and you slept through Econ 101, right?

Yeah, the employers will just eat that extra cost, I am sure it would work out like that, they are driven by pure altruism, so why wouldn't they? How do you make it up in volume? Make them work faster?

Signing statements have been around quite some time, they are not going away, even if you disapprove of them.

Fetal Stem Cell research has produced nothing of note and nobody but the Stupid State of Califonia is paying for research in this area. This of course means my dumbass self is paying for it, which pisses me off, not from a moral standpoint, more a rational fiscal standpoint.

quote:Originally posted by m21sniper
It is my opinion that boosting minimum wage boosts the prices of everything at a nearly proportional rate, thereby effectively eliminating any increase in PPP of a minimum wage worker.

It is a cause and effect.

You force us to pay our workers more, we simply increase the price of our goods and services to match.

Thus, the status quo is maintained.


If i wasnt so lazy i'd hunt down the posts that the West Point economics professor that posts at a board i co-founded (www.worldaffairsboard.com) made, and post them here.

Because he has said the same thing several times in the past on that board. If anyone wants to go simply ask him(superman), his screen name there is Shek. Or they can just be guided by their own common sense, as i as a self-employed small business owner does.

If my expenses go up, i raise my prices.

It is that simple.

Cause...

Effect...

Reality.

I have been dealing with employers and their associations and think tanks and attorneys for so many years that even when these arguments are presented in a seemingly objective (yeah, right) fashion, I have a hard time staying awake. Both research and common sense dictate, in crystal clear fashion, that the price of a hamburger is not going to rise by a dollar because of a minimum wage hike. Or even twenty cents. This assertion that resulting inflation will nullify these workers' wage gains......is embarrassing for you guys. I don't even like to see YOU guys make such obvious fools of yourselves.

When I said that economics is not for folks who draw simple conclusions quickly, I meant it. Many economicsts, and perhaps the majority, would argue that the price of hamburgers would FALL. Frankly, it is curious that business owners might decry price increases in the first place. Increases in business volume also increast profits. But again, if more low wage earners had financial access to outside dining (if more poor folks could afford hamburgers.....remember that a full time minimum wage worker earns $900/mo before taxes), then sales volume would increase as would profits. And the price of a hamburger would have more pressure downward than upward.

Economics, and many of the more important lessons in life, are counterintuitive. The folks who think they can guess at the economic impact of a wage adjustment.....should be careful around people who actually understand economics.

If a minimum wage had really achieved prosperity, the dems wouldn't have to keep promising to fix the problem every election.

The truth is that their socialist agenda hasn't been able to buy enough votes to secure their political power because voters find out, sooner or later, that they have been sold a bill of goods.

Now in power, they will try to secure a place for all the illegals in hopes that they will vote for democrats.

I have wondered about that too. An increase in the minimum wage might tilt the scales a bity to encourage "Americans" to take some of those jobs that they alledgely refuse to do. As for inflation, it is possible that improvements in efficiency at various places that employ minium wage types will in large part make up the diffeence.

Supe is correct on one count: Economics is never as simple as people think it is, and a room full of economists guarantees that you will find at least one that will agree with your POV no matter how outlandish.

I will be visiting with Feingold tomorrow morning at a listening session he is holding for our county. I plan to ask him specifically what the Dems plans are regarding: Iraq, the Economy (specifically high taxes and the growth of government), and Illegal Immigration. It will be interesting to hear his responses.

Regarding minimum wage: Super, you just don't seem to grasp the micro or the macro economics of this issue. No one is arguing that child labor, non-payment of overtime, etc is wrong. The fact remains, as stated, that increasing the minimum wage does not do what many expect it to. In fact, it does the opposite. Most employers with low wage employees are already trying to negotiate slim profit margins. Forcing them to pay more than THE MARKET demands for like labor almost always results in either fewer employees, more employees with less paid hours, cuts in bennies or... You get the idea.

How do I know this? Education, research, and first hand experience.

Throughout history, the communities that have thrived and survived are ones that have had the minimum government controls on business's. The other extreme is Communism (failed how often now?) and welfare states (Europe and it's high crime, massive unemployment and outsourced jobs that make our situation look like peanuts).

Eric

Eric, specifically what nation(s) have had a less restrictive form of capitalism than ours and have done better?

No one here (Supe included, afaik) is arguing for communism. Blindly following "free market" economy is also disastrous. So the goal of economic policy is to find that happy medium between capitalism and socialism.

As evidenced by...........?

I don't think it's ever been tried. We are the closest........we are the most successful. Coincidence?

With the extremely important exception of anti-trust regulation, which is critical to maintaining the so-called free market.

While I'm sure I'd come up with a different list than Superman, there are absolutely certain roles for government to play regulating the free market, to, um, keep it free.

Anti-trust is the biggest one. Enormous nationwide monopolies result otherwise, to the detriment of just about everyone.

I would argue that the U.S. had a freer economy during the pre-labor law days of the Industrial Revolution. The standard of living was low, as was per capita GDP. When workers started to organize, both standards of living and productivity went up.

Furthermore, in cases of major companies disregarding government regulation (Enron), the results are disastrous for the working- and middle-class. Or, if you look at an industry that has flouted attempts at regulation (Microsoft) the consumer gets an inferior product at a high price.

Ergo, less regulation is not always better.

Quote:

I don't think it's ever been tried. We are the closest........we are the most successful. Coincidence?

True. So if you accept that the current state of the economy is the best its ever been in the US (not everyone agrees) you have evidence that THIS exact level of control is optimal. To suggest that removing further controls is better is pure extrapolation, which is to say, speculation.

However, if you look at the distribution of wealth and see that the wealthy are becoming wealthier, you might not think that this current economy/level of regulation is optimal.

The early days of organized labor was more about keeping jobs in the hand of WASPs than trying to get better $/hr, etc. The early labor organizations were extremely racist against Blacks, Indians, Chinese, Irish and any other new ethnic group that was willing to work hard for whatever pay. And compared to the countries they came from, the pay rates and the job opportunites were vast!

Productivity went up with Automation. Many workers didn't want automation, since it cost jobs. The word "sabotage" comes from the word sabot, a french wooden shoe. Originally, the shoes were thrown into the workings of the machines, breaking or disabling them.

Trusts were groups of organized businesses, who were controlled by a single entity. The problem today is the anti-trust laws were designed when our ability to go to alternative sources, especially those outside the country, were weak. This is not the case today, except when we limit good from coming into the country. We actually have protectionist laws which prevent some goods (ethanol for one) from being imported economically.

Usually companies that combine together get advanatges from scale. And sometimes there is a natural tendancy to standardize which creates the appearence of a monopoly (Microsoft). Would anyone who has read what Standard Oil and the Sugar trusts used to do, think they are comparable to Microsoft?

Coming back around to what I think, I do believe a few things:

1. Every law should have a sunset provision (Say 10 years as a standard). This way if something doesn't apply to a newer present situation, it should be let to die. If it is worth continuing, 50% of each house plus the president shouldn't be too hard to get to agree.

2. Every 'regulation' put into effect in the country should have a corresponding law. Too many 'regulations' come out of groups like the EPA without any review in congress, or any authorization.

3. The Supreme Court should not make law. The justices should not interpret law. They should decide whether something is constitutional or not. And not 'provisions'. If even the tinyest part of a law is unconstitutional, the whole thing should get tossed and the congress forced to start over.

4. Any law which requires more than 1 page, should be broken up into several laws, each one consisting of...1 page.

True free market would take us back to the robber barons of the late 19th century.