Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday July 30 2017, @06:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the Lies,-Damned-Lies,-and-Statistics dept.

"In what has become a running joke amongst those skeptical of the claim that minimum wage increases have no effect on unemployment, a recent report by the Employment Policies Institute showed that 174 of the 184 co-sponsors of a bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour hired unpaid interns."

"In a review of over 100 studies, economists David Neumark and William Wascher found that,A sizable majority of the studies surveyed ... give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries." http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf

"Yes, minimum wages still do increase unemployment."

https://mises.org/blog/seattles-minimum-wage-supporters-ignore-facts


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by unauthorized on Sunday July 30 2017, @10:48AM (14 children)

    by unauthorized (3776) on Sunday July 30 2017, @10:48AM (#546625)

    "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin

    Benjamin Franklin has never been credited with this phrase in any historical context, although Alexis de Tocqueville has been with something very similar.

    And he was 100% correct in that. Whether it's the rich buying congressmens' votes for money or the Democrats buying the poor's votes for money, it makes no difference. This nation is absolutely doomed unless we remove the possibility to vote corruption in for the sake of an extra dollar. Minimum wage is just as destructive to this nation as the FTC approving every merger it sees.

    Corruption... you keep saying that word but I don't think it means what you think it means. Giving the populace what it demands [gallup.com] is not "corruption", but democracy at work. Doing otherwise on the other hand is not only signs that the system isn't WaD, but clear evidence that the system is designed to work AGAINST the people. And, don't give me any canned "but muh tyranny of the majority", that only applies when the majority is demanding something tyrannical.

    A state which does not obey the will of it's people, regardless of how destructive, is a state deserving only of doom. All people deserve the right to self-determination, including when this right causes them to destroy what they have.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Informative=3, Overrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:07AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:07AM (#546629)

    "Giving the populace what it demands [gallup.com] is not "corruption", but democracy at work."

    So if the population "demands" that you give it all your money... or let's up that a bit... if the population "demands" that you are worthless and should be killed that is "democracy at work"?

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by unauthorized on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:15AM

      by unauthorized (3776) on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:15AM (#546631)

      Come on dude, at least troll me with something that wasn't preemptively rebutted in the very next sentence. This is just embarrassing.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 30 2017, @12:14PM (6 children)

    And, don't give me any canned "but muh tyranny of the majority", that only applies when the majority is demanding something tyrannical.

    You don't think "take their shit and give it to me!" is tyrannical? Interesting.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by unauthorized on Sunday July 30 2017, @01:44PM (2 children)

      by unauthorized (3776) on Sunday July 30 2017, @01:44PM (#546671)

      You don't think "take their shit and give it to me!" is tyrannical? Interesting.

      Running a business is not compulsive. "They" are welcome to move to another country, the free market will quickly fill the void as you libertarians love to point out.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 31 2017, @03:49AM (1 child)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 31 2017, @03:49AM (#546966) Journal

        Running a business is not compulsive. "They" are welcome to move to another country, the free market will quickly fill the void as you libertarians love to point out.

        You won't trust the market to employ people, but you will trust it to fill a void when you've ruthlessly stamped out the last employer who tried to fill that void? And you think that the market is somehow "free" in that situation?

        • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Monday July 31 2017, @06:31AM

          by unauthorized (3776) on Monday July 31 2017, @06:31AM (#547002)

          Note that I'm not saying that these businesses are going to be forced to fail, I'm merely saying that they can move if they don't agree with the whole "not practicing abusive employment terms" thing.

          And "ruthlessly stamped out"? Universal employment terms apply to everyone, and there will still be the need for those services. If some businesses decide to pull out, others can move in and eat their bread so to speak.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @02:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @02:24PM (#546681)

      The mighty buzzkill is st it again! Won't someone save us from his "wisdom"??

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @10:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @10:59PM (#546874)

      It's not their money though, it's money that they acquired by stealing the proceeds of people's work. Nobody has ever become a billionaire through solely their own hard work. They became billionaires by appropriating the production of other people and making it their own.

      In many cases, like with Bezos, the money doesn't even exist anywhere. It's money that he couldn't access even if he wanted to because selling all those shares of Amazon would result in the price dropping precipitously. He's probably worth only a small fraction of what people think he's worth for that very reason.

    • (Score: 2) by coolgopher on Monday July 31 2017, @04:52AM

      by coolgopher (1157) on Monday July 31 2017, @04:52AM (#546982)

      I believe the saying is "democracy is tyranny by the masses".

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:02PM (3 children)

    by jmorris (4844) on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:02PM (#546878)

    Democracy is corruption. Period, the end. The Founders carefully designed a carefully game balanced Republican form of government designed to resist the encroachments of the "universal franchise democracy" they could see destroying France and see numerous examples of similar ends in their history books.

    Democracy MUST decay into Socialism because it is the winning move, short term, for everyone on the left side of the Bell Curve. And since a lack of long range planning pretty much defines the left side of the Bell Curve..... see the problem?

    We were supposed to have enough popular representation to ensure the consent of the governed, thus preventing revolutions, but the idea of The People simply deciding important policy issues was an idea that almost universally terrified the people who designed our form of government.

    A good guide for when the government is doing something it shouldn't, like passing minimum wage laws, etc. is to remember where our theory of government asserts that the State derives its power. It has no powers other than what we delegate unto it. It has the power to tax for lawful purposes because we consented to it, it has the power to wage war because we could delegate our Right to self defense to it. It has no authority to mandate a minimum wage because WE don't have that power to delegate. It doesn't have the power to redistribute wealth because we do not have that power to delegate to it. I DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO TAKE YOUR STUFF AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO TAKE MY STUFF AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR. THE POOR DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO HELP THEMSELVES TO OUR STUFF. Therefore none of us has that power to delegate to the State to do on our behalf. If you do not like this, propose an entirely new theory of government, write out a new specific form to implement that theory and get enough States to ratify your new Constitution... or win a Revolution.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:48PM (#546891)

      Democracy is a governmental model.
      Socialism is an ownership model.

      The opposite of Democracy is Authoritarianism.
      The opposite of Socialism is Capitalism.

      In a Capitalist workplace:
      - Someone besides The Workers dictates what will be produced
      - Someone besides The Workers dictates how that will be produced
      - Someone besides The Workers dictates where that will be produced
      - Someone besides The Workers dictates how the profits will be used

      In a Socialist workplace:
      - You and your co-workers democratically decide what will be produced
      - You and your co-workers democratically decide how that will be produced
      - You and your co-workers democratically decide where that will be produced
      - You and your co-workers democratically decide how the profits will be used

      Socialism is Democracy extended to the workplace.
      Nitwit.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @12:45AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @12:45AM (#546902)

      Sorry that your country sucks so badly.
      (There are better countries.)

      The Founders carefully designed a carefully[-gamed,] balanced Republican form of government

      True.
      They also specified in that document how that document could be amended.
      So far, one chance was squandered, outlawing drinkable alcohol.
      Another amendment was squandered repealing that idiocy.

      Now, imagine that that energy had instead gone into an amendment producing publicly-funded election campaigns--replacing the overt bribery of politicians.

      .
      ...and there is a country that has a democracy that actually works the way a democracy is supposed to work.
      Switzerland [wikipedia.org]
      (BTW, that's the same country that has lots of guns but a tiny number of deaths due to gunfire.)

      ...but the U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A. WE'RE NUMBER 1 types won't ever recognize that their country can learn from another.

      ...and they won't get off their asses and demand improvement; they'll stay glued to Lamestream Media, getting the "information" that The Oligarchs want them to hear.
      They won't organize and gather at the local office of their Congresscritter, demanding change nor will they attend townhalls where their Congresscritter can be publicly held to account.

      Says very successful activist Ralph Nader: [csrl.org]

      In 2009, the Tea Party movement revolted against the bureaucratic forces of Washington. Its effect was jolting, penetrating into the mainstream media and shaking up the political orientation of Congress to this day. The rebranded Tea Party members of Congress have managed to maintain sufficient power to stall any momentum in areas that don't meet their philosophy.

      But consider this surprising fact about the Tea Party movement--a few years back the Washington Post attempted to tally up the members of the various Tea Party groups around the United States and could find little more than 300,000 active members.

      That's less then half of the population of one Congressional district. All that political momentum was gathered up by a small but extremely vocal minority. It is long overdue for an organized political movement, representing tens of millions of workers, to rise up with far more determination and tenacity. It's easier than one might think.

      You get the government that you deserve.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday July 31 2017, @04:28AM

      by Whoever (4524) on Monday July 31 2017, @04:28AM (#546974) Journal

      Let me suggest that you look up the definition of democracy.

      Hint: it's not so restrictive that the USA cannot be defined as a democracy.

  • (Score: 1) by phantomlord on Monday July 31 2017, @02:19AM

    by phantomlord (4309) on Monday July 31 2017, @02:19AM (#546938)
    Franklin did actually have something to say on a similar matter

    On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor [archives.gov]

    For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependance on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays.8 Six days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.