|
I'm not saying that the $5.15 minimum wage caused 9/11, but we do know that the twin towers fell within a decade of raising the minimum wage. Are they related? It's all too complicated to know, but what we do know is we just can't take that chance.
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:18 |
|
|
Personally I find it amusing when people talk about Australia or Norway being "resource rich" like the US isn't or something
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Do you struggle with lines or something, that graph shows exactly what he described.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Do you struggle with lines or something, that graph shows exactly what he described. You have got to be trolling, you can't be this dumb. Are you the kind of person Fox News is marketing to when they blow up a half-percent increase into the whole y-axis and tell you the sky is falling?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Australia's unemployment has come off its all-time record low. Clearly this is progressives' fault: can we afford to let the raise the minimum wage here too? We all know that in the absence of the minimum wage, unemployment isn't cyclical at all and stays at one low rate forever.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Also, unemployment in Australia probably has very little to do with a minimum wage, and everything to do with raw resources exported to China. It is also ultimately the problem with trying to show historic trends when economies themselves are unique and are different to compare. Nevertheless, despite a slow down in China and its high minimum wage, Australia unemployment is still low historically. Ultimately, we know that 50% of median income is rather iron clad in having a minimal effect on prices and unemployment, and it doesn't seem going higher than than did the 60-70% of median range makes a big deal either looking at Australia. Australia's minimum is roughly 50% of average wages (it fluctuates). Our average wage (not median), is roughly $29 a hour, if you used 50% of average instead of median it would more or less over $15 quickly with indexing. Anyway, the Hamilton study shows the bottom of what a minimum wage should be (roughly $10 on average). So even the most harden critic should fine a raise to $10 acceptable with regional indexing (which would run to $15 in some cities quickly adjusted for inflation). That is the bottom of the range. I think there is good evidence over that is still easily achievable as well, but basically the scope of argument should be $10 average and above. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:50 on May 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Australia's unemployment has come off its all-time record low. There would be jobs everywhere, it's undeniable! Just don't ask me from where. But believe you me there's be heaps of jobs from somewhere!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
asdf32 posted: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. You may be using a bad example, "How does a rising global temperature melt ice" is actually a question that I wouldn't be surprised to read in a research paper or a graduate-level textbook on atmospheric physics. "Earth is warmer" isn't specific enough because the Earth isn't a perfectly conducting homogeneous sphere. Is the effect due to warmer air in general, warmer water, does the change in water temperature result in a change in ocean currents that brings even warmer water from elsewhere, does the change in atmospheric composition cause the ice to receive greater amounts of radiation (both solar and possibly even earth-shine), etc.? Of these contributing effects, does one dominate, or two, or none? There's nothing obfuscating about wanting to know the precise mechanism behind a result. We don't understand how the minimum wage will effect unemployment, so the question "how does it effect unemployment" may make you uncomfortable. But that doesn't make it a bad or obfuscating question to ask. "Employers will have less money therefore people will be fired" is a legitimate attempt at an answer, but it's very likely not the whole answer, which is the point of referring to the data and having a discussion on other potential mechanisms. quote: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. We have no way of knowing the end result without trying the experiment. And regarding conflicting results: In science, whenever there's an effect where multiple experiments have resulted in conflicting results, it's typical to take the ensemble of measurements as a type of measurement until more data is available. The concept here is that you can hopefully wipe out measurement error, unknown biases, and statistical deviations by examining a large number of different experiments. That's where we are now. Thankfully, the ensemble has already been examined for us in the form of metastudies. If we examine the metastudies and histogram the impact on prices and the impact on unemployment, we find a shape that is roughly Gaussian with 0-mean and low variance for minimum wage increases of up to a few dollars per hour. That's the result from which you should state your conclusions. We have no way of ascertaining the effects of a $15/hour minimum wage until we actually have cases where the minimum wage has been increased to $15/hour. Since this has happened, soon we'll even have data. But we already have a really good idea of the effects of a $10/hour minimum wage: no loss in employment, no significant inflation fluctuations, and millions of people enjoying a greater level of income. If we start there, then we can try and ascertain whether there was an unexpected deviation from the results found in the metastudies, and then we can reassess our situation. This is a strong, science-based, data-driven approach to the problem. quote:I'm also skeptical that any results will show up in the short term. That's true, the effects might only appear in the long-term. But sitting on our hands and doing nothing doesn't seem like a good solution since millions of people are suffering due to a too-low minimum wage. If you remove the more effective, more progressive reforms that Congress won't even consider (GMI, BI, UHC, etc), then the only tool left in our toolbox is a minimum wage increase. The data strongly suggests that there will be no negative impact in at least the short-term. As time goes on, we lose a lot of certainty in our measurements, as you've identified, but there's no clear In science it's common to assume that the null hypothesis is true until evidence shows otherwise. We don't have sufficient evidence to say that any previous minimum wage increases have caused an increase in either prices or unemployment in either the short- or long-term. Ergo, we should move forward with the assumption that the null hypothesis is true, and that there were none of these effects in any measurably significant quantity. Since there were no measurably significant effects, we should increase the minimum wage and continue checking the data.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
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. This poo poo goes back to guys like Nixon, at the very least.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Do you struggle with lines or something, that graph shows exactly what he described. It really doesn't; while the rest of the world's unemployment spiked around 2010, Australia managed to only have 6%, which is quite a feat. Since then it has hovered around 5-6%. That's really good in both relative and absolute terms.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:This poo poo goes back to guys like Nixon, at the very least. Yeah it's been going on for longer than I've been alive because my father and grandfather talk about the same things happening at least that far back.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yeah it's been going on for longer than I've been alive because my father and grandfather talk about the same things happening at least that far back. It's increasing.  fivethirtyeight.com posted:But redistricting alone did not account for the whole of the shift; instead, polarization has increased even after accounting for the change in boundaries. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/as-swing-districts-dwindle-can-a-divided-house-stand/
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It's increasing. See also. This isn't just another "back in my day" matter - things have been quantifiably changing.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:See also. This isn't just another "back in my day" matter - things have been quantifiably changing. Seems reasonable to me, as we get more connected we're able to make informed decisions about what we like/dislike. Before you'd have a beer or talk about your lawn with your neighbor, now they're on facebook posting about how they can't stand the gay agenda. Makes it easy to know what people are really like. That's not even taking into account niche/directed media, more channels and more web sites that cater to previously fringe ideas.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Before you'd have a beer or talk about your lawn with your neighbor, now they're on facebook posting about how they can't stand the gay agenda. Makes it easy to know what people are really like. That said, this ElCondemn posted:That's not even taking into account niche/directed media, more channels and more web sites that cater to previously fringe ideas. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 10:27 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:You may be using a bad example, "How does a rising global temperature melt ice" is actually a question that I wouldn't be surprised to read in a research paper or a graduate-level textbook on atmospheric physics. "Earth is warmer" isn't specific enough because the Earth isn't a perfectly conducting homogeneous sphere. Is the effect due to warmer air in general, warmer water, does the change in water temperature result in a change in ocean currents that brings even warmer water from elsewhere, does the change in atmospheric composition cause the ice to receive greater amounts of radiation (both solar and possibly even earth-shine), etc.? Of these contributing effects, does one dominate, or two, or none? There's nothing obfuscating about wanting to know the precise mechanism behind a result. The answer is "heat melts ice". It's direct and intuitive. So is the relationship between rising wages and lower demand for employment. I initially alluded to the fact that secondary factors can mitigate an obvious primary effect. So I know that already. quote:In science, whenever there's an effect where multiple experiments have resulted in conflicting results, it's typical to take the ensemble of measurements as a type of measurement until more data is available. The concept here is that you can hopefully wipe out measurement error, unknown biases, and statistical deviations by examining a large number of different experiments. That's where we are now. Thankfully, the ensemble has already been examined for us in the form of metastudies. If we examine the metastudies and histogram the impact on prices and the impact on unemployment, we find a shape that is roughly Gaussian with 0-mean and low variance for minimum wage increases of up to a few dollars per hour. That's the result from which you should state your conclusions. So guess what's a bad response to climate change: "we don't really know know so let's try it and stop when we're sure there is a problem". I'm sure you hate this example, but it's actually apt in a number of ways. quote:That's true, the effects might only appear in the long-term. But sitting on our hands and doing nothing doesn't seem like a good solution since millions of people are suffering due to a too-low minimum wage. If you remove the more effective, more progressive reforms that Congress won't even consider (GMI, BI, UHC, etc), then the only tool left in our toolbox is a minimum wage increase. The data strongly suggests that there will be no negative impact in at least the short-term. As time goes on, we lose a lot of certainty in our measurements, as you've identified, but there's no clear That's completely false. Here is a quick list of things which helps the standard of living of the poor and/or reduces inequality. Housing reform, tax reform (EITC and increased taxes for the rich), further healthcare reform (better mental health, addiction programs etc), homeless programs, better access to education in both higher ed and daycare/nursery, direct spending on infrastructure programs and research, etc etc. And actually far from being the only options, it's an open question how well financial solutions alone actually address real life problems. So, no those are not the only alternatives. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 16:14 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The answer is "heat melts ice". It's direct and intuitive. So is the relationship between rising wages and lower demand for employment. "I don't have to make any arguments, it's just ~*~common sense~*~"
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:"I don't have to make any arguments, it's just ~*~common sense~*~" Hmm, I suspect people like yourself are too simple to recognize a primary factor while also recognizing that a primary factor may not be dominant. That's probably part of the problem.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Hmm, I suspect people like yourself are too simple to recognize a primary factor while also recognizing that a primary factor may not be dominant. That's probably part of the problem. Physics isn't economics. As someone mentioned earlier, there are so many contributing factors in the softer sciences that study human interaction that any "common sense" you bring to the table muddles your thoughts when trying to see what is actually happening. This is a big reason why the scientific method of discovery is annoying, unnatural, and really loving useful.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 16:28
|
|
asdf32 posted:Hmm, I suspect people like yourself are too simple to recognize a primary factor while also recognizing that a primary factor may not be dominant. That's probably part of the problem. I think this basically sums you up- somebody points out that seemingly simple questions are often quite complex when the answer matters, and you respond with a statement barely above a platitude.
|
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I think this basically sums you up- somebody points out that seemingly simple questions are often quite complex when the answer matters, and you respond with a statement barely above a platitude. Denying the existence of relationships (the current topic) is the opposite of recognizing complexity. So keep up Effectronica, I started by pointing out competing factors. And, "it's complicated" is a platitude if that's what you want to do. Locke Dunnegan posted:Physics isn't economics. As someone mentioned earlier, there are so many contributing factors in the softer sciences that study human interaction that any "common sense" you bring to the table muddles your thoughts when trying to see what is actually happening. This is a big reason why the scientific method of discovery is annoying, unnatural, and really loving useful. Whether wages impact employment isn't legitimately in question in general. If that's common sense (it should be) then that's good.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
I think everyone in this thread needs to preface their opinions with a mention of their annual income.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 17:14
|
|
asdf32 posted:Denying the existence of relationships (the current topic) is the opposite of recognizing complexity. So keep up Effectronica, I started by pointing out competing factors. And, "it's complicated" is a platitude if that's what you want to do. Oh for Christ's sakes, you barely-functional mimic of a human being, the point I was making is that someone pointed out that the actual process by which global warming melts ice is something that could easily support a doctoral dissertation, and you responded with (artists's impression) "duhhhhh heat melts ice duh". Which is grotesquely oversimplified even for the process of keeping roads from icing up in the winter. This can be analogized to the minimum wage, but it's stupid in and of itself.
|
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
i am harry posted:I think everyone in this thread needs to preface their opinions with a mention of their annual income. 18 years old and about to be in my second year of post secondary. 17/hr in a very very low cost of living area. Minimum wage should be gradually increased every year until negative effects start appearing.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
There does seem to be a correlation between the kind of people who wait for one snowy day to claim global warming must be disproven, and the kind of people who wait for one tiny uptick in unemployment happening somewhere to claim it must be the minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Personally I find it amusing when people talk about Australia or Norway being "resource rich" like the US isn't or something Let me tell you why country X with an economy smaller than California is uniquely able to have the money to do moderately progressive policies....
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There does seem to be a correlation between the kind of people who wait for one snowy day to claim global warming must be disproven, and the kind of people who wait for one tiny uptick in unemployment happening somewhere to claim it must be the minimum wage. It's just common sense, paying current employees more means less money to pay new employees. It's a closed system, once you take the money out of the pot it's gone forever, just like the non-working poor's trust fund. Don't bother looking at data that shows little to no correlation between increases in min wage and unemployment, common sense tells us everything we need to know. i am harry posted:I think everyone in this thread needs to preface their opinions with a mention of their annual income. What is the point you're trying to make? I'd guess that most people here are probably well off or are still supported by their parents, as that's the demographic of this website.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
e: ^^^ drat you vitalsigns, "derr we had record low temperatures this year, global warming must be a hoax" was going to be my thing!asdf32 posted:The answer is "heat melts ice". It's direct and intuitive. So is the relationship between rising wages and lower demand for employment. That's something that one of those dunces might say, along the lines of "man this winter sure was cold, global warming must be a hoax!" The fact that you're unwilling to consider that the answers might require more than thinking from your gut is very telling. Using your level of intuition, arctic ice is hardly melting at all because the average global temperature is only rising very slowly (in case it's unclear, your level of intuition on the matter is wrong) quote:I initially alluded to the fact that secondary factors can mitigate an obvious primary effect. So I know that already. I'm actually talking about primary factors that cause the primary effect. The simplest explanations of physical phenomena that rely on your intuition are often wrong. It's akin to believing in spontaneous generation; young frogs come from swamps, therefore swamps create frogs! No need to examine the issue further Actually, that's a bad example; spontaneous generation was based on observational evidence whereas anti-minwage arguments are based on conjecture alone If your base intuition was correct then we'd already be at 20% unemployment and it'd cost $10 to buy a Big Mac. Doesn't that mean anything to you? quote:So guess what's a bad response to climate change: "we don't really know know so let's try it and stop when we're sure there is a problem". I'm sure you hate this example, but it's actually apt in a number of ways. If we didn't have any evidence of rising global temperatures, then that would be the correct answer, yes. But the ensemble average is not 0 for climate change, whereas it is 0 for the minimum wage. For climate change, the null hypothesis has been rejected with a mountain of statistics. For minimum wage causing unemployment, the null hypothesis has NOT been rejected with the available evidence See the difference? quote:That's completely false. Here is a quick list of things which helps the standard of living of the poor and/or reduces inequality. Housing reform, tax reform (EITC and increased taxes for the rich), further healthcare reform (better mental health, addiction programs etc), homeless programs, better access to education in both higher ed and daycare/nursery, direct spending on infrastructure programs and research, etc etc. And actually far from being the only options, it's an open question how well financial solutions alone actually address real life problems. Basically none of what you listed is tenable to a Republican-held Congress, which is why I specified that we're looking for reforms that only the current Congress have a chance of supporting. If you think that the sitting Congress is going to improve mental health reform and develop a bunch of homeless programs then you have completely lost your mind. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 18:59 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
But if we advocate for a reform package that will pass this Congress on the Fifth of Never, we get the benefits of pushing a policy we benefit from AND we get to claim a rhetorical high ground.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:e: ^^^ drat you vitalsigns, "derr we had record low temperatures this year, global warming must be a hoax" was going to be my thing! Heat really does melt ice. You're confusing that with the discussion of factors which actually result in the water/air around existing ice getting warmer. My intuition tells me that wages impact employment but that demand for labor isn't terribly elastic. My intuition isn't actually intuition but is based on lots of studies and mainstream economic consensus. Most of those things are already being done and expanding some of them is already realistically on the table (infrastructure for example).
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Heat really does melt ice. So does other things.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:My intuition tells me that wages impact employment but that demand for labor isn't terribly elastic. My intuition isn't actually intuition but is based on lots of studies and mainstream economic consensus. Well if you're just going to just tell straight up lies then what's the point of even talking to you?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:
your intuition has been proven incorrect multiple times itt and your own intellectual insecurity and stubbornness prevents you from recognizing what is hilariously apparent to everyone else i mean your literal unsupported opinions, just to be clear, so you don't try to deflect by pretending i'm talking about some mythical economomic consensus or something
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
I suppose what asdf is pedantically insistent on is that higher minimum wages would eventually impact employment, and this is probably true at a certain point. If you had a mandatory minimum wage of $40/hour you would probably see a lot of evasion, assuming the value of a dollar remained the same. However, while this is probably true, this doesn't necessarily hold true with $15/hour or maybe even $20/hour.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Funny how the left wing posters here who cite the "global warming deniers" of economics (Marxists, MMT, Steve Keen etc.) are now using the analogy themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Funny how the left wing posters here who cite the "global warming deniers" of economics (Marxists, MMT, Steve Keen etc.) are now using the analogy themselves. so when you fantasize about being a poor person in america, which television show is most prominent in your imagination?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:so when you fantasize about being a poor person in america, which television show is most prominent in your imagination? coming from a guy who thinks starvation is a problem in america and that black people face a real risk of being randomly shot by police
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:So does other things. Really? I guess we can add "lack of fundamental understanding of basic chemistry" to this thread as well. Unless you're seriously contending that the ice caps have been sitting at over 100 atm somehow. edit: actually never mind even if they were it would still require heat. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 21:45 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:coming from a guy who thinks starvation is a problem in america and that black people face a real risk of being randomly shot by police like are you more of a wire fan, or do you thoughtfully nod along to documentaries, or have you bought into gangster hip hop, or what? it's common for foreigners to wish they were born an american but to specifically want to be a poor minority american is pretty weird
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:18 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:like are you more of a wire fan, or do you thoughtfully nod along to documentaries, or have you bought into gangster hip hop, or what? more than half of the world's population would be better off economically if they were poor minority americans
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 21:43
|
|