Speaker Pelosi? here's her plan

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

You can take the dumbf*ck out of the ....well no...actually you can't. Mavdogs dumbf*ck gene is just stuck on overdrive......again.

yawn.
what a bore.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the vast majority of minimum wage jobs are held by teens. the productivity of teens is one of the most variable among all worker groups. they are also transitory, they will (for the most part) only occupy that minimum wage job untill they complete their education. that's about 40% of all minimum wage workers.

another third are those who are drop outs in HS. they will fracture in work track, half will be stuck in the jobs (the unskilled you mention), half will find a trade/skill that allows them to become higher paid.

so kg they are very relevant.

but you've been making the point that raising the minimum wage will make it harder for these people to find work. Why would you want that to happen?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

but you've been making the point that raising the minimum wage will make it harder for these people to find work. Why would you want that to happen?

rqising the minimum wage is a double edged sword.

do I see it as necessary? no, not really.

at the same time it is not a huge negative it also isn't all positive. as I've shown, there isn't a straight link to higher unemployment levels. yet it certainly does restrain job growth in the worker segment.

I'm much more an advocate in mandating a requirement for insurance coverage for these workers. from my point of view, leaving the minimum wage where it is at is fine if the benefits are mandated to guarantee these workers won't face fiscal ruin if they or a member of their family has major medical expenses, and access to preventive care is given.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I'm much more an advocate in mandating a requirement for insurance coverage for these workers. from my point of view, leaving the minimum wage where it is at is fine if the benefits are mandated to guarantee these workers won't face fiscal ruin if they or a member of their family has major medical expenses, and access to preventive care is given.

Wouldn't this be the same from the employer's point of view? If I understand you correctly, more costly workers means less new workers. So instead of more benefits for some new job, unemployed folks end up with less opportunity for any job at all. And didn't you say the majority of these workers are teenagers? They are probably on their parents' insurance.

[Mavdog]

I'm not sure what you mean ul by "the same from the employer's point of view". there is a wide variance in what different employer's views would be.

would the teens have insurance from their folks? depends, first if I understand right if a child is over 18 they must be a student to keep coverage under the parent's policy, and second what if the parent isn't insured?

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

yawn.
what a bore.

Yes....true. You are a yawn inducing bore. Thanks for clearing that up yet again.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I'm not sure what you mean ul by "the same from the employer's point of view". there is a wide variance in what different employer's views would be.

Wouldn't any employer who thinks "I will cut back on new hiring of minimum wage workers because the new hires will cost me more in wages" also think "I will cut back on new hiring of minimum wage workers because the new hires will cost me more in insurance benefits"?

Wouldn't mandating insurance coverage for minimum wage workers have the same effect of reducing job opportunities as would raising the minimum wage?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Wouldn't any employer who thinks "I will cut back on new hiring of minimum wage workers because the new hires will cost me more in wages" also think "I will cut back on new hiring of minimum wage workers because the new hires will cost me more in insurance benefits"?

yeah, they could, but if they were providing benefits to all their employees (no matter what the wage paid) that wouldn't be an issue.

Wouldn't mandating insurance coverage for minimum wage workers have the same effect of reducing job opportunities as would raising the minimum wage?

not always the case. there are many companies that have all their employees covered, so the added requirement would only parallel what the company policy already provided.

do you not feel that all workers should have the benefit of health insurance? should health coverage only be available to some but not all? why should the lower economic class not have access to insurance?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

yeah, they could, but if they were providing benefits to all their employees (no matter what the wage paid) that wouldn't be an issue.

- uh, and if employers were already paying their employess $8 an hour, then raising the minimum wage to $7 wouldn't really affect them either. They still seem the same to me.

do you not feel that all workers should have the benefit of health insurance? should health coverage only be available to some but not all? why should the lower economic class not have access to insurance?

I wasn't aware that there was anybody who is not allowed to buy some insurance. I definitely think that everyone should be allowed to go buy some insurance if they want it.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I wasn't aware that there was anybody who is not allowed to buy some insurance. I definitely think that everyone should be allowed to go buy some insurance if they want it.

I'd like to hear from you how a low wage earner who doesn't have an employer contribution is able to afford health insurance....

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I agree the study you're describing would be much more definitive.

however, the snapshot data posted above is clear- those states with a higher minimum wage than the current figure do NOT (except for one state,AK) have a higer unemployment rate. many in fact have a lower rate than the natl avg.

Yes, but that is of no relevance at all. If you want relevant data (as we discussed before), it needs to be data from a particular state that shows changes in the unemployment rate of minimum wage or low wage workers following an increase in the minimum wage. And even then, you'd have to account for other potential factors which could cause a decrease in unemployment before drawing any conclusions.

the mcd still needs to serve the same number or greater of hamburgers, and the staff will be sized to put out that much product. if they don't have enough flippers they won't sell the same number of hamburgers.

At some point, you can't sell enough burgers to cover the increased labor cost, which is what we're discussing.

studies I've read show the firms don't lay off employees when the minimum wage is increased unless their sales go down. the firms generally either a) find other ways to reduce expenses, b) accept a short term decrease in net unless they can c) raise their prices as the market allows.

If you raised minimum wage by over $2.00 in Texas, I have a hard time believing that our hypothetical McDonalds has a large enough profit margin and the ability to reduce other expenses enough to absorb the increased labor cost. I admit I might be wrong, but I don't see it.

the vast majority of minimum wage jobs are held by teens. the productivity of teens is one of the most variable among all worker groups. they are also transitory, they will (for the most part) only occupy that minimum wage job untill they complete their education. that's about 40% of all minimum wage workers.

another third are those who are drop outs in HS. they will fracture in work track, half will be stuck in the jobs (the unskilled you mention), half will find a trade/skill that allows them to become higher paid.

so kg they are very relevant.

Still don't see how that's relevant to the causative relationship between raising the minimum wage and the unemployment rate of minimum wage workers.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I'm much more an advocate in mandating a requirement for insurance coverage for these workers. from my point of view, leaving the minimum wage where it is at is fine if the benefits are mandated to guarantee these workers won't face fiscal ruin if they or a member of their family has major medical expenses, and access to preventive care is given.

Are you talking about mandating coverage for full-time workers and part-time workers? Full-time only? Doesn't Medicaid and CHIP help out here?

[dude1394]

In actuality most folks who don't have bucks get a lot better medical care than they can get dental care. Emergency rooms have to take them and strangely enough there are a bunch of plans for folks who cannot pay. It's much like medicine in that insurances and employees subsidize quite a bit.

I do not advocate madating health care at all as health care already doesn't have any market pressure to reduce prices.

The health care market is really screwed up, much like college tuitions. there continues to be little consumer pressure. People with insurance don't even look at price tags anymore..It's really screwy.

Before I would advocate mandating health care to workers I would advocate guvment health care. The health care would be bad and shortages would occur but at least it wouldn't be de-coupled from any market forces.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Yes, but that is of no relevance at all. If you want relevant data (as we discussed before), it needs to be data from a particular state that shows changes in the unemployment rate of minimum wage or low wage workers following an increase in the minimum wage. And even then, you'd have to account for other potential factors which could cause a decrease in unemployment before drawing any conclusions.

what you are asking for is more depth to the data. that does not however make the snapshot of data irrelevant. if there was a true connection between the higher minimum wage and increased unemployment the snapsot would show it.

it doesn't.

At some point, you can't sell enough burgers to cover the increased labor cost, which is what we're discussing.

what makes your claim valid? would the mcdonalds sell fewer burgers due to their paying their workers more? no. would the increased labor cost reduce the demand for their product? no.

[dude1394]

McDonalds would sell less burgers because they would have to raise price of burgers. Sure they would resist it initially but sooner or later they would rise.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

In actuality most folks who don't have bucks get a lot better medical care than they can get dental care. Emergency rooms have to take them and strangely enough there are a bunch of plans for folks who cannot pay. It's much like medicine in that insurances and employees subsidize quite a bit.

I do not advocate madating health care at all as health care already doesn't have any market pressure to reduce prices.

The health care market is really screwed up, much like college tuitions. there continues to be little consumer pressure. People with insurance don't even look at price tags anymore..It's really screwy.

Before I would advocate mandating health care to workers I would advocate guvment health care. The health care would be bad and shortages would occur but at least it wouldn't be de-coupled from any market forces.

emergency rooms are there for people after they have a problem, and after the problem gets to be threatening. preventive care is much cheaper and also will stop the illness from becoming debilitating.

if you've ever been to an emergency room, you'd also know that there is limited services they provide.

personally I don't want my healthcare to be dictated by market forces...

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

what you are asking for is more depth to the data. that does not however make the snapshot of data irrelevant. if there was a true connection between the higher minimum wage and increased unemployment the snapsot would show it.

it doesn't.

You know, it's sort of frustrating. It's like we're having this decent, rational conversation, and then suddenly you just start ignoring what I'm saying.

In order for the data you provided to be relevant, at a bare minimum you'd also need to provide the data showing the unemployment rates in those states BEFORE the minimum wage was raised. Otherwise, you can't even prove whether unemployment rates went up, down, or stayed the same after the minimum wage was raised. Now, that's not any indicator of the unemployment rate for minimum wage workers or even low wage workers, and it doesn't begin to contemplate what other possible factors might have affected the unemployment rate, but at least it's a start.

what makes your claim valid? would the mcdonalds sell fewer burgers due to their paying their workers more? no.

I see. I can't speculate, but you can.

would the increased labor cost reduce the demand for their product? no.

No, but it wouldn't increase it, either. And you need to sell more hamburgers to cover the increased cost, unless you believe that the increased cost can simply be absorbed.

[dude1394]

Unfortunately I think that mavie thinks much like californians did when they froze prices for electricity. The "corporations" will just eat the costs. Bunk...they won't OR they'll eventually go out of business. I don't know the profit margin on fast-food but I wouldn't expect it to be that high.

If you can't raise the price of your burgers you are going to find a way to cut the cost of producing them. The easiest way to do that is to make them with less people. Ultimately that will not work either and you'll have to find a way to become more efficient or lower the costs of the ingredients. Again a less quality burger is going to cost less (or the same in this case) but less will be sold. This is painfully obvious, but I guess that somehow economics doesn't apply here?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

In order for the data you provided to be relevant, at a bare minimum you'd also need to provide the data showing the unemployment rates in those states BEFORE the minimum wage was raised. Otherwise, you can't even prove whether unemployment rates went up, down, or stayed the same after the minimum wage was raised. Now, that's not any indicator of the unemployment rate for minimum wage workers or even low wage workers, and it doesn't begin to contemplate what other possible factors might have affected the unemployment rate, but at least it's a start.

the data is not deep. it is not complete. it is not thorough. it is not irontight. that is why I refer to it as a "snapshot".

yet it is indeed relevant. if there were a true and absolute connection between the increased minimum wage and the unemployment rate increasing there would be SOME exhibition shown.

I see. I can't speculate, but you can.

you didn't "speculate", you made a claim with no basis. why couldn't the business increase its sales volume? why couldn't the workers produce more output?

No, but it wouldn't increase it, either. And you need to sell more hamburgers to cover the increased cost, unless you believe that the increased cost can simply be absorbed.

ok, I'll speculate...the increased pay to the lower wage workers, a large segment of the consumers for the low priced meals in mcdonalds, would produce an increase in spendable dollars which corresponds to an increase in demand for burgers, resulting in increased sales volume for the average unit. increased sales would absorb the increased labor costs with net margins remaining static.

ok, now you speculate too...

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the data is not deep. it is not complete. it is not thorough. it is not irontight. that is why I refer to it as a "snapshot".

yet it is indeed relevant. if there were a true and absolute connection between the increased minimum wage and the unemployment rate increasing there would be SOME exhibition shown.

Wrong. You can compare apples to oranges all you want. They're still apples and oranges.

you didn't "speculate", you made a claim with no basis. why couldn't the business increase its sales volume? why couldn't the workers produce more output?

Your assumption is that if the minimum wage were increased by over $2.00 per hour, McDonalds would simply start selling more hamburgers to compensate. My assumption is that if the minimum wage were increased by over $2.00 per hour, McDonalds (talking about the average local franchise, not the multinational corporation) couldn't sell enough burgers to compensate for the increase in labor cost. Without some information regarding the budget of a local franchise, we're both just shooting from the hip, so don't act as if you're speculation is more informed than mine.

ok, I'll speculate...the increased pay to the lower wage workers, a large segment of the consumers for the low priced meals in mcdonalds, would produce an increase in spendable dollars which corresponds to an increase in demand for burgers, resulting in increased sales volume for the average unit. increased sales would absorb the increased labor costs with net margins remaining static.

ok, now you speculate too...

So the minimum wage worker at McDonalds helps cover the increased cost to employ him by buying more Quarter Pounders? What good does that do? With all of those extra Quarter Pounders consumed, you better hope they're offering health insurance...

[Usually Lurkin]

mavdog, your data show a correlation.
That's indicative of some kinda relationship, but whether it's direct or indirect, you can't say. You can also make no judgement of causation or direction of causation. It could be that a strong economy allows for a higher minimum wage. From your snapshot you can infer nothing about what would happen if you raise minimum wage in any given state.

Your own statement earlier, though, that more costly minimum wage workers would mean less new hiring of those workers implies that raising minimum wage would lead to a level of unemployement in the near future higher than what it would otherwise have been (all else being equal).

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Wrong. You can compare apples to oranges all you want. They're still apples and oranges.

so you suggest that workers in one state are "apples" and workers in other states are "oranges"?

nah.

Your assumption is that if the minimum wage were increased by over $2.00 per hour, McDonalds would simply start selling more hamburgers to compensate. My assumption is that if the minimum wage were increased by over $2.00 per hour, McDonalds (talking about the average local franchise, not the multinational corporation) couldn't sell enough burgers to compensate for the increase in labor cost. Without some information regarding the budget of a local franchise, we're both just shooting from the hip, so don't act as if you're speculation is more informed than mine.

no, that is not my point, although there could be an increase in sales volume due to the higher spendable income.

my point is that the operator would in the short term see the need to become more efficient in a) their scheduling b) their marketing c) their employee's productivity and ultimately they would c) increase their prices.

So the minimum wage worker at McDonalds helps cover the increased cost to employ him by buying more Quarter Pounders? What good does that do? With all of those extra Quarter Pounders consumed, you better hope they're offering health insurance...

mcd's isn't the only enterprise who employees minimum wage workers, the world's largest retailer employs more. many, many more!

those burgers and fries will undoubtedly be a negative to reduce obesity in our country for sure! not to mention the heart issues caused by the fat they're putting in their bodies...

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

mavdog, your data show a correlation.
That's indicative of some kinda relationship, but whether it's direct or indirect, you can't say. You can also make no judgement of causation or direction of causation. It could be that a strong economy allows for a higher minimum wage. From your snapshot you can infer nothing about what would happen if you raise minimum wage in any given state.

I'm glad somebody gets it.

Your own statement earlier, though, that more costly minimum wage workers would mean less new hiring of those workers implies that raising minimum wage would lead to a level of unemployement in the near future higher than what it would otherwise have been (all else being equal).

Mavdog can't even agree with himself.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Mavdog can't even agree with himself.

*giggle* This happens a lot.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

mavdog, your data show a correlation.
That's indicative of some kinda relationship, but whether it's direct or indirect, you can't say. You can also make no judgement of causation or direction of causation. It could be that a strong economy allows for a higher minimum wage. From your snapshot you can infer nothing about what would happen if you raise minimum wage in any given state.

the snapshot is a look at the present. it is not a predictor, it is a reflection.

glad to see that you agree that the snapshot is relevant.

Your own statement earlier, though, that more costly minimum wage workers would mean less new hiring of those workers implies that raising minimum wage would lead to a level of unemployement in the near future higher than what it would otherwise have been (all else being equal).

if the employee cost rises with no expansion of the economy, yes there would be the situation where the new workers (the workforce will continue to expand) won't be readily absorbed.

raising the wage in a time of economic recession or stagnation would be a very poor decision.

the fact is a higher minimum wage itself does not result in an increase in unemployment rates. busnesses do not fire workers when the minimum wage is increased.

the claim that pelosi's plan would produce fewer jobs for americans is wrong, unless the people who make that assertion are expecting a business recession.

well? are they?

[Drbio]

oops he did it again

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

oops he did it again

yes, I did show that your claim was wrong. but then that's fairly easy.

[Drbio]

Wrong again dipshit....and the funny thing is everyone here understands it but you.

But hang on to your dumbf*ck gene with both hands and go down completely.

[Mavdog]

I can see the giggling as he types his cus swords.. "oh, isn't it *giggle* fun to write words like "shit" and "dumbf*cK" *giggle giggle*"

what a child....

[Drbio]

I just wish you could see what you write in this forum is chock full of bullshit on a regular basis. Everyone else does. You've surpassed creditexpert as the biggest pompous ignorant dumbass on this site.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

glad to see that you agree that the snapshot is relevant.

Um, he actually did exactly the opposite -- he disagreed with you. That's what he meant when he said, "From your snapshot you can infer nothing..."

[Drbio]

Yet another example that he will glaze over....

But his response to it was a nice attempt at being pompously idiotic.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the snapshot is a look at the present. it is not a predictor, it is a reflection.

to say raising the min.wage will (or will not) raise unemployment is to make a prediction. You simply cannot use the data you posted to test such statements.

if the employee cost rises with no expansion of the economy, yes there would be the situation where the new workers (the workforce will continue to expand) won't be readily absorbed.

You are saying that raising the minimum wage has a downward effect on employement, all else being equal, right? Just that other factors can counterbalance that force. Then for you to make the statements you've made, you must think that the economic environment of all the states in your list must be great enough to absorb a raise in employee cost. Maybe you should be posting your comments in the Kaboom! thread.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the data is not deep. it is not complete. it is not thorough. it is not irontight. that is why I refer to it as a "snapshot".

yet it is indeed relevant. if there were a true and absolute connection between the increased minimum wage and the unemployment rate increasing there would be SOME exhibition shown.

You are wrong here, Mav.

THere is a real endogeneity/direction of causality problem in your data.

First you look at a snapshot of some of the most healthy, prosperous, markets in the country- (where high costs and high general wages ensure that in most instances the relatively low minimum wage isn't binding anyway)

Then you try to campare that to low-productivity, low wealth, stagnant economic areas of the country (where people DO earn the minimum wage, and frankly are glad to get it)

You can't compare snapshots of the two and glean ANY useful information. Local voters in rich areas submit to higher minimum wages because the economic conditions can support it (few workers are affected, and the ones that ARE affected probably really need the help. Can you imagine trying to live in Manhattan or San Francisco on $3.35/hour, or whatever the current min-wage is).

On the other hand, what would happen if there was suddenly an enforced minimum hourly wage of $3.35 in Laos or in DR-Congo? Answer: there would be about 99% unemployment.

In a nutshell: Minimum wages are high in the rich states BECAUSE unemployment is low ---> which has already pushed up the market wage to the point that the higher minimum wages don't hurt the economy much.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Drbio

I just wish you could see what you write in this forum is chock full of bullshit on a regular basis. Everyone else does. You've surpassed creditexpert as the biggest pompous ignorant dumbass on this site.

and what is YOUR contribution to this debate?

I think we've all internalized the fact that you don't glean much wisdom from Mavdog's posts. THe value-added from calling him a-stupid-dunderhead-with-cooties yet one more time has asymptotically approached zero for a long, long time.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

You are wrong here, Mav.

THere is a real endogeneity/direction of causality problem in your data.

First you look at a snapshot of some of the most healthy, prosperous, markets in the country- (where high costs and high general wages ensure that in most instances the relatively low minimum wage isn't binding anyway)

Then you try to campare that to low-productivity, low wealth, stagnant economic areas of the country (where people DO earn the minimum wage, and frankly are glad to get it)

You can't compare snapshots of the two and glean ANY useful information. Local voters in rich areas submit to higher minimum wages because the economic conditions can support it (few workers are affected, and the ones that ARE affected probably really need the help. Can you imagine trying to live in Manhattan or San Francisco on $3.35/hour, or whatever the current min-wage is).

On the other hand, what would happen if there was suddenly an enforced minimum hourly wage of $3.35 in Laos or in DR-Congo? Answer: there would be about 99% unemployment.

In a nutshell: Minimum wages are high in the rich states BECAUSE unemployment is low ---> which has already pushed up the market wage to the point that the higher minimum wages don't hurt the economy much.

the states on the list were not selected, they happen t be the states who have a higher minimum wage than the federal mandate. they are what they are, there was no selecting or culling.

likewise, the stataes with the higher unemployment stats are what they are...and several of those are not "stagnant" economies, for instance SC is an expanding economy.

the wages generally are not set by the voters but by the legislatures.

my asertion remains the same: a higher minimum wage does not in itself cost jobs. it is not a choice between the higher wage and a job. a healthy economy can pay a reasonable wage such a $7.25 and still experience positive job growth.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

You are saying that raising the minimum wage has a downward effect on employement, all else being equal, right? Just that other factors can counterbalance that force.

I am saying that raising the minimum wage has a downward affect on future employment,

Then for you to make the statements you've made, you must think that the economic environment of all the states in your list must be great enough to absorb a raise in employee cost. Maybe you should be posting your comments in the Kaboom! thread.

yeah, it is a unintended compliment. yikes!

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

and what is YOUR contribution to this debate?

I think we've all internalized the fact that you don't glean much wisdom from Mavdog's posts. THe value-added from calling him a-stupid-dunderhead-with-cooties yet one more time has asymptotically approached zero for a long, long time.

And yet you feel the need to come to his aid. Feel free to put me on ignore if you really hate seeing me respond to the forum tard.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the states on the list were not selected, they happen t be the states who have a higher minimum wage than the federal mandate. they are what they are, there was no selecting or culling.

likewise, the stataes with the higher unemployment stats are what they are...and several of those are not "stagnant" economies, for instance SC is an expanding economy.

the wages generally are not set by the voters but by the legislatures.

[bold] my asertion remains the same: a higher minimum wage does not in itself cost jobs. it is not a choice between the higher wage and a job. a healthy economy can pay a reasonable wage such a $7.25 and still experience positive job growth. [/bold]

THe problem with this is there is not "a labor market" per se. There are a whole bunch of localities, each with their own labor markets. Actually each locality has a bunch of local labor markets, based on skills levels. If we concentrate on the unskilled (or at least relatively unskilled) labor markets that this will have an effect on, there is a HUGE difference between the market for unskilled labor in Podunk, Mississippi versus the market for unskilled labor in San Jose, Calif.

And yet, you act as if the fact that a min-wage increase in some of the high-wage areas (where it is difficult to find jobs that actually pay minimum wage, even at McD's or 7-11) doesn't have a huge adverse effect on the economy, implies that imposing the same minimum wage in Mississippi, where it will be TOTALLY binding, will also not have a measurable adverse affect. This is totally incorrect. The fallacy of composition.

If you WANT to, you can argue that the benefits of a minimum wage in these areas outweighs the costs, but to argue that there won't be an adverse effect is wrong.