welfare versus minimum wage

[birdog1960]

http://finance.townh...utm_campaign=nl

 

 

 

and there's the general difference between partisan sites on the left and right. the rightward ones often don't even acknowledge dissenting view points and data while the left actually try to refute them. a cursory search about minimum wage and it's impact on employment and the economy as a whole shows it to be a very hotly debated subject among economists. for example, some put forth that the economic return on an extra dollar in a minumum wage workers hand will have more stimulative effect than in any other hand. why? cuz they're going to spend it now or very soon. but your cited article implies that these are settled issues in the economist community and to question the conclusions put forth by the article would be absurd.

[Tiberius]

 

and there's the general difference between partisan sites on the left and right. the rightward ones often don't even acknowledge dissenting view points and data while the left actually try to refute them. a cursory search about minimum wage and it's impact on employment and the economy as a whole shows it to be a very hotly debated subject among economists. for example, some put forth that the economic return on an extra dollar in a minumum wage workers hand will have more stimulative effect than in any other hand. why? cuz they're going to spend it now or very soon. but your cited article implies that these are settled issues in the economist community and to question the conclusions put forth by the article would be absurd.

 

That's correct, you will never see a Conservative admit the truth that welfare creates jobs through consumer spending

[B-Man]

but your cited article implies that these are settled issues in the economist community and to question the conclusions put forth by the article would be absurd.

 

I thought that since the author of this article wrote the very study that you based your whole thread on, basically responding to your "welfare vs. Minimum wage" question..................that you might be interested in his answer,

 

 

 

my mistake.

 

.

[Tiberius]

 

 

I thought that since the author of this article wrote the very study that you based your whole thread on, basically responding to your "welfare vs. Minimum wage" question..................that you might be interested in his answer,

my mistake.

 

.

 

You have problems understanding what people are trying to say a lot

[Jauronimo]

yes and yes. there are many people that are unlikey to ever function well at jobs above those currently paid minimum wage. look at a bell curve for intelligence in a population. let's then define the us as the population. do i really want someone in the bottom decile or even the bottom 2 deciles working as my nurse? doing data entry? what nonminimum wage job would you envision those folks doing? 0.2X 330 million is more than a few people...even .1 is many...

 

so what would be the end result of pure capitalism and its design? i'd be willing to bet we'd again see sweatshops and child labor and factory fires and 80 hour work weeks. we have history to inform us. and is that desirable? we have far from pure capitalism now. moving a bit further form the absolute which appears to produce terrible results, doesn't seem such a bad idea.

I don't know or care what jobs "those folks" would perform and I don't see how paying them twice what the market dictates, just because, addresses any problem, real or imagined.

 

I didn't enter this thread to defend capitalism against its alternatives. History informs us (some of us, anyway) that its the only economic system thats proven sustainable and increased the standard of living of entire civilizations. I don't know why you think developed economies would revert to sweatshops and 80 hour work weeks in an age of government oversight and an informed and mobile workforce. At no time did I or anyone else propose ending government regulation of labor practices.

[Tiberius]

 

I don't know or care what jobs "those folks" would perform and I don't see how paying them twice what the market dictates, just because, addresses any problem, real or imagined.

 

I didn't enter this thread to defend capitalism against its alternatives. History informs us (some of us, anyway) that its the only economic system thats proven sustainable and increased the standard of living of entire civilizations. I don't know why you think developed economies would revert to sweatshops and 80 hour work weeks in an age of government oversight and an informed and mobile workforce. At no time did I or anyone else propose ending government regulation of labor practices.

 

When was the last time the United States had a purely capitalist economy?

[Jauronimo]

When was the last time the United States had a purely capitalist economy?

What does that have to do with anything being discussed?

[birdog1960]

What does that have to do with anything being discussed?

it has everything to do with it. if you're arguing that capitilsm is the best system then we must first define it. is it the pure unadulterated theoretical model or the bastardized and cherry picked version now being pacticed here. they are two very different things. i would suggest we start with the impure, real world model as it's that we are trying to improve, or not improve.

 

I thought that since the author of this article wrote the very study that you based your whole thread on, basically responding to your "welfare vs. Minimum wage" question..................that you might be interested in his answer,

 

 

 

my mistake.

 

.

are you suggesti8ng that there has been only one study designed to answer this question? or that this is the only study that you find important on the subject?

Edited September 3, 2013 by birdog1960

[Jauronimo]

it has everything to do with it. if you're arguing that capitilsm is the best system then we must first define it. is it the pure unadulterated theoretical model or the bastardized and cherry picked version now being pacticed here. they are two very different things. i would suggest we start with the impure, real world model as it's that we are trying to improve, or not improve.

We did start with the impure, and it doesn't matter which we discuss since both are better than the alternatives and this aside is entirely irrelevant to this thread which you created and yet seem hell bent to derail by pursuing every tangent.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I don't know or care what jobs "those folks" would perform and I don't see how paying them twice what the market dictates, just because, addresses any problem, real or imagined.

 

I didn't enter this thread to defend capitalism against its alternatives. History informs us (some of us, anyway) that its the only economic system thats proven sustainable and increased the standard of living of entire civilizations. I don't know why you think developed economies would revert to sweatshops and 80 hour work weeks in an age of government oversight and an informed and mobile workforce. At no time did I or anyone else propose ending government regulation of labor practices.

Furthermore, capitalism effectively ended sweatshop and child labor, and the 80 hour work week on it's own, as businesses were forced to compete for labor. Legal reforms only addessed straggelers to the natural reform, and addressed it poorly, as you still see both sweatshop labor, child labor, 60+ hour work weeks, and sub minimum wage pay all accross the country.

[birdog1960]

We did start with the impure, and it doesn't matter which we discuss since both are better than the alternatives and this aside is entirely irrelevant to this thread which you created and yet seem hell bent to derail by pursuing every tangent.

then lets go back to the 10 -20 percent that you don't care about or don't care to address. which of the following options do you like best: thewm working for a living wage, them working for a sub- living wage but subsidized bt rthe taxpayer, them not working and survivng on welfare or them attempting to survive without adequate money for food, shelter or healthcare. feel free to add other options.

Edited September 3, 2013 by birdog1960

[Jauronimo]

then lets go back to the 10 -20 percent that you don't care about or don't care to address. which of the following options do you like best: thewm working for a living wage, them working for a sub- living wage but subsidized bt rthe taxpayer, them not working and survivng on welfare or them attempting to survive without adequate money for food, shelter or healthcare. feel free to add other options.

We've been over this 50 times. They are working for a living wage. Some people will require financial assistance above and beyond what they earn. I have no problem with tax dollars making sure the less fortunate are sheltered and fed or supported until they can get back on their feet. I wish more of that money went to people who actually need it, less went to those who refuse to help themselves and use public assistance as a lifestyle and I wish none of that money went toward Obamaphones.

 

Clear?

[B-Man]

it has everything to do with it. if you're arguing that capitilsm is the best system then we must first define it. is it the pure unadulterated theoretical model or the bastardized and cherry picked version now being pacticed here. they are two very different things. i would suggest we start with the impure, real world model as it's that we are trying to improve, or not improve.

 

 

are you suggesti8ng that there has been only one study designed to answer this question? or that this is the only study that you find important on the subject?

 

I am "suggesting" neither.

 

I am pointing out that the author of the study that you chose to criticize, answers those criticisms.

 

You are choosing to dismiss his points as "repetitive" right wing views.

 

End of story.

 

 

.

[Azalin]

I have no problem with tax dollars making sure the less fortunate are sheltered and fed or supported until they can get back on their feet. I wish more of that money went to people who actually need it, less went to those who refuse to help themselves and use public assistance as a lifestyle and I wish none of that money went toward Obamaphones.

 

Clear?

this

[Tiberius]

Furthermore, capitalism effectively ended sweatshop and child labor, and the 80 hour work week on it's own, as businesses were forced to compete for labor. Legal reforms only addessed straggelers to the natural reform, and addressed it poorly, as you still see both sweatshop labor, child labor, 60+ hour work weeks, and sub minimum wage pay all accross the country.

 

Compulsory school laws ended child labor more than anything else.

 

What does that have to do with anything being discussed?

 

You brought it up as history and its the only system that improves living standards as if welfare and minimum wages are anti-capitalist or something, so tell us when we had a pure capitalist system. You are dodging the question to protect your own ignorance. Tell us! You coward!

[DC Tom]

Compulsory school laws ended child labor more than anything else.

 

Unfortunately, such laws also give kids greater access to computers and the internet, leading to the unfortunate set of circumstances where we have you posting here...

[Tiberius]

Unfortunately, such laws also give kids greater access to computers and the internet, leading to the unfortunate set of circumstances where we have you posting here...

 

I know, I know, everything was wonderful around here until I got a computer from school

[Jauronimo]

You brought it up as history and its the only system that improves living standards as if welfare and minimum wages are anti-capitalist or something, so tell us when we had a pure capitalist system. You are dodging the question to protect your own ignorance. Tell us! You coward!

No, I did not. Even if I did, as you claim, whether or not we ever had a purely capitalist system would still be irrelevant.

 

The only thing I'm dodging is your mind numbing stupidity.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Compulsory school laws ended child labor more than anything else.

Actually, they didn't. Child labor was nearly eradicated by the time any laws had been passed. The rising standard of living brought on by the mobility of labor, and the demand for it's services decreased the need for most children to be in the work force in order to help their families survive.

 

As an aside, those few remaining families who had children forced out of the work force by compulsary schooling were thrust into immediate poverty by the sudden lack of earnings.

[birdog1960]

Actually, they didn't. Child labor was nearly eradicated by the time any laws had been passed. The rising standard of living brought on by the mobility of labor, and the demand for it's services decreased the need for most children to be in the work force in order to help their families survive.

 

As an aside, those few remaining families who had children forced out of the work force by compulsary schooling were thrust into immediate poverty by the sudden lack of earnings.

alternatively, might it be that "those few families" were thrust into poverty because "market forces" did not provide for a living wage for their working parents? do you really buy the bs you're spreading?

 

We've been over this 50 times. They are working for a living wage. Some people will require financial assistance above and beyond what they earn. I have no problem with tax dollars making sure the less fortunate are sheltered and fed or supported until they can get back on their feet. I wish more of that money went to people who actually need it, less went to those who refuse to help themselves and use public assistance as a lifestyle and I wish none of that money went toward Obamaphones.

 

Clear?

so, you're ok with subsidizing the 10-20% bottom of the curve that will never likely qualify for higher skilled and paying jobs into perpetuity? clear. just so we both understand, sans obamaphones, you don't and won't resent or denigrate that group for accepting such assistance, right?