|
Nonsense posted:Please stop using loving kiddo, you're not fishmech. Fishmech uses 'kid' or 'child', I'm trying something new and innovative. Ed: you also might find http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/housedebt/ interesting, that's the percentage of disposable income spent on debt service. It's very low compared to what it used to be. People tightened their belts after the Great Recession.
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:Fishmech uses 'kid' or 'child', I'm trying something new and innovative. Would it be annoying to call people initiate? "Wages have stagnated since the 70s, initiate."
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:Obviously, the people that aren't doing that are the ones making at or near the median income because they don't have enough money to. It's reasonable to assume, however, that individuals who are currently making minimum wage and living paycheck to paycheck (or not) wouldn't simply start spending more money in order to continue living paycheck to paycheck; they might increase their debt service to free up more money later down the line, they might save more money so they have a cash cushion in case of emergencies, etc. etc. That's certainly theoretically possible but certainly you aren't suggesting that would be average behavior right? Most people I know have much more disposable income than a minimum wage earner but I still don't know a single person so frugal that in the event of a raise they would put it all into savings rather then spending more.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:We really need to institute a rule that you have to post a transcript showing you passed Econ 101 with a C or better before posting about the minimum wage. Behold the dark future of ivory tower liberalism itt.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
YOU HAVE COME TO A WORLD CALLED ACADEMIA *whipcrack*
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Behold the dark future of ivory tower liberalism itt. When you reach the point where you're explaining fifth grade math to the dude you're arguing with it becomes very frustrating very quickly.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Would it be annoying to call people initiate? i dig it
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:That's certainly theoretically possible but certainly you aren't suggesting that would be average behavior right? Most people I know have much more disposable income than a minimum wage earner but I still don't know a single person so frugal that in the event of a raise they would put it all into savings rather then spending more. I'd argue, in general, that people would do one of several things - 1. Reduce their overall workload, maintain the same real income. Time is valuable, after all, and in many cases it may be preferable to continue living at the same income level while freeing up more time for personal pursuits or to reduce associated costs that were necessitated by having multiple jobs (ex: single mother working two+ part time jobs, if suddenly she could work one job (or work both, but fewer hours) at the same income then she might be able to take that extra time and not have to pay for child care, etc.) 2. Maintain current workload, increase debt service/savings/start investing/some other activity that wouldn't necessarily increase economic growth. 3. Maintain current workload, increase spending to match new income level. 4. Some combination of the above. People are weird and not entirely rational with their money all the time but I think it's a bit dismissive to simply say "<x> is a net good forever and theres nothing that can go wrong!", especially when you're talking about economics.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:The GOP needs a tournament bracket for debates, complete with seeding and everything. It'd be more entertaining the the NCAA tournament. I would unironically support Republican Thunderdome and/or Hunger Games.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
I prefer comrade.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:I prefer comrade. Ratfucker
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
what if bernie sanders won
|
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
As a poor person i can tell you all that extra money will go right back out in necessary spending. How that is not completely obvious is beyond me. Why is this a three page derail in the presidential primary thread?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Because some people don't understand that raising minimum wage to a level that isn't slave wages isn't going to mean you're suddenly paying $50 for a pack of chicken at Walmart
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
baw posted:i swear every time finishes something with "it's basic economics!" the thing they said is stupid But what if they're talking about perfectly spherical rational actors in a frictionless vacuum
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:25
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:Because some people don't understand that raising minimum wage to a level that isn't slave wages isn't going to mean you're suddenly paying $50 for a pack of chicken at Walmart i read a thing that siad it would only raise prices (in wal mart) by about 1.5%
|
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
quite the fucker posted:i read a thing that siad it would only raise prices (in wal mart) by about 1.5% an unacceptable price to pay for raising millions out of poverty
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
site posted:As a poor person i can tell you all that extra money will go right back out in necessary spending. How that is not completely obvious is beyond me. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that we should treat one persons lived experience as a universal constant when debating the economic ramifications of a particular policy.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
my bony fealty posted:an unacceptable price to pay for raising millions out of poverty It's not an unacceptable price at all, but it would mean that millions have their spending power reduced by some small amount as well. I think that's a perfectly acceptable trade off. When you consider the knock-on effects of raising families out of poverty a few generations on, it's even more valuable to the society.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:It's not an unacceptable price at all, but it would mean that millions have their spending power reduced by some small amount as well. I think that's a perfectly acceptable trade off. When you consider the knock-on effects of raising families out of poverty a few generations on, it's even more valuable to the society. Oh, absolutely agree - I currently make about 2.5x the minimum wage in my state and so would see some slight negative repercussions if the minimum wage was raised to $15, but I would be more than willing to swallow that in exchange for a healthier economy that worked to reduce income inequality. The issue seems like a no-brainer for Hillary (or Bernie  ) to hit the GOP nominee on during the General Election debates; it polls incredibly well (http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/polling) and the inevitable bullshit about increasing unemployment etc. that the Republican would spout in response seems easy to counter.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that we should treat one persons lived experience as a universal constant when debating the economic ramifications of a particular policy. This does not conform and incorporate into my world view. Obviously, it is fallacy of anecdotal evidence.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
The problem with the minimum wage debate is that it's not really about the minimum wage on the Right (it's not about class and race and other fun forms of bigotry) and no one on the Left is willing to actually discuss the concept of "sometimes we have to do things that make life worse for some people in order to make life better for other people in the short term so that everyone's lives are better in the long term" * Right and Left from the American position at least ** This is my biggest PPACA pet peeve, that they tried so hard to pitch it as 'everyone wins all the time' when it was blatantly obvious that there would be short term winners and losers. A society that's incapable of honestly debating trade offs and weighing the short term costs vs. the long term benefits of policy is a loving stupid society.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
site posted:This does not conform and incorporate into my world view. It, quite literally, is anecdotal evidence. Initiate.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:A society that's incapable of honestly debating trade offs and weighing the short term costs vs. the long term benefits of policy is a loving stupid society. Unless I have to self sacrifice, then it's blatantly unfair.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Unless I have to self sacrifice, then it's blatantly unfair. Proceed, Governor.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Gov. Jindal issues executive order endorsing discrimination against gaysquote:Trying to regain ground after a setback in the legislature, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal issued an executive order Tuesday to protect people who exercise their religious beliefs on matters related to same-sex marriage.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:It's not an unacceptable price at all, but it would mean that millions have their spending power reduced by some small amount as well. I think that's a perfectly acceptable trade off. When you consider the knock-on effects of raising families out of poverty a few generations on, it's even more valuable to the society. Doubling my salary while increasing prices by 1%?!?! UNACCEPTABLE!!!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
So I read some dumb clickbaity headline on the internet today saying HILARY HAD A SECOND SECRET EMAIL ADDRESS! but I haven't seen anything about it in this thread. Problem? non-problem?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
redreader posted:So I read some dumb clickbaity headline on the internet today saying HILARY HAD A SECOND SECRET EMAIL ADDRESS! but I haven't seen anything about it in this thread. Problem? non-problem? HRod17@clintonemail.com was the top secret second email address. No joke that's what it was. It's a non problem, of course.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
So Bernie is coming to Iowa late in May and early in June and I've signed up for and plan on going to one of his town hall meetings. I'm super excited about this and am wondering if I get a chance should I ask if he would support a minimum wage increase that is tied to cost of living? Or maybe a suggestion for a better question and maybe some information on the subject you suggest.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
redreader posted:So I read some dumb clickbaity headline on the internet today saying HILARY HAD A SECOND SECRET EMAIL ADDRESS! but I haven't seen anything about it in this thread. Problem? non-problem?  It's all over for the HillDog.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:So Bernie is coming to Iowa late in May and early in June and I've signed up for and plan on going to one of his town hall meetings. I'm super excited about this and am wondering if I get a chance should I ask if he would support a minimum wage increase that is tied to cost of living? Or maybe a suggestion for a better question and maybe some information on the subject you suggest. Ask him about the input Stephanie Kelton gave in crafting the budget response this year and how he sees MMT playing into future budgets. I'm genuinely curious about the answer to that.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:It's not an unacceptable price at all, but it would mean that millions have their spending power reduced by some small amount as well. I think that's a perfectly acceptable trade off. When you consider the knock-on effects of raising families out of poverty a few generations on, it's even more valuable to the society. Not to mention a shitload of people who are currently getting paid slightly more than $15/hr would have upward wage pressure themselves as a result.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Scott Walker says it's only a "flip flop" if you've voted on it, and as a Governor he never had to vote on immigration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgwqw-fB1TE If only Mitt had thought of that!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Literally "no state shall deny the equal protection of the laws"
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Best thing about a potential Hillary presidency is Bill wearing more and more cream colored suits, as his ties keep getting progressively wackier. 2019 State of the Union, a quick cut to the balcony. There's Bill, wearing a piano key tie, eating an ice cream sandwich.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:That's certainly theoretically possible but certainly you aren't suggesting that would be average behavior right? Most people I know have much more disposable income than a minimum wage earner but I still don't know a single person so frugal that in the event of a raise they would put it all into savings rather then spending more.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:It's cool how you know people's "interests" better than they do. When people actively vote against platforms for improved labor laws, healthcare expansion/socialization, increased minimum wages and continue to support platforms of corporate welfare, regressive taxation, etc....yes, yes I know better about their interests than they do.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
Tom Gorman posted:Bill wearing more and more cream colored suits Historically, that color clothing hasn't worked out well for him.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 01:56
|
|