|
euphronius posted:GP have you addressed the fact that the central banks policy is way more inflationary than any minimum wage increase. Have you addressed the fact that minimum wage increases actually affect prices of goods that poor people buy more than prices of goods that rich people buy? Oh wait, you love that, don't you? I mean a regressive price, that's a wet dream for someone who hates the poor like you do.
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Are you now lamenting that we banned child labor a century ago? Why do you hate poor people so much that you won't let them need to send their children to work in coal mines to earn money you loving intellectual child
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
The price have food has been skyrocketing since the min wage was set to 15$ in 2002.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Are you now lamenting that we banned child labor a century ago? Sorry for caring about the vast majority of Americans who aren't working. I mean they are kind of screwed, on one hand they have the Republicans, who want to screw them over and on the other hand, you have leftists like yourself, who think that price increases that affect them disproportionately aren't a problem because #COLA.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
really worried about housewives and millionaire retirees and their children
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Sorry for caring about the vast majority of Americans who aren't working. LOL no you don't. You're clinging to a single study you found in the WSJ and attempting to beat people with it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The price have food has been skyrocketing since the min wage was set to 15$ in 2002. Well it does make me wonder a bit, if you're so insistent on screwing over the poor, why try to accelerate it? Why not just let it happen normally?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:LOL no you don't. Oh, look at you with your study. Mr. Fancypants found a study by an economist. Oooh Mr. Fancypants' study is published in a top economics journal. I know, I know, actual evidence won't stop you from wanting to screw over the poor. I guess it's just in your nature to like suffering.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
GP confirm/deny that the following is a pic of you irl Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 21:00 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Sorry for caring about the vast majority of Americans who aren't working. I mean they are kind of screwed, on one hand they have the Republicans, who want to screw them over and on the other hand, you have leftists like yourself, who think that price increases that affect them disproportionately aren't a problem because #COLA. Take a break and collect yourself dude, you're better than this. At this point you're somehow complaining that tit-sucking infants aren't in factories, relax a minute and realize that we're never going to have literally every person in the workforce. Because some of them are tit-sucking infants, for example.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
im trying to picture the self loathing and fury unleashed when geriatric pirate received his first tuition bill only to find it was paid for entirely by the state
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
I'll indulge this disaster and your obsession with that paper (I am looking at the whole thing right now). Let's assume that MaCurdy is 100% right (I'm not reading a 50 page paper in economics just to get into an Internet debate, so I'm just looking at the abstract and summary of findings at the end of various sections). Never mind that this is just one study that is super new and is by no means outweighing all the other research, let's just go with this. According to the article, everyone of all income groups receive benefits, with some groups receiving more. Okay...so what? He claims that the price increases are regressive in the sense that the poor are hit more by them. Which makes sense, since they have less income. But now that they have more income, they can survive the price increases which are much, much less than their increase in income. Price increases on staple goods always harm those with less income (the solution is full communism). Again...so what? How does this speak against increased minimum wage? He also writes that "Two kinds of families make up each income group: those with low-wage workers and those without. These two kinds of families provide the basis for understanding the effect of a minimum wage law on the income distribution since not all families benefit but all families pay higher prices." The second group is the group that doesn't get a raise from the minimum wage hike in the 1990s: those making above the minimum wage in the 1990s would be making above $5.90/hour, or the unemployed poor. The unemployed poor generally live on a fixed income and we should always increase their payouts when the cost of living goes up--because no loving poo poo, we do that (this analysis seemingly doesn't take this into account). The other group, then, is the one most impacted. But he's talking about a change in their purchasing power, essentially, compared to the pre-increase world, because they aren't given a raise to adjust to the new prices. This only means their relative purchasing power is reduced compared to what it is before. Their purchasing power is still the same as everyone else making the same wage as them, assuming they get no raise. Of course, gotta get to the top of that crab bucket!!! Again, I ask: so what? How does this add up to harming the poor? And this all assumes that his analysis is impeccable and perfect. Of course, as I type this and go to preview you go full retard and fail to understand that workforce non-participation is not unemployment (those 5 year olds are sure glad you're looking out for them), that the vast majority of minimum wage (or near minimum wage) workers are actually adults, and that a massive hike to $15 (or $10.10, which is what I think the current administration proposal is) would actually raise a lot of people's incomes and purchasing power. I find it hilarious that people regularly accuse lefties of making the perfect the enemy of the good, and here are multiple people claiming that by not making the perfect the enemy of the good leftists are actually harming the people we want to help.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Take a break and collect yourself dude, you're better than this. At this point you're somehow compaining that tit-sucking infants aren't in factories, relax a minute and realize that we're never going to have literally every person in the workforce. Because some of them are tit-sucking infants, for example. Yeah because if you don't support policies that starve people who aren't working, you must want them to work. Why do you want kids to starve? Because those teenagers working part time just need to get paid more?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
The best way to help the poor combat rising food prices is the make sure the minimum wage is as low as possible - GP 2015
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Oh, look at you with your study. Mr. Fancypants found a study by an economist. Oooh Mr. Fancypants' study is published in a top economics journal. LOL academic economics
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
RBC posted:im trying to picture the self loathing and fury unleashed when geriatric pirate received his first tuition bill only to find it was paid for entirely by the state Like any good leftist, I exploded in rage because it was a subsidy to my future employer
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Yeah because if you don't support policies that starve people who aren't working, you must want them to work. Babies sure don't benefit from their parents making more money. I wish my parents had made less money when I was a child so I wouldn't have these accursed straight and healthy leg bones.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Roughly 45% of Americans are out of the workforce for whatever reason [Citation Needed] Geriatric Pirate posted:What we should really concentrate on is the 5% of the workforce who make minimum wage. [Citation Needed] Geriatric Pirate posted:Those teenagers are the future. So it's your belief that minimum wage workers are mostly teenagers?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Babies exist in a statistical island, unmoored from the effects of parental income. (I mixed metaphors here nicely I think )
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:I'll indulge this disaster and your obsession with that paper (I am looking at the whole thing right now). How is a policy that benefits people from all across the income distribution at the expense of poor people even close to a good policy? You keep saying "but we adjust payments for cost of living" yet here is a very real study showing a disproportionate effect on poor people. Too bad you're not actually going to read it and instead just go off your preconception. It doesn't say all people of all groups benefit by the way, it says minimum wage workers are just as likely to be from a rich household as a poor one. (GUESS WHY!!!) Yet the price impact disproportionately hits the poor.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Like any good leftist, I exploded in rage because it was a subsidy to my future employer Do you also wake up furious at the thought that public roads and K-12 education are subsidies to your future employer?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
GP please answer my questionRaskolnikov38 posted:GP confirm/deny that the following is a pic of you irl
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:(GUESS WHY!!!) 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Babies sure don't benefit from their parents making more money. I wish my parents had made less money when I was a child so I wouldn't have these accursed straight and healthy leg bones. What if, instead of calling it the "minimum wage", we called it the "randomized wage increase lottery" where we gave a random selection of 5% of young workers from each decile of household income a raise? And funded that with a VAT, with a special focus on goods that poor people like to buy. Maybe we can get the Republicans on board with your idea as well! If you work together, you'll feel really superior to all those poor people.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Your an idiot.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Do you also wake up furious at the thought that public roads and K-12 education are subsidies to your future employer? Well you seem to think welfare payments are a subsidy so I guess you think those are too?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Your an idiot. I've been saying that for pages, dunno why y'all engaged him
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Hmmm, it's missing key stats like "Median age: 24" and "Equally like to be from a household in the top 20% of incomes as the bottom 20%" or "Average family income: $53000"
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:What we should really concentrate on is the 5% of the workforce who make minimum wage. Oh so the minimum wage isn't a big deal and raising it doesn't touch enough workers to have a significant effect then? Oh and how much did you earn as a teenager, just curious.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:because unlike you I've taken an Econ 101 class where if even Von Mises himself taught it, would take that increasing the wealth of the bottom class of people would increase demand, as something so self-evident that it doesn't even need to be taught Econ 101 also strongly predicts lower employment and higher prices due to the minimum wage. that's why empirical data is important. We don't know whether the redistributive benefits will outweigh the price and employment harms. The studies linked so far ITT suggest that for moderate minimum wage increases, employment stays flat and prices increase. When I ask if there is empirical data supporting a demand boost from the minimum wage, I'm honestly curious as to whether it exists because I looked for some and could not find it. euphronius posted:GP have you addressed the fact that the central banks policy is way more inflationary than any minimum wage increase. I addressed it a ways back. Central bank policy is not producing lots of inflation. And central bank policy will be stopped once demand recovers and inflation rises (indeed quantitative easing has already been stopped and the fed is considering raising interest rates). The minimum wage will not. The minimum wage is not a counter cyclical policy, comparisons between the two are facile.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Great idea! The US should also have no minimum wage, just like Denmark. Let wages reflect economic conditions instead of an arbitrary government set amount. a system where economic fortitude is directly related to population happiness and prosperity? wow!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Econ 101 also strongly predicts lower employment and higher prices due to the minimum wage. that's why empirical data is important. We don't know whether the redistributive benefits will outweigh the price and employment harms. The studies linked so far ITT suggest that for moderate minimum wage increases, employment stays flat and prices increase. When I ask if there is empirical data supporting a demand boost from the minimum wage, I'm honestly curious as to whether it exists because I looked for some and could not find it. if only there were multiple real world examples from around the world to find out. oh well
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Hmmm, it's missing key stats like "Median age: 24" and "Equally like to be from a household in the top 20% of incomes as the bottom 20%" or "Average family income: $53000" What's the median family income
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
the scandinavian model of wage floors set across entire sectors by unions would be amazing
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Central bank policy is producing lots of inflation though, because the fundamentals are deflationary and it has taken unprecedented amounts of direct cash injection to stave that off.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Also:Geriatric Pirate posted:
computer parts posted:Are we at the point of the thread where we're defining minimum wage worker as "people working exactly $7.25/hr" instead of "anyone whose wage would go up if it was placed at $15/hr" ?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:a system where economic fortitude is directly related to population happiness and prosperity? wow! You want to take over? I'm going for a run soon.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Well you seem to think welfare payments are a subsidy so I guess you think those are too? So in your mind, paying people less than a living wage and forcing them onto food stamps is equivalent to having public roads?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Also: About 3% (of the work force) for the federal minimum wage, about 5% including all state minimum wages. Source: BLS, some math
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:About 3% (of the work force) for the federal minimum wage, about 5% including all state minimum wages. Source: BLS, some math About half of workers make under $17/hour.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:11
|
|