|
wateroverfire posted:Additionally: Virginia, both Carolinas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, rural parts of virtually every state including the rich ones, etc.  nowadays but stick with my fantasy for a moment) in Nebraska would be living comfortably even with price increases, which strikes me as a good reason to raise the minimum wage in Nebraska to $15.
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:48 |
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:(40 hours a week--I know, full-time work is pretty Since when?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Since when? Since the laws were changed so you must provide healthcare to "full time" employees. Managers micro-manage to the minute now to make sure you don't hit your 32 hour threshold that would make you 'full time' or whatever the limit is. For some reason office-supply stores are the worst about this, staffed around the clock almost completely by 'part-timers' working 29:59 a week.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Everblight posted:Since the laws were changed so you must provide healthcare to "full time" employees. Managers micro-manage to the minute now to make sure you don't hit your 32 hour threshold that would make you 'full time' or whatever the limit is. For some reason office-supply stores are the worst about this, staffed around the clock almost completely by 'part-timers' working 29:59 a week. BLS data indicates average worker hours have been unchanged for at least a decade, even when you narrow it down to "retail trade"
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
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. That's a good argument against poverty in general. But some people still confuse that discussion with the discussion about minimum wage. They're not the same thing.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Everblight posted:Since the laws were changed so you must provide healthcare to "full time" employees. Managers micro-manage to the minute now to make sure you don't hit your 32 hour threshold that would make you 'full time' or whatever the limit is. For some reason office-supply stores are the worst about this, staffed around the clock almost completely by 'part-timers' working 29:59 a week. This. If this post sounds crazy to you then you, fellow reader, have been blessed to not work in retail and food service and other fun chained-to-minimum wage jobs in the last handful of years. Series DD Funding posted:BLS data indicates average worker hours have been unchanged for at least a decade, even when you narrow it down to "retail trade" Then the BLS is skipping my section of the country. The newest excuse is that we only have 100 hours a week to schedule out between 12 employees. We are open 140 hours a week. Some people come in for an hour, maximum. Some get a 14 hour day broken up between two stores. It's hosed, and I live in it. Armani fucked around with this message at 18:45 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I actually didn't make it up, the lowest wages in most first world countries are much higher than in the US. Well your notion of a living wage is below the GDP PPP per capita for most countries. So there's that problem.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:It actually has been considered and addressed Download the full data file from BLS and look at the hourly median, 25th percentile, and 10th percentile numbers for the broad categories (could't get a nice table to format for this post). The distribution shows people working for less than $15 per hour in virtually all categories, distributed throughout the economy. $15 / hour is actually a lot of money. You have absolutely no way to know, or good reason to believe, that increased purchasing power is going to cancel out the hit from broad cost rises compounding through the economy. Keep in mind that not only will costs at every step in the supply chain (at least, every American step) increase and compound, but the cost of all the support services used by workers in those steps (the customer service, food service, and etc employees) also feed back in at every step and are recompounded. It's an inflationary cycle. edit: Referring specifically to OCC_GROUP for broad categories. edit2: Looking at the numbers, Jarmak is correct and $12 looks high for a federal minimum. Even $10 is going to affect a huge number of people. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 18:51 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Actually I did some math and a couple making $15/hour each (40 hours a week--I know, full-time work is pretty How did you do that math? That is a hard calculation to even approximate.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:46
|
|
asdf32 posted:Well your notion of a living wage is below the GDP PPP per capita for most countries. So there's that problem. Not for this one. I'm saying we can do better than "most countries" (in the developed world), which are already ahead of us. The US has way more available wealth.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Download the full data file from BLS and look at the hourly median, 25th percentile, and 10th percentile numbers for the broad categories (could't get a nice table to format for this post). The distribution shows people working for less than $15 per hour in virtually all categories, distributed throughout the economy. $15 / hour is actually a lot of money. You have absolutely no way to know, or good reason to believe, that increased purchasing power is going to cancel out the hit from broad cost rises compounding through the economy. Keep in mind that not only will costs at every step in the supply chain (at least, every American step) increase and compound, but the cost of all the support services used by workers in those steps (the customer service, food service, and etc employees) also feed back in at every step and are recompounded. It's an inflationary cycle. Right, and looking at broad categories sorted by median hourly wage you will see that the list of low wages is dominated by end of chain service industry or retail with notable exceptions for textile and agriculture. Once again, the steps of the supply chain are dominated by fixed costs, so even if we talk about the bottom 10 percentile of certain midchain categories, change in labor costs do not compound in the same way that end of chain labor costs do. Just eyeballing it, but it looks like >60% of all workers in these categories under ~$14/hour median are strictly end customer or service industry employees, and ~20% fall under fixed cost business facing service industry. These simply do not contribute to the "compounding" effects you are describing.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Pretty much this.  That's what we're arguing for. We want to see a phased-in minimum wage that eventually goes to $15/hr wateroverfire posted: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? what if the whole world explodes because the minimum wage was increased?! Bet you LIEberals didn't think about that (weren't you the one who said that your arguments weren't just "a shot in the dark"? That's exactly what you're doing here!) 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. Unable to afford a meal today, huh? I don't know what the big deal is, you could be getting tortured in Medieval Europe which is a way worse situation (for real, is "life at starvation wages is better now than it was 50 years ago" actually your argument to keep people at starvation wages? How does this make sense in your head?)
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
My cousin was very proud he became manager, he was working 45 hours a week as a regular employee of a retail store, now he works 60+ hours a week, but is salaried, so no over-time 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:My cousin was very proud he became manager, he was working 45 hours a week as a regular employee of a retail store, now he works 60+ hours a week, but is salaried, so no over-time How's his pay looking?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Shayu posted:How's his pay looking? He gets to go to the big corporate manager-get-togethers, and they pay for everything, plus he still gets bonuses, he just didn't like losing overtime I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Guys what if raising the minimum wage prevents Goku from being able to create the spirit bomb?! We can't take this risk
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:He gets to go to the big corporate manager-get-togethers, and they pay for everything, plus he still gets bonuses, he just didn't like losing overtime I guess. Sounds like he's got a good chance to suck up and maybe get himself promoted even higher, networking and all that. Good luck to him.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:How did you do that math? That is a hard calculation to even approximate. I know in my mostly rural county in Oklahoma $15 per hour wouldn't be a lot of money. Here's some numbers for Nebraska. You can break it down by county/city but they look about right to me. I guess if everyone remains single and has no children everything will work itself out in the end.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:I know in my mostly rural county in Oklahoma $15 per hour wouldn't be a lot of money. Here's some numbers for Nebraska. You can break it down by county/city but they look about right to me. I guess if everyone remains single and has no children everything will work itself out in the end.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Reminder: the question isn't whether $15 is fair or not. The question is whether a policy mandating $15 will result in a good outcome or not.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Reminder: the question isn't whether $15 is fair or not. The question is whether a policy mandating $15 will result in a good outcome or not. This whole thread we've been talking about the good that will come from increasing wages, yet your argument (and those who agree with you) basically amounts to "but how much will it help? and even if it does help, there could be hidden negatives that we don't know about!" If the real question was whether or not 15/h minimum wage would be good or not why hasn't there been any proof that it won't be? At the very least shouldn't you be able to argue that keeping it the same or reducing it would be more beneficial? Instead you've been argued into accepting that "maybe $12/h is ok".
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:This whole thread we've been talking about the good that will come from increasing wages, yet your argument (and those who agree with you) basically amounts to "but how much will it help? and even if it does help, there could be hidden negatives that we don't know about!" There's been plenty of proof, with many studies showing employment effects and price rises, there's been the demographics of minimum wage workers etc. Mostly it gets handwaved away in this thread in favor of those studies that find no employment effects (usually they find price effects, which are then ignored as well). Then there's the fact that raising the minimum wage to $15 would be the biggest increase ever, so you start to wonder whether previous studies which have looked at minimum wage increases that affected about 10% of workers are still robust when 45% of workers are affected. Which you'll probably choose to ignore because in your mind changing the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 is the same as $7.25 to $15, and then someone will ask "why not $100?" and you'll come up with some weak excuse about how $100 is unreasonable blahblahblah but $15 is totally going to work, because you can phase it over 5 years and it won't be the same thing or something.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:There's been plenty of proof, with many studies showing employment effects and price rises, there's been the demographics of minimum wage workers etc. Mostly it gets handwaved away in this thread in favor of those studies that find no employment effects (usually they find price effects, which are then ignored as well). The study you keep referencing indicates a 2% increase in prices, which doesn't seem much higher than normal inflation (some years it's much lower even). The other arguments were about how they don't really help the poor (the whole stupid tangent about who is going to see the income boost) and that raising the minimum wage is at best going to be a wash, which is just plain stupid... so maybe that's why you feel like it's been ignored? Geriatric Pirate posted:Then there's the fact that raising the minimum wage to $15 would be the biggest increase ever, so you start to wonder whether previous studies which have looked at minimum wage increases that affected about 10% of workers are still robust when 45% of workers are affected. What about the "demographics of minimum wage workers" argument? I thought most people weren't going to be affected by the change? Makes me think you're just latching onto any reason you can, even if they contradict. Either way, I'll agree it's a huge change, but that's no reason not to do it. I guess we'll see in 5 years when $15/h min wage is almost ubiquitous in Seattle. Geriatric Pirate posted:and then someone will ask "why not $100?" and you'll come up with some weak excuse about how $100 is unreasonable blahblahblah but $15 is totally going to work, because you can phase it over 5 years and it won't be the same thing or something. I was giving this some thought before I posted actually. I think if people want $100/h and they're able to pass it, more power to them. I'm certain I'll be affected by that change drastically, but I really don't see why it would make things worse in this country. The ramifications are obviously going to be global, and I'm no expert, but I'd guess the world economy would be in flux for a while and it would even out and our dollars would probably be worthless anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:There's been plenty of proof, with many studies showing employment effects and price rises There was a single study suggesting that the price increases wouldn't be any worse than 3%,and the minwage opponents jumped on this as irrefutable proof that a minwage increase would be disastrous Because their cheetos would be 1.03/bag instead of 1 There hasn't been any proof of any unemployment increase, just a bunch of speculation based on nothing
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
For those who say "We have no idea what the effects of an increased minimum wage could be on employment!" Imma just leave this herequote:Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. According to the data, at the very least a $10+ minimum wage would have no employment impact. Additionally, other studies have concluded that raising the minwage to $12/hr would easily be covered by 1.1% increase in prices at big box retailers such as Walmart. So please, to those screaming about "lack of evidence" please at least cite one goddamned thing that supports your point instead of essentially posting QuarkJets posted:Guys what if raising the minimum wage prevents Goku from being able to create the spirit bomb?! We can't take this risk over and over again.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:According to the data, at the very least a $10+ minimum wage would have no employment impact. I've never heard of economists who claim $10.10 = $15. quote:Additionally, other studies have concluded that raising the minwage to $12/hr would easily be covered by 1.1% increase in prices at big box retailers such as Walmart. Because Walmart's average wages are already $11, yes.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:I've never heard of economists who claim $10.10 = $15. The point is that a minimum wage increase, even by nearly $3, has no discernible impact on employment. Thinking that pushing it another 2 or more dollars will spell certain doom for our economy is some completely baseless poo poo, up there with QJ's Goku example. quote:Because Walmart's average wages are already $11, yes. According to whom? The average for their "sales associates" is below $9. And you still haven't cited a single thing, you humongous retard.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:According to whom? Have you tried: reading the study you cited.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Have you tried: reading the study you cited. Are you talking about the Walmart figure they cite? That's cool, but nearly half of employees are earning below at least $10.50/hr, going off their tables. Hell, >20% are earning below $9. That's a hell of a lot of people, so I really don't understand the point you're trying to make when Walmart is still going to have to raise the wages of at least 300k people by more than $3/hr. And this is literally how every business is going to be stratified wage-wise. Not everyone is going to be clustered close to the minimum wage. The point is to help out the large % on one end of the wage spectrum. Instead of nitpicking bullshit could you please try citing something yourself. Like, pretty please.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Have you tried: reading the study you cited. Maybe you could quote the relevant section, what I'm reading seems to contradict the point you're making. quote:As we showed in the previous section, the cost for Walmart of a $12 per hour wage increase would
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Maybe you could quote the relevant section, what I'm reading seems to contradict the point you're making. It's not a contradiction. 12 / 1.111 = 10.80
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:It's not a contradiction. 12 / 1.111 = 10.80 oh, I understand, you don't know how to read... you should really work on your comprehension
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:It's not a contradiction. 12 / 1.111 = 10.80 You do understand why using the average wage is a bad idea, instead of just reading the tables and being able to understand how many workers are currently far below that average? This is also literally in the paper, where they point out the large variability in the wages. This variability means that although on average it's a smaller increase, it's a very significant increase for a large fraction of current workers. The entire rationale behind minwage arguments is based upon this assumption. So I have no idea what point you're attempting to make. Aves Maria! fucked around with this message at 00:18 on May 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Well your notion of a living wage is below the GDP PPP per capita for most countries. So there's that problem. Why is this relevant to...anything? Should Americans be paid the prevailing wages in Vietnam?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why is this relevant to...anything? Gotta keep down with the Joneses. Must recreate 3rd world conditions in America to make sure poors can compete.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted: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. Nope, can't, reactionaries have a grip on congress and are trying to gently caress up America as a bargaining chip for cutting taxes on the rich and slashing welfare and health care. Maybe your enemy isn't liberals, but conservatives who will fight superior policies to the death, leaving minimum wage as the only politically possible method of redistribution.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:edit2: Looking at the numbers, Jarmak is correct and $12 looks high for a federal minimum. Even $10 is going to affect a huge number of people. I don't see much point in an increase that doesn't affect a huge number of people.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Which you'll probably choose to ignore because in your mind changing the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 is the same as $7.25 to $15, and then someone will ask "why not $100?" and you'll come up with some weak excuse about how $100 is unreasonable blahblahblah but $15 is totally going to work, because you can phase it over 5 years and it won't be the same thing or something. So when Seattle's $15 minimum wage doesn't cause any of the problems conservatives say it will, you're going to support raising it to $100 right, since whatever is true for $15 is true for $100, according to you? Orders of magnitude, what are they
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Nah, the excuse will be that Seattle is different than <insert place here> and it might cause Chtulhu to consume Oklahoma or Wyoming or Nebraska or Georgia. And that's a risk we just can't take.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:48 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So when Seattle's $15 minimum wage doesn't cause any of the problems conservatives say it will, you're going to support raising it to $100 right, since whatever is true for $15 is true for $100, according to you? Don't you see, you're backpedaling just like he said you would. $100/h is equivalent to $15/h, that's what you're saying and there's no way you could think otherwise, it's all or nothing!
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 01:17
|
|