So, Brad, you'd only get another 4 months if things went south?

Well done to your mom for getting back out in such time, but don't you wonder if your arbitrary 2 years in a lifetime is actually going to work for everyone? Not all situations are the same, and sometimes recessions last a long time.

Ricky:

The point I'm making,is that a minimum wage would raie all boats. Which the CBO seems to strengthen.

Except for the people who lose their jobs.

I think some increase in the minimum wage is warranted. (How many times do I have to say that?) I also think it should be pegged to inflation. But there are limits which is the point that the CBO makes when you don't cherry pick the data. You have to look at supply and demand curves. There is no free lunch. (How many times do I have to say that?) Ok, Ricky, you can now launch into another of your annoying soliloquies where you quote a like minded journalist and argue against points that none of us have made.

So give me a number of years that you would suggest.

I am ok with a lifetime total of up to 5.

Yes, Kudos to my mom. She is an awesome lady who has shaped me into what I am today.

I do think my number of two years is based upon my experience. I do not hold my family to be above any other. Why would I think that someone could not do what my family did.

I worked when I was 11, sweeping in front of a grocery. I made $1 a day for an hour. It taught me a great deal. You start small, and go up from there. (At least I did)

Am I better than others? If not should they held to the same standard?

Ray the CBo report says that 95% of people would be effected positively by a minimum wage increase. Who's cherry picking?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a new report on Tuesday on the impacts of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour and $9 an hour. It found that a $10.10 minimum wage, implemented by 2016, would mean higher earnings for 16.5 million workers, resulting in $31 billion more in higher earnings. It would also lift nearly 1 million people out of poverty.
But it also found that an increase would reduce jobs slightly. “Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent,” it projects. That figure takes into account what it says would be a decrease in jobs for low-wage workers as well as an increase of “a few tens of thousands of jobs” for others thanks to higher demand. “Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion,” it says. The vast majority of people impacted, over 95 percent, will be impacted positively.

Nothing is perfection. But your evidence isn't saying there's no free lunch.
And over time, the effect of extra money in the hands of working poor will boost the economy.
plus all the other beenfits which are enumerated here:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/0 ... imum-wage/

the only people beenfittting from the low minimum wage are the corporate entities that enhance their profit.
And get taxed less on them than ordinary people. (free lunch indeed)

Ricky:

The vast majority of people impacted, over 95 percent, will be impacted positively.

What page of the study says that?

Not to be difficult, but in our world, there is often a free lunch, and usually it's driven by productivity enhancements. When productivity goes up we get more output for the same amount of input. I would call that the essence of a free lunch, and it's the primary driver of American economic growth for most of the 20th century.

Compressed profit margins might be considered by consumers to be a free lunch. If Mr. Business Owner start selling a widget for less because of market pressures and makes less profit, consumers are getting a free lunch. Of course the investment class pays for that free lunch, so it's not free for everyone, just for some, but it's a "free" lunch for most that part of American culture: competition is good.

If you raised the minimum wage, could you expect more productive workforce? Some companies seem to think so, and so pay their workers more than the market dictates. If you raised the minimum wage, could that increase cost be passed along to consumers? Maybe in some industries, but probably not in others.

So there are arguments to be made, even here, that there might be a free lunch.

To sum up the CBO study:

5 billion in increased income would go to those who are beneath the poverty line;
12 billion in increases income would go to those who have incomes between 1-3 times the poverty line;
2 billion in increased income would to those with incomes 3-6 the poverty line.
17 billion in income would be lost to those with incomes of more than 6 times the poverty line.
Overall, income would be raised by two billion
16.5 million workers making up to $10.10 under current law would see an increase in earnings while 500,000 low -wage jobs would be lost. 900,000 workers would see their incomes rise above the poverty threshold.
There may be no free lunch but a policy that benefits 97 percent of low -wage workers (16.5 million increased earnings/17 million=total low-wage workers affected (16.5 getting higher wages plus 500,000 lost jobs), 900,000 lifted out of property and an overall increase of 2 billion to the economy seems like good policy to me.

geo

Not to be difficult, but in our world, there is often a free lunch, and usually it's driven by productivity enhancements. When productivity goes up we get more output for the same amount of input. I would call that the essence of a free lunch, and it's the primary driver of American economic growth for most of the 20th century.

For a long period, increasing productiviity by workers was rewarded with increasing wage rates by workers. However, something changed...

From 1973 to 2011, worker productivity grew 80 percent, while median hourly compensation, after inflation, grew by just one-eighth that amount, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group. And since 2000, productivity has risen 23 percent while real hourly pay has essentially stagnated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunda ... gnate.html

Someone's lunch was being eaten.... The working class and middle class.

The point behind the minimum wage is that many of the people who are earning minimum wage would earn less ..... except there is a law forcing corporations to pay them at least that much.
These same corporations will use any disinformation they can to stop the minimum wage from being increased. And people buy into the false notions.
These same corporations have outside clout in Washington adn State capitals because of campaign contributions...
And the game continues..
The strange thing is that a high wage economy, would greatly benefit almost everyone...

bbauska wrote:So give me a number of years that you would suggest.

I am ok with a lifetime total of up to 5.

It's the application of an arbitrary lifetime limit that bothers me, to be honest. Any 'lifetime limit' seems to me to risk causing people issues when they are in their 50s-60s and get laid off but can't find work.

I do think my number of two years is based upon my experience. I do not hold my family to be above any other. Why would I think that someone could not do what my family did.

Because not everyone has the exact same circumstances?

I worked when I was 11, sweeping in front of a grocery. I made $1 a day for an hour. It taught me a great deal. You start small, and go up from there. (At least I did)

I worked when I was a kid (started at 12), and while it did teach me the value of money and work, it didn't stop me from understanding how life is not the same for all of us.

Am I better than others? If not should they held to the same standard?

I see no problem with a standard. I just think your standards are too harsh to apply to everyone else.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:So give me a number of years that you would suggest.

I am ok with a lifetime total of up to 5.

It's the application of an arbitrary lifetime limit that bothers me, to be honest. Any 'lifetime limit' seems to me to risk causing people issues when they are in their 50s-60s and get laid off but can't find work.

I do think my number of two years is based upon my experience. I do not hold my family to be above any other. Why would I think that someone could not do what my family did.

Because not everyone has the exact same circumstances?

I worked when I was 11, sweeping in front of a grocery. I made $1 a day for an hour. It taught me a great deal. You start small, and go up from there. (At least I did)

I worked when I was a kid (started at 12), and while it did teach me the value of money and work, it didn't stop me from understanding how life is not the same for all of us.

Am I better than others? If not should they held to the same standard?

I see no problem with a standard. I just think your standards are too harsh to apply to everyone else.

Thank you for the insight into you.

bbauska

I agree that we need short term welfare, but perhaps two years total for the lifetime would be a guidepost?

When these people stop receiving welfare payments will they magically stop being poor?

What statistical evidence do you have that welfare is actually prefered by a significant portion of recipients over a job?
This great myth that welfare is a dodge and that many of the people on welfare (or unemployment) are just gaming the system supports an attitude that ensures that benfits are minimal and that the beauracracy that recipients have to go through is demeaning.
On the other hand, at the other end of the scale, higher taxes on the very wealthy is often described as onerous and unjust.

bbauska wrote:Thank you for the insight into you.

Life is not the same for all of us, that is true.

However, as government fills in all the perceived "gaps," people take less responsibility for themselves and for their families. Is it mere coincidence that more children are born out of wedlock in the US than ever--or is it because the government subsidizes it?

Please: don't challenge me to show causality. I am asking the question. It seems more reasonable to conclude some percentage of causality than to ignore it altogether, doesn't it?

That some people scam the system is undeniable. That some people need help is undeniable. The difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals, by and large, shrug at welfare waste. Meanwhile, liberals tell conservatives we don't care about military waste, but that's not true. We decry all waste in government.

However, we are outraged by welfare fraud because it represents some people shilly-shallying on our tax dollars. Some people use EBT at marijuana stores, some at strip clubs, some at casinos. None of those places should see welfare recipients--nor Disney theme parks.

I'm sorry, but if you're on welfare that is a life without frills.

freeman3 wrote:To sum up the CBO study:

5 billion in increased income would go to those who are beneath the poverty line;
12 billion in increases income would go to those who have incomes between 1-3 times the poverty line;
2 billion in increased income would to those with incomes 3-6 the poverty line.
17 billion in income would be lost to those with incomes of more than 6 times the poverty line.
Overall, income would be raised by two billion
16.5 million workers making up to $10.10 under current law would see an increase in earnings while 500,000 low -wage jobs would be lost. 900,000 workers would see their incomes rise above the poverty threshold.
There may be no free lunch but a policy that benefits 97 percent of low -wage workers (16.5 million increased earnings/17 million=total low-wage workers affected (16.5 getting higher wages plus 500,000 lost jobs), 900,000 lifted out of property and an overall increase of 2 billion to the economy seems like good policy to me.

That is so awesome! $2B increase without ANY costs? Wow!

This is so cool. Hey, let's go for $20 an hour! That would mean, what, about $20B into the economy without cost?

Who knew fixing the economy was so easy? Just pass laws so people get more money!

rickyp wrote:bbauska

I agree that we need short term welfare, but perhaps two years total for the lifetime would be a guidepost?

When these people stop receiving welfare payments will they magically stop being poor?

What statistical evidence do you have that welfare is actually prefered by a significant portion of recipients over a job?
This great myth that welfare is a dodge and that many of the people on welfare (or unemployment) are just gaming the system supports an attitude that ensures that benfits are minimal and that the beauracracy that recipients have to go through is demeaning.
On the other hand, at the other end of the scale, higher taxes on the very wealthy is often described as onerous and unjust.

No. Is it the governments responsibility to ensure that people aren't poor? (if yes, please show me the law saying that, and explain why poverty has increased since the "War on Poverty' under LBJ started)

I don't think it is a dodge. It is a hard way of life. Having lived it, I can say that. I think people should be pressed to achieve more than that. If they choose not to, then it is not the government's responsibility to better their lives.

geojanes wrote:Not to be difficult, but in our world, there is often a free lunch, and usually it's driven by productivity enhancements. When productivity goes up we get more output for the same amount of input. I would call that the essence of a free lunch, and it's the primary driver of American economic growth for most of the 20th century.

I can't believe rickyp didn't call you out. After all, it's the progressive income tax and increased safety net that has driven economic growth.

Compressed profit margins might be considered by consumers to be a free lunch. If Mr. Business Owner start selling a widget for less because of market pressures and makes less profit, consumers are getting a free lunch. Of course the investment class pays for that free lunch, so it's not free for everyone, just for some, but it's a "free" lunch for most that part of American culture: competition is good.

If market pressures might depress prices, why can't the market pressure cause wages to find the right point? That market is so weird, isn't it?

If you raised the minimum wage, could you expect more productive workforce? Some companies seem to think so, and so pay their workers more than the market dictates.

Two other possibilities:

1. Some companies actually value keeping good people. (Trust me, if you've been a supervisor, you know how important this is--but some companies don't).

2. Some companies are supporting the President's battle cry because of crony-capitalism. Obama's brilliance is that he has co-opted some in the private sector to pressure others. He did it with the health insurance companies and is even leveraging Wal-Mart in some ways.

If you raised the minimum wage, could that increase cost be passed along to consumers? Maybe in some industries, but probably not in others.

But, every place prices go up, who will it hurt? Hint: it won't be the wealthy.