|
wateroverfire posted:This is the most justfinishedmyintrotobusinesscourse.txt post. It's more JustFinishedMyIndustrialEngineeringDegree.txt, but okay.
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Production. quote:GDP (Y) is the sum of consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G) and net exports (X – M). computer parts posted:It's more JustFinishedMyIndustrialEngineeringDegree.txt, but okay. No, he's right. Been there, done that.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Yep that's the method used to calculate production and after inflation adjustments the monetary units don't matter.quote:Gross domestic product (GDP) is defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as "an aggregate measure of productionequal to the sum of the gross values added of all resident, institutional units engaged in production (plus any taxes, and minus any subsidies, on products not included in the value of their outputs)."[2] asdf32 fucked around with this message at 15:30 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:This is really going to deal with wealth inequality and poverty in America! Why does the minimum wage have to solve every problem for it to make sense? Nobody is claiming that increasing minimum wage will fix all of our wage disparity issues. An increase in minimum wage will benefit roughly half of the US population, sure not all of them are poor but it will increase the income and therefore quality of life for a large amount of people. Why is that not enough?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
But the minimum wage won't help poor people in Africa so it's not worth doing. Really any American policy that benefits Americans can get right the gently caress out: libraries, universities, food stamps, labor laws, infrastructure, public health. If you spend money on any of those things, you hate the global poor.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
do you expect much more from a bunch of privileged children whose only interest is in preserving the status quo so that daddy keeps sending them their checks
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But the minimum wage won't help poor people in Africa so it's not worth doing. Better yet if all that money goes to billionaires instead, because somehow that helps the global poor and isn't a cynical way to argue for wealth inequality
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:On the other hand, we know that the minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment. No we don't, in fact we know just the opposite, we know that at some point minimum wage increases will cause unemployment. What we don't know is what that point is. We can argue and disagree about where that point is but trying to state it doesn't exist is just a bad-faith way of trying to avoid having to answer the other side's arguments. Lotka Volterra posted:In the case of many businesses currently (see: Walmart) as few as possible. Which means a wage increase is unlikely to change how many people are employed since they're operating with as few employees as possible already. This is overly simplistic. Businesses operate by hiring employees if the cost of that employee is lower then the benefit that employee brings in. Walmart has a pretty narrow range that it would move within because of the diminishing returns they experience from hiring more staff (more staff > better run store > better customer experience > more customers), and the fact most people go to Walmart for the prices not the customer service. That said you better believe even Walmart has someone doing the calculations on whether adding an extra cashier will cost more or less then the business they might lose from people avoiding the store during the busiest parts of the day.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Thanks for being honest that you have no idea at what point these theoretical employment losses will happen. Since we agree on this, it certainly would be a bad faith argument if someone were to come in and start obliquely referring to them to imply they would happen at $15/hr as a way to shut down the idea without backing up any of those innuendos with evidence, or having to confront the fact that all those same baseless predictions are made every time we increase the minimum wage and have always been wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Thanks for being honest that you have no idea at what point these theoretical employment losses will happen. Since we agree on this, it certainly would be a bad faith argument if someone were to come in and start obliquely referring to them to imply they would happen at $15/hr as a way to shut down the idea without backing up any of those innuendos with evidence, or having to confront the fact that all those same baseless predictions are made every time we increase the minimum wage and have always been wrong. Don't be dumb. 15 an hour is around the 45th percentile for wages nationally and in some areas it probably ranks higher. It's not a shot in the dark to predict that will have effects.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Thanks for being honest that you have no idea at what point these theoretical employment losses will happen. Since we agree on this, it certainly would be a bad faith argument if someone were to come in and start obliquely referring to them to imply they would happen at $15/hr as a way to shut down the idea without backing up any of those innuendos with evidence, or having to confront the fact that all those same baseless predictions are made every time we increase the minimum wage and have always been wrong. But we can't look at history, there's no way to extrapolate what could happen in the future with just decades of minimum wage increases as data points. Even if in the past we've seen little to no negative repercussions and the economy didn't implode like was predicted by those using future logic we just can't tell what will happen!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Thanks for being honest that you have no idea at what point these theoretical employment losses will happen. Since we agree on this, it certainly would be a bad faith argument if someone were to come in and start obliquely referring to them to imply they would happen at $15/hr as a way to shut down the idea without backing up any of those innuendos with evidence, or having to confront the fact that all those same baseless predictions are made every time we increase the minimum wage and have always been wrong. That's not a bad faith argument its an unsupported argument, and as I said with my second post in this thread neither side of this debate has particularly well supported argument, both sides are based mostly on inferences and gut feelings. "X incremental change didn't have a negative outcome previously" is not really a useful argument when you know at some point there will be a bad outcome because it never will have a bad outcome until you hit that point. This is especially true because $15/hr is higher then it has ever been (adjusted for inflation). I'm much more in favor of taking a more measured approach of setting the federal minimum wage to $12/hr pegged to inflation and let individual states and metropolitan areas go higher then that as appropriate.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Don't be dumb. 15 an hour is around the 45th percentile for wages nationally and in some areas it probably ranks higher. It's not a shot in the dark to predict that will have effects. Effects like full-time workers being able to pay rent and take their kids to the doctor? Other countries with comparable levels of development are able to sustain higher minimum wages without problems, we can do it too USA #1  The fact that it's 45th percentile is an indictment of our shameful wealth inequality, not proof that $30,000/yr is some princely sum unattainable for all citizens of the richest country in the world.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:"X incremental change didn't have a negative outcome previously" is not really a useful argument when you know at some point there will be a bad outcome because it never will have a bad outcome until you hit that point. On the other hand, we do know the point at which incrementally low wages start bringing on suffering and untimely death and we can see before our eyes the amazing medical achievements of the last 100 years losing ground to poverty, so selecting known terrible things over unknown and theoretical uncertain possible bad things at some point doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:"X incremental change didn't have a negative outcome previously" is not really a useful argument when you know at some point there will be a bad outcome because it never will have a bad outcome until you hit that point. This is especially true because $15/hr is higher then it has ever been (adjusted for inflation). I'm much more in favor of taking a more measured approach of setting the federal minimum wage to $12/hr pegged to inflation and let individual states and metropolitan areas go higher then that as appropriate. So your only issue is that it's too big of a number? you think 12 is just right but 3 dollars more will lead to economic collapse?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
I know this might be a wild and crazy idea, surely I am charting unknown territory here, but stay with me... I am moving fast, I know... Perhaps, just maybe, we could phase in incremental minimum wage increases. Using such a revolutionary approach, we can minimize the immediate economic impact, give business time to adjust, and examine some of the shorter term impact. Actually, no, that is crazy talk, what we should do instead is nothing while we run wild with conjecture lamenting the fact that we cannot predict with 100% certainty the impact of a minimum wage increase.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
E: f; bElCondemn posted:So your only issue is that it's too big of a number? you think 12 is just right but 3 dollars more might lead to economic collapse? To be fair, the cost of living in some places is really, really low, so a $15/hour minimum wage would mean that you could work a measly 30 hours a week and pay the bills while still having spending money (this would be my situation, actually). I take that to be a good thing, but it'd be a bigger shock in some places, which is why you phase it in slowly.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
If it were feasible to phase in an incremental increase to $15/hr I'm sure someplace would have already started doing it by now
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:09
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's not a bad faith argument its an unsupported argument, and as I said with my second post in this thread neither side of this debate has particularly well supported argument, both sides are based mostly on inferences and gut feelings. you're aware the rest of the developed world managed to provide for their poor much better than we do without catastrophic economic effects i'd call that a little more than a gut feeling
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If it were feasible to phase in an incremental increase to $15/hr I'm sure someplace would have already started doing it by now  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
really the living/minimum wage issue comes down to this should employers be allowed to hire people for less than a living wage? I don't really see any benefit for us to allow this
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:So your only issue is that it's too big of a number? you think 12 is just right but 3 dollars more will lead to economic collapse? Economic collapse is too strong but yeah, my issue is I think 15 is too high for the federal wage, that is a lot of money in some areas of the country. Also its pretty silly to argue that $3 is insignificant when it comes to the economic effect while simultaneously arguing how significant that $3 is when it comes to calling 12/hr too low. archangelwar posted:I know this might be a wild and crazy idea, surely I am charting unknown territory here, but stay with me... I am moving fast, I know... Pretty much this.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:you're aware the rest of the developed world managed to provide for their poor much better than we do without catastrophic economic effects You're aware that you just made this up and it isn't at all true? (based on minimum wage talk) Hell upon reflection and looking at some numbers 12/hr is probably too high as well for federal, more like 10/hr or 11/hr Jarmak fucked around with this message at 17:37 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
$15/hr is, even in the poorest states in the USA, not enough for a single parent to earn a living wage, nor is it enough for a married couple with one child unless both of the parents work. It's itself a compromise compared to a meaningful living wage, which would be around $20/hr minimum to account for single parents with multiple children.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Also its pretty silly to argue that $3 is insignificant when it comes to the economic effect while simultaneously arguing how significant that $3 is when it comes to calling 12/hr too low. What if money has a marginal value and what's a big deal to someone making too little to feed and house their family is insignificant to a business like McDonald's and would only equate to something like an extra $0.70 per burger
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Pretty much this. IDK, maybe. My agreement that it sounds sensible wars with my wariness that it's a goony goon proposing it. I don't think incremental adjustments change the problems with going from a $7.25 minimum wage to a $15 minimum wage unless there are no inflation adjustments.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What if money has a marginal value and what's a big deal to someone making too little to feed and house their family is insignificant to a business like McDonald's and would only equate to something like an extra $0.70 per burger What if when you compound cost increases through the whole economy the price increase is a lot more than $0.70, a lot of people end up out of work, and the people who weren't working are more screwed than they were before? A thing you're not considering but probably should be.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:IDK, maybe. I meant more along the lines that we should increase it incrementally then re-evaluate, not that we should set it to $15 and have the increments be automatic VitalSigns posted:What if money has a marginal value and what's a big deal to someone making too little to feed and house their family is insignificant to a business like McDonald's and would only equate to something like an extra $0.70 per burger And this really is the problem, most of the thinking in this thread is about as deep as "we want more money lets just take from the corporations!"
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Then it seems like you should support an incremental approach so we can study the effects and if we notice the bad trending to overwhelm the good we can stop.Jarmak posted:And this really is the problem, most of the thinking in this thread is about as deep as "we want more money lets just take from the corporations!" If we want more money, I daresay it makes sense to take if from people who have it, not people who don't. Isn't our tax structure based on this theory (or at least, used to be anyway)
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Then it seems like you should support an incremental approach so we can study the effects and if we notice the bad trending to overwhelm the good we can stop. I should but...goons. I've been hurt before. =( The incremental approach is more or less what we're doing now without being explicit about it.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
What we're doing now is the incremental approach downward, and we know it's been horrible and hasn't had any positive effects to recommend it.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Economic collapse is too strong but yeah, my issue is I think 15 is too high for the federal wage, that is a lot of money in some areas of the country. I'm sorry, which areas of the country are you referring to where $15 per hour is "a lot of money"?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Then it seems like you should support an incremental approach so we can study the effects and if we notice the bad trending to overwhelm the good we can stop. Trying to take it out of companies is dumb, though. A company is a conduit that converts inputs into outputs. If you raise the cost of doing that you just pay more for the outputs. The owners still make their money and poor people keep being poor, but the price level goes up. Tax rich people, sure, but not companies. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 17:57 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What we're doing now is the incremental approach downward, and we know it's been horrible and hasn't had any positive effects to recommend it. Life at the bottom of the wage scale is a lot better than it was in 1968 so IDK what you have in mind but you might want to reassess. Also, states have taken a variety of approaches. http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/stateMinWageHis.htm
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:I'm sorry, which areas of the country are you referring to where $15 per hour is "a lot of money"? caveat emptor: I'm a single man with health insurance paid through my employer and while I wouldn't be living paycheck-to-paycheck I wouldn't claim that I'd have a lot of money. Also you'd have to live in Nebraska.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Nebraska. Additionally: Virginia, both Carolinas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, rural parts of virtually every state including the rich ones, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:A thing you're not considering but probably should be. It actually has been considered and addressed quote:Actually if you read the BLS data or knew anything about business supply chain management (I will give you the benefit of the doubt not being in the US), then you would realize that the majority of the people making less than $15/hour are end consumer facing food service, consumer service, or retail workers, with the notable exception being textile workers. Logistics is dominated by fixed costs and workers earn generally higher wages. Raw resource inputs are either imported or are dominated by fixed costs and higher wage labor for harvesting. Intermediate parts are imported or manufactured in facilities operated by workers earning generally higher than the proposed minimum. At worst you would see a marginal increase due to higher wages for non-production workers such as janitors or cafeteria food vendors. However $15/hour is at the point where wage growth effects could start to cycle through the supply chain but would still be mitigated by increased purchase power. But the question does start to get raised on how much do you want to squeeze the "middle class" as the negative effects become more or less flat for those not receiving an increase. The solution is more direct and progressive forms of redistribution, but there is value in ensuring a certain wage floor to aid in combatting more exploitive labor relationships and ensuring labor is socially necessary without the need to directly regulate. If this can be done via strong bargaining rather than minimum wage law, even better.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Life at the bottom of the wage scale is a lot better than it was in 1968 so IDK what you have in mind but you might want to reassess. http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-since-1938/ This page shows us the inflation adjusted minimum wage. We are on a downward trend from when it peaked in the 60s at almost $11/h Also just because it was harder before doesn't mean that it's ok now.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
One thing that is generally ignored is the negative economic (and social, but let's avoid asdf or wateroverfire talking about that) effects from the working poor having to make up the difference between the living wage and their actual wage. This is, in all probability, because the position against increase is one that is purely conservative, without any actual underpinnings beyond change being bad.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:55 |
|
Jarmak posted:You're aware that you just made this up and it isn't at all true? (based on minimum wage talk) I actually didn't make it up, the lowest wages in most first world countries are much higher than in the US. Effectronica posted:One thing that is generally ignored is the negative economic (and social, but let's avoid asdf or wateroverfire talking about that) effects from the working poor having to make up the difference between the living wage and their actual wage. This is, in all probability, because the position against increase is one that is purely conservative, without any actual underpinnings beyond change being bad. It is because it only takes half a brain to deduce that the entire point of regulation is to place reasonable restrictions on business practices. Paying less than a living wage is just slavery by another name, it's sad that our society allows it.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:19
|
|