• 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!

Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

Which do you prefer:

  • Total voters
    133
Harshaw said:
A study which purports to show (looking only at correlation to unemployment rates and no other possible factors) that raising a minimum wage doesn't cause comapnies to fire people in good economic times (judging by unemployment rates stated) has what do with how it will affect companies' decisions to hire people in an uncertain economy?
Click to expand...

See my post above.
 
Harshaw said:
Total strawman. Has nothing to do with the point being made in all this.
Click to expand...

Since no one has presented evidence of a more complete study, I will stick to the finding of the one I referenced.

"there is no valid, research-based rationale for believing that state minimum wages cause measurable job losses. Making the extreme case that the job losses are severe enough to show up in a noticeably elevated state unemployment rate is a wild extension of a largely unfounded theory. "

Employment and the Minimum Wage—Evidence from Recent State Labor Market Trends
 
Catawba said:
Your first link looks at one state, the research looked at one rate and did not consider other factors related to unemployment.
Click to expand...

Yea, it's called an in-depth analysis of how the living wage affected employment in a state that passed a living wage. That's an entirely valid study.

The report I referenced studied 13 states and did consider the other factors.
Click to expand...

Your link looks at correlations. Correlation is not causation. I can't believe I have to explain this. The fact that it added more states does not change the fact that the analysis is ****ty.

Your second link shows the net effect is positive -

"We confirm our earlier findings that business assistance living wage laws boost wages of the lowest-wage workers, at the cost of some disemployment, but on net reduce urban poverty. Second, we expand the analysis of distributional effects beyond looking just at the poverty threshold. We do not find that living wages increase the depth of poverty among families that remain poor, and we find that families somewhat below and somewhat above the poverty line are also helped by living wages. Finally, we suggest that the poverty reductions generated by living wages may stem from income gains for individuals with higher wages or skills who are nonetheless in poor families, rather than for the lowest-wage or lowest-skill individuals. "
Click to expand...

Do words in English mean the same to you as they do to me?

The question is whether "living wages" decrease employment. The article says: "We confirm our earlier findings that business assistance living wage laws boost wages of the lowest-wage workers, at the cost of some disemployment"

Disemployment means lower employment.

Your third link is an opinion piece.
Click to expand...

It's a piece from a nonprofit think tank that cites a study performed by a highly regarded economist.

In fact, a new study by economist David Neumark finds that existing government employees are the primary beneficiaries of living wage laws.

* This is the main reason why he finds that living wage laws raise local wages.
* However, Neumark also finds that forcing up wages causes demand for labor to fall; thus while workers covered by the living wage law typically see a 3.5 percent increase in wages, there is a 7 percent increase in unemployment among low-wage workers.
Click to expand...

You object to that, but have no problem with your article, which is a piece from a nonprofit think tank written by a "researcher."

Do you honestly prefer government assistance over a full-time worker earning a living wage?
Click to expand...

I would rather have two people earning $7/hr than one person earning $14/hr and one person unemployed. You?
 
The fact is: given a choice between an inexperienced unkempt dolt with dubious references and somebody with proven skills and work ethic, which do you think a businessman will hire and pay a living wage?

On the other hand, the guy with proven skills and work ethic, in most free market economies, is going to be able to command a living wage with or without some arbitrary mandatory amount established by the government. I'm not going to be able to get him to work for me for a low minimum wage.

However, I might hire that inexperienced unkempt dolt at a low minimum wage to do some unskilled labor. And if he figures out that he can improve on that if he cleans himself up, shows up for work on time, does an honest days' work, and begins learning some skills, he is likely to become somebody with proven skills and work ethic who can command a living wage.

But you insist that I pay him more than he will be worth at the beginning, and I'm not going to hire him. That is even more the case in tough economic times when lots of people are needing jobs.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Since no one has presented evidence of a more complete study, I will stick to the finding of the one I referenced.

"there is no valid, research-based rationale for believing that state minimum wages cause measurable job losses. Making the extreme case that the job losses are severe enough to show up in a noticeably elevated state unemployment rate is a wild extension of a largely unfounded theory. "

Employment and the Minimum Wage—Evidence from Recent State Labor Market Trends
Click to expand...

OK, aside from the fact that your study is based on correlation, and doesn't even bother with what might be differing economic factors in the states studied BESIDES the wage laws . . .

Did you miss the part where I'm talking about disincenting hiring in a recessed environment, and not about people being fired during a period of job growth? You can cite this study until the cows come home, but it has no relevance to what I was arguing, nor the economic climate we find ourselves in.
 
RightinNYC said:
Your link looks at correlations. Correlation is not causation.
Click to expand...

I guess you missed that the regressive analysis also utilized as well as the government records examination.

Do words in English mean the same to you as they do to me?
Click to expand...

Apparently not.

The question is whether "living wages" decrease employment. The article says: "We confirm our earlier findings that business assistance living wage laws boost wages of the lowest-wage workers, at the cost of some disemployment"
Click to expand...

Oh I see, its because you only look at the text to your liking. If we continue where you left off there:

"but on net reduce urban poverty. Second, we expand the analysis of distributional effects beyond looking just at the poverty threshold. We do not find that living wages increase the depth of poverty among families that remain poor, and we find that families somewhat below and somewhat above the poverty line are also helped by living wages. Finally, we suggest that the poverty reductions generated by living wages may stem from income gains for individuals with higher wages or skills who are nonetheless in poor families, rather than for the lowest-wage or lowest-skill individuals. "

And this you also ignored:

"there is no valid, research-based rationale for believing that state minimum wages cause measurable job losses. Making the extreme case that the job losses are severe enough to show up in a noticeably elevated state unemployment rate is a wild extension of a largely unfounded theory. "
Employment and the Minimum Wage—Evidence from Recent State Labor Market Trends

I would rather have two people earning $7/hr than one person earning $14/hr and one person unemployed. You?
Click to expand...

I would rather have two people making a living wage than two that require public assistance to live. More people to pay taxes that way as well, making the tax burden less for the rest of us.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Is living wage tax deductible? If it was it would keep the stress on the employer down and the quality of life of the worker would go up. :2wave:
 
Catawba said:
I guess you missed that the regressive analysis also utilized as well as the government records examination.
Click to expand...

You really don't seem to get it - you can do as many regression analyses, pie charts, or powerpoints as you want, but if the underlying factors you're considering are no more complicated than looking at correlations, your analysis is still ****.

Furthermore, your authors numbers seem to contradict his conclusions. Take a look at this chart:

figure3.gif


Your author looks at that and concludes that "As Figure 3 shows, the wage boosts in 1997 and 1999 were actually harbingers of falling unemployment."

Really? Because I look at that chart and see that before Oregon instituted these artificial wage increases, it had an unemployment rate that was below or at the national average. After the wage increases, its unemployment rate was a full two points above the national average. Great work!

Oh I see, its because you only look at the text to your liking. If we continue where you left off there:
Click to expand...

It's not about looking at the text that's to my liking, it's about looking at what's relevant to the topic we're discussing. We're not discussing "net urban poverty," we're discussing the impact of artificial wage floors on employment. If you want to change the topic, say so.

And this you also ignored:
Click to expand...

You mean I ignored the unsourced claims from your article which is written by someone who doesn't appear capable of reading his own graph, and instead chose to believe the studies performed by Harvard PhD economists and Economics professors? Yes, that's right.

I would rather have two people making a living wage than two that require public assistance to live.
Click to expand...

And I would like a fairy to bring me a hot fudge sundae right now, which is about as plausible. You can't just say "well, they should both make $14/hr!" and stamp your feet. The real world doesn't work like that.
 
U.S. minimum wage hike a stimulus to economy

"The study found that the bottom-rung pay increases will boost spending by $4.9 billion.

Such findings counter conventional wisdom among economists, who tend to argue that mandated wage increases hurt businesses' bottom line, putting a crimp on hiring."

"In the first increase in over a decade, the minimum wage was raised to $5.85 two years ago after a tough battle in Congress.

The EPI study found the July 2007 minimum wage hike benefited over 700,000 families and added $1.7 billion in additional spending over the following year.

A July 2008 increase benefited over 1.3 million families and added $3.1 billion in additional spending over the following year, the EPI analysts added."

U.S. minimum wage hike a stimulus to economy: report | Reuters
 
Catawba said:
U.S. minimum wage hike a stimulus to economy

"The study found that the bottom-rung pay increases will boost spending by $4.9 billion.

Such findings counter conventional wisdom among economists, who tend to argue that mandated wage increases hurt businesses' bottom line, putting a crimp on hiring."

"In the first increase in over a decade, the minimum wage was raised to $5.85 two years ago after a tough battle in Congress.

The EPI study found the July 2007 minimum wage hike benefited over 700,000 families and added $1.7 billion in additional spending over the following year.

A July 2008 increase benefited over 1.3 million families and added $3.1 billion in additional spending over the following year, the EPI analysts added."

U.S. minimum wage hike a stimulus to economy: report | Reuters
Click to expand...

I point out the flaws with your ****ty report and you ignore those points, instead trying to bolster your report's credibility by citing a study from the same think tank? One that still ignores the point we're discussing (employment) in favor of the unrelated "overall spending"?

Also worth noting that it's a think tank that defines itself as follows:

"The Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit Washington D.C. think tank, was created in 1986 to broaden the discussion about economic policy to include the interests of low- and middle-income workers. Today, with global competition expanding, wage inequality rising, and the methods and nature of work changing in fundamental ways, it is as crucial as ever that people who work for a living have a voice in the economic discourse.

EPI was the first — and remains the premier — organization to focus on the economic condition of low- and middle-income Americans and their families."
Click to expand...

and which your article notes is "the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think-tank based in Washington."

Yea, it doesn't sound like they have a dog in the hunt at all.

I also find it amusing that you don't even bat an eyelash at the fact that the article acknowledges the general consensus among economists that mandated wage increases decrease overall employment.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
I point out the flaws with your ****ty report and you ignore those points, instead trying to bolster your report's credibility by citing a study from the same think tank? One that still ignores the point we're discussing (employment) in favor of the unrelated "overall spending"?

Also worth noting that it's a think tank that defines itself as follows:



and which your article notes is "the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think-tank based in Washington."

Yea, it doesn't sound like they have a dog in the hunt at all.

I also find it amusing that you don't even bat an eyelash at the fact that the article acknowledges the general consensus among economists that mandated wage increases decrease overall employment.
Click to expand...

You'll get used to it, that's the way Catawba likes to play: ignores inconvenient facts and highlights his own agenda. Nice work pointing it out plainly.
 
reefedjib said:
You'll get used to it, that's the way Catawba likes to play: ignores inconvenient facts and highlights his own agenda. Nice work pointing it out plainly.
Click to expand...

to be honest, almost everyone exposes themselves primarily to partisan leanings, so its pointless to bring it up
 
RightinNYC said:
I also find it amusing that you don't even bat an eyelash at the fact that the article acknowledges the general consensus among economists that mandated wage increases decrease overall employment.
Click to expand...

Supposing this is true, is it a good thing to simply "have more jobs?" I mean, I found a pay stub from one of my Dad's jobs during the 30's depression. He was making 38 cents an hour. Would it be a good thing to simply remove the minimum wage, and allow employers to beat up workers like that again?

So, you've got full employment - I mean something like 2.9% jobless rate - and... nobody's got any money left over to buy new cars, big-screen TV's, maybe not even an Ipod. Maybe people are demanding that their workplace install showers, so they can get cleaned up before they go to work, because there's no shower where they live, which is under the railroad bridge on the other side of town.

There's something to be said, I think, for making it illegal to beat up workers with predatory wages anywhere in the USA. If you can't pay someone $7.50 an hour, then maybe the enterprise you have in mind isn't really worth doing.
 
Z3n said:
to be honest, almost everyone exposes themselves primarily to partisan leanings, so its pointless to bring it up
Click to expand...

There are those of us who will admit when they are wrong or when they have been presented information that causes them to change their mind. Catawba is not one of these people. He'll just change the subject and keep on moving forward. Nice of you to stick up for him though.
 
reefedjib said:
There are those of us who will admit when they are wrong or when they have been presented information that causes them to change their mind. Catawba is not one of these people. He'll just change the subject and keep on moving forward. Nice of you to stick up for him though.
Click to expand...

Him and I are dying breeds. Rightism must be stopped :mrgreen:
 
Z3n said:
Him and I are dying breeds. Rightism must be stopped :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

It makes your position illegitimate. It makes you illegitimate.
 
reefedjib said:
It makes your position illegitimate. It makes you illegitimate.
Click to expand...

im completely joking with you dude. This is a theory forum, and not a "this is what im going to do at gunpoint" forum.
 
Z3n said:
im completely joking with you dude. This is a theory forum, and not a "this is what im going to do at gunpoint" forum.
Click to expand...

Did I forget a smilie? Damn! :) Anyway, the left doesn't own guns, so I'm not worried...
 
Last edited:
reefedjib said:
Did I forget a smilie? Damn! :) Anyway, the left doesn't own guns, so I'm not worried...
Click to expand...

My calibre left absolutely does....:2razz:
 
Z3n said:
My calibre left absolutely does....:2razz:
Click to expand...

Then there is the issue of whether I am a rightist. If you are a fascist and I disagree with you then I guess I am. Funny, I have never thought of myself that way...
 
reefedjib said:
Then there is the issue of whether I am a rightist. If you are a fascist and I disagree with you then I guess I am. Funny, I have never thought of myself that way...
Click to expand...

im insulted that you call me a fascist! I am the opposite! Well, not entirely:2wave:
 
reefedjib said:
Mussolini was not a capitalist
Click to expand...

He was a corporatist. An advocate of both capitalist economics for the benefit of the state, and the military aggression he believed he and Hitler needed to propagate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom