|
You used BLS numbers I guess to claim kids, disabled people, and retires dont work. Which is dumb and wrong. You dont know the context of the numbers.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted: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 high income (likely working) people to fit under the definition of poverty. how do you derive household numbers from individual aggregates oh wait you don't you're just so upset about being identified as a bad poster who hates poor people that you're flailing at a weak grasp at logical argumentation lol a product of the finnish public eduation system
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:how do you derive household numbers from individual aggregates First rehash of the "but maybe those poor families have 8 kids" argument keep them coming edit: but I really would like to hear some of your anecdotes about being poor in the US, your weak attempts to stick to the argument are not nearly as funny
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted: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. My numbers are from the IRS, reported income indicates that a large amount of people are earning less than or barely above what a full time employee would earn in a year at minimum wage. Maybe it's an indicator that there might not be enough low skill full time jobs available for poor unskilled workers? These stats still don't tell us anything about who's supporting who, when I was young I shared an apartment with another family and between the six of us there were only two workers and they didn't always have full time work. Situations like these may be common and could explain why we see the numbers we see. Though I still don't see how this changes anything. Is your argument that the minimum wage has no effect on the poor? or that it won't change anything since most of them aren't working?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
euphronius posted:You used BLS numbers I guess to claim kids, disabled people, and retires dont work. Which is dumb and wrong. You dont know the context of the numbers. lots of stupid people use the first google hit method to try and back up an otherwise lovely argument but i've never seen it done so viciously against poor americans
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Higher minimum wages would help disabled people and retires by increasing their disability benefits and retirement benefits! :O
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:First rehash of the "but maybe those poor families have 8 kids" argument i dont even really have to argue against you all i have to do is just kind of post whatever and you'll repeatedly discredit yourself for the amusement of others I can even tell you directly that i'm trolling you and you just keep posting, like i dont know if its your jealousy of americans or your weird desire to feel like you've owned someone that is motivating this sad display
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:My numbers are from the IRS, reported income indicates that a large amount of people are earning less than or barely above what a full time employee would earn in a year at minimum wage. Maybe it's an indicator that there might not be enough low skill full time jobs available for poor unskilled workers? These stats still don't tell us anything about who's supporting who, when I was young I shared an apartment with another family and between the six of us there were only two workers and they didn't always have full time work. Situations like these may be common and could explain why we see the numbers we see. Though I still don't see how this changes anything. No there is no sign of who is supporting who, but there is a split between families and single people, and you can work out from the summary stats that there are 4.5 million working poor families. So to even get to half of poor people being working poor, you'd have to assume 6 person families. Which is unrealistic, especially as working poor are likelier to be young (edited that in) than average. And my argument is that the minimum wage is a horrible way of hitting the poor. #1 minimum wage workers are almost as likely to be poor as a random person on the street (25% vs 20% in the bottom 20% of incomes) and about as likely to be upper middle class (19% of minimum wage workers come from households in the 60-80% income quintile) #2 most people who work aren't really poor (as i just posted) and #3 the minimmum wage makes it harder for the unemployed to get a job and raises prices for others Popular Thug Drink posted:i dont even really have to argue against you all i have to do is just kind of post whatever and you'll repeatedly discredit yourself for the amusement of others The master troll laying down some super owns from his laptop in the ghetto Geriatric Pirate fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Do you think single people exist alone on an economic island with no support from friends and family.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Do you think single people exist alone on an economic island with no support from friends and family. he doesn't know anything at all about what it is like to be poor in america, like not a single thing
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:he doesn't know anything at all about what it is like to be poor in america, like not a single thing  trolled again????!?!?!?!i cant believe a poor person is owning me so hard
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
he prly actually believes in welfare queens
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:
I say this as an internet friend: I think you lost your mind. So let's reset. Is your position that increasing the min wage to $15 is dumb and bad because it doesnt help poor people?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I say this as an internet friend: I think you lost your mind. Yes
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
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? Is there an important moral difference to you if the clerk gets the additional $5/hr directly from his employer rather than the government giving the $5/hr to the clerk? There are certainly financial and political reasons why one is more likely than the other, I'll let you guess which one. GP is saying the poor are doing just fine and don't want to work. So how do you propose we implement another system that helps the poor when there are people in this very thread arguing they don't need any more help? Geriatric Pirate posted:And my argument is that the minimum wage is a horrible way of hitting the poor. #1 minimum wage workers are almost as likely to be poor as a random person on the street (25% vs 20% in the bottom 20% of incomes) and about as likely to be upper middle class (19% of minimum wage workers come from households in the 60-80% income quintile) #2 most people who work aren't really poor (as i just posted) and #3 the minimmum wage makes it harder for the unemployed to get a job and raises prices for others Your ideology is at odds with JC's, if increasing the minimum wage does nothing to help the poor and the poor don't need any additional help why do anything at all? JC, what do you think?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Ok and would you agree that there about 45 million poor people in the US per Fed definition of poverty. 15 million of those work and 30 of those do not work.? Does that sound right to you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You are again confusing data with numbers. Numbers are data but not all data are numbers. We have no empirical data about the effects of a $17 dollar minimum wage because this has never happened. Your argument boils down to "you can't prove that a 500/hr minimum wage would cause unemployment so I won't worry about it". oh so you don't have anything to support your graph, Mr. Laffer? I thought so. Does this poo poo normally work on people elsewhere on the net?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Bob James posted: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. I AM VERY MAD ABOUT THE MINIMUM WAGE quote: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. And you think there's a lot of political support for raising the minimum wage to a living wage? You're delusional. quote:People from countries with universal healthcare are unqualified to talk about the plight of the American working poor. Go gently caress yourself. More "the only information that matters is my personal narrative" huh? How quaint. Killin_Like_Bronson posted: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? The money is going to the employee either way. It's coming from the government either way. The taxes funding the program are identical. Is it morally superior for it to come in a paycheck with the employer as an intermediary? I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever. ElCondemn posted: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. What. quote:My gut and the fact that plenty of other countries provide a living wage with no adverse effects to their economy or employment. Unless you consider $12-$13 dollars/hr a living wage no country has a living minimum wage when you adjust for purchasing power. quote: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. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Ok and would you agree that there about 45 million poor people in the US per Fed definition of poverty. No, about 6 million work full time (and a few million more part time), but I think 15-maybe 20 million is a reasonable estimate if you include their dependents. I'm guessing what you're getting at is "what about those 15-20 million that can benefit?" and my answer to that is that they would benefit a lot more from targeted programs and that there is a study (MaCurdy 2015, Quarterly Journal of Economics) that shows that a) for small minimum wage increases the amount of poor people actually affected is not that many and b) the remaining people actually are hit disproportionately hard by the price increase, which for whatever reason is higher among the goods and services poor people use than for the economy as a whole. ElCondemn posted:Your ideology is at odds with JC's, if increasing the minimum wage does nothing to help the poor and the poor don't need any additional help why do anything at all? JC, what do you think?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
haha no you are wrong about what I was thinking. My next question was: what is the median wage in the US currently?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
euphronius posted:haha no you are wrong about what I was thinking. Well can you just get to the point then? If I recall correctly, about $17 per hour
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Well can you just get to the point then? If I recall correctly, about $17 per hour Right so if we raise the minimum wage to 15, roughly 40% of (working) people in the US would get a raise, including some of those 15 million in poverty? Is that right or no? Would you say 40% is too high? (I have a follow up question).
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Right so if we raise the minimum wage to 15, roughly 40% of people in the US would get a raise, including some of those 15 million in poverty? Is that right or no? No, 40% is fair, and yes, those people that keep their jobs would get a raise. So is this a "oh look we can help these people without hurting anyone" kind of thing? Because I hate to break it to you, those other 30 million probably won't like the price increases that follow and neither will those who lose their jobs...
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
Except on the employees bottom line and taxable income. Also if you see no difference don't put up a fight for my way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:oh so you don't have anything to support your graph, Mr. Laffer? I thought so. No, you just don't understand that data does not necessarily mean numbers. euphronius posted:Higher minimum wages would help disabled people and retires by increasing their disability benefits and retirement benefits! No it wouldn't. We've been over this. Popular Thug Drink posted: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 No, anecdotes don't trump data. Attacking the person presenting the data will not make that absurd assertion true. ElCondemn posted:Is there an important moral difference to you if the clerk gets the additional $5/hr directly from his employer rather than the government giving the $5/hr to the clerk? There are certainly financial and political reasons why one is more likely than the other, I'll let you guess which one. help? When you suggest the employer get a rebate from the government for employing the low-productivity worker, that means the money is coming from the government either way. I cannot fathom why you think there's a financial or political difference. Killin_Like_Bronson posted:Except on the employees bottom line and taxable income. Also if you see no difference don't put up a fight for my way. How would either of those be different? The only real difference I see is that an employer would be slightly less likely to hire a person at sub-minimum wage if they have bureaucratic hurdles to jump through, so having the government pay the employee directly is probably marginally better. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:No, 40% is fair, and yes, those people that keep their jobs would get a raise. Right ok here is my point what percentage of those 30 million DEPENDENTS would benefit from 40% of the people in the US getting a raise. I don't know if anyone has this number but in my experience, working with poor people for over 5 years in a representative area of the us, I would say it would be almost every child. Every single loving one. Of the disabled and retired, they might not benefit directly but the next cohort of disabled and retires would directly benefit as disability retirement benefits are directly linked to wages. Of course they would also benefit as spouses, friends, children earn more. Of the 15 million works they all of course would benefit. Now, you mention price increases but never mentioned increased demand leading to greater employment? Also you have never established that raising the minimum wage would lead to price increases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
Ok explain it to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:No, 40% is fair, and yes, those people that keep their jobs would get a raise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I AM VERY MAD ABOUT THE MINIMUM WAGE A "u mad bro?" response? loving really? You have the intellectual capacity of turkey poo poo. quote:And you think there's a lot of political support for raising the minimum wage to a living wage? You're delusional. There is more political support for raising the minimum wage closer to a living wage than whatever fantasy alternative you dream of. quote:More "the only information that matters is my personal narrative" huh? How quaint. GP is incapable of understanding the plight American poor due to 1. Being a foreign motherfucker with universal healthcare. 2. Being a dumb motherfucker with universal healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Right ok here is my point We didn't agree that 15 million work, I said about 5.8 million work full time and are poor, of which 4.5 million are in families, so the reasonable number of dependents + workers is around 15-20 million. And of those guys working, many might lose their jobs, this is not at all unrealistic for an unprecedentedly high minimum wage increase. So that leaves 25-30 million people unaccounted for (note: not all dependents, and none are dependents of working people for sure). How exactly would they benefit from a minimum wage increase? These people would not be included in that next cohort. Ok, so some of these people might see their benefits increase with indexation, but then this ignores the fact that empirically, the price increases from minimum wages have concentrated in products used by poor people increase more than other goods, meaning that indexation doesn't help them cover that gap. Or that the government might cut spending in other ways if it is forced to make extra high increases to payments to the next cohort of disabled/retired people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Disability and retirement payments are largely paid for by payroll taxes which of course would go way up. I am still not buying anything about price increases. And still have not addressed increase demand leading to overall greater employment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The money is going to the employee either way. It's coming from the government either way. The taxes funding the program are identical. Is it morally superior for it to come in a paycheck with the employer as an intermediary? I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever. Where's the support for this tax funded welfare program that ensures everyone has a living wage? JeffersonClay posted:What. You don't want people unemployed, you also don't want to pay them a living wage. In the absence of a GMI or some other tool, since you haven't proposed one or even indicated it's possible, the result is lots of people working for less than a living wage. JeffersonClay posted:Unless you consider $12-$13 dollars/hr a living wage no country has a living minimum wage when you adjust for purchasing power. A living wage is a wage that allows a worker to support themselves and a family without any additional support. Other countries are able to provide those things with $12/h, if that's the point that resolves this problem for us too that would be great. Though again, I suspect those countries are able to do it because they have tax rates that are way higher than ours and also provide assistance in the form of housing, food and health care at no additional cost. JeffersonClay posted:Clearly this issue has made you emotional and that's interfering with your ability to communicate coherently. Some people are not capable of producing as much as is required to support them. A government decree will not change this fact. It will have the effect of removing them from the labor force. Which, yes, fucks them pretty hard. I'm just going along with what you said I am, I want anyone whose output is not economically viable to die, that's what you believe is truly in my position otherwise you wouldn't be trying to put those words in my mouth. Lets try it this way, who or what decides whether a human's production rate is greater than their economic value? Geriatric Pirate posted:Not to speak for JC but the big difference between me and him is that I think there should be no minimum wage and it should instead be replaced with more comprehensive welfare programs, or at the very least that the minimum wage shouldn't be raised. I don't think raising the minimum wage is any less politically doable than extending current programs that actually target poor people based on their incomes as opposed to the minimum wage which, like i've said many times, helps upper middle class people as much as handing out money randomly on the street. Is there support for increasing wages to $15/h? If so can you define that support? Is there support for a UBI or whatever it is you're proposing to replace minimum wage? if so, can you define that support? Are you saying that welfare programs currently provide for all the needs of the poor? (food, housing, health care, etc.) If not, is there support for such programs? if so, can you define that support? If you already believe the poor are well taken care of and that increasing the minimum wage does nothing to help the poor aren't you just arguing that there is no problem and nothing needs to change? Why propose an alternative to minimum wage at all if it's working?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Obviously thought of course SSA needs to be reformed to make sure people on the fringes get more money. Especially those who worked (or didnt) through the 80s and 90s when wages plummeted w/r/t cost of living.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Look we can't give working poor an adequate wage because then we wouldn't be able to give even more working poor a incredibly subpar wage. Why don't you leftists want as many people to suffer as I?!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Disability and retirement payments are largely paid for by payroll taxes which of course would go way up. Look, the money for the minimum wage increase has to come from somewhere: Either corporate profits go down, in which case there is less corporate tax, which is a higher rate (both effective and marginal) than the payroll tax. So welfare spending increases. Or then companies lay off people, also possible, payroll tax might go up or down but who cares, the increased unemployment. Or companies raise prices, which is the only solution that has a good chance of increasing tax receipts. I've posted a link to a very recent paper (MaCurdy 2015, Journal of Political Economy) earlier in the thread actually documenting this fact. You can press the question mark under my name and search through tons of posts for that, or just google it if you have access to research papers published in JPE (otherwise, a WSJ op-ed by the guy is the closest you will get). Or this thing I just found: http://www.economonitor.com/thoughtsacrossatlantic/2015/06/02/is-the-minimum-wage-an-effective-way-to-reduce-poverty-or-inequality/ quote:MaCurdy’s (2015a) analysis indicates that the net effect of higher minimum wages would be unfavorable for impoverished households, even if there are no job losses. To the extent that some poor households also lose jobs, their net losses would be greater. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that the minimum wage helps some poor people but leaves a whole lot of others facing higher prices. And even those few lucky enough to be employed now might lose their jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Is there support for increasing wages to $15/h? If so can you define that support? Is there support for a UBI or whatever it is you're proposing to replace minimum wage? if so, can you define that support? The poor in the US face many problems, even if the ridiculous hyperbole on these forums ("literally starving") makes it difficult to take them seriously sometimes. No, I won't define support, you can figure out what I meant quite easily. Same for programs - ideally things that don't punish people for working but still compensate those who can't work like disability.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Does it really count as being lucky if you get to work all day and still not make enough to survive?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:When you suggest the employer get a rebate from the government for employing the low-productivity worker, that means the money is coming from the government either way. I cannot fathom why you think there's a financial or political difference. I didn't suggest subsidies, but you bring up a good point. Why doesn't the government just give consumers more money to buy the higher priced goods instead of giving companies a way to reduce costs? Think really hard about that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:The poor in the US face many problems, even if the ridiculous hyperbole on these forums ("literally starving") makes it difficult to take them seriously sometimes. No, I won't define support, you can figure out what I meant quite easily. Same for programs - ideally things that don't punish people for working but still compensate those who can't work like disability. higher wages don't punish people for working, do you have a brain disability
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:higher wages don't punish people for working, do you have a brain disability Is the ghetto you live in in a food desert (does it count as a food desert if your mom brings over some food she cooked for you)? I'm way more intrigued about your life as a poor person than anything else in this thread (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:10
|
|