|
Liquid Communism posted:That's the result of the refusal to even attempt to keep the minimum wage in line with inflation that you're advocating. That is literally what the policy of 'oh, we should raise it but only by less than 50%' is advocating for when the minimum wage is so far below a living wage as it stands. I said such a high minimum wage is largely unstudied and there needs to be more data from local attempts at that level to determine the benefits and harms before enacting it at a national level, but that up to 60% of the median income the harm is minimal if it is there at all. There is one example which goes to $15 but we need more data points. You should want data too before proposing national policies as well.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
The nice thing is that minimum wage increases happen gradually over time. If whatever nightmare scenario starts rearing its head part way through, Congress can just halt the increase.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:So, having had time to look this and other references over it looks like modest increases in the minimum wage to around 50-60% of the median will have very few, if any negative affects on the employment rate. Floors above that are unstudied largely so any affect that may be present but within the error bars of a study could break out and be visible. OK so how about a 50% raise now and another 50% phased in over 5 years? That would put the rate at $16/hr after 5 years, which would make up for the ground lost to inflation and would also give the economy plenty of time to adjust, if you're worried about hidden variables that are unnoticeable at 50%. (or we could be brave and go to 15/hr in two years, instead of being sniveling conservative cowards; then we would have a lot of data regarding larger minwage increases)
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:The nice thing is that minimum wage increases happen gradually over time. If whatever nightmare scenario starts rearing its head part way through, Congress can just halt the increase. The problem is the lack of controls to compare them against when you do it nationwide. I'd fully support state wide or city increases to 15/hr to see the effects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Ormi posted:A universal basic income would pretty much only be politically feasible with a wealth tax, and wealth taxes are very difficult to implement at the rates needed to offset a major income tax hike because of liquidity problems. EITC expansion and minimum wage increases are the way to go until either the American middle class ceases to exist or we've done a socialism. Assuming Modern Monetary Theory (which I've posted about before) is correct, the government can just print money to pay for a UBI. The issue isn't taxes, but how much inflation we're willing to accept (i.e. would we be willing to accept 6% inflation if it meant ending poverty?).
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I said such a high minimum wage is largely unstudied and there needs to be more data from local attempts at that level to determine the benefits and harms before enacting it at a national level, but that up to 60% of the median income the harm is minimal if it is there at all. This is lovely logic. No offense. In 1968 the buying power of the minimum wage was $10.90 compared to today's $7.25. Your 'caveat' minimum wage that you think is safe works out to roughly $10.00. So right off the bat you're asking us to believe that the minimum wage of the late 1960's was having negative effects on employment despite evidence to the contrary. When the minimum wage was incrementally raised in the 1960's we did not see the sort of unemployment drop off people like Neumark suggest should be the case. It simply did not happen. So right off the bat, I have to question why I should listen to your suggestions? Not to belabor the point, but I feel like in a lot of cases this is like talking to someone who goes "Reagan cut taxes and it helped the economy" while simultaneously ignoring that taxes are now lower than when Reagan was in office, suggesting that the supply side nonsense is in fact, just that. Nitrousoxide posted:I said such a high minimum wage is largely unstudied and there needs to be more data from local attempts at that level to determine the benefits and harms before enacting it at a national level, but that up to 60% of the median income the harm is minimal if it is there at all. We know that a $10.90 minimum wage does not cause economic calamity. Would you agree that we should at least increase it to $10.90, and if so, why not? I get what you're trying to argue here, slow and steady conservative positions aren't necessarily flawed, but I feel in this instance you kind of are. No one is suggesting we jack the minimum wage to $15 overnight and see what happens, so in a hypothetical $15 minimum wage world, you'd still get the slow, measured increases that would allow us to track what is happening. My issue with your argument is that it is arguing in favor of paralysis. There aren't any studies so we must assume the worst and do nothing, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that doing nothing has its own significant negative side effects. Forty Two Percent. 42% of all U.S. Workers make less than $15/hour, of those, nearly a quarter earn less than $10/hour. Yes, there could be deleterious effects as a result of a staged minimum wage increase to $15/hour, but what annoys me about people who are anti-minimum wage is that the ignore the ridiculously beneficial effects of such a minimum wage increase. What do you suppose is the positive nationwide effect of giving a raise to the majority of the population, particularly in a world where nearly all income growth has gone to the ownership classes for the last decade? Someone making $10/hour today, which is twelve million people or 1/10th of the US work force, is under the poverty line if they are the sole income earner for a family of three, and that isn't taking into account the fact that the formula used to determine poverty is forty years out of date and doesn't function well as a result. I have to say that it is a national disgrace that someone can work full time at a wage nearly 1/3rd above the current minimum wage, and still live in poverty. The people who would benefit from an increased minimum wage are the people most likely to spend, which increases consumption which sets the whole wheel of the american economy turning once again. So while you can  about possible side effects, I am more than capable of ing right back at you for ignoring the incredibly damaging effects of poverty, effects that could be ameliorated if only we cared to.
Caros fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Also while I'm asking, do you think healthcare should be provided in a marketplace, or should the US follow every other civilized country on the face of the planet and provide UHC? Choose wisely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Hell, I'll suggest it. Let's do it. Federal minimum wage to $15 starting 21 January 2017. I'll give you a hint, Walmart's still going to need people to stock their shelves, McDonald's will still be open, and there will still be waitresses at your local Chili's. Small businesses that do less than $500k a year (The usual target of the 'BUT THINK OF THE EMPLOYEES" crowd) and are not engaged in interstate commerce, as well as small farms, are already exempt from the federal minimums anyway. Their only worry is losing their staff to better paying offers...
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Hell, I'll suggest it. Let's do it. Federal minimum wage to $15 starting 21 January 2017. I like this idea it is cool and good
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Hell, I'll suggest it. Let's do it. Federal minimum wage to $15 starting 21 January 2017.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Caros posted:In 1968 the buying power of the minimum wage was $10.90 compared to today's $7.25. Your 'caveat' minimum wage that you think is safe works out to roughly $10.00. So right off the bat you're asking us to believe that the minimum wage of the late 1960's was having negative effects on employment despite evidence to the contrary. When the minimum wage was incrementally raised in the 1960's we did not see the sort of unemployment drop off people like Neumark suggest should be the case. It simply did not happen. The issue isn't necessarily unemployment. Schmitt points out that there are several ways that the floor increase could be getting paid for. On the bad side there's unemployment (didn't seem to happen much) reduced hours worked, cuts to benefits. On the good side there's an increase in productivity, lower turnover (and this lower training costs and an accompanying higher productivity due to experience). And neutral, from the standpoint of how effective the policy is, a reduction in profit margins, or increased prices. Some combination of these things is responsible for how the economy responds to the floor increase. Different ones are likely more dominant at different price floors. At a $50/hr minimum wage increased prices would surely be a huge factor. Now obviously no one is saying go for 50 dollars an hour. But somewhere between the current level and there the harm will outweigh the good from the policy. It does not appear that a floor of 60% has any real deleterious effects so I'm happy to grant that at a national level. I'd like to use the States to experiment with higher levels and reserve the federal policy for the more sure numbers. Caros posted:I get what you're trying to argue here, slow and steady conservative positions aren't necessarily flawed, but I feel in this instance you kind of are. No one is suggesting we jack the minimum wage to $15 overnight and see what happens, so in a hypothetical $15 minimum wage world, you'd still get the slow, measured increases that would allow us to track what is happening. My issue with your argument is that it is arguing in favor of paralysis. There aren't any studies so we must assume the worst and do nothing, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that doing nothing has its own significant negative side effects. I'm not suggesting do nothing. I'm suggesting use the federal government for the safe number and have States experiment with higher minimum wages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The issue isn't necessarily unemployment. Schmitt points out that there are several ways that the floor increase could be getting paid for. On the bad side there's unemployment (didn't seem to happen much) reduced hours worked, cuts to benefits. On the good side there's an increase in productivity, lower turnover (and this lower training costs and an accompanying higher productivity due to experience). And neutral, from the standpoint of how effective the policy is, a reduction in profit margins, or increased prices. so what shoudl the minimum wage be, what's the Safe Level
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:so what shoudl the minimum wage be, what's the Safe Level
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:so what shoudl the minimum wage be, what's the Safe Level Somewhere between 10-11/hr.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
That seems arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Somewhere between 10-11/hr. lmao so still not enough to get by also how did you land at this number
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:lmao so still not enough to get by That's the 60% of the median wage that is heavily studied and indicates that it has little to no negative effects on employment levels. If a state or city wants to test out 15 or 20/hr great. Get more data points to nail down a higher national minimum wage. My primary concern here is avoiding hurting the very people you are trying to help.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:My primary concern here is avoiding hurting the very people you are trying to help. THEN MAKE THE MINIMUM WAGE A LIVABLE ONE YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
lemme cite a ten year old biased as gently caress metastudy to tell you why actually a higher minimum wage is bad
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:My primary concern here is avoiding hurting the very people you are trying to help. They're being hurt right now. How about we just gradually increase the minimum wage until we start to see negative effects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
look i'm trying to not hurt people, thus we should continue not paying them a livable wage
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:look i'm trying to not hurt people, thus we should continue not paying them a livable wage But Dickeye-san, if we have to pay the laborers a living wage, where will our shareholders' ever-increasing dividend demands come from?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:But Dickeye-san, if we have to pay the laborers a living wage, where will our shareholders' ever-increasing dividend demands come from? deeze nuts
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:
Also Washington set a $15.00 for everyone working at SeaTac and everyone working at a business with more than 500 employees. It's $11.00 for everyone else. They're doing fine, in case you were wondering. Next highest up is California at ten dollars an hour just this year. I have to assume anyone who looks at what state governments are actually prone to do in America and then goes "oh we need to see how things turn out for the states that try it before we implement anything at the federal level" , in regards to a minimum wage, in fact intends for nothing to be done at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:deeze nuts that's a no go that character is never going to get elected, i don't care that he's beating jill stein in texas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:THEN MAKE THE MINIMUM WAGE A LIVABLE ONE YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER I'm not saying don't do that though? I'm saying test it at the state or city level first. My suggested minimum wage increase is in line with Obama's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I'm not saying don't do that though? I'm saying test it at the state or city level first. It's barely enough for you to get by okay while constantly praying "no illness no children, no illness no children" And I say that as someone who lives in a cheap part of one of the lowest cost of living states in the Union (if you ignore that having a car is near mandatory)
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:deeze nuts A good use of this joke
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I'm not saying don't do that though? I'm saying test it at the state or city level first. "I'm suggesting things that fall in line with neo-liberals I totally care about the poor"
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
I'm not sure how the following ideas are reconciled in some people's heads: - Increasing the minimum wage will lead to layoffs - Employees are only employed if they provide at least the same value to their employer as they're getting paid in wages (or, "business is not charity") Here's Bob. Bob has bitch tits. Bob works as a cleaner for minimum wage, let's say $7 an hour because I don't know what your minimum wage is, at Joe's Hardware. Bob is the only cleaner at Joe's, and Joe is happy with his cleaning. Today the minimum wage rises to $15 an hour. Joe says "sorry Bob but I'm going to have to let you go, thanks Obama" because how dare the federal government blah blah. Joe wants to pay less for Bob's cleaning. Now Joe can't hire anyone to clean his shop, because he has to pay $15 an hour regardless of who he hires. The toilets are getting blocked up and there is dust all over the merchandise. Joe thinks this is acceptable I guess because even though his shop's a mess, he's not paying $15 or something? But if Bob isn't worth hiring at the new minimum wage, as is evident by Joe laying him off (see point 1) and evidently doing all right without him, why was Bob employed in the first place (see point 2)? Surely if businesses are not charities, they are only employing people to do jobs that are absolutely necessary to the running of that business/provision of a third golden yacht. So why do absolutely-necessary roles get left unfilled when the government says "yo, these dudes cost more now"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I'm not saying don't do that though? no, you're just wringing your hands over how we're going to end up hurting people by paying them enough to fuckin live on and insisting that the only way to be safe is to make sure the federal minimum wage is poverty line bullshit
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:I'm not sure how the following ideas are reconciled in some people's heads: I like this
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:They're being hurt right now. How about we just gradually increase the minimum wage until we start to see negative effects. Caveat to this: We still don't stop even if we start to get to really high numbers without negative effects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Caveat to this: We still don't stop even if we start to get to really high numbers without negative effects. I like the idea of everyone slowing realizing that property is theft Make it happen
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:I like the idea of everyone slowing realizing that property is theft Actually theft is property whoaaaaaaa
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:"I'm suggesting things that fall in line with neo-liberals I totally care about the poor" Barack Obama is not a neoliberal. He oversaw the creation of a financial regulatory office with actual power (the CFPB), a massive expansion of healthcare regulation (via the ACA), and the largest expansion of welfare coverage since the 1960s (Medicaid via the ACA). Drastically watered-down social democracy isn't neoliberalism. Dumb compromises offered in the hopes of getting the far-right-wing majority of Congress to actually get poo poo done is also not neoliberalism—look what Obama did when he did have Democratic majorities, for gently caress's sake. Neoliberalism does not mean "anything other than full communism now". Keep in mind that Bernie Sander's voting record has a 93% overlap with Hillary Clinton's (in fact, the only bills they differed on were about foreign policy), and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's domestic agendas are practically identical. We're arguing over infinitesimal shades of gray here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
We can think of a scale where (physical) labor-hour operating costs are irrelevant to the decision of whether to employ someone, and that is essentially the opening of a new business, or expansion of a current business. The minimum wage affects job growth directly in this way, when a firm really can do a cost-benefits analysis and find that they can't profit from an additional hiree. However, this loss of growth is offset, or almost entirely offset, by the increased demand the higher minimum wage brings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Not to mention that most of the companies worst effected by increases (foodservice and general retail) are the primary place the newly solvent poor will be spending their hard-earned dollars, because people need and demand goods and services which they cannot currently afford.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Barack Obama is not a neoliberal. He oversaw the creation of a financial regulatory office with actual power (the CFPB), a massive expansion of healthcare regulation (via the ACA), and the largest expansion of welfare coverage since the 1960s (Medicaid via the ACA). Drastically watered-down social democracy isn't neoliberalism. Dumb compromises offered in the hopes of getting the far-right-wing majority of Congress to actually get poo poo done is also not neoliberalism—look what Obama did when he did have Democratic majorities, for gently caress's sake. Yeah I said a dumb thing What's new?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Actually theft is property whoaaaaaaa 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 05:50
|
|