In response to:

Minimum Wage, Maximum Foolishness

Jerome41 Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 12:51 AM
McDonalds is not going to raise their Big Mac by 24% of the minimum wage goes up. IN fact, there labor would rise by a fraction of that, let alone entire costs. The MW adjusted for inflation would be over $10 an hour, if at the rates of 1962. A year that saw 4% unemployment. Now, worker productivity, even for fast food restaurants, has gone up a good deal since 1962, so the average employer makes much more off the average MW worker, then they did in 1962. Even if, the MW was factored for inflation, which it is not.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 7:06 PM
RJBJr Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 8:01 AM
You might be more convincing if you used better grammar.
AJ113 Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 2:39 PM
oujon's grammatical error did not distract me from understanding the substance and accuracy of his assertions.
oujon Wrote: Mar 13, 2013 10:16 AM
Yikes you're right. Should've said "THEIR MW." Thank goodness my argument is more convincing now and you can take the figures I showed seriously.
oujon Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 6:40 AM
Why pick 1962 as your baseline? Why not pick 1938, the year the national minimum wage was permanently established? The MW would then be $4.10 adjusted for inflation. Then, the states can decide what they're MW should be without having to take a federal, one-size-fits-all rate into consideration. Also, he did not imply that if the MW rose by 24%, that the cost of a Big Mac would rise by the same rate.
Pistol Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 7:35 AM
D G Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 12:56 AM

Mr. Mitchell did not say the Big Mac price would increase 24% if the minimum wage increased 24%.

Read carefully.

His point was a price increase of 24% for anything will decrease the demand for anything.

That is basic economics.


Jerome41 Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 1:43 AM
He wanted to imply it to the reader. Why even come up with a 24% figure, if not to put it in the head of the reader? Just lazy price speculation on the cost of a Big Mac. But an increase in MW will increase the money spent by consumers, which will help fuel the economy, to a certain degree.
Pistol Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 7:08 AM
First, Jerome41, you are not a mind reader, although like a dismaying percent of liberals you think you are. He came up with a 24 % figure because that is the proposed increase in the minimum wage. D G states his point above. Apply the point to yourself, do you buy more of something if the price goes up? An increase in MW will reduce the money spent by consumers, because employment will drop and prices will rise. This has been the clear result every time MW goes up.

Last week I read about a company which is marketing an automatic hamburger maker. As the cost of unskilled labor rises, the opportunities for those who can design and build complex machines goes up, and the gulf between worker bees and drones increases.
buster33 Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 7:29 AM
Unless the money comes from aliens this is flawed reasoning. Was no person spending the same money before it went to some workers, those who keep their jobs, in the form of a higher wage? If the money went to priofits instead it gets reinvested by the company, i.e. spent, or to investors as dividends and subsequentlty spent. If the spending expands thesis were true, we should make it $200 an hour. Last night a ftiend asserted the government should fire up the printing presses and that he'd use the $ to pay off his house. The refrain from the South Park episode on the Mormons comes to mind..
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 8:17 AM
Sorry Jerome but you are completely wrong. Actual history demonstrates that not a single dime is added to the economy by hikes in the minimim wage. Every last bit of it is absorbed in "disinflation effects" - lost jobs, reduced hours and eliminated opportunities. The notuion that minimum wage has ever done anything economically but eliminate jobs has been completely disproved. It has never been even slightly effective as an anti-poverty measure let alone an economic stimulus.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 8:46 AM
BTW, you really need to work on your comprehension skills. He chose the 24% and 33% figures because those are the amount the MW is to be raised and the percentage to get to $10 respectively. And he did NOT argue that wages are the driver of inflation. The Big Mac example was not about wages driving prices but the point that if you raise the price of Big Macs fewer of them will be bought AND if you raise the price of workers fewer of them will be bought (hired).

Do try to keep up.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 7:07 PM
ONLY a moron like you would try and make THAT connection

Should the federal government make life more difficult for low-skilled workers?

I hope everyone will emphatically say “NO!”

Heck, most people understandably will think you’re crazy for even asking such a preposterous question.

But some of those people will also think that it’s a good idea for politicians in Washington to make low-skilled workers less attractive to employers by raising the minimum wage.

I often ask such people whether they are more likely to buy a Big Mac if McDonald’s raises the price by 24 percent. They say they are less likely.

Minimum Wage Cartoon 2