Thread: MSNBC distorts post-debate poll results to falsely depict Ron Paul as just barely win

Good thread Prince, because I was thinking about this too after seeing the MSNBC "interpretation."

I watched the debates 2 times. By watching it twice I can more easily detect the common obfuscation and avoidance of questions politicians make.

Afterwards I saw the MSNBC "anaylysis" by some "talking-heads" including Chris Matthews.

My perception was very different from theirs.

Some B.S. today. Telling us was what explicitly said or meant - let us decide, jerk-offs.

Almost everyone in the media has an agenda.

That was one of the worst moderated "debates" I ever saw. It was more like the Romney-Perry Show. Cain, Santorum and Paul had to jam themselves in. Newt and Bachmann were pretty much cold shouldered. Sorry, but in terms of journalism, MSNBC just flat blew it.

Ron Paul makes more since in 5 minutes than all those guys in an hour!!

Originally Posted by dogsoldier

That was one of the worst moderated "debates" I ever saw. It was more like the Romney-Perry Show. Cain, Santorum and Paul had to jam themselves in. Newt and Bachmann were pretty much cold shouldered. Sorry, but in terms of journalism, MSNBC just flat blew it.

I agree....it was

Shitty bastards.

I went to the website, and now R.P. is WAY out in the lead.

GO BoyEEEEE

First Read - Who do you think won the Republican debate at the Reagan library?


VOTE RON PAUL BITCHESz

ive been rooting for Ron Paul for a long ass time. I hope to god he gets president.

Not to burst anyones bubbles but I dont think Ron Paul has a chance

Originally Posted by FUZO

Not to burst anyones bubbles but I dont think Ron Paul has a chance

No bubble busting here. He is the exception to the power structure. RP doesn't stand a chance for many reasons, the main being 1) He understand the Constitution and wants to see it applied properly, 2) Too many people have been weened off of what our government was really supposed to be. 3) The political power structure, both left and right, will no go away. Giving up political class power is what being a Constitutionalist is all about.

ANd as much as I like RP's message, he has gotten too old. Now he sounds like your crazy uncle with ADD. Smart as hell, fun to be around, but you never know what is going to come out of his mouth at the supper table.

Originally Posted by Woodrow1

Ron Paul makes more since in 5 minutes than all those guys in an hour!!

Is this the Texas educational system at work?

Originally Posted by dogsoldier

No bubble busting here. He is the exception to the power structure. RP doesn't stand a chance for many reasons, the main being 1) He understand the Constitution and wants to see it applied properly, 2) Too many people have been weened off of what our government was really supposed to be. 3) The political power structure, both left and right, will no go away. Giving up political class power is what being a Constitutionalist is all about.

ANd as much as I like RP's message, he has gotten too old. Now he sounds like your crazy uncle with ADD. Smart as hell, fun to be around, but you never know what is going to come out of his mouth at the supper table.

WTF does age have to do with anything? lol seriously? He has been preaching the EXACT same shit for decades.

I don't get how he sounds crazy either.... To me the other candidates sound crazy. Ron Paul is as American as it gets.

You already said it. Americans are used to how the presidents have run things in the past half of a century. Ron Paul is wanting to run things by the constitution....when this nation was founded. How is that crazy compared to the asshats that are running against him?

Ron Paul has been winning a fuck load of polls and a lot of them by a landslide.......he stands a chance and I hope to god he gets it because our nation needs it. Rick Perry, Romney, Bachman and Obama will only dig this country further into the hole.

Originally Posted by Woodrow1

You already said it. Americans are used to how the presidents have run things in the past half of a century. Ron Paul is wanting to run things by the constitution....when this nation was founded. How is that crazy compared to the asshats that are running against him?

Ron Paul has been winning a fuck load of polls and a lot of them by a landslide.......he stands a chance and I hope to god he gets it because our nation needs it. Rick Perry, Romney, Bachman and Obama will only dig this country further into the hole.

the US constitution was written in the late 1700's and it's now 2011. so to say that he wants to run things "by the Constitution" really doesn't mean anything. one of the inherit problems with language is that words are abstractions of reality and they must be interpreted in order to be applied to the real world. that being the case words are only approximations of shared meanings. the Constitution minus the bill of rights is not a long document at all only a tad over 4500 words, it is very vague written like a standard legal document of that time. this was intentional as many legal documents are open to interpretation.

the constitution isn't even the real problem it's the combination of extensive lobbying and campaign finance in the US that's corrupted democracy. but this is all part of the neo-liberal agenda to have a representative government that "appears" democratic in nature but functions only to serve businesses and the markets. and with trillions of dollars to be made in upcoming decades nobody is going to change this.

he also has some really bad ideas like getting rid of the federal minimum wage, which is what the neo-cons want which means it's def bad for those on the receiving end of that policy change. it needs to be increased not lowered as just every economist in the US and world has stated, and what all the data shows.

in the grand scene of things Ron Paul is nothing but a congressman with a lot of ideas that can never be acted on. many of his ideas would be counter productive to the financial sector, etc. so he will never see the inside of 1600 PA Ave.

Minimum wage is a pretty bad policy. You should probably go ready why. Don't count Ron Paul out just because you don't understand why his idea is a good one.

From what i've researched... most economists believe that minimum wage laws cause unnecessary hardship for the very people they are supposed to help. Which they do...



Here....go read some articles on it.

The Minimum Wage: Good Intentions, Bad Results | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty
Articles & Commentary
Raising the Minimum Wage Is Bad for the Poor and for Business Owners - Vote Down Issue 2 on Nov. 7 | Right Remedy
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/minimum_wage.htm (this is a good one)

Hell.....just Google "Why minimum wage is bad".... Read the articles...some have proven studies of why minimum wage is a horrible idea. If you still think it should be raised, then you still don't understand.

1. The vast majority of economists believe the minimum wage law costs the economy thousands of jobs.
2. Teenagers, workers in training, college students, interns, and part-time workers all have their options and opportunities limited by the minimum wage.
3. A low-paying job remains an entry point for those with few marketable skills.
4. Abolishing the minimum wage will allow businesses to achieve greater efficiency and lower prices.
5. When you force American companies to pay a certain wage, you increase the likelihood that those companies will outsource jobs to foreign workers, where labor is much cheaper.
6. Non-profit charitable organizations are hurt by the minimum wage.
7. The minimum wage can drive some small companies out of business.
8. A minimum wage gives businesses an additional incentive to mechanize duties previously held by humans.
9. Cost-of-living differences in various areas of the country make a universal minimum wage difficult to set.
10. Elimination of the minimum wage would mean more citizens and fewer illegals would be hired for low-pay hourly jobs, leading to greater tax revenues and less incentive for illegal immigration.
11. The minimum wage creates a competitive advantage for foreign companies, providing yet another obstacle in the ability of American companies to compete globally.
12. The minimum wage law is just another example of government condescendingly controlling our actions and destroying personal choice. Citizens do have the ability to say no to a lower wage.

In 2009, thanks in large part to a higher minimum wage, brought the national teenage unemployment rate soaring--over 25%!


Looks like a bad policy to me...







Also when i say by the constitution I mean more or less for liberty and freedom. A lot of policies/regulations cross that line and cost this nation hardship.....minimum wage being one of those policies.

Originally Posted by Woodrow1

Abolishing the minimum wage will allow businesses to achieve greater efficiency and lower prices.

1. When you force American companies to pay a certain wage, you increase the likelihood that those companies will outsource jobs to foreign workers, where labor is much cheaper.

If minimum wage is too expensive for American companies, how much lower wages do you think these companies should pay to the workers? One dollar per hour or 50 cents per hour?

Originally Posted by Woodrow1

Minimum wage is a pretty bad policy. You should probably go ready why. Don't count Ron Paul out just because you don't understand why his idea is a good one.

From what i've researched... most economists believe that minimum wage laws cause unnecessary hardship for the very people they are supposed to help. Which they do...



Here....go read some articles on it.

The Minimum Wage: Good Intentions, Bad Results | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty
Articles & Commentary
Raising the Minimum Wage Is Bad for the Poor and for Business Owners - Vote Down Issue 2 on Nov. 7 | Right Remedy
BalancedPolitics.org - Minimum Wage (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages) (this is a good one)

Hell.....just Google "Why minimum wage is bad".... Read the articles...some have proven studies of why minimum wage is a horrible idea. If you still think it should be raised, then you still don't understand.

1. The vast majority of economists believe the minimum wage law costs the economy thousands of jobs.
2. Teenagers, workers in training, college students, interns, and part-time workers all have their options and opportunities limited by the minimum wage.
3. A low-paying job remains an entry point for those with few marketable skills.
4. Abolishing the minimum wage will allow businesses to achieve greater efficiency and lower prices.
5. When you force American companies to pay a certain wage, you increase the likelihood that those companies will outsource jobs to foreign workers, where labor is much cheaper.
6. Non-profit charitable organizations are hurt by the minimum wage.
7. The minimum wage can drive some small companies out of business.
8. A minimum wage gives businesses an additional incentive to mechanize duties previously held by humans.
9. Cost-of-living differences in various areas of the country make a universal minimum wage difficult to set.
10. Elimination of the minimum wage would mean more citizens and fewer illegals would be hired for low-pay hourly jobs, leading to greater tax revenues and less incentive for illegal immigration.
11. The minimum wage creates a competitive advantage for foreign companies, providing yet another obstacle in the ability of American companies to compete globally.
12. The minimum wage law is just another example of government condescendingly controlling our actions and destroying personal choice. Citizens do have the ability to say no to a lower wage.

In 2009, thanks in large part to a higher minimum wage, brought the national teenage unemployment rate soaring--over 25%!


Looks like a bad policy to me...







Also when i say by the constitution I mean more or less for liberty and freedom. A lot of policies/regulations cross that line and cost this nation hardship.....minimum wage being one of those policies.

so let me get this straight. Instead of paying someone 7.25 an hour (which is not enough to live on) they pay 2 workers 3.60 and hour. That is the idea right? the company can pay less and hire more?

So if you can't live of 7.25, what in the world makes people think that 3.60 an hour is going to be beneficial just because more people are making 3.60 than were making 7.25.

please explain how this is going to work? nobody who supports your opinion has been able to so far.

Originally Posted by Woodrow1

Ron Paul has been winning a fuck load of polls and a lot of them by a landslide.......he stands a chance and I hope to god he gets it because our nation needs it..

Wining polls doesn't mean anything until election time. The same thing happened back in 2008 with Ron Paul demolishing other candidates in various straw polls, internet polls, etc.., and yet he didn't even win the primary.

It's unfortunate that this is true, however he needs the backing of the media in order to be competitive which he obviously is not getting.

"The Bible speaks to this issue of wages. John the Baptist commanded workers to “be content with your wages.” Coveting wealth that God hasn’t given you is a transgression of the tenth commandment, and according to Colossians, covetousness is idolatry. "

This is from one of the articles woodrow posted.

seriously? dude seriously? this is what you back your opinion with?

What about the slaves? they should have been cool with room and board? after all, that is a form of payment right?

When someone goes into justifying paying people little with the bible (as the author did) I'm forced to completely disregard their argument

Originally Posted by Chubby

If minimum wage is too expensive for American companies, how much lower wages do you think these companies should pay to the workers? One dollar per hour or 50 cents per hour?

I doubt anyone would go for that... If the minimum wage was abolished it doesnt mean everyone would start paying less than minimum wage.... Of course some will that think the job isnt worth 7.25 or whatever minimum wage is....or can't afford it. This is one reason small businesses aren't thriving.. People also have a right to choose thier pay also

For instance....I know NO ONE that makes minimum wage. Everyone i know makes a good amount more. Most people that make minimum wage are entry level teenagers. Hell even the entry level teenagers i know make more than minimum wage.. Not many companies would change anything. Smaller businesses most likely..

Originally Posted by Gissurjon

"The Bible speaks to this issue of wages. John the Baptist commanded workers to “be content with your wages.” Coveting wealth that God hasn’t given you is a transgression of the tenth commandment, and according to Colossians, covetousness is idolatry. "

This is from one of the articles woodrow posted.

seriously? dude seriously? this is what you back your opinion with?

What about the slaves? they should have been cool with room and board? after all, that is a form of payment right?

When someone goes into justifying paying people little with the bible (as the author did) I'm forced to completely disregard their argument

I back my opinion with facts. Look at the articles....a lot of them have proven studies on the cons of minimum wage...

Just because one article had a bible quote doesn't mean my entire argument is backed behind the bible. Thats a stupid statement.

Originally Posted by danzik17

Wining polls doesn't mean anything until election time. The same thing happened back in 2008 with Ron Paul demolishing other candidates in various straw polls, internet polls, etc.., and yet he didn't even win the primary.

It's unfortunate that this is true, however he needs the backing of the media in order to be competitive which he obviously is not getting.

Ron Paul lost miserably on every single pre-election poll back then...

Ron Paul Polls - Biography & 2008 Presidential Election Polls

Originally Posted by Gissurjon

so let me get this straight. Instead of paying someone 7.25 an hour (which is not enough to live on) they pay 2 workers 3.60 and hour. That is the idea right? the company can pay less and hire more?

So if you can't live of 7.25, what in the world makes people think that 3.60 an hour is going to be beneficial just because more people are making 3.60 than were making 7.25.

please explain how this is going to work? nobody who supports your opinion has been able to so far.

Pay less. More businesses thrive, more people have jobs, products & services prices go down. Economy goes up. Cost of living goes down. Taxes can go down.

No they can't really live like that NOW....now that the economy is complete shit because of retarded policies & regulations just like this one. But if all of Ron Paul's ideas were in place and the economy was flourishing again, then yes....easily..

A lot more to it than just abolishing minimum wage though... Thats just one small piece of the pie. You guys obviously don't listen to Ron Pauls message thoroughly.

Originally Posted by Woodrow1

Minimum wage is a pretty bad policy. You should probably go ready why. Don't count Ron Paul out just because you don't understand why his idea is a good one.

From what i've researched... most economists believe that minimum wage laws cause unnecessary hardship for the very people they are supposed to help. Which they do...



Here....go read some articles on it.

The Minimum Wage: Good Intentions, Bad Results | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty
Articles & Commentary
Raising the Minimum Wage Is Bad for the Poor and for Business Owners - Vote Down Issue 2 on Nov. 7 | Right Remedy
BalancedPolitics.org - Minimum Wage (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages) (this is a good one)

Hell.....just Google "Why minimum wage is bad".... Read the articles...some have proven studies of why minimum wage is a horrible idea. If you still think it should be raised, then you still don't understand.

1. The vast majority of economists believe the minimum wage law costs the economy thousands of jobs.
2. Teenagers, workers in training, college students, interns, and part-time workers all have their options and opportunities limited by the minimum wage.
3. A low-paying job remains an entry point for those with few marketable skills.
4. Abolishing the minimum wage will allow businesses to achieve greater efficiency and lower prices.
5. When you force American companies to pay a certain wage, you increase the likelihood that those companies will outsource jobs to foreign workers, where labor is much cheaper.
6. Non-profit charitable organizations are hurt by the minimum wage.
7. The minimum wage can drive some small companies out of business.
8. A minimum wage gives businesses an additional incentive to mechanize duties previously held by humans.
9. Cost-of-living differences in various areas of the country make a universal minimum wage difficult to set.
10. Elimination of the minimum wage would mean more citizens and fewer illegals would be hired for low-pay hourly jobs, leading to greater tax revenues and less incentive for illegal immigration.
11. The minimum wage creates a competitive advantage for foreign companies, providing yet another obstacle in the ability of American companies to compete globally.
12. The minimum wage law is just another example of government condescendingly controlling our actions and destroying personal choice. Citizens do have the ability to say no to a lower wage.

In 2009, thanks in large part to a higher minimum wage, brought the national teenage unemployment rate soaring--over 25%!


Looks like a bad policy to me...







Also when i say by the constitution I mean more or less for liberty and freedom. A lot of policies/regulations cross that line and cost this nation hardship.....minimum wage being one of those policies.

1. If this were true then unemployment would have made a huge jump each time minimum wage were raised. That never happened. Being an economist doesn't make one in touch with reality.

2. No, they don't. Name one instance of this.

3. A low paying job isn't an entry point. It's a low paying job.

4. Minimum wage has not kept up with the cost of living. Where are the low prices that should be passed on to the consumer? The extra profit gets funneled to a select few people that are already making a shit-ton of money.

5. Untrue. When companies are given tax breaks for shipping jobs out of the country that is when they are more likely to ship jobs out. The cost of importing manufactured goods from Mexico and Canada being reduced by NAFTA can easily be considered the biggest hit to the US worker. The lower costs of those same manufactured goods hasn't been passed on to the consumer. Those extra profits have been funneled to a select few people.

6. No, the aren't. That's a claim made by the senior management of those charities who already draw deep into the seven digit income bracket and want more. That's what hurts non-profits. Imagine how much more efficient those non-profits could be and how much more they could do if the pay of the top guy was reduced to 1/8 what it currently is and the excess was used to hire more people that do the real work.

7. Just another wild claim by those that only stand to profit more by paying people less. What is really damaging to small companies is when regular people can't afford to frequent those places because their prices are going to be a bit higher than larger stores and chain stores because they don't have the buying power from suppliers. The people with little money in their pocket need to go where the prices are lowest rather than help the local economy by going to the local mom & pop shop.

8. No, it doesn't. Do you have any idea the cost of replacing people with machines? The cost would take years to be recouped if replacing a minimum wage worker with a machine.

9. No, it doesn't. It's quite easily done. Set it at $X amount and there you have it: A minimum wage.

10. Not at all. Illegals would be taking even MORE jobs because the average US citizen can't live on $3/hour.

11. No, it doesn't. It cripples the single largest market in the world because people in the US would suddenly see a drop in income further reducing sales in what is still the single largest market in the world.

12. It doesn't destroy personal choice. It destroys companies being able to take advantage of people.

Rich people telling you what good monetary policy for the country is certainly isn't going to benefit you or me. It's only going to benefit them.

Originally Posted by Zaphod

1. If this were true then unemployment would have made a huge jump each time minimum wage were raised. That never happened. Being an economist doesn't make one in touch with reality.

IT DID! I mentioned it already in the very post you qouted!

2. No, they don't. Name one instance of thist

Last time it was raised teenagers unemployment rate soared to 25%!

3. A low paying job isn't an entry point. It's a low paying job.

And and entry point... Gotta crawl before you can walk buddy

4. Minimum wage has not kept up with the cost of living. Where are the low prices that should be passed on to the consumer? The extra profit gets funneled to a select few people that are already making a shit-ton of money.

Only because dumbass regulations and policies such as this one that have destroyed the economy. In a society where we obey the constitution and keep these policies and regulations to a minimum the economy would rise and cost of living would go down....

5. Untrue. When companies are given tax breaks for shipping jobs out of the country that is when they are more likely to ship jobs out. The cost of importing manufactured goods from Mexico and Canada being reduced by NAFTA can easily be considered the biggest hit to the US worker. The lower costs of those same manufactured goods hasn't been passed on to the consumer. Those extra profits have been funneled to a select few people.

Are you BLIND? Here in Texas we have so many illegal immigrants getting paid under the table for less than minimum wage its ridiculous. Get your head out of your ass and look around...

6. No, the aren't. That's a claim made by the senior management of those charities who already draw deep into the seven digit income bracket and want more. That's what hurts non-profits. Imagine how much more efficient those non-profits could be and how much more they could do if the pay of the top guy was reduced to 1/8 what it currently is and the excess was used to hire more people that do the real work.

Churches don't pay their "top guy" much at all. Churches don't pay well from what i've seen. My wife worked for a church for years and she did the payroll. They had to fire a lot of their staff. My wife still helps them for free every now and then because they are understaffed. You're wrong...

7. Just another wild claim by those that only stand to profit more by paying people less. What is really damaging to small companies is when regular people can't afford to frequent those places because their prices are going to be a bit higher than larger stores and chain stores because they don't have the buying power from suppliers. The people with little money in their pocket need to go where the prices are lowest rather than help the local economy by going to the local mom & pop shop.

Ok so small businesses that can't afford to pay someone 7 bucks an hour to copy paper...or some simple job that doesn't deserve that pay doesn't effect them?? Mom & Pop stores ARE DIEING OUT!! Big stores like Walmart are taking over BECAUSE SMALL BUSINESSES CAN'T MAKE IT! Man you need to do some reading...

8. No, it doesn't. Do you have any idea the cost of replacing people with machines? The cost would take years to be recouped if replacing a minimum wage worker with a machine.

So you would rather pay hundreds of employees 7$ an hour or buy a machine to do it at a fraction of the cost?? Durrrrrr

9. No, it doesn't. It's quite easily done. Set it at $X amount and there you have it: A minimum wage.

Cost of living varies WIDELY across the USA. You're pretty illogical to say that it doesn't... Pretty retarded argument you have here

10. Not at all. Illegals would be taking even MORE jobs because the average US citizen can't live on $3/hour.

They can't live on 3$ an hour because the economy is ruined by policies like these...

11. No, it doesn't. It cripples the single largest market in the world because people in the US would suddenly see a drop in income further reducing sales in what is still the single largest market in the world.

YES, it DOES. Pay more and the products prices have to be RAISED. Therefore places like China whos pay rate is extremely low can sell for far less.....therefore making our economy worse.

12. It doesn't destroy personal choice. It destroys companies being able to take advantage of people.

It does destroy personal choice. It goes against freedom and liberty. Forcing companies to pay higher for jobs that don't even deserve the price!

Rich people telling you what good monetary policy for the country is certainly isn't going to benefit you or me. It's only going to benefit them.

You should really read up man. These are all FACTS proved by statistics.

Originally Posted by Woodrow1

Minimum wage is a pretty bad policy. You should probably go ready why. Don't count Ron Paul out just because you don't understand why his idea is a good one.

From what i've researched... most economists believe that minimum wage laws cause unnecessary hardship for the very people they are supposed to help. Which they do...



Here....go read some articles on it.

The Minimum Wage: Good Intentions, Bad Results | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty
Articles & Commentary
Raising the Minimum Wage Is Bad for the Poor and for Business Owners - Vote Down Issue 2 on Nov. 7 | Right Remedy
BalancedPolitics.org - Minimum Wage (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages) (this is a good one)

Hell.....just Google "Why minimum wage is bad".... Read the articles...some have proven studies of why minimum wage is a horrible idea. If you still think it should be raised, then you still don't understand.

1. The vast majority of economists believe the minimum wage law costs the economy thousands of jobs.
2. Teenagers, workers in training, college students, interns, and part-time workers all have their options and opportunities limited by the minimum wage.
3. A low-paying job remains an entry point for those with few marketable skills.
4. Abolishing the minimum wage will allow businesses to achieve greater efficiency and lower prices.
5. When you force American companies to pay a certain wage, you increase the likelihood that those companies will outsource jobs to foreign workers, where labor is much cheaper.
6. Non-profit charitable organizations are hurt by the minimum wage.
7. The minimum wage can drive some small companies out of business.
8. A minimum wage gives businesses an additional incentive to mechanize duties previously held by humans.
9. Cost-of-living differences in various areas of the country make a universal minimum wage difficult to set.
10. Elimination of the minimum wage would mean more citizens and fewer illegals would be hired for low-pay hourly jobs, leading to greater tax revenues and less incentive for illegal immigration.
11. The minimum wage creates a competitive advantage for foreign companies, providing yet another obstacle in the ability of American companies to compete globally.
12. The minimum wage law is just another example of government condescendingly controlling our actions and destroying personal choice. Citizens do have the ability to say no to a lower wage.

In 2009, thanks in large part to a higher minimum wage, brought the national teenage unemployment rate soaring--over 25%!


Looks like a bad policy to me...







Also when i say by the constitution I mean more or less for liberty and freedom. A lot of policies/regulations cross that line and cost this nation hardship.....minimum wage being one of those policies.

Global Wage Report 2008 / 09
Minimum wages and collective bargaining
Towards policy coherence

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/pub...cms_100786.pdf

Page 59:

Summary (It was to long to cut & paste the entire thing)

"Altogether this report has presented a rather disappointing picture for wage earners, despite an apparently favourable economic context. Over the period 2001–07, inflation was low and the global economy grew at 4.0 per cent per year in real terms. The growth in wages, however, lagged behind overall economic performance. According to our estimates, real wages only grew by an estimated 1.9 per cent during 2001–07, notwithstanding
the impressive recovery in some current and former transitions countries. For the countries included in our sample, we found that over the period 1995–2007, each additional 1 per cent in the annual growth of GDP per capita only led, on average, to a 0.75 per cent increase in the annual growth of wages. There are some preliminary indications that this wage elasticity (the responsiveness of wage increases to changes in GDP growth) has further weakened in recent years. These trends occurred in a context
of growing economic integration, characterized by the increasing international movement of people, goods, services and capital.

The slow growth in wages was accompanied by a decline in the share of GDP
distributed to wages compared with profi ts. We estimate that every additional 1 per cent of annual growth of GDP has been associated on average with a 0.05 per cent decrease in the wage share. We also found that the wage share has declined faster in countries with a higher openness to international trade, possibly because openness places a lid on
wage demands based on a fear of losing jobs to imports. Inequality among workers has also increased. Overall, more than two-thirds of the countries included in our sample experienced increases in wage inequality. This was both because top wages took off in some countries and because bottom wages fell relative to median wages in many other countries. The wage gap between women and men is also still high and is closing only very slowly. This is disappointing in the light of women’s recent educational achievements
and the progressive closing of the gender gap in work experience."


ILO Global Wage Report 2010
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/pub...cms_145265.pdf

Page 34:
While there is a global trend of increasing low-pay employment, the incidence
of low-wage employment shows considerable variation across countries. The latest national estimates of low-wage incidence are provided in figure 21. While some countries provide estimates that refer to all wage earners, others restrict the sample to fulltime employees. It is known that the estimates which exclude part-time employment tend to underestimate the scale of low-wage employment, because part-time workers often receive lower hourly earnings in comparison to their full-time counterparts. For this reason, the estimates are grouped separately to allow more meaningful comparisons. When only full-time workers are considered, the incidence of low-wage employment varies from about 6 per cent in Sweden to about 25 per cent in the United States or in the Republic of Korea. The size of variations is even larger in the case of the estimates for all wage employment, which includes a number of developing countries. In some countries, such as Austria, Honduras or Panama, at least one out of three employees is in a low-paid job. In Finland, by contrast, low wages affect only about 5 per cent of employees.


Page 74:
"One of the key concerns about low pay, especially in terms of its welfare implications, is the risk that low-wage work will lead to poverty, in spite of a person being employed and working. The relationship between poverty and low pay is not straightforward, primarily due to the different definitions and the resulting differences in measurements. As already pointed out, low pay is concerned with an individual’s gross wage earnings, while poverty is typically related to the net disposable income of a household, adjusted for the size and composition of the household. 98 For this reason, low-paid
workers (such as young labour market entrants who are living with their parents) may not be poor, particularly when they belong to higher-income households with multiple jobholders. Conversely, high-paid workers (such as heads of household) can be poor if they are the only breadwinner in a big family with many dependants. Despite these conceptual differences, however, it is clear that low pay increases the probability of poverty. The risk of “in-work poverty” is illustrated in table 8, which provides estimates of poverty rates by pay level and employment status in China, where
there has been much debate about the impact of high economic growth on poverty reduction. The table clearly shows that poverty rates are lowest when a person is employed and receives a wage above two-thirds of the median. Low-paid work significantly raises the probability of being in poverty. The difference between local and migrant workers is striking. About 45 per cent of low-paid migrant workers are subject to poverty, while
the risk is much smaller for local workers (5 per cent). For these migrant workers, the effect of transition to higher paid jobs is particularly noticeable, as only 13.9 per cent of migrant workers with higher paid jobs live in poverty. Given the relationship between low pay and poverty, one key policy concern is how to weaken this linkage. Even when low pay is inevitable, policies can be implemented to alleviate the financial difficulties for the families of low-paid workers. Indeed, while measures which directly influence wage outcomes, such as collective bargaining and minimum wages policies, play a useful role, the welfare of low-paid workers can also be improved through policies that increase net disposable income for poor households. In fact, recent studies indicate that, in advanced countries, the relationship between low pay and poverty has been weakened through a wide range of policy initiatives targeting low-paid workers. 99 In developing countries, given the massive extent of informal employment, minimum wage policy needs to be combined with other income policy measures aimed at the very bottom of the labour market, especially its informal segment. 100 In this respect, the real policy challenge is how to develop a coherentsystem in which both welfare institutions and the labour market measures are developed to secure a minimum level of income for poor households."

Page 80:
Another emerging concern is the fact that wage stagnation before the crisis may actually have contributed to the crisis and also weakened the ability of economies to recovery quickly. Although there are many other factors involved in triggering the global financial and economic crisis, one view is that the crisis had its structural roots in the decline in aggregate demand that preceded the crisis. Redistribution from wages to profits and from median-wage earners to high wage earners reduced aggregate demand by transferring income from individuals with a high propensity to spend to people who save more. Before the crisis, some countries were able to maintain household consumption
through increased indebtedness, while other countries based their economic growth mainly on exports. This model, however, has proved to be unsustainable. In the future, countries may find it in their interests to base their economic growth on stronger household consumption, and on household consumption that is anchored in earned income rather than based on increasing debt.

Our report argues that wage policies can make a positive contribution towards a more sustainable economic and social model. Both collective bargaining and minimum wages can help to achieve a more balanced and equitable recovery by ensuring that working families and households on low wages obtain a fair share of the fruits of every single percentage point of economic growth. Our previous Global Wage Report 2008/09 showed that the connection between wages and productivity is stronger in countries where collective bargaining covers more than 30 per cent of employees, and that minimum wages can reduce inequality in the bottom half of the wage distribution. Our current report shows that collective bargaining and minimum wages can also contribute to reducing the share of workers on low pay. At the same time, there are considerable challenges still facing unions trying to reach out to vulnerable workers and in the establishment of an effective system of minimum wages.

First, low and decreasing union membership and the weakening of collective bargaining in many countries remain causes of concern. This is not just because of the difficulties which workers face in trying to organize themselves (often due to increases in numbers of non-standard workers, including many domestic workers, as highlighted earlier in the report) but also because unorganized workers often have access to few alternative mechanisms to secure fair and decent wages. In this context, it is interesting
to see that, during the crisis, there has been renewed interest in the role of the state in promoting collective bargaining through various incentive schemes (for example, work-sharing and employment subsidies). There has also been growing recognition of the relevance of collective bargaining in raising wages along with economic growth, including in Asian countries. If feasible and necessary, tripartite wage bargaining – while not collective bargaining per se – could also potentially benefit vulnerable workers, thanks to its comprehensive coverage.

Second, diminishing reliance on collective bargaining for wage determination tends to create incentives for assigning an increasingly important role to minimum wages so that, in some countries, they become almost the only wage policy tool. In this case, minimum wages policy may go through a qualitative transformation, which, in turn, could result in the minimum wage system becoming caught between a number of competing policy demands and goals. Indeed, as a result of such a transformation, minimum wages are set for median-wage workers rather than for low-wage workers. It is not difficult to see that, in this event, the fundamental goal of minimum wages – to protect the most vulnerable workers – might be compromised. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the minimum wage policy is more beneficial to low-paid workers. However, restoring the original goals of minimum wages must be accompanied by the creation of alternative mechanisms which facilitate meaningful wage negotiations for median-wage workers. In other words, there must be a system of wage policies which benefits all workers, irrespective of wage levels, union membership or employment status. Third, as this report argues, policies which augment disposable income for lowincome households need to be considered, along with the more traditional policy measures of collective bargaining and minimum wages. These policies should be designed and evaluated in terms of preventing low wages from being translated into poverty for the family. In-work benefits, such as tax credits, are certainly helpful in this regard. However, they should be accompanied by (and not replace) wage-floor regulations, either through minimum wages or coordinated collective bargaining; otherwise, in-work benefits may provide incentives for wage depression. In countries where in-work benefits are not a feasible option, due, for instance, to the presence of massive informal employment, more direct income support policies for poor families (such as cash transfer) need to be considered. Again, in order to maximize their impacts, all of these policies should be designed to complement other wage policies."

Finance and Economics Discussion Series
Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs
Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C.

The Contribution of the Minimum Wage to U.S. Wage Inequality
over Three Decades: A Reassessment
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/f.../201060pap.pdf


Partisan Politics and the U.S. Income Distribution
http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf

Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/nepp...avit100608.pdf

A Decade Of Health Care Cost Growth Has Wiped Out
Real Income Gains For An Average US Family
http://www.ctmirror.org/sites/defaul...rbach%20FF.pdf

EPI: HOW UNIONS HELP ALL WORKERS
http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefi.../143/bp143.pdf

^^ I don't see anything significant here that proves minimum wage was useful or has been useful.

The cons beat the pros of minimum wage by far....

Originally Posted by Woodrow1

^^ I don't see anything significant here that proves minimum wage was useful or has been useful.

The cons beat the pros of minimum wage by far....

Que? the 2008/9 and 2010/11 ILO Global Wage Reports are ALL about wages. You should probably read them.

Just about every economists in the world that does not work at cato or heritage states time and time again that the US needs to address this problem. the CPI is manipulated to understate inflation also, that is briefly touched on in the ILO Wage reports.

the service sector is paying wages from $8-$14 US once adjusted for inflation that comes out to $2.5-$5.3/hr in 1980 dollars. good luck consuming in 2011 on that!

this stuff is basic macro-economics...

Originally Posted by LAM

Que? the 2008/9 and 2010/11 ILO Global Wage Reports are ALL about wages. You should probably read them.

Just about every economists in the world that does not work at cato or heritage states time and time again that the US needs to address this problem. the CPI is manipulated to understate inflation also, that is briefly touched on in the ILO Wage reports.

the service sector is paying wages from $8-$14 US once adjusted for inflation that comes out to $2.5-$5.3/hr in 1980 dollars. good luck consuming in 2011 on that!

this stuff is basic macro-economics...

Well, duh.... of course you won't make it anywhere on that in today's economy.

That's exactly why policies like these need to change. To make this economy flourish again. These policies are part of the reason/problem why you can't live on that amount today!!!

Like i said....your article proves NOTHING.





I can name a crap load of proven statistics about how minimum wage has ruined this economy....

Unemployment rate skyrockets every time we raise it.
Prices on everything are inflated every time we raise it.
Employment goes down every time we raise it.
Illegal immigrants take the lower paying jobs under the table.
Prevents low skilled workers from gaining valuable job experience that can lead to more skilled, higher paying jobs
Foreign companies have better competitive lead on local companies.
Mom and Pop stores can't afford it, therefore making it worse for small businesses..

I could go on and on. These are proven statistics...


What has it done to help???

All you are doing is spouting the same thing the rich WANT you to believe. Wages go down and prices do not follow. They continue going up. That is proven.

Back in '92 I was making slightly more than minimum wage and paid for an apartment and a new car. You aren't doing that today.