patrick.net

zzyzzx says

We don't need higher minimum wages, we need to ban immigration and impose high tariffs on imports.

Unfortunately both policies would also lead to even worse standards of living for Americans . . . simply because the cost of enforcement would have to be carried by the Americans for whom the imported services and goods would become unavailable or priced higher in the black market.

There is literally nothing to very little the government can do to improve the overall standards of living of a society. Everything the government does results in more damage than the "good" that it sets out to do.

Reality says

There is literally nothing to very little the government can do to improve the overall standards of living of a society. Everything the government does results in more damage than the "good" that it sets out to do.

That's the result we choose our politicians in the same way we choose which brand of soda we drink. Through a big production advertisement campaign. We don't elect officials we consume them.

There's been plenty of examples in America where the right people in Government made all the difference in the world.

JodyChunder says

Ten dollars is fucking pitiful, and still poverty. We should be looking at at least a minimum wage of $16.00 an hour. AT LEAST.

Totally agree. As someone who worked in big box retail and later for a privately owned place, well I started at $7 an hour and eventually worked my way up to $15 at the mom and pop place ( there was no way in hell I would have ever made that at any of the big box stores)

At $15 an hour, I was just able to pay rent, pay my bills, and save a tiny bit at the end of each month. It was doable but I wasn't getting rich. Now- keep in mind that was over 12 years ago. $15 an hour now might as well be $8 back then.

All I know is that a swift look at the world's richest people charts shows quite a few of those multi-billionaires are owners of big box stores. So you have to ask is their wealth from selling a lot of product or from not paying their employees jack? Its probably a combination of the two, but I fail to see an argument that they can't afford to pay their staff better.

zzyzzx says

We don't need higher minimum wages, we need to ban immigration and impose high tariffs on imports

Ridiculous. If you were to cut imports, well for starters auto manufactures, the tech industry, the pharmaceutical companies, and basically every other industry would have to shut their doors immediately. Millions of Americans would lose their jobs overnight. The US and then global economy would fall into a depression.

What you're suggesting was partially done in the 30's during that depression- at a time when the US actually made most of what it sold- and even then the result was a drastic deepening of that depression.

So glad some of you are nowhere close to being in a position to making decisions in regards to running the country.

CaptainShuddup says

There's been plenty of examples in America where the right people in Government made all the difference in the world.

Names?

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Every last dime of it will be absorbed by rent.

Agree...

If we raise the cost of labor, the Job Creators will just pass the cost on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

Fuck that!

Bangladeshi children made my socks? Well, they should have made better life decisions: fuck 'em.

edvard2 says

What you're suggesting was partially done in the 30's during that depression- at a time when the US actually made most of what it sold- and even then the result was a drastic deepening of that depression.

That's a free trade red herring. The Tariff rate was about 40% before Smoot-Hawley, and about 50% after. There was no trade war - French, UK, and Canadian tariffs only went up by a bit on average, after the Depression was in full swing, and before the law took effect Global Trade was already way, way down. Smoot Hawley became law long after the unemployment rate was in the double digits, and long after the stock market collapse, in 1931, 2 years into the Depression. And Smoot Hawley reduced some tariffs to nothing or next-to-nothing, like on books and periodicals.

Also, the GDP from trade in the US in 1931 was only about 2% of the GDP. How could the Depression be caused by a tariff that effected only 2% of GDP?

The USA has had a 25%+ general tariff rate from the Early Republic to the 1970s. Free Traders have done a great job making Americans think Free Trade and Low Tariffs is a long US tradition, when it's only about as old as the New Society.

The Tariff is why Mexico had no industry in 1920, but the US was churning out goods left and right. Low Tariffs are beloved by the rentier class that produces nothing, has no interest in encouraging producing, and wants access to everything at no additional cost.

China is experiencing ridiculous growth with a very high tariff. They will never reduce the tariff unilaterally, only US pressure by reciprocating tariffs will do so.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=qzV

Probably no relation here.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=qzW

Even better, since 1980.

1976 - Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act PL 94-435
1977 - Emergency Natural Gas Act PL 95-2
1978 - Airline Deregulation Act PL 95-50
1978 - National Gas Policy Act PL 95-621
1980 - Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act PL 96-221
1980 - Motor Carrier Act PL 96-296
1980 - Regulatory Flexibility Act PL 96-354
1980 - Staggers Rail Act PL 96-448
1982 - Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act PL 97-320
1982 - Bus Regulatory Reform Act PL 97-261
1989 - Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act PL 101-60
1992 - National Energy Policy Act PL 102-486
1996 - Telecommunications Act PL 104-104
1999 - Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act PL 106-102

2000 - The Commodity Futures Modernization Act
2006 - Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006
2010 – Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

The inflection point around 1986....Hhhmmmm..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

edvard2 says

All I know is that a swift look at the world's richest people charts shows quite a few of those multi-billionaires are owners of big box stores. So you have to ask is their wealth from selling a lot of product or from not paying their employees jack? Its probably a combination of the two, but I fail to see an argument that they can't afford to pay their staff better.

Both the employer and the employee are partners in production. The real boss is the consumer. When was the last time when you voluntarily paid the check-out girl a 20% tip after she ran up your bill? I'm sure you can "afford" to pay her that tip.

The answer to that is quite simple: you didn't pay her 20% extra for her good looks because you could use the same money for someone else' productive output. Likewise, the managers of the big box stores have other use for the funds; whenever they use those funds, they create jobs elsewhere. The big box stores are profitable because consumers shop there and are willing to pay up.

thunderlips11 says

China is experiencing ridiculous growth with a very high tariff. They will never reduce the tariff unilaterally, only US pressure by reciprocating tariffs will do so.

The rapid economic growth in China coincide with drastic reduction in tariff rates in that country. Their tariff rates used to be much much higher before they "opened up" their socialist economy to trade with the west.

Reality says

The rapid economic growth in China coincide with drastic reduction in tariff rates in that country. Their tariff rates used to be much much higher before they "opened up" their socialist economy to trade with the west.

China has about a 25% average tariff on autos from the US.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/baizhuchen/2012/07/12/tear-down-this-wall-the-chinese-tariff-wall/

I believe VAT is also due the moment the goods cross into China, which is about 12-15% on top of the tariff.

There's no doubt China manages it's tariffs thoughtfully. They want more car manufacturing, so that's tariffed right now. Certain things like laptops and electronics have no tariff, but that is closing the barn door after the horse has left; it's just a way for China to say "Hey, see? We have free trade on somethings - AFTER we took all your chip business, we lowered the tariff." The British pulled the same shit in the 19th after they Destroyed the Indian Clothing industry. When China takes a big chunk of the auto business from the rest of the world, they'll probably ditch the 25% tariff too.

BTW, glad you said socialist economy, about a quarter of China's industrial capacity is from SOEs.

Reality says

Unfortunately both policies would also lead to even worse standards of living for Americans . . . simply because the cost of enforcement would have to be carried by the Americans for whom the imported services and goods would become unavailable or priced higher in the black market.

Unemployment was way lower when we made our own stuff.
Enforcing immigration laws can be done on the cheap. Just mine the border and have helicopter gunships gun down any one who tries to illegally cross the border.

edvard2 says

Ridiculous. If you were to cut imports, well for starters auto manufactures, the tech industry, the pharmaceutical companies, and basically every other industry would have to shut their doors immediately. Millions of Americans would lose their jobs overnight. The US and then global economy would fall into a depression.

Ridiculous! We would make things like cars for ourselves instead of importing them.

Call it Crazy says

HydroCabron says

Bangladeshi children made my socks? Well, they should have made better life decisions: fuck 'em.

What??? Do you have a problem with these children working for their gruel each day??

That's racist!!

These children are not cost-effective.

They are therefore ASSHOLES!

zzyzzx says

Reality says

Unfortunately both policies would also lead to even worse standards of living for Americans . . . simply because the cost of enforcement would have to be carried by the Americans for whom the imported services and goods would become unavailable or priced higher in the black market.

Unemployment was way lower when we made our own stuff.

Enforcing immigration laws can be done on the cheap. Just mine the border and have helicopter gunships gun down any one who tries to illegally cross the border.

Just put a few dozen contractors in jail and seize their assets under the RICO act for conspiracy to violate labor laws. A few days of Attorneys hanging around a few random Home Depots ought to do it. Do the same for a few restaurants in LA, NY, and Dallas, problem solved.

Penalties for violating US labor laws -> Fear of hiring illegals - no work for illegals - word gets around - illegals stop coming in large numbers.

Oh, and ditch NAFTA. The #2 reason for illegals is that the US subsidies corn to big Agrabusiness, which killed Mexican production, leaving millions without work.

While I am all for efforts to improve standard of living, I am not sure that raising min wage to $10 per hr will accomplish this. Currently, fed min wage is $7.25 so even assuming that it is full timers who get the increase (and I am sure most of them would be part timers), we are talking $2.75*8*5*4.32 = $475.2 per month. Assuming regular payroll taxes + whatever little is paid to feds/state, assume 15% goes to taxation which results in $403 net pay increase per month. Now if someone is a homeowner (and most working minimum wage are not) it could make a difference in living standards, but if someone is a renter, landlord will surely capture at least 60% of this "increase" and deathcare/education/grocery store/insurance will take care of the rest. And the benevolent "job creators" will do their best to pass on the "higher cost of doing business" to the customers. And in Cali where minumum wage is $8, it will be even easier for this scenario to materialize.

thomaswong.1986 says

tovarichpeter says

$10 minimum wage will lift 5 million out of poverty

Worked for Auto industry in Detroit.. im sure it will work for all other industries in all other cities/metros. Results will speak for them self.

How's car manufacturing in Germany doing?

thunderlips11 says

thomaswong.1986 says

tovarichpeter says

$10 minimum wage will lift 5 million out of poverty

Worked for Auto industry in Detroit.. im sure it will work for all other industries in all other cities/metros. Results will speak for them self.

How's car manufacturing in Germany doing?

Doing great!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSWEA00DDB20131002?irpc=932

New Renter says

Doing great!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSWEA00DDB20131002?irpc=932

But New Renter, that can't be!!! Everybody knows low wages are essential to a prosperous economy!

this is a setup by the fast food industry. when the workers get more money they are going to implement robot/machines and kiosks and get rid of up to 60 percent of their workers. and no one will be mad at them because they will be looked upon as doing it in self defense. yes, they a machine can make a burger from scratch and even wrap it.

casandra says

this is a setup by the fast food industry. when the workers get more money they are going to implement robot/machines and kiosks and get rid of up to 60 percent of their workers.

Yea that is it alright, the rest don't know what they are talking about.

Or as AF would say they inexplicably hate freedom.

thunderlips11 says

China is experiencing ridiculous growth with a very high tariff. They will never reduce the tariff unilaterally, only US pressure by reciprocating tariffs will do so.

China isn't a good example they don't follow the WTO laws. For a long time they actually screwed the rest of the world and mostly the U.S. by depreciating their currency so they could encourage exports but ban imports which is against the world trade organization rules.

Honestly, they still do this. But the truth is China's economy is a hidden facade. Their housing bubble is enormous, they have no middle class and all wealth is held by the government and not the people. They're just taking advantage of the world right now. But if U.S.A. or Europe were to go down China too will go down hard, because you can't sustain an economy based on exports, no middle class, redistribution of wealth, and a fake housing market.

spydah_hh says

Here first thing is first... There are only 28... YES 28 McDonald restaurants in Australia

I don't know where you got your #s -- there are over 900 McDonald's in Australia. This according to McDonald's own website.spydah_hh says

In Texas you can buy a 2,926 sq ft 2-STORY home for $350k.

Maybe some miserable fucking scrubhole outside Ft Worth or Odessa, but you're not going to be buying a spread like that for 350 in the capitol city, (Austin -- not Round Rock! Not the same city, so don't even try it). And that has more to do with Austin being a speculative playground right now. But that's another story.

spydah_hh says

With high minimum wage it's only natural for McDonalds to have such a small amount of restaurants because let's face it Mikey D's wouldn't even be capable of opening that many stores and providing that many jobs in Australia as they have in Texas with minimum wage being $16/hr. This alone is proof that higher minimum wage kills jobs..

There's no proof here whatsoever. There's only rhetoric, and as you can see, even that doesn't hold up under even the most casual scrutiny.

indigenous says

You are your own caricature

Try with your left hand, buddy. It has a slightly different feel!

Reality says

hmm, the minimum wage law literally says jobs paying less than a certain amount are outlawed. duh.

I'm not sure what point you think you're illustrating with this. Yes -- jobs paying below a living wage are "outlawed" -- however, inflation as it is measured today in this country, is pegged to some very dicey metrics. Even at 10 dollars an hour, you're well south of the poverty line in America. That's inexcusable for a country this wealthy. It's even embarrassing.

Reality says

LOL. No they did not have laws mandating a livable minimum wage. Their minimum wage law was put in place when the Aussie dollar was half of US$. A$16 was less than US$8 when the law was put in place.

Australia had exactly such mandates in place since the late 19th century. Their dollar was never as anemic as you suggest -- certainly not in 2005 when the AFPC was first established to oversee fair pay practices. Trust me, the AUS dollar was never half the USD in 2005 or at any point in your lifetime. I have done business with and in Australia for the last 25 years.

Reality says

Laws mandating livable wage (i.e. wage enough to provide for a family) is just another way of saying each family can only have one bread winner legally; everyone else, especially at the lower social strata, would have to start at illegal jobs like drug dealing and prostitution first.

Wha?? That's a really fucking bizarre extrapolation. It's not any such thing.

Reality says

Further proof that the Australian phenomenon is the result of currency appreciation due to commodity boom in the past decade.

You're fixating upon one facet of the overall picture.

Here is an old video from the Sowell man, you see this argument is very old and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Bb9zJJVdUd8

Simple stuff you raise the price of an employee he is no longer worth what he is getting paid so the owner is forced to hire only experienced guys as they can produce enough to be worth the wages or he can automate or he can do without.

Black unemployment was the same as white unemployment right up to the time some mutt decided to have a minimum wage and has never been the same since because it was not economically viable to hire them.

In case you want to pull the race card Thomas Sowell and Walter E Williams are black.

JodyChunder says

I don't know where you got your #s -- there are over 900 McDonald's in Australia. This according to McDonald's own website.spydah_hh says

You're right I Stand corrected on this there are over 780+ Mc Donalds in Austarila.

JodyChunder says

Maybe some miserable fucking scrubhole outside Ft Worth or Odessa, but you're not going to be buying a spread like that for 350 in the capitol city, (Austin -- not Round Rock! Not the same city, so don't even try it). And that has more to do with Austin being a speculative playground right now. But that's another story.

Actually I did more research on this. I decided to compare homes for sale in Canberra Aus. and Austin, Texas as they're both the capital of their country/state or lets just say governance.

What I found is a lot worst than I realized from my previous comparison (I admit I rushed).

Anyway, Most homes in Canberra Aus. cost well over 400k and those are just flats with mostly 1 bed and 1 bath and an occasionally two bed and 1 bath. A 350k home in Austin, texas will net you about a 2,000-2900sq ft 2 story 3 beds and 2-3 baths.

I also did a quick comparison of the 2014 Nissan Altima sedan in AUS they start at 33k while the U.S. starts at 22k. It's quite simple the cost of living in Aus is very high way high.

http://www.nissan.com.au/Cars-Vehicles/Altima/Overview

http://www.nissanusa.com/buildyournissan/variant/index/dealer_locator_form?globalModelLineName=altima&modelLineCode=ALT&zipCode=94533&tool=model.vlp.build.button&lang=en

indigenous says

Simple stuff you raise the price of an employee he is no longer worth what he is getting paid so the owner is forced to hire only experienced guys as they can produce enough to be worth the wages or he can automate or he can do without.

Again, this argument only sounds compelling if you overlook the fact that it takes place in a vacuum. It totally, laughably neglects a crucial feature of the law of demand, which is that it holds only when everything else in the economy remains unchanged; ceteris paribus can only be realized in a controlled test environment where all of the independent variables other than the one under study can be controlled for, so that the effect of a single independent variable on the dependent variable can be isolated. One such variable is that, people who aren't so near the hairy edge feel better; they feel more secure; they have more ability to save and invest or to spend back into the economy. (They also pay more in taxes.)

As the owner of multiple small businesses in and around San Berdoo, I can tell you that I've witnessed this phenomenon firsthand. And trust me, when demand for products is high, I push extra hard to meet it. I'm not gonna lay off my workers or stop hiring, regardless of whether or not the minimum wage is rising. It's not just me; when demand was expanding strongly in 1997, the min wage hike did not affect the unemployment rate at all. It's speculator-caused recessions that cause jobs to dry up, with demand for products falling -- and entirely independent of the minimum wage. Show me ONE fucking example of a recession that was caused by a minimum wage increase! Buncha boogeyman bullshit.

Meanwhile, the price increases needed to fully compensate businesses for the additional costs of paying that measly ten dollar increase everyone's shitting themselves over would be modest. Something on the order of about 2.7% -- 3%. As a real world example -- remember a few years ago when Santa Fe raised its minimum wage from $5.15 to $8.50? (I do.) The price of my favorite meal in downtown SF, a $10 three piece fried chicken dinner with fried okra and cornbread and hominy and collard greens and cheese grits and fresh peach ice cream and a big ass'd glass of real chocolate buttermilk increased to...$10.31. If you think .33 is gonna keep Jody Chunder or any other lard-veined, red-blooded Americans like me away from the gut wagon, you can fucking forget it!

On the other hand, American middle class families just don't dine out as much these days, because they can't afford to...because they don't get paid shit! And it's Koch smokers like you that try to brainwash them into thinking that things are just as they should be!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/31/opinion/granderson-red-lobster/

spydah_hh says

A 350k home in Austin, texas will net you about a 2,000-2900sq ft 2 story 3 beds and 2-3 baths.

I have a son in Austin. I know that market pretty well. If we are talking Austin proper, I think your numbers are a little...off.

jvolstad says

Education will do it better.

Yeah, cause that's real fucking affordable. Come on...

tovarichpeter says

$10 minimum wage will lift 5 million out of poverty

those who are working.. will do nothing for those unemployed and
facing poverty..

what is your plan to get the unemployed working ? all you get is silence.

The liberal left is so blinded they just dont get this ... their policies have failed.

indigenous says

Here is an old video from the Sowell man, you see this argument is very old and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Simple stuff you raise the price of an employee he is no longer worth what he is getting paid so the owner is forced to hire only experienced guys as they can produce enough to be worth the wages or he can automate or he can do without.

JodyChunder says

Show me ONE fucking example of a recession that was caused by a minimum wage increase! Buncha boogeyman bullshit.

how do you set the standard for min wage ? is is based on worker in Urban California, which is certainly different than rural California, or middle America, or the Southern States. If we were to apply the Min Wage Standards based on SF prime, it certainly would impact your own business.

Obama's so called plan is a dismal failure.

Where is the Beef ?

Democrats have no idea how to expand jobs across the board,

so their new plan is to increase min wage...

We find that during the recession (2008 Q1 to 2010 Q1), employment losses occurred throughout the economy, but were concentrated in mid-wage
occupations. By contrast, during the recovery (2010 Q1 to 2012 Q1), employment gains have been concentrated in lower-wage occupations, which
grew 2.7 times as fast as mid-wage and higher-wage occupations. Specifically:

Lower-wage occupations constituted 21 percent of recession losses, but 58 percent of recovery growth.
Mid-wage occupations constituted 60 percent of recession losses, but only 22 percent of recovery growth.
Higher-wage occupations constituted 19 percent of recession job losses, and 20 percent of recovery growth.

indigenous says

Names?

John F. Kennedy, had Richard Nixon won the 1960 elections the world would be a nuclear wasteland today. All of the other bullshit he is credit for really over shadows his greatest feat as the leader of the free world. And possibly the last true leader America ever had.

All of that other bullshit he is attributed for doing, he was just doing his brother's bidding for him. Those were Roberts lofty pie in sky dreams.

JodyChunder says

indigenous says

Simple stuff you raise the price of an employee he is no longer worth what he is getting paid so the owner is forced to hire only experienced guys as they can produce enough to be worth the wages or he can automate or he can do without.

Again, this argument only sounds compelling if you overlook the fact that it takes place in a vacuum.

You reject the profound thinking of Dr Sowell and Dr Williams both of whom grew up in the projects and instead go with your empirical experience.

It sounds like your business' are retail? What is the training required for these jobs? What are the implications for someone being untrained in these positions? In a trade or manufacturing the implications of both can be huge, not to mention the output. And the labor cost component of the sale.

Actually I can see your perspective in a retail environment but not in other fields. As an employer you are constantly weighing the value of the individual to your business, in most the employer has to make an investment in the worker at entry level positions chances are good the worker does not even know how to work for 8 hours let alone be productive or punctual or dependable or have a modicum of good manners, or the simple idea of exchange.

So rather than make this investment with exposure to unemployment, disability, workers comp, labor lawsuits, stupid mistakes, etc. The employer automates as with self check out, robotic equipment, online sales, of outsourcing, etc.

He does not locate where his cost from these factors are higher such as South Central LA or Detroit or DC. The statistics are not going to be even either you are going to have astronomical unemployment where enterprise is most inhibited by the culture or government intervention. After the riots in LA in 92 stores did not come back as the costs were too high. In Detroit the government corruption and cost are too high for a business to want to go there, this is the future of Chicago the influences of these two are palpable when you go there, also this has had a palpable effect on Calif.

The guys most likely to hire the entry level worker is small business and the guy who has been impacted the most has been small business.

Now it is true technology has made many jobs irrelevant. Which points out the importance of small business as it is always nascent to the future. (think Apple starting in a garage).

The way that Apple in the garage gets to be Apple now is investment. What turn China from a great place to invest to a lousy one is over-investment. This is not going to be even it will reach a tipping point and the investment will leave an area. Minimum wage is one of these factors. As it makes the employee that much more unnecessary to focus on the customer and exchanging with the customer.

Of course you are going to deny all of this and ignore the evidence in favor of your empirical viewpoint from San Berdoo. I will say what I should have said at first and last I will agree to disagree.

CaptainShuddup says

indigenous says

Names?

John F. Kennedy, had Richard Nixon won the 1960 elections the world would be a nuclear wasteland today. All of the other bullshit he is credit for really over shadows his greatest feat as the leader of the free world. And possibly the last true leader America ever had.

All of that other bullshit he is attributed for doing, he was just doing his brother's bidding for him. Those were Roberts lofty pie in sky dreams.

I think once you start deifying someone you are in trouble.

Although Kennedy did a good job regarding national defense, except regarding Viet Nam, I would stop short of deifying him. The stage is set for the "great" ones by having a great enemy to make them look great.

Nixon might have done similar things? He did open trade with China, he did end the Viet Nam war, on the other hand he ended Bretton Woods of which he may not have had a choice. It is not as clear cut as it would appear at first glance.

I would rather look to Coolidge for doing the most important thing regarding the economy shrink government and keep government meddling to a minimum. But not a deity he did not realize the problems created by the central bank or that much of the boom of the 20s was caused by undervaluing the Dollar as China has done with the Yuan.

IThe Professor says

Who them?

The entry level workers.

indigenous says

You reject the profound thinking of Dr Sowell and Dr Williams both of whom grew up in the projects and instead go with your empirical experience.

Empiricism has served me fairly well. I'm just sharing my perspective based upon what I have experienced in my life and the mistakes I've learned from, and weighing it all against some careful research.

By the way, there are at least four things I can think of right off the bat that are hampering the next Apple: patent hoarders, education (both the cost and the quality of), an over-lawyered playing field and our serial bubble economy. Not the cost of labor!