Quote from: Supposn on July 05, 2014, 07:50:58 AM
TBoneAgain, regarding the objectivity vs. subjectivity of social studies:
I use the term  "social studies" rather than "social sciences " because I'm among those that believe the study of economics is more a subjective and less scientific than the studying  any of what's described as the "hard" sciences.

Even among the hard sciences, due to differences of scale, numbers of more or less controllable or precisely measurable factors related to the subjects of specific studies, those studies differ as to objectivity and subjectivity.   . 

As an analogous example I submit investigating factors and methods of controlling or affecting temperatures within a specific large room rather than a much larger specific geographic region:

Within discussions of economic issues, we often encounter agreement as to historical statistics but disagreement as to which statistics are causes rather than affects upon each other.
I understand your reluctance to accept what I would describe as logical arguments and you fault as lacking historic statistical "facts" but that's among the differences between our manners of perceiving economic discussions.

You do not accept what I believe is a logical concept of a labor market's wages and salary scales being all to some extent positively affected by that market's effectively minimum rate for the least challenging jobs or tasks.

Respectfully, Supposn

Simple answer. Emotion has absolutely no place in science, and that's exactly what economic principles are, science.

Excerpted from  Supposn's post  #70:  "Kaz & SuperSalMgr, no one argues that elimination of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate would not increase employment opportunities for those that cannot perform tasks in a manner to be worthy of the legal minimum rate; ... ".

Quote from: TboneAgain on July 04, 2014, 02:38:56 PM...One of the hard things about your posts is the fact that I have the read every sentence three or four time to figure out what the hell you're trying -- and so often failing -- to say. The struck words don't need to be there, and just make a formless mush of the entire sentence. As for the last sentence, you are incorrect. The. purchasing power of a minimum wage does not affect "all of the nation's wages." ..

TBoneAgain, I encountered within other responses (which may or may not have been posted within the Conservative Political Forum), I encountered misconceptions that have led me to more consider the explicitly of my prose; such consideration are often reduce the simplicity of paragraphs.

In the past I've had to declare my awareness that the same federal minimum wage rate is applied nationwide regardless of some differences between regional LABOR MARKETS.

Additionally I've on occasions had to explain the effective minimum rate that I'm discussing applies to a single lowest rate paid within a labor market; that's the minimum regardless of the job or task involved.  That minimum affects but is likely to be less than the labor market's minimum rate for a particularly specified type of job or task.

Refer to post #74; you disagree with what I consider to be my logical conclusion of a labor market's wages and salary scales being all to some extent positively affected by that market's effectively minimum rate for the least challenging jobs or tasks.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on July 05, 2014, 05:29:31 AM
SuperSalMgr, your post is a little short of details; please expand upon it.
Respectfully, Supposn

Due to the booming oil industry in ND very few, if anybody, is being paid the minimum wage. It is a function of the marketplace and it should apply anywhere in the USA.

Quote from: Supposn on July 05, 2014, 08:36:22 AM
Excerpted from  Supposn's post  #70:  "Kaz & SuperSalMgr, no one argues that elimination of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate would not increase employment opportunities for those that cannot perform tasks in a manner to be worthy of the legal minimum rate; ... ".


TBoneAgain, I encountered within other responses (which may or may not have been posted within the Conservative Political Forum), I encountered misconceptions that have led me to more consider the explicitly of my prose; such consideration are often reduce the simplicity of paragraphs.

In the past I've had to declare my awareness that the same federal minimum wage rate is applied nationwide regardless of some differences between regional LABOR MARKETS.

Additionally I've on occasions had to explain the effective minimum rate that I'm discussing applies to a single lowest rate paid within a labor market; that's the minimum regardless of the job or task involved.  That minimum affects but is likely to be less than the labor market's minimum rate for a particularly specified type of job or task.

Refer to post #74; you disagree with what I consider to be my logical conclusion of a labor market's wages and salary scales being all to some extent positively affected by that market's effectively minimum rate for the least challenging jobs or tasks.

Respectfully, Supposn

Why the incremental increases in the MW, why not set the MW at $50.0 an hour or more?
Would that not force employers to raise the wage of the highest paid employees incrementally, in turn making more people wealthy, and bring lower entry level workers out of poverty over night?

Cut MW to $4/hour. Get rid of all the bloodsuckers working for MW and let them find real jobs. Stimulate the damned economy.

Quote from: CG6468 on July 05, 2014, 10:21:34 AM
Cut MW to $4/hour. Get rid of all the bloodsuckers working for MW and let them find real jobs. Stimulate the damned economy.

Now stop that! Commonsense has no place in his emotional rant.
Oh, and simply eliminate MW altogether. There are a lot of handicapped stuck sitting doing nothing, when they would rather be working.

Quote from: Solar on July 05, 2014, 08:15:54 AM
Simple answer. Emotion has absolutely no place in science, and that's exactly what economic principles are, science.

I think what Supposn doesn't understand is that the MW is nothing more than a political gimmick that is not and was never meant to be an economic tool. It was passed and signed into law in 1938 by FDR, when the Senate had a filibuster-proof Democrat majority and the House was split 334D - 88R. 'Nuff said.

Quote from: TboneAgain on July 05, 2014, 12:26:40 PM
I think what Supposn doesn't understand is that the MW is nothing more than a political gimmick that is not and was never meant to be an economic tool. It was passed and signed into law in 1938 by FDR, when the Senate had a filibuster-proof Democrat majority and the House was split 334D - 88R. 'Nuff said.

Yep, that's all it's ever been, a weapon to be used against Capitalism.

Quote from: TboneAgain on July 04, 2014, 02:38:56 PM... It's good to see you admit that the minimum wage concept is essentially wealth redistribution (welfare). ...Since you seem so obsessed with the purchasing power of the minimum wage, I marvel that you don't rail against inflation -- a direct action of the US government to steal wealth from its people unseen. In terms of the minimum wage, the government's inflation of the money supply -- and the predictable rise in consumer and wholesale prices that follows -- has arguably done more to hurt low-income workers than any other factor.  ...

TBoneAgain, our increases of the federal minimum wage (FMW) rate have generally been too little and too late but despite that they've ALWAYS been a (more than otherwise) improvement of our economy.
I'm a proponent of the minimum rate being "pegged to the cost-price index.  The FMW rate is not among the primary causes of the U.S. dollar's inflation.  The FMW rate is much less a cause and much more a victim of our currency inflation.

The FMW rate has a positive affect upon ALL USA wages.  It is (proportional to incomes) of greater advantage to least earning employees and of much lesser advantage to those earning the median wage rate and its advantages continue  to be proportionally less for each incrementally greater than each become proportionally less for each incrementally greater wage rate.
To the extent of the minimum rate's purchasing power, it reduces the numbers and extents of poverty incidences, (i.e. it reduces the need and expenditures for public assistance).

Thus the minimum rate's purchasing power is of net benefit to USA employees, our governments' budgets, and our taxpayers.  What conservatives wish to describe as "wealth redistribution (welfare)", we others describe as promoting a net economic benefit to our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

Solar, we disagree.  So much of what one faction believe to be "facts", other factions (usually of no lesser reputation) believe to be "opinions".  Even when we agree upon "facts", we argue as to which is "cause" and which is "effect".

Regarding your asking "Why annually adjust the FMW rate?"; the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is variable rather than a constant value.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

SupSalMgr, you're discussing an EXCEPTIONAL place, time and condition, (i.e. the current "booming" oil fields of North Dakota). That should NOT be a reason for choosing a federal minimum wage rate.
I'm curious.  Do you know what's the currently approximate, (indefinite) but effective minimum market rate over there?
Every labor market that lacks a relatively effectively enforced minimum wage rate for its least challenging jobs or tasks have a theoretical indefinite rate that effectively is the market's minimum rate.
I'm among the proponents for settling upon some compromise rate for the entire nation. XXXand thereafter the FMW rate should "pegged" to the existing annually adjusted cost-price index.  That's how social security retirement benefits are now annually adjusted.
////////////////////////

TBoneAgain, I disagree with your statement, "the MW is nothing more than a political gimmick that is not and was never meant to be an economic tool. It was passed and signed into law in 1938 by FDR, when the Senate had a filibuster-proof Democrat majority and the House was split 334D - 88R".

I've reasonably concluded the following:
(1)   Our federal minimum wage rate was certainly meant to be and it is an economic tool.
(2)The FMW promote greater purchasing powers for all USA wage rates and it does not as you believe significantly increase unemployment rates but rather it is of net economic benefit to our nation.
(3)To the extent that the labor market's rates for their jobs and tasks are greater, and/or their aggregate rates of unemployment are less, employees are less subservient and docile.

I believe that many conservatives rationalize their conclusion of federal minimum wage's detriment to our economy.  They cannot acknowledge what they consider their own reduced social status if the working poor are less subservient and docile.
Such workers certainly hinder middle managers and supervisors ability to control their crews.
I've on many occasions observed professionals upset when they met blue collar workers patronizing more expensive restaurants and stores.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on July 05, 2014, 01:26:09 PM
TBoneAgain, our increases of the federal minimum wage (FMW) rate have generally been too little and too late but despite that they've ALWAYS been a (more than otherwise) improvement of our economy.

My point was the exact opposite -- the increases in the minimum wage have always been too much, too soon, utterly arbitrary, and for no particular reason, other than politics and publicity optics. The MW is the prototypical Democrat/lib/prog wedge issue, designed and used to pit class against class and generate excitement at the polls.

Quote from: Supposn on July 05, 2014, 01:26:09 PMI'm a proponent of the minimum rate being "pegged to the cost-price index.  The FMW rate is not among the primary causes of the U.S. dollar's inflation.  The FMW rate is much less a cause and much more a victim of our currency inflation.

If the MW had been pegged to the CPI from its inception, it would be about $4.25 right now. Something tells me you wouldn't be quite satisfied with that. No one except you has argued from the beginning that the MW had very much to do with inflation. As for your last sentence, I made the exact same point (although I did it better) in my last post on the subject.

Quote from: Supposn on July 05, 2014, 01:26:09 PMThe FMW rate has a positive affect upon ALL USA wages.  It is (proportional to incomes) of greater advantage to least earning employees and of much lesser advantage to those earning the median wage rate and its advantages continue  to be proportionally less for each incrementally greater than each become proportionally less for each incrementally greater wage rate.

Wow. Monster discovery. The minimum wage rate has a significant impact on those... making minimum wage. And it doesn't really affect too much those making $15/hour. The whole point is that the MW artificially alters the low-end wage scale, directly affecting the job market for tens of millions of Americans. Since the MW is a political tool, NOT an economic one, we have to ask questions about motives and goals. What are we REALLY trying to accomplish with this blunt-force sledgehammer intrusion into the American labor market?

Quote from: Supposn on July 05, 2014, 01:26:09 PMTo the extent of the minimum rate's purchasing power, it reduces the numbers and extents of poverty incidences, (i.e. it reduces the need and expenditures for public assistance).

The MW law and "public assistance" are one and the same. How can you not see this? The everyday enforcement of MW wage laws IS PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

Quote from: Supposn on July 05, 2014, 01:26:09 PMThus the minimum rate's purchasing power is of net benefit to USA employees, our governments' budgets, and our taxpayers.

A thing that conservatives instinctively understand, and that progressives simply can't, is that every intrusion of government into commerce is bad for that commerce. Government NEVER stops in to say, "Hey, love what you're doing with that real estate development/shopping mall/new factory. Government stops in to say, "NO, you can't do that!"

Quote from: Supposn on July 05, 2014, 01:26:09 PMWhat conservatives wish to describe as "wealth redistribution (welfare)", we others describe as promoting a net economic benefit to our nation.

Ah, here it is, folks. Supposn has shown his true colors. He (she?) worships at the altar of the Progressives. He/she does not/can not/will not understand or acknowledge that any and every forced intrusion into the American economy involves a net loss to the nation, and every taxpayer.
[/quote]

Excerpted from TBoneAgain's post #72:
"Since you seem so obsessed with the purchasing power of the minimum wage, I marvel that you don't rail against inflation -- a direct action of the US government to steal wealth from its people unseen. In terms of the minimum wage, the government's inflation of the money supply -- and the predictable rise in consumer and wholesale prices that follows -- has arguably done more to hurt low-income workers than any other factor. But even when adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage has more than kept pace, largely because of its heritage as a welfare program, rather than a smart economic policy".

Quote from: TboneAgain on July 05, 2014, 05:07:12 PM... Wow. Monster discovery. The minimum wage rate has a significant impact on those... making minimum wage. And it doesn't really affect too much those making $15/hour. The whole point is that the MW artificially alters the low-end wage scale, directly affecting the job market for tens of millions of Americans. Since the MW is a political tool, NOT an economic one, we have to ask questions about motives and goals. What are we REALLY trying to accomplish with this blunt-force sledgehammer intrusion into the American labor market?

TBoneAgain, you're completely wrong about some things.

The FMW rate is not among the major inducement for USA's currency inflation.  T minimum wage rate is much less a cause and much more a victim of the dollar's reduced purchasing power.  That's why it's inevitable that the FMW rate will be annually adjusted to the variable value of the U.S. dollar.

I'm very reasonably confident the federal minimum wage rate has a very significant f affect upon AT VERY LEAST the entire least earning quarter of USA's full time employees.  Those now earning $15/Hr.owe much of their pay scale to the $7.25 FMW rate.
The FMW rate to some extent affects ALL USA wage scales.   The FMW rate's effect upon job rates only begins to be less than significant as those job's rates more closely approach the median wage rate.
I am advocating we advance what has (to the extent of the FMW rate's purchasing power) been continuously reducing our nation's incidences and extents of poverty (more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on July 05, 2014, 04:23:01 PM
Solar, we disagree.  So much of what one faction believe to be "facts", other factions (usually of no lesser reputation) believe to be "opinions".  Even when we agree upon "facts", we argue as to which is "cause" and which is "effect".

Regarding your asking "Why annually adjust the FMW rate?"; the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is variable rather than a constant value.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

SupSalMgr, you're discussing an EXCEPTIONAL place, time and condition, (i.e. the current "booming" oil fields of North Dakota). That should NOT be a reason for choosing a federal minimum wage rate.
I'm curious.  Do you know what's the currently approximate, (indefinite) but effective minimum market rate over there?
Every labor market that lacks a relatively effectively enforced minimum wage rate for its least challenging jobs or tasks have a theoretical indefinite rate that effectively is the market's minimum rate.
I'm among the proponents for settling upon some compromise rate for the entire nation. XXXand thereafter the FMW rate should "pegged" to the existing annually adjusted cost-price index.  That's how social security retirement benefits are now annually adjusted.
////////////////////////

TBoneAgain, I disagree with your statement, "the MW is nothing more than a political gimmick that is not and was never meant to be an economic tool. It was passed and signed into law in 1938 by FDR, when the Senate had a filibuster-proof Democrat majority and the House was split 334D - 88R".

I've reasonably concluded the following:
(1)   Our federal minimum wage rate was certainly meant to be and it is an economic tool.
(2)The FMW promote greater purchasing powers for all USA wage rates and it does not as you believe significantly increase unemployment rates but rather it is of net economic benefit to our nation.
(3)To the extent that the labor market's rates for their jobs and tasks are greater, and/or their aggregate rates of unemployment are less, employees are less subservient and docile.

I believe that many conservatives rationalize their conclusion of federal minimum wage's detriment to our economy.  They cannot acknowledge what they consider their own reduced social status if the working poor are less subservient and docile.
Such workers certainly hinder middle managers and supervisors ability to control their crews.
I've on many occasions observed professionals upset when they met blue collar workers patronizing more expensive restaurants and stores.

Respectfully, Supposn

"SupSalMgr, you're discussing an EXCEPTIONAL place, time and condition, (i.e. the current "booming" oil fields of North Dakota). That should NOT be a reason for choosing a federal minimum wage rate.
I'm curious.  Do you know what's the currently approximate, (indefinite) but effective minimum market rate over there?
Every labor market that lacks a relatively effectively enforced minimum wage rate for its least challenging jobs or tasks have a theoretical indefinite rate that effectively is the market's minimum rate.
I'm among the proponents for settling upon some compromise rate for the entire nation. XXXand thereafter the FMW rate should "pegged" to the existing annually adjusted cost-price index.  That's how social security retirement benefits are now annually adjusted.
////////////////////////"

My whole point is there should not be a MW. The marketplace should determine what it is. If there is a shortage of certain workers then they will be paid more. If there is an overage the pay scale will be less. We live in a free country and can go anywhere one chooses. If we leave the marketplace along it will settle on a fair wage for the majority.

Quote from: Supposn on July 05, 2014, 04:23:01 PM
Solar, we disagree.  So much of what one faction believe to be "facts", other factions (usually of no lesser reputation) believe to be "opinions".  Even when we agree upon "facts", we argue as to which is "cause" and which is "effect".

Regarding your asking "Why annually adjust the FMW rate?"; the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is variable rather than a constant value.

I never asked that, I asked why the ceiling on MW, why not raise it to $50.0, Hell, even $200.0 an hr or far more, if you think it's beneficial?
Point is, it's staggeringly evident, you have absolutely ZERO business experience, and don't try and claim otherwise, because it's obvious to the rest of us who've dealt with budget only to have govt interfere by raising the MW, throwing a wrench in ones business plan.

Yes, business owners have something referred to as a business model, like building a home, the contractor gives you a quote to build a home, but he knows he may have to wait a year for permits to clear, from all places Govt.
The family secured the loan, and with no obstacles outside of govt incompetence, he purchases all the supplies needed to build the home, and does so, because it appears prices may be 15% higher next year.

But in the interim, the govt raises MW, which effects his bottom line in labor costs, seeing how it's a labor intensive project, he could lose as much as 15% over all.
And for those that don't know, that really is the profit margin of most business, unless you're a corp tied to one of or both party's, where you're guaranteed a minimum of 37% for utility companies to, skies the limit for govt contractors.
I know this as well, I was a defense contractor.

So, does he file bankruptcy, or does he follow through and cut corners in the construction costs and turnout a shoddy product?

Another example, you have a business plan set, 1, 3, 5, 7, years all worked out, you know exactly how much you can afford, including your own living expenses.
Your income to start is $1000. monthly, (just to simplify things, you may multiply by 10) your rent is $200, personal budget and overhead, triple net included, comes to $600, leaving you $200 for yourself and $200.0 for staff, a necessary component.
I bet you don't know what triple net is without looking it up, but every business owner does.

Now the govt raises the MW, and your every employee is at MW because they know with growth, they too will see the fruits of their labor rewarded by a generous business owner.
Where does he cut his budget? Keep in mind, he is just starting the business, so he's sunk every dime and living on a shoestring budget, because that's what small business owners do, they are not wealthy, not even middle class, they are broke and trying to build a dream.

So where do you cut the budget? Keeping in mind, utilities are at fixed cost, rent fixed, food somewhat, and all of these are semi fixed, until they are all effected by wage increases, meaning a cost increase is immediate, but another will soon be on the way, in the form of higher prices across the board, all affecting his bottom line.
(Govt grants utility companies cost increases FDB under MW increases)
So you've cut everywhere you possibly could, your final option is to cut staff and work longer hours.
What do you do?

I know all of this from experience, it happened to me, instead of allowing me to give a much deserved raise to my most valued employees, no one got a raise, instead, the Dims get the kudos, and I look like the grim reaper because I had to lay off two, much needed employees and take their place and work triple shifts.

Now tell me how raising the MW really benefits those at the bottom when they are laid off, or can't get an entry level position because after a MW increase, ALL hiring is frozen for usually a year, till the mkt adjusts to the shock of govt interference.

Seriously consider these two scenarios, because that is real life in the business world, but you look at it as strictly a numbers game, with an emotional component and thinking you're helping, when all you're doing, is screwing up the free mkt, a system that will always find equilibrium on it's own, and a cost increase anywhere along the line has to be made up somewhere, and that increase will only and always will, effect the bottom line, and where is the bottom line in business?
The last hired always gets laid off, ALWAYS!!!!

So stop looking at this from a top down/govt revenue source, and start at the bottom, where you claim to be helping, when it truth, you're fuckin the little guy. The employee, and employer.

Quote from: TboneAgain on July 05, 2014, 05:07:12 PMMy point was the exact opposite ... the increases in the minimum wage have always been too much, too soon, utterly arbitrary, and for no particular reason, other than politics and publicity optics. ...
... If the MW had been pegged to the CPI from its inception, it would be about $4.25 right now. Something tells me you wouldn't be quite satisfied with that. No one except you has argued from the beginning that the MW had very much to do with inflation. As for your last sentence, I made the exact same point (although I did it better) in my last post on the subject. ...

TBoneAgain, we concur upon the politically determining the instances and extents of the FMW rate's adjustment insuring that rate to continue being significantly if not entirely an arbitrary rate.
To the extent that we could annually "peg" the FMW rate to the U.S. dollar's purchasing power, the rate would evolve to be less arbitrary and more logically determined each year beyond the initial rate determination date.  That's the logical justification of annually pegging the rate to the cost-price index.

Referring to:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1.60&year1=1968&year2=2014
You are correct; the arbitrary amount of $0.25 in 1938 = $4.22 in 2014.

Additionally he arbitrary amount of $1.60 in 1968 = $10.94 2014
and the arbitrary amount of $1.60 in 1968 = $0.65 in 1938.

What's your point? Respectfully, Supposn