FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

Since ol' Henry was one of America's most-notorious anti-Semites/Hitler admirers (look it up . . .), you obviously forgot to employ the blue font . . .

 

If you (not Hayek) have evidence that overturns Card and Krueger, please post it.

Card and Krueger

www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1061482?uid=3739832&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101649513913

www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/min_wage.htm

www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/news/00135/research-shows-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss

 

It is absolutely correct that the evidence linking minimum wage increases to increases in general unemployment is not particularly persuasive; we have a much clearer picture (and it's not very pretty) regarding the minimum wage's effect on teen unemployment. Nevertheless, the idea that "business" can somehow generate prosperity by simply increasing wages is stuff and nonsense. It is an unfortunate (but apparently very tempting) perversion of Say's Law. This perversion manifests itself somewhat along the lines of "if you pay your workers more, those wages will come back to you in the form of increased business." No, no, a thousand times no. Good wages are a sign of, rather than a cause of, prosperity. If paying a wage premium enables the individual business to become more productive -- that's what happened when Ford* did his $5 a day bit, because he steadied his production rate and reduced his labor turnover costs -- that's all fine and dandy**. But it was the productivity made possible by the wage premium that led to Ford's increased prosperity, not the other way around.

*Who was a friggin' lunatic.

**I should note that the UC-Berkeley study mentioned by, among others, Baron_Scicluna involved Walmart paying a pretty hefty premium re: the minimum wage. That study was based on data regarding Walmart wages circa. 2001, which, per that study, averaged $9.70 an hour. This figure was, at a minimum, half again higher than California's minimum wage (which was $5.75 until January of 2001, when it increased to $6.25). I would assume that few here are inclined to praise Walmart for its beneficent and foresightful compensation policies.

Apologies, Az ... I kept waiting for someone else to post.

 

Which no one said.

Here's the thing. Of course there are arguments to be made on both sides of the idea that an increase in the minimum wage helps the economy. Including the slippery definitions of words like "help" and "economy."

But why not let some of the dullards here support there own fucking arguments for a change? You aren't the only one who made it out of high school. Which is where most of us learned about 'Fordism.'

We get it. Capital uber alles. Let your co-religionists pipe up once in a while.

 

I must have been mistaken in the inferences I drew from posts from, among others, you, B_S, BTE and d_w1.

My fellow communicants have fallen rather quiet of late, so perhaps 'twould be best were I to follow their lead.

Helluva year, Crash -- you know how it is.

 

Lindsey Graham still wants answers on Benghazi before Hagel can be confirmed. Any guess as to why Benghazi is relevant here? I'm at a loss.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=18493602

 

"by simply increasing wages" is the problem phrase.

It's the same sort of argumentative reductionism you'd call us dullards out for.

 

What I especially don't understand, in this age of handlers, is why there wasn't a stool just out of camera reach, not more than eight inches from his hand.

Talking for 10 minutes under hot lights, even off a Prompter, is high pressure. No applause lines. No cutaway shots of Al Franken. Surprised the behind the scenes people or Rubio didn't take this into account.

 

I suppose you could be right. Educate me as to why pumping more money into the hands of people who genuinely need the it and will turn around and spend every bloody nickel of it would be such a drag to the economy. Why is investment in people so bad?

Corporate profits are pretty good these days, no?

 

That's what I don't get. It's not as if they are going to hoard cash and not spend it.

 

We also need to define the word "prosperity."

 

But isn't it one of the underlying principles of conservatism that if you cut taxes for the wealthy, that it will trickle down to the rest of the population because the wealthy will have more money to hire people?

Because if that's the case, wouldn't it also work that if workers had more money, they'd also be able to spend more money at other businesses?

Put it this way: If I don't make enough money, I can't afford to buy coffee at a Starbucks. If enough people like me can't do that, then Starbucks loses money and can't afford to hire people. And if enough people don't buy coffee, then the machines don't break down, and people like YF won't get called on for repairs.