asdf32 posted:Describe what you're imagining in more detail before I conclude that you think moving food from the cereal box your mother purchased to your mouth is "work". Okay, so I'm imagining this robotic motherfucker, and he's locked in a room, and the only way to get out is passing a Turing test, and he never makes it out. Scared? You understand that even in arbitrary levels of abundance, you still need to get food, water, clothing, etc.? These things will not suddenly materialize on-demand once we've managed to automate the bellhop. So there will always be labor necessary, even if arbitrarily small amounts. But that is entirely different from a system of employment where survival depends on exchanging labor for things.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:35 |
|
|
For now, I'd like policy to continue providing employment opportunities for those that want them. I think most people do. And I think it benefits society as a whole. Collectivism is one thing existing socialist states got right.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 03:57
|
|
asdf32 posted:For now, I'd like policy to continue providing employment opportunities for those that want them. I think most people do. So all I have to do is do some really weak-rear end bullying to get you to reset, huh? Valuable.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:For now, I'd like policy to continue providing employment opportunities for those that want them. I think most people do. The point is that a policy isn't bad just because it causes unemployment, and policies shouldn't really be focused around creating jobs just for the sake of having them. The minimum wage as it stands is preventing some number of jobs from existing, but that's okay because we don't want people working for $5/hour anyway. A $15/hour minimum wage will probably cost us some number of jobs too, but that's also okay because we shouldn't want people to have to work full time for less than a living wage. The only question is whether it's going to cost us so many jobs that it creates an unemployment crisis, but I'd argue that if that's the case then we're already in the midst of a wage crisis anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
The Australian minimum wage is $16.87 AUD, which according to google is equivalent to $13.32 USD, close to 6 dollars higher than America's federal minimum wage. Australia's unemployment rate is 6.4% vs. 5.4% in America. Similarly, Canada's unemployment rate was lower than America's until recently even though Canadian provinces tend to have higher minimum wages than American states. And studies that compare jurisdictions within the US with different minimum wages also do not show any kind of strong relationship to unemployment. There have been studies where two counties that are side by side but separated by a state boarder are analyzed after one state raises the minimum wage, and again, there's no discernible impact on unemployment (sometimes employment even goes up in these studies). The idea that the minimum wage will significantly raise unemployment just isn't born out in the available data.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I liked your other post better. "It might cause unemployment but I don't care" is reasonable. "It won't cause unemployment but I don't actually care if it does" is less compelling. That's pretty disingenuous of you when all of the historical evidence points to minimum wage increases having overwhelmingly positive impacts with almost no negative side effects. The worst-case evidence-based scenario was a 3% price increase, standing on top of a pile of other studies suggesting price increases as low as -1% (yes, in some cases prices actually went down a tiny bit, but with a large measurement uncertainty). The only people hurt by a 3% price increase are people who already made more than the new minimum wage, but they're hurt negligibly. All of the talk about unemployment effects has been based foremost on speculation with evidence pointing to the effect actually being insignificant.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Well first, over-automation isn't economically beneficial. You could say the same for famine, war, and disease. To a conservative, unemployment of the lower classes is the 4th horseman, or maybe it's just having to pay people a living wage. Regardless, their historical existence is not a good reason to stop trying to reduce the prevalence of any of these things. I agree that it would be bad to fire every minimum wage worker right now, but by the time that we start seeing widescale unrecoverable unemployment due to automation we'll hopefully have moved way past the 35 hour work week. Remember, we're talking about a slow transition into high unemployment no matter what the minimum wage is anyway, so it's not like holding wages down is going to stop this or really alter its rate significantly. I also know that automation bringing doom to the lower classes has been a popular topic this week in this thread but it really just hasn't been a huge problem. We've been slowly making jobs easier and more automated for thousands of years and people have adapted pretty well.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I liked your other post better. "It might cause unemployment but I don't care" is reasonable. "It won't cause unemployment but I don't actually care if it does" is less compelling. Have you ever heard of the state of Washington before? It's really loving strange, no matter how many times I point to a whole state that has the highest minimum wage and is indexed to inflation yet has low unemployment I receive no responses. Why is that? Why are folks so interested in jerking off to hypotheticals and imaginary "unintended consequences" when we're living the real thing in the northwest?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Have you ever heard of the state of Washington before? A $15 minimum wage would make bottom end wages in Washington the same as the low end of wages in Iowa or rural Georgia. There's good reasons why wages are much lower in the south or other areas that aren't wealthy coastal states.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 08:20
|
|
on the left posted:A $15 minimum wage would make bottom end wages in Washington the same as the low end of wages in Iowa or rural Georgia. There's good reasons why wages are much lower in the south or other areas that aren't wealthy coastal states. washington is more than the I-5 corridor. east of the cascades it is very much like iowa also here have some pictures of eastern wa and the Palouse. it owns   
wheez the roux fucked around with this message at 08:26 on May 21, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Describe what you're imagining in more detail before I conclude that you think moving food from the cereal box your mother purchased to your mouth is "work". Are you a teenager? There's plenty of work to be done to stay alive and healthy outside of employment. Adults don't let trash and filth pile up, they don't wear dirty underwear, they don't let their body go to hell, they don't tear into raw meat with their incisors, they don't let their mind waste away, they don't let their babies starve to death. Cleaning, laundry, exercise, gardening, cooking, child-rearing, art, studying, all of these things existed before industrial capitalism's notion of employment and wage, and will continue to exist after. Worrying that we won't have enough work to do is weird: the question of how to distribute the goods produced by an increasingly automated production process is merely a political one.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Are you a teenager? lol you could have just answered in the affirmative. What you listed hasn't been "work" (except for child rearing) for a long time, some of it never was, these are just the basic responsibilities of being an adult and you have to do them employed or not.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:lol you could have just answered in the affirmative. That is quite literally the definition of the word work. Grade school math, econ 101, definitions of words... Is nothing sacred to you people?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
on the left posted:A $15 minimum wage would make bottom end wages in Washington the same as the low end of wages in Iowa or rural Georgia. There's good reasons why wages are much lower in the south or other areas that aren't wealthy coastal states. Because they are poor and their state governments make bad economic policy decisions? Nah, it is just the "natural order" of things. They are naturally inferior. God decided.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
counterpoint: Mondragón, WinCo, Dick's Drive-In, and other employers who arent turbofuckers
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Because they are poor and their state governments make bad economic policy decisions? Yes, a large part of it is that certain places are naturally inferior. They are geographically suited for economic activity that is worth less (agriculture instead of international trade or technology development), and have to compete with better positioned states when it comes to building industry. No amount of policy expertise is going to turn Des Moines into Manhattan.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
on the left posted:Yes, a large part of it is that certain places are naturally inferior. They are geographically suited for economic activity that is worth less (agriculture instead of international trade or technology development), and have to compete with better positioned states when it comes to building industry. No amount of policy expertise is going to turn Des Moines into Manhattan. The farmer shall starve while the financier feasts. -- God
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
on the left posted:Yes, a large part of it is that certain places are naturally inferior. They are geographically suited for economic activity that is worth less (agriculture instead of international trade or technology development), and have to compete with better positioned states when it comes to building industry. No amount of policy expertise is going to turn Des Moines into Manhattan. There are a bunch of tech startups in the Midwest trying to change all of that (they call it the "Silicon Prairie"  and they're basically a bunch of Midwesterners that are trying to tap into Midwestern college grads, because nobody apparently wants to leave here  ...they're doing well for themselves, actually), and Omaha is a very important financial center already.Admittedly that's all white collar work but I think you just don't know what the Midwest is like, or are a good troll.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Because they are poor and their state governments make bad economic policy decisions? It's at this point I feel compelled to state that there is no widely accepted justification for the existence of private property (but for the divine right of kings) that is valid in the face of significant and far reaching inequality.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
Certain places may be naturally inferior to others, but this cannot be deterministic, else Los Angeles would be an impoverished desert port town.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Well, have I got news for you... Everyone has tech startups nowadays, as tech jobs are the envy of every policymaker. No place on earth has a funding/VC network like Silicon Valley though. Also, the general point is that incomes in general are much higher in wealthy coastal cities for a variety of reasons that are mostly impossible to change.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
The idea that farmers deserve less than others is entirely a human construction. It is not a result of the fact that farmers are naturally inferior, or that farmland is naturally inferior to the concrete slab under a bank. This appeal to nature is just weird; it is entirely the result of flawed circular reasoning. Poor areas are poor because they are naturally poor. They are naturally poor because they are poor.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
on the left posted:Everyone has tech startups nowadays, as tech jobs are the envy of every policymaker. No place on earth has a funding/VC network like Silicon Valley though.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:The idea that farmers deserve less than others is entirely a human construction. It is not a result of the fact that farmers are naturally inferior, or that farmland is naturally inferior to the concrete slab under a bank. This appeal to nature is just weird; it is entirely the result of flawed circular reasoning. Poor areas are poor because they are naturally poor. They are naturally poor because they are poor. There is an implicit entanglement with virtue ethics. Farmers are poor because what they do lacks some objective 'virtue' or 'value'. Many philosophers will make an appeal to natural law or human nature thereafter to explain the poorness, but as with any absolutist standard, it can be crippled quite handily by skeptic arguments.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:There is an implicit entanglement with virtue ethics. Farmers are poor because what they do lacks some objective 'virtue' or 'value'. Many philosophers will make an appeal to natural law or human nature thereafter to explain the poorness, but as with any absolutist standard, it can be crippled quite handily by skeptic arguments.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
on the left posted:A $15 minimum wage would make bottom end wages in Washington the same as the low end of wages in Iowa or rural Georgia. There's good reasons why wages are much lower in the south or other areas that aren't wealthy coastal states. Low wages in the south are due to policies such as discouraging unions and having even less worker protection.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
etalian posted:Low wages in the south are due to policies such as discouraging unions and having even less worker protection. Why do Texas cities have higher incomes than the rural areas then? They don't appear to have significantly better labor laws than the rest of the state.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Certain places may be naturally inferior to others, but this cannot be deterministic, else Los Angeles would be an impoverished desert port town. More likely your analysis is completely wrong, high value locations aren't arbitrarily selected.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Why do Texas cities have higher incomes than the rural areas then? They don't appear to have significantly better labor laws than the rest of the state. And rural areas of those wealthy costal states have low costs of living too.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And rural areas of those wealthy costal states have low costs of living too. Not nearly as low
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
On the topic of poverty and local minimum wages, I am surprised Oregon hasn't come up. Oregon isn't exactly rich state, and if anything the economy was quite rocky from the 1980s to the 2000s, even today it is below the national average as the 29th state by median household income ($46k versus 52k nationally using 2013-2014 data). However, it currently has an minimum wage not much lower than Washington ($9.25 in Oregon versus $9.47 in Washington) and its unemployment is below the national average (5.2%) even after the near complete collapse of logging. Why wouldn't it work for other below median income states?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Somebody just got a philosophy degree. How cute. Do you have a philosophy degree? (I don't).
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:On the topic of poverty and local minimum wages, I am surprised Oregon hasn't come up. Oregon isn't exactly rich state, and if anything the economy was quite rocky from the 1980s to the 2000s, even today it is below the national average as the 29th state by median household income ($46k versus 52k nationally using 2013-2014 data). However, it currently has an minimum wage not much lower than Washington ($9.25 in Oregon versus $9.47 in Washington) and its unemployment is below the national average (5.2%) even after the near complete collapse of logging. Is anyone arguing for sub-$10 minimum wage?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:19
|
|
Jarmak posted:More likely your analysis is completely wrong, high value locations aren't arbitrarily selected. If we're gonna just be jabbering past each other, I'm disgusted by your hair.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Make the min wage 20/hr imo
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If we're gonna just be jabbering past each other, I'm disgusted by your hair. Please tell me more about how a city that was a major transit point for a massive gold rush, had its own minor gold rush, an oil boom, 5th busiest port in the world, 6th busiest airport, and contains the largest manufacturing center in the western USA all while sitting in one of the most pleasant subtropical (LA doesn't even rate as semiarid) climates in the entire world should be a dusty desert town but for the arbitrary capriciousness of inequality.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Is anyone arguing for sub-$10 minimum wage? JeffersonClay was arguing for $7.25 with adjustments for inflation. Ultimately, Oregon could probably sustain a significantly higher minimum wage than it does now considering Oregon's unemployment rate is quickly reaching the comparative low point it was at in the 2000s.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Well first, over-automation isn't economically beneficial. Your question-begging straw men are getting tiresome. Of course over-automation is bad, that's what "over-" means! Same with "under-employment". You pre-define a term as bad and pretend the person you are misquoting was actually arguing for too much of something. Stop it. It's dumb.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:35 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:On the topic of poverty and local minimum wages, I am surprised Oregon hasn't come up. Oregon isn't exactly rich state, and if anything the economy was quite rocky from the 1980s to the 2000s, even today it is below the national average as the 29th state by median household income ($46k versus 52k nationally using 2013-2014 data). However, it currently has an minimum wage not much lower than Washington ($9.25 in Oregon versus $9.47 in Washington) and its unemployment is below the national average (5.2%) even after the near complete collapse of logging. http://www.bea.gov/regional/bearfacts/pdf.cfm?fips=41000&areatype=STATE&geotype=3  Oregon, which has increased its minimum wage every year since 2003, has coincidentally grown slower than the general economy every year in 7 of 11 years since then and underperform overall. Now that could be due to the death of logging or whatever, but it's hardly the example of an impactless minimum wage that you're aiming for.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:43
|
|