$9/h minimum wage

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why not go all out and raise the minimum to $15 or whatever has been answered Kaosium. Stop bringing it up as if it hasn't been addressed.

I'll look at your other comments later.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

OK, so going back to the cited studies in this obtuse post,


Raising minimum wage won't lower povertyHe's a paid shill. I'm not impressed.

You don't have to be, I was referencing the papers in that piece, the ones linked to, I included it so you would know where they came from.

You've been posting material from paid shills too, you often do on politics and economics. You're aware of that I assume?

I just evaluate what they have to say regardless of where it comes from, that works for me.

Quote:

Minimum Wages and Poverty: Will a $9.50 Federal Minimum Wage Really Help the Working Poor?
Are they serious? The poor don't need a raise, they won't benefit from it? I'll try to read it later.

OK

Quote:

Minimum Wages and EmploymentThis was referred to in one of the links I posted. The authors admit their findings were not significant yet they use them to draw a conclusion? I'll also take a closer look later at the studies that did show a significant negative effect on employment.

Perhaps you should have read the paper itself and not just taken the word of the 'paid shill' from the opposing EPI that has been fighting tooth and nail with each other for decades?

As I recall it the seasonal findings were not significant, but the overall ones were.

Quote:

MINIMUM WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT: A REVIEW OF EVIDENCE FROM THE NEW MINIMUM WAGE RESEARCH Same authors as the above link.The language they use "market distortions" suggests a Libertarian leaning ideology, but at least this paper is a scientific paper and not a think tank creation.

'"market distortions" Suggests a libertarian-leaning ideology?' What does that mean?

Do you suppose there is a credible school of economics which doesn't take into account that there's not a perfect marketplace and there's plenty of factors that could corrupt it such as monopolies? Would you really want to spend any time on one that pretended differently?

Actually, where does that idea come from? I've never heard that 'market distortion' suggested a political ideology.

I do know one thing that sets my skepti-sense tingling and that's language like 'debunk' for things like opportunity cost, the Quantity Theory of Money, and right now anyone arguing the minimum wage who cannot tell me why going to $9.00/hour would be fine but cannot offer a rationale for not going to $12.00 hour, for example the likely effects were it to happen.

Quote:

I conclude from the paper that while their conclusion is minimum wage increases might decrease job numbers, they did not find a particularly significant effect. IOW, a relatively few people may lose a job opportunity but the benefits might be a net positive for other reasons.

Quote:

The last two papers are from the National Bureau of Economic ResearchAnother front group with a specific agenda.

Originally Posted by History of the NBER

The NBER is the nation's leading nonprofit economic research organization. Twenty-two Nobel Prize winners in Economics and thirteen past chairs of the President's Council of Economic Advisers have been researchers at the NBER. The more than 1,100 professors of economics and business now teaching at colleges and universities in North America who are NBER researchers are the leading scholars in their fields. These Bureau associates concentrate on four types of empirical research: developing new statistical measurements, estimating quantitative models of economic behavior, assessing the economic effects of public policies, and projecting the effects of alternative policy proposals.

I have just erased five comments because I've always liked you, from the very beginning going through the Amanda Knox thread for the first time, when I figured she was probably be guilty (I found PMF first). I will leave it at this: what you have just said on the basis of that very dubious website is laughable!

Does this surprise you? Or his (rather extensive!) list here? Or how about this guy? Do you know who he is? There was a thread on him recently.

Quote:

I myself posted a link to a webpage that was titled, "Raise the Minimum Wage". The difference, they weren't attempting to hide their position. There was no attempt to label any of the science they posted as coming from some front group called a 'think tank'.

My suggestion is to stay away from the kooky websites, starting with 'sourcewatch.' If you want to learn something about economics outside dogmatic drivel, spend more time at NBER.

Quote:

I'll look at this claim in the next post.

I do hope you're doing alright, you have me kinda worried at this point.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Why not go all out and raise the minimum to $15 or whatever has been answered Kaosium. Stop bringing it up as if it hasn't been addressed.

I've seen nothing that even remotely addresses it outside the 'laffer curve' comment, which means nothing. I also know why you cannot answer it, that's because there isn't one that doesn't imperil the very contention that's being made.

Quote:

I'll look at your other comments later.

Fair enough.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you find SourceWatch 'dubious' when they simply disclose funding sources and front groups? Do you think they have it wrong?

I will look at your comments more closely but citing all the scientists named Steve is not assurance one has credible science.

[Kaosium]

You know what, I noticed this 'sourcewatch' was based in Madison WI, did some looking around. I'd like to say I heard of this place, but despite living in Madison most of my life I can't say that. I looked it up on google maps, and here it is. Bizzarrely enough, as of about four years ago I was living within about a block of this place, over on W. Johnson. I'd go by it just about every day. Still don't know anything about it, never heard of it despite it being here twenty years.

However there is something I do know something about, and it's a fellow by the name of I.F. Stone. They received an award named after him, he's certainly an interesting character. He was also a real life communist, and not just a communist, but a Stalinist. Actually more than a mere Stalinist, an operative for Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union, they had an organization known as the KGB that he worked for. He was also a propagandist and a disinformation agent. He wrote a book with 'conspiracy theories' that were wartime enemy propaganda, it blamed the United States and Korea for conspiring to attack North Korea, some people believed him, most knew better. When they had the Stalinist show trials most were unwilling to deny the truth, not IF Stone, he couldn't condemn them, maybe because he was getting paid at the time by the KGB.

Two of those links are from The New Republic and Harvard School of Journalism, not exactly 'right-wing' sites, and in the latter case a rather embarrassing case being as they'd just honored him by naming an award for journalism for him a year before. For the longest time, and still to this day for old Stalinist diehard publications like The Nation, (I don't think they got paid though, they parroted Stalinist propaganda for free) there was an effort to pretend it all wasn't true, or some or most wasn't true, or it could be minimized and rationalized because 'good ol' Izzy' was well beloved amongst the 'radical left' because he said things they liked, even if they weren't actually true. I especially like those who said things like it was perfectly OK as he was aiding a wartime ally, 'cept of course the United States wasn't at war with anyone in the late thirties. I did not exactly find it terribly surprising when the Communist Party of Wisconsin had your 'Sourcewatch' sister-site 'PRWatch' prominently listed on their links next to publications people have actually heard of.

I must say I cannot think of anything quite as ironic as claiming that a well-respected near-century-old institution (founded by Progressive economists BTW) that is a storehouse of information and data from economists of all schools of thought throughout the ages must be a 'front group' with a 'specific agenda' because an organization that just accepted an award named for a Stalinist spy, liar and propagandist said so. That's OK though, anyone's welcome to be a communist, or a dupe, and can just pretend like (some) of the others it isn't actually true just because they can lie about it, but the reason that threw me for such a loop and I got rude is that it's ridiculous if you've any knowledge of the field, and even if one is learning it just takes a few minutes poking around to realize you're at a free Google of economic papers, and if it is true that those people are/were the only ones funding it those years you've seen an example of intellectual integrity that one will never find amongst those who accept the legacy of propagandists for the worst human rights abuses and genocide ever recorded under the pretense that others are spreading 'disinfo' and spin.

[respect]

Originally Posted by daenku32

By that counter argument, I'm to conclude that rising the minimum wage has no great impact on the national economy, as the jobs are done by people with no skills, resulting in no great benefit for the country.

So why not pay them more? If that results in fewer jobs at that level, then it's a no-loss situation.

Why would a price floor that affects a small portion of that market have a major impact on the aggregate economy?

It will have little to no impact on most people. However, it will have quite the impact on those in the unskilled labor pool. As is always the case with rent seeking in labor markets, some labor will enjoy higher wages but it will be at the expense of other labor (profits and consumers will pick up whatever part of the tab isn't paid by poor labor) that is pushed out of the market.

And why would you want fewer jobs at that level? I could understand it if you said it would be great if unskilled labor developed new skills that allowed them to demand higher wages, but you didn't and aren't, you want an increased price floor to exclude some labor from getting jobs at all. Just like with labor in poor countries that liberals screech take their jerbs by accepting "slave wages", it is very perplexing that liberals claim to champion the poor yet seem to think that if people are too poor and/or unskilled to demand high wages they should not be allowed to have jobs at all.

[Skeptic Ginger]

@ Kaosium

Sourcewatch has been around for many decades. They are a part of the Center for Media and Democracy.

About:

Quote:

The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a non-profit investigative reporting group. Our reporting and analysis focus on exposing corporate spin and government propaganda. We publish PRWatch, SourceWatch, and BanksterUSA.

Our newest investigative site is ALECexposed.org. Our ongoing investigation of ALEC -- the corporations bankrolling its operations and "scholarships" for legislators to attend posh resorts where corporate lobbyists and elected officials vote behind closed doors on "model" legislation to change Americans' rights -- has won significant awards for investigative journalism.

As a threat to the right wing disinformation, of course they've been attacked as some liberal disinfo. There's a PAID ad site that pops up on Google when you search for Sourcewatch which claims to have incriminating evidence against Sourcewatch. It's full of all kinds of crap.

Sourcewatch reports funding sources, whose really behind front groups and fake news.

If you're a right winger then falsely dismiss away, I don't care. But it you are interested in media literacy, you'll find it's a very useful and reliable website.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

... Still don't know anything about it, never heard of it despite it being here twenty years.

It's a web source. I have no idea what their brick and mortar operation is.

Originally Posted by Kaosium

... However there is something I do know something about, and it's a fellow by the name of I.F. Stone. They received an award named after him, he's certainly an interesting character. He was also a real life communist, and not just a communist, but a Stalinist. Actually more than a mere Stalinist, an operative for Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union, they had an organization known as the KGB that he worked for. He was also a propagandist and a disinformation agent. He wrote a book with 'conspiracy theories' that were wartime enemy propaganda, it blamed the United States and Korea for conspiring to attack North Korea, some people believed him, most knew better. When they had the Stalinist show trials most were unwilling to deny the truth, not IF Stone, he couldn't condemn them, maybe because he was getting paid at the time by the KGB.

Two of those links are from The New Republic and Harvard School of Journalism, not exactly 'right-wing' sites, and in the latter case a rather embarrassing case being as they'd just honored him by naming an award for journalism for him a year before. For the longest time, and still to this day for old Stalinist diehard publications like The Nation,

Oh brother. You think The Nation is a Stalinist commie publication?

Originally Posted by Kaosium

...(I don't think they got paid though, they parroted Stalinist propaganda for free) there was an effort to pretend it all wasn't true, or some or most wasn't true, or it could be minimized and rationalized because 'good ol' Izzy' was well beloved amongst the 'radical left' because he said things they liked, even if they weren't actually true. I especially like those who said things like it was perfectly OK as he was aiding a wartime ally, 'cept of course the United States wasn't at war with anyone in the late thirties. I did not exactly find it terribly surprising when the Communist Party of Wisconsin had your 'Sourcewatch' sister-site 'PRWatch' prominently listed on their links next to publications people have actually heard of.

I must say I cannot think of anything quite as ironic as claiming that a well-respected near-century-old institution (founded by Progressive economists BTW) that is a storehouse of information and data from economists of all schools of thought throughout the ages must be a 'front group' with a 'specific agenda' because an organization that just accepted an award named for a Stalinist spy, liar and propagandist said so. That's OK though, anyone's welcome to be a communist, or a dupe, and can just pretend like (some) of the others it isn't actually true just because they can lie about it, but the reason that threw me for such a loop and I got rude is that it's ridiculous if you've any knowledge of the field, and even if one is learning it just takes a few minutes poking around to realize you're at a free Google of economic papers, and if it is true that those people are/were the only ones funding it those years you've seen an example of intellectual integrity that one will never find amongst those who accept the legacy of propagandists for the worst human rights abuses and genocide ever recorded under the pretense that others are spreading 'disinfo' and spin.

This is just too nutty to reply to. I'm sorry but in case you missed it, McCarthyism has been replaced with the War on Terror. You should really update this paranoia.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's a web source. I have no idea what their brick and mortar operation is.

Oh brother. You think The Nation is a Stalinist commie publication?

You were unaware that it was? No amount of eye-rolling will change history.

Quote:

This is just too nutty to reply to. I'm sorry but in case you missed it, McCarthyism has been replaced with the War on Terror. You should really update this paranoia.

What if it had been the 'Joseph Goebbels' award? Or for that matter the Karl Rove award?

You claimed that the NBER was a 'front organization' with an 'agenda' because an organization who accepted an award named for a 'journalist' who was actually a paid propagandist for a mass-murdering regime infamous for its lies posted some information on a website.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

@ Kaosium

Sourcewatch has been around for many decades. They are a part of the Center for Media and Democracy.

About:

As a threat to the right wing disinformation, of course they've been attacked as some liberal disinfo. There's a PAID ad site that pops up on Google when you search for Sourcewatch which claims to have incriminating evidence against Sourcewatch. It's full of all kinds of crap.

Sourcewatch reports funding sources, whose really behind front groups and fake news.

If you're a right winger then falsely dismiss away, I don't care. But it you are interested in media literacy, you'll find it's a very useful and reliable website.

I have a better idea, why not evaluate them on the basis of their actual claim and you might get a better idea of whether its a 'useful or reliable website?' However thinking about it, I wonder if the fault here is more yours than theirs? For example, here's some information which isn't compatible with NBER being a 'front organization with an agenda:'

Directors by University Appointment

George Akerlof, University of California at Berkeley
Jagdish Bhagwati, Columbia University
Ray C. Fair, Yale University
Michael J. Brennan, University of California at Los Angeles
Glen G. Cain, University of Wisconsin
Franklin Fisher, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Saul H. Hymans, University of Michigan
Marjorie B. McElroy, Duke University
Joel Mokyr, Northwestern University
Andrew Postlewaite, University of Pennsylvania
Uwe E. Reinhardt, Princeton
Nathan Rosenberg, Stanford University
Craig Swan, University of Minnesota
David B. Yoffie, Harvard University
Arnold Zellner, University of Chicago


You've probably heard of some of those places, they're not exactly bastions of right-wing propaganda. Did you take that information into account before you made your dubious accusation? The 'evidence' of the funding Sourcewatch posted was unsourced and uncorroborated and also not definitive. Merely because a foundation named for James Olin (never heard of the other ones outside Scaife) funded them doesn't mean that it drives any agenda. For one thing Olin himself is dead, and even if his foundation is still more receptive to conservative causes that doesn't mean the NBER itself is a conservative 'front group with an agenda', it may very well be that a conservative foundation might very well want NBER to be a research foundation dedicated to integrity in the field of economics.

As an example, I noted that one of the sources of funding for Sourcewatch is a Rockerfeller foundation (or whatever) grant. Rockerfeller, of course, was about as canny a capitalist as there ever was, some might even say unprincipled and merciless in that regard. However that doesn't mean that they're a 'right-wing' foundation, as a matter of fact they're actually known as being rather left wing! The scourge of the John Birch society!

That doesn't mean everything or something Sourcewatch is posting is propaganda either though, There's a better way to evaluate their 'reliability' and that's to evaluate their claims! You can do that, by looking at the NBER and deciding for yourself whether it's a 'front group' with an 'agenda' and if you had done that you'd find out just how ludicrous it is to think that all the non-republican and non-rightwing economists and institutions also associated with them would be part of a 'front group' with some right-wing agenda. Another thing would be to decide for yourself that even if they did whether or not the information contained there is inaccurate. I've posted links from The Nation and recently in the Shambler thread from Marxists.org, that's because I knew that the information contained there (in the later case something from Hume) was accurate and it just so happened to be the first website that popped up when I went looking for that excerpt.


I also once had a subscription to the Nation along with other known left-wing publications. I recall especially enjoying reading Christopher Hitchens, Alexander Cockburn, Katha Pollit and David Corn, however that doesn't mean I believed everything they said though, I prefer to evaluate sources through other means, thinking for myself.

Their claim regarding the NBER reflects poorly on them or perhaps on you for taking those disparate pieces of information they posted and ignoring the rest and then making the absurd accusation that you did. One can establish that for oneself by evaluating their information and not letting websites do their thinking for them.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Nessie

There are various different benefits, but if you have been working before then £51.85 per week for those aged 16-24, and £65.45 for those aged over 25.

So the equivalent of 10.5 hours work at the minimum wage before you start to earn more than just benefits. The problem is when you start to factor in being on one benefit seems to attract more benefits and being in work results in travel and child care costs. So then things can even out and mean it is not worth going to work.

Sorry but not really true. the benefits paid to the unemployed are massively outweighed by those paid to workers in the form of tax credits. The real scroungers are the businesses who are exploiting the benefit system to avoid paying a living wage.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Why not go all out and raise the minimum to $15 or whatever has been answered Kaosium. Stop bringing it up as if it hasn't been addressed.

I'll look at your other comments later.

Incidentally, the reason I think it's especially germane to consider 'why not $12.00' is from 2007 to today the minimum wage has been increased from 5.15 to $7.25, and the proposal is to increase it again to $9.00/hour by 2015 (IIRC) which would be an increase of roughly 75% in the space of eight years.

Thus from this moment an increase of 75% would be roughly an increase to 13.00/hour. If it's being argued that there will be minimal effects from the increase to $9.00/hour and there has been no or a minimal effect on unemployment from the last recent increase, wouldn't an increase to $12.00/hour be even more beneficial under the assumption being made by some that an increase will (almost) certainly be a boon to the poor?

That's why that argument must be engaged and not dismissed, like some economists and organizations are doing. I think instead it's quite possible if not probable that the Federal increase in '07 is inhibiting employment (and the economic recovery to a degree) already, and that a further one at this juncture may very well exacerbate this problem. Others seem to think it impossible that our current sustained unemployment might have something to do with that '07 increase and that a further one wouldn't make it worse which is (probably) why they're not very interested in engaging the $12.00/hour argument: it brings into question the assumptions being made now by some.

[respect]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Incidentally, the reason I think it's especially germane to consider 'why not $12.00' is from 2007 to today the minimum wage has been increased from 5.15 to $7.25, and the proposal is to increase it again to $9.00/hour by 2015 (IIRC) which would be an increase of roughly 75% in the space of eight years.

Thus from this moment an increase of 75% would be roughly an increase to 13.00/hour. If it's being argued that there will be minimal effects from the increase to $9.00/hour and there has been no or a minimal effect on unemployment from the last recent increase, wouldn't an increase to $12.00/hour be even more beneficial under the assumption being made by some that an increase will (almost) certainly be a boon to the poor?

That's why that argument must be engaged and not dismissed, like some economists and organizations are doing. I think instead it's quite possible if not probable that the Federal increase in '07 is inhibiting employment (and the economic recovery to a degree) already, and that a further one at this juncture may very well exacerbate this problem. Others seem to think it impossible that our current sustained unemployment might have something to do with that '07 increase and that a further one wouldn't make it worse which is (probably) why they're not very interested in engaging the $12.00/hour argument: it brings into question the assumptions being made now by some.

Greg Mankiw would like an explanation for how they arrived at $9.00 as well, link.

[thaiboxerken]

So Conservatives really have no evidence that raising the minimum wage adversely affects the economy and only try to find ways to dismiss the evidence that it has a positive effect.

No wonder the GOP is the party of Creationism.

[Courier]

Raising minimum wage doesn't get anyone out of poverty.

And we don't know for sure if the endgame affect is to increase jobs due to more spending, or to decrease jobs due to layoffs and cancelling of new hiring.

But we DO know that minimum wage has fallen over the last 20 years when factored with inflation, so that is one good reason to raise it.

[Courier]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

So Conservatives really have no evidence that raising the minimum wage adversely affects the economy and only try to find ways to dismiss the evidence that it has a positive effect.

No wonder the GOP is the party of Creationism.

No, there is evidence that raising the minimum wage does reduce employment.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Courier

No, there is evidence that raising the minimum wage does reduce employment.

Where?

[Courier]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Where?

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/11/...-unemployment/

http://www.bigissueground.com/politi...imumwage.shtml

http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/min_wage.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...wage-increase/

[respect]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Where?

Some has already been linked to in this thread, that you ignored it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Courier

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/11/...-unemployment/

http://www.bigissueground.com/politi...imumwage.shtml

http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/min_wage.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...wage-increase/

Really? Are you arguing that it will increase unemployment?! have you read those links?

[Courier]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Really? Are you arguing that it will increase unemployment?! have you read those links?

The links show that its not fully known whether raising minimum wage increases employment, or reduces it.

It would be arrogant to say either way, as a statement of fact.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Courier

The links show that its not fully known whether raising minimum wage increases employment, or reduces it.

It would be arrogant to say either way, as a statement of fact.

So your evidence is that there is no evidence? Is evolution just a theory to you?

[Courier]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

So your evidence is that there is no evidence? Is evolution just a theory to you?

What sort of mindless crap are you talking about?

The fact is that some believe that raising minimum wage helps employment numbers, while others believe it hurts employment numbers. Both sides have data and research to support their claims.

Does this little fact make you nervous? It appears you're one of those "My way or the highway", kinda people.

[respect]

Originally Posted by Courier

What sort of mindless crap are you talking about?

The fact is that some believe that raising minimum wage helps employment numbers, while others believe it hurts employment numbers. Both sides have data and research to support their claims.

Does this little fact make you nervous? It appears you're one of those "My way or the highway", kinda people.

No, it is pretty clear that it has some negatives that come along, it just isn't mass layoffs like talking heads yap about which partisans on the other side have misconstrued to mean there aren't negative costs. There could be layoffs although they aren't likely to be significant, the costs can be spread out in other ways such as reduced new hiring, a transfer of compensation from benefits to wages, an increase in skilled employment at the expense of unskilled employment and a reduction in hours.

If there isn't negative consequences it would mean both the old and new minimum wage are well below the market clearing rate and/or the costs are being transferred to consumers. Some advocates of wage hikes seem to sort of grasp this as they might say something along the lines of $9.00 an hour would be good but $20.00 an hour would produce too many negative consequences.

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think that there's too much emphasis on college education, too much subsidizing of low-value liberal arts degrees, and not nearly enough of a trade school track for students. Our high-schoolers are producing too many fry clerks, too many indebted college students, and not nearly enough apprentice welders or entry-level IT support technicians.

Well said! This seems to be a prevalent problem in the Western world right now.

[Courier]

Anyone who thinks the experts have decided for sure, whether or not raising minimum wage hurts or helps employment numbers, is a liar.

The jury is simply still out. There are various views on the subject.

[respect]

Originally Posted by Courier

Anyone who thinks the experts have decided for sure, whether or not raising minimum wage hurts or helps employment numbers, is a liar.

The jury is simply still out. There are various views on the subject.

Decided for sure? Of course not, that isn't how science works, but there is consensus. To re-post, this accurately gives an overview of that consensus. The alleged controversy exists mostly in the minds of the media.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Kaosium, I am sorry but I simply cannot take a claim The Nation is a Stalinist Commie publication seriously. I'm incapable.

As for the National Bureau of Economic Research, your information has led me to take a closer look.

I cited evidence for who funded the organization.

Quote:

Funding

Between 1985 and 2001, the organization received $9,963,301 in 73 grants from only four foundations:
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife)
Smith Richardson Foundation

These are organizations founded/funded by people with extreme ideological beliefs:

John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.

Quote:

"Olin was committed to the preservation of the principles of political and economic liberty as they have been expressed in American thought, institutions and practice."[1] The foundation closed in 2005, after more than two decades of setting the stage for the NeoCon wave of the Reagan era. [2]

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

Quote:

Harry was one of the original charter members of the far right-wing John Birch Society, along with another Birch Society board member, Fred Koch, the father of Koch Industries billionaire brothers and owners, Charles and David Koch.[2]
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel “from 2001 to 2009, it [Bradley] doled out nearly as much money as the seven Koch and Scaife foundations combined.” [3]

Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife)

Quote:

The Scaife Foundations consist of the:
Sarah Scaife Foundation ( $244 million (fair market value) in 2009) [1]
Carthage Foundation ( $24 million (fair market value)in 2009) [2]
Allegheny Foundation ( $47 million (fair market value) in 2009) [3]
Scaife Family Foundation ( $70 million (fair market value) in 2009) [4]
All four have been heavily involved in financing various conservative and Islamophobic causes under the direction of reclusive billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, whose wealth was inherited from the Mellon industrial, oil, aluminum and banking fortune.

Smith Richardson Foundation

Quote:

The Foundation gave approximately $99,686,911 to a total of 266 grantees. Conservative and centrist think tanks that received substantial sums were: [see link]...
...The Foundation funded the early 'supply-side' books of Jude Wanniski and George Gilder. It is also listed in the acknowledgements for Dennis King's study of the LaRouche movement, Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism (1989).

I got this far then looked at all the contributions from Krugman (one of the good guys ) and the timing of those donations. I need to look a lot deeper, including looking closer at the NBER papers cited in this thread. It'll take a while.

[Courier]

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MinimumWages.html

Several decades of studies using aggregate time-series data from a variety of countries have found that minimum wage laws reduce employment. At current U.S. wage levels, estimates of job losses suggest that a 10 percent in crease in the minimum wage would decrease employment of low-skilled workers by 1 or 2 percent

fascinating article

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by Courier

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MinimumWages.html

Several decades of studies using aggregate time-series data from a variety of countries have found that minimum wage laws reduce employment. At current U.S. wage levels, estimates of job losses suggest that a 10 percent in crease in the minimum wage would decrease employment of low-skilled workers by 1 or 2 percent

fascinating article

Rather obvious to any employer of same.

If I hire a teenager for $x per hour to wash my office windows and he agrees to work for that, why is that any of the government's concern? Really, where do they get the Constitutional authority to screw me over for a mutually voluntary transaction?

And yet, if I hire the same kid to work at $y per window, without regard to how long it takes him to do the job (and it is the same number of hours), why is it suddenly no longer the government's concern because I no longer track the time? :confused at government absurdity:

Anyway, we all know this idiotic proposal is nothing but a corrupt payback to the unions for their spending of hundreds of millions to re-elect the Zero in the White House ...

I say dump the minimum wage entirely before they screw over the us small business owners yet again ...

[jflower]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

I'm concerned that another increase in minimum wage will cost more jobs and cause employers to cut back on hours even more than they already have. I was concerned about the same thing when they increased the wage to $7.00/hr, and I was right.

Do we really want more the same?

Mudcat, is there any chance that this minimum wage hike that your complaining about occured during the biggest recession since the Great Depression?

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Kaosium, I am sorry but I simply cannot take a claim The Nation is a Stalinist Commie publication seriously. I'm incapable.

I said (or meant) it was, at the time, when they were parroting the propaganda like it was legitimate, even after the Nazi-Soviet Pact which at least gave others such as Norman Thomas pause. I'm pretty sure all of the writers I mentioned repudiated it eventually, bad for the 'brand' you see, () but not so much Stone who they were still trying to rehabilitate last I looked into it.

My point was no one who accepts that legacy gets to call anyone an 'extremist' without a belly laugh and no claim of anyone else being paid propagandists deliberately lying to achieve an agenda is going to be accepted without scrutiny from me at least.

Quote:

As for the National Bureau of Economic Research, your information has led me to take a closer look.

I cited evidence for who funded the organization.

Incidentally, what percentage of their budget do you suppose those grants made up? This site seems to suggest those grants were exclusive, but that's chump change over the course of ~15 years for an organization like that, for example what do you think a nice building like this costs to maintain in Cambridge MA? I am skeptical of the implication that those foundations dominated their revenue.

Quote:

These are organizations founded/funded by people with extreme ideological beliefs:

John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.

Reagan was not an extremist, they just called him that. I'd like to hear the argument he was a neo-conservative as well, that's a pretty odd statement to make, and they aren't 'extremists' either. These labels and 'brandings' are especially destructive to understanding in politics and economics in my view.

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife)

Smith Richardson Foundation

I got this far then looked at all the contributions from Krugman (one of the good guys ) and the timing of those donations. I need to look a lot deeper, including looking closer at the NBER papers cited in this thread. It'll take a while.[/quote]

Do you know what the saddest thing was about that whole Krugman MSNBC appearance and the aftermath? You know who he reminded me of on that show? Jack Kemp. That probably surprises you, but it's an example of how those ideological brandings or 'schools' can mislead people. First it was for his demeanor which was friendly and upbeat, the 'happy warrior' and also that the argument he was making on the debt could have been heard from Kemp in his latter years (note he had to keep his mouth shut about that running with Dole) and wouldn't be considered out of the mainstream except for the circumstances today call into question just how much debt we can afford to run in part simply due to the sheer volume of ~12T public debt that must be financed and what might happen with interest rates and the budget impact. The man to listen to most during that appearance was Richard Haass from the CFR.

If you're interested I could give you a short primer on just why, and how the debt is financed, and how some say that we can run (just about) as much debt as we want and it doesn't matter, and others are worried about a debt crisis. It just so happens that the economic proposal that Krugman is proposing is a variation of a brainchild of one of the founders of NBER, the guy known as the 'American Keynes' as he was the grey matter behind the WWII economy, and has been referred to as the 'perfect economy on paper.' Would you like to know how it would work?

[Courier]

Forcing employers to raise their wages, unrelated to their rise or fall of sales, only forces employers to lay off current employees or cancel any planned new hires, or cancel any planned new raises for those who make a penny more than the new minimum wage.

How is this a good thing?

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Courier

Forcing employers to raise their wages, unrelated to their rise or fall of sales, only forces employers to lay off current employees or cancel any planned new hires, or cancel any planned new raises for those who make a penny more than the new minimum wage.

How is this a good thing?

This math only works if the funds to pay wages are absolutely fixed and the need for employees is absolutely elastic.

Neither are the case.

[Courier]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

This math only works if the funds to pay wages are absolutely fixed and the need for employees is absolutely elastic.

Neither are the case.

Why would a businessman cut into his profits to raise wages, when he could instead lay people off, raise prices, or cut wages?

Folks don't start businesses to be Santa Claus, they do it to make money.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Courier

Why would a businessman cut into his profits to raise wages, when he could instead lay people off, raise prices, or cut wages?

Folks don't start businesses to be Santa Claus, they do it to make money.

But staffing isn't divorced from profit. it's you who's acting like staffing decisions have nothing to do with making money.

Any business running for profit will either be operating at the minimum required staffing to operate the business, or each staff member beyond the minimum generates profit greater than what they're paid.

This is economics 101.

So that means that laying off staff either makes the business inoperable or it decreases income by more than the cost of a worker.

You don't preserve profit by laying off a profitable worker.

Laying off employees based on a raised minimum wage only makes sense if the profit made off a given employ is less than the raise in the minimum, which I'll concede, can happen in industries with razor thin profit margins, but it's far from the assumed outcome.

The same goes for new hires as well. Because owners are in it to make a profit, they wouldn't be hiring if it wasn't either profitable or necessary. A raised minimum wage may make it slightly less profitable, but it doesn't make those changes you described unless it's large enough to make these decisions unprofitable.

[respect]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

This math only works if the funds to pay wages are absolutely fixed and the need for employees is absolutely elastic.

Neither are the case.

The inverse is also true. For unskilled workers to pick up none of the tab there must be inelastic demand for their labor.

Characteristics of the firm's profits, elasticity of labor demand and elasticity of consumer demand for their products will determine the breakout, but unskilled workers, profits and consumers will in some manner combine to pay the higher wages.

[respect]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

Laying off employees based on a raised minimum wage only makes sense if the profit made off a given employ is less than the raise in the minimum, which I'll concede, can happen in industries with razor thin profit margins, but it's far from the assumed outcome.

No, this is a very noticeable effect of minimum wage hikes, especially in that it makes experienced employees more attractive relative to inexperienced employees.

Few minimum wage jobs stay at minimum wage. Firms (especially in retail) often hire inexperienced employees and pay them minimum wage during a training period (often referred to as a probationary period) and give them a scheduled raise when it is completed. Training unskilled workers becomes less attractive as the minimum wage increases. Statistically lateral labor movement stays the same but new hires of unskilled labor declines. Which not only hurts currently unemployed labor now but reduces their job opportunities in the future as well. On the job training is a form of compensation that can pay future benefit to the employee. The more expensive that is for the firm, the less they will do of it.

This is why the harm is often described as "invisible" by economists. It is easy to see the increased spending of the beneficiaries, those harmed by not getting hired at all and not developing marketable skills are comparably invisible.

ETA-Note that this happens at all levels of employment. Apprenticeships, manager trainee programs and even minor league baseball are examples of on the job training where the employee is paid less than experienced workers as they train. And the training programs would be reduced or outright eliminated if their employers had to pay them more.

[jflower]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Politics.

Perhaps an example will help.

Walmart worker qualifies for Medicaid and food stamps despite working full time. Taxes pay for medical benefits instead of Walmart. Walmart's competitors pay employees' medical benefits.

Walmart has cheap products because the cost of the tax subsidized food stamps and medical care are not included in the price of the items for sale.

Walmart labor costs are essentially subsidized by the taxpayer. The end result, Walmart gets the government to subsidize their costs, more profits go to the owners.

It looks like those taxes were redistributed downward to the people getting government 'free stuff'.

In reality those taxes were distributed upward to the people benefitting from subsidized labor costs.

Walmart funds political message that taxes are going to freeloaders. It's smoke and mirrors. Taxes are going to the working poor while Walmart benefits.

Eventually Walmart's competitors have to adopt the same business model of an underpaid work force. The taxpayer subsidizes more and more big box stores. You buy that cheap laundry soap not knowing you are also paying an unseen tax that goes to the employees who need it to survive.

Wait, why is Wall-Mart campaining against taxes that benefit them? That makes no sense.

[Courier]

If I have 10 employees making minimum wage, and am forced to give them all a $1 raise, I would cancel any plans to hire another minimum wage worker, as the other ones just ate what would have been his hourly wage.