minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good

[forgetful]

I stopped playing fantasy football in 1993. I was the commissioner of a league and in Year 6 of my run, two of the owners got so angry at each other that they stopped being friends. I disbanded the league and I haven't looked back. Now, I watch a game if I want to and I don't watch one if I don't want to, and I could give a crap about fantasy sports. When somebody tells me how many points their TE had this week, my eyes glaze over ... and I think, "Shyte, did I used to sound like that?"

But yeah, thanks. My boyz played quite well for most of the game. Cam was outstanding. If he plays like that, it's difficult to beat the Panthers.

That's some crazy over competitive owners.  I participate in one fantasy league, we created it forever ago as a way for some of my old friends to stay in contact.  All for fun, and the one event each year that we will all be at (the draft) to keep in touch.  Most of us though, honestly, could not care less about who wins, its just fun, which is probably the best way to look at fantasy sports.

Now real sports, like pickup games...we will all still throw elbows at each other.

[MU82]

That's some crazy over competitive owners.  I participate in one fantasy league, we created it forever ago as a way for some of my old friends to stay in contact.  All for fun, and the one event each year that we will all be at (the draft) to keep in touch.  Most of us though, honestly, could not care less about who wins, its just fun, which is probably the best way to look at fantasy sports.

Now real sports, like pickup games...we will all still throw elbows at each other.

Much healthier attitude, forgetful. Enjoy!

[jsglow]

Much healthier attitude, forgetful. Enjoy!

Like you guys, I have ZERO interest in fantasy.  Never have, never will.

[Lennys Tap]

Somehow I missed this response to my post of a week or so ago, mu03. Thanks for the very detailed response.

I sold some of my TGT stock more than a year ago but I still have some. I'm holding in an attempt to get back to even, which I admit is stupid and illogical. I'm stubborn and hate taking losses, but sometimes it's necessary. I'm very down on Target as both a company and an investment, and I really appreciate your insight.

You've done the hard part - admitted you picked a lemon (everyone does) and admitted you've been stubborn about it (almost everyone is). The worst thing that could happen to you would be for Target to rally back to break even. The best thing that could happen is for you to hit the sell button.

[MU82]

You've done the hard part - admitted you picked a lemon (everyone does) and admitted you've been stubborn about it (almost everyone is). The worst thing that could happen to you would be for Target to rally back to break even. The best thing that could happen is for you to hit the sell button.

Agreed, Lenny.

The pisser is that I actually identified TGT as a troubled investment well over a year ago ... but only sold 1/4 of my position at $78. Shoulda sold it all, of course.

What I have left really isn't that much - and getting less every day, ha! - which is why I don't get my undies in a bundle over it. It pays a good dividend, so I'm getting paid to wait.

It's an interesting company because it's been through a lot of trouble the last several years, most of its own making, as mu03 detailed.

[Jay Bee]

Agreed, Lenny.

The pisser is that I actually identified TGT as a troubled investment well over a year ago ... but only sold 1/4 of my position at $78. Shoulda sold it all, of course.

What I have left really isn't that much - and getting less every day, ha! - which is why I don't get my undies in a bundle over it. It pays a good dividend, so I'm getting paid to wait.

It's an interesting company because it's been through a lot of trouble the last several years, most of its own making, as mu03 detailed.

Yep, sitting at a div yield of 4%+, that's a primary reason I'm still in. Only hopped in TGT several months back.. I believe at $52.38.. it's now at $58.66 (+12%). Sometimes crappy stocks get beaten down so much I can't resist.

[MU82]

Yep, sitting at a div yield of 4%+, that's a primary reason I'm still in. Only hopped in TGT several months back.. I believe at $52.38.. it's now at $58.66 (+12%). Sometimes crappy stocks get beaten down so much I can't resist.

Nice, JB. IMHO, Target has become a "trading stock." Buy low, sell high. You did a great job of buying low! I'm a long-term investor and am not interested in owning more of a troubled company that is well behind the leaders in an ultra-competitive industry.

[Lennys Tap]

Nice, JB. IMHO, Target has become a "trading stock." Buy low, sell high. You did a great job of buying low! I'm a long-term investor and am not interested in owning more of a troubled company that is well behind the leaders in an ultra-competitive industry.

Exactly Mike. Traders look for "overbought or "oversold" opportunities. Even a "dead cat bounce" can make you a nice profit. But investors want to stay away from dead cats.

[Jay Bee]

Yep, sitting at a div yield of 4%+, that's a primary reason I'm still in. Only hopped in TGT several months back.. I believe at $52.38.. it's now at $58.66 (+12%). Sometimes crappy stocks get beaten down so much I can't resist.

Closed the first trading day of the year near $68. Up 29% since my purchased, ignoring the handsome dividend.

I am the anti-Heisy

[MollaeiLaw]

spam, spam spam.

[real chili 83]

You can use your EIN to start and conduct business in United States, open up a U.S. bank account, hire employees, comply with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), apply for permits or licenses, and file taxes.
https://mollaeilaw.com/blog/foreign-ein/

How about Uggs?

[jesmu84]

I'm hooping because I saw an update on the seattle situation

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1079438656706961408?s=19

[GGGG]

Wow.  It's almost as if people have been feeding the public a load of bull about the impact of an increase in the minimum wage.  Gosh, I wonder why that's the case???

[Cheeks]

I'm hooping because I saw an update on the seattle situation

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1079438656706961408?s=19

Is that the same Krugman that predicted the crash of the stock market in November of '16?  Can't recall.....yup, same Krugman.


"It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?  A first-pass answer is never... So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight." Paul Krugman of the New York Times the day after the election.

Economy overall going very well right now, let's see how things go when downturns happen and fixed costs like labor have to be shed.

[Cheeks]

Wow.  It's almost as if people have been feeding the public a load of bull about the impact of an increase in the minimum wage.  Gosh, I wonder why that's the case???

Many equal studies and examples that prove the opposite.  If your theory was spot on, why not make minimum wage $50 an hour?

How about economics is 't An exact science which is why finding 500 economists, many of them Nobel prize winners will say raising min wage is a bad idea and 500 different economists will come up with the exact opposite argument.

How can this be?  How can this be?  Instead it's always the other guy is wrong. 

[MU82]

Is that the same Krugman that predicted the crash of the stock market in November of '16?  Can't recall.....yup, same Krugman.


"It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?  A first-pass answer is never... So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight." Paul Krugman of the New York Times the day after the election.

Economy overall going very well right now, let's see how things go when downturns happen and fixed costs like labor have to be shed.

Did you read the article?

It wasn't written by Krugman, or even by anybody at Krugman's employer (the not-failing NYTimes).

It's an opinion piece by Bloomberg's Barry Ritholtz.

The author does a good job of using facts -- yes, I know; facts are so passe -- to support his position that the minimum-wage hike actually has helped the very businesses that they were supposed to hurt.

Your statement that things could change if we enter into another recession could end up being true. But for now, the fact is that so far, the hysteria about minimum-wage hikes crushing Seattle's restaurant industry was extremely misplaced.

That's what Ritholtz's look clearly shows, and Krugman agrees so he tweeted out the article.

Otherwise, it has nothing to do with Krugman, so your rant was dopey.

And BTW ... it appears Krugman very well might have been right about the market and the recession; he was just a couple years too early.

[jesmu84]

Many equal studies and examples that prove the opposite.  If your theory was spot on, why not make minimum wage $50 an hour?

How about economics is 't An exact science which is why finding 500 economists, many of them Nobel prize winners will say raising min wage is a bad idea and 500 different economists will come up with the exact opposite argument.

How can this be?  How can this be?  Instead it's always the other guy is wrong.

The evidence/studies/examples are not equal

[Cheeks]

My point was Krugman has been specularly wrong in the past....so off the charts wrong it was embarrassing. 

Harvard did a study last year On min wage impact on Calif that was negative.  UW did one on Seattle that said same....then same UW crew did a new one this year released in October that was mixed.

My point is, both sides will do the dance of SEE I TOLD YOU SO, and that includes Krugman.   The economy is booming right now, it biases many results, not good and bad.

[Cheeks]

The evidence/studies/examples are not equal

Says you?  Harvard? Yale? Univ of Chicago?  Liberal, Conservative? 

Again, I can come up with 500 economists that say yes and 500 that say no, but only certain ones count....right?  LOL.

Same goes for 5-4 Supreme Court Decisons, one side is COMPLETELY wrong.....

[MU82]

My point was Krugman has been specularly wrong in the past....so off the charts wrong it was embarrassing. 

And my point is that Lunardi is wrong about where Marquette will be seeded, but that has nothing to do with Ritholtz's fact-based opinion piece.

You don't like Krugman, and you are embarrassing yourself with your false equivalences.

[Pakuni]

Is that the same Krugman that predicted the crash of the stock market in November of '16?  Can't recall.....yup, same Krugman.


"It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?  A first-pass answer is never... So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight." Paul Krugman of the New York Times the day after the election.

Economy overall going very well right now, let's see how things go when downturns happen and fixed costs like labor have to be shed.

Krugman made an incorrect stock market forecast two years ago, ergo someone else's study about the minimum wage impact in Seattle is wrong.
#logic

As for the economy ... duh. When an economic downturn happens, labor costs will be shed, regardless of where the minimum wage sits.

Going back through this thread is a feast for @OldTakesExposed. So many very wrong predictions of doom.

[Pakuni]

Harvard did a study last year On min wage impact on Calif that was negative. 

That study was stupid. It made Yelp ratings a key data point, and essentially determined that only restaurants with bad Yelp reviews were more likely to close if they had to pay their workers more. In other words, restaurants that were struggling anyhow. The wage hike had no impact on well-reviewed restaurants.
And it was only in San Francisco, not a statewide study.
The final conclusions:
"Research has shown that increases to the minimum wage have had modest or no impact on total employment – potentially because higher-rated or larger businesses are insulated from this shock, and potentially because business shifts to the remaining businesses which could lead to increased hiring."

[forgetful]

Is that the same Krugman that predicted the crash of the stock market in November of '16?  Can't recall.....yup, same Krugman.


"It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?  A first-pass answer is never... So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight." Paul Krugman of the New York Times the day after the election.

Economy overall going very well right now, let's see how things go when downturns happen and fixed costs like labor have to be shed.

You are greatly misstating what Krugman said. He said that the global instability that Trump would bring about "COULD" result (would probably result) in a global recession, because of two reasons:

1.  The Fed would lose independence as it becomes bullied by the Whitehouse (currently happening).
2.  The Fed will not have any tools at its disposal to stimulate the economy (one of the biggest concerns of all economists).

Both are actually occurring, the only thing that hasn't yet is some impetus to turn the economy south. If it does happen, Krugman will be right, the economy will never truly recover from the damage done, as the position of the US in the global market place will be forever damaged because we lose are leadership position. But he never said it would happen, he said it "could/probably would" occur.

[Babybluejeans]

Is that the same Krugman that predicted the crash of the stock market in November of '16?  Can't recall.....yup, same Krugman.


"It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?  A first-pass answer is never... So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight." Paul Krugman of the New York Times the day after the election.

Economy overall going very well right now, let's see how things go when downturns happen and fixed costs like labor have to be shed.

Remember when you told everyone how much you were enjoying the money you were getting from the Very Amazing Tax Reform Law, until you learned the law hadn't kicked in yet? Good times in the superbar!

[Lennys Tap]

And BTW ... it appears Krugman very well might have been right about the market and the recession; he was just a couple years too early.

So if I say that someday we'll have a recession and someday we'll have a recovery does that mean I'm prescient?