Union That Leads Charge for Higher Minimum Wage Asks for Exemption from the Minimum Wage
-- in exchange for other benefits --
but really its a stupid argument by the union leadership. they get the higher minimum wage and they should still request better benefits.
That's from an editorial the morning of May 29, he obviously missed this from the evening of May 28.
In a statement Thursday night, Hicks said that the federation and Raise the Wage coalition would support tabling the proposed exemption for unionized workers for further study while the rest of the minimum wage ordinance advances.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-minimum-wage-union-exemption-hicks-20150528-story.html
Who picked it up? ZH? IW? WND?
Didn't we do this once already?
https://southorange.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/id/117532-Raising-the-Minimum-Wage-Apparently-Does-Not-Help-All-of-the-Poor
LOL. They're not dropping it. It sounds like they are going to let the minimum wage ordinance advance , and then look at possibly seeking an exemption.
It's not fair to ask why?
it just goes to show you that between the supply-siders and austrian gold-bugs they've made the whole world collectively stupider in the area of economics.
Na. Given the new "living wage" laws, the behavior of Central Banks across the globe, etc. I think Keynsians still have a stranglehold on economic stupidity.
drummerboy said:
er, ya can't be stupid when you're right.
I once was right.
I kept arguing with someone who refused to listen.
Stupid me.
yeah, but you weren't stupid about the thing you were right about. you were simply stupid on an interpersonal relationship level.
drummerboy said:
er, ya can't be stupid when you're right.
If only this were true.
ok. someone needs to explain to me how you can be stupid about a subject of which you are right.
drummerboy said:
ok. someone needs to explain to me how you can be stupid about a subject of which you are right.
One can be right for the wrong reason(s).
Back when I was in college taking Math for Sociopaths, being right was rarely enough. You had to get to the right answer using the right process.
drummerboy said:
being right for the wrong reason doesn't make you stupid.
Not by definition, but one can be stupid and still be right.
ETA: For example, I could be pro-vaccine, because I think the virus takes up residence in my body and fights off any similar virus trying to invade its turf.
Jeez DB. This is like old times. There's nobody I'd rather be called stupid by. 
Perhaps you wouldn't mind too much coming to the assistance of someone as feeble minded as myself.
Help me understand. Not only do we have ZIRP for 7+ years, but we've had 3 rounds of QE, and an Operation TWIST. And that's just in this country. Central Banks across the Globe have followed suit. ZIRP is the rule. QE is the rule. We even have seen NIRP. We've had fiscal stimulus. Most of the western national governments have very healthy debt levels.
This is Keynsian Shangri La. So, things should be great. And for some people they are. Asset Prices are at all time highs. Stocks, Bonds, Art, luxury homes, are all at or near all time highs. If you own these things you are doing VERY WELL. But, we know who owns these things. Yes? It's not your average postal worker or electrician.
And the Warfare/Welfare state is very healthy. The Military has been operating in various countries, with no end in sight. The Security State continues to grow unabated. 46 Million Americans are receiving Food Stamp Benefits. By Keynsian measures, this should all be very stimulative.
But what are the results? We have the lowest labor force participation rate in 40 years. And its not people retiring. Labor force participation among working age men are at 30 year lows. The costs associating with starting an adult life have gone off the charts. College costs have soared. People graduate college deep in debt and enter a very challenging labor market. They start in a hole & it is very difficult to save in this current rate environment. Thus, Housing Formation has been on a steady decline during this recovery.
Businesses are getting older in this country. This means that fewer new businesses are starting up. This is probably due to an increasingly complex regulatory environment that is expensive to comply with, as well as advantages Larger businesses often have working with government & finance, as well as a perverse result of ZIRP that allows inefficient companies to survive longer than they otherwise would.
And to make matters worse. The man who set us down this path of ZIRP and QE. The guy apparently has a gluten free diet!
So tell me. Is this all part of the plan? As we go further and further into the debt abyss, when do things get better?
You fail quickly in your last post. Consequently I didn't read past the 2nd paragraph.
You say we have had fiscal stimulus. bzzzzt! wrong! What the fed can do, and has done, can only very tangentially be called fiscal stimulus. What everyone else refers to as fiscal stimulus is the federal government deliberately spending money for no other than reason than to spend money in order to stimulate consumption.(None of what the fed did was meant to stimulate consumption by regular people.)
And in that area the western nations have failed since the crisis began in 2008. While the US has done a bit better than Europe (owing partly to Obama's rather meager stimulus package in 2009), by far the dominant economic policy employed by the west has been austerity - the opposite of stimulus. So when you list your litany of economic problems, make sure you correctly characterize the actual policies that have left us in this hole.
It's why, by the way, that Ben Bernanke was practically begging Congress to step in with more stimulus.
Glad to hear that you stopped reading after the 2nd paragraph because I brought up fiscal stimulus which you claim we didn't get. It was interesting to see you mention Obama's stimulus package later.
FWIW: I did read your entire post despite the fact that it contained what I perceived to be incorrect information. I guess I'm just stupid.
You may have read my post, but apparently you didn't get it's point.
And I skimmed through the rest of your post, and it has the problem that I assumed it would. You correctly identify many economic concerns, than use the presence of those concerns to "prove" that stimulus doesn't work, when stimulus hasn't actually even occurred yet.
So your whole post is wrong. Kinda like getting the right answer, but getting there in the wrong way.
The Obama stimulus, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, was too small on an absolute level, and was made more ineffective by it's focus on tax cuts. And a year after the stimulus was passed, talk in Washington immediately returned to budget and deficit cutting - austerity.
I never claimed to prove anything. Rather, I was asking when things get better. The Keynesian have had their way. The Fed's balance sheet has increased about 500%. Central Banks across the globe have been expanding their balance sheets. I know I hear quite a bit about austerity, but I see countries running healthy deficits, and I don't see actual cuts. See the graph of the US budget for reference. Even with the dip down from the Stimulus spending you still see the original rate of growth maintained. And it looks like a pretty healthy chart.
The Obama stimulus package was about $831 Billion. This is about a quarter of the original budget size. So, that was "meager". What would have been the right size? What kind of stimulus should we have going forward? Given this, how & when does it get better. Do we need more Monetary stimulus from the Fed.
I'm really asking. If I'm dumb & you're so smart, this should be pretty simple. What is the game plan? What is the timeline for sustainable growth with full employment with a solvent financial system, and a Sustainable Fiscal budget? That's all I'd like to know.
Again. "The Keynesian have had their way." Such nonsense. Tell me, in what industrialized nation country do Keynesians hold sway over economic policy? Besides maybe Scandinavia? We have had years of austerity as the guiding force of policy, and yet you sit their and say "The Keynesian have had their way".
You have to deal with the world as it is dude.
TylerDurden said:
I never claimed to prove anything. Rather, I was asking when things get better. The Keynesian have had their way. The Fed's balance sheet has increased about 500%. Central Banks across the globe have been expanding their balance sheets. I know I hear quite a bit about austerity, but I see countries running healthy deficits, and I don't see actual cuts. See the graph of the US budget for reference. Even with the dip down from the Stimulus spending you still see the original rate of growth maintained. And it looks like a pretty healthy chart.
The Obama stimulus package was about $831 Billion. This is about a quarter of the original budget size. So, that was "meager". What would have been the right size? What kind of stimulus should we have going forward? Given this, how & when does it get better. Do we need more Monetary stimulus from the Fed.
I'm really asking. If I'm dumb & you're so smart, this should be pretty simple. What is the game plan? What is the timeline for sustainable growth with full employment with a solvent financial system, and a Sustainable Fiscal budget? That's all I'd like to know.
You're ignoring state and local spending. We're in for about 35% of GDP for fiscal 2016, same as 35 years ago.
terp,
and it's been clear that what has made this recovery period so different then recent, previous ones, has been the drastic reduction in government payrolls at all levels. The very definition of austerity.
So stop talking as if we're living in the time of an activist government determined to fix the economy through spending. We're living in the EXACT opposite of that.
drummerboy said:
being right for the wrong reason doesn't make you stupid.
Yes it does. My parents thought they were politically astute. They had lots of views on candidates. Many of their views were just. But their rationale was crazy.
drummerboy said:
terp,
and it's been clear that what has made this recovery period so different then recent, previous ones, has been the drastic reduction in government payrolls at all levels. The very definition of austerity.
So stop talking as if we're living in the time of an activist government determined to fix the economy through spending. We're living in the EXACT opposite of that.
I don't think we're living in anything like the EXACT opposite. I realize that State and Local governments are broke. But that's not really austerity imposed by any political will. Many state and local governments are literally broke. Illinois hasn't been paying pensions and apparently can't afford to pay lottery winners. I'm not sure what kind of solution you propose for them not being austere.
But Central Banks have been printing like crazy. This stuff is quite unprecedented, at least as part of the current monetary order. They are talking about negative interest rates, potential limits on cash use, and all kind of nonsensical policies.
Keynes never really cared how we got $$ into the people's hands. The important thing was that they have it. You could have tax breaks, gov't jobs, government welfare, money printing etc. And we've had quite a bit of welfare and money printing.
The federal budget remains healthy. Have you been to DC lately? That area is doing great. It's no accident that home values in that area are through the roof.
At the end of the day, the private sphere has to be healthy. The private sphere finances all of the government spending. Without it, you have nothing. This is the part that they haven't effectively been able to get going. The reason they cannot get it going is because these policies have run their course. In the long term, they just don't work.
The attempt to centrally manage the economy is smothering it rather than stimulate it. Let's see how much longer they can kick the can down the road and delay the reckoning. I'm guessing not that much longer.
- 2001 Tech Bubble Burst
- 2008 Housing related Financial Crisis
- 2015?
What do you mean it's not austerity imposed by political will? It's EXACTLY that. The federal government was well within it's capacity to give aid to the states, but they didn't because austerity. As a result tens of thousands of teachers lost their jobs across the country. Infrastructure continues to crumble.
And christ almighty - you're claiming the private sector is in some kind of trouble? Maybe you can tell me what major industry is having difficulty right now and for the last few post-recovery years.
Corporate profits have been huge the last few years - the problem has been that those profits haven't trickled down to people who might actually spend it on consumer goods, slowing down the economy for the have nots. The haves, however, are doing quite wonderfully.
We suffer from lack of consumer demand, and without the feds pouring money directly into the economy in the way of aid to states and infrastructure spending, we are doomed to the slow and painful recovery most of us are experiencing.
Also, it DOES matter how the feds put money into the economy, and tax cuts are not the most effective way of doing it.
drummerboy said:
What do you mean it's not austerity imposed by political will? It's EXACTLY that. The federal government was well within it's capacity to give aid to the states, but they didn't because austerity. As a result tens of thousands of teachers lost their jobs across the country. Infrastructure continues to crumble.
And christ almighty - you're claiming the private sector is in some kind of trouble? Maybe you can tell me what major industry is having difficulty right now and for the last few post-recovery years.
Corporate profits have been huge the last few years - the problem has been that those profits haven't trickled down to people who might actually spend it on consumer goods, slowing down the economy for the have nots. The haves, however, are doing quite wonderfully.
We suffer from lack of consumer demand, and without the feds pouring money directly into the economy in the way of aid to states and infrastructure spending, we are doomed to the slow and painful recovery most of us are experiencing.
Also, it DOES matter how the feds put money into the economy, and tax cuts are not the most effective way of doing it.
The ARRA did exactly what you are asking for. They did give aid to the states/local govs for Education, police, etc. So, I'm not sure what you are asking for.
Corporate profits are not the private sector. The labor market has been sick, small businesses are struggling like never before in this country. There are almost 100 Million Americans not participating in the labor force right now.
There is still a debt overhang in this country. The price structure is out of whack due to central planning. That is why things like housing formation rates are so low.
I'm not sure how giving money to the states and local municipalities are going to solve the inequality issue you point to.
You seem to be indicating that if we just followed a plan, that the economy would be going gang busters. I'd like to understand what exactly that plan is? If the Federal Government gave more aid to the states and local governments, then everything would be great? How much more? What else would need to be done?
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
TylerDurden