• 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!

Minimum Wage Laws Boosting Wages

Kushinator said:
Might as well just delete your account, as you don't bring anything of value to any discussion you get yourself involved in.
Click to expand...

of course, the law of supply and demand has no value but your biased data does!!! Embarrassing!
 
James972 said:
it does?
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

and does it repeal the law of supply and demand?
Click to expand...

This is your weak strawman argument. You're incapable of understanding supply and demand, much less are you capable of using the logic to build a valid argument.

Delete your account. You're posts are worthless.
 
James972 said:
of course, the law of supply and demand has no value
Click to expand...

Your understanding of supply and demand is of zero value.

biased data
Click to expand...

People are bias (like you). Data is just data. Your posts are worthless.
 
Kushinator said:
Agenda driven generalizations devoid of context, citation, or basic logic. In the areas where the minimum wage has increased most recently, we've not seen a result via higher prices, loss of hours, and/or loss of jobs. If you could support your position, you would have done so already.
Click to expand...

You are responding, appropriately, to an argument based upon theoretical assumptions that are not grounded in data or analytics. In theory, one would assume that a higher minimum wage would necessitate cutting back hours of the existing workforce, to keep the labor costs the same and profits equivalent, but that is a faulty assumption based upon a flawed premise. The real problem is going from assumption to conclusion without doing analysis in between.

And the assumptions aren't based in real-world business operations. Faced with a rising minimum wage a business operator has a number of options. Among them: 1) they can fold the business; 2) they can raise prices; 3) they can cut other costs; 4) they can narrow their profit margin, among others. And, they're not limited to one choice.
 
jpn said:
That's like asking police about police violence. Or asking bankers about banker fraud. Or asking the rich about the effect of taxes on the rich.
I can't believe you don't get that. The interview by the Fed analyst was interesting, but I was struck at the utter lack of concrete evidence he cited. He had lots of opinions, but unless I missed it, he referred to zero real world examples of employment rates before and after implementation of a MW.

It's getting really funny. No one seems able to offer any data in support of their anti-MW opinion. Meanwhile data showing the opposite abound:

But by using a source like a Fed analyst, you graduated from shooting blanks to shooting a squirt gun. Too bad he didn't offer any data.
Click to expand...

Or its like asking a axe-grinding unschooled amateur to debate a subject of which they know little - and, worse yet, don't even know the don't know.

To correct your many unsupported assumptions and logic errors would be an unrewarding chore, and is of less importance than to expand on the learnings provided to you by me in another thread.

First, Economic theory suggests that a price floor, including minimum wages, will lead to a market disequilibrium marked by excess supply and diminished demand; i.e. unemployment.

Second, so-called studies by non-economists are what I have seen in this thread, which seem to be simple minded data compilations and trend-lines that rely on correlation as proof of causation, one of the most elementary fallacies in statistics. For example, when one of these studies says "after minimum wages went up, there were more jobs so MW is working" it is not to be taken seriously. It proves nothing about MW's because there might have been EVEN MORE jobs had mw not gone up at all. Increased jobs happen for many reasons, the most counter-intuitive of which is that MW increases are responsible.

Third, there are real economic studies using far more sophisticated methodology. They fall into three groups; the first are time series, virtually the only kind of study done till 1992, and which invariably show MW causes unemployment. The second group is composed of "close control" studies first done by Card (et al.) in 1992. Close control studies usually show small or no unemployment effects from MW increases. The third group is every other econometric method currently in use, and most of the time they show what the pre-1992 methods showed: a unemployment effect from MW.

Four, while the majority of best studies show an unemployment effect from MW, if a researcher wishes to have a "no employment effect" result he/she best chose the close control method. Among those economists economic work that usually result in "no effects" have been, or now are: Card, Allegretto, Addison and Dube. Among those who find unemployment effects are: Neumark, Baskaya, Meer, Thompson, Zipper, Liu, Clemens, and many others.

Five, for a variety of reasons I find other methods than close control to be more persuasive, not the least of which is that it match's what theory would predict. Close control studies, on the other hand, have attempted to find a theory to explain their results, e.g. monopsony, but most economists find that to be very unlikely cause for most of the markets tested.

Six, what many do not realize is that even close control studies do not preclude a variety of other negative effects from MW. Among the effects noted in a variety of other studies looking for more than just unemployment, include: labor substitution (teens/unskilled poor replaced with older persons), reduction in fringe benefits, reduced hours, less future investment, increased product cost, and reduced expenditure on the working environment (e.g. less A/C or Heat).

There is no free lunch. MW increases, especially large ones, invariably causes reduced efficiency for obvious reasons. To think otherwise is magical thinking.
 
Last edited:
jpn said:
I think we'd have a more productive discussion if we could agree on a few terms. "Socialism" and "Communism" formally refer to centralized planning. In more familiar every day usage, "socialism" can mean legislating a 40-hour work week, child labor laws, Medicare, and so on.
"Capitalism" is the process of reinvesting capital into production in a free market system. It can also be used as a shortcut term for those opposed to legislated rules for the otherwise "free market."

Today in the developed western nations, every economy from Sweden to the U.S. employs some mix of social programs and rules within a more or less free market.

The contention that a free market economy can exist free of any restrictions is just not born out by history.
It is equally true that central planning fails utterly.

I agree with the post above that we're doing something right in the west. We have many variations of "socialist"/"free market" mixes of economies to compare. We have no "socialist" and no "free market" economies, in the strict sense, to use as examples in the west. They don't exist.

So. A minimum wage. Does it destroy an economy? Obviously not, since all the western countries have them. But could it destroy an economy if it's too high? I'm sure it could.

For me, the interesting arguments are within those boundaries.
Click to expand...
JPN, this quoted post of what you described as “Western nations” economic policies, is brilliant, incisive, and almost genius; (which means they’re in agreement those of my own opinions). I would suggest the more inclusive term of the world’s “industrial” rather than “Western” nations.

I do not “know” if and why an excessively high minimum wage rate would be economically detrimental, but I do not doubt that may be true. No nations minimum wage rate has ever been an excessively high rate.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
maxparrish said:
Economic theory suggests that a price floor, including minimum wages, will lead to a market disequilibrium marked by excess supply and diminished demand; i.e. unemployment.
Click to expand...
Here's the central problem: "theory suggests". We agree that theory is the starting point, but to be confirmed requires a substantial data set and elimination of non-tested factors of causation. Having reviewed many (I'm not steeped in the literature, it's not my field), I remain unconvinced that it is borne out in reality. Reliable economic data is hard to isolate because it is a multi-dimensional, dynamic system full of unintended consequences and tangential effects.

Second, so-called studies by non-economists are what I have seen in this thread, which seem to be simple minded data compilations and trend-lines that rely on correlation as proof of causation, one of the most elementary fallacies in statistics. For example, when one of these studies says "after minimum wages went up, there were more jobs so MW is working" it is not to be taken seriously. It proves nothing about MW's because there might have been EVEN MORE jobs had mw not gone up at all. Increased jobs happen for many reasons, the most counter-intuitive of which is that MW increases are responsible.
Click to expand...
A couple of points: first, not all valid studies are conducted by economists, and that is a good thing. In any academic field (I'd even emphasize, especially in economics) studies can be colored, and even overcome, by "conventional wisdom". It is surprising how often conventional wisdom is wrong. Second, and related, counter-intuitive results are the ones that bear the most study. It is when data doesn't yield the "expected outcome" that science gets the most interesting.

Third, there are real economic studies using far more sophisticated methodology. They fall into three groups; the first are time series, virtually the only kind of study done till 1992, and which invariably show MW causes unemployment. The second group is composed of "close control" studies first done by Card (et al.) in 1992. Close control studies usually show small or no unemployment effects from MW increases. The third group is every other econometric method currently in use, and most of the time they show what the pre-1992 methods showed: a unemployment effect from MW.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with all of these studies, but ones I have seen have 1) shown no significant effect, indeed, likely within margins that are nominal; 2) are flawed in the way I elaborated earlier - infected by assumptions. That's why I found the Card study instructive.

I'm not going to get into what makes which studies "best" except to note this comment: "for a variety of reasons I find other methods than close control to be more persuasive, not the least of which is that it match's what theory would predict." Exactly. Assumption, meet conclusion. Results which do not meet expectations are rejected. It's human nature.
 
danielpalos said:
Doesn't seem to have much market based effect since statutory minimum wages are still going up by "force of law not force of market", except for the Richest whose wealth virtually doubled.
Click to expand...

Federal minimum Wage is $7.25.

Average Wage Rate in the USA is $23.83 today in the real world. This is more than three times the Federal Minimum and obviously higher than the $15.00/hour level called for by the social justice warriors.

I can't find good information for the average entry level wage paid, but it appears that less than fewer than 2% of all workers in the US are currently earning minimum wage, $7.25/hour, or less.

I assume that a large portion of those minimum wage folks are the same as me when I was first entering the labor market: Part timers looking to earn money to take a cheerleader to a movie. I could be wrong.

Incidentally, every penny I took home was disposable income. I was NEVER richer until 50 years later. Life is good!

2020 Federal and State Minimum Wage Rates
 
Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics. Central planning must work; no warfare-State can function without it.

It is Any wonder, Government solves all problems for the right wing.
 
code1211 said:
Federal minimum Wage is $7.25.

Average Wage Rate in the USA is $23.83 today in the real world. This is more than three times the Federal Minimum and obviously higher than the $15.00/hour level called for by the social justice warriors.

I can't find good information for the average entry level wage paid, but it appears that less than fewer than 2% of all workers in the US are currently earning minimum wage, $7.25/hour, or less.

I assume that a large portion of those minimum wage folks are the same as me when I was first entering the labor market: Part timers looking to earn money to take a cheerleader to a movie. I could be wrong.

Incidentally, every penny I took home was disposable income. I was NEVER richer until 50 years later. Life is good!

2020 Federal and State Minimum Wage Rates
Click to expand...

You miss the point about Capitalism; wealth for the Richest has been doubling almost every decade, lately. Yet, we have Any minimum wage laws at all for the Poor.
 
maxparrish said:
MW increases, especially large ones, invariably causes reduced efficiency for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

Your pompous response fails utterly. "MW increases, especially large ones?" What about small ones? What is "large?" What is "small?" By "increases" what are we talking about? 5%? 0.00000001%?
I've written many times that at some point a MW increase will have negative effects. That is not disputed. The question is where is that point? And what offsetting positive effects are perhaps being generated?

You claim that the methodology used by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in their study (I assume that's the one you refer to since you chose not to name it) was "simple minded" and was guilty of "the most elementary fallacies." Oh, do tell, oh great economics master mind. :roll:

Then! Then you list studies that you say show "unemployment" or "small or no unemployment" or "an unemployment effect" from MW. But no details. No mention of the magnitude of the effects, any offsetting benefits, no nothing. I'm just supposed to trust your synopsis of the studies.

You're still right where you started. Relying on broad sweeping assertions of general truisms in lieu of honest inquiry.

As I wrote earlier: "So. A minimum wage. Does it destroy an economy? Obviously not, since all the western countries have them. But could it destroy an economy if it's too high? I'm sure it could. For me, the interesting arguments are within those boundaries."
 
Last edited:
NWRatCon said:
Here's the central problem: "theory suggests". We agree that theory is the starting point, but to be confirmed requires a substantial data set and elimination of non-tested factors of causation. Having reviewed many (I'm not steeped in the literature, it's not my field), I remain unconvinced that it is borne out in reality. Reliable economic data is hard to isolate because it is a multi-dimensional, dynamic system full of unintended consequences and tangential effects.

A couple of points: first, not all valid studies are conducted by economists, and that is a good thing. In any academic field (I'd even emphasize, especially in economics) studies can be colored, and even overcome, by "conventional wisdom". It is surprising how often conventional wisdom is wrong. Second, and related, counter-intuitive results are the ones that bear the most study. It is when data doesn't yield the "expected outcome" that science gets the most interesting.

I'm not familiar with all of these studies, but ones I have seen have 1) shown no significant effect, indeed, likely within margins that are nominal; 2) are flawed in the way I elaborated earlier - infected by assumptions. That's why I found the Card study instructive.

I'm not going to get into what makes which studies "best" except to note this comment: "for a variety of reasons I find other methods than close control to be more persuasive, not the least of which is that it match's what theory would predict." Exactly. Assumption, meet conclusion. Results which do not meet expectations are rejected. It's human nature.
Click to expand...

Theory is not only "the starting point", it is the superstructure of understanding all economic phenomena. While most of us here (including me) have been referring to the most basic of economic theory, the more complex "theory" explains all sorts of principled reasons that other effects (or non-effects) might be present in a particular circumstance. And yes, theory can explain why an MW employment effect may not be found.

However, when two studies conflict and one of them are explainable by theory that has borne out repeatedly in other demand and supply circumstances, and the others that can offer no plausible and economically principled reason to explain their result, all things being equal I am going to give more credence to the former. Why? Because of the reason you alluded to: "Reliable economic data is hard to isolate because it is a multi-dimensional, dynamic system full of unintended consequences and tangential effects." In other words, some the tools and methods available are deaf to the predicted effect because they aren't good enough to handle the complexity and semi-reliable data.

How else to explain the many studies (the majority) using a variety of other methods that do find the effect? Are we to assume that all other methods detect that which close controls are unable to detect, despite their variety of methods are somehow flawed in a single direction?

For example, suppose one makes a prediction based on relativity (e.g. gravity bending light). Methods A,B,C,D can the light being bended and conforms with theory. Method E can't see it and has no plausible reason why. Who do you give more credence to?

I'll conclude by mentioning that the ones you have seen are, apparently, a select set. Card, in particular, underwent a pretty good sand blasting for his study, so much so I give his particular study little weight.

I'll have more to say later...
 
maxparrish said:
Theory is not only "the starting point", it is the superstructure of understanding all economic phenomena. While most of us here (including me) have been referring to the most basic of economic theory, the more complex "theory" explains all sorts of principled reasons that other effects (or non-effects) might be present in a particular circumstance. And yes, theory can explain why an MW employment effect may not be found.

However, when two studies conflict and one of them are explainable by theory that has borne out repeatedly in other demand and supply circumstances, and the others that can offer no plausible and economically principled reason to explain their result, all things being equal I am going to give more credence to the former. Why? Because of the reason you alluded to: "Reliable economic data is hard to isolate because it is a multi-dimensional, dynamic system full of unintended consequences and tangential effects." In other words, some the tools and methods available are deaf to the predicted effect because they aren't good enough to handle the complexity and semi-reliable data.

+ else to explain the many studies (the majority) using a variety of other methods that do find the effect? Are we to assume that all other methods detect that which close controls are unable to detect, despite their variety of methods are somehow flawed in a single direction?

For example, suppose one makes a prediction based on relativity (e.g. gravity bending light). Methods A,B,C,D can the light being bended and conforms with theory. Method E can't see it and has no plausible reason why. Who do you give more credence to?

I'll conclude by mentioning that the ones you have seen are, apparently, a select set. Card, in particular, underwent a pretty good sand blasting for his study, so much so I give his particular study little weight.

I'll have more to say later...
Click to expand...

I have more to say now: :). You ask: "how else to explain the many studies (the majority) using a variety of other methods that do find the effect?" Well, often you find what you're looking for. In some of these studies the "effect" is so small as to be not reliably measurable, and yet the "expected" conclusion is reached. That is not a reliable "study" - really it is "inconclusive", but academics are frequently unwilling to say that, especially when they have spent time doing it and are wanting to get published. Papers that say "we couldn't tell" don't get published.

Two famous examples prove my point: for decades it was assumed, based upon theory, that the universe was stable, everyone "knew this". And so it was taught.

Then, in 1927, based upon Einstein's theories, Georges Lemaître showed that, mathematically, it should be expanding. Why Georges Lemaître should be as Famous as Einstein Of this, Einstein said
"Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious." Einstein did not question the math, but he could not accept the finding. When Edwin Hubble discovered astronomical evidence of expansion two years later, Lemaître's theory was confirmed. Einstein, along with the rest of the physics community, was convinced.
Click to expand...

For decades thereafter, it was taught that the universe was expanding, but that it would slow down as the result of gravity. Everyone knew this. Except, of course, it turns out not to be true.

Your calculations may be correct...
 
Last edited:
One reason I don't put a lot of stock in expectations with regard to minimum wages is that the effect is so small on an macroeconomic scale. What may be true of gross changes may be entirely untrue in small doses. Earlier friend Maxparrish acknowledged this. What we are looking at right now are changes so small they are not measurable, so we fall back on expectations to reach conclusions. I've noted the same errors in taxation discussions and the Laffer curve. Great in theory, just not demonstrated in the real world.
 
jpn said:
Your pompous response fails utterly. "MW increases, especially large ones?" What about small ones? What is "large?" What is "small?" By "increases" what are we talking about? 5%? 0.00000001%?

I've written many times that at some point a MW increase will have negative effects. That is not disputed. The question is where is that point? And what offsetting positive effects are perhaps being generated?

Then! Then you list studies that you say show "unemployment" or "small or no unemployment" or "an unemployment effect" from MW. But no details. No mention of the magnitude of the effects, any offsetting benefits, no nothing. I'm just supposed to trust your synopsis of the studies.
Click to expand...

Nothing pleases me more than an eager student. But it was first necessary to provide you with the an overview of the criteria and considerations required for making any any sensible public policy choice on minimum wage. Now that you are aware of the landscape, let's drill down.

Let's start with a synopsis of what the main literature finds regarding minimum wage:

The Minimum Wage Scorecard from David Neumark's Book, "Minimum Wage" (MIT Press)

View attachment 67271560

As you can see, perhaps the most prolific and non-ideological economist on Minimum Wage has reviewed the literature and found there are many negative employment and distributional effects from MW increases. In a follow up post I will elaborate, so hold your water my eager-beaver.

You claim that the methodology used by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in their study (I assume that's the one you refer to since you chose not to name it) was "simple minded" and was guilty of "the most elementary fallacies." Oh, do tell, oh great economics master mind. :roll:
Click to expand...

I was not speaking of the FRBN citation, I was thinking of the 'report' by the law group, among others commonly cited.

As I wrote earlier: "So. A minimum wage. Does it destroy an economy? Obviously not, since all the western countries have them. But could it destroy an economy if it's too high? I'm sure it could. For me, the interesting arguments are within those boundaries."
Click to expand...
Actually no, not all western countries have them, and some only adopted them recently. Moreover, since when is the 'destruction of the economy' the benchmark for measuring the negative effects from MWs?

The well being of many, and the effects on the economy, can be seriously negative short of the entire economy collapsing. That is a silly strawman.
 
Last edited:
It has been demonstrable for some time, in multiple studies, that "supply and demand" theories are not as predictive of employment responses as expected. There is a great reason for that: human behavior. There are many, many reasons "labor" does not behave as "rationally" as many economists would like. For example, one might predict that higher wages in a locale would draw labor to it, but data shows that not happening. This is usually the result of faulty or inappropriate assumptions, and missing data - for example, school quality, community conditions, or family size and ages. More sophisticated models might capture those effects and make predictions more accurate. Too often, in my opinion, those additional parameters are not addressed because doing so is inconvenient or counter to the desired result.

I'm not dismissive of economists or economics, as some have alleged. I'm just disappointed when it is not approached with sufficient vigor. A lot of bad economics works exists in academia and are relied on by those seeking a particular conclusion.
 
Last edited:
I'm Supposn said:
Minimum wage rate’s purpose is reduction of incidents and extents of poverty among the working poor (which in turn bolsters the median rate).
Click to expand...

Let me put it this way. That is the intention, but it's not necessarily the result. If you set the minimum wage high enough, you will have a negative impact on employment and it's unclear that this will make poor people better off. Fewer hours paid at a higher rate can be beneficial or detrimental. As I stated earlier, it seems that small state-level changes studied in the microeconomics litterature do not matter much. If you go for a large hike, you might hurt the people you're trying to help.

As for your comment about the median wage, although it is a summary statistic that you might like to use to track how well people are doing, it's clearly not a sufficient statistic. If you forced everyone who makes 15 bucks an hour or less out of a job, the median wage would rise sharply and a lot of people would be miserable.

I'm Supposn said:
The federal minimum rate is not a the uniformly effective minimum rate throughout USA’s 50 states, but they are not permitted to undermine the federal mineral rate with a lesser rate; it’s not as its opponents claim, “one rate to fit all”.
Click to expand...

While this is true, there is an obvious problem with it: you are not free to legislate a minimum wage below the federal minimum wage. Most of my comment is still valid because that floor ultimately applies to everyone, even if some states choose to impose another, yet higher floor on wages: if you're going to push for a hike at the federal level, you'd have to look at what the minimum wage should be in the state where it should be the lowest. You also have to think that if the federal government imposes a minimum wage hike above the current minimum wage of any state, it means representatives from other states who will not suffer the consequences of that policy are imposing their choices on people from another state... Again, my comment makes sense in spite of the technical caveat.
 
Another point I intended to make earlier that I'm throwing in now so I won't forget, again: this is a good time for a minimum wage hike (or actually, two years ago would have been). Assuming for the sake of argument that an increase in the minimum wage slows employment, right now we are in a period of high employment. When the minimum wage was last raised, we were in the opposite condition. Timing of a minimum wage hike should correspond to economic conditions. In the same way, the tax cut of 2017 was extremely poorly timed (and structured), so the deficit ballooned to a billion dollars.
 
danielpalos said:
Minimum wages should go up whenever our economy needs more demand.
Click to expand...
Danielpalos, no!! The federal minimum wage rate should be monitored and annually adjusted to retain that purchasing power. It should be attended to on a regularly scheduled basis by civil service statisticians rather than ad hoc determinations by congressional politicians. Respectfully, Supposn
I'm Supposn said:
H.R. 582, “Raise the wage act” is a good bill, but opponents of the bill will refrain from mentioning the minimum hourly rate will not be $15 until 7th year after the bill's passage.

In the likely case that it's not passed through and added to our federal statutes, I urge U.S. Congressional members to continue striving and pass a bill that would increase the minimum wage rate by 12.5% of its purchasing power until it attains 125% of its February-1968 purchasing power. …
Click to expand...
 
maxparrish said:
Nothing pleases me more than an eager student.
Click to expand...
How odd then that it took you until post #241 in this thread to finally refer to some valid studies from a valid source. But no matter, congratulations anyway.

maxparrish said:
View attachment 67271560
As you can see,
Click to expand...

Nope. All I can see is:

"vBulletin Message
Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator"

Still, hurrah! You cited a scholar from a reputable university who shares your view! And I thought today was going to just be another day! So you do know about Google after all! Hey, you may want to let your fellow conservatives in on this magic tool.

So where does that leave us? I imagine our next step would involve a duel between competing scholars. You deploy your Neumarks, I counter with my Stiglitzes, et. al (wow, what a deep bench...). Then we could, say, compare notable recognition within the academy (Newmarks...not much, Stiglitz...Clark medal and Nobel prize, but who's counting?), and so on.

But I'm guessing after all that, we still won't make much progress toward a common view of this issue. Whadayathink?
 
TheEconomist said:
Let me put it this way. That is the intention, but it's not necessarily the result [due to increasing the minimum rate]. If you set the minimum wage high enough, you will have a negative impact on employment and it's unclear that this will make poor people better off. Fewer hours paid at a higher rate can be beneficial or detrimental. As I stated earlier, it seems that small state-level changes studied in the microeconomics litterature do not matter much. If you go for a large hike, you might hurt the people you're trying to help....
TheEconomist, our federal minimum wage rate cannot alone entirely prevent poverty among USA ‘s working poor, but to the extent of its purchasing power, it does reduce their incidents and extents.

I do not “know” if and why an excessively high minimum wage rate would be economically detrimental, but I do not doubt that may be so. Since its enactment, the federal minimum wage rate has always been gradually increased to avoid radically shocking USA’s labor markets. USA's and whatever served as any other nation’s minimum wage rates have never been excessively high rates.

There’s been no proposal of a congressional vote to suddenly increase the federal minimum wage to a $15 per hour rate. Opposing increases of the federal minimum wage rate because it will eventually reach $15 per hour, is foolish and/or insincere.
Increases of USA’s and whatever served as other nations’ minimum wage rates have never been excessively high rates.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jpn said:
we still won't make much progress toward a common view of this issue. Whadayathink?
Click to expand...

The common view is that the law of supply and demand has not been repealed. Price of labor, or anything, goes up demand goes down. If this was not true everyone would raise prices on everything tomorrow!! 1+1=2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom