|
economics isn't an objective science, though. it deals with human behavior, and is thus subjective, meaning it is open to endless interpretation
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Who is backing off the $15 number? There is no evidence that $15 is the point at which bad effects outweigh the good, that's your gut feeling based on the same reasoning that incorrectly predicted the same for every minimum wage increase ever. You've been consistently undermining discussion of what the problems or limits might be. You're one of the people who has openly wondered why employment might go down, why prices might go up or how large an impact a new minimum might have.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:For me it's entirely because people in lab coats support it. I havn't looked at the data and wouldn't know what to do with it if I did. This is the correct way to make an argument from authority. Doesn't really apply to the minimum wage though because Piketty doesn't have the data on a $15 wage and the minimum wage is controversial among economists, there's no recognized authoritative conclusion on what the effects of a $15 minimum wage will be, so you're just selecting someone that happens to agree with you.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You've been consistently undermining discussion of what the problems or limits might be. You're one of the people who has openly wondered why employment might go down, why prices might go up or how large an impact a new minimum might have. No, you're wrong. I have consistently fought against just assuming that point occurs at $15 based an ideological dislike of government intervention in the market, an ideology that has been wrong when it made that same prediction every other time we raised the minimum wage. This is the strawman I'm talking about : you don't want to talk about how to find out where that point is. You want to pretend I said there's nothing bad about the minimum wage no matter how high it may go so you can knock that down and avoid the real issues.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:For things which weren't $15 minimum wage or reasonably close too it from people who repeatedly wondered why a business might consider reducing employment if wages increased and are now trying to undermine authority in general while backing off the $15 number and saying "I was good with 11 all along". Do you not remember that phase-in thing that everyone keeps talking about? "I was good with 11 all along" goes with that. I don't think anyone who was advocating for $15/hour has suggested that we should just stop at $11/hour, not without a good reason anyway. asdf32 posted:You're one of the people who has openly wondered why employment might go down, why prices might go up or how large an impact a new minimum might have. Are you saying that this is a bad thing? It sounds like a reasonable approach to me. "We have some preconceived notions of how prices and employment might be effected, but maybe we should refer to the data instead of possibly-flawed intuition" is a completely valid and scientific approach to the problem, and it certainly doesn't undermine the conversation. If, during the phase-in process, $12/hour turns out to be the point at which prices and employment become noticeably impacted, then we can stop and reassess... aka the option that VitalSigns, myself, and every other pro-minwage advocate in this thread has said all along. The fact of the matter is that every prior minimum wage increase has been plagued with overblown doomsday prophecies that never bear fruit, which strongly suggests flawed assumptions on the anti-minwage side. Since the theory of higher prices and higher unemployment has failed so many times and so utterly, maybe we should stop putting our eggs in that basket and instead rely on evidence-based approaches. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 07:03 on May 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:economics isn't an objective science, though. it deals with human behavior, and is thus subjective, meaning it is open to endless interpretation Some folks in this need this to be forcibly made into their signature.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
As others have said, $12 or even $10 would be improvement over now, and there is no reason to not accept it, but at the same time there is no reason not to continue to push forward if in fact there is almost no negative effects (which the Hamilton Project study seems to indicate). Results from other first world countries such as Australia and New Zealand also seem to indicate that a wage somewhere in the range of 60-70% of median wage is quite doable, and with inflation and phasing in that would bring us up to at least to $15 average pretty quickly. I am not wedded necessarily to the idea of $15, it may end up higher in the end, than that but it is a decent target. That said, I still wouldn't have a problem with regional indexing.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:"What cognitive dissonance, you never made an argument!" Is a perfect encapsulation of the cognitive dissonance reduction strategy "denial". The classic "Nuh-uh, you are!" argument.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
What is it with anti-minimum wage people and ignoring the mountains of empirical evidence in its favor?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:What is it with anti-minimum wage people and ignoring the mountains of empirical evidence in its favor? Well the latest argument seems to be "because we respect authority" or some other nonsense.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 15:50
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:What is it with anti-minimum wage people and ignoring the mountains of empirical evidence in its favor? it's not about evidence, it's about taking an self-interested ideological stance
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:economics isn't an objective science, though. it deals with human behavior, and is thus subjective, meaning it is open to endless interpretation I appreciate the thrust of what you're saying, but I have to disagree on a technical level. Sciences of human behavior, like psychology or economics, are objective. We just have so little information on the relevant points at discussion that they're still open to interpretation, much like string theory, or the origins of life. It's just that in the physical sciences, our ignorance is only obvious in the edge cases, whereas the nearly infinite amount of variables in macroeconomics makes largely ignorant guesswork the norm. In short, economics is not subjective in principle, merely in practice. This makes conservative arguments of staying the course somewhat silly, since continuous change in all areas of global human life mean that we are always in uncharted waters. (Unless conservative arguments are actually short-term stay-rich schemes, rather than honest attempts to improve the lives of the worst off, of course)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:What is it with anti-minimum wage people and ignoring the mountains of empirical evidence in its favor? There is little direct evidence for $15. When some direct evidence was compiled we suddenly found ourselves discussing the legitimacy of authority and the field of economics.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:There is little direct evidence for $15. When some direct evidence was compiled we suddenly found ourselves discussing the legitimacy of authority and the field of economics. you didn't answer the question he asked
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:you didn't answer the question he asked Ok let me clarify that for you. No one has ignored evidence that doesn't exist and the evidence that was presented was ignored by the "you must not question a $15 minimum" crowd.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:There is little direct evidence for $15. When some direct evidence was compiled we suddenly found ourselves discussing the legitimacy of authority and the field of economics. haha, jesus christ you don't actually understand what a logical fallacy is do you. Like, I shouldn't be surprised, but holy hell you are the densest person I think I have ever encountered. You can't be for real.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:How many mom-and-pop stores do you think are covered by the FLSA, given that it exempts businesses with sales of less than $500,000 annually? For that matter, the living wage varies much less than the median wage, and $15/hr isn't a living wage for anybody with children anywhere in the country, and is just barely a living wage for someone with an adult dependent in the poor parts of the country. In real terms, it's too low. Not surprising given that it hasn't been adjusted for inflation in the last twenty years. IIRC almost half of all small businesses have revenue over $500k (if I'm wrong then I'm not far off, I'm having a hard time finding up to date statistics), and really, why should employees of local businesses be paid less than employees of large corporations? Are they less deserving of a living wage? And is it sensible to create a $15 dollar an hour hurdle at $500k revenues when we want business to grow and offer more positions? To me it's strange to put the responsibility for providing a living wage entirely on businesses, because I personally don't like businesses having that kind of power over people's livelihoods. It's the same reason I don't think businesses should have anything to do with their employee's healthcare.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:There is little direct evidence for $15. We don't have a $15/h min-wage, there isn't "little" direct evidence in the US, there is no direct evidence since it doesn't exist right now. All we can do is extrapolate from historical data (and examples in other countries), every study of those changes shows minimal to no negative effects and the part you guys don't seem to care about, overwhelmingly positive results (increased job growth, reduction in poverty levels, improved standard of living, etc.). So where is this evidence that proves previous minimum wage increases were severely, or even significantly, negative? Typical Pubbie posted:And is it sensible to create a $15 dollar an hour hurdle at $500k revenues when we want business to grow and offer more positions? Why do we want more people working if it's not enough to support themselves and a family? More jobs isn't better if they can't provide what they're intended to. A job is the only way to feed yourself and live, it must be able to do that otherwise there is no point in having a job. edit: but also I'd like to point out that minimum wage increases in the past have not had a significant negative impact on employment, so your concern about losing jobs to an increase in wages is unfounded. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 18:32 on May 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 18:04
|
|
asdf32 posted:There is little direct evidence for $15. Except for those pesky countries where it already exists
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok let me clarify that for you. No one has ignored evidence that doesn't exist and the evidence that was presented was ignored by the "you must not question a $15 minimum" crowd. ah yes, feelings of persecution. very rational
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:IIRC almost half of all small businesses have revenue over $500k (if I'm wrong then I'm not far off, I'm having a hard time finding up to date statistics), and really, why should employees of local businesses be paid less than employees of large corporations? Are they less deserving of a living wage? And is it sensible to create a $15 dollar an hour hurdle at $500k revenues when we want business to grow and offer more positions? NO TRUE LEFTIST And we are back full circle in the thread where we are all like "we prefer full communism now; UBI + UHC + blah blah blah; political reality; go to war with the labor policy you have etc etc etc"
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok let me clarify that for you. No one has ignored evidence that doesn't exist and the evidence that was presented was ignored by the "you must not question a $15 minimum" crowd. No, it wasn't. I know that you want this to be true, but wishing really hard doesn't make it so.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 21:37
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:IIRC almost half of all small businesses have revenue over $500k (if I'm wrong then I'm not far off, I'm having a hard time finding up to date statistics), and really, why should employees of local businesses be paid less than employees of large corporations? Are they less deserving of a living wage? And is it sensible to create a $15 dollar an hour hurdle at $500k revenues when we want business to grow and offer more positions? Small businesses cover everything under 500 employees and more things than the service sector, so they include a lot of businesses that are not what people think of when they cry tears for the stores that would be crushed by the big-box retailers. In any case, the FLSA allows for the Department of Labor to require businesses that don't qualify by virtue of revenues to still comply with federal minimum wage laws. To me, it's disturbing to aim for a world in which working for free is the norm and the alienation of the worker from the products of her labor is accelerated.
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:To me it's strange to put the responsibility for providing a living wage entirely on businesses, because I personally don't like businesses having that kind of power over people's livelihoods. It's the same reason I don't think businesses should have anything to do with their employee's healthcare. What? Jobs aren't supposed to pay a living wage, like paying a living wage is bad? So when you apply for a job, you say "and don't pay me more than $22,000, I don't want you having that kind of power over my life" 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:To me it's strange to put the responsibility for providing a living wage entirely on businesses, because I personally don't like businesses having that kind of power over people's livelihoods. It's the same reason I don't think businesses should have anything to do with their employee's healthcare. Yes full communism now, but failing that wage regulating is probably good.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 02:30
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Yes full communism now, but failing that wage regulating is probably good. The beauty of mandating a living wage is that it doesn't put any more power into business's hands than the business owners refuse to pay for anyways. Want to lower what constitutes a living wage? Implement UHC.
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What? Jobs aren't supposed to pay a living wage, like paying a living wage is bad? It'd be a reasonable thing to say if we had a universal income in place, perhaps. Frankly, that seems like a necessity if you really want a "free" labor market anyway. Decoupling the ability to afford basic necessities from employment ensures that employees and employers are actually able to somewhat negotiate; if I'm making a guaranteed living wage from the government, then I might not complain about being paid only $2/hour (and if I don't like it, I really can leave without suffering seriously). Obviously universal healthcare would be necessary in this scenario, too. Anyone who wants a laissez-faire labor market who doesn't also want a universal income is probably a disingenuous idiot.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Oh yeah, of course sure. But right now, today, when businesses do have that power over the people's lives, it's ridiculous to oppose a minimum wage on those grounds. "I'll make sure McDonald's only has to pay you $7.25/hr, wouldn't want to make you dependent on your job or anything, you're welcome."
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Right now, the market has shown that spinning a sign and greeting people at Walmart are both jobs worth the current minimum wage. Why would we even want jobs that would only exist under a lower minimum wage? I honestly believe that at some point it becomes less a livelihood and more a public nuisance.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Right now, the market has shown that spinning a sign and greeting people at Walmart are both jobs worth the current minimum wage. Why would we even want jobs that would only exist under a lower minimum wage? I honestly believe that at some point it becomes less a livelihood and more a public nuisance. Wal-mart greeters often make significantly less than minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Wal-mart greeters often make significantly less than minimum wage. #Disability hire laws woo!! Also reddit currently has an Ask thread on $15 wages and it made me angry enough to actually post on reddit... god help me https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/37s592/whats_your_honest_reaction_to_the_idea_of_15hr/
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Wal-mart greeters often make significantly less than minimum wage. Jack2142 posted:#Disability hire laws woo!! ? I assume this is some kind of bullshit some states have similar to "Seasonal" positions etc? Ugh... http://www.wbez.org/series/front-center/labor-laws-allow-workers-disabilities-earn-less-minimum-wage-107389 ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 10:18 on May 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 10:15
|
|
|
Economists are the grognard rules lawyers of real life, and arm-chair economists are the full-on autistic kid jackin it in Barnes & Noble. Let us pray the externalities accumulate as rapidly as possible.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:? Yeah that was what I was referencing. I understand the twisted logic of paying disabled people less than minimum wage due to diminished performance, but it is still hosed up they are still people. I wouldn't be bothered as much if they drew a normal wage and had that subsidized by % of ability by the government, but I doubt that would happen. Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 10:37 on May 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 10:33
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Small businesses cover everything under 500 employees and more things than the service sector, so they include a lot of businesses that are not what people think of when they cry tears for the stores that would be crushed by the big-box retailers. In any case, the FLSA allows for the Department of Labor to require businesses that don't qualify by virtue of revenues to still comply with federal minimum wage laws. I'm not big on the Marxist form of alienation but instead think that a different form of alienation comes along with not being employed. Working is a form of participation in society and most people derive a certain amount of meaning from that in general. There are other ways to participate of course but it's naive to think that everyone has fruitful satisfying hobbies to peruse outside work. Especially in our postmodern world where organized social/religious institutions have been systematically dismantled. That's why I'm always coming from a perspective of emphasizing work. Simultaneously we need to start decoupling work from basic human rights but these things can be done simultaneously. As I've said before, minimum wage is essentially kicking the can down the road by continuing to emphasize a coupling between "living wage" and employment. And if I were on the right I'd be praying for minimum wage over any policy that puts government more directly in control. QuarkJets posted:Do you not remember that phase-in thing that everyone keeps talking about? "I was good with 11 all along" goes with that. I don't think anyone who was advocating for $15/hour has suggested that we should just stop at $11/hour, not without a good reason anyway. Yes I have preconceived notions of how the economy works. I suggest you should too. Asking how minimum wage would increase unemployment is like asking how rising global temperatures melt ice. There are actually factors which could mitigate either one, but the mechanism is completely obvious. Asking the question reeks of deliberate obfuscation. A phase in process mitigates the shock effects but doesn't really change the end result. I want to know whether I want $15 minimum wage before I set down the road too it. Also, given that there are exactly 1 million minimum wage studies which show conflicting results I'm skeptical we know how to distinguish the signal from the noise. I'm also skeptical that any results will show up in the short term. Australia for instance has been aggressively raising minimum wage (in the midst of a resource boom I'll add) for a decade and after no problems is now facing increased unemployment. Are they related? It's incredibly hard to know because over a decade everything can change. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 16:20 on May 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 16:16
|
|
asdf32 posted:I'm not big on the Marxist form of alienation but instead think that a different form of alienation comes along with not being employed. Working is a form of participation in society and most people derive a certain amount of meaning from that in general. There are other ways to participate of course but it's naive to think that everyone has fruitful satisfying hobbies to peruse outside work. Especially in our postmodern world where organized social/religious institutions have been systematically dismantled. That's why I'm always coming from a perspective of emphasizing work. Simultaneously we need to start decoupling work from basic human rights but these things can be done simultaneously. As I've said before, minimum wage is essentially kicking the can down the road by continuing to emphasize a coupling between "living wage" and employment. And if I were on the right I'd be praying for minimum wage over any policy that puts government more directly in control. This, in the end, is probably the George W. Bush legacy- a world where politics is primarily a sport, and the goal is to avoid the wrong side getting anything. Pretty fricking boss.
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This, in the end, is probably the George W. Bush legacy- a world where politics is primarily a sport, and the goal is to avoid the wrong side getting anything. Pretty fricking boss. No you can't blame Bush for a long term trend. And a belief that the type of ideology on display in this very thread is an example of the thing you're describing is one thing that very consciously motivates my positing. Political polarization is, in my opinion, one of the most dangerous things facing modern society. That's why I'm less interested in specific outcomes (reminder that I support moderate minimum wage increases) than ways of thinking ("But how will minimum wage increase unemployment?!"). If people are interested in understanding problems then they can solve them. If they aren't then we're all hosed.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I'm also skeptical that any results will show up in the short term. Australia for instance has been aggressively raising minimum wage (in the midst of a resource boom I'll add) for a decade and after no problems is now facing increased unemployment. Are they related? It's incredibly hard to know because over a decade everything can change. quote:Unemployment Rate in Australia increased to 6.20 percent in April of 2015 from 6.10 percent in March of 2015. Unemployment Rate in Australia averaged 6.90 percent from 1978 until 2015, reaching an all time high of 10.90 percent in December of 1992 and a record low of 4 percent in February of 2008. Unemployment Rate in Australia is reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistic.  So not only are your new claims unfalsifiable ("the minimum wages causes unemployment that's impossible to ever measure, but it's there, lurking!"), they appear to be based on unemployment statistics that you're completely making up. If I join your religion, are there nifty hats?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 16:27
|
|
asdf32 posted:No you can't blame Bush for a long term trend. And a belief that the type of ideology on display in this very thread is an example of the thing you're describing is one thing that very consciously motivates my positing. Political polarization is, in my opinion, one of the most dangerous things facing modern society. That's why I'm less interested in specific outcomes (reminder that I support moderate minimum wage increases) than ways of thinking ("But how will minimum wage increase unemployment?!"). If people are interested in understanding problems then they can solve them. If they aren't then we're all hosed. I'm reminded of the scene in Foundation where they bring in a logician to conclude that the imperial envoy said absolutely nothing of meaning in all his speeches. I'm not sure why, though. Can you help me figure it out?
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:55 |
|
asdf32 posted:Australia for instance has been aggressively raising minimum wage (in the midst of a resource boom I'll add) for a decade and after no problems is now facing increased unemployment. lol
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 16:35
|
|