Michigan considers $10 minimum wage

[New Rogernomics]

Oh dear, another Reaganomics and Thatchernomics fan:
http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publicati ... 013-02.pdf

IIRC, Reagan actually raised the national minimum wage (The effects of which on employment were offset by inflation during the Reagan years, lowering the actual purchasing power/value of the minimum wage increase).

In any case, here's a brief review of the CEPR report you posted. Murphy concludes that, on the contrary, the minimum wage does have a negative effect on employment.

It's also just ridiculous to believe otherwise if you've ever studied economics. Demand curves are downward sloping - the entire logic underpinning all of modern economics isn't overturned by a couple of flawed, narrow studies by Krueger and the CEPR. Here's a pretty good article refuting the empirical/positivist arguments for the minimum wage.

Note that both of my articles are well-qualified (both have degrees - Caplan's a Ph.D., and I believe Murphy has one too - in economics, are/were professors of economics, etc.), so I'm not just citing some libertarian blogger on the matter (that is to say, these articles are worth your reading).

Reagan did a rather poor job of managing inflation, whereas Australia and New Zealand did quite well without the negative effects of high inflation; even drastically decreasing unemployment with regular minimum wage increases gradually introduced (rather than all at once).

[Frisivisia]

It didn't solve the Great Depression, though.

It did alleviate the high unemployment rates and did improve the economy, but really WWII was what was needed to solve the Depression. Mr. New Deal simply wasn't large enough in scope (and no one was willing to make it large enough in scope) to solve the depression. Mr. Win the War, however...

The difference between the New Deal and WW2 is one was a government plan and one was a actual conflict that spontaneously created jobs.

They both created jobs. Spending is equivalent to jobs.

[The New Sea Territory]

The New Deal actually did do a lot for the economy.

Yes. It dumped milk down the drain, burned farmland, and killed and left cows to rot whilst the poor waited in lines at soup kitchens.

Socialism: Making everyone equally poor since 1848.

[Imperiatom]

Don't blame Reagan he is my favorite politician after Thatcher .

You should see our country (UK) after 13 years of socialist mismanagement. Poor are now reliant on government handouts and the middle classes are being pushed closer to the lower end of the middle class. Whilst we the rich have never had it so good since before 1900.

It's more or less the same here across the pond, except there are not real left wing parties, and nobody will talk about the wealth divide because it's considered un-American or something. You have no idea how utterly stupid at-least half of my country men are.
Also, the temporary welfare state has been all but wiped out, leaving mainly disability which is meant to be a permanent solution to attempt to take care of the masses. That is actually Clinton's fault.

Higher taxes are the reason it has become worse here, Has made it more attractive to evade tax by legal means for the rich. Our current government is doing their best with increasing the income tax threshold and reducing the top rate, and business rates. My fear is one, given the state of the world economy it is too late. And two those socialists will get back in power make tax avoidance more attractive again, and stealth tax the fuck out of the bottom 75% of earners as they don't have the means of protecting their money as the rich can. ( free advice for anyone listening, never invest in France as they tax all foreign investments)

[Agymnum]

It didn't solve the Great Depression, though.

It did alleviate the high unemployment rates and did improve the economy, but really WWII was what was needed to solve the Depression. Mr. New Deal simply wasn't large enough in scope (and no one was willing to make it large enough in scope) to solve the depression. Mr. Win the War, however...

The difference between the New Deal and WW2 is one was a government plan and one was a actual conflict that spontaneously created jobs.

Both resulted in higher government spending and both reduced unemployment.

One merely had more death than the other. You clearly do not understand the New Deal if you're spouting bullshit like that.

[Playhouse Square]

i'll give up my food stamps and go back to work when it's $25/hr

[Occupied Deutschland]

Here's what happened: No one had jobs. War happened. Sudden need for jobs fixes unemployment. Simple.

Interestingly enough, dying in combat, death by firing squad, and Bubonic plague also all seems to have positive effects on unemployment.

Draft everyone into the army! It'll solve the employment crisis and give everyone disposable income and basic necessities!

[The New Sea Territory]

The difference between the New Deal and WW2 is one was a government plan and one was a actual conflict that spontaneously created jobs.

They both created jobs. Spending is equivalent to jobs.

Yes. One created a bunch of federal jobs that did nothing productive, and were paid printed money, while the other fought a war and basically revived the domestic industries.

[Welstonia (Ancient)]

It didn't solve the Great Depression, though.

It did alleviate the high unemployment rates and did improve the economy, but really WWII was what was needed to solve the Depression. Mr. New Deal simply wasn't large enough in scope (and no one was willing to make it large enough in scope) to solve the depression. Mr. Win the War, however...

The difference between the New Deal and WW2 is one was a government plan and one was a actual conflict that spontaneously created jobs.

They actually both function in the same way. There is not a whole lot of difference except for the fact the people died in WW2 and it was forced spending so to speak.

[Cannot think of a name]

Seeing as after discussing this policy at length with my peers, (Many of whose fathers own businesses) They would do a similar thing in the same circumstances. Of course we are a small minority in population terms but given that this small minority owns a large majority of private businesses i think it becomes rather more important. The trouble is most of them, me included would in the public domain cite reasons such as increasing material/stock costs as the reason for the price increase. This is much more acceptable to the world at large. Most people believe this whether it is the case or not, especially as given that our business is not a publicly traded enterprise our accounts don't have to be made public, knowbody can find out the truth anyway.


Edit: it could also be the truth if our suppliers put up their prices due to the wage increase.

What is it with you and bragging about how wealthy your father is? Are you Draco Malfoy?

It's part of why I'm inclined to believe him (aside from all of his bravado being completely and totally irrelevant), if you were going to make shit up you'd at least pretend to be self made or something instead of just handed the business and then acting entitled.

But, it still just doesn't matter. It doesn't. All the stories about his prep school friends and his weird fantasies about what he would do...none of it matters because we have studies that show that he doesn't, that most businesses do not behave like him, that employment increases and the inflationary effects are barely perceptible if at all. We can take his word for it all day long, he's in so much of a minority that he doesn't even slow down the train.

The fact that the only response he ever has to this shit is to brag some more like this time it might be convincing is an ever growing pile of evidence that he's got nuthin'.

[Agymnum]

They both created jobs. Spending is equivalent to jobs.

Yes. One created a bunch of federal jobs that did nothing productive, and were paid printed money, while the other fought a war and basically revived the domestic industries.

So public works like the TVA and the construction of hospitals, schools, and airports are "nothing productive".

Please, tell me more about how you are SO knowledgeable about the New Deal.

[The New Sea Territory]

Interestingly enough, dying in combat, death by firing squad, and Bubonic plague also all seems to have positive effects on unemployment.

Draft everyone into the army! It'll solve the employment crisis and give everyone disposable income and basic necessities!

F-ck No.

I'll sign up to fight for real liberty, thank you.

[Sibirsky]

Yeah! Good on you that the economic state of America is ONCE AGAIN f-cking itself! Good on you that all small businesses will be thrown out the window! Good on you that socialism creates what it seeks to destroy: serious income inequality! Good on your for corporate partnering! Good on you for ignoring all economics in favor of equality! Good on you for hatred of rich people!

It's too much to ask for workers to get $3.00 more?

Really? Is this what we're down to?

If leftists such as myself had our way, we'd force a $15 - $25 minimum wage and you'd deal with it. Be glad $10 is all they're asking for.

Why do you hate the poor?

You are hurting those worst off.

[Frisivisia]

Maybe in theory, but empirical evidence shows that higher minimum wages do not increase unemployment and may very well lower unemployment.

Numbers? Proofs?

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/5412

Enough? Want more? I have more.

[Imperiatom]

Your probably looking at 25 being ideal.

The ideal minimum wage is $0.

I second that!

[Agymnum]

It's too much to ask for workers to get $3.00 more?

Really? Is this what we're down to?

If leftists such as myself had our way, we'd force a $15 - $25 minimum wage and you'd deal with it. Be glad $10 is all they're asking for.

Why do you hate the poor?

You are hurting those worst off.

How am I hurting them?

I never said I wouldn't put price caps. I'm not stupid enough to just raise wages and let inflation happen.

[Frisivisia]

Interestingly enough, dying in combat, death by firing squad, and Bubonic plague also all seems to have positive effects on unemployment.

Draft everyone into the army! It'll solve the employment crisis and give everyone disposable income and basic necessities!

#NorthKoreaYOLOSWAG

[Agymnum]

Draft everyone into the army! It'll solve the employment crisis and give everyone disposable income and basic necessities!

F-ck No.

I'll sign up to fight for real liberty, thank you.

So all those men who fought in WWII weren't fighting for "real liberty"?

Gee whiz, you sure seem like a bright young fella.

[The New Sea Territory]

Yes. One created a bunch of federal jobs that did nothing productive, and were paid printed money, while the other fought a war and basically revived the domestic industries.

So public works like the TVA and the construction of hospitals, schools, and airports are "nothing productive".

Please, tell me more about how you are SO knowledgeable about the New Deal.

Constructions that did nothing to big. Seriously, they were filler jobs. They just paid people little money for meaningless jobs doing labor. They didn't stimulate anything. WW2 did the stimulating.

[Sibirsky]

FDR would never have gotten this country on it's feet. Only WW2 did that, and he never wanted to fight until Japan attacked us. So, in an akward way, we should thank imperialists...for attacking us.

What did WWII do?

Increase government spending.

What did the New Deal do?

Increase government spending.

Why did one work and the other didn't?

Because we spent a SHITLOAD more money on WWII than we did on the New Deal.

The principle is sound.

It only worked to reduce unemployment, nothing more.

[New Rogernomics]

Interestingly enough, dying in combat, death by firing squad, and Bubonic plague also all seems to have positive effects on unemployment.

Draft everyone into the army! It'll solve the employment crisis and give everyone disposable income and basic necessities!

An economic [system] can only support so much taxation and public spending.

[Imperiatom]

The ideal minimum wage is $0.

Because fuck protecting workers, am I right?

Minimum wage does not protect workers, it is an illusion spewed by the left to to make you think you are better off.

[Agymnum]

It only worked to reduce unemployment, nothing more.

Because reducing unemployment is SO BAD, am I right?

Let those worthless bastards rot in the street!

[Welstonia (Ancient)]

It's more or less the same here across the pond, except there are not real left wing parties, and nobody will talk about the wealth divide because it's considered un-American or something. You have no idea how utterly stupid at-least half of my country men are.
Also, the temporary welfare state has been all but wiped out, leaving mainly disability which is meant to be a permanent solution to attempt to take care of the masses. That is actually Clinton's fault.

Higher taxes are the reason it has become worse here, Has made it more attractive to evade tax by legal means for the rich. Our current government is doing their best with increasing the income tax threshold and reducing the top rate, and business rates. My fear is one, given the state of the world economy it is too late. And two those socialists will get back in power make tax avoidance more attractive again, and stealth tax the fuck out of the bottom 75% of earners as they don't have the means of protecting their money as the rich can. ( free advice for anyone listening, never invest in France as they tax all foreign investments)

Tax rates for the wealthy have fallen drastically for the wealthy here. Taxes are not the problem, at least not here. It's privatization and "free trade"

[Frisivisia]

So public works like the TVA and the construction of hospitals, schools, and airports are "nothing productive".

Please, tell me more about how you are SO knowledgeable about the New Deal.

Constructions that did nothing to big. Seriously, they were filler jobs. They just paid people little money for meaningless jobs doing labor. They didn't stimulate anything. WW2 did the stimulating.

The New Deal employed people. Employing people means they have money to spend, money that they need to spend. Spending money IS STIMULATION.