Minimum wage/BUI (split from Immigration)

[J.C.MacSwell]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

The logic here is rather twisted, to the point of being fallacious and nonsequitur. 

There is no change to whether or not an inexperienced individual is being allowed or not allowed to work. They’re simply going to be paid a wage more aligned with a commonly accepted minimum when they do. 

I’

You own a modest cottage. You decide to sell the cottage to your neighbour next door and buy a boat from your neighbour across the street.

I come in and demand that no cottage can be sold for less than the price of a 50% better than modest cottage. You think, rightfully so, as do your neighbours, that I'm an idiot...except I'm the government and have a gun.

Do you get this? (of course not, but if you lived in Canada I could ask you to have a conservative friend explain it to you...you'd have beers...understand it a bit...then still go vote NDP, which is absolutely fine)

Edited January 19, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You own a modest cottage. You decide to sell the cottage to your neighbour next door and buy a boat from your neighbour across the street.

I come in and demand that no cottage can be sold for less than the price of a 50% better than modest cottage. You think, rightfully so, as do your neighbours, that I'm an idiot...except I'm the government and have a gun.

Jesus man. You’re really reaching now 

[J.C.MacSwell]

42 minutes ago, iNow said:

Jesus man. You’re really reaching now 

You have an inexperienced skill set and time. You decide to trade that time for $10/hr wages to your neighbour next door,(who owns a bike shop) and buy a boat from the neighbour across the street. I come in and insist you cannot do that for less than $15/hr....which your next door neighbour is unwilling to pay.

Fortunately, since you're such a nice guy and can see the greater good, you accept that....and stay home and play video games with your time...even though you'd rather be working at the bike shop then boating. Unfortunately not everyone is like you...some of those bastards would rather be left alone.

Edited January 19, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

So, just so I’m clear, your intent with that reply was to further reinforce my point, the one you quoted?

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, just so I’m clear, your intent with that reply was to further reinforce my point, the one you quoted?

 Sure.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 Sure.

Appreciate your honesty 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Appreciate your honesty 

Thanks. Yours also.

[iNow]

I’d love to have some beers with you. Whiskey too if the conversation was going well. 

I’m not oblivious to the points you’re making. I’m clear on where you’re coming from and what you’re suggesting. It makes intuitive sense.

This is simply one of those situations where your personal anecdotes and intuitions and common sense thinking is failing you... and yet you’re letting those otherwise super helpful human mental shortcuts stand in the way of you supporting meaningful improvements to MILLIONS of lives. This isn’t just academic, though the academics are clearly on my side.

At some point, we must consciously choose to abandon the conclusions we’ve arrived upon based on comfortable misunderstandings and common myths. 

Cheers, friend. 

Edited January 19, 2021 by iNow

[swansont]

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 Straw man much? I argued you can't raise it by 7% a year in perpetuity, when the inflation rate is significantly less.

In perpetuity? We both mentioned the 10-year time frame.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

which your next door neighbour is unwilling to pay.

Can you clarify?
Is he unwilling to pay because he's a selfish bastard who wants to keep the money, or is he unable to pay because his business is not viable and only runs because the guy on $10 per hour also gets handouts (of my tax dollars) from the state?

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

except I'm the government

How did you get there?
Were you voted in by people who recognise that the talk about cottages is a straw man?

[J.C.MacSwell]

46 minutes ago, swansont said:

In perpetuity? We both mentioned the 10-year time frame.

I would allow that there could have been regions in 2010 that could have sustained 10 years of 7% increases without excessive detriment...but not forever. Countrywide the harm would have come well before the 10 years, starting for the most part in economically disadvantaged areas.

 

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Can you clarify?
Is he unwilling to pay because he's a selfish bastard who wants to keep the money, or is he unable to pay because his business is not viable and only runs because the guy on $10 per hour also gets handouts (of my tax dollars) from the state?

 

Might be both. The bastard voted Republican.

 

[John Cuthber]

12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Might be both. The bastard voted Republican.

So that's the sort of "free market" he believes in- one which hands money to rich people.

[J.C.MacSwell]

42 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

So that's the sort of "free market" he believes in- one which hands money to rich people.

Nasty fellow. He's a bit of a political bigot. Makes assumptions about Democrats that often aren't true.

[iNow]

A useful and clarifying overview:

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 1/29/2021 at 2:44 PM, iNow said:

A useful and clarifying overview:

Useful perhaps. Clarifying?

I don't think you can paint a caricature of a fair representative of everyone in America making less than $12.00/hr.

"Statistics describe civilian workers, ages 16+, that would be affected by an increase in the federal minimum wage to $12.00 by 2020. The median age of affected workers is "

All "affected" would of course be assumed to benefit, so much in fact that $15.00 must be even better?

Where were the actual statistics used? Some are not surprising at all and some the context a little vague.

72% don't have children? Why the 36 year old faceless mother?

43% of those making less than 12.00/hr don't work full time?

On average they earn more than half of their family's total income? Presumably of those that do someone else makes less than half, or they are the sole source of income. I can certainly see this as troubling if there are no other sources of income or pension, especially in areas where the cost of living is high. What family unit are they using?

Anyone arguing for a high federal minimum wage is arguing for the cost of living to go up, affordably in some areas...but not in many others...possibly stifling the economy they have...

...unless you can guarantee higher wage jobs (15.00/hr is advocated by the Economic Policy Institute)...

...and if you can provide those jobs why aren't you doing it already? Are the jobs you have in mind so bad the current minimum wage earners don't want them? Or do you think the rich corporations should provide them all, as if they are all net job creators?

 

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

30 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

if you can provide those jobs why aren't you doing it already?

New jobs are often created when more consumers have more money to spend. The companies receiving those monies then also have more money to spend, and the virtuous cycle continues. 

31 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Are the jobs you have in mind so bad the current minimum wage earners don't want them?

What jobs do I have in mind? I don’t follow your point. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

New jobs are often created when more consumers have more money to spend. The companies receiving those monies then also have more money to spend, and the virtuous cycle continues. 

The key question is how often... vs how often are the companies with established market shares ready to mop up any lubrication of the economy by simply taking more of the available revenue without creating the jobs you have artificially put a high wage floor on...what incentives and disincentives are you putting in place?

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

 What jobs do I have in mind? I don’t follow your point. 

According to the Economic Policy Institute who created your persuasive presentation there are approximately 40 million Americans that would have there pay lifted by a change to $15 minimum wage. https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-the-federal-minimum-wage-to-15-by-2024-would-lift-pay-for-nearly-40-million-workers/

Given that many make considerably less...why hasn't anybody taken advantage of that and offered many of them more? I know why many don't and prefer to suppress wages in their industry or area. Why has no one else? Are they waiting to come forward when the minimum wage reaches $15?

Edited January 31, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[MigL]

Making sweeping assertions about consumers having more money to spend and businesses hiring more people, or prices going up and causing inflationary pressures, and even businesses laying off staff because they can't afford to retain them at the new wages, are just opinions . Studies have been done, and the findings are that different regions are affected differently.
This article summarizes some of those findings and includes links to some of the studies

Minimum wage: Updated research roundup on the effects of increasing pay - Journalist's Resource

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Given that many make considerably less...why hasn't anybody taken advantage of that and offered many of them more?

MANY people and companies have. Your foundational premise is badly flawed. 

52 minutes ago, MigL said:

different regions are affected differently.

I completely agree. This, however, doesn’t negate the need for a federal minimum wage and for it to be higher.

Had the wage previously set tracked inflation and cost of living adjustments, it’d be closer to $25/hr. While the proposal for $15/hr seems jarring to many, it’s still pathetically far away from what is needed to avoid poverty. Before taxes, it’s about $31,000/yr, closer to $22,000/yr after taxes.

If businesses can’t afford to pay workers a living wage, then those businesses aren’t strong enough to survive in the marketplace. Some businesses will perish from this and some regions will see more businesses perish. That doesn’t negate the appropriateness of a federal minimum with state level adjustments higher when appropriate. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

19 hours ago, iNow said:

MANY people and companies have. Your foundational premise is badly flawed. 

Yes. Yet despite that approximately 40 million make less than 12/hr. You can't hand wave that away like a modern day Mary Antoinette. (The peasants can't find $12/hr jobs....then let them have $15/hr jobs.) Like Mary, your good intentions are flawed.

 

19 hours ago, iNow said:

I completely agree. This, however, doesn’t negate the need for a federal minimum wage and for it to be higher.

Agree. The question is how much higher (and could UBI play a more effective role in reducing the need, especially in regions that would be negatively affected?)

19 hours ago, iNow said:

Had the wage previously set tracked inflation and cost of living adjustments, it’d be closer to $25/hr. While the proposal for $15/hr seems jarring to many, it’s still pathetically far away from what is needed to avoid poverty. Before taxes, it’s about $31,000/yr, closer to $22,000/yr after taxes.

Nonsense. The highest federal minimum wage in terms of 2020 USD was in 1968. It was $1.60 or under $12 in terms of 2020 dollars. 

19 hours ago, iNow said:

 

If businesses can’t afford to pay workers a living wage, then those businesses aren’t strong enough to survive in the marketplace. Some businesses will perish from this and some regions will see more businesses perish.

Right. Kill all the jobs that "the marketplace" won't support $15/hr, and disallow workers that can't produce at $15 from having jobs. Force them to work under the table. Force them into welfare. Maybe they get their living that way.

19 hours ago, iNow said:

That doesn’t negate the appropriateness of a federal minimum with state level adjustments higher when appropriate. 

Agree. But "appropriate" needs to be sustainable. 40 million making less than $12/hr indicates that $15 minimum wage isn't currently sustainable. Claims that it could or should be $25/hr doesn't change that. No economy is bulletproof, especially when you are willing to throw away a significant part of it because you insist they should do better, because you feel that job creating part of the economy, owes people more or simply don't deserve to survive, despite the fact that government can't do better at creating jobs,

Again, compare with the affect of a reasonably set UBI on those parts of the economy, and on economically depressed regions, where people can go to work without the UBI being immediately clawed back.

[swansont]

26 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Yes. Yet despite that approximately 40 million make less than 12/hr.

That’s not what your link says.

The number would be under 28 million, based on that information.

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s not what your link says.

The number would be under 28 million, based on that information.

Thanks. I'll relook at the numbers.

[iNow]

50 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Agree. The question is how much higher (and could UBI play a more effective role in reducing the need, especially in regions that would be negatively affected?)

I’d push for $25/hr, but $15/hr is what’s currently on the table. Also, yes. UBI could play a big role here, but that’s also not currently on the table. 

53 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Nonsense. The highest federal minimum wage in terms of 2020 USD was in 1968. It was $1.60 or under $12 in terms of 2020 dollars. 

I should’ve been more explicit. Kept pace with productivity growth and inflation. 
 

https://www.cepr.net/this-is-what-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-kept-pace-with-productivity/

Quote

While the national minimum wage did rise roughly in step with productivity growth from its inception in 1938 until 1968, in the more than five decades since then, it has not even kept pace with inflation. However, if the minimum wage did rise in step with productivity growth since 1968 it would be over $24 an hour today, as shown in the Figure below

56 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Right. Kill all the jobs that "the marketplace" won't support $15/hr, and disallow workers that can't produce at $15 from having jobs. Force them to work under the table. Force them into welfare. Maybe they get their living that way.

I can’t help but notice that still only one of us is supporting our comments with analyses and citations whereas the other keeps making unfounded and seemingly hysterical claims. 

58 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

despite the fact that government can't do better at creating jobs,

An infrastructure bill and environmental program mandating the installation of green energy would create millions of jobs, as would bills for public transportation improvements. This is not an economic limitation, but a political one. The government absolutely can stimulate the job growth you dismiss. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

33 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s not what your link says.

The number would be under 28 million, based on that information.

• From https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/few-rewards/
• "As the minimum wage has stayed stuck at $7.25 an hour for seven years, wages have stagnated. Today, 41.7 million workers earn under $12 an hour and 58.3 million workers earn under $15 an hour—wages that are too low for families to thrive."
• So which is correct?
•  

40 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’d push for $25/hr, but $15/hr is what’s currently on the table. Also, yes. UBI could play a big role here, but that’s also not currently on the table. 

I would also if I thought it would work well for everyone. I mean, why not? Sure, it's never been done before...anywhere...but why not step on the gas?

The economic engine might be in for a rough ride at times, like soon (with or without any increase in minimum wage), but nothing quite like stepping on the gas when engines stumble. If the bus drivers can't maintain 250 in a 100km/hr zone they shouldn't be driving...people need to be put on planes. (electric ones of course)

[swansont]

32 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

• From https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/few-rewards/
• "As the minimum wage has stayed stuck at $7.25 an hour for seven years, wages have stagnated. Today, 41.7 million workers earn under $12 an hour and 58.3 million workers earn under $15 an hour—wages that are too low for families to thrive."
• So which is correct?
•  

7 years at $7.25 puts that data at 2016. That was the year California and New York started raising their minimum wages. Both are now at or above $12, along with Connecticut and perhaps other states. Both data sets could be correct.