Miami archbishop: raise the minimum wage [CC]

[markomalley]

Actually that is not true because increasing the minimum wage boosts consumer spending and thereby creates jobs and increases employment. See:
nelp.3cdn.net/02b725e73dc24e0644_0im6bkno9.pdf
"A Strong Minimum Wage Can Help Working Families, Businesses and Our Economy Recover …
Contrary to opponents’ claims, a large body of rigorous academic research finds that increases in the minimum wage do not lead to job loss. "

It sure would be more credible if your study didn’t come from a Saul Alinsky-like community organizing group Asking for neutral results from the “National Employment Law Project” regarding minimum wage would be the rough equivalent to citing the Tobacco Institute about the health benefits of smoking.

 

[ishii]

Which ones?

I agree with you on this statement:

On economic matters, quite a large fraction of people, both for and against the minimum wage are woefully ignorant.
.

Obviously some bishops are in that large fraction of people you speak of.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

I agree with you on this statement:

You say that some bishops lack understanding in economics, but you cannot say which ones? How do you know they lack understanding?

Obviously some bishops are in that large fraction of people you speak of.

Ishii

How do you know this?

 

[ishii]

You say that some bishops lack understanding in economics, but you cannot say which ones? How do you know they lack understanding?

How do you know this?

As you mentioned, Stinkcat, there is a large fraction of people who are ignorant of economics. (and that statement was your response to another poster claiming that some bishops are ignorant of economics - I basically said the same thing and now you’re challenging me to name names. Hard to keep up with you Stinkcat.) Its not a stretch to think that some bishops would be in that large fraction of people you admit exists.

Furthermore, I would regard those who are dyed in the wool liberal Democrats to be largely ignorant of economics. I hope this satisfies you.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

As you mentioned, Stinkcat, there is a large fraction of people who are ignorant of economics. (and that statement was your response to another poster claiming that some bishops are ignorant of economics - I basically said the same thing and now you’re challenging me to name names. Hard to keep up with you Stinkcat.) Its not a stretch to think that some bishops would be in that large fraction of people you admit exists.

Furthermore, I would regard those who are dyed in the wool liberal Democrats to be largely ignorant of economics. I hope this satisfies you.

Ishii

Why would someone who is a died in the wool liberal democrat necessarily be ignorant of economics. I know some liberals who are quite knowledgeable about economics. What makes you think a liberal bishop is any different?

 

[ishii]

Why would someone who is a died in the wool liberal democrat necessarily be ignorant of economics. I know some liberals who are quite knowledgeable about economics. What makes you think a liberal bishop is any different?

I find that liberal Democrats are ignorant of economics. It shows in the economic policies they support and the people they vote for. But your line of questioning is silly: if one agrees that a large cross section of Catholics are ignorant about economics, then it would follow that the ones in that group who become priests, and then later, bishops, are also ignorant as well. Or do you think that once someone is appointed bishop, they suddenly are bestowed wisdom on economics?

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

I find that liberal Democrats are ignorant of economics. It shows in the economic policies they support and the people they vote for.

And what economic policies are those? And how do you know that they are voting out of economic ignorance? Just because someone might disagree with you does not mean they are ignorant of economics.

But your line of questioning is silly: if one agrees that a large cross section of Catholics are ignorant about economics, then it would follow that the ones in that group who become priests, and then later, bishops, are also ignorant as well. Or do you think that once someone is appointed bishop, they suddenly are bestowed wisdom on economics?

Ishii

I wouldn’t call someone ignorant unless I saw a sample of their economic thought first. In my work, I see economic thinking everyday, from conservatives and liberals. And much of it is flawed. I have not seen enough of any bishop’s writing on economics to make a judgement one way or another. For example, there is nothing in Bishop Wenski’s letter that would suggest that he is ignorant of economics.

 

[ishii]

And what economic policies are those?

Tax and spend, etc. i.e. economic policies promoted by liberal Democrats.

And how do you know that they are voting out of economic ignorance?

Either its ignorance or they know they are wrong and yet continue to support policies which are counter to economic wisdom. I will not speculate as to whether it is the former or latter.

Just because someone might disagree with you does not mean they are ignorant of economics.

When did I say that?

I wouldn’t call someone ignorant unless I saw a sample of their economic thought first. In my work, I see economic thinking everyday, from conservatives and liberals. And much of it is flawed. I have not seen enough of any bishop’s writing on economics to make a judgement one way or another. For example, there is nothing in Bishop Wenski’s letter that would suggest that he is ignorant of economics.

I think you’re over-thinking this, Stinkcat. I can make judgments as to the relative economic intelligence of someone without them having written an article in an academic journal. You can look at what they say about the issues, and what policies they support. I would call someone ignorant of economics who supports politicians and/or policies which are the result of economic ignorance. You haven’t spent much time in the Pacific northwest area, have you?

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

Tax and spend, etc. i.e. economic policies promoted by liberal Democrats.

And how does this reflect a bad understanding of economics? I wasn’t aware that the economics profession has declared that taxing and spending are necessarily bad things?

Either its ignorance or they know they are wrong and yet continue to support policies which are counter to economic wisdom. I will not speculate as to whether it is the former or latter.

Counter to whose economic wisdom?

When did I say that?

No, you didn’t say that, but you seem to imply that. After all, you seem to think that liberal economic policies represent a lack of economic understanding and conservative policies represent economic wisdom.

I think you’re over-thinking this, Stinkcat. I can make judgments as to the relative economic intelligence of someone without them having written an article in an academic journal. You can look at what they say about the issues, and what policies they support. I would call someone ignorant of economics who supports politicians and/or policies which are the result of economic ignorance. You haven’t spent much time in the Pacific northwest area, have you?

Ishii

Would you say that favoring an increase in the minimum wage is the result of economic ignorance? For example, a number of nobel prize winning economists have come out in favor of increasing the minimum wage. Clearly that is a liberal economic policy but it doesn’t mean that they are ignorant in economics. It means that they view the data and interpret the tradeoffs differently than a conservative economist would.

businessweek.com/news/2014-01-14/seven-nobel-laureates-endorse-increase-in-u-dot-s-dot-minimum-wage-1

 

[ishii]

And how does this reflect a bad understanding of economics? I wasn’t aware that the economics profession has declared that taxing and spending are necessarily bad things?

You’re being disingenuous now, Stinkcat. You know well what I mean when I refer to liberal “tax and spend” economics. you’re just playing games now.

No, you didn’t say that, but you seem to imply that. After all, you seem to think that liberal economic policies represent a lack of economic understanding and conservative policies represent economic wisdom.

Never said that conservative policies represent economic wisdom, Stinkcat.

Would you say that favoring an increase in the minimum wage is the result of economic ignorance? For example, a number of nobel prize winning economists have come out in favor of increasing the minimum wage. Clearly that is a liberal economic policy but it doesn’t mean that they are ignorant in economics. It means that they view the data and interpret the tradeoffs differently than a conservative economist would.

businessweek.com/news/2014-01-14/seven-nobel-laureates-endorse-increase-in-u-dot-s-dot-minimum-wage-1

Obama is a nobel laureate. Therefore, according to your standard it follows that you consider his foreign policy views to be wise?

Ishii

 

[Tomdstone]

It sure would be more credible if your study didn’t come from a Saul Alinsky-like community organizing group Asking for neutral results from the “National Employment Law Project” regarding minimum wage would be the rough equivalent to citing the Tobacco Institute about the health benefits of smoking.

Were you expecting MacDonald’s to show the benefits of increasing a minimum wage?
Your argument against the study is an ad hominem one and does not address the issues raised.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You’re being disingenuous now, Stinkcat. You know well what I mean when I refer to liberal “tax and spend” economics. you’re just playing games now.

Actually I am not playing games. I am just stating an economic fact, and that is that what you call “tax and spend” policies does not necessarily represent economic ignorance. Is it a foregone conclusion that taxing more and spending more will necessarily make our economy worse off? The answer is of course, no. It might, or it might not.

Never said that conservative policies represent economic wisdom, Stinkcat.

Clearly there is plenty of conservatives with economic ignorance, so on that point we agree.

Obama is a nobel laureate. Therefore, according to your standard it follows that you consider his foreign policy views to be wise?

Ishii

I think there is a big difference between the peace prize which is primarily political and the economics prize which is more research based. Obviously winning a nobel prize does not make one infallible. But I personally would think twice before calling Peter Diamond or Ken Arrow economically illiterate. I have not seen anything in their writing that suggests that they don’t understand labor markets. They may have different views on the importance of different tradeoffs, but that does not make the economically wrong, just that they have different preferences.

 

[markomalley]

Were you expecting MacDonald’s to show the benefits of increasing a minimum wage?
Your argument against the study is an ad hominem one and does not address the issues raised.

How about a study by Tomdstone demonstrating that a minimum wage increase is completely irrelevant to the economy.

And if you’re not willing to do that yourself, then at least find something that is peer reviewed.

But don’t fool yourself into thinking that this is in any way anything other than biased.

You want me to talk about the content of the study?

OK, how about this:

First page:
Even before the recession, our economy was shifting, with fewer and fewer middle-class jobs, and a growing low-wage workforce. The recession and tepid recovery have only accelerated this shift. While net job losses in 2008 - 2009 were widely distributed across industries and included significant losses in higher - wage industries, new job growth in 2010 and 2011 has been driven disproportionately by industries with median wages below $15 per hour. In fact, the top three occupations in industries that experienced job growth in 2010 were retail sales persons, cashiers, and food preparation workers – all occupations with median wages below $10 per hour.

This means that working families are relying more than ever on low - wage jobs to make ends meet. Households with an out of work construction worker are being supported by the earnings of a home health aide. And workers who lost manufacturing jobs are now working as cashiers or in restaurants

So right off the bat, the question I have is why is the National Employment Law Project not suggesting that action be taken to attract higher paying manufacturing jobs?

Moving onto page 3 of the advocacy paper, we see this rather astounding statement:According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, every $1.00 in wage increase for a minimum wage worker results in $3,500 in new consumer spending by his or her household over the following year.(9)
Here, for anybody who cares to read it, is a link to the Chicago Fed study. It says,
We present four key empirical findings. First, a $1 minimum wage hike increases household income by roughly $250 and spending by approximately $700 per quarter in the year following a minimum wage hike. These findings are corroborated by independent data showing that debt rises substantially after a minimum wage increase. The results are particularly surprising given that many adults earning the minimum wage at a point in time make above the minimum two years later. Second, the majority of this additional spending is in durable goods, particularly vehicles. The majority of the additional debt increase is in collateralized debt, such as auto loans. Consequently, the spending response is concentrated among a small number of households. Third, total spending increases with in one quarter of a minimum wage increase and not prior, despite legislation typically passing 6 to 18 months before enactment. Finally, high levels of durables spending and debt accumulation persist for several quarters after a minimum wage hike. These results are robust to changes in sample selection criteria and a variety of covariates. Furthermore, we find that the minimum wage has no income or spending effect on households with workers earning at least double the minimum wage.
So what the Chicago Fed is saying is that a SMALL portion of households on minimum wage will go out and buy durable goods, particularly cars, after a minimum wage increase. And that they go into debt to do so. They say that the income increases by $1,000 for the first year after the increase but that spending increases by $2,800 per year. (Gee, the “NELP” said $3,500…did they lie or did they just goof?)

Here’s another interesting little point from the Chicago Fed:

That said, our estimates are silent about the aggregate effects of a minimum wage hike. Our estimated responses are for households that had a minimum wage job prior to an increase in the minimum wage. It is possible that a minimum wage increase reduces the odds that those without a job will be able to find one. Moreover, we ignore most teenagers, where the evidence of disemployment is most compelling. However, for those adults who had a minimum wage job prior to a minimum wage hike, spending (particularly on vehicles), income, and debt rise afterward and a model that incorporates collateral constraints and a cost to adjusting durables can mimic many of these patterns.
So what the Fed is saying is that after a minimum wage increase people will go into debt more, and it may be harder for those who are looking for a job to find one (particularly teenagers).

In what life is it good to go into debt for a depreciating asset?

I guess the people at the National Employment Law Project weren’t expecting anybody to actually go check their footnotes, huh?

Like I said, you really ought not to cite junk from advocacy groups.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I find that liberal Democrats are ignorant of economics. It shows in the economic policies they support and the people they vote for. But your line of questioning is silly: if one agrees that a large cross section of Catholics are ignorant about economics, then it would follow that the ones in that group who become priests, and then later, bishops, are also ignorant as well. Or do you think that once someone is appointed bishop, they suddenly are bestowed wisdom on economics?

Ishii

Ishii What you find is that they don’t agree with you. It could just mean that you are mistaken.

ATB

 

[ishii]

Ishii What you find is that they don’t agree with you. It could just mean that you are mistaken.

ATB

I remember a liberal senator back during the Carter era say: “inflation is caused by high prices.” During the economic boom of the Reagan era, I recall a liberal bishop referred to “how hard it is to find a job in the current economic climate.” You should read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt - as should all liberals. That might help.

Ishii

 

[JamesCaruso]

Actually that is not true because increasing the minimum wage boosts consumer spending and thereby creates jobs and increases employment. See:
nelp.3cdn.net/02b725e73dc24e0644_0im6bkno9.pdf
"A Strong Minimum Wage Can Help Working Families, Businesses and Our Economy Recover …
Contrary to opponents’ claims, a large body of rigorous academic research finds that increases in the minimum wage do not lead to job loss. "

It’s relative. I do not thing such an impact is comparable to other measures such as lowering taxes, reducing regulation or cutting spending. Besides, some of the good aspects of raising the minimum wage are nullified by employers raising prices to cover the additional wage cost, and laying off employees for the same reason. But I do agree that there are positive aspects of raising the minimum wage, not the least of which is a person struggling to stay above the poverty line being able to buy food and pay his rent.

 

[markomalley]

But I do agree that there are positive aspects of raising the minimum wage, not the least of which is a person struggling to stay above the poverty line being able to buy food and pay his rent.

If a man was to be at the poverty level living by himself, that would be $5.52 per hour (assuming he worked a 40 hour week, 52 weeks a year)

A man supporting himself and a wife would be $7.45 an hour.

A man supporting himself, a wife, and six kids would be $19.05 an hour.

So if you think that it is laudable to keep a person out of poverty, according to government numbers, that means that you should pay him somewhere north of $5.52 an hour.

But here’s the more important point: if you want to establish a minimum wage to keep a man and his family out of poverty, then should you set a higher minimum wage for a man with a bigger family than for a single person?

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I remember a liberal senator back during the Carter era say: “inflation is caused by high prices.” During the economic boom of the Reagan era, I recall a liberal bishop referred to “how hard it is to find a job in the current economic climate.” You should read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt - as should all liberals. That might help.

Ishii

Ishii It’s a funny thing memory. Sometimes it’s accurate, and other times just convenient.

ATB

 

[Mickey_Finn]

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/619/9846035525.png

If a man was to be at the poverty level living by himself, that would be $5.52 per hour (assuming he worked a 40 hour week, 52 weeks a year)

A man supporting himself and a wife would be $7.45 an hour.

A man supporting himself, a wife, and six kids would be $19.05 an hour.

So if you think that it is laudable to keep a person out of poverty, according to government numbers, that means that you should pay him somewhere north of $5.52 an hour.

But here’s the more important point: if you want to establish a minimum wage to keep a man and his family out of poverty, then should you set a higher minimum wage for a man with a bigger family than for a single person?

We want people who are working to be well above the poverty line. 150% of the poverty level would be a start.

I thought we were very clear about this.

 

[Tomdstone]

Furthermore, we find that the minimum wage has no income or spending effect on households with workers earning at least double the minimum wage.

This is basically irrelevant to families where the wage earner is working 40 hours per week at the minimum wage. An increase in the minimum wage would help that family enormously. This issue of minimum wage does not involve families with high or middle income and, of course, it would not help those wealthy and middle class families. But I submit that it is very difficult for a family of four or more to get by on $18,000 per year. And that is $18K per year before all the deductions. The rent for even a relatively small apartment in a low income area in Massachusetts goes for about $700 per month, which amounts to $8,400 per year. So now the family is left with just under $10,000. And that will have to pay for food, clothing, transportation, dental work, misc health costs, heating in the wintertime, misc school costs, and for all those other misc, items needed about the house for this family of four people, They will spend their last dollar since they have no choice. It only stands to reason that if this family were to get an additional $1,000 they would spend it and the economy would benefit, not suffer. So the research that I presented was not junk as you claim it was. It was a serious study designed to show that the economy does not benefit when families are forced to live at near starvation levels with the present minimum wage.