Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (62285)	2/11/2013 11:37:15 PM
From: Joe Btfsplk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

"trickle down" Use of that cleverly constructed but meaningless term signals that you're unqualified for serious discussion. Maybe you'd fit with the bimbos on THE VIEW?

To: RMF who wrote (62285)	2/15/2013 8:52:47 PM
From: greatplains_guy	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

The Minority Youth Unemployment Act A higher minimum wage will hurt Obama's most loyal supporters. February 15, 2013, 6:58 p.m. ET. One paradox of the Obama Presidency is how it has retained the support of young people and minorities despite the damage its policies have done to their economic prospects. In his latest attempt to increase the minority youth jobless rate, President Obama is proposing to raise the minimum wage. In his State of the Union address, Mr. Obama proposed an increase to $9 an hour by 2015 from $7.25, and then indexing the minimum to inflation. "Employers may get a more stable workforce due to reduced turnover and increased productivity," the White House says. No doubt employers are slamming their foreheads wondering why they didn't think of that. And don't worry about lost jobs. "A range of economic studies," a White House memo assures, "show that modestly raising the minimum wage increases earnings and reduces poverty without measurably reducing employment." Note the shifty adverbs, "modestly" and "measurably," which can paper over a lot of economic damage. In the real world, setting a floor under the price of labor creates winners and losers. Some workers will get a $1.75 raise. Great. But others—typically the least educated and skilled—will be priced out of the job market and their pay won't rise to $9. It will be zero. University of California at Irvine economist David Neumark has looked at more than 100 major academic studies on the minimum wage, and he says the White House claim of de minimis job losses "grossly misstates the weight of the evidence." About 85% of the studies "find a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers." The minimum wage is also an ineffective way to reduce poverty. Most families in poverty don't have someone who works, so making it more difficult to get a job exacerbates poverty. Mr. Obama says that a "family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty level. That is wrong." He left out that most minimum-wage earners are not the primary bread winner. Nearly 40% live with a parent or relative. The average family income of a household with a minimum-wage worker is about $47,023—which is far above the poverty line of $23,550 for a family of four. Mr. Obama didn't even tell the whole story about parents raising a family on a minimum-wage income. A full-time minimum-wage worker earns roughly $15,000 a year. But that worker also receives a cash supplement from the earned income tax credit of roughly $5,000, and many states provide benefits on top of that to reward working. That doesn't count government benefits like food stamps, Medicaid, child care and more. According to data from the Employment Policies Institute, about two of every three minimum-wage workers also get a raise within one year. The damage from a minimum wage hike depends on the overall labor market. If the job market is buoyant, as it is in the fracking boomtown of Williston, N.D., fast-food workers may already make more than $9 an hour. But when the jobless rate is high, as it still is in California and New York, the increase punishes minority youth in particular. That is what happened during the last series of wage hikes to $7.25 from $5.15 that started in July 2007 as the economy was headed toward recession. The last increase hit in July 2009 just after the recession ended, and as the nearby chart shows, the jobless rate jumped for teens and black teens especially. For black teens, the rate has remained close to 40% and was still 37.8% in January. A study by economists William Even of Miami University and David Macpherson of Trinity University concludes that in the 21 states where the full 40% wage increase took effect, "the consequences of the minimum wage for black young adults without a diploma were actually worse than the consequences of the Great Recession." William Dunkelberg, chief economist for the National Federation of Independent Business, says that after the July 2009 increase 600,000 teen jobs disappeared in the next six months even as GDP expanded. In the previous six months, when the economy was still shrinking, half as many teen jobs were lost. The overall teen jobless rate was still 23.4% last month, which means demand for unskilled workers is low even at $7.25 an hour. Demand will be lower at $9. Mr. Obama's economists know all this, but then the minimum wage has nothing to do with poverty or unemployment. It's a political play to reward unions and box in Republicans. The minimum wage polls well because Americans naturally want everyone to make more money, and the damage in foregone jobs isn't obvious. It'd be nice to think that some Republicans, even one, would make the moral case that the minimum wage hurts the poorest workers. But both Presidents Bush, 41 and 43, went along with increases and so did the Newt Gingrich Congress in 1996. Mr. Obama knows that history. Republicans may fold again to take the issue off the table in 2014, but it's a tragedy that those who will suffer the most are Mr. Obama's most ardent supporters. online.wsj.com Not that you'd take the time or effort to learn from this. Obviously his most ardent supporters are the lowest information voters who will merely become more ardent in their support because of the missery he intends to inflict on them. He will blame the idiot who was President in the previous term, like he always does. Oops, he would never admit personal responsibility for anything, so he'll try to blame in someone else: Russia; cheap Chinese imports; President Bush; Jerimiah Wright; anyone but himself.

To: RMF who wrote (62285)	2/17/2013 4:29:43 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

The idea of taxation in supply-side economics, what you call "trickle down", is the exact opposite of directing from on high. Its leaving people free to decide what to do with a large portion of their own money. Having the government tax and spend it, and/or heavily regulate it (or in a more socialist system directly control the means that wealth is produced) is direction from on high. Low taxes and economic freedom reduce the level of on high direction.

To: RMF who wrote (62285)	2/18/2013 10:15:31 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Allowing people to determine how to spend their own money is the exact opposite of what you are claiming. It was Reaganomics that started the "trickle down" theory of economics. If there was EVER an idea that "the whole damn shootin' match could be directed from on high" I would have to figure THAT was it. It is ok, not everyone can understand economics. A former frequent poster here took several years of coaching to get to develop the most basic understanding of economics. Government spending is wasteful. The current design of government spending makes the problem grow much worse every year. People can best determine for themselves what they need and how to best spend their own money. This is the key to economic growth. Prosperity comes from economic growth. The old saying "A rising tide floats all boats." has long been used to explain why everyone benefits in an expanding economy.