|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 06 2019 13:37 NewSunshine wrote:
I find opposition to minimum wage increase to be interesting. It requires you to both 1) believe large corporations when they say they just can't pay people any more or they'll have to cut staff, and 2) forget what the minimum wage is supposed to achieve. Minimum wage is supposed to be set such that any job offers a livable wage, even if it's not glamorous. In that context, the number our minimum wage is at right now seems much more arbitrary, when someone working for minimum wage still requires government benefits to make ends meet. Big corporations are forcing you to subsidize these workers, by refusing to pay them properly while they post record profits quarter after quarter, and hand themselves enormous bonuses while they're at it. I should think we're all for raising the minimum wage, once the problem is framed properly.
If unemployment is the problem, a low wages can be an effective way of creating more jobs. The problem as I see it is that strong unions are needed as a counterpower to the cooperations to get a larger piece of the cake. Also, if the unions push too hard, jobs will be moved abroad and businesses will close, so unions have incentives to cooperate to find good compromises as well.
|
On August 06 2019 17:29 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2019 13:37 NewSunshine wrote:
I find opposition to minimum wage increase to be interesting. It requires you to both 1) believe large corporations when they say they just can't pay people any more or they'll have to cut staff, and 2) forget what the minimum wage is supposed to achieve. Minimum wage is supposed to be set such that any job offers a livable wage, even if it's not glamorous. In that context, the number our minimum wage is at right now seems much more arbitrary, when someone working for minimum wage still requires government benefits to make ends meet. Big corporations are forcing you to subsidize these workers, by refusing to pay them properly while they post record profits quarter after quarter, and hand themselves enormous bonuses while they're at it. I should think we're all for raising the minimum wage, once the problem is framed properly. If unemployment is the problem, a low wages can be an effective way of creating more jobs. The problem as I see it is that strong unions are needed as a counterpower to the cooperations to get a larger piece of the cake. Also, if the unions push too hard, jobs will be moved abroad and businesses will close, so unions have incentives to cooperate to find good compromises as well.
Those jobs tend to be empty numbers if a person has to have 2 jobs to get by instead of 1.
|
Yeah, I was thinking going after violent video games may be the actual one thing that can alienate Trump from a chunk of his base (18-35 white male 4chan trolls). Might not be a huge chunk, but they certainly have meaningful Internet/social media presence, and losing them may hurt more than people realize.
|
On August 06 2019 21:25 Ryzel wrote:
Yeah, I was thinking going after violent video games may be the actual one thing that can alienate Trump from a chunk of his base (18-35 white male 4chan trolls). Might not be a huge chunk, but they certainly have meaningful Internet/social media presence, and losing them may hurt more than people realize.
So the classical,
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the gamers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a gamer.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
The point where it breaks down is the jews. Replace that with the gay, black or atheists and it works for the US in most ways.
|
On August 06 2019 22:07 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2019 21:25 Ryzel wrote:
Yeah, I was thinking going after violent video games may be the actual one thing that can alienate Trump from a chunk of his base (18-35 white male 4chan trolls). Might not be a huge chunk, but they certainly have meaningful Internet/social media presence, and losing them may hurt more than people realize. So the classical, First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the gamers, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a gamer. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. The point where it breaks down is the jews. Replace that with the gay, black or atheists and it works for the US in most ways.
Was this Emerson or Frost? Angelou or Baldwin?
|
This is someone who was mentally ill and needed treatment. No note or motivation. Just a disturbed individual that was lost. Luckily grandmother stepped in and saved some lives.
As the U.S. reels from a weekend of two mass shootings, federal authorities have released details of what they say could have been another tragedy — which didn't happen because the suspect's grandmother managed to stop it.
On Friday, federal prosecutors in Lubbock, Texas, said that they have charged a 19-year-old man with making false statements to a federally licensed firearms dealer and that William Patrick Williams was allegedly plotting a mass shooting.
"This was a tragedy averted," U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas Erin Nealy Cox said in a statement. "I want to praise the defendant's grandmother, who saved lives by interrupting this plot, as well as the Lubbock police officers and federal agents who investigated his unlawful acquisition of a deadly weapon."
Williams' attorney did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.
According to the criminal complaint, Williams' grandmother told authorities that he called her and said he was homicidal and suicidal.
He said he "planned to 'shoot up' a local hotel and then commit suicide by cop," the U.S. attorney's office said.
https://n.pr/2Yta8sg］ Source[/url]
|
Just saw reporting on the girlfriend of the shooter in Ohio and she said that looking back on it him showing her a video of a mass shooting on their first date might have been a sign.
Not sure if my lament belongs here or the dating thread more
|
|
|
On August 06 2019 21:25 Ryzel wrote:
Yeah, I was thinking going after violent video games may be the actual one thing that can alienate Trump from a chunk of his base (18-35 white male 4chan trolls). Might not be a huge chunk, but they certainly have meaningful Internet/social media presence, and losing them may hurt more than people realize.
Not really. First, to his base it will be something neligible, and second they will vote against the democrats regardless. The political scene is far too polarized to something menial like this to change people's mind on who to vote for.
|
On August 06 2019 21:25 Ryzel wrote:
Yeah, I was thinking going after violent video games may be the actual one thing that can alienate Trump from a chunk of his base (18-35 white male 4chan trolls). Might not be a huge chunk, but they certainly have meaningful Internet/social media presence, and losing them may hurt more than people realize.
You have to remember, it is a binary choice. If suddenly the democrats were anti video games, would you vote for Trump? Or would the 1000s of other things you disagree with make you shrug at the video game stuff? Trump's base believes democrats are trying to erase white people and fundamentally destroy the country. Video games are nothing compared to that. Especially since Trump is just talking shit about video games, not actually doing anything.
|
On August 06 2019 22:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2019 22:07 Yurie wrote:On August 06 2019 21:25 Ryzel wrote:
Yeah, I was thinking going after violent video games may be the actual one thing that can alienate Trump from a chunk of his base (18-35 white male 4chan trolls). Might not be a huge chunk, but they certainly have meaningful Internet/social media presence, and losing them may hurt more than people realize. So the classical, First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the gamers, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a gamer. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. The point where it breaks down is the jews. Replace that with the gay, black or atheists and it works for the US in most ways. Was this Emerson or Frost? Angelou or Baldwin?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
"First they came ..." is the poetic form of a prose post-war confession first made in German in 1946 by the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller
|
On August 04 2019 11:52 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2019 11:16 Pangpootata wrote:On August 03 2019 16:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Outside of the totalitarian regime, the orwellian model of society, the labor camps, the purges and the malnutrition of millions, Donny is spot on one more time.
User was warned for this post I wouldn't blame Kim too much. Imagine your daddy is the ruler of a totalitarian regime and he dies leaving you to take over. If you suddenly give people freedom, they will rise up and kill you. You have no choice but to continue oppressing them for your own survival. You seem to have set up a false dichotomy here. Kim doesn't have to choose between A or B, where A is dying early and B is: - Having large numbers of people executed, and
- Horribly oppressing millions of people
However, even if it were the case that literally those were only his two options, then yes, I think blame is in order. It's not necessarily his fault he was in that situation, but there comes a point where selfishness just can't be overlooked anymore. If I have to choose between exterminating half the planet or dying, as tragic as that is, I should and will be blamed if I choose to prioritize myself to such an extreme. This isn't one of those philosophy exercises where you have to choose between saving your sibling or saving two random children.... the scale is quite different.
Well, we don't know how the power is really distributed within the totalitarian state that is North Korea. Yes, Kim is the figurehead of the state, the dear leader, but there is an entire totalitarian apparatus behind that figurehead, made up of privileged people with a lot to lose. I am pretty sure Kim would have soon ended up dead if he had tried to overthrow the regime immediately after taking office. So even if he really would want to change North Korea into a more open society, he would have to take it slow.
That said, he had a lot of time to settle in now and establish his power base, so with every new day it seems less and less likely that Kim is willing to fundamentally change the country.
|
On August 07 2019 01:25 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2019 11:52 micronesia wrote:On August 04 2019 11:16 Pangpootata wrote:I wouldn't blame Kim too much. Imagine your daddy is the ruler of a totalitarian regime and he dies leaving you to take over. If you suddenly give people freedom, they will rise up and kill you. You have no choice but to continue oppressing them for your own survival. You seem to have set up a false dichotomy here. Kim doesn't have to choose between A or B, where A is dying early and B is: - Having large numbers of people executed, and
- Horribly oppressing millions of people
However, even if it were the case that literally those were only his two options, then yes, I think blame is in order. It's not necessarily his fault he was in that situation, but there comes a point where selfishness just can't be overlooked anymore. If I have to choose between exterminating half the planet or dying, as tragic as that is, I should and will be blamed if I choose to prioritize myself to such an extreme. This isn't one of those philosophy exercises where you have to choose between saving your sibling or saving two random children.... the scale is quite different. Well, we don't know how the power is really distributed within the totalitarian state that is North Korea. Yes, Kim is the figurehead of the state, the dear leader, but there is an entire totalitarian apparatus behind that figurehead, made up of privileged people with a lot to lose. I am pretty sure Kim would have soon ended up dead if he had tried to overthrow the regime immediately after taking office. So even if he really would want to change North Korea into a more open society, he would have to take it slow. That said, he had a lot of time to settle in now and establish his power base, so with every new day it seems less and less likely that Kim is willing to fundamentally change the country.
I hesitate to involve myself in this discussion but without commenting on his human rights stuff, he's unquestionably opened the country up to the west to an unprecedented degree and brought the Korea's closer than they've been in decades and those are pretty strong moves away from the traditionalists holding power in NK.
If you were looking for a NK leader open to reasonable international relations I see more potential in Kim than in previous NK leaders and current US allies for comparsion.
|
On August 06 2019 23:52 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2019 13:37 NewSunshine wrote:
I find opposition to minimum wage increase to be interesting. It requires you to both 1) believe large corporations when they say they just can't pay people any more or they'll have to cut staff, and 2) forget what the minimum wage is supposed to achieve. Minimum wage is supposed to be set such that any job offers a livable wage, even if it's not glamorous. In that context, the number our minimum wage is at right now seems much more arbitrary, when someone working for minimum wage still requires government benefits to make ends meet. Big corporations are forcing you to subsidize these workers, by refusing to pay them properly while they post record profits quarter after quarter, and hand themselves enormous bonuses while they're at it. I should think we're all for raising the minimum wage, once the problem is framed properly. We have a 15 dollar minimum wage and it went up fairly recently. It did not hurt major corporations at all. It did raise the price of fast food, it did cause a few small businesses that were holding to to shut their doors. But really it was a small cost of living increase and life went on. The local chambers of commerce really railed against it but none of the doom and gloom came to pass. It also raised a lot of union wages that were tied to Minimum wage. It will probably take a bit of time to figure out how much the raise helped considering the cost of living increases, but I think overall it worked out and in the election that happened since it was not a big issue to repeal it. It seems like one of those things that is really "scary" but all the businesses just adjust their prices to reflect their new labor reality and the beat goes on. All their competitors feel the same "pain", if you were a business based on exports and had a bunch of minimum workers I could see it having a bigger impact, but locally it was a blip.
The minimum wage is an interesting one. A regular supply and demand curve would suggest that an increase in the minimum wage would lead to less jobs. The evidence does not really show this to be the case in the labour market though. This is likely due to monopsony. A market structure with monopsony is a market with many suppliers but only one or few buyers. Imagine there's a market with many bakeries producing bread but there's only one supermarket which buys them. THe supermarket can then use it's market power to reduce the price of the bread it buys. In the labour market the worker would be the bakery (workers supply labour) and the employer would be the supermarket. Anyway in a monopsonistic labour market it's possible that employers keep the price of labour (wages) artificially low and a minimum wage helps to alleviate this. Still evidence is pretty mixed in regards to the ultimate employment effects of the minimum wage. There's also evidence to suggest that while it won't cause employers to fire employees it may make them invest into capital instead and hire less employees in the future.
On August 06 2019 19:58 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2019 17:29 Slydie wrote:On August 06 2019 13:37 NewSunshine wrote:
I find opposition to minimum wage increase to be interesting. It requires you to both 1) believe large corporations when they say they just can't pay people any more or they'll have to cut staff, and 2) forget what the minimum wage is supposed to achieve. Minimum wage is supposed to be set such that any job offers a livable wage, even if it's not glamorous. In that context, the number our minimum wage is at right now seems much more arbitrary, when someone working for minimum wage still requires government benefits to make ends meet. Big corporations are forcing you to subsidize these workers, by refusing to pay them properly while they post record profits quarter after quarter, and hand themselves enormous bonuses while they're at it. I should think we're all for raising the minimum wage, once the problem is framed properly. If unemployment is the problem, a low wages can be an effective way of creating more jobs. The problem as I see it is that strong unions are needed as a counterpower to the cooperations to get a larger piece of the cake. Also, if the unions push too hard, jobs will be moved abroad and businesses will close, so unions have incentives to cooperate to find good compromises as well. Those jobs tend to be empty numbers if a person has to have 2 jobs to get by instead of 1.
I don't agree. Yes it's pretty aweful when you have to work two jobs to make a living but being unemployed is even worse. It's much easier to get a better paying job when you're already employed than when you're unemployed.
|
On August 07 2019 03:18 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2019 23:52 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2019 13:37 NewSunshine wrote:
I find opposition to minimum wage increase to be interesting. It requires you to both 1) believe large corporations when they say they just can't pay people any more or they'll have to cut staff, and 2) forget what the minimum wage is supposed to achieve. Minimum wage is supposed to be set such that any job offers a livable wage, even if it's not glamorous. In that context, the number our minimum wage is at right now seems much more arbitrary, when someone working for minimum wage still requires government benefits to make ends meet. Big corporations are forcing you to subsidize these workers, by refusing to pay them properly while they post record profits quarter after quarter, and hand themselves enormous bonuses while they're at it. I should think we're all for raising the minimum wage, once the problem is framed properly. We have a 15 dollar minimum wage and it went up fairly recently. It did not hurt major corporations at all. It did raise the price of fast food, it did cause a few small businesses that were holding to to shut their doors. But really it was a small cost of living increase and life went on. The local chambers of commerce really railed against it but none of the doom and gloom came to pass. It also raised a lot of union wages that were tied to Minimum wage. It will probably take a bit of time to figure out how much the raise helped considering the cost of living increases, but I think overall it worked out and in the election that happened since it was not a big issue to repeal it. It seems like one of those things that is really "scary" but all the businesses just adjust their prices to reflect their new labor reality and the beat goes on. All their competitors feel the same "pain", if you were a business based on exports and had a bunch of minimum workers I could see it having a bigger impact, but locally it was a blip. The minimum wage is an interesting one. A regular supply and demand curve would suggest that an increase in the minimum wage would lead to less jobs. The evidence does not really show this to be the case in the labour market though. This is likely due to monopsony. A market structure with monopsony is a market with many suppliers but only one or few buyers. Imagine there's a market with many bakeries producing bread but there's only one supermarket which buys them. THe supermarket can then use it's market power to reduce the price of the bread it buys. In the labour market the worker would be the bakery (workers supply labour) and the employer would be the supermarket. Anyway in a monopsonistic labour market it's possible that employers keep the price of labour (wages) artificially low and a minimum wage helps to alleviate this. Still evidence is pretty mixed in regards to the ultimate employment effects of the minimum wage. There's also evidence to suggest that while it won't cause employers to fire employees it may make them invest into capital instead and hire less employees in the future. Show nested quote +On August 06 2019 19:58 Gahlo wrote:On August 06 2019 17:29 Slydie wrote:On August 06 2019 13:37 NewSunshine wrote:
I find opposition to minimum wage increase to be interesting. It requires you to both 1) believe large corporations when they say they just can't pay people any more or they'll have to cut staff, and 2) forget what the minimum wage is supposed to achieve. Minimum wage is supposed to be set such that any job offers a livable wage, even if it's not glamorous. In that context, the number our minimum wage is at right now seems much more arbitrary, when someone working for minimum wage still requires government benefits to make ends meet. Big corporations are forcing you to subsidize these workers, by refusing to pay them properly while they post record profits quarter after quarter, and hand themselves enormous bonuses while they're at it. I should think we're all for raising the minimum wage, once the problem is framed properly. If unemployment is the problem, a low wages can be an effective way of creating more jobs. The problem as I see it is that strong unions are needed as a counterpower to the cooperations to get a larger piece of the cake. Also, if the unions push too hard, jobs will be moved abroad and businesses will close, so unions have incentives to cooperate to find good compromises as well. Those jobs tend to be empty numbers if a person has to have 2 jobs to get by instead of 1. I don't agree. Yes it's pretty aweful when you have to work two jobs to make a living but being unemployed is even worse. It's much easier to get a better paying job when you're already employed than when you're unemployed.
I'm just saying that a person working 2 part-time jobs at $7.25 will be making less than if they had 1 part time job at $15. Yeah, "a job is lost", but nothing was actually lost by the employee and a position is opened for people that don't have a job.
|
United States41995 Posts
On August 07 2019 07:23 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2019 03:18 RvB wrote:On August 06 2019 23:52 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2019 13:37 NewSunshine wrote:
I find opposition to minimum wage increase to be interesting. It requires you to both 1) believe large corporations when they say they just can't pay people any more or they'll have to cut staff, and 2) forget what the minimum wage is supposed to achieve. Minimum wage is supposed to be set such that any job offers a livable wage, even if it's not glamorous. In that context, the number our minimum wage is at right now seems much more arbitrary, when someone working for minimum wage still requires government benefits to make ends meet. Big corporations are forcing you to subsidize these workers, by refusing to pay them properly while they post record profits quarter after quarter, and hand themselves enormous bonuses while they're at it. I should think we're all for raising the minimum wage, once the problem is framed properly. We have a 15 dollar minimum wage and it went up fairly recently. It did not hurt major corporations at all. It did raise the price of fast food, it did cause a few small businesses that were holding to to shut their doors. But really it was a small cost of living increase and life went on. The local chambers of commerce really railed against it but none of the doom and gloom came to pass. It also raised a lot of union wages that were tied to Minimum wage. It will probably take a bit of time to figure out how much the raise helped considering the cost of living increases, but I think overall it worked out and in the election that happened since it was not a big issue to repeal it. It seems like one of those things that is really "scary" but all the businesses just adjust their prices to reflect their new labor reality and the beat goes on. All their competitors feel the same "pain", if you were a business based on exports and had a bunch of minimum workers I could see it having a bigger impact, but locally it was a blip. The minimum wage is an interesting one. A regular supply and demand curve would suggest that an increase in the minimum wage would lead to less jobs. The evidence does not really show this to be the case in the labour market though. This is likely due to monopsony. A market structure with monopsony is a market with many suppliers but only one or few buyers. Imagine there's a market with many bakeries producing bread but there's only one supermarket which buys them. THe supermarket can then use it's market power to reduce the price of the bread it buys. In the labour market the worker would be the bakery (workers supply labour) and the employer would be the supermarket. Anyway in a monopsonistic labour market it's possible that employers keep the price of labour (wages) artificially low and a minimum wage helps to alleviate this. Still evidence is pretty mixed in regards to the ultimate employment effects of the minimum wage. There's also evidence to suggest that while it won't cause employers to fire employees it may make them invest into capital instead and hire less employees in the future. On August 06 2019 19:58 Gahlo wrote:On August 06 2019 17:29 Slydie wrote:On August 06 2019 13:37 NewSunshine wrote:
I find opposition to minimum wage increase to be interesting. It requires you to both 1) believe large corporations when they say they just can't pay people any more or they'll have to cut staff, and 2) forget what the minimum wage is supposed to achieve. Minimum wage is supposed to be set such that any job offers a livable wage, even if it's not glamorous. In that context, the number our minimum wage is at right now seems much more arbitrary, when someone working for minimum wage still requires government benefits to make ends meet. Big corporations are forcing you to subsidize these workers, by refusing to pay them properly while they post record profits quarter after quarter, and hand themselves enormous bonuses while they're at it. I should think we're all for raising the minimum wage, once the problem is framed properly. If unemployment is the problem, a low wages can be an effective way of creating more jobs. The problem as I see it is that strong unions are needed as a counterpower to the cooperations to get a larger piece of the cake. Also, if the unions push too hard, jobs will be moved abroad and businesses will close, so unions have incentives to cooperate to find good compromises as well. Those jobs tend to be empty numbers if a person has to have 2 jobs to get by instead of 1. I don't agree. Yes it's pretty aweful when you have to work two jobs to make a living but being unemployed is even worse. It's much easier to get a better paying job when you're already employed than when you're unemployed. I'm just saying that a person working 2 part-time jobs at $7.25 will be making less than if they had 1 part time job at $15. Yeah, "a job is lost", but nothing was actually lost by the employee and a position is opened for people that don't have a job.
Your argument successfully shows that 30 > 14.5. To see the flaw in it consider whether 50/hr would be better than 15/hr. Using your argument 100 > 30 and therefore a minimum wage of 50/hr would allow one person to stop working two jobs at 15/hr and let two people work the same jobs for 50/hr. This is because your argument assumes that the supply of minimum wage jobs does not vary with the minimum wage rate. This assumption is false. Perhaps there is an argument that jobs that create insufficient value to pay a living wage shouldn’t exist but that’s not an argument you made. Your argument is just that higher numbers tend to exceed lower numbers, an argument that logically results in the highest possible number being used.
|
On August 07 2019 07:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2019 07:23 Gahlo wrote:On August 07 2019 03:18 RvB wrote:On August 06 2019 23:52 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2019 13:37 NewSunshine wrote:
I find opposition to minimum wage increase to be interesting. It requires you to both 1) believe large corporations when they say they just can't pay people any more or they'll have to cut staff, and 2) forget what the minimum wage is supposed to achieve. Minimum wage is supposed to be set such that any job offers a livable wage, even if it's not glamorous. In that context, the number our minimum wage is at right now seems much more arbitrary, when someone working for minimum wage still requires government benefits to make ends meet. Big corporations are forcing you to subsidize these workers, by refusing to pay them properly while they post record profits quarter after quarter, and hand themselves enormous bonuses while they're at it. I should think we're all for raising the minimum wage, once the problem is framed properly. We have a 15 dollar minimum wage and it went up fairly recently. It did not hurt major corporations at all. It did raise the price of fast food, it did cause a few small businesses that were holding to to shut their doors. But really it was a small cost of living increase and life went on. The local chambers of commerce really railed against it but none of the doom and gloom came to pass. It also raised a lot of union wages that were tied to Minimum wage. It will probably take a bit of time to figure out how much the raise helped considering the cost of living increases, but I think overall it worked out and in the election that happened since it was not a big issue to repeal it. It seems like one of those things that is really "scary" but all the businesses just adjust their prices to reflect their new labor reality and the beat goes on. All their competitors feel the same "pain", if you were a business based on exports and had a bunch of minimum workers I could see it having a bigger impact, but locally it was a blip. The minimum wage is an interesting one. A regular supply and demand curve would suggest that an increase in the minimum wage would lead to less jobs. The evidence does not really show this to be the case in the labour market though. This is likely due to monopsony. A market structure with monopsony is a market with many suppliers but only one or few buyers. Imagine there's a market with many bakeries producing bread but there's only one supermarket which buys them. THe supermarket can then use it's market power to reduce the price of the bread it buys. In the labour market the worker would be the bakery (workers supply labour) and the employer would be the supermarket. Anyway in a monopsonistic labour market it's possible that employers keep the price of labour (wages) artificially low and a minimum wage helps to alleviate this. Still evidence is pretty mixed in regards to the ultimate employment effects of the minimum wage. There's also evidence to suggest that while it won't cause employers to fire employees it may make them invest into capital instead and hire less employees in the future. On August 06 2019 19:58 Gahlo wrote:On August 06 2019 17:29 Slydie wrote:On August 06 2019 13:37 NewSunshine wrote:
I find opposition to minimum wage increase to be interesting. It requires you to both 1) believe large corporations when they say they just can't pay people any more or they'll have to cut staff, and 2) forget what the minimum wage is supposed to achieve. Minimum wage is supposed to be set such that any job offers a livable wage, even if it's not glamorous. In that context, the number our minimum wage is at right now seems much more arbitrary, when someone working for minimum wage still requires government benefits to make ends meet. Big corporations are forcing you to subsidize these workers, by refusing to pay them properly while they post record profits quarter after quarter, and hand themselves enormous bonuses while they're at it. I should think we're all for raising the minimum wage, once the problem is framed properly. If unemployment is the problem, a low wages can be an effective way of creating more jobs. The problem as I see it is that strong unions are needed as a counterpower to the cooperations to get a larger piece of the cake. Also, if the unions push too hard, jobs will be moved abroad and businesses will close, so unions have incentives to cooperate to find good compromises as well. Those jobs tend to be empty numbers if a person has to have 2 jobs to get by instead of 1. I don't agree. Yes it's pretty aweful when you have to work two jobs to make a living but being unemployed is even worse. It's much easier to get a better paying job when you're already employed than when you're unemployed. I'm just saying that a person working 2 part-time jobs at $7.25 will be making less than if they had 1 part time job at $15. Yeah, "a job is lost", but nothing was actually lost by the employee and a position is opened for people that don't have a job. Your argument successfully shows that 30 > 14.5. To see the flaw in it consider whether 50/hr would be better than 15/hr. Using your argument 100 > 30 and therefore a minimum wage of 50/hr would allow one person to stop working two jobs at 15/hr and let two people work the same jobs for 50/hr. This is because your argument assumes that the supply of minimum wage jobs does not vary with the minimum wage rate. This assumption is false. Perhaps there is an argument that jobs that create insufficient value to pay a living wage shouldn’t exist but that’s not an argument you made. Your argument is just that higher numbers tend to exceed lower numbers, an argument that logically results in the highest possible number being used.
My argument was that 1 part job at $15 is better than 2 jobs at $7.25. There is no intrinsic merit to the market as a whole that the person working has 2 jobs instead of 1 and would be better off with that person working 1 job and somebody who is potentially unemployed picking up the second.
People keep crying about lost jobs, but unless the minimum wage going up more than cuts minimum wage jobs in half it becomes a net benefit. If employers literally can't, as opposed to the current standard of "Well, I don't have to", provide a living wage then they shouldn't be in business.
|
|
|
On August 07 2019 09:53 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2019 07:58 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2019 07:23 Gahlo wrote:On August 07 2019 03:18 RvB wrote:On August 06 2019 23:52 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2019 13:37 NewSunshine wrote:
I find opposition to minimum wage increase to be interesting. It requires you to both 1) believe large corporations when they say they just can't pay people any more or they'll have to cut staff, and 2) forget what the minimum wage is supposed to achieve. Minimum wage is supposed to be set such that any job offers a livable wage, even if it's not glamorous. In that context, the number our minimum wage is at right now seems much more arbitrary, when someone working for minimum wage still requires government benefits to make ends meet. Big corporations are forcing you to subsidize these workers, by refusing to pay them properly while they post record profits quarter after quarter, and hand themselves enormous bonuses while they're at it. I should think we're all for raising the minimum wage, once the problem is framed properly. We have a 15 dollar minimum wage and it went up fairly recently. It did not hurt major corporations at all. It did raise the price of fast food, it did cause a few small businesses that were holding to to shut their doors. But really it was a small cost of living increase and life went on. The local chambers of commerce really railed against it but none of the doom and gloom came to pass. It also raised a lot of union wages that were tied to Minimum wage. It will probably take a bit of time to figure out how much the raise helped considering the cost of living increases, but I think overall it worked out and in the election that happened since it was not a big issue to repeal it. It seems like one of those things that is really "scary" but all the businesses just adjust their prices to reflect their new labor reality and the beat goes on. All their competitors feel the same "pain", if you were a business based on exports and had a bunch of minimum workers I could see it having a bigger impact, but locally it was a blip. The minimum wage is an interesting one. A regular supply and demand curve would suggest that an increase in the minimum wage would lead to less jobs. The evidence does not really show this to be the case in the labour market though. This is likely due to monopsony. A market structure with monopsony is a market with many suppliers but only one or few buyers. Imagine there's a market with many bakeries producing bread but there's only one supermarket which buys them. THe supermarket can then use it's market power to reduce the price of the bread it buys. In the labour market the worker would be the bakery (workers supply labour) and the employer would be the supermarket. Anyway in a monopsonistic labour market it's possible that employers keep the price of labour (wages) artificially low and a minimum wage helps to alleviate this. Still evidence is pretty mixed in regards to the ultimate employment effects of the minimum wage. There's also evidence to suggest that while it won't cause employers to fire employees it may make them invest into capital instead and hire less employees in the future. On August 06 2019 19:58 Gahlo wrote:On August 06 2019 17:29 Slydie wrote:On August 06 2019 13:37 NewSunshine wrote:
I find opposition to minimum wage increase to be interesting. It requires you to both 1) believe large corporations when they say they just can't pay people any more or they'll have to cut staff, and 2) forget what the minimum wage is supposed to achieve. Minimum wage is supposed to be set such that any job offers a livable wage, even if it's not glamorous. In that context, the number our minimum wage is at right now seems much more arbitrary, when someone working for minimum wage still requires government benefits to make ends meet. Big corporations are forcing you to subsidize these workers, by refusing to pay them properly while they post record profits quarter after quarter, and hand themselves enormous bonuses while they're at it. I should think we're all for raising the minimum wage, once the problem is framed properly. If unemployment is the problem, a low wages can be an effective way of creating more jobs. The problem as I see it is that strong unions are needed as a counterpower to the cooperations to get a larger piece of the cake. Also, if the unions push too hard, jobs will be moved abroad and businesses will close, so unions have incentives to cooperate to find good compromises as well. Those jobs tend to be empty numbers if a person has to have 2 jobs to get by instead of 1. I don't agree. Yes it's pretty aweful when you have to work two jobs to make a living but being unemployed is even worse. It's much easier to get a better paying job when you're already employed than when you're unemployed. I'm just saying that a person working 2 part-time jobs at $7.25 will be making less than if they had 1 part time job at $15. Yeah, "a job is lost", but nothing was actually lost by the employee and a position is opened for people that don't have a job. Your argument successfully shows that 30 > 14.5. To see the flaw in it consider whether 50/hr would be better than 15/hr. Using your argument 100 > 30 and therefore a minimum wage of 50/hr would allow one person to stop working two jobs at 15/hr and let two people work the same jobs for 50/hr. This is because your argument assumes that the supply of minimum wage jobs does not vary with the minimum wage rate. This assumption is false. Perhaps there is an argument that jobs that create insufficient value to pay a living wage shouldn’t exist but that’s not an argument you made. Your argument is just that higher numbers tend to exceed lower numbers, an argument that logically results in the highest possible number being used. My argument was that 1 part job at $15 is better than 2 jobs at $7.25. There is no intrinsic merit to the market as a whole that the person working has 2 jobs instead of 1 and would be better off with that person working 1 job and somebody who is potentially unemployed picking up the second. People keep crying about lost jobs, but unless the minimum wage going up more than cuts minimum wage jobs in half it becomes a net benefit. If employers literally can't, as opposed to the current standard of "Well, I don't have to", provide a living wage then they shouldn't be in business.
I think calling it a net benefit is dubious.
If you double minimum wage, and in the process lose 45% of minimum wage jobs, you have some subset of that population that are not only unemployed, but also -unemployable-, because the bar for employment has been raised, and they are not smart / hardworking / educated enough to find gainful employment. Those people still need to eat. Not to mention the extra pressure you put on these now higher paid positions, and how many people respond to the difficulty of finding work with seeking other means of income.
There's a balance to be struck between people being able to make a livable wage working X amounts of hours a month for Y minimum wage, and if you lean it too heavily on either end it won't turn out great.
|
I think what is being missed, is that Gahlo is speaking more towards a livable wage and not necessarily raising minimum wage to some high arbitrary number. It doesn't have to be 50$/hr or anything like that. But raising it from 7.75 to 12 is a lot more helpful in places where taxes aren't gouging you. I went from 44k to 50k by moving to Chicago, but they're taking a chunk out of my paycheck every month.
I can still live decently off of what I make as an entry-level architect, but if I had this wouldn't be enough in SD and extravagant in Kansas City or Tulsa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
