| Author |
Message |
    
newjerz
Citizen
Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 71
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 4:00 pm: |     |
Anyone who has taken an introductory course in economics course knows that a minimum wage reduces jobs and no serious economist doubts this. If you force companies to pay higher wages and provide health insurance the number of jobs will surely decrease. With that being said, I understand that the market is not a perfect allocator of resources and overinflates the compensation of corporate executives, athletes, musicians, etc. That is why I support transfer payments such as social security, welfare, medicare, etc. funded by an income tax.
I also acknowledge that mimimum wage does not provide a minimum level of life, but even if this woman was working a minimum wage job and the government only had to pay the difference between her earnings and what would be needed to support a mimimum level of life (and the cost of child care while she was at work, that would be a lot less expensive than the current arangement.
Also, correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't this woman have had access to birth control through medicaid? If she did, why didn't she use it. If she didn't have access then that is definitely a change that needs to be made.
Yes lots of people have unprotected sex, but it is a choice that comes with consequences. I think it is fair to say that anyone who has unprotected sex without being able to support the potential child is irresponsible. Its obviously inhumane to throw these people out on the street or not provide for their welfare, but at the same time there is nothing wrong with judging the person as irresponsible and getting irritated when one hears such stories.
I'll ask again, "What has this woman done to make her own life better?" |
Iaowks Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 350
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 4:15 pm: | |
newjerz, you raise a lot of excellent points.
As you point out, actions have consequences. Who should pay them? That's a tough question.
It's easy to understand the theory of how raising minimum wage creates a shortage of jobs. In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
My favorite professor I had in college told the story about the only grade he ever got which wasn't an A, and it was an F. His economics professor was trying to explain the supply/demand theory and how minimum wage creates job shortages. My professor -- then just a student punk --, whom I'll call Daniel, said that minimum *raises the value* of the workers. His professor said, "What about a retarded, blind person with no arms and legs? What would he do?" Daniel replied, "well, he could always teach economics."
Tom Reingold
|
nova87
Citizen
Username: Nova87
Post Number: 240
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 4:17 pm: | |
Newjerz - I agree with most of what you said. However, if you favor a transfer of wealth type of system to quote 1-2many, "where's the motivation?"
Given the choice of either 1) working and making minimum wage or 2) not working and having wealth transferred to me via a reallocation of resources using an income tax model I think a fairly large majority would choose the latter. |
hello
Citizen
Username: Hello
Post Number: 19
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 4:18 pm: | |
newjerz-
the most careful paper on this issue shows that raising the minimum wage raises the number of jobs (david card was the economist). |
newjerz
Citizen
Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 72
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 4:31 pm: | |
"Economists David Neumark and William Wascher recreated the study using information drawn from actual payroll records rather than a chat with a teenager in a paper hat, they found that "the New Jersey minimum wage increase led to a 4.6 percent decrease in employment in New Jersey relative to the Pennsylvania control group."
The Effect of New Jersey's Minimum Wage Increase on Fast-Food Employment: A Re-Evaluation Using Payroll Records
Public Policy Institute of California and United States of America - Division of Research and Statistics |
Arnomation
Citizen
Username: Arnomation
Post Number: 30
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 5:08 pm: | |
--Six kids? No excuse. One, two, three, four but sorry, NOT SIX. --
I always thought that when you are on Welfare you get a certain amount of money per child so the incentive is actually to have more children, not less.Thus perpetuating the cycle from which a family may never escape.
M
________________
Michael Arnold
arnomation@verizon.net |
Iaowks Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 352
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 5:12 pm: | |
The amount does increase, up to a certain number of kids. But it doesn't increase by the amount it takes to raise them, so the more kids you have, the behinder you fall. Some people might have kids for the money because they are so bad with the numbers, but I doubt they account for very many people. Yes, there are people that uneducated. The increasing amounts are not designed to appeal to their stupidity, though.
Tom Reingold
|
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 280
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 5:26 pm: | |
Nova,
That's actually what I was getting at. If the public assistance payments don't drop off, but dimish with increased earnings, then there is incentive to work. You could earn more by working a minimum wage job than you can just on public assistance. The idea is that public assistance should not create dependence.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him |
newjerz
Citizen
Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 73
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 5:48 pm: | |
I'm not exactly sure what should be done in these cases and I hope that they are really relatively rare. I just wish the goal of self-sufficiency or moving towards that goal was valued more. If it was, I feel like more people on welfare might be motivated to get a job to help support themselves. I know that working even multiple minimum wage jobs may not makes ends meet but at least it could contribute to ones own welfare with the government bridging the difference, until promotion might be acheived or some savings put aside. My great-grandfather supposedly said that one of his proudest days was when he was first able to pay taxes. I think this is a sentiment which many in his generation shared and which many in today's generation (both rich and poor) do not share.
I don't know what its like to be poor and see a world around me where many people have luxuries and conveniences that I would like and know that I will never have even if I work my fingers to the bone my entire life. I can't begin to guess what that realization does to motivation and ambition. But I can't help but believe I'd put up more of an effort to make the best out of my situation than those who are content to sit on the welfare roles. And it frusterates me when people think that the solution to poverty is to meddle with the labor markets or simply provide more and more benefits to those on government support. The message that there is an opportunity to better oneself if certain steps are followed and one works hard has always been a cornerstone of our American character and I believe that it is still a reality. If that message is not being heard and/or absorbed in certain communities then there is a huge problem looming ahead.
(Also Iaowks I loved "behinder") |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 202
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 6:37 pm: | |
self-sufficiency is a wonderful goal for the welfare system - I hope they either have strategies to effect it, or are working on them, within the welfare system. I hope people will continue to be motivated to better themselves as many have - and that certain minimum standards are in place, are enforced, so that those efforts aren't frustrated, and evolve in step with the surrounding environment.
the government must always be held accountable for having, and enforcing, some minimum standards in the labor markets. otherwise, it will always be the well-resourced big boys bullying around the rest of us, with no one they have to answer to. |
hello
Citizen
Username: Hello
Post Number: 20
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 6:50 pm: | |
newjerz-
an entire cottage industry of garbage economists has tried to discredit card (a princeton professor and leading labor economist)- the paper has stood the test of time. the synopsis you cite is pure trash- the paper isn't worth reading if that is how they pose it. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 749
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 9:14 pm: | |
If the woman in question had been attractive enough and clever enough to snag a rich husband early on she would be sitting at the pool at her country club, sipping a martini, and complaining to her friends about how she couldn't get her dishwasher fixed because American workers are spoiled and lazy. |
newjerz
Citizen
Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 75
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 1:19 am: | |
hello - I am not an economist and do not have the background of knowledge to get into a technical argument. I only pointed to that study to demonstrate the the issue is not as cut and dry as you make it seem (as with many things in economics). I don't know what your credentials are to describe those economists who have tried to prove that an increase in a minimum wage eliminates jobs as garbage, but I think it is dishonest to try to represent the issue as one-sided. Also, if the Card study has stood the test of time can you explain why every introductory econ class learns that a minimum wage causes a disequilibrium in the labor market? One would think that if it was such an accepted fact, that we would at least learn that opinion too?
1-2many - I would not argue that we should lower working standards, but the fact of the matter is there is a world labor market where many people will work for peanuts and under terrible conditions. If we are going to guarantee certain working conditions, we have to realize that jobs are going to be lost. I don't mind having a welfare system that supports these people, but lets not kid ourselves that increasing the minimum wage will solve any of our poverty problems. |
hello
Citizen
Username: Hello
Post Number: 21
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 8:56 am: | |
newjerz-
it would be easier for me to ignore if the quoted "analysis" was written above the level of "chat with a teenager drawn from a hat." that's "newsmax.com"-ish. |
newjerz
Citizen
Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 76
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 9:45 am: | |
hello-
The title of the study by David Neumark and William Wascher was:
"The Effect of New Jersey's Minimum Wage Increase on Fast-Food Employment: A Re-Evaluation Using Payroll Records"
It was sponsored Public Policy Institute of California and United States of America - Division of Research and Statistics
William Wascher is an economist at the Federal Reserve. http://www.federalreserve.gov/research/staff/wascherwilliaml.htm
David Neumark is a professor of economics at Michigan State University.
I don't think these men are unqualified or are wackos.
I now realize that I may have been misleading in the way I cited that quote in my above post. That quote is acually from another source that was citing the Neumark and Wascher research. Its reference to a "chat with a teenager drawn from a hat" had to do with Card's method of collecting information which relied on interviews rather than payroll records.
I'll say it again. This, like most things in economics is not cut and dry, but I think it is dishonest of you to present the Card study as is if it is gospel. This is especially true since the broader economics community has not adopted his analysis or begun teaching it in our country's colleges and universities. He might be correct, but keep in mind he is challenging the long established theory and there has been respectable research done that counter the claims he made.
By the way, here is a source to download the study if you wish: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=225288 |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 205
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 9:53 am: | |
new jerz: lets not kid ourselves that increasing the minimum wage WOULDN'T solve any of our poverty problems! stagnant minimum wage has a huge impact on low-income workers - which trickles up, both in terms of slowed economy and government programs accessed. (See Card, for example. See also www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib195.)
for one detailed analysis of the effect of a raised wage, see www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_table1.
"If wages had kept pace with rising productivity since 1968, the average hourly wage would have been $24.56 in 2000, rather than $13.74. The minimum wage would be $13.80--not $5.15." See
www.commondreams.org/views01/0829-08.htm
how can you write with a straight face that "every introductory econ class learns that a minimum wage causes a disequilibrium in the labor market" - ? this is absurdly broad. have you been in EVERY class? do you otherwise have access to uniform curriculum standards? is there such a thing? I am sure the answer to all these questions is no.
if jobs are lost by greedy companies going overseas to get labor for peanuts, then screw them and the products they sell. as consumers, we have power, collectively. arguably, it's the GREATEST power - because it's the spending power that these companies respond to. |
James
Citizen
Username: Mcgregorj
Post Number: 16
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 10:07 am: | |
What we need is a MAXIMUM wage!
There was a column about this in yesterday's Guardian (UK), but I can't get at it now... |
James
Citizen
Username: Mcgregorj
Post Number: 17
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 10:13 am: | |
1-2 many:
I agree with what you're saying about the minimum wage. Definitely important and not very controversial in most econ. depts. I don't think that consumers have the ultimate power over corporations though. Too much of people's buying habits are controlled by those same companies, and I think that people have a hard time escaping from that.
For instance: some advocates for sweatshop-free clothing favor the use of voluntary codes of conduct by the corp's, hoping that this will give consumers some basis for decision-making. It doesn't really work - people are either ignorant or don't care. There's no teeth. It's all "maybe."
teeth = tough laws (minimum wage, labor standards, etc..)
teeth = unionized workers |
hello
Citizen
Username: Hello
Post Number: 22
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 10:27 am: | |
newjerz-
card's paper is a seimnal one because it reminds us of how some rig an analysis with "assumptions," including one of so-called "comparative statics" where the wage is taken as an exogenous realtive price. this kind of model cannot be falsified. card's paper reminds us equilibria are dynamic, and raising the minimum wage can raise the quality of the workers who get jobs.
as i indicated to you, whenever a paper takes on right-wing supply side dogma, a cottage industry of lackeys emerges to try to take it on.
and, fwiw, the "equilibria" your right-wing economists discussed were not "disequilibric" but ostensibly "inefficient"- the markets do clear. |
newjerz
Citizen
Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 78
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 10:44 am: | |
1-2many,
A higher minimum wage does have an impact on low income workers, but only those workers who can get a job. It doens't help people who are frozen out of jobs because the minimum wage is higher. The biggest problem with our economy is that its structure does not call for lots of unskilled workers as it did in the past. We are transforming into a highly technical, specialized, and service oriented economy. Since this is the direction in which the economy is moving, I think training and education programs are the real key to reducing poverty levels and I have no problem with the government funding this.
You are absolutely correct that I have not been in every introductory econ class, but I would place a huge wager that most of them learn how a minimum wage causes disequilibrium in the labor market. I am not claiming that raising the minimum wage will absolutely cause a loss of jobs. I am not an economist. But the common logic of supply and demand in the labor market makes sense to me. And when the research is not definitive I have to rely on what makes sense to me.
Lastly, I have no problem with boycotting huge corporations that go overseas to get labor for peanuts. However, I think most Americans think with their wallets and are going to buy the least expensive product they can (or are just too busy to care). Unless there is a huge popular movement, the spending power of a few individuals will have no impact on these corporations. |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 207
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 10:47 am: | |
which is exactly why we need government to provide, enforce and evolve minimum labor standards. |
nova87
Citizen
Username: Nova87
Post Number: 243
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 11:23 am: | |
1-2many your argument about "greedy" corporations is misguided at best. Have you had a bad experience in the corporate world or are you a "starving artist" type? Lest we forget corporations by their very nature are formed with the intent on MAXIMIZING profit. There is a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders of the corporation to maximzie profit. And guess who most of those shareholders are? That's right the public.
Now I'm not advocating that corporations sacrifice all else for the almighty dollar, but let's not forget that the reason you go into business is to make money. And as a corporate officer you have a duty to minimize costs when profits are squeezed. Corporations that don't do that are doomed to fail and then everyone suffers. Its a difficult balance to be sure and maybe if we lived in a socialist society your arguments would be better received.
I know what its like to be poor. Been there done that. I am third generation here in the U.S. Similar to Newjerz my grandfather came here and was very proud to say that he was American and he worked his fingers to the bone for pennies a week. At that time (early 20's) there weren't many jobs available for Asians. Mostly houseboys, cooks, laundry and man servants. He earned his money proudly and made a nice life for his small family. He wasn't rich for most of his life but comfortable because he learned to do without certain luxuries. Never had a dishwasher as far as I can remember. My mom, was different. Dropped out of HS, married at 19 widowed with three kids by 24. Husband (my dad)died of a drug overdose Christmas of '68. Pretty desparate situation. No job, no skills three young kids. Luckily, my grandfather was there to lend a hand.
Fortunately the story has a happy ending because my mother married a wonderful man who took the three of us as his own. Again, not wealthy but definitely not poor anymore. She then realized the error of her youth went back got her GED and went to work for no other reason but to do something more with her life.
Now all three children gainfuly employed, two college graduates all two generations removed from landing on these shores. It can be done. But the motivation has to come from within the individual. My mom could have just as easily succumbed to the welfare system but she was too proud I guess.
BTW, after her GED she went to work for, you guessed it, minimum wage then worked her way up from there. |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 209
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 11:33 am: | |
been poor myself. self-made. 1st person in my family to go to college, let alone post-graduate work.
corporations ARE greedy. that's why when they have to "squeeze" costs to retain or increase profits, they squeeze lower-level worker safety, wages, benefits, etc., while the upper tier walks away with literally millions.
corporate profits has increased several fold the past 30 years. low-level wages have stagnated, while upper-level wages have increased a thousand-fold. it's clear who has paid the price.
the average shareholders are not middle class people. they are the Bushes, the Rockefellers, etc. You and I may hold a few shares but it's nothing, a drop in the bucket, compared to the real shareholders out there.
and corporate greed to maximize top-level wages and shareholder profits is not the raison d'etre for business. yes, we all work for the money - but not to the exclusion of all other values, and certainly not when it comes out of the pockets of those who make that very profit possible. |
newjerz
Citizen
Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 83
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 12:06 pm: | |
I read somewhere about a new program that is being started in Great Brittain that basically establishes trusts for every child born in the country that they can't touch until they are 21. This money is invested and with compound interest is designed to provide each person with a lump payment of what would be equivalent to $10,000 US. It is hoped that this forced savings will provide everyone with some money to get a start with and or payoff student loans. The hope is that this will be less expensive than having to pay for social programs to support people later in life. It sounds like an interesting proposal to me and I wonder if such a program would work in this country. Thoughts?
1-2many, I agree that the compensation structure for Corporate America, sports, & entertainment is seriously flawed and somewhat unfair, but I am not sure what can be done short of a "maximum wage" which somehow rubs me as un-American. I'd also point out that those people who walk away with millions, pay huge amounts of that income back to the government in taxes. Maybe the tax rate for the top .5% of Americans who are making these millions is too low, but its not like we're at the turn of the century when the early industrialists pocketed almost all of the profits. |
algebra2
Citizen
Username: Algebra2
Post Number: 1141
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 12:09 pm: | |
the rest of the world hates MOL? |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 210
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 12:31 pm: | |
maximum wage strikes me as perhaps too heavy-handed, though I do chuckle at the thought.
what can be done to the skewed corporate america accounting is forced minimum standards, that are enforced and that evolve in step with the surrounding environment; criminal prosecution of those who lie and steal - and NOT letting the wealthy buy quiet settlements; publicizing the inequities; consumer protest and boycott; ... and what else? any ideas? |
nova87
Citizen
Username: Nova87
Post Number: 244
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 1:22 pm: | |
1-2many at least we agree on some things. You've bought into the fallacy that only the rich own stocks or the majority of stocks are owned by the rich. In fact pensions, 401k plans and the like own far more stock than any one person or family. Those are the same plans that people like you and I invest in.
You can never cap salaries. They are a function of what the market will pay. No more, no less.
I make a good salary. Good enough to live comfortably here in MW, send my kids to college, save money, have just about everything I want. Am I overpaid? Some might say yes. But its what the market dictates.
I am a CPA and I agree with you about accounting standards. The guidelines were there, however, they weren't strictly enforced. Those who bend the rules should be punished and not with a slap on the wrist. Subjective fields like accounting, law and finance are fertile grounds for very creative people and those people will always be able to blur the lines in those gray areas and therefore any attempts at regulation will always be a step behind.
Newjerz - who funds that account? And who is eligible to receive the funds? |
newjerz
Citizen
Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 85
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 1:33 pm: | |
ok so i was kinda off on the numbers and the details of the program . . . I sort of skimmed the article.
http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=1303 |
newjerz
Citizen
Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 86
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 1:33 pm: | |
ok so i was kinda off on the numbers and the details of the program . . . I sort of skimmed the article.
http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=1303 |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 211
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 1:35 pm: | |
responding to "the fallacy that only the rich own stocks or the majority of stocks are owned by the rich. In fact pensions, 401k plans and the like own far more stock than any one person or family."
please give me a statistic or two about what the average person has invested in these plans. my research suggests the opposite:
"Government statistics indicate that less than half of all Americans have savings plans designated specifically for retirement."
See, for example, www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/money/10ways/retire10.htm
but - convince me these plans are substantially - or even significantly - owned by average people. otherwise it seems you've bought into some fallacies of your own.
and again, the point of ownership of the stock is that gets the trickle-down effect of creative and ruthless corporate accounting, by being shareholders it's the elite, the top-tier, by and large, with SOME (but not majority) ownership by the average American.
|
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 213
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 7:49 pm: | |
and even if it were the average American that wound up with extra $$$ in their pockets from it, that still would not justify looting the workers for corporate profits. |
Private Citizen
Citizen
Username: Privatecitizen
Post Number: 34
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, August 9, 2003 - 9:13 pm: | |
>>Arnomation
Citizen
Username: Arnomation
Post Number: 30
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 5:08 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Six kids? No excuse. One, two, three, four but sorry, NOT SIX. --
I always thought that when you are on Welfare you get a certain amount of money per child so the incentive is actually to have more children, not less.Thus perpetuating the cycle from which a family may never escape.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M
________________
Michael Arnold
arnomation@verizon.net
<<
The Welfare system should require mothers to go on birth control and not allow them to have more kids until they are able to get off the dole.
I remember some senator back in the late eighties wanting to require welfare mothers to receive a Norvil arm implant as a precondition to receiving aid. I know this sounds Big Brotherish, but it makes sense on paper. Although this idea might have the unintended consequence of promoting promiscuity. |
hello
Citizen
Username: Hello
Post Number: 31
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 9, 2003 - 9:20 pm: | |
trying to pardon a fact into this talk radio, the fertility rate for women on welfare is less than for women not on welfare. |
newjerz
Citizen
Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 90
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 4:23 am: | |
The thing is, it should be. If you can't support yourself, why would you have a child so you have to support another human being?
By the way, government control of who can have children or not is absurd, but in general people need to be more resonsible and only have children that they will be able to support. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page