Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Top 4 Reasons To Raise The Minimum Wage" video.

22steve5150 One, they haven't solved these issues. Two, you can't compare the US to other countries. Three, the left uses talking points as well that don't help. For example, I say I am against federal socialized healthcare. I get told that I don't want people to have healthcare and I want people to die. That isn't true but according to the left I do. Apparently the federal government is the only entity that can provide such services. It is a very shallow though process on the left as well.
3
OddityDK Also, Denmark has 5 million people. The US has 30 states with that many people. Comparing Denmark to the US is like comparing your local high school football team to the Dallas Cowboys.
2
It is a "quick fix" solution. The left is full of "quick fix" solution. The economy is more complex then that. Just raising the min. wage isn't going to help or hurt the economy in any major ways, it is a sound good talking point to get votes.
2
Canada doesn't have nearly the same issues to deal with as the US does. Maybe if you had a larger population and a poor country bordering you then you will have a different situation. Canada isn't paradise either.
2
OddityDK Denmark doesn't have a minimum wage law
1
OddityDK The "minimum wage" in Denmark is actually an average wage. The average hourly wage in the US is around $24/hr. In Denmark their average "minimum wage" is $20/hr which is actually an average wage since there are people who earn less. What is your measurment of happiness? This is where I say you can't compare 2 different countries. The society in the US is really self entitled like and does have high standards, that can play a role in the illusion of us not being happy but really we have it really well. What is wealth? The US is the 4th most productive country in the world. We have the best university system in the world. If you include PPP then the US beats Denmark in GDP per capita. Really the US beats Denmark in several ways which is really impressive considering how large and diverse we are. in the end you can't compare one country to another. There are too many variables. You are talking about different societies, history, economies and so on. Also, as I said the US is the most diverse country in the world and considering how Denmark has only 5 million people as I said it is like comparing your local high school football team to the Dallas Cowboys, it is an asinine comparison. Looking at US in itself the worse times when we have the most federal government involvement on the economy. Lack of a free market approach has caused us problems.
1
OddityDK I know how the comparisons are made, they are dumb in that you are comparing a country with only 5 million people to a country with over 300 million people. As I said, the US are the Dallas Cowboys, Denmark is your local high school football team. You can't compare the two. You are also comparing two countries with different histories and societies. Look at the US, we are incredibly diverse, way more then Denmark. That plays a large role in what goes on. If Denmark had to deal with the issues we do in the US their story will be different. In the end if you want to make a comparison the US beats Denmark in productivity, GDP per capita when PPP is taken into account, the US has a stronger university system, and to me is happier because we have higher standards as seen in the higher productivity. As I said pretty good when you consider how the US has more diversity than Denmark.
1
scylendrey What is the value of money? More money without more supply just leads to inflation. We are now, at best, back at the same problem.
1
I can see you are being attack by the idiots that don't understand what money is. I hear it all the time, more money means a stronger economy. They need to look at Zimbabwe. I guess we should have made that trillion dollar coin, or just a trillion dollar paper plate, would have been easier.
1
Robert Maiorana 25 cents is a lot for people living paycheck after paycheck. I stop going to a restaurant when they raised their prices 20 cents. Take a grocery store, I bought 33 items last week, low for me that I buy monthly. Let us say prices went up only 10%, out of my last grocery bill that is only $15. I pay $15 in gas a month. That means I now have to drive less, or cut someplace else. Prices go up because the money has to come from somewhere.
1
Trey K And that $20 is now the new $15.
1
I see the dumb comments again about more money meaning a stronger economy. How about we just go really easy, we just take paper plates and write "living wage" on it and mail it to everyone. More money, right?
1
Robert Maiorana If those local stores don't have more goods and services to offer then they will simply raise prices due to increase consumption. Money retains it's value from the goods and services available, thus ultimately it produces, if you give people more money without producing more then the value of the dollar goes down thus higher prices. Also, Walmart attracts people with money (I have seen a lot of my professors in there), people are not all of a sudden go to a more expensive place just because they have a little bit more, if anything they will save it or possibly spend it frivolously is a lot of people are poor due to improper money management.
1
TheTruthIsTheWay11 I want the solutions to be solved as well, people have this problem of thinking other countries don't have problems when they do. Also, you can't compare us to other countries. I had someone earlier try to compare us to Denmark. We have around 30 states with a larger population then Denmark, that is a poor comparison.
1
David Wood The major problem of US healthcare is the cost due to government. Take insurance for example. Companies offer healthcare insurance as a benefit due to tax deductions. Insurance is a third payer that flips the bill thus negotiation between buyer and seller is limited and healthcare price goes up since the third party (insurance) pays the bill as opposed to the buyer. It is the same with college tuition and student loans. Colleges increase their price due to a third payer. The buyer doesn't care because they are not paying most the bill, insurance is, thus healthcare providers can raise their prices. A more free market approach is needed.
1
TheAtheistPaladin Your flaw at the beginning is the "living wage" argument. What is a "living wage"? The honest answer is that it is subjective. You can't define it because there are too many variables involved. My "living wage" is lower then my friend's "living wage" because he is diabetic, I have no health problems. In the end you are paid a market rate, it is up to you to make a living.
1
TheAtheistPaladin It is subjective. Someone with a medical condition has a higher "living wage" then someone who doesn't. Someone living in an upstairs apartment has a lower "living wage" then someone on the ground floor. Little things like that add up. Also, what are your standards for a "living wage"? It is arbitrary. It is someone having their own one bedroom apartment or 3 people living in a studio together. It is being able to own a car and what kind? Or do they have to walk to work. Your standards are different then others. I bet my standards are lower then yours but mine are still livable.
1
TheAtheistPaladin The problem with your thinking is that you think resources are infinite, they are limited. What is you standard for a "living wage"? Everyone has a stopping point, everyone has a standard. You are talking about healthcare, how much do we spend until it is no longer worth it? What determines that standard? The best way to do that is to let the market decide, that is the most productive way of doing it, you are setting arbitrary standards based off of nothing. Using the "living wage" 100 years ago your standards would have been lower. We didn't have internet 30 years ago, is that an essential need now? I can argue that. CA is short water, so how much water do we give them now? You are not putting much thought into this.
1
TheAtheistPaladin Actually money isn't infinite because money isn't a resource. Money derives it's value from the goods and services it creates. We can print money with a higher value on it, they are doing that in Zimbabwe. But money is infinite which is the problem. Also wealth does not equal money. I have looked up living wage, it is a subjective concept. What is your standard to survive? Someone living in a studio with 4 other individuals? Is AC necessary? What kind of food? What age do you place a limit on living? Is it 30, 40, 50? You haven't set a standard. You feel that everyone needs food, if that food is Raman Noodles and bread they probably won't live long. You are not being clear in what you support here. What kind of healthcare? Once again resources are limited. There is a waiting list for organs. We don't have enough people donating kidneys. Who do we give a kidney too? We lack doctors, so who gets care? There is a cost part in this. Due to limited resources something has to give. Are you going to force others to donate a kidney? What is your solution to the limited resources in healthcare? Healthcare is necessary? I haven't used healthcare in years, I am doing fine. What kind of utilities? People lived for years without utilities. As I said in CA, we are limited in water in some places. What if there isn't enough to give everyone "whatever is necessary to live"? What do you do now? Let everyone die? Actually in cities you are able to live without transportation easier then in rural areas. In cities everything is so close together. In rural areas you have to drive 10 miles at times to get to the store. I walk so much in the city I live in, in the rural town I use to live in I had to drive a lot because everything was so spread out. But in rural areas there are no buses. Plus, what is a reasonable walking distance? My friend walks an hour to work a day. That is once again subjective. I am not asking a bunch of random questions. You are saying subjective words that can mean anything and haven't tackled the issue of limited resources. As I said with healthcare, we are limited in resources. People are unable to get a kidney because of that. Or with CA and water, your response is "whatever is necessary to live", well, what if there isn't enough for that as well? You need to think about those issues.
1
TheAtheistPaladin The value of money is tied into the amount of goods and services available, basically how much capital that money creates. If you give people more money without creating more goods and services then you raise prices. That is because money is an infinite resource, especially now with it being numbers on a computer screen and isn't tangible. In Zimbabwe they are having problems and just print pieces of paper with a billion dollars written on it, they have 80% poverty right now. Paying people more money doesn't increase the number of kidneys available, or amount of water available, or the amount of gas or food and so on. You are living this fantasy world that resources are limited and all we need is money to make them exist. That isn't true. If it were then Zimbabwe will be the richest nation in the world, it isn't. You need to understand what money is.
1
Charla Lee While overall productivity has gone up not every job has increased in productivity. That is the issue. Look at unit labor cost on the BLS statistics and you see since 1987 some parts have the job sector have remained stagnate for years. Other sources show it dating back longer.
1
Charla Lee It is programs like the min. wage and government aid that are leading to higher prices and thus poverty.
1
dmike3507 Higher cost of living, not doing as well as you think. Plus, Denmark has 5 million people, we have around 30 states with that, very poor comparison.
1
TheAtheistPaladin Slaves were forced to work, these people are paid the market rate and can always quite if they don't like their pay.
1
TheAtheistPaladin You can also find ways to cut expenses. Get roommates, don't live beyond your means.
1
TheAtheistPaladin Sometimes you have to cut costs, sometimes you have to work more hours. Life isn't easy. What you support is one group of people being lazy and others picking up the slack, that doesn't improve an economy.
1
Charla Lee Actually wages have kept up with inflation.
1
TheAtheistPaladin Working 40 hours on a job that produces little capital is being lazy because you are refusing to find a way to be more productive. It isn't how hard you work but how productive you are in your work. You know the saying, it isn't the hours you put in, it is what you put into the hours.
1
dmike3507 Once again, you are comparing a country (Denmark) that has less of a population then around 30 of our states, that is a poor comparison. What that means is that the US deal with far greater issues then Denmark. But if you want to make a comparison, Copenhagen, Denmark does have a higher cost of living then that of NYC, especially in places such as basic utilities and restaurants and clothing. Groceries are cheaper in Copenhagen but everything else are more expensive. The US and Denmark have comparable poverty rates and Denmark has higher unemployment and lower GDP per capita. Denmark also has a higher amount of external debt in terms of % of GDP. In a side by side comparison Denmark isn't doing to well compared to the US. But in the end you can't compare the two countries in that they are very different.
1
dmike3507 Even though I have stated that you were wrong in cost of living in Copenhagen compared to NYC (and basically other US cities), you have to consider that there are other factors to cost of living. Take Honolulu for example, having to export a lot of goods in raises the price, or higher taxes leads to higher prices as well. It just isn't he min. wage. But in Denmark, and Copenhagen in general do have a higher cost of living and higher unemployment. In the end Denmark isn't do as well as you think.
1
dmike3507 I looked at that site. Low skilled/low wage workers work at restaurants. It makes sense that prices will be higher. Rent is, for the most part, independent from the min. wage and based on demand. More people want to live in NYC which is why rent is higher there. You can't compare federal policies either. Education is predominately ran at the state level and funded that way. Same with healthcare (before Obamacare) and other programs. We are a country that is really hands off federally as the constitution designed it that way and it should be that way. If the $20/hr min. wage really help, that one little thing in a complex economy, then why not $50/hr? Or $100/hr? I mean, that would be better right? The simple fact is that you are trying to compare Denmark, a country with 5 million people to the US. NYC has 8 million people in it alone. You can't compare the two. It is like comparing your local high school football team to the New York Jets. The differences are big. You are also praising Denmark supposed success (in the next comment I will explain to you how you are off on your stats) on the min. wage. A complex economy on one simple issue. As I said, if it were that easy then why $20/hr? Why not $100/hr?
1
dmike3507 As far as GDP PPP per capita, the US beats Denmark by around $10,000, thus prices are lower in the US. That is what PPP takes into account, cost of living. While GDP per capita is higher in Denmark, cost of living is higher thus less purchasing power thus less spending money. Also I noticed you have shy away from unemployment where the US beats Denmark as well. But then again, you think that you can compare a country of 5 million people to on that has 300 million. Or that the min. wage is the biggest factor in an economy.
1
dmike3507 Actually the US is more productive as well according to GDP per hour worked when PPP is taken into account. Denmark is not more productive. A higher nominal GDP means less purchasing power of the dollar, not being more productive. I stand corrected on unemployment, but Denmark is not doing that much better. If Denmark had around 1% unemployment then you have something. That also doesn't consider that employment, like the rest of the economy, is not effected that much by the min. wage. When you raise the min. wage a little bit you won't see much change in overall unemployment because it gets lost in the statistical noise. The issue is that you are throwing around numbers and stats without even thinking about what they mean. When you look at selected groups that are effected by the min. wage you do see a change. In the US when the min. wage goes up so does teenage unemployment because they are not worth that price floor anymore. Same reason I looked at the price of restaurants because they are for low wage workers where you can't use rent price and the min. wage for a comparison because the min. wage has almost zero effect on rent. That is another problem you have. You don't accept the issue that Denmark and the US are two completely different countries, whatever. Then maybe you can accept that the economy is complex and pointing to a major stat such as GDP and comparing it to the min. wage is something you can't do. $20/hr is not large in the since of a major economy thus the effects of the min. wage gets lost in the statistical noise amongst the other economic factors, that is why you have to look at teenage unemployment and prices from typically low skilled jobs. " $20/hr I think is perfectly reasonable." Based off of what? So $20/hr won't cause any inflation or job loss of unskilled workers? That number is completely arbitrary. Why not $100/hr? If $20/hr is reasonable then why not $100? Why not $5/hr? You are once again throwing around a number with no meaning. When the price of something goes the buyers of that product, in this case labor, goes down. You need to understand what money is as well to realize how wrong you are on you $20/hr min. wage. Think about what money is as well and then, maybe you will realize how off you are on this min. wage.
1
dmike3507 The US with it's size and population has more issues to deal with and more diversity. The fact that we have that and still are very successful says something. Could the people and leaders of Denmark handle that? As I said, Denmark is like a high school football team, the US is like a professional football team. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_hour_worked That shows something different in productivity, seems like sources don't match. http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=LEVEL That also shows us having higher productivity. There are several factors that effect overall unemployment. Singapore has no min. wage and has less than 2% unemployment. As I said a small min. wage has effects on select groups such as low skilled and young workers, but due to other factors effecting unemployment that gets loss in the statistical noise. Your cjr source is crap. They are comparing a complex economy to the min. wage and the Big Mac. Really? The problem with you is that you are cherry picking what you want to hear. Also, you are comparing a complex economy to the min. wage and the Big Mac. That is incredibly shallow. I can easily run with Singapore and say they are doing well and have low unemployment and no min. wage. I don't play that game though. Denmark's economy is baby compared to the US. Just because their "higher" min. wage supposedly works there (as I have shown cost of living is higher and productivity is lower) doesn't mean it will work in the US. States with a higher min. wage have higher teenage unemployment in the US. That is me comparing one state in the US to another, a much stronger comparison. You want to compare the US, a country of over 300 million people with basically 50 different countries to Denmark with only 5 million people, that is a very poor comparison.
1
dmike3507 What is actually funny about all of this is that I recently read an article that Denmark doesn't have a min. wage, so some workers get paid less than $20/hr.
1
dmike3507 And in the US the free market determines wages. On average the worker is paid $24/hr in the US. Like in Denmark there are some that earn less than $20/hr. So in Denmark's case they don't have the problem of the government created a mandated price floor. In all your argument is off by that alone since it is the free market setting wages not the government. So we agree the free market and the employer and employee determining wages is the way to go instead of the government doing price control. The min. wage is one small factor in a complex economy. I will use other factors to determine where I live. Even at that I see France has a high min. wage and also have high unemployment. In the end you are trying to compare the success of a country by the min. wage, that is very shallow. The problem with comparing the US to Denmark is like comparing the Dallas Cowboys to your local high school football team, you can't do it. On size alone they are different. Never mind history and society and the economy. If you want too the US is more productive based on numbers. The US does have affordable colleges and the best university system in the world (making your lack of college tuition a pointless argument). Companies do offer paid vacation and maternity leave from the free market much like Denmark sets their "minimum wage" from the free market. Also, I would love to see Denmark provide those things to a country that has a population of 300 million people. Population does play a role.
1
dmike3507 "I am not trying to compare the success of a country by minimum wage, I am proving to you beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that high minimum wages and large welfare states (whether set by the government or not) DO NOT result in unemployment or poverty, as is often argued." Well you are. You gave me a list of countries and their min. wage and you asked where I would want to live. I also never said a min. wage leads to large amounts of poverty and unemployment, you are implying that the min. wage solves those problems. What I do say is that there are several factors involved in an economy. I said that in how you can't compare Denmark to the US and how a small min. wage won't lead to massive unemployment or poverty because there are several other factors involved. What you can do is look at areas of the economy that are effected by the min. wage the most. That being prices in areas where low wage workers typically work and unemployment of low skilled workers. The state of Washington has one of the highest min. wage in the US. It's overall unemployment is 5.9%, above the fed. but not high. It has one of the highest teenage unemployment rates in the country though. That is the key. There are several factors that effect WA overall unemployment but min. wage is tied strongly to unemployment of low skilled workers. Let us look at Vermont and Wyoming. Vermont has one of the highest min. wages but has around 4% unemployment. WY has a min. wage below federal but has around the same unemployment. Thing is that both of those states have the smallest populations in the US so that plays a role. That is why you can't use the min. wage as a factor in what happens the overall economy. You can for areas effective the most by the min. wage and in the US we do see higher teenage unemployment and high prices. Nothing good comes from it but all the bad is lost in the statistical noise when that noise isn't removed. As in how the economy is complex so are countries and making a direct side by side comparison of countries is hard if not impossible, especially Denmark and the US that are drastically different.
1
dmike3507 "I think one could make a cogent argument that collective bargaining is a better way to set wages than government policy, but you should keep in mind that workers in Nordic countries like Denmark have considerably more bargaining power than workers in the US (Nordic countries are about 70% unionized, vs. only 11.3% in the US). You can't have a "free" labor market if there is not relatively equal bargaining power on both sides. Thus, sometimes government is the only recourse." Once again you can't compare the US to other countries. I can't make a strong comment on unions and those countries. In the US unions do have benefits but when they overreach, and has, they become destructive. They become destructive in that when they demand too much money then businesses won't hire them as in they are too expensive. Much like the min. wage and unskilled workers. Unions have hurt Detroit. Also unions have hurt employment opportunities low skilled workers. Unions have done harm in the US. Also people can negotiate wages on their own. When I was looking at graduate schools I pick the school I did based on cost of living and what they offered me.
1
dmike3507 "The US has affordable colleges? WTF are you talking about? In the majority of cases you cannot graduate from a university without going tens of thousands of dollars into debt, anywhere in the country. If you are a Danish citizen however you spend ZERO tuition your entire life, period. I don't know whether the US has better universities, but personally I'd rather pay zero for a shitty education and work at McDonald's for $20/hr than live in the US and go $100,000 into debt for a law degree, not be able to find employment due to an over-saturated job market, then end up working at McD's for only $7.25/hr." The US has the best university system in the world. There is a reason why so many foreigners come to the US for college. You may spend $0 but your education is not good. Also we have cheap options in the US. I have loans but after my graduate studies I will have it paid off in 2 years maxed no problem. If you have a 6 figure loan and you can't find a job then you did something wrong. The McDonalds comparison is poor in that one, you can't make a determination on an economy off of McDonalds. Another is that most workers there are part time. In the end you can't compare the US to Denmark.
1
dmike3507 We have non union jobs that offer those incentives as well. I get 4 weeks vacation and healthcare benefits. Several jobs do it. Close to 80% of workers have paid vacation and holiday pay off. Over half have paid jury duty. The free market can offer it. In the end you have to stop comparing the US to other countries. Unions in the US have done more harm then good in the US which is why people are against them
1
dmike3507 I work as a graduate student. I work 12-14 hours a day at time 7 days a week. The most successful people do. In the US people work on average less than 35 hours a week. Several jobs still offer benefits as shown with 77% having paid vacation and holidays. You have this idea that we need unions and government to get benefits, you don't. Also you need to stop the comparison of the US to Denmark already. We have what government mandates do in the US and they lead to more problems most of the time. I actually look at what happens in the US. If Denmark is so great then move there or implement those policies in your state or local community, don't force it down other people's throat.
1
dmike3507 Nobody is forcing anyone to work. You don't have to work at all if you don't want to. Benefits existed without government mandate. Government involvement actually made the situation worse to where some businesses can't afford benefits anymore where in the past they could. But it wasn't unions and government that did it, it was the free market and competition. What is an excellent benefit? What is paying more? How long of vacation time should one get? You are creating arbitrary policies here. I am in the position I am in because I worked for it. If the government mandated such policies you want I would have just worked at the restaurant I worked at as an undergrad (assuming I would have still gotten a job there) and not work 12 hours a day right now in grad. school to better myself. You seem to be wishing things that simply can't happen. So you have vacation days, who is going to pick up the slack while people are one vacation? During vacation times on holidays people like to travel, who is going to take care of that? Who are going to run the airports and restaurants and so on? The world doesn't stop for some made up holiday. You have a very simplistic view on the economy and society. I used to as well and thought like you until I educated myself on the issue. Sounds like you need to as well.
1
dmike3507 I don't have any kids, I made a personal sacrifice. You don't always get what you want in life. If you want to start a family you have to make sacrifices. My dad worked numerous hours and had very little money after paying for everything. We can't compare us to European countries. If you want too there is a reason why they lag behind the US in several ways economically. Workers and consumers do communicate based on needs, it is called the free market.
1
dmike3507 If the government or union would have stepped in he would have lost his job as in what happened in Detroit. With hard work he got benefits and more time off and for the last 10 years he only worked 150 days of the year. At the beginning he worked very hard, but he was rewarded in the end. Funny part is that he was forced into retirement because the plant closed (after Obama was elected ironically) and now he works a union job. He gets less time off and works a job that has far worse conditions. The union job is worse for him now. I made the comparison because someone else did it first. In the end it doesn't matter, you can't compare the US to other countries. I never do unless someone does it first because I can always find ways to "show" that the US is superior. In the end you can't compare though. So workers are not free to negotiate wages? So my dad didn't prove himself enough to only work 150 days of the year and earn more? It is a buyer and seller market. If the business doesn't cater to the community then that business will fail. In the free market cars became safer and more efficient. In the free market work hours drop and people get time off. In the free market future generations are better off so kids don't work and that is happening now. Government and unions have hindered growth and made things worse, not better.
1
dmike3507 Why did the auto industry leave? Because unions demanded more then they can afford. You are paid what you are worth, deal with it. If you were worth more you would be paid more. The free market did create seat belts and airbags, the free market did create the 40 hour work week (and less in some cases), the free market did remove kids from coal mines because no mining company will pay a kid the rate miners are paid now.
1
dmike3507 You can't compare us to other countries. What goes on in Germany is their business. Anyway, cost of living is higher there. In the past we were a developing nation, as such people worked harder. But as we developed businesses, due to competition offered more pay for less work. Businesses were offering less hours. All those regulations due is prevent those who need work the most from working. The average work week is less than 35 hours a week. With child labor it is the same way. More children are living with their parents longer and attending college more. They are starting a career later. As a developing country we were more rural so more children work, now children are not working as much but attending school. Those laws are unnecessary and hurt youths from poor backgrounds in that they are not allowed to work and better their situation. Cars out of competition will push for safer features. In the 90s I remember commercials that had cars pushing for 5 star safety ratings and air bags. People want a safe car that is affordable, people will push for that, that law is unnecessary.
1
dmike3507 We don't need the government to hold our hand for everything.
1
dmike3507 No, it was the development of the economy that brought those actions. That is why miners get paid very well. As I said, mining companies won't want to pay children nearly 6 figures to work in the mines, they would rather hire adults. Our economy evolved.
1