Friday, March 24, 2006

Questions

I know there havent' been any new posts this week - there just aren't that many discussion things that go with terms.

Posts this week will be extra credit. I'll get them in Monday morning.

It would be good, though, to revisit the ideas that Jacqui brought up in her comment before:

jacnbox said...
ok, so i was sitting on messenger tonight, procrastinating my homework, per usual, while talking to katie athas. she was writing a persuasive paper for college. it was on the positive effects of minimum wage. even though economists would say any government inference is bad, she still asked me for an argument. here is our conversation:

Katie says:what is one way the raising minimum wage would help the economy

Jac says:it wouldnt. most economists agree. if the government steps into the economy, ex: tariffs, quotas, minimum wage, ceilings and floors, this intereferes with the markets ability to retain or switch equilibrium. raising minimum wage is similar to inflation.

Katie:well that doesn't help my argument

Jac says:i know, im sorry.

Katie says:oh well

Jac says:im trying to think of some bs argument here. what do you have so far as your arguments?

Katie says:i will just have to find something else to babble about

Katie says:minumim wage is not livable, children suffer from it

Jac says:without minimum wage, the economy's equilibrium between supply and demand would change so that a larger gap between social/monetary classes would emerge. essentially, the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer. already wealthy business tycoons, would then have the ability to use their resource, labor, to its maximum while paying close to nothing. a cashier could clock an 8 hour workday,

Jac says: but only recieve 8 cents. the lack of minimum wage, which is currently unable to support an average family consisting of two adults and two children, would dramatically increase poverty in america. combine this scenario with the increasing need to pay off the national debt, with the temporary solution of printing more currency, and inflation skyrockets. people immigrate to america to live the

Jac says:american dream. without the minimum wage, a standard as to where to start financial support, the dream is shattered.

Jac says:and yes, you can use it. just save the paper, in case i need to use my words again

Katie says:thank you. now my paper is almost done.
9:50 PM, March 23, 2006
jacnbox said...
km, i think you should make my last comment a big post. maybe we can discuss this as a class more.


**********Jacqui makes some really excellent points - great analysis...any comments?

Have a fun weekend...see you Monday!

KM

7 comments:

The Amazing O-clam said...

Jacqui did have good points, especially the one about how she has good taste in cereal that she brings to class, She should do that more often, and give me all of it...
Did I make that part of the story up?

helen said...

it should be noted that while gov intervention is bad for the economy as a whole, what is good for the whole is not always good for individuals; ie: if there is no min wage, salaries will settle at equilibrium, but people probably won't be able to survive at the equilibrium wage

freejon said...

Equilibrium is where people will want to get hired for that wage. If the wage is too low, then people may go to work somewhere else, therefore increasing the wage that business has to offer to get employees. I realize this is not always the case, glancing back at before there were labor unions, but theoretically I think it would work. If people want to work for less than what they need to make a living, then no one can stop them. Right now, minimum wage isn't exactly the greatest right now. You cannot really make a living using our minimum wage so why not let businesses control it.

Reid said...

With the whole rich get richer and the poor get poorer thing, I don't think that's right. With a shift in minimum wage the amount of income for poorer families also goes down, assuming that they are working at minimum wage. There are more poor people than rich people. This plays in later. Overtime the poor people will conserve their income, they have to, otherwise they won't survive. I know you can't survive on min. wage, but stay with me. This means that the greater amount of the population will not be buying goods, this means that the amount of revenue that the companies are recieving will also decrease. After this happens, the amounts of goods being produced would probably decrease. Less money for the companies, which means less money for the rich which means that the rich will be as rich as they were before, everyting has just shifted to a lower level of equilibrium. The reason that the poor won't get poorer is the companies need the min. wage workers to keep the business running. So, if they lower their wages, the min. wage people will quit and look for new jobs. Maybe if we didn't put a ceiling on min. wage, than that would create chaos at first, but then over time would create less spending, which would then create less debt, which may then get our country out of debt. A lot of restrictions would have to be imposed though and we all know how the U.S. loves restrictions. So there ya go.

DrFeelGood said...

athas's point about minimum wage being not livable and it including children i think is an implict cost that jaqui realized when she mentioned the gap in monetary classes. The gap my represent an explict difference if looking at the monetary issue but the real cost of the gap is also implict because it affects how people feel (putting aside their money problems) they feel useless in society.

Reid said...

So, is it just me or does anyone else not get 144 and 145 in the packet. I know the terms, but I don't know what to do. Too late for help now though.

NicolleM said...

Hold up...there are no ceilings on wages. There's a floor. That's why you call it a minimum wage.
Also, the last part of Reid's thing is sort of redundant, isn't it? I mean, if you take away the floor, then that will, indeed, create a large waver in what businesses will spend on labor. But to take away one restriction just to add quite a few more to get the same thing done? I don't get it.
Also, if you take away the floor, then welfare would go up, because it wouldn't lower spending in all cases. There are still the basics that everyone needs, and those cost money. Especially if one person is supporting several people and the business decides to pay their workers a quarter an hour because there are no floors.
Is that all relevant? I'm pretty sure I just confused myself.