|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#201 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,172
|
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. |
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#202 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,695
|
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:
Quote:
![]() As I recall it the seasonal findings were not significant, but the overall ones were.
Quote:
![]() 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:
Quote:
![]()
Originally Posted by History of the NBER
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:
Quote:
I do hope you're doing alright, you have me kinda worried at this point. ![]() |
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense." |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#203 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,695
|
|
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense." |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#204 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,172
|
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. |
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#205 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,695
|
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. |
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense." |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#206 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,854
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#207 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,172
|
@ Kaosium
Sourcewatch has been around for many decades. They are a part of the Center for Media and Democracy. About:
Quote:
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. |
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#208 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,172
|
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? ![]() 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. |
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#209 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,695
|
You were unaware that it was? No amount of eye-rolling will change history.
Quote:
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. |
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense." |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#210 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,695
|
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. ![]() |
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense." |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#211 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,049
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#212 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,695
|
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. |
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense." |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#214 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,825
|
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. |
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#215 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,229
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#216 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,229
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#217 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,825
|
|
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#218 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,229
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#219 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,854
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#220 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,825
|
|
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#221 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,229
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#222 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,825
|
|
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#223 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,229
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#224 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,854
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#225 |
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,500
|
|
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#226 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,229
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#228 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,172
|
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:
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() |
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#229 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,229
|
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 |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#230 |
Eigenmode: Cynic
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,974
|
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 ... |
__________________
A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. – George Orwell |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#231 |
New Blood
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#232 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,695
|
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, (
![]() 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:
Quote:
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 ![]() 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? |
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense." |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#233 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,229
|
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? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#234 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,808
|
|
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. -G.K. CHESTERTON |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#235 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,229
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#236 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,808
|
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. |
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. -G.K. CHESTERTON |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#237 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,854
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#238 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,854
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#239 |
New Blood
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#240 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,229
|
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.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|