• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CBO Says Minimum-Wage Rise May Ease Poverty, Cost Jobs

Globalization hasn't changed the law of economics one bit.
(skipped the continued rationalized claptrap)

The "law of economics"? LoL... as though its some kind of force. Globalization hasn't changed economics one bit huh? You'd be laughed out of the room at any kind of business meeting.

You think price fixing generally refers to labor as a commodity? :roll:

You're just being silly, I'm not going to continue this absurdness with you.
 
You haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about. The world has changed greatly since WWII and so with it the circumstances that govern economics. You don't think globalization has anything to do with it? Are you kidding me?

Calling raising the minimum wage "price fixing" is pretty deceptive in this context and I would guess that you don't even know what it means.

The "free market" is not going to raise wages for low skilled workers any time soon if in our lifetimes. If you would like to see 2/3rds of the country sit in poverty because of globalization and a desire by the policymakers to turn a blind eye then by all means support conservative economics.

Without government action to shape the market to be more friendly to the majority of Americans, they have one thing in their future, poverty. The America they can look forward to will largely be a minority with good paying high skilled jobs and everyone else as the poverty class. Teachers, firefighters, police officers, construction workers, cashiers, (average people), will never be middle class again.

And where is your link(s) from unbiased source(s) that proves this statement?
 
The "law of economics"? LoL... as though its some kind of force. Globalization hasn't changed economics one bit huh? You'd be laughed out of the room at any kind of business meeting.

Yes, it is a force and that force applies to globalization just as much at it does to you selling an item to your neighbor.

You think price fixing generally refers to labor as a commodity? :roll:

Labor is an item that is bought and sold the same way you would buy a TV.

You're just being silly, I'm not going to continue this absurdness with you.

Very well...your choice. It's a shame you haven't been able to successfully dispute anything I've said and that you are reduced to just calling me silly.
 
Generally people get raises every year. Higher level positions pay slightly more, like from cart pusher to working the service desk. We're talking from 7.25 to 8, to 9, to 10 if you've been there for years and have moved up slightly two levels... These are not big numbers and can barely be called more.

The CBO said that as many as a MILLION workers could lose their jobs if the minimum wage was raised to $10.10.

That would raise the present 6.6% unemployment rate to 7.2%.

That is a good thing to you...yes or no, please?



http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
 
Last edited:
And where is your link(s) from unbiased source(s) that proves this statement?

"Prove"? You can look at research that supports similar positions. I don't remember reading something that says exactly that with concrete evidence, that is kind of a bizarre request, it is my opinion from my summary of where the U.S. is heading.

There is no reason I can think of where employers are going to start fighting over a glut of unskilled workers by increasing their pay. Do you disagree?
 
Yes, it is a force and that force applies to globalization just as much at it does to you selling an item to your neighbor.
What kind of force is it? Is it electromagnetic or kinetic?

Labor is an item that is bought and sold the same way you would buy a TV.
See you've confused yourself or you're just trying to weasel out of your mistake. You said that "price fixing is always bad". When people say that, they are not talking about labor, they are talking about prices of goods. So when you say "price fixing is always bad", in regards to minimum wage, what you are saying is either ignorant or deceptive, as that is not what that statement applies to.

Very well...your choice. It's a shame you haven't been able to successfully dispute anything I've said and that you are reduced to just calling me silly.
I've provided links and arguments backed up by research. You've made claims that are completely at odds with economic theory as if you don't actually know anything about it at all.
 
The CBO said that as many as a MILLION workers could lose their jobs if the minimum wage was raised to $10.10.

That would raise the present 6.6% unemployment rate to 7.2%.

That is a good thing to you...yes or no, please?



http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Yes and I've provided research that says the impact would likely cost little or no jobs, and give a modest stimulus to the economy. Is it not ok to present a different view on this matter?
 
"Prove"? You can look at research that supports similar positions. I don't remember reading something that says exactly that with concrete evidence, that is kind of a bizarre request, it is my opinion from my summary of where the U.S. is heading.

There is no reason I can think of where employers are going to start fighting over a glut of unskilled workers by increasing their pay. Do you disagree?

Employers (the buyers of labor) are only one side of the free market equation. Workers (the sellers of labor) are the other side.

Of course, employers are not going to start fighting over a glut of unskilled workers by increasing their pay. That is an elementary concept in economics. The worker, however, can upgrade their skill set to make themselves more attractive to employers who might then offer to hire them at an increased wage. THAT... is the free market in action.
 
"Prove"? You can look at research that supports similar positions. I don't remember reading something that says exactly that with concrete evidence, that is kind of a bizarre request, it is my opinion from my summary of where the U.S. is heading.

There is no reason I can think of where employers are going to start fighting over a glut of unskilled workers by increasing their pay. Do you disagree?

So, you have no links to proof...it's (as of now) just your opinion...noted.


To answer your question; employers will hire people with adequate qualifications to fill job openings.

Since I cannot know what the future holds for the U.S. economy, then I cannot know if/when employers might 'start fighting over a glut of unskilled workers by increasing their pay'.

But since the CBO estimates that raising the minimum wage to $10.10/hour could cost as many as 1 million jobs; I would say that is not going to help the situation...quite the opposite actually.
 
What kind of force is it? Is it electromagnetic or kinetic?

It is the force of people making choices and agreements.

See you've confused yourself or you're just trying to weasel out of your mistake. You said that "price fixing is always bad". When people say that, they are not talking about labor, they are talking about prices of goods. So when you say "price fixing is always bad", in regards to minimum wage, what you are saying is either ignorant or deceptive, as that is not what that statement applies to.

Labor is bought and sold just like any other good and the same market forces apply to it...just like any other good. Whether the government is fixing the price of oil, housing, medical insurance...or labor...that is known as "price fixing" and price fixing ALWAYS has undesirable or unintended consequences.

I've provided links and arguments backed up by research. You've made claims that are completely at odds with economic theory as if you don't actually know anything about it at all.

I haven't seen an argument from you...backed up by anything...to show that labor is not affected by the free market. I haven't seen an argument from you...backed up by anything...to show that government price fixing is a good thing. All you've given are statements (your opinion, I presume) with nothing to substantiate them.

So it goes...
 
Yes and I've provided research that says the impact would likely cost little or no jobs, and give a modest stimulus to the economy. Is it not ok to present a different view on this matter?

Sure, it's okay.

However, your post #36 refers to two sources that worked for me.

The first was a letter signed by hundreds of economists (many well known neo-Keynesians).

Considering most economists COMPLETELY missed the dot.com crash AND the massive housing crash...what these people think means almost nothing to me.



The second was from the 'Economic Policy Institute' study.

However, they are not, apparently, as unbiased as they claim:

'It's also important to note what sort of organization the innocuously named Economic Policy Institute is. By just taking a look at the EPI board of directors, we find that 10 of the board members are heads or former heads of national unions, including Richard Trumka (AFL-CIO), Randi Weingarten (American Federation of Teachers), Andy Stern and Anna Burger (SEIU), Ron Gettelfinger (United Auto Workers), and Leo Gerard (United Steelworkers of America). Consider also that one of the institute's former senior economists, Jared Bernstein, is now the chief economist and economic policy advisor to Vice President Joe Biden.'

Just a Reminder: The Economic Policy Institute is Dominated by Labor Interests | The Weekly Standard


The CBO, on the other hand, is an unbiased source (something the others are not).
 
Employers (the buyers of labor) are only one side of the free market equation. Workers (the sellers of labor) are the other side.

Of course, employers are not going to start fighting over a glut of unskilled workers by increasing their pay. That is an elementary concept in economics. The worker, however, can upgrade their skill set to make themselves more attractive to employers who might then offer to hire them at an increased wage. THAT... is the free market in action.

We're moving more and more towards a service oriented economy. Only a small fraction of unskilled people can upgrade their skills and get a better job. What about the other 90% that are needed to fill the standard unskilled service jobs? What future do they have in America?

So this is my point, how is the "free market" going to give these people a future? The answer is, its not.
 
Sure, it's okay.

However, your post #36 refers to two sources that worked for me.

The first was a letter signed by hundreds of economists (many well known neo-Keynesians).

Considering most economists COMPLETELY missed the dot.com crash AND the massive housing crash...what these people think means almost nothing to me.



The second was from the 'Economic Policy Institute' study.

However, they are not, apparently, as unbiased as they claim:

'It's also important to note what sort of organization the innocuously named Economic Policy Institute is. By just taking a look at the EPI board of directors, we find that 10 of the board members are heads or former heads of national unions, including Richard Trumka (AFL-CIO), Randi Weingarten (American Federation of Teachers), Andy Stern and Anna Burger (SEIU), Ron Gettelfinger (United Auto Workers), and Leo Gerard (United Steelworkers of America). Consider also that one of the institute's former senior economists, Jared Bernstein, is now the chief economist and economic policy advisor to Vice President Joe Biden.'

Just a Reminder: The Economic Policy Institute is Dominated by Labor Interests | The Weekly Standard


The CBO, on the other hand, is an unbiased source (something the others are not).

The CBO also put out a report about how the stimulus largely worked which supports the Keynesians over the others, which means we should just dismiss all of them as well? These sweeping generalizations saying entire sectors of economists cannot be trusted is pretty hasty. They get some stuff right, some wrong, the best ones learn and get better, the worst ones continue with the same thinking they learned in college and will take to the grave.

The CBO is not infallable itself either...
 
So, you have no links to proof...it's (as of now) just your opinion...noted.


To answer your question; employers will hire people with adequate qualifications to fill job openings.

Since I cannot know what the future holds for the U.S. economy, then I cannot know if/when employers might 'start fighting over a glut of unskilled workers by increasing their pay'.

But since the CBO estimates that raising the minimum wage to $10.10/hour could cost as many as 1 million jobs; I would say that is not going to help the situation...quite the opposite actually.

LoL... so I have no "proof" and this just my opinion... you don't have any proof because you don't know what the future holds... your research is correct... and the research I quoted is wrong... gotcha.
 
It is the force of people making choices and agreements.



Labor is bought and sold just like any other good and the same market forces apply to it...just like any other good. Whether the government is fixing the price of oil, housing, medical insurance...or labor...that is known as "price fixing" and price fixing ALWAYS has undesirable or unintended consequences.



I haven't seen an argument from you...backed up by anything...to show that labor is not affected by the free market. I haven't seen an argument from you...backed up by anything...to show that government price fixing is a good thing. All you've given are statements (your opinion, I presume) with nothing to substantiate them.

So it goes...

You've completely missed the ball here. By your definition of price fixing, that would mean the government is price fixing damn near everything. Not only that but you double down and again say it ALWAYS has undesirable consequences when you're referring to basically everything... I'm really going to have to ignore you now as you've just completely gone off the rails.
 
LoL... so I have no "proof" and this just my opinion... you don't have any proof because you don't know what the future holds... your research is correct... and the research I quoted is wrong... gotcha.

You admit you have no proof.

I quoted the CBO. That is not proof...but that adds weight to my opinion.

You made your matter-of-fact statement without ANY proof or links to ANY evidence.

I would (hopefully) NEVER make a matter-of-fact-style statement without ANY proof to back it up. And as soon as I realized I had (if I had) - I would hopefully retract/modify it.


You made quite a number of derogatory remarks to people about their knowledge of this thread's subject...yet you go around making at least one statement in a matter-of-fact manner...yet you cannot provide ANY unbiased evidence to back it up.

I would find that evidence before you put others down on this subject, were I you.
 
Last edited:
The CBO also put out a report about how the stimulus largely worked which supports the Keynesians over the others, which means we should just dismiss all of them as well? These sweeping generalizations saying entire sectors of economists cannot be trusted is pretty hasty. They get some stuff right, some wrong, the best ones learn and get better, the worst ones continue with the same thinking they learned in college and will take to the grave.

The CBO is not infallable itself either...

The CBO is noted for being completely (in theory) unbiased.

Both of the sources you listed contain numerous examples of contributors who are NOT unbiased.

I will let others (and history) judge which source of information should be given more weight.


When you can present studies from COMPLETELY UNBIASED AND CREDIBLE sources (like the CBO)..I will read them and take them seriously.

Until then, I probably will not.
 
You admit you have no proof.

I quoted the CBO. That is not proof...but that adds weight to my opinion.

You made your matter-of-fact statement without ANY proof or links to ANY evidence.

I would (hopefully) NEVER make a matter-of-fact-style statement without ANY proof to back it up. And as soon as I realized I had - I would hopefully retract/modify it.


Imo, if you want to be taken seriously on a subject, I would not go around saying something IS or WILL BE a certain way without having at least some unbiased, factual evidence to back it up...just a suggestion.

Wait, what? This thread is about raising the minimum wage. I made an additional argument about the direction of the economy as I was explaining my position to another poster. You want me to go off on a tangent and have some research based argument about something else because you demanded I show you proof? If you really want to talk about it I can show you plenty of evidence for that position, but I'm not going to do that on a whim.
 
The CBO is noted for being completely (in theory) unbiased.

Both of the sources you listed contain numerous examples of contributors who are NOT unbiased.

I will let others (and history) judge which source of information should be given more weight.


When you can present studies from COMPLETELY UNBIASED AND CREDIBLE sources (like the CBO)..I will read them and take them seriously.

Until then, I probably will not.

This has to be a joke right? The CBO is COMPLETELY UNBIASED? LoL... everyone and everything is susceptible to bias. They can try and they are usually pretty good, but they are not above anyone else as a matter of fact.

There are different schools of thought in economics and there is no "right one" and there is no group of people who are "completely unbiased".

The CBO's research is not perfect, like any other group, and there is plenty of other research out there that reaches significantly different conclusions.

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage: Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage | Economic Policy Institute

Are all those economists biased and wrong? Is it possible their research is legitimate too?
 
Wait, what? This thread is about raising the minimum wage. I made an additional argument about the direction of the economy as I was explaining my position to another poster. You want me to go off on a tangent and have some research based argument about something else because you demanded I show you proof? If you really want to talk about it I can show you plenty of evidence for that position, but I'm not going to do that on a whim.

You typed the following:

'The "free market" is not going to raise wages for low skilled workers any time soon if in our lifetimes.'

I asked you to provide links to unbiased, factual proof to back it up, you posted none.

Now either post some or please stop wasting my time.
 
This has to be a joke right? The CBO is COMPLETELY UNBIASED? LoL... everyone and everything is susceptible to bias. They can try and they are usually pretty good, but they are not above anyone else as a matter of fact.

There are different schools of thought in economics and there is no "right one" and there is no group of people who are "completely unbiased".

The CBO's research is not perfect, like any other group, and there is plenty of other research out there that reaches significantly different conclusions.

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage: Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage | Economic Policy Institute

Are all those economists biased and wrong? Is it possible their research is legitimate too?

:rolleyes:

I typed: 'The CBO is noted for being completely (in theory) unbiased.' I included 'in theory' for a reason...apparently that reason went completely over your head - so be it.


As for your 600 economists, when ANY of them can show me links to unbiased, factual proof that what they are saying is correct, I might look at it.

Until then, their words mean practically nothing to me...especially considering that many of them are proven to be biased on the subject.


Btw - I have almost no respect for your opinions on this particular subject OR for the rude manner which you treat others (I am not referring to how you are treating me).

And I do not want to waste my time 'chatting' with you on this...no offense intended.


I am interested in any links to unbiased facts/data you can provide to back up your claims...NOTHING ELSE.
 
You typed the following:

'The "free market" is not going to raise wages for low skilled workers any time soon if in our lifetimes.'

I asked you to provide links to unbiased, factual proof to back it up, you posted none.

Now either post some or please stop wasting my time.

View attachment 67162290
 
:rolleyes:

I typed: 'The CBO is noted for being completely (in theory) unbiased.' I included 'in theory' for a reason...apparently that reason went completely over your head - so be it.


As for your 600 economists, when ANY of them can show me links to unbiased, factual proof that what they are saying is correct, I might look at it.

Until then, their words mean practically nothing to me...especially considering that many of them are proven to be biased on the subject.


Btw - I have almost no respect for your opinions on this particular subject OR for the rude manner which you treat others (I am not referring to how you are treating me).

And I do not want to waste my time 'chatting' with you on this...no offense intended.


I am interested in any links to unbiased facts/data you can provide to back up your claims...NOTHING ELSE.

LoL, everything I show you, you say its not good enough! its biased! its wrong! Show me something that's proof! I'm not going to play this game with you.
 
LoL, everything I show you, you say its not good enough! its biased! its wrong! Show me something that's proof! I'm not going to play this game with you.

I haven't made any matter-of-fact statements to prove in this thread (to my knowledge).

You did.

Plus - I really don't care much whether you believe me or not.


You don't want to 'play' anymore...absolutely fine with me.


Good day.
 
Back
Top Bottom