|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
A very basic and possibly silly (In the sense I have zero economic knowledge) way would be to take each Gross State Product (GSP) times 25% (so each person gets a minimum of 25% of a state productivity at full time work), divide by its working population (civilian working force), divide by 52 weeks and 40hours.
GSP*25%/(CLF*52*40) = 12.24 for Iowa
The values would be at the 2 following sites Source GSP and here Source CLF.
This number will go down when a state if less productive, or when there is a bigger working pool by simple math. I could do it for every state it's just that the state names don't align so I'd have to do line up the states all by hand in excel and I'm lazy, but I could do it if anyone thinks what I said has merit (or to see if it has merit I might need to not just do a random state).
Discuss
Edit : Ok done for every state the numbers are as follows :
+ Show Spoiler +Alabama 10,40
Alaska 19,41
Arizona 11,27
Arkansas 10,29
California 14,08
Colorado 12,89
Connecticut 16,25
Delaware 19,48
District of Columbia 38,74
Florida 10,53
Georgia 11,53
Hawaii 13,47
Idaho 9,84
Illinois 13,32
Indiana 11,66
Iowa 12,24
Kansas 11,62
Kentucky 10,37
Louisiana 16,14
Maine 9,46
Maryland 12,64
Massachusetts 14,88
Michigan 11,05
Minnesota 12,53
Mississippi 9,55
Missouri 10,82
Montana 9,85
Nebraska 12,17
Nevada 12,62
New Hampshire 11,26
New Jersey 13,61
New Mexico 11,15
New York 15,77
North Carolina 12,20
North Dakota 14,96
Ohio 11,07
Oklahoma 11,35
Oregon 13,30
Pennsylvania 11,63
Rhode Island 11,55
South Carolina 10,15
South Dakota 12,01
Tennessee 11,33
Texas 14,10
Utah 12,14
Vermont 9,46
Virginia 12,84
Washington 13,64
West Virginia 11,50
Wisconsin 10,99
Wyoming 16,54
edit 2 : in order to make numbers more stable you could average for every quarter in the last 5 years or something.
edit 3 : This method still allows people to be very rich, but ignore the existance of companies and how it would work for there margins, bascically all productivity not payed in wages, minus expenses would be corporate/governement profit? Maybe
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 12 2013 10:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 10:15 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 10:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 09:51 Souma wrote:
You can talk about fairness/inaccuracy all you want, but there is nothing less fair and inaccurate than a number that we merely pull out of thin air and expect everyone to abide by. Then perhaps we shouldn't have one. Or have something that serves its purpose well. OK, but a good minimum wage is a subjective thing. I'm not sure how you calculate that in a way that makes everyone happy or makes everyone happier than the current system - a national low-ball number with the option for state and local governments to raise it.
No such thing as making 'everyone' happy. I assume if such a thing were to ever come to light, some states would be less pleased while other states would be more pleased. What I want to know is what is better/more fair/whathaveyou, but obviously this discussion is limited as we have no experts who would be able to present us with specific ways to calculate the minimum wage.
Though NPF gets credit for effort. :p
|
On March 12 2013 10:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 10:15 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 10:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 09:51 Souma wrote:
You can talk about fairness/inaccuracy all you want, but there is nothing less fair and inaccurate than a number that we merely pull out of thin air and expect everyone to abide by. Then perhaps we shouldn't have one. Or have something that serves its purpose well. OK, but a good minimum wage is a subjective thing. I'm not sure how you calculate that in a way that makes everyone happy or makes everyone happier than the current system - a national low-ball number with the option for state and local governments to raise it.
Why does "everyone" need to be made happier? Do you consider the "happiness" of the poor and the rich equitable enough to justify such an approach, or do the relative plights of each socioeconomic group matter little in your eyes when it come to public policy?
|
On March 12 2013 10:38 NPF wrote:A very basic and possibly silly (In the sense I have zero economic knowledge) way would be to take each Gross State Product (GSP) times 25% (so each person gets 25% of a state productivity), divide by its working population (civilian working force), divide by 52 weeks and 40hours. GSP*25%/(CLF*52*40) = 12.24 for Iowa The values would be at the 2 following sites Source GSP and here Source CLF. This number will go down when a state if less productive, or when there is a bigger working pool by simple math. I could do it for every state it's just that the state names don't align so I'd have to do line up the states all by hand in excel and I'm lazy, but I could do it if anyone thinks what I said has merit (or to see if it has merit I might need to not just do a random state). Discuss
Only thing is, the minimum wage can't change too frequently/too short of a time span, otherwise it'll mess with the people in the state who are basing their finances on their paycheck - especially when prices of items may not fluctuate in sync.
|
On March 12 2013 10:41 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 10:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 10:15 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 10:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 09:51 Souma wrote:
You can talk about fairness/inaccuracy all you want, but there is nothing less fair and inaccurate than a number that we merely pull out of thin air and expect everyone to abide by. Then perhaps we shouldn't have one. Or have something that serves its purpose well. OK, but a good minimum wage is a subjective thing. I'm not sure how you calculate that in a way that makes everyone happy or makes everyone happier than the current system - a national low-ball number with the option for state and local governments to raise it. No such thing as making 'everyone' happy. I assume if such a thing were to ever come to light, some states would be less pleased while other states would be more pleased. What I want to know is what is better/more fair/whathaveyou, but obviously this discussion is limited as we have no experts who would be able to present us with specific ways to calculate the minimum wage. Though NPF gets credit for effort. :p
The issue is that tradeoffs exist. No expert can calculate an appropriate minimum wage without you (or society at large) telling the expert what your preferences are. Some societies will favor some preferences over others. A national formula will mean that some states, as a whole, are unhappy with preferences embedded in the national formula.
|
On March 12 2013 10:45 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 10:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 10:15 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 10:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 09:51 Souma wrote:
You can talk about fairness/inaccuracy all you want, but there is nothing less fair and inaccurate than a number that we merely pull out of thin air and expect everyone to abide by. Then perhaps we shouldn't have one. Or have something that serves its purpose well. OK, but a good minimum wage is a subjective thing. I'm not sure how you calculate that in a way that makes everyone happy or makes everyone happier than the current system - a national low-ball number with the option for state and local governments to raise it. Why does "everyone" need to be made happier? Do you consider the "happiness" of the poor and the rich equitable enough to justify such an approach, or do the relative plights of each socioeconomic group matter little in your eyes when it come to public policy?
Minimum wages can both hurt and help the poor.
|
Oh absolutely, I don't think there is an immediately clear answer, I just think the poor deserve at least a smidgen more weight in consideration when it comes to something like establishing baseline acceptable labor conditions and compensation.
|
On March 12 2013 11:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 10:45 farvacola wrote:On March 12 2013 10:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 10:15 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 10:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 09:51 Souma wrote:
You can talk about fairness/inaccuracy all you want, but there is nothing less fair and inaccurate than a number that we merely pull out of thin air and expect everyone to abide by. Then perhaps we shouldn't have one. Or have something that serves its purpose well. OK, but a good minimum wage is a subjective thing. I'm not sure how you calculate that in a way that makes everyone happy or makes everyone happier than the current system - a national low-ball number with the option for state and local governments to raise it. Why does "everyone" need to be made happier? Do you consider the "happiness" of the poor and the rich equitable enough to justify such an approach, or do the relative plights of each socioeconomic group matter little in your eyes when it come to public policy? Minimum wages can both hurt and help the poor.
Yes since when you raise minimum wage some companies to remain solvent need to lay off people and make the remaining people be as productive as the previous work force.
Exemple: minimum wage goes from 7$/h to 8$/h. You had 8 people on your production line, you now need to lay someone off since you were only doing a margin of 15$ an hour for yourself the boss. If you would pay the added wage you go down to 7$ an hour.
So in order to make the same amount of money you must fire people, bigger unemployement pool you can "push" wages down or accept lower offers since you might need to work.
I talk in extreme simple exemple in economics; since that is the sum of my knowledge.
|
On March 12 2013 11:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 10:41 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 10:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 10:15 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 10:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 09:51 Souma wrote:
You can talk about fairness/inaccuracy all you want, but there is nothing less fair and inaccurate than a number that we merely pull out of thin air and expect everyone to abide by. Then perhaps we shouldn't have one. Or have something that serves its purpose well. OK, but a good minimum wage is a subjective thing. I'm not sure how you calculate that in a way that makes everyone happy or makes everyone happier than the current system - a national low-ball number with the option for state and local governments to raise it. No such thing as making 'everyone' happy. I assume if such a thing were to ever come to light, some states would be less pleased while other states would be more pleased. What I want to know is what is better/more fair/whathaveyou, but obviously this discussion is limited as we have no experts who would be able to present us with specific ways to calculate the minimum wage. Though NPF gets credit for effort. :p The issue is that tradeoffs exist. No expert can calculate an appropriate minimum wage without you (or society at large) telling the expert what your preferences are. Some societies will favor some preferences over others. A national formula will mean that some states, as a whole, are unhappy with preferences embedded in the national formula.
Not only that, but minimum wage would suddenly be a target for a large portion of the population to rally against. Look at something like food stamps, which are an extraordinary success by a lot of measures and relatively abuse free. However, food stamps are complex and means tested, which obfuscates their benefit and costs. There are people that literally believe that food stamp recipients are eating like kings.
Point being, the simplicity of the system helps garner support for it, while cutting down on the potential of abuse and fraud.
|
United States24751 Posts
On March 12 2013 10:33 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 10:23 micronesia wrote:On March 12 2013 09:27 Souma wrote:
Let's use some logic here, people. Do you think starting a post like this makes it more convincing? In either case, it's the federal government using whatever numbers they use to calculate the minimum wage. Clearly you don't understand how minimum wage is determined well enough to be justified in making claims in public discussions about how it would be better for the federal government to differentiate minimum wage by state. I am in the same boat as you. The difference is, I am simply playing the devil's advocate rather than trying to push my randomly generated opinion on to other readers. Your idea sounds like it may have merit, but I'm not convinced it's better to have the federal government tell each state what their minimum wage should be rather than letting the states do it (regardless of if there is a baseline federal minimum or not). I'm not quick to assume the federal government knows what's better for a state than the state leadership is (not that this isn't debatable). If there is a very good way of calculating an appropriate minimum wage for each state, then maybe it's worth some of the drawbacks. I have yet to see any evidence of this; just 'trust me' type comments (and 'use logic' apparently). Uhm, are you perfectly fine with keeping the status quo? Or would you rather abolish the federal minimum wage and just let states decide? I suppose I should have asked you that first. I'm unsure which is better.
And no, it's not that I'm asking you to "trust me," I'm asking you to trust the experts who know better than me. You are asking me to trust that your proposal, when implemented by experts, will be better than what we have now. Maybe it would be, but you're still just asking me to trust you. Not every idea is good just because it would be theoretically implemented by experts.
What I'm laying out is just a general idea with no specifics. Which is fine with me as long as you don't make it sound like your proposal is definitely better for the country.
I mean, are you really going to tell me that there's no one in this country who would be able to figure out a decent way to determine the minimum wage? I call bullshit. I didn't say it can't be done, just that I'm not sure it can. The only way to appease me would be to give a reasonable demonstration that it can be done. If you can't, that doesn't even mean you are wrong... just that you haven't really compelled us readers.
If the states can do it, of course the federal government can do it, Well it depends how you define "it." How do states figure this stuff out? Is it actually good the way they are doing it now? Maybe some states just pick a random number between 8 and 11 out of a hat? If so it would be even worse if the federal government was doing it.
Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 09:18 micronesia wrote:On March 12 2013 08:52 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 08:24 micronesia wrote:On March 12 2013 07:56 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 07:52 micronesia wrote:On March 12 2013 07:50 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 06:56 DeltaX wrote:
[quote]
We already have this. The federal minimum wage is the minimum minimum wage. States can (and do) set their own that that can be higher, but you can't go lower than the federal min wage.
Federal minimum wage is 7.25
Cali min wage is 8.00
Missouri min wage is 7.35 On March 12 2013 06:51 aksfjh wrote:
[quote]
Then you'd have states like Texas or Florida cooking the numbers to force a minimum wage as low as possible. Just determine an absolute minimum and force it nationwide, and states can raise it beyond that if they want. Nah, those numbers could just be calculated by some entity that is not the state. Problem solved. What numbers would be used? The state could try to manipulate whatever creates the data the external entity uses. Also, it's not so easy to adjust for the different standard of living from state to state in a fair way that is viable for a federal minimum wage. Census? Or have the entity run their own numbers? So many ways that this can be done. I don't accept the mentality that it can't be done. You still haven't said what numbers should be used to calculate the minimum wage. It's easy to say these numbers exist. You may have to elaborate on the second point. Whether it's easy or not is not really an argument though; it's more whether it's viable/plausible/can and will be done. Whether or not it's easy and whether or not it's viable are linked. This is really connected to the other part though: how exactly do you propose we calculate a minimum wage state by state? What metrics should be used exactly? Uhm, the minimum wage of some states are already being calculated. Surely your question must be rhetorical, because it obviously is possible. I'm not an economist or whathaveyou, so I wouldn't know what numbers to run. But don't mistake me for an expert that can easily be employed and can give you the answer you seek. You originally said "Wouldn't it be better to not have a single wage across the country (say, $10.00/hr), but instead make states base their minimum wage on some formula (taking inflation into consideration of course) so that wages are more in line with the living costs of their particular state?" My issue isn't that it is impossible to come up with a way to implement what you are proposing; my issue is that it might be the case that any attempt to implement it will be horribly unfair and inaccurate. If you think this is wrong then that's fine, but you should provide some evidence if you want us to believe what you said about what would be better for the country. Any such attempts to change the federal minimum wage (especially in a manner as I proposed) will need the consent of both chambers of Congress and the President. I highly doubt it will be any more unfair and inaccurate than the current method. Allowing a third-party entity, whether bipartisan or nonpartisan, to determine what needs to be done would also give it a bit more clout on the fairness scale. So you are saying your plan is better than status quot because, if it gets approved by the relevant federal parties, obviously it was good? You are big on saying how things are 'not an argument' but you made a strange one here. If my proposal to declare Monday national starcraft day gets through the house and the senate, it obviously was a good idea. Man, wouldn't it be better if Monday was national starcraft day? If you question this, you are probably wrong. Use some logic. Let's not stray too far from what is actually possible, yeah? You bringing up 'National Starcraft Day' only takes away from the realities of the debate.
In any case, I said it above. The proposal I laid out would be loads more fair and accurate than what we currently have assuming both parties don't come together and try to royally screw us (though saying this when the sequester just passed is a little laughable).
I do not agree that it would be loads more fair and accurate necessarily. If so, then we should do it. I just haven't seen any evidence that you are right.
|
On March 12 2013 11:11 farvacola wrote:
Oh absolutely, I don't think there is an immediately clear answer, I just think the poor deserve at least a smidgen more weight in consideration when it comes to something like establishing baseline acceptable labor conditions and compensation.
Minimum wage affects more than just the poor and the minimum wage isn't the only thing out there to ensure that the poor have a decent standard of living.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 12 2013 11:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 10:41 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 10:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 10:15 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 10:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 09:51 Souma wrote:
You can talk about fairness/inaccuracy all you want, but there is nothing less fair and inaccurate than a number that we merely pull out of thin air and expect everyone to abide by. Then perhaps we shouldn't have one. Or have something that serves its purpose well. OK, but a good minimum wage is a subjective thing. I'm not sure how you calculate that in a way that makes everyone happy or makes everyone happier than the current system - a national low-ball number with the option for state and local governments to raise it. No such thing as making 'everyone' happy. I assume if such a thing were to ever come to light, some states would be less pleased while other states would be more pleased. What I want to know is what is better/more fair/whathaveyou, but obviously this discussion is limited as we have no experts who would be able to present us with specific ways to calculate the minimum wage. Though NPF gets credit for effort. :p The issue is that tradeoffs exist. No expert can calculate an appropriate minimum wage without you (or society at large) telling the expert what your preferences are. Some societies will favor some preferences over others. A national formula will mean that some states, as a whole, are unhappy with preferences embedded in the national formula.
I don't see how this is an issue. Like I said, some states will be more pleased while other states will be less pleased (this is like every other contentious issue in the country). What I'm concerned with is what is actually the best method to employ when deciding on the minimum wage, not what makes everyone happy. And we can never discard the possibility that if there are some factors that are preferred over others, yet both are legitimate ways to calculate the minimum wage, then states could choose either or.
On March 12 2013 11:23 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 10:33 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 10:23 micronesia wrote:On March 12 2013 09:27 Souma wrote:
Let's use some logic here, people. Do you think starting a post like this makes it more convincing? In either case, it's the federal government using whatever numbers they use to calculate the minimum wage. Clearly you don't understand how minimum wage is determined well enough to be justified in making claims in public discussions about how it would be better for the federal government to differentiate minimum wage by state. I am in the same boat as you. The difference is, I am simply playing the devil's advocate rather than trying to push my randomly generated opinion on to other readers. Your idea sounds like it may have merit, but I'm not convinced it's better to have the federal government tell each state what their minimum wage should be rather than letting the states do it (regardless of if there is a baseline federal minimum or not). I'm not quick to assume the federal government knows what's better for a state than the state leadership is (not that this isn't debatable). If there is a very good way of calculating an appropriate minimum wage for each state, then maybe it's worth some of the drawbacks. I have yet to see any evidence of this; just 'trust me' type comments (and 'use logic' apparently). Uhm, are you perfectly fine with keeping the status quo? Or would you rather abolish the federal minimum wage and just let states decide? I suppose I should have asked you that first. I'm unsure which is better. Show nested quote +And no, it's not that I'm asking you to "trust me," I'm asking you to trust the experts who know better than me. You are asking me to trust that your proposal, when implemented by experts, will be better than what we have now. Maybe it would be, but you're still just asking me to trust you. Not every idea is good just because it would be theoretically implemented by experts. Which is fine with me as long as you don't make it sound like your proposal is definitely better for the country. Show nested quote +I mean, are you really going to tell me that there's no one in this country who would be able to figure out a decent way to determine the minimum wage? I call bullshit. I didn't say it can't be done, just that I'm not sure it can. The only way to appease me would be to give a reasonable demonstration that it can be done. If you can't, that doesn't even mean you are wrong... just that you haven't really compelled us readers. Well it depends how you define "it." How do states figure this stuff out? Is it actually good the way they are doing it now? Maybe some states just pick a random number between 8 and 11 out of a hat? If so it would be even worse if the federal government was doing it. Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 09:18 micronesia wrote:On March 12 2013 08:52 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 08:24 micronesia wrote:On March 12 2013 07:56 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 07:52 micronesia wrote:On March 12 2013 07:50 Souma wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
Nah, those numbers could just be calculated by some entity that is not the state. Problem solved. What numbers would be used? The state could try to manipulate whatever creates the data the external entity uses. Also, it's not so easy to adjust for the different standard of living from state to state in a fair way that is viable for a federal minimum wage. Census? Or have the entity run their own numbers? So many ways that this can be done. I don't accept the mentality that it can't be done. You still haven't said what numbers should be used to calculate the minimum wage. It's easy to say these numbers exist. You may have to elaborate on the second point. Whether it's easy or not is not really an argument though; it's more whether it's viable/plausible/can and will be done. Whether or not it's easy and whether or not it's viable are linked. This is really connected to the other part though: how exactly do you propose we calculate a minimum wage state by state? What metrics should be used exactly? Uhm, the minimum wage of some states are already being calculated. Surely your question must be rhetorical, because it obviously is possible. I'm not an economist or whathaveyou, so I wouldn't know what numbers to run. But don't mistake me for an expert that can easily be employed and can give you the answer you seek. You originally said "Wouldn't it be better to not have a single wage across the country (say, $10.00/hr), but instead make states base their minimum wage on some formula (taking inflation into consideration of course) so that wages are more in line with the living costs of their particular state?" My issue isn't that it is impossible to come up with a way to implement what you are proposing; my issue is that it might be the case that any attempt to implement it will be horribly unfair and inaccurate. If you think this is wrong then that's fine, but you should provide some evidence if you want us to believe what you said about what would be better for the country. Any such attempts to change the federal minimum wage (especially in a manner as I proposed) will need the consent of both chambers of Congress and the President. I highly doubt it will be any more unfair and inaccurate than the current method. Allowing a third-party entity, whether bipartisan or nonpartisan, to determine what needs to be done would also give it a bit more clout on the fairness scale. So you are saying your plan is better than status quot because, if it gets approved by the relevant federal parties, obviously it was good? You are big on saying how things are 'not an argument' but you made a strange one here. If my proposal to declare Monday national starcraft day gets through the house and the senate, it obviously was a good idea. Man, wouldn't it be better if Monday was national starcraft day? If you question this, you are probably wrong. Use some logic. Let's not stray too far from what is actually possible, yeah? You bringing up 'National Starcraft Day' only takes away from the realities of the debate. Using extreme examples to illustrate a point is a good way to demonstrate what is wrong with a statement (this can be argued against using logic of course). Dismissing it because it is unrealistic is missing the point. Show nested quote +In any case, I said it above. The proposal I laid out would be loads more fair and accurate than what we currently have assuming both parties don't come together and try to royally screw us (though saying this when the sequester just passed is a little laughable).
I do not agree that it would be loads more fair and accurate necessarily. If so, then we should do it. I just haven't seen any evidence that you are right.
Seems the problem you are addressing is what I've mentioned before: no specifics so we can't really debate the merits to its fullest extent. However, although I have no evidence to support me, I'd wager that actually calculating what the minimum wage should be, as opposed to randomly picking a number, would be more fair and accurate.
|
On March 12 2013 11:26 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 11:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 10:41 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 10:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 10:15 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 10:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 09:51 Souma wrote:
You can talk about fairness/inaccuracy all you want, but there is nothing less fair and inaccurate than a number that we merely pull out of thin air and expect everyone to abide by. Then perhaps we shouldn't have one. Or have something that serves its purpose well. OK, but a good minimum wage is a subjective thing. I'm not sure how you calculate that in a way that makes everyone happy or makes everyone happier than the current system - a national low-ball number with the option for state and local governments to raise it. No such thing as making 'everyone' happy. I assume if such a thing were to ever come to light, some states would be less pleased while other states would be more pleased. What I want to know is what is better/more fair/whathaveyou, but obviously this discussion is limited as we have no experts who would be able to present us with specific ways to calculate the minimum wage. Though NPF gets credit for effort. :p The issue is that tradeoffs exist. No expert can calculate an appropriate minimum wage without you (or society at large) telling the expert what your preferences are. Some societies will favor some preferences over others. A national formula will mean that some states, as a whole, are unhappy with preferences embedded in the national formula. I don't see how this is an issue. Like I said, some states will be more pleased while other states will be less pleased (this is like every other contentious issue in the country). What I'm concerned with is what is actually the best method to employ when deciding on the minimum wage, not what makes everyone happy. And we can never discard the possibility that if there are some factors that are preferred over others, yet both are legitimate ways to calculate the minimum wage, then states could choose either or.
Isn't the best method the one that makes everyone happy? What other goal is there?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 12 2013 11:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 11:26 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 11:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 10:41 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 10:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 10:15 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 10:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 09:51 Souma wrote:
You can talk about fairness/inaccuracy all you want, but there is nothing less fair and inaccurate than a number that we merely pull out of thin air and expect everyone to abide by. Then perhaps we shouldn't have one. Or have something that serves its purpose well. OK, but a good minimum wage is a subjective thing. I'm not sure how you calculate that in a way that makes everyone happy or makes everyone happier than the current system - a national low-ball number with the option for state and local governments to raise it. No such thing as making 'everyone' happy. I assume if such a thing were to ever come to light, some states would be less pleased while other states would be more pleased. What I want to know is what is better/more fair/whathaveyou, but obviously this discussion is limited as we have no experts who would be able to present us with specific ways to calculate the minimum wage. Though NPF gets credit for effort. :p The issue is that tradeoffs exist. No expert can calculate an appropriate minimum wage without you (or society at large) telling the expert what your preferences are. Some societies will favor some preferences over others. A national formula will mean that some states, as a whole, are unhappy with preferences embedded in the national formula. I don't see how this is an issue. Like I said, some states will be more pleased while other states will be less pleased (this is like every other contentious issue in the country). What I'm concerned with is what is actually the best method to employ when deciding on the minimum wage, not what makes everyone happy. And we can never discard the possibility that if there are some factors that are preferred over others, yet both are legitimate ways to calculate the minimum wage, then states could choose either or. Isn't the best method the one that makes everyone happy? What other goal is there?
When you say something like 'makes everyone happy' it is relegated to subjectiveness and allows people to ignore actual data. Gotta be more specific.  Americans are one of the most patriotic people in the world - doesn't mean we have more to pride ourselves in than every other country.
|
On March 12 2013 11:23 micronesia wrote:
Well it depends how you define "it." How do states figure this stuff out? Is it actually good the way they are doing it now? Maybe some states just pick a random number between 8 and 11 out of a hat? If so it would be even worse if the federal government was doing it.
I agree with a lot what you said except for this. Some states are indeed incredibly awful at coming up with productive, meaningful labor laws that aim to reduce poverty and improve quality of life for the lower classes. Take a look at this list.
America’s Poorest States
I don't think I have to tell you what the legislatures of those states look like, and with that in mind, a one to one comparison with the current federal government really doesn't make sense, even if we are talking purely in terms of ideological approach.
I don't know if it should take the form of a minimum wage, but I think there is ample evidence out there that points to gross negligence on the part of many state governments when it comes to fighting poverty, funding education, and maintaining effective labor laws. If the feds aren't the ones to step in, who will? It's not like this is a new phenomena.
|
On March 12 2013 11:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 11:11 farvacola wrote:
Oh absolutely, I don't think there is an immediately clear answer, I just think the poor deserve at least a smidgen more weight in consideration when it comes to something like establishing baseline acceptable labor conditions and compensation. Minimum wage affects more than just the poor and the minimum wage isn't the only thing out there to ensure that the poor have a decent standard of living.
I'm well aware of this. Please see my above post.
|
United States24751 Posts
On March 12 2013 11:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 11:23 micronesia wrote:
Well it depends how you define "it." How do states figure this stuff out? Is it actually good the way they are doing it now? Maybe some states just pick a random number between 8 and 11 out of a hat? If so it would be even worse if the federal government was doing it. I agree with a lot what you said except for this. Some states are indeed incredibly awful at coming up with productive, meaningful labor laws that aim to reduce poverty and improve quality of life for the lower classes. Take a look at this list. America’s Poorest StatesI don't think I have to tell you what the legislatures of those states look like, and with that in mind, a one to one comparison with the current federal government really doesn't make sense, even if we are talking purely in terms of ideological approach. I don't know if it should take the form of a minimum wage, but I think there is ample evidence out there that points to gross negligence on the part of many state governments when it comes to fighting poverty, funding education, and maintaining effective labor laws. If the feds aren't the ones to step in, who will? It's not like this is a new phenomena.
To be clear, I was saying it would be worse if the federal government was as incompetent as the states are. I'm not saying a preferable federal plan is a worse idea.
|
Well then, I can agree with that.
|
On March 12 2013 11:49 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 11:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 11:26 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 11:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 10:41 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 10:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 10:15 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 10:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 09:51 Souma wrote:
You can talk about fairness/inaccuracy all you want, but there is nothing less fair and inaccurate than a number that we merely pull out of thin air and expect everyone to abide by. Then perhaps we shouldn't have one. Or have something that serves its purpose well. OK, but a good minimum wage is a subjective thing. I'm not sure how you calculate that in a way that makes everyone happy or makes everyone happier than the current system - a national low-ball number with the option for state and local governments to raise it. No such thing as making 'everyone' happy. I assume if such a thing were to ever come to light, some states would be less pleased while other states would be more pleased. What I want to know is what is better/more fair/whathaveyou, but obviously this discussion is limited as we have no experts who would be able to present us with specific ways to calculate the minimum wage. Though NPF gets credit for effort. :p The issue is that tradeoffs exist. No expert can calculate an appropriate minimum wage without you (or society at large) telling the expert what your preferences are. Some societies will favor some preferences over others. A national formula will mean that some states, as a whole, are unhappy with preferences embedded in the national formula. I don't see how this is an issue. Like I said, some states will be more pleased while other states will be less pleased (this is like every other contentious issue in the country). What I'm concerned with is what is actually the best method to employ when deciding on the minimum wage, not what makes everyone happy. And we can never discard the possibility that if there are some factors that are preferred over others, yet both are legitimate ways to calculate the minimum wage, then states could choose either or. Isn't the best method the one that makes everyone happy? What other goal is there? When you say something like 'makes everyone happy' it is relegated to subjectiveness and allows people to ignore actual data. Gotta be more specific. Americans are one of the most patriotic people in the world - doesn't mean we have more to pride ourselves in than every other country.
What 'actual data' are you looking at? You aren't being specific either. When you say we need a 'better' system for calculating the minimum wage you are being just as subjective - what is better to one may be worse to another.
On March 12 2013 11:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 11:23 micronesia wrote:
Well it depends how you define "it." How do states figure this stuff out? Is it actually good the way they are doing it now? Maybe some states just pick a random number between 8 and 11 out of a hat? If so it would be even worse if the federal government was doing it. I agree with a lot what you said except for this. Some states are indeed incredibly awful at coming up with productive, meaningful labor laws that aim to reduce poverty and improve quality of life for the lower classes. Take a look at this list. America’s Poorest StatesI don't think I have to tell you what the legislatures of those states look like, and with that in mind, a one to one comparison with the current federal government really doesn't make sense, even if we are talking purely in terms of ideological approach. I don't know if it should take the form of a minimum wage, but I think there is ample evidence out there that points to gross negligence on the part of many state governments when it comes to fighting poverty, funding education, and maintaining effective labor laws. If the feds aren't the ones to step in, who will? It's not like this is a new phenomena.
Some states are poorer than others. That's natural - every state didn't start out in the same spot and every state hasn't faced the same economic conditions throughout their development.
|
On March 12 2013 12:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 11:49 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 11:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 11:26 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 11:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 10:41 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 10:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 10:15 Souma wrote:On March 12 2013 10:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 09:51 Souma wrote:
You can talk about fairness/inaccuracy all you want, but there is nothing less fair and inaccurate than a number that we merely pull out of thin air and expect everyone to abide by. Then perhaps we shouldn't have one. Or have something that serves its purpose well. OK, but a good minimum wage is a subjective thing. I'm not sure how you calculate that in a way that makes everyone happy or makes everyone happier than the current system - a national low-ball number with the option for state and local governments to raise it. No such thing as making 'everyone' happy. I assume if such a thing were to ever come to light, some states would be less pleased while other states would be more pleased. What I want to know is what is better/more fair/whathaveyou, but obviously this discussion is limited as we have no experts who would be able to present us with specific ways to calculate the minimum wage. Though NPF gets credit for effort. :p The issue is that tradeoffs exist. No expert can calculate an appropriate minimum wage without you (or society at large) telling the expert what your preferences are. Some societies will favor some preferences over others. A national formula will mean that some states, as a whole, are unhappy with preferences embedded in the national formula. I don't see how this is an issue. Like I said, some states will be more pleased while other states will be less pleased (this is like every other contentious issue in the country). What I'm concerned with is what is actually the best method to employ when deciding on the minimum wage, not what makes everyone happy. And we can never discard the possibility that if there are some factors that are preferred over others, yet both are legitimate ways to calculate the minimum wage, then states could choose either or. Isn't the best method the one that makes everyone happy? What other goal is there? When you say something like 'makes everyone happy' it is relegated to subjectiveness and allows people to ignore actual data. Gotta be more specific. Americans are one of the most patriotic people in the world - doesn't mean we have more to pride ourselves in than every other country. What 'actual data' are you looking at? You aren't being specific either. When you say we need a 'better' system for calculating the minimum wage you are being just as subjective - what is better to one may be worse to another. Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 11:51 farvacola wrote:On March 12 2013 11:23 micronesia wrote:
Well it depends how you define "it." How do states figure this stuff out? Is it actually good the way they are doing it now? Maybe some states just pick a random number between 8 and 11 out of a hat? If so it would be even worse if the federal government was doing it. I agree with a lot what you said except for this. Some states are indeed incredibly awful at coming up with productive, meaningful labor laws that aim to reduce poverty and improve quality of life for the lower classes. Take a look at this list. America’s Poorest StatesI don't think I have to tell you what the legislatures of those states look like, and with that in mind, a one to one comparison with the current federal government really doesn't make sense, even if we are talking purely in terms of ideological approach. I don't know if it should take the form of a minimum wage, but I think there is ample evidence out there that points to gross negligence on the part of many state governments when it comes to fighting poverty, funding education, and maintaining effective labor laws. If the feds aren't the ones to step in, who will? It's not like this is a new phenomena. Some states are poorer than others. That's natural - every state didn't start out in the same spot and every state hasn't faced the same economic conditions throughout their development.
Would you care to look at the legislative histories of that top ten list, or even simply the deep south? It isn't exactly difficult to come upon information that states like Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, or, dare I say it, Louisiana, have long, very colorful pasts of flat out terrible treatment of minorities, the poor, equal and proper education, and labor law (guess how many of those are right to work states? Here's a hint: All of them). One does not need to assert that every state has started out on equal footing to call a spade a spade; some states are terrible at running themselves, and they have histories to back that up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
