Forum Post: What does this chart prove?
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 28, 2012, 12:25 a.m. EST by JuanFenito
(847)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S5JaCvJvXVI/AAAAAAAAM8o/meY3TSpmJMY/s400/minwage1.jpg
Trick question. It proves nothing. It is an indicator, at best, like all charts. I can hear you trolls out there saying, "Yeah! See! it proves that the minimum wage hurts employment!" Grow up.
Everyone knows that the minimum wage is good for the employment rate. How do we know this? It's common sense, everyone knows it. It is not something that needs proof to be true. The only person out to prove anything is you idiot trolls with your predetermined conclusions, cherry picking and choosing data to suit what you already believe.
Rant over.
I can't decide if you believe this stuff or you are just trying to make OWS look bad.
I'll take door number 2.
I will tell you who is making OWS look bad, and it's not people like me who are trying to further discourse. What on earth makes you think I am not being genuine? Get lost and go vote for Eric Cantor. What makes you think you have the right to disrupt an online discussion like this and question the motives of the members here?
It's just that you are a caricature of an intolerant, ignorant, loudmouthed leftist. The depth of your ignorance seems to be almost made up. That's why I asked the question, you're such a central casting, wild eyed, bomb throwing lefty I thought you might be a wily conservative having a bit of fun with the denizens of OWS.
I agree it really shows nothing.
I wonder what that graph would look like if you superimposed the national unemployment rate (or better yet the real rate including people who have given up looking for work). My guess is that it looks pretty similar.
Then if you were to factor in the rate of inflation (the real rate), you'd probably notice the raise of the real minimum wage is not nearly as steep.
That's not saying there is not a relationship between minimum wage and unemployment, but its certainly not as portrayed. If a business needs 5 servers, they are not going to hire 6 just because the minimum wage is $2 less. Similarly, if they need 5 to keep customers happy, they will employ 5 even if it hurts $2 more an hour because the alternative is that customers get fed up and go somewhere else. In addition, there is always the option to raise prices, reduce costs, or reduce portions to make up some of the difference.
Look at McDonalds, the model of efficiency. They have as many employees as they need, no more, no less. Obviously there would be a point where they would have to close their doors, but its a lot higher than a couple bucks an hour.
The chart proves nothing. It does not include non teenage unemployment plus the rise in teen unemployment occurred at the beginning of a recession. What causes unemployment is when too much wealth is concentrated in the hands of too few. The best way to increase employment is to tax the wealthy.
It also doesn't account for the fact that as the baby boomer generation is nearing retirement age, that a lot of their children (and sometimes grandchildren) are becoming teenagers. There is probably a surge in teen numbers for all sorts of things this decade thanks to that generational bump.
No correlation between adult employment and teenage employment has been provided. For all we know, employers have had a larger pool of adult job seekers to pick from, so the adults are taking the jobs that would have went to younger folk before. There's also no data showing how many of these jobs were off shored or outsourced, how many small farms went out of business in the last decade to be replaced by ConAgra, how many low-end jobs were automated or replaced by machines (self-checkout lines @ Wal Mart?)
Maybe there are more college enrollments, and a majority of the full-time students are not working in order to improve their grades. Maybe a bunch of teenagers are entering the military instead of staying at home and working in these jobs. Maybe these teenagers are staying at home and acting as the caretakers for the rest of the family while mom and dad go to work?
There are so many factors that are not considered that any graph of this sort is not going to be conclusive, regardless of the source.
That's what I've been saying also.
I agree completely, that is exactly what I've been saying.
Cheers
Thanks for turning JuanFenito's rather oblique attack into something that broadcasts the truth and gets a profound message across. You have my admiration.
An attack? What are you talking about? A troll posted that chart up, and that is how I responded to him. I felt it was worthy of a thread. In what way is it an attack? Are you trolling?
Actually I find your posts to be clever and entertaining and transparent enough to be harmless, so in the spirit 99% Occupy Movement, I welcome the talents of JaunFenito to this forum!