Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "What Happened When 18 States Raised The Minimum Wage?" video.

  1. You can't make a "living wage" a constitutional right because you can't clearly define what a "living wage" is.
    5
  2. mrhazel I agree to a lot of that.  To me if you are not pursuing a STEM degree than earning a trade would be better.  
    4
  3. It lowers the incentive to expand. Same with Obamacare. A business will remain a "small business" to avoid paying a higher wage they cannot afford. That means less jobs and less wealth creation.
    4
  4. Pull out a loan.
    3
  5. mrhazel Maybe. It all depends.  
    3
  6. Ok, why did unemployment go up when the min. wage went up in 2007?
    3
  7. Tim Hose Yep, anyone left in the job.  That is the point, hours will be cut. Having low paid workers buying extra liters of soda does not grow the economy.  What grows the economy is investment.  When the rich invest in stocks or when others save in banks that money just doesn't sit there.  Stocks are used to invest in a business to grow it creating jobs and more wealth.  Banks use money to loan out to people to buy homes, go to college or start a business. That is what grows the economy, not someone buying more bread. Also, the poor typically won't go to a local store but instead to a place like Walmart with lower prices. They have lower prices because they have shareholders who invest in the  business. 
    3
  8. Most McDonalds are franchised.
    3
  9. When broken down there is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage.
    3
  10. Jason You can't make it a constitutional right because that is not how the constitution is designed.  It is there to limit the governments.  
    3
  11. I, Ancap I am pointing out that there are several factors that play a role in overall employment.  Here they are saying the recent min. wage increase did not hurt job growth.  That is because we have been seeing job growth in the entire country for over the past 5 years. Just like in 2007 we had a recession which is the real reason why unemployment went up. I am showing that you can't use this data to say that the min. wage is great.  
    3
  12. I, Ancap True. That is why I am asking what happened in 2007?  I know I will get a response of "well we had a recession".  Which then I will say "the entire country has seen job growth lately, so what's the difference?".   It is to show the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to economics.  
    3
  13. Jay D33 The min. wage went up in 2007 and so did unemployment. What grows the economy is creation of wealth, not spending.  If there is nothing to buy than how much money you have means nothing.  
    3
  14. Tlotoxl The Aztec Pull out a loan, get a degree, get a high paying job and pay it off.  
    2
  15. dramabeatz33 These days it is.
    2
  16. Angel Rodarte Jr. My point is that there are several factors that play a role in overall employment.  For over the past 5 years unemployment has been dropping and jobs were being created.  So saying that the min. wage increase led to no job loss is deceptive to pick 2014.  I can pick 2007 and say "see, there is job lost". You are not consistent in your thought process.  
    2
  17. Tim Hose That is not how it works. A company will downsize because they simply can't afford higher wages. Those other workers will be earning, at best, the same amount. Increasing the wage does not increase productivity so what will happen is that people will get fired and/or prices will go up.  
    2
  18. Daniel Pierik Investing is spending.
    2
  19. Tim Hose More investors means the ability to grow, advertise, hire more, be open longer and thus get more customers.  But if there is nothing there than you won't have customers at all.
    2
  20. Daniel Pierik If customers have more money that does not mean that small business can produce more.  What will happen is they will have to raise prices since production was not increased.  Investing grows the economy.
    2
  21. Daniel, there were not 250 economists who supported Bernie. Out of the departments at universities the econ department is the most conservative. There is a reason why.
    2
  22. Daniel Pierik They may teach the theory, but that doesn't mean they support it.  Keynesian economics has never worked.
    2
  23. Daniel Pierik Yes, the US did Keynesian during the last recession and we still have not recovered from it for a reason. Just like in the early 30s the US tried Keynesian and guess what?  We had a depression.  
    2
  24. Daniel Pierik Saving the banks with bailouts is not austerity.  
    2
  25. Grant Ray The economy always faces boom and bust cycles, especially when it is developing.  The New Deal hindered economic growth to where it took around a decade to get out of the depression, and that was because of only the war.  If it weren't for the war the depression would have lasted until possibly the 50s.   Even after the war we still saw recessions. After the war every other country was rebuilding so the US had an advantage as other country needed our goods.  Now they are built and now the programs put in place in the 30s and 60s are catching up to hurt us.  It would have happened sooner but the fact that other countries were rebuilding it hindered it.  But now those programs such as social security, the payroll tax, min. wage, corporate taxes, the federal income tax and so on are hurting us.  You talk about regulations being relaxed, what regulations were relaxed? 
    2
  26. Grant Ray You need to study history some more.  
    2
  27. Grant Ray Funny thing is that I don't read Ayn Rand as from what I read from her I don't totally agree with.  I find it funny how you say I am ignorant when you can't explain how the recession of 1921 too around a year to recover from with no federal government action, but the recession of 1929 and 2007-2008 say a lot of federal government action but recovery took around a decade. I also find it ironic you say I am ignorant when you feel that a growing economy can't have periods of recessions. Cuba, since 1995 has not faced any recessions. Zambia for over  20 years has not faced a recession. Are those economic models you want to follow?
    2
  28. Grant Ray Hoover did not practice free market solutions.  In the recession of 1921 Hoover, as Secretary of Commerce, was asked to find a solution to fix the economy. When he developed one the economy was recovering so he decided not to use it.  He did during the recession of 1929.  FDR came and expanded Hoover's programs.  So Hoover did not practice free market solutions. ". Yes, the repeal of Glass-steagall was not the sole cause of the recessions, did you see me ever claim that? It was one of the many irresponsible actions that set the stage for the crisis." Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the most recent recession http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/ http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2012/11/12/why-the-glass-steagall-myth-persists/#5520819f2b67 What we have seen were the expansion of the payroll tax, increase in government spending, increase in regulations and taxes, the Tax Reform Act of 1969 which increased taxes and so on.  This is, once again, why Trump was elected.  We have been pushing the idea that we need the federal government to be a major part of the economy which is not true.  That has create cronyism and the problems we have now.
    2
  29. Grant Ray The economy, if left alone, will stabilize itself.  That has been seen all throughout history. I like how you criticize the Forbes article but not the other two.  You just pulled a logical fallacy there.  Also, reading Forbes does not mean I support Ayn Rand, or all of what Forbes say.  "What it did do, was make bailing out the banks necessary, allowing our commercial banks to fail with our investment banks would be absolutely disastrous"  Nope, because a more successful bank would take over. Instead failure was rewarded and the rich got richer.
    2
  30. How is it that the only times the federal government tried to "fix" the economy during a recession through spending we saw the slowest recovery? Explain that.
    2
  31. No. It is subjective and thus can't be defined.
    2
  32. Blaze_007 Maybe because I do like to hear other sides of the issues.  Ever thought of that?  Or maybe you are too myopic.
    2
  33. This study is clearly flawed. Overall job gain has been positive for over 5 years now, that plays a role. This is similar to when Robert Reich said that the min. wage increase in the mid 90s did not kill jobs, but instead we saw job growth. Years prior to the increase unemployment was dropping and the percent of those earning at or below the min. wage was dropping meaning people were being hired above the min. wage already. I am not an economist but with my background of physics and chemistry and math I can see past this weak study.
    2
  34. Explain 2007, the min. wage went up and so did unemployment.
    2
  35. Because there is no evidence. When broken down there is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage
    2
  36. You can't say slavery leads to 0 unemployment, slaves were forced to work. I agree that unemployment is not a strong indicator of how well the economy is doing, but to compare it to slavery is asinine. Now for Kyle's facts 1. 1968 is a cherry picked year, if you increase the min. wage to inflation when it was first put in place (you can't, but let us just do it) it will be around $4/hr. 2. Overall productivity went up, but that does not mean the min. wage jobs have become more productive. What Kyle did was compare overall productivity to the least productive workers of society 3. Just because the top 1% is earning more does not mean the lowest paid workers should. Again, these are the least productive worker in society 4. For being a "starvation wage" these people seem to be surviving and living 5. They can graduate above that level. If they can't than they, to be completely blunt, are pretty pathetic. There are a lot of high skilled jobs available that we don't have anyone that can do it. So yes, you can work hard, people just don't want to. People who will be at that level of a low wage will be the young just entering the job market, retirees doing busy work, and someone working a part time job for supplemental income.
    2
  37. The entire country has been adding jobs the past few years with the overall unemployment dropping. In 2007 the min. wage went up and guess what, unemployment went up. Now is that the reason why? No. But what Kyle and David are saying is not correct either. This data is disregarding several other variables in the economy.
    2
  38. There are several skilled jobs available, people just need to develop skills to work them .
    2
  39. rambofan334 Not really, only around 5% of the country works multiple jobs according to the BLS. 
    2
  40. Nothing in that article talked about food stamps. All it said was that there was not job loss. That is deceptive because we have been seeing job growth for over 5 years now. The min. wage was increased in 2007, what happened to unemployment?
    2
  41. TheTez1990 I agree we had a recession. I was highlighting that there are several factors that play a role in overall employment. With this "study" job growth has been happening for over 5 years, but Kyle is ignoring that. This is similar to when Robert Reich said the min. wage increase in the mid 90s led to job growth.  He left out two things 1. overall unemployment was dropping already from a few years prior 2. the percent of workers who are paid at or below the min. wage was dropping as well That means employers were already hiring above the min. wage meaning the min. wage increase was pointless.  Same thing here.  This study does not show anything.  That was my point of looking at 2007.
    2
  42. What happened when the min. wage went up in 2007? Unemployment went up. Now are they related? Not really because there is a lot to the economy beyond the min. wage. There were jobs created throughout the entire nation, that plays a factor.
    1
  43. 61089loki What?
    1
  44. Grant Ray I read it, you are just not correct. The Glass-Steagall repeal did not cause the recession, even Elizabeth Warren admitted to that.  What austerity have we practice?  None, besides increase in taxes.  "Economies only face boom and bust cycles when you allow them too." The only way an economy does not face a boom and bust cycle is if you have an economy that is not growing.  The boom and bust cycles are part of a growing economy.  Recessions happen, how we recover is key.  We had a few recessions following the great depression. You just did not notice because recovery was quick like the crash of 1921.  Every recession took around 5 years or less to recover from.  Every recession except for two. The two were the great depression and the recession of 2007-2008.  Those are also the only recessions the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with massive spending. Other times the federal government did nothing and we recovered quickly.  But to say we don't have boom or bust cycles, or that they are bad is asinine.  Zimbabwe has not boom or bust cycles. "And tell me, what about the war yanked us out of the depression exactly? Massive government spending and influence in production industries." There is a difference there.  There was an actual demand for our services so we knew what wealth to create and where to send it.  Government spending is not necessarily bad if we get our money's worth. That means wealth is created to people to demand it.  What grows an economy the most is getting the most out of our resources. In that case we did. Before that we didn't.  The federal government can spend money building things no one wants and guess what? The economy does not grow.  That is the difference.  Spending just to spend does not help anyone.  You have to produce wealth that people value. The government, especially the federal government typically does not do that. Private investors do because they actually have something to lose.  The federal government can just raise the debt ceiling the Obama did which is why we still have not recovered from the more recent recession. "The New Deal regulations were solid, but though the stimulus helped, it was too small to be enough" The New Deal is the reason why we have problems now.  They were delayed because every other country had to rebuild after they war, but now they have caught up to us.  This is why we saw a recession with no recovery.  This is why people voted for Trump.  We have been trying it the democrat way for decades now adding more federal government and more regulations, it it time to change. If spending is what grows the economy, why is GDP growth right now low despite massive federal government spending under Obama?
    1
  45. Grant Ray And explain to me why it took almost a decade to recover from the recessions of 1929 and 2007-2008 with a lot of federal government actions, but only around year for the recessions of 1921 and the recession of the late 70s with little to no federal government action?
    1
  46. Daniel Pierik Yep, the New Deal was so great that it took almost a decade to recover from the recession.  Funny how in 1921 the federal government did nothing and we recovered in around a year.  Also funny how before 1913 we had no major recessions, since then we have had two.  And since the passage of the New Deal we had to recessions that seen slow recovery.  You know, Costa Rica only had a minor recession in 2007-2008.  Before that, since 1992 they have not seen one.  Do you want to follow that economic model?  They have no boom and bust cycles. 
    1
  47. Daniel Pierik Right wing economics is limited government.  Corporatism only exist if the federal government has power to sell.  Limit the powers of the federal government and it has nothing to sell. FDR expanded the powers of the federal government causing the problems we have now.  That is why the founding fathers wanted limited federal government, to prevent corruption.  
    1
  48. Daniel Pierik Yes, it will and has in the past. If not, explain the recession of 1921 and the recovery.
    1
  49. So what I hear is that a crash happens, like always in a growing economy, and through austerity we recovered in a year. And in 1929 the federal government tried to fix that recession with spending and it took over a decade to recover from. Hmm......seems like spending does not work.
    1
  50. A lot of what you said is true besides the whole red state being subsidized by blue states. But one has to realize that a high min. wage can be done in certain areas with no negative effects. For example, Emeryville, CA has had the highest min. wage in the country for years. Three of their top four largest employers are Pixar and two pharmaceutical companies. That as opposed to my city where our largest employer is the school district.
    1
  51. Bernise Anders It is mainly a myth. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/09/the_myth_of_red_state_welfare.html From me, take Louisiana for example. Around 2/3 of their governors in the past have been democrat, including the most current one Is that really "red"?
    1
  52. Bernise Anders I agree that the article is flawed, but it does bring up good points.  For example, around 2/3 of Louisiana's governors have been democrat, are they really red?  My state is considered blue but yet we have a republican governor and senate. So anyone who starts talking about a "red" or "blue" state I almost immediately dismiss for reasons like that. "it's a pretty typical trick by right wing propagandists trying to shield their audience from reality" I can say the exact same thing about the left.  "what they do is take arguments from people like myself, then interject some meaningless and asinine definition of "red and blue" (" Not really, it is called giving the whole picture.  Your purposely ignore things. "let me be concrete. i classify red states and blue states based on STATE POLICY and representatives" Doubt it.
    1
  53. Bernise Anders The left cites evidence? Really?  Look at this video in itself, it doesn't really cite anything and hides a lot. Louisiana is consider red by many people when 2/3 of their governors have been democrat.  Think about that.
    1
  54. This study is very flawed. It looked at one year when job growth has been happening in the country for over 5 years now. Anyone with intelligence can see right past this.
    1
  55. Explain 2007. The min. wage went up and we saw a recession. Also, since then we have seen low GDP growth.
    1
  56. TheUltimateBeing01 I agree.  That was in response to the OP's comment. The min. wage is a minute factor of our economy since it is so low.  Christina Romer said that even at a min. wage of $9.50/hr and assuming that all the money goes to the low wage worker and they spend it all, that will only grow the economy by $10 to $20 million. That is minute in an over $60 trillion economy. There are several, larger factors in the economy that control it.  The min. wage is not one of them until it does get raised to $20/hr or more in some areas.
    1
  57. Money can be considered a part of wealth, but there is a lot more to wealth than just money.
    1
  58. If the min. wage is index to inflation than everything needs to be indexed to inflation. A VCR, using the value it was in 1987, would cost over $500. Are you willing to spend over $500 on a VCR?
    1
  59. TheUltimateBeing01 Nope, not correct because not everything inflates.  Let me ask you, what is the value of the Blockbuster employee?  
    1
  60. TheUltimateBeing01 Which means the value of those employees dropped. But according to you not only should they still be employed, they should also be paid more than the current min. wage. Same thing with the VCR question.  Would you spend over $500 on a VCR? 
    1
  61. TheUltimateBeing01" Market forces changes the price of a good" And service, such as labor. "Their prices will go up or down according to supply or demand changes" Same with labor.  There is no more demand for the Blockbuster employee, so they are worth $0. That is why you cannot tie the min. wage to inflation.
    1
  62. TheUltimateBeing01 The VCR has a market as well. Due to increase production, supply, and new technology the price dropped.  Same with the Blockbuster employee.  Because of a change in technology their value dropped. The value of goods and services go up and down depending on several factors.  If you want to increase the min. wage with inflation than everything has to be increased.   
    1
  63. TheUltimateBeing01 You mentioned demand.  The demand for those low wage workers is low, thus they get paid low.  
    1
  64. TheUltimateBeing01 Yep, just like technology chased out workers making them obsolete.  That is why you can't tie the min. wage to inflation.  Everything does no inflate.  
    1
  65. TheUltimateBeing01 Sure, but everything does not inflate, and that includes labor. That is why you can't tie the min. wage to inflation.   
    1
  66. It doesn't work like that.
    1
  67. fred nurk Not really.  A company that hires low wage workers have several part time, temporary workers because low wage workers are either 1. unreliable and move from job to job 2. are just entering the job market and after developing some skills and experience will move quickly. So a company who hires min. wage workers will hire what is perceived as more than needed because of the constant movement of workers.  Also, it is to their advantage as they can use them for flexible scheduling, have more to train to where one might stay longer and become full time, and there is a bit of a PR move to it.  If you increase the min. wage those workers will get fired and replaced by more full time workers with more experience and who are more productive.  This is called Labor to Labor Substitution. Here is an example at the place I worked at In the restaurant we had, on Monday and Tuesday always three workers up front and three in the kitchen.  We always had at least one full time worker overall working there out of the six.  When the  min. wage went up the company I worked for stopped hiring high schoolers, only wanted workers who would work full time (with the exception of the few college students we hired), and moved people around.  On Monday and Tuesday we had two workers up front and two in the kitchen, all were full time workers, none part time.  That allowed the company to cut part time workers. So yes, a company will cut workers. The problem with what you are looking at is that you are comparing all companies to ones that pay the min. wage.  A company, say a screen printing company that pays over $12/hr (like the one in my city) will hire only the workers they need because they hire full time staff and thus pay more. . But a restaurant who hires part time, temporary workers won't.  That is how it works.
    1
  68. fred nurk To add, they can lay off workers and still sell if they move the current ones they have around.  They will become creative that will lead to less hours for the workers. 
    1
  69. Bobby, you clearly have no idea how a business operates. "Business still needs a certain amount of employees to functionally run the business. They cant just fire people because wages are too high because that would ironically cost them even more money." Not really. Depending on the business they can cut hours and staff in numerous ways. A franchise owner who owns, say 12 locations can cut down to 10. A business open 24 hours can stop doing that and only be open from 6 AM to 10 PM. They can also replace their part time workers with full time workers which is called labor to labor substitution. Those full time workers will be the more productive workers and thus the least productive are eliminated. The company I worked for did two things when the min. wage went up to $7.25. We closed down an hour earlier, and some of our slow nights we cut staff. We hired no more high school age workers, and our more productive workers, like me, were asked to work on the slower nights as on Monday and Tuesday so they can cut staff on those nights. We went from 4 workers in the kitchen to two. They moved workers around so they can cut and keep productivity up. That leads to this "A smart employer hires the minimum amount they need to keep the business running smoothly, not the minimum amount to keep the business barely afloat." Businesses who hire at such a low wage have several part time, temporary workers. Their turnover rate is high due to the fact that those workers are typically just entering the workforce and quickly move up. I was one of the rare ones who lasted seven years, but after my degree I left. Even at that near the end of my time my hours were reduced because I was working other jobs such as undergraduate research. Those companies will hire a part time worker at a low wage who may be in high school. They have school to worry about, probably extracurricular activities, homework, and after high school they may move off to college. They may be college students who quickly leave after their degree or get an internship. They are temporary and thus the employer does not pay them much. They hire them because extra workers like that can fill in the schedule creating flexibility, and they can do extra work relieving full time staff. But if the wage becomes too high they will cut those part time workers and keep full time ones who are more dedicated to the job, more productive as a whole, and less likely to leave. "The average worker contributes nearly triple the minimum wage an hour of profit towards the company. If you are a business owner paying minimum wage and its COSTING you money, thats more a problem with your business skills. " That is not true. If you are that valuable as a worker than you should get a job elsewhere. Even at that some business models simply can't generate that much revenue. So that is not a problem of business skills. Also, one can easily say that if you are a worker and can't justify a higher wage, than that is more a problem with their work ability.
    1
  70. Jose S Workers do not benefit.  If you feel workers benefit than tell that to the black teens who, since the creation of the min. wage, have seen high unemployment.
    1
  71. There are also fewer McDonalds in Australia, so what's your point?
    1
  72. You are comparing overall unemployment to the min. wage. You can't do that. Let me give you another comparison. In Emeryville, CA they have the highest min. wage in the US but an unemployment rate of less than 5%. Their three largest employers are Pixar and two pharmaceutical companies. They have companies that generate a lot of wealth for the city thus they can get away with a higher min. wage. Economist who study employment and the min. wage look at target groups such as low wage jobs and unskilled workers.
    1
  73. Wade Haden I am not Christian and I am not republican. Also, I am pursuing a PhD at an accredited college.  
    1
  74. Lady Catfish The poverty line is rather vague as well.  Even at that if the government were to start managing the market and economy with price setting than it will change the situation, as in the poverty line will be different making the "living wage" different.
    1
  75. Maybe if someone can't justify earning a higher wage then maybe that person should go extinct.
    1
  76. Joe Doaks What I said is true.  If you can't justify a higher wage than you won't get it.  
    1
  77. rambofan334 If an person can't justify earning a higher wage, then maybe that person shouldn't exist.
    1
  78. rambofan334 Funny considering how you want to eliminate businesses you don't agree with.
    1
  79. rambofan334" If a business can't afford to pay their employees then maybe that business shouldn't exist." That is exactly what you said.
    1
  80. rambofan334 Yes, you are saying that a business you don't agree with should not exist.  
    1
  81. rambofan334 You don't agree with them because of what wage they pay their employees.  If a worker is willing to work for an employer for nothing then why should I care?  As long as the employer is not forcing anyone to work for them then why should you care?   
    1
  82. rambofan334 Not always.  I do a lot of volunteer work for my job because I enjoy it and know it will help me move up.  
    1
  83. Anthony Tillman I watched the video.  You mentioned full time, less than 2% of min. wage workers even work full time to begin with. Also, why a one bedroom?  Why can't a person get roommates?  I watched the video and found it to be asinine.  The study did not even list the names of the states which shows they are clearly hiding something.
    1
  84. Anthony Tillman I looked at the study, they don't list the states either. That is the point. "You really think think a government institution which is at least supposed to portray itself as non-partisan would publish a study without mentioning that detail. Yes, I have seen it done before where the government site does not even cite their claims "Second, I don't know if you have ever had to live with roommates, but they are often messy and unreliable; you have your part of the rent, but for whatever reason they don't have theirs." Pick better roommates or use that as motivation to get a better paying job. "Finally, did it ever occur to you that many of those minimum wage workers are working more than one job?" Only around 5% of the country work multiple jobs, and not all work a min. wage job. I work more than one job, all of which pay more than the min. wage.
    1
  85. Anthony Tillman I doubt you have an economic degree.  If you did you will realize this study is bogus as it leaves out a lot of information.  One, they don't list the states.  Here is the "study" linked by David Pakman http://www.citylab.com/work/2016/12/as-an-anti-poverty-measure-raising-the-minimum-wage-works/510119/ Next, they looked at 2014.  For the past few years jobs have been growing all across the nation already, thus a minute raise in the min. wage would not have had a negative effect.  This is similar to when Robert Reich said that when the min. wage was raised in the mid nineties that we did not see an increase in unemployment, but instead saw more jobs.  While that is true what he leaves out is that a few years prior overall unemployment was dropping to begin with along with the percent of those earning at or below the min. wage.  That means jobs were being created and they were paying above the min. wage already.  Thus the min. wage increase was pointless. You said you don't buy into theories which shows how little you know about it.  A price floor can be set that will not create waste in the market.  With the min. wage that waste is loss of labor. That happens if the market sets a price floor that is higher than the mandated one set by the government.  For example, if the price floor for labor set by the market is $8/hr, than a $7/hr min. wage set by the government will not create waste.  But if it is set at above the market's price floor, such as $9/hr, than you will see waste as in loss of employment.  Now at a low level you might not see it at overall employment because there are several workers, as in over 95% earning above the min. wage.  You will see it in select groups such as young and unskilled workers.  You don't see it in overall employment because there are many factors that play a role in that, thus that job loss gets lost in the statistical noise.  As an econ major you should have took basic statistics as well. We can determine some of these factors in this recent "study" if we knew what states were involved. They don't list them thus we can't make a determination.  So in the end this does not show that the min. wage does not hurt job growth.  The fact that you so easily dismiss basic theory shows you are not an econ. major, or you did not understand what you were taught.  Also, if you want to say that the min. wage does not lead to loss of jobs, than explain 2007.
    1
  86. Anthony Tillman "Reality has important nuances that these theories just don't take it account." Nope, as I explained in my most recent comment, you just don't understand the theories.
    1
  87. What did I say that was wrong?
    1
  88. Joe, to be fair the democratic congress raised it.
    1
  89. Ronald McDonald Trump, did you even read my entire comment?
    1
  90. Very true. What is ironic is that this is also a major reason why inner city youth continue to struggle and never get out of poverty. You hinder their growth and opportunities at an early age than they just remain stuck.
    1
  91. Ken, if you simply look at political affiliation by college departments, the econ department is basically the only one that leans right. In academics they typically lean left for several reasons, but the econ leans right. When you get out of academics those with advanced education typically lean right. So as a whole most economists lean right. Even at that there was a study that said around 85% of studies showed the min. wage had negative results.
    1
  92. ***** Why are they "bias"?  Because they understand economics and how liberal economic policies generally don't work. Also, what is this about econ not being a science?  If you want to go that route the most common degree for CEOs is engineering.  I bet they support the higher min. wage increase. It isn't a bias, it is the fact they understand economics.  Also, you do know that this "study" mentioned by Kyle was not done by an economist but instead a blogger.  
    1
  93. Aaron Chipp-Miller Apparently you never studied economics.  
    1
  94. Aaron Chipp-Miller A lot of economists are conservative and Keynesian Economics is not taken too seriously.    
    1
  95. Aaron Chipp-Miller While I agree it is nowhere near 99%, Keynesian is not that popular mainly because it has never worked.  
    1
  96. Jay D33 You can't consume what you don't produce.  If there is nothing to buy than you simply can't spend money.  You are putting the cart before the horse. 
    1
  97. Jace Solomon I do. 
    1
  98. Jace Solomon Please explain.  
    1