site posted:Way to be an rear end in a top hat about it. i dunno it kinda gets old seeing this poo poo dropped in here on page 80 or whatever it is when its already been covered 100 times previously, read the thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:27 |
|
|
down with slavery posted:i dunno it kinda gets old seeing this poo poo dropped in here on page 80 or whatever it is when its already been covered 100 times previously, read the thread Why bother when you're retreading the same ground over 80 pages anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:The company wouldn't be unethical, they would just be unviable. If the cost of running your business is too great if you provide a living wage then that business is not economically viable. Businesses deal with this problem all the time, widget X is too expensive, either they find the component for cheaper or reduce the cost of the component. The problem is that labor as a resource can't be flexible in cost that way, otherwise we end up with people who are working full time and are still unable to provide for themselves. Which is exactly what's already happening. It's manifestly true that cost of living, and thus the cost of providing labor, is a flexible thing. People work for tremendously differing amounts of compensation and, surprise, there are very few who can't make it work somehow. That is literally the world we live in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's manifestly true that cost of living, and thus the cost of providing labor, is a flexible thing. People work for tremendously differing amounts of compensation and, surprise, there are very few who can't make it work somehow. That is literally the world we live in. Slave laborers "make it work somehow". I'm not sure if this is the standard you want to go for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I disagree entirely, the employer deserves compensation in accordance with their work. If they work hard 40 hours a week, they deserve a commensurate wage. Anything else is simply good fortune, and is deserved by nobody, but may be distributed among many who need it, if nobody needs it, it may be distributed among everybody so they can enjoy it. I respect that those are your values. As a practical description of the world what about what I'm telling you is incorrect?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Bob James posted:Slave laborers "make it work somehow". I'm not sure if this is the standard you want to go for. Ironic. The welfare of slave laborers literally is the responsibility of their employers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I respect that those are your values. As a practical description of the world what about what I'm telling you is incorrect? Nothing especially, but the way things are hardly figures into a moral argument, nor indeed a practical one given that I don't see how there can possibly be not enough money to raise the minimum wage to a level where people can live off it in a great majority of circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Ironic. The welfare of slave laborers literally is the responsibility of their employers. It's why Wage slavery is a superior economic system to chattel slavery. Why own 40 specific slaves when you can "employ" 40 interchangeable slaves for cheaper?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's manifestly true that cost of living, and thus the cost of providing labor, is a flexible thing. People work for tremendously differing amounts of compensation and, surprise, there are very few who can't make it work somehow. That is literally the world we live in. I'm not saying the world works this way, labor is seen exactly as a resource to businesses. That's precisely why we need to create laws and regulations to ensure that human well being is placed above the economic value of human labor. I believe this is a tacit understanding of anyone who supports minimum wages or health care, or really any welfare of any kind. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Ironic. The welfare of slave laborers literally is the responsibility of their employers. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I know this sounded smart when you posted it but try to find anyone who has said anything OTHER than this. Of course a GMI is preferable, it's about political realities. ElCondemn is saying this, right now, on this very page. down with slavery posted:http://www.fairwork.gov.au/about-us/policies-and-guides/fact-sheets/minimum-workplace-entitlements/minimum-wages This does not support the argument. Bob James posted:Yes, people who don't earn a wage won't receive an increase of wages when the minimum wage is increased. If you support the minimum wage as a way to ensure that everyone gets a living income, it's pretty relevant to point out that the minimum wage will never achieve that goal, and that taxes and transfers must be a part of the solution. A person arguing "well taxes and transfers are too expensive or too hard politically" is also arguing that a living income for everyone is impossible. ElCondemn posted:But don't you see? If we keep all the poor equally suffering we can just support them other ways. Their value as workers is less than the value of their lives, you see? I will try and provide a microfoundational example here. John has Down syndrome. John needs a $20/hr wage to support himself. John is capable of producing $10/hr in value for an employer. It would be better for society to allow John to work at $10/hr and subsidize the rest of his existence than to try and force an employer to lose at least $10/hr by employing him, because this would likely result in John being unemployed. The higher you raise the minimum wage, the more people will be in exactly the same situation as John. Not all people are capable of producing more than is required to sustain them and that's OK. Having the government pass a law will not magically make John capable of producing as much as he needs to live. ElCondemn posted:Now that you've explained ... well I guess you were right all along, we were all stupid correct quote:Nobody was arguing "minimum wage can never be too high", you keep banging that drum like you made a really awesome point. The reality is that you just don't seem to grasp what people can and can't understand about your arguments. quote:What? It's not a coincidence, increasing the minimum wage past the living wage would serve no purpose, even if it improved the lives of those earning the minimum wage. The maximal point of the minimum wage is the point at which workers can provide for themselves without additional support. Anything past that is just an argument to redistribute wealth, which I guess is what you think is the point. quote:It's all arbitrary, like you said, there is no way to tell the future so his numbers are just as valid as your gut feeling. You're the one with the gut feeling that a living minimum wage will be a net positive. quote:we want those who can and do work to not require assistance from anyone else. If jobs are not providing that we should look for alternatives, not play this balancing game of "how much should the poor suffer". Actually what you're saying is gently caress the disabled, and anyone else on the left tail of a bell curve of individual productivity. There's nothing inherently wrong with a person doing work that provides less value than it takes to support them. How exactly does society benefit from removing them from the workforce? JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Or employers could lobby for a wage relief program for unique cases while still mandating fair liveable wages be paid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Who do you think people with no incomes live with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Who do you think people with no incomes live with. Caviar houses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:Or employers could lobby for a wage relief program for unique cases while still mandating fair liveable wages be paid. Yes, that would be reasonable policy. But not if you think there's some moral imperative to pay everyone a living wage. People are literally using that argument to lobby states to get rid of minimum wage exemptions for the disabled right now, IRL.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
The biggest problem in this thread is that the minimum wage proponents are once again completely out of touch with reality and think that the poor are mostly people working low wage jobs being pushed down by evil capitalists who exploit their labor, the whole single mother working two jobs to feed her kids and struggling stereotype instead of the alcoholic or mentally ill person. This isn't the case. The vast majority of poor people are not in the work force. Most people who work full time (over 95% of them) are not poor. This is similar to the previous minimum wage thread, where most people advocating for a minimum wage seemed unaware of the fact that less than 5% of the workforce worked at minimum wage and no, there wasn't some huge group of people working at just above minimum wage. edit: Before master statistician LorrdErnie comes in to tell me that I made the same mistake as he did earlier by misunderstanding basic statistics, the 95% above is not based on the numbers highlighted below. It's from the BLS link Some of you just straight up admit you're making a principled stand that it's ok to hurt most poor people if some benefit to make employers pay a living wage. But the fact is, very few people who work full time are actually poor. It's very difficult actually. For others it's a more subtle form of FYGM, the upper middle class teenagers working minimum wage wanting a pay increase, who cares about the non-working poor right? quote:In 2012, 46.5 million people were poor. The majority of the people who live below the poverty level do not work. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 10.6 million or 23 percent of the poor were “working poor.” http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/who-are-working-poor Since people will do the "hurr what about the families of those 4.4 million" you can look in the BLS document linked to see that it's not all families, it's 3.8 million single people and 5.4 million families (this includes people with part time workers so the number is higher) and of those families 924 thousand have no kids, leaving about 4.5 million families with kids. Geriatric Pirate fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Who do poor people without job income live with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Who do poor people without job income live with. Do those 4.5 million families all have 8 kids and that's how you get 46 million poor people?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:16
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Do those 4.5 million families all have 8 kids and that's how you get 46 million poor people? you can live with someone who isn't blood related to you by the way
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:ElCondemn is saying this, right now, on this very page. It's tough man, not being able to understand things, I get it I really do. JeffersonClay posted:I will try and provide a microfoundational example here. John has Down syndrome. John needs a $20/hr wage to support himself. John is capable of producing $10/hr in value for an employer. It would be better for society to allow John to work at $10/hr and subsidize the rest of his existence than to try and force an employer to lose at least $10/hr by employing him, because this would likely result in John being unemployed. The higher you raise the minimum wage, the more people will be in exactly the same situation as John. Not all people are capable of producing more than is required to sustain them and that's OK. Having the government pass a law will not magically make John capable of producing as much as he needs to live. So the solution to underemployment isn't to pay people more, it's to ensure that we under pay as many people as possible. I get it. JeffersonClay posted:correct If nobody understands what you're trying to say, is it really everyone else's fault? JeffersonClay posted:You actually did argue that it didn't matter what negatives came with the minimum wage as long as we made it a living wage. If you've reconsidered, that's grand. I didn't say "minimum wage can never be too high". But maybe I was just not clear in what I meant, if you read back I explain why I said "it doesn't matter". If that's too much of a hassle I'll concede that it does matter. JeffersonClay posted:You're the one with the gut feeling that a living minimum wage will be a net positive. My gut and the fact that plenty of other countries provide a living wage with no adverse effects to their economy or employment. JeffersonClay posted:Actually what you're saying is gently caress the disabled, and anyone else on the left tail of a bell curve of individual productivity. There's nothing inherently wrong with a person doing work that provides less value than it takes to support them. How exactly does society benefit from removing them from the workforce? Yeah, gently caress people whose skillset isn't worth their life! That's what I really want, for all the people whose economic value isn't worth their life to just die and get it over with. I suppose it's better if we only give the disabled and unskilled a bit less than they need to live though, it will really maximize their suffering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
site posted:Why bother when you're retreading the same ground over 80 pages anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes, that would be reasonable policy. But not if you think there's some moral imperative to pay everyone a living wage. People are literally using that argument to lobby states to get rid of minimum wage exemptions for the disabled right now, IRL. I meant they could lobby the government for reimbursement. The downs syndrome clerk still gets $15/ hour in my world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:you can live with someone who isn't blood related to you by the way Whatever straw you can grasp at to make your preconception seem even close to plausible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:The biggest problem in this thread is that the minimum wage proponents are once again completely out of touch with reality and think that the poor are mostly people working low wage jobs being pushed down by evil capitalists who exploit their labor, the whole single mother working two jobs to feed her kids and struggling stereotype instead of the alcoholic or mentally ill person. So you're saying 46 million people are alcoholics or mentally ill? 46 millions is well over the 5% unemployment rate, even at half you're still talking more than double the rate. How do the poor who don't work report income if they're not working? Are you saying that it's common to live in the US without working or being supported by someone who is working? If the poor are doing ok why are there tens of millions of adult workers reporting income below the poverty line? Why the discrepancy with the numbers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:So you're saying 46 million people are alcoholics or mentally ill? 46 millions is well over the 5% unemployment rate, even at half you're still talking more than double the rate. How do the poor who don't work report income if they're not working? Are you saying that it's common to live in the US without working or being supported by someone who is working? geriatric pirate is a euro who has a love/hate relationship with the american poor and thinks citing the bls trumps people who have actually worked for minimum wage in america don't read anything this person says with any deeper level of analysis than 'lmao'
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:So you're saying 46 million people are alcoholics or mentally ill? 46 millions is well over the 5% unemployment rate, even at half you're still talking more than double the rate. How do the poor who don't work report income if they're not working? Are you saying that it's common to live in the US without working or being supported by someone who is working? Basic economic concept you should understand; The unemployment rate is calculated from people in the workforce, i.e. people actively seeking work or claiming unemployment benefits. Kids, disabled and retired people are not counted. Less than half of Americans work, about half are in the labor force. The unemployment rate is the proportion of people seeking jobs (officially) that are not working right now. Clearly it's more common to be poor and not work than it's to be poor and work, especially work full time. I don't know what is the cause of the discrepancy, what I do know is that these numbers are from the BLS and the Census Bureau so they're probably better than your numbers, but the definition of poor might be different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you support the minimum wage as a way to ensure that everyone gets a living income, it's pretty relevant to point out that the minimum wage will never achieve that goal, and that taxes and transfers must be a part of the solution. People don't support the minimum wage or a minimum wage increase to ensure that EVERYONE EVERYWHERE gets a living wage. They do it so that PEOPLE WHO ARE EARNING A WAGE GET A LIVING WAGE. Jesus, you are one dumb motherfucker. quote:A person arguing "well taxes and transfers are too expensive or too hard politically" is also arguing that a living income for everyone is impossible. No, they are arguing that America is a shithole politically incapable of taking care of its people and that raising the minimum wage is the best welfare program you could probably get. People from countries with universal healthcare are unqualified to talk about the plight of the American working poor. Go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Kids, retired people and disabled people all work or are supported by people who work. They would all benefit from a raise in the minimum wage. Seems like you dont know what you are talking about!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
despite having zero actual experience with underemployment, working under the table, or the gray labor market in america, geriatric pirate does watch quite a lot of BET and has census.gov bookmarked so be prepared to have all of your feeble arguments completely destroyed with master level logical attacks to the knees and elbows
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:I meant they could lobby the government for reimbursement. The downs syndrome clerk still gets $15/ hour in my world. Is there an important moral difference to you if the clerk gets the additional $5/hr directly from the government rather than the government giving the $5/hr to the employer who then gives it to the clerk? Popular Thug Drink posted:geriatric pirate is a euro who has a love/hate relationship with the american poor and thinks citing the bls trumps people who have actually worked for minimum wage in america Ignore those statistics, my anecdotes will be sufficient to estimate the effects of this complex government policy. That's aggressively pro-ignorance, even for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:despite having zero actual experience with underemployment, working under the table, or the gray labor market in america, geriatric pirate does watch quite a lot of BET and has census.gov bookmarked so be prepared to have all of your feeble arguments completely destroyed with master level logical attacks to the knees and elbows drat, a real live poor person posting ITT
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Ignore those statistics, my anecdotes will be sufficient to estimate the effects of this complex government policy. That's aggressively pro-ignorance, even for you. a family of four with a household income of more than $23k who is part time employed at least 8 months of the year is technically not working poor according to the bls data isn't worth anything if you're not capable of understanding it in this case actual firsthand experience helps to determine how the data may not accurately describe reality, which is more difficult to identify when one of your hobbies is making GBS threads on poor people from the wrong side of an ocean
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Is there an important moral difference to you if the clerk gets the additional $5/hr directly from the government rather than the government giving the $5/hr to the employer who then gives it to the clerk? I'd rather the wage guaranteed to the employee. Wouldn't you rather have that when supplying your labour at the lowest legally set wage? Wouldn't you rather the tax burden of reimbursement to come from corporate earnings, you know as one of the minimum wage workers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
hey geriatric pirate please get angry again at me for posting too much and also knowing what i'm talking about
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:hey geriatric pirate please get angry again at me for posting too much and also knowing what i'm talking about do all poor people in america have enough free time to post 13 times per day on the something awful forums? it's so great that we have a real poor poster from teh "ghetto" in our midst
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:a family of four with a household income of more than $23k who is part time employed at least 8 months of the year is technically not working poor according to the bls If you're backpedaling from "anecdotes trump BLS data" I think that's a wise decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you're backpedaling from "anecdotes trump BLS data" I think that's a wise decision. in this case anecdotes do trump data given that the individual blindly citing numbers isn't capable of understanding what those numbers mean in th e context of real people
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:it's so great that we have a real poor poster from teh "ghetto" in our midst i'm not the poor poster here. it is you, who makes, bad posts
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you're backpedaling from "anecdotes trump BLS data" I think that's a wise decision. Funniest thing is that his argument doesn't even change that fact that most people with household incomes below the official poverty threshold don't work, they just try to skew the stats by adding more higher income (likely working) people to fit under the definition of poverty. edit: high->higher
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:27 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i'm not the poor poster here. it is you, who makes, bad posts tell me more about your experiences with poverty in america that trump actual statistics im guessing your mother working the street corners is not included there, but anything else?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:53
|
|