EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7843
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 13 2017 05:23 GreenHorizons wrote: No I fully expect the actors to put on their show, what upsets me is that people are hanging on this crap like it's going somewhere. So considering it's only maybe a real thing, shouldn't we not let the fear of slightly overshooting the wages we've kept chronically and perversely low for decades stop us? Shouldn't we be more concerned about the prolonged stagnation than the potential to over-correct? That's not to say we shouldn't be mindful, but $15 minimum wage is comparable to wages we had during some of our best economic times. We're not really in any danger of reaching that overpaid threshold until we at least get back to some of our most successful rates right? I'm not saying we can't increase it; I'm just saying to be careful and cautious, and make sure it'll work as expected without too many of the downsides; and that we work to mitigate those downsides. $15 wage is too high for a federal wage imho, as there are some poorer rural areas where it would be too much. structural changes in the nature of the economy due to automation are responsible for some of the shifts in wage distribution. it's not maybe a real thing, it's a real thing, the question is at what point do the harms it causes outweighs the benefits?; the other related question is: seeing as it's fundamentally a form of wealth redistribution, does it work better than alternative means of wealth redistribution? "best economic times" is an odd term; and what those are would depend on people's perspectives; all too often it refers to a mythical nostalgic time which actually was'n tthat good; or was a historical anomaly unlikely to recur as the world has changed since then. some other key questions are how much work are we putting in on alternate methods to address the underlying issues. after all, a living wage depends on the cost of living; what steps are being taken to lower the cost of living? are there more steps that could be taken there? if it's possible, I prefer to raise wages by using programs that make workers better at working, such that they will command higher wages by virtue of their performance being worth that much; rather than via the forced minimum wage. sadly that's often not possible (in part due to politics rather than it being fundamentally non-viable though). | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23716 Posts
On June 13 2017 05:40 zlefin wrote: I'm not saying we can't increase it; I'm just saying to be careful and cautious, and make sure it'll work as expected without too many of the downsides; and that we work to mitigate those downsides. $15 wage is too high for a federal wage imho, as there are some poorer rural areas where it would be too much. structural changes in the nature of the economy due to automation are responsible for some of the shifts in wage distribution. it's not maybe a real thing, it's a real thing, the question is at what point do the harms it causes outweighs the benefits?; the other related question is: seeing as it's fundamentally a form of wealth redistribution, does it work better than alternative means of wealth redistribution? "best economic times" is an odd term; and what those are would depend on people's perspectives; all too often it refers to a mythical nostalgic time which actually was'n tthat good; or was a historical anomaly unlikely to recur as the world has changed since then. some other key questions are how much work are we putting in on alternate methods to address the underlying issues. after all, a living wage depends on the cost of living; what steps are being taken to lower the cost of living? are there more steps that could be taken there? if it's possible, I prefer to raise wages by using programs that make workers better at working, such that they will command higher wages by virtue of their performance being worth that much; rather than via the forced minimum wage. sadly that's often not possible (in part due to politics rather than it being fundamentally non-viable though). Well I'd support replacing the minimum wage with a UBI so you won't have me argue it's the best possible option. I get your point about nostalgia, but taken too far it basically means we'll never be able to use economic history to speculate about the future leaving little to work with regarding predicting outcomes. While I understand the desire for a slow and cautious approach it's been decades with little to no progress and people are actually suffering right now while we contemplate how to avoid causing other suffering. It's not as if there aren't consequences to our continued inaction. Maybe the unfortunate truth of many in the middle of the country is that "things have changed" in such a way that they actually aren't sustainable in our capitalistic model. That literally the only way for them to remain in their communities (and keep some semblance of our form of capitalism) is for the government to subsidize their way of life. A tough mental hurdle for many of them to come to grips with (though the real truth is it's already been that way for decades). | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 13 2017 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote: Well I'd support replacing the minimum wage with a UBI so you won't have me argue it's the best possible option. I get your point about nostalgia, but taken too far it basically means we'll never be able to use economic history to speculate about the future leaving little to work with regarding predicting outcomes. While I understand the desire for a slow and cautious approach it's been decades with little to no progress and people are actually suffering right now while we contemplate how to avoid causing other suffering. It's not as if there aren't consequences to our continued inaction. Maybe the unfortunate truth of many in the middle of the country is that "things have changed" in such a way that they actually aren't sustainable in our capitalistic model. That literally the only way for them to remain in their communities (and keep some semblance of our form of capitalism) is for the government to subsidize their way of life. A tough mental hurdle for many of them to come to grips with (though the real truth is it's already been that way for decades). If I were in charge I'd be taking plenty of actoin; but I'm not. and I woudln'dt say it's been decades with no progress; there's been many kinds of progress at various levels in various things. It IS an unfortunate truth that for many in the middle of the country things have changed; and their old way of life is unsustainable; there are new ways, and they need to shift them, and we need to help them shift to them. sometimes a community is no longer suitable, and the people need to move; it's an important thing to be done, and the government often unsoundly subsidizes it rather than get people to move on. I know it's mentally tough, and we can do things to help that; but it's vital to move on at times. part of the problem is people listening to/voting for politicians that will kick the can down the road (or argue something else is to blame/there isn't a problem) rather than facing things that need to be done. | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
There are currently only seven states, plus Puerto Rico and some minor territories, that would be affected by a small decrease in the federal minimum wage. The remaining states and DC all have their own minimum wages. An additional fourteen states have minimum wages equal to the current national minumum wage, and thus would only be affected by a change in one direction. We have no reason to believe, with America's geographic diversity, that the ideal minimum wage is the same everywhere in the states. American Samoa and the Mariana Islands in particular have already taken a big hit to the employment rate due to federal minimum wage increases. I therefore suggest reducing the federal minimum wage to $5.15/hr, matching Wyoming as the lowest statutory statewide rate. The purpose of this is to give state and local authorities more room to use minimum wage adjustments as part of an integrated local economic policy. If they don't want to lower the real minimum wage, they'll pass a state- or local-level minimum wage at the current value. This would also bail out the island territories' economies. On June 13 2017 05:23 GreenHorizons wrote: Shouldn't we be more concerned about the prolonged stagnation than the potential to over-correct? That's not to say we shouldn't be mindful, but $15 minimum wage is comparable to wages we had during some of our best economic times. Be careful not to compare minimum wage now to average wage then. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
Accepting peurto rico as a state and taking their debt off their hands will solve a lot of their brain drain issues. Its not a hawaii and won't mix well with the rest of the states. At best it can hope to be a pariah and at the least it can expect to be bailed out of its current troubles. I should be fair and give them decent odds and being a decent south florida. Thats not exactly a great picture but its pretty good I think. | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
A minimum wage like any other policy has indirect effects both predictable and not. Its main effect on total employment is predictable based on supply and demand - unskilled labor is more expensive so people buy less of it. Since blacks are the most unemployed adult group with the current minimum wage, it's a reasonable hypothesis that they would benefit most from eliminating it. On June 13 2017 06:09 Sermokala wrote: Lol there is no way we're going to make such a huge economic adjustment because of a island of 3 and a half million people. "Cut the minimum wage in half for incorporated territories only" is also a reasonable policy suggestion. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
On June 13 2017 06:18 Buckyman wrote: I've heard the hypothesis that minimum wage was a Jim Crow measure, backed by unions, to keep black migrants from undercutting white labor. I'm not convinced, but it sounds plausible. A minimum wage like any other policy has indirect effects both predictable and not. Its main effect on total employment is predictable based on supply and demand - unskilled labor is more expensive so people buy less of it. Since blacks are the most unemployed adult group with the current minimum wage, it's a reasonable hypothesis that they would benefit most from eliminating it. That makes no logical sense at all. The minimum wage gives a standard of living from employment. If you eliminated it corporations would exploit black labor for much less then its actually worth. Its not just black people who would even suffer as everyone who works fast food or walmart or any other job which is currently minimum wage would see a cut in wages as "I can find other people who are unemployed who will work for less anyway" spirals out of control. The glut of people with 2 or 3 part time jobs should tell you that a crappy job is still crappy. I can't imagine how you can tell those people that they should be earning less regardless of some conspiracy theory you think the minimum wage was. Or that you can tell people who are Americans but not "living in a state" Americans that they deserve a lower standard of living then Americans who happen to live in a state. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15742 Posts
| ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
On June 13 2017 06:25 Sermokala wrote: The minimum wage gives a standard of living from employment. If you eliminated it corporations would exploit black labor for much less then its actually worth. Its not just black people who would even suffer as everyone who works fast food or walmart or any other job which is currently minimum wage would see a cut in wages as "I can find other people who are unemployed who will work for less anyway" spirals out of control. This is Karl Marx's "Law of Increasing Misery", right? Its basic assumptions don't work in a service-heavy economy, because services are generally competitive and labor-intensive enough that they dry up the pool of people willing to "work for less" until the point where most workers can turn a profit based on individual skill and the rest are at least employed. Your examples are pretty good. When I last checked, Wal-Mart paid all its employees significantly more than the federal minimum wage; there's no downward spiral even in low minimum wage states. McDonald's is a bit different; they do sometimes pay minimum wage, but they've set themselves up as a work-experience provider. Their cashiers' salary comes with a mark on the resume that can be cashed in for a more-than-minimum-wage job elsewhere. The glut of people with 2 or 3 part time jobs should tell you that a crappy job is still crappy. I can't imagine how you can tell those people that they should be earning less regardless of some conspiracy theory you think the minimum wage was. Or that you can tell people who are Americans but not "living in a state" Americans that they deserve a lower standard of living then Americans who happen to live in a state. How do you like telling unemployed people "you're not allowed to work except for more than anyone's willing to pay you"? How do you like telling pacific islanders "we're shipping your jobs to nearby independent islands because we mistakenly think your economy is more similar to a state's than your neighbors'?" Economics is complicated. Policies often have obvious winners and non-obvious losers. | ||
KwarK
United States43677 Posts
| ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15742 Posts
On June 13 2017 06:57 Buckyman wrote: ...fair enough, but they probably pay their veterans extra. Service industry jobs I have worked in have usually had a structure where these long term managers made about 10% more than everyone else. That usually ended up being $1 more. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
On June 13 2017 06:48 Buckyman wrote: This is Karl Marx's "Law of Increasing Misery", right? Its basic assumptions don't work in a service-heavy economy, because services are generally competitive and labor-intensive enough that they dry up the pool of people willing to "work for less" until the point where most workers can turn a profit based on individual skill and the rest are at least employed. Your examples are pretty good. When I last checked, Wal-Mart paid all its employees significantly more than the federal minimum wage; there's no downward spiral even in low minimum wage states. McDonald's is a bit different; they do sometimes pay minimum wage, but they've set themselves up as a work-experience provider. Their cashiers' salary comes with a mark on the resume that can be cashed in for a more-than-minimum-wage job elsewhere. How do you like telling unemployed people "you're not allowed to work except for more than anyone's willing to pay you"? How do you like telling pacific islanders "we're shipping your jobs to nearby independent islands because we mistakenly think your economy is more similar to a state's than your neighbors'?" Economics is complicated. Policies often have obvious winners and non-obvious losers. I don't know what labor intensive and competitive services you are talking about but the majority of the part time jobs are not. Karl marx couldn't imagine globalization throwing a wrench into his valuation of labor. the statistic of walmart employees that are below the poverty line and qualify for food stamps doesn't make them a good example to point to. Your ideals about "work-experience" provider doesn't work in real life when people spend their lives working at these places. We're telling unemployed people that you're worth more then nightmare industrial revolution era jobs. When someones socio-economic situation is where having them work is more expensive on the state them having them not work then we don't want them to work. Economics isn't just complicated its rocket science on the good days and hoodo magic on the bad ones. If you don't want third world conditions don't let them happen. Paying government assistance to the south is good because they've always given us the raw resources and military involvement to give the smarter states what they need to have a good time. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 13 2017 06:05 Plansix wrote: If we are going to lower the minimum wage to $5, just get rid of it all together and let the states abuse their citizens until they elect better people. Because it is becoming increasingly clear that we need to prove why the minimum wage was created in the first place. is minimum wage more useful than simply having good social programs or UBI? It's not clear that without a minimum wage it'd be horribly on all the citizens. Many social programs began as experiments and ideas; not as fully vetted and verified proofs of effectiveness; so while the intentions were noble, and the results seem reasonable so far; that's a far cry from properly establishing the efficacy of the minimum wage system. one real question I wonder is: is it politically feasible to have a FEDERAL minimum wage law that would establish different minimum wages in different localities based on local conditions? I'm not sure people would be willing to accept such a thing; it'd allow for variation in minimum wage based on local economics while preventing local bad government from screwing over the local workers. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18855 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
| ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18855 Posts
On June 13 2017 07:19 Sermokala wrote: A UBI with democracy scares me a bit personally. Its easy to see people pledging to increase it to get votes and then not having a way to pay for it later. It would probably be better for everyone if we had a UBI instead of social services (it would lower a lot of administrative and bureaucratic costs to achieve the same end) but the long term on it scares me more then a social welfare state would. I actually think the exact opposite can be argued given the degree to which those services best provided by government fair poorly in free market environments; part of the problem with UBI is that it fails to address the problems inherent to treating education, healthcare, and housing as market goods. I accordingly think a hybrid UBI/social services system would likely be best, though of course, the political feasibility of it is up in the air. On June 13 2017 07:21 Buckyman wrote: What would y'all think of a rehabilitation-focused proposal that lets people on Social Security disability benefits work part-time at less than the normal minimum wage, without losing their disability benefits? Social security disability takes on two forms, DIB and SSI, but both forms require that an individual certify that they are unable to work a job available to them in the economy. Further, having worked for the SSA as an intern, I can tell you that its system of disability adjudication is actually quite impressive and does an extremely good job of screening out bogus claimants. Thus, I'm not sure why SSDIB reform is a good route to go. | ||
| ||
