wash.

All just posturing by the talking heads.
Click to expand...
Hanimall, you can't prove that minimum wage is below the market equilibrium, so stop arguing that it is.

Clearly if that was the case then there would be no talk about how minimum wage should be raised, or left alone, or abolished completely.

You do not have a magic crystal ball so stop trying to pretend that you do.
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Hanimall, you can't prove that minimum wage is below the market equilibrium, so stop arguing that it is.

Clearly if that was the case then there would be no talk about how minimum wage should be raised, or left alone, or abolished completely.

You do not have a magic crystal ball so stop trying to pretend that you do.
Click to expand...
So where is your crystal ball saying that it is not?

Face it
[SIZE=-1]$8.00:[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] Approximate nationwide average hourly wage for Wal-Mart employees[/SIZE]
Cashier at blockbuster: $7.50-$7.75 in '06
Mcdonalds: $7.25 in '06
CVS cashier: $7.75
So anyway you again dismiss shit I say and I back it up.

Just below the market equilibrium is where they push the min. wage laws to. It is historically always set below it so that the big money companies that set the wages don't go crazy on the politicians.

You think that this $7.25 is something people can live on? No if they really tried to do that it would be set around $11 an hour. And that is where you would see crazy layoffs.

This is all a publicity move to show they care about the poor classes in the states.

So you quit talking out of your ass.



[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
Minimum wage was never intended to be a LIVING wage. It's meant as a temporary beginners square for such folks as high schoolers and college kids needing extra funds. Seniors which need to SUPPLEMENT their retirement income as well. There is no "set" price for it, but what the free market will bear. Having the govt. "makeup" wages subverts the free market and hence causes UNEMPLOYMENT to RISE!!

This is first year economics. Why do we need to go over this?
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Minimum wage was never intended to be a LIVING wage. It's meant as a temporary beginners square for such folks as high schoolers and college kids needing extra funds. Seniors which need to SUPPLEMENT their retirement income as well. There is no "set" price for it, but what the free market will bear. Having the govt. "makeup" wages subverts the free market and hence causes UNEMPLOYMENT to RISE!!

This is first year economics. Why do we need to go over this?
Click to expand...
You really know your stuff I will bow down to your unquestioning wit.

The free market has spoken. The real minimum wage is ABOVE $7.25 an hour this is econ 101 (you should try to find a good textbook to study). So that means that the politicians are save to move the national minimum wage to that point so that the people will say you care, this is political science 101.

Hence you are wrong that unemployment will rise. The people making less than $7.25 an hour now are either working for their family, working a job that they can easily replace with a local grocery store, part time (hence cannot get on unemployment), or paid under the table.

So again this will not affect the unemployment numbers.
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
hanimmal said:
You really know your stuff I will bow down to your unquestioning wit.

The free market has spoken. The real minimum wage is ABOVE $7.25 an hour this is econ 101 (you should try to find a good textbook to study). So that means that the politicians are save to move the national minimum wage to that point so that the people will say you care, this is political science 101.

Hence you are wrong that unemployment will rise. The people making less than $7.25 an hour now are either working for their family, working a job that they can easily replace with a local grocery store, part time (hence cannot get on unemployment), or paid under the table.

So again this will not affect the unemployment numbers.
Click to expand...
Still attempting to make fantasies into reality...

Just because Walmart, McDonalds and those other companies that you mentioned (funny how they seem to be all fortune 500s) pay their employees more than the artificial minimum wage, does not mean that there is not demand for employees below minimum wage (if there are those willing to take a job that pays below it.)

I said prove it and you produced anecdotes, which are not proof (as I have been reminded countless many of times.)

You haven't actually proven that the market would not consume additional labor if it was free to pay them below minimum wage.

You haven't actually proven that the wages at the bottom of the market are above minimum wage.

Mostly because such knowledge is not possible to actually determine with out doing away with minimum wage.

If all jobs pay more than minimum wage, or the vast majority of jobs pay more than minimum wage, then government abolishing minimum wage will have zero effect on unemployment, proving you right.

If the abolishment of minimum wage effects unemployment by reducing it by a small amount (which would be natural in a recovering economy) then you would be proven right.

If, however, the abolishment of minimum wage drastically reduced unemployment faster than return to economic growth could explain then I would be proven right.

But, alas, as the government is not interested in letting the market be free to govern itself then this experiment will not be done, and thus all you can do is theorize, which is really all that economists do, regardless of how much expertise that they have.
 
jeff f

jeff f

New Member
Curious, how did you formulate your opinion about global warming?
Click to expand...
because in the 70's the libs scared the living crap out of me by saying we were all going to freeze to death when the ice age hits. there is literally no science that supports man made global warming....none. everything is based on computer models and consensus opinion. in otherwords bullshit.

fact, you cant control climate, nomatter what you or i do. fact, hottest year on record, 1996. fact, been cooling ever since. fact, more polar bears living than anytime in recorded history of the bears etc. etc.etc....

as for the "clean" energy, it already exists, nuclear. but no, you dont want nuclear. you want to tear down the central pa mountain forest to put up windmills. if i had a digital camera i would post a picture of our local windmill factory....oops, i mean "farm"... around hazelton pa. completely fucking destroyed the scenic mountain veiws for several hundred square miles. dont treehuggers get the hypocracy in that? further, the lousy guvment isnt gonna make clean energy happen, but the marketplace will.

jeff
 
TreesOfLife

TreesOfLife

Well-Known Member
jeff f said:
fact, you cant control climate,

jeff
Click to expand...
Acctually you can Haarp, and the other things of that nature.

TreesOfLife said:
Propaganda and truth. Notice everything US weather related is blamed on China, and Russia.
Because Our government Loves Us ALL...:spew:


[youtube]rpx8Mp-Y1AA[/youtube]

[youtube]8u8tqv-xPKI[/youtube]

[youtube]mxCsFtLKwe4[/youtube]

[youtube]MbVJsB0lcCI[/youtube]
Click to expand...
TreesOfLife said:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3731081/DefenseLink-News-Transcript-DoD-News-Briefing-Secretary-of-Defense-William-S-Cohen-April-28-1997

Scroll down it is on page 3-4 Eco Terrorist.


http://www.jerryesmith.com/index.php/6
Attempts at modifying the weather go back to the original cloud-seeding experiments of the late 19th century, but in these modern times can include eco-terrorism involving electromagnetic scalar-wave technologies that can alter climate and trigger earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions, as former US Secretary of Defense William Cohen warned in 1997.
Click to expand...
 
jeff f

jeff f

New Member
need only watch the first 30 seconds....."it could blah blah blah, it might blas blah bl....and so on. seriously dude, did you listen to it? its all fucking theory. what was the last big theory? oh yea, the world is flat. these people are wearing aluminum helmets and think they are bigger than God...oh wait so does our president. i take it all back. world to end at 10 news at 11 now pass the koolaid.

jeff
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Still attempting to make fantasies into reality...

Just because Walmart, McDonalds and those other companies that you mentioned (funny how they seem to be all fortune 500s) pay their employees more than the artificial minimum wage, does not mean that there is not demand for employees below minimum wage (if there are those willing to take a job that pays below it.)

I said prove it and you produced anecdotes, which are not proof (as I have been reminded countless many of times.)

You haven't actually proven that the market would not consume additional labor if it was free to pay them below minimum wage.

You haven't actually proven that the wages at the bottom of the market are above minimum wage.

Mostly because such knowledge is not possible to actually determine with out doing away with minimum wage.

If all jobs pay more than minimum wage, or the vast majority of jobs pay more than minimum wage, then government abolishing minimum wage will have zero effect on unemployment, proving you right.

If the abolishment of minimum wage effects unemployment by reducing it by a small amount (which would be natural in a recovering economy) then you would be proven right.

If, however, the abolishment of minimum wage drastically reduced unemployment faster than return to economic growth could explain then I would be proven right.

But, alas, as the government is not interested in letting the market be free to govern itself then this experiment will not be done, and thus all you can do is theorize, which is really all that economists do, regardless of how much expertise that they have.
Click to expand...
I gave you actual real world examples of the real minimum wage that had been set by the economy. Walmart has been paying above for a long time. And I think you can agree that they are one of the best companies at keeping every single cost as low as possible. That is why they are able to wipe out most stores around them that they compete with. If they could pay less they would.

I also looked up some other major companies, yes big companies since they are everywhere, because they dictate the minimum wages.

Here check this out: http://www.scribd.com/doc/12952990/Do-Minimum-Wage-Hikes-Raise-US-Long-Term-Unemployment-Evidence-Using-State-Minimum-Wage-Rates

That goes over some of the historical evidence that it really doesn't hurt anything when they change it.

And as far as proving it to you. You have made it very very clear that I will not ever have enough "Proof" for you no matter how much facts, information, or logic that I can produce. But w/e I am not going to stop trying.

Han, I don't know where you went to skool, but your parents should ask for their money back.
Click to expand...
Well first I paid for my girlfriend to get her Pharm Doctor, and now I am getting my degree with our own money. So I don't think that my dad has to worry about that. But where did you go to school and what is your degree in? I wish that I could just tell my professors hey I can't give you actual information, but I have a kickbutt Youtube video for you to watch on it.

And when they disagree I am also not able to just say, nu-uh and start to argue a different point. But I guess since I don't listen to the same mind melting propaganda you do I am stupid.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
CrackerJax said:
Increasing minimum wages always ends up hurting the intended.

I have a business of 10 employees who get minimum wage. I must now pay my employees more by govt. declared fiat. Now my profit margin hasn't increased, but my payroll has. Whatever will I, the business owner do? I will do one of two things. I will either not hire another worker or I will let one go to offset the increase on the others.

Unemployment goes up and the kid who wants to flip burgers gets stiffed.

Pretty simple.... that's no way to help the economy...:roll: (pssst, they know this)
Click to expand...
Or, you could take the third option and pass the costs along to the customer by raising your prices. Hey ... who-da thought that the minimum wage laws contribute to inflation? Certainly not the Do-Gooders in Washington. :lol:

Vi
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
ALL extra costs are passed onto the consumer, whenever possible. That's a given which seems to elude most lib's. Corporate taxes are taxes on the general population, not the actual corps. The Corps are merely the funnel utilized to send tax money to Washington.

No one with any credibility is now saying the Govt. health scheme will save ANY money. The same ppl also agree that quality of service WILL suffer.

So why do it?

Because it's not really about improving health care.....
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
Because it's not really about improving health care.....
Click to expand...

Exactly...its all about taking more money away from the citizen and lining the pockets of government.

People just don't understand that the government cannot give you a single thing without first taking it away from someone else. The government operates at a loss, always, and produces nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top