nvm

[Serutan]

It is also worth pointing out that when FDR took office the US was in the midst of a terrible depression with 1/4 of the country unemployed. When he left office the US was the world's superpower and the single richest and most powerful country in the world.

That alone I think speaks volumes.

Sorry, but IMO that says nothing. It's true the war ended the Depression, but Roosevelt had nothing to do with starting WWII, and while his policies provoked the Japanese to attack, they were not designed with that in mind. Therefore he deserves no credit for ending the Depression.

 

[Karalysia]

Sorry, but IMO that says nothing. It's true the war ended the Depression, but Roosevelt had nothing to do with starting WWII, and while his policies provoked the Japanese to attack, they were not designed with that in mind. Therefore he deserves no credit for ending the Depression.

It wasn't WWII that ended the GD per se. It was massive government spending. Which is exactly what FDR was going for in the New Deal. Once can see noticeable changes, and decline in unemployment, increase in GDP once the New Deal program began. There was a fairly steady decline in unemployment and increase in GDP.

1932 FDR elected and starts the New Deal. Look at that staggering increase in GDP.

It's the same with employment. Total employment only began to increase in '32, '33

From 24 million to 31 million. Thanks to the New Deal. Here's manufacturing employment. Again significant increase starting in 1932.

The trend is clear. The New Deal was ending the Great Depression. It was successfully. The recession of 1937 was caused by what? Cuts to the New Deal program in response to Republican critics saying there was too much government spending and wanting to balance the budget.

Just think of what the US would look like today if all that massive spending we wasted on building tanks and planes and bombs had been pumped in the New Deal.

While other governments in Britain and France were doing nothing, sitting around and twiddling their thumbs FDR crafted this brilliant, creative, progressive program that was lifting our country out of the Depression. And that is why he is the greatest President of the last century.

 

[LightSpectra]

If you're just going to copy/paste from Wikipedia, then maybe you should've also pointed out that unemployment also never dropped below 14% until the beginning of WWII. The New Deal did not combat the Depression. At best, it was ineffective; at worst, it deepened it.

[Smiley, Gene, "Recent Unemployment Rate Estimates for the 1920s and 1930s," Journal of Economic History, June 1983, 43, 487-93.]

And, you still have yet to argue against the Morgenthau Plan. Great president my ass. Typically wanting to implement a plan that will kill hundreds of thousands to millions of innocent people out of revanchism does not a good president make.

 

[aelf]

You asked why removing the minimum wage would increase production.

He said productivity, which is certainly different from production!

 

[Masada]

Nice politically motivated source citing right-wing economists.

I doubt you know anything about the research, methodology or validity of the results.

I will give you that you are bothered to do more research than me, so I'm not going to counter you with any sources

"I know nothing, yet..."

so much as saying that the belief that having no minimum wage will reduce poverty is absurd

"I'm going to pronounce judgment based on..."

and that you've only provided a source that is entirely politically self-serving

"the basis of my earlier character assassination which I'm going to back up with..."

and most likely in the interests of big business.

"Yet more assumptions impugning the character of people I know nothing about, in a subject I'm to lazy to investigate all on the basis of my own partisan political beliefs!"

That is probably the worst example of partisan hackery I have ever seen in CFC.

He paid farmers to not grow crops, which is not quite the same thing. And whatever starvation that was caused by that was more than compensated by the amount of starvation prevented by allowing the farmers to have enough money to keep farming, rather than abandon their farms because they couldn't make a living.

You do realize that the legislation was not aimed at sharecroppers who were largely self sufficient but at large commercial farms?

It wasn't WWII that ended the GD per se. It was massive government spending.

Seriously people if your going to cite Keynesian economics as the basis for the end of the Depression could you at least understand it first. Government spending is not all that important. Deficit spending the Keynesian model is far more significant. That spending is a necessary precondition of the deficit spending isn't all that important especially when you can jack on taxes to offset the positive effects of the deficit spending.

Which is exactly what FDR was going for in the New Deal. Once can see noticeable changes, and decline in unemployment, increase in GDP once the New Deal program began. There was a fairly steady decline in unemployment and increase in GDP.

Correlation does not equal causation. If anything deficit spending was not markedly higher under FDR than it was under Hoover.

All data courtesy of the United States Budget Office's Historical Tables.

 

[Camikaze]

[...]

So are you saying that a source created by Republicans and laissez faire economists would not invariably come up with a result dismissing an essentially socialistic Democrat labour market policy? And are you saying that scrapping the minimum wage would reduce poverty?

BTW, admitting that I can't be bothered to do as much research as LightSpectra and don't know as much about the general topic as him doesn't mean that I think he's right. Which was what I was saying. I'm not going to accept what seems an obviously fallacious and ridiculous premise just because it comes with a citation.

 

[Masada]

So are you saying that a source created by Republicans

The source is merely a compendium of already existent research. It might have a self selection bias but that's neither here nor there.

and laissez faire economists

And yet, I'm seeing some big journal names in that list like the Journal of Political Economy, American Economic Review, Journal of Labor Research etc. So other than a little bit of character assassination do you actually know anything about the research?

would not invariably come up with a result dismissing an essentially socialistic Democrat labour market policy?

That would be a resounding.... NO! And it is becoming increasingly obvious that you haven't even read the brief synopsizes provided for each article, the first eight are reproduced here:

#1

Finds that an increase in the minimum wage from $3.35 to $4.65 over three years would increase the unemployment rate by less than 0.1% and the inflation rate by 0.2%.

#2

Finds that the minimum wage is responsible for a considerable amount of teenage unemployment.

#3

Notes that in 1954, black teenage males were more likely to be employed than white teenage males. Since that time, the proportion of black teenage males employed has fallen sharply, while employment for white teenage males has risen. Expansion of coverage of the minimum wage appears to be a major factor in this trend. Further notes that more than half of all teenagers would earn more in the absence of a minimum wage.

#4

Argues that the negative effects of minimum wage laws in LDCs is even greater than in industrialized countries, because there is greater diversity of supply and demand for labor in LDCs. Also points out that in South Africa minimum wages helped whites at the expense of blacks.

#5

Finds that the minimum wage has helped white males and females while hurting black males and females.

#6

Finds that increases in the minimum wage would benefit few families with incomes below the poverty level. Much of the benefit would accrue to upper income families with secondary earners, such as wives and children.

#7

Finds that the minimum wage increases the employment demand for illegal aliens, who are less likely than legal residents to report violations of the labor laws.

#8

Argues that employment losses from higher minimum wages have been overstated and that much of the higher unemployment among minority youth has been due to cyclical factors.

Make of those what you will. But I'd suggest they have absolutely nothing to do with what you just accused them of doing.

BTW, admitting that I can't be bothered to do as much research as LightSpectra and don't know as much about the general topic as him doesn't mean that I think he's right. Which was what I was saying. I'm not going to accept what seems an obviously fallacious and ridiculous premise just because it comes with a citation.

So you know nothing about the subject and yet you consider yourself well enough placed to dismiss research published in prestigious journals. All because it is obviously 'fallacious and ridiculous...' Where pray are you getting the information necessary to make that 'informed' judgment?

 

[Camikaze]

Beware the attack of the intelligentsia.

But seriously, just because I haven't exactly had 'research published in prestigious journals' doesn't mean that I can't hope to make some form of informed judgement. Nothing more than my common sense and government policy of virtually every western nation (because pretty much every nation has a minimum wage, yes?) make me differ with the conclusion reached by the research compiled (not 'created', my mistake) by Republicans for political purposes, in roughly the same way that I would differ from a conclusion reached by research presented on mises.org, despite my position of relative ignorance on the topic.

And again; are you saying that scrapping the minimum wage would reduce poverty?

 

[Dachs]

Usually economic journals have a slightly higher quality standard than does mises.org

 

[Masada]

But seriously, just because I haven't exactly had 'research published in prestigious journals' doesn't mean that I can't hope to make some form of informed judgement.

No you obviously can't. This is what I'm basing my belief on:

#1: Snide attacks on character.

So are you saying that a source created by Republicans and laissez faire economists would not invariably come up with a result dismissing an essentially socialistic Democrat labour market policy? And are you saying that scrapping the minimum wage would reduce poverty?

#2 Admitting to be not being bothered to do research on the subject. Then resorting to yet more character assassination to make up for that. Backed up with some dubious use of so-called "common sense."

BTW, admitting that I can't be bothered to do as much research as LightSpectra and don't know as much about the general topic as him doesn't mean that I think he's right. Which was what I was saying. I'm not going to accept what seems an obviously fallacious and ridiculous premise just because it comes with a citation.

#3 Backed up with... more character assassination

Beware the attack of the intelligentsia.

#4 Backed up with yet more out and out laziness. Since you obviously couldn't be bothered to read even the short bloody synopses I posted, like this one:

[The paper] [A]argues that employment losses from higher minimum wages have been overstated and that much of the higher unemployment among minority youth has been due to cyclical factors

Which out and out refutes your "EVAL REPUBULICUNS" bull.

But seriously, just because I haven't exactly had 'research published in prestigious journals' doesn't mean that I can't hope to make some form of informed judgement. Nothing more than my common sense and government policy of virtually every western nation (because pretty much every nation has a minimum wage, yes?) make me differ with the conclusion reached by the research compiled (not 'created', my mistake) by Republicans for political purposes, in roughly the same way that I would differ from a conclusion reached by research presented on mises.org, despite my position of relative ignorance on the topic.

So, no. I don't believe you can make an informed judgment. I can't see what you'd base it on. You obviously fail at textual comprehension, research and the whole gamut of skills that could have been used on your part to arrive at an informed judgment.

And again; are you saying that scrapping the minimum wage would reduce poverty?

A cursory reading of Lighspectra's source would have given you an understanding of why the link was unsuitable to explain that point. Unfortunately all you seemed to have done with it was use it as an opportunity to troll the authors on the basis of something they didn't even deal with.

 

[ParkCungHee]

So what if wages decrease, when prices do, faster.

...Would not the natural outcome of that be that you should not pay people anything for their labor? Or even better, charge them to work?

 

[Camikaze]

[...]

Okay, fair enough at the reading comprehension and character assassination bit (although you apparently didn't get my off-hand intelligentsia comment); I am too lazy to do my own research, but it doesn't mean I'm gonna simply accept what seems a suspect source as an authority on an issue that seems contradicted by government policy around the world.

But I'll ask you again (seeing as I would assume that you can provide an informed opinion); would scrapping the minimum wage reduce poverty?

 

[Masada]

Okay, fair enough at the reading comprehension and character assassination bit (although you apparently didn't get my off-hand intelligentsia comment); I am too lazy to do my own research

Fair enough.

but it doesn't mean I'm gonna simply accept what seems a suspect source as an authority on an issue that seems contradicted by government policy around the world.

Don't ever confuse politics with economics. They almost never meet.

But I'll ask you again (seeing as I would assume that you can provide an informed opinion); would scrapping the minimum wage reduce poverty?

I don't know. Since there's a whole intermediate step between minimum wage and poverty called employment to account for. Somewhere along the lines poverty would have to be defined as well.

 

[Lord Baal]

I think we can safely define poverty as the average income of a person receiving Centrelink Youth Allowance in this country.

 

[Masada]

I think we can safely define poverty as the average income of a person receiving Centrelink Youth Allowance in this country.

That's starvation rations, what are you talking about?