10 Reasons to Call for a Minimum Wage of More than $10.10

[Monk Of Reason]

The only problem is the data is incorrect as written.

It is not.

 

[esmith]

It is not.

I can find no link anywhere in any of you above post that shows a link to any source for a

Originally Posted by BLS News Release:January 2014
"Total employment, as measured by the household survey, increased by 616,000 over the month"

From: Graph: Total nonfarm payroll employment (seasonally adjusted)

There was 187,386,000(P) total non-farm labor in Dec 2013 and 137,499,000(P) (P= Preliminary) non-farm labor in Jan 2014. Which is a gain of 113,000 in total non-farm labor. So I do not see any way you can come up with a "Total employment increase of 616,000 from Dec 2013 to Jan 2014.

 

[esmith]

Although you may disregard the source I suggest you look at the following article and the excerpt from the article:
Rise of Robot Laborers in China Could Change Global Trade Game

Canada's Globe and Mail has a feature out this week on China's increased push to replace human labor with automated work. While China boasts some of the cheapest labor in the world--hence their domination of the manufacture of many simple to make items--salaries are, by necessity, increasing. This, argues author Scott Barlow, is pressuring the Chinese government to stay competitive economically with other nations by suppressing the growing wages. And to do that, he continues, businesses need to hire fewer people.
The Globe and Mail's business team has been on the forefront of covering the shift from human laborers to robotics in the global economy, first reporting last December on the increase in their presence in our lives. Within the next 15 years, predicts that article, "robots will increasingly being to populate a new domain-- the physical realm." An example: a restaurant in China that fully gave up on using waiters and waitresses and employs "20 life-size robots" to cook and serve meals.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I can find no link anywhere in any of you above post that shows a link to any source for a

From: Graph: Total nonfarm payroll employment (seasonally adjusted)

There was 187,386,000(P) total non-farm labor in Dec 2013 and 137,499,000(P) (P= Preliminary) non-farm labor in Jan 2014. Which is a gain of 113,000 in total non-farm labor. So I do not see any way you can come up with a "Total employment increase of 616,000 from Dec 2013 to Jan 2014.

Page 2 Paragraph 4

Its not adjusted so the number is misleading. The number you are posting is after they do all of the adjusting and calculate net gain. Its a complicated process in which many calculations are used to derive the best number that accounts for a "correct" or "accurate" representation of the data in a functional and useful way.

For example saying that we added 1 million jobs sounds great. However if we found out that the population increased by 2 million during the same amount of time that would mean that the unemployment rate actually rose. But wait only a rough estimated 1/3 of the new individuals in the population are actually looking for employment. But then we need to calculate all of the job losses and then account for those getting new jobs from their last job if they lost and found a job in the same month.
Then we have to calculate existing population increases to the unemployment vs employment (which is known as the labor force participation rate).

Then the seasonal adjustment.

So its not a single number. There are dozens of final tallies across several different charts that are then interpreted and calculated. The household survey says that 600k people got jobs. That doesn't include any of the above calculations. This is why there is a discrepancy. Its not inaccuracy.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Although you may disregard the source I suggest you look at the following article and the excerpt from the article:
Rise of Robot Laborers in China Could Change Global Trade Game

Honestly I didn't even look at them since it had nothing to do with the point. I understood exactly why you thought the information was inn accurate. I also knew why you were wrong in that assumption. The links were irrelevant. I also lost my temper a little. I apologize for that.

upon looking at the links none of them contradicted what I had stated. Though your point about unemployment rates doubling under Obama seems rather incorrect. The unemployment rate was rising rapidly prior to his inauguration and it was shortly after his term began that it reversed in trend.

For example the unemployment rate began its skyrocket in 2007 and then maxed out at the end of 09. He only began his work during 09 and after its peak it has steadily dropped over the course of his presidency from that peak.

As you can see in this link half of the major upswing in unemployment was not during his term and the last half was during his first term before any of his laws or accomplishments could have had any real effect.

 

[esmith]

Although you may disregard the source I suggest you look at the following article and the excerpt from the article:
Rise of Robot Laborers in China Could Change Global Trade Game

Honestly I didn't even look at them since it had nothing to do with the point. I understood exactly why you thought the information was inn accurate. I also knew why you were wrong in that assumption. The links were irrelevant. I also lost my temper a little. I apologize for that.

upon looking at the links none of them contradicted what I had stated. Though your point about unemployment rates doubling under Obama seems rather incorrect. The unemployment rate was rising rapidly prior to his inauguration and it was shortly after his term began that it reversed in trend.

For example the unemployment rate began its skyrocket in 2007 and then maxed out at the end of 09. He only began his work during 09 and after its peak it has steadily dropped over the course of his presidency from that peak.

As you can see in this link half of the major upswing in unemployment was not during his term and the last half was during his first term before any of his laws or accomplishments could have had any real effect.

What does the above comments have to do with the post you quoted? The article was about what China is doing in the face of rising wages. This thread is about raising the minimum wage and it has strayed.

 

[tytlyf]

Well to start with:

Anyone has the right to agree or disagree with the SCOUS ruling. However, they do not have the legal right to go against that ruling. As far as your comment "don't hear a peep out of those on the right when SCOTUS rules in their favor" could well have the word "right" changed to "left" and it would be accurate. However, Obama does not have the Constitutional right to raise the minimum wage as he found out.
Supreme Court: Obama's minimum wage executive order unconstitutional - National Policy & Issues | Examiner.com

Wow, the SCOTUS ruled recently that Obama's Executive Order raising the minimum wage was Unconstitutional. Interesting. Do you believe that?

 

[esmith]

I think that I see my problem but not sure. After putting my head back on straight I thought about the two number 113,000 and 616,000. Now let me see if I have this right. The 113,000 number is the "new jobs added" for the month of Jan, the 616,000 number is the number of people that went to work in the month of Jan. So from this I think I am correct in saying that of the 616,000 people that went to work some of them may have taken all or some of the "new jobs" made available. So, just for the math sake, lets assume that they did, which would mean that there were at least if not more than 503,000 additional jobs were available (6160000-113,000). Now, we must ask the question of "Why"? If there were these jobs out there why were they not taken?
Following is from data taken from: Unemployment benefits for 2.1 million workers are set to expire early next year
Could the answer be that there are approx 4.1 million workers that have been out of a job for at least 6 months of which 33% or 1.35 million have been out of work longer and receiving extended unemployment insurance. Now this extended unemployment insurance ran out Dec 31, 2013 which means that 1.35 million lost there unemployment benefits and were forced to go back to make up for the loss of benefits. So, from the above would it not be a possible assumption that extended unemployment benefits are a determent to putting workers back to work? (note: all numbers are approximate)

 

[esmith]

Wow, the SCOTUS ruled recently that Obama's Executive Order raising the minimum wage was Unconstitutional. Interesting. Do you believe that?

Not exactly since no law suite has been brought against Obama's action. All the referenced case did is to set a precedence for a possible ruling.

 

[tytlyf]

Not exactly since no law suite has been brought against Obama's action. All the referenced case did is to set a precedence for a possible ruling.

Good, then you'd agree that your source is misleading. Especially if someone just saw the headline.

 

[esmith]

Good, then you'd agree that your source is misleading. Especially if someone just saw the headline.

Not exactly. The headline makes it appear that a suite was brought before the SCOUS against Obama and his executive order on raising the minimum wage. However, we all know that headlines are meant to attract the reader to the body of the story. So, in one respect the headline is somewhat misleading but in another it does cover the SCOUS ruling, in the sited case, what the President can and can not due according to the Constitution.

 

[esmith]

upon looking at the links none of them contradicted what I had stated. Though your point about unemployment rates doubling under Obama seems rather incorrect. The unemployment rate was rising rapidly prior to his inauguration and it was shortly after his term began that it reversed in trend.

For example the unemployment rate began its skyrocket in 2007 and then maxed out at the end of 09. He only began his work during 09 and after its peak it has steadily dropped over the course of his presidency from that peak.

You figures do not agree with the following: Long-term unemployment is above the nation

In Dec of 2007 the long term unemployment rate was 17.4% and peaked at 45.3% in May of 2011 (percent of unemployed)

It all depends on how you measure unemployment, there are 6 different methods:
U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)

U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers
U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

If you look at the unemployment figures from (takes you to the U4 figures but you can navigate to different measurement.
(U-4 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven
you see a different picture.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What does the above comments have to do with the post you quoted? The article was about what China is doing in the face of rising wages. This thread is about raising the minimum wage and it has strayed.

Honestly it didn't. I meant to quote another post earlier in the thread and I made a mistake. I really don't have an opinion on the China thing. I don't agree with their methods and treatment of their people so I buy products made in China as sparsely as I can.

You figures do not agree with the following: Long-term unemployment is above the nation

In Dec of 2007 the long term unemployment rate was 17.4% and peaked at 45.3% in May of 2011 (percent of unemployed)

It all depends on how you measure unemployment, there are 6 different methods:
U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)

U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers
U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

If you look at the unemployment figures from (takes you to the U4 figures but you can navigate to different measurement.
(U-4 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven
you see a different picture.

My figures do not agree with the following what? The link still states that it is getting better. Slowly but surely. Underemployment is the bigger problem and minimum wage raises would help that tremendously.

If you look at the chart you will see that long term unemployment peaked at roughly the exact same time as overall unemployment. And it has seen drastic decreases since.

So I don't exactly see what point of mine is being rebutted. Can you clarify?

 

[esmith]

My figures do not agree with the following what? The link still states that it is getting better. Slowly but surely. Underemployment is the bigger problem and minimum wage raises would help that tremendously.
If you look at the chart you will see that long term unemployment peaked at roughly the exact same time as overall unemployment. And it has seen drastic decreases since.

Well if we look at the historical data the U6 rate was 9.2% Jan 2008 and peaked at 17.04% Sept 2009. From Sept 2009 to present it has only dropped 4.7%, I do not call that a drastic decrease. The CBO seems to disagree with your assumption that raising the minimum wage will decrease unemployment. Also suggest you read the following article. Minimum Wages: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

 

[Alceste]

Well if we look at the historical data the U6 rate was 9.2% Jan 2008 and peaked at 17.04% Sept 2009. From Sept 2009 to present it has only dropped 4.7%, I do not call that a drastic decrease. The CBO seems to disagree with your assumption that raising the minimum wage will decrease unemployment. Also suggest you read the following article. Minimum Wages: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Pro tip on how to spot slick bull ****: the footnotes make it look classy, but none of the notes refer to the "studies" (the titles of which they neglected to share) they're claiming support their argument. Guess what that means. If you guessed that the actual studies conflict with their opinion, so they're lying about the existence of studies supporting it and hoping you will take them at their word, you'd be 100% correct. You've basically posted a link to an advertisement (nine out of ten dentists don't actually recommend any specific toothpaste either.)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well if we look at the historical data the U6 rate was 9.2% Jan 2008 and peaked at 17.04% Sept 2009. From Sept 2009 to present it has only dropped 4.7%, I do not call that a drastic decrease. The CBO seems to disagree with your assumption that raising the minimum wage will decrease unemployment. Also suggest you read the following article. Minimum Wages: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Your jumping back and forth now. Long term unemployment did have a drastic increase between 08 and 11. And after 11 it has decreased steadily since.

I also think you are misreading what I posted. I have not stated that increasing minimum wage would decrease unemployment. I said that it would have net loss but overall unemployment would continue to drop. The estimated net loss of jobs would be 500k over the course of 3 years. The net gain in January of 2014 (which was a slow month) was 113k. The estimated job growth over the course of the next 3 years is between 5.4-6.7 million net gain in jobs.

This is significantly more than the net loss that a minute amount of job loss caused by the increased minimum wage while at the same time bringing 900k people out of the poverty line and increase the total wealth of the people of the nation making under 6x the poverty line b 17-20 billion dollars.

It is my personal opinion that this will eventually lower unemployment by creating more spending power in the lower and middle classes. Kickstarting the economy by creating demand will inadvertently create jobs. In many cases its longer term rather than shorter term.

So I still do not understand where you are trying to say that you have contradicted me.


And the U6 rate is slowly dropping and its down to 13.1% (which is high but not anywhere near as high as it was in its peak)
for 2013

And a good look at how it jumped from under 10% in 2008 to over 15% in 2010 and its gradual decline since.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

.......at the same time bringing 900k people out of the poverty line and increase the total wealth of the people of the nation making under 6x the poverty line b 17-20 billion dollars.

It is my personal opinion that this will eventually lower unemployment by creating more spending power in the lower and middle classes. Kickstarting the economy by creating demand will inadvertently create jobs. In many cases its longer term rather than shorter term.

Exactly....:yes:

 

[tytlyf]

Here's a nice little video that sheds some insight into welfare/wages etc.

[youtube]-rtySUhuokM[/youtube]

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Governor Bans Minimum Wage Increases And Paid Sick Leave Laws | ThinkProgress

At a time when many states and cities are working passing minimum wage increases, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) has gone in the opposite direction and signed a law banning cities from passing higher wages. The bill also bans them from enacting paid sick days or vacation requirements.

 

[Mycroft]

Over here in Great Britain I think the national minimum wage works out at around $11.28