| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 Tao Village Genius  Registered: 09/19/03 Posts: 7,935 Loc: San Diego Last seen: 11 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
my political economic professor happened to mention this statistic today about britain, saying it was around 200,000-250,000 estimated get paid below minimum wage.
-------------------- Magash's Grain Tek + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs 
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
Auto-SummaryThe minimum wage causes unemployment, contrary to the conventional wisdom of economists. While defenders of the minimum wage argue that higher incomes for working poor offset job losses, recent studies by Card, Krueger, and Katz suggest minimal impact on employment. However, these findings contradict numerous empirical studies, which show that minimum wage increases lead to job losses, particularly affecting teenage employment. Higher minimum wages also discourage employers from investing in training, further harming low-wage workers' long-term prospects. "For many years it has been a matter of conventional wisdom among economists that the minimum wage causes fewer jobs to exist than would be the case without it. This is simply a matter of price theory, taught in every economics textbook, requiring no elaborate analysis to justify. Were this not the case, there would be no logical reason why the minimum wage could not be set at $10, $100, or $1 million per hour. Historically, defenders of the minimum wage have not disputed the disemployment effects of the minimum wage, but argued that on balance the working poor were better off. In other words, the higher incomes of those with jobs offset the lower incomes of those without jobs, as a result of the minimum wage [See, for example, Levitan and Belous, (1979)]. Now, the Clinton Administration is advancing the novel economic theory that modest increases in the minimum wage will have no impact whatsoever on employment. This proposition is based entirely on the work of three economists: David Card and Alan Krueger of Princeton, and Lawrence Katz of Harvard. Their studies of increases in the minimum wage in California, Texas and New Jersey apparently found no loss of jobs among fast food restaurants that were surveyed before and after the increase [See Card (1992b), Card and Krueger (1994), and Katz and Krueger (1992)]. While it is not yet clear why Card, Katz and Krueger got the results that they did, it is clear that their findings are directly contrary to virtually every empirical study ever done on the minimum wage. These studies were exhaustively surveyed by the Minimum Wage Study Commission, which concluded that a 10% increase in the minimum wage reduced teenage employment by 1% to 3%. The following survey of the academic research on the minimum wage is designed to give nonspecialists a sense of just how isolated the Card, Krueger and Katz studies are. It will also indicate that the minimum wage has wide-ranging negative effects that go beyond unemployment. For example, higher minimum wages encourage employers to cut back on training, thus depriving low wage workers of an important means of long-term advancement, in return for a small increase in current income. For many workers this is a very bad trade-off, but one for which the law provides no alternative. " http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm "Economic theory demonstrates that minimum-wage legislation will inevitably create unemployment. It cannot, by its very nature, indicate how much unemployment will be generated in any particular instance. However, numerous statistical studies are in rare agreement in their support of a causal relationship between minimum wages and unemployment. For example, the 1983 Report to the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the General Accounting Office found virtually total agreement that employment is lower than it would have been if no minimum wage existed. This is the case even in periods of substantial economic growth. . . . The severity of the employment loss varies among different age, gender, and racial groups in the population. Teenage workers, for instance, have greater job losses, relative to their share of the population or the employed work force, than adults.[7] According to the 1981 Report of the Minimum Waqe Study Commission, the 46 percent rise in the minimum wage between 1977 and 1981 destroyed 644,000 jobs among teenagers alone. "The evidence is now in, and the findings of dozens of major economic studies show that the damage done by the minimum wage has been far more severe than even the critics . . . predicted." [8] A 1983 survey, "Time-Series Evidence of the Effect of the Minimum Wage on Youth Employment," found that studies conducted between 1973 and 1983 generally agreed that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage would result in a 1 to 3 percent reduction in teenage employment.[9] Given these findings, the proposal to raise the minimum wage by nearly 40 percent could result in a 4 to 12 percent drop in the employment of teens. A recent study by Clemson University economists Richard B. McKenzie and Curtis Simon estimated that an increase in the minimum wage to $4.65 by 1990 would cost 764,000 jobs by that year and 1.9 million jobs by 1995. The economic output lost in 1995 would total $70 billion (in 1982 dollars).[10] The political embarrassment created by such estimates was graphically illustrated recently when the House Democratic leadership suppressed a Congressional Budget Office study that predicted a loss of 250,000 to 500,000 jobs if the minimum wage was increased to $5.05. The majority staff of the House Education and Labor Committee sent the study back and asked for a new version that lacked any reference to the bill's prospective impact on unemployment and inflation. The majority staff director explained that the CBO had "provided information that was not requested."[11] The Senate Republican Policy Committee, citing a General Accounting Office study, estimated that increasing the minimum wage from $3.35 to $4.61, as suggested by AFL-CIO president Lane Kirkland, would eliminate between 124,000 and 619,000 jobs.[12] It is not surprising that AFL-CIO economist John L. Zalusky disputes these findings. He predicts that a $1 increase in the minimum wage would eliminate very few jobs, and his "hunch is that a wage hike would provide a mild stimulus" to economic growth.[13] According to Zalusky's model, created for the union by the econometrics firm Data Resources Inc. (DRI), a $1 increase would eliminate 450,000 jobs during the next eight years. However, Zalusky says, this loss has little importance when compared with the 11 million jobs that the model predicts would be created in the same period.[14] Zalusky claims that such "real world evidence" casts doubt on the "theoretical constructs" of economics. Zalusky's casual dismissal of theoretical constructs implies that his model is somehow theory-free and concerned with only the objective numbers. This is simply not the case. Any statistical or econometric model requires that some theory be used to determine what data are needed to test it.[15] In fact, two theoretical assumptions of Zalusky's model make its results quite deceptive..." http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa106.html and some other random little snippets from various places: "[federal reserve economist Peter Tulip] concludes: -A 10 percent rise in the minimum wage raises the NAIRU [unemployment index] by about half a percentage point. 2. Increases in the minimum wage in the 1960s and 1970s caused the NAIRU to almost double (see figure). 3. By the late 1960s, the minimum wage was responsible for more than half of the NAIRU. 4. But when the nominal (money) value of the minimum wage during the 1980s was frozen, NAIRU fell from more than 7 percent in 1980 to less than 5 percent by the end of the decade." http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/min/pd082100a.html "Why is it that Washington state's entry-level job applicants faced one of the highest rates of unemployment in the nation this year? The state's unemployment rate is 15 percent higher than the national average and 42 percent higher than it was five years ago when the state introduced a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum. Washington state is not alone in experiencing this perpetual high state unemployment. Oregon, Washington and Alaska are among the five states with the highest unemployment rates. It is perhaps no coincidence that these three states have the highest state minimum wages in the nation. Decades of research confirm Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker's observation: "A higher minimum will further reduce the employment opportunities of workers with few skills."" http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/153901_unemploy26.html?searchpagefrom=1&searchdiff=49 "An increase in the minimum wage to $5.15 an hour, as President Clinton proposes, would drive teenagers with few skills out of the workplace and out of the schools, say members of the African-American leadership group Project 21. According to a new study by David Neumark for the Employment Policies Institute, an increase in the minimum wage would have the perverse effect of increasing both the school dropout rate and teenage unemployment." [url=http://www.nationalcenter.org/MinWage.html] ]http://www.nationalcenter.org/MinWage.html[/url] "Yet, despite an overall unemployment rate of 4.2 percent, a 29-year low, there are groups of workers whose unemployment rates are startlingly high?the teenage black male unemployment rate last month was nearly 33 percent. Research on the disemployment effects of the minimum wage have focused especially on those workers with the lowest skills and least labor force attachment, because they are the most likely to be affected by a high wage floor. A 1998 study by Burkhauser, Couch, and Wittenberg reaffirms earlier findings that raising the minimum wage reduces teenage employment, with a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage leading to employment losses of 1 to 3 percent. The figure shows the range of estimated employment losses associated with recent and proposed increases in the minimum wage. Because slightly over 7 million teens were employed in May of 1998, raising the minimum wage to $6.15 could lead to a decline of between 2 and 6 percent in job availability for this group." http://www.epf.org/research/newsletters/1999/eb990510.asp
| |||||||
|
Tao Village Genius Registered: 09/19/03 Posts: 7,935 Loc: San Diego Last seen: 11 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
these are all theories that businesses would not be able to pass on the costs of modest minimum wage increases, but the historical evidence is that they have been able too.
-------------------- Magash's Grain Tek + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
if they account for an increase in the minimum wage with increased prices for their products, they will see fewer sales, and have a reduced incentive to retain current employees or expand and hire new ones.
a minimum wage increases unemployment. this is something which is nearly universally accepted by all serious economists, regardless of whether they support a minimum wage or not. a "modest" increase in the minimum wage has the same effect as a large one, just a lesser magnitude.
| |||||||
|
Tao Village Genius Registered: 09/19/03 Posts: 7,935 Loc: San Diego Last seen: 11 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
with CEOs now averaging 300X the wage of their workers, a modest increase in wages can often be taken out of there, and if everyone has to slightly raise prices due to minimum wage increase, it raises the playing field, but competition within the nation remains the same.
-------------------- Magash's Grain Tek + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs
| |||||||
 Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
a minimum wage increases unemployment
Except in the real world it doesn't. Note that the introduction of minimum wage in the UK didn't increase unemployment. this is something which is nearly universally accepted by all serious economists Source? According to a new study by David Neumark for the Employment Policies Institute A far-right "think tank"? Do you think these people will provide you with accurate information? Don't confuse "serious economists" with "far right economists who share my views despite overwhelming real world evidence to the contrary". -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
GazzBut Refraction  Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 1 year, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
So Mush, a small raise in wages i.e a minimum wage causes unemployment. What effect does companies paying their execs's salaries which are completely out of synch with the average worker have? Does this have no effect simply because its not imposed by government? lol.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
Except in the real world it doesn't. Note that the introduction of minimum wage in the UK didn't increase unemployment.
actually in the real world it does. we've been over this before. read the many sources i linked to. unemployment was already going down significantly in the UK before they introduced a minimum wage. that doesn't mean that the minimum wage didn't reduce employment. there are other factors at work. if i run 10 miles a day and eat a pound of fries every day for lunch, but i lose weight, that doesn't disprove the fact that eating french fries increases weight gain, does it? A far-right "think tank"? there are other sources there that say the same thing. Don't confuse "serious economists" with "far right economists who share my views despite overwhelming real world evidence to the contrary". overwhelming evidence? let's see it. the fact that effective price floors create surplusses is a simple corrollary of the laws of supply and demand. 1. there is an inverse relationship between the price of a good and how much will be bought by consumers. the more expensive it is, the less will be bought. the less expensive it is, the more willing and able people will be to buy it. simple fact of life. 2. there is a direct relationship between the price of a good and how much will be provided by suppliers. the more producers can sell something for, the more willing and able producers will be to make and sell it. another simple fact of life. 3. for every good, there is a pricing point where quantity demanded will equal quantity supplied. markets trend to this point because at any higher price, more will be supplied than sold (thus a surplus supply), and at a lower price, more will be demanded by consumers than supplied (thus a supply shortage). this is how prices are determined in a free market. 4. this does not change when the price is artificially set at a higher or lower rate by the government. a rate set higher than the market clearing price will still result in a surplus, and a rate set lower will still result in a shortage. 5. a minimum wage is a price floor on labor and results in a surplus of labor (unemployment). when wages are set above the market value, more people are willing to work at that wage than are willing to hire, and there is unemployment. i other words, the higher the price, the greater the supply and the lower the demand. when supply exceeds demand, we have a surplus. when minimum wage laws set the price of labor above its market value, this creates labor surplusses; more people are willing to work for such a wage than are willing to hire there are negative results from minimum wage laws. if there were not, we could simply increase the minimum wage to $100 an hour and poverty would be ended. are you opposed to increasing the minimum wage to $100 an hour? $200 an hour? why or why not? what do you think would happen if the minimum wage was increased to $40 a hour? Edited by mushmaster (11/09/04 01:20 PM)
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
What effect does companies paying their execs's salaries which are completely out of synch with the average worker have? Does this have no effect simply because its not imposed by government?
the prices for both executive services and menial labor are set by market forces. a firm that slashed the pay of executives to increase the wages of its workers would simply attract more workers than it needed to hire and be unable to attract people for management-level positions.
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
that doesn't mean that the minimum wage didn't increase the employment
Ah I get it. So if unemployment goes up after introducing the minimum wage you are happy to blame it on the minimum wage...if unemployment drops after introducing the minimum wage then it must be "other factors". Pretty nice little circular argument you've got there mush. Whatever happens it's the fault of the minimum wage. what do you think would happen if the minimum wage was increased to $40 a hour? Corporate directors would need to take one helluva paycut. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
ignoring my questions, as well as the economics i see. no surprises there.
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
the prices for both executive services and menial labor are set by market forces
Bullshit. Certainly in areas of the world where workers havn't already spent a hundred years fighting and dying for their rights, the wages are set by brutal intimidation of workers along with suppression of unions enforced by compliant, paid off dictators. a firm that slashed the pay of executives to increase the wages of its workers would simply attract more workers than it needed to hire and be unable to attract people for management-level positions Funny - they used to be able to hire people at a rate only 40 times the wage of the ordinary worker, now it "has to be" 300 times. Slash directors pay scales and you'll still find plenty of people applying for the jobs. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
there is no point discussing economics with a person that denies the relationship between supply, demand, and price. i'm done here.
| |||||||
|
Tao Village Genius Registered: 09/19/03 Posts: 7,935 Loc: San Diego Last seen: 11 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
i didnt see any real world sources.
not necessarily true. if all ball point pens went up by 10 cents, it would not affect how many i buy at all. especially when its a necessary input. modest increases for necessary inputs can be absorbed/passed on, as shown by real world examples.
stop throwing this argument around over and over and over. like the study commissioned by clinton showed, modest raises can mostly be absorbed/passed on with little impact. has the economy collapsed while the second most necessary input next to labor, oil, has increased dramatically in price over a relatively short time span? the market is not rigid, it can adapt, especially to modest, gradual changes. -------------------- Magash's Grain Tek + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
ignoring my questions
If your questions are meaningless why address them? You believe the minimum wage increases unemployment whether unemployment falls or increases. What answer can anyone give to logic like that? no surprises there. Yep, I have a fondness for reality, not the rantings of bought and paid for "economists" who reach the "conclusions" far-right think tanks pay them to reach. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Gijith Daisy Chain Eate  Registered: 12/04/03 Posts: 2,400 Loc: New York |
| ||||||
|
Just to possibly assist in this mess, can someone give examples of industrialized countries that don't have minimum wage? Do any of the G8 countries not have it?
-------------------- what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
there is no point discussing economics with a person that denies the relationship between supply, demand, and price
We're discussing whether or not introducing a minimum wage results in increased unemployment. As we've shown in several real world examples, it doesn't. These are the facts. If you prefer to hide from reality and stick to the conclusions of economists paid for by far right think-tanks go ahead. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
Auto-SummaryNathan Newman argues that the welfare debate is flawed because it focuses on compassion rather than economic benefits. Welfare is not charity but an economic tool to maintain high wages. Progressive arguments should focus on self-interest, highlighting that a strong welfare system can prevent wage erosion and benefit everyone, including taxpayers. Even if raising the minimum wage leads to some job losses, the overall economic gains outweigh the costs. The minimum wage increase and welfare spending can be offset by increased income and payroll taxes, making it a win-win situation for society. HOW WELFARE HELPS "THE REST OF US" -- Nathan Newman, newman@socrates.berkeley.edu The current debate on welfare is stale, tired and, ultimately, missing the economic point. Let's be clear what welfare is and is not. Welfare is not charity. Welfare is a system of payments made to the poor not to take any job if its pay is so low that it underbids wages for those who have jobs. When linked to other policies like the minimum wage, welfare is (and should be seen as) an economic tool by society to keep wages high. Progressives need to stop appealing just to the compassion of the public in defending welfare and start playing on their self-interest. The economic reality is that decent wages for "the rest of us" depend on having a decent welfare system. Without that welfare system, all wages go down under a flood of workers desperate to take jobs at any wage in order to keep their families from starving. Conservatives try to argue that even if kicking people off welfare causes some erosion in wages, it's cheaper than increasing the taxes needed to pay people on welfare. The obvious response is to point out how small a portion of the federal budget is taken up by programs like AFDC and other payments to the non-working poor. Out of a $1.6 trillion federal budget, only $19 billion goes to AFDC, just over 1% of every federal dollar spent. But that's a defensive argument and progressives have to get off the defense and on the offense. We have to sketch exactly how supporting the welfare system, even expanding it, can be used to reverse the wage erosion workers have faced in the last two decades. Let's start with the minimum wage. Conservatives use the fear of unemployment to oppose it. In the recent debate on the minimum wage, opponents of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour have argued that employers would lay off hundreds of thousands of workers (roughly 1-2% of minimum wage workers in their estimates) if forced to raise wages for the rest. Now, a number of solid economic studies, most recently by economists David Card and Alan Krueger, have shown that modest raises in the minimum wage actually have no effect on employment. But, for the sake of argument, let's ignore those economic studies and target our economic program at those who might buy conservative arguments that 1-2% of minimum wage jobs will be lost if the minimum wage is raised. Even with that assumption, if we create a strong welfare system, everyone, including the taxpayer, gains from the increase in the minimum wage. Follow the math on this and you'll have the strongest argument in countering conservatives attacks on both welfare and the minimum wage. Buying the conservatives' assumptions of 2% unemployment, it means that for every 100 minimum wage workers initially making $4.25 per hour, we will end up with 98 workers making the new minimum wage of $5.15 per hour and 2 workers unemployed. Breaking that down by hour, week and year, for every 100 workers who initially make $4.25 per hour ($170 per 40-hr week, $8840 per year), the total combined wages of all 98 workers who stay employed initially equals: $866,320 per year ($8840 per year x 98 workers). After the raise in the minimum wage to $5.15 per hour ($206 per week, $10,712 per year), total wages will increase to $1,049,776 per year ($10,712 per year x 98 workers). Those 98 workers will see an individual gain of $1872 per year in wages and an com bined gain of $165,776 in wages. If the two newly unemployed people are supported with welfare payments equal to their previous yearly wage of $8840 (much more generous than present welfare systems), the total cost will be $17,680--far less than the $165,776 net gain in wages for the other 98 workers. In fact, that $17,680 is far less than what the federal government would receive in increased income and payroll taxes on those increased wages. So even using the conservatives' own estimates of job loss, the minimum wage with a strong welfare system can be used to increase wages while protecting the incomes of those left unemployed. To translate this into the slightly messier real numbers of the overall US economy, there are 12.3 million workers who make less than the proposed new minimum wage of $5.15 per hour. They make an average of $4.67 per hour, so if 98% of those workers have their wages increased to the new minimum wage, the aggregate increase in wages will be $12 billion yearly. This is far more than any welfare costs that might be needed for income and training funds if any workers are left unemployed. These numbers have all assumed the rather miserly increase in the minimum wage proposed by Clinton. If instead of $5.15 per hour, we increased the minimum wage another dollar to $6.15 per hour (about the inflation-adjusted level back in 1969), we can see even more dramatic effects. There are 20.8 million Americans making less than $6.15 per hour. If all of these workers (with an average wage of $5.10 per hour) had their wages increased to a $6.15 per hour minimum wage, the net increase in wages would be $45.6 billion annually. Even if we assumed a worst-case assumption of 10% of those workers were left unemployed, this would still leave a potential $40 billion for welfare and retraining funds--an amount DOUBLE the entire present AFDC budget. In fact, all these numbers understate the overall gains in wages, since it ignores the effect of the minimum wage on higher wage workers. But the reality is that the mass of workers making a bit more than any new minimum wage are able to demand a wage increase to maintain a "spread" between them and less skilled workers now making what they used to make. So where are these increased wages coming from? Some of it comes from increased growth due to higher consumer demand, some from increased costs passed onto consumers, but in the end, in highly competitive markets employing minimum wage workers, the largest chunk come out of the profits and executive compensation of corporate stockholders. And there's the reason why both welfare payments and the minimum wage are opposed so vociferously by corporations and their legislative allies. It's no coincidence that conservatives support both eliminating welfare payments and lowering the minimum wage. Moving people from welfare into the workplace drives down wages, and the last thing conservatives (supported massively by low-wage employers) want is to have the government prevent wages from falling. And by keeping welfare payments low or non-existent, they can create fear of unemployment from raising the minimum wage or supporting other policies to raise wages. Of course, there are ways to improve welfare, including providing work instead of income payments, but that work has to be at a living wage that, instead of driving down wages, helps to bolster wages in society while delivering services that the market fails to provide. Look at the debate over Wisconsin's proposed welfare plan, a plan to end welfare for everyone in the state and replace it with work requirements. Where is the headline-grabbing debate over the fact that this flood of new additions to the workforce will be making less than minimum wage and even replacing workers who previously made much higher wages? The enthusiasm for welfare "reform" would chill significantly if people recognized that shredding the safety net also meant shredding their own wages. If the Wisconsin-style plan was extended nationally, the effects would trash wages across the coun try. Even as welfare payments have declined in the last two decades, average hourly wages have dropped by over 10% and wages for less-skilled job have fallen even more. Imagine all four million plus adult recipients of AFDC being dumped in the labor market tomorrow on top of present unemployment, or even gradually over a year or two. The key thing for progressives to argue is that unless the policy is to spend MORE to provide real jobs for all, it's cheaper for working families to pay people not to work than to force them to work at wages that drive down pay for all of us. http://www.nathannewman.org/other/howwelfarehelpsus.html -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
These are the facts. If you prefer to hide from reality
i'm not hiding from reality. if you make something more expensive by law, more people will be willing to sell it, and less people will be willing to buy it. you will have a surplus. real world examples abound. here in PA we have a state minimum price on milk. this price floor prevents the price from falling to a point where the amount supplied will equal the amount demanded. as a result, there is a surplus of milk. there are more people willing to produce milk for this price than buy it, and dairy farmers are paid to destroy their excess. i believe there is a similar policy on corn, but i'm not sure. on the other hand, if you set a price ceiling (maximum) on something, you will have a shortage. more people will be willing to buy something at that price than sell it. this is exactly what happened when the city of new york put a price ceiling on rent in response to high rent rates. as a result, there was a shortage of housing (the exact problem they were trying to solve) and the quality of housing fell tremendously. it's extremely basic economics, and yes, it does play out in the real world. you make something more expensive than it really is, and more people supply than buy - a surplus.
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Any remarks on the real world economics as quoted above? Not to mention the economic studies showing increases in the minimum wage have no effect on unemployment?
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists (  1 2 3 4 all ) |
 Evolving |
7,285 | 63 | 11/01/02 10:19 AM by Innvertigo |
|
 |
NAFTA's Investor ''Rights'': A Corporate Dream, A Citizens.. |  Psilocybeingzz |
941 | 3 | 06/09/03 12:17 PM by Anonymous |
|
|
When You Say You Hate Corporate America... ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all ) |
 Anonymous |
16,383 | 140 | 12/29/02 08:05 PM by djfrog |
|
|
Walmart- a pig of a corporate citizen |  carbonhoots |
1,110 | 3 | 02/18/02 12:14 PM by GabbaDj |
|
|
Corporate Slavery ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 ekomstop |
3,887 | 61 | 09/23/04 01:03 AM by BleaK |
|
|
Those Evil Corporations OR Charity without force won't work! |  SoopaX |
790 | 7 | 01/03/05 07:18 PM by newuser1492 |
|
|
An Open Letter to the Corporations of America |  PsiloKitten |
1,799 | 17 | 10/30/03 05:53 AM by luvdemshrooms |
|
|
One in ten executives are psychopaths ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 enotake2 |
3,881 | 41 | 05/31/05 07:37 PM by Prosgeopax |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 4,136 topic views. 3 members, 5 guests and 78 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||