|
Arglebargle III posted:Good quote but I think she's missing the political aspect of this one. Labor advocates have learned to demand large min wage increases because it is raised so infrequently. $15 an hour may cause a drag on employment now but in 15 years $12 could well be inadequate. Business pitches such a massive fit over any wage increase and Congress has become so reliably dysfunctional that you have to think ten years into the future with these bills. That's terrible political strategy. Raising minimum wage to a level that will be a drag on employment makes the next attempt to raise it that much harder (hell, if there were actual studies/evidence showing that the last minimum wage hike hurt employment that could kill another attempt to hike it for a whole generation). Instead, you raise it to the level that won't be a drag on employment, while also pegging it to inflation so you never have to go through this fight again.
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:You should learn what words like "empirical" mean so you don't end up saying silly things like "We can't implement this policy in the real world until we have data from its implementation in the real world." If economists engage in this kind of sloppy thinking regularly, that explains a lot. Unfortunately, you didn't respond to anything I actually said, so there's nothing else to say without repeating myself, which looks to be pretty pointless. You completely miss the point there. Doing a nationwide $15/hour minimum wage would make empirical study of that wage level's effects impossible, as it would remove any control group for your study. Any argument about if it was helpful or hurtful, if it was a drag on employment or not, would come down to arguing counterfactuals. The current path, where some areas are implementing it and some aren't, gives you real data that can be studied and compared between areas where it was implemented and where it wasn't.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:But that doesn't provide empirical data on a national implementation, because moving within national borders is easier than moving internationally and so the employment effects will be distinct from a national implementation. You could get relevant data to extrapolate from, but you can't actually get empirical data specifically on what you're looking to test. Economics, like many academic disciplines, doesn't jive very well with experimental methods. That's not a crime, but it is important for people to understand. Oh come the gently caress on with that goalpost-moving bullshit. Getting data on the effects of a $15/minimum wage as it's implemented in some areas and comparing it with control areas over the same period of time where the minimum wage stays the same (and/or is raised to a lower level) is tremendously useful data to have to better understand its effects if it were to be implemented nationally (especially since there will be plenty of other information about spending and job levels between the two different areas that can be used to understand the basic differences between the two areas and account for those differences and single out the effect specific to the wage increase). This kind of study has been done in the past, and the data that results has proven very worthwhile. At this point you're just making GBS threads on economics as a principal because everyone isn't joining you in your wild bloodlust for $15 right-this-minute-no-exceptions. Suddenly deciding that this type of study is especially disingenuous when you consider that you were originally posting... Effectronica posted:You should learn what words like "empirical" mean so you don't end up saying silly things like "We can't implement this policy in the real world until we have data from its implementation in the real world." You don't give a poo poo about data or about rigor, you have a political ax to grind and a cause you want to champion and if the data helps then the data is great and if it doesn't (or if there is still studying to be done) then the data is all bullshit. e_angst fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Oct 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Veskit posted:To help offset the rate cuts, Carson said he would “get rid of all the deductions and all the loopholes.” That’s a bold proposal, considering how popular many tax breaks are, including deductions for interest on home mortgages and charitable contributions, as well as exemptions for health insurance and retirement savings. If there was ever any serious attempt to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction there will be riots in the suburbs. (Not to mention the enormous fight that the banks would put up.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Veskit posted:It's so well deserved though what a horrible policy. I think encouraging home ownership isn't a bad thing. But the amount they let you deduct is kind of crazy and probably skews things too far. Combine it with other policies that incentivize home ownership (like California's Proposition 13) and you end up with a really hosed up market. Also, there are definitely a lot of middle-class people who don't realize (or at least don't admit) that they are paying the same tax rate as the working poor because of that deduction. Hell, I'm single and pulled around $60k last year. My effective tax rate should have been a little over 18%, but I ended up barely paying 12% (and the refund check I got was much, much bigger than anything I ever got a decade ago, when I was living near the poverty line on two part-time jobs).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 14:24
|
|