|
VitalSigns posted:This is demonstrably untrue. No one has said "yeah $100/hr would be fine". But since $15/hr is much closer to the values around $11/hr for which we know 1 outweighs 2, I'm not going to assume the opposite is true for $15/hr based on the word of the same economists who were wrong about this every other time we've raised the minimum wage. An increase to $15 represents ~35% increase from $11 so it's not trivial. There has being numerous studies done on the effects of past increases of minimum wages and a significant amount of them demonstrates lower employment resulting from it, i.e: http://ilr.sagepub.com/content/65/2/350.full.pdf+html https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/labeco/v18y2011i1p36-47.html Note that this doesn't -always- seem to be the case though, and the different locale and job market could respond to increases differently.
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
Typo posted:There's obviously two effects: In this sense, I don't think an ironclad federal $15 dollar minimum wage is necessarily needed but I already said this. Otherwise, you can always allow some flexibility at the state level if you did have a federal $15 rate, it wouldn't be that difficult to do and if anything would be a decent political compromise. That said, I would rather a $15 dollar minimum wage that requires adjustment than simply keeping the current system, $7.25 is way too low for the vast majority of the country and $10 is very likely still too low. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:49 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
Typo posted:An increase to $15 represents ~35% increase from $11 so it's not trivial. It's not trivial (obviously, that's why we want to do it, because it's a nontrivial amount of money to a poor person) but it's not the ridiculous-rear end 800% increase that $100/hr would be. I mean if I was just spitballing I'd assume the effects would be closer to $11/hr than $100/hr. There's no reason to assume the opposite without proof unless I have a vested interest in opposing a living wage. Typo posted:There has being numerous studies done on the effects of past increases of minimum wages and a significant amount of them demonstrates lower employment resulting from it, i.e: Actually no, a significant amount of them don't. Most studies cluster around zero effect, with a small number of outliers in both the positive and negative directions. You're cherry-picking two papers that agree with your preexisting bias.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:In this sense, I don't think an ironclad federal $15 dollar minimum wage is necessarily needed but I already said this. You can always allow some flexibility at the state level otherwise if you did have a federal $15 rate, it wouldn't be that difficult to do and if anything would be a decent political compromise. That said, I would rather a $15 dollar minimum wage that requires adjustment than simply keeping the current system, $7.25 is way too low for the vast majority of the country and $10 is very likely still too low. Yeah, as far the minimum wage goes allowing for different wages across locales seems to be a good idea. I think the best model for it is the Swedish one, where unions are robust and uncorrupt enough that the state don't' need to set a min.wage, but unions negotiate with employers on what it should be for individual sectors of the economy.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 09:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's not trivial (obviously, that's why we want to do it, because it's a nontrivial amount of money to a poor person) but it's not the ridiculous-rear end 800% increase that $100/hr would be. I mean if I was just spitballing I'd assume the effects would be closer to $11/hr than $100/hr. There's no reason to assume the opposite without proof unless I have a vested interest in opposing a living wage. You realize there's way more than two papers showing this affect right?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
Typo posted:You realize there's way more than two papers showing this affect right? Yes, there are more papers that show this for you to cherry-pick if you want to ignore the much greater number of papers that show little to no effect.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
Typo posted:An increase to $15 represents ~35% increase from $11 so it's not trivial. The increase to our current level was a 28% increase, and we didn't have any huge problems result from it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes, there are more papers that show this for you to cherry-pick if you want to ignore the much greater number of papers that show little to no effect. Which are what? And please don't' post Kruger and Card because that one's methodology got shot down a while ago. quote:The increase to our current level was a 28% increase, and we didn't have any huge problems result from it. 1) The affects don't have to be huge, something like 2-3% increase unemployment in teens or unskilled adults is probably not all that noticeable, but it's there. 2) The marginal affects of increasing the minimal wage are not constant, just because the first increase of $2.5 has no negative affects, doesn't necessary mean the next $3.0 has no negative affects. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean the minimum wage shouldn't be increased (because the benefits might outweigh the negatives) but we shouldn't be denying that there are negatives -at all- Typo fucked around with this message at 10:00 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
Typo posted:There's obviously two effects: No, it isn't. If you'd ever bother to read those threads instead of imagining what's in them, you'd find many posters explicitly stating the circumstances under which a minimum wage increase would have a net negative effect.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
here, have a webpage listing our minimum wage over time. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
Typo posted:You realize there's way more than two papers showing this affect right? You realize there's way more than two papers showing the opposite effect, right?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Typo posted:Yeah, as far the minimum wage goes allowing for different wages across locales seems to be a good idea. The Swedish/Northern European system works while they are still very large unions and they are still an essential part of society, it isn't the case in the US. Ultimately, even Germany that did have a union-based wage floor also added a minimum wage recently and ultimately as employment increasing becomes more informal, it is going to be necessary at some level. As for the actual federal minimum wage in the US it is obviously up for continuous debate, ultimately if anything I would like to see if anything wages become more localized but still managed. The easiest way would to do this at the federal level with certain "tier" of states based on prevailing wages, the highest tier might be $15 with the lowest being around $10 (spitballing). In exchange, the federal minimum would be given a COLA adjustment. Cities would in many states would be able to have a level even above that, Seattle and San Francisco already have for example.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Look, I think that it's clear that the minimum wage should be $0.00 ... and that we should have a guaranteed minimum income of $35k / year, paid for with progressive income taxes. But in lieu of that, I'm okay with having a minimum wage that is greater than or equal to a living wage. Why is this a controversial idea?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 10:05
|
|
|
Typo posted:Which are what? And please don't' post Kruger and Card because that one's methodology got shot down a while ago. Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis Also, if you don't accept Card & Kruger's difference-in-difference methodology then why did you cite a paper in your last post that uses it?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 10:06
|
|
|
Typo posted:Note that this doesn't necessarily mean the minimum wage shouldn't be increased (because the benefits might outweigh the negatives) but we shouldn't be denying that there are negatives -at all- Quote someone who said there are no negatives to raising the minimum wage at all even if we increase it all the way to $Texas This thread will probably cause you a lot less stress if you're not making up posts to get mad about and are dealing with things people have actually said.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
Typo posted:Which are what? And please don't' post Kruger and Card because that one's methodology got shot down a while ago. Good thing no one is doing that then. There are studies from 2008 and 2011 that confirm Card and Kruegers findings of publication bias, if that is what you are referring to. Many studies have found that the increases in unemployment are statistically insignificant.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Look, I think that it's clear that the minimum wage should be $0.00 Because Job Creators wouldn't be able to pay their employees poo poo wages and have them live in fear of losing their job - they might have to actually, you know, become good managers instead of money-grubbing manchildren
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 12:14
|
|
|
Typo posted:An increase to $15 represents ~35% increase from $11 so it's not trivial. No it's not a 35% increase it's a lot more. Minimum wage touches about 5% of the workforce now. $15 minimum wage would hit several times that and increase wages several times more for some of those people ($6 instead of $1) Like I said earlier. It's not far from an order of magnitude increase in impact and clearly beyond anything on record. Popular Thug Drink posted:i hate to break it to you, but all economics is a judgement call based on individual values since money is an abstract concept and convenient fiction we use to regulate transactions between individuals and groups of individuals You loving intellectual child. Money is a construct but economics is not and while your values might tell you that 15 US monetary units is a fair wage that says literally jack poo poo about the consequences setting wages at a that minimum or about whether doing so actually meets your goals. Shockingly my values also tell me that's it's not fair that some US workers are pretty pore or that some people on this planet are completely destitute. My values can tell me to fix this. They say literally nothing about how to fix it. The how part requires brain cells expending energy to evaluate various options with differing pluses and minuses.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No it's not a 35% increase it's a lot more. Minimum wage touches about 5% of the workforce now. $15 minimum wage would hit several times that and increase wages several times more for some of those people ($6 instead of $1) Why are you judging the impact solely by the number of workers it affects instead of by the amount of money involved? That doesn't make sense. If we passed a law that required the weekly wages of every single worker to be raised 1 cent, then oh noes that affects 100% of workers, this would be huge!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why are you judging the impact solely by the number of workers it affects instead of by the amount of money involved? That doesn't make sense. Buddy I literally cited both with an example for the money. And the money actually increases exponentially as minimum wage goes up because it touches both more people and increases the money to each of them.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
People having more money helps small businesses. Who do you think buys the services of small businesses.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
euphronius posted:People having more money helps small businesses. Who do you think buys the services of small businesses. Please tell us more.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
Orthodox Economixxx tells us that Marx knew nothing and Marxists less, but at the same time, argues that a perpetual underclass is inherently necessary to the capitalist system. Fascinating.
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Orthodox Economixxx tells us that Marx knew nothing and Marxists less, but at the same time, argues that a perpetual underclass is inherently necessary to the capitalist system. Fascinating. No it tells us there is an underclass and that Maxism has nothing to do with fixing it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:35
|
|
asdf32 posted:No it tells us there is an underclass and that Maxism has nothing to do with fixing it. You loving intellectual child.
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
Wow this thread went places*. *straight into the ground. At least reading about IHDI was fun. Do any of you goons work in development and want to talk about that**? **In a topic way far away from this one.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
Increase minimum wage to $15? Vending machines and under the table jobs for everyone!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Did anyone properly explain why the government should continue to subsidize lovely businesses with social programs for workers instead of making those lovely businesses pay their employees adequately, so they don't need those social programs? And did anyone find that guy making $15/hr who would get his feelings hurt if he wasn't making slightly more than other poor people?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:25
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Wow this thread went places*. Nobody has ever answered if they gently caress watermelons. Unseen posted:Increase minimum wage to $15? Vending machines and under the table jobs for everyone! 
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
blatman posted:Did anyone properly explain why the government should continue to subsidize lovely businesses with social programs for workers instead of making those lovely businesses pay their employees adequately, so they don't need those social programs? Yes. It's not a subsidy unless you're an idiot.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes. It's not a subsidy unless you're an idiot. It really is though, it lets businesses continue to have living employees while paying them pretty much nothing and it's a government handout
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
blatman posted:It really is though, it lets businesses continue to have living employees while paying them pretty much nothing and it's a government handout Here you unironically state the idiotic and undoubtedly internally inconsistent notion that somone's life is attached to their employer.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
The progressive solution is obviously to ban foodstamps for anyone that's employed.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The progressive solution is obviously to ban foodstamps for anyone that's employed. Or just cut food stamps out of Medicaid unless you're a senior/disabled - Republicans would probably go along with that as a compromise for raising the minimum wage
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Here you unironically state the idiotic and undoubtedly internally inconsistent notion that somone's life is attached to their employer. Here you ironically get it
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The progressive solution is obviously to ban foodstamps for anyone that's employed. Thats a half measure. We need full company towns where corporations are directly responsible for every aspect of people's lives.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:00
|
|
asdf32 posted:Thats a half measure. We need full company towns where corporations are directly responsible for every aspect of people's lives. You loving intellectual child.
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Please tell us more.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You loving intellectual child.  This is great coming from the dude that doesn't know how to do basic math.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
Let me quote Nixon here, "We're all (intellectual) children now"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:22
|
|