SOTU- I didnt watch but caught 1 sound byte..............$9/hr minimum wage?

[.blank cd]

Devils advocate

So you are admitting that very very few people are on minimum wage anyway, so the $2 a raise is not much. So, defacto, President Obama is basically pandering to a speck of people that dont really matter or mean much in the overall economy.

Its a political talking point, that solves pretty much nothing that the economy is facing right now.

Am i right?

Yes. That's what I've been saying.

Worst case scenario is its a wash. The ones receiving the raise are spending in in the same places. Those places see marginally increased sales, the workers themselves feel more valuable, thus a marginal increase in productivity. No one really sees a net decrease in profitability with a min wage raise.

[David88vert]

CATO's Mark Wilson does not endorse the raising of minimum wage. Mark Wilson is a former deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor. He currently heads Applied Economic Strategies, LLC, and has more than 25 years of experience researching labor force economic issues.
The Negative Effects of Minimum Wage Laws | Cato Institute


Neither does James Dorn - Obama's Minimum Wage Hike: A Case of Zombie Economics | James A. Dorn | Cato Institute

[.blank cd]

I'm interested in reading that when I get home.

[.blank cd]

http://thecontributor.com/40-america...8-minimum-wage

[David88vert]

40% of Americans Now Make Less Than 1968 Minimum Wage | The Contributor

Here's a couple of issues with that articel.

First, it's mainly a link to other articles that the author wanted to promote. Little was written by the author in a contributing way. The other articles should be separate talking points, so we will stick to his main arguement (pretty short). Here's a hint - he labeled it Hint, and stated it at the beginning.
"(Hint: it’s the 1 percent; this is one driver of the terrible income and wealth inequality.) "
This brings us to the second issue - his assumption that income and wealth inequality is terrible. Life is not fair, and people are not given equal portions of wealth when they are born, nor should their income growth be regulated. Specifically, the descendants of Sam Walton are singled out and attacked. Sam Walton took risks, and they paid off. he started off on a farm during the Depression and worked up to being rich. That is what this country is about.

Another issue is that the author puts forth the concept that productivity has increased solely due to workers who are paid minimum wage, and gives no report of workers who have created patents, technology, processes, that improve productivity. I can tell you from experience in the workforce that workers that improve the productivity of a company or industry do not stay at minimum wage. Thus, his promoted principle that minimum wage should be linked to productivity is ill-informed, at best.
His quote - "“If the minimum wage had risen in step with productivity growth [since 1968], it would be over $16.50 an hour today. That is higher than the hourly wages earned by 40 percent of men and half of women.” - does not address any of the productivity improvements gained through reseach and development of technology. The reason that I point this out is because the author, Dave Johnson, spent the majority of his career in IT - and not in economic policy.
"Dave Johnson is a fellow at at the Campaign for America's future, and has more than 20 years of technology industry experience including positions as CEO and VP of marketing. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic. And he was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational applications of personal computers. More recently he helped co-found a company developing desktop systems to validate carbon trading in the U.S."

[Echonova]

Here's a couple of issues with that articel.

First, it's mainly a link to other articles that the author wanted to promote. Little was written by the author in a contributing way. The other articles should be separate talking points, so we will stick to his main arguement (pretty short). Here's a hint - he labeled it Hint, and stated it at the beginning.
"(Hint: it’s the 1 percent; this is one driver of the terrible income and wealth inequality.) "
This brings us to the second issue - his assumption that income and wealth inequality is terrible. Life is not fair, and people are not given equal portions of wealth when they are born, nor should their income growth be regulated. Specifically, the descendants of Sam Walton are singled out and attacked. Sam Walton took risks, and they paid off. he started off on a farm during the Depression and worked up to being rich. That is what this country is about.

Another issue is that the author puts forth the concept that productivity has increased solely due to workers who are paid minimum wage, and gives no report of workers who have created patents, technology, processes, that improve productivity. I can tell you from experience in the workforce that workers that improve the productivity of a company or industry do not stay at minimum wage. Thus, his promoted principle that minimum wage should be linked to productivity is ill-informed, at best.
His quote - "“If the minimum wage had risen in step with productivity growth [since 1968], it would be over $16.50 an hour today. That is higher than the hourly wages earned by 40 percent of men and half of women.” - does not address any of the productivity improvements gained through reseach and development of technology. The reason that I point this out is because the author, Dave Johnson, spent the majority of his career in IT - and not in economic policy.
"Dave Johnson is a fellow at at the Campaign for America's future, and has more than 20 years of technology industry experience including positions as CEO and VP of marketing. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic. And he was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational applications of personal computers. More recently he helped co-found a company developing desktop systems to validate carbon trading in the U.S."

Burnt y0 toast son!!!!

[bu villain]

I read both articles and they both make good points but are from completely different perspectives on what is important so they talk past eachother.

The CATO article argues that a minimum wage increase will lead to less jobs and that is probably true at least as an immediate effect. However, the fundamental purpose of minimum wage laws is not to promote economic or job growth. It is to ensure a full time worker can make enough to live on and to prevent exploitation of workers who need whatever money they can get. Further, it doesn't discuss secondary effects of how putting more money in the pockets of minimum wage earners will effect the economy in the long term. (Dislaimer: I didn't read the attached document so maybe they discuss more details there)

The Contributor article argues that wages should follow productivity gains. I don't see that as a given since technology can improve productivity while requiring less labor. It focuses a lot on how the middle class is dwindling and discusses some of the reasons why such as outsourcing but doesn't explain how raising the minimum wage would lead to a recoupling of wages to productivity or why they should be coupled in the first place.

[.blank cd]

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/28...bama-requested

I also heard something about the CEO of Subway bitching about raising the minimum wage.

Cue the boycotts.