3 minutes passed and no one replied to your post....wow.lowing wrote:
all of a sudden a light switch has been turned on and all the bash lowing roaches ran for the woodwork again.....No challenges, how sad.
That's what altering the interest rate does.lowing wrote:
Interesting, I still failed to see where the govt. maintains this as purposely keeping people out of work. I see it more along the lines that it is a given that some people simply will not work and that number is used in its formulas. Now, if you can give some examples as where the govt. has gone out of their way to purposely keep an educated person with credentials of achievement from working because they have a quota to maintain, I am all ears.PureFodder wrote:
http://www.fmcenter.org/site/pp.asp?c=8 … p;b=235972lowing wrote:
ummmmmmmm links please to this offical govt. policy.
http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/c … braith.pdf
http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2008/03/t … ing-rates/
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hTwV … t#PPA95,M1
And if you look at the FED's blurb about itself you'll see that it's aims are to minimize unemployment and provide price stability. The point of this ttheory is that you simply can't have zero unemployment and maintaind price stability.
From the cleveland federal reserve bank...
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/co … 8/0501.pdf
I have never met one person in my life that told me they couldn't get a job they were qualified for because of the govt. Wait, I take that back, I forgot about affirmative action.
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/facult … dec97.htmlfortune magazine wrote:
Life is full of tradeoffs. Consumers trade off spending today against saving for tomorrow. Congress trades off tax cuts against deficit reduction. And the Federal Reserve trades off inflation against unemployment.
But wait: The U.S. is now enjoying low inflation and low unemployment. Doesn't this refute the old theory of an inflation-unemployment tradeoff? Not at all, and Alan Greenspan knows it. The Fed has a single policy lever, and this lever pushes inflation and unemployment in opposite directions.
When the Fed wants to reduce unemployment, it reduces interest rates by increasing the money supply. Lower interest rates stimulate spending on goods and services, and this encourages firms to hire more workers. But with more dollars circulating in the economy, over time each dollar becomes worth less. The result is higher inflation.
Conversely, when the Fed wants to fight inflation, it reduces growth in the money supply. Yet this causes a rise in interest rates, which depresses spending and increases unemployment. How, then, does the U.S. economy now find itself enjoying both the lowest inflation and the lowest unemployment in decades? The answer is that while the Fed always faces an inflation-unemployment tradeoff, the tradeoff does not stay the same from year to year.
When the FED increases interest rates it is in order to ensure that people can't get jobs.Dean Baker wrote:
The Fed has a more direct effect on the state of the economy than any other institution in the country. At any given time, its policies have the greatest impact on the unemployment rate and the rate of wage growth. For this reason, the public should know how the Fed is making its decisions, and who exactly is calling the shots.
At the most basic level, the Fed controls the short-term interest rate that banks charge each other to lend money overnight to meet their legal reserve requirements. This interest rate — the federal funds rate — is a key rate because it is the basis for other short term interest rates. If the Fed raises the federal funds rate, it will lead banks to raise the interest rates they charge on short-term loans to businesses or families.
This has the effect of discouraging borrowing and reducing the buying power of those who do borrow, since they now must pay higher interest on their loans. For example, if a business can get a 3-month loan at a 4 percent interest rate it may decide to borrow money to expand its inventory. On the other hand, if the interest rate is 5 percent, the business may decide not to expand its inventory. Families may make the same sort of decision about buying a new car. If they can get a car loan at 4 percent interest, they may choose to buy a new car. On the other hand, at 5 percent, they may decide to live with their old car for a while longer.
Now that many loans have adjustable interest rates, raising the short-term rate can cause the rate for adjustable car loans or mortgages to rise. For example, if a person bought a car with a loan set at a 4 percent interest rate, and then the federal funds rate went up by 2 percentage points, she might find that the interest rate on her loan is now 6 percent.2 The same thing would happen to people who have adjustable rate mortgages. They would see the interest rate on their mortgage rise, thereby increasing their monthly mortgage payment, leaving less money for other expenses.
The effect of interest rates is even more important when higher short-term interest rates lead to an increase in long-term interest rates, most importantly traditional 15- or 30-year fixed rate mortgages. Long-term interest rates don’t always follow short-term interest rates, but if short-term rates rise by a large amount, long-term interest rates, such as mortgage rates, will usually rise as well. Long-term interest rates are important for the economy because they affect home construction and home buying, and also affect the ability of people to borrow against their homes for other expenses. In addition, long-term interest rates affect the ability of firms to borrow to finance new investment.
Through these various channels, higher interest rates reduce demand in the economy, slowing growth and job creation. This is the incredible power of the Fed. When it wants to slam the brakes on the economy, it raises interest rates. Higher interest rates effectively prevent the economy from growing, and keep workers from getting jobs.
The Fed can also help to speed growth by lowering interest rates, thereby encouraging borrowing and investing. As a general rule, it is easier to slow growth by raising interest rates than speed growth by lowering rates. At high enough interest rates consumers will cut back on car buying, home buying, and other purchases, and companies will delay their investment plans. While lower interest rates encourage growth, by themselves they are not always sufficient to get an economy back on track when it falls into a recession, as Japan discovered in the nineties. In an economy where workers fear losing their jobs, few people will buy new cars or take on unnecessary debt regardless of how low interest rates go. Also, even at low rates firms will not invest if they don’t see demand for their products.
This means that the Fed cannot always generate the rate of growth and level of employment that it considers best. But the Fed can prevent the economy from growing faster than it wants, and it can keep the economy from creating more jobs than it thinks are desirable.
Why would the Fed ever want to make the economy grow more slowly or have fewer jobs? The answer is that the Fed worries that if too many people have jobs, or if it is too easy for workers to find jobs, there will be upward pressure on wages. More rapid wage growth can get translated into more rapidly rising prices — in other words, inflation. So the Fed often decides to raise interest rates to slow the economy and keep people out of work in order to keep inflation from increasing and eventually getting out of control.
Most people probably do not realize that the Federal Reserve Board, an agency of the government, intervenes in the economy to prevent it from creating too many jobs. But there is even more to the story. When the Fed hits the brakes to slow job growth, it is not doctors, lawyers, and CEOs who end up without jobs. The people who lose are those in the middle and the bottom — sales clerks, factory workers, custodians, and dishwashers. These are the workers who don’t get hired or get laid off when the economy slows or goes into a recession.
Well, I can't lie to you, and I doubt anyone ( that actually has a job) can either. I have never, never, picked up the paper and decided when the time was ripe for going out to get a job, or decided, whats the use, the interests are too hgh for me to geta job.PureFodder wrote:
That's what altering the interest rate does.lowing wrote:
Interesting, I still failed to see where the govt. maintains this as purposely keeping people out of work. I see it more along the lines that it is a given that some people simply will not work and that number is used in its formulas. Now, if you can give some examples as where the govt. has gone out of their way to purposely keep an educated person with credentials of achievement from working because they have a quota to maintain, I am all ears.PureFodder wrote:
http://www.fmcenter.org/site/pp.asp?c=8 … p;b=235972
http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/c … braith.pdf
http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2008/03/t … ing-rates/
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hTwV … t#PPA95,M1
And if you look at the FED's blurb about itself you'll see that it's aims are to minimize unemployment and provide price stability. The point of this ttheory is that you simply can't have zero unemployment and maintaind price stability.
From the cleveland federal reserve bank...
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/co … 8/0501.pdf
I have never met one person in my life that told me they couldn't get a job they were qualified for because of the govt. Wait, I take that back, I forgot about affirmative action.http://www.economics.harvard.edu/facult … dec97.htmlfortune magazine wrote:
Life is full of tradeoffs. Consumers trade off spending today against saving for tomorrow. Congress trades off tax cuts against deficit reduction. And the Federal Reserve trades off inflation against unemployment.
But wait: The U.S. is now enjoying low inflation and low unemployment. Doesn't this refute the old theory of an inflation-unemployment tradeoff? Not at all, and Alan Greenspan knows it. The Fed has a single policy lever, and this lever pushes inflation and unemployment in opposite directions.
When the Fed wants to reduce unemployment, it reduces interest rates by increasing the money supply. Lower interest rates stimulate spending on goods and services, and this encourages firms to hire more workers. But with more dollars circulating in the economy, over time each dollar becomes worth less. The result is higher inflation.
Conversely, when the Fed wants to fight inflation, it reduces growth in the money supply. Yet this causes a rise in interest rates, which depresses spending and increases unemployment. How, then, does the U.S. economy now find itself enjoying both the lowest inflation and the lowest unemployment in decades? The answer is that while the Fed always faces an inflation-unemployment tradeoff, the tradeoff does not stay the same from year to year.When the FED increases interest rates it is in order to ensure that people can't get jobs.Dean Baker wrote:
The Fed has a more direct effect on the state of the economy than any other institution in the country. At any given time, its policies have the greatest impact on the unemployment rate and the rate of wage growth. For this reason, the public should know how the Fed is making its decisions, and who exactly is calling the shots.
At the most basic level, the Fed controls the short-term interest rate that banks charge each other to lend money overnight to meet their legal reserve requirements. This interest rate — the federal funds rate — is a key rate because it is the basis for other short term interest rates. If the Fed raises the federal funds rate, it will lead banks to raise the interest rates they charge on short-term loans to businesses or families.
This has the effect of discouraging borrowing and reducing the buying power of those who do borrow, since they now must pay higher interest on their loans. For example, if a business can get a 3-month loan at a 4 percent interest rate it may decide to borrow money to expand its inventory. On the other hand, if the interest rate is 5 percent, the business may decide not to expand its inventory. Families may make the same sort of decision about buying a new car. If they can get a car loan at 4 percent interest, they may choose to buy a new car. On the other hand, at 5 percent, they may decide to live with their old car for a while longer.
Now that many loans have adjustable interest rates, raising the short-term rate can cause the rate for adjustable car loans or mortgages to rise. For example, if a person bought a car with a loan set at a 4 percent interest rate, and then the federal funds rate went up by 2 percentage points, she might find that the interest rate on her loan is now 6 percent.2 The same thing would happen to people who have adjustable rate mortgages. They would see the interest rate on their mortgage rise, thereby increasing their monthly mortgage payment, leaving less money for other expenses.
The effect of interest rates is even more important when higher short-term interest rates lead to an increase in long-term interest rates, most importantly traditional 15- or 30-year fixed rate mortgages. Long-term interest rates don’t always follow short-term interest rates, but if short-term rates rise by a large amount, long-term interest rates, such as mortgage rates, will usually rise as well. Long-term interest rates are important for the economy because they affect home construction and home buying, and also affect the ability of people to borrow against their homes for other expenses. In addition, long-term interest rates affect the ability of firms to borrow to finance new investment.
Through these various channels, higher interest rates reduce demand in the economy, slowing growth and job creation. This is the incredible power of the Fed. When it wants to slam the brakes on the economy, it raises interest rates. Higher interest rates effectively prevent the economy from growing, and keep workers from getting jobs.
The Fed can also help to speed growth by lowering interest rates, thereby encouraging borrowing and investing. As a general rule, it is easier to slow growth by raising interest rates than speed growth by lowering rates. At high enough interest rates consumers will cut back on car buying, home buying, and other purchases, and companies will delay their investment plans. While lower interest rates encourage growth, by themselves they are not always sufficient to get an economy back on track when it falls into a recession, as Japan discovered in the nineties. In an economy where workers fear losing their jobs, few people will buy new cars or take on unnecessary debt regardless of how low interest rates go. Also, even at low rates firms will not invest if they don’t see demand for their products.
This means that the Fed cannot always generate the rate of growth and level of employment that it considers best. But the Fed can prevent the economy from growing faster than it wants, and it can keep the economy from creating more jobs than it thinks are desirable.
Why would the Fed ever want to make the economy grow more slowly or have fewer jobs? The answer is that the Fed worries that if too many people have jobs, or if it is too easy for workers to find jobs, there will be upward pressure on wages. More rapid wage growth can get translated into more rapidly rising prices — in other words, inflation. So the Fed often decides to raise interest rates to slow the economy and keep people out of work in order to keep inflation from increasing and eventually getting out of control.
Most people probably do not realize that the Federal Reserve Board, an agency of the government, intervenes in the economy to prevent it from creating too many jobs. But there is even more to the story. When the Fed hits the brakes to slow job growth, it is not doctors, lawyers, and CEOs who end up without jobs. The people who lose are those in the middle and the bottom — sales clerks, factory workers, custodians, and dishwashers. These are the workers who don’t get hired or get laid off when the economy slows or goes into a recession.
It still hasn't sunk in that Govts. operate the economy by setting the unemployment rate as best they can to fight pressures such as inflation on interest rates?lowing wrote:
Well, I can't lie to you, and I doubt anyone ( that actually has a job) can either. I have never, never, picked up the paper and decided when the time was ripe for going out to get a job, or decided, whats the use, the interests are too hgh for me to geta job.
Fact is, except for affirmative action, if you are marketable and qualified you are probably working ( if you want to).
When they raise the minimum wage it's in order to ensure that people can't get a job too.PureFodder wrote:
When the FED increases interest rates it is in order to ensure that people can't get jobs.
How so ?Kmarion wrote:
When they raise the minimum wage it's in order to ensure that people can't get a job too.PureFodder wrote:
When the FED increases interest rates it is in order to ensure that people can't get jobs.
Raising the minimum wage = raising the cost of the workforce = raising the cost of the products = inflationVaregg wrote:
How so ?Kmarion wrote:
When they raise the minimum wage it's in order to ensure that people can't get a job too.PureFodder wrote:
When the FED increases interest rates it is in order to ensure that people can't get jobs.
How would a higher minimum wage affect the market when you increase the purchasing power of the poorest workers thus a higher growth in private spending that again makes businesses make more money ... could that not be a part of the boost needed to gain momentum in the US economy again ?
I get your drift but it really isn't that simple, it would benefit your market right now ...Pug wrote:
Raising the minimum wage = raising the cost of the workforce = raising the cost of the products = inflationVaregg wrote:
How so ?Kmarion wrote:
When they raise the minimum wage it's in order to ensure that people can't get a job too.
How would a higher minimum wage affect the market when you increase the purchasing power of the poorest workers thus a higher growth in private spending that again makes businesses make more money ... could that not be a part of the boost needed to gain momentum in the US economy again ?
Because it forces employers to discriminate against unskilled labor. The cost no longer justifies keeping them on the payroll. The Statistics supports this. It also encourage the hiring of illegals.Varegg wrote:
How so ?Kmarion wrote:
When they raise the minimum wage it's in order to ensure that people can't get a job too.PureFodder wrote:
When the FED increases interest rates it is in order to ensure that people can't get jobs.
How would a higher minimum wage affect the market when you increase the purchasing power of the poorest workers thus a higher growth in private spending that again makes businesses make more money ... could that not be a part of the boost needed to gain momentum in the US economy again ?
Why is it "that simple" to increase purchasing power then?Varegg wrote:
I get your drift but it really isn't that simple, it would benefit your market right now ...Pug wrote:
Raising the minimum wage = raising the cost of the workforce = raising the cost of the products = inflationVaregg wrote:
How so ?
How would a higher minimum wage affect the market when you increase the purchasing power of the poorest workers thus a higher growth in private spending that again makes businesses make more money ... could that not be a part of the boost needed to gain momentum in the US economy again ?
These are all perfectly-predictable outcomes of the competitive capitalist system that you use in the USA. There's no use whining about it or complaining how the employment of illegal labour disadvantages you or so on and so forth, these are the inherent maxims of the capitalist system showing through. Love it or hate it, in a competitively corporate environment everyone wants to minimize costs whilst making a profit; with no attention to any other interest (e.g. the workers), the bottom line is always to continue making a gross profit each year, or to continually grow and expand, or anything else to that effect.Kmarion wrote:
Because it forces employers to discriminate against unskilled labor. The cost no longer justifies keeping them on the payroll. The Statistics supports this. It also encourage the hiring of illegals.Varegg wrote:
How so ?Kmarion wrote:
When they raise the minimum wage it's in order to ensure that people can't get a job too.
How would a higher minimum wage affect the market when you increase the purchasing power of the poorest workers thus a higher growth in private spending that again makes businesses make more money ... could that not be a part of the boost needed to gain momentum in the US economy again ?
and it still hasn't sunk in that people that want to work, and have something of value to offer an employer ARE working.TheAussieReaper wrote:
It still hasn't sunk in that Govts. operate the economy by setting the unemployment rate as best they can to fight pressures such as inflation on interest rates?lowing wrote:
Well, I can't lie to you, and I doubt anyone ( that actually has a job) can either. I have never, never, picked up the paper and decided when the time was ripe for going out to get a job, or decided, whats the use, the interests are too hgh for me to geta job.
Fact is, except for affirmative action, if you are marketable and qualified you are probably working ( if you want to).
Go back to the right-wing Utopian websites where everyone thinks if your unemployed it's simply because your too lazy to get a job.
Simple, raise the cost of doing business by increasing labor costs and lay-offs occur because employers have got to cut costs.Varegg wrote:
How so ?Kmarion wrote:
When they raise the minimum wage it's in order to ensure that people can't get a job too.PureFodder wrote:
When the FED increases interest rates it is in order to ensure that people can't get jobs.
How would a higher minimum wage affect the market when you increase the purchasing power of the poorest workers thus a higher growth in private spending that again makes businesses make more money ... could that not be a part of the boost needed to gain momentum in the US economy again ?
Last edited by lowing (2008-09-09 09:06:22)
It effects whether you lose your job in the first place and whether companies are deciding to take on more employees or not, as the article said.lowing wrote:
Well, I can't lie to you, and I doubt anyone ( that actually has a job) can either. I have never, never, picked up the paper and decided when the time was ripe for going out to get a job, or decided, whats the use, the interests are too hgh for me to geta job.
Fact is, except for affirmative action, if you are marketable and qualified you are probably working ( if you want to).
Pug wrote:
Why is it "that simple" to increase purchasing power then?Varegg wrote:
I get your drift but it really isn't that simple, it would benefit your market right now ...Pug wrote:
Raising the minimum wage = raising the cost of the workforce = raising the cost of the products = inflation
Here's another one.
Raising the minimum wage = larger gap between $0 and minimum wage = more opportunity for those underneath the minimum wage = more illegal immigration = less jobs for those around minimum wage
Nope all I know is that when I APPLY for a job, I get one, and when I got laid off it was never because the govt. had decided their was just too many people working.PureFodder wrote:
It effects whether you lose your job in the first place and whether companies are deciding to take on more employees or not, as the article said.lowing wrote:
Well, I can't lie to you, and I doubt anyone ( that actually has a job) can either. I have never, never, picked up the paper and decided when the time was ripe for going out to get a job, or decided, whats the use, the interests are too hgh for me to geta job.
Fact is, except for affirmative action, if you are marketable and qualified you are probably working ( if you want to).
Unless you think you know more about how the economy works than economists, scholars and the people at the FED, in which case go for Alan Greenspan's job, it pays loads!
So the interest rate has absolutely zero effect on employers. It has no impact upon businesses at all. It can never make the difference between whether or not a company can or can't employ more people?lowing wrote:
Nope all I know is that when I APPLY for a job, I get one, and when I got laid off it was never because the govt. had decided their was just too many people working.PureFodder wrote:
It effects whether you lose your job in the first place and whether companies are deciding to take on more employees or not, as the article said.lowing wrote:
Well, I can't lie to you, and I doubt anyone ( that actually has a job) can either. I have never, never, picked up the paper and decided when the time was ripe for going out to get a job, or decided, whats the use, the interests are too hgh for me to geta job.
Fact is, except for affirmative action, if you are marketable and qualified you are probably working ( if you want to).
Unless you think you know more about how the economy works than economists, scholars and the people at the FED, in which case go for Alan Greenspan's job, it pays loads!
No thx Comrade. You can enforce current immigration laws without regulating pay scales. A competitive job market will dictate worth and drive up wages accordingly. Always has, always will. That is until the government fucks it up.Uzique wrote:
These are all perfectly-predictable outcomes of the competitive capitalist system that you use in the USA. There's no use whining about it or complaining how the employment of illegal labour disadvantages you or so on and so forth, these are the inherent maxims of the capitalist system showing through. Love it or hate it, in a competitively corporate environment everyone wants to minimize costs whilst making a profit; with no attention to any other interest (e.g. the workers), the bottom line is always to continue making a gross profit each year, or to continually grow and expand, or anything else to that effect.Kmarion wrote:
Because it forces employers to discriminate against unskilled labor. The cost no longer justifies keeping them on the payroll. The Statistics supports this. It also encourage the hiring of illegals.Varegg wrote:
How so ?
How would a higher minimum wage affect the market when you increase the purchasing power of the poorest workers thus a higher growth in private spending that again makes businesses make more money ... could that not be a part of the boost needed to gain momentum in the US economy again ?
If you want a system that looks out for worker's rights and worker's interests more, then you're basically talking unionisation and you're making a step closer to dreaded socialism. Labour movements and worker's rights have been off the agenda and have been pushed to extinction in the USA and UK since capitalism took the reins. The people themselves do not matter, period.
Excellent. This is one of those pros & cons debates, a double edged sword really.Varegg wrote:
1. Larger gap between $0 and minimum wage = more people into work seeing as the gap is so small now it doesn't matter if you work or not.
2. More people into the work force = more tax dollars
3. Increased minimum wage does not increase illegal aliens, control your borders better.
4. With an increase in minimum wage of course the other rates should increase thus making the gap between unskilled and skilled labor the same.
5. A production cost increase ? ... you can't automatically state that for a fact, a better paid worker works harder and produces more so the increase in production cost does not equal the increased cost of labor.
6. The risk of inflation is not that big and can be countered easily with interest rates.
7. Tax return for businesses that doesn't downsize and moves their companies out of the country, again an increase in workers and more taxdollars that equals the corporate taxcuts.
8. Higher tax on corporate leader wages, what the bosses make should be taxed more so the money stays in the company, if a CO makes 19 or 20 million dollars after tax makes no biggy for him, but that million dollar can make a huge difference for his workers and in the end the company.
[/list]
TrollmeaT wrote:
I love america.
Did you read what i wrote at all ? .. because according to your answer you either didn't read it very well or you obviously didn't understand it ... take a look at how most countries in Europe are governed that being socialistic or not ... if it works for about 400 million in Europe why is it utopia for you ?Pug wrote:
Excellent. This is one of those pros & cons debates, a double edged sword really.Varegg wrote:
1. Larger gap between $0 and minimum wage = more people into work seeing as the gap is so small now it doesn't matter if you work or not.
2. More people into the work force = more tax dollars
3. Increased minimum wage does not increase illegal aliens, control your borders better.
4. With an increase in minimum wage of course the other rates should increase thus making the gap between unskilled and skilled labor the same.
5. A production cost increase ? ... you can't automatically state that for a fact, a better paid worker works harder and produces more so the increase in production cost does not equal the increased cost of labor.
6. The risk of inflation is not that big and can be countered easily with interest rates.
7. Tax return for businesses that doesn't downsize and moves their companies out of the country, again an increase in workers and more taxdollars that equals the corporate taxcuts.
8. Higher tax on corporate leader wages, what the bosses make should be taxed more so the money stays in the company, if a CO makes 19 or 20 million dollars after tax makes no biggy for him, but that million dollar can make a huge difference for his workers and in the end the company.
[/list]
2. More people into the work force = more tax dollars. True. But how many new jobs were actually created? Increasing the wage rate increases the cost of doing business = either the company eats the difference or the price of goods is increased.
3. Control your borders better? Lets see. You're saying more people will be willing to work for minimum wage because they are being paid more, but an illegal aliens will not? Increasing the amount an illegal can get will increase the numbers coming over the border. So increasing the minimum wage makes it harder to control the border. And it's not like we can solve that without solving poverty in latin america anyway.
4 & 5. Your point 4 makes my point about increasing the cost to produce a product. A production cost increase - work harder? False. You've raised the minimum, which in turns raises the salaries of those working just above minimum wage, which increases the salaries of the managers, etc. Haven't you heard of "I'm not working for that...it's almost minimum wage"? So you've merely increased what people are paid...they don't get more motivated because of this. I do know there are studies that support that people are more motivated due to the gap...but what you've done is raised the minimum...the gap doesn't go away.
6. Interest rates? Like lowering them? Like reducing the value of the dollar aka inflation?
7. Assuming companies get a tax cut equal to the wage increase, then you won't have to raise the price of the product. However, if my factory has a large wage increase, aren't I going to eventually look at outsourcing? After all, I can shift everything to China & India and make more money because of lax labor laws. Then how many jobs have I created?
8. Raising the minimum wage rate will trickle all the way to the top. Albeit not as grand. A 10% increase in wages for the minimum wage worker might mean an 8% increase to the manager, a 6% for the regional manager, a 4% increase for the vice president, and a 1% increase for the CEO. Goes straight back to your #4 - there has to be a wage gap between the manager and the people he/she manages.
Increasing the minimum wage does not create jobs. It increases inflation.
Yeah, I read it.Varegg wrote:
Did you read what i wrote at all ? .. because according to your answer you either didn't read it very well or you obviously didn't understand it ... take a look at how most countries in Europe are governed that being socialistic or not ... if it works for about 400 million in Europe why is it utopia for you ?
I am saying that people with skills that are marketable get employed, and people that are uneducated, unmarketable, un-motivated, are NOT out of work because the govt. KEPT them from being employed.PureFodder wrote:
So the interest rate has absolutely zero effect on employers. It has no impact upon businesses at all. It can never make the difference between whether or not a company can or can't employ more people?lowing wrote:
Nope all I know is that when I APPLY for a job, I get one, and when I got laid off it was never because the govt. had decided their was just too many people working.PureFodder wrote:
It effects whether you lose your job in the first place and whether companies are deciding to take on more employees or not, as the article said.
Unless you think you know more about how the economy works than economists, scholars and the people at the FED, in which case go for Alan Greenspan's job, it pays loads!
No worries, i use wiki all the timePug wrote:
Yeah, I read it.Varegg wrote:
Did you read what i wrote at all ? .. because according to your answer you either didn't read it very well or you obviously didn't understand it ... take a look at how most countries in Europe are governed that being socialistic or not ... if it works for about 400 million in Europe why is it utopia for you ?
We are stating two different theories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage
see "Debate over consequences", apologies for linking wiki
Either way the clue is to get the poorest workers up a notch, make them feel they are part of a sucessful America, a sucessful Norway, whatever country doesn't matter it is the principles that apply ... that will increase spending and as mentioned help boost the economy back on track ...wiki wrote:
Alternatives to minimum wage
Negative income tax
Some critics of the minimum wage argue that a negative income tax or earned income tax credit would work better than a minimum wage, as it would benefit a broader population of low wage earners, not cause any unemployment, and distribute the cost widely rather than concentrating it on employers of low wage workers. A negative income tax or earned income tax credit based on a broad tax base would also be more economically efficient, as the minimum wage imposes a high marginal tax on employers, causing high deadweight loss. The ability of the earned income tax credit to deliver a larger monetary benefit to poor workers at a lower cost to society was recently documented in a report by the Congressional Budget Office