the real heros of the poor are going to be enterprizing businesspeople like me, once i get my busness started, but sadly i wont be able to hire but a couple since im forced to pay people more than what they are worth. i get what this is saying. noone goes without a house in america unless they want to, cause if you cant afford it we have the best actually active churches to help out.

i am free enterprise!

2/4/2010 8:50:14 PM

My policy preference for increasing low-skilled wages is by decreasing the number of unskilled people in our economy.

2/4/2010 9:34:31 PM

^^ obvious troll is still obvious.

But I'm curious what fantasy business will you be entering?

2/4/2010 10:50:39 PM

Quote :

"11.1% of min wage or less earners are between the ages of 35 and 44, 8.7% are between 45 and 54"

that does NOT suggest that 1 in 5 earning minimum wage are the sole breadwinners in the household. Try again.

2/4/2010 10:51:43 PM

^^

Quote :

"So what's yalls future plans? heres mine and i know some of you will hate but thanks for the good ones of yall too. -get a job -finish up at wake tech -transfer up to nc state, home of the pack -finish up my busness degree -start my company by buying my first small factory, probably in mexico or maybe a part of texas for the cheapness and regulations -start making my product -use that to donate to important causes -maybe run for political office and fix things up? we need business people in charge who know budgeting. -hopefully marry the girl of my dreams what abot you all? 12/6/2009 8:07:11 PM "

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=582936&page=1#13594247

2/4/2010 10:52:51 PM

Aha. I too wish to make a product of some sort, and sell it.

2/4/2010 11:00:00 PM

Even though he's an idiot, at least he as ambition, which is still more than most people.

[Edited on February 4, 2010 at 11:06 PM. Reason : assuming he's not actually an alias]

2/4/2010 11:05:38 PM

Well then, TerdFerguson, just ignore whatever arguments I make and move on to another appeal to authority. Well, fine, I too can appeal to authority, as the card/krueger study has been thoroughly refuted by Neumark/Wascher, as summarized here by reason magazine (link to study follows summary).

Quote :

"Card and Krueger conducted telephone surveys of about 400 fast-food restaurants in February-March 1992, and then again in November-December 1992. They asked questions about full- and part-time workers, wages, benefits, and prices... One immediate problem is that the authors looked only at major fast-food chains: Elementary economic analysis does not say that if you increase the minimum wage, employment will go down in every business--or in any particular business. The higher minimum wage might have differing impacts across firms. Indeed, it is possible that the major fast-food chains might emerge better off if the increased minimum wage raises costs at such smaller competitors as mom-and-pop fast-food stands. Moreover, the Card/Krueger study turns out to have a major flaw: The survey data upon which it depends are lousy...Independently, David Neumark of Michigan State and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve noticed that the variation in employment changes across the surveyed restaurants in the Card/Krueger sample seemed implausibly large--some restaurants had supposedly added huge numbers of employees while others had supposedly cut large numbers. In relatively small businesses, this sort of fluctuation seemed odd. So Neumark and Wascher reviewed the payroll employment data gathered by EPI. When they applied the payroll data to the same econometric model used by Card and Krueger, they got completely different results. The variation in employment changes declined markedly, and analysis of the new data yields an estimated 4.8-percent decline in New Jersey employment relative to the Pennsylvania sample as a result of the higher minimum wage. Where payroll data could be compared with survey data for specific restaurants, Neumark and Wascher also found numerous errors in the Card/Krueger data. Looking just at Burger King restaurants, for instance, the Card/Krueger survey data show employment declines in two of three Pennsylvania zip codes, while the payroll data show employment increases in all three zip codes. Neumark and Wascher conclude that the questions used by Card and Krueger were too vague to generate precise information. For example, the survey asked how many "full-time" and "part-time" employees a restaurant had. But it didn't define either those terms (40 hours a week? 30?) or the relevant time period (within the last week? month? year?), leaving different restaurant managers to define the question differently. In short, using the actual payroll data instead of the survey "guesstimates" effectively refutes the Card/Krueger findings yielded by the New Jersey/Pennsylvania "natural experiment.""

http://reason.com/archives/1995/06/01/minimal-evidence

Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the
Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania: Comment
http://www.econ.jhu.edu/People/Barnow/neumarmw.pdf

[Edited on February 4, 2010 at 11:14 PM. Reason : TF]

2/4/2010 11:13:37 PM

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=8d3b076bd4de14bbda5aba699e80621d&tab=core&_cview=1&cck=1&au=&ck=

Quote :

"The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts."

That's right, ladies. The government is going to get the money that they deserve, even if it means blasting you in the face with a shotgun.

2/5/2010 10:58:08 AM

^^How is that an appeal to authority?

You posted that minimum wage laws depress employment. I posted a case study with evidence that didn't support your argument: the study just happened to be published by someone studying in the field.


Go back and read the paper I posted. Its not even the paper that your critique is attacking. In fact, the paper that I posted is a direct reply to the questions raised by Berman and Neumark/Wascher. Card/Krueger use new datasets and methods, taking into account the criticisms they received, and come to the same conclusion, that min wage laws did not reduce fast food employment in New Jersey during the early 90s.


Regardless of who you think is correct in this case study (Card/Krueger or Neumark/Wascher), it shows that the topic isn't nearly as cut and dry as the "bad outcomes of the min. wage laws" that you posted.

Quote :

"The minimum wage is special interest legislation and yet the American people and the people on this very board buy into it, hook, line, and sinker. "

Sorry, but I had to respond to this too. Removing the min. wage is just as much of a special interest. What are you buying into hook, line, and sinker?

[Edited on February 5, 2010 at 11:07 AM. Reason : arrows]

2/5/2010 11:06:45 AM

Quote :

"Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend"

This is the type of stuff you usually hear from people who want to demonize guns. I guess it's acceptable for people to use it to demonize the government, too?

Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 (ooooh, scary!), fourteen inch barrel, modified choke (holy crap, not a choke!), XS4 Contour Bead front sight (contour beads iiiiiyyyyyyeeeeeeeeee!1)



In other words, they bought 60 of one of the most popular hunting shotguns in America and had some decent sights added to them. I'm terrified.

[Edited on February 5, 2010 at 11:11 AM. Reason : ]

2/5/2010 11:09:43 AM

Why is an office that's supposed to be purely administrative buying guns, dude?

2/5/2010 11:10:23 AM

What's "purely administrative" supposed to mean in this context?

Is it to imply that they have no authority to enforce laws or protect their agents?





[Edited on February 5, 2010 at 11:14 AM. Reason : ]

2/5/2010 11:13:46 AM

I found this:

Quote :

"According to their website, the IRS currently employs 2,700 special agents in its Criminal Investigation division, all of whom are required to be trained with, carry, and use a firearm. Additionally, many federal agencies are required by law to have an “anti-terrorist” division to respond to dangerous threats as a result of an order that the Bush Administration issued just six days after the events of September 11th."

So, this isn't anything new. The IRS already has a bunch of guns, and they're ready to get you to pay taxes through force, if necessary.

I would expect that law enforcement would deal with this type of thing, and it would be an entirely separate unit from the IRS. Apparently, that was too complicated, so they decided to combine the two in classic authoritarian style.

[Edited on February 5, 2010 at 11:19 AM. Reason : ]

2/5/2010 11:16:29 AM

Uh, yeah?

You've just conceded a whole lot of points.


Do you still have one?

2/5/2010 11:17:57 AM

The point, now that I've done more research, is that we're way past the point of government overstepping its bounds. Now, it's just a matter of time before they begin gunning down regular citizens because they aren't willing to fork over half of their wages to fund a military empire and an out of control welfare state.

2/5/2010 11:20:57 AM

Alright, I'm going to need to see one example of an IRS agent killing someone who wasn't pointing a gun at the agent.

Hell, you probably can't find an example of an IRS agent killing someone, period.



And

Quote :

"because they aren't willing to fork over half of their wages"

implies that they're extremely wealthy. I'd love for you to cite an article involving an IRS/CEO shoot-out.

2/5/2010 11:26:50 AM

On the 50% number, you don't think taxes could get that high? How else are we going to pay off this debt? You probably deny that inflation is a possibility, while supporting running budget deficits, so where is the money going to come from? The government needs more revenue.

I'm not speaking of things that have already happened, I'm speaking of things that could happen in the future. Obviously, the IRS is prepared to kill people over tax issues if necessary. As our debt continues to balloon, and the government loses its ability to shelter people from the effects of mass unemployment, why are people going to want to continue paying taxes? They already see very little return on the taxes they do pay, because the government pisses it away on things they don't want. I think there will come a point when large numbers of people refuse to pay taxes, and I don't think the government (and the IRS, apparently) is just going to accept it.

I don't think we should have an armed tax collection agency. If you're going to make not paying taxes illegal, then law enforcement should be dealing with it...not IRS agents. There should be a separation of the administrative and enforcement branches.

2/5/2010 11:35:52 AM

Quote :

"Obviously, the IRS is prepared to kill people over tax issues if necessary."

Obviously. They're going to walk up to the offender, and shoot him in the face (your words). This is a much more effective means of recouping revenue than garnishing wages. Shit, I bet Obama will revoke the dozen or so bits in the Constitution preventing the agents from doing this, too!

And they're going to do this to all tax offenders, nationwide, with their 60 hunting shotguns.

[Edited on February 5, 2010 at 11:41 AM. Reason : ]

2/5/2010 11:39:59 AM

We'll at least now we know that d357r0y3r is a nut case.

2/5/2010 4:19:20 PM

Short-barreled shotguns require an extra $200 tax-stamp. Oh..I forget it's for the IRS.

"Have you got receipts for that deduction Punk? Well...DO YA??... Go Ahead Make My Audit!"

2/6/2010 1:16:12 AM

Quote :

"Obviously. They're going to walk up to the offender, and shoot him in the face (your words). This is a much more effective means of recouping revenue than garnishing wages."

It kinda is... Tax collection requires a large amount of self incrimination on the part of tax payers. That is why they require that you attach your W2's: there is a good chance they don't already have that information on file like they are supposed to.

Well, if people get shot for not volunteering their guilt, then given that the government is very incompetent at discerning guilt, people will go free like crazy. As such, while it is short of shooting you in the face, this is why the IRS comes down on people like a ton of bricks for making honest mistakes: they need to scare people into submission, and they know it.

2/6/2010 5:59:23 PM

I guess nobody will think i'm the same person as this clown anymore

Quote :

"if we ended taxes, the minimum wage, and regulations, there would be no excuse for unemployment. "

ya because everyone would be employed as rebels.

2/6/2010 6:55:01 PM

LOL at Walmart being the bad guy again. Yes, it's so terrible that they provide cheap goods so that poor kids can own a basketball, poor families can have furniture, toiletries, and CLOTHES to wear.

You guys are idiots. If McDonalds was allowed to pay 17 year olds $4.50 an hour instead of $7.25 an hour then they could afford to sell poor people food for $3 instead of $6.

Don't you see how this works?

A working mom could SAVE money by buying CHEAPER goods if businesses were allowed to hire people at CHEAPER wages. On top of that her children could EARN wages instead of being shut out from labor markets because LIBERAL TIGERSHARKS insist on them STARVING instead of WORKING.

2/6/2010 8:35:36 PM

Quote :

"ya because everyone would be employed as rebels."

It is so weird the way everyone jumps to this answer once it is obvious that their position is indefensible, as if removing a law which only applies to a fraction of one percent of the workforce would cause the entire population to take to the hills. Especially considering that the law in question unjustly sacrifices the income and options of the powerless in order to bring wealth and position to the politically powerful.

Quote :

"there will always be more workers than jobs"

Interesting story. Upon reading an economic history of the middle ages, it turns out there were times when there were more jobs than workers. You see, the landed gentry used their political pull to impose a price ceiling for farm laborers, with predictable results. Cheating was quite bad, even to the point of land owners kidnapping laborers from their neighbors. They imposed the death penalty upon any laborer found accepting compensation in excess of the law. Thankfully today we only imprison workers at illegal factories earning less than the price floor.

[Edited on February 6, 2010 at 11:41 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/6/2010 11:31:45 PM

I suppose everyone here knows which market failure price ceilings attempt to address, right?

2/7/2010 12:14:11 AM

Quote :

"that does NOT suggest that 1 in 5 earning minimum wage are the sole breadwinners in the household. Try again."

actually, i was being modest. Dept. of Labor study from 1996, but if we've experienced an amazing renaissance in the wages of these breadwinners since then that you can prove, knock yourself out.

Quote :

"almost two-thirds of minimum wage workers are adults, and four in ten are the sole bread winner of their family."

http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/pay.htm

Quote :

"as summarized here by reason magazine"

ah yes, the noted scholarly ayn rand fap page.

[Edited on February 8, 2010 at 2:48 AM. Reason : .]

2/8/2010 2:45:40 AM

I just used their summary for brevity. As most scholarly works, the actual paper did not make for good excerpts.

Quote :

"I suppose everyone here knows which market failure price ceilings attempt to address, right?"

The market failure of "there will always be more workers than jobs", as least in TerdFerguson's mind. In my mind a small surplus of supply is a sign of an efficient market. But TerdFerguson is not going to be satisfied until that surplus is huge and workers are dying on street from unemployment.

2/8/2010 9:35:31 AM

Yes, thats exactly what I want. You hit the nail on the head. I take it you would prefer the poor working for 14 hours, and still not making enough to afford rent and food.

you never really responded to:

Quote :

"Go back and read the paper I posted. Its not even the paper that your critique is attacking. In fact, the paper that I posted is a direct reply to the questions raised by Berman and Neumark/Wascher. Card/Krueger use new datasets and methods, taking into account the criticisms they received, and come to the same conclusion, that min wage laws did not reduce fast food employment in New Jersey during the early 90s. Regardless of who you think is correct in this case study (Card/Krueger or Neumark/Wascher), it shows that the topic isn't nearly as cut and dry as the raising the min. wage will always reduce unemployment."

2/8/2010 11:14:33 AM

Quote :

"The market failure of "there will always be more workers than jobs", "

Pretty much, but you would have to think of them more as entities. There are far, far, far more entities selling labor than buying it. Since these sellers do no collude, they are subject to an imbalance in market power. Monopoly and monopsony kind of come in more than one shade.

2/8/2010 1:04:09 PM

^^ There are studies on both sides, I find mine convincing and so do most economists. And there is a logic process which needs making: we know how a higher price floor should decrease hours worked and by extension, employment, but there is no reasonable mechanism for a higher price floor to result in more employment. As such, barring convincing evidence, which we don't have, it would be far easier to believe New Jersey just happened to raise the floor during a localized economic boom.

But, fine, let us go back to what I said back on page 1: "Look at Earthdog's statistics, we're only talking about 286,000 workers here. Compare that to the 1.9 million that are already both exempt from the minimum wage and earning below it..."

We are talking about a tiny percentage of the workforce that is affected by the minimum wage, a workforce that is dwarfed by the workforce that is exempt from and earns less than the minimum wage. It is no accident that statisticians have difficulty proving the harm/benefits of the price floor: 1) we have almost no data, as those affected are truly poor and therefore have no phone, rendering them beyond the reach of government statisticians. 2) the data we do have is lost in a sea of noise, as the workers thrown out of the job by the minimum wage often join their 1.9 million peers with a job that is exempt from the minimum wage.

Quote :

"I take it you would prefer the poor working for 14 hours, and still not making enough to afford rent and food."

The minimum wage today pays far more than my grandfather earned on his farm back in the 1950s. It is also 10+ times more than a poor Mexican family takes home, even before you include all the government benefits (Medicaid, food stamps, EITC, etc). If my grandfather could manage to raise a family of six on his meager earnings, I suspect it is enough to cover rent and food, especially since the poor are not stupid and will probably find a way to share such expenses as housing, by moving in with extended family, etc.

But, even if they are as stupid as you think they are, and earn as little as you imply they do, a meager income is infinitely better than no income at all!!! How can you even risk doing this to someone? Even if it is a slim chance of rendering someone with a family unemployable, how can you take it? And for what? So some politically connected and exempt industry gets cheaper workers?

2/8/2010 6:45:53 PM

Quote :

"As such, barring convincing evidence, which we don't have, it would be far easier to believe New Jersey just happened to raise the floor during a localized economic boom."

Exactly. There are more important variables in determining unemployment than what the min. wage is. Raising the min. wage does not automatically mean unemployment is going to skyrocket for the poor and leave people starving in the streets.

Quote :

"We are talking about a tiny percentage of the workforce that is affected by the minimum wage, a workforce that is dwarfed by the workforce that is exempt from and earns less than the minimum wage"

Isn't this what you want? I understand that some exempt industries may lobby for min wage so that they can allegedly have an unfair advantage (agriculture?). But if those actually affected is so small then whats the big deal? If its such a small percentage of the poor population then it should have a minor affect on their employment. I highly doubt if you did away with the min. wage you would see much improvement in working poor employment in min. wage affected businesses. The economy isnt going to suddenly grow so much that their is noticeably higher employment for the poor just b/c you did away with min. wage laws.

Quote :

"The minimum wage today pays far more than my grandfather earned on his farm back in the 1950s"

Im assuming you're adjusting for inflation, cost of living etc etc etc. Not too mention Im assuming most of his farm was paid off at the time and that he raised or grew a good bit of his own food. Did they have health insurance back then? Did he have to pay bus fare to get to work? Did he have an electrical bill? (im assuming he was uber poor). It just seems like a lot has changed since then.

Quote :

"It is also 10+ times more than a poor Mexican family takes home"

Mexico =! America. Our poor would live like kings if the cost of living was the same in America and Mexico. Neither of these comparisons really work for me.

Quote :

"But, even if they are as stupid as you think they are, and earn as little as you imply they do, a meager income is infinitely better than no income at all!!! How can you even risk doing this to someone? Even if it is a slim chance of rendering someone with a family unemployable, how can you take it? And for what? So some politically connected and exempt industry gets cheaper workers? "

I love the compassion.

I can only counter with this: How can you sale someone into economic slavery? Why would you allow someone to work all day and still not make enough to keep their head above water? How can you take it? And for what? So that businesses can turn a slightly larger profit by paying their workers less?




I think we may just have to agree to disagree.

2/8/2010 8:57:07 PM

Quote :

"But if those actually affected is so small then whats the big deal?"

I suspect we are ignoring regional differences. The industries that are exempt tend to be found in certain regions, those that are not exempt tend to congregate in the other regions. As such, while it may be a snap for workers displaced in New Jersey to find work elsewhere just by accepting the lower $3 wages, the same may not be the case in the Chicago slums. But I realize there are other policies that both cause more harm and whose harm is indisputable, but those harms are indisputable because they strike people of means, people with telephones capable of answering when the statisticians call. I see it, there is just some sense of justice that pushes people to lobby on behalf of those that cannot lobby for themselves, which means people without telephones.

Quote :

"I can only counter with this: How can you sale someone into economic slavery? Why would you allow someone to work all day and still not make enough to keep their head above water? How can you take it?"

Facts not in evidence. Many millionaires fail to keep their heads above water. The question is money management. You can live very cheaply in America if you put forth the effort.

Tis better to die than live a wage-slave? Then kill yourself, because it is not just these 286,000 that must work to eat. We all must work if we wish to survive. Even managers must work. What makes us different from slaves, however, is we get to choose what work we want to do. Man survived millions of years before cash wages were invented. If that $7.15 an hour worker wants to do that again, then just like you, me, and their boss, get a bus ticket to the southern hills and start scratching out subsistence. A right no slave or serf in history has ever possessed. Maybe this isn't enough, maybe you think what makes you not a wage-slave is you could quit and then survive off savings. Well, statistics suggests just this, as the poorest 10% of households averaged less than ten hours of work a week, if my memory serves me. In many ways, what personifies America's poorest is an inability to keep a job at all.

Quote :

"And for what? So that businesses can turn a slightly larger profit by paying their workers less?"

No, so that any worker on the verge of having their life fall apart because they need a job right now, can get one.

[Edited on February 8, 2010 at 10:45 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/8/2010 10:43:27 PM

My economic plan actually involves elimination of minimum wage but provides an alternative that would be disliked much more by the greedy capitalists that oppose the minimum wage. People who oppose minimum wage for the real problems it can cause the everyday person would probably be happy with it though.

2/9/2010 9:21:23 PM

We don't need another alternative to the minimum wage, we already have one. It is called the Earned Income Tax Credit. Jack that up and instantly all the poor will be richer without sacrificing some of them to die in the street.

2/9/2010 10:43:43 PM

free enterprise: still the only option for succeesss

2/15/2010 1:44:40 PM