|
DariusLikewise posted:http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2017/06/25/conservative-leader-andrew-scheer-talks-about-his-policies.html I agree, he's appealing to too few people and despite Trudeau breaking promises, there's no way Scheer will win in 2019 based on this. Get you're rear end ready for another 4 years of LPC majority.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
HookShot posted:The type of person who buys lottery tickets is the type of person who tends to not be the greatest at managing money in the first place. Can't win if you don't play :yolo: CLAM DOWN posted:I agree, he's appealing to too few people and despite Trudeau breaking promises, there's no way Scheer will win in 2019 based on this. Get you're rear end ready for another 4 years of LPC majority. Did you seriously doubt the likelihood of a two term Trudeau majority?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:Did you seriously doubt the likelihood of a two term Trudeau majority? Realistically no, not at all. In my head/dreams, yes? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Hey, maybe the NDP will get enough seats to force a Postess with the Mostest posted:It's crazy how society has shifted to having such little expectation for capital these days. Being satisfied with a couple percent above inflation, ridiculous, you'd be paying income tax on the dividends and full capital gains when you sell. Maybe things used to be better before our current low, low, low interest rate paradigm. I was just thinking if I ever fell into so much money and wanted security for the rest of my life, the thing to do would be to go conservative and safe. I'm probably showing my class, but I don't have a rich daddy to bail me out if I lose my ten million dollar principal investing in, say, dragging icebergs to water the Sahara.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
.
James Baud fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Aug 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
When businesses that can't survive without paying slave wages are forbidden from paying slave wages, they don't survive. Now sports.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:When businesses that can't survive without paying slave wages are forbidden from paying slave wages, they don't survive. Now sports. Are companies going out of business? I didn't see reference to that in the summary, haven't read the paper proper.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
I would wager(hah) that one of the conclusions is that businesses simply shuffled jobs out of the immediate Seattle area outwards where the minimum wage wasn't in effect. A city-wide minimum wage was a gamble to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
quote:And if you can look at this excellent study by respected researchers who show all their work and you find your way to dismissing them - *especially* if you're an economist - then it's time to admit that your views cannot be swayed by science. They might as well be religion. Um PhilippAchtel posted:
post-war until hyperinflation kicked in central banks focused on keeping unemployment low instead of controlling the interest rate so you be the judge on that one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
I'm skeptical to jump two feet in and embrace the results of that paper just yet, for two main reasons. First, as the authors themselves point out, their data is limited by Seattle city limits:p. 6 posted:Some employers may have shifted jobs out of Seattle but kept them That problem can easily lead to a race-to-the-bottom mentality, where larger employers (especially those with the standing capital to shift locations themselves--places like Wal-Mart--and those who can feasibly shift workforces from one location to another) move their workforce to juuuust outside city limits so they don't have to pay the higher minimum wage. This is the same phenomenon you see with the gun shops along the Illinois-Indiana border, because Illinois has strict gun laws and Indiana doesn't, and with Wal-Marts that don't get permits to build within one township building one just across the line in another township, because corporations are not geographically delimited the way government ordinances are. If, as the authors themselves suggest, there has been any kind of significant shift of workforce or hours worked to outside city limits, that may significantly decrease the amount of jobs lost or decreased hours worked on the broader metropolitan labour force, which would probably bring it closer to balance with the higher wages paid within Seattle city limits. On the other hand, if the entire metropolitan area, or the entire state, or the entire country, were to adopt higher minimum wage laws, you could see dramatically different effects. The same way if a developing country adopts stricter labour regulations and then sees all their jobs disappear, the solution is not necessarily to loosen labour laws but to get their neighbours and countries in comparable economic circumstances to also adopt stricter labour laws, so that the corporations that can easily move capital around are unable to just dodge local attempts at regulating better lives for their workers. Second, this analysis is based on less than a full year. Just like anything, a minimum wage increase is likely to have a teething period where there is some harm done. Some businesses will have freaked out over the increase and cut hours, not knowing if their income would rise to match their new labour costs. If their income does indeed rise from the increased spending income of Seattle's working poor, they may restore cut hours. Some businesses may have even cut hours out of spite because they're lovely small business owners. Conversely, some businesses that were operating on razor-thin profit margins may actually be going out of business, but may well be replaced by ones that are more competently managed and can afford to pay the higher minimum wage. Just like pretty much any policy, the minimum wage increase is highly likely to follow a hockey-stick pattern of seeing pain during the initial bedding-in period followed by a longer period of benefits from the policy. The trick, much like investing in public transit in Canada, is getting past the initial pain without voters freaking out and backtracking on the policy. I recognize that to people who read that study and nod their heads knowingly, both my problems sound like I've drunk the kool-aid already. The problem is that not enough places have job-killing high minimum wages! We just need to stick with it for another decade and we'll see the benefits, I swear! But regardless of how I may be living up to that caricature, I honestly do believe that it's very hard to accurately gauge the impact on Metro Seattle's labour market by examining solely what happens within Seattle city limits, and that it's impossible to gauge the long-term impact of a policy based on nine months of data. If things still look bad when studies are coming out five years from now examining the entire Seattle Metro Area, then yeah I think it might be appropriate to question our dedication to a high minimum wage over other forms of redistribution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:yeah I think it might be appropriate to question our dedication to a high minimum wage over other forms of redistribution.  although UBI would fit the bill unless the person who posted that on a facebook page has other forms of "transfer programs" in mind?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:But regardless of how I may be living up to that caricature, I honestly do believe that it's very hard to accurately gauge the impact on Metro Seattle's labour market by examining solely what happens within Seattle city limits, and that it's impossible to gauge the long-term impact of a policy based on nine months of data. If things still look bad when studies are coming out five years from now examining the entire Seattle Metro Area, then yeah I think it might be appropriate to question our dedication to a high minimum wage over other forms of redistribution. I have some questions, if you'll indulge me! Did you have a similar skepticism about the earlier reports that favoured the increased minimum wage? Should we counsel that in others? Is there other, better evidence in favour of an increase, I guess over a wider geographic area? What is the basis of your belief that it should be done in more places? How much would you risk of the livelihoods of minimum wage workers to gather more evidence? I'm in favour of an increased wage, but it's just because of an emotional reaction. It's definitely not evidence-based.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:Maybe things used to be better before our current low, low, low interest rate paradigm. I was just thinking if I ever fell into so much money and wanted security for the rest of my life, the thing to do would be to go conservative and safe. I'm probably showing my class, but I don't have a rich daddy to bail me out if I lose my ten million dollar principal investing in, say, dragging icebergs to water the Sahara. Not so much "better" before low interest rates but easier to turn capital into more capital. The point is that you don't need a rich daddy right now, it's so cheap to borrow money that everybody has a rich uncle who will lend for tiny interest just to keep pace with inflation. Never been a worse time to be rich.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
But the number of jobs paying the new wage and above went up??????
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I have some questions, if you'll indulge me! I haven't really been following the reports coming out about Seattle's minimum wage, so I can't really answer your first question, sorry! The wider evidence is, afaik, that studies looking at things like state- or province- or nation-wide minimum wage increases tend to find no significant adverse effects on employment. For example, the National Employment Law Project looked at every US federal minimum wage increase ever and found that employment tended to go up after minimum wage increases, and that declines were strongly correlated with unrelated periods of recession. The other thing that makes me believe in minimum wage increases is the fact that when you account for inflation the minimum wage in the US is significantly lower than it has been in the past. The US federal minimum wage, inflation-adjusted, peaked in 1968 and has been declining since. The 1968 rate, adjusted for 2012 inflation, would be above $10 rather than the US's current $7.25. And yet we don't remember the 60s as a time of catastrophic unemployment because of a too-high minimum wage. (Note that this isn't my field so I'm not super good at assessing the methodology of studies like the above) Your question about the livelihoods of minimum-wage workers is, I think, a false dichotomy. It assumes that a) minimum wage workers' lives are already good enough that it's not worth taking risks to try and improve them; and b) that there is no way to provide a safety net for those workers if we do something potentially risky like raise the minimum wage. As I'm sure you're aware from my past posting in this thread, I'm an advocate of an extremely robust welfare state and so, to me, raising the minimum wage should also accompany strengthening the welfare state so that anyone who does lose their job or have their hours cut as a result still has access to things like universal healthcare and healthy unemployment insurance to cushion their fall and ensure they have a chance to find another job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Thank you!vyelkin posted:Your question about the livelihoods of minimum-wage workers is, I think, a false dichotomy. It assumes that a) minimum wage workers' lives are already good enough that it's not worth taking risks to try and improve them; and b) that there is no way to provide a safety net for those workers if we do something potentially risky like raise the minimum wage. As I'm sure you're aware from my past posting in this thread, I'm an advocate of an extremely robust welfare state and so, to me, raising the minimum wage should also accompany strengthening the welfare state so that anyone who does lose their job or have their hours cut as a result still has access to things like universal healthcare and healthy unemployment insurance to cushion their fall and ensure they have a chance to find another job. I had understood that you were advocating for raising the minimum wage in a bunch of places, not dependent on the programs you describe (which sound great!) being in place. If they're a precondition, do you think that we'll realistically be in a position to safely make those changes in the near future? It's because minimum wage workers' lives are not good enough that I'm loath to put them more at risk. We should take risks, but I think others higher up the economic chain should bear that risk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Thank you! At a basic level I don't think the welfare state investments are necessary for minimum wage increases, but I think our society would be better if they existed. For me, the common-sense thing about the minimum wage that's often overlooked is that in our service-based economy minimum wage jobs tend to be in industries driven by consumption, in that they have to be close to their customers, which isn't necessarily true of higher-wage jobs like auto parts manufacturing or IT. Restaurants, coffee shops, laundromats, gas stations, car washes, and so on, simply can't really exist very far away from their customer base, which means they have very limited opportunities to relocate due to changing regulations like increasing the minimum wage. For a single city, like Seattle, it's possible to move your restaurant across the city border and still expect to have access to the same customer base you had access to before. Especially in a car-centric culture, you can expect your loyal customers to drive an extra five or ten minutes to cross the city line and eat at your restaurant, especially if you were already located near the edge--I don't expect very many places to give up prime downtown locations, but on the other hand those are probably the ones with healthier profit margins to begin with. On the other hand, if, say, the entire province of Ontario raises the minimum wage, there's nothing a restaurant in Toronto can do. If they move across the border to Mississauga, they still pay the same minimum wage. There are very limited exceptions at the province's borders (though I find it very unlikely that any business owner would move from Ottawa to Gatineau to avoid a minimum wage increase) but generally speaking those minimum-wage businesses are stuck where they are because they're stuck to their particular population of consumers. You can't exactly relocate your restaurant to Mexico to take advantage of cheap labour, and then ship the food back to Canada. And hey, if your restaurant goes bankrupt because of the minimum wage or your poor mismanagement, the good thing about a consumption-driven industry is that the demand for a restaurant still exists, so either your former customers go to other restaurants that become busier and more profitable and maybe hire your former employees, or a new restaurant opens that is better able to deal with the new regulatory environment, because the same people still live in the city and they still want to eat out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
The sad thing about that Seattle report is that people are going to miss that it is about a particularly big increase in the minimum wage. Not that raising the MW at all is bad, or that having a large increase phased in more slowly is bad. Anyone who is in favour of a higher minimum wage must accept that there's some point where the size or speed of the increase(s) will be detrimental. Edit: tl:dr Went from $9 to $13. Early raises didn't seem to do much, but the second wave of increase may have gone too far. And it's set to keep going higher. fivethirtyeight.com posted:Seattle’s minimum-wage ordinance was one of the earliest and most aggressive of the recent wave. In 2014, the city passed a law raising the city’s minimum wage — already among the nation’s highest, at more than $9 an hour — to $15 an hour over several years. 2 Economists immediately saw the law as an opportunity to study the effects of an unusually high minimum wage, and the city of Seattle agreed to help fund a team of researchers to look into the policy’s impact. Lobok fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Jun 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Do you believe that restaurants, etc were relocating outside of Seattle in any meaningful numbers? I'm not sure how that fits into the equation of the report.Lobok posted:Anyone who is in favour of a higher minimum wage must accept that there's some point where the size or speed of the increase(s) will be detrimental. What's the evidence for this? If there an optimal rate of increase?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Do you believe that restaurants, etc were relocating outside of Seattle in any meaningful numbers? I'm not sure how that fits into the equation of the report. I have no idea because as the report's authors themselves note, they limited their analysis to the city of Seattle itself so were unable to take into account overall labour market trends within the metro area. I wouldn't be at all surprised if several large minimum-wage employers like Wal-Mart intentionally moved locations to outside Seattle city limits, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I have no idea because as the report's authors themselves note, they limited their analysis to the city of Seattle itself so were unable to take into account overall labour market trends within the metro area. I wouldn't be at all surprised if several large minimum-wage employers like Wal-Mart intentionally moved locations to outside Seattle city limits, though. The worst part is that Wal-Mart profits from low wages because it makes more people reliant on food stamps which...they spend at Wal-Mart. Our welfare system isn't exactly the same as the United States' but it's something to be aware of when considering what the minimum wage should be and how it affects social programs. http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-high-public-cost-of-low-wages/ One argument is that if the minimum wage goes up too much, people will become unemployed. Another argument is that if wages are too low, social welfare programs end up having to cover the difference so people don't die. Companies can profit in both situations, although many don't support increasing the spending power of people because it's harder to control where people will spend their money if it's in the form of a wage rather than a social assistance program.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I have no idea because as the report's authors themselves note, they limited their analysis to the city of Seattle itself so were unable to take into account overall labour market trends within the metro area. I wouldn't be at all surprised if several large minimum-wage employers like Wal-Mart intentionally moved locations to outside Seattle city limits, though. Relocation of a Wal-Mart would be newsworthy, I'll see what I can find!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
.
James Baud fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Aug 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
lol https://twitter.com/CPC_HQ/status/879444910595743744
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Fierce is the last word I can imagine using for anything about Andrew Who?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
BC Liberals, after years of insisting we don't need campaign finance reform, have tabled a campaign finance reform bill today and rushed a vote on it before anyone could read it. Opposition smacked it down. (First time a government bill has been defeated since 2005 iirc.) Now their shills on Twitter are dancing around crowing about how we're "playing games" and not serious about reform. These people are loving disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The wider evidence is, afaik, that studies looking at things like state- or province- or nation-wide minimum wage increases tend to find no significant adverse effects on employment. For example, the National Employment Law Project looked at every US federal minimum wage increase ever and found that employment tended to go up after minimum wage increases, and that declines were strongly correlated with unrelated periods of recession. Sure. And this is a significantly larger increase than basically any on record, with a more concrete plan to measure its impact as well. As with any non-controlled study such as this there are possible confounding factors and contamination effects, but everything you've written are things that the authors are well aware of and have tried to control for. This study shouldn't be interpreted as saying that $13 is unequivocally too high for a minimum wage, but it does strongly suggest that the upcoming increase of the minimum wage from $13 to $15 is not a good idea. Given how carefully this study was structured, that's probably worth taking seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
THC posted:BC Liberals, after years of insisting we don't need campaign finance reform, have tabled a campaign finance reform bill today and rushed a vote on it before anyone could read it. Opposition smacked it down. (First time a government bill has been defeated since 2005 iirc.) Now their shills on Twitter are dancing around crowing about how we're "playing games" and not serious about reform. These people are loving disgusting. Jeeze, why does the BCNDP hate campaign finance reform so much?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
What's the rule again? "I before E except in 'beleive'"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Lobok posted:What's the rule again? "I before E except in 'beleive'"? Freedom to spell poo poo wrong is still freedom
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Jeeze, why does the BCNDP hate campaign finance reform so much? Bill Bennett says he's "sickened" by the idea of an NDP government and is ready to fight a new election... on a platform largely identical to that of the NDP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Jeeze, why does the BCNDP hate campaign finance reform so much? I naively don't understand why it would be voted down. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I naively don't understand why it would be voted down. Well they can't say they want something and vote it down every time it comes up. You can't just have it both ways
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I naively don't understand why it would be voted down. peoplewhodon'twantpoliticalfinancereformsaywhat!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Well they can't say they want something and vote it down every time it comes up. You can't just have it both ways Right, but don't the NDP and Greens want reform? Is this the wrong kind of reform?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I naively don't understand why it would be voted down. Hypothetically (I don't know the contents of the bill), couldn't it be used to disadvantage the BCNDP and Greens going into another election since the BCLibs still have money and the other two don't?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Would you vote for a "finance reform" bill, sight unseen, from a governing party that is so corrupt it got written up in the New York Times? How about when that government is about to be toppled in 3 days and be replaced by the opposition which has campaigned on reform for years? What if I told you that same governing party had been steadfastly against reform for 16 years up until a week ago when it became clear that governments days are numbered? Do you think that's a good idea?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
They are still "debating" the throne speech, afterwards they aren't government anymore. They can propose their bill from the opposition, in two weeks when everyone has actually read the bill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Right, but don't the NDP and Greens want reform? Is this the wrong kind of reform? Nobody has any idea, because it was rushed to a vote without anyone having time to actually read it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:03
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Nobody has any idea, because it was rushed to a vote without anyone having time to actually read it. Ah, OK.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:04
|
|