Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
I'd say less, and much so. Would you rather be poor back then or now? The poor now have cars, cell phones, central heating and air, refrigeration, flat screens etc. The standard of living is much better now then when I was growing up in the 70's/80's. And this is so despite government intervention.Silver wrote: Ask yourself if there is more or less poverty now compared to then.
Except that now the poor have those things because the government takes from taxpayers to support those who qualify for welfare. That sort of charity is what Lucifer proposed. Plus, it's a bit anachronistic to bring air conditioning into a comparison to the 1930's. As for the standard of living improvements, $19Trillion in debt will buy a lot of cool gadgets. I feel poor and poorly every time I think about that number.Separatist wrote:I'd say less, and much so. Would you rather be poor back then or now? The poor now have cars, cell phones, central heating and air, refrigeration, flat screens etc. The standard of living is much better now then when I was growing up in the 70's/80's. And this is so despite government intervention.Silver wrote: Ask yourself if there is more or less poverty now compared to then.
Here’s a minimum wage thought experiment.
1. Suppose that a $15 an hour minimum wage is imposed on employers by government mandate.
2. In response to the $15 an hour minimum wage legislation, suppose that most employers then impose a 2-year minimum work experience requirement for new employees, to more closely match the higher productivity of more experienced workers to the new higher mandated wage.
Q: How would the employer practice of a 2-year minimum work experience requirement in response to a $15 an hour minimum wage affect employment opportunities for unskilled and limited-experience workers?
A: The answer should be self-explanatory and obvious, and perfectly consistent with the economic reality of what will inevitably actually happen as a result of the $15 an hour minimum wage laws being phased in around the country in Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, California and New York, and being considered in many other cites and states throughout the land.
As Milton Friedman explained it many years ago, “The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying that employers must discriminate against people who have low skills.”
Okay since I assume I qualify as poor as I am on disability, I don't have a car, a smartphone (mine is an old style from the early 2000s, got it on a local buy/sell site), don't have central heating or air, heating in my place is... well it can't handle our winters too too well, I do have a fridge, I don't have tv but I do have the internet.Separatist wrote:I'd say less, and much so. Would you rather be poor back then or now? The poor now have cars, cell phones, central heating and air, refrigeration, flat screens etc. The standard of living is much better now then when I was growing up in the 70's/80's. And this is so despite government intervention.Silver wrote: Ask yourself if there is more or less poverty now compared to then.
Adonai wrote:[Arrr, matey] my feet be dusted for now no more pearls be given.
Watch it. You'll like it.David13 wrote:Ajax
A video featuring that horrid woman. I don't even want to watch it, thanks anyway.
No, I guess you had more powerful unions than we did, to do the job for you. I love cars, and build steam engines as a hobby. Britain used to be the home of high quality, skilled trades. British craftsmanship was admired the world over. The key word here is "WAS". Due to the labor strife, both post WW2, and in the 1970's, British manufacturing became only a small shell of what it used to be, and not much of anybody even recollects that in days past, something made in Britain, was of the best quality.Minimum wage legislation has proved to be reasonably successful here in the UK.
It's a relatively recent thing for us. When parliament were debating it, one of the arguments made in it's support was the fact that even the US has a minimum wage.
Perhaps one of the more interesting data points from yesterday’s Employment Report is displayed in the graph above, which shows that the jobless rate for black male teens (aged 16-19 years) increased to 40.1% in June from 28.1% in May. Except for a slightly higher increase of 12.2 percentage points during the aftermath of the Great Recession, the 12 percentage point increase in June was the highest monthly increase in history going back to 1972 when the BLS starting keeping records for this series. One possible explanation for this spike would be the “midyear burst of minimum-wage increases on July 1” outlined in a recent WSJ article:
As we learned from Milton Friedman many years ago:On July 1, 14 U.S. cities, states and counties, plus the District of Columbia, will raise their minimum wage in a mid-year burst that reflects the legislative momentum to boost pay floors across the country while federal legislation stalls. In total, the minimum wage will rise in 15 places: two states – Maryland and Oregon, plus Washington, D.C., Los Angeles County, Calif., and 11 cities. That includes Chicago, eight cities in California and two in Kentucky, according to a new analysis by the right-leaning Employment Policies Institute.
The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying that employers must discriminate against people who have low skills. That’s what the law says. The law says that here’s a man who has a skill that would justify a wage of $5 or $6 per hour (adjusted for today), but you may not employ him, it’s illegal, because if you employ him you must pay him $7.25 per hour. So what’s the result? To employ him at $7.25 per hour is to engage in charity. There’s nothing wrong with charity. But most employers are not in the position to engage in that kind of charity. Thus, the consequences of minimum wage laws have been almost wholly bad. We have increased unemployment and increased poverty.
Moreover, the effects have been concentrated on the groups that the do-gooders would most like to help. The people who have been hurt most by the minimum wage laws are the blacks. I have often said that the most anti-black law on the books of this land is the minimum wage law.
[Insert Obrien's favorite curse word here] man! Did the interviewer get arrested?ajax wrote:Watch it. You'll like it.David13 wrote:Ajax
A video featuring that horrid woman. I don't even want to watch it, thanks anyway.
Yeoman Farmer emails:
I thoroughly enjoy your two blogs, reading them several times a day. There has been a movement in our county in flyover country to get our county Board of Supervisors to raise the minimum wage. Last night there was a public "discussion" on that topic at a liberal arts college in the county seat. Our county is primarily big ag in the country and big labor unions in the city. When I read about the upcoming discussion, I thought it would be a good venue for some "libertarian rabble rousing".
The event was held in a small auditorium at the college and attended by about a hundred people. I got there a few minutes early to survey the audience and see if there might be any allies in the crowd. I approached a few different folks and asked if they were for or against raising the minimum wage. Without exception they were for raising it. I began to think I might be on my own at this event. The four member panel consisted of one Democrat member of the Board of Supervisors, one Democrat state representative and two small business people. The audience was about evenly split between older folks (many with labor union hats and jackets) and college age kids.
I have read your blogs for several years, always taking a little extra time to carefully read and understand the posts on minimum wage laws because it struck me as so inimical to the rights of a "free" people to have government dictate what an employer could pay his/her employees. I did not have a whole lot of time to prepare for the "discussion" so I just went to your blog, typed "minimum wage" into the search bar, copied several cogent articles, printed them out, and highlighted the main points. With that, I was now armed and dangerous.
After the discussion moderator introduced the panel members, they each gave their spiel on why our county needed to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, what a shame it was that we had not, how great the poverty was in our area (even though we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation) and how it would be reduced with a raise in the minimum wage, how wonderful life would be once we did raise it, and on and on and on. I figured I would only get one shot at this. After panel finished there was a brief lull, so I secured the moderators approval and dove in.
I started with a brief history of the minimum wage laws being the favourite tool of labor unions to suppress "colored" races, "quoting Thomas Sowell in his NY Times article. Then I related the findings of the studies done in Canada that showed with a 10% increase in minimum wage there was a corresponding reduction of employment among teens and young adults of 3-6%. I asked the panel and audience what they had against young people and lower skilled that they wanted to make it illegal for them to take a job at less than what government said they could. I said the greatest poverty in our area was not economic poverty but a poverty of mind and spirit with it's accompanying lack of self-reliance and initiative that consequently looks to government for all the essentials of life; a poverty that government works non-stop to reinforce. My closing statement was this: "Heaven help us and save us from social do-gooders who wrap themselves in the cloak of self-righteousness social justice and arrogate to themselves the power of Leviathan State to tell others how to run their businesses and live their lives."
As a result of my statements and the ensuing firestorm of comments, I have a better understanding how the prophet Daniel felt in the lions den. There was no real, factual refutation of my points, only innuendo, emotion and obfuscation, as well as general hate and discontent. There was definitely a "deer in the headlights" look on the faces of the panel. By far, the majority of the audience was in favor of raising the minimum wage and had never even entertained the remote possibility that minimum wage laws were just plain wrong. My goal was not to convert everyone but just possibly light a few brushfires in the minds of men. One comment to that effect was from an older man in the audience who expressed his appreciation saying "I came hoping for a discussion of the issue and wish there had been this much discussion at the last Board of Supervisors meeting." Mission accomplished.
Thank you Robert for all the hard work that goes into Target Liberty and Economic Policy Journal. They are an essential part of the arsenal of liberty in our times.
The Daily Caller reports:I expect some lefty economic simpletons to call for the banning of such kiosks which, of course, would result in the closing of McDonald's restaurants in some locations.McDonald’s has announced plans to roll out automated kiosks and mobile pay options at all of its U.S. locations, raising questions about the future of its 1.5 million employees in the country and around the globe.
Roughly 500 restaurants in Florida, New York and California now have the automated ordering stations, and restaurant in Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C., will be outfitted in 2017, according to CNNMoney.
The locations that are seeing the first automated kiosks closely correlate with the fight for a $15 minimum wage. Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law a new $15 minimum wage for New York state in 2016, and the University of California has proposed to pay its low-wage employees $15. Florida’s minimum wage will rise Jan. 1, 2017. Seattle raised its minimum wage to $15 in 2014, followed by San Francisco and Los Angeles.
You mean like Rolls-Royce, Aston Martin, Jaguar etc?gclayjr wrote:
...... and not much of anybody even recollects that in days past, something made in Britain, was of the best quality.
http://www.autonews.com/article/2003060 ... xed-jaguarHad Ford planners realized how bad things were at Jaguar the company, they might have had second thoughts about taking on Jaguar the brand.
"It wasn't that Jaguar's quality was bad, it was horrendous," said Bill Hayden, the tough east London manufacturing man Ford sent in as first Jaguar chairman in the new era.
"It was a terrible organization making terrible cars," he added.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests