Author Topic: The Minimum Wage debate  (Read 10049 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #140 on: March 29, 2016, 05:56:45 PM »
Getting a bit off topic with the stock thing, but agree with Genowyn for the most part.

Stock market knowledge is good, but I'm not going to get mad at somebody because they aren't taking a risk to possibly see an extra $100 a year because the Capital * Returnrate = Gain is critically hampered by the C in the equation.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #141 on: March 30, 2016, 09:04:04 AM »
But how well it works for you largely depends on how much initial capital you have to spend... if you can afford to buy a 20% equity stake in a company that's going to make a much bigger financial difference than buying stocks, especially for a large corporation.

Like... the company I work for has a stock price around $48 last I checked. Dividends were set at about $1.60. Assuming the dividend stays the same (which I know it won't) it's going to take something like seven years to break even. And once I do, how much difference is it really going to make to me? If I go with your recommendation of replacing my cable with stocks, I can buy, what, two or three stocks a month? Say I do that by saving up for a year so we can pretend all these stocks start profiting at the same time, and I'm making an extra $38.4-$57.6 a quarter, or $153.6-$230.4 a year. Sure, not an amount to sneeze at, but it's hardly turning me into Rockefeller, either.

Look, I get that at some point we're talking other things (like liquidity and cash flow) but this is a specious argument.   Your argument is essentially "I shouldn't be required to do sound and disciplined fiscal planning!".  Bernie's argument is simple: the economy is rigged for the 1%, and that is patently NOT TRUE.   You're focusing on dividends; there are multiple ways to make money using these tools.  You sell stocks that move quickly in one direction.  You short others that are moving quickly in the other direction.  You do your homework, instead of watching Survivor on television.   Even with multiples, Trump didn't turn $1M into $4.9B using "dividends". 

The argument actually works better the opposite direction:  you have an extra couple hundred bucks a quarter or a year... that's a big deal to some families, and when you factor in taxes, hours cuts, etc. etc. the impact is potentially far greater than an increase in the minimum wage, and not dependent on the fickle nature of geography and politics. 

Quote
So for the average person, sure, stocks might work as a retirement plan, but they're not going to realistically impact your standard of living while you're working, because after sacrificing TV I'm still not making as much on the stocks as I was spending on TV in a year... or even two months. The investment-centric economy favors those who have money already, not people who want to make money.

NO.  That is the fallacy that Bernie wants - no, NEEDS - you to believe.   There are 100's of thousands of people that have improved their standard of living using these tools.  They are not guaranteed, and they are not foolproof, but they are sound, and they are NOT just for the "1%-ers to be more 1%".  I've told this story before, I think:  my ex-mother-in-law's best friend was a administrative assistant for GE for a number of years.  She would squirrel away a couple dollars a paycheck into an index fund, and into a GE DRIP (Divident ReInvestment Plan).  She was able to retire at 55, and basically has spent the last ten years traveling the United States.

They are, as well, a choice, and not always an easy one. 

You're young, Genowyn, but I have a 15 year old, and I compare to when I was 15: we're SPOILED.  Not my kid, necessarily, but us as a society.  We have this expectation of ENTITLEMENT that is not justified, and it is not supported by the numbers.  Yeah, wages haven't gone up like we want them to (do they ever?) but our discretionary spend has gone up by MULTIPLES.   When I was 15, I had literally no expenses.  No cellphone, no satellite radio, nothing.   My radio was free (after the initial expense of the radio) and so was TV.   Utilities (I contributed to the house, but didn't pay them totally) were electric and gas.   If you had a car, you had gas and insurance.   I don't remember the numbers, but even using todays numbers (slightly adjusted) and we're talking $50+$50+$50+$100 a month.  $250.   At $7.50 an hour, I've still only used about a quarter of my income on my expenses (I know, I haven't touched food or rent yet).   My kid is 15 today.   Now?  Utilities are electric, gas, cable, internet, phone, cellphone.    $150, $100, $200, $50, $125.  Add to that the subscriptions (Spotify, Sirius, Netflix, etc.) and you're adding another $50 or $60 dollars.  Gas and insurance are the same.   We're at $950.  Almost QUADRUPLE.   And I KNOW I've missed something (PlayStation?  PSN?   Xbox Live?).  I need $7.50 just for the LUXURIES ($950 a month is about $7.30 an hour, before taxes).  We don't need $15 as a "living wage".   We need $15 as an entitlement for a lifestyle.    How many people do you think realize this?  How many people do you think do the math on that "$9.99 a month" subscription and compare it to what that could get in terms of additional income? 

In contrast, if you put $100 ($2 a week) into an index fund in 1985, it's over $1,600 now. 

My point isn't "shoulda coulda woulda".   My point is, this stuff isn't out of reach for people.   It's a cop out or a campaign slogan to say that people CAN'T do this.  My point is that we're not interested in the realities of the situation, we're interested in what feels good or what sounds good.   Hell, if I could work the exact same amount of time, and I didn't have to put in the effort of furthering my education, and I didn't have to make any sacrifices, if I didn't have to move to where the work is... I'd take a bump to my hourly wage too!  Who wouldn't?   But to argue that it is required and necessary?    We should be demanding more of our people, ALL of our people, not just the wallets of the 1%. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #142 on: March 30, 2016, 09:18:33 AM »
Getting a bit off topic with the stock thing, but agree with Genowyn for the most part.

Stock market knowledge is good, but I'm not going to get mad at somebody because they aren't taking a risk to possibly see an extra $100 a year because the Capital * Returnrate = Gain is critically hampered by the C in the equation.

Missing the point entirely.  The whole premise is false.  Trump isn't getting to $4B from $1M by just "cap * return rate = gain".  He's getting there by leveraging his money, and by letting tools like compounding interest and time value of money work for him.   If you believe Bernie, there's some magic to it, and there's not.  Ordinary people can - if they choose - leverage their own money and let it work for them as well.   If you use the Trump model, the "$1M to $4B", then $100 could be $400,000.  I would think that's worth it.   Yes, I understand that there are more options open to an investment of $1M as opposed to an investment of $100, but we're venturing into "excuses" territory.   Even if the $100 turns into $110 after a year, isn't that better than the $100 turning into $0? 

How many people do you think take the time to figure out how much they're paying in credit card interest?  And then figure out how much that would be worth in an index fund compounded?   I imagine some people would be blown away.   

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #143 on: March 30, 2016, 09:20:17 AM »
Alright so two points to make overall:

One, I initially stated I don't favour raising the minimum wage. We're clearly not on the same page as to why it shouldn't be raised (mine is based on the economics of it, yours seems to be based on philosophy), but we're agreeing on the conclusion.

Second, many of the things people on the right like to paint as entitlements, I don't think you understand (or are choosing to ignore), that it's really about a difference in belief. I believe that providing people with access to health care and education will be a long term boon to the economy, so that the guy who's gonna invent the next big thing isn't stuck wasting his life in a McDonald's or dying of pneumonia when he's 23.

You might disagree, hell, I know you disagree, but to characterize it as entitlement reduces what is an idea about the nation as a whole, about the whole economy, to being personal. Selfish. And maybe there are some bad eggs who look at it that way, just like there are bad eggs on the right who view their ideology as a way to keep the poor in their place. Neither of those represents what the actual ideology is about, though, and I've learned enough about right wing ideology to stop characterizing you guys as racist elitists, so I would love if you could stop characterizing the left as short-sighted, self-centered morons.

...my name is Araragi.

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15662
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #144 on: March 30, 2016, 09:38:43 AM »
You're young, Genowyn, but I have a 15 year old, and I compare to when I was 15: we're SPOILED.  Not my kid, necessarily, but us as a society.  We have this expectation of ENTITLEMENT that is not justified, and it is not supported by the numbers.  Yeah, wages haven't gone up like we want them to (do they ever?) but our discretionary spend has gone up by MULTIPLES.   When I was 15, I had literally no expenses.  No cellphone, no satellite radio, nothing.   My radio was free (after the initial expense of the radio) and so was TV.   Utilities (I contributed to the house, but didn't pay them totally) were electric and gas.   If you had a car, you had gas and insurance.   I don't remember the numbers, but even using todays numbers (slightly adjusted) and we're talking $50+$50+$50+$100 a month.  $250.   At $7.50 an hour, I've still only used about a quarter of my income on my expenses (I know, I haven't touched food or rent yet).   My kid is 15 today.   Now?  Utilities are electric, gas, cable, internet, phone, cellphone.    $150, $100, $200, $50, $125.  Add to that the subscriptions (Spotify, Sirius, Netflix, etc.) and you're adding another $50 or $60 dollars.  Gas and insurance are the same.   We're at $950.  Almost QUADRUPLE.   And I KNOW I've missed something (PlayStation?  PSN?   Xbox Live?).  I need $7.50 just for the LUXURIES ($950 a month is about $7.30 an hour, before taxes).  We don't need $15 as a "living wage".   We need $15 as an entitlement for a lifestyle.    How many people do you think realize this?  How many people do you think do the math on that "$9.99 a month" subscription and compare it to what that could get in terms of additional income? 

I've seen you use this argument before, and I agree, but damn this is exactly why I don't partake in monthly subscription services because it eats away at your money without you even noticing. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #145 on: March 30, 2016, 10:16:12 AM »
Alright so two points to make overall:

One, I initially stated I don't favour raising the minimum wage. We're clearly not on the same page as to why it shouldn't be raised (mine is based on the economics of it, yours seems to be based on philosophy), but we're agreeing on the conclusion.

Awesome, post, Genowyn, seriously.  Some good ideas here.   On this first point, it's a minor distinction, but I feel it fails BOTH on economics and philosophy.   

Quote
Second, many of the things people on the right like to paint as entitlements, I don't think you understand (or are choosing to ignore), that it's really about a difference in belief. I believe that providing people with access to health care and education will be a long term boon to the economy, so that the guy who's gonna invent the next big thing isn't stuck wasting his life in a McDonald's or dying of pneumonia when he's 23.

You might disagree, hell, I know you disagree, but to characterize it as entitlement reduces what is an idea about the nation as a whole, about the whole economy, to being personal. Selfish. And maybe there are some bad eggs who look at it that way, just like there are bad eggs on the right who view their ideology as a way to keep the poor in their place. Neither of those represents what the actual ideology is about, though, and I've learned enough about right wing ideology to stop characterizing you guys as racist elitists, so I would love if you could stop characterizing the left as short-sighted, self-centered morons.

I would agree with you, except that there is a really big disconnect between the idea and the execution, which makes me doubt - though not DISAGREE, if you get the distinction - that this really is a "win win" for the economy.   And I don't believe I ever called anyone a "short-sighted self-centered moron". 

First, you have to separate the education from the healthcare.  My beef with Bernie's tuition plan isn't the "free education".  It's a) that he can't pay for it (he just can't); b) that the moment that the free market isn't voting with their dollar, the incentive to stay cutting edge disappears, and you will have public colleges exactly like public high schools (a disaster in a lot of areas), and c) the notion that we're now going to void all those loan contracts and just wave a magic wand and make all the student loan debt disappear.   That IS an entitlement, Genowyn, when you step in and say "Oh, that agreement that you bartered at arm's length with that other person who is of sound mind and competency?  Yeah, we're going to just rip that up".   

Free marketer or not, if Bernie had a reasonable way to pay for it (read: NOT punishing those who achieved success), AND could implement it in such a way that didn't incentivize a reduction of the level of education AND didn't also include simply giving people a pass because they made a choice and didn't like the outcome, then I would actually agree with you that it is good for the country and I would support it. 

Healthcare is different.  To your point, back in 2002 or so, I was an Environmental Counsel for a division of a large manufacturing company, and because I was responsible for contamination in facilities and what not, I reported through a General Counsel to the Vice President of Manufacturing.  And I can remember the meeting like it was yesterday:  the VP said to my boss "You figure out a way to keep my people in the plants working.  UNPLANNED sick days and down time KILL me, because I can't have redundant staff for EVERYONE in the building and expect to make money.  I can plan for vacation, I CANNOT plan for lost time accidents."  Even then, it was considered his biggest variable expense (and the cost of care to be the largest growing expense).  So I hear you loud and clear on that aspect of it.  But you can't say that that's what this is about when we're also fighting for more paid time off, we're preventing people from actually seeking the healthcare they want, we're refusing to eliminate the state-by-state boundaries for the sale of healthcare plans, and when we're cutting side deals with pharmaceuticals to freeze their prices and guarantee their profits.  POLITICALLY it was sold as an entitlement.  Bernie: "Healthcare is a RIGHT not a PRIVILEGE" and at the same time I'm paying far more for that "right" than I did before, and I've lost a significant part of the FSA benefits I had before, all to pay for this "right" for someone else.   

It's really a very hard putt to sell the notion that it is for the greater good and that it isn't an entitlement when the disconnect between the payer of the services and the recipient of the services is so disconnected.  Either go all in and make it single-payer (and so make it like the military, where it's solely a function of government) or keep the free market aspect of it, refine it so that it is operating without layers and bureaucracy, and subsidize those few that can't (not WON'T, but CAN'T) pay for it themselves.   To my mind - and I'd hope you don't lump me into the "typical right-winger" - it becomes an entitlement when it has any component of wealth redistribution.  And the current schemes for healthcare do just that.

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15662
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #146 on: November 29, 2016, 04:10:46 PM »
Bumping this topic

Stumbled upon this piece on forbes written by a former McDonald's CEO

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/29/thanks-to-fight-for-15-minimum-wage-mcdonalds-unveils-job-replacing-self-service-kiosks-nationwide/#57443dac762e

I remember when I went to Amsterdam for the first time 2.5 years ago and the McDonald's there had kiosks.  I told my father about this, thinking "how cool" and his reaction was so negative about how if we see them in the US we will have problems.  Which lead me to wonder why we didn't have them in the US.  I guess this is at least partially why (costs) and it seems the pendulum has swung in favor of machines over people for cost.

Offline Skeever

  • Posts: 1115
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #147 on: November 29, 2016, 04:16:15 PM »
Is the minimum wage as high as the market wage for unskilled labor? Then it's probably at least not hurting much, though I'm not sure how it's helping.

Is it lower than the market wage? Then I'd say it's doing more harm than good. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #148 on: November 30, 2016, 09:19:14 AM »
Bumping this topic

Stumbled upon this piece on forbes written by a former McDonald's CEO

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/29/thanks-to-fight-for-15-minimum-wage-mcdonalds-unveils-job-replacing-self-service-kiosks-nationwide/#57443dac762e

I remember when I went to Amsterdam for the first time 2.5 years ago and the McDonald's there had kiosks.  I told my father about this, thinking "how cool" and his reaction was so negative about how if we see them in the US we will have problems.  Which lead me to wonder why we didn't have them in the US.  I guess this is at least partially why (costs) and it seems the pendulum has swung in favor of machines over people for cost.

It's complex.   What many don't realize is that the on-going "minimum wage debate" is planting and cultivating the seed that anyone making less than $15 - regardless of what the market bears - is getting "shafted".   My 18-year-old step-daughter with nothing but a high school degree is now thinking "wow, why should I work at Moe's for $9.00?  I can and should get more!"  That is not reality.   

I suppose there is some morality discussion about whether we should have machines doing this for us, but I've said all along (and continue to say) that it is up to us as individuals to make ourselves marketable.  There will ALWAYS be things that machines cannot do - cut hair; clean teeth; give manicures; maintain lawns/pools; trouble-shoot HVAC systems; fix our cars - that we should be training our work force to do.   With the possible exception of the last one, EVERYONE reading this post has at least one of those things: hair, teeth, a lawn/pool that needs service, heating/cooling, a car.

To Skeever's point, by definition, the minimum wage is HIGHER than the market wage.  In those instances where companies have to pay more for a service - because of supply/demand or other considerations - there is no need for minimum wage.    It's not like Wendy's can say "Well, if you go to Taco Bell, you'll get $12.50 because that's what [your skill set] is worth, but since the minimum wage is $9.00, we're only going to pay you $8.00".

I find it amazingly ironic that we have idiots on reality TV talking about "their brand", and we have people talking about "their brand", like they know what the fuck they're talking about, but don't have the first concept of what a "marketable skill" really is.   Hell, most fast food places don't even make their cashiers fill the sodas anymore (except at the drive through). 

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15662
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #149 on: November 30, 2016, 09:39:29 AM »
It is complex, but I wouldn't be so sure about things robots cannot do.  With the advancement of AI, it's only a matter of time before robots can do a whole lot more and then it's only a matter of time before those robots can do things more efficiently than humans making us obsolete for many jobs. 

14 years ago I worked at Boston Market making $6 an hour.  I'm not sure what part of that job/skill demands more than that, even today (besides an adjustment for inflation).  I know 6 bucks is not a livable wage, but it takes little to no skill to perform that job.  I was in high school, I worked my way up and held every responsibility at some point in that Boston Market besides manager (which I totally could have done if I wanted to drop out of school and devote myself to Boston Market) and I only worked my way up to $6.35 in the two years I worked there.  I felt it was fair at the time.   I also got free food which was a nice perk.  I just don't understand why the same job, even 14 years later, is now worth 15.  Sure, inflation should count for something so 6 isn't really cutting it, but 15?! I am still wondering where this number comes from.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #150 on: November 30, 2016, 10:07:33 AM »
It is complex, but I wouldn't be so sure about things robots cannot do.  With the advancement of AI, it's only a matter of time before robots can do a whole lot more and then it's only a matter of time before those robots can do things more efficiently than humans making us obsolete for many jobs. 

14 years ago I worked at Boston Market making $6 an hour.  I'm not sure what part of that job/skill demands more than that, even today (besides an adjustment for inflation).  I know 6 bucks is not a livable wage, but it takes little to no skill to perform that job.  I was in high school, I worked my way up and held every responsibility at some point in that Boston Market besides manager (which I totally could have done if I wanted to drop out of school and devote myself to Boston Market) and I only worked my way up to $6.35 in the two years I worked there.  I felt it was fair at the time.   I also got free food which was a nice perk.  I just don't understand why the same job, even 14 years later, is now worth 15.  Sure, inflation should count for something so 6 isn't really cutting it, but 15?! I am still wondering where this number comes from.

As for "obsolescence", of course you're right, but there will ALWAYS be a need for manual, human labor, even if it is just fixing the robots, or being a human face.  Humans are stubborn fuckers, we are, and we won't cotton to a robot in certain tasks.  We've had the capability for our commuter trains to move from Boston to Los Angeles without a human on board, completely optimized for time and fuel consumption (and let me tell you, fuel consumption on a train running even REGIONALLY is the only metric that matters when it comes to cost) and yet the VAST majority will not allow that to happen.  Almost every major commuter rail train crash in recent memory is caused by a) human error, and b) could have been prevented by the mechanism that can do what I said above.  And yet... we'll get PTC, positive train control, that will alleviate a lot of the human error, but one thing it won't do is ELIMINATE human error, because it won't eliminate the HUMAN.   We won't let it. 

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5421
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #151 on: November 30, 2016, 10:08:00 AM »
I thought it was supposed to come from what is considered a livable wage. I'm not sure though.

Regardless of the dollar amount, that's something I struggle to find a stance on. Should someone making fries at McDonalds for a living be paid enough to afford to maybe share a small apartment and buy basic needs? Or are those jobs reserved for younger people who don't have bills to pay? It's probably because I haven't had to live in a situation like it, but it seems like it'd be incredibly difficult to live with even an $8/hr wage working less than 40 hours a week. I feel like plenty of people have to be in this kind of situation. Just how dire is it?

And then that raises another thing I have trouble with. If you aren't meant to live off of those kinds of jobs, does that mean everyone is basically required to go tens of thousands of dollars in debt to get a degree so you can start out at $15/hr?

I'm genuinely interested in seeing all your thoughts on this, as I have no real idea what to think about it all.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #152 on: November 30, 2016, 10:20:34 AM »
I thought it was supposed to come from what is considered a livable wage. I'm not sure though.

Regardless of the dollar amount, that's something I struggle to find a stance on. Should someone making fries at McDonalds for a living be paid enough to afford to maybe share a small apartment and buy basic needs? Or are those jobs reserved for younger people who don't have bills to pay? It's probably because I haven't had to live in a situation like it, but it seems like it'd be incredibly difficult to live with even an $8/hr wage working less than 40 hours a week. I feel like plenty of people have to be in this kind of situation. Just how dire is it?

And then that raises another thing I have trouble with. If you aren't meant to live off of those kinds of jobs, does that mean everyone is basically required to go tens of thousands of dollars in debt to get a degree so you can start out at $15/hr?

I'm genuinely interested in seeing all your thoughts on this, as I have no real idea what to think about it all.

Why is there no middle ground?   We've had this conversation before; the notion that as soon as you talk "DEGREE" you're talking "tens of thousands of dollars in debt!" is nonsense.   My stepson; couldn't be prouder of that kid, and I've said to him so many times it's getting creepy that I am so, and that I would be proud to call him "son" (he's estranged from his angry drunk bitter father).   He's a perfect example.  Got out of school, found himself in that predicament... and went to trade school for two years, local, cost him a couple grand. He's a wizard at cars, and has a great job, albeit only about $15 an hour and unpredictable hours, but happy.  But he wants more.  Army National Guard, here he comes, and so he's trained as a mechanic on Chinook helicopters, only "student debt" is his one weekend a month and two weeks a year, and he's already looking at jobs at some of the larger airplane engine companies (and their suppliers) that populate the CT landscape.  He's also ready, willing and able to move to where the jobs are if need be.   

Here's the thing, though:  once you start tweaking variables, the answer changes.  "Oh, I don't want to join the ARMY."   Or, "oh, I don't want to have to MOVE."  All fine, all fair, no one should have to do anything they don't want.   BUT, we have to break this entitlement mentality.   Sometimes "I don't want to move" ALSO means, "I don't get that $75,000/year job.".    For a spell there, my daughter went from Jr. Kindergarten through I think it was fifth grade, before she spent two years in a row in the same school.  Because the job - and the "living wage" - wasn't coming to me, so I went to it.   When I found myself out of work in 2010 (real estate, mein fronds) the best opportunity for me and my family - and the way off the dole - was to take a job LITERALLY on the opposite side of the state (Philly to Erie), a 275 mile drive one way, and I took it.  Shitty apartment, a lot of vodka and pizza dinners, no cable, and stolen internet for a year.  Ended my marriage, but it kept me afloat and out of the predicaments we're talking about here.   Now?  I'm a lot closer to those people that Bernie wants to get to pay for all his free stuff, and I have time to publish libertarian screeds on a medium size prog metal bands fan site. 

I get it, not everyone can do this, but we HAVE to start separating the "can't" from the "won't". 

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5421
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #153 on: November 30, 2016, 10:32:09 AM »
That's why I asked. I only have my own experiences to draw from, and I know they are extremely limited, even if I add in experiences from people I know.

There is a middle ground for sure. I'm just trying to figure out what it looks like.

Online orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9291
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #154 on: November 30, 2016, 04:55:26 PM »
I am still wondering where this number comes from.

My best guess is pulled completely out of someone's ass but is championed because on paper it's higher than 10 ("too low for the cause") and lower than 20 ("too high to be taken seriously") so it hits that nice round sweet spot of a number.

The argument about "market value vs minimum wage" intrigues me because I'd bet a lot of people who are championing this $15 an hour wage if asked "Is $15 an hour a fair value for XYZ unskilled position?" would respond with "Yes because someone can live off of that" which completely ignores the actual question. I guess what I'm getting at is the people that are so gung-ho about a minimum wage hike don't really understand why the current minimum wage is where it is.

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #155 on: November 30, 2016, 05:25:12 PM »
The problem with increasing the minimum wage is that history has shown it will not help the people we want it to help. All that will happen is that the prices of basic goods will increase, those people will be just as poor as before, and the people who were making above the minimum wage are now poorer than they were before.

The solution is to make education, housing, healthcare more affordable, and there is a whole other debate as to how we do that.

...my name is Araragi.

Offline 7th

  • Posts: 367
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #156 on: November 30, 2016, 05:53:58 PM »
The problem with increasing the minimum wage is that history has shown it will not help the people we want it to help. All that will happen is that the prices of basic goods will increase, those people will be just as poor as before, and the people who were making above the minimum wage are now poorer than they were before.

The solution is to make education, housing, healthcare more affordable, and there is a whole other debate as to how we do that.

Words of wisdom right there.
"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners" - George Carlin

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3246
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #157 on: November 30, 2016, 06:25:22 PM »
The problem with increasing the minimum wage is that history has shown it will not help the people we want it to help. All that will happen is that the prices of basic goods will increase, those people will be just as poor as before, and the people who were making above the minimum wage are now poorer than they were before.

The solution is to make education, housing, healthcare more affordable, and there is a whole other debate as to how we do that.

Words of wisdom right there.

Agreed, but they are not mutually exclusive.  Wages need to go up because the cost of living goes up, and there is nothing we can do about the basic economic fact of inflation.  Cost of goods dont go up because minimum wages go up....they will go up regardless, due to various other factors.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 06:40:06 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #158 on: November 30, 2016, 07:24:40 PM »
Raising minimum wages will just make inflation faster. If minimum wage is $8.50 now and is brought up to $15, pretty soon you'll see that what you used to get for $8.50 will now cost you $15. That'll happen anyway, but it'll happen a lot faster if minimum wage increases.

Raising the minimum wage is a bandaid.

...my name is Araragi.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3246
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #159 on: November 30, 2016, 07:33:07 PM »
Raising minimum wages will just make inflation faster. If minimum wage is $8.50 now and is brought up to $15, pretty soon you'll see that what you used to get for $8.50 will now cost you $15. That'll happen anyway, but it'll happen a lot faster if minimum wage increases.

Raising the minimum wage is a bandaid.

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.  Inflation rising a bit faster is IMO a fair price to pay to make sure there is a floor to wages that approaches something livable.  The minimum wage should be keeping pace with inflation....blaming inflation on the minimum wage is backwards.  And equating a dollar for dollar increase of the minimum wage, and the cost of goods, is not really accurate.  There are a plethora of other factors.

Question...should we never raise the minimum wage if it affects the cost of goods?   

EDIT:  Not saying the minimum wage should actually double, but I think it is a fair discussion to determine, in todays society, what a real and true amount is needed for a true living wage...and then take steps to get to that number.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 07:43:01 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #160 on: November 30, 2016, 07:46:56 PM »
I just think looking at it from the side of increasing wage is not the way to do it. Instead we ought to be looking at how we can keep costs down or incentivize employers to pay higher than minimum on their own. Considering the way businesses operate I don't see raising the minimum wage as anything more than a temporary fix with long term fallout.

That being said, the best solution is for the workers to seize the means of production :p

...my name is Araragi.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3246
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #161 on: November 30, 2016, 07:50:51 PM »
I just think looking at it from the side of increasing wage is not the way to do it. Instead we ought to be looking at how we can keep costs down or incentivize employers to pay higher than minimum on their own. Considering the way businesses operate I don't see raising the minimum wage as anything more than a temporary fix with long term fallout.

That being said, the best solution is for the workers to seize the means of production :p

Well we cant keep all costs down.  Inflation will happen regardless.  I agree we do need to keep certain imperative costs down that are increasing far more than inflation.  But increasing the wage is something that has to happen regardless.  The question is how much, how fast.

Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is at its lowest in history.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 08:36:43 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4835
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #162 on: November 30, 2016, 08:53:58 PM »
The solution is to make education, housing, healthcare more affordable, and there is a whole other debate as to how we do that.

Education up through high school is already "free," so can I assume you meant higher levels of education? If so, how do we translate that education to actual marketable job skills? Do we get away with all the BS (not meaning Bachelor of Science) degrees? How do we pay for all this?

How do we make housing more affordable? Rent control? If I want to sell my house, why can't I sell it for what the market will bear?

Yes, health care should be more affordable. Different thread.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24852
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #163 on: November 30, 2016, 09:06:39 PM »
What are BS degrees?

My degree is in Psychology, is that considered a BS degree? Or do you mean more stuff like cinema appreciation or whatever.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 09:16:57 PM by Adami »
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16587
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #164 on: November 30, 2016, 09:17:08 PM »
.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4835
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #165 on: November 30, 2016, 09:22:15 PM »
I realized when I typed that I meant BS as in bullsh*t, and I meant majors, not degrees.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24852
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #166 on: November 30, 2016, 09:24:49 PM »
I realized when I typed that I meant BS as in bullsh*t, and I meant majors, not degrees.

Oh I know, I understood you. My question still stands.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4835
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #167 on: November 30, 2016, 09:40:09 PM »
Not conveying my thoughts well but I was thinking about a comment someone else made, probably in another thread, about how we set kids up with the mentality of go to college or you'll never amount to anything. So people go to college, and think that they just need a degree and they can do whatever they want. While it helps, that is not the right mentality.

Getting back on topic, I think a big societal step we need to take is having an established job/career/income before having kids. Sounds obvious maybe, but seems to be lost on a lot of people. 
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #168 on: December 01, 2016, 12:10:52 AM »
It's hard to put a real value on a degree. Instinctively I feel like STEM and medicine are a lot more valuable than hospitality (to society, not to the individual).

Where you get into sticky stuff is business or art. I think Arts degrees have the potential to be of great value to society but often are not, and business degrees provide way more value to the individual than society as a whole.

...my name is Araragi.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #169 on: December 01, 2016, 08:36:23 AM »
Genowyn is right on the money (haha) but not necessarily for the reasons he said.

We're mixing "inflation" (something that is not artificial or arbitrary) with fixing of a minimum wage (which is).   I don't have a beef, necessarily with the concept of a minimum wage IF that wage is a target, not a law, and that we achieve that target by creating and nurturing a base of workers that are skilled enough to earn a wage that is equal to or in excess of that target.

The problem in all of this is that the price of goods goes up as long as people are buying those goods (whether eagerly or begrudgingly) and as soon as people don't, either the goods go away or there is a restructuring of how they are made (cost-wise).   There is no similar analysis and adjustment with the wage.  It just IS.   That skill that a year ago the free market said was worth $8.00 or $9.00 or whatever - and entire business models were prepared on that assumption - is now with a stroke of a pen going to change that variable by 35% (roughly)... it's crazy.

Think about it.  I hate the idea of boiling down the macroeconomics of a $20 trillion economy to that of a household - and a corporate balance sheet is just as unrelatable - but in terms of concept, just imagine if you and your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/right hand were sitting down to do your budget, and you have your income in the left column, and your expenses in the right and you plan out for the year or so, and three months in you buy that house you were saving for or you buy that car you need to get to work, then three months after that, OVERNIGHT, your largest line item magically increases 35%.   You're not going to tell me that SOMETHING has to give to accommodate that? 

If we absolutely think that setting that artificial number is the moral way to go (up for debate, but not unreasonable) then at a minimum there should be SOME quid pro quo.  I don't know what that is at this point - continuing education, mandatory training, I don't know - but there should be SOMETHING different on that new day that justifies the artificial changing of the valuation of that wage.

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15662
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #170 on: December 01, 2016, 09:05:31 AM »
What are BS degrees?

My degree is in Psychology, is that considered a BS degree? Or do you mean more stuff like cinema appreciation or whatever.

Look at your degree.  Should say Bachelors of Arts or Bachelors of Science.  I think psychology could go either way depending on the college/program in the college.

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #171 on: December 01, 2016, 11:30:32 AM »
What are BS degrees?

My degree is in Psychology, is that considered a BS degree? Or do you mean more stuff like cinema appreciation or whatever.

Look at your degree.  Should say Bachelors of Arts or Bachelors of Science.  I think psychology could go either way depending on the college/program in the college.

BS in this circumstance means bullshit, not Bachelors of Science.

...my name is Araragi.

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15662
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #172 on: December 01, 2016, 11:33:46 AM »
What are BS degrees?

My degree is in Psychology, is that considered a BS degree? Or do you mean more stuff like cinema appreciation or whatever.

Look at your degree.  Should say Bachelors of Arts or Bachelors of Science.  I think psychology could go either way depending on the college/program in the college.

BS in this circumstance means bullshit, not Bachelors of Science.

I realized when I typed that I meant BS as in bullsh*t, and I meant majors, not degrees.

Oh I know, I understood you. My question still stands.

Online orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9291
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #173 on: December 01, 2016, 05:25:30 PM »
I find that a lot of the arts and "studies" can be classified as BS only on the basis that the job market is either tremendously small or niche where the supply outweighs the demand. Music in particular is incredibly competitive and limited although there are some offshoots that lend to jobs in related areas but ultimately may not be worth the investment. Spending hundreds of thousands to go through medical school can typically pay off as long as you're on the right track since those types of specialties are desired but spending slightly less on a guitar studies degree from Berklee or similar music school most likely will leave you with a "what the hell did I sign up for?" result. I've always felt that film schools were a bit high risk too since while you may learn a great deal from a technical standpoint which can be invaluable a subjective and creative field such as film may just be something like sports that you need to be a natural with. You can learn all the theory you want but if you don't have the knack of piecing it together an in engaging way you'll just fall into this generic uncreative hole. I've always considered myself the creative type and have a lot of very specific visions for things and truly believe that, without getting into the "put up or shut up" thing, I could make better films than a lot of student films I've seen without having spent a second in a film school.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4835
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #174 on: December 01, 2016, 08:15:32 PM »
Sorry for the derailment with my attempt at witticism (with my BS remark). Glad we were able to get back on track.

Another thing I want to adress from Genowyn's post is "Affordable housing." Seattle is currently going through a self-glossed "Housing crisis," as I am sure other cities are. To me, this translates to: Not everyone who wants to live there can afford to. This to me is far from a crisis. It would be nice if everyone could afford to live where they want to live, but when has that ever been an achievable goal?

So what makes "affordable housing?" How do we define this? I don't have the answers. I recognize that people shouldn't spend 50% of their gross income on rent, but how to we achieve this?
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'