States with Higher Minimum Wage Boast Faster Job Growth

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Your whole argument is a deflection. Conservatives claim any wage increase will destroy the economy this is a lie, so you deflect!

First off, source your claim, secondly I am simply posting facts you don't like so you offer red herrings.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: LDragonFire

He reminds me of my old economics teacher 25 years ago.
He told us If people got paid more they spend more making growth so it is logical to say If the minimum wage goes up people spend more and make more jobs.
But only If it is at the same rate of inflation or above.
Thing is Governments and Politicians have their fingers in business's pie so It will not change.

So the ol' can't dispute the message so assassinate the messenger. Why would I expect more from your ilk.

This is in line with what billionare Nick Hanauer proposes in his piece titled:
"The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Interesting stuff to be sure, don't know enough about economics to take sides though,
as far as I'm concerned you can ask a hundred economists the same question and get a hundred different answers, if they're in all actuality clueless about the effects of certain policies on the economy what does that say about me?...

Or, they're not clueless, TPTB, and the financial crisis is merely another manufactured disaster.

This I know at least: if you control the banks and the central banks there really is no end to the type of economic manipulations you could perform.

The whole goddamn system needs a reboot.. and I guess that's coming too, that would be the manufactured replacement waiting, ready to be implemented after the manufactured crisis.

Problem, reaction and solution and all that.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Do explain similar job growth in all the states you listed from 2013 to 2014?

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

I already showed this to be a false statistic.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Do explain similar job growth in all the states you listed from 2013 to 2014?

Those are all the high min. wage states. I don't understand what you mean. 60% of them have higher unemployment than the national average. 10% of low min. wage states have higher unemployment.

I did not list job growth for the low min. wage states because they all have incredibly low unemployment, job growth is a meaningless stat, unemployment rate is a better indicator. Let me explain why.

State A has $10 min wage. They go from 10% to 8% unemployment.
State B has $6 min wage. They go from 4% to 3.9% unemployment.

Job growth says State A is doing 20x better. Do you agree? I don't. When you have high unemployment you have more opportunity for job growth because you are still recovering. When you are DONE recovering your job growth will slow down.

Average unemployment for top 10 high min. wage states.
6.78
Average unemployment for bottom 10 min. wage states.
4.47

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

Why do people think raising labor cost aren't going to raise the cost of goods? I would think this isn't even arguable. The balance sheet doesn't list employees names just their cost. Liberals want it to be very personal, it isn't it business.

This is precisely the problem with business today and over the last 40 years - that business only consider employees as an expense and don't show them on the balance sheet as the asset they truly are.

Regarding ROI, traditionally most small businesses were started to provide a service or product to the community, provide a living to self and others and not as a 'paper' investment.

Return on Investment is only relevent if you are looking for a 'black box' investment - meaning put money in and such more money out. That is the way the business schools teach business and even small business owners think that way now and it doesn't serve anyone - except those at the top of the pyramid.

Over the years, I've worked (independently and as an employee) for many small (under 20 employees) business. Those that concern themselves with 'business margins' and return on investment generally fail or creep along by the skin of their teeth. Those that actually invest in their business (people and equipment), pay there taxes, provide good customer service do much better over the long haul - they also tend to have more in reserve for lean times and operate from pride in service. Oh - they also started and grew with their own money, little by little, without help from financial master's of the universe. One small company I work with now has had employees since the beginning 30 years ago - the employees have good pay (non-union shop) with full benefits paid in toto by the company, etc and it survived the big crash of 2008 and is slowing building it's revenues without loans or selling off parts of the company.

But as more and more little businesses are trying to run like big businesses - I work for one of them as well - though they have a nice niche but take every bit of money they can out of the company and don't invest in getting and retaining good people (ASSETs) and are constantly borrowing money and can't grow because nothing is being put back into supporting his product or his service. Honestly I'm surprised they are still in business. Like I said they have a great niche product, that could go places with the proper support.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Nope just saying how my economics teacher saw it and how I see it the only one assassinating anything is you with the "Your ilk" comment.
Care to explain that eh?.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Nope just saying how my economics teacher saw it and how I see it the only one assassinating anything is you with the "Your ilk" comment.
Care to explain that eh?.

Your ilk is those of you who come on here and can't dispute the facts so you try to impugn the messenger. I posted facts (the very facts that are used for the OP statement). The facts are the job growth in these high minimum wage states is the result of their slow economic recovery and the low min. wage states have significantly lower unemployment.

What is better, a state with job growth because it's not recovered, or a state with less job growth and half the unemployment because it's done recovering?

Of course if only 3 states raise their minimum wage workers will hurry to work in those states and business will be inflated there until the other states follow suit to balance it out.

Once the other states follow suit and the new wage is common place, businesses will pass on the increased costs of staffing on to the consumer or cut back. The economy will be harder for consumers and workers with new inflated costs and business cutbacks and so the fed will print stimulus money further lowering the value of the dollar.

We'll be back to square one again, same economy, same cost of living except small cash savings of the lower class would be devalued.

Minimum wage hikes only preserve the wealth of those with equity and massive reserves of cash.


The poor lose their savings and any hope of climbing out of living life check by check. It's a fools move to rally for minimum wage hikes when you have currency which can be manipulated that way.

a reply to: BlubberyConspiracy

It's not even that. This is flat out "lie via statistics". The job growth is occurring because these states are lagging behind in their economic recovery. In fact the one State that was singled out as not doing as well as the other 12 is actually doing the best!!

Twelve of those states have seen job growth this year, while employment in Vermont has been flat.

The article made it seem like Vermont is doing poorly. Vermont has the lowest unemployment in the country at 3.5%, that is why it was "flat". "Flat" like the low Min. Wage states that all have low unemployment and are doing MUCH better than the 12 in the article.

The entire article is misconstruing the facts to support an untenable political position.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

Why do people think raising labor cost aren't going to raise the cost of goods? I would think this isn't even arguable. The balance sheet doesn't list employees names just their cost. Liberals want it to be very personal, it isn't it business.

This is precisely the problem with business today and over the last 40 years - that business only consider employees as an expense and don't show them on the balance sheet as the asset they truly are.

Unfortunately these days are gone, you can thank lawyers, government, bankers for that.

Regarding ROI, traditionally most small businesses were started to provide a service or product to the community, provide a living to self and others and not as a 'paper' investment.

When you have a pocket full of money and want to risk the investment of business, I don't think anyone looks at it as providing anything, they look at it will it make money first, that analysis is often complex in some cases. I also find it depends on the kind of business as well. Are we mowing lawns with a trailer full of equipment or are we building a autoparts store. Simplistic example but hugely different in terms of investments. I know some owners in one business and see an opportunity in a completely different kind of business and buy those often times.

Return on Investment is only relevent if you are looking for a 'black box' investment - meaning put money in and such more money out. That is the way the business schools teach business and even small business owners think that way now and it doesn't serve anyone - except those at the top of the pyramid.

I don't agree here, I think by and large most small business owners didn't graduate from business school with a degree. They use a common sense approach, if I have 100K to invest, somewhere in their minds they have an idea of what they should get back for what they put forward. lol in some cases this is fantasy and they wasted 100K but any that last and and make money think like this. And at the core I think most want control of their own destiny, thats how it was for me. I told myself if these idiots I am working for can do it, it should be a cakewalk. My father in law had just got laid off off a company he had worked for, for 35 years. He was the shop steward, very well respected by the business and the employees, but they decided to move to another state. The labor was cheaper non union and he was out of a job after 35 years. I was livid at the time a business could do this, now I understand both sides. Doesn't mean I like it, I just understand it better. I knew then I would end up in my own business of some kind.

Over the years, I've worked (independently and as an employee) for many small (under 20 employees) business. Those that concern themselves with 'business margins' and return on investment generally fail or creep along by the skin of their teeth. Those that actually invest in their business (people and equipment), pay there taxes, provide good customer service do much better over the long haul - they also tend to have more in reserve for lean times and operate from pride in service. Oh - they also started and grew with their own money, little by little, without help from financial master's of the universe. One small company I work with now has had employees since the beginning 30 years ago - the employees have good pay (non-union shop) with full benefits paid in toto by the company, etc and it survived the big crash of 2008 and is slowing building it's revenues without loans or selling off parts of the company.

These are standard business practices, the good ones do all of this and still watch the balance sheet very closely. Remember to that the size of the business has a lot to do with it. Again if you are mowing lawns as a service you tend to view things differently, The ones that work at understanding the business side of the business usually end up with several employees and accounts all over. Like everything some are better at it than others some are willing to sacrifice to a greater degree to find success.

But as more and more little businesses are trying to run like big businesses - I work for one of them as well - though they have a nice niche but take every bit of money they can out of the company and don't invest in getting and retaining good people (ASSETs) and are constantly borrowing money and can't grow because nothing is being put back into supporting his product or his service. Honestly I'm surprised they are still in business. Like I said they have a great niche product, that could go places with the proper support.

This is where you need to establish what big business is to you. Most have a financed not all but most, have a financed credit line with a bank to handle the ebb and flow of money coming in to meet payables while waiting on receivables more so if it is a low profit margin industry.

How many of these states have had one full fiscal year of the higher minimum wages to gauge impact from? That question is among those states and areas which have jumped huge amounts to land at up to $15/hr min. starting points?

Of those who have had a full year to view the full range of results, have those been positive and does the positive impact range beyond the one category of employment figures?

Until some of the recent locations to test a base wage which is dollars above neighboring cities and states get that full fiscal year behind them, I don't see how we can do more than apply wishful thinking to short term trends that have many causes.

a reply to: FyreByrd

states with a higher minimum wage reap the benefits of a higher wage in context to the rest of the country.

There are hundreds of big industry that bring money into a state, without taking it out. Wal Mart is an example of a company that takes money out of the state. More than it brings in via wages.

But call centers....they bring money into the state via wages, rents, etc. But no goods are sold, so no value is extracted from the economy. Energy jobs tend to be the same way. Cash value isn't extracted from the state, but wages bring cash in. Its a net gain situation.

If the state requires a higher wage, it just increases this net gain in cash value. Since the national minimum is still the same, then it gives that state a larger piece of the pie.

But make no mistake: the pie is still the same size. If you increase minimum wage on a national scale, you only divide that pie into smaller and smaller pieces.

Wages should grow at the rate of inflation. However, inflation should include groceries and energy costs (which is typically doesn't).

a reply to: FyreByrd

Thanks, your summary is the best explanation I've seen of this phenomenon that many people don't understand because it is counter-intuitive.

Washington state defies minimum wage logic


money.cnn.com...

originally posted by: CB328
Washington state defies minimum wage logic


money.cnn.com...

"Washington is an attractive place for business, because of its quality of life and entrepreneurial spirit," Shannon said.

Historically, Washington has ranked high in the number of business starts per year. But it has also ranked high in the number of business failures.

great example.

LOL

I guess some people seem to forget that taxes are 'progressive' FTW.

Which means the more someone makes the more they pay.

Which means pretty much any wage increase is eaten up by taxes.

And the biggest winner in that little story ?

The federal government gets more money to blow.

The increase in pay to the worker is greater than the increase in taxes. The workers win, then business makes a windfall from all the extra consumer spending. Which part of that do you not understand?

originally posted by: CB328
The increase in pay to the worker is greater than the increase in taxes. The workers win, then business makes a windfall from all the extra consumer spending. Which part of that do you not understand?

Explain how raising wages for employees creates a windfall of consumer spending. For starters.

The latest increases in minimum wages have been to keep up with inflation, that's not an increase thats status quo. You can do better this doesn't even pass the common sense smell test.