Did any of you guys watch it?
If I wanted to have my intelligence insulted for two hours, I would've watched a reality show on Fox. Incidentally, that's what I did. :blush: There is something about Gordon Ramsay that makes you want to watch whatever crap show he's on.
I mentioned in the other thread that Princesca did. She thought Ron Paul won, of course.
I don't get interested in primary politics, typically, and when I do it's always Democratic primary politics since I am a registered Democrat.
Didn't know there was one. huh
Did anybody ask "do you believe in evolution?"
I heard a clip of one of the candidates saying he wouldnt want any Muslims in government - can't trust em. They are trying to kill us - or something like that.
That kind of bizarre crap is counterproductive to even ask. Best to keep it out of the rational discourse. Any journalist who would stoop to that is basically doing the news equivalent of trolling.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 14, 2011, 11:26:46 AM
That kind of bizarre crap is counterproductive to even ask. Best to keep it out of the rational discourse. Any journalist who would stoop to that is basically doing the news equivalent of trolling.
It was a pertinent question for Cain seeing as how he has made statements about his concern of muslims in gov't.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 14, 2011, 11:26:46 AM
That kind of bizarre crap is counterproductive to even ask. Best to keep it out of the rational discourse. Any journalist who would stoop to that is basically doing the news equivalent of trolling.
Wouldn't the answer he got kind of invalidate the notion that he was trolling?
I didn't watch, forgot to. I wasn't that enthused to watch anyway, but figured I wanted to hear what some of them had to say. I'll find out on the news/internet anyway.
I just saw this and thought it said Republican Presidential debate on CDM.
Now that would be a debate worth pvring. :p all kittens, wargames & cardigans. What is Ron Paul's stance on kittens?
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 14, 2011, 12:56:13 PM
What is Ron Paul's stance on kittens?
Government should stay out of kitten affairs.
Quote from: DGuller on June 14, 2011, 12:57:53 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 14, 2011, 12:56:13 PM
What is Ron Paul's stance on kittens?
Government should stay out of kitten affairs.
Kittens are unconstitutional and George Washington was a dog man.
Hmm, good point, the government is not expressly allowed by the Constitution to let kittens live.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.choiceshirts.com%2Fimages%2FA1%2F16%2FA11679D-lg.jpg&hash=aaec7dedc8f30982e4b946f8a74502d07d412ebf)
mew?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft1.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcSSs3isXu_GxMQympk9WHxZwXTEsEtOdusPt2IZaDnwpfMTecvSlA&hash=dbf5d649cec9d454cef18f383e560cb3a2f0f4bd)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2011, 09:08:09 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft1.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcSSs3isXu_GxMQympk9WHxZwXTEsEtOdusPt2IZaDnwpfMTecvSlA&hash=dbf5d649cec9d454cef18f383e560cb3a2f0f4bd)
this is fail seedy, you have a pic of a cat not a kitten.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOsBQK.jpg&hash=2581465d0b8ebb16e4fe3b5d32e66a60ad6e33d2)
I like cat pictures. :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.moddb.com%2Fcache%2Fimages%2Fgroups%2F1%2F3%2F2392%2Fthumb_620x2000%2F0-hitler-cat.jpg&hash=9880d5bf6aa08393bf97ac6bd1dd0ab00427a5a0)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs-ak.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fterminal01%2F2010%2F4%2F12%2F14%2Fenhanced-buzz-6328-1271095591-8.jpg&hash=25fc6296ba8fa6c9d0889e80ae04a8c64f7887fe)
What the :wacko:
:lol:
The demotivator text for that pic
"For when you run out of Bat Guano"
Why the wacky face Alcibiades? Her statement is flawed, primarily because we think there is a natural rate of unemployment even at quote unquote full employment, but on balance her statement is pretty reasonable and certainly not deserving of your response.
If we eliminate homes, Yi, then we could potentially wipe out homelessness forever, because people could live wherever they want!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 16, 2011, 05:01:50 AM
If we eliminate homes, Yi, then we could potentially wipe out homelessness forever, because people could live wherever they want!
I'm guessing the part of the SAT where they asked "fruit is to orange as ____ is to rowboat" was not your favorite part of the test.
I want to see pics of you wearing your Bachmann campaign button next year.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 16, 2011, 04:30:02 AM
Why the wacky face Alcibiades? Her statement is flawed, primarily because we think there is a natural rate of unemployment even at quote unquote full employment, but on balance her statement is pretty reasonable and certainly not deserving of your response.
It really isn't. Not only is it factually incorrect, but acting like $7.25/hr is some sort of terrible restraint on employment is silly, especially since inflation has turned $7.25/hr into virtually nothing.
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 08:26:22 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 16, 2011, 04:30:02 AM
Why the wacky face Alcibiades? Her statement is flawed, primarily because we think there is a natural rate of unemployment even at quote unquote full employment, but on balance her statement is pretty reasonable and certainly not deserving of your response.
It really isn't. Not only is it factually incorrect, but acting like $7.25/hr is some sort of terrible restraint on employment is silly, especially since inflation has turned $7.25/hr into virtually nothing.
If that is the case, what is the need to set the minimum wage at that point?
I don't really understand the argument that a minimum wage of X is not a detriment to employment because X really isn't all that much. That makes no sense.
Either a minimum wage IS a brake on employment by forcing business to pay more than they would otherwise, in which case basic econ 101 says that there will be less employment, or it IS NOT a brake on employment because the "natural" floor for wages determined by the market is higher than the minimum anyway - in which case you don't really need a minimum wage to begin with.
You can make some arguments for minimum wage being worth the brake on employment, but the argument that it is NOT such a brake seems kind of specious.
The United States introduced the minimum wage in 1938. It is good to know we had full employment up until then and that new law invented unemployment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 16, 2011, 04:30:02 AM
Why the wacky face Alcibiades? Her statement is flawed, primarily because we think there is a natural rate of unemployment even at quote unquote full employment, but on balance her statement is pretty reasonable and certainly not deserving of your response.
Again...1938. If her statement is reasonable then why can we not point to an example of full employment in a place or time where there was no minimum wage law? Shouldn't a reasonable point require some evidence to support it...or at least not extensive counter-evidence?
Quote from: Berkut on June 16, 2011, 08:39:35 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 08:26:22 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 16, 2011, 04:30:02 AM
Why the wacky face Alcibiades? Her statement is flawed, primarily because we think there is a natural rate of unemployment even at quote unquote full employment, but on balance her statement is pretty reasonable and certainly not deserving of your response.
It really isn't. Not only is it factually incorrect, but acting like $7.25/hr is some sort of terrible restraint on employment is silly, especially since inflation has turned $7.25/hr into virtually nothing.
If that is the case, what is the need to set the minimum wage at that point?
I don't really understand the argument that a minimum wage of X is not a detriment to employment because X really isn't all that much. That makes no sense.
Either a minimum wage IS a brake on employment by forcing business to pay more than they would otherwise, in which case basic econ 101 says that there will be less employment, or it IS NOT a brake on employment because the "natural" floor for wages determined by the market is higher than the minimum anyway - in which case you don't really need a minimum wage to begin with.
You can make some arguments for minimum wage being worth the brake on employment, but the argument that it is NOT such a brake seems kind of specious.
Employment isn't a social goal in and of itself. Even if a minimum wage is a brake on employment, it would be immoral to allow people in the civilized world to work for starvation wages, no matter what the market decides.
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2011, 08:43:14 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 16, 2011, 04:30:02 AM
Why the wacky face Alcibiades? Her statement is flawed, primarily because we think there is a natural rate of unemployment even at quote unquote full employment, but on balance her statement is pretty reasonable and certainly not deserving of your response.
Again...1938. If her statement is reasonable then why can we not point to an example of full employment in a place or time where there was no minimum wage law? Shouldn't a reasonable point require some evidence to support it...or at least not extensive counter-evidence?
Uhhh, I don't think anyone has claimed that the sole source of unemploymnet is the existence of minimum wage laws.
But I will pre-emptively say that would be a pretty stupid thing to say, if in fact someone said it....
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 08:26:22 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 16, 2011, 04:30:02 AM
Why the wacky face Alcibiades? Her statement is flawed, primarily because we think there is a natural rate of unemployment even at quote unquote full employment, but on balance her statement is pretty reasonable and certainly not deserving of your response.
It really isn't. Not only is it factually incorrect, but acting like $7.25/hr is some sort of terrible restraint on employment is silly, especially since inflation has turned $7.25/hr into virtually nothing.
Especially when you consider that the real minimum wage is actually lower than 1970 levels.
Quote from: Berkut on June 16, 2011, 10:14:33 AM
Uhhh, I don't think anyone has claimed that the sole source of unemploymnet is the existence of minimum wage laws.
No the claim was that having no minimum wage laws would lower unemployment to the point it would be virtually non-existant. Therefore some data or evidence should show that periods without minimum wage laws have lower unemployment but I see zero evidence for that to be the case...at least to the extent that law has existed in the US.
On the contrary all the highest rates of unemployment in our country have all happened without a minimum wage law. It may not be the only factor but it is at least being claimed as being a factor no? So where is the evidence?
The UK only introduced a minimum wage in 1997. Even after the latest recession we've not hit close to our unemplyment highs of the 1980s.
While it seems ridiculous to suggest that a minimum wage won't have some effect on employment it is even more ludicrous to say that abolishing the minimum wage will get virtually get rid of unemployment. Wages are only a part of the cost of employing someone and only one of many disincentives for employing *anyone*.
Also, a significant number of people that are unemployed are unemployable... adjusting the minimum wage isn't going to make them magically employable.
Quote from: Caliga on June 16, 2011, 10:44:20 AM
Also, a significant number of people that are unemployed are unemployable... adjusting the minimum wage isn't going to make them magically employable.
Am I: unemployable? :(
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 16, 2011, 10:46:08 AM
Am I: unemployable? :(
Seems unlikely to me, since you've worked before and, among other things, demonstrate basic literacy skills with every post you make. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on June 16, 2011, 10:44:20 AM
Also, a significant number of people that are unemployed are unemployable... adjusting the minimum wage isn't going to make them magically employable.
Hi! :)
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2011, 10:58:55 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 16, 2011, 10:44:20 AM
Also, a significant number of people that are unemployed are unemployable... adjusting the minimum wage isn't going to make them magically employable.
Hi! :)
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2011, 10:30:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 16, 2011, 10:14:33 AM
Uhhh, I don't think anyone has claimed that the sole source of unemploymnet is the existence of minimum wage laws.
No the claim was that having no minimum wage laws would lower unemployment to the point it would be virtually non-existant. Therefore some data or evidence should show that periods without minimum wage laws have lower unemployment but I see zero evidence for that to be the case...at least to the extent that law has existed in the US.
On the contrary all the highest rates of unemployment in our country have all happened without a minimum wage law. It may not be the only factor but it is at least being claimed as being a factor no? So where is the evidence?
If you are honestly interested in evidence about the impact of minimum wage laws on employment, there is a LOT of research and documentation out there. It is not exactly unexamined territory from a academic/research perspective.
Quote from: Caliga on June 16, 2011, 10:48:06 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 16, 2011, 10:46:08 AM
Am I: unemployable? :(
Seems unlikely to me, since you've worked before and, among other things, demonstrate basic literacy skills with every post you make. :cool:
Overqualified on the domestic market?
Quote from: Berkut on June 16, 2011, 11:06:38 AM
If you are honestly interested in evidence about the impact of minimum wage laws on employment, there is a LOT of research and documentation out there. It is not exactly unexamined territory from a academic/research perspective.
I am actually. The minimum wage has always been so low that I do not see that it ever had a big effect on unemployment. Naturally the point when it was introduced, the end of the GD, unemployment only went down but even in the 20s unemployment was not signifcantly lower that it has been in any other economic boomtime. It certainly was never virtually zero.
Quote from: The Brain on June 16, 2011, 11:07:35 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 16, 2011, 10:48:06 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 16, 2011, 10:46:08 AM
Am I: unemployable? :(
Seems unlikely to me, since you've worked before and, among other things, demonstrate basic literacy skills with every post you make. :cool:
Overqualified on the domestic market?
In the South, yes :(
Quote from: Gups on June 16, 2011, 10:42:33 AM
The UK only introduced a minimum wage in 1997. Even after the latest recession we've not hit close to our unemplyment highs of the 1980s.
While it seems ridiculous to suggest that a minimum wage won't have some effect on employment it is even more ludicrous to say that abolishing the minimum wage will get virtually get rid of unemployment. Wages are only a part of the cost of employing someone and only one of many disincentives for employing *anyone*.
Exactly. There are a lot more factors besides wage costs that have to be taken into account before hiring someone.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 16, 2011, 11:14:05 AM
Quote from: Gups on June 16, 2011, 10:42:33 AM
The UK only introduced a minimum wage in 1997. Even after the latest recession we've not hit close to our unemplyment highs of the 1980s.
While it seems ridiculous to suggest that a minimum wage won't have some effect on employment it is even more ludicrous to say that abolishing the minimum wage will get virtually get rid of unemployment. Wages are only a part of the cost of employing someone and only one of many disincentives for employing *anyone*.
Exactly. There are a lot more factors besides wage costs that have to be taken into account before hiring someone.
Of course. The idea that getting ird of minimum wage will certainly get rid of unemployment is actually even dumber than the idea that minimum wage has no impact on unemployment.
Quote from: Berkut on June 16, 2011, 11:20:45 AM
actually even dumber than the idea that minimum wage has no impact on unemployment.
But...but...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F9%2F9c%2FUS_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif&hash=7ce08f17ac643fb42542d17b09ba110d28a59035)
I was just looking at the numbers :(
The solution is to fight a war. Not a fake war like Iraq and Afghanistan, but a real, total war.
Can we turn the focus to how ATMs are destroying jobs?
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 11:36:49 AM
The solution is to fight a war. Not a fake war like Iraq and Afghanistan, but a real, total war.
Bloody conquest of the Albertan Oil Fields!
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 11:41:12 AM
Can we turn the focus to how ATMs are destroying jobs?
To say nothing of online banking.
We should throw our wooden shoes into the Internet to gum up the tubes.
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2011, 11:48:22 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 11:36:49 AM
The solution is to fight a war. Not a fake war like Iraq and Afghanistan, but a real, total war.
Bloody conquest of the Albertan Oil Fields!
It's worth a shot. Mind you, we both know that the US doesn't have the fortitude to fight a war anymore, no matter what the provocation.
Quote from: Berkut on June 16, 2011, 08:39:35 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 08:26:22 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 16, 2011, 04:30:02 AM
Why the wacky face Alcibiades? Her statement is flawed, primarily because we think there is a natural rate of unemployment even at quote unquote full employment, but on balance her statement is pretty reasonable and certainly not deserving of your response.
It really isn't. Not only is it factually incorrect, but acting like $7.25/hr is some sort of terrible restraint on employment is silly, especially since inflation has turned $7.25/hr into virtually nothing.
If that is the case, what is the need to set the minimum wage at that point?
I don't really understand the argument that a minimum wage of X is not a detriment to employment because X really isn't all that much. That makes no sense.
Either a minimum wage IS a brake on employment by forcing business to pay more than they would otherwise, in which case basic econ 101 says that there will be less employment, or it IS NOT a brake on employment because the "natural" floor for wages determined by the market is higher than the minimum anyway - in which case you don't really need a minimum wage to begin with.
You can make some arguments for minimum wage being worth the brake on employment, but the argument that it is NOT such a brake seems kind of specious.
I generally agree that the argument makes no sense. If minimum wage doesn't drive actual wage decisions, then there is no point in having it. However, having an effective minimum wage does not necessarily have to lead to higher unemployment. Whether it does or not depends on the elasticity of the demand curve. It is conceivable that demand curve could be quite inelastic on the low end of the scale. The actual studies about the effect of minimum wages on employment are quite ambivalent.
Minimum wage laws are in place to prevent employer abuse of essentially powerless employees who would be forced to work at any wage offered. I know of no evidence that abolishing the wage rate would increase the number of powerless people employed. It is merely the minimum an employer can get away with.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2011, 10:58:55 AM
Hi! :)
I don't actually think you are inherently unemployable, but as long as you think so you definitely will be. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 16, 2011, 02:02:28 PM
Minimum wage laws are in place to prevent employer abuse of essentially powerless employees who would be forced to work at any wage offered. I know of no evidence that abolishing the wage rate would increase the number of powerless people employed. It is merely the minimum an employer can get away with.
Maybe I'm a 'bad' libertarian, but I am in favor of minimum wage laws. I'm not sure raising the minimum wage does much good most of the time, though... but there should be a mandated minimum of some sort.
I am a "bad" one as well, but mainly just because I suspect it doesn't really matter. It probably has some minimal effect on unemployment at the low ends, but probably doesn't do enough harm to justify the trouble of getting rid of it.
We should have a maximum wage. No one needs more than $50k a year.
Quote from: The Brain on June 16, 2011, 03:39:00 PM
We should have a maximum wage. No one needs more than $50k a year.
:lol:
Since this is thread about insane Republicans, this might as well go here. Romney, while talking to a bunch of unemployed people, joked that he is unemployed as well. :pinch: Good timing.
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2011, 12:06:40 PM
Since this is thread about insane Republicans, this might as well go here. Romney, while talking to a bunch of unemployed people, joked that he is unemployed as well. :pinch: Good timing.
Wasn't Romney a hatchet-man? I seem to recall that he was in the business of making people unemployed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 16, 2011, 02:02:28 PMIt is merely the minimum an employer can get away with.
There's another name for that. Market value. In most places, it's actually higher than the minimum wage law says it should be. Which more or less renders the minimum wage inoperative.
That doesn't make the matters better for him in the eyes of the voters, although to be honest, what he did in the business world shouldn't be held against him.
If all he did was lay off redundant positions, then it's a job that has to be done. You don't reduce unemployment by preventing the firing of unneeded workers, if anything you increase it in the long run.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 17, 2011, 12:36:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 16, 2011, 02:02:28 PMIt is merely the minimum an employer can get away with.
There's another name for that. Market value. In most places, it's actually higher than the minimum wage law says it should be. Which more or less renders the minimum wage inoperative.
Market values are not automatically magic, although the burden of proof should be on those claiming that markets fail. Market values work well when supply and demand curves are sufficiently elastic, and when people have the freedom to choose. Being saddled with the need to eat and have shelter kind of removes some of the freedom to choose.
That's why in shitty places like Alabama people actually do make the minimum wage.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:16:40 PM
Wasn't Romney a hatchet-man? I seem to recall that he was in the business of making people unemployed.
Not really. Bain Capital is a private equity firm. Getting rid of dead weight is an integral part of M&A but I doubt Romney was involved in that himself, except when it came to C-level dudes.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 17, 2011, 12:45:48 PM
That's why in shitty places like Alabama people actually do make the minimum wage.
:yes:
We have ~46,000 employees and a large number of them in states like West Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, etc. do make federal/state mandated minimum. OTOH our operations in Washington state and New Jersey pay their field workers significantly more.
Want to guess which state operations have larger profit margins? :)
Quote from: Caliga on June 17, 2011, 01:10:54 PM
Want to guess which state operations have larger profit margins? :)
The ones where all the jobs were moved to third world countries?
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2011, 01:12:19 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 17, 2011, 01:10:54 PM
Want to guess which state operations have larger profit margins? :)
The ones where all the jobs were moved to third world countries?
Alabama was my guess as well.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 17, 2011, 12:36:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 16, 2011, 02:02:28 PMIt is merely the minimum an employer can get away with.
There's another name for that. Market value. In most places, it's actually higher than the minimum wage law says it should be. Which more or less renders the minimum wage inoperative.
You cut out the part about it applying to essentially powerless employees where the usual market forces dont really apply. I suppose market forces for the most low end jobs might come into play if the unemployment rate is such that employers cant get enough of such employees - such a situation did exist for a time in Northern Alberta during the various oil booms it has experienced. But in times of high unemployment there is no end of such workers and so a minimum wage is required to protect them.
So you are correct that in good times a minimum wage rate may not be necessary but it is certainly necessary in bad times.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2011, 01:12:19 PM
The ones where all the jobs were moved to third world countries?
Unfortunately that sort of work can't be outsourced. :(
Quote from: Caliga on June 17, 2011, 01:19:07 PM
Unfortunately that sort of work can't be outsourced. :(
:weep:
Quote from: Berkut on June 16, 2011, 03:04:20 PM
I am a "bad" one as well, but mainly just because I suspect it doesn't really matter. It probably has some minimal effect on unemployment at the low ends, but probably doesn't do enough harm to justify the trouble of getting rid of it.
It has a minimal effect at most because employers will look at is as just another cost of doing business and pass it along to their customers directly or indirectly. Raising the minimum wage probably pushes inflation up more than it does unemployment. Which of course ultimately defeats the purpose of raising it in the first place.
Yeah, that's why I like the idea of having a minimum wage but don't think it makes sense to adjust it much. Of course, raising the minimum wage has nothing to do with economic realities and everything to do with trying to buy votes when the perception is there that votes need to be bought.
Quote from: dps on June 17, 2011, 02:42:22 PM
It has a minimal effect at most because employers will look at is as just another cost of doing business and pass it along to their customers directly or indirectly.
That depends on the elasticity of the another set of supply and demand curves. In general the extra cost is split between employers and customers.
QuoteRaising the minimum wage probably pushes inflation up more than it does unemployment. Which of course ultimately defeats the purpose of raising it in the first place.
Not really. Even if your argument is true, the resulting extra inflation doesn't have to defeat the purpose of minimum wages. Inflation goes up for everyone, while minimum wage goes up only for a small subset of the workforce. Therefore, the percentage increase of inflation is not going to be nearly as high as the percentage increase of minimum wage.
Quote from: Caliga on June 17, 2011, 02:44:34 PM
Of course, raising the minimum wage has nothing to do with economic realities and everything to do with trying to buy votes when the perception is there that votes need to be bought.
Yep it just provides warm fuzzies more than has any real effects. The important labor laws are the ones that limit hours and child labor and mandate holidays and safety and that sort of thing. Those are the ones that effect employment in my totally amatuerish opinion.
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2011, 12:06:40 PM
Since this is thread about insane Republicans, this might as well go here. Romney, while talking to a bunch of unemployed people, joked that he is unemployed as well. :pinch: Good timing.
From what I saw they laughed, so his joke was a success.
We don't have a minimum wage in Germany, but I don't think that affects unemployment. We had very high unemployment a couple of years ago and have now reduced it a bit, but that was more related to more flexible hiring and firing as well as reduced payroll taxes for employers. The lower bound of what people will work for here is probably set by what you get from social security without working at all...
Re: the minimum wage.
Aren't the main areas of minimum wage jobs the lower end of the service sector, like people stacking shelves in supermarkets and the likes? There are, I believe, a limit to how many people are needed to do menial jobs, and even without a minimum wage, the black market of hiring paperless immigrants to do whatever jobs other people won't do, like gardening and low-wage physical labour impacts that particular segment of the economy too. I suppose you could end unemployment by creating a million snitches who'd travel the country to report on people who employ illegal immigrants.
Of course, wages do impact the willingness to hire. I don't think anyone would argue against that. That aside, the service industry, where these jobs are created naturally depends on growth in other areas of the economy. There'll be no incentive to hire even if people decided to work for free if no-one has disposable income, and rather than focusing on the minimum wage, it'd be a good idea to identify which sectors could spur that future growth to ensure that there will be enough McJobs to complain about instead.
Side note:
Norway's in a dangerous position in that regard, since affluent lifestyles have removed any incentive to work the lower end of the service sector ladder. Immigrants from Sweden and Eastern Europe mainly take those jobs while Norwegians dream of winning the lottery and going on television. Of course, that's oversimplified, but the general trend is the same as the Persian Gulf state with Kuwait as the prime example, so all we need is for Slargos to grow a moustache and go back to Sweden and claim dictatorial powers to repeat history. Just remember to stay off the holy places when you come to bail us out.
BTW, my holy places are my local pubs, all of them.
Alcohol will be outlawed. :mad:
Quote from: Zanza on June 18, 2011, 02:16:46 AMThe lower bound of what people will work for here is probably set by what you get from social security without working at all...
Basically serves the same function as a minimum wage, I would think.