chuckakers 426 #76 March 7, 2009 QuoteYour one warning. No personal attacks. So I can't respond in kind when someone accuses me of the same thing? Read his post and tell me that's not what he did. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_threaded;post=3504137;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC; Let's be fair here, Bill. If this is really an open forum, why are you singling me out when my statements were in response to someone accusing me of being a racist?????Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #77 March 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf, however, you think I'm stereo-typing any group other than people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., then you would be wrong. Please enlighten us with the extent of the problem. How many such people are there "working the system" as opposed to being genuinely in need of assistance, due, for example to being one of the 2.5 million people recently laid off in the Bush recession? WAIT A MINUTE But.... Bush raised the minimum wage.... I thought the party argument was that doing that would NOT cause unemployment?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #78 March 7, 2009 QuoteCritics, however, argue that their research was flawed.[48] Subsequent attempts to verify the claims requested payroll cards from employers to verify employment, and found that the minimum wage increases were followed by decreases in employment. On the other hand, an assessment of data collected and analyzed by David Neumark and William Wascher did not initially contradict the Card/Krueger results,[49] but in a later edited version they found that the same general sample set did increase unemployment. The 18.8% wage hike resulted in "[statistically] insignificant—although almost always negative" employment effects 48. Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage". Cato Institute. April 22, 2006. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n1-8.html. 49. http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/minimumw_bp_1996.pdf 50. Neumark & Wascher, American Economic Review, Volume 90 No. 5._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #79 March 7, 2009 Quote G'day sir the final paragraphs from your link: Quote among economists, the tide appears to be turning in favor of viewing the minimum wage as benign. More than 650 academic economists in the United States—including five Nobel Prize winners and six past presidents of the American Economics Association—signed a recent statement supporting an increase in the federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour. This is not to suggest that debates among economists have ended, but it must be said that the evidence supporting minimum-wage mandates continues to grow. The preponderance of the evidence supports the use of this public policy tool to help low wage workers improve their living standards. To date, the Florida case backs up that assessment. stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #80 March 7, 2009 Quotemy statements were in response to someone accusing me of being a racist????? i didn't say you were a racist - i gave a reasonable hint that this may be a possibility as you say this is not so... fair enough but you would be in a better position to debate if you didn't resort to rhetorical stereotypes as your launching pointstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #81 March 7, 2009 QuoteThe 18.8% wage hike resulted in "[statistically] insignificant... mployment effects bit more... QuotePaul Krugman, moreover, states that Card and Krueger "found no evidence that minimum wage increases in the range that the United States has experiences led to job losses. Their work has been attacked because it seems to contradict Econ 101 and because it was ideologically disturbing to many. Yet it has stood up very well to repeated challenges, and new cases confirming its results keep coming in." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wagestay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerryzflies 0 #82 March 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf, however, you think I'm stereo-typing any group other than people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., then you would be wrong. Please enlighten us with the extent of the problem. How many such people are there "working the system" as opposed to being genuinely in need of assistance, due, for example to being one of the 2.5 million people recently laid off in the Bush recession? WAIT A MINUTE But.... Bush raised the minimum wage.... I thought the party argument was that doing that would NOT cause unemployment?! If you really believe that changing the minimum wage caused the Bush recession, I have some ocean property in Nevada I'd like to sell you. Or do you still deny the "R word, like Republicans did for so long.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerryzflies 0 #83 March 7, 2009 QuoteQuote Your personal anecdotes are not relevant to anything. If all you can come up with is $7.3B, that's peanuts compared with the underpayment of taxes by self employed individuals and small business owners ($150Billion according to IRS). I suggest you make your crusade against them instead. It's also peanuts compared with the money wasted on an unnecessary war in Iraq. I can't recall any post of yours complaining about that waste. First you ask me to enlighten you and give you numbers. When I do, you tell me my experiences are not relevant and that the numbers don't mean anything. Then you attempt to change the subject with tax "underpayments" and the war. If you want me to address the issue, then address it yourself instead of making comparisons to things you feel waste money. We can discuss those on their own merits or lack thereof. Two wrongs don't make a right, but attempting to simply divert the argument in a new direction is a cheap ploy, that is if you really do want to have an honest debate on the topic. The fact is $7.3 BILLION returned to the government in just a 4 year period is an enormous amount of fraud. When the government readily admits that it only catches a small amount of the overall fraud committed each year, that number is more likely 2, 3, or maybe even 4 or 5 times that $73 billion - and that's one stinking program! Now, if the same holds true for Social Security, housing subsidies, s-chip, food stamps, unemployment, and the HUNDREDS of other programs being worked by people (and there's plenty of evidence that it does), the total number must be astounding...no, STAGGERING. Now if you would like to discuss the topic you challenged me on, I'd like to hear your response. If, however, you plan to again trivialize my statements (backed up with stats, mind you), and attempt to take the debate in other directions, don't bother replying. For what it's worth, I'm in no way saying we shouldn't have these programs. They are very important and necessary for those who really need them. However, the fraud in the system is well documented and rampant. THAT's what you wanted me to show you, and I did. $7.3B in a 4 year period! You have some pretty misguided priorities. We wast more than that in Iraq every month. The heroes of the GOP, small business owners, cheat honest taxpayers out of that much every 2 weeks. Cast the beam out of your own eye before worrying about the mote in someone else's eye.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckakers 426 #84 March 7, 2009 Quote Quote my statements were in response to someone accusing me of being a racist????? i didn't say you were a racist - i gave a reasonable hint that this may be a possibility as you say this is not so... fair enough but you would be in a better position to debate if you didn't resort to rhetorical stereotypes as your launching point Using your logic, we can call anyone anything we want on this forum by simply adding the words "I think it's a reasonable possibility that you are a" (insert personal attack here). The launching point of my debate was not stereo-typical. The launching point of my debate was people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc.,who are not going to work for things they already get for filling out a few forms, sobbing to a government councilor, and waiting by the mailbox for a check from me and the rest of the taxpayers. That's a pretty specific group of people, don't you think? If my description of a specific group of people is stereo-typical to you, I can't help ya. I'll leave that to the readers to draw their own conclusions.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #85 March 7, 2009 Quote If my description of a specific group of people is stereo-typical to you, I can't help ya. I'll leave that to the readers to draw their own conclusions. good enough - the readers have their own minds (keep those whistles short and sharp)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #86 March 7, 2009 Quote Quote G'day sir the final paragraphs from your link: Quote among economists, the tide appears to be turning in favor of viewing the minimum wage as benign. More than 650 academic economists in the United States—including five Nobel Prize winners and six past presidents of the American Economics Association—signed a recent statement supporting an increase in the federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour. This is not to suggest that debates among economists have ended, but it must be said that the evidence supporting minimum-wage mandates continues to grow. The preponderance of the evidence supports the use of this public policy tool to help low wage workers improve their living standards. To date, the Florida case backs up that assessment. I read it. Glad you finally did. I know those statments were in there along with statements speaking to how hard it is to really meaningfully measure. (which cuts both ways) So, cherry pick if you like. I posted a more honest less slanted article than you did. It may just slightly favor your position Glad you read it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #87 March 7, 2009 QuoteIt may just slightly favor your position. what do you think of my second point - that an increase in the minimum wage increases the demand to work by the local labour force (thus decreasing the demand for migrant labour)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kbordson 8 #88 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf, however, you think I'm stereo-typing any group other than people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., then you would be wrong. Please enlighten us with the extent of the problem. How many such people are there "working the system" as opposed to being genuinely in need of assistance, due, for example to being one of the 2.5 million people recently laid off in the Bush recession? WAIT A MINUTE But.... Bush raised the minimum wage.... I thought the party argument was that doing that would NOT cause unemployment?! If you really believe that changing the minimum wage caused the Bush recession, I have some ocean property in Nevada I'd like to sell you. Or do you still deny the "R word, like Republicans did for so long. I didn't say that I "believe that changing the minimum wage caused the Bush recession". I'm just pointing out the contradictions in the argument "raising the minimum wage is good. Life will be SO MUCH BETTER!!" and using the FACT that the minimum wage WAS recently increased, however a recession DID occur. (not a correlation or a causation).... but yet the argument is now "raising it MORE will be SO MUCH BETTER!!!" I just am not naive enough to buy that. (nor the ocean front property... but if you want to LIE about having it and selling it... that I might believe) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #89 March 8, 2009 QuotePaul Krugman, moreover, states that Card and Krueger "found no evidence that minimum wage increases in the range that the United States has experiences led to job losses. Their work has been attacked because it seems to contradict Econ 101 and because it was ideologically disturbing to many. Yet it has stood up very well to repeated challenges, and new cases confirming its results keep coming in." The article doesn't lean for or against Paul Krugman's finding. But it does make good points about why most find the study controversial. To me, it seems that this was a fluke. Where are the other studies that show the same results? This is just one instance that job loss didn't happen. When more studies come out similar, then maybe we could put the unemployment effects of increasing minimum wage to bed._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerryzflies 0 #90 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuotePaul Krugman, moreover, states that Card and Krueger "found no evidence that minimum wage increases in the range that the United States has experiences led to job losses. Their work has been attacked because it seems to contradict Econ 101 and because it was ideologically disturbing to many. Yet it has stood up very well to repeated challenges, and new cases confirming its results keep coming in." The article doesn't lean for or against Paul Krugman's finding. But it does make good points about why most find the study controversial. To me, it seems that this was a fluke. Where are the other studies that show the same results? This is just one instance that job loss didn't happen. When more studies come out similar, then maybe we could put the unemployment effects of increasing minimum wage to bed. We've already put to bed the claim that increasing the minimum wage always results in more unemployment. That myth was easy to disprove.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #91 March 8, 2009 Fair enough._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kbordson 8 #92 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotePaul Krugman, moreover, states that Card and Krueger "found no evidence that minimum wage increases in the range that the United States has experiences led to job losses. Their work has been attacked because it seems to contradict Econ 101 and because it was ideologically disturbing to many. Yet it has stood up very well to repeated challenges, and new cases confirming its results keep coming in." The article doesn't lean for or against Paul Krugman's finding. But it does make good points about why most find the study controversial. To me, it seems that this was a fluke. Where are the other studies that show the same results? This is just one instance that job loss didn't happen. When more studies come out similar, then maybe we could put the unemployment effects of increasing minimum wage to bed. We've already put to bed the claim that increasing the minimum wage always results in more unemployment. That myth was easy to disprove. And we put to bed the claim that increasing the minimum wage always leads to prosperity. That myth was easy to disprove Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #93 March 8, 2009 QuoteAnd we put to bed the claim that increasing the minimum wage always leads to prosperity. That myth was easy to disprove if there is no increase in unemployment (not saying there is an increase in employment - depends upon the economic situation at the time) then those with an increased wage will make less demand on government benefitsstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerryzflies 0 #94 March 8, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Paul Krugman, moreover, states that Card and Krueger "found no evidence that minimum wage increases in the range that the United States has experiences led to job losses. Their work has been attacked because it seems to contradict Econ 101 and because it was ideologically disturbing to many. Yet it has stood up very well to repeated challenges, and new cases confirming its results keep coming in." The article doesn't lean for or against Paul Krugman's finding. But it does make good points about why most find the study controversial. To me, it seems that this was a fluke. Where are the other studies that show the same results? This is just one instance that job loss didn't happen. When more studies come out similar, then maybe we could put the unemployment effects of increasing minimum wage to bed. We've already put to bed the claim that increasing the minimum wage always results in more unemployment. That myth was easy to disprove. And we put to bed the claim that increasing the minimum wage always leads to prosperity. That myth was easy to disprove STRAW MAN - no-one claimed that it always did. On the other hand, we DID have this claim: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3503254#3503254 If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MartinOlsson 0 #95 March 8, 2009 QuoteAnd we put to bed the claim that increasing the minimum wage always leads to prosperity. That myth was easy to disprove The only thing that is sure is that those busting their ass at the Golden Seagull* is getting a little extra cash by the end of the month. If every other variable in the equation seems more or less stable, then how could this be bad? /Martin *local name for McDonalds :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #96 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAs it has before, an increase in the minumum wage would put more out of work and therfore MORE on the government programs nope, increasing the minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment (tell me when you think it has) Every time manditory increases in the min wage have been implimented, thats when. now proven wrong. next!stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #97 March 8, 2009 QuoteSTRAW MAN - no-one claimed that it always did. see post abovestay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #98 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAs it has before, an increase in the minumum wage would put more out of work and therfore MORE on the government programs nope, increasing the minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment (tell me when you think it has) Every time manditory increases in the min wage have been implimented, thats when. now proven wrong. next! Ok, "every time" was a bit much. but, saying you have proven you point with one very weak example is just a much an exageration."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #99 March 8, 2009 i concede that just increasing the minimum wage to a stupid amount makes no sense - but just as interest rates have to be set to a sensible level the same with the minimum wage my op doesn't mention employment or unemployment - just less workers claiming government benefitsstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #100 March 8, 2009 For your consideration. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/209972 http://www.jstor.org/pss/1061611"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 4 of 11 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jerryzflies 0 #82 March 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf, however, you think I'm stereo-typing any group other than people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., then you would be wrong. Please enlighten us with the extent of the problem. How many such people are there "working the system" as opposed to being genuinely in need of assistance, due, for example to being one of the 2.5 million people recently laid off in the Bush recession? WAIT A MINUTE But.... Bush raised the minimum wage.... I thought the party argument was that doing that would NOT cause unemployment?! If you really believe that changing the minimum wage caused the Bush recession, I have some ocean property in Nevada I'd like to sell you. Or do you still deny the "R word, like Republicans did for so long.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #83 March 7, 2009 QuoteQuote Your personal anecdotes are not relevant to anything. If all you can come up with is $7.3B, that's peanuts compared with the underpayment of taxes by self employed individuals and small business owners ($150Billion according to IRS). I suggest you make your crusade against them instead. It's also peanuts compared with the money wasted on an unnecessary war in Iraq. I can't recall any post of yours complaining about that waste. First you ask me to enlighten you and give you numbers. When I do, you tell me my experiences are not relevant and that the numbers don't mean anything. Then you attempt to change the subject with tax "underpayments" and the war. If you want me to address the issue, then address it yourself instead of making comparisons to things you feel waste money. We can discuss those on their own merits or lack thereof. Two wrongs don't make a right, but attempting to simply divert the argument in a new direction is a cheap ploy, that is if you really do want to have an honest debate on the topic. The fact is $7.3 BILLION returned to the government in just a 4 year period is an enormous amount of fraud. When the government readily admits that it only catches a small amount of the overall fraud committed each year, that number is more likely 2, 3, or maybe even 4 or 5 times that $73 billion - and that's one stinking program! Now, if the same holds true for Social Security, housing subsidies, s-chip, food stamps, unemployment, and the HUNDREDS of other programs being worked by people (and there's plenty of evidence that it does), the total number must be astounding...no, STAGGERING. Now if you would like to discuss the topic you challenged me on, I'd like to hear your response. If, however, you plan to again trivialize my statements (backed up with stats, mind you), and attempt to take the debate in other directions, don't bother replying. For what it's worth, I'm in no way saying we shouldn't have these programs. They are very important and necessary for those who really need them. However, the fraud in the system is well documented and rampant. THAT's what you wanted me to show you, and I did. $7.3B in a 4 year period! You have some pretty misguided priorities. We wast more than that in Iraq every month. The heroes of the GOP, small business owners, cheat honest taxpayers out of that much every 2 weeks. Cast the beam out of your own eye before worrying about the mote in someone else's eye.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #84 March 7, 2009 Quote Quote my statements were in response to someone accusing me of being a racist????? i didn't say you were a racist - i gave a reasonable hint that this may be a possibility as you say this is not so... fair enough but you would be in a better position to debate if you didn't resort to rhetorical stereotypes as your launching point Using your logic, we can call anyone anything we want on this forum by simply adding the words "I think it's a reasonable possibility that you are a" (insert personal attack here). The launching point of my debate was not stereo-typical. The launching point of my debate was people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc.,who are not going to work for things they already get for filling out a few forms, sobbing to a government councilor, and waiting by the mailbox for a check from me and the rest of the taxpayers. That's a pretty specific group of people, don't you think? If my description of a specific group of people is stereo-typical to you, I can't help ya. I'll leave that to the readers to draw their own conclusions.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #85 March 7, 2009 Quote If my description of a specific group of people is stereo-typical to you, I can't help ya. I'll leave that to the readers to draw their own conclusions. good enough - the readers have their own minds (keep those whistles short and sharp)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #86 March 7, 2009 Quote Quote G'day sir the final paragraphs from your link: Quote among economists, the tide appears to be turning in favor of viewing the minimum wage as benign. More than 650 academic economists in the United States—including five Nobel Prize winners and six past presidents of the American Economics Association—signed a recent statement supporting an increase in the federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour. This is not to suggest that debates among economists have ended, but it must be said that the evidence supporting minimum-wage mandates continues to grow. The preponderance of the evidence supports the use of this public policy tool to help low wage workers improve their living standards. To date, the Florida case backs up that assessment. I read it. Glad you finally did. I know those statments were in there along with statements speaking to how hard it is to really meaningfully measure. (which cuts both ways) So, cherry pick if you like. I posted a more honest less slanted article than you did. It may just slightly favor your position Glad you read it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #87 March 7, 2009 QuoteIt may just slightly favor your position. what do you think of my second point - that an increase in the minimum wage increases the demand to work by the local labour force (thus decreasing the demand for migrant labour)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #88 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf, however, you think I'm stereo-typing any group other than people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., then you would be wrong. Please enlighten us with the extent of the problem. How many such people are there "working the system" as opposed to being genuinely in need of assistance, due, for example to being one of the 2.5 million people recently laid off in the Bush recession? WAIT A MINUTE But.... Bush raised the minimum wage.... I thought the party argument was that doing that would NOT cause unemployment?! If you really believe that changing the minimum wage caused the Bush recession, I have some ocean property in Nevada I'd like to sell you. Or do you still deny the "R word, like Republicans did for so long. I didn't say that I "believe that changing the minimum wage caused the Bush recession". I'm just pointing out the contradictions in the argument "raising the minimum wage is good. Life will be SO MUCH BETTER!!" and using the FACT that the minimum wage WAS recently increased, however a recession DID occur. (not a correlation or a causation).... but yet the argument is now "raising it MORE will be SO MUCH BETTER!!!" I just am not naive enough to buy that. (nor the ocean front property... but if you want to LIE about having it and selling it... that I might believe) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #89 March 8, 2009 QuotePaul Krugman, moreover, states that Card and Krueger "found no evidence that minimum wage increases in the range that the United States has experiences led to job losses. Their work has been attacked because it seems to contradict Econ 101 and because it was ideologically disturbing to many. Yet it has stood up very well to repeated challenges, and new cases confirming its results keep coming in." The article doesn't lean for or against Paul Krugman's finding. But it does make good points about why most find the study controversial. To me, it seems that this was a fluke. Where are the other studies that show the same results? This is just one instance that job loss didn't happen. When more studies come out similar, then maybe we could put the unemployment effects of increasing minimum wage to bed._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #90 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuotePaul Krugman, moreover, states that Card and Krueger "found no evidence that minimum wage increases in the range that the United States has experiences led to job losses. Their work has been attacked because it seems to contradict Econ 101 and because it was ideologically disturbing to many. Yet it has stood up very well to repeated challenges, and new cases confirming its results keep coming in." The article doesn't lean for or against Paul Krugman's finding. But it does make good points about why most find the study controversial. To me, it seems that this was a fluke. Where are the other studies that show the same results? This is just one instance that job loss didn't happen. When more studies come out similar, then maybe we could put the unemployment effects of increasing minimum wage to bed. We've already put to bed the claim that increasing the minimum wage always results in more unemployment. That myth was easy to disprove.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #91 March 8, 2009 Fair enough._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #92 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotePaul Krugman, moreover, states that Card and Krueger "found no evidence that minimum wage increases in the range that the United States has experiences led to job losses. Their work has been attacked because it seems to contradict Econ 101 and because it was ideologically disturbing to many. Yet it has stood up very well to repeated challenges, and new cases confirming its results keep coming in." The article doesn't lean for or against Paul Krugman's finding. But it does make good points about why most find the study controversial. To me, it seems that this was a fluke. Where are the other studies that show the same results? This is just one instance that job loss didn't happen. When more studies come out similar, then maybe we could put the unemployment effects of increasing minimum wage to bed. We've already put to bed the claim that increasing the minimum wage always results in more unemployment. That myth was easy to disprove. And we put to bed the claim that increasing the minimum wage always leads to prosperity. That myth was easy to disprove Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #93 March 8, 2009 QuoteAnd we put to bed the claim that increasing the minimum wage always leads to prosperity. That myth was easy to disprove if there is no increase in unemployment (not saying there is an increase in employment - depends upon the economic situation at the time) then those with an increased wage will make less demand on government benefitsstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #94 March 8, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Paul Krugman, moreover, states that Card and Krueger "found no evidence that minimum wage increases in the range that the United States has experiences led to job losses. Their work has been attacked because it seems to contradict Econ 101 and because it was ideologically disturbing to many. Yet it has stood up very well to repeated challenges, and new cases confirming its results keep coming in." The article doesn't lean for or against Paul Krugman's finding. But it does make good points about why most find the study controversial. To me, it seems that this was a fluke. Where are the other studies that show the same results? This is just one instance that job loss didn't happen. When more studies come out similar, then maybe we could put the unemployment effects of increasing minimum wage to bed. We've already put to bed the claim that increasing the minimum wage always results in more unemployment. That myth was easy to disprove. And we put to bed the claim that increasing the minimum wage always leads to prosperity. That myth was easy to disprove STRAW MAN - no-one claimed that it always did. On the other hand, we DID have this claim: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3503254#3503254 If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MartinOlsson 0 #95 March 8, 2009 QuoteAnd we put to bed the claim that increasing the minimum wage always leads to prosperity. That myth was easy to disprove The only thing that is sure is that those busting their ass at the Golden Seagull* is getting a little extra cash by the end of the month. If every other variable in the equation seems more or less stable, then how could this be bad? /Martin *local name for McDonalds :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #96 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAs it has before, an increase in the minumum wage would put more out of work and therfore MORE on the government programs nope, increasing the minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment (tell me when you think it has) Every time manditory increases in the min wage have been implimented, thats when. now proven wrong. next!stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #97 March 8, 2009 QuoteSTRAW MAN - no-one claimed that it always did. see post abovestay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #98 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAs it has before, an increase in the minumum wage would put more out of work and therfore MORE on the government programs nope, increasing the minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment (tell me when you think it has) Every time manditory increases in the min wage have been implimented, thats when. now proven wrong. next! Ok, "every time" was a bit much. but, saying you have proven you point with one very weak example is just a much an exageration."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #99 March 8, 2009 i concede that just increasing the minimum wage to a stupid amount makes no sense - but just as interest rates have to be set to a sensible level the same with the minimum wage my op doesn't mention employment or unemployment - just less workers claiming government benefitsstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #100 March 8, 2009 For your consideration. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/209972 http://www.jstor.org/pss/1061611"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
