JayB Posted July 7, 2011 Author Posted July 7, 2011 So the rich are getting richer - and no, I don't believe that is inflation adjusted at least when you compare it to: just think how much better it'll be in the future Jay_B when there are even more underployed youth to sneer at! -Who is sneering at underemployed youth? -Setting minimum wage rates above their marginal productivity will guarantee unemployment. Structural unemployment will increase in direct proportion to the gap between the minimum wage and the marginal productivity of the least skilled/productive folks in society. Very bad for all of the people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder that progressives pretend to care about. Quote
JayB Posted July 7, 2011 Author Posted July 7, 2011 Only college graduates have experienced growth in median weekly earnings since 1979 (in real terms). High school dropouts have, by contrast, seen their real median weekly earnings decline by about 22 percent. Median weekly earnings of full-time workers (workers 25 years old & older, 2006 dollars) Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Charting the U.S. Labor Market in 2006; see http://www.bls.gov/cps/labor2006/home.htm. Updated to 2009 by Steve Hipple of the Bureau of Labor Statistics; see http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/the-value-of-college-2/ http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/cgi-bin/facts.php Don't think that's inconsistent with the data in the table. Thank-goodness for transfer payments and the value of benefits that they get in lieu of money wages! Now that we're done with that - here's another thing that's unambiguously better than it used to be: Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Now that we're done with that - here's another thing that's unambiguously better than it used to be: not that j_bot would know anything about the latter... Quote
prole Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 -Setting minimum wage rates above their marginal productivity will guarantee unemployment. Structural unemployment will increase in direct proportion to the gap between the minimum wage and the marginal productivity of the least skilled/productive folks in society. Very bad for all of the people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder that progressives pretend to care about. The people making $8 an hour are at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, you dumbass. Is paying them $5 going to make them better off? Quote
prole Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Now would be a good time to respond with a graph that's totally unrelated to the question! Quote
Jim Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 -Setting minimum wage rates above their marginal productivity will guarantee unemployment. Structural unemployment will increase in direct proportion to the gap between the minimum wage and the marginal productivity of the least skilled/productive folks in society. Very bad for all of the people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder that progressives pretend to care about. The people making $8 an hour are at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, you dumbass. Is paying them $5 going to make them better off? It would be easy to argue that at $8/hr folks are well below their worth even at a marginal productivity level. Secondly - throwing in the worth of health care coverage is kinda of a curve ball given the rising cost of medical coverage out of proportion to other items and the diminishing access to care for the same dollar cost now compared to say 15-20 years ago. The nibbling around the edges is turing into large gaps in the safety net. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 It would be easy to argue that at $8/hr folks are well below their worth even at a marginal productivity level. "Easy" arguments are often fallacious. Many who make minimum wage are students and other folks entering the labor force or supplementing their income. My first two summer jobs were minimum wage. Quote
Jim Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 No doubt that there is some mobility through the minimum pay band, and yes, there are some drag effects of offering a wholistic approach to minimum wage standards. But, for instance, to agure as the WSJ did a few years back that 90% of the minimum wage earners move up the scale easily - well that one was debunked quickly enough - ignores that a significant group is stuck down there - some though their own bad choices, some by the luck of birth. So while I agree that the goal just can't be to solve poverty issues by setting minimum wage standards, there is a component of a moral fairness imperitive here. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 No doubt that there is some mobility through the minimum pay band, and yes, there are some drag effects of offering a wholistic approach to minimum wage standards. But, for instance, to agure as the WSJ did a few years back that 90% of the minimum wage earners move up the scale easily - well that one was debunked quickly enough - ignores that a significant group is stuck down there - some though their own bad choices, some by the luck of birth. So while I agree that the goal just can't be to solve poverty issues by setting minimum wage standards, there is a component of a moral fairness imperitive here. Minimum wage should adjust annually with inflation/cost-of-living (and it doesn't). I'm not sure I'll buy into much beyond that. Quote
JayB Posted July 7, 2011 Author Posted July 7, 2011 -Setting minimum wage rates above their marginal productivity will guarantee unemployment. Structural unemployment will increase in direct proportion to the gap between the minimum wage and the marginal productivity of the least skilled/productive folks in society. Very bad for all of the people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder that progressives pretend to care about. The people making $8 an hour are at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, you dumbass. Is paying them $5 going to make them better off? -5$ per hour as an entry point into the labor market is much better than being permanently unemployable at a higher wage rate and never entering the job market. -~3% of the workforce earns minimum wage, longitudinal studies show that these are transitional jobs for people entering the workforce for the first time, and that they don't stay stuck at those wage rates for very long. -You can use the tax code to channel transfer payments to people in this labor pool with dependents, etc and dramatically increase their income without trying to force employers to pay wage rates above their marginal productivity (EG prevent anyone from hiring them). We're already doing this with the EIC. -Final answer: Yes. They'd clearly be better off. Quote
j_b Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Hmmm. First it was the nutjobs fault You mean that the 21% of registered voter public who voted in the nutjobs in 2010 got what they wanted? Then the liberals you clearly can't read. I didn't say it was the liberals' fault. I said it was the fault of the pols who betrayed them. You sound retarded dude, let's leave it at that. Quote
j_b Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) Only college graduates have experienced growth in median weekly earnings since 1979 (in real terms). High school dropouts have, by contrast, seen their real median weekly earnings decline by about 22 percent. Median weekly earnings of full-time workers (workers 25 years old & older, 2006 dollars) Don't think that's inconsistent with the data in the table. you'll just have to demonstrate it. BTW you still have to provide a source and a link for your data Thank-goodness for transfer payments and the value of benefits that they get in lieu of money wages! Transfer payments and benefits existed in 1979 as well. Moreover, benefits are on average smaller now than in 1979. Edited July 7, 2011 by j_b Quote
j_b Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 we should start collecting donations to buy pom-poms for KKK so that he can perform his cheer-leading routine with adequate props. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 we should start collecting donations to buy pom-poms for KKK so that he can perform his cheer-leading routine with adequate props. We should buy you diapers and a pacifier. Quote
j_b Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Productivity and Real Income We are a richer country overall because of a spectacular rise in labor productivity. But who has profited from this rise? Although the growth of labor productivity has expanded total national income, the real income and wages of the median worker have at the same time stagnated. Labor productivity and income of the median worker Source: Bureau if Economic Analysis and U.S. Census Bureau Quote
j_b Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Bad Jobs “Bad jobs” are typically considered those that pay low wages and do not include access to health insurance and pension benefits. As shown here, about 10% of full-time workers are in low-wage jobs, about 30% don't have health insurance, and about 40% don't have pensions. The graph also shows that the likelihood of being in a bad job is much worse for part-time workers, for on-call and day laborers, and for those working for temporary help agencies. Employment relations and job characteristics Source: Arne L. Kalleberg, Barbara F. Reskin, Ken Hudson. 2000. “Bad Jobs in America: Standard and Nonstandard Employment Relations and Job Quality in the United States.” American Sociological Review 65(2): 256-278. Quote
j_b Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 Quite some paradise that JayB and his kind are putting together for us. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 Liar! Your plotted "income" - does not factor other credits and transfer payments, of course. Quote
j_b Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 Now that we're done with that err, no: "The average two-income family earns far more today than did the single-breadwinner family of a generation ago. And yet, once they have paid the mortgage, the car payments, the taxes, the health insurance, and the day-care bills, today’s dual-income families have less discretionary income — and less money to put away for a rainy day — than the single-income family of a generation ago. And so the Two-Income Trap has been neatly sprung. Mothers now work two jobs, at home and at the office. And yet they have less cash on hand. Mom’s paycheck has been pumped directly into the basic costs of keeping the children in the middle class." Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 Now that we're done with that err, no: "The average two-income family earns far more today than did the single-breadwinner family of a generation ago. And yet, once they have paid the mortgage, the car payments, the taxes, the health insurance, and the day-care bills, today’s dual-income families have less discretionary income — and less money to put away for a rainy day — than the single-income family of a generation ago. And so the Two-Income Trap has been neatly sprung. Mothers now work two jobs, at home and at the office. And yet they have less cash on hand. Mom’s paycheck has been pumped directly into the basic costs of keeping the children in the middle class." Your solution, comrade? Quote
Jim Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 Hmmm. First it was the nutjobs fault You mean that the 21% of registered voter public who voted in the nutjobs in 2010 got what they wanted? Then the liberals you clearly can't read. I didn't say it was the liberals' fault. I said it was the fault of the pols who betrayed them. You sound retarded dude, let's leave it at that. That's not an adequate retort. Quote
Jim Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 Productivity and Real Income Labor productivity and income of the median worker Source: Bureau if Economic Analysis and U.S. Census Bureau This is a key issue. Productivity being driven by the workers but profit being held by the minority. That is not a productive model. Well, unless you are lucky enough to be in the upper echelons. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 and this plot factors in taxes, transfer payments, and credits? Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 And assuming you are correct, Jim, your solution is what exactly in a free society? Government-mandated profit-sharing? Wage-controls? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.