Reply With Quote
No connection....
Recession after five of six huge minimum wage increases?
I don't think that needs backing up.
I challenge you to prove me wrong.
There is no connection between min wage and recessions. You need to back that up with actual studies or GTFO.
No connection....
Recession after five of six huge minimum wage increases?
I don't think that needs backing up.
I challenge you to prove me wrong.
You are the one making the assertation. Back that up with data or GTFO.
Make the case that minimum wage increases caused the recessions.
You can't.
Just saying something followed another is like saying the ignition on your car caused a flat tire.
ing ridiculous.
Just like you can't show I'm wrong.
Now I am one to normally dismiss a case or correlation and causation as having merit, but five incidents is different than one, and the 6th was during a time of unusual growth, keeping it from occurring.
Can you show me a large rise in unemployment in the last 50 years that did not have a 13%+ increase or more in minimum wage shortly before it occurred?
What would you call it if it happened five out of six times?
Besides, your example is way out in left field.
Ignition is electrical. Tire pressure is pneumatic. They have no connection. Minimum wage and unemployment are both economic.
Please at lease stay in the same realm of science.
I'm not predicating an argument on this ridiculous piece of non-logic. You are. You cherry picked 5 incidents. Prove they caused a recession or GTFO.
you didn't even understand the simple example. Shocking.
That's exactly what I was stating. They have no connection. Just saying so doesn't mean they do. Prove it.
You cant.
I see.
They are both not part of the economy.
OK...
I'm done with you Fuzzy.
This is not what we are talking about Fuzzy.
I never said or implied higher minimum wages are a problem. My point is you don't make large changes.
Especially when you look at the productivity benchmark:Center for Economic and Policy Research:
By all of the most commonly used benchmarks – inflation, average wages, and productivity – the minimum wage is now far below its historical level. By all of these benchmarks, the value of the minimum wage peaked in 1968.
Between the end of World War II and 1968, the minimum wage tracked average productivity growth fairly closely. Since 1968, however, productivity growth has far outpaced the minimum wage. If the minimum wage had continued to move with average productivity after 1968, it would have reached $21.72 per hour in 2012 – a rate well above the average production worker wage. If minimum-wage workers received only half of the productivity gains over the period, the federal minimum would be $15.34. Even if the minimum wage only grew at one-fourth the rate of productivity, in 2012 it would be set at $12.25.
http://www.cepr.net/do ents/public...e1-2012-03.pdf
Captain, that study lies about the minimum wage in 1968. How can any of it be trusted? The minimum wage in 1968 was $1.15/hr. Not $1.60/hr.
Horse . You posited that min wage increases cause recessions. That idiotic position has been destroyed. Go climb a wall of s.
Lair...
Fuzzy, I posted that LARGE minimum wage increases cause recession.
And you still can't back that up.
Wall of s. Now.
And you still cannot disprove it.And you still can't back that up.
Five of six times in the last 50 years... I don't think I need to back that correlation up.
Again, for the 10th time. I'm not basing my position on that piece of "data". You want to use it as a fact, ing prove its a fact.
Correlation means nothing until you can prove causation, idiot.
I know that. How often is anything actually "proven."
Just because someone writes a study, that doesn't make it a fact. Are you that naive? Use your own head.
Would you at least agree that a 13.59% increase after no change in almost 10 years is more of a shock, than the annualized 1.3% would have been?
When we had these last three wage increased, in Jul 1997, it went to $5.85. The last increase was 118 months earlier, to $5.15.
It then jumped another 11.96% ($6.55) Jul '08 and then another 10.69% ($7.25) in Jul '09. Combined, this was a 40.78% increase, that our economy still hasn't recovered from. It's not a static world. One increase in cost starts a chain reaction of events. The unemployment rate didn't start leveling off and coming down until recently, about 2 years after the last increase.
I will contend that since Sep '97, when the increase was 8.42% from $4.75 to $5.15, that if we had an annual 3% increase, we would never have the problems we do today. Today's minimum wage would be $8.01/hr, and $8.25/hr in September.
Link: Delay the Minimum-Wage Hike ; Jun '09; by David Neumark, UC Irving.
Not part to the above article...
As for Obama wanting to increase the wage to $9/hr in 2015, again, I say not all at once. That's a 24.14% increase. If we start in Sept this year, increase it 5% annually until we get to the cost adjusted $9.00, it will take longer, but it wouldn't be the same economic shock. Then we can keep some annual, or better yet, quarterly index on it.
As for my example of 3% annual, if we did that, Obama's wish of $9.00 per hr would be close. $8.76 in '15 and 9.02 in '16.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323478004578302510280314712.htmlThe Minority Youth Unemployment Act
A higher minimum wage will hurt Obama's most loyal supporters.
setting a floor under the price of labor creates winners and losers. Some workers will get a $1.75 raise. Great. But others—typically the least educated and skilled—will be priced out of the job market and their pay won't rise to $9. It will be zero.University of California at Irvine economist David Neumark has looked at more than 100 major academic studies on the minimum wage, and he says the White House claim of de minimis job losses "grossly misstates the weight of the evidence." About 85% of the studies "find a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers."
A study by economists William Even of Miami University and David Macpherson of Trinity University concludes that in the 21 states where the full 40% wage increase took effect, "the consequences of the minimum wage for black young adults without a diploma were actually worse than the consequences of the Great Recession."William Dunkelberg, chief economist for the National Federation of Independent Business, says that after the July 2009 increase 600,000 teen jobs disappeared in the next six months even as GDP expanded. In the previous six months, when the economy was still shrinking, half as many teen jobs were lost. The overall teen jobless rate was still 23.4% last month, which means demand for unskilled workers is low even at $7.25 an hour. Demand will be lower at $9.
"Employers may get a more stable workforce due to reduced turnover and increased productivity," the White House says. No doubt employers are slamming their foreheads wondering why they didn't think of that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
