Is the US economy in recession?

[Ben Kenobi]

Paying workers more than they're "worth" is actually a good thing so long as it doesn't result in more unemployment.

Econ 101. The most efficient price is that which exactly matches supply with demand. Off by one or the other will produce inefficiencies and cost you money. If you have a labor oversupply, then you cut wages until you no longer have an oversupply. If you have a labour undersupply, then you raise wages until you have the workers you need. Many businesses do not understand that this is the origin of their staffing problems - having the wrong price. The market is telling them what to do, but they don't understand the signals the market is sending them.

On the employee end, it is actually to the benefit of the employee that he be paid what he should be paid - as he will get the most hours. If he's overpaid, then he will get his hours cut to compensate, which results in less pay. If he's underpaid, then he's not getting what he should for his labor.

This is the case with the minimum wage in the US so far. We've been able to keep at near total employment

Nonsense. Hasn't been the case since around 2006.

It's obvious our economy can handle a current ~$7.50/hr minimum wage

Let me explain something to you Aeson - the US is not a monolith. Federal minimum wage regulations impose constraints on local economies. It drives many companies in rural areas out of business (though I suppose that's by design, as those pushing for increases do not represent those areas), for the simple reason as the fact that the cost of living in these areas is lower. Wages should reflect prevailing local economic conditions, not be imposed through federal mandate.

Also, unionized workers make a mandated multiplier of the federal minimum wage. The only beneficiary of higher minimum wages are these unionized workers. Those actually making the minumum wage go down, and their unemployment goes up everytime you raise it, as one would expect. Raising it prices many marginal workers out of the market as their labour is not worth that much.

with ~0 effect on unemployment.

7.50 an hour in TX is not the same as 7.50 an hour in NYC. The effect will be to raise unemployment in predominantly rural areas of the nation, and raise budget compensation for unionized employees in an economy that doesn't warrant their increased compensatrion.

No one's ever really tried to find a limit, and there's not really any need to do so other than to keep up with inflation.

The correct level, is zero. Wages should reflect prevailing local economic conditions.

The important thing about the minimum wage is it gives a bump to creates a more affluent working class who can participate in the economy as consumers.

The actual result is that they see their hours cut, their unemployment rate actually goes up, and they are worse off than they were previous.

You can see this all over the world currently, outside us lucky bastards who were born between the right lines and/or to the right parents.

Ask yourself in 1450 why is it that Europe came to be what it was, and see if you come up with the same answer to your question. Better yet - ask Nest that question and see what she has to say. I would be interested in her answer.

Depends on the wages paid, and what other options are available.

Which is exactly how the pricing mechanism should work. Those who can work elsewhere, should be going elsewhere to work, until the employer has the number of workers that they need. What you seem to be citing as an argument against my position is actually an argument for it.

When you cut all wages (available to the minimum wage worker) by the same amount people won't leave for another job because they all pay the same.

Not all minimum wage jobs have an oversupply of labor. You're assuming that each minimum wage job should be paying the exact same amount of money, which is false. Some should be paid less, and would be paid less should the market work as operated. Eliminating the minimum wage will actually increase employment and wages among the people who are looking for work, as there would be employment open for everyone.

If there are no other readily available jobs they also won't leave because they want to continue to have a livelihood. This is survival. If they have another option that now looks better (welfare) they may go for that, but it's a terrible thing to incentive.

And that's part of why market distortions are actually counterproductive rather than productive. You're quite right, if people make more doing nothing than they could by working, that creates perverse incentives. It's also why eliminating the minimum wages won't change wage prices much at all - because those jobs still have to be filled, and if people make more off welfare than they will likely do just that.

Yes, it's better if they can work fulltime and make more in compensation than they would at half time. But that wasn't the hypothetical you offered. Your hypothetical was a cut in hourly wage, or a cut in hours worked. The worker is going to view that as a simple choice when they are comparable options in overall compensation. They'll take less hours because their time is valuable to them.

That would depend on the benefits. If my choice were 20 at 20 or 10 at 40, I'd probably choose 10 at 40, if the 10 at 40 included a fulltime job w/pay and benefits. Having guaranteed income at 1600/month and around 20k per year would be worth it to me, over a part time gig at 20/20. I'd have to consider it though.

There are bad policies in workplaces. (Some dictated by government even.) This is the exception to the rule though, as usually employers have the ability to choose who they let go. (I don't know if this is even an exception at that. Sounds like it wasn't something forced on them necessarily. They chose to worry more about a potential lawsuit than to worry about productivity.)

Given the business climate of today, it makes perfect sense. And people are exploiting this.

Nothing to do with minimum wage.

Have you ever worked at it? Hours are a huge deal, when it can make or break your budget for the month and you have no control over it.

[Aeson]

Econ 101. The most efficient price is that which exactly matches supply with demand. Off by one or the other will produce inefficiencies and cost you money. If you have a labor oversupply, then you cut wages until you no longer have an oversupply. If you have a labour undersupply, then you raise wages until you have the workers you need. Many businesses do not understand that this is the origin of their staffing problems - having the wrong price. The market is telling them what to do, but they don't understand the signals the market is sending them.

On the employee end, it is actually to the benefit of the employee that he be paid what he should be paid - as he will get the most hours. If he's overpaid, then he will get his hours cut to compensate, which results in less pay. If he's underpaid, then he's not getting what he should for his labor.

The market does some very stupid things that hurt everyone when left completely to it's own devices. A reasonable minimum wage is a very effective tool to get us out of the "workers have no money->workers can't buy things->no profits->can't support high wage jobs->workers have no money" trap.

Nonsense. Hasn't been the case since around 2006.

The current unemployment levels have nothing to do with the minimum wage.

Let me explain something to you Aeson - the US is not a monolith. Federal minimum wage regulations impose constraints on local economies. It drives many companies in rural areas out of business (though I suppose that's by design, as those pushing for increases do not represent those areas), for the simple reason as the fact that the cost of living in these areas is lower. Wages should reflect prevailing local economic conditions, not be imposed through federal mandate.

You set the minimum at the minimum. Those in cities and well-off areas are already generally going to earn more than it anyways.

Also, unionized workers make a mandated multiplier of the federal minimum wage. The only beneficiary of higher minimum wages are these unionized workers. Those actually making the minumum wage go down, and their unemployment goes up everytime you raise it, as one would expect. Raising it prices many marginal workers out of the market as their labour is not worth that much.

We have seen the minimum wage's effect for decades now. We have been running at near total employment (of those looking) for decades. The only time we haven't done this is when we have recessions caused by other problems in our economy. While setting minimum wage too high could definitely cause some problems, we've never actually reached that point.

Union problems are not because of minimum wage. Unions have political and economic clout. They can use it to demand ~X compensation. They would be able to achieve that ~X compensation in other ways even if you sever instances where they are tied to the minimum wage because their political and economic clout is not tied to the minimum wage.

7.50 an hour in TX is not the same as 7.50 an hour in NYC. The effect will be to raise unemployment in predominantly rural areas of the nation, and raise budget compensation for unionized employees in an economy that doesn't warrant their increased compensatrion.

That's why it's a minimum. You probably couldn't live very well at 7.50/hour in NYC. So don't live there if you can't make more.

The correct level, is zero. Wages should reflect prevailing local economic conditions.

We could set it to zero now. It would hurt a lot of people, but not too bad. It hasn't always been that way. It was a great tool to get us to the point where we could have a strong enough consumer base to demand enough goods and services to have a (relatively) high standard of living locked in for even our lower paid workers.

[quote]The actual result is that they see their hours cut, their unemployment rate actually goes up, and they are worse off than they were previous.

No. There is no evidence to suggest that this actually has been the case with the US minimum wage. All evidence points to it being ~0 effect on employment.

Ask yourself in 1450 why is it that Europe came to be what it was, and see if you come up with the same answer to your question.

Europe came to be what it was in what time-frame? If you mean how we ended up being the lucky bastards ... we developed first so we didn't have the lucky bastards extracting all the value of our land and labor for their own nations, and extracting all the value of land and labor in other nations to send back to our own (or keep to ourselves). It's no question that left to our own devices, humans can innovate and invent, produce more than we consume, and build off of what previous generations did.

But there are areas of the world which are growing up in much different situation. Where they are the ones who are having the product of their native land and labor extracted to other economies (and have for centuries in some cases).

Which is exactly how the pricing mechanism should work. Those who can work elsewhere, should be going elsewhere to work, until the employer has the number of workers that they need. What you seem to be citing as an argument against my position is actually an argument for it.

No. You said without qualification that they would necessarily go work somewhere else. I was pointing out there are many situations where they won't.

Not all minimum wage jobs have an oversupply of labor.

Of course not. This is why anyone who really wants to get a minimum wage job is probably going to be able to get one, even in this economy. Minimum wage has not reduced employment.

You're assuming that each minimum wage job should be paying the exact same amount of money, which is false.

You're treating minimum wage jobs as some sort of unified block of divergent jobs that should be paid differently. They are just jobs that happen to not support paying more than the minimum. They should be paid the same because they are still jobs ... so obviously can support paying minimum wage ... but aren't capable of supporting higher wages. (Though they probably are. Give employers incentive to increase productivity per work hour and they'll generally find a way to do it.)

Some should be paid less, and would be paid less should the market work as operated.

I don't believe there is anything to be gained by paying workers less than minimum wage in the US. We won't see less unemployment even now, and most times there's not really any unemployment to see less of.

And that's part of why market distortions are actually counterproductive rather than productive. You're quite right, if people make more doing nothing than they could by working, that creates perverse incentives. It's also why eliminating the minimum wages won't change wage prices much at all - because those jobs still have to be filled, and if people make more off welfare than they will likely do just that.

yes, US minimum wage at current levels has ~0 effect on employment.

Have you ever worked at it? Hours are a huge deal, when it can make or break your budget for the month and you have no control over it.

Yes, I've worked part time jobs before at ~minimum wage. (Usually slightly more, even as a teenager.) I would still never choose to work 20 extra hours a week for the same overall compensation if given the choice.

[Aeson]

Econ 101. The most efficient price is that which exactly matches supply with demand. Off by one or the other will produce inefficiencies and cost you money. If you have a labor oversupply, then you cut wages until you no longer have an oversupply. If you have a labour undersupply, then you raise wages until you have the workers you need. Many businesses do not understand that this is the origin of their staffing problems - having the wrong price. The market is telling them what to do, but they don't understand the signals the market is sending them.

On the employee end, it is actually to the benefit of the employee that he be paid what he should be paid - as he will get the most hours. If he's overpaid, then he will get his hours cut to compensate, which results in less pay. If he's underpaid, then he's not getting what he should for his labor.

The market does some very stupid things that hurt everyone when left completely to it's own devices. A reasonable minimum wage is a very effective tool to get us out of the "workers have no money->workers can't buy things->no profits->can't support high wage jobs->workers have no money" trap.

Nonsense. Hasn't been the case since around 2006.

The current unemployment levels have nothing to do with the minimum wage.

Let me explain something to you Aeson - the US is not a monolith. Federal minimum wage regulations impose constraints on local economies. It drives many companies in rural areas out of business (though I suppose that's by design, as those pushing for increases do not represent those areas), for the simple reason as the fact that the cost of living in these areas is lower. Wages should reflect prevailing local economic conditions, not be imposed through federal mandate.

You set the minimum at the minimum. Those in cities and well-off areas are already generally going to earn more than it anyways.

Also, unionized workers make a mandated multiplier of the federal minimum wage. The only beneficiary of higher minimum wages are these unionized workers. Those actually making the minumum wage go down, and their unemployment goes up everytime you raise it, as one would expect. Raising it prices many marginal workers out of the market as their labour is not worth that much.

We have seen the minimum wage's effect for decades now. We have been running at near total employment (of those looking) for decades. The only time we haven't done this is when we have recessions caused by other problems in our economy. While setting minimum wage too high could definitely cause some problems, we've never actually reached that point.

Union problems are not because of minimum wage. Unions have political and economic clout. They can use it to demand ~X compensation. They would be able to achieve that ~X compensation in other ways even if you sever instances where they are tied to the minimum wage because their political and economic clout is not tied to the minimum wage.

7.50 an hour in TX is not the same as 7.50 an hour in NYC. The effect will be to raise unemployment in predominantly rural areas of the nation, and raise budget compensation for unionized employees in an economy that doesn't warrant their increased compensatrion.

That's why it's a minimum. You probably couldn't live very well at 7.50/hour in NYC. So don't live there if you can't make more.

The correct level, is zero. Wages should reflect prevailing local economic conditions.

We could set it to zero now. It would hurt a lot of people, but not too bad. It hasn't always been that way. It was a great tool to get us to the point where we could have a strong enough consumer base to demand enough goods and services to have a (relatively) high standard of living locked in for even our lower paid workers.

[quote]The actual result is that they see their hours cut, their unemployment rate actually goes up, and they are worse off than they were previous.

No. There is no evidence to suggest that this actually has been the case with the US minimum wage. All evidence points to it being ~0 effect on employment.

Ask yourself in 1450 why is it that Europe came to be what it was, and see if you come up with the same answer to your question.

Europe came to be what it was in what time-frame? If you mean how we ended up being the lucky bastards ... we developed first so we didn't have the lucky bastards extracting all the value of our land and labor for their own nations, and extracting all the value of land and labor in other nations to send back to our own (or keep to ourselves). It's no question that left to our own devices, humans can innovate and invent, produce more than we consume, and build off of what previous generations did.

But there are areas of the world which are growing up in much different situation. Where they are the ones who are having the product of their native land and labor extracted to other economies (and have for centuries in some cases).

Which is exactly how the pricing mechanism should work. Those who can work elsewhere, should be going elsewhere to work, until the employer has the number of workers that they need. What you seem to be citing as an argument against my position is actually an argument for it.

No. You said without qualification that they would necessarily go work somewhere else. I was pointing out there are many situations where they won't.

Not all minimum wage jobs have an oversupply of labor.

Of course not. This is why anyone who really wants to get a minimum wage job is probably going to be able to get one, even in this economy. Minimum wage has not reduced employment.

You're assuming that each minimum wage job should be paying the exact same amount of money, which is false.

You're treating minimum wage jobs as some sort of unified block of divergent jobs that should be paid differently. They are just jobs that happen to not support paying more than the minimum. They should be paid the same because they are still jobs ... so obviously can support paying minimum wage ... but aren't capable of supporting higher wages. (Though they probably are. Give employers incentive to increase productivity per work hour and they'll generally find a way to do it.)

Some should be paid less, and would be paid less should the market work as operated.

I don't believe there is anything to be gained by paying workers less than minimum wage in the US. We won't see less unemployment even now, and most times there's not really any unemployment to see less of.

And that's part of why market distortions are actually counterproductive rather than productive. You're quite right, if people make more doing nothing than they could by working, that creates perverse incentives. It's also why eliminating the minimum wages won't change wage prices much at all - because those jobs still have to be filled, and if people make more off welfare than they will likely do just that.

yes, US minimum wage at current levels has ~0 effect on employment.

Have you ever worked at it? Hours are a huge deal, when it can make or break your budget for the month and you have no control over it.

Yes, I've worked part time jobs before at ~minimum wage. (Usually slightly more, even as a teenager.) I would still never choose to work 20 extra hours a week for the same overall compensation if given the choice.

[Ben Kenobi]

The market does some very stupid things that hurt everyone when left completely to it's own devices. A reasonable minimum wage is a very effective tool to get us out of the "workers have no money->workers can't buy things->no profits->can't support high wage jobs->workers have no money" trap.

Fiscal policy is what you use for that, not the minimum wage.

The current unemployment levels have nothing to do with the minimum wage.

The current unemployment levels are NOT anywhere close to full employment. That's contrary to what you said. You can't handwave it away.

Those in cities and well-off areas are already generally going to earn more than it anyways.

Which means that the only thing that a raise in the federal minimum wage would do is hurt rural areas that couldn't afford it and don't need it or want it!

We have been running at near total employment

Again, bullcrap. We are not at full employment. Policies guaranteed to increase unemployment into a recssion would be terrible.

Union problems are not because of minimum wage.

Unions are already overpaid. Raising the minimum wage overpays them even more, and the government cannot afford to overpay even more, the already overpaid workers during this recession.

They would be able to achieve that ~X compensation in other ways even if you sever instances where they are tied to the minimum wage because their political and economic clout is not tied to the minimum wage.

Fine, so eliminate this first. As it is, raising it would crush state governments across the country.

You probably couldn't live very well at 7.50/hour in NYC. So don't live there if you can't make more.

Why not let NYC set their wages, and let Texas set their own wages? Everyone's happy. NYC wants to tell TX what to do by raising the federal minimum wage.

We could set it to zero now. It would hurt a lot of people, but not too bad. It hasn't always been that way. It was a great tool to get us to the point where we could have a strong enough consumer base to demand enough goods and services to have a (relatively) high standard of living locked in for even our lower paid workers.

Maybe 80 years ago. Now it's unneeded, and is hampering employment. There are better ways to accomplish the same goals.

No. There is no evidence to suggest that this actually has been the case with the US minimum wage. All evidence points to it being ~0 effect on employment.

Again, Sowell points it out clearly that every time the minimum wage has been increased - employment of those who make minimum wage has decreased. Increase the price of labor without a concamitant increase in productivity will lead to people losing their job. You can slice it any way you like - the result is the same.

we developed first so we didn't have the lucky bastards extracting all the value of our land and labor for their own nations, and extracting all the value of land and labor in other nations to send back to our own (or keep to ourselves). It's no question that left to our own devices, humans can innovate and invent, produce more than we consume, and build off of what previous generations did.

In 1450 - Europe was behind the Far East in both technology and in access to natural resources. It was behind the middle east as well. So that begs the question then - why did Europe succeed where the others did not? Why was it that Europe became so successful? It's got nothing to do with luck and everything to do with how nations were governed - who was in power and the decisions that they made. The Philippines were Spanish because of Queen Isabella and the Reconquista. That doesn't happen - neither does much of Spain's rise.

But there are areas of the world which are growing up in much different situation. Where they are the ones who are having the product of their native land and labor extracted to other economies (and have for centuries in some cases).

China was doing it hundreds, if not thousands of years before the west. China, closed themselves off to the world while the west opened up. That was a conscious decision of China's.

No. You said without qualification that they would necessarily go work somewhere else. I was pointing out there are many situations where they won't.

Umm, no, you need to reread what I said. I said no such thing. You've misunderstood me somewhere along the line.

anyone who really wants to get a minimum wage job is probably going to be able to get one.

Again, this is false. Not everyone who wants and applies for a minimum wage job will get one. There are more people chasing jobs than jobs available - yes, even for minimum wage positions.

They should be paid the same

No, they shouldn't all be paid the same. They all should pay whatever they are worth. Some jobs even at a minimum wage level are worth more than other minimum wage jobs.

I don't believe there is anything to be gained by paying workers less than minimum wage in the US.

Yes, there is something to be gained - employment of those who are currently unemployed because their labour isn't worth enough to qualify under minimum wage at present. You're basing your entire argument on the false premise that the US has full employment. This is not so.

Yes, I've worked part time jobs before at ~minimum wage. (Usually slightly more, even as a teenager.) I would still never choose to work 20 extra hours a week for the same overall compensation if given the choice.

So you've never worked at it and had to pay your bills with a full time minimum wage job. I rest my case.

[giblets]

If that was the example then obviously 18x40 is a better deal. That was not the comparison you gave. (Nor is it a comparison that's fair. To assume an employer would make 10x the cuts in one case than the other is not really going to result in a useful comparison.)

If you raise hourly wages from $20 to $20.01 employers will cut hours from 40 a week to one minute a week. Which is larger, 20*40 or 20.01*.0166667?

[Aeson]

dp

[Ben Kenobi]

Third world governments can just buy bonds until subsistence farmers are all making (US 2009 equivalent of) $7.50/hr? Good luck with that ...

Last I checked we were talking about the United States. I don't care what other countries do. If China wants to raise their minimum wage to eleventy billion, then they should go for it.

Minimum wage is part of how the workers in developing countries became more affluent, which has been dramatically good for everyone. It's not the only possible way, but we don't seem to want to do the others.

Ok, cool story bro. I'm talking about the policy in the US. Like I said, I don't care what other countries (besides Canada), do with their minimum wage.

"We have been running at near total employment" - What you quoted

Which isn't true either. How many times do I have to keep smacking this down? It might have been true back in 2006, but things change. What might have passed then, won't pass now. Raising the minimum wage into the teeth of a recession will exacerbate unemployment.

The only time we haven't done this is when we have recessions caused by other problems in our economy.

Doesn't change the fact that piss poor policy decisions can still make things worse, not better. That includes raising the minimum wage because Aeson said so.

If they aren't set right, then yes they could hurt, but you don't seem to understand the concept of "minimum" and what it should address.

On the contrary, raising the minimum wage will hurt rural areas of the united states at present.

I lived in US rural areas most of my life. Minimum wage wasn't a problem there. I could always find a job or three in an afternoon of looking.

And things have changed in the past 5 years that you've been in the Philippines. Things are no longer the way they were.

While there are places where this is not the case, it is because hardly anyone lives there or there is no economic interest in the area. A family living in a trailer in the desert aren't going to attract businesses to move in, regardless of minimum wage. Even farms can pay their migrant workers minimum wage or better. (Obamacare is pushing it though.)

Things have changed in 5 years, Aeson. I had to learn this too, when I realized that the TX of 2005 wasn't the same as the TX in 2010.

Since we hit $7.25/hr we're actually adding jobs.

Cool story bro. Like I said, I don't really care what other countries do. Just because it works for the Philippines, doesn't mean that it will work for the US at present. The Philippines have very different demographics from just about anywhere in the world. For the positive.

They can if they want.

No, they can't. If it's raised the state can't say, no thanks, it's not what we want. There should be no federal minimum wage. Letting the states set their own would be a vast improvement.

I'm sorry that business in Texas is so much inferior to business in New Mexico that they can't pay their workers as well.

You're arguing that Texas is envious of New Mexico? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Awww hell.

They just have to respect the federal minimum wage when doing so. This isn't NYC telling TX what to do

Yes, it is NYC telling people what to do. Why shouldn't each state be able to set their own minimum wage?

it's people across the country who care about the poor

Right, because you pat yourself on the back and tell yourself this. Sorry, I'm one of those 'poor folks' and you certainly don't have my interests. You do have the interests of unions though, which is rather odd. Minimum wage increases hurt the poor most of all, through inflation for durable goods combined with less employment.

We've generally kept minimum wage somewhat under where it was in the 60's (adjusted to inflation) for the last 40 years.

Which is a progressive policy, given that public receipts are back to the 50's, and the worker ratios are just about back to the 50s too. Like I said, it's a completely different climate. The present minimum wage is much better today.

(It probably should just float with inflation. If only to infuriate douchebags into perpetuity.)

If you ask Jaguar, that's precisely what he's saying he wants to see happen. You can do this through fiscal policy by printing X amount of dollars every year and eliminating the minimum wage altogether. We know your arguments, Aeson, which is why we've moved beyond them to discussing a far superior option.

It's effect is ~0 on unemployment at the current levels which have been relatively stable when adjusted for inflation since the 60's.

Kuci already posted why this is hampering unemployment in a deflationary environment of the last 5 years.

There is evidence that minimum wage has resulted in an increase in productivity.

Yes, at a cost to employment. If your goal is to reduce employment and increase unemployment, then raising the minimum wage during a recession is the perfect thing to do. It's like you want to screw the poor.

The Philippines can't very well choose to go colonize Spain, now can it? But it can be economically colonized by foreign corporations which send the product of land and labor away while the workers actually doing the work stay rather poor.

Ah, pegged this argument 1000 percent. I don't care about the policy that the Philippines uses. I care about the US. Dragging your Philippine issues to this discussion over US policy is hurting your argument.

This is of course why just about every Filipino wants to go overseas to work. They are (as a group) lucky in that they speak English by and large, and are considered good, reliable workers, and so have that opportunity. Even then though, I can walk 50 m and see bamboo huts that have no electric and no water. We can do so hugely better than this, and we should. Sadly it will be left to protectionist government interventions to solve the problems over decades or perhaps even centuries (if we ever make it that far), rather than to just create a decent standard of living worldwide ... which has been imminently possible (and would benefit all of mankind) since the green revolution in the 70's.

Minimum wage laws are a form of economic protectionism, just so you know. If they were eliminated, Filipinos abroad would be one of the beneficiaries. Filipinos left for the same reason I left - because there are more opportunities in the US. If you're persuing a unifed standard of living world wide - you're promoting tyranny. Ever read Harrison Bergeron?

Free trade is good. We're agreed here.

FWIW, I feel your pain about the import/export laws. Recall I am from a lumber town that bases their entire industry on shipping things to the US cheaply. Free trade (which their isn't on Lumber because we kick too much American ***, would be huge.

You moved to the US and got a job in this worst economy we've had in decades. I know several immigrants who have done the same, FOB and get a job within weeks. I have not ever heard of a Filipino who moved to the US and didn't find a job. These jobs always exist, maybe not in every area, but you can find them if you're willing to do whatever work wherever you can find it.

I have a job here - because I have a degree to teach. It's not a minimum wage position. I know people here who do not have jobs and cannot find them, even looking for minimum wage laws. Texas is also quite a bit better than other places in the US - but even here - you have folks who struggle to find work. It's a ****ty economy. The moment Obama gets carted out of the Whitehouse, things will turn around.

They're all obviously worth at least minimum wage though, since they still exist even with minimum wage.

Businesses compensate for their losses with these jobs by cutting hours so that they don't have to pay these people full time benefits.

There is no reason to expect those who are currently unemployed would work at less than them minimum wage.

Absolutely there is. Recall I work with disabled folks. Eliminating the minimum wage would be huge to disabled folks, it would be the best thing that ever happened to them. It would give them a method of pricing in the correct compensation. Right now, they just get dumped on welfare.

They already could work at minimum wage in most cases.

No, they couldn't and there are good reasons why - because they simply don't produce enough to justify minimum wage.

It's not going to lead to a choice we want anyone to make.

There are plenty of people who would be thrilled to work even if they were getting paid less than minimum wage. Especially because they've been dumped on their whole life.

I've worked minimum wage jobs in the past. I've had to "work at it and had to pay bills" with less income than full time minimum wage jobs in the US even. Much of the last 3 years I've been at below minimum wage level of compensation. Sometimes actually negative compensation when one job or savings are paying for the other "jobs".

You've also been in the Philippines which doesn't count. I again rest my case. You've never had to work a full time minimum wage job in the US and had to survive on it.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's amazing how I quote you taking the statement out of context to show how you are takign it out of context, and you take it out of that context to think I'm saying it again without the qualification I was pointing out you stripped from it.

Once again, the US is not running at full employment or even 'near to full employment', or whatever bull**** you want to put out. The US has been in a recession for some time. Like I said - maybe back in 2006, which was 6! years ago you could claim this, but not now.

When it diverges from that consistency it's to underpay in every situation so far.

And the result has been in the past 6 years that wages have dropped across the board, but minimum wage has stayed the same. Ergo - minimum wage is more attractive today than it was 6 years ago. The consequence is that people working minimum wage are going to have a harder time keeping their hours up.

I haven't said we should raise minimum wage.

Uh, yeah. You've been arguing that the minimum wage should be raised from the beginning. Or are we now debating what 'raise' means?

The evidence over the past 40 years would suggest this isn't true for all possible values of "raise".

Evidence already cited from Sowell proves just the opposite. Can you concede the point and we can move on?

I've known of several Filipinos that made it to the US who got jobs FOB. Not a one has reported back that there's no jobs there.

Cool. I know plenty of Americans who are looking for work and have had difficulty finding work. Many >>>>> several. I can also cite the data from the actual employment agencies that also demonstrate this to be the case. I'm sure your 'several', 'filipinos' are just magically finding work that eludes Americans. Do I really have to pull out the job figures to show you that many, many Americans have been long term unemployed?

Even you got a job.

I have more education than anywhere from three quarters to say nine-tenths of Americans, depending on how you count it.

And now you've gone completely off the deep end. You think the Philippines has a $7.25/hr minimum wage?

So why are you bringing the Philippines into this discussion.

The US economy has been adding jobs, making up some of what it lost, since the last bump in minimum wage.

Not as a percentage of the population. The workforce today is smaller than it was in 2007. Ergo - the policy has been a failure in that joblessness is actually worse today than it was back then. Which is what I predicted would happen.

We don't let backwaters get too far out of line of what the general consensus of the US is.

Ah, and the bigotry comes out. Yeah, we get it. Texas is the backwater.

Unsurprisingly, you seem to have missed the point. Santa Fe, NM businesses can pay their workers $9.50/hr ... Texas businesses cannot even manage $7.25/hr according to you ... the fact that New Mexico is looked down on by Texans should only further drive that "fail" you are claiming for Texas home.

Yeah, Texas really envies New Mexico. NOT. New Mexico is a dump.

No. NYC on it's own has about as much chance of moving the federal minimum wage as the federal minimum wage at levels it's maintained since the 60's has of causing unemployment.

NYC is getting it's butt kicked because of it's anti-business policies, so they want to strangle other states that are doing better rather than change their anti-business policies.

You're not a 'poor folk' to me. First, you don't have dependents AFAIK. Second almost no one in the US is actually 'poor' in my estimation.

I'm poor by American standards. And raising the minimum wage is a bad deal.

Yes, because I would support all unions in the US being disbanded.

So why raise minimum wage? It's a loser policy. It doesn't help the people it's supposed to help.

We haven't had inflation of durable goods after either of the minimum wage increases since the recession began.

Really? You clearly haven't been spending much time here if you think that's the case. Food went up 4.5 percent in 2011, and will go up 3.5 this year.

You don't know my arguments. You display the inability to comprehend even simple concepts at every turn.

This whole post has just been one fairy tale after another. Yeah, sure. Believe that. But it's best to do this sort of thing through fiscal policy than raising the minimum wage.

[quote'He posted why he thinks it would. The evidence I've seen is all that it's had ~0 effect in reality.[/quote]

Well then, evidence is lacking for your position. You'd best post some at some point here.

There has been ~0 cost to employment due to the minimum wage in the US.

I've already proven your assertion wrong. Again. Employment is down from 2007. Quite considerably so. Employment is not keeping up with population growth.

You're a liar. You brought up 1450's Europe. You brought up the Philippines in regards to Spain's colonization of it. Please stop lying about what you've been talking about. It makes baby Jesus cry. "Thou shalt not lie."

Hahahaha, nope. You were the one who stated that 'Europeans should be thankful they are lucky bastards', and moaned about how they pillaged and exploited the world. Perhaps the Philippines would prefer Japanese pillaging?

Filipinos actually benefit because of US minimum wage. US manufacturing and food production has moved overseas to get at cheaper labor. This means more jobs overseas. Like those workers for Dole, who moved their pineapple production from Hawaii to the Philippines.

The magic part about it all is it didn't cost the US jobs to do this. Instead of "losing jobs", the US replaced these lower paying jobs with higher paying ones and has also benefited from the whole situation. We've been near full employment for decades even while "shipping jobs overseas".

Of course the whole situation could have been handled better, but we weren't about to actually heed the words at the feet of that statue in NY Harbor.

Still, have you read Harrison Bergeron? There are always going to be people better off and people whom are worse off, and trying to prevent this from happening is worse than doing nothing. Inequality isn't the enemy.

I'm glad you can agree that minimum wage hikes haven't been the problem, and that it all hinges on Obama being President or not.

T'was Obama who raised it. So yes, he's part of the problem. Had he not raised it, the US would have been better off, but his union cronies would be worse off.

It's a red herring until (if) Obamacare changes that. (2014? 2013?)

Obamacare will actually strip benefits away from people. I know folks who have already lost their jobs and benefits because of Obamacare.

I think it's sad that you are selling disabled people short. They are worth more than $7.25/hr.

Deseret notwithstanding, the reality is that if they are equally qualified, and equally capable, they will not get the job. Being able to work for less gives them a competitive advantage.

Most won't get hired because employers won't take a second look. And I disagree - they should be able to work for whatever they can get. They shouldn't be the first ones fired because it's harder to set them up.

I don't understand why you hate humanity so much.

I don't. I know what it's like to be out of work and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. Bad economic policies hurt people and put them out of work. By getting rid of bad economic policies, more people will get work and be providing for themselves.

Most of these people are not looking for work in the US, as they aren't allowed in.

Umm, I'm talking about folks with disabilities, but I'm sure you can tell me you know what it's like just because you've heard that one company actually hires one or two.

Your case is moronic either way.

Full time on minimum wage > Part time on minimum wage. Lowering the minimum wage to get someone on fulltime > part time and getting your hours cut. EOS.

[Wezil]

double posts and Ben.

Another fast read.

[Dinner]

I think we can definitively say that Drake is still full of **** and the US is not in recession.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fiw-jobs-20121005,0,1158534.story

It's pretty obvious that Republicans are trying to cast doubt on the economy because they think it will help them in next month's elections.

[molly bloom]

In 1450 - Europe was behind the Far East in both technology and in access to natural resources.

Err, which natural resources did you have in mind ? Timber ? Iron ? Tin ? Coal ? Copper ? Lead ?


[QUOTE] [It was behind the middle east as well. /QUOTE]

See above.

So that begs the question then - why did Europe succeed where the others did not?

Most of western Europe never experienced the Mongols- according to some historians, the irrigation systems in Iran and Iraq have still yet to get back to where they were before the Mongol and Timurid invasions.

It's got nothing to do with luck and everything to do with how nations were governed

Akbar had at his command an intelligence service and army that made most European forces look like chump change- a century later. The Ottomans could still attempt to force the gates of Vienna more than two centuries later.

That was a conscious decision of China's.

It was one emperor who decided (for various reasons) not to continue the expeditions begun by Cheng Ho- which had exhibited Chinese power as far away as Arabia and East Africa. China had been part of a huge trading network that took in the northern shores of Australia (local sea slugs were traded as delicacies for Chinese tables by Indonesian fishermen) and the Muslim centre at Kilwa in south east Africa and reached as far (eventually) as Great Zimbabwe and Mameluke Egypt.

The Philippines were Spanish because of Queen Isabella and the Reconquista.

Some of the islands were Muslim beforehand. Arab traders had reached there centuries before, on their way to Canton.

[DinoDoc]

I think we can definitively say that Drake is still full of **** and the US is not in recession.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fiw-jobs-20121005,0,1158534.story

It's pretty obvious that Republicans are trying to cast doubt on the economy because they think it will help them in next month's elections.

Given that GDP growth was at a 1.3 percent annual rate in the second quarter of this year which was down from the 1.7 percent previously estimated, I'm curious what you base your claim that the US isn't headed in that direction on exactly?

[Dinner]

The work place participation rate actually went up 0.1% despite 7600 people turning 65 and retiring each day (that's 228,000 per month who retire).

BTW both Aug and July had their numbers revised upwards with 180,000 created in just one month so the rate of new job creation is actually INCREASING not decreasing as we would expect with a recession. I'm also positive Septembers numbers will also get revised upwards as virtually every month's numbers are (July's numbers were revised upwards almost 80%) and then we hit the holiday season which will only increase job growth. Face it, you were wrong, and the US is not in recession.

[DinoDoc]

I never said it was in a recession.

[Ben Kenobi]

The work place participation rate actually went up 0.1% despite 7600 people turning 65 and retiring each day (that's 228,000 per month who retire).

Still down 5+ percent. At this rate, it will take only 50 months to get back to 2007.