Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Senator Bernie Sanders"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SoulRippster That guy making $10 million a year will run a company, say a shoe company, that will spend money to develop a better shoe, or a shoe with bells and whistles. That creates more wealth. That man with $10 million dollars does so due to competition of a rival shoe company to attract customers which creates jobs as well.
To think that those who are rich don't spend money is false. They do out of competition. You have this flaw mindset that businesses will only develop something if people have money to buy it. That isn't true. They will develop it because people demand better goods and services at an affordable price. Look at what is being produced. An Iphone comes out and a year later a new one comes out, not much different than the old one and not necessary, but it comes out and people buy it. Same with shoes, people don't need shoes that light up or lighter shoes, but the get developed and people buy them. We can stick to shoes from the 40s and be fine.
It comes back to we can't consume what we don't produce. If I have more money I can buy more shoes, true. But that rich person who runs the shoe company now has less resources to develop new wealth, thus a new line of shoes that are better and cheaper will cease to exist. So now I am buying the same shoe now that was bought 30 years ago. That as opposed to a better shoe that is cheaper.
So while you concept is true in a way, it hurts wealth creation and doesn't improve the economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Matt Peters Aw, citing Card, Krueger, Reich, et. al. The typical people to go to.
https://www.epionline.org/minimum-wage/minimum-wage-teen-unemployment/
There are three papers that say otherwise, ones that don't use phone interviews for gathering data or look at a handful of counties (as Card and Krueger did). The pure fact is that the min. wage leads to higher unemployment amongst teens. Most of the data shows that minus a few that cherry pick data and have been called out for it (the exact same people you just cited).
It does lead to price increases as well. The fact that food prices are going up doesn't follow the current economic trend. We are producing more food than ever but food prices are going up when it should be going down (much like TV, cell phones, computers prices are going down). But the price of food is going up. The reason why is that retail, restaurant and grocery outlets hire low skill, thus low wage workers. The min. wage increase means they have to increase prices because the money doesn't exist. The min. wage is outpacing productivity in that workers in those areas of the market are seeing their productivity remain stagnate.
"There are plenty of reasons, but since you are operating on a false
definition of Liberty, freedom and fairness , I doubt any of the
economic growth we can prove will matter to you."
Well there isn't economic growth. If it led to economic growth then when the federal min. wage went up in 2007 nearly over $2/hr we would have avoided the recession. We didn't and have seen a slow recovery from it. Also if it did lead to growth then why not $50/hr? And on fairness, it isn't fair that certain workers, teenagers, are priced out of the job market due to you setting an arbitrary price floor that you based off of nothing. I mean, why is the min. wage set at $7.25/hr? That leads back to why not $50/hr, or even just $20/hr? Those numbers are completely arbitrary.
"Wrong again as the hand of the market you talk about so much will not
allow all extra cost to be taken out on consumer prices. Such increases
would be marginal."
You admitted that increase will exist. If all it took was a small increase and not lose any customers, why don't businesses raise prices already and collect that much more profit? The answer is that it isn't that simple.
I repeat, there isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage. It doesn't work in theory or in practice. Teenage unemployment is at an all time high, so is the min. wage. Citing Card and Krueger, whose research has been shown to be flawed and cherry picked doesn't change any of those facts. As I said, if it did do good then why not $50/hr, or even $20/hr?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Matt Peters I have pointed to you other data that is better.
The massive deflation was due to a recession which occurs naturally, but according you should have been avoided, or at the least recovered from due to he over $2/hr min. wage.
I posted 3 studies contradicting your two studies, one that did phone interviews in only 14 counties, a small sample size.
The increase was over $2/hr in a span of 3 years. You first said it was 45 cents, now you are saying it is under a dollar in 2007, you need to get your facts straight.
"There is no economist that would connect the collapse to the minimum wage. "
But you are connecting economic growth to the min. wage. I am not connecting the collapse to the min. wage. I never said the min. wage led to it. We raised the min. wage in the 90s and were fine due to other variables holding more weight leading to growth. But the increase in 2006 to 2009 didn't lead to growth even though you said raising it would. That is the argument I am presenting to you that you are twisting.
"We still have not Re-regulated the markets and fixed the marginalized market caused by it. "
Actually the market is highly regulated which caused the slow recovery. Recessions happen, it is a part of the evolution of the economy. Every recession except for two took around 5 years to recover from, all with little to no federal government involvement. The two that took the longest were the great depression and now, both times we saw massive federal spending, more regulations and increase in taxes. The federal government and their regulations caused the slow recovery. What caused the crash is debatable, what isn't debatable is what is causing the slow recovery. The only people who feel that the slow recovery is not from the federal government are Keynesian economist that are becoming more and more silent every year.
"It is provable that Income has not kept pace with productivity for 35 years. "
That is no true, even the BLS has wages keeping up with productivity. The fact is that those with skills and those who invent technology are becoming more productive and are seeing the increase in wages. Those who cook burgers and Burger King are not. It is called Skilled Biased Technological Change. Those who are skilled or how invested in technology or created it are getting the increase in wages due to them being more productive.
Now that doesn't mean that those on the bottom are not well off. More technology means more productivity and thus better goods and services at a lower price. That is a brick cell phone cost nearly $4000 in the late 80s but almost anyone, even those on welfare, can afford smart phones today. Or someone like me, who only earns around $25,000/yr has 4 computers at home, a TV, a smart phone, my own car (2006 model), where someone earning that much in the past wouldn't have anywhere near that. Cars are better, TVs are better, we have Ipods as opposed to walkmans, Blu rays as opposed to VHS and so on. That is why when food prices go up it is the opposite of what should be happening. We are producing more food, we have an over supply of it. It should be cheap. But regulations like the min. wage leads to higher prices in food. Grocery store workers are low skilled low wage workers, those who work at Sprint are not. Thus the increase in min. wage leads to higher food prices, but not higher cell phone prices.
"How do explain the fact that adjusted minimum wage had the buying power of $13 an hour in 1969? "
So. The value of the worker is not $13/hr. I explained to you why some prices are going up. The min. wage is outpacing productivity. You feel that everything inflates and that inflation is a must. That isn't true. Not everything inflates, and really inflation should hardly be happening. If inflation was happening then not only will those Blockbuster employees still be employed, but they will be earning more. But the fact is that the price of both goods and services either rise, fall, or remain the same.
As I shown with the cell phones, the price of them dropped. They are better than in the past and cheaper. The same is with certain workers. My dad worked at a battery factory. In the 90s batteries were huge with all these portable devices. Now with everything having rechargeable batteries on board (my Ipod is 9 years old, keeps recharging), the demand of batteries dropped. They closed down the factory 3 years ago due to lack of demand. All those workers' values went to $0/hr. They dropped in price. So not everything inflates.
1
-
Matt Peters I told you about deflation and inflation and the min. wage. Deflation
has been happening already. Several factors caused the recession. My
point was that you said that the min. wage increase led to growth.
Well, where is that growth? I am not seeing it? I guess we needed a
$50/hr min. wage., or maybe $15/hr. I guess a $2/hr increase (pretty
high compared to previous raises) was not enough.
https://www.epionline.org/minimum-wage/minimum-wage-teen-unemployment/
There are my sources.
"You are setting up strawmen and I am pissing on them, I suggest you cease"
You said this
"There are plenty of reasons, but since you are operating on a false
definition of Liberty, freedom and fairness , I doubt any of the
economic growth we can prove will matter to you"
In response to me saying there isn't one single good reason in even having a min. wage. Your response is that it led to growth. Now you are retracting that statement? So what is it?
" The fact technology becomes cheaper does not negate other factors of
economics. There is not a single state where minimum wage can afford an
apartment alone. (Hint there is no such thing as people on welfare who
don't work)"
Actually my technology point does play a role. It shows the purchasing power of the dollar is higher. We also see that in people have more disposable income these days. The idea that people are not earning more is completely false, they are. And if you are trying to pay rent with a min. wage job that is your problem. Get a roommate, find a cheaper apartment. Rent out a room. You are now asking that low wage jobs with develop little wealth pay for luxury items. That is now how an economy grows.
" No sir, I know why prices go up, I understand inflation better than you
do. I want to know why pay used to keep pace with both inflation and
productivity. "
You don't seem to know how inflation works. As I said with pay and productivity, it is keeping up. According to what you are saying not only will that factory in my home town that built batteries still be around, but they will be paying workers more despite the lack of demand.
People who are more productive are paid more, it is called skilled biased technological change. But to think that workers working at a fast food joint are working harder is completely false. Look up unit labor cost of restaurants, you will find that hourly compensation is outpacing productivity in that sector. That means pay is outpacing productivity there, and it is the same for other low skilled jobs.
" Yes I am saying if your company is more profitable you should not get
all of the extra profit. You are piece of shit if you do without
thinking about sending some extra down to workers regardless of what you
moronically think their work was "worth". But that is something else
entirely. Unions should have the right to disrupt your profit if you
don't. "
Less profits means less investment which means less growth and less wealth. Companies just don't sit on profits, they invest it. Where do you think all that new technology comes from? It just doesn't appear out of nowhere. A business uses profits to invest and create. We can force more money going to those that create little wealth and that is exactly what you will get, little wealth.
"The recession we had no mass recession in the 20th century after the
depression was because of Labor laws and wage laws as well as tax code
that prevented demand and supply from becoming unbalance d . Since 1981
these have been getting done away with. "
We had one under Carter.
" I have a masters in economics from USC"
With the way you talk I doubt it. I guess I can throw around a fake degree. I have PhD in economics form UC Berkley. But I won't lie, I don't.
I have done this for a while as well, I concluded there isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage. For you supposedly having a masters in economics you resorted to emotions pretty bad. As in
"When a CEO is earning 500 times what his employees earn eventually
demand will hit a roof as consumers have less money to consume."
and
"You are piece of shit if you do without
thinking about sending some extra down to workers regardless of what you
moronically think their work was "worth""
Not statements I would expect from someone who holds a masters. But considering how those with PhDs act (I am a grad. student so I have experience) I am not surprise.
On your first statement, demand for better goods and services are almost infinite. The reason why the demand for batteries dropped is because, as I explained, portable devices have rechargeable batteries on board. If people had more money (ignoring that flawed idea) they won't buy more Walkmans or cordless phones which require batteries, but instead Ipod and cell phones which come with batteries and can be recharged. Think about that. You seem to lack understanding of demand.
1
-
Matt Peters So you are now retracting your statement that the increase in the min. wage creates growth?
If you are an adult earning the min. wage then you are almost beyond help. Or it says something is very wrong with out economy. The min. wage is said to remove the lower rungs of the economic ladder. A teenager working a min. wage job allows them to gain experience to they can work higher wage jobs at an older age (when they are an adult). But if the min. wage goes up teenagers can't get jobs, thus they enter the workforce at a later age and thus we now have the problem of adults working low skilled task a high school student can do. So the min. wage created that problem.
Following Carter we had massive inflation and an increase in unemployment and a negative GDP growth, we hit a recession. We recovered from it quickly just like we recovered from the recession in 1988 quickly. And the recession in the 50s and early 60s. Data doesn't lie. We see recessions all the time. How we recover is key.
"As I said I have grown to have disdain for people who think being a
successful business person is simply having made money. If you had no
regard for the health of the company Such as Bob Nardelli , Carly
Fiorina and Mitt Romney did. They are failures as business people
because of what happened to the companies. The fact they made money off
it means they are manipulators. "
I agree that our financial system is out of wack, it is mainly due to the federal government messing it up. I don't thing those individuals were successful. I know fixing the problem is reducing the role of the federal government in the economy.
"Yes but ability for the consumer to pay for the goods aren't. "
True, but that is purely due to there not being an infinite amount of resources. What we have to push for is the development of those resources into wealth. We do that by allowing those in the private sector to invest in what people demand and having workers work at the best of their ability. We don't achieve that buy just giving money away.
"Indeed , but what happens when you have less companies? "
New companies come and go, and there will always be competition in a free market. What removes competition is the government. Keep in mind that it was Walmart that supported a higher min. wage at one point knowing it will eliminate competition from smaller companies. Costco is the same way.
" How is this type of investment benefiting anyone but people with large amounts of the particular stock?"
That is how a corporation works. If all the major CEOs of Walmart for example were to take in $0 all the employees earning less that $25,000 would make something like $7 extra dollars a month. Corporations run off of stocks and if the company is not profitable then people will demand new CEOs to get an investment off of their stocks.
"And you will argue it's "unfair" for the government to tell a company
how to run their business, how widely they can expand or what they
should pay and I liken this emotional attitude of your side to someone
saying it's wrong for the government to regulate and tell someone he
can't rape and abuse people and you will fail to see it as the same
thing, which makes me believe sociopath... but hey, "
Rape is a law that effects everyone and gives back something equal to everyone. While I am not allowed to rape I will be protected by it in that it is illegal for others to rape me. With regulations on a business you are saying that the second you invest your own money in private property to do business with private individuals, you have to follow these set of rules simply due to the lifestyle you choose. That is not equal and the only way you can justify doing that is if the government gives something back to the company in return
That is the difference between rape laws and business regulation laws.
1
-
1
-
Matt Peters You are making this too easy.
You said this
"I never claimed there wasn't, just that there is no data saying
increased minimum wage has never been connected as a cause of an
economic problem in a city, county, state or country it's been done in.
That the increased cost is negated by default increased spending as you
are not the only employer who raised wages."
So you are saying that the min. wage either leads to growth or nothing. But when the min. wage goes up and the economy hits a recession you say they are not related. That is you being bias.
"except I have already presented two studies showing this is not what happens"
And I presented 3, and the guy on this video presented more. 3>2, plus what Skylar Lehto presented.
"Data, as anyone who says they have "seen it" is by default the inferior in the debate."
But you said this
"I know engineers who work at Starbucks and lawyers pull 30 K "
So it seems that while are are both inferior, we are even since you have "seen it" as well.
"It's more than likely it was due to competition from large chains that should not be allowed (yes ALLOWED) to exist. "
That is quite a pathetic statement to make. Your idea of helping society is bringing people down. That is like saying preventing people from getting PhDs will improve our university system. We don't grow an economy by bringing people down. In the 80s and early 90s only the rich had cell phones. Did we take them away? No. We allowed them to have them. Now almost everyone has a smart phone. If we would have took the cell phones away, which is preventing success, we will still be using rotary phones.
I bet you support giving everyone a trophy as well. Or would tell the fast runner at a high school track meet to slow down. That is not how you improve an economy. There are several good reasons to have chain businesses.
"I was actually asking you to prove regulation that hurts business that
also doesn't serve another purpose of protecting someone else. "
I was proving a point how regulations designed to supposedly help the economy and the middle class end up hurting. I work my job where I get a 1099 due to my skills. One reason I have those skills is that at a young age I was able to work a low wage job. Now I work a high skill job where I pay $0 in taxes. Some of my co-workers earn close to 6 figures and pay $0 in taxes or close.
It goes the same with the healthcare example. Government is causing the rise in healthcare cost. Now you point towards profit because according to you profit=evil because profit=success and it isn't fair that someone is doing better than you. But our for profit system is arguably the best in the world. In the US a non-profit, government run system simply won't work. Look at the post office. I don't want to stand in line hoping to get care. The government creating lack of competition has create the the problems in healthcare. And somehow a non-profit system is supposed to create competition?
"No, I support curbing behavior that does harm to people or the community."
Ok, you raise the min. wage. The business decides to leave town or hire less people, or raise prices or close their doors earlier. How does that improve a community? The reason why businesses do that is because of one simple reason, they simply can't afford higher wages. Especially small business in small towns.
You are comparing this to rapist and burglars. You are violating a business's property rights. You are literally holding a gun to a business owner's head telling them how to run their business. That business owner out of their own free will is deciding to create a business and invest their money in it and you are deciding how they should run it. You are the crook. How about if you buy a house I use the government to tell you to allow homeless people in your home? You clearly are better than them? We should prevent homeowners from existing so that homeless people have homes. Do you support that?
Your comparison of rapist and burglars to business owners investing in their business is shallow. Also you decision on who is hurting the community while exercising their rights are arbitrary. You need to give your masters degree back, or I need to avoid UCS since they have a weak economics department.
1
-
Matt Peters In depth study, really? So 14 counties is in depth study? Never mind that when federally when the min. wage goes up so does teenage unemployment. Also watch the video
"What You Weren't Told About The Minimum Wage" by Skyler Lehto. He does an in depth study that makes your "in depth" study look like child's play.
"No, I am saying correlation is not causation"
And the same holds true to the min. wage and economic growth. Let us look at an example. Robert Reich made a claim that under the Clinton administration they raised the min. wage and things were fine. The reality is that when they raised it the percent of those who were earning at or below the min. wage was dropping (as mentioned in Skyler's video) and thus raising it didn't actually do anything in that most people were already getting paid above the min. wage. It was a pure political move.
Now you mentioned a CATO study as the only one who supposedly has show only negative effect but I have shown you more. Plus, the one you just linked, look at what is say. No "discernible" effect. But they are saying there is an effect. As I said the raises in the past have been small thus all negative results have been small. Or as in Robert Reich's case people were already getting paid above the min. wage thus the federal raise was completely frivolous. Also I showed you 3 studies which beat your 1 on that issue. Unless you think 1>3 which at this point I would not be surprise.
And teenage employment is completely relevant I am smart enough to know that overall the min. wage has a small effect on the overall economy. When the average hourly earnings is over $24/hr, when less than 5% of workers earn at or below the min. wage, when around 2% of min. wage workers work fulltime, as a whole the min. wage worker plays a minute effect on the overall economy. I can admit that raising it in 2006 didn't lead to the crash but raising it in the past didn't lead to economic growth. You, on the other hand can't admit that.
Any negative effect to the min. wage is done at target groups, such as teenage employment and prices in areas that employ low skill workers. That is why when variables are removed we see an increase in teenage unemployment, or high teenage unemployment in areas where the min. wage is high. And we also see an increase in prices. But what you have to remember is that the min. wage, as is, does not effect the overall economy. But any effect is negative, it just gets lost in the statistical noise. As an econ. major you should have taken advanced stats. This was something my class learned when I took and and a project we did.
" If your business model hurts or takes advantage of people , you shouldn't engage in the activity. "
And who decides that? You? You do know that major corporations such as Walmart and Costco have supported higher min. wages in the past knowing it would hurt smaller companies and thus creating less competition. That is because those companies have more staying power to go through more expenses until the economy stabilizes. So now you have a situation where those businesses are using the government to harm other businesses.
I don't mind regulations, they need to be done at the state level though so we can have actual control of the government. You need to remember one thing, too much government is just as bad as no government. Right now we have too much.
I have no problems with monopolies as well. With today's technology they will not be as strong. The main reason why they were strong in the past was simply due to lack of technology. People didn't have cars to move around or computers for online shopping. These days monopolies exist due to government reducing competition as I just showed. You saying natural monopolies existed in the past without noticing the change of technology is careless of you.
"No you should not be able to lock others out or to manipulate supply and
market. If that's what you have to do to keep you company on top then
you need to go. It really is that simple."
No it isn't that simple. Those business owners have a constitutional right to their property and what they want to do with it. Funny how you mentioned an act from 1938, around that time there was a lot of unconstitutional and destructive things done to the economy. If a state wants to create such regulations that is within their state rights. But at the federal level that violates the constitution (the federal min. wage is unconstitutional) and needs to be stopped. Too much government is just as bad as no government.
What you support are arbitrary laws that you base off nothing more than your feelings. You feel that this business is bad thus they should be stopped. Walmart's model allows for cheaper goods and services for low income consumers. I despise shopping at Walmart. I avoid it if I can and for the most part do. But every other place in most areas have goods and services at a higher price. Plus, with chains what that also leads to is the fact that every Walmart in the country has to have the same standards. My poor experience at the Walmart in my city means I am less likely to shop at one in another city even though they may be great. So there are advantages to chain businesses. You are saying they are all bad but they are not. They are not all good. That is a clear difference between you and me, I see the middle ground. You are one side or the other. Like when you said the min. wage leads to all positive but no negative results (even though several studies exist that show otherwise).
"No, fuckwhit it is about a fair market place. "
What is a "fair market place"? Creating policy that raises prices is not "fair". Unless you support price control. Telling people how to run their business is not "fair". You are using a completely arbitrary and subjective word there. So when I stand in front of my committee for my PhD defense and I say "after 5 years it is only fair for me to get my PhD" would that fly? Knowing my committee it wont'. Once again you are basing your ideas off of emotions.
Let us look at Walmart again and the min. wage. While they have supported a higher min. wage (which creates an unfair market), they have a limit in how much to pay. If the CEOs of walmart were to earn $0, the workers of walmarts would earn an extra $0.0014 per hour. That is simply not that much. Walmart, along with other low wage worker jobs, have thin profit margins. They simply can't afford more. Most of their money comes from shareholders. If walmart were to practice higher wages then the shareholders will demand a new board and vote one in so they can get money off of their stocks.
Now you may think the whole idea of stocks is bad, but it goes back to it helping a business in they can keep prices low and attract more customers. The business I shop at is smaller and more local but doesn't have shares of stocks (as far as I know, if they do it is small). Thus their prices are higher. As someone with a masters in economics this should be basic to you.
"Now present me a study where this was a huge problem directly connecting
minimum wage increases to this actually happening and we might have an
actual argument."
I have shown you studies. Also I told you how in the large scale the min. wage is small. It plays a minute role in the overall economy (even though you think it leads to noticeable growth which is false). But if it didn't lead to negative results then why not $50/hr? Or even $20/hr? Costco is pushing for around that rate, $20/hr? So why not?
"In the long term since ALL businesses raised wages the increased spending negates the cost long term."
Not all businesses raise wages though. Some, as in Walmart or McDonalds for example, has the ability to avoid wage increases by investing in automation. There are now self checkouts and McDonalds with touch screens for ordering. Walmart can do away with the door greater or have less workers picking up carts in the parking lot. And they have. One reason why I avoid Walmart is that they lack cashiers. But they get away with it due to low prices. They can get away with cutting back more.
Not all businesses are created equal, that is also something you failed to learn in you masters route (you really need to get your money back). Saying all businesses will raise wages is completely false. They will cut hours, close down doors earlier, and raise prices. But not every business will raise wages since every business is different. And while you are enforcing how much is paid per hour, you are not enforcing how much is paid per week.
There will not be increased spending either. Higher wages with same productivity just means higher prices. You can't consume what you don't produce.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1