So was that comment.

That's literally the only study people use to claim the minimum wage doesn't adversely influence employment. The Card/Krueger study was methodologically a joke, so much so that many economists don't even view it as reputable.

Economists David Neumark and William Wascher’s research titled Minimum Wages and Employment showed that 85 percent of the most credible studies on minimum wage laws have empirically shown job losses and reduced job opportunities for low skilled workers... So, uh... what research are you talking about? http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf

Do you even know what would happen if the minimum wage were increased? The only people that are better off are those that keep their jobs, at the expense of others who lose their jobs entirely. You may ignorantly lobby for an increase in the minimum wage now, but what happens if you're one of the people who gets fired as a result of those increases?

I don't think you should talk about minimum wage unless you've taken at least 2 economics courses.

You said "of course he knows how trade works" and I gave evidence to the contrary. If you think Trump knows how trade works you're more ignorant on the subject than he is.

You're right, it just means your ignorant.

Well you tried defending Trump and I brought the knowledge.

Happy to shutdown ignorance, regardless of party affiliation.

There's a difference between respecting death and being depressed.

Well I knew over 50 people that died. That shits not funny, it's pathetic.

@banana The vast majority of people don't make jokes about individual murders, so I'm wondering why it's acceptable for mass tragedies.

Libertarian candidate. Because I can't, in good conscience vote for Hillary or Trump, and anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows Bernie's policies will be extremely detrimental to our economy.
They won't win, but I won't have forsaken my beliefs.

Honestly, just because you think something is ok doesn't make it so. The vast majority of people would find it wildly offensive, and some of them would punch you square in the mouth.

If you think “he’s the best for the country,” you must not be familiar with his policies. Off the top of my head, a list of Bernie’s policies that will hurt America: increasing the minimum wage, reversing trade policies (NAFTA), imposing a financial transaction tax, raising taxes on everyone, Medicare for all (at the cost of 32 trillion). Not to mention his position on income inequality and the debunked gender wage gap.

Trump thinks the U.S. is losing manufacturing jobs because of NAFTA and the WTO, while economists cite productivity gains as responsible for over 80 percent of those losses. Further, U.S. manufacturing employment peaked a full 14 years before NAFTA. Trump lambasts the trade deficit, but our trade deficit is just evidence that Americans buy more from other countries than their citizens buy from us. To humanize the trade deficit, Trump has an ever-increasing trade deficit with his grocery store… is he any worse off? Contrary to his position that trade deficits prove we’re losing, since 1980, the U.S. economy has grown more than three times faster during periods when the trade deficit was expanding as a share of GDP compared to periods when it was contracting. I won’t even get started about Trump’s imbecilic plans to impose tariffs because, thankfully, Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. He's a chump.

And it won't be because of Donald Trump because he has no idea how trade works.

@aeacus http://velazquez.house.gov/newsroom/2015/pr-10-26-15GunsPresser.html

While a Trump presidency would be an unmitigated disaster, a Sanders presidency would be a national embarrassment and do more damage in the long run. I’m not sure how you overcome the cognitive dissonance of being a born and raised conservative and not having a big problem voting for Bernie.

You can find the sentence "legislation that increases the price of labor simultaneously increases the demand for labor's substitutes" in the following article. https://fee.org/articles/minimum-wage-maximum-automation/
As the authors are both economics professors, I think it's safe to say assume that they have both "take(n) an economics class."

I majored in economics, finance, and statistics in college. I know what I'm talking about, champ.

That's an unfortunate problem with the minimum wage debate. Well meaning people who have little economic knowledge fastidiously cling to a policy that will do more harm than good.

Government doesn't pay increased wages, businesses do. Your taxes won't go up, prices will.

It's important to note that individuals working multiple full time jobs to survive are in the minority, in fact, just 13% of workers earning between 7.25 and 10.10 live in poor households. It's also true that the min wage has no statistically detectable effect on poverty rates, this is because the vast majority of min wage workers don't live in poverty. While there are outliers, most min wage earners are 16-24, and over 3/5s of min wage earners work part time.
Instead of raising the min wage which causes job losses, and increases in prices, we should pursue a major and carefully crafted expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which currently goes to millions of low income workers, and payments to eligible workers diminish as their earnings increase. But there is no disincentive effect because a gain in wages always produces a gain in overall income. The EITC rewards work and offers incentive for workers to enhance skill, it also doesn't distort market forces, maximizing employment.

"Anyone working full time should be able to support themselves." While some poor workers who keep their jobs will be lifted up out of poverty, this is done at the expense of those who lose their jobs and fall in to poverty.