It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
I was eat thing the news a few moments ago and watches a piece about minkum wage for fast food. It was mainly McDonalds but "thousands of employees have gone on strikes asking to raise thewl wage to $15 an hour." I was a little outraged. Any opinions?
theBearJewHope it gets raised to $15 an hour so college kids can get a decent wage while in college.
Do these fucking idiots realize they will lose their jobs in a heartbeat if their pay doubles?
I think it should be raised. But if you're working at McDonalds you don't need $15 an hour. I agree with raising it to $10 but I don't think people have the responsibility to handle $15 an hour if they're not responsible enough to get out of the fast food industry.
bobcatcryI think it should be raised. But if you're working at McDonalds you don't need $15 an hour. I agree with raising it to $10 but I don't think people have the responsibility to handle $15 an hour if they're not responsible enough to get out of the fast food industry.
That's a pretty idiotic reason to think $15 is too much. It's too much because the demand for a person capable of wrapping a microwaved burger or sweeping is and always will be extremely low.
They way I look at it is that cooking in fast food is easy. It's not hard. It's unskilled labor pure and simple. You're not doing any serious prep work or making anything challenging. If anyone should be getting paid 15-20 it's the line cooks and prep cooks working in restaurants where actual skills are required.
Basically put, the people working fast food dont deserve higher pay because they're not doing anything that really makes it necessary to pay them vast sums of money (for easy jobs).
jah_house_chefThey way I look at it is that cooking in fast food is easy. It's not hard. It's unskilled labor pure and simple. You're not doing any serious prep work or making anything challenging. If anyone should be getting paid 15-20 it's the line cooks and prep cooks working in restaurants where actual skills are required.
Basically put, the people working fast food dont deserve higher pay because they're not doing anything that really makes it necessary to pay them vast sums of money (for easy jobs).
this, it's an entry level job. Also, it may just be the summit county Mcdonalds, but they advertise in the paper that people start at 9-12 already so if these fools are making 9-12 an hour and bitching this much.........fuck em
I'm in Seattle and the $15 minimum wage is really taking off. The mayor's proposed the hike with it being phased in for big businesses within 4 years and small businesses within 7.
Personally I think its going to completely backfire on them. Unemployment and inflation will have a huge jump up.
On the other hand I kind of wish it was happening in some other city far away from where I live, because economics is always being revised and it would be pretty sweet if it worked, since I'll be payed minimum for the next 5 years or so. Or so it would backfire and I could say I told you so
If we raise it then the inflation is going to go up, so if you work 2 hours at 8 an hour for a 16 dollar something, it's not going to be different than working 2 hours at 15 a hour for a 30 dollar something
bieberhole69.I'm in Seattle and the $15 minimum wage is really taking off. The mayor's proposed the hike with it being phased in for big businesses within 4 years and small businesses within 7.
Personally I think its going to completely backfire on them. Unemployment and inflation will have a huge jump up.
On the other hand I kind of wish it was happening in some other city far away from where I live, because economics is always being revised and it would be pretty sweet if it worked, since I'll be payed minimum for the next 5 years or so. Or so it would backfire and I could say I told you so
Fucking ridiculous. I'm in Seattle too and have been seeing it on the news non stop.
Correct me if I'm wrong because I know next to nothing about economics and maybe i'll come off as stupid but this makes sense to me. I think the people who work jobs that require no education or skill (i.e. McDonalds employees etc..) should spend their fucking time getting an education or skill set to put them in a position to do a job that is worth paying someone $15 an hour for. There are people with fairly advanced skill sets that took a while to learn, and/or some tech schooling etc.. who make around 15/hr and I would be livid if I was one of those people and I saw a bunch of burger flippers striking because they think what they do is equally as valuable as what I do. Bummer you can't feed your family off of $9 an hour? Get a budget and an education and go get yourself some more money. Tired of this sense of entitlement people have developed in America.
.MASSHOLE.Because anyone who takes beginner Macro and Micro really knows very little about economics.
ya and anyone who takes a basic math course really knows very little about math, doesnt mean having that basic foundation isn't helpful.
I dont know what the grade 12 math curriculum is like elsewhere, but i am sure that teaching the basics of economics would be far better for society and the individual then any possible math class taken in grade 12 or for fact any class taken in grade 12
Raising the minimum wage would be disasterous. So many things would go wrong.
If there is no one growing food what does one eat? If there is no one building infrastructure how does one get from one place to another? If there is no one generating electricity how does one use it? If it is not there how does one give it away?
If you're not worth what you are being paid you are only stealing from someone who is being payed less than they deserve.
i know plenty of lazy fucks grossing 60k that get payed to sit and fuck around on social media for 70 percent of their day 10 percent spent veggin the fuck out in front of some sort of screen 10 percent eating shitting and cleaning themselves and 10 percent actually using their brain power to benefit more than just their immediate self
there are plenty of people out there who don't have the resources available to better their lives, school and living costs money, jobs take time, and there's usually a deficit in covering that spread
but if someone REALLY wants it they can get it, that's not always true despite popular belief, not on 10 bucks an hour at least
We wouldn't need to raise the minimum wage if it wasn't for the liberals terrible economic policies. All they do is make everything more expensive, i.e. the price of tuition. If shit wasn't so damn expensive these days like a gallon of gas than people could actually survive off of minimum wage.
And the argument for raising the minimum wage is only expressed by those who have no idea on how a free-market economy works. This debate was inevitable in our "I deserve a hand out" liberal society though so don't be surprised. Once people get one hand out than all they'll do is ask for another.
cool_nameya and anyone who takes a basic math course really knows very little about math, doesnt mean having that basic foundation isn't helpful.
I dont know what the grade 12 math curriculum is like elsewhere, but i am sure that teaching the basics of economics would be far better for society and the individual then any possible math class taken in grade 12 or for fact any class taken in grade 12
You can teach someone the basic movements of any economics curve, but economics is so much more than that. People need to understand relationships between variables, how a slight increase in one can offset another, etc. In my experience as an economics major, the entry level courses focused more on the logic of the movements but not the mathematics behind the movements. It is this mathematics that truly matters, for this is where you truly understand the impact a variable can have, i.e interest rate changes on an IS-LM curve.
I'm all for this, fuck McDonalds and the rest of the fast food industry. If they want to peddle their shitty food and fuck over our health care system then that's fine, they should just have to pay their workers 15 an hour while they do it.
.MASSHOLE.You can teach someone the basic movements of any economics curve, but economics is so much more than that. People need to understand relationships between variables, how a slight increase in one can offset another, etc. In my experience as an economics major, the entry level courses focused more on the logic of the movements but not the mathematics behind the movements. It is this mathematics that truly matters, for this is where you truly understand the impact a variable can have, i.e interest rate changes on an IS-LM curve.
you can teach someone basic addition, but math is so much more than that. People need to understand relationships between unknown variables, how a slight change in one side of the equation can be offset by another change on the other side. In my experience as someone who has taken calculus, beginner math classes focused more on the logic and foundation, but not anything more. It is calculus that truly matters, for this is where you truly understand how variables affect each other ie the second derivative of f(x)=x+1/x^3
if you believe economics shouldn't be studied, then clearly neither should math because using your established principle for declaring basic economics shouldn't be studied basic math can also be dismissed.
It is the basic logic behind economics that would be most valuable for people to learn, knowing how interest rates affect an IS-LM curve really doesnt matter for the average person, but learning about theory behind the basic supply and demand graph would absolutely be beneficial in day to day life.
If you think basic economics is useless just because it doesn't teach you the fine calculations of determining equilibriums in multi variable equations then you clearly haven't truly seen the power of economics because it is more than just a study, it is a way of thinking
cool_nameyou can teach someone basic addition, but math is so much more than that. People need to understand relationships between unknown variables, how a slight change in one side of the equation can be offset by another change on the other side. In my experience as someone who has taken calculus, beginner math classes focused more on the logic and foundation, but not anything more. It is calculus that truly matters, for this is where you truly understand how variables affect each other ie the second derivative of f(x)=x+1/x^3
if you believe economics shouldn't be studied, then clearly neither should math because using your established principle for declaring basic economics shouldn't be studied basic math can also be dismissed.
It is the basic logic behind economics that would be most valuable for people to learn, knowing how interest rates affect an IS-LM curve really doesnt matter for the average person, but learning about theory behind the basic supply and demand graph would absolutely be beneficial in day to day life.
If you think basic economics is useless just because it doesn't teach you the fine calculations of determining equilibriums in multi variable equations then you clearly haven't truly seen the power of economics because it is more than just a study, it is a way of thinking
That is not my point, my point is that a basic set of information can do more harm than good in some cases, especially ones like this threads topic. Someone who takes an entry level economics course and assumes that is all one needs to know about economics (lets be real, there are people like that) is when you find yourself encountering issues.
Entry level economics does not deal with the shortcomings of monetary and fiscal policies when you have issues such as a liquidity trap or crowding out nor does it deal with how price level changes affect GDP. This is probably some of the most important information a beginner economists can learn if they enjoy microeconomics.
I am not arguing against general economics knowledge, but rather a specialized set. No one needs to know about 3rd degree price discrimination, but they do need to know how a change in i can affect the IS-LM curve or how wages can affect the aggregate supply and aggregate demand curve. Unfortunately, this is not taught in beginner courses, as it requires a more advanced set of knowledge. You could not truly understand how a wage increase could affect the price level and GDP through basic supply and demand knowledge.
I am not saying general economics knowledge about opportunity costs or supply and demand is useless but rather that it paints half a picture, not the full one and that a lack of knowledge can sometimes do more harm than good. If you want an example, look at our electorate where a majority of the voters know little to nothing about their candidate's policies, but know a lot about their social life.
.MASSHOLE.That is not my point, my point is that a basic set of information can do more harm than good in some cases, especially ones like this threads topic. Someone who takes an entry level economics course and assumes that is all one needs to know about economics (lets be real, there are people like that) is when you find yourself encountering issues.
Entry level economics does not deal with the shortcomings of monetary and fiscal policies when you have issues such as a liquidity trap or crowding out nor does it deal with how price level changes affect GDP. This is probably some of the most important information a beginner economists can learn if they enjoy microeconomics.
I am not arguing against general economics knowledge, but rather a specialized set. No one needs to know about 3rd degree price discrimination, but they do need to know how a change in i can affect the IS-LM curve or how wages can affect the aggregate supply and aggregate demand curve. Unfortunately, this is not taught in beginner courses, as it requires a more advanced set of knowledge. You could not truly understand how a wage increase could affect the price level and GDP through basic supply and demand knowledge.
I am not saying general economics knowledge about opportunity costs or supply and demand is useless but rather that it paints half a picture, not the full one and that a lack of knowledge can sometimes do more harm than good. If you want an example, look at our electorate where a majority of the voters know little to nothing about their candidate's policies, but know a lot about their social life.
really, that wasn't your point? The entire post I quoted didn't have a relation to your point? Pro tip address your main point in your first post, not just after someone points out all the logical short comings in your unrelated first post because it makes it look like you are trying to shift the ground of the argument
Please give me a broad example of the issues encountered from knowing basic supply and demand theory. Not just some rare specific situation that isnt applicable to the rest of the normal population because there will always be idiots at the bottom of the bell curve who use their basic grade 10 science to try and prove the government are using planes to poisonous us, however they are such a minority case that the overall positive neighbourhood effects of teaching science still far outweigh the negative ones created by the handful of idiots who never really learned the material.
In my entry level economics class I literally learned about every single one of those things, even if i didn't they have this crazy thing inside schools called curriculum which is what they teach in the class and they are allowed to change it to better meet the learning objectives. Hell if the year was to short(which it wasn't when i learned every single on of those things they apparently don't teach) they can always make it be taken for two years.
Once again i was literally taught all of those things in my beginner econ course. yes, they didn't go into full detail about the fine calculations but the covered the theory behind all of those changes
Completely honest, i don't not see how your example is related in way to anything in your argument. In fact i find it better supports my argument then yours. One of the reasons they dont care enough about the policy is that they lack knowledge to understand the pros and cons of each side, with economics knowledge more people would better understand the policy's of each side and therefore be able to distinguish them more. If you dont understand the points they are irrelevant to you and you wouldn't use them to make your decisions, if you understood them better which economics would allow, you could then factor them into your decision
wonder what your new "main point" is going to be now!
theBearJewDo these fucking idiots realize they will lose their jobs in a heartbeat if their pay doubles?
Some may, most won't (this has been studied by real scientists who actually know what they're talking about, as opposed to half of NS who watched a few minutes of the business press or watched a Ron Paul speech and thinks they have a PhD now). The people who do will have to get different more efficient jobs, or we could lower the 40 hour work week and share in the labour and recreation from the new efficient technological economy, ya know, like Germany and France do.
We might accidentally make the world a better place if we aren't careful.
bobcatcryI think it should be raised. But if you're working at McDonalds you don't need $15 an hour. I agree with raising it to $10 but I don't think people have the responsibility to handle $15 an hour if they're not responsible enough to get out of the fast food industry.
cool_namereally, that wasn't your point? The entire post I quoted didn't have a relation to your point? Pro tip address your main point in your first post, not just after someone points out all the logical short comings in your unrelated first post because it makes it look like you are trying to shift the ground of the argument
Please give me a broad example of the issues encountered from knowing basic supply and demand theory. Not just some rare specific situation that isnt applicable to the rest of the normal population because there will always be idiots at the bottom of the bell curve who use their basic grade 10 science to try and prove the government are using planes to poisonous us, however they are such a minority case that the overall positive neighbourhood effects of teaching science still far outweigh the negative ones created by the handful of idiots who never really learned the material.
In my entry level economics class I literally learned about every single one of those things, even if i didn't they have this crazy thing inside schools called curriculum which is what they teach in the class and they are allowed to change it to better meet the learning objectives. Hell if the year was to short(which it wasn't when i learned every single on of those things they apparently don't teach) they can always make it be taken for two years.
Once again i was literally taught all of those things in my beginner econ course. yes, they didn't go into full detail about the fine calculations but the covered the theory behind all of those changes
Completely honest, i don't not see how your example is related in way to anything in your argument. In fact i find it better supports my argument then yours. One of the reasons they dont care enough about the policy is that they lack knowledge to understand the pros and cons of each side, with economics knowledge more people would better understand the policy's of each side and therefore be able to distinguish them more. If you dont understand the points they are irrelevant to you and you wouldn't use them to make your decisions, if you understood them better which economics would allow, you could then factor them into your decision
wonder what your new "main point" is going to be now!
I was addressing the second paragraph where you stated I believed economics should not be studied. I never said that, what I said was that an intro level class does not cover the finer points. I do believe it should be studied, hence why I am an economics and political science double major...
Supply and demand cannot explain the wide impact of a change in wages. A change in wages may change the supply and demand of jobs, but cannot explain the larger effects of inflation, GDP, and other microeconomic changes. If you do not think changes in interest rates should be important to people, then you should stop talking. Interest rates is probably one of the most important aspects of microeconomics to understand. Supply and Demand and opportunity cost do not suffice in a basic economic understanding.
If you read my post, I said in "my experience", I did not generalize for the entire economics educational sector. IN MY EXPERIENCE, the finer points of unemployment, including wages and the "natural" rate of unemployment, were not mathematically covered in intro level courses. You may have heard about them, and learned what may cause a shift in both the IS-LM, AD-AS, and Phillips Curve, but to understand how mathematically drastic a shift can be is entirely different.
.MASSHOLE.If you read my post, I said in "my experience", I did not generalize for the entire economics educational sector. IN MY EXPERIENCE, the finer points of unemployment, including wages and the "natural" rate of unemployment, were not mathematically covered in intro level courses. You may have heard about them, and learned what may cause a shift in both the IS-LM, AD-AS, and Phillips Curve, but to understand how mathematically drastic a shift can be is entirely different.
Whoops, I forgot to say in my experience in that large post.
This is what happens when most american schools teach micro econ in 101 and macro in 102; you get people trying to use micro economic understanding to analyze macro economic problems.
Bill.NyeThis is what happens when most american schools teach micro econ in 101 and macro in 102; you get people trying to use micro economic understanding to analyze macro economic problems.
Wow. I feel like an idiot now. Whoops. Been typing micro instead of macro.
Thizzle.I think the people who work jobs that require no education or skill (i.e. McDonalds employees etc..) should spend their fucking time getting an education or skill set to put them in a position to do a job that is worth paying someone $15 an hour for.
Tell me more about how people making $7.70/hour should spend their fucking time getting an education.....
Bill.NyeTell me more about how people making $7.70/hour should spend their fucking time getting an education.....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but working 1000 hours over the course of a year equates to less than 20 hours a week. Seems pretty doable to me, especially given the benefit of a college degree and thus the potential to make much more money for the rest of your working life.
Why not set a base pay of $9 or $10 an hour, and then and incentives. Similar to getting a yearly bonus, but do it more often, something between quarterly and monthly. For example, if you show up and just go through the motions etc. no effort, then you will stay at the base. Consistently put out "quality" food quickly, good customer service, maybe a little more per hour. Take some initiative, be proactive, show leadership, and you get even more. Example would be doing things before you are asked, just putting in some extra effort in general. Quality of the business overall goes up, customers will be happy, sales will increase, and then managers will be able to afford $15+ an hour for some. Most restaurants have incredibly low profit margins.
This is how it roughly works now in many large corporate owned businesses, but if the timescale was increased to from yearly to quarterly or monthly, improvements would be seen faster for employees, employers, and customers. Also, specific metrics can also help, but it does get slightly complicated. I have no problem with people getting paid decently for busting their ass at an entry level job. What I do have a problem with is people claiming they can't support their family on minimum wage, but not showing that they care enough to support their family with their actions (showing up late, not giving a fuck in general).
.MASSHOLE.I was addressing the second paragraph where you stated I believed economics should not be studied. I never said that, what I said was that an intro level class does not cover the finer points. I do believe it should be studied, hence why I am an economics and political science double major...
Supply and demand cannot explain the wide impact of a change in wages. A change in wages may change the supply and demand of jobs, but cannot explain the larger effects of inflation, GDP, and other microeconomic changes. If you do not think changes in interest rates should be important to people, then you should stop talking. Interest rates is probably one of the most important aspects of microeconomics to understand. Supply and Demand and opportunity cost do not suffice in a basic economic understanding.
If you read my post, I said in "my experience", I did not generalize for the entire economics educational sector. IN MY EXPERIENCE, the finer points of unemployment, including wages and the "natural" rate of unemployment, were not mathematically covered in intro level courses. You may have heard about them, and learned what may cause a shift in both the IS-LM, AD-AS, and Phillips Curve, but to understand how mathematically drastic a shift can be is entirely different.
ya you never directly said it, but you did directly imply it
cool_nameWhy isn't economics a required highschool class
.MASSHOLE.Because anyone who takes beginner Macro and Micro really knows very little about economics.
As you can see i questioned why econ isn't required and you stated in a reply a reason why econ shouldn't be required in high school. I think it is beyond reasonable for someone to take that as you saying it shouldn't therefore be studied in highschool, for at least the majority of people
In the end it all boils down to supply and demand, so yes it can. Will it be able to do it with the same accuracy as an econ major, of course not, will it allow people to see the logic behind it though, of course it will.
Of course interest rates matter to people and i am going to have to back pedal slightly because i see i missed a huge quantifier in my earlier post, i guess that is what happens when you try to argue online while drunk haha. It should of read knowing how the interest rates affect the is-lm curve in regards to the fine math calculations of the curve, as mentioned in my final paragraph of that post. Even if people did have the advanced level knowledge of the fine calculations unless they were provided with the information needed to make the predictions they will just be using the theory as well which is the most important part.
For micro add in maximization and ,supply, demand and opportunity cost do suffice for a basic level. For Marco, yes you need a little bit more, but nothing that would take more time than a highschool class could offer in order to get a basic understanding of the theory.
You will notice in my post i also quantified in my econ class we covered those things and then went on to mention how even if a class didnt cover those topics, they could be added into the curriculum relatively easily. I did this to dispute your claim that intro class dont cover these necessary topics in you experience and the lack of coverage is a reason it shouldnt be required
yes a basic econ wouldn't cover the finer points of the mathematics of these shifts just the theory, but knowing the theory is still extremely useful. To go back to math analogy understanding calculus allows you to interpret graphs on a level far above someone with only 'non calculus' graphing skills, that doesnt mean learning the basics of graphs and their formulas is not extremely helpful
WoldsWorldWe wouldn't need to raise the minimum wage if it wasn't for the liberals terrible economic policies. All they do is make everything more expensive, i.e. the price of tuition. If shit wasn't so damn expensive these days like a gallon of gas than people could actually survive off of minimum wage.
And the argument for raising the minimum wage is only expressed by those who have no idea on how a free-market economy works. This debate was inevitable in our "I deserve a hand out" liberal society though so don't be surprised. Once people get one hand out than all they'll do is ask for another.
DockEllisCorrect me if I'm wrong, but working 1000 hours over the course of a year equates to less than 20 hours a week.
That's just tuition. People who go to school also have other living expenses (especially if they don't live with their parents), and also generally have less time available for work because they're going to school (which could easily consume 15 hours a week in class plus many more studying).
cool_nameIn the end it all boils down to supply and demand
Exactly. For example, if we raise the minimum wage that will increase aggregate demand in the economy, because wage increases come first and foremost out of profits, which goes disproportionately to the incomes of the wealthiest Americans, who don't spend as much of their income because of the diminishing marginal utility of money, so to meet this demand firms will dip into the extra supply of labour (unemployed).
So, based on the laws of supply and demand, there's a good argument to be made that raising the MW will cut unemployment.
It also lowers the deficit because less people qualify for food stamps etc.
