Obamacare
Quote: TwirdmanThats the problem it is a childish understanding of an incredibly complex topic. http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf now I would comment that saying there is no statisitically significant effect is not the same as saying there is no effect. Just pointing out you can't say with certainty that the two are related.
The two are related. The problem with studies on the issue is that the strength of the rest of the economy can change how much effect. In addition it is hard to get exact measures. As I pointed out earlier, some of the effect may take years to show up, example being self-serve cash registers. A Wal-Mart cannot install them at the snap of a finger, it might take them years to get them fully installed.
It is the reverse of the wage and price controls of the 1970s. There were nice, low prices for steak. But the shelves were empty. So they raise the minimum wage to $10 but the jobs will be few and far between.
My preference is to have no federal minimum and let the states handle the matter.
And if you want to make more than minimum, well, learn some skills. Because the burger flipper will always be at the bottom, and as soon as the minimum is bumped by force other prices will rise to make up for the new cost.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe two are related. The problem with studies on the issue is that the strength of the rest of the economy can change how much effect. In addition it is hard to get exact measures. As I pointed out earlier, some of the effect may take years to show up, example being self-serve cash registers. A Wal-Mart cannot install them at the snap of a finger, it might take them years to get them fully installed.
It is the reverse of the wage and price controls of the 1970s. There were nice, low prices for steak. But the shelves were empty. So they raise the minimum wage to $10 but the jobs will be few and far between.
My preference is to have no federal minimum and let the states handle the matter.
And if you want to make more than minimum, well, learn some skills. Because the burger flipper will always be at the bottom, and as soon as the minimum is bumped by force other prices will rise to make up for the new cost.
Except some of the studies were multi year studies and again didn't find any statistically significant effects. Again besides a few anecdotes and a fairly basic level of understanding of economics why do you think that raising minimum wage raises unemployment when multiple studies show it don't.
Quote: TwirdmanAnd pure Laizze Faire capitalism has failed. Look at all the problems industry had before regulations. Meatpacking being probably the worst. Also most economist agree that an increase in minimum wage does not necessarily lead to an increase in unemployment. There is simply no statistically significant correlation between the two.
Name the "problems". Meatpacking? Your problem is what? The fact they kill animals? For that matter name your "economists" too.
Quote: anonimussName the "problems". Meatpacking? Your problem is what? The fact they kill animals? For that matter name your "economists" too.
Keep in mind I was specifically talking about unregulated meatpacking so pre-1906 and conditions do not reflect modern times Also I love meat. However before passage of the 1906 meat inspection act packers were using rotten meat and mixing it in to save money. Sanitation was horrible and food that fell on the floor was just packed as though nothing happened. You also had terrible and dangerous working conditions where people were routinely injured. Its not the killing of animals thats bad its the doctoring of rotten meat and selling it that is bad.
Also I already linked to an overview of several papers citing the not statistically significant effect of raising minimum wage.
Seriously though you have to know that pre regulation meat packing industry had horrible problems and just had some misunderstanding that I was talking about today even though I specifically mentioned Laizze Faire so without regulation.
1. For every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, teen employment at small businesses is estimated to decrease by 4.6 to 9.0 percent.1
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, teen unemployment averaged a record high 24.3 percent in 2009.
2. For every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, estimates show employment may fall as much as 6.6 percent for young black and Hispanic teens ages 16 to 19.2
African American teen unemployment averaged 39.5 percent in 2009, which is more than four times the national unemployment average and 26 percent higher than last year.
3. According to recent U.S. Census data, only 16.5 percent of minimum wage recipients are raising a family on the minimum wage. The remaining 83.5 percent are teenagers living with working parents, adults living alone, or dual-earner married couples.3
Raising the minimum wage is an ineffective tool to fight poverty. Programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit are far better at helping low-income Americans.4
4. The average annual family income of those earning the minimum wage in 2009 is over $48,000.2
One study found that only 10.5 percent of the beneficiaries of then-candidate Obama’s proposal to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 would come from poor families.4
5. Economists at the University of California-Irvine and the Federal Reserve reviewed the economic evidence and found a majority in support of “the view that minimum wages reduce the employment of low-wage workers.”5
27 million Americans lack even the basic skills needed to fill out a job application.6 Minimum wage increases make it more difficult to hire and train less-skilled individuals like this.
References:
1 Sabia, Joseph J. (2006) The Effect of Minimum Wage Increases on Retail and Small Business Employment. Washington, DC: The Employment Policies Institute.
2 Neumark, David. (2007) Minimum Wage Effects in the Post-Welfare Reform Era. Washington, DC: The Employment Policies Institute.
3 Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009) “The Employment Situation: June 2009” and EPI’s internal analysis of the Outgoing Rotation group Data Files from the Current Population Survey, June 2008-May 2009.
4 Sabia, Joseph J. and Burkhauser, Richard. (2008) Minimum Wages and Poverty: Will the Obama Proposal Help the Working Poor? Washington, DC: The Employment Policies Institute.
5 Neumark, David and Wascher, William. (2008) Minimum Wages.The MIT Press; Cambridge, MA. PP. 104-105.
6 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. (2003). National Center for Education Statistics; US Department of Education.
Talk about a thread hijack!
Quote: TwirdmanKeep in mind I was specifically talking about unregulated meatpacking so pre-1906 and conditions do not reflect modern times Also I love meat. However before passage of the 1906 meat inspection act packers were using rotten meat and mixing it in to save money. Sanitation was horrible and food that fell on the floor was just packed as though nothing happened. You also had terrible and dangerous working conditions where people were routinely injured. Its not the killing of animals thats bad its the doctoring of rotten meat and selling it that is bad.
Also I already linked to an overview of several papers citing the not statistically significant effect of raising minimum wage.
Seriously though you have to know that pre regulation meat packing industry had horrible problems and just had some misunderstanding that I was talking about today even though I specifically mentioned Laizze Faire so without regulation.
I asked for facts. Like I provided. Not more of your opinions you state as "facts".
You ask a liberal to back up his "facts" and suddenly it's "Homina homina homina homina...".
Quote: anonimussI asked for facts. Like I provided. Not more of your opinions you state as "facts".
The details were all provide in Upton Sinclairs the Jungle and then in the Neil report http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E05E2DC1231E733A25756C0A9609C946797D6CF which talks about meat being thrown on the ground. Workers working with meat with unwashed hands specifically meat that was to be eaten uncooked. Meat being mixed with stale leathery meat and sometimes even rope all ground up and then canned. All the problems led to the 1906 act to regulate meat packing.
The abuse of the meat packing plant are well documented and known. Almost no one say they didn't happen. Again what do you think the catalyst for the 1906 act was?
Now minimum wage.
When they produced standard statistical analyses of the kind used in much of the
research since the mid-1990s on teen employment, the three economists found results similar to
those found in that earlier research (a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage reduces teen
employment slightly more than 1 percent). But, once they controlled for different regional trends,
the estimated employment effects of the minimum wage disappeared, turning slightly positive, but
not statistically significantly different from zero. (Allegretto, Dube, and Reich (2011) )
"A 10 per cent increase in the minimum wage reduces employment by about 0.10 per cent... But even if
this adverse employment effect were true, it would be of no practical relevance. An elasticity of -0.01 has no
meaningful policy implications. If correct the minimum wage could be doubled and cause only a 1 per cent decrease
in teenage employment." (2009, pp. 415-16) " (Doucouliagos and Stanley (2009))
: "The largest in magnitude are... positive [and] statistically significant... Several are economically irrelevant though statistically
significant and several others [are] slightly larger but...statistically insignificant. (Paul Wolfson and Dale Belman metastudy)
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
Also B9 you really like following me but keep in mind I didn't bring up minimum wage that was your hero AZ I just pointed out their view is wrong.
By Dean Baker (2011)
Progressives need a fundamentally new approach to politics. They have been losing not just because conservatives have so much more money and power, but also because they have accepted the conservatives’ framing of political debates. They have accepted a framing where conservatives want market outcomes whereas liberals want the government to intervene to bring about outcomes that they consider fair.
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/books/the-end-of-loser-liberalism
Quote: anonimussYour "source" , The Center For Economic and Policy Research is a pure liberal operation, not unbiased research. Try again.
They were citing meta and economic studies. I might be able to get the actual journal but almost definately wouldn't be able to link it because I'm guessing the journals have a pay wall for non university students.
Quote: anonimussSo you can't back up your "facts". Which everybody here already knew. Time to jump to a new subject. I'm marking you absent.
I did provide evidence you just disagree with the source because its liberal even though it is simply compiling studies. I mean really I'm using biased sources when you cite The Employment Policies Institute which sourcewatch points out is owned by Rick Berman, who lobbies for the restaurant, hotel, alcoholic beverage and tobacco industries. But I'm sure he is completely unbiased right. Someone lobbying for restaurants and hotels companies who hire a large number of minimum wage workers has no interest in keeping minimum wage down other than protecting teenagers.
Quote: anonimussSo you can't back up your "facts". Which everybody here already knew. Time to jump to a new subject. I'm marking you absent.
Oh just to make you happy though here is a Berekly study http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/166-08.pdf . This papers shows that there is no statistically significant effect. Though I'm sure you'll disregard that since Berkeley is too liberal. Since clearly the only studies that aren't just liberal rags are the ones you agree with.
If you are liberatarian you will quote studies that state that there should be no minimum wage. If you are fiscally conservatiive then you might support minimum wage increases that follow inflation at best, and if you are liberal, you will support minimum wage being a "living" wage. All three arguments contain some degree of validity.
It's opinion. No one on this forum will change their mind. So have at it.
--------------
Back to ObamaCare.
Quote: anonimussIt's more like those who are smart, ambitious and self-driven don't want (or need) a minimum wage at all let alone a higher one.
Yes you're right this is totally true since those working through college, you know because they're ambitious and driven, don't actually need to eat so it doesn't matter how much they make. Same with those working through a trade school. Or heck even those just working up a company the good old fashioned way. None of those people have expenses so doesn't matter how much they make.
Quote: anonimussIt's more like those who are smart, ambitious and self-driven don't want (or need) a minimum wage at all let alone a higher one.
And that's exactly the problem, isn't it? Where do the values of ambitious and self-driven come from? Likely your parents gave you that drive to be ambitious and self-driven from their values that they passed down. And smartness can be genetic as well. The average IQ is 100.
My journey into my career path is luck and my parents' interest in teaching me. My mom stayed at home because my dad had a unionized job at a steel mill. My mother being able to stay at home was a result of an inflated wage. This inflated wage was available because Canada had protectionism against foreign steel. My mother being able to stay at home fostered my interests in astonomy, math, and geography and to help me with homework. Now, that same job that paid perhaps $70,000 a year in today's dollars now pays $30,000 a year. This forces the mother or other parent to work, or it forces you to work multiple jobs to make it work. In the end, the kids get taken care of by other parents who are not acting in the best interest of your child the only way a parent can. This leads to a generation of missing parents which unknown consequences to the children.
So the conservative response is "don't have children". That is already happening. Those who are educated and don't want to suck on the social teat make conscious decisions to wait and as a result, the rate that children are being born is below replacement, meaning that immigration must fill in the gap. That and parents who don't know better and have children anyway...
So that's why I support living wages. Sometimes you are not born with the deck of cards that allows you to climb the corporate ladder. Not everyone can go to college. If you are working full time, you are providing a service to someone who needs you, be it the Walmart greeter that hands you a cart and checks purchases on the way out, or the gas station attendant, or the burger flipper. Consumers need these services, and they need to be filled by people, and these people need to be paid a fair wage, enough so that they don't require government handouts even though they are working full time.
Quote: EvenBoband when you get really sick, get Obamacare. They can't
turn you down for a pre-existing condition.
They will pay for a pre-existing condition, but if you wake up on your back in an ICU after a week because you had some sort of emergency will they back date that insurance coverage when your Obamacare gets started.?
Quote: anonimussGiving people more money for doing less work isn't the answer and giving people money for doing nothing isn't the answer either. It just adds to the increasing cycle of less and less output for more and more money outlaid. When incentive is destroyed innovation, risk capital and ambition follow. A government run by dreamers that never accomplished a single thing and never ran or produced anything isn't the answer either. Government doesn't produce a single thing of tangible value. Liberals aren't intelligent as a whole to see the obvious.
People who are getting paid for working, no matter the job, should get paid enough to not qualify for additional benefits from the government. Burger flippers, gas station attendants and burger flippers are providing a service. They are doing something of value. They are required help.
Quote: anonimussGiving people more money for doing less work isn't the answer and giving people money for doing nothing isn't the answer either. It just adds to the increasing cycle of less and less output for more and more money outlaid. When incentive is destroyed innovation, risk capital and ambition follow. A government run by dreamers that never accomplished a single thing and never ran or produced anything isn't the answer either. Government doesn't produce a single thing of tangible value. Liberals aren't intelligent as a whole to see the obvious.
What do you mean less work. Workplace productivity has increased. Also how does the government not produce a single thing of tangible value. There is the interstate system, internet is based on Arpanet, here are 10 things made by NASA http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/ten-nasa-inventions.htm , I mean you can't honestly argue that the government has produced nothing. This is not counting inventions made at public universities which are in some ways government institutions.
Quote: boymimboBurger flippers, gas station attendants and burger flippers are providing a service. They are doing something of value. They are required help.
They're the ditch diggers of modern society. Those kind
of jobs have no skill levels, all they require is a warm
body. That they should be paid as if they had a skill is
ludicrous. It's communism, it's how the old Soviet Union
worked. Or didn't work, I should say. You can't give
equal pay to people who don't qualify, society will
collapse around you. As it did in Russia. It takes the
incentive to better yourself out of the equation, and
without that what good are humans.
Au Contraire, consevatives are being quite honest with you in their belief that Policemen, Firemen, Soldiers and the like are in fact sponges of society. They are takers, not makers. They add no value to America. Conservatives live in the Koch brothers information echo chamber and they are happier for it. Conservatives hear what they want to hear and reject any evidence that pops their little Randian bubbles of illogic. You can't argue with conservatives who take pride in being so wrong.Quote: TwirdmanI mean you can't honestly argue that the government has produced nothing.
Quote: EvenBobThey're the ditch diggers of modern society. Those kind
of jobs have no skill levels, all they require is a warm
body.
I wonder if the libs here pay their kids a living wage to do chores around the house? After all, "they are doing something of value".
Quote: s2dbakerAu Contraire, consevatives are being quite honest with you in their belief that Policemen, Firemen, Soldiers and the like are in fact sponges of society. .
Gov't doesn't produce those people, they hire them.
The gov't doesn't run their dept's, they hire experts
in the field to do that. Gov't doesn't build roads, there
are no gov't road crews. They hire independent
contractors to do it, small businesses. That's what's
wrong with Obamacare, the gov't is RUNNING it.
Not doctors, not insurance companies, the bureaucrats
are running the show and it's a god awful mess.
Quote: EvenBobGov't doesn't produce those people, they hire them.
The gov't doesn't run their dept's, they hire experts
in the field to do that. Gov't doesn't build roads, there
are no gov't road crews. They hire independent
contractors to do it, small businesses. That's what's
wrong with Obamacare, the gov't is RUNNING it.
Not doctors, not insurance companies, the bureaucrats
are running the show and it's a god awful mess.
And the government is siphoning money off the process every step of the way, money that would ordinarily wind up in the hands of the people actually doing the work. Gov't pensions, gov't aides, gov't health plans, gov't parties, gov't airplane flights on an otherwise empty plane to go to every hot vacation spot on the planet, ostensibly for "business purposes", gov't limos, and on and on and on.
Quote: EvenBobGov't doesn't produce those people, they hire them.
.
I don't even know how to respond to a statement this stupid. That's like service industries don't do anything of value. I mean a law firm doesn't produce lawyers it just hires them. A hospital doesn't make doctors it just hires them. The list goes on. I mean do you come from a world where private industries like clone people or maybe build robots to do these jobs because in this world they just hire them. Just like government hires policemen, firemen, and soldiers.
Also ACA is not a government takeover of healthcare all it is is a set of regulations that must be followed. I mean the meatpacking industry, the tobacco industry, and the gun industry aren't government controlled even though they are regulated.
I started to reply but then deleted it. It's EvenBob, he's always wrong. Leave it at that.Quote: TwirdmanI don't even know how to respond to a statement this stupid.
Quote: s2dbakerI started to reply but then deleted it. It's EvenBob, he's always wrong. Leave it at that.
Again statement only makes sense if he comes from some future world where private firms build robots to do everything.
Quote: EvenBobThey're the ditch diggers of modern society. Those kind
of jobs have no skill levels, all they require is a warm
body. That they should be paid as if they had a skill is
ludicrous.
Remember that young science student who came here acting like he was god and the rest of us were 1st graders? That's who the new kid here reminds me of.
Quote: TwirdmanJust like government hires policemen, firemen, and soldiers.
.
Typical lib, clueless. Gov't hires professional cops
and firemen and soldiers, and cops and firemen
and soldiers are in charge of those organizations.
NOT bureaucrats. When the gov't wants a road
built, they hire professional road builders. The
bureaucrats don't do the work.
Obamacare didn't hire the best and the brightest
in the medical and insurance fields to set it up,
bureaucrats are doing it. People like Ezekiel Emanuel,
an ethics professor from Harvard who never had
a job in the private sector in his career. You ever
hear him talk? He's so out of touch with the reality
of American life it's frightening. These are the
people making decisions about our healthcare. The
mind boggles.
John Rockefeller built the University of Chicago. Did
he do it himself? He hired professionals in the field
to do it. He only visited the place once. People say
he built the U of C, but he didn't. He paid people
who knew what they were doing to build it for him.
It's the same with gov't. When they attempt to do
anything themselves, they always screw it up royally.
Look at Obama, he makes changes in the written
law almost daily, further screwing it up. Rank amateurs
running it, gee, what did they think would happen.
Quote: EvenBobTypical lib, clueless. Gov't hires professional cops
and firemen and soldiers, and cops and firemen
and soldiers are in charge of those organizations.
NOT bureaucrats. When the gov't wants a road
built, they hire professional road builders. The
bureaucrats don't do the work.
I don't even know what you're arguing here. You can say bureaucracy is bad or something like that but you can't argue that police, fireman, and soldiers are a tangible benefit provided by the government. I mean obviously they are only hiring cops, fireman, and soldiers though given the government is largely responsible for training them through the department they choose to join I don't know what you're getting at. We do hire mercenaries if thats what you mean by hiring not producing soldier but mercenaries are a small part of our army. Also the military isn't run purely by professional soldier if you mean just lifer in the military since the President is the head of the military and the Secretary of Defense can't be an active duty and is not even necessarily a retired member of the armed forces. Yes the president gets a massive amount of advice from the joint chiefs of staff but clearly many civilians in charge of things.
Also how is this different than a law firm. You wouldn't say a law firm provides nothing useful since they don't produce lawyers only hire them. Same with any service based industry.
Also if you want physical products made by government look at inventions made at public universities, first one that comes to mind being Gatorade go Gators.
Quote: Beethoven9thI was going to point out to Twird that the University of Florida is a state university, but then I thought to myself..........why the hell is he even talking about Gatorade in an Obamacare thread?!?! I swear, this guy can't stay on topic to save his life.
Well 1 a state government is a form of government. Two I was not the one who brought up government not producing anything. Three why do you insist on adding nothing to the conversation except for crappy repetitive pictures. Why not call out Anonimuss for bringing it up or Evenbob for continuing it.
It happens here and it happens in "real life"...
Defending Obamacare in the Obamacare thread is a deflection? So what do you think that the subject of the Obamacare thread is exactly?Quote: RonCAt this point, the defense of Obamacare is deflection...change the subject in whatever direction is necessary to get off the subject. Then blame anyone who takes the bait for what you did.
It happens here and it happens in "real life"...
Quote: RonCAt this point, the defense of Obamacare is deflection...change the subject in whatever direction is necessary to get off the subject. Then blame anyone who takes the bait for what you did.
It happens here and it happens in "real life"...
Quote: Beethoven9thI was going to point out to Twird that the University of Florida is a state university, but then I thought to myself..........why the hell is he even talking about Gatorade in an Obamacare thread?!?! I swear, this guy can't stay on topic to save his life.
Quote: s2dbakerDefending Obamacare in the Obamacare thread is a deflection? So what do you thing that the subject of the Obamacare thread is exactly?
This thread is about Obamacare. It was hijacked by our newest threadjacker. If you don't have to talk about Obamacare, you don't have to defend it. The same thing happens in real life.
You are welcome to defend Obamacare.
Quote: TwirdmanWell 1 a state government is a form of government.
Quote: RonCAt this point, the defense of Obamacare is deflection...change the subject in whatever direction is necessary to get off the subject. Then blame anyone who takes the bait for what you did.
It happens here and it happens in "real life"...
Guess Twird's not fooling RonC either. Here everyone's talking about Obamacare, and then all of a sudden Twird starts ranting & raving about the minimum wage.....then meatpacking.....then Gatorade.....and now the state of Florida.
This guy wants to talk about anything BUT Obamacare. He's all over the map!!
Why? No defense is needed. Obamacare working well. America won.Quote: RonCIf you don't have to talk about Obamacare, you don't have to defend it. The same thing happens in real life.
You are welcome to defend Obamacare.
Quote: RonCIf you don't have to talk about Obamacare, you don't have to defend it. The same thing happens in real life.
You are welcome to defend Obamacare.
Quote: s2dbakerWhy? No defense is needed. Obamacare working well. America won.
Oh my...a true denial of reality. Working well? Are you even paying attention to what is going around you or is it just easier to repeat the mantra over and over thinking maybe someday you will convince yourself that America won?
Quote: anonimussAmerica lost when women put contraceptives ahead of the economy, defense, unemployment, the national debt, privacy, et al.
Gay marriage too. Liberals would vote for Mussolini if he promised to legalize gay marriage. *facepalm*
Anyway, getting back on topic, so I don't pull a Twird, here's the latest on Obamacare: New Obamacare fees coming in 2014
Quote: Beethoven9thGay marriage too. Liberals would vote for Mussolini if he promised to legalize gay marriage. *facepalm*
Gee, why don't you stay on topic?
You're doing exactly what you accuse Twird of doing. Going back on topic doesn't save you. Hypocrite. <===Truth not an insult.
Welcome back from your vacation!
It was sure nice of you to edit out the relevant statement I made after that. lol
Quote: Beethoven9thAnyway, getting back on topic, so I don't pull a Twird, here's the latest on Obamacare: New Obamacare fees coming in 2014
Quote: Beethoven9th^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Welcome back from your vacation!
It was sure nice of you to edit out the relevant statement I made after that. lol
Makes no difference. You've been off topic plenty of times arguing with people. Never slowed you down. Not like you even had to respond.
I apologize if I missed it but did you discuss the particulars of your previous insurance policy? It sounds like you are unhappy with $600. Were you paying much less before? Was it better coverage? Do you qualify for subsidies? No snark, honestly curious because I did rather well before I signed on full time which eliminated my specific need to sign up for Obamacare.Quote: JBThis "affordable" health care act is forcing me to pay nearly $600 a month for health insurance. Actually that's not entirely true; I could be paying as little as $360 a month for practically no coverage. Meanwhile the retirees living in my area pay $50 a month for what is probably better coverage than what I'll have.
Quote: s2dbakerI apologize if I missed it but did you discuss the particulars of your previous insurance policy? It sounds like you are unhappy with $600. Were you paying much less before? Was it better coverage? Do you qualify for subsidies? No snark, honestly curious because I did rather well before I signed on full time which eliminated me specific need to sign up.
I didn't have health insurance prior to this (and technically still don't until January 1st) as it wasn't mandatory.
But under this new system it's like my taxes have increased $7,000 a year with no basis to warrant the extra taxation.
I'm not thrilled that the elderly in my area who visit doctors once or twice a week only have to pay $600 a year whereas when I go once or twice a year I have to pay $600 a month.
