Let the good times roll! Senate votes down Federal Minimum Wage hike (again)

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Man, that's crazy. The average Yankee player makes more than the average CEO...

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseb...aspx?year=2005

Does the average Yankee see 30% yearly income growth? Also Yankees are a super star team so they'd be more like a CEO for the S&P 500 then just some generic CEO.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It pays to read your own link. Most of the increase is due to the CEOs' stock options rising.

I read it before I posted it. The fact remains that one group has seen a 30% rise in income in a single year while the other group has seen their income stagnate for the last 8 years unless they live in a state progressive enough to have pushed up the minimum wage on a local level.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Are you saying the rest of the economic factors (aside from unemployment) remained static while only the minimum wage changed?

(After all, during a boom period, as the late 90s most definitely was, does it make any difference to raise the min wage? Hell, McDonalds in my area was hiring for a dollar higher than the min wage at the time!)

So are you saying the effect on employment figures from raising the minimum wage is so minimal that it could easily be overcome by general eocnomic growth?

Then what exactly is the problem for not allowing the baseline pay in this country to go up, to better account for inflation in the last 8 years?

[Arrian]

Does the average Yankee see 30% yearly income growth?

As a fan of that particular team, it sure seems that way.

But baseball is a VERY artificial "market" anyway. It makes for bad comparisons.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
So are you saying the effect on employment figures from raising the minimum wage is so minimal that it could easily be overcome by general eocnomic growth?

ONLY during boom times. The problem results when the economy going into bust times. If we constantly were in a bull market, raising the min wage wouldn't matter. Most would get paid higher anyway, even doing McDonalds like jobs. The problem is when the recession hits. Then, these people are making a bit too much and the only recourse is to fire some to come in the black. A higher min wage means more are fired during these recesssionary times (which, of course, may make the recession even worse than it could have been).

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


ONLY during boom times. The problem results when the economy going into bust times. If we constantly were in a bull market, raising the min wage wouldn't matter. Most would get paid higher anyway, even doing McDonalds like jobs. The problem is when the recession hits. Then, these people are making a bit too much and the only recourse is to fire some to come in the black. A higher min wage means more are fired during these recesssionary times (which, of course, may make the recession even worse than it could have been).

I would love to see any evidence of that. That would be nice. Is that what is said by the same economist theorists who said you could not have a 4% unemployment rate without it sparking inflationary pressures?

[Dinner]

The modern economy is actually much less inflation prone then in the pre-60's era. The previously protected market and given way to a much more open market so the US economy can actually run much hotter and with lower inflation rates without sparking inflation. There is a lot of extra capacity in just about every industry in the world then the US had by itself when it was a protected market.

That means it is a lot harder for spot shortages to show up, there is more competition in most industries so it is more difficult for companies to raise prices, and if demand exceeds domestic production imports can just be increased.

[RGBVideo]

...yes, given that we're not in the booming economy of the 90's.

1) US economy was not booming "in the 90's" -- growth between 1991-2000 was probably lower than between 1981-1990.
2) It wasn't booming in 1997, either. GDP growth was between 2 and 4% between '93 and '98 IIRC.
3) If 1997 figure isn't nice enough for you for whatever reason, we could get the figure before that, which is (again, IIRC; but nice quarter-round numbers are nice to remember) $4.25 from 1991. In 2005 dollars, that's more than 5.15$ in 1997, altough in 1991 US (and the world) was in a very deep recession.
4) Weren't you the same guy, who said in early 2003, when US gdp growth was slower than now (but higher than in any year ca 1988-1998), that the US economy was booming and it was all thanks of Bush's actions? I tried to search, but I couldn't find anything - partly because I can't remember the exact phrase of yours and partly because you've changed your nick so many times.