|
You've cited one study which demonstrated an increase in the total wealth and well-being, in real terms, of those effected by the increase.quote:The psychological impact on the middle class is absolutely nothing compared to the actual, real purchasing power impact that this will have on those poor people who do not benefit from the policy. As far as the "non-working poor". Why don't you define what you mean with that term for us, please. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 23:43 on May 10, 2015 |
#
?
May 10, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:I'm focusing on actual minimum wage workers is that a sudden change (or even a staggered change over less than 5 years) in the minimum wage to $15 is about as realistic as a GMI. People in this thread are handwaving away actually useful anti-poverty policies because they're unrealistic yet seem to think $15 might happen. Sorry, not even the Republicans hate poor people that much. dude, you just said theres 165 million americans living in poverty lol
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, you need to consider an interest rate target over the lifetime of the policy. When inflation is under the target, the Fed will promote inflation. When inflation is above the target, the Fed will promote deflation. Fed policy just smooths inflation over time. The inflation caused by current policy will be eliminated when the Fed is fighting against the other part of the business cycle. Net inflation is zero. why do you keep ignoring cost of living adjustments also lol at this: JeffersonClay posted:That would hinder the ability of the Fed to promote sustainable growth and protect against boom and bust cycles.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You've cited one study which demonstrated an increase in the total wealth and well-being, in real terms, of those effected by the increase. Yes, I cited one study (that no one has actually given any intelligent reply to yet, let alone another study showing the opposite) that showed that workers who received the minimum wage benefited. No poo poo. You get a wage increase, they didn't get fired, so they benefited. Were they poor people that benefited? Well, about 20% of them were. Woo, great policy. Oh but there's more. Turns out that there were a lot of poor people who weren't working minimum wage jobs. These guys saw their real purchasing power decline with the price increase. Even better for you, the price increases were hardest for businesses that poor people used the most. And most of these poor people didn't benefit from increased wages. Brilliant policy, right? If you ever wanted to gently caress over the poor, this is how you would do it. I don't know how much clearer I can define "non-working poor". It's a poor person who is not working. Or an alternative household level version of that. RBC posted:dude, you just said theres 165 million americans living in poverty lol
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
RBC posted:why do you keep ignoring cost of living adjustments Man it's a good thing we have all these leftists here telling us to stop worrying about poor people who don't have jobs, they're well taken care of with cost of living adjustments.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:I don't know how much clearer I can define "non-working poor". It's a poor person who is not working. Or an alternative household level version of that. Those are two very different definitions. Is this someone who is: The spouse of someone who is employed below the new minimum wage level? They would benefit. Someone who is currently unemployed but looking? They would benefit from the diminished labour supply. Someone who is currently suffering from a medical issue covered by cost of living adjustments? They wouldn't benefit unless they also belonged to the first group, but they wouldn't be hurt either. I am honestly wondering who you're "non-working poor" person that will actually be hurt by this actually is, and why they are more important than a much larger number of working poor esp. when we can, you know, help them too, because it doesn't seem like "minimum wage" is the determinant factor in their quality of life, does it? Geriatric Pirate posted:Man it's a good thing we have all these leftists here telling us to stop worrying about poor people who don't have jobs, they're well taken care of with cost of living adjustments.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Those are two very different definitions. Is this someone who is: Some examples of people who would be hurt by any price increase: Retired people with savings Families with unaffected earners (can easily be poor if there is only one earner or lots of kids etc) Previously unemployed people (minimum wage decreases labor demand, not supply, I have no idea why you think it would decrease supply) New unemployed people People who would be hurt by the fact that the price increase disproportionately affects poor people, which is not reflected in COLA (as shown in the study): All poor people not affected by the minimum wage
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You're arguing that we shouldn't support a police because of a minority of a niche of those in poverty wouldn't benefit, when we also support helping them too. And it wouldn't even be practically difficult to do so, since a higher minimum wage would move a lot of borderline workers off the welfare rolls and free up cash for those who still need it. Either we have the unrealistic $15 minimum wage and all of a sudden you have a whole lot of new people claiming unemployment. Or you have a small increase in which case YOU AREN'T ACTUALLY INCREASING WAGES FOR PEOPLE ON WELFARE. Well, there might be a few of them. But 25% of current minimum wage workers (by a pro min wagers math here) are in the bottom 20% of household income. That's slightly better odds at getting rid of poverty than you would get by randomly handing out cash to people on the street. You don't free up any cash because 20% of minimum wage workers come from households making $60k-$100k. (4th income quintile) It's not like going to the welfare center and handing out cash, it's like randomly picking people to give cash to.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Look I'm going for a run now so I'll just say this: Anyways, you're a loving moron and your claim was that the red and green parts of this chart were almost the same:  Second, you don't have to be in the bottom quintile to be poor. It is way more complicated than that. The US government sets a poverty line at a particular income, around $23k for a family of four. Using this method they report a poverty rate of 15%. However, the poverty rate is generally considered to be much too low. The us poverty line is set as follows: http://www.irp.wisc.edu/ posted:The U.S. Census Bureau determines poverty status by comparing pre-tax cash income against a threshold that is set at three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, and adjusted for family size, composition, and age of householder. "Family" is defined as persons living together who are related either by blood or marriage. Thresholds do not vary geographically.[1] The Census Bureau has created an infographic to explain "How Census Measures Poverty." This is even more problematic than it seems: http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/18/why-is-the-federal-poverty-line-so-low/ quote:For the food budget itself, Orshansky used the Department of Agriculture’s “economy food plan.” It was the cheapest of four plans developed by the Department of Agriculture, and was designed to reflect what a family living for a short period of time on a severely constrained budget might need to get by. In 1962, it allotted $18.60 a week for a family of four with two school-aged children — or $143.47 in today’s dollars. It was even less costly than two other “low cost” plans the department had developed, and, as a 1962 report explained, “relie[d] heavily on the cereals, dry beans, peas, and nuts and potato groups, and on the selection of the less expensive items in each of the 11 food groups.” It was only for “emergency use,” and not intended to constitute a family’s diet over the long-term. This earlier measure was also calculated from pre-tax income. At the time an average family did in fact spend 1/3rd of its budget on food but today they spend around 1/7th.. In addition to this food increases in price much more rapidly than inflation: http://inflationdata.com/articles/2013/03/21/food-price-inflation-1913/ As the poverty rate is tied to inflation rather than the consumer price index not only is it overestimating the percentage of the budget that is food expenses it also manages to underestimate the price of food as well. Measuring poverty in the United States by Nancy K. Cauthen and Sarah Fass posted:There are very clearly some problems with this method of calculating the poverty level In addition the strict definition of family by the poverty measure excludes loads of people including cohabitors, unmarried partners with children that aren't yours, and any foster kids. There are alternative measures to use to determine the poverty rate but there is considerable disagreement on what precisely is appropriate to include. This is one used by the National Center for Children in Poverty or NCCP at Columbia University:  Although a large aspect of these budgets includes child care there are also other major expenses that are not accounted for in the overall budget as can be seen in this budget for a two parent family with a 14 year old child who does not need childcare:  When comparing these more realistic figures to the quintiles the picture of poverty in America begins to present itself. Even in the cheapest area or in a more expensive area with someone to provide childcare for you, the income required to get by falls above or within the second quintile.  Even with these figures the family is likely to lack financial security and any sort of large problem such as an unexpected illness or car accident or a house fire could drive them into an extremely bad situation. Actually achieving economic security with sufficient insurance and savings to be insulated from such events likely places you well into the third quintile of both households with minimum wage earners and households in general.  Here are pie charts of the distributions of minimum wage workers and workers earning under 9 dollars side to side. I am not willing to run the tests for statistical significance but the data is interesting nonetheless.   Also interesting is this chart clearly shows the dropoff in households existing with the higher salaries by using more equitable distributions of the income ranges. The statistics for the quintiles here are very similar with a somewhat smaller selection in the top quintile As the final quintile is much wider in actual money, beginning $150k below our highest tax bracket and continuing upwards to the wealthiest in the nation, simply looking at the quintile doesn't provide as much information as seeing subsections, although the top quintile holds 11.8% of the households a full 7.6% of them are between $100-150k. It would be interesting to see what of the remaining 4.2% remains at $250k but I've been unable to find the data.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
uh 25% is clearly the same as 13%, im an economist
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
LorrdErnie posted:Lots of dumb poo poo Your cost of living stuff is completely worthless, because a) the cost of living for all the cities you posted except Houston is above the median household income, so it's a bit of a pointless for you to start classifying everyone poor all of a sudden and b) you haven't posted any demographics relating to minimum wage workers that would suggest that they're over-represented in groups which are classified as poor despite having higher incomes. Is there any evidence that there are relatively more minimum wage workers in New York or California who are escaping being in the bottom 20% of wage earners but who are still living in poverty, or did you just decide to make that up? Do you have any evidence that minimum wage workers are important wage earners in large families that are still in poverty but above the 20% cutoff in income? edit: and when you factor in that the median age of a minimum wage worker is 24, so a lower income is expected, it starts to look like a really poor way of targeting poor people. I mean unless you want to hurt them, which I guess you do. Geriatric Pirate fucked around with this message at 00:36 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Swamp Russkie declaring that the children of middle and upper-middle class families would be hurt by an increased minimum wage because their buying power would decrease is one of the funniest things I've seen in a month.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
im the millionaire working a minimum wage job that that finnish dude is talking about
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
literally handing out money to black people you see on the street has a higher probability of helping poor households than increasing the minimum wageEffectronica posted:Swamp Russkie declaring that the children of middle and upper-middle class families would be hurt by an increased minimum wage because their buying power would decrease is one of the funniest things I've seen in a month. finding out that you had requested a probation because you couldn't stay away from the forums for 3 days was the funniest thing I found out today
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:That would hinder the ability of the Fed to promote sustainable growth and protect against boom and bust cycles. JeffersonClay posted:That would hinder the ability of the Fed to promote sustainable growth and protect against boom and bust cycles. Those policies seems to be a accelerating income inequality. Hmm. What is the economy for.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
i dont know but im still lolling at the idea that someone thinks there is such a thing as sustainable growth and protecting against boom and bust cycles in a capitalist economy
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Let's make the economy safe for the rich.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
THIS MINIMUM WAGE IS CAUSING ME MAXIMUM RAGE!!!!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:I'm focusing on actual minimum wage workers is that a sudden change (or even a staggered change over less than 5 years) in the minimum wage to $15 is about as realistic as a GMI. People in this thread are handwaving away actually useful anti-poverty policies because they're unrealistic yet seem to think $15 might happen. Sorry, not even the Republicans hate poor people that much. Delusion - a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. The child of a minimum wage worker benefits from a minimum wage increase even if that child does not work. Why do you continue to ignore this? Disability and social security payments are pegged to inflation, so these people are clearly not hurt by any hypothetical inflation resulting from a minimum wage increase. Why do you continue to ignore this? You are intentionally ignoring facts in order to continue pushing a particular narrative. You then accuse the people who bring up these facts of being delusional. Projecting much?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Like the last ten years alone...
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Man it's a good thing we have all these leftists here telling us to stop worrying about poor people who don't have jobs, they're well taken care of with cost of living adjustments. You keep trying to claim that all non-working Americans, including dependents and retirees, are poor. That is loving delusional. It's hard to take you seriously when you get even basic facts so horribly wrong
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
fact 1: there are 165 million poor people in the united states without jobs that will be harmed by the minimum wage. fact 2: rich pepole will benefit from the increase to the minimum wage, because they work minimum wage jobs THESE ARE THE FACTS PEOPLE GOD
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Either we have the unrealistic $15 minimum wage and all of a sudden you have a whole lot of new people claiming unemployment. quote:YOU AREN'T ACTUALLY INCREASING WAGES FOR PEOPLE ON WELFARE. quote:Well, there might be a few of them. But 25% of current minimum wage workers (by a pro min wagers math here) are in the bottom 20% of household income. That's slightly better odds at getting rid of poverty than you would get by randomly handing out cash to people on the street.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Leftists supporting cost of living adjustments are against cost of living adjustments. Stop supporting cost of living adjustments, you're hurting cost of living adjustments.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Nope, this is mostly all wrong too. Please put this at the top of all of your posts asdf32 posted:I'm sad people think they can use math and science in politics when they don't understand it. Pretend like I posted the ever-growing ironicat here I'm too lazy to copy-paste the url Hey are you still holding onto the idea that $15 is closer to $100 than it is to $7.25 or did you recant that? asdf32 posted:Yep except now instead of doubling, like the example above, we doubled all the minimum wage people AND added new people too. That's exponential. Which quantity do you believe is growing exponentially? Please be explicit because your posts are such a garbled mess of misused mathematical terms that it's hard to keep track of what you're trying to say vs the hosed up and wrong things that you're actually saying. As the minimum wage increase, what quantity grows exponentially? The number of people effected by the minimum wage increase? The total dollars representative of increase labor costs? The prices of goods? Explicitly state which quantity is growing exponentially as the minimum wage increases QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 01:21 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
ASDF, how do you square your lack of demand for a minimum wage with your idea that demand is basically infinite?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Previously unemployed people (minimum wage decreases labor demand, not supply, I have no idea why you think it would decrease supply) people with 2 jobs quit one of them
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Why do you want to decrease the supply of workers by 10 billion percent?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
If people paid to work unemployment would be 0%. take that "liberals".
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:
When you say exponential, do you mean polynomial?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Another good one is how ol' GP is transparently treating this like he's rules-lawyering a game of D&D, insisting that just because the monster is incorporeal doesn't mean that the wizard's astral attacks can hit it. Next thing you know, he'll be explaining how drow get penalties to INT, WIS, and CHA.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Horking Delight posted:When you say exponential, do you mean polynomial? I bet you think 2 is equal to 1 plus 1. Idiot.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:people with 2 jobs quit one of them Even more than that, families with two jobs will often quit one of them to take care of the home and children so long as one person can bring in enough money to support the family. I don't know why GP hates the concept of the family so much, but it's really weird. GP - Why do you hate the idea of allowing stay at home parents to raise their children instead of paying strangers to do it? Especially since it will increase the labour supply by establishing a higher caretaker to child ratio? Do you just want poor American families and their children to suffer?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:I bet you think 2 is equal to 1 plus 1. Idiot. It's going to get confusing in here if both of them start thinking that x and 2x are equal.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
I seriously doubt $15/hr is going to bend the labor supply curve backwards for many people.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
RBC posted:why do you keep ignoring cost of living adjustments Cost of living adjustments would mitigate some of the harm here, but not nearly all of it. Things like social security, ssi, ssdi, don't actually provide enough for a person to live comfortably right now. So even if they're indexed to inflation, people on these programs will still be worse off. Imagine a person who gets 10,000 a year from ssi, but who needs to purchase 20,000 dollars of stuff to live comfortably for a year, a $10,000 deficit. If inflation is 10%, the next year the person needs to purchase 22,000 worth of goods and their ssi payment will increase to 11,000, a deficit of $11,000. QuarkJets posted:You keep trying to claim that all non-working Americans, including dependents and retirees, are poor. That is loving delusional. It's hard to take you seriously when you get even basic facts so horribly wrong I posted this earlier. JeffersonClay posted:Another group that would unambiguously lose from an increase in the minimum wage (and a concurrent increase in prices) are poor people outside the labor force. RBC posted:i dont know but im still lolling at the idea that someone thinks there is such a thing as sustainable growth and protecting against boom and bust cycles in a capitalist economy People that think the business cycle can be affected with monetary policy: Mainstream economists. People that dispute this: Marxists and Paulites. Lolz end the fed am I rite? euphronius posted:Those policies seems to be a accelerating income inequality. Hmm. You know what would really put a dent in income inequality? A massive depression. By avoiding massive depressions, the Fed does allow income inequality to expand. Do you think the poor would benefit more if these depressions were allowed to occur?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:I seriously doubt $15/hr is going to bend the labor supply curve backwards for many people.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
I do think it's worth worrying about both nonworking poor and their income aswell as illegals that get payed off the book. Alot of those small businesses they work at already get most of their money from upper middleclass people ordering specialty products. I can't see them gaining any increase in demand from it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Even more than that, families with two jobs will often quit one of them to take care of the home and children so long as one person can bring in enough money to support the family. Daycare workers are often poor minorities. Why do you racist liberals hate the poor?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The 9 million people in poverty working full or part time would benefit. The remaining 20 million adults in poverty who are retired, unemployed, disabled, or otherwise outside the labor force would be made even more poor by a general rise in prices. But this is wrong. Unemployed but looking for work - These people are probably a wash. They come and go, and will probably make more money over time than not if they get jobs at all. Additionally, as I've mentioned, a higher minimum wage means a lower supply means it's easier to move them out of the unemployed category. Disabled 4,247,000 - Many who are disabled either still work, or have family members who work, and would still see benefits. This is the category with the most people who wouldn't benefit directly though, yes - but they would benefit directly if we kept funding of welfare the same, since they'd be getting bigger slices of the same pie. Whether we would or not is politics, but if they end up getting hurt it's hardly primarily the fault of a minimum wage increase. In the armed forces 77,000 - They should probably have their pay increased too. I don't think that's controversial. Able-bodied but not in the labor force 9,254,000 - How many of these are spouses? Students or young adults still living with family? People who are part of families working jobs that would be helped by the minimum wage increase? Just because they aren't part of the work force doesn't mean they wouldn't be helped by an increase in the pay of those who are. So you're looking at a number of much less than 20 million, 4 million of those who'd be hurt because their pay wasn't increased. This is not a strong argument. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Daycare workers are often poor minorities. Why do you racist liberals hate the poor? I'm helping them too - their customers will have more disposable income, meaning they can charge more to take care of fewer children for those families who still choose to use their service. The only thing that changes for them is they have to do less work, everyone benefits from a higher caretaker to child ratio.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 02:00
|
|