Minimum Wage Hike

Ridiculous, one business does not mean it is a disastrous policy and it was your example, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

Wonder why the guy didn't just lay off a worker? Sounds like the business was in the crapper and it had nothing to do with minimum wage.
 
I just don't see you two as much alike at all. If you're an asshole, it's low-grade...we can't say the same for him! He's made an art out of it.
well if you were to characterise us I'd say I'm more the like a psuedo intellectual horses asshole.....where SF is golden....he's a pure asshole. :)
 
The minimum wage increased twice during the Clinton administration and it rained several times too. Oh wait, those aren't correlated either.

You wrote: "if you raise the costs of doing business, that cost will translate into higher costs of goods sold (which reduces demand) and most likely will lead to less hiring of unskilled labor (meaning more people on unemployment/welfare)..."

There were two minimum wage increases from 1992-2000 and the unemployment rate dropped almost 50%.

2000 142,583,000 136,891,000 5,692,000 4.0%
1999 139,368,000 133,488,000 5,880,000 4.2%
1998 137,673,000 131,463,000 6,210,000 4.5%
1997 136,297,000 129,558,000 6,739,000 4.9%
1996 133,943,000 126,708,000 7,236,000 5.4%
1995 132,304,000 124,900,000 7,404,000 5.6%
1994 131,056,000 123,060,000 7,996,000 6.1%
1993 129,200,000 120,259,000 8,940,000 6.9%
1992 128,105,000 118,492,000 9,613,000 7.5%

Please tell us, dear SF, how this was possible.

http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm#annl
 
I just don't see you two as much alike at all. If you're an asshole, it's low-grade...we can't say the same for him! He's made an art out of it.

Thank you, it has taken decades of fine tuning to perfect it. I am glad it is noticeable and again thank you for your kind words.
 
You wrote: "if you raise the costs of doing business, that cost will translate into higher costs of goods sold (which reduces demand) and most likely will lead to less hiring of unskilled labor (meaning more people on unemployment/welfare)..."

There were two minimum wage increases from 1992-2000 and the unemployment rate dropped almost 50%.

2000 142,583,000 136,891,000 5,692,000 4.0%
1999 139,368,000 133,488,000 5,880,000 4.2%
1998 137,673,000 131,463,000 6,210,000 4.5%
1997 136,297,000 129,558,000 6,739,000 4.9%
1996 133,943,000 126,708,000 7,236,000 5.4%
1995 132,304,000 124,900,000 7,404,000 5.6%
1994 131,056,000 123,060,000 7,996,000 6.1%
1993 129,200,000 120,259,000 8,940,000 6.9%
1992 128,105,000 118,492,000 9,613,000 7.5%

Please tell us, dear SF, how this was possible.

http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm#annl

Dearest little Christie... it is called the tech/telecom/internet/biotech boom.

Now... why are you pretending that it caused the unemployment rate to drop 'almost 50%'?

It did no such thing. For one, the rate increases under Clinton were in October of 96 and Sept of 97. Yet you include unemployment info from 1992-1995 which is irrelevant. Why?

Minimum wage is not going to drive unemployment all by itself. But if all other factors are held consistent... then again I ask... WHERE does the money to pay for the increase come from? Someone has to pay it.
 
Dearest little Christie... it is called the tech/telecom/internet/biotech boom.

Now... why are you pretending that it caused the unemployment rate to drop 'almost 50%'?

It did no such thing. For one, the rate increases under Clinton were in October of 96 and Sept of 97. Yet you include unemployment info from 1992-1995 which is irrelevant. Why?

Minimum wage is not going to drive unemployment all by itself. But if all other factors are held consistent... then again I ask... WHERE does the money to pay for the increase come from? Someone has to pay it.
That wasn't her question and you didn't answer it.
 
Back
Top