US Presidential Election XII

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by BVS

Sounds so simple, right? Except very few economists believe this.

Please show me how you've come up with this "good to go" solution?

What are you on? Cities such as San Francisco have been doing this for years. It works just fine. There's an annual increase based on the CPI. It's not rocket science. You're attacking something that's already been put into practice just fine.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Spoken like someone who's never had a real commute to work.

My girlfriend and I each commute over an hour to San Francisco, so there's that.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by DaveC

the alternative is to do something like provide a minimum income so that there is a bit of a cushion for people when it happens. a $15 minimum wage is useless if there are no minimum wage jobs. a $1000 minimum guaranteed income is highly useful for the people who lose those minimum wage jobs as the economy adapts.

I see what you're getting at and I feel the same way. We aren't there yet, but it's about to happen real soon. A minimum income is the only solution because there just are not going to be enough jobs around once automation takes over, not to mention that jobs themselves will disappear if productivity continues to rise.

There aren't really enough jobs now when you count the insane amount of temp workers in America and the undermployment rate being at like 20% and higher all the damn time or something like 70% of urban black men being unemployed. We already live in a dog-eat-dog world where employers have the immense advantage such as utilizing credit checks or making it hard for anybody to outright quit a job because it's multiple times harder to get one when you're unemployed, etc.

Basically, we're already having people suffer and dishing out welfare benefits to people that get no or a low amount of hours. That really isn't any different from a minimum income.

It was a different world decades ago where lots of people didn't have a high school diploma and you could get paid the minimum wage to literally just sweep up hair at a barber shop. Education and productivity have gone up hand-in-hand since then and workers have gained nothing to show for it. Harder jobs with less pay.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by namkcuR

That if you raise the minimum wage to $15/hr or whatever, than people in non-minimum-wage jobs who are making the annual salary equivalent of $15/hr for doing harder or more challenging jobs that required more education will want their pay raised as well because why should they do a harder job for the same thing the minimum-wagers are making?

Sure, but I don't really understand the problem here. If you're making $20 an hour at an office job and now the guy at Burger King is suddenly making $15 an hour, you're still making more money at that office job. Getting a raise will depend on how your employer feels about the situation.

If there actually is a lack of people wanting to work because they're suddenly barely making more than the burger flipper, then the employer will raise the wages. But that's unlikely given how things actually work in our economy. So, you can either keep what you're earning or let somebody else take your place which is how the world works with expendable workers and an unemployment level constantly at 5% and an underemployment level that is beyond woeful.

On a personal level, I do think your average American cares about prestige. They don't want to buy a used car that's dented, for example, even if there's a nice discount. So if stressing the fuck out for two dollars more an hour than the burger flipper is an option, I think most of these people will still do it. It's kind of a soulless way to live your life and depressing, but there's no doubt in my mind that's what could happen. Again, nobody is forcing you to work a certain job.

I personally think the problem has lied at the bottom of the pyramid in terms of compensation and the people at wages below $15 or those hovering just above it are the ones that will get a boost from all of this. If you're making $40 an hour, you shouldn't expect jack shit from your boss just because the federal minimum is now $15. You're well compensated already and the problem isn't that everybody isn't being compensated fairly or that you need to always have the same amount of money more than whatever the federal minimum happens to be. Honestly, that's a shitty way to live your life to start whining that you need even more than $40 an hour because you're annoyed that the burger flipper now gets $15. People seem perfectly fine in Socialist-leaning European countries with a smaller divide between rich and poor and they hypothetically do have a much closer gap between their entry level jobs and careers.

If flipping burgers for the same or less were really more appealing, then we'll start seeing people jump ship. I don't think that will actually happen. San Francisco office workers will probably be expected to get $20 starting everywhere by the time $15 minimum rolls around in 2018, etc.. Plus a lot of places would have a bunch of extra income flow thanks to the higher minimum wage floor which in turn could lift wages.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by mikal

This is true. I can't imagine what my program's labor vs revenue would look like. Definitely not as peachy as it does today.

Which essentially means you aren't paying your workers enough and could afford to do better. Of course, all profit happens to be unpaid wages.

[mikal]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Which essentially means you aren't paying your workers enough and could afford to do better. Of course, all profit happens to be unpaid wages.

No.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

What are you on? Cities such as San Francisco have been doing this for years. It works just fine. There's an annual increase based on the CPI. It's not rocket science. You're attacking something that's already been put into practice just fine.

You've never taken an economics class in your life have you?!San Fransisco already has one of the highest costs of living, so you couldn't even begin to use it as an example. You really don't understand what you're talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bono_212]

Just want to reiterate I'm not against raising, I'm just against a flat raise.

I worked so hard to get to 15 and to be honest if I could move back to Indiana and make 15 again working at the grocery store, I'd be tempted to. It would be a lot less stressful than my life is in Los Angeles making a little more than that was.

Sent from my SM-G935T using U2 Interference mobile app

[LuckyNumber7]

Rejected

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

My girlfriend and I each commute over an hour to San Francisco, so there's that.

How long have you been doing it. This is a serious question, I'm not trying to screw with you. I've had at least a thirty minute commute for 4 of the 5 years I've been married. Now my commute is an hour one way and half an hour back. It absolutely takes its toll on my marriage. But can I move closer to work? Of course not because the cost of living in Los Angeles is absurd.

Anyways, just my two cents that suggesting people should just spend their lives driving so they can afford a home sounds awful.

[BigMacPhisto]

I agree that it's not the ideal, just that it's a smarter option for the poor and uneducated than merely moving from place to place where the rent is cheap because that's just a poverty trap.

My girlfriend is an engineer and chose to switch jobs to work in San Francisco again recently. But me? I'm kind of in the same boat where the field I work in pays so much more in SF due to the high minimum wage being a starting point that it would be stupid to work anywhere else. Sitting on BART for both of us is pretty chill though since you don't have to do anything but sit.

The cost of living in San Francisco that BVS points out has nothing to do with the minimum wage. For one thing, I'd imagine the majority of workers earning the current SF minimum or close to it don't even live in the city (frankly, it would be too unaffordable for anyone on that sort of hourly wage). Secondly, the minimum wage has done nothing whatsoever to raise the cost of housing in the city. That has everything to do with high paying tech workers moving here in droves. The high rents would be the same if the minimum wage here were $7.25 or if it were $15, it's not going to make a difference.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by bono_212

I worked so hard to get to 15 and to be honest if I could move back to Indiana and make 15 again working at the grocery store, I'd be tempted to. It would be a lot less stressful than my life is in Los Angeles making a little more than that was.

I think there would be a lot of shifting around that would happen, but I think people like you and me are in the minority. A lot of people really do care about being able to say they work in an office doing blah blah blah instead of serving in a restaurant, working in a grocery store, etc.

To me, it is an equation that makes little sense. Like why on earth would you want the stress? I can guarantee now that a lot of office workers in Kansas are making the same or just a bit more than me (and they have way more expenses - kids, car payments, go out to eat more, etc.) and are stressed to the max while I sit in a chair a few days a week and do nothing. I certainly know which is preferable...

I also think there's been a seismic shift in culture where the idea of working in a certain industry might make you a better catch for the opposite sex has gone out the window...I absolutely don't think that matters anymore in the modern world. The good looking surfer bus boy who makes $12 an hour after tips is in a better position than the socially awkward engineer who makes $100,000 a year, especially if both are looking to date women that could care less about their partners earnings.

But again, even when the social advantage is near meaningless, I do think millions of Americans still care and would rather make half the hourly rate working in something "respectable" than if they were a garbageman.

[martha]

You should probably investigate housing costs in Kansas compared to SF before you generalize like that.

[Diemen]

In election news, Hillary gave a very strong speech last night in Reno on the danger of Donald Trump's rhetoric.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP6Q-OEXm4k

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

The cost of living in San Francisco that BVS points out has nothing to do with the minimum wage. For one thing, I'd imagine the majority of workers earning the current SF minimum or close to it don't even live in the city (frankly, it would be too unaffordable for anyone on that sort of hourly wage). Secondly, the minimum wage has done nothing whatsoever to raise the cost of housing in the city. That has everything to do with high paying tech workers moving here in droves. The high rents would be the same if the minimum wage here were $7.25 or if it were $15, it's not going to make a difference.

THIS has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue we were discussing. The issue we were discussing is your preposterous claim that a raise in minimum wage wouldn't effect cost of product.

If you have a coffee shop in smaller city in TX and there's an increase in the minimum wage than that coffee shop's overhead goes up tremendously, so in order to meet those needs you will have to raise the cost of your product.

Now the same size coffee shop in SF will not be effected as much because the overhead increase will not be as much.

You can get away with paying a barista the current minimum wage in small town TX, but in order to be competitive in high cost of living markets you are more than likely already paying baristas above the current minimum wage.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Sure, but I don't really understand the problem here. If you're making $20 an hour at an office job and now the guy at Burger King is suddenly making $15 an hour, you're still making more money at that office job. Getting a raise will depend on how your employer feels about the situation.

If there actually is a lack of people wanting to work because they're suddenly barely making more than the burger flipper, then the employer will raise the wages. But that's unlikely given how things actually work in our economy. So, you can either keep what you're earning or let somebody else take your place which is how the world works with expendable workers and an unemployment level constantly at 5% and an underemployment level that is beyond woeful.

On a personal level, I do think your average American cares about prestige. They don't want to buy a used car that's dented, for example, even if there's a nice discount. So if stressing the fuck out for two dollars more an hour than the burger flipper is an option, I think most of these people will still do it. It's kind of a soulless way to live your life and depressing, but there's no doubt in my mind that's what could happen. Again, nobody is forcing you to work a certain job.

I personally think the problem has lied at the bottom of the pyramid in terms of compensation and the people at wages below $15 or those hovering just above it are the ones that will get a boost from all of this. If you're making $40 an hour, you shouldn't expect jack shit from your boss just because the federal minimum is now $15. You're well compensated already and the problem isn't that everybody isn't being compensated fairly or that you need to always have the same amount of money more than whatever the federal minimum happens to be. Honestly, that's a shitty way to live your life to start whining that you need even more than $40 an hour because you're annoyed that the burger flipper now gets $15. People seem perfectly fine in Socialist-leaning European countries with a smaller divide between rich and poor and they hypothetically do have a much closer gap between their entry level jobs and careers.

If flipping burgers for the same or less were really more appealing, then we'll start seeing people jump ship. I don't think that will actually happen. San Francisco office workers will probably be expected to get $20 starting everywhere by the time $15 minimum rolls around in 2018, etc.. Plus a lot of places would have a bunch of extra income flow thanks to the higher minimum wage floor which in turn could lift wages.

I don't think that he means, if you're making 20 bucks an hour in an office and a burger flipper starts making 15, you want more. It's If you started at 13 bucks an hour at your office job 4 years ago, and you had a Bachelors degree with student debt, and now you're making 16.50/hr after 4 years, and you're doing a job that requires some education and skill.
Then a person comes in with a high school education filing papers, and is making 15 bucks an hour off the bat.
I think it does make for a sticky situation for those types of situations.

To be honest, i bet most fast food managers make about 16-17 bucks an hour. Imagine when their whole crew of cashiers and grill cooks are upped to 15? Companies may account for this and want to boost everyone up a bit, to avoid issues within the workplace. But then you run into cost limitations.

I know that this would all be phased in gradually, and that would most likely be the saving grace. That hopefully all pay would gradually rise at a faster rate, as the minimum wage was inching up.

I'm hoping for at least a boost to 12 at the federal level, phased in over 4 years of so and then indexed

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Diemen

In election news, Hillary gave a very strong speech last night in Reno on the danger of Donald Trump's rhetoric.

and this is why i'm glad she's the nominee.

yes, she's more to the left of Sanders on economics and foreign policy, however that makes her actual policies more acceptable to middle-of-the-road Republicans, and even some of the Chamber of Commerce Crowd. it's because of the mainstream nature of these positions that enables her to shift the discussion to be about Trump's unacceptableness -- that he's literally courting the darkest elements in American society that no mainstream American, conservative or liberal, would ever want to be associated with. she's able to tie him to the fringe because her other positions are mainstream and thus the differences between her and mainstream Republican thought are moot in comparison to the differences between Trump and mainstream Republicans on race, religion, etc. this is why her lead is huge in places like Virginia and Colorado.

if it were Sanders, we'd be discussing his economic policies and lack of interest in foreign policy -- because Sanders' positions on these topics are less acceptable to the mainstream. it's a fight for the center, as these things always are, and the more Trump is tied to these alt-right barbarians, the more she peels away even the center-right. or they just stay home.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by BVS

THIS has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue we were discussing. The issue we were discussing is your preposterous claim that a raise in minimum wage wouldn't effect cost of product.

If you have a coffee shop in smaller city in TX and there's an increase in the minimum wage than that coffee shop's overhead goes up tremendously, so in order to meet those needs you will have to raise the cost of your product.

Now the same size coffee shop in SF will not be effected as much because the overhead increase will not be as much.

You can get away with paying a barista the current minimum wage in small town TX, but in order to be competitive in high cost of living markets you are more than likely already paying baristas above the current minimum wage.

The general points you are making here are something of an argument against mandated minimum wage increase, I think, in that the affordability of many service-industry products, like coffee or fast food or cell phone service, is what drives a lot of employment in the US. If a small coffee at Dunkin Donuts suddenly cost $3 instead of $1.50 or whatever based on minimum wage increases, I think you would see a rise in unemployment rates as some of those jobs were consolidated or eliminated.

The relentless consumer pressure to drive prices down on commodities is a real hurdle to wage rises, ironically so because the people who expect lower prices are often the same ones working in jobs where wages would benefit from slightly higher prices.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

if it were Sanders, we'd be discussing his economic policies and lack of interest in foreign policy -- because Sanders' positions on these topics are less acceptable to the mainstream. it's a fight for the center, as these things always are, and the more Trump is tied to these alt-right barbarians, the more she peels away even the center-right. or they just stay home.

This is a genuine question: what does the political "mainstream" mean to you? I wonder if that term has much usefulness in a political climate that is statistically polarized and becoming more so with each passing day.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

The general points you are making here are something of an argument against mandated minimum wage increase, I think, in that the affordability of many service-industry products, like coffee or fast food or cell phone service, is what drives a lot of employment in the US. If a small coffee at Dunkin Donuts suddenly cost $3 instead of $1.50 or whatever based on minimum wage increases, I think you would see a rise in unemployment rates as some of those jobs were consolidated or eliminated.

The relentless consumer pressure to drive prices down on commodities is a real hurdle to wage rises, ironically so because the people who expect lower prices are often the same ones working in jobs where wages would benefit from slightly higher prices.

It's not a blanket argument against, because I think we're far behind where we should be. But we should expect price increases, to not understand that is to not understand this subject. Now there are other factors that come in play as well, but a blanket national increase to 15 may not be the magic fix they think it is.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference