Petition to increase minimum wage to 1945 levels


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 265 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Squeakmaan wrote:
Hey thanks for the info Irontruth, It was interesting reading. While i don't have anything to add that wouldn't be redundant, other than my support for an increase in the minimum wage, I would like to say I find the repetition of "learn to think for yourself" and similar refrains to be the fallback position of those for whom the evidence does not support.

It's especially amusing when they don't respond to those posting reasons rather than links.


I really wasn't even addressing the actual topic, only his claims of intellectual authority which were obviously false.

I do think that raising the minimum wage is such a half-measure and only attempting to address one aspect of the problem that it will always be flawed, but I think it's better than nothing.

Creating an environment where laborers can more easily own the businesses they labor for would be much more ideal.


Irontruth wrote:
I do think that raising the minimum wage is such a half-measure and only attempting to address one aspect of the problem that it will always be flawed, but I think it's better than nothing.

Workers organize and win increase in pay--gain strength and confidence--Move on to 30-hour work week--more strength and confidence--overthrow capitalism.

Now that's the kind of incrementalism I can get behind!

Vive le Galt!

Liberty's Edge

It seems like EITC would be a better way to go if you wanted to more effectively target families in need.

Does anybody know offhand what percent of minimum wage earners are middle class kids trying to save up half the money for a Trans Am so their dad can buy the other half and teach them "the value of a dollar?"


Heathansson wrote:

It seems like EITC would be a better way to go if you wanted to more effectively target families in need.

Does anybody know offhand what percent of minimum wage earners are middle class kids trying to save up half the money for a Trans Am so their dad can buy the other half and teach them "the value of a dollar?"

Except then we get ranting about 47% of the country is mooching off the rest of us.

And it comes directly from the taxpayer, making it essentially a government support for low-paying business.

I haven't seen numbers for "middle class kids trying to save up half the money for a Trans Am" working for minimum wage or below, but roughly half of those working for minimum wage are 25 or less.
Of course, not all of those are teenagers, not all are middleclass and probably far too many are single moms. OTOH, some are probably making decent money in tipped jobs, but unless you're in a decent place those are pretty lousy too.

And of course, more people would be helped by a minimum wage increase than those making it now. Anyone below the new minimum and those near it would get a boost.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Fight for $45/hour and a union!

Vive le Galt!

Some fun stats:

Half of all jobs created since 2010 have been low-wage-paying say the commies at the Royal Bank of Scotland

Number of high school students working in low wage jobs hits all time low as low-wage jobs are filled with unemployed college graduates and or older workers says the crazy liberals at the Washington Times

These may be crazy liberals, I wouldn't know

Meanwhile, Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time Record Peak And Expected To Grow in 2014 say the radical Keynesians at Forbes.

But, no it can't be any of that. It must be because Americans are entitled and wimpy.

Bumps commie post for Spanky.

In particular, the Moonie article might have a (slightly outdated) answer.

Liberty's Edge

"According to the Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics, 1.8 million paid-hourly employees were
paid the federal minimum wage of $7.25 in
2010.
6
These 1.8 million employees can be
broken down into two broad groups:

Roughly half (49.0 percent) are teenag-
ers or young adults aged 24 or under.
A large majority (62.2 percent) of this
group live in families with incomes
two or more times the official poverty
level.
7
Looking just at the families of
teenaged minimum wage workers, the
average income is almost $70,600, and
only 16.8 percent are below the poverty
line.
8
Note that the federal minimum
wage applies to workers of all ages.
9

The other half (51.0 percent) are aged
25 and up.
10
More of these workers
live in poor families (29.2 percent) or
near the poverty level (46.2 percent
had family incomes less than 1.5 times
the poverty level).
11
However, even
within this half of all minimum wage
employees, 24.8 percent voluntarily
work part-time, and just 34.3 percent
are full-time full-year employees.
12
Only 20.8 percent of all minimum wage
workers are family heads or spouses work-
ing full time, 30.8 percent were children, and
32.2 percent are young Americans enrolled
in school.
13
The popular belief that mini-
mum wage workers are poor adults (25 years
old or older), working full time and trying to
raise a family is largely untrue. Just 4.7 per-
cent match that description.

14
Indeed, many
minimum wage workers live in families with
incomes well above the poverty level."

pulled from here.

So.....EITC it is.


Does it happen to say how many workers between the minimum wage of $7.25 and the above RBS defined low wage of $16 and under and something are teenagers?


I also find it interesting that of the older workers, only 25% voluntarily work part time and 35% work full time, which leaves 40% who work part time but want more work. They of course, don't count for that 4.7%.

Also, it's from CATO, which isn't exactly a neutral source.


In Spanky's defense, it's not exactly like I often cite neutral sources.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
In Spanky's defense, it's not exactly like I often cite neutral sources.

Yeah, but you usually say something like: "According to this commie rag"

We know exactly how much of a grain of salt to take them with. :)


:)

Although a goblin, I am a paladin.

I cannot tell a lie:

Workers revolution is gonna get all you motherf%!+ers.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:

I also find it interesting that of the older workers, only 25% voluntarily work part time and 35% work full time, which leaves 40% who work part time but want more work. They of course, don't count for that 4.7%.

Also, it's from CATO, which isn't exactly a neutral source.

Even giving those numbers, it's still inefficient targeting.

Liberty's Edge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
In Spanky's defense, it's not exactly like I often cite neutral sources.

I don't need any defense, I just won't drink from the poisoned well of his logic fallacy..


Orfamay Quest wrote:
As are Marx Brothers movies, and for roughly the same reason. Absurdist humor is often fascinating.

[Honks horn and grabs Orfamay's ass]


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I do think that raising the minimum wage is such a half-measure and only attempting to address one aspect of the problem that it will always be flawed, but I think it's better than nothing.

Workers organize and win increase in pay--gain strength and confidence--Move on to 30-hour work week--more strength and confidence--overthrow capitalism.

Now that's the kind of incrementalism I can get behind!

Vive le Galt!

I did vote for Ty Moore. He didn't win though.


Heathansson wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I also find it interesting that of the older workers, only 25% voluntarily work part time and 35% work full time, which leaves 40% who work part time but want more work. They of course, don't count for that 4.7%.

Also, it's from CATO, which isn't exactly a neutral source.

Even giving those numbers, it's still inefficient targeting.

Yeah, but it makes me wonder about the rest of the argument. I mean, I'm assuming nothing he says is untrue, but there's a definite slant.

Looking at his numbers for 5 minutes and I've already more than doubled the number that most would think need the money. What else is there?


Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I do think that raising the minimum wage is such a half-measure and only attempting to address one aspect of the problem that it will always be flawed, but I think it's better than nothing.

Workers organize and win increase in pay--gain strength and confidence--Move on to 30-hour work week--more strength and confidence--overthrow capitalism.

Now that's the kind of incrementalism I can get behind!

Vive le Galt!

I did vote for Ty Moore. He didn't win though.

Thank you, comrade.

Kshama did, though.

Nationalize Paizo!
Vive le Galt!

I know, I know. Only one out of three. But this is the first time we tried. From a spark a fire will flare up and all that.

Spoiler:
Voting is still for ninnies.

Workers revolution is going to gell all you motherf@+@ers.


The problem with a revolution that gets all the "m$!&*!~&&@*+s" is that if things don't immediately improve, they're going to turn on the people who led the last revolution.

So... yeah, Vive le Galt.


Irontruth wrote:

The problem with a revolution that gets all the "m$!&*!~&&@*+s" is that if things don't immediately improve, they're going to turn on the people who led the last revolution.

So... yeah, Vive le Galt.

.

Good thing they can always MOVE THE GOAL POSTS after the fact.

.


You must have gone to public school.


Irontruth wrote:
The problem with a revolution that gets all the "m$!&*!~&&@*+s"

No, no, not all "the" motherf$@#ers, all "you" motherf*@@ers. In this thread. More specifically, all you filthy pinkskins who've ever doubted me (or Comrade Dingo)?

You're Gonna Get Yours!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
The problem with a revolution that gets all the "m$!&*!~&&@*+s"

No, no, not all "the" m&@!!&@@~~!$s, all "you" m$$+#*!*%~&!s. In this thread. More specifically, all you filthy pinkskins who've ever doubted me (or Comrade Dingo)?

You're Gonna Get Yours!

Musical interlude - the first 40 seconds being the most apropos for the thread.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Heathansson wrote:

More of these workers

live in poor families (29.2 percent) or
near the poverty level (46.2 percent
had family incomes less than 1.5 times
the poverty level).

So 75.4% of minimum wage workers are in or near poverty.

Quote:

However, even

within this half of all minimum wage
employees, 24.8 percent voluntarily
work part-time, and just 34.3 percent
are full-time full-year employees.

What about the 48.9% of underemployed (involuntarily seasonal or part-time) workers?

Quote:

The popular belief that mini-

mum wage workers are poor adults (25 years
old or older), working full time and trying to
raise a family is largely untrue. Just 4.7 per-
cent match that description.

What "popular belief"? The vast majority of minimum wage earners are in poverty. The vast majority of minimum wage earners are working as much as is available to them.

Oh wait, it's pulled from the Cato Institute. loooooooooool.

Liberty's Edge

A Man In Black wrote:


Oh wait, it's pulled from the Cato Institute. loooooooooool.

Yaaaay for RPG Superstar time. It ensures quality time and quality posts from AMIB.

Liberty's Edge

A Man In Black wrote:


Oh wait, it's pulled from the Cato Institute. loooooooooool.

I've gotten this "CATO LOL!" twice.

Maybe I'm unmotivated or something, but when I google search "case for raising the minimum wage," what I find is a little light on actual data analysis; at least the vast majority of articles don't rely on "Cato institute.....llllllolllll!" as a rebuttal.

My point is this: targeting poor families with EIC is a more focused mechanism than raising the minimum wage. Working minimum wage does not automatically infer poverty level existence. Raising the minimum wage is just more popular with the voting block they are trying to succor, and they're going to go with it.

If 5% or more of minimum wage workers are teenagers saving up to buy a Trans Am, you're doing it wrong. That's 5% of your effort wasted. EIC would be better.


Hm. Interesting.

Sovereign Court

Y'know, I'm always nostalgic for a time when paizo.com was a site full of positivity and enthusiasm.

It saddens me that success has to be accompanied by the blinkered and belligerent.

The golden age is probably a myth but, y'know, worth aspiring to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GeraintElberion wrote:

Y'know, I'm always nostalgic for a time when paizo.com was a site full of positivity and enthusiasm.

It saddens me that success has to be accompanied by the blinkered and belligerent.

The golden age is probably a myth but, y'know, worth aspiring to.

The older one gets, the better things were. Have a drink with Socrates, he'll tell you all about it.

Sovereign Court

Freehold DM wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:

Y'know, I'm always nostalgic for a time when paizo.com was a site full of positivity and enthusiasm.

It saddens me that success has to be accompanied by the blinkered and belligerent.

The golden age is probably a myth but, y'know, worth aspiring to.

The older one gets, the better things were. Have a drink with Socrates, he'll tell you all about it.

I'm not drinking that! I've got so much to live for.

Liberty's Edge

GeraintElberion wrote:

Y'know, I'm always nostalgic for a time when paizo.com was a site full of positivity and enthusiasm.

It saddens me that success has to be accompanied by the blinkered and belligerent.

The golden age is probably a myth but, y'know, worth aspiring to.

So quit dropping anvils of smug indignation all over the place and go start a happy-talky-talky-talky-time thread. Be the ball, Danny. Danny, you're not being the ball.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Heathansson wrote:
I've gotten this "CATO LOL!" twice.

I did comment on why that analysis is bullshit: it disregards 16-25s living in poverty and the involuntarily underemployed. (It also disregards people living in poverty who only work part-time due to only having the capacity to handle that, which is pretty common for parents, poor students, and the disabled.) Did you not read all of the words before the last sentence?

Maybe you should stop using sources that are known for blatantly dishonestly manipulating statistics so people stop making fun of you.

Quote:
My point is this: targeting poor families with EIC is a more focused mechanism than raising the minimum wage. Working minimum wage does not automatically infer poverty level existence.

I'd say, when 75.4% of people working for minimum wage are living in or near poverty, it does automatically infer poverty level existence.

The biggest problem with the EITC is that it puts the burden of claiming the benefit on the employee, not the employer, so the uptake is not super great. This is one of the quiet downsides of every opt-in benefit program: some people are unaware of them, too proud to collect, or incapable of understanding why they should.

Another big downside to the EITC versus minimum wage increases is that it's much easier to villainize tax credits as "handouts" and layer repeal them, while there is no political will to roll back the minimum wage once it's set.


EITC is also a tax expenditure, which means in the current political environment, any expansion would have to be offset, probably by other cuts to the poor.

And as far as villianization goes, remember the EITC was a big part of the 47% takers meme that was going around the last election cycle.


This website amuses me.

Practical Money Skills from the McDonalds corporation.

Don't worry, it won't take long to read the whole thing.

Edit: though of course, with the power of the internet, things rarely disappear permanently.

Budget journal from McDonalds.

Maybe we should just ask McDonalds how to solve health care, their employees can get coverage for just $20 a month!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

You're right, took no time at all. :)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
You're right, took no time at all. :)

Yeah, it just amuses me that it got so much bad press, they took the website down.

Shadow Lodge

The power of the people.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Heathansson wrote:


Maybe I'm unmotivated or something, but when I google search "case for raising the minimum wage," what I find is a little light on actual data analysis; at least the vast majority of articles don't rely on "Cato institute.....llllllolllll!" as a rebuttal.

The problem with google search on a hot topic, is that sites with tons of hits...i.e. blogs and opinion sites tend to shoulder aside more staid fact based analysis.

There are some facts in the matter. If the minimum wage from the 60's had actually kept pace with inflation, it'd be about 24-28 dollars an hour by now. Obama's drive to raise it to 10.10 isn't even about making up all that lost ground.

If you boost the wages of the poor, pretty much all of it would be channeled back into the economy on purchases of necessities. Since all of the wage increase goes back into the economy, it stimultates demand and jobs.

As opposed to sinking billions into an aircraft carrier, which returns very little save a pile of scrap metal at the end of its' life.


LazarX wrote:
Heathansson wrote:


Maybe I'm unmotivated or something, but when I google search "case for raising the minimum wage," what I find is a little light on actual data analysis; at least the vast majority of articles don't rely on "Cato institute.....llllllolllll!" as a rebuttal.

The problem with google search on a hot topic, is that sites with tons of hits...i.e. blogs and opinion sites tend to shoulder aside more staid fact based analysis.

There are some facts in the matter. If the minimum wage from the 60's had actually kept pace with inflation, it'd be about 24-28 dollars an hour by now. Obama's drive to raise it to 10.10 isn't even about making up all that lost ground.

If you boost the wages of the poor, pretty much all of it would be channeled back into the economy on purchases of necessities. Since all of the wage increase goes back into the economy, it stimultates demand and jobs.

As opposed to sinking billions into an aircraft carrier, which returns very little save a pile of scrap metal at the end of its' life.

According to the standard measures of inflation, the peak minimum wage (which was in 1968) would be approximately $10.66 in today's dollars. Not in the high $20s.

There's a reasonable argument to be made that the standard measures of inflation understate actual costs of living, but that's a separate case that would have to be made.

The rest I agree with. Up to point, the economy can easily absorb minimum wage increases. As you say, the extra money circulates back into the economy, boosting demand more than it raises prices.

Sovereign Court

Heathansson wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:

Y'know, I'm always nostalgic for a time when paizo.com was a site full of positivity and enthusiasm.

It saddens me that success has to be accompanied by the blinkered and belligerent.

The golden age is probably a myth but, y'know, worth aspiring to.

So quit dropping anvils of smug indignation all over the place and go start a happy-talky-talky-talky-time thread. Be the ball, Danny. Danny, you're not being the ball.

We already have a beer thread. You know that.


thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Heathansson wrote:


Maybe I'm unmotivated or something, but when I google search "case for raising the minimum wage," what I find is a little light on actual data analysis; at least the vast majority of articles don't rely on "Cato institute.....llllllolllll!" as a rebuttal.

The problem with google search on a hot topic, is that sites with tons of hits...i.e. blogs and opinion sites tend to shoulder aside more staid fact based analysis.

There are some facts in the matter. If the minimum wage from the 60's had actually kept pace with inflation, it'd be about 24-28 dollars an hour by now. Obama's drive to raise it to 10.10 isn't even about making up all that lost ground.

If you boost the wages of the poor, pretty much all of it would be channeled back into the economy on purchases of necessities. Since all of the wage increase goes back into the economy, it stimultates demand and jobs.

As opposed to sinking billions into an aircraft carrier, which returns very little save a pile of scrap metal at the end of its' life.

According to the standard measures of inflation, the peak minimum wage (which was in 1968) would be approximately $10.66 in today's dollars. Not in the high $20s.

There's a reasonable argument to be made that the standard measures of inflation understate actual costs of living, but that's a separate case that would have to be made.

The rest I agree with. Up to point, the economy can easily absorb minimum wage increases. As you say, the extra money circulates back into the economy, boosting demand more than it raises prices.

Well, boosting demand will raise prices, though I think it'll still be a net gain for the poor overall, but those gains will reduce over time, even if tied to the rate of inflation. Raising the minimum wage is a temporary stop gap. A more permanent fix would involve addressing wealth inequality directly.

The richest 85 people in the world now have as much wealth as the bottom 3,500,000,000.


I wouldn't call it a temporary stop gap, but a (small) part of the solution. One that, unlike many others, might be within reach.


LazarX wrote:
There are some facts in the matter. If the minimum wage from the 60's had actually kept pace with inflation, it'd be about 24-28 dollars an hour by now. Obama's drive to raise it to 10.10 isn't even about making up all that lost ground.

IIRC, correctly, Comrade X, the mid-20s stat was for if the share of worker's wages had kept up with corporate profits. Or was it executive compensation? I'd have to go look it up.

Either way, $54.40 and a Union or Fight!

"Let’s talk about minimum wage. Obama said, 'No one working full-time should have to raise a family in poverty.'

"And his solution? Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 over 3 years.

"I absolutely welcome any step forward on raising the minimum wage. And it is outrageous how the Republican Party is standing in the way.

"But let’s be honest: $10.10/hour over three years – or $20,000 per year if you are lucky enough to have a full-time job – is not a ticket out of poverty for working families."

Vive le Galt!


Look, you don't have to take my word for it.

Listen to this hawt chick on RT.

Word.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
LazarX wrote:
There are some facts in the matter. If the minimum wage from the 60's had actually kept pace with inflation, it'd be about 24-28 dollars an hour by now. Obama's drive to raise it to 10.10 isn't even about making up all that lost ground.

IIRC, correctly, Comrade X, the mid-20s stat was for if the share of worker's wages had kept up with corporate profits. Or was it executive compensation? I'd have to go look it up.

Either way, $54.40 and a Union or Fight!

"Let’s talk about minimum wage. Obama said, 'No one working full-time should have to raise a family in poverty.'

"And his solution? Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 over 3 years.

"I absolutely welcome any step forward on raising the minimum wage. And it is outrageous how the Republican Party is standing in the way.

"But let’s be honest: $10.10/hour over three years – or $20,000 per year if you are lucky enough to have a full-time job – is not a ticket out of poverty for working families."

Vive le Galt!

Raising the minimum wage isn't going to get anyone out of poverty. All it will do is raise the cost of living negating the raise in wages. If McDonald's has to spend 30% more on salaries, don't you think they will raise prices to offset those costs? The same with their suppliers, and every other company out there.


A Fortune article explaining how Wal-Mart can not only afford, but by the math could actually be expected, to pay their employees over $40,000 a year.

Higher wages are shown to increase productivity. For one, workers are happier. Two, it increases retention, which means that the skills and institutional knowledge is retained, making the company more efficient as less time is spent training/relearning.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Vod Canockers wrote:
Raising the minimum wage isn't going to get anyone out of poverty. All it will do is raise the cost of living negating the raise in wages. If McDonald's has to spend 30% more on salaries, don't you think they will raise prices to offset those costs? The same with their suppliers, and every other company out there.

This is only true if 100% of every business's expenses are minimum wage employees and nobody takes any profit ever. Since this obviously isn't true, then any price inflation caused by a minimum wage increase is going to be less than the minimum wage increase.

We don't have to even play the inductive reasoning game. We can just look at history. Raising the minimum wage does not increase the cost of living. This has never happened ever, so it's not something worth worrying about.


I don't know Citizen Canockers from Adam, so I will make no assumptions about where he/she's coming from. But I always find it amusing that free marketists always seem to forget about that whole supply-and-demand thingy when it comes to the minimum wage, as if the corporations were monopolies that can just fix prices any way they see fit.

Again, I don't know Citizen Canockers from Adam, so I will make no assumptions about where he/she's coming from. But I always find it amusing that free marketists never seem to apply the same "increased wages = increased prices" logic to executive compensation.

But I do agree that increasing the minimum wage to $10 over the next three years isn't going to raise anybody out of poverty.

$54.40 and a Union or Fight!


Comrade 'biter, the raising of anyones salary will necessitate a raise in prices to keep profits up. Twenty years ago I worked for Taco Bell and the cost of a taco was 49¢, now it is over a dollar. According to the CPI constant dollar calculator, that same 49¢ should be 79¢ today. Oddly though the minimum wage here has gone from $4.25 to $8.25.

Checking inflation vs minimum wage doesn't work because inflation doesn't include food prices. The food industries have a large number of minimum and low wage workers.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Vod Canockers wrote:
Comrade 'biter, the raising of anyones salary will necessitate a raise in prices to keep profits up.

This presumes that prices aren't sticky, and aren't already as high as the market will bear.

101 to 150 of 265 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Petition to increase minimum wage to 1945 levels All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.