Elizabeth Warren thinks minimum wage should be $22/hour

[Taco John]

Wow. This woman is turning herself into a circus clown...

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by FD

It seems like she is just asking why entry level wages have failed to keep up with labor productivity. In theory, wages should track labor productivity perfectly, and they have until about 30 years ago when they began to lag behind.

Its an important and interesting question and its far from settled. I suspect I would come to a different conclusion than her as to the answer, but pasting her question out of context and giving a misleading headline doesn't really get you anywhere.

With the computerization and mechanization over that time we have fewer people being more productive. Perhaps a simpler question would be how has the minimum wage risen in comparison to the cost of living?

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Warren was imported into Mass to be their senator just as Hillary was imported into NY. This is how the left operates to put in such stupid economic policies. Warren is clueless bout productivity having gone up for starters. Unfortunately, as the govt schools churn out more socialists, who are in denial about being one, more people think their policies are good ideas. They never learned any economic history...'oops I mean history. Only the kind that worships the state taking care of them. KChiefer is a perfect example.

Oh sweet irony.


You're saying others haven't learned history, then compare Hillary Clinton moving to New York in 2000 and being elected Senator in.....wait for it....2000 to Warren moving to Massachusetts in the 90s so she could be a professor at Harvard (as a non-tenured professor in 1992 and then tenured in 1995) and then being elected to the Senate nearly 20 years later. I'm sure she lived in DC sometimes during those 20 years when she worked there, but she was hardly the carpetbagger Hillary was.

I didn't even vote for Warren but I wanted to point out that, as usual, you're wrong.

[theelusiveeightrop]

Who is this lesbian?

[RNR]

Wow I am getting ****ed by the man~

[KC native]

Hey TJ, Why don't you take a break from misleading threads and stop by your hero's, Rand Paul, thread.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Warren was imported into Mass to be their senator just as Hillary was imported into NY. This is how the left operates to put in such stupid economic policies. Warren is clueless bout productivity having gone up for starters. Unfortunately, as the govt schools churn out more socialists, who are in denial about being one, more people think their policies are good ideas. They never learned any economic history...'oops I mean history. Only the kind that worships the state taking care of them. KChiefer is a perfect example.

Please go on oh wise one. Elizabeth Warren has forgotten more about economic history and fiscal policy than you will ever know.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by FD

It seems like she is just asking why entry level wages have failed to keep up with labor productivity. In theory, wages should track labor productivity perfectly, and they have until about 30 years ago when they began to lag behind.

Its an important and interesting question and its far from settled. I suspect I would come to a different conclusion than her as to the answer, but pasting her question out of context and giving a misleading headline doesn't really get you anywhere.

We're talking about the intellectual equivalent of BEP here. TJ is a male version of BEP.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

With the computerization and mechanization over that time we have fewer people being more productive. Perhaps a simpler question would be how has the minimum wage risen in comparison to the cost of living?

Originally Posted by FD

It seems like she is just asking why entry level wages have failed to keep up with labor productivity. In theory, wages should track labor productivity perfectly, and they have until about 30 years ago when they began to lag behind.

Its an important and interesting question and its far from settled. I suspect I would come to a different conclusion than her as to the answer, but pasting her question out of context and giving a misleading headline doesn't really get you anywhere.

Eh, as FR suggests....mechanization, technology, and globalization cloud the productivity/minimum wage correlation here. If Warren is doing what politicians tend to do--demagogue their pet issue, she can be charitably said to be "taken out of context," not meaning to say what critics accuse her of really saying.

If on the other hand, she actually believes she is making some profound point about a real disparity between cost of living and the minimum wage, she is gravely mistaken--at least according to a CPI plus inflation calculator.

Minimum wage in 1960 was $1.00; today it is $7.25. The 1960 value of $1.00 would translate into $7.84....far from Warren's attempt to portray a startling disparity.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc....960&year2=2013

Simply put....either she is being intentionally disengenuous; or she's stupid. Since she's pretty clearly not stupid, she's simply being a typical politician.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

Please go on oh wise one. Elizabeth Warren has forgotten more about economic history and fiscal policy than you will ever know.

Nope. Eventhough it's not an argument based on anything. She's economically clueless. Progressives are. 'Er well Keynesians are. If we have to print money to buy imports, productivity has not risen. It's an artificial boost in our standard of living which is about to end.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Nope. Eventhough it's not an argument based on anything. She's economically clueless. Progressives are. 'Er well Keynesians are. If we have to print money to buy imports, productivity has not risen. It's an artificial boost in our standard of living which is about to end.

You are confusing production with productivity.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

You are confusing production with productivity.

They are related. Either way, we have not produced more goods instead we print money. There's no increase in real wealth or income.
People just feel richer than they are due to the extra money in circulation. To keep it brief.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/productivity

2. productivity - (economics) the ratio of the quantity and quality of units produced to the labor per unit of time
economic science, economics, political economy - the branch of social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management

[BWillie]

There should be no minimum wage IMO. If you are dumb enough to work for $3 an hour and don't possess any attributes to make more, so be it. With that said, minimum wage is pretty much a non issue. Such a low % of the population pays min wage so it doesn't matter much.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

They are related. Either way, we have not produced more goods instead we print money. There's no increase in real wealth or income.
People just feel richer than they are due to the extra money in circulation. To keep it brief.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/productivity

2. productivity - (economics) the ratio of the quantity and quality of units produced to the labor per unit of time
economic science, economics, political economy - the branch of social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management

We have not produced more goods because we have less manufacturing facilities that produce goods. Therefore, PRODUCTION is lower. On the other hand, the manufacturing facilities that are still producing are producing more products with less workers. Therefore, PRODUCTIVITY is higher.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

We have not produced more goods because we have less manufacturing facilities that produce goods. Therefore, PRODUCTION is lower. On the other hand, the manufacturing facilities that are still producing are producing more products with less workers. Therefore, PRODUCTIVITY is higher.

That too, but none of those are my real point. We print money instead is my point. That's what appears to be an increase in standard of living but it isn't. Even stock market rises are not based on real increase in value.

FED-printed money doesn’t make Amazon or any other company a more productive company. It may cause one company to produce more, but it will be at the expense of some other companies producing less. The aggregate economy cannot be made more productive by printing money. More production of goods that people want takes land, labor and capital goods in combinations that produce the desired goods. This is the work of a free market economy, not a central bank or a government. Keynesians not only fail to acknowledge this truth, they deny it.

Michael S. Rozeff is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York. He is the author of the free e-book Essays on American Empire: Liberty vs. Domination and the free e-book The U.S. Constitution and Money: Corruption and Decline.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

Please go on oh wise one. Elizabeth Warren has forgotten more about economic history and fiscal policy than you will ever know.

Notre Dame 'eh? Much of the mis and dis-information in economics stems from some of our best universities. It's worse in the Ivy League like Yale and Harvard.