|
crabcakes66 posted:Are there really any arguments against raising minimum wage that don't center around made up numbers/correlations and "gently caress the poor"? I would like to see arguments besides small price increases. I'm fairly certain that an economy largely based on consumer spending needs consumers to have enough money to, you know, spend.
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
Please oh please tell me what a lovely degree is. I dare you.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:Please oh please tell me what a lovely degree is. I dare you. Bachelor's in Creation Science 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Bachelor's in Creation Science Master's in Creation Science
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Are there really any arguments against raising minimum wage that don't center around made up numbers/correlations and "gently caress the poor"? Let's ask Alex Jones 1. Minimum wage jobs are a stepping stone to better job. They are not meant for person to live on or to support a family. Unless you have another source of income or low expenses, such as parents, retirement, roommates, etc, you should not accept a low wage position permanently. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
Oh gently caress is that true? You mean I'm not supposed to accept a low wage position permanently? gently caress. gently caress!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Oh gently caress is that true? You mean I'm not supposed to accept a low wage position permanently? No dude, I need to make a living wage flipping loving burgers at mcdonalds.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
Too bad we live in a world where higher paid jobs aren't necessarily available for a variety of reasons, and the US has little if anything social programs for those under 65. Btw, most people who just barely make more than minimum would all be effected and would likely have a wage premium over the new minimum wage. A $15 minimum wage is likely going to increase costs, but at the same time it will be a considerable boon to consumer spending. It may result to a net loss to some businesses but ultimately the social benefits you get would likely outweigh them and you could simply give tax credits to small businesses that are the most hurt. Also a higher minimum wage means more far more tax revenue: sales, income taxes and FICA taxes will all surge which will in turn give the federal and state governments more money to work with. The issue the US ultimately has is that its manufacturing sector is already mostly gone, but declining real wages have caused what is called "secular stagnation" with declining consumer spending and ultimately growth. The US needs a way to redistribute its wealth in some form, and a much higher minimum wage (and thus higher wages in total) is one way it could happen politicall. As far as funding only "job" based education, what would this actually look like considering how many fields are oversupplied as it is with degrees? Even Nursing to a large extent is starting to fill up. Do you guys make some type of judgement call that "hard science" degrees are morally superior even if they are also no jobs for them? That said, I think it might make more sense for the federal minimum to be lower than $15 but many states to have higher than $15 (like California/Washington/New York).
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:No dude, I need to make a living wage flipping loving burgers at mcdonalds. I don't think they actually flip burgers OP.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:No dude, I need to make a living wage flipping loving burgers at mcdonalds. That wouldn't somehow disincentivize upskilling: nobody likes loving working low-end customer service, let alone fast food positions. As someone who worked their way up from a seasonal to a full time to a managerial position within a retail organization--a not-that-impressive but still time consuming climb that ended in a $13/hr position--, who then left the company to pursue a more fulfilling and better-paying career, let me be the first to tell you that all $15/hr would have done was stabilize my meager savings and support my fairly restrained expenditures. It would have been a godsend. I'm sure this applies doubly to people who tend to spend more or who have more locked-in expenses they have to cover. In short, gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
The fact that he thinks anyway making near minimum wage is a teenage burger flipper should tell you enough about him.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
I'd say that the sheer misery of fast food and retail jobs alone is the best argument for a 15/hr minimum wage. Those terrible jobs still would be miserable and soul-crushing but at least people could support themselves on them.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
What the balls. I thought I was reading GBS for a minute and it was glorious.Equine Don posted:I would like to see arguments besides small price increases. I'm fairly certain that an economy largely based on consumer spending needs consumers to have enough money to, you know, spend. Most of the research shows that small increases in the minimum wage have had no or very small employment effects, or employment effects only among teenagers, or etc. Most economists would agree that a small increase in the minimum wage woudl have very little if any ill effect while disagreeing, as some links posted here showed, about whether it would work as anti poverty policy. There are limits to what can gleaned from the natural experiments economists have had to work with. Minimum wage increases in the U.S. have historically been small and infrequent - basically they've been inflation adjustments that didn't actually track inflation. There's a strong argument that in many places in the U.S. the legal minimum wage isn't an effective wage floor. If that's the case, then of course it would be expected that small increases would have negligable effects on the labor market. However, $15/hour is close to the median individual income in the U.S. Something like 40-45% of workers would be affected by a $15 federal minimum. There is nothing in the research that can speak, empirically, to the question of what would happen if the U.S. went to a real minimum wage of $15. According to theory it should cause a mix of unemployment among the poorest and least skilled, and price increases. Will it, though? Who knows. In rich urban markets like, say, San Francisco, maybe not as much. But in the parts of America that don't have that sort of wealth, or that price level, yeah probably.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Let's ask Alex Jones In other words "gently caress the poor". You could have just said no.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Alligator Horse posted:That wouldn't somehow disincentivize upskilling: nobody likes loving working low-end customer service, let alone fast food positions. As someone who worked their way up from a seasonal to a full time to a managerial position within a retail organization--a not-that-impressive but still time consuming climb that ended in a $13/hr position--, who then left the company to pursue a more fulfilling and better-paying career, let me be the first to tell you that all $15/hr would have done was stabilize my meager savings and support my fairly restrained expenditures. It would have been a godsend. I'm sure this applies doubly to people who tend to spend more or who have more locked-in expenses they have to cover. Yes because increasing the minimum wage of the country is good because it helps those who are employed. Awesome. so our unemployment number continues to increase slowly, but that's okay because everyone who is employed is living the 15 dollar an hour dream. SO what about members of the military, should their wage increase aswell? You do realize that would cost more than a billion more anually right? Who wouldn't want 15 bucks an hour as an 18 year old or a 20 year old. That doesn't mean it's a sustainable idea. It's just like printing more money when you dont have any money.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
A billion more a year in consideration of the total US budget is literally nothing, and part of that money is coming back in revenue anyway. Also, if anything the military should probably be paying that anyway for people giving up their lives. Also as far the local wage floor argument, thats why I said it makes more sense at the state level for $15+ but in general the federal minimum wage needs to be far higher as well and could almost certainly sustain $11-12. Basically, there might be some flaws in a $15 dollar federal minimum wage but there are various ways to mitigate it or allow some flexibility to local wages. It is a strength of the federal system.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Let's ask Alex Jones Nope 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why is the company paying 10 people to do a job that can be more profitably done with 9? Because 10 was most profitable until wages went up 50% and then it wasn't.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Because 10 was most profitable until wages went up 50% and then it wasn't. As a business owner, I have to say that the idea that businesses always run as efficiently as possible wrt labor costs is something to approach very cautiously. It's one of those things that sounds like it's true but often isn't for lots of (sometimes) good reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Yes because increasing the minimum wage of the country is good because it helps those who are employed. Awesome. so our unemployment number continues to increase slowly, but that's okay because everyone who is employed is living the 15 dollar an hour dream.  
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:02
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Because 10 was most profitable until wages went up 50% and then it wasn't. But this isn't a real thing that happened. This is a fantasy, and instead of justifying it, now you're saying "just because". And you've admitted elsewhere that the minimum wage does not cause unemployment, so this fantasy is in direct conflict with what you believe to be true about reality.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:04
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Yes because increasing the minimum wage of the country is good because it helps those who are employed. Awesome. so our unemployment number continues to increase slowly, but that's okay because everyone who is employed is living the 15 dollar an hour dream. are you just posting youtube comments?
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
If we up the minimum wage, can we at least drastically open up immigration so that immigrant-run service businesses can keep costs down by effectively working their entire family for $4 an hour or less?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:06
|
|
on the left posted:If we up the minimum wage, can we at least drastically open up immigration so that immigrant-run service businesses can keep costs down by effectively working their entire family for $4 an hour or less? sorry your dad doesn't get to keep his personal landscaping crew
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:As a business owner, I have to say that the idea that businesses always run as efficiently as possible wrt labor costs is something to approach very cautiously. It's one of those things that sounds like it's true but often isn't for lots of (sometimes) good reasons. Sure, but this is the same premise underlying "well businesses will just fire 10% of their workers". If we now say that businesses do not run their labor as efficiently as possible then there's no reason to believe they'll necessarily fire workers after a minimum wage hike either. Maybe they'll just operate with a lower rate of profit since you're saying they're okay with running with a lower rate of profit than they could really get anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:sorry your dad doesn't get to keep his personal landscaping crew More like the immigrant family that breaks a half-dozen labor laws by making it's youngest members work for free and votes Republican solely on the promise of lower taxes.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
The economy should serve the people, not the other way around. Profit and accumulation should only be allowed insofar as it benefits the poorest (as per Rawls). There is literally no common justification for the existence of private property (except maybe Nozick's) that is sound in the approaching age without atleast a heavily redistributive element. Personally I think if mincome was a thing, it would force businesses to drive wages up to entice people to give up their time. Let's be honest, money is necessarily finite and must be drawn from somewhere. With low/no minimum wage, more people might potentially be employed (in lovely jobs which they can't properly sustain themselves on). These extra jobs are effectively subsidised on the savings made between a proper living wage and the wage being paid. The argument made by the people against min wage is that if this subsidy disappears, then people would lose their jobs. How about instead, employers retain those people and make less short term profit (if your beliefs about min wage wrt unemployment are true). Unless they are operating on thin margins (which I grant do exist), most employers can afford to take a pay cut themselves to keep more people employed. Edit : anticipating the 'but muh ma and pop' argument. Ok, how about this, we implement a minimum wage that is contingent on the salary of the highest paid person in a given company. Somebody being paid $400,000, fine, the wage floor is $40,000 for anybody in that company. Ma and pop stores, if they aren't paying ludicrous money to themselves, won't be forced to pay higher salaries to others. a neurotic ai fucked around with this message at 14:18 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sure, but this is the same premise underlying "well businesses will just fire 10% of their workers". If we now say that businesses do not run their labor as efficiently as possible then there's no reason to believe they'll necessarily fire workers after a minimum wage hike either. Maybe they'll just operate with a lower rate of profit since you're saying they're okay with running with a lower rate of profit than they could really get anyway. Even then the rate of profit is going to likely be effect by additional revenue from consumption, the equilibrium point would be somewhere in between.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Because 10 was most profitable until wages went up 50% and then it wasn't. You make it sound like small business are running Monte Carlo simulations to optimize their profitability at all times and this is not reality. This hypothetical business would make $X dollars paying workers $10/hr or make $.66X paying workers $15/hr assuming all other things are equal. They key here is that either way the business is making money. They haven't suddenly gone off a cliff. They make *less*, which could mean that they no longer make a pile of money large enough to fit into an F-450, but only an F-350 Not every business is running at 0% margins while paying minimum wage, and if they are they shouldn't (arguably) be a business at all!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Maybe they'll just operate with a lower rate of profit ding ding ding
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:Edit : anticipating the 'but muh ma and pop' argument. Ok, how about this, we implement a minimum wage that is contingent on the salary of the highest paid person in a given company. Somebody being paid $400,000, fine, the wage floor is $40,000 for anybody in that company. Ma and pop stores, if they aren't paying ludicrous money to themselves, won't be forced to pay higher salaries to others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-dollar_salary All those companies pay their employees quite well afaik but I could imagine corporations who have a great deal of minimum wage employees would be bastards about that.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sure, but this is the same premise underlying "well businesses will just fire 10% of their workers". If we now say that businesses do not run their labor as efficiently as possible then there's no reason to believe they'll necessarily fire workers after a minimum wage hike either. Maybe they'll just operate with a lower rate of profit since you're saying they're okay with running with a lower rate of profit than they could really get anyway. It depends on how much of a hike we're talking about. Think of your own life as a for instance - maybe there are some things you slack off on addressing because it'd be sort of inconvenient to do , but if not dealing with them became enough of a pain in the rear end you'd do it. It's the same principal. District Selectman posted:ding ding ding LOL you're adorable no. Anywhere possible you raise prices and let the customer eat it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:ding ding ding Just posting to restate that again, LOL no not if I can raise prices.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:You make it sound like small business are running Monte Carlo simulations to optimize their profitability at all times and this is not reality. You just made up numbers so every worker is equally profitable and didn't include alternatives like outsourcing or capital. A business can be highly profitable overall but that second worker scheduled on the Sunday evening shift might still be on the margins. You can make an argument about elasticity of demand in the labor market but you can't pretend that labor costs aren't a major component. District Selectman posted:ding ding ding Nope. A key thing to realize is that just like any other cost increase, say oil or electricity, we understand the long term effect is that businesses will pass on costs to consumers, not just suddenly decide to live with lower profits. This is why the notion that government "subsidizes low wages" by providing benefits to Wal-mart employees is misguided. Society is going to "subsidize" them (if that's the word we want to use) either way regardless of whether the check has Wal-Mart's name on it or not.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-dollar_salary Corporations don't pay their C level employees that much in salary, it's typically mostly in stock options so that they can pay the luscious capital gains rate when they cash them out in a few years. CEO of my company makes like $800k in salary but total comp is ~$20M.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You just made up numbers so every worker is equally profitable and didn't include alternatives like outsourcing or capital. Evil walmart with its scandalous 3.3% net margin.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
It's odd how raising the minimum wage is considered to be a more politically viable option than expanding the EITC. The former is a regulation, government literally telling our poor innocent job creators what to do. The latter is a tax credit that a lot of conservative voters depend on. Seems like a no brainer to me.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Just posting to restate that again, LOL no not if I can raise prices. The idiotic notion that business will go under if the minimum wage increases is based on the idea that they're running on 0% margins and that its totally not possible for a company to make less profit. Of course some businesses will raise prices to try and maintain margins. That doesn't mean that it's not possible for a business to simply have lower margins.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:sorry your dad doesn't get to keep his personal landscaping crew No, I like cheap ethnic food and think it's a two birds with one stone policy. Think of all the cool food trucks!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
District Selectman posted:The idiotic notion that business will go under if the minimum wage increases is based on the idea that they're running on 0% margins and that its totally not possible for a company to make less profit. Of course some businesses will raise prices to try and maintain margins. That doesn't mean that it's not possible for a business to simply have lower margins. Everything depends on the specifics. If it's a raise to $15/hour then.. Some businesses would not be viable. Some activities within a business would stop being worth it. Some businesses would raise prices. It's possible some businesses would have lower margins for awhile but over time every business would find ways to recoup, because the fantasy where you stick it to the boss and she takes it and likes it doesn't exist in reality. But if it's a raise to $9.25 or whatever I doubt anyone is going to give a poo poo other than some token grumbling.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:46
|
|