|
Solkanar512 posted:These conversations are always so strange to me. I live just north of Seattle in a state where the state minimum wage has been tied to inflation for years. Sure, every January there are headlines about "the highest state minimum wage in the nation", but despite all of that, the sky hasn't fallen, unemployment is lower than the national average and we remain a great place to do business. No one ever seems to mention this ongoing experiment when the discussion comes up, especially foes to minimum wage though. It's really strange! I don't think anyone disagrees that minimum wage should be that high for an area like Seattle, I like minimum wage handled mostly at state and municipal level where it can be set with more granularity, its the idea of more then doubling the federal minimum wage that seems absurd
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:If minimum wage workers barely skew towards poor (true) This still isn't any more true than the last dozen times you've claimed it. Not going to bother explaining why again gently caress you read my other posts
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Their true justification is they want to take money from greedy corporations and give it to poor people, You say this like it's (1) a bad thing and (2) something anyone itt has tried to keep secret Jarmak posted:its the idea of more then doubling the federal minimum wage that seems absurd Ah, the gut feel. Minimum wage causes unemployment, the president should be a regular guy you can have a beer with, Saddam has WMD despite what the inspectors say, oh gut feel are there no problems you can't solve? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:33 on May 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:People aren't trying to process multiple pieces of the puzzle because they don't care. Their true justification is they want to take money from greedy corporations and give it to poor people, everything else in this thread is a smoke screen of post facto justification to try to sell that idea to people who don't abide by that ideology. Small businesses are 78.5% single owners with no employees. Invoking them is a red herring without having data on the wage quintiles.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Their true justification is they want to take money from greedy corporations and give it to poor people [...] The stupid thing is minimum wage is maybe the worse possible mechanism for that quote:and people can't seem to wrap their head around the fact not every employer is Walmart. Small businesses make up about half of all employment and 2/3 of all new jobs (https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf). quote:In 2010 there were 27.9 million small businesses, and 18,500 firms with 500 employees or more.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:People aren't trying to process multiple pieces of the puzzle because they don't care. Their true justification is they want to take money from greedy corporations and give it to poor people, everything else in this thread is a smoke screen of post facto justification to try to sell that idea to people who don't abide by that ideology. Right, and an earlier link said that most of the impact would be to "small businesses" with ~100 employees, and current minimum wage laws do not apply to the barely-scraping-by mom and pop. It is almost as if you are trying to intentionally color your argument with emotionally charged language that paints a picture quite different than reality... something you seem to insist is the domain of your sinister opponents. Edit: Most McDonalds are "small businesses" because they are franchises. Trying to paint them as some underdog in the corporate economy is absurd. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 17:02 on May 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 16:59
|
|
Jarmak posted:I don't think anyone disagrees that minimum wage should be that high for an area like Seattle, I like minimum wage handled mostly at state and municipal level where it can be set with more granularity, its the idea of more then doubling the federal minimum wage that seems absurd The living wage doesn't vary that much across the country. If anything, $15/hr is too low for the bigger cities like NYC and LA, but even in rural Appalachia and the Delta, $15/hr is just sufficient to support yourself and another adult, working full-time.
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
LorrdErnie posted:This still isn't any more true than the last dozen times you've claimed it. Not going to bother explaining why again gently caress you read my other posts Yes, yes, we get it, you think upper middle class Americans, who are richer than 99.5% of people globally, are poor. archangelwar posted:Right, and an earlier link said that most of the impact would be to "small businesses" with ~100 employees, and current minimum wage laws do not apply to the barely-scraping-by mom and pop. It is almost as if you are trying to intentionally color your argument with emotionally charged language that paints a picture quite different than reality... something you seem to insist is the domain of your sinister opponents. The link posted earlier actually said less than 100, not around 100. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304655104579163880944640994 quote:Roughly half the minimum-wage workforce is employed at businesses with fewer than 100 employees, and 40% are at very small businesses with fewer than 50 employees.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
50 employes is still really big.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Yes, yes, we get it, you think upper middle class Americans, who are richer than 99.5% of people globally, are poor. Yes, I misremembered, thanks for the correction. 50 employees still includes fast food workers, which combined with cashiers (according to BLS) makes up the majority of earners near minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
One thing that goes pretty much unmentioned is that welfare payments are much more vulnerable than raising the minimum wage, not just to being undone, but also to being hosed with creatively. Elaborate bureaucratic runarounds, payment in coupons rather than in real money, etc. are all things that have been done historically, and we should look at any efforts to say "welfare is better than a higher minimum wage" in that light. This is without mentioning the nasty little fact that Americans still tend to believe that welfare should only ever be temporary.
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Did you know that libraries and elementary schools in America are more likely to benefit upper-middle class Americans than random poor people in Africa?! It's true, and therefore their existence is an attack on the global poor. We must abolish them immediately and use the savings to cut taxes on the rich
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You say this like it's (1) a bad thing and (2) something anyone itt has tried to keep secret "I support minimum wage because I want things minimum wage doesn't really do". You're correct that you haven't kept this a secret at all. VitalSigns posted:I just did. The maximum possible price increase between the two situations is 9%, not 100%. You don't want to compare things like "Percent minimum wage increase to percent price increase" because those things are utterly different. If one is 20 and the other is 2 that tells us nothing without converting both to dollars for analysis. Jarmak posted:People aren't trying to process multiple pieces of the puzzle because they don't care. Their true justification is they want to take money from greedy corporations and give it to poor people, everything else in this thread is a smoke screen of post facto justification to try to sell that idea to people who don't abide by that ideology. VitalSigns thinks he is. Which is worse than purposely not trying.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Yes, I misremembered, thanks for the correction. Reminder that this analysis only comes after subtracting out the portion of minimum wage that was paid for by cost increases. When costs are increased we don't care about the owners, we care about the customers.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
what are you talking about. Why do you think prices would increase if the minimum wage went up.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
I don't know, I'm kind of liking VitalSigns' logic. Let's see if we can take it further: the government should pay me $1,000,000 per year because for me it would represent a 3000% increase in my income but funding it would require like a 0.001% increase in taxes, which anyone can afford.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I don't think anyone disagrees that minimum wage should be that high for an area like Seattle, I like minimum wage handled mostly at state and municipal level where it can be set with more granularity, its the idea of more then doubling the federal minimum wage that seems absurd I said Washington State, not Seattle. As in the whole loving state. Including Seattle, Everett, Tacoma, Roy, Forks, and yes, even the city of George.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You don't want to compare things like "Percent minimum wage increase to percent price increase" because those things are utterly different. If one is 20 and the other is 2 that tells us nothing without converting both to dollars for analysis. I clearly don't have the pedagogical skills to teach you fractions. Please print the following exchange and present it to a local middle school math teacher. asdf32 posted:
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Even if prices went up WHO CARES. Aaaahhh. This thread.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:I don't know, I'm kind of liking VitalSigns' logic. Let's see if we can take it further: the government should pay me $1,000,000 per year because for me it would represent a 3000% increase in my income but funding it would require like a 0.001% increase in taxes, which anyone can afford. So you are just opposed to all government spending now, or what.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:I don't know, I'm kind of liking VitalSigns' logic. Let's see if we can take it further: the government should pay me $1,000,000 per year because for me it would represent a 3000% increase in my income but funding it would require like a 0.001% increase in taxes, which anyone can afford. Because this is totally germane to a discussion of minimum wage. I take back my earlier assessment that having a beer with asdf32 would be anything other than complete torture.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:I don't know, I'm kind of liking VitalSigns' logic. Let's see if we can take it further: the government should pay me $1,000,000 per year because for me it would represent a 3000% increase in my income but funding it would require like a 0.001% increase in taxes, which anyone can afford. One is bigger than the other and they're both percents so.... VitalSigns posted:I clearly don't have the pedagogical skills to teach you fractions. In this case a is the novel information and b is that information referenced against something else. I say this because the equivalent of A, the dollar cost of minimum wage which increases roughly with the square of the minimum wage increase, is the number you're still trying to distance yourself from. It's the information in question.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Hey asdf32 did you ever figure out what exponential meant?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Your ideology conflicts with basic arithmetic, your ideology loses. Sorry asdf32.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:People aren't trying to process multiple pieces of the puzzle because they don't care. Their true justification is they want to take money from greedy corporations and give it to poor people, everything else in this thread is a smoke screen of post facto justification to try to sell that idea to people who don't abide by that ideology. Yes, that's true. Most of the minwage advocates, and even a number of the minwage opponents, would be in favor of increasing corporate taxes and instituting a GMI. That would be pretty awesome. The ideology of the situation has relatively little to do with the facts surrounding minimum wage effects, however. Unless you think "pay poor people enough to live" is an ideology and not just basic human decency quote:The stupid thing is minimum wage is maybe the worse possible mechanism for that, and people can't seem to wrap their head around the fact not every employer is Walmart. Small businesses make up about half of all employment and 2/3 of all new jobs (https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf). Not the worse (sp) possible mechanism, no. We all agree that it's pretty bad at transferring wealth from corporations and business owners to poor people, but it does get the job done to some extent. It's politically possible, unlike the better solutions. And we can continue to support their better solutions while also supporting a minimum wage increase, so it's really irrelevant anyway. You might also want to consult the definition of "small business" used by the SBA. You might be surprised. But it doesn't really loving matter either because I just want to see people paid enough to live on regardless of whether their employer has a staff of 50 or 5000 or 500,000
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I say this because the equivalent of A, the dollar cost of minimum wage which increases roughly with the square of the minimum wage increase, is the number you're still trying to distance yourself from. It's the information in question. Which possible economic effects from this quantity worry you? So far the two you have mentioned, prices and employment hours, do not change in direct proportion to this quantity.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Christ. That simplifies to 1+A/B which demonstrates it's just adding a fixed offset. IE it changes the phrase "10% increase" to "110% of the old value". The 10 part doesn't even change. You monster, haven't you done enough?! Stop misusing these poor math terms, can't you see that they can't take it anymore?!
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I don't think anyone disagrees that minimum wage should be that high for an area like Seattle, I like minimum wage handled mostly at state and municipal level where it can be set with more granularity, its the idea of more then doubling the federal minimum wage that seems absurd I have bad news; we already live in that absurd world. We've more than tripled the minimum wage already. Do you think that a $15 minimum wage wouldn't be phased in gradually?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Yes, yes, we get it, you think upper middle class Americans, who are richer than 99.5% of people globally, are poor. I also already explained how that was an aggressive misreading of my argument but you're not only disingenuous but also an idiot so maybe you couldn't understand that post either. One last time. Households making under 40k a year aka over 50% of households with minimum wage workers aren't upper middle class. They are at most middle class. Also you don't reach economic security until around 60k but that's a secondary point. The majority of people who are receiving middle class incomes are in the bottom two quintiles. Additionally you like to pretend that the economic impact on families in each of the households will be identical whereas the increase will naturally be proportionally greater and greater in utility for lower quintile households. So I'm not just rehashing I should point out that many households in the second lowest quintile actually are likely to have two minimum wage workers and so would doubly benefit from the increase.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:That thing you just quoted says zero about whether it helps the poor. If that person's entire raise came from other poor people then minimum wage is literally doing nothing to help the poor as a demographic. Literally nothing. I'm not understanding how we're taking money from one poor person and moving it to another, care to explain this logic? LorrdErnie posted:I also already explained how that was an aggressive misreading of my argument but you're not only disingenuous but also an idiot so maybe you couldn't understand that post either. I think they're trying to argue that because 50% of people earning minimum wage aren't "poor" that it somehow negatively impacts the poor for the minimum wage to be increased?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:I don't know, I'm kind of liking VitalSigns' logic. Let's see if we can take it further: the government should pay me $1,000,000 per year because for me it would represent a 3000% increase in my income but funding it would require like a 0.001% increase in taxes, which anyone can afford. You are seriously astoundingly dumb. Like you keep consistently amazing me with how dumb you are. I have had to create new mental categories of general reasoning capacity in order to deal with the increasingly moronic things you keep posting.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I say this because the equivalent of A, the dollar cost of minimum wage which increases roughly with the square of the minimum wage increase, is the number you're still trying to distance yourself from. It's the information in question. What's important is the percentage increase in prices, not the net increase in prices. The former tells you roughly how much extra money people will have to pay for goods and services, which is an important thing to take into account. The latter is a big and scary-sounding number that doesn't tell you anything of value to this discussion. If I'm increasing the price of goods that I sell by $100, the importance of that value is going to depend on the initial price. That's a huge price increase if I was selling $1 candy bars. That's an insignificant price increase if I was selling $10 million jet fighters. This is why the percentage increase is more useful than the net increase, wouldn't you agree?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I think they're trying to argue that because 50% of people earning minimum wage aren't "poor" that it somehow negatively impacts the poor for the minimum wage to be increased? Oh yeah I explained why that was dumb in an earlier reply but he just kept going on about global incomes and ignored that bit.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I'm not understanding how we're taking money from one poor person and moving it to another, care to explain this logic? You just need to start from the following assumptions about the world
Therefore, we see that every last cent of wage increases is paid for by other poor people and it is simply a transfer from the very poor to the poor, QED.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:I too am concerned that minimum wage workers are already making too much money. If that's the case you should support a 15 dollar minimum wage, because then most those people will be handing over their job to c3p0.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
tsa posted:If that's the case you should support a 15 dollar minimum wage, because then most those people will be handing over their job to c3p0. That's going to happen no matter what the minimum wage is. It might happen sooner with a minimum wage increase. It might happen letter if we decrease the minimum wage. Since you're concerned about automation taking away jobs, would you support a minimum wage decrease in order to further offset this effect? If not, why not?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
tsa posted:If that's the case you should support a 15 dollar minimum wage, because then most those people will be handing over their job to c3p0. I hate to tell you this, but profitably automating a job at $15/hr is the hard part. With the costs of computer power falling year by year, and the ability to ramp up economies of scale, if you're automating jobs at $15 it's not going to take a generation for the price to come down to $7. If your strategy when automation comes to your job is "it's okay, I'll just keep underbidding the robots, as long as Barack Obummer lets me  " you're hosed I'm sorry to say.
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:58 on May 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Right, and an earlier link said that most of the impact would be to "small businesses" with ~100 employees, and current minimum wage laws do not apply to the barely-scraping-by mom and pop. It is almost as if you are trying to intentionally color your argument with emotionally charged language that paints a picture quite different than reality... something you seem to insist is the domain of your sinister opponents. Mcdonalds would have completely automated systems rolling out almost immediately if 15 / hr looked imminent, as would most other fast food corporations. Actually they've already started, more than likely you'll only be ordering off a screen within a couple years and that's just the beginning.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I hate to tell you this, but profitably automating a job at $15/hr is the hard part. Exactly, minimum wage is utterly stupid and a dead end. GMI is promising, but there's probably other options out there. e: like you basically restated my original argument that automation makes the minimum wage a relic, a sinking ship. Unions have died for the same reason- they pretend it's still the 20's and that the nature of work hasn't radically changed since the industrial revolution. tsa fucked around with this message at 19:04 on May 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
tsa posted:Exactly, minimum wage is utterly stupid and a dead end. tsa posted:GMI is promising, but there's probably other options out there. Right, vote Democrat in the general, and vote for candidates who support better policies in the primaries.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 19:04
|
|