JeffersonClay posted:Americans voted for Obama twice and then elected a republican legislature because they are very savvy and just wanted maximum gridlock -- a serious poster. Come on, kiddo. You don't have to do this. You can still write lots of stupidity that at least counts as an actual response! See, for example, you could have offered some kind of explanation as to why moving from $11,000 in annual income to $30,000 in annual income would swing people around from 62% in favor of Democrats to 38% in favor or whatever! There's all kinds of things.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
its hard to be creative when you're reading your posts directly from a general economics textbook
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
No let's keep talking about how smart you think the American electorate is. Clearly way too smart to fall for the Republicans using the minimum wage as a wedge issue to divide the poor.RBC posted:its hard to be creative when you're reading your posts directly from a general economics textbook The next post you make in this thread that adds content to this discussion will be the first. Perhaps a passing familiarity with economics would make this easier for you. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 22:52 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:We do see unambiguously positive results: people who were making less had their incomes boosted, which is good for those people. But it's not unambiguously positive! Last time we gave people a living wage it didn't achieve utopia! JeffersonClay posted:Americans voted for Obama twice and then elected a republican legislature because they are very savvy and just wanted maximum gridlock -- a serious poster. Seriously, what are you complaining about? Just venting or something? JeffersonClay posted:We do unambiguously see negative effects. We unambiguously see positive effects as well. there is ambiguity about which effects dominate. The positive effects are clear you just believe them to be ambiguous because it suits your "we can't really know anything man" ideology. I don't really see how the negative effects are ambiguous either, it's pretty simple, did more people die in the street or qualify for welfare after the change? If not, the negative effects are effectively none at all, that is the metric we are gauging the success or failure on. Not whatever it is you seem to be gauging the success on. JeffersonClay posted:No let's keep talking about how smart you think the American electorate is. I think you're the one making a stink about how Americans are idiots, how does that make increasing minimum wage a bad thing?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 22:50
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No let's keep talking about how smart you think the American electorate is. Clearly way too smart to fall for the Republicans using the minimum wage as a wedge issue to divide the poor. Please stop talking about how hateful and vile you are, it's ridiculous when DLC types validate stereotypes like that. Also please pretend that you're having a conversation instead of a masturbation exercise.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
I think complaining about me being hateful and vile is maybe not the best strategy since you're three or four posts from talking about drinking your mead out of my skull or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 22:54
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I think complaining about me being hateful and vile is maybe not the best strategy since you're three or four posts from talking about drinking your mead out of my skull or whatever. Okay, I think this counts as an admission that you have no ability to or interest in defending the diarrhea that seeps from your keyboard. It would have been pretty dumb of you to keep insisting that poor people would magically vote Republican just because they're no longer engaged quite so much of an existential struggle.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Guys, Americans voted for Obama TWICE. They are clearly very smart and hard to fool. Wait they elected WHO in 2000? Wait, HOW many times?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Guys, Americans voted for Obama TWICE. They are clearly very smart and hard to fool. Wait they elected WHO in 2000? Wait, HOW many times? I'd really love to know what you're trying to say, what is the point and how does it pertain to raising minimum wage? I'm not being sarcastic or anything, you just seem crazy to me. For some reason you're arguing that americans are dumb... therefore keep minimum wage the same as it is.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
You know, it's pretty funny how the people who make indignant squeaky noises about "leftism" are all pure bastards. We've got the Pinochet fanboy, the robot that couldn't do algebra, the GBS tourist brigade, the crappy knockoff Russian, and now... the guy who rages about how Americans are just so loving stupid.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You know, it's pretty funny how the people who make indignant squeaky noises about "leftism" are all pure bastards. We've got the Pinochet fanboy, the robot that couldn't do algebra, the GBS tourist brigade, the crappy knockoff Russian, and now... the guy who rages about how Americans are just so loving stupid. Whereas on the other side we have you, a guy literally addicted to these forums so bad that he had to ask to be probated to be off them for 3 days
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Erectronica is the worst troll and I'm not about to let a golden post about Obama's reelection proving the ineffable wisdom of the American electorate just pass me by.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:When we look at the effects of previous minimum wage increases we don't see unambiguously positive results. ... a few hours later... JeffersonClay posted:We unambiguously see positive effects as well.  JeffersonClay posted:We do unambiguously see negative effects. We unambiguously see positive effects as well. Excellent, you seem confident in this statement. So explicitly state which effects you see as negative and positive. You've kind of half-heartedly done this in other posts, but I'd like a list of effects that you believe are significant and that are also unambiguously negative or positive. Provide citations, if possible. Simply saying "prices will shoot up by 10000%" will cause you to lose the game, since that's obviously bullshit. If you're actually interested in discussing this, that is.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Whereas on the other side we have you, a guy literally addicted to these forums so bad that he had to ask to be probated to be off them for 3 days It's adorable that you think this is a valid argument.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:17
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Erectronica is the worst troll and I'm not about to let a golden post about Obama's reelection proving the ineffable wisdom of the American electorate just pass me by. I think that basically every major Democratic failure can be attributed to your mindset of "Americans are retarded", watermelon-fucker. But don't be too proud of this technocratic terror you've constructed.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:It's adorable that you think this is a valid argument. "That guy's a nerd, right guys? What a loser! I totally won that argument!"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
All the real liberals think the American electorate is wise, rational and virtuous. 24% of the American electorate identifies as liberal and 36% view socialism positively. :brain explodes:
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:23
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:All the real liberals think the American electorate is wise, rational and virtuous. 24% of the American electorate identifies as liberal and 36% view socialism positively. :brain explodes: The fact that you think there's no middle ground between being a superhuman being and being some murderous retard explains so much about you, although not so much about the Democratic leadership.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:All the real liberals think the American electorate is wise, rational and virtuous. 24% of the American electorate identifies as liberal and 36% view socialism positively. :brain explodes: This gimmick is kind of boring hth
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Unrelated to the above, but related to your earlier stupidity: Poor Americans (bottom 5%) are in the top 30% globally, adjusting for cost of living. So while you were probably going for B, you seemed to hit A. That doesn't mean they're doing great or that they shouldn't be helped (especially if the conversation is dominated by people who are opposed to global solutions), but that means that 70% of the world is doing worse. Geriatric Pirate posted:You showed numbers that were in no way linked to the minimum wage. Ok, New York is expensive and an upper middle class salary in New York is not the same as in Oklahoma. Now the next step would be for you to show that minimum wage workers in New York are actually from high income households thus distorting the figures, which you haven't done. For all I know, minimum wage workers could actually be mostly in Oklahoma, making the fact that 19% of them come from the 60-80% quintile even more astonishing. Basically, it all sounds like a bunch of  It sounds like crying about the upper middle class to you because you've impressively managed to misunderstand nearly every element of my argument simultaneously. Geriatric Pirate posted:And lol at you trying to justify a policy that helps upper middle class families and hurts non-working poor through price increases with your "help is not a binary state". Let me guess, next you're going to tell me how the wealth is going to trickle down? There are 46 million poor people. 43% of people in poverty are children or elderly and so not going to be working but the children are tied to a family with an income and the elderly have costs of living adjustments on their income. You're left with 27 million. 11 million of those work. Of the 16 million left 5 million are on disability, also receiving cost of living benefits. You're only effecting 11 million people with the minor price increases after all that! There an equal number of poor helped or hurt by the minimum wage raise so now you just have to prove that the effect of the price increase is greater than up to doubling the others income. Geriatric Pirate posted:Yes, going from $15k to $30k is a bigger thing than going from $100k to $115k but that doesn't change the fact that you're still advocating a policy that will make some people go from $100k to $115k while leaving most people at $15k untouched. It's going to help almost as many people go from $100k to $115k as $15k to $30k (broadly speaking bottom 20% vs 4th quintile). How do you not see how ridiculous that is? If it was a case of the rising tide lifting all boats, that would be fine but it's actually a rising tide that leaves a lot of the $15k people half way under water. It's not leaving most people at $15k untouched. That is incorrect. It's not leaving the $15k people under the water either because prices don't rise by $15k over the course of a year because of this. Your metaphor is absolutely ridiculous and you're doing everything possible to avoid admitting that tons of people would be enormously helped. It's not a rising tide, it's a rising floor which lifts a large chunk of the poor above the water. Obviously we need other programs but minimum wage increases are by far the most likely thing to pass. It's better than nothing and a minimum wage increase and increased social programs are better than either alone. I don't understand why you hate the upper middle class so much that you'd rather a large chunk of poor people stay in poverty rather than letting them get a larger amount of supplementary income!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:33
|
|
about how poor the upper middle class, or the global 0.5%, is.
|
QuarkJets posted:Excellent, you seem confident in this statement. So explicitly state which effects you see as negative and positive. You've kind of half-heartedly done this in other posts, but I'd like a list of effects that you believe are significant and that are also unambiguously negative or positive. Provide citations, if possible. Simply saying "prices will shoot up by 10000%" will cause you to lose the game, since that's obviously bullshit. If you're actually interested in discussing this, that is. This is literally the fourth time I've linked this study ITT. Minimum wage hike leads to higher prices. "http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf%22 posted: A final issue we examine is the effect of the minimum wage on the prices of meals at fast-food restaurants. A competitive model of the fast-food industry implies that an increase in the minimum wage will lead to an increase in product prices. If we assume constant returns to scale in the industry, the increase in price should be proportional to the share of minimum-wage labor in total factor cost. The average restaurant in New Jersey initially paid about half its workers less than the new minimum wage. If wages rose by roughly 15 percent for these workers, and if labor's share of total costs is 30 percent, we would expect prices to rise by about 2.2 percent ( = 0.15 X 0.5X 0.3) due to the minimum-wage rise... The estimated New Jersey dummy in column (i) shows that after-tax meal prices rose 3.2-percent faster in New Jersey than in Pennsylvania between February and November 1992.~~The effect is slightly larger controlling for chain and company ownership [see column ($1. Since the New Jersey sales tax rate fell by 1 percentage point between the waves of our survey, these estimates suggest that pretax prices rose 4-percent faster as a result of the minimum-wage increase in New Jersey. Minimum wage positives: redistributes income to poor people minimum wage negatives: raises prices, strategic political concerns Minimum wage unanswered questions: does the redistributive effect outweigh the price effect? Will the employment effects stay negligible as the minimum wage rises?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The fact that you think there's no middle ground between being a superhuman being and being some murderous retard explains so much about you, although not so much about the Democratic leadership. The fact that you think it's OK to use that kind of ableist language is really making me doubt your leftist street cred. Please stop concern trolling and let us leftists continue our conversation.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Me: *Points out how your policy hurts the poor through price increases, seems to benefit upper middle class people, who you classify as poor because they have debt or something* It doesn't hurt *the poor* it barely increases prices for a small percent of the poor while doubling the incomes of many others. It also helps "middle class" people which would be fine even if it they weren't all piled with debt which threatened them with homelessness and general ruin but seeing as they are is actually an argument for the increase rather than against it like you seem to think. Then when I ask why you hate the middle class people for their relative position in the world but not the poor you go: "No yeah they dont matter either for the same reason why arent you helping those poor africans they really need it" and then tried to pretend it never happened
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The fact that you think it's OK to use that kind of ableist language is really making me doubt your leftist street cred. Please stop concern trolling and let us leftists continue our conversation. Edit: JeffersonClay posted:This is literally the fourth time I've linked this study ITT. Minimum wage hike leads to higher prices. The ideology eater fucked around with this message at 23:46 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:This is literally the fourth time I've linked this study ITT. Minimum wage hike leads to higher prices. Yet you conveniently leave out the part where the authors reveal that their methodology (survey sent to fast food restaurants asking before and after prices) can't definitively link price increases to wage increases. While it is certainly a plausible explanation and likely explanation for at least part of the price increase, the increase is overwhelmingly dwarfed by the gains in income.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
LorrdErnie posted:If I wasn't arguing with Geriatric Pirate you would be the biggest loving retard I've ever met on the internet. Is it a coincidence that the posters who are willing to use bigoted language against people with disabilities are the same ones who dismiss concerns that the minimum wage would harm people with disabilities who do not collect wage income? I get it, you don't think they're truly human and in fact relish the chance to cull some of the untermenschen. quote:and you keep loving posting it like its a slam dunk and it's not stupidly obvious that the impact of doubling a large chunk of the poor's income is going to be larger than a loving 2% increase in restaurant meals and an even smaller one in other sectors! The paper estimates a 4% price increase from a 15% wage hike, so if there's a linear correlation doubling the minimum wage would increase prices by about 25%. Please cite economic research in your reply.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
The CPI is composed entirely of fast food chains - a very fat goon
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
I like big macs as much as the next guy, but let's be honest here: the minimum wage is going to push big Mac prices out of reach for the little guys like you and me. We must stop them.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Literally all wage increases lead to increased prices. Inflation is part of a healthy economy
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Yet you conveniently leave out the part where the authors reveal that their methodology (survey sent to fast food restaurants asking before and after prices) can't definitively link price increases to wage increases. While it is certainly a plausible explanation and likely explanation for at least part of the price increase, the increase is overwhelmingly dwarfed by the gains in income. But 2%, that's totally a negative! He's right, pack it in guys, he proved that increasing wages also increases the price of goods. And as we all know, any increase in price is the worst thing that could happen, so we should just leave wages as low as possible to offset that 2%... somehow... wait, does not raising the minimum wage decrease the cost of goods? how does economy work?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Is it a coincidence that the posters who are willing to use bigoted language against people with disabilities are the same ones who dismiss concerns that the minimum wage would harm people with disabilities who do not collect wage income? I get it, you don't think they're truly human and in fact relish the chance to cull some of the untermenschen. JeffersonClay posted:The paper estimates a 4% price increase from a 15% wage hike, so if there's a linear correlation doubling the minimum wage would increase prices by about 25%. Please cite economic research in your reply.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Literally all wage increases lead to increased prices. Inflation is part of a healthy economy But how does the average CEO bonus affect burger prices??? I must know
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:While it is certainly a plausible explanation and likely explanation for at least part of the price increase, the increase is overwhelmingly dwarfed by the gains in income. The increase is dwarfed by the gains in income only for the people who see their salaries increase due to the minimum wage. People whose salaries will not increase due to the minimum wage are worse off, and that group includes a significant number of poor people who do not earn wage income. If you have research that makes you confident that more poor people will benefit than be harmed, I'd like to see it. LorrdErnie posted:People with disabilities get cost of living increases you loving idiot. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 00:16 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The increase is dwarfed by the gains in income only for the people who see their salaries increase due to the minimum wage. Which happens to be just under half of all people collecting an income.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
LorrdErnie posted:No. gently caress you. Extrapolating like that is an absolutely stupid thing to do. It has no relationship to reality. I agree extrapolating like that is fraught with difficulty. How can we then use the same sort of extrapolation to assert there will be no impact on employment from a minimum wage hike? computer parts posted:Which happens to be just under half of all people collecting an income. I'm more concerned about the number of poor people who will benefit versus the number who will be harmed, with a secondary consideration about the respective degree of their poverty.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The increase is dwarfed by the gains in income only for the people who see their salaries increase due to the minimum wage. People whose salaries will not increase due to the minimum wage are worse off, and that group includes a significant number of poor people who do not earn wage income. If you have research that makes you confident that more poor people will benefit than be harmed, I'd like to see it. You can't even count the number of people that you are concerned about but you call it significant without batting an eye. Given that $15 min wage would affect just a little south of half of workers, I can rest confident that my number is more significant that yours. Unless you want to prove that 70 some odd million people live in circumstance where they are untouched by anyone with income.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The increase is dwarfed by the gains in income only for the people who see their salaries increase due to the minimum wage. People whose salaries will not increase due to the minimum wage are worse off, and that group includes a significant number of poor people who do not earn wage income. If you have research that makes you confident that more poor people will benefit than be harmed, I'd like to see it. Actually this is all wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm not aware of any countries with that high of a minimum wage, but I think it's safe to say that big mac price is not strongly correlated with minimum wage: There actually is, correlations are never strong outside the rigorous sciences because it becomes too difficult to control for everything. Most people's gut notions of statistics are very wrong- like people thinking 100 people is too small a sample size. LorrdErnie posted:People with disabilities get cost of living increases you loving idiot. Yea, but extrapolating in a linear fashion is almost certainly a conservative estimate so it kinda fucks your argument- all the evidence points to it being an exponential increase. It's really crazy how many people are citing weak studies and asserting utterly shocking and stupid things. It's not even like minimum wage is at all good at what it is aiming to accomplish, this is just identity politics and low-info ideologues at its finest. JeffersonClay posted:I'm more concerned about the number of poor people who will benefit versus the number who will be harmed, with a secondary consideration about the respective degree of their poverty. That's what the sad part is- people who claim to be champions of the poor often stand behind terrible policy because of the every present right wing boogeyman. Who needs to actually think and reason when the gut does all the work? LorrdErnie posted:hmmmmmm Why post in a debate forum if you obviously hate debate? Like how pathetic.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:People whose salaries will not increase due to the minimum wage are worse off, and that group includes a significant number of poor people who do not earn wage income. By using tax records we can get an exact number of minimum wage or less than $15/h workers who would directly benefit from a minimum wage increase. According to this page (http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0, it's a summary of IRS data) half of US households who filed taxes (68 million people) made $36k (minus deductions) in 2012. Minimum wage of 15/h is about 30k. So that right there tells us that approximately 60 million households are earning 15/h or less currently. Unless you can come up with a number even close to 60 million I think you're idea really doesn't hold water. Approximately half of US households will benefit from a 15/h wage increase, but still you're saying that more poor people with zero income will be negatively impacted? How? How many poor jobless people do you think exist in america? How many poor jobless people who will die in the street because they can't afford a 5 dollar burger vs a 4 dollar burger? ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 00:45 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
ElCondemn posted:By using tax records we can get an exact number of minimum wage or less than $15/h workers who would directly benefit from a minimum wage increase. According to this page (http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0, it's a summary of IRS data) half of US households who filed taxes (68 million people) made $36k (minus deductions) in 2012. Minimum wage of 15/h is about 30k. So that right there tells us that approximately 60 million households are earning 15/h or less currently. I don't think you realize how many jobs are a couple dollars an hour away from being turned into a robot. You should look into that.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:45
|
|