From tax breaks, through GMI, to FULL COMMUNISM - poverty elimination station

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > From tax breaks, through GMI, to FULL COMMUNISM - poverty elimination station

«‹›5 »

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Leroy Diplowski posted:

If min wage did go to $15 then I would probably have to raise prices, but then so would my competition, so it would be pretty much a zero sum game for me. Since my customers are mostly very high earners, a min wage increase would be a (clumsy) method of wealth redistribution which I feel is a really good thing.
...
The only real losers will be the high volume low margin retailers but they are already exploiting workers up their supply chain anyhow, and we are going need to wean our economy off of cheap consumer goods produced by our de facto colonies at some point.

Another group that would unambiguously lose from an increase in the minimum wage (and a concurrent increase in prices) are poor people outside the labor force.

code:

2010 Census Data
Total number of poor people		46,180,000
Number of poor people under age 18	16,401,000
Number of poor people ages 65 and older	 3,521,000
Number of poor people ages 18�64	26,258,000

Number of poor people ages 18�64 who were:
Working full- or part-time		9,053,000
Unemployed but looking for work		3,616,000
Disabled				4,247,000
In the armed forces			   77,000
Able-bodied but not in the labor force	9,254,000

The 9 million people in poverty working full or part time would benefit. The remaining 20 million adults in poverty who are retired, unemployed, disabled, or otherwise outside the labor force would be made even more poor by a general rise in prices.

The best thing minimum wage increases have going is political. They're much more popular than expansion of the welfare state. The downside is the only way to help the poor outside the labor force is by expanding the welfare state, minimum wage increases will make poverty more acute for these people, and the political will to correct that problem will likely not exist. It's an open question whether the benefits to some of the poor will outweigh the burden imposed on the rest.

# ¿ May 8, 2015 19:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 17:13

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

JeffersonClay posted:

It's an open question whether the benefits to some of the poor will outweigh the burden imposed on the rest.

RBC posted:

assuming a general rise in prices after a minimum wage increase is demonstrably erroneous

It's not. Here's the oft-cited Card and Kreuger study on minimum wage in the fast food industry. They found it didn't impact employment but did impact prices. (Price impacts are on pages 15 and 16)

http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/njmin-aer.pdf

JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 20:13 on May 8, 2015

# ¿ May 8, 2015 20:02

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

RBC posted:

since monetary policy is already explicitely inflationary, arent all these people already getting hosed by price increases every year

Yes price inflation hurts the poor. More price inflation will hurt the poor more.

Current monetary policy isn't contributing much to inflation.

# ¿ May 8, 2015 20:28

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

# ¿ May 8, 2015 21:03

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

The Earned Income Tax Credit avoids a lot of the negatives associated with raising the minimum wage. A modest increase in the minimum wage along with increasing the EITC would be very good policy-- the EITC controls price inflation and the minimum wage ensures that employers can't just reduce wages to capture the EITC subsidy. But it wouldn't provide us with as much schadenfreude from soaking the rich so maybe it's not worth it.

linoleum floors posted:

Problems like, I cannot afford a second yacht. Guess I'll have to go with one yacht this year instead of two. This yacht economy is really gonna feel the pinch

Problems like, I cannot afford as much food because the minimum wage raised prices but not my pension/disability/welfare payment.

JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 21:22 on May 8, 2015

# ¿ May 8, 2015 21:19

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

How you can pay for food without working:

You are retired and live on a pension or savings and social security.
You are disabled and receive Social Security Disability Insurance.
You are unemployed and collecting TANF benefits.

Also minimum wage laws wouldn't affect the wages paid to undocumented immigrants or people employed in the underground economy, and these people would still be harmed by price inflation.

# ¿ May 8, 2015 21:34

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Undocumented immigrants often do file taxes, they just file them under a fraudulent social security number. Black/Grey market workers might file to collect subsidies or to provide a plausible cover for illegal activities.

I am excited to hear how you think this is relevant to the discussion at hand.

# ¿ May 8, 2015 21:45

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

You misunderstand. The EITC won't help undocumented immigrants or underground workers. The EITC could boost the incomes of poor workers without causing price inflation because the money comes from the government rather than businesses. It has the same benefits(except for soak the rich schadenfreude), and fewer negatives.

# ¿ May 8, 2015 21:57

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

euphronius posted:

You have to eventually work for tanf and you must have worked in the past to get ssdi.

We agree that there currently exist poor people who benefit from these programs, right? Those people will be harmed by price inflation, and therefore by a significant minimum wage increase.

You don't need to have ever worked to get ssdi, you're thinking of ssi.

# ¿ May 9, 2015 01:55

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

euphronius posted:

No it's ssdi you need to work for.

Do you have any evidence inflation would equal or exceed the value of increasing wages.

You're right, you don't need to work to get ssi, and you do need to have previously worked to get ssdi. More to the point, both groups would be harmed by inflation, as neither group earns wage income. As to your latter question, anyone who does not earn wages does not directly benefit from the minimum wage and thus must be harmed by inflation.

I think we should raise the minimum wage. But the minimum wage is to economics what charter schools are to education; a solution that helps people at the margins of oppression most, at the expense of those who are most oppressed, with the great advantage over better solutions that it is politically possible and maybe, in moderate doses, better than the status quo.

# ¿ May 9, 2015 05:35

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

VitalSigns posted:

Is there any evidence that the minimum wage has contributed in any significant way to inflation? Lowering the the minimum wage by 30% or so in the last 50 years sure didn't reduce prices any.

And what's the mechanism for that: minimum wage doesn't increase the money supply, that money comes from somewhere else in the economy (corporate profits). Minimum wage doesn't reduce the supply of goods: people who have more money to spend are going to stimulate production in an economy hobbled by slack demand like ours is now.

This seems like a concern troll. If controlling inflation is the most important thing, why are we attacking the minimum wage and not the policies the central bank has been using to fight deflation and prop up asset prices. Why don't we just back off on those policies a bit to even it out rather than refusing to raise the minimum wage.

JeffersonClay posted:

Here's the oft-cited Card and Kreuger study on minimum wage in the fast food industry. They found it didn't impact employment but did impact prices. (Price impacts are on pages 15 and 16)

http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/njmin-aer.pdf

There's a lot of economic misconceptions in this post that I'll try to untangle.

The minimum wage increases prices by increasing the cost of labor. In the same way that we would expect a rise in lettuce prices to increase the cost of fast food, a rise in labor prices increases the cost of everything because everything requires some sort of human labor to create, transport, distribute, etc... There are other ways to cause inflation. Increasing the money supply and rapid economic growth can both cause inflation. A central bank attempts to use its control of the money supply and interest rates to promote economic growth while limiting inflation. Economic growth that results in moderate inflation is a net positive for people who are in the labor force, but not for people who aren't. It's not that inflation is a horrible evil that must be defeated at all costs, it's an inevitable byproduct of economic growth that can also be caused by other policies. Deflation would imply economic contraction -- a depression -- which would not be good for most people but which might be good for people on a fixed income.

# ¿ May 9, 2015 18:50

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

I agree with that, with one caveat. The studies which show manageable price or employment effects from minimum wage increases are all based on studies on relatively small changes in the minimum wage. We don't really know what would happen after large increases in the minimum wage. So yeah, lets raise the minimum wage to 10 and then 11 and then 12 and see what happens. But people arguing for a 25 dollar minimum wage cannot have any real understanding of what the consequences would be.

# ¿ May 9, 2015 19:24

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

QuarkJets posted:

It's interesting then that every minimum wage increase in the past has had a negligible impact on inflation. Would you say this is due to labor costs actually being a pretty small fraction of the overall cost of running most businesses, or would you say that it's due to the fact that the prices of goods and services are determined by much more than their input costs?

Past minimum wage increases have been small, I think the effects have been swamped by other factors which influence inflation. I think the same thing is true for employment. Wages are sticky enough that a mandatory one dollar raise doesn't affect employment decisions much, but that won't necessarily hold true at larger amounts.

QuarkJets posted:

The thing is, even if you pass on 100% of the wage increase in the form of higher prices it's still going to be a negligible change, even if you bring the minimum wage to $15/hour. So even if we had no way of controlling inflation and passed the minimum wage increase anyway, and employers all decided to collude in order to increase prices due to the increase wage, the effect still wouldn't be that bad. That's why talking about inflation in a minimum wage discussion really doesn't make much sense.

But in our universe, in reality, McDonalds is already charging us as much as it can for Big Macs. That price is primarily set by competition in the fast food market. Increasing their labor costs, which are a tiny fraction of the input cost to each Big Mac, is not going to significantly alter the supply/demand curve for Big Macs (caveat: increased sales due to min wage workers having more money will push the demand curve a little, but surely you can't argue that selling more Big Macs is a bad thing for McDonalds).

The impact of wage increases will vary by industry. Industries where cheap labor is a significant input will be affected more, and other industries will be affected if the products of the first industry are inputs in their production process.

Yes businesses are charging the highest rates they can charge, which in a competitive environment has little to do with overall demand and much to do with the prices charged by their competitors, which is in turn based on the cost of production. If every restaurant must increase its wages, and all restaurants raise prices in turn, no business loses market share (although we'd expect the industry as a whole to sell less, depending on the elasticity of demand for the product). The labor share of a Big Mac is about 25%, so doubling wages would lead to a 25% increase in cost, and there's no reason to expect the large majority of that would not be passed on to consumers. This is why Big Macs cost more in places like Australia and Sweden where labor costs are higher.

JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 00:44 on May 10, 2015

# ¿ May 9, 2015 23:41

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

VitalSigns posted:

Why is there no reason to expect most of the costs won't be passed on to consumers? Are McDonald's profits zero?

This is the third time I've linked this ITT.

"http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf%22 posted:

A final issue we examine is the effect of the minimum wage on the prices of meals at fast-food restaurants. A competitive model of the fast-food industry implies that an increase in the minimum wage will lead to an increase in product prices. If we assume constant returns to scale in the industry, the increase in price should be proportional to the share of minimum-wage labor in total factor cost. The average restaurant in New Jersey initially paid about half its workers less than the new minimum wage. If wages rose by roughly 15 percent for these workers, and if labor's share of total costs is 30 percent, we would expect prices to rise by about 2.2 percent ( = 0.15 X 0.5X 0.3) due to the minimum-wage rise...
The estimated New Jersey dummy in column (i) shows that after-tax meal prices rose 3.2-percent faster in New Jersey than in Pennsylvania between February and November 1992.~~The effect is slightly larger controlling for chain and company ownership [see column ($1. Since the New Jersey sales tax rate fell by 1 percentage point between the waves of our survey, these estimates suggest that pretax prices rose 4-percent faster as a result of the minimum-wage increase in New Jersey.

VitalSigns posted:

Yes, I know these things, and that's the problem with your argument: it does assume that inflation is always bad because you're taking the position "it doesn't matter if workers can feed their families, what about people on fixed income, they will be hurt if prices go up". But for some reason you don't care about the much greater inflation we purposely cause with our central bank policies, even though that hurts the pensioners and whoever else you're hiding behind right now. So you don't really care about price increases at all, except as a convenient weapon to attack the minimum wage.

So let's say the minimum wage causes prices to increase. Well, the central bank has inflation targets it's trying to hit and uses tools like interest rates and QE to hit those. So, if prices go up because of the minimum wage, the central bank would just need to do less deflation-fighting on its own.

Follow-up question: how do we know what "the right" level of prices are? We could help fixed-income people right now by lowering the minimum wage, according to you, but you don't want to do that. What if the low prices they're paying right now is a result of rent-seeking because of economic exploitation of minimum wage workers who aren't being paid enough for their work to even stay healthy.

Depressions are bad. Recessions are bad. High Inflation is bad. Inequality is bad. The effects of a depression or a recession on everyone, rich and poor, are worse than moderate inflation so policies which correct recessions and depressions are probably worthwhile, even if they cause some inflation (current Fed policy is not causing large amounts of inflation -- that's a right-wing canard). The minimum wage, as a tool to fight inequality, isn't all that effective because a majority of those below the poverty line do not earn wage income, and therefore will only experience the negative consequences of inflation.

There's no "right" price level, although lower prices are obviously better for consumers than higher prices. Lowering the minimum wage would likely not result in any significant price decreases because few people currently work for minimum wage.

I want you to consider the possibility that you don't have a firm grasp of the economics here, and might be wrong, rather than asserting that my reticence to endorse a large minimum wage is due to some double-secret need to gently caress over the poor.

# ¿ May 10, 2015 03:07

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

The Fed isn't trying to cause inflation, they're trying to boost demand. The economy was suffering due to a drop in demand and consumption, so the fed lowered interest rates to discourage saving. Once interest rates hit zero they started to increase the money supply to encourage spending and investment. Inflation will occur once demand catches up with supply. It signals the Fed that the policy has worked and they can stop QE and raise interest rates. Inflation isn't the goal, it's the metric.

The inflation caused here isn't good, it's just worth it. So yes the Fed could control inflation but only by slowing economic growth.

# ¿ May 10, 2015 05:18

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Is there empirical evidence that the minimum wage increases demand? The difference between inflation caused by QE and inflation caused by the minimum wage, is the inflation from QE is temporary, and can be turned off once demand recovers and inflation rebounds.

# ¿ May 10, 2015 06:16

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Raskolnikov38 posted:

because unlike you I've taken an Econ 101 class where if even Von Mises himself taught it, would take that increasing the wealth of the bottom class of people would increase demand, as something so self-evident that it doesn't even need to be taught

Econ 101 also strongly predicts lower employment and higher prices due to the minimum wage. that's why empirical data is important. We don't know whether the redistributive benefits will outweigh the price and employment harms. The studies linked so far ITT suggest that for moderate minimum wage increases, employment stays flat and prices increase. When I ask if there is empirical data supporting a demand boost from the minimum wage, I'm honestly curious as to whether it exists because I looked for some and could not find it.

euphronius posted:

GP have you addressed the fact that the central banks policy is way more inflationary than any minimum wage increase.

I addressed it a ways back. Central bank policy is not producing lots of inflation. And central bank policy will be stopped once demand recovers and inflation rises (indeed quantitative easing has already been stopped and the fed is considering raising interest rates). The minimum wage will not. The minimum wage is not a counter cyclical policy, comparisons between the two are facile.

# ¿ May 10, 2015 21:05

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

VitalSigns posted:

Central bank policy is producing lots of inflation though, because the fundamentals are deflationary and it has taken unprecedented amounts of direct cash injection to stave that off.

No, this is right wing bullshit.

And you're still ignoring the fact that it's nonsensical to compare temporary inflation used to counter economic cycles to permanent inflation.

RBC posted:

if only there were multiple real world examples from around the world to find out. oh well

If you have any academic studies you'd like to add to the discussion, link them.

# ¿ May 10, 2015 21:15

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Inflation from fed policy goes away when the policy ends. It's temporary. Inflation from the minimum wage is permanent because the minimum wage isn't going to end when the economy recovers.

# ¿ May 10, 2015 21:27

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

[quote="VitalSigns" post=""445160329"]
(a) central bank policy is permanently inflationary
[/quote]

Lol no. When natural inflation is too low, it can promote inflation. When natural inflation is too high, it can reduce inflation. That's the whole point.

# ¿ May 10, 2015 21:36

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Indexing the minimum wage to inflation adds additional inflation. Each yearly nominal increase will add to inflation.

# ¿ May 10, 2015 21:57

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

VitalSigns posted:

And the target is always what? Inflationary! Explain how a one-time real minimum wage increase is "permanently inflationary" in a way that say another particular year's inflation was not, please.

No, you need to consider an interest rate target over the lifetime of the policy. When inflation is under the target, the Fed will promote inflation. When inflation is above the target, the Fed will promote deflation. Fed policy just smooths inflation over time. The inflation caused by current policy will be eliminated when the Fed is fighting against the other part of the business cycle. Net inflation is zero.

VitalSigns posted:

By definition this cannot be true, indexing something to inflation means holding its price in real dollars constant.

Indexing a wage to inflation means that its value to the person receiving the wage stays constant. It doesn't mean that the value to everyone else is constant. If you're unemployed, inflation erodes your purchasing power. If the minimum wage is increased because of that inflation, labor becomes even more expensive and your purchasing power is eroded again.

# ¿ May 10, 2015 23:22

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

euphronius posted:

So let's have a deflationary fed policy and inflationary minimum wage policy

That would hinder the ability of the Fed to promote sustainable growth and protect against boom and bust cycles.

# ¿ May 10, 2015 23:29

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

RBC posted:

why do you keep ignoring cost of living adjustments

Cost of living adjustments would mitigate some of the harm here, but not nearly all of it. Things like social security, ssi, ssdi, don't actually provide enough for a person to live comfortably right now. So even if they're indexed to inflation, people on these programs will still be worse off. Imagine a person who gets 10,000 a year from ssi, but who needs to purchase 20,000 dollars of stuff to live comfortably for a year, a $10,000 deficit. If inflation is 10%, the next year the person needs to purchase 22,000 worth of goods and their ssi payment will increase to 11,000, a deficit of $11,000.

QuarkJets posted:

You keep trying to claim that all non-working Americans, including dependents and retirees, are poor. That is loving delusional. It's hard to take you seriously when you get even basic facts so horribly wrong

I posted this earlier.

JeffersonClay posted:

Another group that would unambiguously lose from an increase in the minimum wage (and a concurrent increase in prices) are poor people outside the labor force.
code:
2010 Census Data
Total number of poor people		46,180,000
Number of poor people under age 18	16,401,000
Number of poor people ages 65 and older	 3,521,000
Number of poor people ages 18�64	26,258,000

Number of poor people ages 18�64 who were:
Working full- or part-time		9,053,000
Unemployed but looking for work		3,616,000
Disabled				4,247,000
In the armed forces			   77,000
Able-bodied but not in the labor force	9,254,000
The 9 million people in poverty working full or part time would benefit. The remaining 20 million adults in poverty who are retired, unemployed, disabled, or otherwise outside the labor force would be made even more poor by a general rise in prices.

RBC posted:

i dont know but im still lolling at the idea that someone thinks there is such a thing as sustainable growth and protecting against boom and bust cycles in a capitalist economy

People that think the business cycle can be affected with monetary policy: Mainstream economists. People that dispute this: Marxists and Paulites. Lolz end the fed am I rite?

euphronius posted:

Those policies seems to be a accelerating income inequality. Hmm.

What is the economy for.

You know what would really put a dent in income inequality? A massive depression. By avoiding massive depressions, the Fed does allow income inequality to expand. Do you think the poor would benefit more if these depressions were allowed to occur?

# ¿ May 11, 2015 01:52

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Rodatose posted:

There was this whole 'credit crash recession' that happened recently that wasn't prevented by fed policy. Also it was partly caused by underconsumption from a lack of consumer income triggering the whole credit crash.

Too bad when this recent recession happened income inequality rose, partly because of the federal reserve's bailout going toward those large banks who engaged in bad speculation (saying nothing about the profits gained from speculation in the preceeding years that paid off, and also signaling a moral hazard about the dependency the whole economy has on the wealthy allowing them to do whatever they want without feeling the consequences)

No, Fed policy didn't prevent the recession. Fed policy stopped the recession from becoming a massive, full blown depression. Had it been a full blown depression, income equality would have risen, as everybody would have been hosed but the rich most of all. Do you think that would be good policy?

euphronius posted:

False dichotomy

Counterpoint: You don't understand economics for poo poo.

# ¿ May 11, 2015 02:41

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

euphronius posted:

I reject the economy of capitalists yes.

Why do we have an economy.

Maybe start a thread about Marxism and draw off some of the morons here then? Smash KKKapitalism isn't a particularly useful contribution to a debate about policy choices in TYOOL 2015.

VitalSigns posted:

I don't think net inflation is zero long-term. I haven't seen any 5-cent hamburgers around.

Net inflation from a counter-cyclical monetary policy is. The Fed promotes inflation when it gets low, and restrains inflation when it gets high.

VitalSigns posted:

Indexing payments to inflation causes inflation?

So if inflation happens for other reasons, we need to let it erode the real value of wages and social security or there will be more inflation? What?

Each nominal increase to the minimum wage will promote inflation in the same way that raising the minimum wage from 8 to 9 will promote inflation, yes. This wouldn't be applicable to social security payments because those don't increase the price of labor.

Rodatose posted:

Fed and treasury policy kicked the can down the road without the core problems that caused the recession to be fixed, and if/when such a thing happens in the future, we might have even worse leadership so that what comes out of the dust is a fascist-corporatist government.

Policies could have been implemented in exchange for terms preventing the recession from becoming a depression by punishing the banks for their malfeasance by making more demands or in an extreme case (as Iceland did with its crisis) nationalizing them. New-deal like policies could have been sought which redistributed wealth more equally by directing recovery funds toward more locally-targeted programs.

Instead, the policies sought were a full capitulation, buying into the narrative that "this is all too complicated for you plebs, now give us more money."

The Fed and the Treasury have zero power to nationalize banks or to pass the kind of new-deal like policies which would do a better job of boosting demand. The Fed can lower interest rates and boost bank reserves. I am glad they did so, as the alternative would have been a massive depression. If we're not constraining ourselves to the actual choices foisted upon us by political reality, I wouldn't be defending the Fed and you wouldn't be defending the minimum wage-- better policy alternatives exist for both.

# ¿ May 11, 2015 03:13

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

euphronius posted:

You didn't answer the question.

The economy doesn't have a purpose. It's an emergent phenomenon based on the actions of billions of people pursuing their own ends. If your question is really "what is the purpose of government policy W/R/T the economy" I'd answer "making people happier". Rejecting the economy of the capitalists, whatever you imagine that would look like, is unlikely to meet that standard.

VitalSigns posted:

Why would it, if the minimum wage is going up only because of inflation. If the price of hamburgers and all non-labor inputs go up by 10%, then the employer has enough money to increase wages by 10% as well without increasing the price again. If he didn't increase wages by the same amount he would be collecting extra profit because one of his costs has effectively decreased.

Do you think that no one has gotten a raise since the 1930s?

If inflation increased the price of all the non-labor inputs of hamburgers, the employer would be pressed to increase the price of hamburgers by a commensurate amount. If the minimum wage is subsequently increased to match that inflation, the employer is pressed to raise the price again because now labor costs have increased, too.

quote:

Is this an accurate description of what has happened with the US money supply over the lifetime of the Fed?

Counter-cyclical monetary policy has, unfortunately, not been the policy goal of the Fed over its lifetime. Inflation targeting started in the 90's.

# ¿ May 11, 2015 03:47

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

euphronius posted:

Current economy not doing a good job of making people happier. Even if that is what an economy is for which I don't agree.

Making them happier than what is the question. Did fed policy avoiding a depression have the effect of making people happier than an alternative world where they allow the depression to happen? Yes. I don't care what you think the economy is for, because you obviously don't understand how it works.

RBC posted:

tell us more how the federal reserve prevented the 2009 depression with genius financial policy, such as creating a massive asset bubble by setting interest rates using a dartboard

It's really clear you have no clue how the economy works but if you can make this jumble of words into an intelligible argument I'll try to respond to it.

JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 03:58 on May 11, 2015

# ¿ May 11, 2015 03:52

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

I mean yeah when you look at the math and the formulas and the economics the minimum wage doesn't look so hot but the important thing is how it makes you feel, deep down in your gut.

# ¿ May 11, 2015 04:42

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

LorrdErnie posted:

This but ironically.

# ¿ May 11, 2015 04:58

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Did you guys know that the minimum wage isn't very effective at transferring money from the rich to the poor?

If a fifteen dollar minimum wage is implemented, what happens? It's likely that any reduction in poverty would be small. And now when we advocate for policies that might make more significant impacts on income inequality -- taxes and transfer payments and expanded social services -- conservatives will say: smug: "just get a cushy min wage job, liberailures".

# ¿ May 11, 2015 16:32

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

I'm not advocating for accelerationism. If we're examining the minimum wage in the context of political reality, there's a real political cost in tying anti poverty efforts to the conservative paradigm that poor people can just work their way out of poverty. That's why the minimum wage is popular among republicans, you realize?

# ¿ May 11, 2015 16:42

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

https://nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Minimum-Wage-Poll-Memo-Jan-2015.pdf

Republican voters favor a 12.50 minimum wage 53 to 47.

Social security is actually a good analogue. The shittiest parts of social security are the parts Republicans support the most --regressive taxes, weak means testing, work requirement to be vested. They like it because it resembles an individual retirement account and because it fits into their work hard=escape poverty paradigm. I certainly think social security was a positive for the poor but we've been locked in a dialogue about helping hard working middle class families ever since, and it ignores much of the impact of poverty.

# ¿ May 11, 2015 17:06

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Ghost of Reagan Past posted:

You also have to realize that doing anything else to alleviate poverty is pretty much politically impossible. Increasing anything that falls under the purview of welfare is politically dead before it's even proposed. Meanwhile, here's something that can improve people's quality of life right now, and is politically feasible. Again, when leftists make the perfect the enemy of the good, people complain. Now, when leftists aren't making the perfect the enemy of the good and advocate for policies that can be done now and don't rely on unicorn tears, people complain.

I get that politics constrains our choices here. There's never going to be a perfect option and we need to make our best judgement as to how to help the poor. If passing the minimum wage makes other, more effective policies more difficult to achieve in the future, it might not be worth supporting if the benefits are small. "The poor can't afford to wait" can cut both ways.

# ¿ May 11, 2015 17:16

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Effectronica posted:

Republican voters are distinct from the Republican political elite, and they don't support minimum wage increases because it validates conservatism.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/18/the_conservative_case_for_raising_the_minimum_wage/

His points are:
Minimum wage will stop immigration (what?)
Minimum wage will allow us to stop giving out so much welfare

# ¿ May 11, 2015 17:26

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Effectronica posted:

Thank you for proving my point by being unable to find statistical analysis of Republican political leadership on this question, and by ignoring that the motivations lay Republicans have for supporting a higher minimum wage are not "this validates conservatism".

Tell me more about what you think an absence of evidence proves. Why do you think the average republican supports the minimum wage? It can't be as simple as "it's in my best interest", or most republicans would support taxing the rich to support the poor. I imagine it's more like "I work hard and deserve not to be poor" which might not be a good paradigm to reinforce if our next argument needs to be "nobody deserves to be poor". The minimum wage could drive a wedge between the working poor and the nonworking poor.

# ¿ May 11, 2015 17:51

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Effectronica posted:

I'm guessing, not having a polling firm at my disposal, that the average lay Republican supports having a minimum wage because it already exists and they probably benefited from it or know someone who benefits from it. Why they would support a higher minimum wage would probably be because they know people who would benefit majorly from that sort of increase. At least, this is from the Republicans that I know personally.

Okay, but Republicans that would benefit from a minimum wage increase would also probably benefit from an expansion of welfare, which they don't support. There's got to be some qualitative difference between the minimum wage and welfare for them, and I think it's all about their Takers VS. Makers duality. Free money for the poor activates their disgust response, but more money for hard work fits neatly into their bootstraps archetype. A high minimum wage actually makes the bootstraps argument more plausible, which might make policies which expand the welfare state more difficult to achieve.

And it's not just republicans. The same mindset exists for many independents and conservative democrats.

JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 18:17 on May 11, 2015

# ¿ May 11, 2015 18:13

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

I do see a massive change in American politics on the horizon as demographic change is going to continue marginalizing the Republican Party. There's a real possibility that Democrats could have veto-proof majorities in the next few decades, and could pass the fundamental reforms that the poor desperately need. That will be harder if the bootstraps solve poverty ideology gains more traction in the Democratic Party, and the minimum wage makes the bootstraps argument more plausible.

# ¿ May 11, 2015 19:18

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

LorrdErnie posted:

please help im a complete moron

Context-free quoting is fun!

# ¿ May 11, 2015 19:56

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > From tax breaks, through GMI, to FULL COMMUNISM - poverty elimination station

«‹›5 »