• 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

Its bad for people who cannot achieve their first job, obtain the necessary skills for their career paths and people entering the labour force who simply just want to make a living.

I was unaware you were concerned with people who choose not to prepare themselves the the modern economy. It is highly unlikely people enter the labor force to earn the lowest amount possible.

These are why we have internships, as the only legal way for having a fully capable person to work below the minimum wage is if they work for free.

The "you are getting paid with training" model is ripe with exploitation.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

The point I was making was that the standard was incorrect, and that to claim a monopsony under it was foolishness.

It's not exactly like this was some grand hidden, nuanced, point that I really depended upon the reader to be able to infer from deep understanding.

Here's what I said:




Did you... did you even read what you were responding to? Or was your decision to mischaracterize it deliberate?

And what you *STILL* won't get is that even by those standards which you claim defines all jobs as monopsynies, there are still jobs which are not.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

If people have knowledge about open positions and pay, the hiring firms labor supply curve should be completely elastic, or have a slope of zero.

That is a strawman - no one is arguing that the labor market is completely elastic anymore than you are claiming that the labor market is perfectly inelastic.

In a competitive labor market, a single firm is a wage taker (not a wage maker!). This differs from the labor supply curve of the labor market itself, which should be upward sloping as workers would be more willing to work in positions that have higher pay.

In a competitive market the wage earner is also a wage taker, as wage rates are produced by the competition between individual suppliers and demanders. You are simply describing changes in the supply relative to demand.

The competitive labor market and the single firm should have a wage diagram as follows:

Wages_in_a_competitive_market.png

Meh, sort of. If you are willing to assume no asymmetries, difficulty in changing jobs, unwillingness to change jobs, preference for promotion within rather than job-seeking abroad, equivalency of one LS worker for another, etc. so on and so forth.

In the instance of monopsony, a single firms wage diagram becomes:

10-1_Resource%20Market_11.jpg

So, the irony here is that I went and looked up your source for that:


Now you are going to accuse me of not understanding the concept that a "dynamic monopsony means you can drop the single-firm assumption", and I'm going to reply again that that assumes that all workers and positions are equivalent, and that really you are simply describing what happens when the supply of labor is larger relative to demand - which is precisely what you would expect in a MW regime. When a price for something is artificially set at higher than what it would bring otherwise, you get a surplus of supply and a reduction in demand. If, for example, you insisted that Corn be sold at no less than $100 a bushel - well, you'd get a lot more people willing to produce corn at that rate than you would get people willing to buy at that rate, meaning that those who buy will be able to effectively insist on paying no more (or very little over) the $100 baseline.

Do i need to explain why the wage in a competitive market will be higher than the wage in a labor market dominated by dynamic monopsony? Do i also have to explain why a minimum wage will essentially eliminate a monopsonistic wage?

:lol: yes you definitely do, given that a minimum wage creates monopsonistic effects, as demand is reduced relative to supply.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Kushinator said:
That is a flat out lie. This discussion started when i replied to WSV's post stating that the low skilled labor market can be summed up by monopsony. This fictional response to Dittohead is of no consequence to our discussion.

Actually it was imagep

YOU came into this discussion in response to my response to Sangha, who was responding to my conversation with imagep. You did it right here at post 402. See how that is clearly you quoting post 400?

But please. Tell me more about how you can't comment on my discussions with others... except when you comment on my discussions with others. :)

After all of our exchanges these past few years, your posts reflect an entirely different reality. Clearly you are an intelligent guy, so why do you allow your ideology to substitute for your capacity to learn?

1. Thank you - it's rare enough that opposing members are able to compliment each other. For my own side, I wish I had more of your background and experience.
2. I think you are confusing "learning" with "agreeing with Kushinator".
3. Ideology is how we think the world works. You have it, I have it, pretty much everyone who attempts to describe why things function has it. Partisanship is the desire to advance one's political cause even against concerns about accuracy or honesty. Our ideology is typically strengthened the more we learn, even as our partisanship is often weakened.

My apologies for understanding the topic. Perhaps you can do better than claiming to understand a topic you clearly do not?

:shrug: I know enough about this topic to know that when you have low supply relative to demand, prices go up, and when you have high supply relative to demand, prices go down, and that neither of those is either an effective Monopoly or Monopsony, however much an economist may wish to "break ground" and write a paper. Sometimes, things are indeed complex. But this is not nearly as complex as you are trying to sell here.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

And what you *STILL* won't get is that even by those standards which you claim defines all jobs as monopsynies, there are still jobs which are not.

Well that's an interesting claim. Please show me the job field where there are more individual companies hiring than individual workers.
 
Last edited:
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

:doh Sangha, what I'm pointing out is that the standard is ridiculous because it is obvious that all jobs are not monopsonistic. I am making what is known as a reductio ad absurdum argument.

You kind of tick me off sometimes, Sangha, but dude, man to man, please stop making yourself look stupid.

Then you're very confused because arguing that he's wrong because not all jobs are monopsynies makes no sense when he did not claim that all jobs are monopsynies.

Reductio ad absurdum is when you use the others argument to show how it leads to an absurd result. Since no one argued that all jobs are monopsynies, you're not using anyone's argument; You're using a straw man.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Then you're very confused because arguing that he's wrong because not all jobs are monopsynies makes no sense when he did not claim that all jobs are monopsynies.

He argued that if there were more workers than employers, that that was a standard for monopsony. That is a characteristic of all job fields. If A = B and B = C does A = C? :)

Reductio ad absurdum is when you use the others argument to show how it leads to an absurd result. Since no one argued that all jobs are monopsynies, you're not using anyone's argument; You're using a straw man.

:shrug: feel free to show all those job fields that are characterized by more individual firms than individual workers. Because if not, then his argument leads to an absurd result. :)
 
Last edited:
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

He argued that if there were more workers than employers, that that was a standard for monopsony.

No, he didn't

That is a characteristic of all job fields.

No, it's not

You are very confused. You don't know what the argument is, and you don't know what the facts about the job market are.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

cpwill said:
he argued that if there were more workers than employers, that that was a standard for monopsony
No, he didn't

Post 259

...it doesn't absolutely have to be just one buyer, just that the number of sellers have to significantly outnumber the amount of buyers. So it seems at least somewhat fitting to me...


Reading.jpg



No, it's not

Then please. Demonstrate the industries that A) hire people and B) are marked by more companies than employees.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

You mean nobody is admitting to talking about it.

Really poor deflection.

Perhaps you'd like to prove a similar desire to ignore the relevant points in my post?

I could give two ****s if someone can live off of their wage...what I WANT, if for them to BUY more crap. I NEED them to buy more crap, so I can employ more people to make and SELL them more crap, so I can make more money MANAGING those people.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

I could give two ****s if someone can live off of their wage...what I WANT, if for them to BUY more crap. I NEED them to buy more crap, so I can employ more people to make and SELL them more crap, so I can make more money MANAGING those people.

Perhaps YOU could do a BETTER JOB finding crap for PEOPLE to BUY. ONE DAY you MIGHT LEARN THAT. :peace
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Perhaps YOU could do a BETTER JOB finding crap for PEOPLE to BUY. ONE DAY you MIGHT LEARN THAT. :peace

There's plenty of crap for people to buy. There AREN'T currently enough people with money to burn to buy all the crap out there to buy.


In other words, production exceeds demand.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Perhaps YOU could do a BETTER JOB finding crap for PEOPLE to BUY. ONE DAY you MIGHT LEARN THAT. :peace

Most people already purchase all the crap they can afford. We buy 'til we aint got no more money. Just coming up with more crap, can't induce more buying, when the limiting factor isn't the crap that is available, it's the money that is available.

Seriously, can YOU not find ample crap to buy? Is your local Walmart and Best Buy empty? Is the car dealer sold out of cars? Are all the cruises sold out? Is your barber shop out of haircuts? McDonalds can't make any more Bigmacs?
 
Last edited:
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Post 259

...it doesn't absolutely have to be just one buyer, just that the number of sellers have to significantly outnumber the amount of buyers. So it seems at least somewhat fitting to me...


View attachment 67177457

Speaking of the reading rainbow, do you know what the word "significantly" means or did you just ignore it because it's outside of your vocabulary?
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

There's plenty of crap for people to buy. There AREN'T currently enough people with money to burn to buy all the crap out there to buy.


In other words, production exceeds demand.

Then you're selling the wrong mix of crap. Production will ALWAYS exceed demand. A smart owner will find ways to DEAL WITH IT. I've managed to do that for over 30 years.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Most people already purchase all the crap they can afford. We buy 'til we aint got no more money. Just coming up with more crap, can't induce more buying, when the limiting factor isn't the crap that is available, it's the money that is available.

Seriously, can YOU not find ample crap to buy? Is your local Walmart and Best Buy empty? Is the car dealer sold out of cars? Are all the cruises sold out? Is your barber shop out of haircuts? McDonalds can't make any more Bigmacs?

Seriously, if a company can't figure out how to address changes in economic conditions they will just become another Desoto or Chrysler. There is always opportunity for growth and expansion under any market conditions.

I understand the "give people more money and all will be well" meme is firmly entrenched, so I'll leave it at that.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the states that raised their minimum wage the highest just happened to be the states that saw the worse employment opportunity for those of lower skill. I'm sure those two situations really have nothing to do with each other and employers don't find other ways to handle an effective wage increase of 30%.

Exactly! There can only be one cause per effect. Duh! :p

The company I work for sends 80-90% of manufacturing to China. Look at quotes from the U.S., then look at quotes from China or other Asian country. They aren't even in the same ballpark when I comes to overhead and labor costs. Why pay someone more here in the states when you can just offshore the work for 30% less costs? You should only make what you are worth, PERIOD. If the market says the job you perform is only worth $5.00 an hour, you should get paid that. Unfortunately the FED thinks we need to maintain 2% inflation (which is really more than that when including costs not counted toward the inflation rate), so costs slowly rise every year requiring more pay. We are seeing the point of diminishing returns as a result. Our economy is F'ed. Goodbye reserve currency status. :wave:
 
Last edited:
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Seriously, if a company can't figure out how to address changes in economic conditions they will just become another Desoto or Chrysler. There is always opportunity for growth and expansion under any market conditions.

I understand the "give people more money and all will be well" meme is firmly entrenched, so I'll leave it at that.

An individual company growing doesn't expand our macro-economy when its at the loss of sales of another company.

You don't understand the difference between micro and macro economics.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Exactly! There can only be one cause per effect. Duh! :p

The company I work for sends 80-90% of manufacturing to China. Look at quotes from the U.S., then look at quotes from China or other Asian country. They aren't even in the same ballpark when I comes to overhead and labor costs. Why pay someone more here in the states when you can just offshore the work for 30% less costs? You should only make what you are worth, PERIOD. If the market says the job you perform is only worth $5.00 an hour, you should get paid that. Unfortunately the FED thinks we need to maintain 2% inflation (which is really more than that when including costs not counted toward the inflation rate), so costs slowly rise every year requiring more pay. We are seeing the point of diminishing returns as a result. Our economy is F'ed. Goodbye reserve currency status. :wave:

Not a bit of that is correct.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Then you're selling the wrong mix of crap. Production will ALWAYS exceed demand. A smart owner will find ways to DEAL WITH IT. I've managed to do that for over 30 years.

Production rarely exceeds demand. Also production us always moving in the direction of equalibrium with demand.

So you think that the barber cuts more hair than he has customers?
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

An individual company growing doesn't expand our macro-economy when its at the loss of sales of another company.

You don't understand the difference between micro and macro economics.

LOL.

Clearly, you don't understand business.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

Production rarely exceeds demand. Also production us always moving in the direction of equalibrium with demand.

So you think that the barber cuts more hair than he has customers?

I left out a word in my haste. I should have written production always has the ability to exceed demand.

A business waiting for more people to show up will inevitably fail. A business waiting on people to have more money to spend will inevitably fail. That is about as basic as it can be.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

LOL.

Clearly, you don't understand business.

Well, one of us clearly doesn't.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

I left out a word in my haste. I should have written production always has the ability to exceed demand.

A business waiting for more people to show up will inevitably fail. A business waiting on people to have more money to spend will inevitably fail. That is about as basic as it can be.

That is indeed the unfortunate reality.

I totally get that you believe that the failure and success of individual businesses depends on their own merit. And that's true. But that's microeconomics, not macroeconomics.

An individual company can do quite well, while our macro-economy is failing. When aggregate sales aren't growing, it doesn't particularly matter how well one business does, it could get 100% of the market share, and it still wouldn't effect unemployment, or produce more more for our macro-economy than was already being produced.

Apple could acquire 100% of the market for every product, expanding into literally all markets (retail, food, clothing, housing, everything), but if the market doesn't expand, Apples success hasn't improved our economy, it's only improved Apples economy.

You can't solve macroeconomic problems with microeconomic solutions. That's why at the college level, these are taught as different subjects.
 
Re: Study: The 2007 minimum wage hike cost more than 1 million jobs during the recess

That is indeed the unfortunate reality.

I totally get that you believe that the failure and success of individual businesses depends on their own merit. And that's true. But that's microeconomics, not macroeconomics.

An individual company can do quite well, while our macro-economy is failing. When aggregate sales aren't growing, it doesn't particularly matter how well one business does, it could get 100% of the market share, and it still wouldn't effect unemployment, or produce more more for our macro-economy than was already being produced.

Apple could acquire 100% of the market for every product, expanding into literally all markets (retail, food, clothing, housing, everything), but if the market doesn't expand, Apples success hasn't improved our economy, it's only improved Apples economy.

You can't solve macroeconomic problems with microeconomic solutions. That's why at the college level, these are taught as different subjects.

Throw out what you think you've been taught about micro and macro economics. All such knowledge does is provide reason not to do something, or reason to think you should. Better to trust wisdom and intuition. Those who can, do, those who can't, teach economics.

Took me awhile to learn that.
 
Back
Top Bottom