Cato: Is Keynesian Stimulus Working?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogrovejo

Nobody benefits from the minimum wage.

---

So people getting less money will have a greater benefit having less money. Sounds good.

And if minimum salary works, then they should raise it to $1000/hour or something. That way everybody could be a millionaire. I wonder why they don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogrovejo

And if minimum salary works, then they should raise it to $1000/hour or something. That way everybody could be a millionaire. I wonder why they don't.

---

You really wonder why they don't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogrovejo

And if minimum salary works, then they should raise it to $1000/hour or something. That way everybody could be a millionaire. I wonder why they don't.

---

I don't know whats more retarded on this thread. This post or the graph in the OP trying to pin the cause on higher unemployment as the stimulus.

Both are incredibly retarded, so we'll just call it a toss up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacobdrj

This is true.

But I think MW would be more effective if it was enforced for everyone, including illegal immigrants.

---

The whole reason people hire illegals is so they don't have to pay them MW!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I don't know whats more retarded on this thread. This post or the graph in the OP trying to pin the cause on higher unemployment as the stimulus.

Both are incredibly retarded, so we'll just call it a toss up.

---

True enough. I still have trouble believing the Cato Institute published it. It looks like something Wild Cobra would do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"Always wanting to raise taxes"

link? we had 2 Repugs admins of cutting taxes, and nobody but the super rich benefitted, and their excess money into the (unregulated) mortgage markets fueled lending boom./

You'r so full of check-box shit conservative fantasies, it's not even interesting anymore.

---

Keep telling yourself that. Well all have to justify our shitty lives some how I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

What is he supposed to do once the interest rates went all the way down to virtually zero? The problem with monetarism is that once you hit that rock bottom they don't tell you what to do...

---

Do you mean when the interest rates equal the inflation or zero, which would be negative? If you had low inflation and the interest rate was equal to the inflation, then what is the problem?
You are going on the idea that Keynsian ever worked. When dealing with politics, when do they do the hard right? The hard right would be to increase the interest rate while we are at close to or full capacity employment, which we didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I don't know whats more retarded on this thread. This post or the graph in the OP trying to pin the cause on higher unemployment as the stimulus.

Both are incredibly retarded, so we'll just call it a toss up.

---

...it's especially stupid considering the horrible record of the Bush tax-cuts at new job creation....if the govt wasn't over-hiring, the economy would have crashed much, much sooner...

Gotta love when mogrevejo posts his wet dream about companies being able to pay $3-$4 an hour to its workers. Then the lowest class of full-time workers can live in shelters (who can afford an apartment on that?), thus effectively having their salaries partly socialized. I could care less about eliminating slave labor jobs; any company that can't afford to pay a measly $7 an hour to its workers deserves to go under. Your constant use of the $1000 an hour example makes you look like a fool to everyone.

Very telling that nobody has yet explained two things:

- who benefits from the existence of a minimum salary.

- if the minimum salary doesn't cause unemployment why isn't it raised to $1.000 hour.

Ad homimen remarks and childish insults suit best some people, I suppose.

Quote:

---

raised to $1.000 hour.

---

...raised to $1.00/hour ?

Quote:

---

who benefits from the existence of a minimum salary.

---

The working poor?

Teenagers?

recent immigrants?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

...raised to $1.00/hour ?

---

Flight of fancy, or Freudian slip?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogrovejo

Very telling that nobody has yet explained two things:

- who benefits from the existence of a minimum salary.

- if the minimum salary doesn't cause unemployment why isn't it raised to $1.000 hour.

Ad homimen remarks and childish insults suit best some people, I suppose.

---

Get off your high-horse with your passive-aggressive crap.

Europe uses the period where we use a comma and vice versa. For pretty sure, dan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Europe uses the period where we use a comma and vice versa. I think.

---

Correct, my bad. I meant $1,000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

The working poor?

Teenagers?

recent immigrants?

---

How? Or why?

mogrovejo, I wouldn't expect anything from dan beyond, it gives them a living wage, man!

Let's take a simple example. Which is better for unemployment and inflation?

- Employer hires 5 workers at $5.15 per hour ($25.75 per hour), the 2007 federal minimum wage.

- Employer hires 4 workers at $7.25 per hour ($29.00 per hour), the current minimum wage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogrovejo

- who benefits from the existence of a minimum salary.

---

Who would benefit from making $1 an hour?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

mogrovejo, I wouldn't expect anything from dan beyond, it gives them a living wage, man!

Let's take a simple example. Which is better for unemployment and inflation?

- Employer hires 5 workers at $5.15 per hour ($25.75 per hour), the 2007 federal minimum wage.

- Employer hires 4 workers at $7.25 per hour ($29.00 per hour), the current minimum wage.

---

And employees from the first example have a to go on food-stamps to survive, so the taxpayer ends up subsidizing the employer who hires the 5 workers for the slave wage vs the 4 for the crap wage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

And employees from the first example have a to go on food-stamps to survive, so the taxpayer ends up subsidizing the employer who hires the 5 workers for the slave wage vs the 4 for the crap wage.

---

How do you know that? Since when is $5.15 per hour a slave wage? Are you always so careless with words? That's pretty weak.

Anyway, please answer my question. Which is better for unemployment and inflation? Serious argument, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

How do you know that? Since when is $5.15 per hour a slave wage? Are you always so careless with words? That's pretty weak.

Anyway, please answer my question. Which is better for unemployment and inflation? Serious argument, please.

---

$900 a month (before taxes) is in no way enough money for someone to rent an apartment, pay for food, and pay for transportation to and from work. A $5.15 minimum wage just ensures more government dependence for the poor.

40 hours/wk at 5.15 translates to a little over 1000 a month, pretax. For a young, healthy, employable single person, maybe this can work out for awhile.

Would 80 hours a week at 5.15 get it to where you could get off public assistance and start to pay for a kid and a car, besides yourself?

120 hours a week at 5.15 would be recommended, I should think, for the family man who seeks to provide for his child's future by saving up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogrovejo

Very telling that nobody has yet explained two things:

- who benefits from the existence of a minimum salary.

- if the minimum salary doesn't cause unemployment why isn't it raised to $1,000 hour.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

40 hours/wk at 5.15 translates to a little over 1000 a month, pretax. For a young, healthy, employable single person, maybe this can work out for awhile.

Would 80 hours a week at 5.15 get it to where you could get off public assistance and start to pay for a kid and a car, besides yourself?

120 hours a week at 5.15 would be recommended, I should think, for the family man who seeks to provide for his child's future by saving up.

---

Actually, it's worse
.

Code:

---

5.15 dollar/hour * 40 hour/week * 52 week/year * 1/12 year/month = 892.67 dollar/month

---