|
Geriatric Pirate posted:http://www.bea.gov/regional/bearfacts/pdf.cfm?fips=41000&areatype=STATE&geotype=3 It wouldn't explain the trend of Oregon now trending toward the average with a strong recovery. Overall Oregon took a giant hit during the recession but has been quickly recovering. Moreover you should be comparing Oregon to itself not national trends, Oregon was under performing before 2003 as well if anything it has been below the national average for decades. That said, Oregon now has historically low unemployment and is trending toward the national average. Also Oregon's logging industry was dropping off a cliff during the period. http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2012/01/charting_the_decline_of_oregon.html Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:12 on May 21, 2015 |
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Helsing posted: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. The idea that it won't isn't born out either. I know the data but I think you may be forgetting that studies do reveal impacts other than overall unemployment. Employment shifts within the minimum wage demographic are seen which help push out the most vulnerable. We need only extrapolate that clue to predict actual employment impacts. Besides other obvious reasoning (there is no question employers move jobs overseas or automate to reduce labor costs, it's been happening for decades). And unemployment in low wage demographics is already persistently the highest. Anyways your first post spoke about the value of non-technocratic analysis. I'd like you to weigh in on work.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It wouldn't explain the trend of Oregon now trending toward the average with a strong recovery. Overall Oregon took a giant hit during the recession but has been quickly recovering. Moreover You should look at Oregon competing with itself not national trends, Oregon was under performing before 2003 as well if anything it has been below the national average for decades. Oregon underperformed even ignoring its historic performance (i.e. it became even worse off) substantially from 2004-2012. It also had a higher minimum wage than most of the country and its minimum wage increased every year starting from 2004. You can't just ignore 8 years of "higher minimum wage and worse economy" and say "well here we are today, higher minimum wage and growing economy"
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Ardennes posted: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. His regional min wage could easily see poor areas looking at sub-$5-6/hour wages.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Oregon underperformed even ignoring its historic performance (i.e. it became even worse off) substantially from 2004-2012. It also had a higher minimum wage than most of the country and its minimum wage increased every year starting from 2004. You can't just ignore 8 years of "higher minimum wage and worse economy" and say "well here we are today, higher minimum wage and growing economy" Oregon's logging industry was dropping off a cliff during the period. http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2012/01/charting_the_decline_of_oregon.html Then it got hit with a bad housing crisis. If your theory held then Oregon would be under-performing continually because its minimum wage is still increasing, when if anything it is recovering well from the recession. If anything a higher minimum wage might be stabilizing it after a tricky ordination of its economy. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:06 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:03
|
|
archangelwar posted:His regional min wage could easily see poor areas looking at sub-$5-6/hour wages. lol hell yeah lets design mincome to be below or almost approaching bare subsistence level for where you live, so no one can ever have savings and/or move $20 natl mincome motherf*cker make it so
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
wheez the roux posted:lol hell yeah lets design mincome to be below or almost approaching bare subsistence level for where you live, so no one can ever have savings and/or move Wire me the 12 trillion per year you'll need and I'll get right on it!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Wire me the 12 trillion per year you'll need and I'll get right on it! It is always interesting when people say something like this and remind us all that they don't understand how economies work.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Wire me the 12 trillion per year you'll need and I'll get right on it! $5t out of a ~$17t GDP: doable
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:It is always interesting when people say something like this and remind us all that they don't understand how economies work. Admittedly, a basic income is pretty unpractical compared to a more traditional safety net if you are going to be spending that much money. If you gave $20,000 to every adult in the US it would $4.8 trillion dollars a year. A basic income is something that sounds real nice until you realize the budgetary accounting doesn't pencil out. I would much rather have universal childcare, healthcare and education.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:$5t out of a ~$17t GDP: doable Indeed. Mean hourly wage is above $20/hour and velocity of money means that large absolute sums of money are not as scary as they sound.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:28
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:$5t out of a ~$17t GDP: doable poo poo let's crank it up to 30 then nationalize health care with medicare for everyone along w/a slight tax increase to save money wasted by insurance company profiteering and price inflation so everyone has more taxable money to spend back in the economy. and it gets cheaper since people getting preventative care and having things fixed without putting it off means less overall care bc it'd keep illnesses and conditions from developing to a point where it's severe or expensive. and healthy workers are happy workers and therefore more productive hmmm just spitballing here
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
hmm, we could pay them a living wage to be able to survive on a 40hr work week, but on the other hand, gently caress the poor
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Admittedly, a basic income is pretty unpractical compared to a more traditional safety net if you are going to be spending that much money. If you gave $20,000 to every adult in the US it would $4.8 trillion dollars a year. A basic income is something that sounds real nice until you realize the budgetary accounting doesn't pencil out. I would much rather have universal childcare, healthcare and education. When given directly to those with MPS ~1, it is fundamentally no different than the standard circulation of money within the greater economy (and can in fact prevent problems of trapped or dead money), only that the government serves to move it from the top to the bottom.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:When given directly to those with MPS ~1, it is fundamentally no different than the standard circulation of money within the greater economy (and can in fact prevent problems of trapped or dead money), only that the government serves to move it from the top to the bottom. Moreover than the impact on the monetary supply, it is a budgetary issue and pretty much anything else would be accomplish before it happened. I mean the things you could do with a 10th of that amount of money. A minimum wage is in fact very doable, and if anything we are on the cusp on large increases in the next few years at the local/state level. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:00 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Moreover than the impact on the monetary supply, it is a budgetary issue and pretty much anything else would be accomplish before it happened. I mean the things you could do with a 10th of that amount of money. I am not opposed to min wage law, just speaking to the feasibility of a UBI and how "scary big numbers" is not an argument.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:I am not opposed to min wage law, just speaking to the feasibility of a UBI and how "scary big numbers" is not an argument. My point is what you get for those scary numbers isn't necessarily the most efficient way of doing things. I think a basic income is good in a conceptional sense since it helps people admit inequality is not a good thing and that it needs to be addressed, just that it isn't practical compared to a laundry list of other reforms you could get done before you got to it. One thing you could have a limited GMI along with higher "living" wage on top of it as a incentive from the "poverty trap." The government itself wouldn't have to take the full burden of basic income, which would ultimately make it more affordable. That said, in reality I think we are going to be limited to fighting tooth and nail for a higher minimum wages and maybe some day a public health care option.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Crosspost from politoons thread
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
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. So poor cities in the southeastern US just have fewer natural sources of Beakers, like a game of Civilization? Or could it be that technological development can happen anywhere when there exists an educated populace and a source of capital, and that capital really isn't bound to any place in particular? Why is it that conservatives always want you to believe that knowledge and education are finite resources that needs to be rationed to the already-wealthy? Ardennes posted:Admittedly, a basic income is pretty unpractical compared to a more traditional safety net if you are going to be spending that much money. If you gave $20,000 to every adult in the US it would $4.8 trillion dollars a year. A basic income is something that sounds real nice until you realize the budgetary accounting doesn't pencil out. I would much rather have universal childcare, healthcare and education. I would like to see a thread where we actually attempt to do the accounting, but that is not this thread and I'm too lazy to start one. I think that we could make it work
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Why is it that conservatives always want you to believe that knowledge and education are finite resources that needs to be rationed to the already-wealthy? Meanwhile, wealth is not a zero-sum game, how dare you imply as such!?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Why is it that conservatives always want you to believe that knowledge and education are finite resources that needs to be rationed to the already-wealthy? I think you know the answer to this question... quote:I would like to see a thread where we actually attempt to do the accounting, but that is not this thread and I'm too lazy to start one. I think that we could make it work It pops up from time to time and always comes down to the same parade of posters (ironically enough, often ones that post in this thread about how leftists should be shunning min wage in favor of UBI) complaining about how big the numbers are without really engaging. With that said, I think there is much more to be gained from the UBI in terms of simple cultural and behavioral impact than there is to be lost in "efficiency" even though the latter point could be argued as a positive as well. But I am willing to compromise to help people now. But we desperately need to deprogram ourselves out of the mandatory wage labor and necessity of inequality mindset that we have created. This is much more important than maximizing economic indicators.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It wouldn't explain the trend of Oregon now trending toward the average with a strong recovery. Overall Oregon took a giant hit during the recession but has been quickly recovering. Moreover you should be comparing Oregon to itself not national trends, Oregon was under performing before 2003 as well if anything it has been below the national average for decades. The fact that an entire industry collapsed and drove the state economy into the shitter immediately after implementing a higher minimum wage is not a strong piece of evidence for what you're arguing for. Mind you I'm not trying to say that minimum wage caused this, I don't know poo poo about the Oregon's logging industry, but the most favorable way you can read that data is that it provides no data. edit: QuarkJets posted:So poor cities in the southeastern US just have fewer natural sources of Beakers, like a game of Civilization? Or could it be that technological development can happen anywhere when there exists an educated populace and a source of capital, and that capital really isn't bound to any place in particular? The seemingly complete lack of understanding of even the basic existence of economics in this thread continues to be staggering.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:11
|
|
Jarmak posted:The seemingly complete lack of understanding of even the basic existence of economics in this thread continues to be staggering. [IMG-growing_ironicat.gif]
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The fact that an entire industry collapsed and drove the state economy into the shitter immediately after implementing a higher minimum wage is not a strong piece of evidence for what you're arguing for. The logging industry quite simply logged out all private land and was barred from public land, it is hard to pay people if there are literally no trees you can cut down. It was a industry that simply died because it no longer had a purpose. Ultimately, the fact that unemployment in Oregon is currently falling dramatically while the minimum wage is rising should be enough evidence. It is just at this point the logging industry has been so depressed it barely shows up in employment statistics while other industries have taken over despite a higher minimum wage. If anything you could make the argument that Oregon has been a impressive transition from very rough economic circumstances. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:21 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The fact that an entire industry collapsed and drove the state economy into the shitter immediately after implementing a higher minimum wage is not a strong piece of evidence for what you're arguing for. Wait, when was Oregon's economy "in the shitter"?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The logging industry quite simply logged out all private land and was barred from public land, it is hard to pay people if there are literally no trees you can cut down. It was a industry that simply died because it no longer had a purpose. I don't know anything about the Oregon logging industry but I'm going to make assumptions that fit my world narrative. It's clear that the trees abandoned Oregon because loggers were being paid too much.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The logging industry quite simply logged out all private land and was barred from public land, it is hard to pay people if there are literally no trees you can cut down. It was a industry that simply died because it no longer had a purpose. If I 100% completely accept everything you've asserted regarding employment numbers and the logging industry then all that gets you is making that evidence of exactly nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I don't know anything about the Oregon logging industry but I'm going to make assumptions that fit my world narrative. It's clear that the trees abandoned Oregon because loggers were being paid too much. Its impressive that you are so disingenuous that you decide to construct a straw-man out of an argument I explicitly stated I was not making.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:If I 100% completely accept everything you've asserted regarding employment numbers and the logging industry then all that gets you is making that evidence of exactly nothing. Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? Jarmak posted:Its impressive that you are so disingenuous that you decide to construct a straw-man out of an argument I explicitly stated I was not making. I may not be an expert on the logging industry in Oregon, but I'm pretty sure I know how to make baseless assumptions about how the minimum wage affected the industry.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The fact that an entire industry collapsed and drove the state economy into the shitter immediately after implementing a higher minimum wage is not a strong piece of evidence for what you're arguing for. To argue against a higher minimum wage, it is necessary for one to provide data that shows a negative impact on the economy. If it is not possible to produce data that reliably shows a direct causal relationship between min wage and unemployment (or other negative economic effects), then the side arguing against has lost by default. The burden of people who are pro-$10, $12, $15/hr is merely to show that little to no significant negative effect can be attributed to the increase. So far, that has been done. And so far, no person arguing against has actually produced data that suggests significant negative effects. Only that we "don't know" what the result may be and hypotheticals. Essentially, data showing the failure of the logging industry and subsequent economic slowdown was not related to the minimum wage increases (and was in fact structural) is good support for minwage advocates because it shifts the blame from minwage for the harmful economic effects to the loss of a previously important industry. Especially so if Oregon's growth has picked up in the post-Recession years with the continual rise of the minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Wait, when was Oregon's economy "in the shitter"? From 1999 to 2012, Oregon's economy took some pretty big hits and the early 2000s recession was much worse than the rest of the country and the 2008 recession was worse as well. However, the fragility of the Oregonian economy was an issue going back to the 1980s if not longer. Basically, the logging industry was dismantled piece by piece by reality and (necessary) government regulation. This forced a major realignment in employment in Oregon but it was a rough process. That said, if you look at the data while per capita income fell during the mid 2000s, so did unemployment. What likely occurred is that higher paying logging jobs left for good, but people did find other work for lesser pay. Another thing is that Oregon's minimum wage was simply indexed to inflation, so if anything right now would be the period of greatest disruption versus the federal wage and largely nothing has happened. Ultimately any time you look at economic statistics you have to ferry out historical events to get at a grasp at what is going on. If the argument is that a higher minimum wage is causing unemployment, it didn't spell out in Oregon. Lower per capita income without a corresponding dip in employment is largely a red herring, a higher minimum wage wouldn't lower income without less employment. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:43 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The seemingly complete lack of understanding of even the basic existence of economics in this thread continues to be staggering. Why is it that you never seem to have a real counterargument? You always just poo poo and run like this. Are you really such a moron that you can't even mount a better defense than this? What is it about Silicon Valley that makes it unique from a technological development standpoint, and why are you able to discount countless technological sectors located in other parts of the nation with seemingly little to no natural advantage? Cities like Tucson, Albuquerque and Batavia (a small town outside of Chicago) are centers of technological development, what do you believe gives them unique advantages in technology? It's certainly not economics.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Just dropping in to post an onion link because they've done it again. http://www.theonion.com/graphic/pros-and-cons-raising-minimum-wage-50476 also congratulations to LA and hopefully it keeps spreading.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Why is it that you never seem to have a real counterargument? You always just poo poo and run like this. Are you really such a moron that you can't even mount a better defense than this? It's the technology mines, once they harvest all the microprocessors from the earth they'll be hurting! mark my words!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Also was the last page really people arguing with someone who said that farming has no real 'value'? yeah i also like to starve to death as long as i get some sweet profit margins in return.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Why is it that you never seem to have a real counterargument? You always just poo poo and run like this. Are you really such a moron that you can't even mount a better defense than this? Human capital or resources. Not all geographic areas have these.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Lot's of people are throwing stats and math and charts around, and talking about studies (and linking relatively few), so when this study came across my news feed, I immediately thought of this thread and would like to see what your opinions are on what it has to say (or its methods, etc.) since there are people in here who seem to be willing to argue from a more (or alleged) deeper understanding of things than the average person. http://www.epi.org/publication/broad-based-wage-growth-is-a-key-tool-in-the-fight-against-poverty/ quote:To show the significance of wage growth in reducing poverty, we simulate what would have happened to poverty rates had we experienced broad-based wage growth from 1979 to 2013. We first examine the effects on poverty had wage inequality not increased since 1979 (i.e., had everyone’s wages grown at the same rate as average wages). Next we examine how the poverty rate would have been lower had economic gains been broadly shared (i.e., had all wages grown at the same rate as economy-wide productivity). Both simulations show that we could achieve real gains in poverty reduction by ensuring that lower-income workers are able to share in our country’s economic growth. And even these projected gains likely understate the extent to which a full-employment economy could alleviate poverty, as it would disproportionately benefit low-wage workers. Had wages grown in tandem with productivity over 1979–2013 and if the economy were at full employment, the non-elderly market-based poverty rate (i.e., the poverty rate for Americans under age 65 before safety-net supports are taken into account) would be 4.2 percentage points lower. This means that 11.2 million fewer people would be in poverty. Bolding theirs.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Why is it that you never seem to have a real counterargument? You always just poo poo and run like this. Are you really such a moron that you can't even mount a better defense than this? Because this is loving pathetic, you actually think these things are completely arbitrary. Industries that don't have geographically localized natural resources needed to function usually develop where infrastructure already exists from those that do, or in regions that possess qualities that allow them to attract top talent or regions that already have top talent.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The idea that it won't isn't born out either. What the hell are you talking about? Numerous studies looking at different countries, different states, and even physically continuous counties that are across state boarders from each other all show a negligible relationship to employment. That absolutely bears out the idea that you can raise minimum wage without triggering significant adverse effects on employment. How else do you interpret that? Even if we ignore these studies and theorize that annual hours worked for some employees will go down there's absolutely no indication that overall income will go down because these are mostly high turn over jobs. If a part time fry cook at McDonalds gets laid off or has their hours cut in half because of a higher minimum wage they are likely to just end up working at the Burger King down the street where they still end up enjoying the benefits of the higher wage. quote:I know the data but I think you may be forgetting that studies do reveal impacts other than overall unemployment. Employment shifts within the minimum wage demographic are seen which help push out the most vulnerable. We need only extrapolate that clue to predict actual employment impacts. Besides other obvious reasoning (there is no question employers move jobs overseas or automate to reduce labour costs, it's been happening for decades). And unemployment in low wage demographics is already persistently the highest. Why don't you find me some data showing the adverse impact that the higher minimum wage has had on these groups in Australia and then we can discuss whether the adverse impacts outweigh the benefit of higher wages? As I said above, even if some demographics have a slight reduction in the hours that they work per year you have to demonstrate that this reduction is so significant that it completely eliminates the gains from having a higher wage. This study looked at the impact of the Australia's minimum wage on teenagers (generally used by economists as a proxy for low skilled labour in general) and found no evidence of adverse effects on employment: Wang-Sheng Lee, Sandy Suardi, "Minimum Wages and Employment: Reconsidering the Use of a Time Series Approach as an Evaluation Tool", British Journal of Industrial Relations 49:S2 (July 2011): pp. 376-401 - p. 397 posted:Australia formally introduced minimum wage legislation in April 1997. This article uses tests for structural breaks to determine if there is a significant relationship between minimum wage legislation and employment in the unique institutional setup in Australia. The tentative conclusion is that the seven minimum wage increases in Australia from 1997 to 2003 appear to not have had any significant negative employment effects for teenagers. A possible explanation is that the increases have generally been moderate and predictable, closely tracking the general rise in price levels. I have tried to find papers showing a serious impact on employment from the minimum wage and came across this. It shows a small but significant impact on the earnings of low skilled workers in states with minimum wage increases. However this study has some issues (full disclosure: I am not an economist): primarily that it attributes some long term economic processes such as the rise of unpaid internships to the increase in the minimum wage, and more generally it claims that small increases in the minimum wage in the late 2000s were a major driver of the declining labour force participation rate, whereas I would attribute that decline (which really started in the late 1990s, not the late 2000s) to the catastrophic events of 2008 onward (they claim to control for this, but in what seems to be a rather narrow fashion). For instance, here is a study from 2006 that already charted a decline in the labour force participation rate (attributed to increases rates of college attendance, the retirement of the baby boomers and fewer working women) and predicted it would increase. Another factor to consider is that the terrible economy has discouraged many workers who lose their jobs from bothering to look for new ones. So the overall picture that emerges suggests that raising the minimum wage doesn't have serious impacts on overall employment, and that while there may be some shifts around who is employed (though again, I find the study I found suggesting this to have some problematic assumptions) they are minor at best and more than outweighed by the overall positive impact of higher wages. Studies that seem to zero in more specifically on differential wages in adjoining jurisdictions tend to show that the minimum wage is a beneficial policy for working people. The best study I could show suggesting otherwise seems to be really heavily based on assumptions and only finds minor impacts after taking a very abstracted bird's eye view of things that downplays the context of the Great Recession and the broader trends in the economy that were occuring prior to the recession. Of course I didn't have a chance to go through this paper as thoroughly as would be ideal so if you want to dig into this data and try to prove me wrong you're welcome to do so. I am not particularly interested in another series of exchanges where you basically just keep asserting your original point without providing any actual evidence however. Finally: generally speaking it's considered economically beneficial to intensify the use of highly skilled labour and to spur greater capital investment. If those are the "bad" impacts of the minimum wage then I'd say that's a pretty good deal, especially when the downside of this policies seems minor at best. quote:Anyways your first post spoke about the value of non-technocratic analysis. I'd like you to weigh in on work. What about it? asdf32 posted:Human capital or resources. Not all geographic areas have these. This response is so vague that it's basically just a platitude. Why even bother making it? It sheds no light on the actual discussion. Jarmak posted:Because this is loving pathetic, you actually think these things are completely arbitrary. Industries that don't have geographically localized natural resources needed to function usually develop where infrastructure already exists from those that do, or in regions that possess qualities that allow them to attract top talent or regions that already have top talent. What bearing do you think this has on the debate about the minimum wage? ToastyPotato posted:Lot's of people are throwing stats and math and charts around, and talking about studies (and linking relatively few), so when this study came across my news feed, I immediately thought of this thread and would like to see what your opinions are on what it has to say (or its methods, etc.) since there are people in here who seem to be willing to argue from a more (or alleged) deeper understanding of things than the average person. I think that the problems being referred to in that study are due to much larger economic and political factors than the minimum wage, and that addressing those problems would require much more sweeping changes than what is being discussed in this thread. The reason wages were higher in the past is not primarily because the minimum wage was higher. Instead, it has to do with the overall structure of the economy and with the political balance of power within society. A higher minimum wage could be a small part of the solution to the problems outlined in that paper, but for the most part the data there speaks to a much bigger issue.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Helsing posted:This response is so vague that it's basically just a platitude. Why even bother making it? It sheds no light on the actual discussion. Ah, now you're catching on to why asdf32 has the title he does.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:30
|
|
