Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

EconomyFollow

#202 Oct 30 2015 at 8:38 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
As does the third link.

As does the fourth link

But hey. When we get to the 5th link, things go back to supporting the idea. So there's something.

Links #2 & #3 actually support a minimum wage hike, just not to $15/hr.

You're missing the point, all liberals insist that all jobs must start at $15. Smiley: rolleyes



Only a sith deals in absolutes! Smiley: mad (liberals are the sith)

If only they'd let Padme abort the babies, she would have lived and Anakin would not have gone (more) insane.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#203 Oct 30 2015 at 8:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Amusingly, the two links I quoted from Gbaji's post are both articles talking about the same guy's (Arindrajit Dube) papers. He feels that a $15/hr wage would be too dramatic for many areas and instead advocates pinning minimum wage to 50% of the state/region's full-time median wage.

I didn't bother delving into the details but, in California, the single-earner median wage is $47,798 so that would be (47,798/12 = 3,983/4 = 995/40 = $24.88/2 =) $12.44 an hour less tax. In Mississippi, it would be a more modest $9.25/hr. Yes, he's saying that $15/hr is too sharp an immediate increase. No, he's not agreeing that we shouldn't increase minimum wage.

Edited, Oct 30th 2015 9:48am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#204 Oct 30 2015 at 8:52 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Yeah, but much like the Bible as long as a single passage does agree with him, the rest of the document does as well and we don't have to follow the rest of it because we have liberty and freedom. Why do you hate America, Joph?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#205 Oct 30 2015 at 9:09 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Amusingly, the two links I quoted from Gbaji's post are both articles talking about the same guy's (Arindrajit Dube) papers. He feels that a $15/hr wage would be too dramatic for many areas and instead advocates pinning minimum wage to 50% of the state/region's full-time median wage.

I didn't bother delving into the details but, in California, the single-earner median wage is $47,798 so that would be (47,798/12 = 3,983/4 = 995/40 = $24.88/2 =) $12.44 an hour less tax. In Mississippi, it would be a more modest $9.25/hr. Yes, he's saying that $15/hr is too sharp an immediate increase. No, he's not agreeing that we shouldn't increase minimum wage.

Wait, wait, wait. Is that really saying that minimum wage doesn't have to be $15 but should be adjusted by state? It's too bad nobody's brought this up before. Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#206 Oct 30 2015 at 9:21 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
It should actually be adjusted more finely than by state; COL gradient should be the determinant. New York isn't New York (city).
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#207 Oct 30 2015 at 10:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Dube may or may not address this point. Unlike some people, I can admit that I'm just talking in broad strokes based on an article and haven't read the source material.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#208 Oct 30 2015 at 1:12 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
You're missing the point, all liberals insist that all jobs must start at $15.
I would argue that there is a significant number of people who would support the minimum wage coinciding with inflation.
#209 Oct 30 2015 at 2:39 PM Rating: Good
Found an article on 538 discussing the changing demographics of the minimum wage, and how people are getting "stuck" on the lowest rung of the wage ladder.

Quote:
Kemp is representative of the changing minimum-wage workforce in another way as well: At 44 years old, he is one of a growing number of middle-aged minimum-wage workers. Nearly a quarter of the 3.2 million minimum-wage workers in 2014 were over 40; half were 25 or older, up from about 40 percent two decades earlier.7 The face of the minimum wage has changed significantly in recent decades. As a group, today’s minimum-wage workers are far more educated than in the 1980s or 1990s. They are also more likely to be men and more likely to have children. More than half of low-wage workers — significantly more than in past decades — are trying to support themselves, not living with their parents or supplementing a spouse’s income.
#210 Oct 30 2015 at 9:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
I guess that's a problem when one's entire ideology revolves around pretending nothing ever changes.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#211 Oct 31 2015 at 5:50 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
I guess that's a problem when one's entire ideology revolves around pretending nothing ever changes.
Hence why people use the 2nd amendment to justify the need for everyone to have every sort of firearm with no restriction. People conveniently forget the whole militia thing.
#212 Nov 01 2015 at 10:13 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Kuwoobie wrote:
I guess that's a problem when one's entire ideology revolves around pretending nothing ever changes.
Hence why people use the 2nd amendment to justify the need for everyone to have every sort of firearm with no restriction. People conveniently forget the whole militia thing.

Unless you're gathering up your buddies to storm a corrupt police department, the 2nd doesn't apply!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#213 Nov 01 2015 at 6:29 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
I like even more how people believe that them having firearms will somehow stop a government takeover.
#214 Nov 02 2015 at 8:28 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
I guess that's a problem when one's entire ideology revolves around pretending nothing ever changes.
It isn't that things never change, it's that change is bad.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#215 Nov 03 2015 at 7:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Debalic wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
As does the third link.

As does the fourth link

But hey. When we get to the 5th link, things go back to supporting the idea. So there's something.

Links #2 & #3 actually support a minimum wage hike, just not to $15/hr.

You're missing the point, all liberals insist that all jobs must start at $15. Smiley: rolleyes


Sigh.

gbaji wrote:
Recall that my response was to the idea that the minimum wage needed to be raised to be a "living wage". With living wage defined as being enough to support a household on.


You guys keep moving the goalposts. I'm responding specifically to the argument for an increase of minimum wage to a "living wage". Surely you can see how links saying "raising it too much is bad" is somewhat relevant to my position.

The point I've been making all along is that small increases to minimum wage will not accomplish the "need to make it enough to support a household on" goal, but actually increasing it enough to do that will have negative effects that far outweigh any benefits. Therefore, any argument that relies on what someone needs to earn to support a household is an automatic non-starter.

Argue that minimum wage should be increased so that today's teens and college students can earn an amount on par with previous generations if you must, but don't argue that it should be enough to support a household on. That's simply not what minimum wage is about. It's a floor for wages. It kinda has to start below that needed to fully support a household. And I (and a long list of economists) have explained many times, at length, exactly why this is so. You're free to wallow in foolish ignorance if you want, but then that's on you. I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat the same information before it'll sink in. You just can't do what you want to do by adjusting the minimum wage.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#216 Nov 03 2015 at 8:25 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep moving the goalposts.
*cough*
Screenshot
*cough*
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#217 Nov 03 2015 at 8:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
I guess that's a problem when one's entire ideology revolves around pretending nothing ever changes.


That's a simplistic interpretation of an ideology you disagree with. I'm not pretending that nothing ever changes, but it's important to understand *why* things change. Why are there fewer opportunities for advancement today? Isn't that the key point here? The solution can't just be "raise minimum wage". Instead of trying to make low productivity jobs pay more (which can never work), we should be focusing on increasing the number of people working in higher productivity jobs. Chasing after the bottom end of the economic ladder is silly and counter to any sane approach to the problem.

Your problem isn't that your job doesn't pay enough. Your problem is that your labor doesn't command enough in the current job market. We can debate why that is (and there's a host of potential reasons), but again, simply increasing the wage rate by fiat doesn't solve anything at all. You'll still be at the bottom of the pay scale once the adjustment dust settles and no better off. I'm just not sure why people actually think this could work. It's somewhat like thinking that you can increase your run time around a course by just shortening the course. Um... Sure. You'll run more laps in the same amount of time, but you haven't actually increased your speed at all. You're exchanging real improvement with bogus stats.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#218 Nov 03 2015 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep moving the goalposts.
*cough*
Screenshot
*cough*


In this thread? I've been very consistent about what I'm talking about. I made it very clear that I was talking about raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" level, even going so far as to ask for clarity about what was meant by "living wage" just to be sure there was no confusion of terminology. I have repeatedly stated that lesser increases to minimum wage are a different matter, but aren't relevant because they don't meet the requirements I was originally responding to. If your reason for increasing the minimum is to make it so that people earning that minimum wage can support themselves independently, then we need to look only at the effects of raising the minimum wage to that level.

My argument is in two parts:

1. Raising minimum wage less than that does not solve the problem at hand (people on minimum wage still can't support themselves).

2. Raising it to a sufficient level to solve the initial problem will create a number of other problems that will dwarf the one we're trying to solve.

Thus, trying to fix the problem of people unable to support themselves via their current employment via a minimum wage increase will not work. We should be looking at other solutions. For the record, I'm not saying that there are no people struggling to support themselves, nor that we should not pursue solutions to this problem. The only thing I'm saying in this thread is that raising the minimum wage will not solve this problem.

Is that clear enough? This isn't me being heartless towards those who are struggling. It's me saying that we should look at solutions that have a chance of actually helping those people rather than one that sounds good at first glance, but wont actually work. I'm more than willing to propose alternative solutions, but it would be a nice starting point for people to at least acknowledge that the minimum wage isn't the right way to go. It simply can't work. Ever. The word "minimum" should be your first hint why (and even just a passing understanding of macro economics).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#219 Nov 03 2015 at 8:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Oh. And on the subject of refusing to acknowledge that things change. How about the concept that while a guy without a high school education may have been able to get a job working in a factory that paid enough to support a family 50+ years ago, he isn't going to be able to do so today? Again, this ties into actually understanding *why* things have changed. Raising the minimum wage in a vain attempt to make that kind of low skill labor pay well in today's market is the epitome of failing to recognize change. Trying to force what worked back then to continue to work today is backwards thinking. We should be focusing on newer jobs that actually fit the market we live in today, not trying to make old jobs that are no longer competitive on a global market to continue to be viable.

I just found it funny that I was the one being accused of not recognizing change.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#220 Nov 03 2015 at 8:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep moving the goalposts. I'm responding specifically to the argument for an increase of minimum wage to a "living wage".

I'd say that advocating pinning minimum wage to 50% of the median full-time wage is a strong step in that directions so, again, several of your "example" links actually disagree with your assessment.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#221 Nov 04 2015 at 5:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
That's a simplistic interpretation of an ideology you disagree with.
Smiley: lol That's rich coming from you.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#222 Nov 04 2015 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Oh. And on the subject of refusing to acknowledge that things change. How about the concept that while a guy without a high school education may have been able to get a job working in a factory that paid enough to support a family 50+ years ago, he isn't going to be able to do so today? Again, this ties into actually understanding *why* things have changed. Raising the minimum wage in a vain attempt to make that kind of low skill labor pay well in today's market is the epitome of failing to recognize change. Trying to force what worked back then to continue to work today is backwards thinking. We should be focusing on newer jobs that actually fit the market we live in today, not trying to make old jobs that are no longer competitive on a global market to continue to be viable.

I just found it funny that I was the one being accused of not recognizing change.
Blindly raising the minimum wage "just because" is not smart. If raising the minimum wage along with inflation isn't sufficient, then you would have a point. However, if society simply chooses not to raise the minimum wage along with inflation "just because", it is equally not smart
#223 Nov 04 2015 at 7:27 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
As does the third link.

As does the fourth link

But hey. When we get to the 5th link, things go back to supporting the idea. So there's something.

Links #2 & #3 actually support a minimum wage hike, just not to $15/hr.

You're missing the point, all liberals insist that all jobs must start at $15. Smiley: rolleyes


Sigh.

gbaji wrote:
Recall that my response was to the idea that the minimum wage needed to be raised to be a "living wage". With living wage defined as being enough to support a household on.


You guys keep moving the goalposts. I'm responding specifically to the argument for an increase of minimum wage to a "living wage". Surely you can see how links saying "raising it too much is bad" is somewhat relevant to my position.

The point I've been making all along is that small increases to minimum wage will not accomplish the "need to make it enough to support a household on" goal, but actually increasing it enough to do that will have negative effects that far outweigh any benefits. Therefore, any argument that relies on what someone needs to earn to support a household is an automatic non-starter.

Argue that minimum wage should be increased so that today's teens and college students can earn an amount on par with previous generations if you must, but don't argue that it should be enough to support a household on. That's simply not what minimum wage is about. It's a floor for wages. It kinda has to start below that needed to fully support a household. And I (and a long list of economists) have explained many times, at length, exactly why this is so. You're free to wallow in foolish ignorance if you want, but then that's on you. I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat the same information before it'll sink in. You just can't do what you want to do by adjusting the minimum wage.

That's fine; $15/hr still isn't a "living wage" in some areas. So that would make a good minimum in those places.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#224 Nov 04 2015 at 9:01 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's a simplistic interpretation of an ideology you disagree with.
Smiley: lol That's rich coming from you.
What, you think shoving your fingers in your ears and screaming "LIBERAL BAD" like the most generic Frankenstein's Monster imaginable over and over again is easy?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#225 Nov 04 2015 at 8:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep moving the goalposts. I'm responding specifically to the argument for an increase of minimum wage to a "living wage".

I'd say that advocating pinning minimum wage to 50% of the median full-time wage is a strong step in that directions so, again, several of your "example" links actually disagree with your assessment.


Not as long as you're arguing for it as a "step in that direction" (assuming the direction of a "living wage"). I think it's perfectly valid to point out that if the goal is to raise it to be a living wage, that's not a goal we should be pursuing. Now, if there's some other tangible reason you think it should be raised to say $10/hour, or $12/hour or whatever (but not higher than that), then make that argument. Can you do that? Is it possible for you to argue something as an end point itself and not as a step in the direction of something more?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#226 Nov 04 2015 at 9:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Now, if there's some other tangible reason you think it should be raised to say $10/hour, or $12/hour or whatever (but not higher than that), then make that argument.

You're welcome to write an email to the economist in question and make demands of him, I suppose. Maybe he'll care more about what Gbaji thinks about a particular argument than I do.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 411 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (411)