|
Gracias. Real talk I think a federal minimum around $10 + inflation is more likely than not to be a thing in the next few years.
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Didn't we just raise the minimum wage like 5 years ago? TwoQuestions kramers out the window "That's what's so crazy about it!!!"
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 15:00
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Gracias. that is correct I roundly project close to 0 job loss
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:that is correct An assessment I also agree with.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:I find it hilarious how y'all are posting about the GMI being politically infeasible while pretending a minimum wage hike has a snowball's chance in hell. the only reason its being discussed is because with inflation the us federal minimum wage has become absurdly low. a $15.h minimum wage has a snowballs chance in hell but really its just a negotiation tactic to get a $10-11 minimum wage. The idea of proposing a GMI is basically absurd. it hasnt been implemented anywhere and nobody really has any solid evidence of what a large scale implementation would do injecting that kind of uncertainty into the economy will never, ever happen. it might happen if a bunch of more progressive nations do it first and it turns out to be very good for business because they can pay all their workers less
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Gracias. I would be just fine with ~$12 federal and push for higher in metro areas. (Or aggressive social democracy/full communism now)
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Didn't we just raise the minimum wage like 5 years ago? Correct. And every single union in America is in favor of the minimum wage, despite paying their workers well over the min wage. It doesnt apply to them, only to their competition. The sooner we can stop black teenagers and Mexican immigrants from undercutting our wages, the sooner the white middle class can make more money off our unions.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:I would be just fine with ~$12 federal and push for higher in metro areas. (Or aggressive social democracy/full communism now) Wealthy metro areas might be able to support $12 but in poor rural ones that's a lot of money. If it's federal and blankets everyone it probably needs to be $9-$10.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:The sooner we can stop black teenagers and Mexican immigrants from undercutting our wages, the sooner the white middle class can make more money off our unions. Blacks and mexicans don't deserve to make less money than whites, sorry bout your racism
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Blacks and mexicans don't deserve to make less money than whites, sorry bout your racism Agreed. The sooner we can put them in jail for voluntarily selling their labor for less than what a white man will charge, the better. Why in the gently caress would a black or Mexican voluntarily sell his labor for less than the white wage of privilege? I don't get it. It should be illegal. The soon that happens the better. I will never lose a job interview again.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
I just had this great idea to give blacks full employment by paying them zero, let's think of a catchy name for this
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I just had this great idea to give blacks full employment by paying them zero, let's think of a catchy name for this Internships?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Internships? I like it. Now we just call anyone who hates the idea of paying blacks less money for the same work a racist, because words have no meaning
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Internships? drug dealers
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Wealthy metro areas might be able to support $12 but in poor rural ones that's a lot of money. If it's federal and blankets everyone it probably needs to be $9-$10. Based on what analysis, or knowledge of rural America? Federal minimum wage has been as high as $12 inflation adjusted in the past. And once again, jobs most likely to be impacted by minimum wage are end consumer jobs: jobs that can't move offshore and are less likely to be automated.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Based on what analysis, or knowledge of rural America? Federal minimum wage has been as high as $12 inflation adjusted in the past. And once again, jobs most likely to be impacted by minimum wage are end consumer jobs: jobs that can't move offshore and are less likely to be automated. I lived in the U.S. for many years and traveled a lot for work. There are rural towns in New England, the South, and the Mid West that might as well be in the third world and a few that are as bad as anything I've seen in Chile. A lot of them are slowly dying. The poverty is heart breaking. $12/hour is a huge amount of money for those places. You need to take those numbers from the 50's with a huge grain of salt. The economy, and living standards, were vastly different. Talk to your grandparents about what it was like to make it on minimum wage back then and what life was like generally. It's not comparable.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Based on what analysis, or knowledge of rural America? Federal minimum wage has been as high as $12 inflation adjusted in the past. And once again, jobs most likely to be impacted by minimum wage are end consumer jobs: jobs that can't move offshore and are less likely to be automated. Why would a job get "automated" because of min wage. I don't get it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I lived in the U.S. for many years and traveled a lot for work. There are rural towns in New England, the South, and the Mid West that might as well be in the third world and a few that are as bad as anything I've seen in Chile. A lot of them are slowly dying. The poverty is heart breaking. $12/hour is a huge amount of money for those places. So, neoliberal policies have destroyed rural areas. Instead of abandoning those policies, we should agree with neoliberals on more things like holding down wages for the poor.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Talk to your grandparents about what it was like to make it on minimum wage back then and what life was like generally. It's not comparable. What percentage of the work force works for minimum wage? What age group are they in? What color is their skin? How many other income earners are in their family? How much does the family make compared to other American families? Just curious.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So, neoliberal policies have destroyed rural areas. Instead of abandoning those policies, we should agree with neoliberals on more things like holding down wages for the poor. Rural areas are dying because they are fundamentally not as compatible with a modern economy as urban areas, and because there is really no reason why young people would want to stay there. It's not really due to neoliberal policies, it has being an ongoing trend since the industrial revolution.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I lived in the U.S. for many years and traveled a lot for work. There are rural towns in New England, the South, and the Mid West that might as well be in the third world and a few that are as bad as anything I've seen in Chile. A lot of them are slowly dying. The poverty is heart breaking. $12/hour is a huge amount of money for those places. Can you elaborate on this? At some point I'll have to look up things to quantify how American inner city/rural hellholes compare to average developing nation cities. wateroverfire posted:You need to take those numbers from the 50's with a huge grain of salt. The economy, and living standards, were vastly different. Talk to your grandparents about what it was like to make it on minimum wage back then and what life was like generally. It's not comparable. How so?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Typo posted:Rural areas are dying because they are fundamentally not as compatible with a modern economy as urban areas, and because there is really no reason why young people would want to stay there. If it's an ongoing and unavoidable trend, then there's no reason to try ineffectively to halt it by holding wages down. If it is reversible, maybe good wages are part of what young people are looking for when they move to the cities
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:Can you elaborate on this? Per capita median income was a lot lower in the 1950s, which means the overall standard of living was a lot lower because technology was a lot less advanced 60 years ago even if society was a lot more equal.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If it's an ongoing and unavoidable trend, then there's no reason to try ineffectively to halt it by holding wages down. I don't think anyone is talking about implementing a wage ceiling.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Typo posted:A complete non sequitur E: I'm not opposed to the minimum wage taking into account the cost of living in different areas, that's all well and good. But if we're worried that parts of the country are sinking further into poverty while young people leave...maybe the inability of young people to support a family on today's wages in those areas has something to do with that? E2: Even in rural areas there are national corporations. There are towns in Oklahoma whose only structure of note is a Wal-Mart. Seems like making those corporations pay a living wage would introduce more money into those economies instead of sucking it away to corporate HQ VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:05 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:How so? The idea is that the actual standard of living for a minimum wage worker is much higher now then in the 60's even though inequality is worse. Basically because of advancements in technology today's minimum wage workers possess luxuries and amenities that would have been marks of wealth, and in many cases completely unfathomable in that time period.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The idea is that the actual standard of living for a minimum wage worker is much higher now then in the 60's even though inequality is worse. Basically because of advancements in technology today's minimum wage workers possess luxuries and amenities that would have been marks of wealth, and in many cases completely unfathomable in that time period. I thought inequality was the most important issue though? Wouldn't you rather go back to a time when poor people had fewer calories to eat but a larger % of a much smaller pie? I feel like this is a much more just outcome and should be our main goal.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Basically because of advancements in technology today's minimum wage workers possess luxuries and amenities that would have been marks of wealth, and in many cases completely unfathomable in that time period. gadgets are less expensive, yes, but housing and transportation costs are higher
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:E: I'm not opposed to the minimum wage taking into account the cost of living in different areas, that's all well and good. You are talking about areas of the country which is already becoming unviable economically and profit margins are thin. Inflating wages is simply going to accelerate this process.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The idea is that the actual standard of living for a minimum wage worker is much higher now then in the 60's even though inequality is worse. Basically because of advancements in technology today's minimum wage workers possess luxuries and amenities that would have been marks of wealth, and in many cases completely unfathomable in that time period. But life expectancy for the poor has been falling. Turns out you can't eat cheap TV's, or live in them, or get medical treatment from them
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But life expectancy for the poor has been falling. Relative to the 1950s?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:gadgets are less expensive, yes, but food, housing, and transportation costs are higher Source? A quick google check shows that food is at an all time low for all of human history. It's down from nearly 25% of ones annual income in the 1920's to just over 9% today. Pre-20th century it was much higher too.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
i was wrong about relative cost of food, but transportation and housing are more expensive
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Both the left and the right both has this really unreasonable nostalgia (the former economically, the latter socially) for the 1950s that simply refuses to die at least until the baby boomers who grew up that decade dies and we can look at the decade more objectively instead of through their rose tinted glasses.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
How can you be poor, you have a cell phone, a wondrous device the like of which Phillip II couldn't have bought for all the gold in New Spain. You're richer than the King of Spain, stop saying you can't afford your doctor bills
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Typo posted:Relative to the 1950s? Paul Krugman posted:Take, for example, issues of health and mortality. Many people have pointed out that there are a number of black neighborhoods in Baltimore where life expectancy compares unfavorably with impoverished Third World nations. But what’s really striking on a national basis is the way class disparities in death rates have been soaring even among whites. Most notably, mortality among white women has increased sharply since the 1990s, with the rise surely concentrated among the poor and poorly educated; life expectancy among less educated whites has been falling at rates reminiscent of the collapse of life expectancy in post-Communist Russia. I'm not sure where Paul Krugman got his numbers about life expectancy, so maybe he is making it up, but that's where I read it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/04/o...pe=article&_r=0 The quote says life expectancy has fallen since the 1990s, this is different than saying it has fallen since the 1950s.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
RBC posted:The idea of proposing a GMI is basically absurd. it hasnt been implemented anywhere and nobody really has any solid evidence of what a large scale implementation would do The US currently has several GMI programs (SSI, SSD), as well as a couple BI programs. (Social Security and the Alaskan Permanent Fund)
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i was wrong about relative cost of food, but transportation and housing are more expensive What do you mean by transportation? Just car and oil prices? Those have gone down pretty substantially over the last 100 years. Until like the 1970's when oil went crazy anyways. Cars are cheaper now than they were, at least for what you get like miles per gallon and what not. A used car is a pretty low cost expenditure these days. Not sure you could have purchased one in the 1950's as easily as you can now. Outside of the intentionally created housing bubble of the last few decades, home prices were falling like crazy until like the 1970's when they started going flat. You are right that the last few years have been a huge increase though.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:Can you elaborate on this? Sure. I'm not sure what you're interested in specifically. Let me know and I'll answer what I can. =) The posts since yours have covered all the points I would have for your second question.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:45
|
|