Economics 101: Raise Minimum Wage and Jobs Decrease

From that budget also goes for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan but also remember that the money allocated to this two war zones are going missing.

Billions of dollars missing.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Yes, you are right, it's been mostly military expansion. But it has been necessary, imo.

Bush unfortunately became president at a very bad time. I doubt that any president from any party would have been able to control spending, given the circumstances.

In the waning months of the Clinton administration an unelected Randian economist, Alan Greenspan, incrementally tortured to death a rapidly expanding internet/technology based economy via a series of draconian interest rate increases that ultimately caused venture capital for these new businesses to dry up. A lot of small tech companies were eating the corporate tech giants for lunch by being more nimble and inventive in the market place, so the corporate "powers that be" conspired with Greenspan to neuter their skilled competitors via this malicious economic policy. This resulted in the little guys being forced out of business or being forced to sell their business to the corporate interests. Necessary my butt, it was a well calculate plan.

Now back to our regularly scheduled propaganda.

[edit on 15-2-2007 by df1]

I would seriously love to hear more deatils on your story about Greenspan, df1. But that wasn't the expansion I was referring to.

Actually what Df1 is referring to, or I think he is referring to is the unreported fact that the last recession was caused by Greenspan and then later pushed by bush etal. What I mean is this... in the late 90's Greenspan started saying that the economy (which was and still remains far better than anything bush minor and his cronies have done) was overheated and started increasing the interest rates to "cool" it down... ie cause a recession, which it promptly did. It was not a bad recession as such things go. I worked at the time as a chef and the food service industry is very much a canary in a coal mine business. If the economy turns sour you see it there first, and we never saw a drop off in business. Then Bush and Cheney started pushing the notion of this recession as the reason we needed tax cuts... then 9/11 happened and the economy, didn't so much go into recession as it paused, and they were able to get everything they wanted, much in the long run to the determent of the national budget. Proof in point the GAO insists that we would be in the black now even with Iraq and Afghanistan if it weren't for the tax cuts.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I would seriously love to hear more deatils on your story about Greenspan, df1. But that wasn't the expansion I was referring to.

You must be the only one on ATS that wants to hear about Greenspan. Sorry to interupt, I thought we were talking about the minimum wage and related economic issues.

SHOW ME THE MONEY SUPPLY TOTALS! Since the start of this thread I've been trying to talk about the FED, interest rates and the money supply and how we need hard numbers on the money supply to calculate an accurate inflation rate. The so called conservatives are continuously harping about what increasing the minimum wage will do to the inflation rate, but still they are completely impotent to obtain the accurate numbers needed to do the necessary math to calculate inflation.

GREENSPAN KILLED THE FREE MARKET! Now back to Greenspan, his actions shoot down the capitalist myth of the small entrepreneur successfully competing in the market place against large wealthy corporations. The free market was soaring to unheard of heights until this corporate flim flam man killed it. Clearly his interest rate increases demonstrates that the US economy is a managed economy based on a fiat currency that has no relation to free market capitalism.

Without any tangible evidence of a free market capitalism and without valid money supply totals to calculate inflation, it is unreasonable and dishonest to use either as a basis to oppose increasing the minimum wage.

The small business can never truly compete with corporations if only because of the buying power of the large conglomerates. There are those like me who prefer to support small businesses whenever I can even if it costs me a little more but we are rare.

BTW supporting small businesses is REALLY buying American... even if what they have wasn't made here. When you help a small business you help you help the local economy and the local community.

There are things that the big corporations can never replace even when they try and the number one thing is the very thing they kill and that is community and diversity.

The day of corporations is ending because of the internet revolution allowing the entrepreneur to succeed. Also I would like to thank those who correctly label Greenspan a Randian Economist, not an objectivist. The difference is that Randians worship Ayn Rand and disavow the principles she preached.

However Greenspan did not kill the economy. Greenspan succeeded in warning numerous administrations into try to understand the free market and how the invisible hand with the help of the interest rates can control this wild horse. What went wrong was an internet economy based on hype finally collapsed. Anyone who understands the stock market knows that Clinton nor Greenspan had anything to do with people investing in companies with no capital.

Anyone can be an entrepeneur, the key is to stick with it and have the ability. The world needs businessmen, teachers, cooks, and garbage men. The key is to find what you are good at and get someone to pay you for it, if they value it. When live hands you a crappy deck, go play craps, that's why its a free market, not a communist regime.

Originally posted by marg6043
From that budget also goes for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan but also remember that the money allocated to this two war zones are going missing.

Billions of dollars missing.

Who can forget the billions that our own people "lost" reconstructing the Gulf States.

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
how the invisible hand with the help of the interest rates can control this wild horse.

His interest rate increases sent the horse to the glue factory rather than taming it.

What went wrong was an internet economy based on hype finally collapsed. Anyone who understands the stock market knows that Clinton nor Greenspan had anything to do with people investing in companies with no capital.

What happened to your reverence for the capitalist free market? In a free market the hype would have taken care of itself without any help from our conflicted Randian economist. TV commercials hype all kinds of products of questionable benefit, why did Alan find the Internet hype to be any different?

Venture capitalist were investing in companies that possessed intellectual capital rather than brick & mortar capital until Greenspan artifically changed the risk/cost/benefit ratio. Again in a free market these investments would have sorted themselves out, but Greenspan didn't let this happen.

When live hands you a crappy deck, go play craps, that's why its a free market, not a communist regime.

What difference do you see between a communist managed economy versus a capitalist managed economy? In the end both seem to insure that the fruits of labor remain in the same hands.

[edit on 15-2-2007 by df1]

Originally posted by df1
GREENSPAN KILLED THE FREE MARKET! Now back to Greenspan, his actions shoot down the capitalist myth of the small entrepreneur successfully competing in the market place against large wealthy corporations. The free market was soaring to unheard of heights until this corporate flim flam man killed it. Clearly his interest rate increases demonstrates that the US economy is a managed economy based on a fiat currency that has no relation to free market capitalism.

I'm no expert on economics. But I bought my first home in the days when Jimmy Carter was President. Double-digit interest rates were the rule of the day.

Any time that you can get a home mortgage for 6% interest or less seems very reasonable to me.

Originally posted by grover
The small business can never truly compete with corporations if only because of the buying power of the large conglomerates. There are those like me who prefer to support small businesses whenever I can even if it costs me a little more but we are rare.

BTW supporting small businesses is REALLY buying American... even if what they have wasn't made here. When you help a small business you help you help the local economy and the local community.

There are things that the big corporations can never replace even when they try and the number one thing is the very thing they kill and that is community and diversity.

Absolutely right. And the smart small businesses that flourish do so because they cater to niche markets and quality products, imo.

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
However Greenspan did not kill the economy. Greenspan succeeded in warning numerous administrations into try to understand the free market and how the invisible hand with the help of the interest rates can control this wild horse. What went wrong was an internet economy based on hype finally collapsed. Anyone who understands the stock market knows that Clinton nor Greenspan had anything to do with people investing in companies with no capital.

Bravo! I am so glad you said this! Clinton had nothing to do with the dot-com boom. Alfred E. Newman could have been president at the time with the same results; Clinton was merely lucky.

And the investment bubble of ideas that were not backed by real products was destined to !pop! and it just so happens that GWB was in office then, and took the rap for it.

The Greenspan style of federal reserve management is still being used by Bernachi. The economy is doing better than ever. The key is that when Bernachi speaks the market thinks before it reacts. When Greenspan appeared on CNBC back in the 1990's and way early 2000's, the market would tank in fear of what he would say. Though I fully disagree with government regulation in the markets, the US economy has become literally dependent on it.

A heroin addict needs his fix and cold turkey can be fatal. The same goes for the US economy. Though this system is slowly killing it, its better than a totally open market. A free market must be weened in through simple easement of regulations. The easing of markets in the automotive sector are a perfect example. Toyota workers make higher wages with benefits than their unionist counter parts. This is because they do good work and Toyota realizes to attract good skilled labor you have to pay good.

I doubt I'll ever see an Objectivist utopia, but if there is one out there I sure as hell want John Galt to invite me before the # hits the fan.

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
When Greenspan appeared on CNBC back in the 1990's and way early 2000's, the market would tank in fear of what he would say. Though I fully disagree with government regulation in the markets, the US economy has become literally dependent on it.

I never could understand the mystique that this man seemed to have, or his effect on the financial world. Markets would rise or fall depending upon his whisper.

I doubt I'll ever see an Objectivist utopia, but if there is one out there I sure as hell want John Galt to invite me before the # hits the fan.

I hear that there is a valley in Colorado where certain people have "relocated" to. I'll meet you there.

that's supposedly where it is...hehe....Dagny is supposedly hot, which Angelina is rumored to be cast as her!

Originally posted by CAConrad0825


Students: I meant college, which I am one, and I do participate in this system, plus FAFSA is a flawed system. I receive no little to no assistance from my parents but get screwed out of financial aid because of what they earn. Non-subsidized loans and Academic scholarships pay my way at a PRIVATE university.

Supplemental Income: I meant elderly who have retirement, assisted by their family and churches. We have numerous sources of charity in this country and too often these go to waste because no one utilizes them.

I have worked numerous jobs where I had to leave and could not find another for months at a time, but you bite the bullet and deal with the hard times. The days of old money aren't really around anymore. A lot of people who have money are still first generation.

My own step-father was one such. He never completed college and worked at a railroad company. Being neither protestant nor anglo-saxon he couldn't get into the union and hit a glass ceiling. He left went to work for RCA records and then later retired with his EARNED wealth. Anyone who says that because he was a manager and should have sacrificed his income to help another lowly entry level worker should get a reality check.

I know what you mean about the state of financial aid....I have three sons who would love to go to college, but, the money isn't there for them. One joined the service in hopes that they will honor their promises of college aid after he serves his time. another is working one of the minimum wage jobs, still living at home, while he stashes all he can away, he'll take his courses as he financially can. might take longer, but well, he won't be starting his life out hopelessly in debt either. the third is my computer wiz and well, he's learning all he can online without the aid of school.

oh, so you mean those little 80 or so old ladies that are working in my shop when you say supplementing their income. got news for ya.....I don't think they would be working if they didn't have to.....and, more than likely they need to because they were being paid the same pathetically pay that they are now their whole lives...and well, was never really given much opportunites to save up for retirement.

and hey, ya know what....
I've known managers of major chains having to depend on hud to help them keep a roof over their families head....so, well, when you talk about managers and their right to their pay....
but I bet somewhere up in the ranks of those chains there was a few making a few hundred times more than these managers..
it's not any more delusional for me to think that these managers should be sacrificing some of their millions in salaries to help these others be self sufficient than it is for you to expect them to sacrifice their millions to charity!
which seems to be your answer to my question...just how should we keep these employees alive?

I never said Greenspan "killed the economy" but I stand by my assertion that he created the 2000 recession both through consistantly increasing interest rates and taling about an overheated economy.

The hi-tech bubble burst in 98 and from what I saw it effected large investors and people foolish enough to rush into the game late (just like the late and unlamented housing bubble) but for the average business, worker and even investor, it didn't do much at all. It certainly did not cause the recession.

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
The day of corporations is ending because of the internet revolution allowing the entrepreneur to succeed. Also I would like to thank those who correctly label Greenspan a Randian Economist, not an objectivist. The difference is that Randians worship Ayn Rand and disavow the principles she preached.

However Greenspan did not kill the economy. Greenspan succeeded in warning numerous administrations into try to understand the free market and how the invisible hand with the help of the interest rates can control this wild horse. What went wrong was an internet economy based on hype finally collapsed. Anyone who understands the stock market knows that Clinton nor Greenspan had anything to do with people investing in companies with no capital.

Anyone can be an entrepeneur, the key is to stick with it and have the ability. The world needs businessmen, teachers, cooks, and garbage men. The key is to find what you are good at and get someone to pay you for it, if they value it. When live hands you a crappy deck, go play craps, that's why its a free market, not a communist regime.

The internet will soon be heavily regulated and taxed just like its offline counterpart. This will drive smaller internet businesses out of business. We discuss this on the ebay boards frequently.

the regulations and taxes fall upon the consumer and constituent. We decided what comes before our legislators and what they decided. We however are apathetic lazy fools. We get what we deserve when we vote in incumbents who give into big business.

i.e. The Federal Minimum wage increase affects all US States and Territories to "help the workers" except American Samoa. What's the big deal with that? That is where the main packing facility of Dole Fruit Company, which is HQd in Nancy Pelosi's home district.

The point I am trying to make is that in our system is that there is a lot of pork in legislation that screws over the voters who put the politicians in place, and yet we continue to vote these people into office. Standing by and doing nothing will never help the problem. Why couldn't V be a real person?

Both parties are into big business. A third party candidate has little to no chance of winning an election because the majority votes for a particular party. Things will only continue to get better for the already wealthy. Those in power will continue to pass legislation which hurts the little guys and helps big business. Nothing will ever change so long as the majority give in to status quo.

things will only get better for the wealthy only up to a point. historically speaking, when the tax burden is shifted off of the wealthy onto almost exclusively the middle and lower classes, then that society becomes a prime candidate for a revolution. It happened in France, it happened in Russia etc.

I think I will chime in on this one:
I think I can answer from both points of view. Raising the Minimum wage is not an answer. Now before you go and tell me that I am wrong, I can tell you that as an employer, I have choices to make, and the biggest cost of any business is Labor. Alot of thought has to go into hiring, training and then getting the person to do their jobs. If the business fails, all looses in the long run and if it suceeds most tend to benifit. Most of the minimum wages earned, from what I know and use, is as a training wage, meaning that most employees do not stay at that wage rate for very long, and if they do, perhaps they are in the wrong business. Raising the wage rate is also bad for business, as then it means that what funds that would be there for say 10 employees, are now their for 7 as the money has to come from somewhere. It makes bad business sense. Now on the flip side, it is hard when you are working for minimum wage, cause then you are forced to make difficult choices and if you get sick, that is even worse, as then the choice is go to work and aggrivate the illness or injury or stay home and loose a chunck of your paycheck. I know I have been there and see it every day with my employees. I personally think that the government should have re-evaluated the cost of living and the way things are in the areas that they represent.