|
silence_kit posted:To be fair, it is pretty usual for leftists in these threads to vacillate between the two positions of "economics is a bogus science" and "economic surveys show . . . (some really weak effect which bolsters my point)", depending on whether it is ideologically convenient or not. Agreed. The laffer curve is bogus therefore all of economic study is bogus. Have you heard of this guy Freud? Man, Psychology as a field is just so bogus.
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:You guys are too caught up in this whole myth of the "working poor" who basically don't exist. If you work full time, you're very unlikely to be poor. It just doesn't happen. I know you like to think of the super hardworking poor single mother getting screwed over by big companies, but it's a myth in developed countries. People are poor for other reasons than low pay. There are much better ways to help the poor than through policies which end up handing out half of the money to people from the top 60% of the household income distribution. Or maybe you believe wealth will trickle down from those upper middle class teenagers who receive raises? Hey, go gently caress yourself there buddy! There is absolutly working poor. I was one of them for a long time, that included a full time job at a call center! Guess what? Here in Idaho I couldn't get medicare because I made over 200$ A MONTH. I couldn't save because that money went towards food, rent, and gas, because Idaho doesn't have a sufficient public transportation service. How about you tell me, have you ever made minimum wage and been on your own for more than a few months?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Oh hey Quark, lying about studies again? gently caress you. I'm referencing the only study posted to this thread that had an actual price increase in it that wasn't also behind a paywall, there's no lie here you moron You're going to call me a liar without even presenting a different number? What a piece of poo poo you are quote:See the above example where Quark compares a percentage of one thing to a dollar amount of another. See how dumb that is? The way to solve it is to take the number equivalent to A in both cases (total dollars of new wages versus total dollars of price increases), and compare those. That comparison tells us what percentage of a minimum wage increase was paid for in prices. The absolutely worst outlier for a 40% increase in minimum wage was a 3% increase in prices. The median among all of the studies, of course, was 0% This means that a person making $5.15 before was suddenly making $7.25, whereas a $1.00 hamburger became at worst a $1.03 hamburger. That's the size of the price increase that you're talking about. 3% is almost nothing, and that was an outlier. That's how hosed your position is. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about percentages or actual dollar values, you're completely wrong. At a minimum wage burger joint with typical 20% minimum wage labor costs, a 3% price increase doesn't come anywhere close to paying for the entire minimum wage increase. To break it down for you further: in order to cover the $2.10 change in wages with a $0.03 change in prices for $1 burgers, a burger place hiring 5 people would have to sell 350 burgers per hour. What reality do you live in where a typical burger joint sells that kind of volume? QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jun 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
For if any of you were curious where the minimum wage suffices and where it doesn't: ~US Full-Time Minimum-Wage Income As Percentage Of Cost-of-Living By County~
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:To be fair, it is pretty usual for leftists in these threads to vacillate between the two positions of "economics is a bogus science" and "economic surveys show . . . (some really weak effect which bolsters my point)", depending on whether it is ideologically convenient or not. Lol the leftists in this thread are the most knowledgeable ones in here. Sorry if babby's mad because Econ 101 breaks down in the real world because cows aren't perfectly spherical and ceteris paribus is an apology rather than a guideline.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:gently caress you. I'm referencing the only study posted to this thread that had an actual price increase in it that wasn't also behind a paywall, there's no lie here you moron You're misrepresenting the study pretty badly. http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/njmin-aer.pdf Wages went up by 15% . Prices went up by 4%. And this isn't an outlier. You're confusing the meta analysis showing zero employment effects with one showing zero price effects, which I don't think exists. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=524803 Despite the different methodologies, data periods and data sources, most studies found that a 10% US minimum wage increase raises food prices by no more than 4% and overall prices by no more than 0.4%. This is a small effect. Brown (1999, p. 2150) in his survey remarks, “the limited price data suggest that, if anything, prices rise after a minimum wage increase”.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:gently caress you. I'm referencing the only study posted to this thread that had an actual price increase in it that wasn't also behind a paywall, there's no lie here you moron http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_351-400/WP373.pdf Better than your off-the-cuff numbers is this analysis which presents a hypothetical $15 minimum wage which the fast food industry absorbs without reducing employment or profit. They assume a 3% price increase per year for 4 years to to make the numbers work. You continue to try and compare [percent minimum wage increase] to [percent price increase] which is completely invalid. And it's a joke that you're implying 3% price increases are something small. Next time, for fun, can you and try and do this for beef. Tell me why rising beef prices won't cause hamburger price increases. It's the same thing after all. Zeitgueist posted:Lol the leftists in this thread are the most knowledgeable ones in here. Name the smart ones for us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Quoting this to highlight the totality of how it is being ignored. It's because GP is defining poor strictly as "at or below the federal poverty level," in which case he's 100% right that it's fairly hard to be "poor" if you're working full time. In fact, it's literally impossible to be a poor single person by that definition if you work 40 hours/week at minimum wage. Problem solved, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Name the smart ones for us. It's me, I'm the smart one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:
Hey someone that wasn't left a husk of a man by statistics take a table of both these and calculate the R2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Name the smart ones for us. Me. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
This thread is getting really bad in terms of the signal/reports I've got two suggestions:
Good luck!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Let me tell you the benefits of full communism *breathes in*...
rudatron fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Jun 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
The establishment of physical currency and private property, and the establishment of a highly computerized somewhat decentralized planned economy. We're westerners, the productive forces are developed enough that scarcity is largely artificial. Capitalism is obsolete, throw that poo poo away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Hey, go gently caress yourself there buddy! There is absolutly working poor. I was one of them for a long time, that included a full time job at a call center! Guess what? Here in Idaho I couldn't get medicare because I made over 200$ A MONTH. Well I guess your anecdote trumps BLS data...
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
Hey GP, what better ways of helping the poor do you support, and how do we go about achieving them politically so we can abolish the minimum wage like you want once the poor are better provided for?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 11:43
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Well I guess your anecdote trumps BLS data... Your rebuttal probably shouldn't be "the statistics say you can't exist and/or are a liar."
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 12:10
|
|
|
Actually, if you're deliberately misinterpreting the BLS data, you can use it to prove all sorts of real things don't exist, like that one poster, or working single mothers, or the USDAs statistics on food insecurity in America! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
Preface: Repeal all labor laws, explicitly legalize sexual harassment, make unionizing illegal + bring back or start corporal punishment in the workplace. This will solve my labor problems though I expect YMMV. Good luck out there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:Your rebuttal probably shouldn't be "the statistics say you can't exist and/or are a liar." My rebuttal says that either you're a very exceptional case or (more likely since we're talking about a left wing goon) you're exaggerating and consider not being able to buy the latest anime extreme poverty Geriatric Pirate fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Jun 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
Uh... All of this begs for some elaboration.archangelwar posted:1) underrepresent accumulated costs that have no relationship to labor (your simplified equations are simply not applicable, even as abstraction... they are 100% inaccurate) How is the abstract idea I put forward not applicable? Like, what's wrong with it? If there are underrepresented accumulated costs that have no relationship to labor and you think including them would somehow impact on what I said, what are they and and how would you include them and why does that matter? archangelwar posted:and 2) overrepresent the impact of minimum wage increase on the labor that contributes to logistics and intermediate supply, as demonstrated by BLS data. You are misreading the BLS data pretty badly, bro. =( archangelwar posted:This does not even begin to get into the comparison of real purchasing power gained by those impacted by the wage increase vs. the power lost via price increases, which is what people are most concerned with in this thread, and to which at least some evidence has been provided and ignored. That is the crux of the entire conversation, and why we care about questions like how costs compound, sure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
Most people, when using the word "poor", are referring to their economic position in terms of what they can buy, rather than whether they are above or below the official poverty line. But let's take a look at some costs. The poverty threshold for 1 person is $11,770/year. The cheapest studio apartment I can find in my area is $400/month, so $4800 in expenses just for housing. Using the USDA thrifty food plan for one person, groceries add another $2683, and utilities roughly another $2400. Monthly transportation costs are $1018/month for the average household in my area, so taking 40% of that for having one car and driving less frequently (to be excessively fair), that's another $4886 a year. Average clothing costs add another $1079 yearly. So we're sitting at $15,848 without considering entertainment, healthcare, or other expenses. We're already $4000 above the poverty line in costs with a single-room apartment, not having any health insurance, buying the absolute cheapest food possible, no children, no entertainment, nothing. Even sharing your studio apartment with someone else still has us $2000 above the poverty line. So it would seem that the poverty line is an inadequate measurement, and note that a full-time worker at the minimum wage still falls about $300 short! Clearly, they're living high on the hog as a member of the upper-middle class with their grotesque $15,500 a year in income!!
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Most people, when using the word "poor", are referring to their economic position in terms of what they can buy, rather than whether they are above or below the official poverty line. But let's take a look at some costs. The poverty threshold for 1 person is $11,770/year. The cheapest studio apartment I can find in my area is $400/month, so $4800 in expenses just for housing. Using the USDA thrifty food plan for one person, groceries add another $2683, and utilities roughly another $2400. Monthly transportation costs are $1018/month for the average household in my area, so taking 40% of that for having one car and driving less frequently (to be excessively fair), that's another $4886 a year. Average clothing costs add another $1079 yearly. So we're sitting at $15,848 without considering entertainment, healthcare, or other expenses. We're already $4000 above the poverty line in costs with a single-room apartment, not having any health insurance, buying the absolute cheapest food possible, no children, no entertainment, nothing. Even sharing your studio apartment with someone else still has us $2000 above the poverty line. That and many people make barely more than minimum wage (or live in states with slightly higher minimums) which theoretically raises them above the poverty line but in reality they are quite poor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:My rebuttal says that either you're a very exceptional case or (more likely since we're talking about a left wing goon) you're exaggerating and consider not being able to buy the latest anime extreme poverty And my counter-argument is that I'm not Ratbert90, numbnuts. Maybe look at the name before you hammer your dick on the reply button.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That and many people make barely more than minimum wage (or live in states with slightly higher minimums) which theoretically raises them above the poverty line but in reality they are quite poor. Once again, not actually true. The bottom 10% cutoff is something like 9-10$ per hour (has been posted previously), so over $2 per hour above the federal MW.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Most people, when using the word "poor", are referring to their economic position in terms of what they can buy, rather than whether they are above or below the official poverty line. But let's take a look at some costs. The poverty threshold for 1 person is $11,770/year. The cheapest studio apartment I can find in my area is $400/month, so $4800 in expenses just for housing. Using the USDA thrifty food plan for one person, groceries add another $2683, and utilities roughly another $2400. Monthly transportation costs are $1018/month for the average household in my area, so taking 40% of that for having one car and driving less frequently (to be excessively fair), that's another $4886 a year. Average clothing costs add another $1079 yearly. So we're sitting at $15,848 without considering entertainment, healthcare, or other expenses. We're already $4000 above the poverty line in costs with a single-room apartment, not having any health insurance, buying the absolute cheapest food possible, no children, no entertainment, nothing. Even sharing your studio apartment with someone else still has us $2000 above the poverty line. Your point is taken, but I just wanted to point out that your transportation cost is pretty high, and that people who are on a budget don't need to pay that much. 40% of 1k per month is a pretty high number. That average number is pulled up because of all those people who drive pickup trucks, SUVs, luxury cars, which are pretty wasteful. Unless I am missing something, $400 a month should be able to pay for a lease for a brand new subcompact car, fuel for it for 1k miles a month, and insurance. That cost can be knocked down if you buy used and drive less than average. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Jun 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:My rebuttal says that either you're a very exceptional case or (more likely since we're talking about a left wing goon) you're exaggerating and consider not being able to buy the latest anime extreme poverty Thank the gods the swamp swede who has never left his swamp is here to tell poor Americans that despite what their finances say, they are not actually poor!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 15:38
|
|
silence_kit posted:Your point is taken, but I just wanted to point out that your transportation cost is pretty high, and that people who are on a budget don't need to pay that much. On the other hand, younger people have higher insurance premiums, and poorer people often have longer commutes than average because low-cost housing is generally inconvenient. Those costs also cover repairs and maintenance, too. But that is one way in which people manage to live on poverty incomes- they have lovely used cars, avoid driving unless absolutely necessary, go without insurance, etc. Not exactly an ideal situation, though!
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Your point is taken, but I just wanted to point out that your transportation cost is pretty high, and that people who are on a budget don't need to pay that much. Sure but quibbling over $100 here and there is nothing. Effectronica posted:without considering entertainment, healthcare, or other expenses. Plus, get ready for it, some people have kids There's also the cost of being poor. The little things like when a small emergency crops up and you have to take out a pay day loan. Living paycheck to paycheck means you spend a lot of money on particular types of expenses. Check was late? Got sick and had to take a day off? Enjoy the fines on your cable bill. Have to move? Good luck getting 500$ extra together this month to cover your deposit. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Jun 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Sure but quibbling over $100 here and there is nothing. Then again this is what food stamps/ social welfare programs are for. Now let me tell you why social welfare programs need to be dismantled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Then again this is what food stamps/ social welfare programs are for. "I never had to have breakfast at school"  *never went to bed hungry*
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Once again, not actually true. The bottom 10% cutoff is something like 9-10$ per hour (has been posted previously), so over $2 per hour above the federal MW. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/24/573671/one-in-four-private-sector-workers-earn-less-than-10-an-hour/ In 2011, one out of 4 private sector jobs was under $10, and it is certainly higher than that now and of course there is still the issue of people making $10-12 which isn't a princely sum either in much of the US. (I hope you are not including the non-working age population here). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jun 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
My proposal would be for: • Gradual raise in current minimum wage to $13.75 by 2017. • After 2017: Create a non-partisan panel of economists and labor leaders to review status of minimum wage as indexed to median wages and cost of living. Allow the panel the authority to raise the minimum wage or put it on hold based on those factors, as well as economic health of the nation in some nebulous term. • Increase spending on SNAP and WIC programs and increase eligibility. • Provide job skills training for MW employees.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:How is the abstract idea I put forward not applicable? Like, what's wrong with it? Because it is embarrassingly lacking of any true economic value? Like, I get that you are trying to put forward the idea that labor costs can increase across a supply chain and thus have accumulated impact on the cost of a final good. But it is not a useful economic abstraction because it implies that increased labor cost must accumulate into the final cost, which is demonstrably false. Even when you thought you were adding a correction, you were once again creating an incorrect abstraction because you defined profit in your toy as a function of capital and labor, which is again, demonstrably false. It is entirely possible for the cost of production of a finished good to remain unchanged even in the face of labor cost increase because these increases can be absorbed by reduced profit or other means. This is impossible to represent in either of your toy abstractions, which makes them useless for this discussion. In order for an abstraction to be useful, it must at least be representative and explanatory. quote:If there are underrepresented accumulated costs that have no relationship to labor and you think including them would somehow impact on what I said, what are they and and how would you include them and why does that matter? Because intermediary goods are disproportionately impacted by capital and fixed costs that have less relationship with the c = L + K equation you are presenting as descriptive. Logistics is heavily impacted by petroleum pricing, manufacturing is impacted by fungible raw goods / commodities markets and energy costs (for which many are again beholden to oil), etc. And the further down the chain and the specialized you get, the further you get away from labor that would be impacted via minwage law. And the less specialized you get, the more you are talking about intermediary parts of the supply chain that are likely to be sourced external to US labor law. Like, I get where you are coming from with your abstraction, much like JeffersonClay and his Laffer Curve. Like JC, you seem to be implying that my disagreement with your abstraction implies that I disagree with the narrow scope of your statement, which is beside the point. What I am saying is that the narrow scope of your statement is not applicable to the discussion we are having because we are actually discussing the nuance and complexity of the real world. An analogy would be survey data. You are looking at 100 out of 500 respondents indicating an affirmative response and issuing a press release stating "20% of the population says 'yes!'" whereas we are indicating that you actually need to run a representative statistical model to help eliminate your sampling biases in order to derive conclusions about an entire population from a small sample. If you think poor, non-representative abstractions are all you need to make a real economic statement or prediction, then I can sympathize as that puts you firmly in the economic policy understanding/education level of most Americans. Just don't expect me to bother giving it much credit. quote:You are misreading the BLS data pretty badly, bro. =( I have shown my work on many occasions and the best response you can muster is "nuh uh." You have failed to offer a single shred of evidence you back up anything you present, and the best you can do is to create oversimplified abstractions that are neither descriptive nor prescriptive. Despite your lack of effort or intellectual rigor, I would again support my claims with data from the May 2014 BLS. Major groupings, sorted by increasing median wage Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations employs 12,277,720 or 9% of employed workers with a median wage of $9.20. Additionally, wage scatter is tight, meaning that nearly a full 90% of workers in this industry make less than the proposed new minimum of $15/hour. There is overlap of this sector and fixed costs in other industry because of canteen/cafeteria workers but the numbers show this is overall very small in relation to the number of people employed at standard restaurants or other food vendors. Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations employs 447,130 or 0.33% of employed workers with a median wage of $9.74. Labor costs increases here would impact food prices, but the size of the pool is small (but admittedly underrepresented because of the relationship of migrant workers and industry). [b[Personal Care and Service Occupations[/b] employs 4,154,360 or 3% of employed workers with a median wage of $10.22. Looking at the wage spread, this is another sector that is overwhelmingly consisting of people under the proposed minimum. Looking at the employment among more detailed occupations, it is clear that the vast majority consists of end customer service positions. Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations employs 4,371,450 or 3.2% of employed workers with a median wage of $11.19. This is absolutely a sector of the economy that would contribute to the overhead of many of the links in the supply chain, however I would assert as general overhead spread throughout the economy, its impact is generally lower than that of direct productive labor when it comes to overall impact. Sales and Related Occupations employs 14,248,470 or 10.6% of employed workers with a median wage of $12.19. This is more of an interesting group, as the 75th percentile shows a significant increase in wages, and the 90th shows that this wage increase grows rapidly, which is why the mean wage for this group is much higher than the mean for those surrounding it. If we look at a more detailed breakdown by occupation, you see that the majority of those employed in this sector are end customer retail: grocery, general merch, clothing, etc. and that their median and mean wages are clustered around the bottom of the scale. Sales wages that are likely to impact b2b costs are clustered at wages much higher than the proposed minimum. Healthcare Support Occupations employs 3,940,500 or 3% of employed workers with a median wage of $12.71. This is another sector with tight wage grouping and one that is more of an economy wide impact, as it could potentially raise total cost of employment for employers who provide healthcare benefits. But I would argue that these costs are not driven by low wage healthcare support employs, and that this is still primarily consumer facing given the way in which healthcare costs are managed in the US. Transportation and Material Moving Occupations employs 9,249,310 or 6.85% of employed workers with a median wage of $14.20. Here we start to see sectors where wages are near or above the proposed minimum. On the flip side, this IS a sector that will impact logistical labor costs, in fact it is the primary driver of logistical labor costs. However, if you look at a breakdown of the grouping according to employment size, we see that the largest b2b impacting occupations show wages generally above the median. Production Occupations employs 8,934,050 or 6.6% of the employed workers with a median wage of $15.25. Now we are starting to talk about groups above the proposed minimum where textile and intermediate food processing occupations make up a large portion of those below the median, and intermediate manufacturing makes up a majority of those above the median. Office and Administrative Support Occupations employs 21,638,470 or 16% of the employed workers with a median wage of $15.64. Again, we are talking about workers who cluster close to the proposed minimum, but we are talking about a large workforce that will contribute to business costs across broad economy. One thing to note is that a breakdown by group shows a lot of these workers are end customer facing: bank tellers, service industry reception/clerk, etc. Etc, etc, etc. Now you are talking economic sectors that predominately overtake the proposed minimum and start becoming less statistically relevant as many of them have 25th percentiles at or above the proposed minimum. Now is when you make a statement like: But archangelwar, since we are talking about median wage, it is possible for these groups to also be impacted by minimum wage increases! And to this I agree. But this is more rhetorical than anything else, because unless you want to get into a very, very loving detailed analysis that goes far and beyond what has been offered by any output of economics research offered in this thread thus far. I would be willing to follow you if you want to get that detailed, but given your contribution to the thread thus far, I don't believe that you are willing to put in the rigor. So what I am going to do instead is make a series of assumptions that I believe are supported by the data as represented above, for which you are free to dissect and attempt to discredit, but I would ask at the very least that you try and put some data behind your critique. * The majority of workers currently earning below the proposed minimum of $15/hour are employed in end customer facing service industry: food, retail, support, reception, etc. * Those employed in these positions are also in occupations that demonstrate the lowest median and mean wages. * Those employed in intermediary manufacturing and logistics, areas that are likely to accumulate additional costs through the supply chain, already statistically consists of those who already likely earn a wage close to or exceeding the proposed minimum. * If we apply the asdf32 math to these ideas, it stands to reason that the total increase in labor costs(pure estimates based on statistical likelyhood) ~30mm people looking to see a $4-6/hour increase in wages associated with end customer service dwarfs the possibility of 40mm people looking to see a $1-2/hour increase in wages. * Thus the discussion of intermediary labor costs creating a "significant" accumulated increase in total production costs of end goods is less accurate than an analysis that only considers the labor input of end-of-chain employees (which is still not completely accurate), unless your definition of significant significantly differs from common parlance. * When combined with the above discussion of material, capital, and commodity inputs dominating intermediary costs, we start to see that this idea of rapidly growing costs of end-of-chain production accumulating through the economy begins to hold less and less merit. The point is not that it is possible, it is that you continue to ascribe a level of significance toward it that is neither bourn out through empirical analysis (actual studies, where the only study that shows such a compounding effect is the C&K study that you are also eager to dismiss as inaccurate), nor is it logically supported by cursory examination of actual wage data. quote:That is the crux of the entire conversation, and why we care about questions like how costs compound, sure. Which is why, I assure you, the people you argue with care as well. They are just arguing from an empirically and logically supported position, and the best you have offer this thread until this point is personal incredulity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:You guys are too caught up in this whole myth of the "working poor" who basically don't exist. If you work full time, you're very unlikely to be poor. It just doesn't happen. I I'm actually poor as gently caress and work more than forty hours a week. I deliver food, which means I make minimum wage part of the time and 4.25 the rest of the time and if I have a godawful night I can walk out of an eight hour shift with about 40 bucks pre-tax. BENGHAZI 2 fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Jun 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Are people who think minimum wage increases bad willing to toxx themselves on predictions for what we will actually see? I'm willing to Toxx myself on LA not imploding at the new minimum wage if others are willing to make actual predictions about the result. My proposal- no minimum wage, increased taxes across upper tiers, GMI to cost of living. Get a job if you want an xbox.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:This thread is getting really bad in terms of the signal/reports In regards to (b), I only thing such a discussion is valuable if accompanied by providing an actual path or support for implementation rather than abstract ideas. I have attempted to tease out of posters just how deep their support and sympathy goes for some of the programs they claim to support for just this reason. For instance, we have self admitted Pinochet sympathizers, libertarians, straight ticket Republicans and at best centrist democrats who have claimed support for universal healthcare, universal basic income, expansion of welfare and EITC, raising taxes on the rich, etc. I honestly have to question the sincerity of the support for these positions, and it is awfully suspect that these same people will refuse to acknowledge compromise positions that are actually supported by those of their political allegiance. In other words, it doesn't help if the policy is just a rhetorical device of "more left than you" to beat your opponents with rather than honest debate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Because it is embarrassingly lacking of any true economic value? Like, I get that you are trying to put forward the idea that labor costs can increase across a supply chain and thus have accumulated impact on the cost of a final good. But it is not a useful economic abstraction because it implies that increased labor cost must accumulate into the final cost, which is demonstrably false. Even when you thought you were adding a correction, you were once again creating an incorrect abstraction because you defined profit in your toy as a function of capital and labor, which is again, demonstrably false. Most of this analysis isn't necesary for the question on hand ("will prices rise/how much") because at a systemic level there are so few externalities. This is why I've been stressing that you need to consider the dollar impact of a minimum wage increase. That amount is what gets absorbed by the economy and there are actually only a few places it can hide over the long run: prices, or profits (theoretically it could come from non minimum wages but that's unlikeely, it can also be blunted by build in saving like lower turnover or higher productivity, though don't forget that those "savings" come from someone's pocket. Also reminder: all expenses become some other company's profit or wage). So it's great if you actually go and track these dollars individually through the economy. But the bottom line is that we know they're coming from just one of a few places. Finally, given the history of profit and cost changes in the past, we have little reason to think overall profit is going to decrease in response (and this is consistent with analysis of basically every other cost increase like, beef or petroleum). That leaves one main place for the costs: price.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:I'm actually poor as gently caress and work more than forty hours a week. I deliver food, which means I make minimum wage part of the time and 4.25 the rest of the time and if I have a godawful night I can walk out of an eight hour shift with about 40 bucks pre-tax. Sorry dude, according to GP you don't exist/aren't actually poor. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Most of this analysis isn't necesary for the question on hand ("will prices rise/how much") because at a systemic level there are so few externalities. I was responding to a specific poster making a specific argument, it is quite rude of you to simply respond concerning your disappointment that I am not responding to a post/discussing I never intended to respond to with an analysis that is unrelated to the post to which I responded. quote:This is why I've been stressing that you need to consider the dollar impact of a minimum wage increase. That amount is what gets absorbed by the economy and there are actually only a few places it can hide over the long run: prices, or profits (theoretically it could come from non minimum wages but that's unlikeely, it can also be blunted by build in saving like lower turnover or higher productivity, though don't forget that those "savings" come from someone's pocket. Also reminder: all expenses become some other company's profit or wage). The absolute amount is only informative when presented as a ratio of the total, so that we can actually measure impact on economy. This is why people use percentages. For instance it might sound big if I were to say wage increases would result in $130 BILLION additional dollars, but that is like only 1% of total wages, which represent only a portion of the total cost of a good, so would only impact prices across the entire economy less than 1%. quote:Finally, given the history of profit and cost changes in the past, we have little reason to think overall profit is going to decrease in response (and this is consistent with analysis of basically every other cost increase like, beef or petroleum). That leaves one main place for the costs: price. Yet empirical study of minimum wage has not revealed a correlation with price increase... so perhaps your understanding of history is flawed? You seem very intent on pushing a narrative rather than looking for actual empirical relationships.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:37
|
|