SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An article in Australian newspaper The Age describes a paper just released by the Reserve Bank of Australia which has found that periodic increases in the Minimum Wage (also known as the "Award" wage in Australia) did not negatively affect the level of employment in each respective industry:
The paper, published by the central bank's economic research department on the final day the Fair Work Commission hearings had to decide if 2.3 million Australians will get a pay rise in July, found "no evidence that small, incremental increases in award wages had an adverse effect on hours worked or the job destruction rate".
It used a sample of 32,000 jobs between 1998 and 2008, when award wages were increased by a flat dollar amount each year, to find jobs with larger award wage rises had larger increases in hours worked than jobs experiencing a smaller award wage rise.
"I am able to rule out adverse effects on hours worked. I also find that award wage increases do not have a statistically significant effect on the job destruction rate," said researcher James Bishop.
"If anything, the point estimates suggest that the job destruction rate actually declines when the award wage is increased."
[...] The RBA paper said their results may not "necessarily generalise to large, unanticipated changes in award wages", cautioned it only included adult positions, and that the consequences of wage increases may "be borne by job seekers, rather than job holders".
"There will always be some point at which a minimum wage adjustment will begin to reduce employment," the paper stated.
Naturally, this is proving problematic for some politicians who have been advocating against increases in the minimum wage due to fears that this will harm business.
Link to Abstract and Paper (pdf).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @09:32PM (1 child)
What your little thing doesn't mention is that was the rate FOR THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS OF THE DAY.
As I already stated up in the (meta)thread, before FDR was done, he had that up to 94 percent.
...AND THAT KEPT THINGS STABILIZED UNTIL THE LATE 1960s.
(Followed by Lewis Powell, Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, Ronald Reagan, and the rest of the Neoliberals and the current downward spiral for the majority of USAians.)
baby pigs were slaughtered
Yeah? So? Want to stop that stupid shit?
Get rid of (boom-and-bust) Capitalism.
BTW, what you consider stupid shit happened again within recent memory among France's dairy farmers in 2009. [google.com]
You keep making my point for me: CAPITALISM SUCKS!
Clearly, what you know about Macroecomonics could fit in a thimble with room left over..
the National Industrial Recovery Act
It stemmed the downward spiral.
Waddya want? A rubber biscuit?
in a rather Soviet way
Your revulsion at things that work (but aren't Oligarchical Capitalism) is comical.
If only you could step outside your propaganda-saturated brain and see yourself, you'd laugh your ass off.
Trotsky and Lenin (until his death in 1924) actually had things perking along quite nicely.
If they had been able to remove the constant military and economic harassment of USA (plus its Capitalist allies) and the financial and manpower burden that that posed on USSR--starting with an invasion as soon as WWI was over--Soviet collectives would have gone even better.
There was a fun Cold War Era movie [google.com] where those charged with the USAian occupation of a place in the Far East were supposed to get the local economy back on its feet.
The solution turned out to be COLLECTIVE. [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 21 2018, @08:54PM
So what? It's money taken away from competent people and dumped on one of the more wasteful governments of the day. Let us also keep in mind that those competent people were able to keep the real world tax rate that they paid on income down to a little more than it is today via trust funds.
We have plenty of examples from top down Communism that shows this isn't somehow peculiar to Capitalism.
I ask everyone still struggling along in this thread to read that article and ask yourself "What does that have to do with capitalism?" Dairy farmers protesting low milk subsidies by creating a huge public nuisance (and apparently destroying almost a million gallons of milk in the process) is not Capitalism. Your argument is silly.
Note you posted this in response to the creation of oligarchies. It's dumb when capitalists do it. It stays dumb when anti-capitalists do it. The bigger problem is that anti-capitalists tend to treat human beings as just another commodity to destroy when it gets inconvenient. Lot of examples of that in the past.
Once again, we see your remarkable insistence on defending the worst of humanity. Lenin didn't kill quite as many millions of Russians in cold blood as Stalin did, but it wasn't that big a difference, certainly within an order of magnitude. That "perking along quite nicely" meant the death of millions and the suffering of tens of millions, eventually to swell to well over a billion by the fall of the Berlin Wall. He's everything you protest against, the antithesis of democratic reform of workplaces, yet you slavishly lick his boots.
How about Red Dawn or Rambo III, eh? Proof by movie only works if the movie can be shown to accurately portray reality. As in this case, that almost never happens much less is shown. The fundamental problem with movies is that they are fiction and hence, can represent events that are radically different from reality.