• 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!

Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recession

Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

No one said that this was the only cause of the job losses, just that is one of the causes. Try again, please, and this time could you put a LITTLE effort in??

But how can anyone figure out which jobs or how many jobs were caused by this or that factor? It's kinda like claiming that the spending bill "created or saved" X amount of jobs (or didn't create or save jobs at all). We simply don't know.

After other min wage increases, we didn't have job losses or a spike in inflation, so somehow I doubt that this study has a lot of validity to it. It's simply a guess based upon one particular theory (although there are contrary theories), with no control group, and no scientific bases behind it at all.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

That is because it is not true. George HW Bush had a degree in economics, as did Reagan and Ford. Clinton had studied economics as part of his PPE at Oxford but dropped out of there to go to Yale.

I just "fact checked" that, and you appear to be correct as usual.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

I just "fact checked" that, and you appear to be correct as usual.

I googled it ;)

For some reason I was thinking Clinton had studied economics at the London School thereof but I was wrong too.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

No J, based on his answer, what he reports, he doesn't run a national economy. He cannot expertly speak as he tries to do. He and you just keep trying to hide his failure to acknowledge the point made by me and others.

As for abrasive, you're far too sensitive. As for arrogant, between us, that's kind of a pot to kettle comment on your part.

So, you'll only accept information that runs counter to your own beliefs if it is given by someone whom controlled a national based economy? No one in the lay fields is able to debate with you? That seems rather convenient. It seems his experience is vastly superior to your own, yet you talk as though you know more than he would on the subject...It's not that I am ''sensitive'' as you frame it, I just recognize jerk behavior when I see it. See, I am smart enough to know when someone has more experience than I do, therefore, I may not agree with them, but would at least acknowledge that what they are saying is based on more than I might know...

Your approach is purposely dismissive, and irritating to the point that people would just as soon leave you with a polite "if you say so" and move on....However, unfortunately that only leaves you believing that you know what you are talking about....When in reality, you don't.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

No one said that this was the only cause of the job losses, just that is one of the causes. Try again, please, and this time could you put a LITTLE effort in??

Prove that the market crash was not the sole creator of job losses.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

So, you'll only accept information that runs counter to your own beliefs if it is given by someone whom controlled a national based economy? No one in the lay fields is able to debate with you? That seems rather convenient. It seems his experience is vastly superior to your own, yet you talk as though you know more than he would on the subject...It's not that I am ''sensitive'' as you frame it, I just recognize jerk behavior when I see it. See, I am smart enough to know when someone has more experience than I do, therefore, I may not agree with them, but would at least acknowledge that what they are saying is based on more than I might know...

Your approach is purposely dismissive, and irritating to the point that people would just as soon leave you with a polite "if you say so" and move on....However, unfortunately that only leaves you believing that you know what you are talking about....When in reality, you don't.

If it is nothing more than personal information, yes. That is the standard. If it is your word personally, based on your experience, offered as evidence, yes you must have experience with what we are talking about. I hold the same standard for myself.

Now, if anyone has a national study, so support that is garnered by looking at the national economy, I'd be more than willing to view it.

That is not being dismissive. And it is what you should expect as well.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

If it is nothing more than personal information, yes. That is the standard. If it is your word personally, based on your experience, offered as evidence, yes you must have experience with what we are talking about. I hold the same standard for myself.

Now, if anyone has a national study, so support that is garnered by looking at the national economy, I'd be more than willing to view it.

That is not being dismissive. And it is what you should expect as well.


You've been offered as much in the past, but beyond that if you are demanding that others provide legitimate studies to support their arguments, where are yours? Simply sitting back and dismissing the experience of running a nationally based business that has international reach, when your experience is locally based at best, and coming off like he doesn't know what he is speaking of, is jaw droppingly ignorant. So, using your standard, and since you haven't provided any studies to back up your own assertions, have you run a national economy? I know the answer, and it is no. So, I guess by your own standard, you are dismissed as well.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

You've been offered as much in the past, but beyond that if you are demanding that others provide legitimate studies to support their arguments, where are yours? Simply sitting back and dismissing the experience of running a nationally based business that has international reach, when your experience is locally based at best, and coming off like he doesn't know what he is speaking of, is jaw droppingly ignorant. So, using your standard, and since you haven't provided any studies to back up your own assertions, have you run a national economy? I know the answer, and it is no. So, I guess by your own standard, you are dismissed as well.

Some have offered some things (not what you're jumping in on however) and it is often countered (that's how this is suppose to work). And no, his experience, like mind, is not enough. Taking his word at face value, which is problematic by itself for any of us, still doesn't show he has the appropriate experience to answer a national economic question. That you don't see that is jaw droppingly ignorant (see I can do that as well).
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Prove that the market crash was not the sole creator of job losses.

"Prove" that it was and I'll address your assertions.

Something as complex as the biggest economy on the planet is a little difficult to narrow down to single causes for ANYTHING.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

There was more than one cause, but the effect of the down turn was devastating, and it to had multiple cause:

With half a decade’s hindsight, it is clear the crisis had multiple causes. The most obvious is the financiers themselves—especially the irrationally exuberant Anglo-Saxon sort, who claimed to have found a way to banish risk when in fact they had simply lost track of it. Central bankers and other regulators also bear blame, for it was they who tolerated this folly. The macroeconomic backdrop was important, too. The “Great Moderation”—years of low inflation and stable growth—fostered complacency and risk-taking. A “savings glut” in Asia pushed down global interest rates. Some research also implicates European banks, which borrowed greedily in American money markets before the crisis and used the funds to buy dodgy securities. All these factors came together to foster a surge of debt in what seemed to have become a less risky world.

The origins of the financial crisis: Crash course | The Economist

They do a good job of listing some reason here:

The Cause of High Unemployment: Still Due to Dwindling Job Creation

But over state some and reach the wrong conclusions. No matter what government does, no matter how much they deregulate or cut taxes or appease business, business will not take risks where there is no demand. People with money to spend will help more than anything else. As long as we pay low wages, limiting the buying power of working people, business will remain stagnant. And you can't shrink government without both losing jobs and taking money out of the economy. And no, I'm not arguing that we need to grow government. I'm just trying to make the problem clearer. There is no easy answer.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Some have offered some things (not what you're jumping in on however) and it is often countered (that's how this is suppose to work). And no, his experience, like mind, is not enough. Taking his word at face value, which is problematic by itself for any of us, still doesn't show he has the appropriate experience to answer a national economic question. That you don't see that is jaw droppingly ignorant (see I can do that as well).

Just because you post something you agree with to counter others doesn't mean that what you are using is absolute, or correct does it? Because if you think that, then you are lost.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

...
But over state some and reach the wrong conclusions. No matter what government does, no matter how much they deregulate or cut taxes or appease business, business will not take risks where there is no demand. People with money to spend will help more than anything else. As long as we pay low wages, limiting the buying power of working people, business will remain stagnant. And you can't shrink government without both losing jobs and taking money out of the economy. And no, I'm not arguing that we need to grow government. I'm just trying to make the problem clearer. There is no easy answer.

That part right there, that's the problem, which there is politically viable answer to, particularly with our current level of partisanship and nearly equally divided left vs right rhetoric.

I suspect that if the rhetoric of either the extreme right or left was actually implemented, it would create an environment that would please no one, not even the extreme that "won". Which may explain why even when one party is in control of both houses of congress and the POTUS, that side never fully gets rid of what they complain about, and never fully implements what they advocate for. I believe that in secrete, the leaders of both extremes realize that if their rhetoric was implemented, it would be a huge failure.
 
Last edited:
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Just because you post something you agree with to counter others doesn't mean that what you are using is absolute, or correct does it? Because if you think that, then you are lost.

Again, never said it did. But it is how this is suppose to work.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

That part right there, that's the problem, which there is politically viable answer to, particularly with our current level of partisanship and nearly equally divided left vs right rhetoric.

I suspect that if the rhetoric of either the extreme right or left was actually implemented, it would create an environment that would please no one, not even the extreme that "won". Which may explain why even when one party is in control of both houses of congress and the POTUS, that side never fully gets rid of what they complain about, and never fully implements what they advocate for. I believe that in secrete, the leaders of both extremes realize that if their rhetoric was implemented, it would be a huge failure.

I quite agree.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

"Prove" that it was and I'll address your assertions.

Something as complex as the biggest economy on the planet is a little difficult to narrow down to single causes for ANYTHING.

Exactly. Which says what about the OP, the thread topic, and the "study" cited by the OP?
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Exactly. Which says what about the OP, the thread topic, and the "study" cited by the OP?

The study stated that this was ONE of the causes of the job losses, not THE cause of the losses, which is exactly what I've been saying as well. You're the one trying to make it sound like what's being said is that it was THE cause...
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

The study stated that this was ONE of the causes of the job losses, not THE cause of the losses, which is exactly what I've been saying as well. You're the one trying to make it sound like what's being said is that it was THE cause...

It is making a claim while providing not a single shred of evidence to back up said claim. I browsed the study, and it was pure bunk science. What you DON'T seem to want to say is that, just as I can't PROVE what I'm saying, neither can you or anyone else PROVE what this study and the OP are saying. And further, neither the study NOR the OP have even given it any effort TO prove it. I, at least, have provided multiple posts backing up the claim that increases to MW don't kill jobs.
 
Back
Top Bottom