Perhaps it is just your butchering of the language that causes me not to understand your point...as I imagine my MBA included as much economics as yours did. Perhaps you should try explaining your point (instead of silly hyperbole)...if you have one. How you came up with the remark you did based on my post is simply amazing. Instead of directing me to "find an economist" and ask them to make your point for you (whatever that is)...how about you attempt to make your own point?

Translation - He can't support the minimum wage with science so resorts to fiction to support it. That's all the MW has ever had.

superman, Your t he ONLY person on this forum that is more nuts than Pat. Pat is correct on most of his posts on the min wage, you are totally wacko.

Here is an excellent article on the topic:

Welcome Back to Democratland
By Mona Charen
Friday, January 19, 2007

Some of you are probably rusty. Others are too young to recall what life was like in Democratland before 1995. Now, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's majority well into its vaunted "100 hours," you are getting a refresher course. Call it the American Idyll.

It is a world in which facts always bow to feelings. What matters is not so much that you do good, but that you feel virtuous, or perhaps more to the point, are seen to be virtuous.

Consider the increase in the minimum wage Congress passed by a vote of 315-116 (more than 80 Republicans joined all of the Democrats in voting aye). The speeches were heartwarming. "With the passage of this crucial legislation, we will reward work, paying America's workers a decent wage so they may join in our nation's prosperity," declared Speaker Pelosi. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer chimed in that "You should not be relegated to poverty if you work hard and play by the rules." Rep. Bill Pascrell proclaimed that "The little guy is not going to be forgotten any longer."

Sounds great. The Democrats are back in power, and now the deserving working poor are finally going to be paid a living wage.

Except that it isn't true.

Fewer than one in five minimum wage workers lives in a family with income below the poverty line. Despite the picture painted by the Democrats in Washington, more than 82 percent of minimum wage workers have no dependents, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Minimum wage workers tend to be young (under 25) and single (often they are students working part time), and a full 40 percent come from homes with an annual income of $60,000 and higher. Never-married workers are more likely than married workers to be paid minimum wage.

One of the Democrats who extolled an increase in the minimum wage reminded listeners that these workers "had not gotten a raise in 12 years." Well, that's misleading. It makes it seem that hundreds of thousands of workers have been toiling away at $5.15 an hour for more than a decade. Not so. Again, the BLS reports that 63 percent of minimum wage workers receive a raise after the first year of employment. Only 15 percent are still receiving the lowest wage after three years on the job.

The BLS also found that part-time workers are far more likely to be paid minimum wage than full-time employees. Only 1.2 percent of full-time, year-round employees earned $5.15 an hour or less in 2005.

The Democrats' claim to be fighting poverty by raising the minimum wage is way off target. Among the poor, the problem is not so much one of low wages as of non-work -- call it the American Idle. The Census Bureau finds that 63.2 percent of individuals aged 16 or above living in poverty did not work at all in the year preceding the survey. Raising the minimum wage obviously does nothing for those who aren't working.

As for those who are, their prospects for employment may be narrowed by a rise in the minimum wage. Employers forced to choose between raising a marginal employee's salary and firing him or her may well choose the latter. Or the employer may reduce the number of entry-level positions available. This doesn't particularly hurt the college kid who is looking for extra pocket money, but it does hurt the unskilled worker looking to climb onto the lowest rung of the economic ladder.

So what should a well-intentioned politician do if he wants to improve the lot of the poor in America? Well, here's one thought: Encourage charities to give used cars to the poor. According to a survey noted by the National Center for Policy Analysis, having a car and some work experience increased the chances that a poor person would be self-sufficient by 94 percent. There are other intriguing ideas there as well -- far more exciting and potentially successful than the hoary old minimum wage hike.

Mona Charen

author:

"Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help"

"Useful Idiots: How Liberals got it wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First"

Posted without comment.

You'll notice that I never use Mona as a reference. There's a reason for that.

I'll say it yet again, if you think someone should be paid more they are worth, start a business and pay them, if you aren't willing to do that, STFU!!!:mad: http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1169527286.jpg

Yes, she uses multi-syllable words.

And rather poorly at times......

You guys still arguing about this?

FYI, as a gubmit regulator, I used to gauge my overall effectiveness by the volume, and source of hate mail. That still works. It looks like the folks that disagree with me are, for example, Snowjob, Fastpaste and Fint. It's a litmus test. No indication of a need for change in my beliefs around economics.

My point, Fint, was explained. Adequately. The sky will, most likely, not fall. Contrary to the rather wild predictions I see regurgitated here. And if economists were united, or even generally opposed, to MW and/or its increases, we would be seeing it so broadly supported. The federal gubmit and most states are wrong and have been reaching wrong decisions together for seventy years? Think about that.

I know that investment firms employ economists, but I'd guess that most economists are either professors or they work for the gubmit. I've heard of conservative economists, but have not met one personally. There's Keynes of course, but he stands in Galbraith's shadow.

I still think it very curious, you guys' apparent preference for social programs at the taxpayers' cost, rather than employers picking up the bill. Seems odd but okay. And again, it's clear that we agree markets must be regulated. You know, environmental - aintitrust - etc. Interesting that you pretend to believe the employment relationship and the various games that can be played by both parties should not be regulated. Except to outlaw labor unions. That's a position you will find very few economists supporting.

Supe:

In your experience....Would you say that any action on the minimum wage is politically motivated and relatively irrelevant to the overall economy?

Good question, Bob. First, I'd say this particular MW increase is almost meaningless. Except as political fodder. The Cons left the door wide open for that. They are indeed the Part of Business, in sharp contrast with the marketing confusion they sometimes achieve.

Ordinarily, in times when the MW has not been previously allowed to fall so disgustingly far below the subsistence level, its impact is greater. But still, it's impact on general economic indicators is mimimal. This "sky will fall" crap is patently dismissable, offhand. But it does make a difference in the view from the street. Workers who are in that part of the market that might be affected by this change......their perspective is quite different from ours. My company, an international engineering and project management firm, is thinking about its position in the professional salary market and the implications on our ability to attract and retain the talent we will be increasingly needing. Same goes on a more macro level. The difference between the federal $5.25 MW and Washington State's $7.93, is that while both earnings potentially allow survival (eating, and living indoors), the higher wage carries the potential for an automobile. That's incentive.

Capitalism requires some perceptual things. The loser on the street corner must have some belief that maybe, perhaps, he or she could reach the brass ring. Opportunity. If it is a truly hollow promise, things will start to come unglued.

Interestingly, the same goes for the guy in the Porsche driving by the loser. He's got to think "there but for the grace of my employer, go I." Otherwise, he could not be made to dance and sing at the pleasure of the employer.

Fear and money. Capitalism is Machiavelli's economic system. I personally do not think those are the only two motivators or even the best two, but our economic system is a gamble that they are the only relevant ones.

Thanks.

George Carlin speaks of the American caste society:

The rich have all the money

The middle class does all the work

The poor are there to scare the middle class

It appears there is a scintilla of truth there.

Brilliant! Nice way to end this thread.

On a false premise.

The world is lead by a bunch of min wage "losers", ie people that contribite little and whose ideas are worthless.

Subsistence level? Now THAT is absurd.

But we compassionate, understanding, liberals let you in anyway :)

And how, pray tell, do these min wage losers wield such power?

Rational minds want to know.

They don't, people who take power from "helping them", i.e. running the programs, wield tremendous power.

Pat is correct, it is their KEEPERS that yield their power for them and of course that of the keepers.

Tell me about their contributions, to anything, compared to the rich. The rich make all of us better off, thats exactly why they are rich. Punish the rich, you punish all of us. Reward the poor, you drag all of us down to their level.

The USSR was absolute proof of these facts. Add to that corruption that is necessary for that form of govt to survive and humanity is worse off, not better off for it.

Yup. YOu are correct.

Without some constraints, the Carnegies, the Rockefellers and other "robber Barons" certainly made the citizens of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century better off.

In an ideal world, where people are governed by altruistic motives, it might be true that the rich help everyone. Not in the real world, though....

BTW....How do you "punish the rich"? Most of their money does not come from salaries, but from investments.

It is sometimes difficult to take your remarks seriously. Helping the poor endangers society? The group that needs protection but is not corrupt.....is the rich? Your thinking, as well as that of your "president," is certainly "outside the box."

And who do you think made the investment that created those salaries??? Without those "investments" where would business be???

Byron:

Understanding the complexities of the economic system isd not for the faint of heart, or for those with pre conceived ideas. It is a living organism, continually evolving. Agree or not, without constraints, either legislated or moral, there is no such thing as a truly free economy.

Now I have no proof, only observing your collection of toys. I would think you are quite removed from the "working class" when it comes to net worth. Am I correct here?

Yes, investments are important but they do not translate directly into goods and services. That is, sending a check to your brokerage does not translate into economic growth as much as taking the same amount of money and purchasing product. (the multiplier effect). It is the same misconception given to government spending. Consider the arguments about all that money spent on the space program. Really....Was that money sealed in the nosecone and fired out into the nether regions of the universe, or was it paid to industries and individuals who than took these funds and purchase tooling, homes, groceries, appliances, etc.

Each of us looks at the economy from our own narrow point of view. To some it looks fantastic. To others they see little or no advantage to them.

That, Bob, would be a fitting and merciful and somewhat elegantly couched final post in this beleaguered thread. Too bad Superman fukked it up with another post.

Investments are the ONLY source of income for the poor. Wipe out investments and you supress the poor. The rich will at least come out even, but much better off than the poor. In the USSR, the largest experiment of its kind in history, the elite (or what you would call the rich) were many times better off than the poor. In fact they were better off relative to the poor than any of the so called corrupt western countrys. Just how do you explain this? You can't. Capitalism is the most equal form of society yet devised. It is also the only form that deals out capital in direct proportion to the contribution of the individual. Poor people do not contribute to anything. Only a true conservative contributes to the poor. That is a fact supported by extensive research. Liberals are selfish people that beleive that only govt extortion can support the poor. Only the liberal needs to be forced to contribute to support of the poor.

So...you and other liberals want to raise the minimum wage nationally so that your liberal enclaves can still compete with rest of the country after foolishly raising your own? Reminds me of the thread complaining about high gas prices in CA as compared to other parts of the country. Only a fool would think they could have it both ways.
Next thing you know, companies in big union states like Michigan will expect the other taxpayers to help pay for inflated union wages and benefits.

If you really understood economics, you would realize that employers do not "pick up the bill." They simply pass it on to the consumer...until it is no longer possible. Then they go out of business. Both at at the "taxpayers' cost."
Clearly all social welfare is at taxpayers' cost. Even if the Government is printing money, the additional unearned dollars lower the value of those taxpayers own. Even charity is at taxpayers' expense...but at least it is voluntary.

My son found out about this today. He works at a local skeet range and because they raised the minimum wage, they had to raise prices and business has dropped off enough, they're putting him and several other boys on reduced hours.

Well Supe...it didn't take a degree in psychology to predict that...Common sense clearly is not common.

Hugh R, mabye more burger slingers have a few extra bills in their pocket and can now afford to do something fun, like skeet shooting?

I'll confess I know little about economics, but I do know that the results of carefull gardening only shows up many months afterwards, if it hasen't been trampled....

I don't think too many burger slingers are doing skeet shooting. What's your point? In his case, you raise wages, costs go up.

Because wages have gone up.....which results in excess capitol....which results in local spending....which results in more business....and the need for more employee hours(eventually).
Sorry, my post was pretty simplistic, but even the first Ford said that he was selling a car that his employees could afford.

There are way too many factors/facets of economics I don't study(some long-term and most short) to counter-argument(pun) the fact is that America either has to 1)become extremely protectionist in some areas or 2)become a third world nation in order to equally join a world-market (Nafta etc) where labor is as cheap as the surrounding starving millions.
I personally would rather see an introduction of a well-planned universal health care than a pay raise, but after seeing how SS is going I'll remain doubtfull.

John. I will personally pay for a one way ticket to your choice of health care heaven. Just leave my health care alone and don't fk it up.

People in Canada, the UK and many other countries around the world spend their last buck coming to the US to get good health care. Their systems are FAILURES, total complete failures. Their statistics are total LIES. In the UK, when someone dies while in the queue for say a heart operation, its NATURAL causes, not lack of health care that did him in. Don't believe it? Just ask some Brits. Even the worst off illegal aliens here get quicker and better health care than the so called insured in those Mecca’s of divine great universal health care. Just read the London Times. EVERY single day there is a story of someone who died of lack of care, someone who would have NOT died in this country. Yet their statistics show they offer better care, yeh, right. You have to know ALL Europeans have corrupt governments and equally corrupt statistics, just like the USSR had.

As to economics, you are clearly unschooled. Even the most basic courses teach that what you assume is totally wrong. If costs go up, demand goes DOWN, not up. Inflation creates opportunity for the taxman, and no one else. The min wage person can NEVER afford to shoot skeet. With higher cost there is even less an opportunity to do so. Also there are fewer workers employed. I will pay someone $25 to mow my lawn, but I will NOT pay someone $35 to do so. Lost opportunity, lost income, lost job.

Well, if everything else is going to cost more, he may not even have a job, and he surely won't have any money to do anything fun. You don't to confess about how little you know about economics, your post prove that:D

Kudos to the Senate. The minimum wage hike was rejected in the Senate because no offsetting tax break was offered to small business.

Raising the minimum wage is bad policy regardsless of tax breaks, but at least a wrench has been thrown in the works for now.

People who cannot do work worth $7.25 per hour will get to keep their jobs for a while longer. Teenagers and minorities take it in the shorts every time the minimum wage is raised because they simply don't get hired.

Ever wonder why there are no longer restaurants with waitresses? The min wage, that’s why.

So long car hops, any low price restaurant, with a waitress or waiter. Self serve is a direct result of min wage law. Same for gas stations. Do it yourself. All those entry level people no longer have a chance, nothing, nada. They either get better skills or never get a job.

Now they are all on welfare while the mexicans get the job, for $10 an hour, plus lunch, no tax deductions. Beleive it or not its cheaper to hire an illegal for $10 an hour, plus lunch than it is to hire a legal at $5.25 per hour. Make that $7 plus an hour and you will never see a legal employed at the entry level again.

We need to start making judges that reflect american ways and not those of commie left wing political types that should be shipped off to europe.

I doubt if it is that simple. Technology has permitted business and industry to eliminate human labor. No judgement here, just the reality of the situation. Those changes would have happened in any case as technological advancements permitted.

Not true. Those changes were brought about by increased expense, otherwise they would not have happened. Technology is driven by the cost of labor.

Wrong. Asd usual. Oversimplified and trite.

Technology is its own engine. It is man's nature to tinker, invent and improve!!

You really need to get out a bit more and mingle with the "common folk"!!