Fucking mother fucking faggot liberals

[Y4NK33 PL4N3T]

Mission accomplished! :chewy

So you're saying we'll be in this thread for at least another five years? :sigh

:sigh

[gatrnation1]

Wonder what the minimum wage in Washington is v.s. Florida :thought

$15 vs. $7.93, but going up to $8.05 in 2015, but we do not have a state income tax, we do have 7% sale tax on non-food items.

There is talk about raising it to $10.10. :blowup :facepalm

[Y4NK33 PL4N3T]

There is talk about raising it to $10.10. :blowup :facepalm

Yeah so?

[Eye_of_Horus]

Isn't Seattle seeing faster job growth and a booming restaurant scene thanks to the min wage hike from $9.xx to $15.00? :thought

:no

“In Seattle, 42 percent of surveyed employers were ‘very likely’ to reduce the number of employees per shift or overall staffing levels as a direct consequence of the law. Similarly, 44 percent reported that they were’“very likely” to scale back on employees’ hours to help offset the increased cost of the law. That’s particularly bad news for the Seattle metro area, where the unemployment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds is already north of 30 percent — due in part to Washington state’s already-high minimum wage.

Perhaps most concerning about the $15 proposal is that some businesses anticipated going beyond an increase in prices or a reduction in staffing levels. More than 43 percent of respondents said it was ‘very likely’ they would limit future expansion in Seattle in response to the law. One in seven respondents is even “very likely” to close a current location in the city limits.”

Sure, people want to work there, but businesses can't afford to hire them. The wage hike drives up cost of living as well, making things even worse for the unemployed / marginally employed. :sadyes

Your quote is from an article prior to the wage increase, which means it's from earlier than May which is when the legislation was passed.

Have any quotes or stats about the + or - effects of the wage increase after it went actually went live? :dunno

[ img ]

Don't see them suffering too much atm. :thought

The large increase in employment on the west coast probably has a lot to do with the lingering high unemployment rates. The NW is typically the last place to catch up when the economy is doing well. :dunno

[Muck FcDisney]

:aup

West Coast always lagging behind. :sadyes You should switch to Taco Standard Time. :up

[Muck FcDisney]

There is talk about raising it to $10.10. :blowup :facepalm

Yeah so?

So...
-The cost of things produced by people who previously earned less than $10.10 will increase
-Unemployment will increase among jobs that previously paid less than $10.10 (young, minorities, poor... the people this crap is supposed to help)

Ugh, rather than type the same shit I've posted a dozen times... please see below:

Raising the minimum wage is a formula for causing unemployment among the least-skilled members of society. The higher wages are, the higher costs of production are. The higher costs of production are, the higher prices are. The higher prices are, the smaller are the quantities of goods and services demanded and the number of workers employed in producing them. These are all propositions of elementary economics.

It is true that the wages of the workers who keep their jobs will be higher. They will enjoy the benefit of a government-created monopoly that excludes from the market the competition of those unemployed workers who are willing and able to work for less than what the monopolists receive.

The payment of the monopolists’ higher wages will come at the expense of reduced expenditures for labor and capital goods elsewhere in the economic system, which must result in more unemployment.

Those who are unemployed elsewhere and who are relatively more skilled will displace workers of lesser skill, with the ultimate result of still more unemployment among the least-skilled members of society.

The unemployment directly and indirectly caused by raising the minimum wage will require additional government welfare spending and thus higher taxes and/or greater budget deficits to finance it.

Your and the President’s policy is fundamentally anti-labor and anti-poor people. While it enriches those poor people who are given the status of government-protected monopolists, it impoverishes the rest of the economic system to a greater degree. It does this through the combination both of taking away an amount of wealth equal to the monopolists’ gains, and of causing overall production to be less by an amount corresponding to the additional unemployment it creates. The rise in prices and taxes that results from raising the minimum wage both diminishes the gains of the monopolists and serves to create new and additional poor people, while worsening the poverty of those who become unemployed.

Furthermore, the higher the minimum wage is raised, the worse are the effects on poor people. This is because, on the one hand, the resulting overall unemployment is greater, while, on the other hand, the protection a lower wage provides against competition from higher-paid workers is more and more eroded. At today’s minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, workers earning that wage are secure against the competition of workers able to earn $8, $9, or $10 per hour. If the minimum wage is increased, as you and the President wish, to $10.10 per hour, and the jobs that presently pay $7.25 had to pay $10.10, then workers who previously would not have considered those jobs because of their ability to earn $8, $9, or $10 per hour will now consider them; many of them will have to consider them, because they will be unemployed. The effect is to expose the workers whose skills do not exceed a level corresponding to $7.25 per hour to the competition of better educated, more-skilled workers presently able to earn wage rates ranging from just above $7.25 to just below $10.10 per hour. The further effect could be that there will simply no longer be room in the economic system for the employment of minimally educated, low-skilled people.

Of course, the minimum-wage has been increased repeatedly over the years since it was first introduced, and there has continued to be at least some significant room for the employment of such workers. What has made this possible is the long periods in which the minimum wage was not increased. Continuous inflation of the money supply and the rise in the volume of spending and thus in wage rates and prices throughout the economic system progressively reduce the extent to which the minimum wage exceeds the wage that would prevail in its absence. The minimum wages of the 1930s and 1940s — 25¢ an hour and 75¢ an hour — long ago became nullities. To reduce and ultimately eliminate the harm done by today’s minimum wage, it needs to be left unchanged.

The standard of living is not raised by arbitrary laws and decrees imposing higher wage rates, but by the rise in the productivity of labor, which increases the supply of goods relative to the supply of labor and thus reduces prices relative to wage rates, and thereby allows prices to rise by less than wages when the quantity of money and volume of spending in the economic system increase.

If raising the standard of living of the average worker is your and the President’s goal, you should abandon your efforts to raise the minimum wage. Instead, you should strive to eliminate all government policies that restrain the rise in the productivity of labor and thus in the buying power of wages.

If your goal is to raise the wages specifically of the lowest-paid workers, you should strive to eliminate everything that limits employment in the better-paid occupations, most notably the forcible imposition of union pay scales, which operate as minimum wages for skilled and semi-skilled workers. In causing unemployment higher up the economic ladder, union scales serve to artificially increase the number of workers who must compete lower down on the economic ladder, including at the very bottom, where wages are lowest. To the extent that occupations higher up could absorb more labor, competitive pressure at the bottom would be reduced and wages there could rise as a result.

Abolishing or at least greatly liberalizing licensing legislation would work in the same way. To the extent that larger numbers of low-skilled workers could work in such lines as driving cabs, giving haircuts, or selling hot dogs from push carts, the effect would also be a reduction in competitive pressure at the bottom of the economic ladder and thus higher wages there.

The principle here is that we need to look to greater economic freedom, not greater government intervention, as the path to economic improvement for everyone, especially the poor.


In other words, minimum wage increases are bait the "useful idiots" fall for every time. :facepalm It's not complicated, but you tell these fools "more money!" and they get all starry eyed and forget to think.

[Y4NK33 PL4N3T]

:thought

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy.

Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a “last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired” scenario.

Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

:thought

http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm

[Muck FcDisney]

:thought

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy.

Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a “last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired” scenario.

Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

:thought

http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm

Common sense vs ".gov"... :thought

RE: 1
They could only find 600 liberal Keynesian economists? :? Here's another ".gov" for you:
"CBO estimates raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would reduce employment by 500,000" (when workforce participation is already at a 35 year low, yay!). It seems .gov is at odds with itself. :dog Also, government has typically raised minimum wages during improving economies, so the negative effects are masked by existing conditions.

Re: 2
Overall, it doesn't affect the economy that much. If 100 widgets are sold at $7 ea, or 70 widgets are sold at $10 ea, the results are the same. It just hurts people with limited income who need to buy those widgets. They have less money to spend elsewhere. Again, poor people are hurt the most by minimum wage increases.

Re: 3
I agree that it reduces turnover, and I don't think it will cause a bunch of people to be fired. It will, however, reduce the number of new hires.

[Y4NK33 PL4N3T]

:thought

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy.

Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a “last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired” scenario.

Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

:thought

http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm

Common sense vs ".gov"... :thought

RE: 1
They could only find 600 liberal Keynesian economists? :? Here's another ".gov" for you:
"CBO estimates raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would reduce employment by 500,000" (when workforce participation is already at a 35 year low, yay!). It seems .gov is at odds with itself. :dog Also, government has typically raised minimum wages during improving economies, so the negative effects are masked by existing conditions.

Re: 2
Overall, it doesn't affect the economy that much. If 100 widgets are sold at $7 ea, or 70 widgets are sold at $10 ea, the results are the same. It just hurts people with limited income who need to buy those widgets. They have less money to spend elsewhere. Again, poor people are hurt the most by minimum wage increases.

Re: 3
I agree that it reduces turnover, and I don't think it will cause a bunch of people to be fired. It will, however, reduce the number of new hires.

Link me to RE 1 :lol:

As for RE 2, sure, poor people will be affected the most both positively and negatively as we both know the rich aren't going to take the brunt. So, the question is will this be helping more families cross the poverty threshold than it's hurting.

RE 3 That depends on the business: "Business that don't employ many min wage workers but that compete with firms that do, might see demand rise for their goods and services as their competitors’ costs rise; such firms would tend to hire more low wage workers as a result." - cbo

"An increase in the minimum wage also affects the employment of low-wage workers in the short term through changes in the economywide demand for goods and services. A higher minimum wage shifts income from higher-wage consumers and business owners to low-wage workers. Because those low-wage workers tend to spend a larger fraction of their earnings, some firms see increased demand for their goods and services, boosting the employment of low-wage workers and higher-wage workers alike. That effect is larger when the economy is weaker, and it is larger in regions of the country where the economy is weaker." - cbo

Employers may not reduce the # of new hires necessarily, there's other ways to offset costs.

[Muck FcDisney]

Link me to RE 1 :lol:

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files ... umWage.pdf

As for RE 2, sure, poor people will be affected the most both positively and negatively as we both know the rich aren't going to take the brunt. So, the question is will this be helping more families cross the poverty threshold than it's hurting.

Keep in mind that the poverty threshold would rise along with rising prices.

RE 3 That depends on the business: "Business that don't employ many min wage workers but that compete with firms that do, might see demand rise for their goods and services as their competitors’ costs rise; such firms would tend to hire more low wage workers as a result." - cbo

"An increase in the minimum wage also affects the employment of low-wage workers in the short term through changes in the economywide demand for goods and services. A higher minimum wage shifts income from higher-wage consumers and business owners to low-wage workers. Because those low-wage workers tend to spend a larger fraction of their earnings, some firms see increased demand for their goods and services, boosting the employment of low-wage workers and higher-wage workers alike. That effect is larger when the economy is weaker, and it is larger in regions of the country where the economy is weaker." - cbo

Employers may not reduce the # of new hires necessarily, there's other ways to offset costs.

Yes, passing the increased cost of goods/services along to consumers.


It's kind of a vicious cycle:
-Gov't devalues currency through "quantitative easing"
-artificial inflation occurs
-"real" wages decline
-government raises minimum wage to compensate
-more inflation occurs
-government changes the way it measures inflation to paint a rosier picture than reality, but this does not improve "real" wages

...and repeat. :sigh

[JdPat04]

Anybody know why North Dakota has the lowest unemployment?

Not muck and not gaytr?

[wsucougfan88]

Anybody know why North Dakota has the lowest unemployment?

Not muck and not gaytr?

:ays ND is booming because of the oil fields... its a unique case... plus its also crazy expensive to live their.

5-6 guys rent a house together because its so goddamn expensive. just because the unemployment rate is low doesnt mean people are thriving...

[Muck FcDisney]

Anybody know why North Dakota has the lowest unemployment?

Not muck and not gaytr?

:ays ND is booming because of the oil fields... its a unique case... plus its also crazy expensive to live their.

5-6 guys rent a house together because its so goddamn expensive. just because the unemployment rate is low doesnt mean people are thriving...

Yeah, if you're unemployed in ND, you freeze to death. I'd imagine people only move there for work, and if they lose their job, they immediately GTFO.

[JdPat04]

Anybody know why North Dakota has the lowest unemployment?

Not muck and not gaytr?

:ays ND is booming because of the oil fields... its a unique case... plus its also crazy expensive to live their.

5-6 guys rent a house together because its so goddamn expensive. just because the unemployment rate is low doesnt mean people are thriving...

I know why. Hence me saying not muck and gaytr.

To be more specific FRACKING that oh so evil right wing poision our water kill our children destroying our planet FRACKING

[frazier9495]

I had no idea it cost so much to live there :shock:

The western North Dakota town of 18,000 people is the most expensive place in the United States for renters, according to a survey by Apartment Guide, an online website for apartment hunters. A 700-square-foot, one-bedroom apartment costs an average of $2,394 a month.

[JdPat04]

I had no idea it cost so much to live there :shock:

The western North Dakota town of 18,000 people is the most expensive place in the United States for renters, according to a survey by Apartment Guide, an online website for apartment hunters. A 700-square-foot, one-bedroom apartment costs an average of $2,394 a month.

Supply and demand

Like living in California during the gold rush

[frazier9495]

I had no idea it cost so much to live there :shock:

The western North Dakota town of 18,000 people is the most expensive place in the United States for renters, according to a survey by Apartment Guide, an online website for apartment hunters. A 700-square-foot, one-bedroom apartment costs an average of $2,394 a month.

Supply and demand

Like living in California during the gold rush

I knew it was expensive, just not it costs more than NYC expensive :lol:

[wsucougfan88]

I had no idea it cost so much to live there :shock:

The western North Dakota town of 18,000 people is the most expensive place in the United States for renters, according to a survey by Apartment Guide, an online website for apartment hunters. A 700-square-foot, one-bedroom apartment costs an average of $2,394 a month.

and you make like 3 grand a month working at mcdonalds :lolthumb

[Eye_of_Horus]

I had no idea it cost so much to live there :shock:

The western North Dakota town of 18,000 people is the most expensive place in the United States for renters, according to a survey by Apartment Guide, an online website for apartment hunters. A 700-square-foot, one-bedroom apartment costs an average of $2,394 a month.

That's why you don't "live" there.

Fly in and work for 2 weeks straight, then fly home for 2 weeks off. Repeat as necessary. :up

[JdPat04]

I had no idea it cost so much to live there :shock:

The western North Dakota town of 18,000 people is the most expensive place in the United States for renters, according to a survey by Apartment Guide, an online website for apartment hunters. A 700-square-foot, one-bedroom apartment costs an average of $2,394 a month.

Supply and demand

Like living in California during the gold rush

I knew it was expensive, just not it costs more than NYC expensive :lol:

Yeah i understand but when you make the money doing the FRACKING then it's no worries.