tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post116312368423666536..comments2024-03-26T09:25:02.198-04:00Comments on Hey Jenny Slater.: The winners' to-do list.Astronaut Mike Dexterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01498197770701096363noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post-1163306598763267112006-11-11T23:43:00.000-05:002006-11-11T23:43:00.000-05:00Ok, I can see where you could read it as contradic...Ok, I can see where you could read it as contradictory, but I don't think any companies would go under as a result of a minimum wage increase. I was paraphrasing FDR (the father of our modern economy) who said if a company can only pay X we don't want them. But I don't think the rise in the minimum wage will put anyone out of business. It may slow hireing at the entry level, but I doubt even that. <BR/><BR/>I was useing "waste" as a noun, not a verb. Anything sitting in storage not being used is waste in the economic sense as it is not being put to it's best use. Think of it as land beside an exit ramp that doesn't have a BP and a Jiffy Mart on it. It's just sitting there not being productive. Cash that is just sitting there is much the same. Now when it is in the bank being saved the bank is investing it, when it is in the market then companies are capitolizing with it, when the IRS has it Haliburton gets it.... well, skip that one. The point is that if you tie it up in something non productive, like being held for stock options on previously unissued stock and it is exchanged for the labor of one guy that sits at a desk, it is better used paying a higer wage at the working man level. Again, this is because those guys, millions of them, will go out and buy lots of shit with it, where as the one guy will just roll it over into more stock options. The guys buying lots of shit are creating demand. The guy getting stock options is just routing play money from the company, to him, back to the company, which produces little, if any.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post-1163305429806690362006-11-11T23:23:00.000-05:002006-11-11T23:23:00.000-05:00Money that is saved is not "waste". It is money th...Money that is saved is not "waste". It is money that is being deferred for use/investment at a later time. It is money that can, when it accumulates, can be used for massive capital projects that are also necessary for any modern economy to move and shake.<BR/><BR/>Your last paragraph is contradictory. On the one hand, you claim that a raise in mw will create more jobs than it destroys. But then you take away with one hand what you just gave with the other, by indicating that some compnaies will indeed go under with a higher mw, and "so what" you say. But if some companies that employ these lowest-wage workers are going to go under if we raise the minimum wage, then that means we are <I>losing</I> jobs for those lowest-wage workers.<BR/><BR/>Besides, companies don't have to go under for mw to cause unemployment. The company might stay afloat, but cut some workers. <BR/><BR/>Right now, there are x number of people making minimum wage. Raise the mw to whatever you think it should be. Will all those x people keep their jobs? Of course not--hence, mw causes unemployment.<BR/><BR/>But, seriously, screw it. Go DAWGS!Hollahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05514363483138669469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post-1163282864951039982006-11-11T17:07:00.000-05:002006-11-11T17:07:00.000-05:00I think any hit to employment is miniscule and sho...I think any hit to employment is miniscule and short term at best. The health of the economy is not measured by the wealth of any particular strata but by the flow of value thru out it. Basically the movement of money and goods/services. Now you take a fellow working at minimum wage. He has no excess availible and spends everything he makes; he has to. If you give him more to begin with he will still be spending all of it. The guy at the top has excess, and provided he came by it honest I have no problems with that. But excess that is not invested, ie moving thru out the economy, is waste. It is just sitting there creating nothing. When the guy at the bottom spends more, he has to spend it on the goods and services sold by the folks above and beside him. Give him more cash and we all eventually prosper. Give the guy at the top more cash and he has the option to invest it or sit on it. What he sits on helps no one.<BR/><BR/>So if you want to stimulate an economy you do it from the bottom up, not the top down. <BR/><BR/>A raise in the minimum wage creates more jobs that it destroys. And if a company can only pay minimun wage, do we really want them around?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post-1163216599247400442006-11-10T22:43:00.000-05:002006-11-10T22:43:00.000-05:00Bill, I'm not an economist but a philosopher. I tr...Bill, I'm not an economist but a philosopher. I try to follow the ideas behind the various theories as to how an economy works. So, technical discussions about laffler curves (whatever that is) might lose me a bit. <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what "basic economic principle" you are referring to. Are you referring to the argument you just made that the minimum wage creates jobs as a "principle"? Or do you mean the "principle of supply and demand", which is a basic economic principle but is subject to a little more analysis than what you seem to have given it here? <BR/><BR/>The money that goes into the base of the economy is coming from somewhere: namely, the employers from whom it was appropriated, and probably also the consumers who pay higher prices for goods and services to cover the higher wages. If my wages go up, but so does the price of soap and chicken sandwiches and many other goods and services, then I'm not necessarily better off. And, the people who are in the best position to meet the minimum wage workers' new higher "demand" for goods and services (if there is any higher demand left after the higher prices have taken their toll) are the producers, enterpeneuers, and investors who we just took resources from by forcing them to pay higher wages. In other words, the people best equipped to meet a new higher demand are less able to meet it.<BR/><BR/>And, can I take it that you admit that a rise in the minimum wage will indeed cause unemployment in the <I>short</I> term?Hollahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05514363483138669469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post-1163177573252792762006-11-10T11:52:00.000-05:002006-11-10T11:52:00.000-05:00Long term raising the minimum wage creates jobs as...Long term raising the minimum wage creates jobs as it puts more money into the base of the economy and creates more demand for goods and services. <BR/>I find it odd that folks that want the rest of us to beleive in the Laffler curve (as if anyone is buying that bullshit anymore) can't understand this basic economic principle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post-1163175975600078542006-11-10T11:26:00.000-05:002006-11-10T11:26:00.000-05:00Isn't there something wrong, though, with this who...Isn't there something wrong, though, with this whole idea that government's job is to "do things"? But I get your point, Doug, in that Repubs actually <I>were</I> doing things--they were supporting ill-reasoned wars, spending more money while cutting taxes, etc. I suppose you mean when you say that the Dems have to "do something" that they have to do something <I>good</I>. Though, of course, every political party thinks they are out to do something good.<BR/><BR/>As for the minimum wage, I'd be curious to hear your response to the economic arguments against it. Namely, that all things being equal it raises unemployment, thus hurting those workers who are only marginally productive in the first place--i.e., the poorest Americans.Hollahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05514363483138669469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post-1163164475312393982006-11-10T08:14:00.000-05:002006-11-10T08:14:00.000-05:00One nice thing about the 50 state stratagy was tha...One nice thing about the 50 state stratagy was that it forced the NRC to spend money defending supposedly safe seats. I work with a bunch of folks who were saddened by Ford's senate loss to Corker, but point out to them that the 35 million spent beating him could have been spent instead in Virginia, Missouri and elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>You post is dead on. I think also that Rahm Immanuel deserves alot of credit for finding guys like Shuler and convincing them to run. My opinion is that Immanuel was the biggest winner of the night, other than working class people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11250715.post-1163164425201766162006-11-10T08:13:00.000-05:002006-11-10T08:13:00.000-05:00Did you see the Pet Shop Boys on Dancing With the ...Did you see the Pet Shop Boys on Dancing With the Starst Wednesday night? They looked old......<BR/><BR/>Congrats on the election win...you have exactly two years to unfuck things...Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620502892377769484noreply@blogger.com