The $15 minimum wage

I gather the discussion has moved on from the topic of "the minimum wage".

Yes -- Someone's trying to turn this into a guide on how to be a capitalistic sociopath, while pretending not to be.

sprout said:

terp said:

sprout said:

terp said:

sprout said:

terp said:

 If you have a good fundamental standard of economics, you can see right through these studies.  

And your good fundamental understanding of economics understands how the system has clearly been rigged against African Americans gaining entry to the middle- and upper-classes, and continues to perpetuate this economic inequity, correct?

 You should really watch the Walter Williams documentary I posted further up in this thread.

I did. 

• It showed how with "free market" economics, those who start with an advantage will maintain their advantage.  
• It also demonstrated how you can encourage the working class to fight each other for scraps of jobs, and use their need for jobs to maintain racial strife. 
• They also indicated how when capitalism takes away jobs, the next best option capitalism offers is making money by selling drugs or selling their bodies.(Which then leads to profiteering off the incarceration of those who tried surviving off the latter option).
• And finally, it promoted the propaganda that it is actually 'good' to pay your workers less -- and that you would be a blessing to the world for doing so.

So, you do see how this has all been rigged?  Right?

 That sounds like the 2+2=5 version of that video.

No. It's just how capitalism works -- It's fundamentally about making money, right?

So, if you don't understand how some hidden rules of capitalism (to make money) are in those bullet points, then your economic understanding is just beginner level.

 The subject was changed here.

So, @terp I assume you would be okay with a locality setting a minimum wage, right?  Of course, with globalization and the incredible accumulation of wealth that some have (in many cases due to the government), people aren’t as “free” to enter into agreements.  We just disagree on what constitutes “consent.”

nohero said:

I gather the discussion has moved on from the topic of "the minimum wage".

 as always.  And as always, straw men being beaten into submission.  

Maybe we should look at the CBO estimates of the outcome of a $15 minimum wage instead of relying on our understanding of "fundamental economics."

The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage

The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour for most workers. The Congressional Budget Office examined how increasing the federal minimum wage to $10, $12, or $15 per hour by 2025 would affect employment and
family income.
• In an average week in 2025, the $15 option would boost the wages of 17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $15 per hour. Another 10 million workers otherwise earning slightly more than $15 per hour might see their wages rise as well. But 1.3 million other workers would become jobless, according to CBO’s median estimate. There is a two thirds chance that the change in employment would be between about zero and a decrease of 3.7 million workers. The number of people with annual income below the poverty threshold in 2025 would fall by 1.3 million.

and:

The $15 option would alter employment more for some groups than for others. Almost 50 percent of the newly jobless workers in a given week—600,000 of 1.3 million—would be teenagers (some of whom would live in families with income well above the poverty threshold). Employment would also fall disproportionately among part-time workers and adults without a high school 

so, is it worth it to raise the wages of as many as 27 million workers, and lift 1.3 million people above the poverty level in order to keep the jobs of 1.3 million people (almost half of them teenagers)?  Admittedly the CBO estimate it could be as many as 3.7 million jobs lost -- BUT they also estimate there's as much likelihood that nearly ZERO jobs would be lost as 3.7 million.

I don't think any proponent of a higher minimum wage is arguing that NO jobs would be lost. But the question is -- is it better to deny a better wage to 27 million people in order to save a million and half jobs?

ml1 said:

nohero said:

I gather the discussion has moved on from the topic of "the minimum wage".

 as always.  And as always, straw men being beaten into submission.  

Maybe we should look at the CBO estimates of the outcome of a $15 minimum wage instead of relying on our understanding of "fundamental economics."

The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage

The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour for most workers. The Congressional Budget Office examined how increasing the federal minimum wage to $10, $12, or $15 per hour by 2025 would affect employment and
family income.
• In an average week in 2025, the $15 option would boost the wages of 17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $15 per hour. Another 10 million workers otherwise earning slightly more than $15 per hour might see their wages rise as well. But 1.3 million other workers would become jobless, according to CBO’s median estimate. There is a two thirds chance that the change in employment would be between about zero and a decrease of 3.7 million workers. The number of people with annual income below the poverty threshold in 2025 would fall by 1.3 million.

and:

The $15 option would alter employment more for some groups than for others. Almost 50 percent of the newly jobless workers in a given week—600,000 of 1.3 million—would be teenagers (some of whom would live in families with income well above the poverty threshold). Employment would also fall disproportionately among part-time workers and adults without a high school 

so, is it worth it to raise the wages of as many as 27 million workers, and lift 1.3 million people above the poverty level in order to keep the jobs of 1.3 million people (almost half of them teenagers)?  Admittedly the CBO estimate it could be as many as 3.7 million jobs lost -- BUT they also estimate there's as much likelihood that nearly ZERO jobs would be lost as 3.7 million.

I don't think any proponent of a higher minimum wage is arguing that NO jobs would be lost. But the question is -- is it better to deny a better wage to 27 million people in order to save a million and half jobs?

 And how do they know these numbers?

Steve said:

So, @terp I assume you would be okay with a locality setting a minimum wage, right?  Of course, with globalization and the incredible accumulation of wealth that some have (in many cases due to the government), people aren’t as “free” to enter into agreements.  We just disagree on what constitutes “consent.”

 While it is true that society is not as free as portrayed and tyranny seems to be steadily on the march, I don't think we help people by telling them its illegal to enter into an employee agreement that they would under their own volition.  

I would not be OK with a locality setting a minimum wage, certainly not mine.  It is better than the state setting it, which is better than a central government setting it, which is better than a supranational government setting it.  You get where I'm going with this. 

This literally happened to show up in my twitter feed.  This is for the people that need a study to tell them about lifes little certainties.

terp said:

ml1 said:

nohero said:

I gather the discussion has moved on from the topic of "the minimum wage".

 as always.  And as always, straw men being beaten into submission.  

Maybe we should look at the CBO estimates of the outcome of a $15 minimum wage instead of relying on our understanding of "fundamental economics."

The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage

The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour for most workers. The Congressional Budget Office examined how increasing the federal minimum wage to $10, $12, or $15 per hour by 2025 would affect employment and
family income.
• In an average week in 2025, the $15 option would boost the wages of 17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $15 per hour. Another 10 million workers otherwise earning slightly more than $15 per hour might see their wages rise as well. But 1.3 million other workers would become jobless, according to CBO’s median estimate. There is a two thirds chance that the change in employment would be between about zero and a decrease of 3.7 million workers. The number of people with annual income below the poverty threshold in 2025 would fall by 1.3 million.

and:

The $15 option would alter employment more for some groups than for others. Almost 50 percent of the newly jobless workers in a given week—600,000 of 1.3 million—would be teenagers (some of whom would live in families with income well above the poverty threshold). Employment would also fall disproportionately among part-time workers and adults without a high school 

so, is it worth it to raise the wages of as many as 27 million workers, and lift 1.3 million people above the poverty level in order to keep the jobs of 1.3 million people (almost half of them teenagers)?  Admittedly the CBO estimate it could be as many as 3.7 million jobs lost -- BUT they also estimate there's as much likelihood that nearly ZERO jobs would be lost as 3.7 million.

I don't think any proponent of a higher minimum wage is arguing that NO jobs would be lost. But the question is -- is it better to deny a better wage to 27 million people in order to save a million and half jobs?

 And how do they know these numbers?

 there's about 10 pages of citations of the research they used.  but maybe they should have just relied on fundamental economics instead of data.

ml1 said:

terp said:

ml1 said:

nohero said:

I gather the discussion has moved on from the topic of "the minimum wage".

 as always.  And as always, straw men being beaten into submission.  

Maybe we should look at the CBO estimates of the outcome of a $15 minimum wage instead of relying on our understanding of "fundamental economics."

The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage

The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour for most workers. The Congressional Budget Office examined how increasing the federal minimum wage to $10, $12, or $15 per hour by 2025 would affect employment and
family income.
• In an average week in 2025, the $15 option would boost the wages of 17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $15 per hour. Another 10 million workers otherwise earning slightly more than $15 per hour might see their wages rise as well. But 1.3 million other workers would become jobless, according to CBO’s median estimate. There is a two thirds chance that the change in employment would be between about zero and a decrease of 3.7 million workers. The number of people with annual income below the poverty threshold in 2025 would fall by 1.3 million.

and:

The $15 option would alter employment more for some groups than for others. Almost 50 percent of the newly jobless workers in a given week—600,000 of 1.3 million—would be teenagers (some of whom would live in families with income well above the poverty threshold). Employment would also fall disproportionately among part-time workers and adults without a high school 

so, is it worth it to raise the wages of as many as 27 million workers, and lift 1.3 million people above the poverty level in order to keep the jobs of 1.3 million people (almost half of them teenagers)?  Admittedly the CBO estimate it could be as many as 3.7 million jobs lost -- BUT they also estimate there's as much likelihood that nearly ZERO jobs would be lost as 3.7 million.

I don't think any proponent of a higher minimum wage is arguing that NO jobs would be lost. But the question is -- is it better to deny a better wage to 27 million people in order to save a million and half jobs?

 And how do they know these numbers?

 there's about 10 pages of citations of the research they used.  but maybe they should have just relied on fundamental economics instead of data.

 This is a much better explanation(and more brief!) than the study.  But dammit. Some people just need a study.  

I would add that the people who claim the election was stolen are on much more stable ground than those quoting a CBO study.   These are crazy times. 

terp said:

 This is a much better explanation(and more brief!) than the study.  But dammit. Some people just need a study.  

And some people reject empirical evidence that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. 

Go figure. 

terp said:

sprout said:

terp said:

sprout said:

terp said:

sprout said:

terp said:

 If you have a good fundamental standard of economics, you can see right through these studies.  

And your good fundamental understanding of economics understands how the system has clearly been rigged against African Americans gaining entry to the middle- and upper-classes, and continues to perpetuate this economic inequity, correct?

 You should really watch the Walter Williams documentary I posted further up in this thread.

I did. 

• It showed how with "free market" economics, those who start with an advantage will maintain their advantage.  
• It also demonstrated how you can encourage the working class to fight each other for scraps of jobs, and use their need for jobs to maintain racial strife. 
• They also indicated how when capitalism takes away jobs, the next best option capitalism offers is making money by selling drugs or selling their bodies.(Which then leads to profiteering off the incarceration of those who tried surviving off the latter option).
• And finally, it promoted the propaganda that it is actually 'good' to pay your workers less -- and that you would be a blessing to the world for doing so.

So, you do see how this has all been rigged?  Right?

 That sounds like the 2+2=5 version of that video.

No. It's just how capitalism works -- It's fundamentally about making money, right?

So, if you don't understand how some hidden rules of capitalism (to make money) are in those bullet points, then your economic understanding is just beginner level.

 The subject was changed here.

I suppose since my first post interpreted more of the economic propaganda video you posted than just the need to underpay labor, I changed the subject. And I could change the subject more by addressing your photo of F.A. Hayek, who actually advocated for some forms of regulation and safety nets. Also, some of his predictions were correct, and some were very very wrong. Which is true for most economists.

The full systemic impact of a $15 minimum wage is unknown. Brilliant economists can only guess what will happen. In the cat-and-mouse game of capitalism, a rule gets tweaked, the advantages, disadvantages, and loopholes occur, and we monitor what happens for a while, then another adjustment is made in response.

We need to try different things in economics. I prefer to proactively prevent losers from getting anywhere close to having nothing to lose, and possibly just taking from the winners. But some people enjoy the drama of getting a lot closer to the brink of this danger -- probably thinking they would enjoy some hero experience, rather than the reality of just having a more stressful existence.

Either way, it's really just time to try the $15 minimum wage.  And then we'll see what happens. There will be some winners and losers, and then the debate of what to do next will begin all over again.

sprout said:.

Either way, it's really just time to try the $15 minimum wage.  And then we'll see what happens. There will be some winners and losers, and then the debate of what to do next will begin all over again.

ml1 said:

terp said:

 This is a much better explanation(and more brief!) than the study.  But dammit. Some people just need a study.  

And some people reject empirical evidence that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. 

Go figure. 

 Ha.  From the lord of even handedness himself!

terp said:

 We don't disagree on the data. I'm saying that what you are proposing is against an economic law. You will use that same law to argue for other policies.  This is not about data. Your proposal won't accomplish what you want it to. Not only that, it will aggravate the issue you are trying to solve

How does that work, that you can just declare your beliefs an economic law? Can I likewise announce that my view is an economic law?

If democracy works so well, then why is this country burdened with debt, endlessly at war, have crumbling infrastructure, have overcrowded prisons, corporate bailouts & welfare, government closing down businesses with dubious evidence, extremely high tax rates, etc. I would posit that most Americans are aginst these things, but we still have them. If democracy works so well, then why doesn't it seem to work very well?

A topic I'm always happy to talk about, but which seems rather far afield from this thread. Again, my only point here was that you declared I do not care about this. Maybe this is like your declaring your own beliefs "law" -- anyone who doesn't share your views must not actually care?

As a heads up, I'm probably going to bow out of the thread for at least a bit. Talking about the minimum wage, and economics in general, is something I find interesting. Talking about "terp vs PVW," otoh, is rather navel gazing and the sort of thing I'm trying to do less of.

terp said:

More quippy quotes? Edited: The $15/hr minimum wage is coming eventually. We can discuss the outcomes in a later thread...  or you can just post more quippy quotes, I suppose.

My point is that the effects of price floors is basic supply/demand theory.  This is 1st semester stuff.  It's extremely basic and universally accepted.  To argue that there is empirical data that counters this and takes into account all the side effects and all the potential environment changes that proves this incorrect is a bold assertion.  To think that you could project the effects on a country as large and diverse as this one with any accuracy is absurd and is probably propaganda. 

Anyway, anyone who proposes to do something that dangerous should shoulder the burden of proof.  I mean, even if you take the ml1 study on its face it says its going to result in 1.3 million more unemployed...what is that Stalin said about statistics?

This idea that you can engineer the economy is foolishness.

terp said:

This idea that you can engineer the economy is foolishness,

 And trying to have economies exist independent of any engineering is folly.

nohero said:

I gather the discussion has moved on from the topic of "the minimum wage".

 Its the 24/7 Terp Show. Happens with every thread he takes over.

Boring.....

terp said:

 While it is true that society is not as free as portrayed and tyranny seems to be steadily on the march, I don't think we help people by telling them its illegal to enter into an employee agreement that they would under their own volition.  

I would not be OK with a locality setting a minimum wage, certainly not mine.  It is better than the state setting it, which is better than a central government setting it, which is better than a supranational government setting it.  You get where I'm going with this. 

 So it's no time about local control; it's about maintaining power for the wealthy.

Also, high tax rates?  Really?

terp said:

 Ha.  From the lord of even handedness himself!

 I don't even know what this means. 

you complain a lot about being treated poorly here. But you give no indication that you really want an intelligent exchange. You don't read the links, you don't address the info, you don't provide a reasoned argument, you just provide arrogant snideness in response.  

Good for you. 

This idea that you can engineer the economy is foolishness.....

Where ignorance is bliss, it’s folly to be wise 

Klinker said:

nohero said:

I gather the discussion has moved on from the topic of "the minimum wage".

 Its the 24/7 Terp Show. Happens with every thread he takes over.

Boring.....

 since terp perked up here on this thread today, there have been maybe 50 new posts.

opposite of boring, if you ask me.

What's this thread about - Libertarianism again?  

jamie said:

What's this thread about - Libertarianism again?  

 Yes, now.

It's MOL's version of "Godwin's Law" - "As a political thread including Terp grows longer, the probability that everyone will be told that they're too uneducated to appreciate the 'Libertarian' point of view approaches 1."

nohero said:

jamie said:

What's this thread about - Libertarianism again?  

 Yes, now.

It's MOL's version of "Godwin's Law" - "As a political thread including Terp grows longer, the probability that everyone will be told that they're too uneducated to appreciate the 'Libertarian' point of view approaches 1."

 that wouldn't be so bad, if he was directly responding to the info and arguments posted by others and then telling us we're too dumb to understand.  But responding that we don't need no stinkin' research, and citing a 15 year old blog post as the last word on the topic is what's really ignorant.  

ml1 said:

 that wouldn't be so bad, if he was directly responding to the info and arguments posted by others and then telling us we're too dumb to understand.  But responding that we don't need no stinkin' research, and citing a 15 year old blog post as the last word on the topic is what's really ignorant.  

 It always turns into the same discussion, no matter what topic was at the start.  

And "Democracy Sucks", although I don't recall ever seeing what alternative is proposed.

So we’re currently paying just over S19.00/hr Australian, for a 38hr week, including 4 weeks of annual leave and up to 2 weeks of sick leave. 
https://business.gov.au/people/pay-and-conditions/employees-pay-leave-and-entitlements

That’s roughly your $15 on current exchange rates, plus the other benefits. Given the high proportion of casual jobs and fake-self-employed jobs (gig economy: Uber etc), a lot of ‘work’ isn’t liveable but is exploitive, especially at present. We should be recognising the precariousness of employment, and trying to protect it, shield our working families and communities and build in resilience. 

Learn from other places. There are enough healthy examples from your historical allies. 
*yawn* I must go sleep. Have a good day!

joanne said:

So we’re currently paying just over S19.00/hr Australian, for a 38hr week, including 4 weeks of annual leave and up to 2 weeks of sick leave. 
https://business.gov.au/people/pay-and-conditions/employees-pay-leave-and-entitlements

That’s roughly your $15 on current exchange rates, plus the other benefits. Given the high proportion of casual jobs and fake-self-employed jobs (gig economy: Uber etc), a lot of ‘work’ isn’t liveable but is exploitive, especially at present. We should be recognising the precariousness of employment, and trying to protect it, shield our working families and communities and build in resilience. 

Learn from other places. There are enough healthy examples from your historical allies. 
*yawn* I must go sleep. Have a good day!

You make a lot of sense.  But to make a real impact, it should be a quote with a picture of some historical figure.  Maybe Abraham Lincoln ...