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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (956634)	8/14/2016 3:58:29 PM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB i-node Old Boothby Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575273

the city of baltimore is going to 15 min. but they exempted the baltimore zoo, the baltimore childrens home and all other Baltimore city businesses, why .....wait for it....they said it would cost jobs

To: i-node who wrote (956634)	8/14/2016 4:52:32 PM
From: Alighieri	1 Recommendation Recommended By bentway Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575273

It is bizarre to me that those on the Left think that you can arbitrarily raise the cost of labor without reducing demand. I'm telling you I had economics in high school, maybe about the 11th grade, and we learned that the first week. How do you think that works? You are (conveniently?) forgetting the stimulative effect of higher wages... What we don't know with certainty is how bad it is. CBO estimated that an increase to $10.10 would put 500,000 people out of work, with an upper range of a million. OUT OF WORK. They have no idea...studies show no measurable effect on employment. From the CBO report... ...in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers (see Table 1). Can't you see that we are better off allowing supply and demand to work? If someone wants to work for $3/hour, why in the hell do you think you should stand in their way? Right...brilliant...then you can feed their unmet needs with welfare checks. And by the way, that's precisely what we've been doing...pretty much letting the market dictate things....it's showing itself to be an excellent way to continue to feed wage and wealth disparity and keep people in poverty. Can't you see that conservative policies just DON'T WORK? Al

To: i-node who wrote (956634)	8/14/2016 6:08:31 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575273

But the credible ones clearly show that minimum wages cost jobs. Credible to you, maybe. But that is a far different thing from credibility from a current understanding of economics. In particular, the research on the subject. Take the work published in the past few decades. While some reflects the understanding in the 1970s of minimum wage increase, most show little or no effect on employment. Which actually makes sense. Those minimum wage jobs that can be offshored, have already been ages ago. For the rest, if the price to make a hamburger goes up $0.10, you can't realistically shift production of them to Mexico. It may be that some consumers will decide to pass, but relatively small increases usually have no impact on demand. Granted, if the price were to double or triple over a short period of time, that likely would have that result. But, just like if the cost of the other ingredients of a hamburger goes up, it probably doesn't have that much of an impact on demand. But we have been over this. I'm telling you I had economics in high school, maybe about the 11th grade, and we learned that the first week. How do you think that works? One, high school economics tend to be simplified. Two, some of the deeply held beliefs in economics of 4 decades ago have been proven to be in error. This is one of them. Oddly enough, the assumption that labor demand is strictly inelastic is very simplistic. To the point of being wrong in many cases.