Raising the minimum wage is good for the economy.

That makes 3 of us, I have however, been paid that low and I do more work for less than minimum wage than anything else.
Immigrant labour must be undercut. Mechanised labour must be undercut.

 

Every country can leave your market mate.
I've left your market.

America = black hole of investment.
Money goes in. Nothing comes out.

You simply wouldn't believe me if I told you how much money I've lost in America. No worries. I don't need your market.
As a shareholder I vote for my companies to not do business in the USA.
It sounds daft, but had I won those votes, this country would be much richer today than it is now. Those that didn't listened to me, all went under bar 1. The Chinese one. Your nations policy of America first makes you a nightmare for foreign investors. You will rip us off gladly to buy votes. So no deal.
I'll skip your entire market please. too rich for my tastes.

Tariff who you like tariff how you like. What your trade partners won't do, is not respond in kind.
You may think you hold the whip hand. But whip me and I trade with someone else. It's a big world and you aren't the only people in it.

You cars are crap, your guns are crap. You food is crap. Your beer is crap.
What will I miss?
You don't buy anything I make, you don't make anything I want.
Who cares if we don't trade? Not me and not you.

If you have bargain, and it's not in the USA, I'm interested. A cheap Chinese made Apple for my Mrs. OK.
An expensive American made one, no thanks.

 

Interesting, I assumed you where a American. Any country that is your leading trade partner, holds a whip over you. That goes both ways. A single opinion means little in that regard. I'm talking about companies leaving this country, your opinion while interesting doesn't change a thing. There is no tariff. First I'm talking about buying from American companies that have moved to another country. I'm putting no tariff on any country. So tell me how much time have you spent in this country.

 

Yes we can, nothing would be better.

 

I never said it did.

Investment is what generates Wealth, whether you buy Stocks, Bonds or Real Estate.

If you're lucky, Supply & Demand will increase your Wealth. An high school acquaintance bought a 100 acre farm at $200/acre in 1992. The land now sells for $46,000/acre, giving him a net-worth in excess of $4.6 Million. He'll have a nice retirement and money left over for his children.

Creating Wealth is something that one has to want to do. You can waste $120/month on cable and another $100/month on cell-phones, or you can buy Stocks or Bonds and create Wealth.

 

"The paper also shows that if the minimum wage were increased to $9.50 in 2011, as President Obama promised during the election, an estimated $60 billion of additional spending would be generated over two years. (precisely when our economy needs it the most (see Figure).)"

So you are quoting something you think is wrong? Our economy doesn't "need" spending. Spending is a consequence of growth, not a creator of it.

 

Demand is putting the money into the hands of the poor and middle class to be the most effective , there is zero ways to create demand with supply side economics. I think you lost a few of us when you said that our economy doesn't need spending. Like I said put the money into the hands of the people who will spend it the fastest without putting it under their mattress. That creates demands , which creates jobs which creates growth. Which strengthens our economy. Supply siders say put it into the hands of big business and the wealthy. Can someone here tell me how that could possibly create demand anywhere the rate and speed that demand side can.

 

On the touted Mondragon workers cooperative in Spain; it went bankrupt.

I'm intrigued by this advocacy for minimum wage. With unemployment around 4% there's no need to raise wages (more like the opposite). Another thing I haven't figured out is how it is expected an economy which generates 150-200 thousand jobs a month is doing fine when twice as many reach retirement in the same period.

 

The right has a long history of supporting capitalist exploitation against workers. For example, 150 years ago there was child labor. The right argued that it was good for 9 and 10 yearolds to learn the discipline of work, and that given hard times, it would financially benefit many families who needed the extra money –as though the right suddenly reversed to care about workers and their families. But in the end, child labor was banned by law. The right had argued that it would crash the economy and make time even harder for the families involved. But such harm never happened and families did not rally to oppose banning child labor.

Today, we need the MW to be raised to reflect inflation of the last 45-50 years because it has been neglected. And today, once again, the right shows up to pretend they've reversed and now worry about the wellbeing of workers and their families. They "worry" about unemployment and make dire predictions. But the truth is that this is just another smoke screen to hide their consistent and long-term program of opposing workers for the benefit of capitalist exploitation. The MW argument has its partisan sides. University of Washington economists (the folks whom the right says are stupid liberals in their ivory towers and shouldn't be believed by anyone with a brain) are being quoted by the right and their pronouncements paraded by the right as they warn of increasing unemployment if the MW is raised. But University of California at Berkeley economists show the opposite and call for a raise in the MW.

The arguments of the right are, as always, class warfare against the working class. And their result is what we see around us today with 1 out of 5 children living in poverty in the richest country in the world, –as the wealthy elite get richer and richer. So naturally the next step in the class warfare of he right is to blame this on the poor and working class who for some strange reason are much less capable of earning a decent income today than they were 50 years ago.

 

Simple question, why should me and my neighbors tax money be used to fill in the gap between what a person is paid and the reality of what he needs to survive. Why should tax dollars be used to pad the bottom line of any business in this country. That my friend is simply stupid.

 

The minimum wage law was founded world wide on racism, why do you keep on promoting racism?


Since MW laws will never go away why not do it smart? Have a two or three tier minimum wage laws ...one for Adults and one for 16~18 year olds so they can get spending money and build a resume instead of having to compete for jobs with adults?


.

 

Logic, reason? Who needs those things? An argument should be judged on how it makes you feel!

So much for the "pro-science" left. You all are just as obsessed with moralism as the far right.

 

You can demand anything you want. You can't get something until you have something in return. Since money is not wealth, we go back to Say's law: if you want to purchase something, you must first produce something.

I can't help that many subscribe to tooth-fairy economics: if you print money and "stimulate demand", you will magically generate prosperity.

Who puts money under the mattresses? Very few people. Most people hold investments (not money) or have money in the bank (for which the bank pays them interest which is a return on the bank's investment of their customer's money.) "Putting money into the hands of people who will spend it" isjust code for "forcibly take wealth from those who produce it, and give it to someone else." The immediate result may be consumption, but the unseen result is the loss of long term investment. You don't create wealth this way, you destroy it.

How do jobs create growth? If jobs create growth, we'd be better off outlawing automation. The government could rebuilt Hoover damn with a million people armed with spoons, and we'd all be rich!

I'm all for leaving wealth in the hands of those who produce it, so that they may follow their own conscious on how to spend or invest it. I don't condone theft to either enrich some folks for redistribute for moral reasons. "Supply-side" is just an answer to the tooth fairy economics of the Keynesians. Since it includes policy prescriptions, it gets a lot of things wrong. However, it does get it right that increased prosperity comes from production, not consumption. Consumption is a consequence of growth, not the cause of it.

I demand a giant castle! Oh wait, I need money first. From where will I get the money? I can borrow it. I can produce something that someone wants and earn it. Or, I can steal it, either directly, through taxation, or inflation. Can you explain how theft ever led to economic growth?

 

.[/QUOTE]

This may be one of the biggest nonsense response here. This is a great one, Quote"if you want to purchase something, you must first produce something." Why the **** would someone produce anything if their is no demand for it. Stupidity level 9. That was so well known that manufacturers said straight out they couldn't spend the stimuli money because there wasn't any blank . This is a quiz what word do you think was in the "blank"?????? Then he says if you create demand it won't create prosperity. Does this clown know anything about capitalism???? He says money doesn't go into mattresses , Even though years after the bailout business was still saying that the put it in the mattress because there wasn't any "blank," Quiz number two. I have to clear up this mattress comment , otherwise Dr wackaroo will try to make something out of it. They put it into a accessible account. At 1/4 of a percent point ,if they were lucky. Then he says putting money into the hands of people who would spend it. Makes me a commie. Except their is no capitalistic economist that won't tell you that the fastest way to create demand is to put money into the poorest people possible. because guess what, they spend it immediately. Now that isn't rocket science is it. Nor did I say to do it. but I'm still a commie, Something I guarantee he has no clue what the definition is.
My question was simple, how do you create demand with supply side economics,, the same demand that business said didn't exist so they couldn't spend the stimuli money until there was .. Basically the only way economy that are having a bad time can stimulate, is by creating demand. Tell me what good it possibly can be to put the money into the supply side to come out of a recession. These wackaroos never seem to answer my question. but I have to give this guy credit , he at least tried. Trouble is it make no sense and lacks Knowledge. but what can I say he tried.

 

What do you expect from the economically illiterate?

@jbander here is what BHK is referring to:

The Say's law of markets is an economic rule that says that production is the source of demand. According to Say's Law, when an individual produces a product or service, he or she gets paid for that work, and is then able to use that pay to demand other goods and services.

Now let's see if you can discover the massive hole in your argument.

 

My question was simple, how do you create demand with supply side economics,, the same demand that business said didn't exist so they couldn't spend the stimuli money until there was .. Basically the only way economy that are having a bad time can stimulate, is by creating demand. Tell me what good it possibly can be to put the money into the supply side to come out of a recession. These wackaroos never seem to answer my question. but I have to give this guy credit , he at least tried. Trouble is it make no sense and lacks Knowledge. but what can I say he tried.[/QUOTE]

Why don't you go study supply-side economics? You claim to be the smart one. Maybe you are just too lazy and prefer to resort to childish ad hominem?

It's obvious that you aren't capable or interested in doing much else.You refute nothing. You just spit out pathetic little insults. I realize now that I"m just wasting my time on you.You are as married to the idea that government creates magic through monetarism as the religious fundie is to his Bible creating miracles.

 

Trickle down only works if, and it's a very big if since it still hasn't happened, if the uber rich actually use their windfall to increase production rather than sink it into stagnant wealth such as property (the value may change but the property does not) or those shiny solid gold bidets for the mountain cabin's 8 bathrooms. When you look at wealth distribution it continues to be concentrated in fewer hands, I think we can all agree on that point being a given. This indicates that the uber rich are not putting money back into supply side production but are rather using it for personal wealth accumulation. They are the last people we should be relying on to stimulate the economy.

We know raising the minimum wage increases demand. Study after study proves it. Visit any site with historical data on the GDP to confirm.
We know raising the minimum wage increase tax revenue. Study after study proves it. Visit the IRS website to confirm.
We know that raising the minimum increases employment. Study after study proves it. Visit the BLS website to confirm.

Why would there be any resistance to raising the minimum wage? Because it doesn't help the uber rich to amass more wealth. It's a sad day when the have to settle for gold plated bidets for the cabin.

 

Can you point to certain products that we have a shortage of that require more production?

 

A basic tenant of econ is that as the price of something goes up the demand goes down because fewer can afford it. It is also understood that in an economy of scale production costs goes down for each piece as the number of pieces made goes up. Supply and demand seeks the sweet spot where maximum profits match the production. If you sell a widget that costs $10 to make for $1000 and only sell a 100 of them your profit is your profit is $99000. But if you lower the price to $20 and sell 100000 with a more efficient production lowering the cost of manufacture to $9 each of them your profit is $1.1 million. A cornerstone of trickle down is that by handing over more money to the uber rich they'll invest in increased production and lower the price of goods at the same time increasing demand. It sounds reasonable except it requires that the uber rich in fact invest in increased production and they have proven that they only invest in increased production when the demand is already there.

 

Why don't you go study supply-side economics? You claim to be the smart one. Maybe you are just too lazy and prefer to resort to childish ad hominem?

It's obvious that you aren't capable or interested in doing much else.You refute nothing. You just spit out pathetic little insults. I realize now that I"m just wasting my time on you.You are as married to the idea that government creates magic through monetarism as the religious fundie is to his Bible creating miracles.[/QUOTE] You have zero clue what I think about government but if you know everything , you pretend you do. How stupid is it to spend your life spitting at your government. I'll add that spending your life complaining about taxes is not on the bright side either. Mt question stands and proves everything that needs to be proven. You can't create demand with supply side "give it all to the wealthy" economics. Since the trickle down lie in 81, every dime of a massive increase in the new wealth of this country went to the top few. So argue around that bullshit. Facts kills stupidity real quick. I wonder what people thought was going to happen when Reagan lowered the top bracket from 72% to 28%.
Now the hate party wants to quicken the pace of the trickle down lie. By increasing the transfer rate with new handouts to the ultra wealthy. Their endless whining about high taxes and regulations on business is nonsense . They try to bullshit this country by listing stupid nonsensical regulations that need to go but when they get their hand on the throttle they forget totally about the dumb regulations and only go after the bottom line regulations that give more and more to the wealthy while dumping the protection for the people.. Without regulations, capitalism would eat our children.
Business has never done better in this country then through Obama's administration with massive increase in profits they need no help at all.

 

You just can't make the brain dead think. There is only one way to increase demand and that is by adding more money to the demand side and the most productive way is to give it to the people with the least amount of money, Every dollar that the bottom income brackets gets is spent in the next couple of days. Give this group more money and demand will be increased and production has to increase to keep up to it, which creates jobs. Hand it to the supply side and it goes in the mattress, (figure of speech) without demand.

 

The government has established a level of income without which a citizen is eligible for public assistance. Some citizens accept employment that offers them income below the level at which they become eligible for assistance.

 

Give them more money? We have been giving them hundreds of billions a year and it hasn't helped. Why should we give them even more?

 

1. You failed to point out any products that we currently have a shortage of that requires higher production to fill demand.

2. "Handing over money to the uber rich"? Who is doing this?

 

Helped in what way?

It certainly helps the people that receive it. It certainly helps the economy because it gets spent and that creates demand and in turn jobs...

I guess it depends on your metric