Private Sector screwing up

#26
#26
Cash Vallin said:
your choice. but this love of the private sector is just funny to me considering without regulation people would still be working for $3/hour under horrible conditions.
Click to expand...

I think you need to take some time off, take an economics course or two, and then come back when you can form a rational thought. For starters, you can learn all about the benefits of the minimum wage. For example:

The minimum wage reduces employment. Currie and Fallick (1993), Gallasch (1975), Gardner (1981), Peterson (1957), Peterson and Stewart (1969).

The minimum wage reduces employment more among teenagers than adults. Adie (1973); Brown, Gilroy and Kohen (1981a, 1981b); Fleisher (1981); Hammermesh (1982); Meyer and Wise (1981, 1983a); Minimum Wage Study Commission (1981); Neumark and Wascher (1992); Ragan (1977); Vandenbrink (1987); Welch (1974, 1978); Welch and Cunningham (1978).

The minimum wage reduces employment most among black teenage males. Al-Salam, Quester, and Welch (1981), Iden (1980), Mincer (1976), Moore (1971), Ragan (1977), Williams (1977a, 1977b).

The minimum wage helped South African whites at the expense of blacks. Bauer (1959).

The minimum wage hurts blacks generally. Behrman, Sickles and Taubman (1983); Linneman (1982).

The minimum wage hurts the unskilled. Krumm (1981).

The minimum wage hurts low wage workers. Brozen (1962), Cox and Oaxaca (1986), Gordon (1981).

The minimum wage hurts low wage workers particularly during cyclical downturns. Kosters and Welch (1972), Welch (1974).

The minimum wage increases job turnover. Hall (1982).

The minimum wage reduces average earnings of young workers. Meyer and Wise (1983b).

The minimum wage drives workers into uncovered jobs, thus lowering wages in those sectors. Brozen (1962), Tauchen (1981), Welch (1974).

The minimum wage reduces employment in low-wage industries, such as retailing. Cotterman (1981), Douty (1960), Fleisher (1981), Hammermesh (1981), Peterson (1981).

The minimum wage hurts small businesses generally. Kaun (1965).

The minimum wage causes employers to cut back on training. Hashimoto (1981, 1982), Leighton and Mincer (1981), Ragan (1981).

The minimum wage has long-term effects on skills and lifetime earnings. Brozen (1969), Feldstein (1973).

The minimum wage leads employers to cut back on fringe benefits. McKenzie (1980), Wessels (1980).

The minimum wage encourages employers to install labor-saving devices. Trapani and Moroney (1981).

The minimum wage hurts low-wage regions, such as the South and rural areas. Colberg (1960, 1981), Krumm (1981).

The minimum wage increases the number of people on welfare. Brandon (1995), Leffler (1978).

The minimum wage hurts the poor generally. Stigler (1946).

The minimum wage does little to reduce poverty. Bonilla (1992), Brown (1988), Johnson and Browning (1983), Kohen and Gilroy (1981), Parsons (1980), Smith and Vavrichek (1987).

The minimum wage helps upper income families. Bell (1981), Datcher and Loury (1981), Johnson and Browning (1981), Kohen and Gilroy (1981).

The minimum wage helps unions. Linneman (1982), Cox and Oaxaca (1982).

The minimum wage lowers the capital stock. McCulloch (1981).

The minimum wage increases inflationary pressure. Adams (1987), Brozen (1966), Gramlich (1976), Grossman (1983).

The minimum wage increases teenage crime rates. Hashimoto (1987), Phillips (1981).

The minimum wage encourages employers to hire illegal aliens. Beranek (1982).

If you have any interest in reading the studies cited, I will be happy to supply you with a bibliography.
 
Last edited:
#28
#28
paul1454 said:
I think you need to take some time off, take an economics course or two, and then come back when you can form a rational thought. For starters, you can learn all about the benefits of the minimum wage. For example:

The minimum wage reduces employment. Currie and Fallick (1993), Gallasch (1975), Gardner (1981), Peterson (1957), Peterson and Stewart (1969).

The minimum wage reduces employment more among teenagers than adults. Adie (1973); Brown, Gilroy and Kohen (1981a, 1981b); Fleisher (1981); Hammermesh (1982); Meyer and Wise (1981, 1983a); Minimum Wage Study Commission (1981); Neumark and Wascher (1992); Ragan (1977); Vandenbrink (1987); Welch (1974, 1978); Welch and Cunningham (1978).

The minimum wage reduces employment most among black teenage males. Al-Salam, Quester, and Welch (1981), Iden (1980), Mincer (1976), Moore (1971), Ragan (1977), Williams (1977a, 1977b).

The minimum wage helped South African whites at the expense of blacks. Bauer (1959).

The minimum wage hurts blacks generally. Behrman, Sickles and Taubman (1983); Linneman (1982).

The minimum wage hurts the unskilled. Krumm (1981).

The minimum wage hurts low wage workers. Brozen (1962), Cox and Oaxaca (1986), Gordon (1981).

The minimum wage hurts low wage workers particularly during cyclical downturns. Kosters and Welch (1972), Welch (1974).

The minimum wage increases job turnover. Hall (1982).

The minimum wage reduces average earnings of young workers. Meyer and Wise (1983b).

The minimum wage drives workers into uncovered jobs, thus lowering wages in those sectors. Brozen (1962), Tauchen (1981), Welch (1974).

The minimum wage reduces employment in low-wage industries, such as retailing. Cotterman (1981), Douty (1960), Fleisher (1981), Hammermesh (1981), Peterson (1981).

The minimum wage hurts small businesses generally. Kaun (1965).

The minimum wage causes employers to cut back on training. Hashimoto (1981, 1982), Leighton and Mincer (1981), Ragan (1981).

The minimum wage has long-term effects on skills and lifetime earnings. Brozen (1969), Feldstein (1973).

The minimum wage leads employers to cut back on fringe benefits. McKenzie (1980), Wessels (1980).

The minimum wage encourages employers to install labor-saving devices. Trapani and Moroney (1981).

The minimum wage hurts low-wage regions, such as the South and rural areas. Colberg (1960, 1981), Krumm (1981).

The minimum wage increases the number of people on welfare. Brandon (1995), Leffler (1978).

The minimum wage hurts the poor generally. Stigler (1946).

The minimum wage does little to reduce poverty. Bonilla (1992), Brown (1988), Johnson and Browning (1983), Kohen and Gilroy (1981), Parsons (1980), Smith and Vavrichek (1987).

The minimum wage helps upper income families. Bell (1981), Datcher and Loury (1981), Johnson and Browning (1981), Kohen and Gilroy (1981).

The minimum wage helps unions. Linneman (1982), Cox and Oaxaca (1982).

The minimum wage lowers the capital stock. McCulloch (1981).

The minimum wage increases inflationary pressure. Adams (1987), Brozen (1966), Gramlich (1976), Grossman (1983).

The minimum wage increases teenage crime rates. Hashimoto (1987), Phillips (1981).

The minimum wage encourages employers to hire illegal aliens. Beranek (1982).

If you have any interest in reading the studies cited, I will be happy to supply you with a bibliography.
Click to expand...

Yep, we should just work for $3/hour and thank our lucky stars the rich are looking out for us. HAHHAHAHAHAHA... Sorry people require a living wage, though minimum wage isn't exactly livable.... And what's the most up to date study you have, 1987???
 
Last edited:
#29
#29
T-TownVol said:
That is where we differ....I would make sure that I had the proper saftey equipment if I took a job on a fishing boat......it is that simple
I do not provide hard hats for any of my installation crews, but, I would not hire any one that is not smart enough to wear one on a site
Click to expand...
Trust me, we don't differ here. I would take all the safety precautions necessary if I was putting people into a potentially dangerous situation.

The problem is, you think everybody does this. They don't, and that's where regulation comes into play.
 
#30
#30
paul1454 said:
Please tell me you are smart enough to realize this blanket statement assumes no other variables - other than OSHA regulations - factored into this increase in survival rate: an assumption that is absolutely preposterous even to the average high school student.
Click to expand...
Then ole enlighten one, tell me. Or is this just another one of those crazy republican coincidences where things just magically happen?
I guess we should just ignore that when these regulations were put into place, people stopped dying at such a high percentage.
 
#32
#32
Cash Vallin said:
Yep, we should just work for $3/hour and thank our lucky stars the rich are looking out for us. HAHHAHAHAHAHA... Sorry people require a living wage, though minimum wage isn't exactly livable.... And what's the most up to date study you have, 1987???
Click to expand...

Although I disagree with you on a lot of things, the age of these studies is a fair critique. I pulled them from a compilation of research I did in the late 90's. The most recent was 1995 I believe. Just to make you feel better, here is one of 2007 that outlines the consistent negative overall effects of the minimum wage on society. Wascher, Minimum Wages and Employment (2007), available at http://ftp.iza.org/dp2570.pdf.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#33
#33
Cash Vallin said:
Trust me, we don't differ here. I would take all the safety precautions necessary if I was putting people into a potentially dangerous situation.

The problem is, you think everybody does this. They don't, and that's where regulation comes into play.
Click to expand...

We differ completely....you missed the point......PERSONAL responsibility is the point
 
#35
#35
Cash Vallin said:
hahahahahah, another insult from T-town and the gang.... This board is AWESOME!!
Click to expand...

This board sucks, so I assume you'll be leaving to pass your analysis around the class to the rest of the 8th graders whomight not yet know it's just shallow.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#36
#36
Cash Vallin said:
Trust me, we don't differ here. I would take all the safety precautions necessary if I was putting people into a potentially dangerous situation.

The problem is, you think everybody does this. They don't, and that's where regulation comes into play.
Click to expand...

Interesting point you make.

With a wife and 2 kids, am I being irresponsible by putting myself in a situation that could kill me?

Or should I take the "bosses" or governments word to tell me Im safe?
 
#38
#38
Cash Vallin said:
your choice. but this love of the private sector is just funny to me considering without regulation people would still be working for $3/hour under horrible conditions.
Click to expand...

yes. certaintly you are forced in this country to work for whatever company wants you no matter what the pay. that's why no one here is on unemployment insurance or welfare.
 
#41
#41
Cash Vallin said:
Yep, we should just work for $3/hour and thank our lucky stars the rich are looking out for us. HAHHAHAHAHAHA... Sorry people require a living wage, though minimum wage isn't exactly livable.... And what's the most up to date study you have, 1987???
Click to expand...

You're lifestyle should be based on your income, instead of demanding an income that supports your lifestyle. It would seem you have it backwards.
 
#44
#44
it's expensive, lol... a business getting a profit off the death of a husband, a wife, a father, a mother, etc... is just downright unethical
 
#45
#45
Cash Vallin said:
it's expensive, lol... a business getting a profit off the death of a husband, a wife, a father, a mother, etc... is just downright unethical
Click to expand...

Why, when everyone involved understands the setup and it is often deferred comp for the employee.

Sounds like you just have no idea what you're talking about and you buy sensationalism like my 6 year old.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#46
#46
deferred compensation... did you read the article????? that family didn't see a dime from the company... the company made money off of a death.. but i forget, it's the private sector. they can do no wrong.

"So when Irma Johnson learned that her husband, Daniel, who died of brain cancer, had been insured for $1.5 million, it should have been at least a small comfort.

But she did not receive the money. His employer did."
 
#47
#47
Cash Vallin said:
it's expensive, lol... a business getting a profit off the death of a husband, a wife, a father, a mother, etc... is just downright unethical
Click to expand...

The proceeds of these policies are often used to finance employee benefit programs (i.e., used to pay for the health and other benefits of employees). Even if not used in this manner, I fail to see the problem here. The company pays 100% of the premiums. Should they be naming the spouse as the beneficiary?
 
#48
#48
Cash Vallin said:
deferred compensation... did you read the article????? that family didn't see a dime from the company... the company made money off of a death.. but i forget, it's the private sector. they can do no wrong.

"So when Irma Johnson learned that her husband, Daniel, who died of brain cancer, had been insured for $1.5 million, it should have been at least a small comfort.

But she did not receive the money. His employer did."
Click to expand...

Story is overblown. Daniel signed up for the program and the company funded the policy because they could justify it. How is that bad? Why should his wife have benefitted when she failed to plan as the company did?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#49
#49
Cash Vallin said:
deferred compensation... did you read the article????? that family didn't see a dime from the company... the company made money off of a death.. but i forget, it's the private sector. they can do no wrong.

"So when Irma Johnson learned that her husband, Daniel, who died of brain cancer, had been insured for $1.5 million, it should have been at least a small comfort.

But she did not receive the money. His employer did."
Click to expand...

On what basis would she be entitled, or expect to be entitled to, proceeds of a policy that was not taken out on her behalf and that she contributed $0 to the annual premiums?
 
#50
#50
paul1454 said:
The proceeds of these policies are often used to finance employee benefit programs (i.e., used to pay for the health and other benefits of employees). Even if not used in this manner, I fail to see the problem here. The company pays 100% of the premiums. Should they be naming the spouse as the beneficiary?
Click to expand...
they shouldn't have a life insurance policy on an employee, period... the point of life insurance is to protect families of individuals that die, not for a company to profit.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top