|
Bhaal posted:2 posts above that you were trying to call out bias on part of Alan Krueger, and now you're citing a scare chart from the Heritage Foundation? I was calling out a guy saying "One on side there's huge bias because Heritage is poo poo, on the other side there's reality" while ignoring it was a study done by a liberal economics professor and cited in the New York fuckin' Times. I mean come on people. It's one thing to discredit the bias you don't agree with but this is silly. EDIT: The issue is raising the minimum wage double in one fell swoop rather than maintaining small increments that markets can adjust to over time. Again, $7->$10, not much in the rippling effects. $7->$15, not quite as clean.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:What's so special about this hypothetical minimum wage hike as opposed to all of the other ones that happened in the past? This time there's Obama.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Not one goddamn thing is different. The rich of this country scream bloody murder over a slight loss on profit while most everyone else struggles to drag them kicking and screaming into a reasonable present day morality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I decided to look up some more info on the Heritage guy that wrote the piece and stumbled across this instead: edit: if you want a picture of what the cruises are like and didn't read this a couple years ago: http://nymag.com/news/features/republican-caribbean-cruise-2012-12/ pangstrom fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Anything good for the working class must be fought as fiercely as possible in order to create the illusion that the system is a hair's edge from collapse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Amergin posted:I was calling out a guy saying "One on side there's huge bias because Heritage is poo poo, on the other side there's reality" while ignoring it was a study done by a liberal economics professor and cited in the New York fuckin' Times. Liberals: Here is a professionally done study with facts and math and here it is presented in a easily digestible form from the NYTimes. Conservatives: Here's a bunch of bullshit Heritage made up with no numbers or math behind it presented in a misleading infographic THE TRUTH MUST BE IN THE MIDDLE!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:Not one goddamn thing is different. The rich of this country scream bloody murder over a slight loss on profit while most everyone else struggles to drag them kicking and screaming into a reasonable present day morality. 77% is a slight loss in profit. Man, if you owned a business I would love to hear you say that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
People. If you have to engage Amergin in a debate, then for goodness sake don't let him take the high ground from the start. If you choose to debate him over a chart regarding future economic possibilities that was made by Heritage, he's already winning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Semantics. A loss in profit is not having your ledger in the red. You're still making a profit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:I don't believe in phrenology but every once in awhile you see enough of these guys lined up together and I feel like I would have thought the same thing at the time. Maybe they focused too much on "criminality AKA being Irish" and not enough on the "smug conservative douche" trait. I get seriously bad vibes off all but like 5 of those pictures. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Liberals: Here is a professionally done study with facts and math and here it is presented in a easily digestible form from the NYTimes. American_media.txt
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Liberals: Here is a professionally done study with facts and math and here it is presented in a easily digestible form from the NYTimes. Did you bother to read the Heritage article?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Hey Amergin while you're here did you comment on the lovely economist book review the other day? Someone pointed out that a comment struck them as coming from you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
zxqv8 posted:Semantics. A loss in wage is not having your income in the red. You're still earning a wage. EDIT: Raskolnikov38 posted:Hey Amergin while you're here did you comment on the lovely economist book review the other day? Someone pointed out that a comment struck them as coming from you. I only comment on their articles about China.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Right, so if we raised it to $10 without much impact, $15 would... still not have much impact? It'd have a positive impact, since the extra wages earned would be redirected straight back into the economy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Radish posted:Anything good for the working class must be fought as fiercely as possible in order to create the illusion that the system is a hair's edge from collapse. Back in the good ol days we could just shoot them when they got uppity. Now a days we can't so we have to lie and use pepper spray. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
saintonan posted:It'd have a positive impact, since the extra wages earned would be redirected straight back into the economy. That's another great assumption.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Yeah including the bottom bit where they admit their model was flawed and the dumb feedback loop assumptions they made to make their then tweaked model work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Amergin posted:That's another great assumption. Poor people don't save, they consume. They're not going to take the money and try to hide it in some overseas sockpuppet shell corporation, they're going to buy more burgers. And shoes. And everything else small businesspeople are trying to sell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Amergin posted:That's another great assumption.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Is it really? People who live paycheck to paycheck can't afford to save much money. But if your wage is doubled, are you still living paycheck to paycheck? We're assuming costs and inflation don't change, too, remember.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Amergin posted:I was calling out a guy saying "One on side there's huge bias because Heritage is poo poo, on the other side there's reality" while ignoring it was a study done by a liberal economics professor and cited in the New York fuckin' Times. You know that isn't how it works, in the never going to happen idea that the min wage gets increased to $15 it's going to be phased in over a number of years just like the states have been doing, it isn't going to be one day a switch flips and now you're making $15/hr.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Amergin posted:But if your wage is doubled, are you still living paycheck to paycheck? Are you even trying anymore?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
I thought I read someone say in this very thread that most businesses constantly endure bigger price shocks than even an overnight change to $15/hr would cause...from the price of electricity. Was that somewhere else?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Amergin posted:But if your wage is doubled, are you still living paycheck to paycheck?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Amergin posted:77% is a slight loss in profit. I'd give a gently caress about that statistic if it wasn't as based in unreality as death panels, ISIS sleeper agents on our soil, and every Palastinian being a bloodthirsty terrorist who wants to consume Israeli infants. If I wanted to debate your stupid lovely arguments I'd loving talk to any of my extended family. gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
No you see, once people are paid $15 an hour half will be fired since businesses currently have twice as many employees as they need and waste money for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Radish posted:No you see, once people are paid $15 an hour half will be fired since businesses currently have twice as many employees as they need and waste money for some reason. No no no, this is all wrong. They're employing that many people because that's how many they can afford at the current minimum wage. These businesses exist for the public good and so are clearly run exactly at operating costs, so this hike is untenable!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
I see, I see. How magnanimous! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
It's just like how businesses hire more people when they get a tax cut, because they hire people based on money laying around not based on how much utility/profit that person generates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
zxqv8 posted:No no no, this is all wrong. They're employing that many people because that's how many they can afford at the current minimum wage. These businesses exist for the public good and so are clearly run exactly at operating costs, so this hike is untenable! We should abolish the minimum wage. Are there reasons we shouldn't that don't boil down to a national refusal to accept personal responsibility?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Amergin posted:77% is a slight loss in profit. Of course, there are no other factors affecting the profits of fast food franchisees. quote:Once you've completed training and are ready to go, McDonalds will offer you a location they've already developed. The exterior of the building will be complete, but you will have to take care of interior additions such as kitchen equipment, seating and landscaping. You'll get constant support from a McDonald's Field Consultant, who can advise you on details and will visit regularly. You'll pay McDonald's a monthly fee of 4 percent of your sales, and either a flat base rent or a percentage rent of at least 8.5 percent of your sales. How much money you make depends on many things, including the location and its popularity, the efficiency of your operating costs, and your ability to manage and control the business. For a McDonald's, the average sales per unit is around $2.4 million, which means that Corporate is taking $300,000 annually right off the top. And this is not counting the fact that many of the franchisee's "costs" are equipment and supplies that they must order directly from corp at corp mandated prices. Year to year, cost increases are usually, but not always, borne exclusively by franchisees. In the case of minimum wage legislation, all the large Fast Food corps are not going to allow price increases from their franchisees. Instead, the increased labor costs will come largely from franchise fees (and corporate profits), and secondarily from franchisee profits (where they can absorb them). Heritage misses this, and thus all their predicted macro effects are bullshit. Some mom and pop fast food restaurants will eat it, but these are a vanishingly tiny portion of the industry. amanasleep fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Amergin posted:But if your wage is doubled, are you still living paycheck to paycheck? JT Jag posted:Okay, let's work this out. Someone is poor and living paycheck to paycheck. Their wage doubles. They have more breathing room. Do they start saving? No. They start buying necessities they couldn't afford before. Leasing instead of renting to build equity. Planning to mortgage a house a few years down the road. Basically? it pushes a bunch of poor people into the middle class. So yes, even if your wage is doubled, living paycheck to paycheck is still likely for a lot of people. The difference is, there's potentially a little bit of a cushion if something unexpected happens, instead of being automatically hosed if the slightest thing goes wrong. ...That's depressing to think about, actually. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
USPOL September - Lazy trolling and circular arguments
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Guys it's impossible to raise wages ever let me explain to you why using ~economics~.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:edit: if you want a picture of what the cruises are like and didn't read this a couple years ago: Thank you for posting this. It is a real treat. quote:In response, the moderator recounted the litany of dreary statistics from Reed and Rasmussen earlier that day. “So therefore we should give up and burn our passports and stay on this boat forever?” said Goldberg with real exasperation. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Amergin posted:That's another great assumption. The edit: Sorry, SORRY! I meant "marginal propensity to consume". Basically, if you are wealthy and you get a little extra, you're going to invest/save it. If you're scraping by (or living on almost no income) and you get a little extra, you're going to buy goods and services that you've been putting off. A poor person likely has a higher "marginal propensity to consume", and increasing minimum wage or safety net payouts will increase consumption and economic activity more than if you, say, reduce capital gains taxes. anonumos fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
I think it's time for Amergin to reveal his 50% stake in his local Burger King franchise so we can get to the heart of why he's so upset about the reduction of slave labor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Of course, there are no other factors affecting the profits of fast food franchisees. So a McDs franchise is baby's first business plus a big rear end tax?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
JT Jag posted:People. If you have to engage Amergin in a debate, then for goodness sake don't let him take the high ground from the start. If you choose to debate him over a chart regarding future economic possibilities that was made by Heritage, he's already winning. This is exactly what everyone's conservative friends actually do, though, so by that argument they're winning too. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 21:02
|
|
