News Faster Small Business & Retail Job Growth in States w/ Higher Minimum Wages

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Yeah, it is horrifying to live in a society with minimal crime rates, social security and, in general, a lack of awe towards superiors.

Things that keep your happier and healthier and decrease the gap between rich and poor are communism after all, I too suffer the same horror

 

[arildno]

What does my boss have to do with anything?

He may, without any reasonable justification, fire you, and therefore put you in a financial situation you had not counted upon should occur.

 

[russ_watters]

In a "corporatised" world, he is also your boss in society. Other people will look to him as your superior, whether you accept him as such is another thing entirely.

Really? Where can I see this in action? In my society, people meeting us on the street would probably think I was his boss, based on how we dress!

 

[russ_watters]

He may, without any reasonable justification, fire you, and therefore put you in a financial situation you had not counted upon should occur.

You give him waaaay to much power and me and the system I live under waaaay to little. The US isn't France, where the 10% unemployment is combined with virtually zero turnover, causing people who become unemployed to be unemployed forever. Based on the political rumblings there lately, high turnover must sound like a terrifying thing, but in the US what it means is that people don't typically stay unemployed for very long.

Also, in a society where labar laws are non-putative, employment is a mutual agreement between employer and employee. In the article I linked, it discusses the heavy burden on employers to hold on to dead weight, and that knife cuts both ways: employees of such companies are essentially worthless (or worse, employees can have a negative value - you essentially get punished for hiring people!) and the cost of the labor is fixed by the government. In a free society, supply and demand makes the value of the employee and the value the employer gets match.

In short - I'm not worried about being fired because even if I am, it isn't that big of a deal. Your points, however do apply in a social welfare society...

 

[Anttech]

Really? Where can I see this in action? In my society, people meeting us on the street would probably think I was his boss, based on how we dress!

Funny that's not what the people told me, but hey...

 

[arildno]

In short - I'm not worried about being fired because even if I am, it isn't that big of a deal. Your points, however do apply in a social welfare society...

Not really, since an employee's incompetence, or the general financial troubles of a firm are perfectly reasonable grounds for firing individuals in Norway, and considered such. I don't know about France, though, you might be right.

 

[russ_watters]

Not really, since an employee's incompetence, or the general financial troubles of a firm are perfectly reasonable grounds for firing individuals in Norway, and considered such. I don't know about France, though, you might be right.

That's fine, but you are missing the other half of the equation: once you get fired in a society with low job turnover, it is extremely difficult to get another job. That is why people fear being fired.

 

[kmarinas86]

A person like me does not have as much a demand for minimum wage (immediately) since my parents earn $40/hr and pay most of my tuition. I am OK with my job such that if they lower it $3/hr, it will take a while to sink in. Heck, with the stupid union dues, it takes my $5.50 wage down to below that (w/ $7/week union dues). The union dues sinks my wage below minimum wage if I work less than 28 hours that week. I hated unions in high school and don't know why I end up joining them a year later. But I still work at my job because my spending patterns aren't that much (no rent or utilities).

It's best to raise wages indirectly. If rich people put greater fractions of their wealth into the poor regions of the economy (whether it is the global economy or state economy), those poorer regions will be able to develop their economy.

Economy\ (in\ real\ units)=Skills*Working\ Hours

But do not confuse economy with standard of health or education. It is likely that country with highest quality education or health will not be the wealthiest nation. People respond to incentives. For some people the money is the incentive, for other people its the quality of life, for other people its the education. And for people like me, none of the above serve as an incentive (in of itself). Your economy, health, and education is a product of your culture. Do you want it differently?

What is so great about the United States' federal system (and similar federal systems) is the ability to test different parameters in the economy and see how the play out. In the more well-off parts of Houston we have more house for our money than in California, but that is obviously due to large differences in other factors. In the end, the system is democractic. If you really desire to live in a place where the minimum wage is going to be $8/hr, try California. If you're like me, and don't care if you're being paid at federal minimum wage, try a state like Texas (or any other state which provides that). Of course, there are other factors too, such as where your buds are located .

The world would be duller if everything was the same. There would also be fewer incentives. This also means that different places have different ranges of incentives themselves. But it does not have to go too far such as of the likes of the North Korean "economy" :.

 

[arildno]

That's fine, but you are missing the other half of the equation: once you get fired in a society with low job turnover, it is extremely difficult to get another job. That is why people fear being fired.

Not really. It is fairly easy to get a job in Norway, even in times of financial distress.
Those who are out of job over a longer period of time usually have a medical condition that on some level reduce their ability to perform a satisfactory workload for an employer.

 

[Anttech]

Norway is known for ease of employment. Basically the only people who are unemployed there, want to be unemployed. In France the same can be said, the structure of France and Belgium (Where I currently reside) arent so different, I am a sub-contractor, or consultant, whatever you want to call it. I have no fear of finding jobs, there are loads here, and equally there are loads in France. You seem to be speaking from a position of Zero experience with the job markets here, except perhaps what you read.

http://offres.monster.fr/jobsearch.asp?re=5&pg=1&vw=b&cy=fr&sort=rv

This is monster.fr I'll admit its mostly IT jobs, but there are 2 pages worth of opportunities for 1 day, and its a Monday which typically is not the hottest day to find new jobs.

So what are you basing your ideals on Russ? Some case study by a capitalist?

 

[turbo]

It's best to raise wages indirectly. If rich people put greater fractions of their wealth into the poor regions of the economy (whether it is the global economy or state economy), those poorer regions will be able to develop their economy.

You are evidently a young person who has not benefited from the experience of Reagan's "trickle down" economics (Bush Sr. called it "voodoo economics"). Giving infusions of cash to the wealthy does not benefit the lower wage earners nor our economy in any measurable way. Bush Jr. either did not learn this lesson, or he does not give a damn about the people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. He has gleefully given tax cuts to the wealthy while spending obscene amounts of our money on a "war" designed to enrich his friends while destabilizing the ME and piling up a massive debt that we will all have to pay.

If Bush had pushed Congress to increase the minimum wage, the amount of money in our local economies would have increased and businesses (large and small) would be more prosperous. People making minimum wage typically spend every bit of money that they make, meaning that any increase in that wage will translate into more economic activity almost instantly. You cannot get this effect by decreasing taxes on the wealthy, although the "conservatives" in the administration will not admit this. Maybe it's time to approve the use of their "non-torture" interrogation techniques on them to get the truth out of them. After all, it's a matter of our national security, and thoroughly justifiable.

 

[kmarinas86]

Norway is known for ease of employment. Basically the only people who are unemployed there, want to be unemployed. In France the same can be said, the structure of France and Belgium (Where I currently reside) arent so different, I am a sub-contractor, or consultant, whatever you want to call it. I have no fear of finding jobs, there are loads here, and equally there are loads in France.

From what they teach me at the University of Houston, the US Labor Statistics only counts unemployment for people who are looking for a job and have not given up. Those who are not looking or have given up are not part of the US labor force. The only employed and only umemployed are in the US Labor force, and everyone who is neither employed nor unemployed not in it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployed

In economics, a person who is able and willing to work yet is unable to find a paying job is considered unemployed. The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed workers divided by the total civilian labor force, which includes both the unemployed and those with jobs (all those willing and able to work for pay). In practice, measuring the number of unemployed workers actually seeking work is notoriously difficult. ...

Norway then must have a very low unemployment rate, using US methods of measuring unemployment.

In fact:

http://www.google.com/search?q=unemployment+in+norway
http://www.google.com/search?q=unemployment+rate++united+states

 

[russ_watters]

Not really. It is fairly easy to get a job in Norway, even in times of financial distress.
Those who are out of job over a longer period of time usually have a medical condition that on some level reduce their ability to perform a satisfactory workload for an employer.

Like I said before, Norway is pretty unique due to its low population and abundant natural resources. Other European countries are not so lucky.

 

[russ_watters]

In France the same can be said, the structure of France and Belgium (Where I currently reside) arent so different, I am a sub-contractor, or consultant, whatever you want to call it. I have no fear of finding jobs, there are loads here, and equally there are loads in France. You seem to be speaking from a position of Zero experience with the job markets here, except perhaps what you read.

http://offres.monster.fr/jobsearch.asp?re=5&pg=1&vw=b&cy=fr&sort=rv

This is monster.fr I'll admit its mostly IT jobs, but there are 2 pages worth of opportunities for 1 day, and its a Monday which typically is not the hottest day to find new jobs.

I'm glad you are doing well, but the statistics are real and a Monster.com listing is utterly useless for point-making.

So what are you basing your ideals on Russ? Some case study by a capitalist?

Real raw statistics, Anttech. Even data provided by the socialists themselves support my points here. Who do you think gives out the French unemployment stats? Its the French government! You know the numbers. You know they are real: ~10% general unemployment, ~25% youth unemployment, lower gdp growth than the US in 13 of the last 14 years, widespread rioting over the job situation, etc. These do not paint the picture of a healthy economic situation.

Anecdotal evidence? Utterly pointless and you know it.

You don't like data even if it is from socialists if it is linked through an anti-socialist blog, fine. Here's a respected business journal:

Could the riots in France spell the beginning of the end of the European economic model?...

Yet the outbursts were supercharged by an economic system that not only tolerates but actually fosters sky-high youth unemployment. In September, an incredible 21.7% of 15- to 24-year-olds in France were unemployed, compared to only 11% in the U.S. and 12.6% in Britain. France isn't alone -- other European countries, such as Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, and Finland -- also have persistent youth unemployment rates above 20%.

Such sky-high levels of idle youth are a by-product of the welfare-state mentality that's still pervasive across much of Europe. The idea is that government's main role is to provide a safety net for the population, in terms of jobless and health benefits. Generating growth and creating jobs takes a distinctly lower priority, resulting in high unemployment, especially among the young.

This is a clear picture of a flawed, defunct system.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2005/nf2005117_3364_db039.htm

However, if you have a real argument to make and some real data and real opinions of real economists, I'd be more than happy to consider it. Do you have any economist opinions that say 20%+ youth unemployment is a good thing? You aren't doing anything useful here - its just bellyaching data that you don't like.

 

[Anttech]

Real raw statistics, Anttech. Even data provided by the socialists themselves support my points here. Who do you think gives out the French unemployment stats? Its the French government! You know the numbers. You know they are real: ~10% general unemployment, ~25% youth unemployment, lower gdp growth than the US in 13 of the last 14 years, widespread rioting over the job situation, etc. These do not paint the picture of a healthy economic situation.

As I said Russ, there is no problem finding jobs, whether the incentive for people is there is another thing entirely.

Thats my point, you seem to be asserting the unemployment is due to lack of Jobs, and a poor economy. I am asserting that it is nothing to do with that.

 

[russ_watters]

As I said Russ, there is no problem finding jobs, whether the incentive for people is there is another thing entirely.

Thats my point, you seem to be asserting the unemployment is due to lack of Jobs, and a poor economy. I am asserting that it is nothing to do with that.

So... you're saying that there are a lot of jobs out there and there are a lot of people unemployed, but people just don't feel like working, so the jobs go unfilled? I rather doubt that due to the civil unrest (people who are too lazy to work do not riot), but even if it is true, how does that change the basic point? France's economy is in the toilet either way, its just that if you are correct it is in the toilet because the French are lazy, while I'm saying it is in the toilet because the system is flawed. Heck, it's probably even the same point - if the French are too lazy to work, it is probably because the system makes them that way. Social welfare certainly does breed lassitude - it is a big problem in the US as well.