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.
On March 09 2021 15:33 RenSC2 wrote: In an ideal world, states would responsibly represent their own people and choose an appropriate minimum wage based on their cost of living... or even do it at a county level. Unfortunately, we don't live in that ideal world.
What might make sense is to federally correlate the minimum wage to cost of living per state (per county would be even better). It would be more complex than a blanket $15/hr for the nation, but it would alleviate many of the issues.
People who understand COL better than me could figure out the calculation and other specifics, but by federal law, you'd have high COL states have high minimum wages and low COL states have lower minimum wages.
Seems like a good idea.
That seems like a good compromise. There are already cost of living graphs and charts out there that narrow down to the county, which I feel would be better, and could put the debate to rest.
I'm sure there are reasonable ways to mitigate the income / wage inflation / unemployment factor of a minimum wage hike - making it $12 instead of $15, or a slower hike to $15 - say, over a 10-year period rather than a 5-year one. But none of those options accomplish the key goal of giving a fuck-you to the progressive base that was promised that they'd get that key piece of their platform out of a Biden presidency by backing him in the election. It's important to make that message loud and clear right off the bat.
On March 09 2021 15:33 RenSC2 wrote: In an ideal world, states would responsibly represent their own people and choose an appropriate minimum wage based on their cost of living... or even do it at a county level. Unfortunately, we don't live in that ideal world.
What might make sense is to federally correlate the minimum wage to cost of living per state (per county would be even better). It would be more complex than a blanket $15/hr for the nation, but it would alleviate many of the issues.
People who understand COL better than me could figure out the calculation and other specifics, but by federal law, you'd have high COL states have high minimum wages and low COL states have lower minimum wages.
Seems like a good idea.
That seems like a good compromise. There are already cost of living graphs and charts out there that narrow down to the county, which I feel would be better, and could put the debate to rest.
That would be interesting as an economic experiment as well. Would businesses relocate to the the low cost of living location while employing folk across the minimum wage areas?
I've got no idea how large the areas are from where minimum wage employers draw their employees in the US or how big the counties are, but I seem to recall that there is some evidence from studies of gun laws where gun violence in Chicago didn't really drop as predicted by stricter laws because it is so close to less states with laxer gun laws. State and especially county level regulation may run into questions like this.
On March 09 2021 15:33 RenSC2 wrote: In an ideal world, states would responsibly represent their own people and choose an appropriate minimum wage based on their cost of living... or even do it at a county level. Unfortunately, we don't live in that ideal world.
What might make sense is to federally correlate the minimum wage to cost of living per state (per county would be even better). It would be more complex than a blanket $15/hr for the nation, but it would alleviate many of the issues.
People who understand COL better than me could figure out the calculation and other specifics, but by federal law, you'd have high COL states have high minimum wages and low COL states have lower minimum wages.
Seems like a good idea.
That seems like a good compromise. There are already cost of living graphs and charts out there that narrow down to the county, which I feel would be better, and could put the debate to rest.
That would be interesting as an economic experiment as well. Would businesses relocate to the the low cost of living location while employing folk across the minimum wage areas?
I've got no idea how large the areas are from where minimum wage employers draw their employees in the US or how big the counties are, but I seem to recall that there is some evidence from studies of gun laws where gun violence in Chicago didn't really drop as predicted by stricter laws because it is so close to less states with laxer gun laws. State and especially county level regulation may run into questions like this.
They absolutely would. In the township I grew up in the taxes were elevated due to an *incredible* amount of places of worship. As a result there was almost no businesses in the township, but conveniently all seem to be clustered along the border on the other side.
The only sticking point is whether they can find a location to move to.
Derek Chauvin is on trial for the murder of George Floyd. Jury selection has started. I'm not optimistic myself, but failing to hold Chauvin (at minimum, the other officers aren't innocent imo) accountable would inevitably trigger massive unrest imo.
If you've never done jury duty in the US or seen that part of the legal process outside of Hollywood it is interesting
Most research I've found on mild increases indicates a small initial downturn followed by a return to norms within 5-6 months. The initial downturn is the poorly run companies going out of business, followed by adjustments to the new normal. Long-term effects are inconclusive.
To give an idea of how nonsensical economists are on minimum wage, read the economists section on wikipedia's minimum wage page (which is a pretty good resource - it includes things like COL adjusted minimum wage, which puts NYC's 2015 income at 3.86$/hr effectively. This indicates that 15$/hr there is basically equivalent to the current 7.25 nationally).
The short of it is : in 2000 most economists thought the minimum wage should be eliminated. in 2013 most economists thought the minimum wage should be mildly increased.
Now, those two opinions are totally fucking contradictory : there's no way the science behind the field changed that much in less than a generation.
A 2006 survey conducted by economist Robert Whaples of a sample of 210 Ph.D. economists randomly selected from the American Economic Association, found that, regarding the U.S. minimum wage:[132]
46.8% favored eliminating it 1.3% favored decreasing it 14.3% favored keeping it the same 5.2% favored increasing it by about 50 cents per hour 15.6% favored increasing it by about $1 per hour 16.9% favored increasing it by more than $1 per hour
In 2014, over 600 economists signed a letter in support of increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 with research suggesting that a minimum wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth.[133][134][135][136] Also, seven recipients of the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences were among 75 economists endorsing an increase in the minimum wage for U.S. workers and said "the weight" of economic research shows higher pay doesn't lead to fewer jobs.[137][138]
According to a February 2013 survey of the University of Chicago IGM Forum, which includes approximately 40 economists:
34% agreed with the statement that "Raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour would make it noticeably harder for low-skilled workers to find employment", with 32% disagreeing and 24% uncertain 42% agreed that "...raising the minimum wage to $9 per hour and indexing it to inflation...would be a desirable policy", with 11% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing and 32% uncertain.[139]
According to a fall 2000 survey conducted by Fuller and Geide-Stevenson, 73.5% (27.9% of which agreed with provisos) of American economists surveyed[How many?] agreed that minimum wage laws increase unemployment among unskilled and young workers, while 26.5% disagreed with the statement.[140]
Economist Paul Krugman advocated raising the minimum wage moderately in 2013, citing several reasons, including:
The minimum wage was below its 1960s purchasing power, despite a near doubling of productivity; The great preponderance of the evidence indicates there is no negative impact on employment from moderate increases; and A high level of public support, specifically Democrats and Republican women.[141]
The point is, in 2000-2008 we had an administration looking for chicago school economists who hated the minimum wage, while in 2013 we had the opposite, and in a strange 'coincidence', economists beliefs followed the administrations.
This isn't like Climate Change. There's no consensus on the issue, and the economy is too complex to really know what effect minimum wage changes have had. Additionally, there is great motive for an economist to tailor their beliefs to follow the in vogue beliefs at the time.
On March 10 2021 00:45 GreenHorizons wrote: Derek Chauvin is on trial for the murder of George Floyd. Jury selection has started. I'm not optimistic myself, but failing to hold Chauvin (at minimum, the other officers aren't innocent imo) accountable would inevitably trigger massive unrest imo.
If you've never done jury duty in the US or seen that part of the legal process outside of Hollywood it is interesting
If Chauvin isn't sentenced to a LENGTHY prison stretch, it will be perhaps the worst of all of the recent "cops getting away with blatant abuses of power/uses of force." It will be very, very, ugly.
On March 10 2021 01:42 Husyelt wrote: What are the Vegas like odds on Chauvin’s sentence? If the dude died via neck / asphyxia, shouldn’t this be a pretty easy case?
When they ran a drug test he tested positive for a significant amount of fentanyl. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he died because of the officer and not the drugs isn't that simple, especially with the official autopsy calling it cardiac arrest and not asphyxia.
On March 10 2021 00:45 GreenHorizons wrote: Derek Chauvin is on trial for the murder of George Floyd. Jury selection has started. I'm not optimistic myself, but failing to hold Chauvin (at minimum, the other officers aren't innocent imo) accountable would inevitably trigger massive unrest imo.
If you've never done jury duty in the US or seen that part of the legal process outside of Hollywood it is interesting
It's not simple and there'll be a battle of the experts over cause of death, but asphyxia caused cardiac arrest is not uncommon (as far as asphyxia is concerned, at least) and one would hope the prosecution knows how to present on that kind of discrepancy. Importantly, both autopsies concluded that his death was a homicide.
On March 10 2021 01:13 Nevuk wrote: The short of it is : in 2000 most economists thought the minimum wage should be eliminated. in 2013 most economists thought the minimum wage should be mildly increased.
Now, those two opinions are totally fucking contradictory : there's no way the science behind the field changed that much in less than a generation.
That becomes a huge issue when researching and basing policy on studies. So much of the conclusion can be tied up in who is funding the research. The same exact data can be used to land contradictory findings, much like you can see in studies regarding the Seattle wage hike. It gets to the point where people don't trust any study that doesn't reach their desired conclusion, because any funding source can be pointed to as partisan in one area or another.
Worse yet, economic policies are always hard to really value. What if every worse case scenario happens with the increased wage hike, but the economy still improves over time? How about the opposite? Would the progressive position eventually concede and change if for example the wage increase was found to increase poverty, or the reaped rewards trickled up to large corporations that can more easily handled the increased labor costs through small competitors closing, giving them even stronger positions to dictate employee productivity and availability?
On March 10 2021 01:13 Nevuk wrote: Most research I've found on mild increases indicates a small initial downturn followed by a return to norms within 5-6 months. The initial downturn is the poorly run companies going out of business, followed by adjustments to the new normal. Long-term effects are inconclusive.
To give an idea of how nonsensical economists are on minimum wage, read the economists section on wikipedia's minimum wage page (which is a pretty good resource - it includes things like COL adjusted minimum wage, which puts NYC's 2015 income at 3.86$/hr effectively. This indicates that 15$/hr there is basically equivalent to the current 7.25 nationally).
The short of it is : in 2000 most economists thought the minimum wage should be eliminated. in 2013 most economists thought the minimum wage should be mildly increased.
Now, those two opinions are totally fucking contradictory : there's no way the science behind the field changed that much in less than a generation.
A 2006 survey conducted by economist Robert Whaples of a sample of 210 Ph.D. economists randomly selected from the American Economic Association, found that, regarding the U.S. minimum wage:[132]
46.8% favored eliminating it 1.3% favored decreasing it 14.3% favored keeping it the same 5.2% favored increasing it by about 50 cents per hour 15.6% favored increasing it by about $1 per hour 16.9% favored increasing it by more than $1 per hour
In 2014, over 600 economists signed a letter in support of increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 with research suggesting that a minimum wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth.[133][134][135][136] Also, seven recipients of the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences were among 75 economists endorsing an increase in the minimum wage for U.S. workers and said "the weight" of economic research shows higher pay doesn't lead to fewer jobs.[137][138]
According to a February 2013 survey of the University of Chicago IGM Forum, which includes approximately 40 economists:
34% agreed with the statement that "Raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour would make it noticeably harder for low-skilled workers to find employment", with 32% disagreeing and 24% uncertain 42% agreed that "...raising the minimum wage to $9 per hour and indexing it to inflation...would be a desirable policy", with 11% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing and 32% uncertain.[139]
According to a fall 2000 survey conducted by Fuller and Geide-Stevenson, 73.5% (27.9% of which agreed with provisos) of American economists surveyed[How many?] agreed that minimum wage laws increase unemployment among unskilled and young workers, while 26.5% disagreed with the statement.[140]
Economist Paul Krugman advocated raising the minimum wage moderately in 2013, citing several reasons, including:
The minimum wage was below its 1960s purchasing power, despite a near doubling of productivity; The great preponderance of the evidence indicates there is no negative impact on employment from moderate increases; and A high level of public support, specifically Democrats and Republican women.[141]
The point is, in 2000-2008 we had an administration looking for chicago school economists who hated the minimum wage, while in 2013 we had the opposite, and in a strange 'coincidence', economists beliefs followed the administrations.
This isn't like Climate Change. There's no consensus on the issue, and the economy is too complex to really know what effect minimum wage changes have had. Additionally, there is great motive for an economist to tailor their beliefs to follow the in vogue beliefs at the time.
Not really. Schools of thought is an outdated concept in economics. The reason economists opinions on minimum wages changed is because, following the Card & Kreuger study in 1994, there's been a lot of research on minimum wages. As more evidence has come out economists have slowly moved towards consensus. Most high quality research suggests that employment effects of small minimum wages increases are small to non existent. There's not much evidence for large scale minimum wage increases though since that just doesn't happen a lot.
I would say that the chances of convicting Chauvin are pretty good, as far as chances of convicting a cop go.
And yes, if there isn't a conviction, Minneapolis would burn to the fucking ground. There's no world in which law enforcement will be able to keep the peace if he gets away with what is probably the single most high profile and blatant murder-by-cop in a generation.
On March 10 2021 02:09 Mohdoo wrote: I would really like for the entire jury to be black.
So far first Juror (best guess: Hispanic woman ESL 30's) was dismissed. Juror 2 (Best guess: white guy late mid-late 20's) on the jury.
I can't break it all down but I'm not optimistic about the prosecution after letting juror #2 on. (he gets questioned ~2hrs into the youtube link for those that are curious)
On March 10 2021 01:42 Husyelt wrote: What are the Vegas like odds on Chauvin’s sentence? If the dude died via neck / asphyxia, shouldn’t this be a pretty easy case?
When they ran a drug test he tested positive for a significant amount of fentanyl. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he died because of the officer and not the drugs isn't that simple, especially with the official autopsy calling it cardiac arrest and not asphyxia.
Any structural engineer will tell you that the World Trade Center was subjected to extraordinary amounts of pressure due to the height of the building, the mass of the building materials, and the compounding factor of gravitational pull from the Earth. That without these factors a plane could not have caused the building to collapse and would, at most, have transferred the kinetic energy to the building causing it to drift away into space.
And yet it is not a coincidence that the buildings were basically fine until some assholes flew planes into them. The argument that multiple conditions had to be met in order for A to cause B does not change whether A caused B.
On March 10 2021 02:06 Stratos_speAr wrote: I would say that the chances of convicting Chauvin are pretty good, as far as chances of convicting a cop go.
And yes, if there isn't a conviction, Minneapolis would burn to the fucking ground. There's no world in which law enforcement will be able to keep the peace if he gets away with what is probably the single most high profile and blatant murder-by-cop in a generation.
I think the likelier outcore is that Chauvin gets a small sentence, say five years, and gets paroled like three years in (which would still be bullshit, but lesser bullshit). I would really be shocked if he was completed cleared. Perhaps I'm being too naive.
On March 10 2021 02:09 Mohdoo wrote: I would really like for the entire jury to be black.
So far first Juror (best guess: Hispanic woman ESL 30's) was dismissed. Juror 2 (Best guess: white guy late mid-late 20's) on the jury.
I can't break it all down but I'm not optimistic about the prosecution after letting juror #2 on. (he gets questioned ~2hrs into the youtube link for those that are curious)
EPT
