|
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. |
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
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.
Of course I'm not being specific. I don't have specifics. I'm just saying we should use data to base our stuff off of, instead of pulling numbers out of our butts or striving towards impossible ideals such as 'make everyone happy.'
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 12 2013 11:53 micronesia wrote: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. 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, atm the government's plan seems to be exactly what you said before: picking a number that sounds good and running with it. This is why I started this discussion in the first place.
To me, this is not a matter of state's rights vs. federal government, as I don't trust all states to come up with their own minimum wage in full faith. It's a matter of the current method being terrible and proposing something different.
|
On March 12 2013 12:19 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 12:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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.
You're going to need to be a lot more nuanced. Most southern states have some awful pasts and yet quite a few of them are now doing extremely well. Some right to work states are doing very well too.
|
To the Foreign Policy front:
Iranian and Pakistani leaders have inaugurated the construction of a much-delayed section of a $7.5bn gas pipeline linking the two neighbours, defying the threat of US sanctions.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched the project with his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari at a ceremony on the border on Monday, hailing the agreement as a blow to US-led sanctions targeting his country's oil and gas sector.
The two leaders unveiled a plaque before shaking hands and offering prayers for the successful conclusion of the project, which involves the laying of a 780km section of the pipeline on the Pakistani side, expected to cost some $1.5bn.
The pipeline is intended to help Islamabad overcome its increasing energy needs at a time when the country is facing increased blackouts and energy shortages.
There are serious doubts, however, about how Pakistan can finance the project and whether it can go through with the project without facing US sanctions, which Washington has put in place to pressure Iran over its nuclear programme.
Al Jazeera's Kamal Hyder, reporting from Islamabad, said the agreement with Iran could "entail a heavy price" on Pakistan.
"Pakistan is also very dependent on the United States when it comes to conventional weapons," Hyder said.
But Pakistan also faces an energy crisis and its needs gas that Iran can supply, he added.
Monday's event comes just days before the government's term is set to expire and could be designed to win votes by making the ruling Pakistan People's Party (PPP) look like it is addressing the energy crisis.
Source
|
On March 12 2013 12:31 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 12:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Of course I'm not being specific. I don't have specifics. I'm just saying we should use data to base our stuff off of, instead of pulling numbers out of our butts or striving towards impossible ideals such as 'make everyone happy.'
I agree with your sentiment - it would be nice if an expert could come in and set an optimal minimum price for labor in the US economy. But I doubt that such a calculation is possible and if it was I'd need to be convinced that it would be worth the effort.
Edit: After thinking about it we may be better off with a managed min wage rather than a fixed or formulaic min wage. Kinda like how we manage interest rates with the Fed. Though that would require a powerful agency (like the Fed) to both raise and lower the min wage as the situation requires.
Edit 2: Powerful enough to remain as independent as possible. Not easy, but theoretically possible.
|
On March 12 2013 12:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 12:19 farvacola wrote:On March 12 2013 12:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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. You're going to need to be a lot more nuanced. Most southern states have some awful pasts and yet quite a few of them are now doing extremely well. Some right to work states are doing very well too.
I've given you hard information in regards to which states are definitively "poorer", and I've yet to see any evidentiary vindication on your part for any of the states I've mentioned. And yes, I know many of the southern states have awful pasts; these pasts include state government negligence. If you are now asserting that these states are doing "extremely well", perhaps some nuance is in order?
As an aside, I don't necessarily think right to work laws are always bad. I do think that they have performed very poorly in the majority of states in which they have been implemented.
|
On March 12 2013 12:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:To the Foreign Policy front: Show nested quote +Iranian and Pakistani leaders have inaugurated the construction of a much-delayed section of a $7.5bn gas pipeline linking the two neighbours, defying the threat of US sanctions.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched the project with his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari at a ceremony on the border on Monday, hailing the agreement as a blow to US-led sanctions targeting his country's oil and gas sector.
The two leaders unveiled a plaque before shaking hands and offering prayers for the successful conclusion of the project, which involves the laying of a 780km section of the pipeline on the Pakistani side, expected to cost some $1.5bn.
The pipeline is intended to help Islamabad overcome its increasing energy needs at a time when the country is facing increased blackouts and energy shortages.
There are serious doubts, however, about how Pakistan can finance the project and whether it can go through with the project without facing US sanctions, which Washington has put in place to pressure Iran over its nuclear programme.
Al Jazeera's Kamal Hyder, reporting from Islamabad, said the agreement with Iran could "entail a heavy price" on Pakistan.
"Pakistan is also very dependent on the United States when it comes to conventional weapons," Hyder said.
But Pakistan also faces an energy crisis and its needs gas that Iran can supply, he added.
Monday's event comes just days before the government's term is set to expire and could be designed to win votes by making the ruling Pakistan People's Party (PPP) look like it is addressing the energy crisis. Source
Pakistan strikes me as a far more worrying international concern than, say, North Korea. There are strong, popular anti-US sentiments that reach all the way into the Pakistani government, and they have nukes that actually work. Hard to say what the future will hold.
|
On March 12 2013 12:52 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 12:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 12:19 farvacola wrote:On March 12 2013 12:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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. You're going to need to be a lot more nuanced. Most southern states have some awful pasts and yet quite a few of them are now doing extremely well. Some right to work states are doing very well too. I've given you hard information in regards to which states are definitively "poorer", and I've yet to see any evidentiary vindication on your part for any of the states I've mentioned. And yes, I know many of the southern states have awful pasts; these pasts include state government negligence. If you are now asserting that these states are doing "extremely well", perhaps some nuance is in order? As an aside, I don't necessarily think right to work laws are always bad. I do think that they have performed very poorly in the majority of states in which they have been implemented.
http://247wallst.com/2011/06/08/america’s-fastest-and-slowest-growing-state-economies/
Fastest and slowest growing state economies. Some overlap with the poorest states.
|
On March 12 2013 13:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 12:52 farvacola wrote:On March 12 2013 12:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 12:19 farvacola wrote:On March 12 2013 12:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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. You're going to need to be a lot more nuanced. Most southern states have some awful pasts and yet quite a few of them are now doing extremely well. Some right to work states are doing very well too. I've given you hard information in regards to which states are definitively "poorer", and I've yet to see any evidentiary vindication on your part for any of the states I've mentioned. And yes, I know many of the southern states have awful pasts; these pasts include state government negligence. If you are now asserting that these states are doing "extremely well", perhaps some nuance is in order? As an aside, I don't necessarily think right to work laws are always bad. I do think that they have performed very poorly in the majority of states in which they have been implemented. http://247wallst.com/2011/06/08/america’s-fastest-and-slowest-growing-state-economies/Fastest and slowest growing state economies. Some overlap with the poorest states.
I'm not sure that really helps. In fact, if a state is growing quickly whilst also maintaining disproportionate poverty and illiteracy rates, that would even further point to a discrepancy in state government management of keeping businesses and capital in general properly associated with the population that works for and around them.
Edit: The South loves cheap labor!
|
On March 12 2013 13:15 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 13:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 12:52 farvacola wrote:On March 12 2013 12:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 12:19 farvacola wrote:On March 12 2013 12:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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. You're going to need to be a lot more nuanced. Most southern states have some awful pasts and yet quite a few of them are now doing extremely well. Some right to work states are doing very well too. I've given you hard information in regards to which states are definitively "poorer", and I've yet to see any evidentiary vindication on your part for any of the states I've mentioned. And yes, I know many of the southern states have awful pasts; these pasts include state government negligence. If you are now asserting that these states are doing "extremely well", perhaps some nuance is in order? As an aside, I don't necessarily think right to work laws are always bad. I do think that they have performed very poorly in the majority of states in which they have been implemented. http://247wallst.com/2011/06/08/america’s-fastest-and-slowest-growing-state-economies/Fastest and slowest growing state economies. Some overlap with the poorest states. I'm not sure that really helps. In fact, if a state is growing quickly whilst also maintaining disproportionate poverty and illiteracy rates, that would even further point to a discrepancy in state government management of keeping businesses and capital in general properly associated with the population that works for and around them. Edit: The South loves cheap labor!
Improvement takes time! If poor states are growing quickly than they'll catch up to rich states... but it takes time.
|
Well sure; I just think that they can catch up faster
|
Australia8532 Posts
On March 12 2013 12:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:To the Foreign Policy front: Show nested quote +Iranian and Pakistani leaders have inaugurated the construction of a much-delayed section of a $7.5bn gas pipeline linking the two neighbours, defying the threat of US sanctions.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched the project with his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari at a ceremony on the border on Monday, hailing the agreement as a blow to US-led sanctions targeting his country's oil and gas sector.
The two leaders unveiled a plaque before shaking hands and offering prayers for the successful conclusion of the project, which involves the laying of a 780km section of the pipeline on the Pakistani side, expected to cost some $1.5bn.
The pipeline is intended to help Islamabad overcome its increasing energy needs at a time when the country is facing increased blackouts and energy shortages.
There are serious doubts, however, about how Pakistan can finance the project and whether it can go through with the project without facing US sanctions, which Washington has put in place to pressure Iran over its nuclear programme.
Al Jazeera's Kamal Hyder, reporting from Islamabad, said the agreement with Iran could "entail a heavy price" on Pakistan.
"Pakistan is also very dependent on the United States when it comes to conventional weapons," Hyder said.
But Pakistan also faces an energy crisis and its needs gas that Iran can supply, he added.
Monday's event comes just days before the government's term is set to expire and could be designed to win votes by making the ruling Pakistan People's Party (PPP) look like it is addressing the energy crisis. Source
A nice juicy drone target :p
I don't understand why they need to be so public about defying the US. If they just did things without causing a fuss, their plans would be far more effective
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
A New York City court has struck down a ban on large sugary drinks proposed by the city's mayor, a day before it was due to come into effect. The State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling described the regulation as "arbitrary and capricious" on Monday, declaring it as invalid after the American Beverage Association (ABA) and other business groups challenged the ban. Tingling said that the loopholes of the law contradicted its purpose. However, Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, said that the city will appeal the judge's ruling on the law, which prohibits the sale of soda and other sugary beverages in containers bigger than 16 ounces. "We think the judge is totally in error in the way he interpreted the law and we are very confident that we will win on appeal," Bloomberg said. The New York City mayor had spearheaded the ban as a way to tackle rising obesity in the city. Bloomberg has made health issues a key plank of his administration, banning smoking in restaurants, bars and other public places. 'Obesity kills' "I am trying to do what is right to save lives. Obesity kills," Bloomberg told reporters. "Sugary drinks are a leading cause of obesity. We have a responsibility as human beings to do something, to save each other," he added. But Bloomberg's super-sized soda ban, which would have been a first for a US city, sparked frenzied debate, with petitions and media campaigns from both sides. Some supported Bloomberg's arguments, emphasising that 30 years ago the average soda serving was just six ounces, but that these days, it's not rare to see young Americans with giant fizzy drinks of more than a litre (33 ounces). Industry lobby groups led by the ABA and the National Restaurant Association, which had taken the court action that led to Monday's judgment, praised the decision. "The court ruling provides a sigh of relief to New Yorkers and thousands of small businesses in New York City that would have been harmed by this arbitrary and unpopular ban," the ABA said in a statement. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/03/2013311222214571933.html
|
On March 12 2013 14:02 Souma wrote:
"I am trying to do what is right to save lives. Obesity kills," Bloomberg told reporters.
Yeah, you tell us how to live super rich dude 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't think % gdp growth is even the right measure here. having the most 'competitive' tax and environmental regulation policies may attract in-flow of already existing business in other parts of the nation at a net loss of social welfare.
instead development of these poor states should address what they are lacking. typically the less developed states also have worse education and livability conditions, so they don't have and can't attract talented people seeking a decent living environment.
|
On March 12 2013 14:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 14:02 Souma wrote:
"I am trying to do what is right to save lives. Obesity kills," Bloomberg told reporters. Yeah, you tell us how to live super rich dude
you have to have the soda, otherwise you rob the medical-industrial complex of a highly effective way to drum up business. don't wanna mess with the gdp-enhancing synergies of the free market economy, that's the hidden hand doin its thang, y'know?
|
Besides, we have to use up all that taxpayer-subsidized corn *somewhere*. May as well drink up as much of it in the form of high fructose corn syrup, right? And when you suffer medical complications, you further help the economy with high medical bills, making more money for hospitals and insurance companies! Ain't it great?
|
On March 12 2013 15:15 Funnytoss wrote:
Besides, we have to use up all that taxpayer-subsidized corn *somewhere*. May as well drink up as much of it in the form of high fructose corn syrup, right? And when you suffer medical complications, you further help the economy with high medical bills, making more money for hospitals and insurance companies! Ain't it great?
you get it. go hidden hand!
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 12 2013 14:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 14:02 Souma wrote:
"I am trying to do what is right to save lives. Obesity kills," Bloomberg told reporters. Yeah, you tell us how to live super rich dude
Well, if we take his advice we might all become super rich. :D
|
United States44066 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:31 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 14:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 12 2013 14:02 Souma wrote:
"I am trying to do what is right to save lives. Obesity kills," Bloomberg told reporters. Yeah, you tell us how to live super rich dude Well, if we take his advice we might all become super rich. :D
Quick, pass some tax breaks on the superrich now while you're still poor, that way they'll be ready for you when you become rich.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
