Raise the minimum wage?

[Solomon]

 

How come laws are passed when the majority of us oppose them, then? 

It's not that common but there are several reasons why it can happen:

- the elected officials believe they are acting in the long-term good, e.g. austerity measures

- public sentiment has shifted since the previous election

- they receive financial or political incentives to support a law

- voters didn't bother to find out what their preferred candidate's position was before they voted

 

Which laws are you talking about? What evidence do you have that the majority oppose them?

[WISD0MTREE]

It's not that common but there are several reasons why it can happen:

- the elected officials believe they are acting in the long-term good, e.g. austerity measures

- public sentiment has shifted since the previous election

- they receive financial or political incentives to support a law

- voters didn't bother to find out what their preferred candidate's position was before they voted

 

Which laws are you talking about? What evidence do you have that the majority oppose them?

- more democracy as opposed to republic

- It hasn't

- more democracy as opposed to republic

- And if the law was named after him? 

 

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-poll.php

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/07/23/cnn-poll-twice-as-many-americans-hurt-by-obamacare-than-helped-n1865078

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

I'm about to lose battery. Twonhall is right winged site, but idk about the others, 

[Ayayay]

Wisdomtree, I'd recommend that you read Federalist Papers, specifically #10. Here is an excerpt for you though

 

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

[Toxxikation]

Wisdomtree, the law was not named after Obama, it was NICKNAMED after him. The name of the law is, in fact, the Affordable Care Act, not Obamacare.

[WISD0MTREE]

Wisdomtree, the law was not named after Obama, it was NICKNAMED after him. The name of the law is, in fact, the Affordable Care Act, not Obamacare.

Hey, the sun is hot. 

[Grillick]

- more democracy as opposed to republic

- It hasn't

- more democracy as opposed to republic

- And if the law was named after him?

 

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-poll.php

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/07/23/cnn-poll-twice-as-many-americans-hurt-by-obamacare-than-helped-n1865078

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

I'm about to lose battery. Twonhall is right winged site, but idk about the others,

It's interesting that only one of those links actually supports your position, and the only unbiased one clearly disagrees with you.

[WISD0MTREE]

It's interesting that only one of those links actually supports your position, and the only unbiased one clearly disagrees with you.

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-poll.php 

44% of Americans supported the law, with 56% against. By party affiliation, 75% of Democrats, 27% of Independents, and 14% of Republicans favored the law overall.

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/07/23/cnn-poll-twice-as-many-americans-hurt-by-obamacare-than-helped-n1865078

Obamacare's overall approval rating remains upside-down by nearly 20 points (40/59)

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

RCP Average 9/2 - 9/15 -- 41.0 51.4 Against/Oppose +10.4

CBS News/NY Times 9/12 - 9/15 1009 A 41 51 Against/Oppose +10

Rasmussen Reports* 9/13 - 9/14 1000 LV 43 53 Against/Oppose +10

ABC News/Wash Post 9/4 - 9/7 RV 43 53 Against/Oppose +10

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 9/3 - 9/7 1000 RV 34 48 Against/Oppose +14

Pew Research 9/2 - 9/9 2002 A 44 52 Against/Oppose +8

 

Where? 

[Warren Harding]

An increase in minimum wages leads to an increase in the costs of goods and services because the cost of running a business increases.

 

Increasing minimum wage would give those workers more money to spend BUT costs of the goods and services they purchase have also increased. Thus, the amount of the increase is eaten up by taxes and increased costs in goods and services. Over a short span of time (a year or two), it catches up and the $7.25 of today equals the $10.10 of tomorrow. Then, certain people want to raise it again and the cycle repeats itself.

 

All of this is going on while many businesses are having to contend with increased costs of running a business due to Obamacare. That is also getting passed off to the consumer. So, now we have two causes for increases in the costs of goods and services.

 

About 70% of all economic activity is consumer spending. When the cost of goods and services increase, consumer spending slows. When consumer spending slows, recessions happen. With a recession we see some businesses close. When businesses close, unemployment results.

 

There would be an increase in tax revenues from a minimum wage increase, but what happens when costs increase and consumer spending slows? There is a drop in revenue due to the unemployment caused by the recession that would be looming around the corner.

[Ayayay]

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-poll.php 

44% of Americans supported the law, with 56% against. By party affiliation, 75% of Democrats, 27% of Independents, and 14% of Republicans favored the law overall.

The site also says "It turns out the more people know about the program, the more they like it."

 

Oh then it includes a video too, let's watch that.

 

 

JF: Do you agree with the Affordable Care act or Obamacare?

Voter: The Affordable

JF: And why do you prefer the Affordable Care Act over Obamacare?

Voter: I just don't agree with the whole Obamacare policy thing that's going on. I just don't agree with it.

JF: And do you think that an informed citizenry is essential to a democracy?

Voter: Yes

We're doomed.

 

It is times like these where I have to ask myself, is a stupidity of millions worse than the tyranny of one man?

Edited September 25, 2014 by underlordgc

[Warren Harding]

Really, public opinion doesn't matter when it comes to Obamacare anymore. It Is a court matter now and the article below explains a slight problem with Obamacare.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/will-textualism-kill-obamacare

 

If that case makes it to SCOTUS, I have a feeling that Obamacare is screwed. It is no secret that SCOTUS has not been friendly to President Obama when it comes to textualism.

[Warren Harding]

The more that I look at that chart, the more troubling it is. Those provisions cost megabucks. Where is that money coming from?

 

However, contrary to popular belief, the GOP does not oppose all of the provisions listed in that chart. They are on the record with "let's scrap it and start over with a program that keeps the good parts". Right now, SCOTUS could shut it down but pieces of Obamacare will continue on in some form for years to come. That is another troubling thing because the GOP also supports some of the provisions that cost megabucks, while acknowledging that consumer spending is still soft and tax revenues aren't exactly strong.

 

Another problems is that the cost of being hospitalized, operations, tests, etc. are still increasing. Where is that money coming from?

 

Obamacare is like social security in the 1930's. Back then, one paid into the system until age 65 and then collected off of it until death. It was a gamble considering the life expectancy was less than 60. More people were going to pay into it than benefit from it. A lot has changed since then. People are living longer as the expectancy is now in the late-70's range. That sort of leads us into future problems with Obamacare. The population is getting older. Unfortunately age has it's downsides when it comes to health problems....increased risks of cancer, heart problems, Alzheimer's (which is expected to hit 1 out of 4 in the next 50 years). Where is the money going to come from to combat that?

[SoS]

I don't understand why there's an arguement that increases in minimum wage will result in a higher standard of living and won't result in higher prices. There's 40+ years of statistics from BLS that prove my point.

[Grillick]

Literally nobody is arguing that increasing the minimum wage won't increase cost of living and prices.

 

But it is absolutely false to state that there are any statistics or studies that demonstrate that an increase in the minimum wage would increase cost of living more than (or even the same amount as) it would increase median and/or mean incomes.

[Solomon]

Portugal (where I am) has just announced that the minimum monthly salary will rise from 485 Euros per month to 505 Euros per month from October 1st, following a determined campaign by the country's main unions/syndicates. The rationale is that people can't afford the basic living costs at the current level. The increase won't make a huge difference to poor people but it's a step in the right direction. However, for a country that is strongly democratic, the Portuguese are still too tolerant of income inequality and there isn't the realization that votes can change things fundamentally.

[SoS]

Literally nobody is arguing that increasing the minimum wage won't increase cost of living and prices.

 

But it is absolutely false to state that there are any statistics or studies that demonstrate that an increase in the minimum wage would increase cost of living more than (or even the same amount as) it would increase median and/or mean incomes.

Of course there are such statistics They are most likely even correlated somewhere. Median income is charted too. Last I checked it was $39k in USA. Do you really believe inflation doesn't affect median wages the same as it affects minimum wages?

 

I can't really speculate what ripples in the market raising minimum wage might cause. But I know from statistics that those increases have never resulted in increased buying power.

[Grillick]

Of course there are such statistics

Citation needed.

They are most likely even correlated somewhere. Median income is charted too. Last I checked it was $39k in USA.

Correlation does not equal causation - even assuming there is a noticeable correlation between minimum wage and median income (a proposition for which a citation is needed)

Do you really believe inflation doesn't affect median wages the same as it affects minimum wages?

I do, in fact, believe that minimum wages are completely unaffected by inflation, unless Congress (or a state legislature) steps in to change them.

I can't really speculate what ripples in the market raising minimum wage might cause.

Fortunately, nobody is asking you to speculate. Rather, we'd only like you to read the reports of trained economists who have already done the work for you.

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

But I know from statistics that those increases have never resulted in increased buying power.

Citation needed.

[SoS]

BLS cited. They have all the charts.

 

The current correlation is minimum wage is 38% of median wage. The correlation I'm referring to is a chart that shows; minimum wage, median wage, and their buying power (inflation). I'm suggesting no causation, beyond the plain truth that higher wages increase production costs. You are suggesting more causation than me by supposing the rising minimum wage will lift all boats and carry the costs.

 

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "wages affected by inflation". I mean that increased prices (aka inflation) has reduced the buying power of minimum wage to less than the buying power of minimum wage 40 years ago. Causation? Inflation? It's plain to me, but maybe everything I think I know about cost and price is wrong.

 

Economists are generally liars.

Edited September 27, 2014 by SoS

[SoS]

There's a page at dol that shows GDP is unaffected by increases in min wage.

[Grillick]

Okay, you obviously don't care enough to engage in a reasonable discussion on this subject. If you can't be bothered to provide direct links to the sources you are using for your arguments, I can only conclude that you are either making them up or deliberately misinterpreting them and don't want to be found out.

[SoS]

http://www.dol.gov/minwage/minwage-gdp-history.htm

 

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42973.pdf

 

I just resent the idea of linking someone to images of a blue sky. These are proven statistics: inflation, wages, GDP, etc. I don't feel the need to cite them. It's indisputable fact. The theories of economist, on the other hand...are worthless even when cited.

[Grillick]

Either you're deliberately misinterpreting the information to prove your point, or you're doing such a bad job explaining your point that I have no idea what you're trying to argue.

 

You started off by saying that increasing the cost of production (by raising minimum wages) would increase the price of goods. Nobody denied the truth of that statement, but rather disagreed with your assessment of the scope of that effect. When asked to demonstrate that an increase in the minimum wage would result in an equal or greater increase in prices, you responded "there's 40+ years of statistics from BLS that prove my point." But what point is that, exactly? That the buying power of a minimum wage worker has decreased over the last 40 years because the minimum wage has failed to keep up with inflation? If that was your point, then we are in agreement. But I was pretty sure that your point was that we shouldn't raise the minimum wage because it would cause more inflation than the increase in wages for minimum wage workers.

 

That's the point I wanted you to prove. So when I asked for statistics to demonstrate that, I was certainly surprised when you responded with a link to a Department of Labor study that shows "the change in GDP is not affected by changes in the minimum wage." That page, in fact, seems to dispute your argument that increasing the minimum wage would increase inflation. All these statistics you have provided show only that the real minimum wage has failed to keep up with the rate of inflation. This is a tautological statement, though, because the minimum wage is a fixed dollar amount unrelated to inflation, so obviously it wouldn't keep up with inflation. I don't see how this supports an argument that minimum wage should not be increased.

[Ayayay]

tautological

Every time I hear that word I can only think of an XKCD comic

 

Edited September 27, 2014 by underlordgc

[WISD0MTREE]

The site also says "It turns out the more people know about the program, the more they like it."

 

So a republic is based off of what the educated people believe? Nope. 

 

Also, semi-relevant: 

[SoS]

The problem is I'm not explaining my argument.

 

We agree increased labor costs will increase inflation. To what scale, I won't even speculate. We agree inflation is the reason stagnant minimum wages are no longer sufficient?

 

My point is perhaps we should cure the problem of the working poor, rather than give it another bandaid. The problem for everyone even the median wage earners is prices are out of control. Even in 2007, when minimum wage was increased and wages across the board were rising - inflation was diminishing our standard of living.

 

It's my opinion we should eliminate the minimum wage, decrease wages, decrease unemployment, decrease inflation. I know I'll never see the day, but that's my position as unrealistic as it is.

[elsuper]

The problem is I'm not explaining my argument.

 

We agree increased labor costs will increase inflation. To what scale, I won't even speculate. We agree inflation is the reason stagnant minimum wages are no longer sufficient?

 

My point is perhaps we should cure the problem of the working poor, rather than give it another bandaid. The problem for everyone even the median wage earners is prices are out of control. Even in 2007, when minimum wage was increased and wages across the board were rising - inflation was diminishing our standard of living.

 

It's my opinion we should eliminate the minimum wage, decrease wages, decrease unemployment, decrease inflation. I know I'll never see the day, but that's my position as unrealistic as it is.

CPI inflation is already down to 1.7%, from a peak of 4.1% in 2007 (source, data drawn from BLS). A main purpose of deficit spending and expansionist monetary policy over the past 7 years has been to avoid a deflationary trap like the one Japan suffered for a generation and only recently escaped. Even with low inflation, productivity gains aren't being reflected in wages; I would expect the labor market equilibrium you propose to exacerbate this, not solve it.