As for ObamaCare, it is more about the system that existed before. It will be years before there is any determination as to the effectiveness of the changes. The sole factor will be if unpaid medical expenses were reduced.
I realize that anyone who would not share your view must be biased.
I don't read your cut and paste threads. Just as reading your posts, there is nothing I can learn from you.
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
As for ObamaCare, it is more about the system that existed before. It will be years before there is any determination as to the effectiveness of the changes. The sole factor will be if unpaid medical expenses were reduced.
I realize that anyone who would not share your view must be biased.
I don't read your cut and paste threads. Just as reading your posts, there is nothing I can learn from you.
I should qualify that; there is actually plenty I can learn from you, rather there is nothing I can learn from a cut and paste thread or post that is based purely on emotional generalities without substance or factual basis.
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:
I should qualify that; there is actually plenty I can learn from you, rather there is nothing I can learn from a cut and paste thread or post that is based purely on emotional generalities without substance or factual basis.
A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries. Two other important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few – if any – studies that provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow indus-try) for which the competitive model generally predicts dis employment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups that are likely most directly affected by minimum wage increases provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.
A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries. Two other important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few – if any – studies that provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow indus-try) for which the competitive model generally predicts dis employment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups that are likely most directly affected by minimum wage increases provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.
No comment really about the min wage, but after reading a few posts, I can't continue. Every other post says something derogatory about Foxnews. These parrots heard "Fox lies". from their make up lies news source. Isn't it a lie, per say, when a news org. ignores what it news? Covers up for their "man"? I had a friend working for me, cause he was "in between jobs", who claimed every thing bad in his life was G. Bush's fault. Even down to the truck HE bought-he told me that's the truck Bush wanted him to buy-then he raised the cost of oil and gas. Well big blame Barry hasn't lowered oil prices-has he? Anyway, this guy proceeded to lose his house and other sufferings yet still pipes down cigarettes like they going out of style. I blame each person solely for the place they're in. I blame my gov officials for putting themselves first and those decisions don't help the country as a whole. My gov may keep me safe from foreign threats, but they are not saving me from them and every other person or group who wants to line their pocket. How can the greedy thief (most politicians) save me from the money hungry banks and corps when they all hand in hand? These hypocrites running this country pretend to want to help the poor, but only after their salaries and pensions are secured, and they are securing them with America's assets. You people don't even see that they have you on a divide and you can't see past the smoke screen to them. Most people on either side of the aisle want the same things in life. For their families. The pursuit of happiness or just simply to not freeze and starve. As long as they have red vs blue, they will continue to suck the life out of us. We need to band together as one and put common sense back in charge and GET RID OF THESE SELF-SERVING POLITICIANS. We all just heard one man say that Barry and his mings put politics first. Well why are we still fighting and not charging that capitol? Cause that's exactly what they want. All news outlets either lie or cherry pick. At other times they feed the truth. I read a bunch of them, then have to combine and filter, and hope I know enough about life to realize what's true and what isn't. You know which outlets will carry a story or bury a story. I tell u what-Put politicians in line and the news will follow. We have more power than we know and it's being wasted in places like this fighting with, essentially, your neighbor. As far as my friend goes, he continued blaming bush for every thing and saying Foz news lies, so I had to let him go. I realized he was exactly where he belonged. Under their spell.
No comment really about the min wage, but after reading a few posts, I can't continue. Every other post says something derogatory about Foxnews. These parrots heard "Fox lies". from their make up lies news source. Isn't it a lie, per say, when a news org. ignores what it news? Covers up for their "man"? I had a friend working for me, cause he was "in between jobs", who claimed every thing bad in his life was G. Bush's fault. Even down to the truck HE bought-he told me that's the truck Bush wanted him to buy-then he raised the cost of oil and gas. Well big blame Barry hasn't lowered oil prices-has he? Anyway, this guy proceeded to lose his house and other sufferings yet still pipes down cigarettes like they going out of style. I blame each person solely for the place they're in. I blame my gov officials for putting themselves first and those decisions don't help the country as a whole. My gov may keep me safe from foreign threats, but they are not saving me from them and every other person or group who wants to line their pocket. How can the greedy thief (most politicians) save me from the money hungry banks and corps when they all hand in hand? These hypocrites running this country pretend to want to help the poor, but only after their salaries and pensions are secured, and they are securing them with America's assets. You people don't even see that they have you on a divide and you can't see past the smoke screen to them. Most people on either side of the aisle want the same things in life. For their families. The pursuit of happiness or just simply to not freeze and starve. As long as they have red vs blue, they will continue to suck the life out of us. We need to band together as one and put common sense back in charge and GET RID OF THESE SELF-SERVING POLITICIANS. We all just heard one man say that Barry and his mings put politics first. Well why are we still fighting and not charging that capitol? Cause that's exactly what they want. All news outlets either lie or cherry pick. At other times they feed the truth. I read a bunch of them, then have to combine and filter, and hope I know enough about life to realize what's true and what isn't. You know which outlets will carry a story or bury a story. I tell u what-Put politicians in line and the news will follow. We have more power than we know and it's being wasted in places like this fighting with, essentially, your neighbor. As far as my friend goes, he continued blaming bush for every thing and saying Foz news lies, so I had to let him go. I realized he was exactly where he belonged. Under their spell.
A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries. Two other important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few – if any – studies that provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow indus-try) for which the competitive model generally predicts dis employment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups that are likely most directly affected by minimum wage increases provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.
Ummm, Bowlslit, your nonsensical statement about employees not working as hard is NOT what they are referring to with the term negative employment effects of minimum wages. The article is using statistical analysis to question if increases in paid wage are directly translatable to actual increases in worker's economic wage.
But since you cited the 184 page article (which I know you didn't read-see above), a few questions:
1) The authors cite the Card's Study of 1990 for analysis of the distribution of wages, comparing low wage v. high wage. Do you think this study was faulty because it measured the elasticity for wages during a recession?
2) They view changes as extrogenous to the model, but the model is one of circular flow. Do you think this approach is better than comparison of fixed dates?
3) They cite the Buhauser model of hourly wage and point to its findings of minimum wage creating a (negative) .48 to .77 change in terms of hours employed. Wouldn't this run contrary to the assertion that increases in wages don't increase production time?
4) One big issue here is the article's reliance on the Zovodny estimates that don't incorporate the economic changes from non-employment to employment in the scaled minimum wage model. Wouldn't, in fact, there be an increase in the economic turpitude in such circumstances?
A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries. Two other important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few – if any – studies that provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow indus-try) for which the competitive model generally predicts dis employment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups that are likely most directly affected by minimum wage increases provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.
Ummm, Bowlslit, your nonsensical statement about employees not working as hard is NOT what they are referring to with the term negative employment effects of minimum wages. The article is using statistical analysis to question if increases in paid wage are directly translatable to actual increases in worker's economic wage.
But since you cited the 184 page article (which I know you didn't read-see above), a few questions:
1) The authors cite the Card's Study of 1990 for analysis of the distribution of wages, comparing low wage v. high wage. Do you think this study was faulty because it measured the elasticity for wages during a recession?
2) They view changes as extrogenous to the model, but the model is one of circular flow. Do you think this approach is better than comparison of fixed dates?
3) They cite the Buhauser model of hourly wage and point to its findings of minimum wage creating a (negative) .48 to .77 change in terms of hours employed. Wouldn't this run contrary to the assertion that increases in wages don't increase production time?
4) One big issue here is the article's reliance on the Zovodny estimates that don't incorporate the economic changes from non-employment to employment in the scaled minimum wage model. Wouldn't, in fact, there be an increase in the economic turpitude in such circumstances?
One thing I have learned in my pursuit of higher education in the field of economics.
Anyone can come up with any numbers to support anything that they want.
I could find you a dozen cherry picked papers that have excellent sourcing and citing that will tell you that raising or doubling minimum wage would be a net positive. These papers take into account the implicit rise in GDP, aggregate Demand, disposable income etc.
What is not contained is the idea that the price of goods and services carry a premium at which they become less desirable.
Perfect example is the Wal-Mart greeter, or numerous "administrative assistants" or front desk personel. Security guards etc. The expendable positions that work in support of the main function of any business. These are the jobs are at most risk.
It is easy to cherry pick data, and present half truths if you are doing it because you beleive that you are helping people, and it is true that (at least temporarily) there are people that would benefit from a doubling of their wages. 7.25 to 15.00, but can anyone say, with a straight face that forcing businesses to double the price that they pay for labor could not have serious consequences.
I am doing my best to extricate my personal feelings from the subject, I am for people making a livable wage. I think that 7.25 an hour is not going to cut it for anyone that isn't a student or lives with their parents.
I think that a minimum wage is a crutch, and it prevents an honest appraisal of what people should be paid. I think that if there were no minimum wage, wages would rise on their own. I find it hard to believe that people would work for $3 an hr. I think that wages will remain "sticky" around 8-9/hr because people are assured that they are paying more than minimum wage, workers will be relieved that they are making more than minimum wage, but when the minimum wage is not livable it is a government sponsored perpetuation of poverty.
One thing I have learned in my pursuit of higher education in the field of economics.
Anyone can come up with any numbers to support anything that they want.
I could find you a dozen cherry picked papers that have excellent sourcing and citing that will tell you that raising or doubling minimum wage would be a net positive. These papers take into account the implicit rise in GDP, aggregate Demand, disposable income etc.
What is not contained is the idea that the price of goods and services carry a premium at which they become less desirable.
Perfect example is the Wal-Mart greeter, or numerous "administrative assistants" or front desk personel. Security guards etc. The expendable positions that work in support of the main function of any business. These are the jobs are at most risk.
It is easy to cherry pick data, and present half truths if you are doing it because you beleive that you are helping people, and it is true that (at least temporarily) there are people that would benefit from a doubling of their wages. 7.25 to 15.00, but can anyone say, with a straight face that forcing businesses to double the price that they pay for labor could not have serious consequences.
I am doing my best to extricate my personal feelings from the subject, I am for people making a livable wage. I think that 7.25 an hour is not going to cut it for anyone that isn't a student or lives with their parents.
I think that a minimum wage is a crutch, and it prevents an honest appraisal of what people should be paid. I think that if there were no minimum wage, wages would rise on their own. I find it hard to believe that people would work for $3 an hr. I think that wages will remain "sticky" around 8-9/hr because people are assured that they are paying more than minimum wage, workers will be relieved that they are making more than minimum wage, but when the minimum wage is not livable it is a government sponsored perpetuation of poverty.
I don't know if anyone opened the link I attached in Post #1. You know, the FOX News link? It spoke about Washington state raising the min wage to $15/hr. Here are some highlights:
Scott Ostrander from Cedarbrook Lodge says in the short term they will have to cut hours, reduce benefits, and eliminate jobs. They do plan on building an addition to the hotel. The increased revenues from that will offset the higher costs in labor.
Han Kim from Hotel Concepts said they planned to build a new hotel in Seattle but have scrapped those plans. Remember when D.C. was going to do the same thing with Wal Mart and other big box stores? Wal Mart told D.C. if they forced them to raise the minimum wage they would scrap plans on building new stores. D.C. reconsidered and changed their minds.
The American Car Rental Association said 5% of jobs will be cut. Dollar Rent A Car specifically states jobs will be outsourced, schedules altered (hours cut), and jobs eliminated.
This example of government intervention has everything to support conservative economic principles: hours cut, jobs cut, benefits cut, growth stifled, and jobs moved overseas.
I don't know if anyone opened the link I attached in Post #1. You know, the FOX News link? It spoke about Washington state raising the min wage to $15/hr. Here are some highlights:
Scott Ostrander from Cedarbrook Lodge says in the short term they will have to cut hours, reduce benefits, and eliminate jobs. They do plan on building an addition to the hotel. The increased revenues from that will offset the higher costs in labor.
Han Kim from Hotel Concepts said they planned to build a new hotel in Seattle but have scrapped those plans. Remember when D.C. was going to do the same thing with Wal Mart and other big box stores? Wal Mart told D.C. if they forced them to raise the minimum wage they would scrap plans on building new stores. D.C. reconsidered and changed their minds.
The American Car Rental Association said 5% of jobs will be cut. Dollar Rent A Car specifically states jobs will be outsourced, schedules altered (hours cut), and jobs eliminated.
This example of government intervention has everything to support conservative economic principles: hours cut, jobs cut, benefits cut, growth stifled, and jobs moved overseas.
The minimum wage increase passed for employees in and around SeaTac Airport. The wage increase takes effect Jan 1. We will now see if it boost their economy, hurts their economy, or has no effect.
I created this thread on December 31.
The minimum wage increase passed for employees in and around SeaTac Airport. The wage increase takes effect Jan 1. We will now see if it boost their economy, hurts their economy, or has no effect.
The minimum wage increase passed for employees in and around SeaTac Airport. The wage increase takes effect Jan 1. We will now see if it boost their economy, hurts their economy, or has no effect.
the 13 states that increased their minimu wage had higher job growth than the states hat didn't.
how does this factor into the rightwing argument that raising the minimum wage kills jobs (while increasing executive compensation by millions apparently has no effect other than to make those rich folks work harder)?
it could be that, despite the evidence, there is some economic principle that raising the minimum wage kills job growth but there is a much stronger principle at work that cancels it out- whenever a rightwinger says something, the opposite is always true under all circumstances.
The minimum wage increase passed for employees in and around SeaTac Airport. The wage increase takes effect Jan 1. We will now see if it boost their economy, hurts their economy, or has no effect.
the 13 states that increased their minimu wage had higher job growth than the states hat didn't.
how does this factor into the rightwing argument that raising the minimum wage kills jobs (while increasing executive compensation by millions apparently has no effect other than to make those rich folks work harder)?
it could be that, despite the evidence, there is some economic principle that raising the minimum wage kills job growth but there is a much stronger principle at work that cancels it out- whenever a rightwinger says something, the opposite is always true under all circumstances.
Come on Dirt. You can do better that that. The Center for Economic and Policy Research? I bet if the K-K-K did a study on blacks and J-e-w-s the study would conclude they s-u-c-k.
Rick mentioned a few posts ago how anyone doing a study can cherry pick information to fit the conclusion they are looking for. Those economists at CEPR are taking the numbers from the states that raised the min wage (13) and comparing them to the other states that didn't (37). Plus, the sample period is only a few months long.
The entire country is doing bad (even though Don thinks we're living high on the hog). If I were to widdle down those 37 states to 13 of my choosing and compare that to the 13 that raised the min wage (or the rest of the country) I bet the results would be different. CEPR even stated the study was far from scientific and there is no direct link between raising the min wage and payroll gains.
The difference between your attachment (from USA Today) and mine (from FOX News) is the USA Today article got their information from Economists whereas the FOX News article got their information from the business owners in Seattle whom this would actually effect.
This argument is similar to the Obamacare debate. Economists, probably from CEPR, will tell us how great Obamacare is, but the doctors, healthcare employers, and patients will tell us how much it sux.
Come on Dirt. You can do better that that. The Center for Economic and Policy Research? I bet if the K-K-K did a study on blacks and J-e-w-s the study would conclude they s-u-c-k.
Rick mentioned a few posts ago how anyone doing a study can cherry pick information to fit the conclusion they are looking for. Those economists at CEPR are taking the numbers from the states that raised the min wage (13) and comparing them to the other states that didn't (37). Plus, the sample period is only a few months long.
The entire country is doing bad (even though Don thinks we're living high on the hog). If I were to widdle down those 37 states to 13 of my choosing and compare that to the 13 that raised the min wage (or the rest of the country) I bet the results would be different. CEPR even stated the study was far from scientific and there is no direct link between raising the min wage and payroll gains.
The difference between your attachment (from USA Today) and mine (from FOX News) is the USA Today article got their information from Economists whereas the FOX News article got their information from the business owners in Seattle whom this would actually effect.
This argument is similar to the Obamacare debate. Economists, probably from CEPR, will tell us how great Obamacare is, but the doctors, healthcare employers, and patients will tell us how much it sux.
Come on Dirt. You can do better that that. The Center for Economic and Policy Research? I bet if the K-K-K did a study on blacks and J-e-w-s the study would conclude they s-u-c-k.
Rick mentioned a few posts ago how anyone doing a study can cherry pick information to fit the conclusion they are looking for. Those economists at CEPR are taking the numbers from the states that raised the min wage (13) and comparing them to the other states that didn't (37). Plus, the sample period is only a few months long.
The entire country is doing bad (even though Don thinks we're living high on the hog). If I were to widdle down those 37 states to 13 of my choosing and compare that to the 13 that raised the min wage (or the rest of the country) I bet the results would be different. CEPR even stated the study was far from scientific and there is no direct link between raising the min wage and payroll gains.
The difference between your attachment (from USA Today) and mine (from FOX News) is the USA Today article got their information from Economists whereas the FOX News article got their information from the business owners in Seattle whom this would actually effect.
This argument is similar to the Obamacare debate. Economists, probably from CEPR, will tell us how great Obamacare is, but the doctors, healthcare employers, and patients will tell us how much it sux.
i haven't read the thread, where's the fox article?
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:
Come on Dirt. You can do better that that. The Center for Economic and Policy Research? I bet if the K-K-K did a study on blacks and J-e-w-s the study would conclude they s-u-c-k.
Rick mentioned a few posts ago how anyone doing a study can cherry pick information to fit the conclusion they are looking for. Those economists at CEPR are taking the numbers from the states that raised the min wage (13) and comparing them to the other states that didn't (37). Plus, the sample period is only a few months long.
The entire country is doing bad (even though Don thinks we're living high on the hog). If I were to widdle down those 37 states to 13 of my choosing and compare that to the 13 that raised the min wage (or the rest of the country) I bet the results would be different. CEPR even stated the study was far from scientific and there is no direct link between raising the min wage and payroll gains.
The difference between your attachment (from USA Today) and mine (from FOX News) is the USA Today article got their information from Economists whereas the FOX News article got their information from the business owners in Seattle whom this would actually effect.
This argument is similar to the Obamacare debate. Economists, probably from CEPR, will tell us how great Obamacare is, but the doctors, healthcare employers, and patients will tell us how much it sux.
i haven't read the thread, where's the fox article?
i know it's hard to know which articles to trust but apparently, the research was done bu goldman sachs. they are a shady group but i don't think anyone will argue they are dumb and what incentive would goldman sachs, which has many big corporate clients and executives, have to create biased research in favor of workers?
i know it's hard to know which articles to trust but apparently, the research was done bu goldman sachs. they are a shady group but i don't think anyone will argue they are dumb and what incentive would goldman sachs, which has many big corporate clients and executives, have to create biased research in favor of workers?
but now having read it, how is an article written on 12/30 before the MW increases took effect a better discussion about the effects on jobs in states that raised the MW on January 1 than an article discussing Goldman Sachs' research using the stats after the implementation that was written in july, seven months after MW has been implemented ?
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:
POST #1
i didn't get that far into the thread.
but now having read it, how is an article written on 12/30 before the MW increases took effect a better discussion about the effects on jobs in states that raised the MW on January 1 than an article discussing Goldman Sachs' research using the stats after the implementation that was written in july, seven months after MW has been implemented ?
One thing that crossed my mind between this article and the one you posted from USA Today was yours mentioned an increase in payroll in the states that raised the minimum wage. The problem is we don't know if that increase came from min wage jobs or jobs that pay more than $15/hr.
I wasn't looking for a counter argument but I happened to come across this on Twitter.
One thing that crossed my mind between this article and the one you posted from USA Today was yours mentioned an increase in payroll in the states that raised the minimum wage. The problem is we don't know if that increase came from min wage jobs or jobs that pay more than $15/hr.
then i don't know because the articles seem to be saying very different things, although i'm not sure what information your article used and it doesn't seem to compare jobs in the states that raised minimum wage to jobs in the states that didn't.
maybe there's an answer out there somewhere.
then i don't know because the articles seem to be saying very different things, although i'm not sure what information your article used and it doesn't seem to compare jobs in the states that raised minimum wage to jobs in the states that didn't.
Employees getting their hours cut...Check Employees getting their benefits eliminated...Check Employees losing their jobs all together...Check Adding more people to the government dependency list...Check
Employees getting their hours cut...Check Employees getting their benefits eliminated...Check Employees losing their jobs all together...Check Adding more people to the government dependency list...Check
The minimum wage is a destructive policy that preys on the very people is designed to protect e.i.the unskilled and uneducated...
Milton Friedman’s definition of the minimum wage is a law that essentially, makes it illegal to hire someone whose work is valued at less than a determined amount.
In fact 79% of all economists agree that a minimum wage hurts more than it helps. (Mankiw, 2009) https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-flash-economists-agree.html Mankiw professor and chairman of the economics department at Harvard University...
The government should not get involved..only American style free market can determine what wages should be. What we really need to do is abolish the minimum wage altogether and let employers pay their employees what they are really worth...the results could lead to less people being unemployed...and higher wages .... Employers have an incentive to pay a competitive wage to get the best workers possible that can generate the most profit..
Automatically raising workers pay to $15 an hour will only end up getting the less skilled and the less-educated fired and more skilled and educated workers hired ...
bigreds daddy
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
The minimum wage is a destructive policy that preys on the very people is designed to protect e.i.the unskilled and uneducated...
Milton Friedman’s definition of the minimum wage is a law that essentially, makes it illegal to hire someone whose work is valued at less than a determined amount.
In fact 79% of all economists agree that a minimum wage hurts more than it helps. (Mankiw, 2009) https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-flash-economists-agree.html Mankiw professor and chairman of the economics department at Harvard University...
The government should not get involved..only American style free market can determine what wages should be. What we really need to do is abolish the minimum wage altogether and let employers pay their employees what they are really worth...the results could lead to less people being unemployed...and higher wages .... Employers have an incentive to pay a competitive wage to get the best workers possible that can generate the most profit..
Automatically raising workers pay to $15 an hour will only end up getting the less skilled and the less-educated fired and more skilled and educated workers hired ...
Agree w fundamental point that raising minimum wage 2 much is bad economics, but 2 suggest we don't need any federal oversight of the wage level disregards the many crisis that have resulted from minimal regulation (savings and loan crisis, 2008, etc). Free markets do not work without a good fundamental oversight mechanism
Agree w fundamental point that raising minimum wage 2 much is bad economics, but 2 suggest we don't need any federal oversight of the wage level disregards the many crisis that have resulted from minimal regulation (savings and loan crisis, 2008, etc). Free markets do not work without a good fundamental oversight mechanism
Agree w fundamental point that raising minimum wage 2 much is bad economics, but 2 suggest we don't need any federal oversight of the wage level disregards the many crisis that have resulted from minimal regulation (savings and loan crisis, 2008, etc). Free markets do not work without a good fundamental oversight mechanism
i'm no economist but it can't be good that wages are much lower today than they were 20 years ago.
i imagine the executive compensation chart looks different.
Quote Originally Posted by shiek:
Agree w fundamental point that raising minimum wage 2 much is bad economics, but 2 suggest we don't need any federal oversight of the wage level disregards the many crisis that have resulted from minimal regulation (savings and loan crisis, 2008, etc). Free markets do not work without a good fundamental oversight mechanism
i'm no economist but it can't be good that wages are much lower today than they were 20 years ago.
Point of note :The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established a national minimum wage for workers (25 cents an hour)..
The United States no longer has a free market system. Instead, the United States now has a managed economy due to government oversight and regulations ..
Point of note :The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established a national minimum wage for workers (25 cents an hour)..
The United States no longer has a free market system. Instead, the United States now has a managed economy due to government oversight and regulations ..
Hot Forum Topics
