| 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. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35144 Posts
On June 27 2017 05:51 Buckyman wrote: If businesses could have done that, they probably would already have done so. I feel that's kind of why outsourcing exists. They can do it and still keep hours high because while their wages are relatively low of the business, they're adequate/good for local. | ||
|
Slydie
1915 Posts
On June 27 2017 05:37 zlefin wrote: again, minimum wage has NOTHING to do wtih middle class. avoiding a class divide is good; but you gotta understand the effects of what you do, and what will and will not work. I get the feeling you're advocating for policies with very little understanding of their actual strength/weaknesses/effects. dealing with the stagnation issues also has to be addressed from a number of other perspectives; such as cost of living, savings habits, and educational opportunity. What you need is strong unions, who can force the richest to share more of their wealth with their workers. Wages should be negotiated collectively, not forced by law. Unions being labelled as horrible by society, and fought by politicians, is one major reason for the middle class getting poorer. The industries will adapt, and the truth is, you can't beat out India and Bangladesh on wages no matter what you do. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 27 2017 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote: So the argument that higher minimum wage costs businesses more isn't accurate, or they paid more for less work and then just made less money? Did the study cover the bottom lines of businesses? Like could people have been more productive at $13 meaning business paid the same for labor but needed less labor hours to get the same amount of work done? What the study is saying that that there is appears to be a finite amount of money that the businesses in the area are willing to spend on labor and $13 per hour runs up against that. It doesn’t say that it is better for the businesses. I have not fully read the study. I only glanced through a couple articles covering it. It is linked on a previous page if you want to spend your own time reading it. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On June 27 2017 05:57 Plansix wrote: What the study is saying that that there is appears to be a finite amount of money that the businesses in the area are willing to spend on labor and $13 per hour runs up against that. It doesn’t say that it is better for the businesses. I have not fully read the study. I only glanced through a couple articles covering it. It is linked on a previous page if you want to spend your own time reading it. Yeah from what I read, they had no consideration for what the businesses bottom lines said. So businesses could be acting like idiots or cleaning up as a result and it's not reflected in the study | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 27 2017 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote: Funny you would be fighting for the low wage worker and not thrilled that businesses are saving money? So if this study is to be believed, a $13 minimum wage is cheaper for business than a $11 minimum wage. Seems like pro business folks should be clamoring to make it $15 and hope to save even more money. I haven't fully digested the study as it applies to businesses, I only have read secondary reporting on its impact for workers. That part of the equation appeared very bad. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 27 2017 05:45 Doodsmack wrote: So apparently the purpose of this provision is to be a substitute for the individual mandate. It is supposed to convince people to sign up for insurance, because otherwise they'd have to wait for 6 months once they decide to sign up. Doesn't seem very compelling to me. Aside from that restriction, insurance companies will be required to accept everyone. Can someone tell me how this will not simply be worse than Obamacare. And was a better plan expected from Republicans? it won't be better than obamacare; it'll be worse than both obamacare, and worse than an outright repeal of obamacare. a better plan was not expected from republicans; the politics of the situation prevent them from implementing a sensible plan (including plans that might be called heartless, but are at least sensible). | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On June 27 2017 05:26 Plansix wrote: Want a lower minimum wage, make the cost of living cheaper. AKA, don’t do what the GOP is doing right now. 22 million is quite a few. And all that money is just going straight to the already obscenely rich. What a joke. But yes, let's deregulate more. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 27 2017 06:00 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah from what I read, they had no consideration for what the businesses bottom lines said. So businesses could be acting like idiots or cleaning up as a result and it's not reflected in the study Business can act like idiots. But from someone who’s family ran a small business for 40 years, sometimes there is only so much they can spend on labor. My family’s business competes with manufacturing in Mexico and we constantly got priced out of jobs because of it. And we(my parents) employ like 10 people. A 13 dollar minimum wage would end effectively end business. And no other jobs would replace it in the economic wasteland that is my home town. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 27 2017 05:57 Slydie wrote: What you need is strong unions, who can force the richest to share more of their wealth with their workers. Wages should be negotiated collectively, not forced by law. Unions being labelled as horrible by society, and fought by politicians, is one major reason for the middle class getting poorer. The industries will adapt, and the truth is, you can't beat out India and Bangladesh on wages no matter what you do. unions can work; thoug has with all monopolies they can also cause substantial harm at times. part of hte problem is american-style unions (as compared to european-style unions); or at least that's what I've heard. wages negotiated by force of union or force of law; I'm not seeing a huge practical difference. but certainly some better unions would be helpful. | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
In this case, it's pretty clear that this union would negotiate a salary that's less than the $13 minimum wage, probably somewhere in the $9.47-$11 bracket, because pushing the salary higher costs too many of their members' jobs. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On June 27 2017 06:00 Danglars wrote: I haven't fully digested the study as it applies to businesses, I only have read secondary reporting on its impact for workers. That part of the equation appeared very bad. Well, for the workers in the non-restaurant sector anyway. 538 said the study authors say their analysis showed no net loss for employees in the restaurant sector. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
| ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On June 27 2017 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote: So the argument that higher minimum wage costs businesses more isn't accurate, or they paid more for less work and then just made less money? Did the study cover the bottom lines of businesses? Like could people have been more productive at $13 meaning business paid the same for labor but needed less labor hours to get the same amount of work done? While people are generally more motivated when paid more, I don't think their efficiency increase would equal the increase in labour costs. You'd need to find the money to pay for minimum wage increase elsewhere. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On June 27 2017 06:30 Buckyman wrote: When doing nothing has already cost 8 million people their health insurance and those 8 million are included in that 15 million? Sounds like a 1 million person per year improvement to me. That's not how math works, it's 15 million per year next year, not 7. Still 88% worse. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
Like no one expects raising the minimum wage to create new money out of thin air, the expectation is it's going to come from the top down.. So yeah for now wages are cut because hours were cut to keep the previous equilibrium, but what happens in a year (or better yet several) from now when companies have thought about their next year budget and have decided between giving raising and increasing hours for minimum wage workers? That and it's not peer reviewed yet. Sloppy reporting. I'm also curious if it's underselling the effect on people working multiple jobs. If you're working two jobs but now can get the same (or slightly less) money for significantly less hours that could be a big external benefit to you. | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
On June 27 2017 06:33 NewSunshine wrote: That's not how math works, it's 15 million per year next year, not 7. Still 88% worse. 15 million people = (2 years' projection under old rules) - (current value plus one year's projection under new rules) 8 million people = (1 years' projection under old rules) - (current value) Therefore: 7 million people = (1 year's projection under old rules) - (one year's projection under new rules) I'm doing a bit of apples-to-oranges in assuming the second year projection under the old rules will continue to be as optimistic as it was over the first year, but the new projection will be accurate. Regardless, the way he put it presents the 15 million figure as though it were the 7 million figure. A majority of the people in that 15 million figure have already 'lost' their insurance. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
On June 27 2017 06:36 Logo wrote: So yeah for now wages are cut because hours were cut to keep the previous equilibrium, but what happens in a year (or better yet several) from now when companies have thought about their next year budget and have decided between giving raising and increasing hours for minimum wage workers. It looks like the study covers one full year after the second hike. It couldn't go further without contaminating the results because of another minimum wage hike. | ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
Online Event
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
