Just liberal hyperbole on my part, I suppose. The US being compared to a centrally planned economy that favors the rich is just silly.
Size comparing corporate welfare to social welfare:
…Yeah.
So when these supply-siders complain about the minimum wage, and that such a wage requirement for a job makes it essentially a charity, remember that big corporations like Wal-Mart and McDonald’s receive direct and indirect charity in the form of tax dollars totalling billions.
Meanwhile, they commit billions of dollars worth of wage theft as well.
Not in the news for some reason. I wonder who owns the news networks. Just kidding, I already know.
That’s not an argument. “Some workers may have gotten a raise eventually, so they wouldn’t be helped when everyone gets a raise.”
No one is dumb enough to buy this line. There hasn’t been a human being that stupid who has ever walked this Earth.
This is the same bolded red bullshit line I highlighted in Tim Worstall’s article. Theorizing hypothetical more hours is bullshit. Not only is the minimum wage up, but employment is up, and so are hours. All of those numbers are up.
They are only less high up than a hypothetical Seattle that was actually not Seattle and is instead a region outside of Seattle that is also growing, but faster.
That’s still up, it’s not down.
And “depending on how it is calculated” a 10 percent increase in pay versus a 1 percent decrease in hours (*hypothetically *a decrease, since actually hours went UP) is still workers getting ahead, you fucking jackass.
Prices** *didn’t ***change and hours ***didn’t ***decline. Even Tim the Worst had to admit it.
No, that’s not what happened. Is this a version of the telephone game where you just repeat what Tim the Worst said, except get it even less accurate that he did?
At least he used weasel words and bullshit arguments to hide the truth, rather than flat out denying it. You’re opting for the full denial route.
Bullshit.
Automation is happening everywhere with or without minimum wage increases. Fewer jobs are lost by that automation than the dollar amounts gained by the minimum wage increase. If hypothetically 1 percent of jobs were lost but the other 99 jobs got a 10 percent increase, the workers are better off.
Concern trolls.
History of the minimum wage increasing shows no such incoherency or devastating effect. It’s been raised several times, it is now, by dollar amount, many times what the original minimum wage was. In terms of value, it is now worth less than it was for most of our history. That’s called inflation.
They are not hurt by it. I guarantee you the 99 workers who keep their jobs are very much helped by this. Why not poll them. Include the people who lost their jobs.
If you’re butthurt by the ***tragedy ***of all this, concerning yourself with the lives of the workers you give no shits about, then poll them. Watch the approval rate be well over 90%.
Concern trolls.
To who? The businesses? They’ll survive. If a business cannot survive paying employees the literal bottom wage legally possible, they don’t need to be a business. And if they can’t figure out how to hike prices by 2-5 percent, they don’t need to be a business.
The workers? You don’t care about them and they’re the ones asking for this increase and they’re the ones who reap the benefits of it, so shut your filthy whore mouth.
Prices have been rising, always have, always will. Wages are what needs to keep up with prices, dummy. If they could get by with less labor, they would.
The business demands they pay the workers zero. The workers demand they get paid more than zero. “The market” is not the business. The market is the business and the workers together agreeing on a price. If businesses don’t want to pay the very minimum wage, they can run the cash registers with their CEOs.
Unemployment is down in Seattle.
Higher wages means people spend more money in their local economy, creating more jobs. Wages that price workers out of their living spaces, and out of the city, creates a lack of demand, which kills jobs.
Supply and demand.
Economics 101.
Yes, they’re aware this helps the workers, and they don’t buy the nonsense you’re selling.
Prices go up, wages go up.
You want wages to remain stagnant, then stop raising prices, rich dummies.
Step 1: Scare people into thinking that workers will either lose a significant amount of jobs, or that workers who even get the raise will earn less money than they would have without a wage increase (somehow), or convince people that unemployment will skyrocket. People assume you’re the expert, so they try out your economics, and the economy sucks.
Step 2: City tries something different. You predict all of the above, and you’re wrong.
Step 3: Pretend the City is a hypothetical ideal model city, and compare it to the real city. Suggest that even though job creation, job retention, hours, and wages are UP, and unemployment is DOWN, that the city could be doing even better, therefore it’s actually worse by comparison with a fictional hypothetical alternate universe city.
Step 4: Claim you still won the debate, repeat ad infinitum in several different publications.
Step 5: Dumb people fall for it and continue to believe in supply-side economics. Just check the Straight Dope Message board, you’ll find a couple dozen morons who believe in it.
A pair of truly awful articles on Forbes. I’ll get to them later today. First, a two-parter on wages, their value, and the unemployment rate.
You’ll notice that “Opinions expressed by Forbes contributors are their own”, yet Forbes magazine never invites anyone with a different political position on the minimum wage to offer their opinion. I’d imagine there are actually plenty of well-meaning people who erroneously believe they’re helping the poor by drinking the “pro-growth” kool-aid.
I honestly don’t know how to disabuse people of the notion if their minds utterly refuse to accept facts. But I’m going to pretend there are facts out there that would reach even the most stubborn mind.
This is the United States Unemployment rate, by President.
The source is the **Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor. **I’m gonna assume this is a neutral enough source, because these are the only people who could possibly have this data and be interested in making sure the information is accurate.
The idea that Republicans actually enact “pro-growth policies.”
Let’s shed that idea. Yeah, I know, this is a partisan way of looking at things. But every article shared by Forbes lately begins with the notion that the minimum wage is bad for unemployment, and that Democrats are just awful people for trying to raise it.
So let’s look and see. Is that true?
The “average across presidencies” is really not useful information at all, because most of the important information is lost, namely: Was unemployment increasing or decreasing?
I’m going to assume that a person with any amount of intelligence in their brain thinks that that’s the most important data point, because it fucking is. Forgive me if that’s a bad assumption.
President Truman, Democratic party: (1945-1953)
There was an unemployment spike, but then rates fell below where they started. Close to 2.5%. And he didn’t have a comfortable ride, the postwar period was a period when millions of Americans were re-entering the labor force after fighting World War 2. That unemployment spike was therefore completely expected, and had absolutely zero to do with anti-growth policies. It takes a little while to reintegrate that many people into an economy where their jobs were taken over by the women who didn’t go to war. Notice how quickly that spike began to decline as well. Seems like a Democrat in those days could handle jobs and the economy.
Unemployment peaked just before 1950 due to the postwar reintegration of labor.
Let’s compare that with another chart that shows where the minimum wage was.
Check the years 1945 until 1953, in the links I provided you from the neutral source. Compare the information between the two links.
Year / Min wage actual / Min wage adjusted for inflation.
1945 $0.40 $5.00
1946 $0.40 $4.62
1947 $0.40 $4.02
1948 $0.40 $3.74
1949 $0.40 $3.77 <------------PEAK OF UNEMPLOYMENT 1950 $0.75 $7.01 <------Unemployment went down. 1951 $0.75 $6.50 [SIZE=4]<------Unemployment went down. 1952 $0.75 $6.35 [/SIZE][SIZE=4][SIZE=4]<------Unemployment went down. [/SIZE]1953 $0.75 $6.31 [/SIZE][SIZE=4]<------Unemployment went down.[/SIZE]
**Look how the minimum wage almost DOUBLED in 1950. During the PEAK OF UNEMPLOYMENT due to the postwar period. Guess what happened to the overall unemployment rate, after that MASSIVE INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE, unemployment decreased substantially, for YEARS, flying in the face of everything Forbes magazine has to say about supply and demand, and “prices” as opposed to wages, since they have no idea what those words mean and have no idea how an economy actually works, despite repeating stuff they remember from day one of economics class.
**I’m betting they stopped paying attention after the first day, because apparently, the only thing they remember is that, in general, if prices go up, demand is reduced. And then they’re forgetting that prices have been going up, but wages have not kept up with prices. Which would seem to be lesson number 2, but they couldn’t pay attention long enough. All they heard was "prices reduce demand, got it. I am going to misapply that to wages while the economy is booming, and prices are going way up due to the prosperous nature of the country, leading to what should be an increased demand for labor, which should increase prices of labor… except businesses are conspiring against the marketplace to keep wages stagnant by agreeing not to compete with one another for labor, which flies in the face of everything that resembles a free market economy. Huh, guess *that *story will never appear on Forbes.
Look how the minimum wage had remained stagnant from 1945 until 1949. I’m even going to spot you the postwar period, I am not chalking unemployment spiking due to the stagnant wage. What I can point to is the value of that wage declining steadily over time.
The value of the wage declining steadily over time.
When prices increase, and the wage does not, the wage needs to be artificially increased, because businesses will refuse to share the prosperity. They’re greedy, they’ll keep it, and they wield more power than the worker does, both politically and in the negotiation process. Businesses need to be told to raise the price of labor, otherwise, the working class ceases to be able to pay their bills. Not because they’re lazy or unskilled or inexperienced, but because there’s a fundamentally unequal partnership between the worker and the business. The business can release the worker for any reason or no reason, and the worker needs a job or the worker cannot eat. The business needs labor, but doesn’t necessarily need a specific person to do the labor, whereas the worker needs a job. Maybe not that specific job, but they absolutely have to go for whatever work is available.
That idea, that if we only enacted “pro-growth” policies like leaving the minimum wage alone, or reducing taxes, the economy would boom and no one would even be earning the minimum wage, is and always has been bullshit. Every time the minimum wage has remained stagnant, there was no economic boom. Keeping the wages as low as possible results in sluggish growth or no growth, whereas rising wages helps everyone.
This isn’t even the unemployment rate for people with the least income, this is the *overall *rate. Higher wages helps EVERYONE.
Dwight D Eisenhower, Republican Party (1953-1961)
“Eisenhower inherited low unemployment rates when he took office, but they rose sharply with the recession of 1953. They recovered somewhat during the mid-1950s but climbed rapidly again in the recession of 1958. They dropped somewhat before climbing even higher at the end of his presidency in the recession of 1960-61.
When Eisenhower left office, unemployment rates were much higher (6.6 percent) than they were when he first moved into the Oval Office (2.6 percent).”
Year / Min wage actual / Min wage adjusted for inflation.
1954 $0.75 $6.28
1955 $0.75 $6.31
1956 $1.00 $8.29
1957 $1.00 $7.99
1958 $1.00 $7.77
1959 $1.00 $7.72
1960 $1.00 $7.59
1961 $1.15 $8.64
Remember, the wage hadn’t changed since 1950. Although Truman managed to double the minimum wage approximately, there were no further increases.
So the pro-growth policy of stagnant wages should be seen here. Instead, there’s a recession. Then the wage is increased by a quarter, during a recession, and the recession stalls, and the unemployment rate went down.
Check both links for those years. This is not my data. This is the data we’re all supposed to be using in this argument. It took me five fucking seconds to google it.
Question: When did the unemployment rate spike?
Answer: After the wage had been stagnant for five years and it had lost about 1/7th of its value, decreasing in value every year.
Question: When did the unemployment rate drop?
Answer: After the wage increased by 1/4th.
There was another recession, and wages were increased by 15%. These recessions were not triggered by a wage increase. Each wage increase led to years of prosperity. Eisenhower did have his own postwar period to deal with, the Korean war. In terms of Republicans, Eisenhower was one of our greatest presidents, because he invested in the highway system, and that would end up helping us immensely in the long term. This federal-level stimulus of our economy for the good of the nation in terms of public works projects is not what you find in the modern Republican party, because their solution is to cut spending on things like this. If it’s not money for tanks and fighter jets no one uses being built in their state, they’re not interested.
The wage did go up under Eisenhower, and the value of the wage even went up, because he was an amazing president and actually helped plan our economy with the highway system.
However, for our discussion: the wage went up only once between 1950 and 1960, which is a long period, and the unemployment rate spiked twice. And the unemployment rate went down after the increase.
John F Kennedy, Democratic Party (1961-1963)
This was a short period of time for obvious reasons. Unemployment went down slightly. Beginning at over 7, ending under 6 percent. The wage went up, and the value of the wage went up.
President Johnson, Democratic Party (1963-1969)
“The unemployment rate trends of LBJ and Clinton are the only two since World War II that feature a steady decline and don’t feature an uptick. The unemployment rate at the end of Johnson’s presidency (3.4 percent) was considerably less than when his presidency started (5.5 percent). The period also coincided with a spike in government hiring with the Vietnam War abroad and massive new government initiatives at home like the War on Poverty, Medicare, and Medicaid. Johnson’s presidency also saw a long period without recession.”
Look at the booming economy. Look at the lack of a recession. Look at unemployment rates falling. Look at massive increases in government spending, and liberal policies like the ones mentioned above. Seems like a ton of centralized planning of the economy in favor of the worker’s need, and focus on the demand-side. Everything is going swimmingly.
Wages were stagnant for years, and the value of the dollar declined by quite a bit, knocking away quite a bit of value, only to be responded to after the recession hit in 1973.
Years of stagnant wages. Recession hits. Unemployment spikes. Each time, the crisis is averted, at least in part, by RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE.
Stagnant wages were not good for growth, and were not good for employment, and did not result in an economic boom.
Do your eyes deceive you, or is the non-partisan data lying to you? I didn’t alter the data. Read it for yourself.
What about my conclusions? Are they wrong? They’re on far more solid ground than anything you’ll ever read on Forbes where they talk about how raising the minimum wage causes unemployment to rise significantly, since that’s contradicted by the data.
President Gerald Ford, Republican. (1974-1977)
Another recession. Unemployment went up. Minimum wage increased, slightly, and then the unemployment rate stopped going up and went back down. But the economy is so bad that the value of those wages are decreasing, not increasing. Nixon and Ford were both terrible for our economy. Wages are dropping faster in value than the minimum wage is keeping up with the rising of prices, and the growth of the wage is anemic. Remember when the wage was doubling or increasing by 1/4? Now we’re raising the wage by under 1/10th in response to multiple recessions and high inflation. We’re not keeping up.
President Jimmy Carter, Democratic party, also known as the massive failure. (1977-1981)
Slowly improving unemployment rate, which got squashed due to the energy crisis (the huge spike in imported oil prices, something that’s a bit *outside *of his direct control, since he’s not the president of OPEC.) In any case, the unemployment rate ended up back where it started, despite that huge issue.
And the minimum wage increased many times under Carter, and in each case, the unemployment rate went down, until the price of oil spiked and that hurt our economy. And even then, unemployment didn’t rise under the Carter administration. And the scramble with the minimum wage to keep up with inflation meant that wages only slightly declined in value, $8.54 to $8.29, despite the economy struggling to improve. Which it did, it did in fact improve, after two inept Republican administrations and shocking spikes in unemployment and the wage losing its value considerably. It did improve, until the oil crisis. And the unemployment rate went down even with these multiple increases to the minimum wage, until the oil crisis. These are the facts, and the relevant ones for this discussion as well.
And now we have daddy Reagan. I’ve been looking forward to this.
Ronald Reagan, Republican, (1981-1989)
Don’t let the chart fool you. That’s a significant rise in unemployment, to nearly 11 percent.
Ronald Reagan’s policies during that massive unemployment spike: Supply-side economics in all its glory.
Massively reducing taxes (1981) to try to get more in taxes with a hugely reduced percentage rate (this was a massive failure, our national debt and deficit exploded during this period). Trying to get us back on the gold standard (lol). His jobs program in 1982 was a response to unemployment peaking at 11 percent.
So the first 2 years were his Laffer curve idea (now shown to be *highly *inaccurate when the tax rate is under 80% according to the CBO), massive debt and budget deficits, and supply-side theory causing unprecedented unemployment.
So, what turned things around?
1982 $3.35 $7.82 <—stagnant wage, massive unprecedented unemployment
1983 $3.35 $7.59 <—stagnant wage, massive unprecedented unemployment
1984 $3.35 $7.34 <—EITC, now the poorest don’t pay income tax
1985 $3.35 $7.09 (effectively giving them a raise, but making the gov’t pay for it)
1986 $3.35 $6.98 <—unemployment in decline
1987 $3.35 $6.74 <—unemployment rates reach where Reagan STARTED.
1988 $3.35 $6.48 <—slight improvement over where he started.
1989 $3.35 $6.18 <—slight improvement over where he started. But now, unemployment will rise again. See: Bush, continuing Reagan’s policies.
It wasn’t raising the minimum wage, and incomes fell significantly under Ronald Reagan. What did help, was Reagan reduced the income tax burden of the poor, although he increased the tax rate, he ended up fully or mostly exempting a lot of people with the earned income tax credit.
This is a solution which ends up putting more money in the hands of the poor. So although wages and the value of those wages didn’t rise, or severely decreased under Reagan, he ended up effectively raising the amount of money that the poor took home by essentially giving them a 15% increase in income, by exempting them.
He ended up deficit spending and increasing the national debt and deficits as a percentage of the GDP, and ended up increasing taxes as a percentage of the GDP in a single tax increase that he ended up being forced to pass to undo the damage he did, that was bigger than anything Bill Clinton passed.
“According to Paul Krugman, “Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of GDP, the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton’s 1993 tax increase.”[166] According to historian and domestic policy adviser Bruce Bartlett, Reagan’s tax increases over the course of his presidency took back half of the 1981 tax cut.[167]”
He lowered taxes to unsustainable levels, debt shot up massively, and he had to continually increase taxes throughout the rest of his presidency. Basically, he continued to fund the government the George W Bush way, by putting it all on a credit card. So, he had lower taxes and continued to fund the critical entitlement programs. And he hurt the poorest people who were not employed, not reflected in these graphs, by slashing all kinds of anti-poverty programs. And an aging generation went out of the work force and into retirement, ending up on social security, and therefore, lowering the unemployment rate.
Notice how Reagan’s policies are hailed as a success story, but look at where he started and where he ended up. Look at the unemployment rate graph. Between 1981 and 1987, Reagan’s policies only caused a huge spike in unemployment that took the better part of the decade to recover from. And that recovery took the form of partly undoing those unsustainable tax reductions, deficit spending, and effectively giving the poorest tax bracket a raise without giving them a raise, by declaring that they didn’t have to pay taxes.
So, he stole from future generations and used federal money to give the poor a huge raise, and put it all on a credit card for future presidents and the children of those poor to have to pay off.
That’s why I’m not a fan of the EITC as opposed to raising the wage. You get a similar effect, but you’re centrally planning the economy by funding the lowest income earners directly, by taking them off of the portion of the population that pays income taxes, and then turning around and subsidizing low-wage employers with food stamps. That’s not sustainable, it creates huge deficit problems, creates more dependency on the federal government (which goes against the whole “shrinking the size of the government” idea) and gives more power to employers to keep wages depressed even when the economy calls for higher wages, and prices are causing the value of wages to deflate.
A loooooong overdue wage increase helped put things better than where he started in terms of real income, slightly, however, wages had only increased by 45 cents after 10 years of stagnation, and the value of the wage is still about 25% less than the value it had when Carter had given the poor their last actual increase in wages. And unemployment rates were going up, until the increase, and then it leveled off again. This wage increase didn’t even touch the amount of money the poor ended up losing in that decade, and deficit spending continued. This system is not sustainable. Not for the poor, and not for the government. But the rich made out like robber barons, like they always do under Republicans. Trickle-down economics didn’t cause prosperity to trickle down. It just caused massive deficits and the same unemployment levels as the oil crisis.
Unemployment is now **higher **than it was when Reagan first took office. **50% higher **than where Bush started. And all Bush did was continue Reagan’s policies. With the exception of actually paying for his war, which was the one thing he did right. Plus he kept wages near where he started, but not enough to undo Reagan’s damage.
So this is your big supply-side success story? Unemployment is up. Deficit spending is out of control. Taxes are being forced to increase, there’s literally no choice. Bush campaigned on “read my lips, no new taxes” and was forced to go against that policy when it proved unrealistic. We also fought a war, intelligently, might I add, and we raised taxes to pay for that. But wages are not keeping up with prices. Real wages for the poor are 75% of what they were under Carter.
So if Carter sucks, Reagan and Bush suck worse than Carter. And they ended up putting the unemployment rate right where it was at the start of the oil crisis. In other words, the economy is now terrible after 3 Republican terms and Republican controlled Congresses, and real wages are lower than they were under Carter, who is widely seen as a terrible president. Meanwhile, the debt and deficits are out of control, and they were NOT under Carter. Carter wasn’t great, but he was better than the champions of supply side economics. Much better. And that’s sad, since today’s Republicans worship Reagan, and no liberal worships Carter. I guess we have standards.
Clinton (1993-2000)
What did Clinton do? He raised taxes and wages, multiple times.
Real wages end up higher than where they were. Unemployment goes down every single year of Clinton’s two terms. And the federal deficit is wiped out, and is now making positive numbers.
He completely undid the damage that Reagan and Bush did to our government, and partly eliminated the damage they did to the incomes of the poor, and the economy was booming, and everyone did well, rich and poor alike, and Clinton passed several tax increases.
Gosh, higher taxes and higher wages** didn’t cause the economy to collapse.
** George W Bush, Republican (2001-2008)
2001 $5.15 $6.72
2002 $5.15 $6.62
2003 $5.15 $6.48
2004 $5.15 $6.31
2005 $5.15 $6.10
2006 $5.15 $5.91 <----Stagnant wages for a decade. Real wages are at a record low. Economy begins to tank. Democrats sweep into the Congress and control both houses.
2007 $5.85 $6.53 <----economy is tanking, long overdue wage increase finally enacted.
2008 $6.55 $7.02 <----economy is really tanking, but now wages are actually above where Bush started, for the first time in his presidency.
I’m giving him a pass for the unemployment spike after Sept. 11th. It should be noted that George W. Bush continued the lower taxes and deficit spending policies of Ronald Reagan, and while this kind of sandbagging helped the economy recover (using the magic of big government, without having to pay the magician anything…) real wages dropped significantly.
Wages were now worth less than at any time in modern history, including Carter, Reagan, and Bush senior. Under George W Bush, a decade of stagnant wages causes them to be worth *less *than where they started before Truman raised the income, and now quite a far cry from where they were under Johnson. All of the gains that happened under every progressive president have been utterly wiped out by Bush’s economy. And while he spent like a drunken sailor, wages were stagnant, and prices continued to skyrocket, the value of the dollar tanked, and the poor suffered incredibly.
Oh, unemployment is about to hit 10%, by the way.
Now we’re ready to see what happens when the economy tanks and the minimum wage keeps up with prices.
Barack Obama, Democratic party (2008-present)
Now that the Democratic party is in control of both chambers of congress and the white house, and the minimum wage increased massively under the Democratic controlled congress, we get to see what happens to unemployment.
10% to 5%.
Unemployment has been cut in half.
Wages have increased significantly since the days of $5.15. They rose to $6.55, then $7.25, which are significant increases, huge ones, not seen since the most progressive presidents in history took office, and many Democratic states are enacting higher wages than that, since Republicans have stopped further wage increases.
Red is job losses under the Bush economy. Blue is a reduction in the rate of job loss, until it becomes nothing but job gains, under the Obama economy, and Democrats being in control of Congress for half of that period, the period of dramatic recovery.
Growth has been stable since then, with Obama able to veto Republican ideas, but no further gains have been made, since Obama isn’t in control of Congress.
Obama is probably the greatest success story in the shortest period of time while inheriting the worst recession on record since Reaganomics caused a complete disaster between 1981 and 1983, and didn’t recover completely until 1987, where it was temporarily slightly better for two years, then got worse than where Reagan started under George H W Bush. The economy boomed under Clinton, with higher wages and taxes, and then tanked again under George W Bush, with lower taxes, higher deficits, higher unemployment, and stagnant minimum wages, and severely dropping real wages.
Things turned around markedly under Obama.
Progressive policies cure Republican recessions. Supply-side economics and lower taxes and stagnant wages do not cause sustained job growth. Reaganomics is a myth, after years of unsustainable spending and suddenly exempting the poor from paying taxes, the economy recovered, then tanked again, and the country was worse off than when it started.
But all that aside:
The minimum wage increasing* doesn’t *cause unemployment to rise. It causes unemployment to fall. Stagnant wages leads directly to recessions, unless extraordinary measures which are completely unsustainable (giving the poor 100% of their taxes back, crippling us with deficits, and by the way, real wages always fell under Republican presidents, and stagnant wages always made people poorer. Stagnant wages are not sustainable because prices will rise and wages will stay the same. It’s always been the case.
The bottom line is that history shows that a rising wage is the solution, not the cause for, a bad economy. And that stagnant wages and rising prices ALWAYS leads to another recession, while rising wages, keeping up with prices and inflation, leads to economic prosperity, every single time, with the single exception of the oil crisis, which is an outside-of-the-US factor that Carter wasn’t responsible for and couldn’t control.
That’s what the data shows. Now read these articles by Forbes idiots.
Tim Worstall believes if you can collect enough cans, poverty isn’t real. This article is truly appalling and disgusting on a level I can’t begin to articulate right now, because the nausea is literally real. He is getting trashed in the comments for good reason. I’ll argue a substantive point later, busy for most of the day.
CEO of Hardee’s, a major minimum wage employer, concern trolls his employees wit the idea that higher wages will lead to unemployment, and he’s a completely objective source and has no possible motive to lie to them about it. He’s not their adversary at the negotiating table or anything.
I’m getting my Norwegian licence, so feel free to check out the two bottom links even if you didn’t read the correlation between wages and prosperity which I have exhaustively demonstrated.
I’ll return to throw tomatoes at Tim the Worst and Andrew the Putz when I have time.
Did research and the minimum wage at the McDonald’s for entry level positions here, absolute minimum, is 156 Norwegian Kroner per hour. With the exchange rate of 8 kroner to 1 dollar, but with the difference in prices (purchasing power), that is the equivalent of 15 dollars per hour in wages. Because of the slightly higher prices than direct dollar to kroner conversion, think of the kroner as being worth 1/10th of a dollar instead of 1/8th. For international trade, a dollar to 8 Kroners makes sense, within the country, however, a dollar to 10 kroners is more reasonable.
The prices: for the two value meals, totaling to 200 kroner for both meals, taxes included. These were not with small fries or small sodas. A comparable meal in the United States would be around 7 dollars, tax included. Just the burger would be the equivalent of 4 dollars before taxes in the US, and it’s over 6 dollars as a meal, before taxes. I regularly purchased 2 value meals at McDonald’s, Burger King, or Wendy’s in the states, you’re spending about 15 dollars, depending on what you get.
So, in the states, $15 for the two meals, with a minimum wage of under 8 dollars. In Norway, the price of the two meals would be about 200 Norwegian Kroner, which works out to about $20 in American dollars. But the minimum wage is 156 Kroner just to start with, which is about $15.60, at McDonald’s.
That’s a 25% increase in prices, and a 100% increase in wages.
Which is what I’ve been saying… since this thread began… months ago.
McDonald’s is one of the largest fast food employers in Norway and you can find them with the same relative frequency as the United States. They are a very profitable enterprise and employ lots of people here, and the unemployment rate in Norway is lower than in the states.
The United States could do exactly what Norway does. Math is math. The only reason why they don’t do that is because of supply-side politics.
The direct conversion from NOK to USD would make that closer to $19.50.
Were I to work here and generate enormous savings, then move to the United States with those savings, I could access the better conversion rate of 1 USD per 8 NOK. In my argument, I adjusted it to the more realistic inside-the-country rate of 1 USD to 10 NOK, which is a fact I’m aware of which negatively impacts my position more than revealing only the half-truth of the direct conversion rate working out to 19.50 per hour.
Such bits of integrity in MY argument are completely missing from my opponent’s position, if they have one other than “dis is dum, herp derp, sig it”
It will happen with or without your involvement. History shows that wages will rise again, and that current wages are unsustainable.
What you want and what will happen are two different things. The debate is essentially about how much and how rapidly to increase the minimum wage, but make no mistake: It will increase.
Let me ask you a direct question: Do you believe the minimum wage has any chance at all of actually remaining below 8 dollars in perpetuity, when inflation is a thing and the costs of living actually do rise?
It’s a very simple question.
If you actually believe that it’s possible for it to remain as it is forever, you should back that up with an argument as to how that’s feasible. The minimum wage has been increasing since it came into existence, and it will continue to do so as long as prices and cost of living also rises. If you have a method of keeping it where it is forever, please demonstrate it.
If you believe it is going to rise eventually, then you simply disagree about how much it should rise or how fast. That’s a technical discussion and reasonable people can disagree.
However, I’m not sure you’re here for a reasonable disagreement, based on how you began responding in this thread and continued to.
If you’re actually here to refute what I’m saying, with reasoning, prove me wrong by demonstration.
If you can’t be bothered, that’s also fine, but it means you’re only interested in naysaying, but you don’t have any kind of sustainable policy position that you can defend.
Which is the case? Your posts determine which, not mine.
It’s more practical to compare between developed countries, because the comparisons are realistic.
For bonus points, here’s another, easier question, and it might even be in the wheelhouse of the opposition to federal minimum wage increases-
Do you think the states should price the minimum wage in their state according to the costs of living in that state, based on a single nationwide percentage standard?
Example of what I’m talking about: If the cheapest non-rent-controlled apartments in the state are 500 dollars a month for a studio apartment, obviously that means that the minimum wage shouldn’t be set at 4 dollars an hour, because even with full time employment that leaves you with just over a hundred dollars in your pocket for food for the entire month.
There’s a whole world of political disagreement possible between reasonable persons, however, the opponents in this debate have essentially said no minimum wage increase at all, and that those who work for the minimum wage are all idiots. That’s neither accurate, nor a sustainable policy position.
If people came up with one, they could post it here. Otherwise, the only reasonable position given so far is my own, and like it or not, the policies I’m talking about will be enacted. It’s just a matter of when and how much.
You cannot actually win the debate with no actual policy position and no chance of your politics ever winning in the long term.
I’m gonna clue people in on what doesn’t work here:
I don’t care
I don’t care that you don’t care. Plus, you’re lying, since you keep posting in this thread.
Suggesting that someone’s income level directly correlates with their skills, worth, or education level. It demonstrably does not. Calling them idiots doesn’t win elections and is not a policy position.
That* has* been used to justify your position, phrased as they’re getting paid so low because that’s what they’re worth. Except what they’re getting paid in other countries is much higher, so therefore, by your logic, people in Norway are smarter and more skilled than you. In such a case, you should defer to my obvious expertise.
You’re a pizza guy.
And you’re losing to a pizza guy.
The policies I’m talking about are going to be enacted on the federal level when the Democrats win and they’re winning.
They’re being implemented in states where Democrats already control the government.
Those states are winning in the marketplace due to demand, population, median income, higher education levels, by pretty much any metric. Otherwise New York, Oregon, Washington state, DC, and California would be ghost towns with uneducated redneck populations and shrinking economies, and they’re not.
In this thread itself, I have defensible and articulated policy positions, and my opponents have said “nuh uh” or ignored them or said tl,dr. They have not demonstrated any policy position that is sustainable or argued how it’s workable. You can’t gloss over that.
In no way are the opponents of the minimum wage increasing winning this debate, politically, economically, or in this thread.
You could do one of those three and all it takes is putting your fingers on the keyboard and saying something intelligent. You have the floor, for all my walls of text, I can’t actually stop people from posting. Show me.
I looked for the least partisan and most recent poll I could find on the minimum wage.
I’m going with Gallup for 2013, as one example.
There are other, more recent, and more partisan polls found on liberal publications like the Huffington Post. I have excluded liberal stronghold publications as my sources for data points for this entire debate, that I can recall.
We could also go with the Christian Science Monitor, not exactly a lefty organization.
Note how that’s a survey of employers, not employees. The article is from 2015.
Pew Research. 2014
Where the idea fails to be popular: When it’s suggested that the minimum wage should be 15. For 12 or 10, it’s much more popular.
But then, we haven’t really had a national discussion on why 15, or how it’s feasible, or had any real media coverage for the position of 15.
People are against things until they’re not. Gay marriage legality is an example. Abortion legality is another. And the population is becoming more progressive, not less, on social and economic issues. We almost had a socialist candidate for President this year, and it’s not because he was selected by party insiders with no popular support. It’s because his message is getting even more popular. He pushed Hillary Clinton to the left on wage issues. Once Democrats saw how popular it was, it became their platform.
You’re going to lose on denying 10 dollars. You’ll probably lose on denying 12 dollars. It’s only a matter of time before you lose on denying 15 dollars. As the elder generations die off and millennials become the elder generation, the only people who will be seen as idiots are the ones who tried to stop the tide from coming in, not realizing it was unworkable and impossible.
“Sixty-nine percent were in favor of increasing it to $9 per hour with automatic increases tied to the inflation rate, to prevent the raise from slipping over time.”
Unless that kind of massive public support for both an increased minimum wage plus perpetual increases tied to inflation ever goes down to below a majority again, and you’d be a fool to think that’s likely, this debate has been utterly and decisively lost by the professional opponents of the minimum wage, and the amateurs in this thread.
It would seem that the opponents of raising the wage have to actually win over the proponents of a wage increase, not the other way around.
I’d be interested to see literally any of you try it.
To their credit, Tim the Worst and his cohorts have tried and they’re failing miserably. They’re getting wrecked here and in the political arena. And for all the bogusness of their arguments and the ease in demolishing them, they are putting up more of a fight than their amateur counterparts here.
