It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Top Economists Are Backing Sen. Bernie Sanders on Establishing a $15 an Hour Minimum Wage

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So, it is not so top economists then?
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Basically it seems there is no such thing as "top economists" because none of them can agree on anything.




posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Austrian economics are we?

As yet I am unaware of any professor be it at Harvard,Princeton,Yale or Duke that has created an accurate model for the new central bank and bank proxy economy most western nations have had since 2008 maybe you can print to infinity but there is also growth and spending(the real economy) which as I said by the end of this year will be a problem



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Don't worry!
By 2020 cheap bread will be 4-5 dollars a loaf, hamburger will be 10-15 a LB and milk will be 6-8 dollars a gallon for 2%.
It will be illegal for you to milk or butcher your own cow or livestock, farm your own wheat or even tend your own garden.

Thats all this wage hike is about, people just want to be able to live off of their hard labor and they should. I suggest to anyone making this wage when and if it goes into force to stockpile (while you can) everything, I mean EVERYTHING!

Inflation, stagnation will cause the corporate wars. (a future tense) IMHO and a prediction.
edit on 7/26/15 by proob4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum
Actually I was referring to unsustainable social benefits, the effects of which the U.S. is not immune to. (Pardon the grammar)

When compounded with factors such as mandated, "extended" vacation and early retirement... the money has to come from somewhere.



edit on 7/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

From a paper I wrote on the topic:

"The law’s southern foes were somewhat vindicated in their concerns, when the Department of Labor reported the loss of between 30,000 and 50,000 jobs, with approximately 90% of those being from a few southern industries. Although during the first year, both wages and employment over the entire country did increase, the labor Secretary suggested it could not be “attributed solely to the FLSA”. Instead, she merely acknowledged the law had not hampered the growth of the economy, as some suggested would be the result."

Source: Grossman, Jonathan. “Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938: Maximum Struggle for a Minimum Wage.” Monthly Labor Review 101, no. 6 (June 1978): 28

More from a presentation I made:

"New York increased its minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.75, from 2004 to 2006. The result was a reduction in employment of 16-19 year olds with no HS diploma - 20.2 to 21.8%. Those aged 16-24 were most affected."

These are the very people the minimum wage increase is intended to help; at least that's how it's sold to the people.

Source: Sabia, Joseph J., Richard V. Burkhauser, And Benjamin Hansen. “Are The Effects Of Minimum Wage Increases Always Small? New Evidence From A Case Study Of New York State.” Industrial & Labor Relations Review 65, no. 2 (April 2012): 350–376.


ETA: I should also mention that was a result of establishing a $0.25 per hour minimum. Roosevelt wanted $0.40. Additionally. there currently exist at least a dozen exemptions to the minimum wage, many of which are those most people believe will benefit from an increase.
edit on 26-7-2015 by WTFover because: Additional information



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So, it is not so top economists then?
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Basically it seems there is no such thing as "top economists" because none of them can agree on anything.


to get 5 opinions put 4 economists in a room alone.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The only true welfare is a job,as to how much you pay obviously it should be engineered so that welfare benefits,food stamps et al are not a better alternative,or in the case of unemployment benefits when you get a job again pay the damn money back it should be a loan not a gift.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: whatmakesyouright
I think a big raise in minimum wage should have happened at a time like the 90's, during the e-boom. A time when there are plenty of people spending plenty of money, and then carry that momentum over to higher wages. Doing it now, when people aren't spending money, well, say good-bye to your local used book store, your local small diner that you stop at for coffee and breakfast every now and then, good-bye to all the small businesses, and hello corporate America. Starbucks on every corner, and WalMart in every shopping center.


Actually the time is now following the example of the EU. So id say it's just the next step and economically is sound. The more workers are paid the more they spend the more they spend the more stuff we make. Economics 101.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum

Unemployment benefits are not paid by the government (income taxes). They are paid by employers. The fewer employees of a given employer collect unemployment benefits, the lower that employer's unemployment premium. It's actually a pretty reasonable system, it discourages unjustifiable layoffs.

Should an employee be on the hook for circumstances which require an employer to lay them off?
edit on 7/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: rockpaperhammock
"One of the issues I take with this is even most professional positions in small towns start under 15 dollars an hour."

Yeah, and you can also rent an apartment in those small rural towns for $500, even a decent two bedroom. In cities, any one bedroom is $1000 at least. That's part of the challenge of this. I lived in cities for many years, and I can tell you for a fact this move is right for them. Then I moved to a rural area and lived off nothing, and I see your point.

The big issue is the economists are right on real value: They have been printing money so its worth less, so all those rural people have taken tremendous pay cuts. 15 hours of minimum wage bought an ounce of gold in 1956, for perspective, now it takes 180 hours to get the same ounce. The $15 an hour they make today buys the same as minimum wage decades ago due to money printing dollar devaluation, while the richest 1% have become richer (in real value) then ever in history. these rural professionals are already getting minimum wage the reason life still seems pretty good is the increase in productivity they mention: Technology is making more, cheaper. But people aren't able to partake in the gains.

It would be less of a shock to the system if they took regional cost of living into account though. People in new york city probably need like $18, people in Seattle $16, people in smaller cities $13, people in rural areas $11, to have a basic life.



edit on 26-7-2015 by tridentblue because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: Phage

The only true welfare is a job,as to how much you pay obviously it should be engineered so that welfare benefits,food stamps et al are not a better alternative,or in the case of unemployment benefits when you get a job again pay the damn money back it should be a loan not a gift.


Employers pay Unemployment from a fund the government requires them to pay in to. So you could say by working that was money the individual didn't receive in compensation. But your right welfare is state money and yes we make it difficult for a person to get off welfare making 8.00 an hour. I think it was Maryland that just set theres to 10.25.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It depends for criminal or criminally negligent behaviour yes they should be held responsible for most other reasons downsizing,economic downturn etc no,if they are incompetent no as the hiring process was obviously lacking,if they are lazy no as motivational skills/balance of consequences/counselling skills aren't properly administered.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

The more workers are paid the more they spend the more they spend the more stuff we make. Economics 101.


That's the same flawed logic of the Bush tax rebates, that were supposed to kick start the economy. The truth is, the more people earn, the more "stuff" costs, so they end up able to afford the same amount or less.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum
Firing someone for incompetence means that they cannot collect unemployment insurance (subject to appeal).

Do you think an employee should be required to "repay" unemployment benefits because their employer went out of businsess?
edit on 7/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: tridentblue

It would be less of a shock to the system if they took regional cost of living into account though. People in new york city probably need like $18, people in Seattle $16, people in smaller cities $13, people in rural areas $11, to have a basic life.


And that's why the federal minimum wage laws should be repealed and wages should be left to the market. The Invisible Hand at work.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The Unions are a bit more powerful here you virtually have to be going to prison before you loose unemployment/termination benefits.

Here it is the Federal Government that pays so yes here it should work just like a university loan.Im not in America so I cant really comment for there.
edit on 26-7-2015 by khnum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


originally posted by: Phage
Define "top economist."

Shills for the federal reserve.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
But your right welfare is state money and yes we make it difficult for a person to get off welfare making 8.00 an hour. I think it was Maryland that just set theres to 10.25.


But, "welfare" isn't "state money." It's taken from employees and employers, in the form of taxes. So, it's also compensation the employee could have received.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum

The Unions are a bit more powerful here you virtually have to be going to prison before you loose unemployment/termination benefits.
If by "here" you mean the U.S., I disagree. Being fired for cause means no unemployment benefits. Unions don't really give a damn.



edit on 7/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

My definition would be 'something not found on CNBC"



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join