|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Condiv posted:It's crazy that people are still arguing capitalism is good while refugees are fleeing northward to escape one of its exemplars So if I tell you a defector just left North Korea your political stance flips 180? Bob le Moche posted:You use this definition yourself when arguing that owners deserve to be paid because they are also workers You seem stuck on the marxist distinction where workers necessarily do all productive labor. I'm saying the bucket labeled "ownership" actually includes huge amounts of productive labor (not that we need to relabel the bucket). As demonstrated by the fact that privately owned trucks deliver and bulldozers dig and it's all running to the tune of owners who are the only ones reaping the profit from the actions of their capital. That they're actually delegating through boards and managers shows that ownership includes a type of management - not that we'd want to reclassify them as workers. And if that's true the bucket labeled profit doesn't only include money that is actually owed to the workers. Ze Pollack posted:does the manager do any work yes and I'm really curious where you're going to go with this. rudatron posted:People aren't paid poo poo wages because their work is unnecessary. Minimum wage labor actually tends to be very critical work, that no one wants to do. The reason for the low wages is the lack of power on the part of people compelled to work them. They are powerless, and so are coerced into accepting bullshit wages. If minimum wage was good at redistribution it would be fantastic policy - but its not good at redistribution. Minimum wage worker demographics are only slightly poorer than average and cost increases are probably disproportionately put back on poor people (the vast majority of whom aren't minimum wage workers).
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:If minimum wage was good at redistribution it would be fantastic policy - but its not good at redistribution. Minimum wage worker demographics are only slightly poorer than average and cost increases are probably disproportionately put back on poor people (the vast majority of whom aren't minimum wage workers). *constantly argues against raising the minimum wage* *claims that minimum wage is bad at redistributing wealth* Yea, no loving poo poo, idiot. If we had be raising it this whole time and indexing it to inflation, it'd be doing a lot better job at redistribution. "Cost increases are probably disproportionately but back on poor people" even you don't believe this, which is why you said probably. Cost increases are minimal at best because labor is only a percentage of cost of goods. Want me to link the study showing Walmart would only have to raise prices by $20 a year for its average consumer to pay all their employees $12/hour?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:So if I tell you a defector just left North Korea your political stance flips 180? Why would it? North Korea is bad. So is capitalism!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
The only people who'd doubt that everyone wants to escape North Korea are people who read communist state propaganda, such as CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/asia/north-south-korea-defector-family/
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:*constantly argues against raising the minimum wage* First any increase, even evenly spread, impacts, poor people more (and again, the vast majority of poor people aren't on minimum wage). The part I said about where cost increases are spread is roughly as hard to study as everything else relating to minimum wage, hence the probably, but the probably is exactly what I believe. Your wal-mart example is utterly irrelevant to the distribution question. Percent of price increases doesn't matter - what matters is who pays for the new wages. If walmart passes on 100% of new wage cost as price increases (yep it might be 0.2%) then wal-mart and its investors didn't pay a penny themselves, its shoppers did, and given wal-mart shopper demographics it would be a perfect example of my 'probably' above.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
It's loving pathetic the lengths that some people will go to in order to argue that keeping people in poverty is actually good
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:First any increase, even evenly spread, impacts, poor people more (and again, the vast majority of poor people aren't on minimum wage). The part I said about where cost increases are spread is roughly as hard to study as everything else relating to minimum wage, hence the probably, but the probably is exactly what I believe. Dunno why you assume Walmart would push the costs off onto their customers in contravention of their business model. Pushing the costs off to their suppliers is the walmart way
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:First any increase, even evenly spread, impacts, poor people more (and again, the vast majority of poor people aren't on minimum wage). The part I said about where cost increases are spread is roughly as hard to study as everything else relating to minimum wage, hence the probably, but the probably is exactly what I believe. If Walmart shoppers get a 30% raise, offset by a .2% price increase... that would be bad for them?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:First any increase, even evenly spread, impacts, poor people more (and again, the vast majority of poor people aren't on minimum wage). The part I said about where cost increases are spread is roughly as hard to study as everything else relating to minimum wage, hence the probably, but the probably is exactly what I believe. Okay well it seems capitalism is a worthless system then if we can't even help people within it.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:If Walmart shoppers get a 30% raise, offset by a .2% price increase... that would be bad for them? He's assuming every industry only serves the poorest and that companies would uniformly pass on the increased cost of labor to their customers so he can try to claim minimum wage increases would only redistribute wealth from the poor to the poor Condiv fucked around with this message at 16:14 on May 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Why do you people even respond to dipshits like him anymore. He even has a redtext.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:yes and I'm really curious where you're going to go with this. then pay them for that work. not, as in the current system, merely for being related to someone who did work at some point in the past. profit remains the difference between what the workers have produced and what they receive for producing it.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:If Walmart shoppers get a 30% raise, offset by a .2% price increase... that would be bad for them? No it's good for minimum wage workers (demographic that's only slightly poorer than average) and paid for by everyone else including poor people who aren't on minimum wage (almost all poor people) meaning on net it transfers little wealth across class. Ze Pollack posted:then pay them for that work. not, as in the current system, merely for being related to someone who did work at some point in the past. Fine, go figure out what people deserve and pay them exactly that. You'll find workers who deserve nothing and owners who deserve more that they already get. That's difficult but smarter than fixating on the owner/not-owner distinction which only roughly correlates to anything that matters. Cnidaria posted:Okay well it seems capitalism is a worthless system then if we can't even help people within it. The market doesn't do tons of poo poo which isn't news to anyone specially members of first world capitalist societies who have already voted for around 40% of their economies to be publicly controlled specifically to do all the things the market doesn't do (a long list of including education, roads and guaranteeing welfare).
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Also, going back to the previous points about GMI and the minimum wage, in all likelihood any GMI is going to be far below a minimum wage (example: Finland's recent experiment) and therefore a minimum wage remains ultimately necessary. Also, any cut to funding of a GMI/additional restrictions would directly cut through the wage floor. In addition, it would be a good idea to also still have the government promote full employment as possible to address effects from non-voluntary employment (people who want to work but can't). Also, none of this is sci-fi, we already have income support through tax credits and at one time, the government made direct employment a priority. ----------------------------------- The way to address what is happening to South America is that neither "Bolivarian Socialism" or recent flirtations by the Brazilian government with draconian labor laws is a workable solution. Inflexible price controls remain unacceptable, so is depriving workers of basic rights. Maybe both of them should be thrown in the dust bin of history?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No it's good for minimum wage workers (demographic that's only slightly poorer than average) and paid for by everyone else including poor people who aren't on minimum wage (almost all poor people) meaning on net it transfers little wealth across class. Well I'm thankful that you agree that capitalism is awful at least, even if we don't agree on the specifics.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Fine, go figure out what people deserve and pay them exactly that. You'll find workers who deserve nothing and owners who deserve more that they already get. That's difficult but smarter than fixating on the owner/not-owner distinction which only roughly correlates to anything that matters. if only there was some mechanism for workers to have a say in what they were paid beyond Sam Walton's children arbitrarily picking the lowest number they think they can get away with... 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
The democrats are a waste
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:The democrats are a waste 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:it's a good thing t hat most plans I've seen call for a decade-long transition to $15 then How are you going to tell the difference between the minimum wage increasing unemployment and unemployment increasing due to exogenous factors? If the minimum wage hits 13 and unemployment starts to go up, are we going to stop? That's not a component of any of the minimum wage proposals I've seen. Gradual implementation is good and cautious but it doesn't actually address the concerns I'm articulating. VitalSigns posted:How convenient. Every time your predictions are proven wrong you can just move the goalposts and say "all those things I said could totally happen next time you never know, therefore never do anything." Again, everyone's prediction is that some level of minimum wage will negatively affect unemployment. Some people, but not I, have predicted that level is any level over zero. They have been proven wrong. That's not evidence that the level, which everyone agrees must exist, is not less than 15. There are zero empirical studies suggesting the opposite.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:How are you going to tell the difference between the minimum wage increasing unemployment and unemployment increasing due to exogenous factors? If the minimum wage hits 13 and unemployment starts to go up, are we going to stop? That's not a component of any of the minimum wage proposals I've seen. Gradual implementation is good and cautious but it doesn't actually address the concerns I'm articulating. you're right jc, a minimum wage increase has never been attempted before. it's too risky!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Democrats and Republicans are just playing good cop / bad cop with the american people. They both are working towards the same ends and are holding the rest of us hostage.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you're right jc, a minimum wage increase has never been attempted before. it's too risky! A 15 dollar minimum wage has never been attempted before and anyone who's sure it won't have any negative effects on employment is delusional. Here's Alan Krueger, one of the preeminent minimum wage scholars, whose studies were integral in proving moderate minimum wages do not affect employment, saying exactly that. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/the-minimum-wage-how-much-is-too-much.html posted:I am frequently asked, “How high can the minimum wage go without jeopardizing employment of low-wage workers? And at what level would further minimum wage increases result in more job losses than wage gains, lowering the earnings of low-wage workers as a whole?”
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:A 15 dollar minimum wage has never been attempted before and anyone who's sure it won't have any negative effects on employment is delusional. If only there were some way to implement it slowly and react to the negative effects (that won't exist)
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:A 15 dollar minimum wage has never been attempted before False, wrong, incorrect. Seattle is doing just fine, thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:A 15 dollar minimum wage has never been attempted before and anyone who's sure it won't have any negative effects on employment is delusional. You're right because one of the big problems with the increase MW argument is that companies so rarely give out the data necessary to end speculation on what an increase in the MW would do. The famous Card Krueger study you cite does show unemployment doesn't increase, at least not in the aggregate. Still raising the minimum wage doesn't solve the other issue of workers needing more negotiating power vs the owners which would also increase their wages. VitalSigns posted:How convenient. Every time your predictions are proven wrong you can just move the goalposts and say "all those things I said could totally happen next time you never know, therefore never do anything." Bingo! Conservatives want other people to work for low wages, but not them. Confounding Factor fucked around with this message at 20:25 on May 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
People making $15 an hour in my state are firmly in the middle class.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
I would be fine if there are moderate carve outs for certain states with significantly lower wages but it is far better to negotiate ahead of where you need to be (also a lot of cities probably need significantly more than $15). Also, you have just have it phrase in slower in certain states. I think the ultimate issue is should be argue yourself down before your even get to the negotiating table? Also, it is easily possible to keep raising wages until unemployment actually becomes too much of a detriment (to be honest I think it would still be fairly localized). https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N I just wanted to throw this chart into the mix, real median personal income (adjusted for inflation) is barely above where it was during the 1990s. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:17 on May 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I would be fine if there are moderate carve outs for certain states with significantly lower wages but it is far better to negotiate ahead of where you need to be (also a lot of cities probably need significantly more than $15). Also, you have just have it phrase in slower in certain states. Here's another fun chart: 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
If the MW was high enough, if we can properly adjust inflation to productivity, we could cut the workweek in half.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
And if we had UHC, reducing workweeks to increase employment would have low overhead.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:How are you going to tell the difference between the minimum wage increasing unemployment and unemployment increasing due to exogenous factors? If the minimum wage hits 13 and unemployment starts to go up, are we going to stop? That's not a component of any of the minimum wage proposals I've seen. Gradual implementation is good and cautious but it doesn't actually address the concerns I'm articulating. Thank you, mister Laffer, for proving that tax cuts are definitionally good
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
rudatron posted:People aren't paid poo poo wages because their work is unnecessary. Minimum wage labor actually tends to be very critical work, that no one wants to do. The reason for the low wages is the lack of power on the part of people compelled to work them. They are powerless, and so are coerced into accepting bullshit wages. Yeah, though just to be pedantically accurate poorer people will also pay some cost from a higher minimum wage (they also buy many of the goods that will have increased prices), but that cost is usually significantly less than what they gain from having much higher wages. Basically, it's a shift of money entirely to low income people, with the cost of that change being distributed among everyone, so naturally the people who receive the benefit end up coming out better off.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There are non-capitalist-bootlicker reasons to be cautious here. Given that the change occurs gradually, this isn't a reason not to do it, though. If we see things start to become worse when we raise the wage of $13 or whatever, we can go from there. Not that that's going to happen, because it's not like $15 is dramatically higher than inflation-adjusted minimum wages we've had in the past. edit: Sorry, didn't mean to double post asdf32 posted:If minimum wage was good at redistribution it would be fantastic policy - but its not good at redistribution. Minimum wage worker demographics are only slightly poorer than average and cost increases are probably disproportionately put back on poor people (the vast majority of whom aren't minimum wage workers). It takes an astounding amount of raw stupidity to say that only people currently making minimum wage would benefit from a minimum wage increase, especially one of this magnitude. There are a hell of a lot of workers who make between current minimum wage and $15/hr though. I don't know the exact percent off the top of my head, but given that median personal income translates to close to $15/hr it's clearly a lot of people. This is only true if you use some sort of bizarre logic where you assume a minimum wage only helps people currently making minimum wage, rather than everyone between current minimum wage and the proposed future minimum wage (and that's ignore how it would likely drive wages upward some for people making a little over minimum wage). edit: Also, there is no reason to believe that the cost of minimum wage would mostly/disproportionately affect poor people, especially when you consider that an increase as much as 15/hr would basically help literally every single poor employed person. You are literally just blindly claiming that because it would help your argument. You would have to assume that 1. the vast majority of companies affected by a minimum wage increase would translate the increased costs to increased prices for their product/service (which is extremely unlikely) and 2. the extra cost from the said goods/services poor people purchase would end up outweighing the benefit from increased wages (also extremely unlikely). I can't think of a single reason for making such a blind argument other than the fact that you're defaulting to being against the $15/hr wage increase and grasping around for any kinda/sorta/maybe plausible reason it might be bad. edit2: For the sake of accuracy, about 63% of people in poverty work, and literally all of those people would probably be effected by a wage increase to $15/hr (since $15/hr is well above what's considered poverty). And that's ignoring the fact that our current definition of poverty is WAY lower than it should be. If adjusted higher, that 37% rate of unemployment would likely decrease considerably. asdf32 posted:If walmart passes on 100% of new wage cost as price increases (yep it might be 0.2%) then wal-mart and its investors didn't pay a penny themselves, its shoppers did, and given wal-mart shopper demographics it would be a perfect example of my 'probably' above. Yes, and there is no way this would actually happen with all businesses. Your argument is relying on a completely crazy assumption. Certain businesses would likely pass on most of the increased cost to consumers (restaurants come to mind), but this is unlikely to be the case for large businesses that rely on maintaining competitive prices (and are in many cases forced to compete with foreign firms, online shopping, etc). Also, even for businesses that do pass on most/all of the cost, this isn't that important for businesses where labor isn't a major percent of total expenses. So you're mainly looking at a problem with businesses who 1. have a major portion of costs in labor and 2. are free to pass on that extra cost in the form of prices, due to either lack of heavy competition or their competitors all facing the same wage increase. Restaurants come to mind as a business where this might occur, but those conditions certainly don't apply to all businesses (and probably not even most, since I imagine those conditions aren't true for large retailers like grocery chains). You're heavily oversimplifying the situation. Bob le Moche posted:The only people who'd doubt that everyone wants to escape North Korea are people who read communist state propaganda, such as CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/asia/north-south-korea-defector-family/ Uh, the article itself says that she is one of the rare few who have asked to return. North Korea is bad dude, you don't have to defend it just because it claims to be leftist. Phi230 posted:Why do you people even respond to dipshits like him anymore. He even has a redtext. asdf32 is usually wrong, but he's often wrong in a way that many leftists don't know how to address (for example he might argue something wrong, but the people he's arguing with won't be able to explain why it's wrong), so his arguments can sometimes be useful as a sort of devil's advocate that forces people to reexamine and learn more about things. This isn't really one of those times, though. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:31 on May 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:A 15 dollar minimum wage has never been attempted before and anyone who's sure it won't have any negative effects on employment is delusional. Once you adjust for inflation and consider the decade of implementation 15 dollars is not much higher than it has been in the past?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
flashman posted:Once you adjust for inflation and consider the decade of implementation 15 dollars is not much higher than it has been in the past? The highest it's been is like $10.60 or so in 1968
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
flashman posted:Once you adjust for inflation and consider the decade of implementation 15 dollars is not much higher than it has been in the past? Peak was $1.60 in 1968. With inflation, that's $11.47. Edit: Inflation Calculator
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I would be fine if there are moderate carve outs for certain states with significantly lower wages but it is far better to negotiate ahead of where you need to be (also a lot of cities probably need significantly more than $15). Also, you have just have it phrase in slower in certain states. If $15 is a negotiating tactic and not a litmus test for true progressivism, I don't have much problem with it. But we all know if democrats end up compromising to pass a 12.50 national minimum wage that will be proof of their perfidious neoliberalism to a certain type of leftist.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If $15 is a negotiating tactic and not a litmus test for true progressivism, I don't have much problem with it. But we all know if democrats end up compromising to pass a 12.50 national minimum wage that will be proof of their perfidious neoliberalism to a certain type of leftist. nah, $15/hr minimum wage. http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/40 http://livingwage.mit.edu/metros/35620 $15/hr is just a tiny bit above what living wage is for a single person in new york. in lower cost of living states it's around $5 off what a single mother would need. win win in my book.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The highest it's been is like $10.60 or so in 1968 You're not taking into account the extra 10 years of expected inflation though.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
Red Minjo posted:You're not taking into account the extra 10 years of expected inflation though. that wasn't the question asked (and that'd get you to just under $13 by 2027)
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 00:06
|
|