|
People seem to be forgetting the time value of money especially if you're trying to compare a windfall with a > 5 year income stream. 750K now is worth significantly more than 50K for 15 years; easily double if you use a conservative discount rate.
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
Soonmot posted:As someone who would directly benefit from an increased minimum wage, why so high? With $15 I can pretty much live a life that, barring major accidents, is fairly comfortable. This also comes with the caveat that future increases to that 15 is automatically pegged to inflation. Full communism now brah. Also: no public transportation, no public healthcare. That should be factored in too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
Equine Don posted:Me. It should be $25. Yeah, I like you and agree with you. Proven economic benefit. I was just going by the figures being bandied about, but let's respect our back-broken workers and give a large middle finger to those ruling the roost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:People seem to be forgetting the time value of money especially if you're trying to compare a windfall with a > 5 year income stream. What is a discount rate? I've started seeing it a bunch in my research and I have no idea what it is and it's driving me crazy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Most of the people I worked with in the past made less than $30K a year. Sure, the median income is higher, but that was a few people making a lot of money while the rest of us made jack poo poo. Though you misunderstand how a median works, it is worth noting that the population median is probably just not all that all that applicable to most people. Even if the median income is $52k or whatever, if you happen to be a young service worker in the restaurant industry living in Boise, the number of your peers earning more than the median income is likely limited. On the other hand, if you're a mid-to-late career financial services professional in San Francisco, you may not know a ton of people earning under the median income.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 12:39
|
|
|
Magres posted:What is a discount rate? I've started seeing it a bunch in my research and I have no idea what it is and it's driving me crazy. If you assume you can invest money and get, say, a 3% return then given the choice between $100 now and $100 one year from now, you'd pick the $100 now. Because you could invest it and have $103 in a year. In order for them to be equal then, the choice would be between $97.01 now and $100 a year from now, because $97.01 invested at 3% for a year is $100. In this case 3% is the discount rate you have chosen, because future sums need to be discounted to find their present value. Using this discount rate, you would know that if you were instead offered say $50 now, then you should take $100 in a year because there's no way you could expect a $50 investment to get up to $100 in a year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
Short answer - 50 grand today is worth more to me than 50 grand in a year's time. Why? All things equal, I could invest that 50 grand now and have more than 50 grand in a year's time. The 1-year discount rate is basically how a factor of how much more than 50 grand you'd have to give me in a year's time to make me indifferent between getting 50 grand today and 50 grand * (1+x) in a year's time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
I brought up $15 an hour in conversation with a friend of mine. He asked why should someone make that much when he had to get a college degree and work for years to make $25.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:I brought up $15 an hour in conversation with a friend of mine. He asked why should someone make that much when he had to get a college degree and work for years to make $25. Hey wouldn't it be great leverage for negotiating with your boss if he knew that you could quit anytime and mop floors and still make almost as much?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hey wouldn't it be great leverage for negotiating with your boss if he knew that you could quit anytime and mop floors and still make almost as much? gently caress you we're crabs and you're never getting out of this goddamned bucket before me  VitalSigns posted:If you assume you can invest money and get, say, a 3% return then given the choice between $100 now and $100 one year from now, you'd pick the $100 now. Because you could invest it and have $103 in a year. shrike82 posted:Short answer - 50 grand today is worth more to me than 50 grand in a year's time. Why? Thank you both!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
The water in Flint is undrinkable because they source from the Flint River after the Emergency Financial Manager saved $12 million a year by breaking from Detroit's water system. The water is so bad GM can't even use it in their factory. The city wants to spend money upgrading the treatment plant to make it safe. The Emergency Financial Planner says no, we're building a pipe to Lake Huron next year, too bad, drink it (and pay 8 times the price of Detroit's water even though he took them off Detroit's water because it was "too expensive") or buy bottled water, poors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:The water in Flint is undrinkable because they source from the Flint River after the Emergency Financial Manager saved $12 million a year by breaking from Detroit's water system. The water is so bad GM can't even use it in their factory. The city wants to spend money upgrading the treatment plant to make it safe. Little did the American Right know that it was the free market and cost-cutting measures they support that would lead the US to become a developing nation, not the ravages of B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" and his Islamic Communism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
The only person the em answers to is the governor. Detroit's in a similar situation. People with paid bills are having their water shut off while the Detroit Red Wings, The golf courses and other businesses owe millions and don't pay at all. No one's paying attention to this however, because the thing in the news is Snyder's May 5 vote on raising the sales tax, which will barely raise enough money to pay for patching up Michigan's crumbling infrastructure. If it passes, a package of other bills will become law with it. Ironcally, the tea party and progressives are both lobbying against passage. The tea party solution is to eliminate the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and eliminate prevailing wage. The progressives want Snyder to repeal the $1.8 billion corporate tax cuts which over the next 20 years will cost state about $9 billion, because when they passed that it allows corporations to claim tax credits retroactively. Snyder of course ignored all of the tax credits he gave businesses in 2011 and insists it's all Granholm's fault the state is hemorrhaging money. Never mind she stopped being governor in 2011. HUGE PUBES A PLUS fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
I got a strange question and figured someone here would be able to answer it, but it regards the aging of the Republican party. At some point these people have to die, is it speculated when this will happen Presumably the hardcore Reagan lovers are all dead in 20 years not withstanding miracle science, so we'll be left with Paul Ryans and Ted Cruzs who are incredibly polarizing. Is it a last Hoo Ra for the Republican party with the increase of minority voters? Take Chicago it's almost a 50/50 at this point minority to Caucasian ration. The prediction is that minoritty will overtake the Caucasian majority in 2050. So is that possible that in 15 years we won't have to deal with this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I got a strange question and figured someone here would be able to answer it, but it regards the aging of the Republican party. At some point these people have to die, is it speculated when this will happen Presumably the hardcore Reagan lovers are all dead in 20 years not withstanding miracle science, so we'll be left with Paul Ryans and Ted Cruzs who are incredibly polarizing. The cynic view is that while the old people will die out, they will be replaced (maybe not as much) with other groups, particularly the libertarian white "I'm not racist because I have a black friend" crowd. This will still result in changes to legislation (particularly marijuana) but will keep the same racial dynamic in play that we know today. The optimist view is that despite trying to appeal to other groups, the Republicans will not have enough influence to remain nationally relevant. This will lead to a short period of Democrats deciding a lot of policy, before there is another split in the Democrats. This split will probably not be racial but more focused on economics, which in practice will be racial but without the dogwhistles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I got a strange question and figured someone here would be able to answer it, but it regards the aging of the Republican party. At some point these people have to die, is it speculated when this will happen Presumably the hardcore Reagan lovers are all dead in 20 years not withstanding miracle science, so we'll be left with Paul Ryans and Ted Cruzs who are incredibly polarizing. I think you'll see disproportionate state districts being found constitutional before you'll see minority growth minimizing the Republican influence
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I got a strange question and figured someone here would be able to answer it, but it regards the aging of the Republican party. At some point these people have to die, is it speculated when this will happen Presumably the hardcore Reagan lovers are all dead in 20 years not withstanding miracle science, so we'll be left with Paul Ryans and Ted Cruzs who are incredibly polarizing. American conservativism would have probably died in the 60's if it wasn't for Vietnam and race riots. Nixon bought them some time with the southern strategy but their collapse is inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
I know a 23 year old who has an "I miss Reagan" sticker on her car and named her pets after Republican First Ladys (of course one is Mary Todd  )Also even if they pass into the minority of the population the racists and bigots will continue to have an outsized influence on politics as long as they turn out for primaries in key states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Right, I don't think that the right wing extremist will go away but that instead what we will be left with is only right wing extremist. I mean that's my point we'll only be left with Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz and since these people are incredibly polarizing especially in the minority community we'll see the Republican party either fracture or become basically whatever the equivalent would be in England, I think it's the National? Will in 15 years we see the Republicans simply die off especially the guys that were around in the Reagan years?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I know a 23 year old who has an "I miss Reagan" sticker on her car and named her pets after Republican First Ladys (of course one is Mary Todd Siamese cat?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I know a 23 year old who has an "I miss Reagan" sticker on her car and named her pets after Republican First Ladys (of course one is Mary Todd Outsized isn't necessarily overwhelming though. The way our system is set up there's a lag in change occurring (at least nationally) but when it happens, it happens fast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I got a strange question and figured someone here would be able to answer it, but it regards the aging of the Republican party. At some point these people have to die, is it speculated when this will happen Presumably the hardcore Reagan lovers are all dead in 20 years not withstanding miracle science, so we'll be left with Paul Ryans and Ted Cruzs who are incredibly polarizing. "I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative" is a super common political position in the Middle, particularly among suburbanites, professionals and the white youth (though these might not articulate their position as such). The GoP can drastically increase its appeal among these people if it moderates its social platform. The future trajectory of the Republican party depends upon when/how it manages to liberalize its positions on gay rights, minority rights (where this concerns equality under the law, not equality in actuality), weed and religious tolerance. They still need their good ol' boy ex-Dixiecrats and high plains luddites, but if they can keep those guys from being such a vocal part of the party, people will have no trouble electing stern white Mr. Businessmen like romneys, rauners, snyders, etc
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:"I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative" is a super common political position in the Middle, particularly among suburbanites, professionals and the white youth (though these might not articulate their position as such). The GoP can drastically increase its appeal among these people if it moderates its social platform. At this point they cannot afford to lose the Evangelical vote, and those groups built their influence by being vocal. They will not go quietly. Without some sort of catastrophe the GOP is hosed for presidential elections in the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
If they drop their social issue crap then they will basically just be Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
So wouldn't it be a smarter strategy for Democrats to support and vote Extreme Republican in districts where there is a "normal" Republican and a "Nutjob" Republican. IE Boehner running against a Evangelical let's say you can't vote if you get Welfare Republican. Isn't it better for the Dems to get more and more "The body has a way of shutting that down" Republicans in Districts they can't win anyway? Or is that something their already doing? Hollismason fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
baw posted:At this point they cannot afford to lose the Evangelical vote, and those groups built their influence by being vocal. They will not go quietly. There's no guarantee they would immediately lose the evangelical vote as soon as they started to liberalize (to an extent that would matter in the General elections, at least. It would immediately affect the primaries). Realignments take time. The whole reason the Southern Strategy worked is that the GoP precipitated a realignment and then managed to hang onto the liberal coastal republicans for a good while longer than the democrats managed to hold onto the South. PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:
Well, kinda. Depends on what you mean when you say median income. Household is $53k, non-family household is $31k, and 25 years and older income earning individuals male and female is $35k. 2013 ACS 5 year estimates These distinctions matter.$750k is an incredible amount of money for the vast majority of people, it's over 20 years of working income for the median individual. For more information, use the US Census American Fact Finder! You can select many different variables to filter by including year, dataset, geography, economic characteristics, and many, many more!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:So wouldn't it be a smarter strategy for Democrats to support and vote Extreme Republican in districts where there is a "normal" Republican and a "Nutjob" Republican. IE Boehner running against a Evangelical let's say you can't vote if you get Welfare card. McCaskill put up Akin billboards around rural Missouri and Reid made an effort to get Angle nominated in the GOP primary, but aside from that a lot of the districts the GOP controls would vote for the wall of a barn if it was on the GOP ticket in the general election. I don't think it'd be beneficial if we had more folks who just want to burn the federal government to the ground in Congress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Personally I love my parents and prefer not to contemplate a world where the only hope of social progress is that everyone their age is dead and its the only way. I endeavor to be more hopeful than that. Humanity is better than that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be better for polarizing the youth vote and minority vote , if we had more vocal "Body has a way of shutting that down" Republicans in the Senate and House. It's controlled anyway by Republicans and will be for the foreseeable future. It'd also encourage democrats to come out in non presidential election years. RuanGacho posted:Personally I love my parents and prefer not to contemplate a world where the only hope of social progress is that everyone their age is dead and its the only way. Yeah, but that's the way it has to be because believe it or not people very rarely change their beliefs later in life. A person who's voted Republican for 60 years is not going to suddenly go "Yeah , you're right the gays should have rights". I think actually it was Oprah of all people who was like " Yeah we have to wait for these people to die".
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:There's no guarantee they would immediately lose the evangelical vote as soon as they started to liberalize (to an extent that would matter in the General elections, at least. It would immediately affect the primaries). Realignments take time. The primaries is really a bottleneck though, and anyone who wants a chance has to cater to the idiots. Hell I'm pretty sure Huntsman could have beaten Obama in 2012 but welp
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
I don't really think the demographic shift towards young people would really change much. Reminder that Romney actually won white millennials by a fairly large 51-44.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Obama won young voters by a margin of 25 points. Who gives a poo poo about white millenials, they're a minority.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:I don't really think the demographic shift towards young people would really change much. Reminder that Romney actually won white millennials by a fairly large 51-44. Remember that white millennials are a much smaller portion of the whole than before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
baw posted:The primaries is really a bottleneck though, and anyone who wants a chance has to cater to the idiots. The only reason huntsman wasn't outed as the insane conservative on economics that he is is that he never did well enough for anyone to bother. The spotlight never shined on him so his poo poo never showed up
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:"I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative" is a super common political position in the Middle, particularly among suburbanites, professionals and the white youth (though these might not articulate their position as such). The GoP can drastically increase its appeal among these people if it moderates its social platform. Never underestimate the twin rhetorical powers of "T-T-T-TAXES!" and "the federal budget is just like a household budget" (because an analogy is just so much easier to get your head around even if it's wrong). Fiscal conservatism and "taxpayer rights" aren't going away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Fiscal conservatism and "taxpayer rights" aren't going away. Neither is the culture war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
That would be John "Sure, climate change is real, but it's not like we need to do anything about it" Huntsman.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
baw posted:The primaries is really a bottleneck though, and anyone who wants a chance has to cater to the idiots. Mitt Romney (previously a very moderate/liberal republican throughout his careerin massechutsetts) had no trouble winning the nomination in 2012, courtesy of money and name-recognition. You don't have to be a frothing-at-the-mouth evangelical to win the nom. You just need strong resources and a willingness to lie about your beliefs for several months straight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:Mitt Romney (previously a very moderate/liberal republican) had no trouble winning the nomination in 2012, courtesy of money and name-recognition. Even being considered a "further-right" option at times when running against McCain in '08. You need to cater to that, and at this point with gay rights being both central and widely accepted as a simple for/against issue it's gonna be a lot harder to pivot once the primary is over. Nowadays a debate moderator can say "do you support gay marriage?" and a Democrat can say "yes" while a Republican is gonna have to deflect and eventually choose a side, pissing off a good chunk of the electorate no matter which one they take. Gay rights is becoming the hill that the Evangelical wing is going to take their stand on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:11
|
|