President Obama’s War on Poseidon

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 9581
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 3:24 pm

PostTue Feb 25, 2014 12:46 am » by *WillEase*


February 24, 2014 • From theTrumpet.com
How do we know that raising the minimum wage will end poverty? Because I said so.

Image


“In the coming weeks, I will issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to pay their federally-funded employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour,” President Barack Obama said during his State of the Union speech. “[I]f you cook our troops’ meals or wash their dishes, you shouldn’t have to live in poverty.”

If solving economic problems were only so easy: Issue an executive order; Command businesses to pay employees more; Make companies promise not to fire employees. End poverty by decree.

Realistically, you might as well stand before the ocean and command the waves to cease.

Are there not economic laws? Laws that determine employment levels? Doesn’t supply and demand determine what jobs are worth? Can these laws simply be banished by presidential edict?

And what about poverty? Can it simply be extinguished from the land by outlawing all jobs that pay less than $10.10 per hour?

During President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union speech he told America that poverty could be eliminated by prohibiting jobs that pay less than $9 per hour. Now he says jobs that pay less than $10.10 per hour should be exiled.

Doing what he says will “lift millions of Americans out of poverty and help millions more work their way out of poverty,” says the president. Best of all, it won’t require a “single dollar in new taxes or spending.”

See what a great plan this is? There is no downside.

To illustrate the lunacy that passes for economic literacy today, the Huffington Post and the Economic Policy Institute (epi) have come to the aid of the president. Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour would actually cause the economy to “grow by about $22 billion” and result in 85,000 new jobs, they say!

Hahaha. Ocean, I command you to recede!

If a measly $2.85 per hour is all it takes to add another $20 billion or so to the economy, why stop there? Why not give the economy a real boost and raise it by $5.70 per hour and add $40 billion. Or raise it to $57 per hour and add $400 billion! We can all be rich via government decree.

In case you think $57 per hour is out-of-this-world ridiculous, the Huffington Post actually argues that the minimum wage should really be at least $21.72 per hour based upon advances in productivity. Businesses should be forced to share that bounty and pay workers what they “deserve,” they argue. The epi says the fair minimum wage should only be $18.30 per hour.

So here is a tip for the Huffington Post’s economic writers and the analysts down at the Economic Policy Institute: time for a career change.

If all it takes to eliminate poverty is raising the minimum wage—why haven’t we done this before?

The answer is: We have—and often.

Based upon the same flawed populist pandering, and in the name of “fixing poverty,” President George W. Bush raised the minimum wage three times. The last raise went into effect in 2009. President Bill Clinton raised the minimum wage twice. “These 10 million Americans will become part of America’s economic success story,'’ he declared. President George Bush also raised the minimum wage.

Meanwhile, many states went further. Twenty-one adopted minimum wages higher than the federal level.

Did that fix poverty in those states? Did it result in lower unemployment? If so, would we be here talking about it again?

Common sense tells you that making it more costly to hire workers results in fewer jobs, not more.

So what does raising the minimum wage actually do? It hurts the very people politicians claim to be helping.

It is possible that small rises in the minimum wage would not cause many job losses, but raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 is a massive 39.3 percent increase. It is beyond ridiculous to seriously propose that such whopping increases wouldn’t impede hiring and cause job losses. People who claim otherwise generally point to all the extra spending poor people will do once they get raises, but they conveniently downplay the other consequences.

If companies are mandated to spend more on labor, that increased spending must come from somewhere—that is an economic law that can’t be avoided. Some people say that raising the minimum wage would make people work harder, reduce turnover, and increase productivity. Reality argues otherwise. So, when possible, businesses will pass their increased costs on to consumers. When prices go up, the cost of living goes up—and everyone’s money becomes less valuable. When passing on the cost is not possible, employees will be let go. Or some combination of the above takes place.

Additionally, if businesses have to pay more for workers, they have less incentive to expand.

“How many stores will Walmart, Pizza Hut, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, etc., not open that they would have otherwise if the minimum wage rockets up to $10.10?” economic analyst Mike Shedlock asks. Good question!

Additionally, as the price of labor goes up—the drive toward automation, which is rapidly accelerating, will speed up even further. How many more self-checkout lines and robots will we see? Again, this means fewer jobs for the unskilled poor.

Here is how Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman famously described minimum wage laws and those that push them (emphasis added):

The fact is, the programs labeled as being “for the poor,” or “for the needy,” almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intend them to have.

[T]ake the minimum wage law. … The do-gooders believe that by passing a law saying that nobody shall get less than … whatever the minimum wage is, you are helping poor people who need the money. You are doing nothing of the kind. What you are doing is to assure that people whose skills are not sufficient to justify that kind of a wage will be unemployed. …

The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying that employers must discriminate against people who have low skills. … Thus, the consequences of minimum wage laws have been almost wholly bad. We have increased unemployment and increased poverty.

There is absolutely no positive objective achieved by the minimum wage law. Its real purpose is to reduce competition for the trade unions and make it easier for them to maintain the higher wages of their privileged members.

America has known for decades that minimum wage laws actually do the opposite of what politicians claim. Yet we keep pushing them. Isn’t that the definition of arrogance? Doing the same thing over and over again yet expecting a different result just because this time you said so?

And remember, the proposed minimum wage hike comes on top of the Obamacare penalties that are also raising the cost of employing people.

There will be additional consequences for poor people too.

For example, there will also be fewer full-time jobs. Businesses will logically seek to keep healthcare costs to a minimum and avoid the penalties of Obamacare by employing more part-time and fewer full-time workers.

That is why President Obama recently issued another executive order mandating all businesses certify under penalty of perjury that they are not firing workers due to Obamacare.

By presidential order I command that businesses are no longer allowed to fire people.

Now businesses are not allowed to make staffing decisions based on tax-implications or their healthcare costs? How is this ridiculous law even enforceable?

It’s as if America’s rulers think they can void the consequences of their diktats by simply issuing more diktats.

The truth is, poverty cannot be made to disappear simply by ordering it to disappear. Jobs cannot be created by mandating businesses to employ more people. Economic laws and the consequences for breaking them cannot be avoided.

You might as well do as Roman Emperor Caligula did and declare war on Poseidon. He ordered his soldiers to march to the sea and stab the waves. After declaring victory, he proclaimed himself a god more powerful than Poseidon. And ordered his soldiers to collect a treasure chest of worthless seashells as proof.

Caligula issued a lot of ridiculous orders that could not be carried out. He wasted a lot of time and effort fighting a fake war. He also spent a lot of resources trying to convince people he was a god.

But none of that changed reality. He was not God. His orders could not negate natural laws. And, in the end, all his ridiculous antics led to his downfall. It wasn’t long before Caligula was replaced by Claudius.

Raising the minimum wage will not end poverty any more than stabbing at the ocean and commanding the tide to recede will make you a god.

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:36 pm

PostTue Feb 25, 2014 2:09 am » by Domeika


*WillEase* wrote:February 24, 2014 • From theTrumpet.com
How do we know that raising the minimum wage will end poverty? Because I said so.

Image


That's a stinging rebuke of Obama and his ilk. Great read.
:cheers:

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 17789
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:20 am
Location: babysitting

PostTue Feb 25, 2014 2:14 am » by The57ironman


Domeika wrote:
*WillEase* wrote:February 24, 2014 • From theTrumpet.com
How do we know that raising the minimum wage will end poverty? Because I said so.

Image


That's a stinging rebuke of Obama and his ilk. Great read.
:cheers:

Image
.






..... If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.......
.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 6235
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 10:00 pm
Location: Zin-Uru

PostTue Feb 25, 2014 2:38 am » by Kinninigan


*WillEase* wrote:
You might as well do as Roman Emperor Caligula did and declare war on Poseidon. He ordered his soldiers to march to the sea and stab the waves. After declaring victory, he proclaimed himself a god more powerful than Poseidon. And ordered his soldiers to collect a treasure chest of worthless seashells as proof.





Bastard killed the mermaids, is a dis-info story. The sea shells were mermaid bras













:peep:
It was written in prophecy that a Gelfling would end Skeksis rule...
Image
https://www.youtube.com/user/kinninigan

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 9581
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 3:24 pm

PostTue Feb 25, 2014 7:18 am » by *WillEase*


Kinninigan wrote:
*WillEase* wrote:
You might as well do as Roman Emperor Caligula did and declare war on Poseidon. He ordered his soldiers to march to the sea and stab the waves. After declaring victory, he proclaimed himself a god more powerful than Poseidon. And ordered his soldiers to collect a treasure chest of worthless seashells as proof.



Bastard killed the mermaids, is a dis-info story. The sea shells were mermaid bras



You made me spit out my drink cracking up. Good one K... :cheers:

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:39 pm

PostTue Feb 25, 2014 7:51 am » by Middleman


Giving someone who earns $15 thousand per year another 5 or 6 grand in their pay check is an efficient way of stimulating the economy, because their poverty forces them to spend it, and a lot of that spending is local.

Then there's the money the government saves on food stamps and other assistance, because people who work can better pay for themselves.

Obama can't make private businesses pay a higher minimum wage, but he can pay Federal employees better, applying both moral and market place competitive pressure on the rest of the economy.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 9581
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 3:24 pm

PostTue Feb 25, 2014 11:17 am » by *WillEase*


Domeika wrote:
*WillEase* wrote:February 24, 2014 • From theTrumpet.com
How do we know that raising the minimum wage will end poverty? Because I said so.

Image


That's a stinging rebuke of Obama and his ilk. Great read.
:cheers:


Oh I agree.
I guarantee Middleman didn't even read the article.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2321
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:16 am

PostTue Feb 25, 2014 11:20 am » by mediasorcery


Middleman wrote:Giving someone who earns $15 thousand per year another 5 or 6 grand in their pay check is an efficient way of stimulating the economy, because their poverty forces them to spend it, and a lot of that spending is local.

Then there's the money the government saves on food stamps and other assistance, because people who work can better pay for themselves.

Obama can't make private businesses pay a higher minimum wage, but he can pay Federal employees better, applying both moral and market place competitive pressure on the rest of the economy.




why am i not surprised u dont get it? did u read the article, that states both bush and clinton tried the same thing, yet still economy in shitter today? :think:
the story of life is quicker than the blink of an eye, the story of love is hello and goodbye, until we meet again my friend.

Writer
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:39 am
Location: UK

PostTue Feb 25, 2014 1:24 pm » by DuncanM


Way tl;dr, but I don't think anyone is claiming a raise in the *federal* minimum wage will "end poverty".

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:39 pm

PostTue Feb 25, 2014 6:47 pm » by Middleman


mediasourcery wrote: both bush and clinton tried the same thing, yet still economy in shitter today?


That must be the reason, then. I find it hard to take anyone seriously when their measure of a complex macro-economic mechanism is "economy=still in the shitter; must not have worked".

Besides, you can't sand bag Clinton on the economy. It did well in the 90s. Is that a hint the article might not quite be calling a square game?

You ask if I've read the article, as if it's the first or definitive study of the effects of raising the minimum wage. I've read it. I've also read a shitload of things that say the exact opposite. Things written by Nobel prize winning economists.

There are respected economists from opposing schools of thought who broadly agree with the Trumpet. Is everyone who disagrees with you automatically an idiot who doesn't even understand the question? Or can we respect that we each have our reasons for choosing which experts we believe, and which way we interpret the data?

willEase wrote:I guarantee Middleman didn't even read the article.


Yeah, it was just a coincidence that I was making an exact counter argument to the article, pointing out specifically how half the economists explain the stimulating effects of raising the minimum wage.

Next time you guys want to accuse me of not reading the OP or "not getting it", remember this thread, where you cut and pasted or cheered for the dumbed down trumpet version of your economic philosophy, but apparently didn't understand it well enough to spot when someone was putting forward the classic opposing view points.

Everything I wrote in that quoted post is reasons why my side thinks raising the minimum wage is an efficient way to stimulate the economy. I invite anyone to attack it as hard as they like.


Next

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook