|
Methanar posted:So how many people actually making minimum wage +/- 10%? And how many are making less than 15%/hr? I make 15 an hour. I'm a cheap and frugal guy but 30k a year pre-tax in farm town isn't luxurious living.
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Minimum Wages and Poverty: Will a $9.50 Federal Minimum Wage Really Help the Working Poor? Joseph J. Sabia1 and Richard V. Burkhauser2,*1 JAN 2010 posted: Complaining that only 11% of the people who would benefit from the minimum wage are below the poverty line seems weird. Isn't the poverty rate like 15%? By this metric even a basic income doesn't help the poor because by definition only 15% of the money will go to poor people. If we want to know if it helps the poor, shouldn't we be asking what percentage of poor households are helped? Trying to "target" benefits like this adds inefficient bureaucracy (you have to determine people's income and situation when you provide the service and make the poor track it), and makes it easier politically to cut because it can be spun as something for moochers and not social insurance for all of us if we need it. I think it's much better to provide benefits generally and equalize it on the back end with progressive taxes. That single 20-year-old living with mom and working the fry cooker to make video game money doesn't have children to claim on his tax return as dependents (or maybe not even himself if mom is claiming him) and so will benefit less than the single working mother of three, just like you want. And complaining that a $7.25 minimum wage didn't change the poverty rate also seems weird: isn't a full-time worker making $7.25/hr still under the poverty line, especially with a family? If we want the minimum wage to lower the poverty rate, that would obviously require a wage above the poverty rate, wouldn't it. Of course wages below the poverty line will not pull people above the poverty line. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:06 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Notice, people attempting to imply that minimum wage increases are harmful should be for lowering the wage or never raising it, arguments they never actually make. They're just trying to nitpick and cast doubt on this increase, just every single other time we've raised the minimum wage and the same arguments happened. I'm on the record saying that lowering the minimum wage would increase employment but the fact that currently only 5% of the workforce earns minimum is a clue as to how small an impact that would have. There are diminishing returns for lower wages because just setting up shop in the US has fixed costs for employers. A small minimum wage has the effect of transferring some surplus while not really affecting employment. But larger minimum wages are just not part of the picture as far as seriously addressing wealth inequality or poverty for the range of reasons in this thread. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 04:06 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Complaining that only 11% of the people who would benefit from the minimum wage are below the poverty line seems weird. Isn't the poverty rate like 15%? By this metric even a basic income doesn't help the poor because by definition only 15% of the money will go to poor people. If we want to know if it helps the poor, shouldn't we be asking what percentage of poor households are helped? Trying to "target" benefits like this adds inefficient bureaucracy (you have to determine people's income and situation when you provide the service and make the poor track it), and makes it easier politically to cut because it can be spun as something for moochers and not social insurance for all of us if we need it. I think it's much better to provide benefits generally and equalize it on the back end with progressive taxes. That single 20-year-old living with mom and working the fry cooker to make video game money doesn't have children to claim on his tax return as dependents (or maybe not even himself if mom is claiming him) and so will benefit less than the single working mother of three, just like you want. It's worth noting the 11% because other policy like food stamps is far higher. The reality is that most households don't just have one earner at minimum. So any wealth transfer to the poorest demographic should show up as a reduction in poverty rates.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It's worth noting the 11% because other policy like food stamps is far higher. So does that mean food stamps are better for the poor than a $30,000 basic income would be, because food stamps are more "targeted"? Why is that the metric and not the material benefit to the poor? And targeted policies like that have another issue: the poverty trap. For every dollar they make working, they lose X cents in benefits, right? If we grade policies by their "targettedness" then the ones that penalize people harder for working would rank higher, and an ideal benefit would cut off immediately at the poverty line. asdf32 posted:The reality is that most households don't just have one earner at minimum. So any wealth transfer to the poorest demographic should show up as a reduction in poverty rates. The people below the poverty line ($22,000 for a family of four) are making far less than what two full-time workers on minimum wage earn ($30,000) so clearly "most" households below the poverty line cannot have two full-time minimum wage workers. Are you doing that thing where you say something that's vaguely generally true for all of America, and then try to apply it to just the poor to bolster your argument? Well the median income is $51,000 so "most" households make more than fifty grand, so why do anything about the poor it's mostly not a problem   Also the poverty line is an estimate from the 1960s that is updated for inflation and that's it. Making one dollar above the poverty line doesn't make you suddenly not-poor and able to support a family and pay for housing, medical care, food, and education. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:43 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I'm on the record saying that lowering the minimum wage would increase employment You're on the record saying a lot of things, who cares? Minwage increases generally don't affect unemployment. Do I need to post the CEBR metastudy that you no doubt have seen linked 15 times in this thread already? quote:but the fact that currently only 5% of the workforce earns minimum is a clue as to how small an impact that would have. 5% earn exactly minimum but a whole lot more people earn near minimum are will be affected, the only clue here is the one you need to be getting.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I'm on the record saying that lowering the minimum wage would increase employment but the fact that currently only 5% of the workforce earns minimum is a clue as to how small an impact that would have. There are diminishing returns for lower wages because just setting up shop in the US has fixed costs for employers. A small minimum wage has the effect of transferring some surplus while not really affecting employment. But larger minimum wages are just not part of the picture as far as seriously addressing wealth inequality or poverty for the range of reasons in this thread. Why do you keep reverting to the 5% number? You know full well that that's how many people earn minimum wage now, not how many people would have their wages increased, so what the gently caress is wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Why do you keep reverting to the 5% number? Because his point works better if the number is smaller.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
I'm digging this theory that wages drive automation. I'd like to hear both A: why the cotton gin didn't end slavery and B: what % increase in gas prices will bring back horse as our primary means of transportation?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
$100/gallon would probably do it, assuming coal, natural gas, etc were priced similarly.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I'm digging this theory that wages drive automation. I'd like to hear both A: why the cotton gin didn't end slavery and B: what % increase in gas prices will bring back horse as our primary means of transportation? Wages don't drive automation per se, but there's always going to be a point where automated solutions start to look more attractive. It comes up in the context of minimum wage increases because there are a lot of low skill jobs that could be automated right now with current technology, so there's some point where those jobs will either vanish or be replaced. It's a silly thing to worry about since jobs that can be automated will eventually be automated anyway, but it's not like there's no relationship there.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Has jeffersonclay hosed a watermelon? If he did, would it notice?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
The fact that posters keep on trying to pretend that no one knows that many workers just make above minimum is a kind of nuts. Oh and for the record, I think universal healthcare, a living wage, a limited GMI and general increases to the safety net are all realistic and possible. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 08:46 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
Part of my interest in raising the minimum wage is whether I would receive a commensurate increase in my salary. I currently am salaried at $35,000 a year, I work between 36 and 60 hours a week (depending on the TV schedule). Back when I was in college, Florida passed a referendum to raise the minimum wage to $6 and thereafter index it to inflation, so it stands now at $8. Back then, I had a college job that paid $7 an hour and the university gave us a bump to $8 an hour to keep our pay at an appropriate level above the minimum. If the minimum were to shift to $15 an hour, my current pay which works out to be like $18 an hour ought to shift up to $28 an hour. I am pretty sure my company would rather lock us in the building, burn it to the ground, and piss on the ashes than give us a raise that big. People in my department are already underpaid by about $10-$15k a year. I'm not really sure where I am going with this except that a huge minimum wage bump SHOULD mean commensurate bumps for everyone, but I feel like companies would do the most assholish thing possible and just continue pretending that budgetary restrictions mean they cannot offer raises, tough titties, and then brag in the company newsletter about how your department's profits rose by 60%.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I'm digging this theory that wages drive automation. I'd like to hear both A: why the cotton gin didn't end slavery and B: what % increase in gas prices will bring back horse as our primary means of transportation? I don't think that wages are the primary driver behind automation. Automation has always been primarily a method of increasing profitability. In the cotton gin example, slaves that were previously picking seeds from cotton by hand were now able to use a cotton gin to significantly increase their output, so more cotton could be effectively farmed. Since it suddenly cost a lot less to produce cotton fiber, cotton production became much more profitable and expanded considerably as a result. But it's not like a bunch of slaves were "out of work". Arguably, the cotton gin contributed to the expansion of slavery, if anything. You see this happening with all sorts of other inventions. Increased affordability of digital computers put a ton of people (working as "computers") out of work, but obviously this led to entire new industries being created. The argument is that there's a trade between the annual cost of an automated solution vs the annual labor cost of human employees. And that's true; for example, it's cheaper to buy a digital computer than it is to hire 100 human employees to crunch numbers, so you tend not to see people hired for that sort of thing. But automation tends to create more opportunity than it destroys, as it did in the cotton gin example. It's not like a robotic burger flipper just pops up overnight in order to steal a bunch of jobs. You need whole teams of people designing and improving on a series of ideas for a number of years, you need all of the business and support staff that support that kind of team, on-site you need well-trained staff who are able to maintain the machine and its support systems, you need people who can fix it when it breaks, etc. That's a lot of new employment opportunity, much of which is still available to unskilled or formerly-unskilled employees. So the net loss is obviously not simply equal to the number of former burger flippers
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
Keshik posted:Part of my interest in raising the minimum wage is whether I would receive a commensurate increase in my salary. I currently am salaried at $35,000 a year, I work between 36 and 60 hours a week (depending on the TV schedule). $15/hr is about $31,000/yr full-time right, more than that if you're putting in 50 hours. Imagine your boss knew that if you weren't happy at work or didn't think you were being paid what you're worth, at any time you could go flip burgers for 40-50 hours and make as much or more than he's paying you now. Do you think your company can attract skilled workers without paying a premium over unskilled minimum wage jobs?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
the term of art for "increased labour factor prices, ie wages, increase innovation to reduce the employment of that factor" is "induced innovation" if you want to Google for reading. the chief points to absorb here is that, #1 the pure Hicks 1932 intuition that firms rationally allocate between innovation and labour, and that dearer labour drives a substitution toward innovation, is incoherent and wrong in both theory and empirics; nonetheless, #2 contemporary theories of technological innovation e.g. learning-by-doing, assorted spillovers, whatnot do permit it but tend to have really funky interactions themselves with the wage level. There are no straightforward results in this area.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do you think your company can attract skilled workers without paying a premium over unskilled minimum wage jobs? It's all ingeniously designed to make potential hires think they have a bright future with the company and then sap their will to live as they slowly realize over the course of years that their job is a dead end. Also there is the pride thing. The job requires a high level of skill and an advanced degree. A lot of people, myself included, cling to their pride and refuse to contemplate flipping burgers because goddammit seven years of higher education shouldn't go to waste. Even if you end up having to send 25% of your paycheck to a student loan servicer, at least you're kind of using your degree.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
Why does your company pay you above minimum wage now, if they're maximally evil and have sapped everyone's passion and lust for life but know they can count on your pride and sunk-cost fallacy to keep you working for them even if they were to pay less than McDonald's pays a fry cook? Your company pays a premium over unskilled work now, is it out of the goodness of their hearts? Follow-up question: imagine you lost your job or had to quit or something, or your field dried up economically and you're let go. This can happen. If you had to take a minimum wage job to support yourself while you looked for something else in your field, would you feel safer knowing that minimum wage pays enough for you to eat and make rent, or knowing a minimum wage job would be a huge pay cut that would bludgeon your standard of living? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 10:45 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 10:41
|
|
|
The cool thing about this thread is that you could make a case for arguing that increasing the minimum wage to $15/hr would be devastating economically, and it would be worth arguing about, especially in terms of what policies would be best to guarantee a living wage for all Americans. But at the same time, the people doing so are simultaneously arguing that min-wage workers are rich, that the wages of unskilled workers aren't effectively pegged to the minimum, that the majority of American poor people survive on no money at all. That is, they are making casually insane statements, and so it's hard to credit them with any sort of understanding of anything.
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
Apropos of nothing, fast food chains are making changes to their menus and methods of creation that actually cost more labor and increase difficulty of automation through increased variation and catering to individual tastes. All in the face of higher wages.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Apropos of nothing, fast food chains are making changes to their menus and methods of creation that actually cost more labor and increase difficulty of automation through increased variation and catering to individual tastes. Yeah Shake Shack, Chipotle and In & Out and their ilk are starting to seriously cut into mainstream fast food. If anything people want better human service and "fresher" food.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah Shake Shack, Chipotle and In & Out and their ilk are starting to seriously cut into mainstream fast food. If anything people want better human service and "fresher" food. Also companies that pay their employees well above minimum wage, with In & Out in the $11-$13/hour range while still delivering a full meal for less than $6 and somehow they have not been screaming about automation. Just some interesting facts.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Keshik posted:Part of my interest in raising the minimum wage is whether I would receive a commensurate increase in my salary. I currently am salaried at $35,000 a year, I work between 36 and 60 hours a week (depending on the TV schedule). This is kind of a problem in of itself. Why should people already making more than $15/hr get an automatic bump equal to the bump that minimum wage gets? I mean you argue that you aren't getting paid what what you deserve already, but that is a pretty separate issue from the min wage. If you are working in TV, then you are either union (but you are getting ridiculously underpaid?) or you're not (in which case, it makes total sense and I'm sorry. I know what it is like to be non-union in that situation.) But that also is kind of the whole point of unionizing. I just feel like the pay of people above any new min wage level should be mostly unrelated to the min wage itself. It's kind of like VitalSigns said, if someone who made $30k thought they were being underpaid and had a crummy job sees that the min wage was increased to $30K a year, they could ask for a raise, or they could just quit and get an "easier" job that pays the same amount of money, if things were that bad. If they were worried about upward mobility, then they shouldn't be worried nearly as much about their current pay quite since their eye is on a higher position that pays better anyway. If they really are being truly and demonstratively being underpaid, that is something that should be dealt with regardless of what the minimum wage is. If the situation were unsolvable, most people would be forced to either live with it, or find other work, regardless of a min wage increase. archangelwar posted:Also companies that pay their employees well above minimum wage, with In & Out in the $11-$13/hour range while still delivering a full meal for less than $6 and somehow they have not been screaming about automation. Doesn't Costco pay its workers like $17/hr per hour plus benefits? It's also a pretty successful retail chain that tons of not very rich people shop at.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I'm on the record saying that lowering the minimum wage would increase employment Where? Who, specifically, is saying "It is absolutely vital that I higher someone, but I can't afford to pay them anything more than $6/hr! That extra 50 bucks a week paying $7.25/hr is just too much!" So where, exactly, would this growth in employment come from? What sector, what company? Give a real answer or admit that lowering the minimum wage wouldn't affect hiring.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
I could see how lowering the minimum wage could result in employers giving their part-time workers more hours. It's a pretty sweet deal if you think about it. Employers get more net productivity for the same price in labor. I still think $15 an hour minimum wage is ridiculously high and the way the left shrugs it's shoulders and points to a meta study that tracked the effects of increases that were tiny in comparison to a 100% increase is disconcerting.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 16:53
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:I could see how lowering the minimum wage could result in employers giving their part-time workers more hours. It's a pretty sweet deal if you think about it. Employers get more net productivity for the same price in labor. I still think $15 an hour minimum wage is ridiculously high and the way the left shrugs it's shoulders and points to a meta study that tracked the effects of increases that were tiny in comparison to a 100% increase is disconcerting. Why do you think it's ridiculously high?
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Why do you think it's ridiculously high? Because the only credible study I've seen on the minimum wage and disemployment suggests that 50% of the local full-time median wage is about as high as you can set the minimum before you start to see unemployment tick up. 50% of median happens to be in line with the OECD average. That puts the minimum wage at around $13.50 in cities like D.C. and San Francisco and $10.24 in LA. A $15 minimum wage in a place like Oxford, North Carolina will raise unemployment and, I'd imagine, have the effect of further consolidating local markets around large corporations like WalMart that can amortize the increased labor costs. http://www.hamiltonproject.org/files/downloads_and_links/state_local_minimum_wage_policy_dube.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why does your company pay you above minimum wage now, if they're maximally evil and have sapped everyone's passion and lust for life but know they can count on your pride and sunk-cost fallacy to keep you working for them even if they were to pay less than McDonald's pays a fry cook? I'm not saying I'm against a minimum wage bump, I think it should be raised to $25/hour starting tomorrow, gently caress all the incrementalist poo poo. Peg it to inflation and GDP, whichever is higher. I think last night I was just bitching about my terrible loving company. I talk about unionizing all the time but everyone is terrified because the last time anyone talked about unionizing it was the data center IT guys and they replaced all of them with temporarily visa'd workers from TCS. Who What Now posted:Where? Who, specifically, is saying "It is absolutely vital that I higher someone, but I can't afford to pay them anything more than $6/hr! That extra 50 bucks a week paying $7.25/hr is just too much!" So where, exactly, would this growth in employment come from? What sector, what company? Give a real answer or admit that lowering the minimum wage wouldn't affect hiring. Keshik fucked around with this message at 18:36 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
It seems that while it could hypothetically be taken to extremes, paying higher wages and having more skilled and energetic workers accomplishes more than having them in a state of exhausted fear. It would seem one of the primary reasons pushing against this (other than the understandable if not laudable "I don't want to pay my workers more") is received wisdom. False consciousness, if you will. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Nessus posted:It seems that while it could hypothetically be taken to extremes, paying higher wages and having more skilled and energetic workers accomplishes more than having them in a state of exhausted fear. It would seem one of the primary reasons pushing against this (other than the understandable if not laudable "I don't want to pay my workers more") is received wisdom. This is true to an extent but there are limits to how productive a position can be. You can have the most enthusiastic sales clerk there is, and while that person will no doubt drive sales and create value for your company at the end of the day the amount of disposable income in a given market is finite. If prices are too high sales will go down and hours will get cut. That's why I don't see the point of such an extreme increase in the minimum wage when a more modest increase combined with boosting the EITC would have the same effect. The minimum wage places too much of the burden of solving poverty on the shoulders of the average consumer when we should be shifting more of that responsibility over to the wealthy.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
I will be OK with regionally adjusting wages once the federal minimum is a sufficient living wage for a vast majority of the country.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:I could see how lowering the minimum wage could result in employers giving their part-time workers more hours. It's a pretty sweet deal if you think about it. Employers get more net productivity for the same price in labor. I still think $15 an hour minimum wage is ridiculously high and the way the left shrugs it's shoulders and points to a meta study that tracked the effects of increases that were tiny in comparison to a 100% increase is disconcerting. The left is suggesting that we apply minimum wage increases of around the same size as were implemented in the many metastudies that found no negative change, that way we can continue monitoring the effects of smaller increases and hold off if something unexpected occurs. We'll continue doing this until we're eventually at $15/hour and then peg the value to inflation. This is a strong approach based on evidence and careful study, everything that good legislation should be. Typical Pubbie posted:This is true to an extent but there are limits to how productive a position can be. You can have the most enthusiastic sales clerk there is, and while that person will no doubt drive sales and create value for your company at the end of the day the amount of disposable income in a given market is finite. If prices are too high sales will go down and hours will get cut. That's why I don't see the point of such an extreme increase in the minimum wage when a more modest increase combined with boosting the EITC would have the same effect. The minimum wage places too much of the burden of solving poverty on the shoulders of the average consumer when we should be shifting more of that responsibility over to the wealthy. In the metastudies that you mention, there was no significant change in prices or in employment, so how is the consumer supporting the minimum wage increase?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
ronya posted:#1 the pure Hicks 1932 intuition that firms rationally allocate between innovation and labour, and that dearer labour drives a substitution toward innovation, is incoherent and wrong in both theory and empirics; nonetheless, #2 contemporary theories of technological innovation e.g. learning-by-doing, assorted spillovers, whatnot do permit it but tend to have really funky interactions themselves with the wage level. There are no straightforward results in this area. It seems to me that technological innovation takes two forms: 1) Making individual humans more productive with technology. E.g, the cotton gin, typewriters, machine tools. 2) Replacing human labor entirely. E.g, stoplights replace traffic cops, drones replace delivery drivers. Technological innovation where 1) dominates could easily have a positive effect on the demand for labor (particularly skilled labor). But when 2) dominates the impact on the demand for labor is likely negative. The next wave of automation described in the study linked earlier is 2). Paradoxish posted:Wages don't drive automation per se, but there's always going to be a point where automated solutions start to look more attractive. It comes up in the context of minimum wage increases because there are a lot of low skill jobs that could be automated right now with current technology, so there's some point where those jobs will either vanish or be replaced. It's a silly thing to worry about since jobs that can be automated will eventually be automated anyway, but it's not like there's no relationship there. Do you really think there’s no difference to a worker between lose your job in 10 years and lose your job in 50 years? In the long run we’re all dead. Zeitgueist posted:By the way, for those who don't live in LA if you live in downtown LA are aren't dirt poor you are most likely quite wealthy. It's the poorest part of LA and also some of the highest rent depending on the block. The city sends around dudes in polo shirts on bikes to hassle the homeless if they set up outside of skid row, so you really rarely see that kind of incongruous scene. Also skid row produces a red aura which lowers property values in the immediate vicinity so you can find decent rents if you don’t mind people pooping in your doorway. Zeitgueist posted:"Thomas Picketty says instantly doubling the minimum wage rather than phasing it in is a bad idea" thank you for countering a proposal nobody has made with an poorly aimed argument from authority, good job! Piketty didn’t say anything about implementation time. You made that up. quote:"a study done previously indicates that particular wage increase may not have helped people please note how this is also an argument against every minimum wage ever an argument you'll notice I carefully avoid" People are incensed when I mention the small negative effects on a small population of really poor people resulting from the minimum wage. Guess what? The positive effects of the minimum wage are not particularly large, and do not affect a particularly large number of poor people. The small negative effects start to trump the small positive effects as the minimum wage increases. That’s the point. quote:Yes because they want the ability to negotiate their own deals that might include other forms of compensation tied to a slightly lower hourly rate, but LOL if you think they're trying to get their workers LESS compensation. 1) You have very neatly identified why a worker earning 12.50 currently might actually oppose a $15 dollar minimum wage if her employer responded to the higher wage requirement by reducing benefits. 2) Unions sometimes prioritize employment for their members over wage increases. The UAW gave salary and benefit concessions to GM to reduce layoffs in 2007, as one example. QuarkJets posted:Arkane is bad and dumb in a way that's consistent, JeffersonClay suffers from a level of cognitive dissonance that I don't think I've seen anywhere else on these forums. One minute JeffersonClay is proposing positive and beneficial minimum wage legislation, and then when you agree with his idea he accuses you of hating the poor and wanting a $100/hour minimum wage. Cognitive dissonance is not: When I hold a nuanced view towards the minimum wage. Cognitive dissonance is : When you dismiss my arguments because I must be disingenuous. quote:Was this a sick burn that I just didn't understand? I'm not sure how one post saying "JeffersonClay is a disingenuous dipshit" and another post saying "JeffersonClay is a moron who thinks that single pieces of legislation aren't allowed to have drawbacks" are undermining each other. Is JeffersonClay insinuating that there's a conspiracy to mock him or something? Absurd strawman arguments are disingenuous! Ardennes posted:Are those price increases serious enough to worry about compared to everything they have to deal with otherwise? If toothpaste goes up 2 cents, is that what ends them? What people reject isn't there may be some price increase, or that some people may can lost in the cracks but that it will be severe enough of a consideration to hold back. Are they serious enough to worry about? Yes. Are they reasons why a person concerned with social justice might reject the minimum wage? Yes, if they were unwilling to harm the most vulnerable by any degree. We both agree that, at some levels, the benefits of the minimum wage outweigh the costs. But awareness of and discussion about the costs is no bad thing. VitalSigns posted:Unless that hypothetical person has debt payments denominated in nominal dollars, then the inflation leaves them better off. Or that person depends on some help from people earning the new minimum wage, or begging from people earning the new minimum wage. quote:And why is the answer to this problem "oppose policies with a tiny effect on inflation that's lost among our overall inflationary money policy" and not "index more benefits to inflation" or God forbid "make benefits livable"? Well, because we’re discussing the minimum wage in the context of political possibility. Yes, we could fix a lot of problems with the minimum wage if we could improve the social safety net but if we could improve the social safety net there would be no reason to increase the minimum wage in the first place. archangelwar posted:I will be OK with regionally adjusting wages once the federal minimum is a sufficient living wage for a vast majority of the country. What if a minimum wage that is also a living wage is above the minimum wage which maximizes benefits to the poor?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Keshik posted:I'm not saying I'm against a minimum wage bump, I think it should be raised to $25/hour starting tomorrow, gently caress all the incrementalist poo poo. Peg it to inflation and GDP, whichever is higher. If the work is less than $7/hr work then it's probably something he should do himself.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:I could see how lowering the minimum wage could result in employers giving their part-time workers more hours. It's a pretty sweet deal if you think about it. Employers get more net productivity for the same price in labor. I still think $15 an hour minimum wage is ridiculously high and the way the left shrugs it's shoulders and points to a meta study that tracked the effects of increases that were tiny in comparison to a 100% increase is disconcerting. Employment is driven by demand, lowering wages won't suddenly create more jobs, if anything it would reduce jobs as demand drops. The largest increase we've ever made to minimum wage was about 40%, during that change poverty and unemployment rates did not change significantly. I think what most people proposing an increase are looking for is specifically "what is the highest it can go before it becomes more negative than positive". At 40% it looks like we probably could have kept going, a lot farther even. 100% doesn't seem that insane especially if we phase it in nationally like we're doing in Seattle. Typical Pubbie posted:Because the only credible study I've seen on the minimum wage and disemployment suggests that 50% of the local full-time median wage is about as high as you can set the minimum before you start to see unemployment tick up. 50% of median happens to be in line with the OECD average. That puts the minimum wage at around $13.50 in cities like D.C. and San Francisco and $10.24 in LA. A $15 minimum wage in a place like Oxford, North Carolina will raise unemployment and, I'd imagine, have the effect of further consolidating local markets around large corporations like WalMart that can amortize the increased labor costs. This is an interesting proposal but I'm not finding the 50% cut off that you mentioned, maybe I missed it? quote:Overall, I believe the quote:it is also true that the policy specifically He seems to agree with the consensus of most on all points, but the goal of his proposal is to adjust our current system to an indexed system. It's not really addressing the problem of increasing worker standard of living. He even says in his proposal that his change only affects the poverty rate by less than 1%. Which is great, but still doesn't change much.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:What if a minimum wage that is also a living wage is above the minimum wage which maximizes benefits to the poor? What if it is below? What if it is exactly right?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Cognitive dissonance is not: When I hold a nuanced view towards the minimum wage. Cognitive dissonance is: when you argue for an increase in the minimum wage to $11/hour while simultaneously proclaiming that we shouldn't increase the minimum wage at all because it will cause devastating unemployment and price hikes. The disingeuousness of your argument came when you accused everyone of wanting an instant hike to $15/hour unless they specified otherwise in every post. Most of the people that you accused of wanting this, including myself, had stated that they want it phased in with several smaller increases, but that wouldn't work for your argument so you decided to lie QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 19:24 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Goldilocks and the three wages.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Cognitive dissonance is: when you argue for an increase in the minimum wage to $11/hour while simultaneously proclaiming that we shouldn't increase the minimum wage at all because it will cause devastating unemployment and price hikes. Actually, this is slightly wrong. Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling he should have when arguing in such an inherently contradictory way. The fact that he does not feel this implies he has a mental disability of some sort.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:21
|
|