Consequences of eliminating the federal minimum wage.

[Supposn]

Consequences of eliminating the federal minimum wage.</SPAN>

Elimination of the Federal Minimum Wage, (i.e. FMW) rate would be the ultimate reduction of that rate. In that case states with their own minimum wage laws would be denied a significant economic shield.</SPAN>
If the FMW were eliminated, the purchasing powers of all states legally enforced or market determined minimum wage rates would soon be reduced.</SPAN>

Based only upon our current FMW rate of $7.25/Hr., my guesstimate is the local labor markets’ will drive their state governments’ or their markets’ determined variable legally unenforceable minimum wage rates down to a range (expressed in U.S. dollars of current purchasing power) from less than $2 and will rarely exceed $5.</SPAN>

There are many job tasks that (in the employers’ opinions) do not justify the minimum rate but they now exist because their performance is necessary and/or is net profitable for the employers’ enterprises. These jobs will continue to exist but their wages purchasing powers will be substantially reduced.</SPAN>

Although we’ve induced the creation of more jobs (with wages of much lesser purchasing powers), the less demanding tasks of these additional jobs and their wages lesser purchasing powers would increase our labor pool for such jobs. The increased labor pool will exceed the increased numbers of jobs. Our unemployment rate would (on paper) indicate increased rates of unemployment. In actuality, the nation’s unemployment rates will not decrease. </SPAN>

Eliminating the FMW would reduce the proportion of our employees’ population’s middle income earners and increase the proportion of our employees’ lower income earners.</SPAN>
Currently a good portion, if not the majority of USA’s working poor are recipients of little or no public assistance. The reduction of employee earnings’ purchasing powers would increase public assistance rolls. Due to the reduction of wages and salaries purchasing powers, there’ll be more working poor and they will all require more pu</SPAN>blic assistance.</SPAN>

Eliminating the FMW laws would be net economically detrimental to our nation.</SPAN>

I’m a proponent of annually pegging the federal minimum wage to the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar. Social Security retirement benefits have for many years been annually adjusted to a federal cost price index; it been working exactly as it was intended to.</SPAN>

Respectfully, Supposn</SPAN>

[Supposn]

Minimum wage rates:</SPAN></SPAN>
A region’s effective minimum wage rate, (i.e. due to governments’ explicit legally enforced determinations or the within the regions’ labor market’s interactivity are what’s generally paid to the least sought after job applicants and/or for performing the least demanding and/or for the least distasteful tasks. (Getting hired is among a job’s demands).</SPAN>

Some jobs are unaffected by governments’ determined minimum rates:</SPAN></SPAN>
Governments’ determined minimum wage rates are of less consequence if they are less enforced and of no consequence if they’re less than regions’ variable interactive market’s minimum wage. </SPAN></SPAN>
If a job's’ tasks requires labor that’s in short supply, a general minimum wage rate is of no significant consequence to that specific job’s pay rate.</SPAN></SPAN>


Attributes common to all minimum wage bench marks:</SPAN></SPAN>
Other than the afore mentioned exceptions, both government or market determined minimum wage rates serve the function of THE minimum bench mark and affects the median and all other of a region’s wages and salaries in the same manner.</SPAN></SPAN>

Goods and service products exported from lower wage regions undermine the wage scales of the importing regions. The federal minimum wage rates serves to somewhat shield U.S. states that choose to maintain or increase the federal minimum wage rate within their own jurisdictions. .</SPAN></SPAN>
Refer to:</SPAN></SPAN>
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39068-Reduce-the-trade-deficit-increase-GDP-amp-median-wage</SPAN> (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39068-Reduce-the-trade-deficit-increase-GDP-amp-median-wage)
and to</SPAN></SPAN>
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39311-Trade-deficits-are-ALWAYS-detrimental-to-their-nation’s-GDPs</SPAN> (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39311-Trade-deficits-are-ALWAYS-detrimental-to-their-nation's-GDPs)

Governments’ minimum rate’s affect upon jobs’ pay rates are proportional and inversely related to the difference between the two rates purchasing powers; (i.e. those earning less benefit more and those earning more benefit proportionally less due to the FMW laws).</SPAN></SPAN>

A minimum wage rate never reduces the purchasing powers of any jobs’ wages or salaries.</SPAN>
Spending for wages, similar to all other spending contribute to currency inflation and similar to most other spending, the minimum wage rate is less a cause and more a victim of currency inflation.</SPAN>

Excluding jobs as described within the afore mentioned clause entitled “jobs unaffected by the minimum wage rate”, reducing the purchasing power of a region’s minimum wage rate is reflected by the reduced purchasing powers of the region’s median wage and all its other wages and salaries.
</SPAN>
I am a proponent of annually pegging the federal minimum wage to the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar. Social Security retirement benefits have for many years been annually adjusted to a federal cost price index; it been working exactly as it was intended to.</SPAN>
Such reductions of the minimum wage's purchasing power occur when the U.S. congress fails to keep the FMW rate’s purchasing power abreast with that of the U.S. dollar.</SPAN>

Respectfully, Supposn</SPAN>

[fj1200]

If the FMW were eliminated, the purchasing powers of all states legally enforced or market determined minimum wage rates would soon be reduced.

I’m a proponent of annually pegging the federal minimum wage to the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar.

1. Who suggested eliminating the FMW?
2. What problem are you trying to solve?


Refer to:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39068-Reduce-the-trade-deficit-increase-GDP-amp-median-wage
and to
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39311-Trade-deficits-are-ALWAYS-detrimental-to-their-nation’s-GDPs (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39311-Trade-deficits-are-ALWAYS-detrimental-to-their-nation's-GDPs)

Your point was not proven in the above threads.

[cadet]

I get paid 6 bucks an hour without tax. It's awesome.
In my opinion, a company should be the one to tell you how much their going to pay you. You can always say no... And if they can't find anyone, they can always raise the pay.

For some reason, I swear every liberal thinks that companies only want to hurt their employee's.... When in fact, the employee's are what keep it running.

[tailfins]

I get paid 6 bucks an hour without tax. It's awesome.
In my opinion, a company should be the one to tell you how much their going to pay you. You can always say no... And if they can't find anyone, they can always raise the pay.

For some reason, I swear every liberal thinks that companies only want to hurt their employee's.... When in fact, the employee's are what keep it running.

This hearkens back to my College Republican days. Companies and their managers are not the towers of virtue you think they are. However the most important "employee benefit" can't be legislated nor quantified with money: It's the company culture. The best and most powerful employee public policy result is a low unemployment rate.

[BillyBob]

Minimum wage has eliminated poverty in the US for all able-bodied adult citizens willing to work.

[tailfins]

Minimum wage has eliminated poverty in the US for all able-bodied adult citizens willing to work.

Ask the person at the cash register at your favorite NYC eatery about that.

[BillyBob]

Ask the person at the cash register at your favorite NYC eatery about that.


A full time worker earning minimum wage earns a couple thousand a year ABOVE the poverty level. [btw, I'm not a proponent of the minimum wage]

[fj1200]

Minimum wage has eliminated poverty in the US for all able-bodied adult citizens willing to work.

The minimum wage has exacerbated poverty for poor young minorities by reducing employment opportunities.

[cadet]

Minimum wage should only affect teenagers.
If you're a grown man and are working minimum wage, it's time to do something with your life.

[BillyBob]

The minimum wage has exacerbated poverty for poor young minorities by reducing employment opportunities.


Minimum wage has brought them OUT of poverty by providing them with enough money to live above the poverty level.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Minimum wage should only affect teenagers.
If you're a grown man and are working minimum wage, it's time to do something with your life.

Actually obama's policies have forced many highly qualified people to work minimium wage jobs just to survive. The great deception has been that all this economic woes were not by design but they were. All done to bring our nation out of the number one power slot in the world. When we are knocked down far enough those that did it will wreck havoc like the world has never seen before. -Tyr

[Trigg]

Actually obama's policies have forced many highly qualified people to work minimium wage jobs just to survive. The great deception has been that all this economic woes were not by design but they were. All done to bring our nation out of the number one power slot in the world. When we are knocked down far enough those that did it will wreck havoc like the world has never seen before. -Tyr

While that's true right now, the minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage.

People get hired on at minimum, learn a skill or go to college and move up the ladder. Making room for someone else to start at the bottom.

[fj1200]

Minimum wage has brought them OUT of poverty by providing them with enough money to live above the poverty level.

Umm, no.

Statistical problem of minimum wage and poverty (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/statistical-problem-of-minimum-wage-and-poverty-88824.html)
It’s a statistical problem that continues to haunt even the staunchest minimum-wage advocates, mainly because the facts just aren’t on their side. A majority of our country’s poor don’t have employment and thus won’t benefit from a raise, while large numbers of minimum-wage earners don’t live in poor households. It’s the same with the Harkin/Miller proposal: The average family income of someone receiving a raise under this bill would be $52,396. More than 35 percent are living at home with family or relatives; by contrast, just 9 percent represent single parents supporting children.In other words, the minimum wage is poorly targeted at the poor. If that were the only problem, the policy might still make sense as part of a larger poverty-reduction package. But empirical evidence published in the Journal of Human Resources suggests that a minimum wage hike can actually move more people into poverty than it moves out of it.


Raising Minimum Wage Will Hurt More than Help (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/raising-minimum-wage-will-hurt-more-help)
The problem is, companies must earn more than they spend. Workers must produce more than they are paid. As government raises the minimum wage, it prices people out of the market.
The bulk of economic studies demonstrate that raising the minimum wage destroys jobs.
The minimum wage encourages companies to automate and switch to fewer higher skilled, more productive workers who are worth the higher rate.

[DragonStryk72]

While that's true right now, the minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage.

People get hired on at minimum, learn a skill or go to college and move up the ladder. Making room for someone else to start at the bottom.

Yeah, except that that is no longer what really happens. Now, employers "talk" about future opportunity, but it rarely happens, and even when the promotion does occur, it is only a dollar or so more. Most don't even have regular raises anymore, and actively look for ways to cut out those who have gotten a raise, to keep the bottom line down.

[aboutime]

Let's solve this problem. Right here. Right now.

Since it seems NOBODY can agree on what, or how the Minimum wage is, or should be.

Why not make it a mandatory $50.00 dollars per hour?

That would please everyone working for Minimum Wage...for a short time until either the business they work for files for Bankruptcy, or the first person making $50.00 dollars an hour REFUSES to work for Minimum Wage...and demands it should be $75.00 per hour.

In other words. WHERE, and WHEN does it stop? No matter what minimum wage is??????

[BillyBob]

Umm, no.

It’s a statistical problem that continues to haunt even the staunchest minimum-wage advocates, mainly because the facts just aren’t on their side. A majority of our country’s poor don’t have employment and thus won’t benefit from a raise, while large numbers of minimum-wage earners don’t live in poor households. It’s the same with the Harkin/Miller proposal: The average family income of someone receiving a raise under this bill would be $52,396. More than 35 percent are living at home with family or relatives; by contrast, just 9 percent represent single parents supporting children.In other words, the minimum wage is poorly targeted at the poor. If that were the only problem, the policy might still make sense as part of a larger poverty-reduction package. But empirical evidence published in the Journal of Human Resources suggests that a minimum wage hike can actually move more people into poverty than it moves out of it.



Any able-bodied adult US citizen who lives in poverty does so by choice.

[fj1200]

Any able-bodied adult US citizen who lives in poverty does so by choice.

Aah yes. The ol' McDonald's solution.

[BillyBob]

Aah yes. The ol' McDonald's solution.

I just started a thread about that so as not to derail this one.

[fj1200]

I just started a thread about that so as not to derail this one.

Wouldn't be any big deal and would actually make some practical use out of a supposn thread. His defense of his remarks generally consists of repetition of same.

[BillyBob]

Wouldn't be any big deal and would actually make some practical use out of a supposn thread. His defense of his remarks generally consists of repetition of same.


I haven't seen many of his threads yet. But the responses to my post are certain to take this discussion pretty far off course so I was trying to be polite. Either way, it's out there now.

[Trigg]

Yeah, except that that is no longer what really happens. Now, employers "talk" about future opportunity, but it rarely happens, and even when the promotion does occur, it is only a dollar or so more. Most don't even have regular raises anymore, and actively look for ways to cut out those who have gotten a raise, to keep the bottom line down.


Yes it is still how things happen in this country, at least for people with some semblance of ambition. A poor person in this county has money thrown at them from social programs. An ambitious person will not live their life on minimum wage, because they will find ways to get an education or job training in order to move up.

No matter what you move the minimum up to people will always bitch that it just isn't enough to live on. It never will be enough to live on, that's the point. IT's a START at entry level pay for someone with NO job experience and NO job history.

[DragonStryk72]

Yes it is still how things happen in this country, at least for people with some semblance of ambition. A poor person in this county has money thrown at them from social programs. An ambitious person will not live their life on minimum wage, because they will find ways to get an education or job training in order to move up.

No matter what you move the minimum up to people will always bitch that it just isn't enough to live on. It never will be enough to live on, that's the point. IT's a START at entry level pay for someone with NO job experience and NO job history.

Wow, didn't listen to me at all, did you? They don't really do what you seem to think they do, and education? An Associate's is now what a GED used to be, so basically, in six years, I can be a leg up on somebody educationally, just in time to be "overqualified", which again, results in no job for me, but it does rack me over 50K in debt. And that's just to start being competitive in the job market. I also have to have a car, so let's tack another $10K in debt, plus $300-600 in gas/insurance per month, and no, it doesn't matter that I live so close to work I could hit a baseball through the third floor window from my back porch, I still have to have a car to get there, cause who can possibly walk two whole blocks in this country?

Meanwhile, the jobs that were the steady backbone of the country (aka manufacturing jobs), are all but gone (Thank you NAFTA for getting rid of the tarriffs that kept overseas prices competitive with ours.), and what remain either just rely on temps so they can keep their payroll down, or we're talking about a union location, and since I'm not in the union, there's little chance there, as they're guarding those few positions for people they have earmarked. Likely, they're a solid pick, not saying they aren't, but it still doesn't help the poor people dig out.

Meanwhile the min wage jobs are almost pure part-time work, with only a rare full-time position. Promotion is even more rare, and showing ambition at a min wage job these days just succeeds in having the management raise the bar higher to where your performance is now the average.

Saying that poverty is a choice is just ignorant, and is a statement made only by those who have not been poor in our modern times. Are there lazy motherfuckers out there gaming the system, and slacking their way through? sure, of course there are, always have been, and always will be, but that does not state that every poor person is choosing to be so.

And actually, thinking on it a bit, we can actually blame some of those social programs that are there to "help" us. Many of those programs have a very strict cap limit, and it's easy to end up making even a small enough amount "too much", and get your benefits cut almost completely, if not totally, because you picked up an extra five hours at work. Hope that $32 and change was worth losing your food stamps. The governmental system for aid actually punishes people for actually having the ambition to get ahead, while rewarding the people who are bilking them every month.

[BillyBob]

Saying that poverty is a choice is just ignorant, and is a statement made only by those who have not been poor in our modern times.


Is having babies without the benefit of marriage a bad decision, and is doing so likely to affect income? Are dropping out of school and participating in criminal activity bad decisions, and are they likely to have an effect on income? Finally, do people have free will and the capacity to make decisions, or is their behavior a result of instincts over which they have no control?

Poverty Nonsense (http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/poverty-nonsense.html)

[DragonStryk72]

Is having babies without the benefit of marriage a bad decision, and is doing so likely to affect income? Are dropping out of school and participating in criminal activity bad decisions, and are they likely to have an effect on income? Finally, do people have free will and the capacity to make decisions, or is their behavior a result of instincts over which they have no control?

Poverty Nonsense (http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/poverty-nonsense.html)

ah, so the poor are only stereotypes? gee, I didn't know I dropped out of high school, or had kids out of wedlock. wait, what criminal activities I was participating in?

Its a pretty broad brush you're painting with there, and your argument completely skips my part about "lazy motherfuckers".

[BillyBob]

ah, so the poor are only stereotypes?

No, the 'poor' are poor by choice. Poverty in this country is self-imposed. I started a thread about that so as not to derail this one.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?41010-Any-able-bodied-adult-US-citizen-who-lives-in-poverty-does-so-by-choice




gee, I didn't know I dropped out of high school, or had kids out of wedlock.

I never said you did.




wait, what criminal activities I was participating in?

I never claimed that and neither did the author of the article I posted.






Its a pretty broad brush you're painting with there, and your argument completely skips my part about "lazy motherfuckers".

My argument is founded on 'lazy motherfuckers'.

[Supposn]

1. Who suggested eliminating the FMW?
2. What problem are you trying to solve? ...

FJ1200, I’m constantly encountering right wing opposition to the any minimum wage.</SPAN>

Additionally I consider much more often than not, those opposed to the federal minimum wage are less than opposed to the federal jurisdiction, are less concerned with federal/state jurisdiction and are actually perceive their argument as the most feasible method to reduce (if not completely eliminate) the minimum wage laws.</SPAN>


//////////////////////////////////////////////////</SPAN>
Excerpted from message #2 of this thread:</SPAN>
Governments’ minimum rate’s affect upon jobs’ pay rates are proportional and inversely related to the difference between the two rates purchasing powers; (i.e. those earning less benefit more and those </SPAN>
earning more benefit proportionally less due to the FMW laws). …</SPAN>

… </SPAN>I am a proponent of annually pegging the federal minimum wage to the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar. Social Security retirement benefits have for many years been annually adjusted to a federal cost price index; it been working exactly as it was intended to.
Such reductions of the minimum wage's purchasing power occur when the U.S. congress fails to keep the FMW rate’s purchasing power abreast with that of the U.S. dollar.</SPAN>
//////////////////////////////////////////////////</SPAN>

Respectfully, Supposn</SPAN></SPAN>

[Supposn]

... Your point was not proven in the above threads.

FJ1200, ... I’m In comparison to physics or chemistry, many, possibly an extraordinary proportion of social study concepts are subject to differences of opinions; (statements of social study concepts are generally more subjective and less objective than the sciences of physics or chemistry. Economics is an area of social study rather than a science. </SPAN>

Social studies are driven by the behavior among the most erratic creature that inhabits the earth; they are driven by humans. Economic concepts can be logically argued. How can we use statistics as “proof” if we cannot agree upon which are cause or affect?</SPAN>

Many if not most economic concepts evade being proven or disproven to the extent I believe you’re demanding.</SPAN>

Respectfully, Supposn</SPAN>

[fj1200]

FJ1200, I’m constantly encountering right wing opposition to the any minimum wage.

Additionally I consider much more often than not, those opposed to the federal minimum wage are less than opposed to the federal jurisdiction, are less concerned with federal/state jurisdiction and are actually perceive their argument as the most feasible method to reduce (if not completely eliminate) the minimum wage laws.

There is plenty of opposition to a minimum wage, for good reasons, but you're post is a red herring. Practically no one is suggesting it and it won't get anywhere even if they did.


//////////////////////////////////////////////////
Excerpted from message #2 of this thread:

Yes, I know. You're always excerpting your previous statements whether they hold true or not.

[fj1200]

FJ1200, ... I’m In comparison to physics or chemistry, many, possibly an extraordinary proportion of social study concepts are subject to differences of opinions; (statements of social study concepts are generally more subjective and less objective than the sciences of physics or chemistry. Economics is an area of social study rather than a science.

Social studies are driven by the behavior among the most erratic creature that inhabits the earth; they are driven by humans. Economic concepts can be logically argued. How can we use statistics as “proof” if we cannot agree upon which are cause or affect?

Many if not most economic concepts evade being proven or disproven to the extent I believe you’re demanding.

Respectfully, Supposn

There is a reason it's referred to as the dismal science but a science it is. And economics, like any other science, does have an answer it's just buried under bias. And IIRC your statements were disproven by the statistics and studies that I posted. You just chose not to supply studies which backed your statements.

I also disagree that humans, on the whole, are erratic; individuals can certainly be erratic but unencumbered free humans act very rationally. Although I can mention continents and vast regions which may disprove that statement.

[Supposn]

Minimum wage should only affect teenagers.
If you're a grown man and are working minimum wage, it's time to do something with your life.

Cadet, excerpted from the portion of message #2 entitled </SPAN>
“Attributes common to all minimum wage bench marks”:</SPAN>
“Other than the afore mentioned exceptions, both government or market determined minimum wage rates serve the function of THE minimum bench mark and affects the median and all other of a region’s wages and salaries in the same manner. …</SPAN>
… Governments’ minimum rate’s affect upon jobs’ pay rates are proportional and inversely related to the difference between the two rates purchasing powers; (i.e. those earning less benefit more and those earning more benefit proportionally less due to the FMW laws)”.</SPAN>

Cadet, the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate has some affect upon almost EVERY wage or salary in the USA. It particularly affects the lowest quarter of USA’s full time employees; (i.e. it particularly affects the purchasing power of the $6/Hr. you reported as your wage rate, your hourly rate would have a great deal less purchasing power than what you’re now able to purchase with your $6/Hr.

Respectfully, Supposn</SPAN>

[Supposn]

Minimum wage should only affect teenagers.
If you're a grown man and are working minimum wage, it's time to do something with your life.

Cadet, how is it that you can afford to work for $6/hr? I recall intern positions that students competed for. </SPAN>Some students </SPAN>have a problem existing through the school terms and are very much dependent upon their summer earnings. they can’t afford the honor and opportunity that they might acquire from internship.</SPAN>

Colleges have been able to raise tuitions due to government student loans. Many of those students, (a great number of liberal arts students) will not be able to pay off their student loans throughout their lifetimes).</SPAN>

Respectfully, Supposn</SPAN>

[fj1200]

Cadet, the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate has some affect upon almost EVERY wage or salary in the USA. It particularly affects the lowest quarter of USA’s full time employees; (i.e. it particularly affects the purchasing power of the $6/Hr. you reported as your wage rate, your hourly rate would have a great deal less purchasing power than what you’re now able to purchase with your $6/Hr.

Did you miss this post? It had actual studies and stuff.



Statistical problem of minimum wage and poverty (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/statistical-problem-of-minimum-wage-and-poverty-88824.html)

Raising Minimum Wage Will Hurt More than Help (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/raising-minimum-wage-will-hurt-more-help)

[Trigg]

Wow, didn't listen to me at all, did you? They don't really do what you seem to think they do, and education? An Associate's is now what a GED used to be, so basically, in six years, I can be a leg up on somebody educationally, just in time to be "overqualified", which again, results in no job for me, but it does rack me over 50K in debt. And that's just to start being competitive in the job market. I also have to have a car, so let's tack another $10K in debt, plus $300-600 in gas/insurance per month, and no, it doesn't matter that I live so close to work I could hit a baseball through the third floor window from my back porch, I still have to have a car to get there, cause who can possibly walk two whole blocks in this country?

Meanwhile, the jobs that were the steady backbone of the country (aka manufacturing jobs), are all but gone (Thank you NAFTA for getting rid of the tarriffs that kept overseas prices competitive with ours.), and what remain either just rely on temps so they can keep their payroll down, or we're talking about a union location, and since I'm not in the union, there's little chance there, as they're guarding those few positions for people they have earmarked. Likely, they're a solid pick, not saying they aren't, but it still doesn't help the poor people dig out.

Meanwhile the min wage jobs are almost pure part-time work, with only a rare full-time position. Promotion is even more rare, and showing ambition at a min wage job these days just succeeds in having the management raise the bar higher to where your performance is now the average.

Saying that poverty is a choice is just ignorant, and is a statement made only by those who have not been poor in our modern times. Are there lazy motherfuckers out there gaming the system, and slacking their way through? sure, of course there are, always have been, and always will be, but that does not state that every poor person is choosing to be so.

And actually, thinking on it a bit, we can actually blame some of those social programs that are there to "help" us. Many of those programs have a very strict cap limit, and it's easy to end up making even a small enough amount "too much", and get your benefits cut almost completely, if not totally, because you picked up an extra five hours at work. Hope that $32 and change was worth losing your food stamps. The governmental system for aid actually punishes people for actually having the ambition to get ahead, while rewarding the people who are bilking them every month.

You got nasty in a hurry didn't you.


So other people can get on the job training, and move up except you.

Promotion is far from rare. I work at a hospital there are more than enough entry positions that DO NOT REQUIRE a degree. People are hired and given training PAID FOR BY THE HOSPITAL.

These jobs are available to ANYONE at every hospital in every town and city. If you are having trouble finding positions maybe it's time to widen your search.

I have been poor, so poor that Nuke was given a Pell Grant and we ate chili and hamberger helper for a year until he finished his degree. I've been there and I have 2 kids right now in minimum wage positions so I know what I'm talking about.


I agree with you regarding the social programs. People who just need a little help are ignored because they are over the limit if only just a little.

Don't expect things to get better with obamacare. Since many companies are dropping hours of parttime people in order to keep them under 30 hrs and not have to offer health coverage.

[cadet]

Cadet, how is it that you can afford to work for $6/hr? I recall intern positions that students competed for. Some students have a problem existing through the school terms and are very much dependent upon their summer earnings. they can’t afford the honor and opportunity that they might acquire from internship.

Colleges have been able to raise tuitions due to government student loans. Many of those students, (a great number of liberal arts students) will not be able to pay off their student loans throughout their lifetimes).

Respectfully, Supposn

I can honestly tell you that this is the first post I've understood from you. Many colleges have been forced to raise their tuition due to the Gov't tax. Unfortunately, that means all that extra tax the gov't thinks it's putting on the college is getting put on people like me.

And instead of lowering the tax on college to lower tuition, they decided to raise tax on everyone else to give students more money. In other words the entire system of taxation is flawed beyond belief.

I have decided to take a military rout to pay for my tuition. I also worked my tail off to get into the Questa foundation to help me pay it off.

Now, let's say we do what we've always wanted, lower taxes. HOLY SHIT! That ends up fixing damn near everything. MINIMUM WAGE IS ONLY FOR TEENAGERS OR FOR JOB EXPERIENCE TO GET A BETTER CAREER TO LIVE OFF OF. The BIGGEST issue with minimum wage comes from ADULTS trying to make a living off of that instead of getting a REAL job.

Here's another example of why minimum wage shouldn't exist. I work at the library during school time. Two people work during each hour. The libraries only open from 7-11 each day. That, and the stupid gov't decided that a job on campus is "need based" (another stupid gov't solution), so the school can only pay out so much. If minimum wage goes up, the school would be forced into cutting my hours, firing me, or replacing most of my hours with someone else.
The library is already an iffy position. The school doesn't think we're mandatory, and have been trying to get rid of us for quite some time. And then replacing us all with my boss.


So I want to put this into the perspective of a more daily basis for you. Subway can only pay so much to it's workers. Minimum wage goes up, they can't afford to have as many as they do. A shitload of people are suddenly out of the job because idiots wanted minimum wage to go up.

Respectfully, Cadet.

[Thunderknuckles]

1. Who suggested eliminating the FMW?
2. What problem are you trying to solve?

That about sums up my feelings on this thread :laugh:
Keep the FMW.
There, I'm done.

[MtnBiker]

Minimum wage? Doesn't really seem like an area of concern. There are more than 10 million people on disability. The percentage of employed in the population is the lowest is has been in 30 years http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm . The question is not about minimum wage, rather it is how does obama most effectively transfer wealth to nonproductive sectors of our society? <object type="cosymantecnisbfw" cotype="cs" id="SILOBFWOBJECTID" style="width: 0px; height: 0px; display: block;"></object>

[Supposn]

FJ1200, you quoting a CATO publication; “The minimum wage encourages companies to automate and switch to fewer higher skilled, more productive workers who are worth the higher rate".</SPAN></SPAN>

Economics is a social study, not a science. People are not as logical as we pretend to be. We more often than not due to our experience and background, carry our own baggage into our considerations. Students of any of the social studies within many incidences too often pretend to be knowledgeable of empirical truths which (at best) are only logical conclusions based upon our interpretations of the facts. Even when we agree upon the facts, we often disagree upon the interpretations from which we draw our conclusions.</SPAN></SPAN>

It's my opinion CATO supporters do not admit (even to themselves) their preference for a large segment of our population to be of a financial, political, and social underclass status. I’m among the populists that conceive a differing Utopia. </SPAN></SPAN>

I’m a populist and a proponent of technological progress. I believe that CATO and I usually agree that technological progress is desirable. But in regard to this issue, they’ve determined that that (as we agree) increasing the purchasing power of wages encourages technological progress to reduce labor costs per unit of production and that would be contrary to their greater priority, they are firmly opposed to increasing the purchasing powers of wages and salaries.</SPAN>

You’re still going to maintain that economics is a social SCIENCE!! </SPAN>

A federal minimum wage that retains its purchasing power will better induce technological progress to reduce per unit labor costs and improve our GDP, and increasing our aggregate employment. I desire my nation should value human labor highly relative to the cost of products. I don’t count the cost in finite dollars but rather in the numbers of man hours required for us to pay for the goods. We should, and within my grandchildren’s lifetime I expect the USA will consider any harm to our environment as an addition to costs.</SPAN>

Respectfully, Supposn</SPAN>

[fj1200]

FJ1200, you quoting a CATO publication; “The minimum wage encourages companies to automate and switch to fewer higher skilled, more productive workers who are worth the higher rate".

Economics is a social study, not a science. People are not as logical as we pretend to be. We more often than not due to our experience and background, carry our own baggage into our considerations. Students of any of the social studies within many incidences too often pretend to be knowledgeable of empirical truths which (at best) are only logical conclusions based upon our interpretations of the facts. Even when we agree upon the facts, we often disagree upon the interpretations from which we draw our conclusions.

Economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics) is the social science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences) that ... If there is disagreement on the interpretations then either bias is preventing one from concluding logically or there is no agreement on the facts. I point to your other threads and our discussions as example.

And your Cato comment above; you disagree with that basic statement? Another basic statement that I recall from the piece is that if you raise your cost of labor then the cost of capital becomes more attractive. Rather than people fiddling with widgets business will eventually have automation fiddling with widgets. Widgets can be hamburgers, coal, cars... you name it.


It's my opinion CATO supporters do not admit (even to themselves) their preference for a large segment of our population to be of a financial, political, and social underclass status. I’m among the populists that conceive a differing Utopia.

I suppose you have a basis for your opinion then? Other than bias ;) of course. Nevertheless it's generally those that "conceive a different Utopia" that are those who make it worse than if they hadn't done anything at all.


I’m a populist and a proponent of technological progress. I believe that CATO and I usually agree that technological progress is desirable. But in regard to this issue, they’ve determined that that (as we agree) increasing the purchasing power of wages encourages technological progress to reduce labor costs per unit of production and that would be contrary to their greater priority, they are firmly opposed to increasing the purchasing powers of wages and salaries.

You’re still going to maintain that economics is a social SCIENCE!!

Yes, I agree with the vast majority that states that economics is a social science. I'm also guessing that you haven't read my opinion of populists; it's not favorable. :) Can you point to where "they've determined"? I don't recall them mentioning purchasing power in their study.


A federal minimum wage that retains its purchasing power will better induce technological progress to reduce per unit labor costs and improve our GDP, and increasing our aggregate employment. I desire my nation should value human labor highly relative to the cost of products. I don’t count the cost in finite dollars but rather in the numbers of man hours required for us to pay for the goods. We should, and within my grandchildren’s lifetime I expect the USA will consider any harm to our environment as an addition to costs.

I'm sorry but that paragraph is just riddled with inconsistencies and ill-defined outcomes. Populist rhetoric is just about the worst thing in the world.

Oops, my mistake; I had mentioned my feelings about populists to you before: :)


I'm unsure why anyone in the world would want to self-identify as a populist; Populists IMO are those with little understanding of the issues at hand and glom onto a solution merely because it is popular, or will appeal to the populous, and not because it is correct.

[Supposn]

Did you miss this post? It had actual studies and stuff.

FJ1200, both of your links are opinions that are opposed to greater purchasing power for the minimum wage.
</SPAN></SPAN>
I’m among those that share the opinion of greater purchasing power for the minimum wage is economically more beneficial to a nation’s economy.</SPAN></SPAN>

I don’t know why but I suspect that it’s possible to increase a nation’s minimum wage’s purchasing power to an extent that’s detrimental to the nation’s economy and I don’t believe it can occur if the minimum wage’ purchasing power doesn’t increase faster than the nation’s currency inflation.</SPAN></SPAN>

There’s never been a national economy that was injured by increasing their minimum wage’s purchasing power.</SPAN></SPAN>

I don’t believe decreasing the minimum wage is detrimental to the nation’s economy if the decrease doesn’t exceed the increased purchasing power of the nation’s currency.</SPAN></SPAN>

I don’t doubt that increasing the minimum wage’s purchasing power too fast would be detrimental to our economy.
</SPAN></SPAN>
I don’t doubt that increasing the minimum wage’s purchasing power too slowly would be probably more detrimental to our economy.</SPAN></SPAN>


Respectfully, Supposn</SPAN></SPAN>

[Kathianne]

My opinion:

The minimum wage causes all salaries in place at the time that a 'new minimum wage' is established to rise. Some call this 'lifting all boats,' most call it inflationary. I go along with 'most.'

The fed minimum wage is $7 something now, IL is over $8 something. There's reasons so many young people, 16-24 find it near impossible to find a job here, part-time.

Minimum wage will never be a 'living wage,' no matter how high it goes. Inflation will take care of that.

[fj1200]

FJ1200, both of your links are opinions...

:rolleyes: Tell me this before I respond to your points; would you actually read what I post and consider it or would you just repeat your talking points? Populists don't respond well to conflicting data.

[Supposn]

... The fed minimum wage is $7 something now, IL is over $8 something. There's reasons so many young people, 16-24 find it near impossible to find a job here, part-time.</SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>
</SPAN></SPAN>
Excerpted from post #1 within the thread entitled</SPAN></SPAN>
“Consequences of eliminating the federal minimum wage”:</SPAN></SPAN>
Although we’ve induced the creation of more jobs (with wages of much lesser purchasing powers), the less demanding tasks of these additional jobs and their wages lesser purchasing powers would increase our labor pool for such jobs. The increased labor pool will exceed the increased numbers of jobs. Our unemployment rate would (on paper) indicate increased rates of unemployment. In actuality, the nation’s unemployment rates will not decrease.</SPAN>

Eliminating the FMW would reduce the proportion of our employees’ population’s middle income earners and increase the proportion of our employees’ lower income earners.
Currently a good portion, if not the majority of USA’s working poor are recipients of little or no public assistance. The reduction of employee earnings’ purchasing powers would increase public assistance rolls. Due to the reduction of wages and salaries purchasing powers, there’ll be more working poor and they will all require more public assistance.

Eliminating the FMW laws would be net economically detrimental to our nation.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////</SPAN>
</SPAN>
Unemployed Youth; (the amended Fair Labor Standards act)</SPAN></SPAN>

At least one of the Canadian provinces had a sub-minimum wage law similar to the USA sub-minimal law provision enacted due to a 1996 amendment of USA’s Fair Labor Standards Act.</SPAN>
[Refer to “Fact Sheet #32: Youth Minimum Wage - Fair Labor Standards Act”,</SPAN>
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs32.pdf</SPAN> (http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs32.pdf) ].</SPAN>

I don’t know why the Canadians dropped their acceptance from their own laws but I can foresee some of the problems that are likely to occur (if they haven’t yet already been encountered). </SPAN>

When this amendment becomes more familiar and publically acceptable, it will be a boon for enterprises with a need for 90 days temporary seasonal employees.</SPAN>
Many enterprises would be hiring on a trial basis and retaining only exceptional well performing workers beyond the 90 days deadline.</SPAN>

Some employers would conclude that their recruiting expenses and the learning curve limitations of their tasks require more selective hiring. They must consider the costs associated with poor rates of employee retention. For such enterprises the more qualified youths will continue to be those first hired but at possibly much lesser wage rates. </SPAN>
Those who previously might have been disregarded due to the hiring of equally qualified older job applicants will now be preferred to those older job applicants. No one ever becomes younger.</SPAN>

All other youths similar to those that were unemployed due to their lesser qualifications, will not have significantly better chance of being now hired by an enterprise concerned with their recruiting an on the job training costs. Such enterprises and such jobs are the most desirable opportunities.</SPAN>

I'm not convinced that this sub-minimal wage for youths will mot undermine the existing minimal wage regulations and be of little benefit to those it was meant to help.

Kathianne, eliminating the federal minimum wage rate to reduce youths' high rate of unemployment would reduce the purchasing power of all wages and salary earners and increase poverty among wage earning families currently and for the remainder of their lives? I suspect that this new sub-minimal wage rate for youths may have a similar effect upon our economy. </SPAN>

Respectfully, Supposn

[Kathianne]

...
I'm not convinced that this sub-minimal wage for youths will mot undermine the existing minimal wage regulations and be of little benefit to those it was meant to help.

Kathianne, eliminating the federal minimum wage rate to reduce youths' high rate of unemployment would reduce the purchasing power of all wages and salary earners and increase poverty among wage earning families currently and for the remainder of their lives? I suspect that this new sub-minimal wage rate for youths may have a similar effect upon our economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

Interesting that you only see a problem if reduced and positives if increase. You fail to address the inflationary effect that minimum wage has.

[fj1200]

I'm not convinced that this sub-minimal wage for youths will mot undermine the existing minimal wage regulations and be of little benefit to those it was meant to help.

Kathianne, eliminating the federal minimum wage rate to reduce youths' high rate of unemployment would reduce the purchasing power of all wages and salary earners and increase poverty among wage earning families currently and for the remainder of their lives? I suspect that this new sub-minimal wage rate for youths may have a similar effect upon our economy.

Not convinced huh?

Minimum Wages and Youth Employment in France and the United States (http://www.nber.org/papers/w6111)


We use longitudinal individual wage and employment data for young people in France and the United States to investigate the effect of intertemporal changes in an individual's status vis-…-vis the real minimum wage on employment transition rates. We" find that movements in both French and American real minimum wages are associated with relatively important employment effects in general, and very strong effects on workers employed at the minimum wage. In the French case, albeit imprecisely estimated, a 1% increase in the real minimum wage decreases the employment probability of a young man currently employed at the minimum wage by 2.5%. In the United States, a decrease in the real minimum of 1% increases the probability that a young man employed at the minimum wage came from nonemployment by 2.2%. These effects get worse with age in the United States, and are mitigated by eligibility for special employment promotion contracts in France.

Again, what problem are you trying to fix? Increase the purchasing power of those with jobs, albeit fewer of them, or increase employment opportunity? There are far better ways of increasing the overall purchasing power of our fellow countrymen; minimizing illegal immigration for one.

[aboutime]

My opinion:

The minimum wage causes all salaries in place at the time that a 'new minimum wage' is established to rise. Some call this 'lifting all boats,' most call it inflationary. I go along with 'most.'

The fed minimum wage is $7 something now, IL is over $8 something. There's reasons so many young people, 16-24 find it near impossible to find a job here, part-time.

Minimum wage will never be a 'living wage,' no matter how high it goes. Inflation will take care of that.


Kathianne. What you stated so well above is also why UNIONS always support, and endorse the Minimum Wage when it increases. Negotiators for the Unions always use the CLAIM that their membership has to remain on an EVEN level with Minimum Wages in order to remain more enticing to those who are not Union Members.
Much like a Tricky LURE they use to sway minimum wage earners into believing Union wages will always be higher.
Kinda like Economics Double-speak, in Reverse.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Interesting that you only see a problem if reduced and positives if increase. You fail to address the inflationary effect that minimum wage has.

liberal minded people tend to be like that.

[Supposn]

My opinion:

The minimum wage causes all salaries in place at the time that a 'new minimum wage' is established to rise. Some call this 'lifting all boats,' most call it inflationary. I go along with 'most. ...

... Minimum wage will never be a 'living wage,' no matter how high it goes. Inflation will take care of that.

Kathianne, excerpted from post #2 within this thread:
“Attributes common to all minimum wage bench marks: …</SPAN>
… </SPAN>A minimum wage rate never reduces the purchasing powers of any jobs’ wages or salaries.
Spending for wages, similar to all other spending contributes to currency inflation and similar to most other spending, the minimum wage rate is less a cause and more a victim of currency inflation”; (i.e. the minimum wage ain't a primary contributor to the U.S. dollar's rate of inflation.

To the extent that the FMW's rate is permitted to lag behind the rate of the U.S. dollar's inflation, the purchasing power of our nation's wages and salaries are reduces but they are not all equally reduced.

With the exception for jobs' requiring labor that's in short supply, this excerpt from post #2 is valid: "Governments’ minimum rate’s affect upon jobs’ pay rates are proportional and inversely related to the difference between the two rates purchasing powers; (i.e. those earning less benefit more and those earning more benefit proportionally less due to the FMW laws)".

The updating of the FMW rate should be determined by explicitly drafted formulas and calculated by non-partisan federal statisticians rather than by politicians. Those statisticians are subject to oversight by all three branches of our federal government.

Respectfully, Supposn</SPAN>

[Supposn]

Interesting that you only see a problem if reduced and positives if increase. You fail to address the inflationary effect that minimum wage has.

Kathianne, you do me a disservice. I prefer to believe it was inadvertent. Refer to post #40; I do address conceivable economic need for reducing minimum wage’s purchasing power.
</SPAN></SPAN>
[excerpt from post #40:</SPAN></SPAN>
I don’t know why but I suspect that it’s possible to increase a nation’s minimum wage’s purchasing power to an extent that’s detrimental to the nation’s economy and I don’t believe it can occur if the minimum wage’ purchasing power doesn’t increase faster than the nation’s currency inflation.</SPAN></SPAN>
There’s never been a national economy that was injured by increasing their minimum wage’s purchasing power.</SPAN>
I don’t believe decreasing the minimum wage is detrimental to the nation’s economy if the decrease doesn’t exceed the increased purchasing power of the nation’s currency].</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>

Admittingly I consider the prospect of reducing wages and salaries purchasing powers as politically distasteful. it’s not something that I want my government to rush into.</SPAN>
</SPAN>
I believe a robust middle income earning segment of population is the most economically satisfactory condition. When the lowest income earners of a nation are doing well, all other segments of our income earners do much better.
</SPAN></SPAN>
I suspect that few if any economic improvement of USA’s economy has or will ever be sustainable if its benefits aren’t at least equally and of course I expect they be more proportionally shared by middle and lower income earners. I suppose that’s due to my populist political viewpoint.
</SPAN></SPAN>
Respectfully, Supposn</SPAN></SPAN>

[Kathianne]

I read your earlier posts, no need to keep repeating yourself.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2013/03/christy-romer-on-minimum-wage.html


Sunday, March 03, 2013 <!-- Begin .post --> Christy Romer on the Minimum Wage In today's NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/the-minimum-wage-employment-and-income-distribution.html?smid=pl-share).

I agree with a lot of it. She concludes with a view that is common among economists: An expansion in the earned income tax credit would be a lot better than an increase in the minimum wage. I would have added a related fact: Over the years, we have already seen substantial expansions in the EITC. (See below.) Since we already have the better policy, let's not pursue the worse one.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zLbRG3GmpdI/UTO2X-J4JBI/AAAAAAAABXw/Xuz1wItDxtE/s400/eitc.gif (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zLbRG3GmpdI/UTO2X-J4JBI/AAAAAAAABXw/Xuz1wItDxtE/s1600/eitc.gif)
Source (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/family/eitc.cfm).

Who is Greg Mankiw?


About Me <dl class="profile-datablock"><dt class="profile-img">http://bp0.blogger.com/_djgssszshgM/RvIjYjLCWZI/AAAAAAAAAGc/ktNv6x_Jiv8/s400/mankiw.jpg (http://www.blogger.com/profile/18161221774770492266)</dt><dd class="profile-data">Name: Greg Mankiw (http://www.blogger.com/profile/18161221774770492266)</dd><dd class="profile-data">Location: United States </dd></dl> I am a professor and chairman of the economics department at Harvard University, where I teach introductory economics (ec 10). I use this blog to keep in touch with my current and former students. Teachers and students at other schools, as well as others interested in economic issues, are welcome to use this resource.



You might want to read the following also:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/02/17/greg-mankiws-excellent-question-why-a-9-minimum-wage-why-not-90-or-90-cents/


2/17/2013 @ 12:41PM |1,478 views Greg Mankiw's Excellent Question: Why a $9 Minimum Wage? Why Not $90? Or 90 cents?
Given that Greg Mankiw is a former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers this is an excellent question he poses, one that’s well worth answering (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.cz/2013/02/why-9.html):

There is one question I would like to see some reporter ask Alan Krueger, the president’s chief economist: How did they decide that $9 per hour is the right level? Why not $10 or $12 or $15 or $20? Presumably, the president’s economic team must believe that the adverse employment effects become sufficiently large at some point that further increases are undesirable. But what calculations led them to decide that $9 strikes the right balance?
That is, a past holder of that job as economic advisor would like to see someone ask the current holder of it to explain the evidence leading to this particular number. And while I’m not even an economist, let alone anyone ever going to be in the running for that type of job, I can provide an answer. Which is that this appears to be around and about the rate at which anything actually happens. A minimum wage below around 45% of average wages seems not to affect anything or anyone very much. One of over 45% or so of average wages appears to have large bad effects and no really noticeable good ones. Thus, given that average hourly wages in the US are around the $20 level at present, a $9 minimum wage would be, around and about, the level at which very little of anything much happens but we don’t therefore have many bad effects.

...

[Supposn]

fJ1200, I have not denied or defended the unemployment rates of youths.</SPAN>

I argue eliminating the federal minimum wage laws would be a net detriment to the current and future finances of our aggregate wage earning families and thus to our entire economy.

Pegging the minimum rate to the U.S. cost price index would be net improved benefit to those families and our entire economy.</SPAN>

To create more current jobs for youth, you choose to additionally create a poorer economy for them and all other employees to function within during the remainder of their lives?</SPAN>
I’m more concerned with the failures of our educational systems and less concerned regarding youth unemployment.</SPAN>

To the extent that the purchasing power of the FMW rate fails to retain its purchasing power, it is of lesser benefit to our economy. The Federal minimum wage rate affects all USA wages and salaries but it particularly affects the lowest earning quarter of USA’s full time employees.

I advocate of annually adjusting the minimum to reflect the U.S. cost-price index.</SPAN>

Respectfully, Supposn</SPAN></SPAN>

[fj1200]

fJ1200, I have not denied or defended the unemployment rates of youths.

I argue eliminating the federal minimum wage laws would be a net detriment to the current and future finances of our aggregate wage earning families and thus to our entire economy.

Pegging the minimum rate to the U.S. cost price index would be net improved benefit to those families and our entire economy.

To create more current jobs for youth, you choose to additionally create a poorer economy for them and all other employees to function within during the remainder of their lives?
I’m more concerned with the failures of our educational systems and less concerned regarding youth unemployment.

To the extent that the purchasing power of the FMW rate fails to retain its purchasing power, it is of lesser benefit to our economy. The Federal minimum wage rate affects all USA wages and salaries but it particularly affects the lowest earning quarter of USA’s full time employees.

I advocate of annually adjusting the minimum to reflect the U.S. cost-price index.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm aware of what you advocate but you haven't tied it to anything other than restating your excerpts. It would also be helpful for you to not state what I choose, Lord knows I've got enough of that, but rather to prove your posit. There has been plenty posted contrary to your position but you choose not to address them. Why might that be?

Besides I choose tax, regulatory, and yes even trade policies that will create a vibrant economy so that labor can demand their own wage rates rather than be wage takers. You, by your own words, choose that the youth will have a harder time finding employment for the illusory benefits of "wage earning families."

[MtnBiker]

The purchasing power of California residents just took a punch in the gut thanks to the obamacare affordable healthcare premiums rising to 146% in some situations.
<object type="cosymantecnisbfw" cotype="cs" id="SILOBFWOBJECTID" style="width: 0px; height: 0px; display: block;"></object>

[Supposn]

FJ1200, you contend that social studies are subject to the same standard of proof we expect of physics or chemistry sciences. You also claim that that if we mutually stipulate as to facts, there can be no reasonable or honest differences regarding the conclusive determinations derived from those facts.</SPAN>

All over our nation there are civil courts where doctors argue over disputes as to the extent of physical injuries. If you claim to have a back pain or a headache, there’s no possible method to”prove” or “disprove” those statements; and that’s applied to medical practices. Medicine is a science.</SPAN>
There are numerous differences of interpretations of what’s concluded from agreed upon scientific facts. Such disagreements occur much more often with regard to social studies.</SPAN>

You cannot “prove” all of your economic contentions to the standard of proof you're implying. Similarly you cannot disprove my contentions. </SPAN>
What we’re often left with in social studies are logical arguments. </SPAN>

Respectfully, Supposn</SPAN>

[logroller]

FJ1200, you contend that social studies are subject to the same standard of proof we expect of physics or chemistry sciences. You also claim that that if we mutually stipulate as to facts, there can be no reasonable or honest differences regarding the conclusive determinations derived from those facts.

All over our nation there are civil courts where doctors argue over disputes as to the extent of physical injuries. If you claim to have a back pain or a headache, there’s no possible method to”prove” or “disprove” those statements; and that’s applied to medical practices. Medicine is a science.
There are numerous differences of interpretations of what’s concluded from agreed upon scientific facts. Such disagreements occur much more often with regard to social studies.

You cannot “prove” all of your economic contentions to the standard of proof you're implying. Similarly you cannot disprove my contentions.
What we’re often left with in social studies are logical arguments.

Respectfully, Supposn
Logical arguments.... and fallacies. You present the latter. You've been presented with both theoretical and empirical analysis yet you introduce red herrings. Existential blather on social studies and irrelevant examples of civil courts. I don't know what blogs you glam onto for information but I can assure that kathianne and Fj are not persons who buy into something because it fits a biased preference for a solution in search of a problem. You're gonna need to back up your claims-- Start with the problem, not the solution. Others will disagree and you or they may very well be wrong, but debate starts with an evaluative statement-- an issue of contention-- and I can't quite recognize what that is exactly. But even if it be no min wage or raise min wage, there are certainly countries that have either and the onus of proviiding that support is upon you. merely discounting another's rebuttal as inconclusive is not only disingenuous to the merit of social-scientific study but is logically fallacious.

[fj1200]

FJ1200, you contend that social studies are subject to the same standard of proof we expect of physics or chemistry sciences. ...

You cannot “prove” all of your economic contentions to the standard of proof you're implying. Similarly you cannot disprove my contentions.

Even if I stipulate to the former, and I'm not saying that I don't disagree, you have done nothing to offer proof of your contention; again it's restatement of excerpts. I'd say Log did a pretty good job of breaking down the rest of your post but the point of economics is even if we can't agree on the facts, which IMO is where the meat is, you haven't even posted anything as a starting point.

[Supposn]

... Start with the problem, not the solution. Others will disagree and you or they may very well be wrong, but debate starts with an evaluative statement-- an issue of contention-- and I can't quite recognize what that is exactly. ...

Logroller, the issue is the title of both this thread and this thread’s first post:
“Consequences of eliminating the federal minimum wage”. </SPAN></SPAN>

The contention and the solution are clearly stated at the end of this thread's first post: </SPAN></SPAN>

“Eliminating the FMW laws would be net economically detrimental to our nation.</SPAN></SPAN>

I’m a proponent of annually pegging the federal minimum wage to the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar. Social Security retirement benefits have for many years been annually adjusted to a federal cost price index; it been working exactly as it was intended to”.

Respectfully, Supposn </SPAN></SPAN>

[Supposn]

Kathianne, I’m a proponent of the existing federal minimum wage laws and the earned income tax credits. I’m also a proponent for rather than referring simply to finite numbers of U.S. dollars, federal laws and regulations should refer to numbers of annually adjusted numbers of U.S. dollars that will reflect the dollar’s changing value.</SPAN>

None of these concepts negates the other two or in any manner undermines the others. Why shouldn’t we continue to retain both the FMW and EITC and refer to annually adjusted numbers of U.S. dollars within our federal laws and regulations?</SPAN>

Respectfully, Supposn</SPAN>

[fj1200]

Let me just adjust this for a better view...

http://www.naturaltraveler.com/images/Article_Images/2011_September/Halifax/TitanicDeckChair.jpg