|
Ervin K posted:Is this an actual term that idiots use these days? If you want to have a minimum wage debate D&D is possibly the worst place to have it, because there is too much of an emotional attachment to the minimum wage as a policy (rather than as a principle) that opposing it basically makes you what an apostate is to a true believer.
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Yah, everyone should be Mr. Motherfucking Spock about this. *Is unironically proud of the fact that he doesn't want to have a rational discussion.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
joeburz posted:In a perfect world we don't need min wage but because most of the country is selfish poo poo lords you gotta go with what can be passed Yeah to me that is probably the best argument for the min wage, there's a whole bunch of other policies you could pass to do the same thing with less of the negatives attached to it but the are politically unviable.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Why EITC though? Why not just mincome? Why make it conditional upon a company being willing to sign off that you did work on a form, make-work or no? I'm not sure if the EITC does this already but you could include some kind of a GMI into a negative income tax it by simply have a tax bracket where you get refunds for making $0
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Why bother with all the complication, though? Just do progressive taxation for whatever other income they have (including investment Because then you are simultaneously giving them an incentive to work as well as providing them with a guaranteed standard of living. Which sounds to me is the exact principle behind the minimum wage except now you don't get a lot of the negative parts of its implementation.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 03:56
|
|
). If someone is making enough money, the taxes they pay will exceed the mincome anyway. 
|
Badger of Basra posted:Why is it necessary that people work? I actually don't think it is, I think people who don't work deserves a guaranteed standard of living. But if you are defending the minimum wage (as oppose to GMI), presumably you think people should be working.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:I normally try and not make assumptions about people in real life based on their posting because that is loving stupid. Hell, I would probably have a great time drinking a beer with asdf32. But this is some cartoony Monopoly man poo poo right here. To be fair what he is describing is a part of how a capitalist economy works, and if you want the full story multiple economists ranging from Adam Smith to Marx to Schumpeter to Keynes have literally wrote thousands of pages on it so it's not exactly going to fit in a D&D post.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The oil industries too, not only do countries that do this have an easier time affording a safety net, but our subsidies and guarantees have taken most of the risk out anyway, destroying the only justification for the owners' huge profits. Venezuela.txt
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:I find it amusing. Nothing substantial was ever going to come of any discussion here. Or any D&D thread. Law was a lovely choice for a major no matter how you look at it over the last few decades
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:*in bizarro world where college is free in the US* There's also kind of contradiction where we are suppose to believe that free college education will make back the costs in terms of tax revenues while simultaneously stating that college grads are all under/unemployed.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:Actually, that isn't or shouldn't be the argument at all. Everyone is entitled to an education if they want it This is already the case though, you could use something like MIT open courseware to get a free education.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:Perhaps the return is a better educated populace more able to deal with the problems facing society and the world at-large. Instead of, you know, a populace that believes that science is evil ikr, it's great isn't it
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Maybe we can find this middle ground by destroying the inferior white race. This thread is great
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:its cheaper to house the "useless" and give them internet connections, food, water, medical care, etc than it is to deal with them when you push them on to the streets You already have shelters etc to deal with this. The problem isn't so much state housing, the problem is that a huge % of homeless people are mentally ill and there's is a under-capacity to deal with this medically.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Inflated sense of superiority for the desk workers that browse support boards. Being paid hourly for posting on internet forums is pretty great actually
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Shayu posted:I'm a big fan of Milton Friedman Friedman actually did do really good work on monetary policy and his explanation for the great depression as a caused by a financial crisis aggravated by poor decisions on the part of the federal reserve is still mainstream today. It's just that he became a right-wing pundit and Libertarians who worship him probably don't even understand what the words monetary policy means other than something about buying gold. But at least he had some good ideas like basic income.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is just your gut-feel and has no basis in fact. It's essentially the same as the Laffer curve: just because an inflection point exists with diminishing returns beyond that doesn't mean you're free to just pull its location out of your rear end. D&D consistently asserts the left-wing Laffer curve all the time: the idea that increasing wages will always fuel growth because it increases demand enough to offset additional costs. quote:i mean you realize this is why people believe the laffer curve is an actual thing and not just a vacant rhetorical point
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:By "left-wing laffer curve" you mean mainstream economics right, because it isn't really Marxists that believe you need wages for consumption. There's obviously two effects: 1) The positive effect increased demand have on revenue 2) The negative effect increased labor costs have on profit Both 1) and 2) are real things. The implicit assertion always made in those threads however is that 1) always outweighs 2) Typo fucked around with this message at 09:19 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is demonstrably untrue. No one has said "yeah $100/hr would be fine". But since $15/hr is much closer to the values around $11/hr for which we know 1 outweighs 2, I'm not going to assume the opposite is true for $15/hr based on the word of the same economists who were wrong about this every other time we've raised the minimum wage. An increase to $15 represents ~35% increase from $11 so it's not trivial. There has being numerous studies done on the effects of past increases of minimum wages and a significant amount of them demonstrates lower employment resulting from it, i.e: http://ilr.sagepub.com/content/65/2/350.full.pdf+html https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/labeco/v18y2011i1p36-47.html Note that this doesn't -always- seem to be the case though, and the different locale and job market could respond to increases differently.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:In this sense, I don't think an ironclad federal $15 dollar minimum wage is necessarily needed but I already said this. You can always allow some flexibility at the state level otherwise if you did have a federal $15 rate, it wouldn't be that difficult to do and if anything would be a decent political compromise. That said, I would rather a $15 dollar minimum wage that requires adjustment than simply keeping the current system, $7.25 is way too low for the vast majority of the country and $10 is very likely still too low. Yeah, as far the minimum wage goes allowing for different wages across locales seems to be a good idea. I think the best model for it is the Swedish one, where unions are robust and uncorrupt enough that the state don't' need to set a min.wage, but unions negotiate with employers on what it should be for individual sectors of the economy.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 09:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's not trivial (obviously, that's why we want to do it, because it's a nontrivial amount of money to a poor person) but it's not the ridiculous-rear end 800% increase that $100/hr would be. I mean if I was just spitballing I'd assume the effects would be closer to $11/hr than $100/hr. There's no reason to assume the opposite without proof unless I have a vested interest in opposing a living wage. You realize there's way more than two papers showing this affect right?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes, there are more papers that show this for you to cherry-pick if you want to ignore the much greater number of papers that show little to no effect. Which are what? And please don't' post Kruger and Card because that one's methodology got shot down a while ago. quote:The increase to our current level was a 28% increase, and we didn't have any huge problems result from it. 1) The affects don't have to be huge, something like 2-3% increase unemployment in teens or unskilled adults is probably not all that noticeable, but it's there. 2) The marginal affects of increasing the minimal wage are not constant, just because the first increase of $2.5 has no negative affects, doesn't necessary mean the next $3.0 has no negative affects. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean the minimum wage shouldn't be increased (because the benefits might outweigh the negatives) but we shouldn't be denying that there are negatives -at all- Typo fucked around with this message at 10:00 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:neither do the people arguing against it. economics can be used to prove anything depending on where you focus and what you leave out of your analysis This is pretty much the exact same line of logics used by climate change deniers. If discipline A's argument argument's and conclusions don't fit my own, obviously the entire discipline is flawed and meaningless.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Wow this is like a microcosm of the transition towards mathematical modelling in economics irl.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Internships? drug dealers
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So, neoliberal policies have destroyed rural areas. Instead of abandoning those policies, we should agree with neoliberals on more things like holding down wages for the poor. Rural areas are dying because they are fundamentally not as compatible with a modern economy as urban areas, and because there is really no reason why young people would want to stay there. It's not really due to neoliberal policies, it has being an ongoing trend since the industrial revolution.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:Can you elaborate on this? Per capita median income was a lot lower in the 1950s, which means the overall standard of living was a lot lower because technology was a lot less advanced 60 years ago even if society was a lot more equal.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If it's an ongoing and unavoidable trend, then there's no reason to try ineffectively to halt it by holding wages down. I don't think anyone is talking about implementing a wage ceiling.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:E: I'm not opposed to the minimum wage taking into account the cost of living in different areas, that's all well and good. You are talking about areas of the country which is already becoming unviable economically and profit margins are thin. Inflating wages is simply going to accelerate this process.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But life expectancy for the poor has been falling. Relative to the 1950s?
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Both the left and the right both has this really unreasonable nostalgia (the former economically, the latter socially) for the 1950s that simply refuses to die at least until the baby boomers who grew up that decade dies and we can look at the decade more objectively instead of through their rose tinted glasses.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/04/o...pe=article&_r=0 The quote says life expectancy has fallen since the 1990s, this is different than saying it has fallen since the 1950s.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:True. The thing is the economic context of the 1950s was a lot different and the very technology we are talking about is one of the reasons why returning to that era isn't really possible. The 1950s both in the US and Europe represented the last great wave of urbanization and industrialization. You had rapid and sustained economic growth it was pretty easy to put farmers into factories and increase productivity. On the back of that the main governmental function was redistribution of wealth and macroeconomic management. But even before the end of the decade cracks started to show, I personally think the closing of the packard automobile factory in 1958 was a signpost for this. After a while the urbanization and essentially completed and growth sputtered. Stagflation of the 1970s showed the failure of the old Keynesian consensus to manage the economy. Automation eventually ate away at the old manufacturing labor market and the golden age of capitalism ended. That is not to say you shouldn't redistribute wealth, but it is saying that you are unlikely to get the sort of society everyone is nostalgic for even if you do. I think Japan today might be what America (at least the urbanized, wealthier portion of it) would have looked like if a different set of political consensus emerged out of the 1970s.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
The manufacturing jobs of the 1950s-1970s that everyone seems to be longing nostalgically for were largely replaced by automation, so trying to deny that it's a huge problem seems overly optimistic.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 15:21
|
|