Mitt Romney believes Global Warming is REAL and a Major Problem

[SheriffJoe]

The data doesn't lie, only conservatives do. Just showing two lines on a graph with out any explanation is what economic illiterates do. It's already been shown to you that states with low populations tend to have lower unemployment rates. And 7 of the lowest unemployment rate states are 7 of the lowest population states making unemployment averages by state seriously skewed.

Pure spin - you don't like the raw unbiased data, so you simply skew the interpretation to fit your ideological purpose: the Obama way. The same way you view "bad weather" as "human induced" without any evidence except faulty 97% wrong computer models. LMFAO

Your economic back-asswardness imposing your political ideology on markets is the reason debt-driven economies the world over are in serious trouble.

Remember, the data doesn't lie, only libtards do.

Decades of research confirm Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker’s observation: “A higher minimum wage will further reduce the employment opportunities of workers with few skills.”

 

[SheriffJoe]

"Really, REALLY smart economists should set the minimum wage" -- aaakard LMFAO

Decades of research confirm Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker’s observation: “A higher minimum wage will further reduce the employment opportunities of workers with few skills.”

Hmmmm...who should we believe - Nobel Prize-winning economists, or your avg. liberal arts college brat rat?

I know, I know...so difficult. lol

 

[ScottL]

Next time someone starts a new thread on a topic that's already on Page 1
I'm going to post 10 music videos in a row.

 

[akphidelt]

"Really, REALLY smart economists should set the minimum wage" -- aaakard LMFAO

Decades of research confirm Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker’s observation: “A higher minimum wage will further reduce the employment opportunities of workers with few skills.”

Hmmmm...who should we believe - Nobel Prize-winning economists, or your avg. liberal arts college brat rat?

I know, I know...so difficult. lol

Lol, about time you are using actual economists and not random conservative bloggers. This is how real economists think. There are no absolutes and they actually look at data to come to conclusions. There is nothing he is saying that I do not agree with when it comes to the minimum wage.


Some proponents of higher minimum wages indicate that while they believe that small to “moderate’ increases in minimum wages have negligible effects on unemployment and employment, they admit that sizable increases in the minimum wage would significantly reduce employment. Obviously small changes usually have small effects, but this view appears to be claiming that the employment effect per each one per cent increase in the minimum wage gets bigger as the overall increase in the minimum wage gets larger. This is not at all obvious, and depends on complex substitution and complementarity relations with skilled labor and other inputs.


Even if one accepts the conclusion, as I do, that higher minimum wages lowers employment significantly of vulnerable groups like teenagers, this conclusion does not imply that minimum wages are an ineffective way to fight poverty. Higher minimum wages might still increase the overall earnings of the poor because the higher earnings of those who manage to keep their jobs dominates the negative effects on the earnings of workers who lose their jobs.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2013/02/is-raising-the-minimum-wage-a-good-idea-becker.html

 

[SheriffJoe]

The idea of a minimum wage is another long list of liberal fallacies. It presumes that there is an inherit value in work. But low-skilled work is not an economic parameter, it is physical parameter.

Economically, labor is just another product in the marketplace. It is in fact, a price.

Digging a hole (and filling it back up) that nobody needs is work to be sure, but it is not worth a dime (unless you're an akphidelt-Keynesian lol)

Only work that is needed by someone else who is willing to pay the price is useful in an economy.

Contrary to the myths of the left, the government cannot make a man ('labor') worth a given amount. So when the government arbitrarily passes a law that no one shall be paid less than $10hr, anyone earning below $10hr will find themselves unemployed. The data doesn't lie, only libtards do. The rest is political spin. If it were economically possible for the government to raise the price of labor, why not then make the minimum wage a billion? It's just more money tree econ bullshit from the same failed ideology.

There is only one way to raise the price of labor: higher production. The more an individual produces, the more his services are worth to consumers (the real purchaser of labor), and hence to employers.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Minimum Wage Madness

Thomas Sowell | Sep 17, 2013

Political crusades for raising the minimum wage are back again. Advocates of minimum wage laws often give themselves credit for being more "compassionate" towards "the poor." But they seldom bother to check what are the actual consequences of such laws.

One of the simplest and most fundamental economic principles is that people tend to buy more when the price is lower and less when the price is higher. Yet advocates of minimum wage laws seem to think that the government can raise the price of labor without reducing the amount of labor that will be hired.

When you turn from economic principles to hard facts, the case against minimum wage laws is even stronger. Countries with minimum wage laws almost invariably have higher rates of unemployment than countries without minimum wage laws.

Most nations today have minimum wage laws, but they have not always had them. Unemployment rates have been very much lower in places and times when there were no minimum wage laws.

Switzerland is one of the few modern nations without a minimum wage law. In 2003, "The Economist" magazine reported: "Switzerland's unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9 percent in February." In February of this year, Switzerland's unemployment rate was 3.1 percent. A recent issue of "The Economist" showed Switzerland's unemployment rate as 2.1 percent.

Most Americans today have never seen unemployment rates that low. However, there was a time when there was no federal minimum wage law in the United States. The last time was during the Coolidge administration, when the annual unemployment rate got as low as 1.8 percent. When Hong Kong was a British colony, it had no minimum wage law. In 1991 its unemployment rate was under 2 percent.

As for being "compassionate" toward "the poor," this assumes that there is some enduring class of Americans who are poor in some meaningful sense, and that there is something compassionate about reducing their chances of getting a job.

Most Americans living below the government-set poverty line have a washer and/or a dryer, as well as a computer. More than 80 percent have air conditioning. More than 80 percent also have both a landline and a cell phone. Nearly all have television and a refrigerator. Most Americans living below the official poverty line also own a motor vehicle and have more living space than the average European -- not Europeans in poverty, the average European.

Why then are they called "poor"? Because government bureaucrats create the official definition of poverty, and they do so in ways that provide a political rationale for the welfare state -- and, not incidentally, for the bureaucrats' own jobs.

Most people in the lower income brackets are not an enduring class. Most working people in the bottom 20 percent in income at a given time do not stay there over time. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain behind in the bottom 20 percent.

There is nothing mysterious about the fact that most people start off in entry level jobs that pay much less than they will earn after they get some work experience. But, when minimum wage levels are set without regard to their initial productivity, young people are disproportionately unemployed -- priced out of jobs.

In European welfare states where minimum wages, and mandated job benefits to be paid for by employers, are more generous than in the United States, unemployment rates for younger workers are often 20 percent or higher, even when there is no recession.

Unemployed young people lose not only the pay they could have earned but, at least equally important, the work experience that would enable them to earn higher rates of pay later on.

Minorities, like young people, can also be priced out of jobs. In the United States, the last year in which the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate -- 1930 -- was also the last year when there was no federal minimum wage law. Inflation in the 1940s raised the pay of even unskilled workers above the minimum wage set in 1938. Economically, it was the same as if there were no minimum wage law by the late 1940s.

In 1948 the unemployment rate of black 16-year-old and 17-year-old males was 9.4 percent. This was a fraction of what it would become in even the most prosperous years from 1958 on, as the minimum wage was raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation.

Some "compassion" for "the poor"!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, actual economists.

Or...

Brainwashed liberal arts college punks who think, "really, REALLY smart economists should set the minimum wage!"

I know, very though decision. I'm going to have to think about it, lol.

:laughingb