|
Solkanar512 posted:You see, people have minimum needs to survive - food, shelter, clothing and so on. At current minimum wages, they aren't able to meet those needs. By putting more money in their pockets, they're able to buy more of what they need, or better save for emergencies that may come up, making society more stable over time. And yet, as the real minimum wage has fallen, crime has gone down and corporate profits have gone up. quote:Given that labor costs aren't the total sum of business operating costs means that the increased demand makes more money for the majority of businesses over all. The reductions in turnover and training costs also help a great deal. Money that comes out of profit and goes back in as revenue does not and cannot increase profits. The only plausible way it could work would be turnover and productivity, but those don't appear to be significant factors. From https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/app.3.1.129 quote:This is consistent with a simple model where wage gains from minimum wages map directly into profit reductions. There is some suggestive evidence of longer run adjustment to the minimum wage through falls in net entry rates.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:
If there only exists one company that both employs and sells to people, sure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:And yet, as the real minimum wage has fallen, crime has gone down and corporate profits have gone up. Social unrest is also up. Protests are literally a society threatening violence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:And yet, as the real minimum wage has fallen, crime has gone down and corporate profits have gone up. Merely at the cost of having the largest prison population in the world, in both a relative and absolute sense. How the gently caress can crime NOT go down when you're locking up that many people? quote:Money that comes out of profit and goes back in as revenue does not and cannot increase profits. The only plausible way it could work would be turnover and productivity, but those don't appear to be significant factors. From https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/app.3.1.129 Nobody said it would benefit every business, but it would benefit businesses that actually serve consumers. I like the idea of empowering business that creates local jobs, instead of funneling it to Wall Street.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Money that comes out of profit and goes back in as revenue does not and cannot increase profits. Yes, because people who have more money never use it to gain better skills for themselves or their children, start new businesses or otherwise increase their productivity!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Yes, because people who have more money never use it to gain better skills for themselves or their children, start new businesses or otherwise increase their productivity! This is a different and better argument than "more circulating money!".
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Yes, because people who have more money never use it to gain better skills for themselves or their children, start new businesses or otherwise increase their productivity!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I imagine there's a non-trivial portion of the population who see this and go: "So I'm creating competition? gently caress that." I imagine they're to busy telling the poor to just work harder and improve their skills, but it's possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
I think it's good to have temporary jobs. Labor mobility is one of the great strengths of the American economy and the primary reason we recover from economic stresses faster than Old Europe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think it's good to have temporary jobs. Labor mobility is one of the great strengths of the American economy and the primary reason we recover from economic stresses faster than Old Europe. i will kill you 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:it's good to have temporary jobs ... primary reason we recover from economic stresses faster
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think it's good to have temporary jobs. Labor mobility is one of the great strengths of the American economy and the primary reason we recover from economic stresses faster than Old Europe. So if we recognize temp jobs as economically valuable we should compensate the temp workers as such
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:So if we recognize temp jobs as economically valuable we should compensate the temp workers as such Yeah well we should remunerate temp workers in accordance with input cost and labor laws.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
If you're going to treat temp workers like on-call employees then you're going to loving pay them like on-call employees. People that are on-call get paid for being on-call even if they aren't working. The gig economy is lovely because it puts a gently caress load of people on-call but they only get paid when they actually have work. You want a reserve army of workers? OK, fine. Put the damned safety net back in place so they don't go hungry if nobody wants to hire them today. Hell that's also a good time to argue in favor of GMI. Hey, so nobody is hiring? No big deal, you still have a place to live and food to eat. Head to the library and read a book in your spare time or like go clean up the park. Or just sit at home and play video games, nobody cares.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
But if nobody is hiring at a particular company then why should they have jobs with them? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Who uses self-checkout if they have a cart? I do. It's pretty fast. Only bad part is how you feel rushed if someone is behind you when you're bagging. But, even then, bagging is pretty fast.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:"We" huh?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:Kind of off-topic, but I've noticed this is pretty common among Americans who do not interact much with non-Americans much in daily life. If everybody you see every day is included in your national myth, I guess it comes naturally. I actually had a friend once who did this all the time but then eventually stopped after moving to a big cosmopolitan city. Gee, I wonder why he did that.   
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Sorry if English isn't your first language but "we" can either exclude or include the listener and you have to get it from context. Jackass.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think it's good to have temporary jobs. Labor mobility is one of the great strengths of the American economy and the primary reason we recover from economic stresses faster than Old Europe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:Kind of off-topic, but I've noticed this is pretty common among Americans who do not interact much with non-Americans much in daily life. If everybody you see every day is included in your national myth, I guess it comes naturally. I actually had a friend once who did this all the time but then eventually stopped after moving to a big cosmopolitan city. I have 10 friends who never used to say it but eventually started after moving to a big cosmopolitan city.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Sorry if English isn't your first language but "we" can either exclude or include the listener and you have to get it from context.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:The issue is that you're assuming the listener knows your identity, not that you're excluding anybody. It's not rude, just kind of aloof. That's funny, because I thought the issue was that Arglebargle was equating himself with the entire US economy, even though it mostly benefits the rich rather than the poor. As in, it could bounce back while the poor get screwed. Not an entirely hypothetical scenario.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:That's funny, because I thought the issue was that Arglebargle was equating himself with the entire US economy, even though it mostly benefits the rich rather than the poor. As in, it could bounce back while the poor get screwed. Not an entirely hypothetical scenario.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Wait what? An American using the word "we" to describe America is a problem why?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
It's like using 'we' to talk about your local football team and not being a player. Alternatively, Americans are distinct from America.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Wait what? An American using the word "we" to describe America is a problem why? I'm derailing and will shut up now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:That's funny, because I thought the issue was that Arglebargle was equating himself with the entire US economy, even though it mostly benefits the rich rather than the poor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:It glosses over critical detail and assumes that people know who you are and where you're from. It was completely clear from the context of the comparison to "Old Europe". I consider it healthy to recognize yourself as part a collective society which the word 'we' captures just fine. FRINGE posted:This was my assumption, and seems in line with his/her stance. Which actually makes sense as a criticism as opposed to the above.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Wait what? An American using the word "we" to describe America is a problem why? Because it changes the subject.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If you're going to treat temp workers like on-call employees then you're going to loving pay them like on-call employees. This touches on a lot of points that have been rattling around in my head for awhile now: It seems to me that the other side of the coin of "just bootstrap yourself into a job you lazy gently caress" suggests that the private sector can, and *should*, provide 100% employment to 100% of the population. However, the prime directive of the private sector is "profit uber alles", which frequently involves doing as much as you can with as few employees as possible, and when you have to expand, to do it with as many "flexible" (temporary) employees as possible. It seems that putting these two conflicting ideals together and forcing that cognitive dissonance is about the right time to bring up "*somebody* should be an employer of last resort, even if the definition of employment at that point is 'acquire a fresh, hot new skill for our rapidly changing economy' ". Or, alternatively, clean up the park, or plant some trees today, or whatever. I mean, there's certainly no shortage of work to be done; the only argument is how much profit can be extracted from it. The other possible alternative to the above scenario would be to force people to pay every single employee so much that sudden bouts of joblessness don't horrifically impact the person or their family. Except, of course, that can't work for another reason (spending habits are frequently dumb, it would probably cost more in the long run to do it this way, etc.) that "employer of last resort" probably works out better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Somewhat related to the discussion, I don't suppose there's a thread discussing the minimum wage shift? I'd like to find some more information but 90% of the poo poo I've found so far via Google search is from Forbes and such all saying that it's gonna gently caress the poor and spike unemployment etc. etc. I'm personally of the opinion that more money to the poor is a good thing but I'm pretty uninformed on this particular subject.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Artificer posted:I'm personally of the opinion that more money to the poor is a good thing but I'm pretty uninformed (edit - I know those are all indirect answers, but I had these at hand from days gone by so I figured Id throw them out.) Sounds like youre pretty well informed. Giving money to the poorest people is good for the economy. http://frac.org/initiatives/american-recovery-and-reinvestment-act/snapfood-stamps-provide-real-stimulus/ http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/12/stimulus-suckers The right wing drive to oppress the poor is not to help the economy, it is to maintain an virtual slave class and keep themselves feeling superior. I used to write long-words about this, but for now that will do. So we get: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html quote:In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%. Table 2 and Figure 1 present further details, drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2012). And a symptom of the whole mess; (2010) http://abcnews.go.com/Business/hoarding-hiring-corporations-stockpile-mountain-cash/story?id=10250559 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704312104575298652567988246 (2011) http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/13/us-usa-companies-cash-idUSTRE76C58Y20110713 Which leads to the current: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-16/your-wallet-isn-t-getting-fatter-as-economics-101-comes-unhinged quote:Six years into the U.S. expansion, the link between falling unemployment and rising wages -- once almost as basic to economic theory as supply and demand -- seems to be coming unhinged. Its as though its a rigged game and "economics" is a smokescreen for the wizard. Like maybe... (Heres one of my favorites I like to re-post): quote:You have to realize that what they’re trying to do is to roll back the Enlightenment, roll back the moral philosophy and social values of classical political economy and its culmination in Progressive Era legislation, as well as the New Deal institutions. They’re not trying to make the economy more equal, and they’re not trying to share power. Their greed is (as Aristotle noted) infinite. So what you find to be a violation of traditional values is a re-assertion of pre-industrial, feudal values. The economy is being set back on the road to debt peonage. The Road to Serfdom is not government sponsorship of economic progress and rising living standards, it’s the dismantling of government, the dissolution of regulatory agencies, to create a new feudal-type elite. http://michael-hudson.com/2011/06/rolling-back-the-progressive-era/ http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011...essive-era.html And the non-concealed War Against the Poor that hit a new high in the middle of the bank bailouts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25yNHMSBigI
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Holy gently caress I spent most of my polisci undergrad focused abroad but now I understand more than ever why everyone in my program is bitter and drunk as gently caress. Anyone else got anything more? Maybe someone from the other side?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Is this a gimmick thing? No seriously, after I want to walk into a store my only desire is to walk out of it with the stuff I wanted to buy with as few steps in between as possible. Humans are ok if they work at a breakneck pace like in German supermarket checkout lines, in the UK I usually take the self checkout if there is any sort of line at the people operated checkout and still get pissed off whenever a supermarket adds tedium by insisting on pin/signature instead of contactless card payments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 13:48
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Artificer posted:Somewhat related to the discussion, I don't suppose there's a thread discussing the minimum wage shift? I'd like to find some more information but 90% of the poo poo I've found so far via Google search is from Forbes and such all saying that it's gonna gently caress the poor and spike unemployment etc. etc. I'm personally of the opinion that more money to the poor is a good thing but I'm pretty uninformed on this particular subject. tl;dr on anti-minimum wage arguments: At the most basic level, you'll have ideological arguments about whether x or y job deserves a certain wage. There's no point even arguing ideology as neither side will budge. Then there's the "it will hurt the poor and kill jobs" poo poo that is trotted out every single time a minimum wage increase is proposed. These people are in favor of keeping it where it is because apparently we've reached some magic equilibrium. They also tend to not realize that there's no such thing as "keeping it where it is" because inflation will naturally reduce the purchasing power of minimum wage so they are actually in favor of reducing minimum wages without realizing it. This is one of those "common sense" arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny. There are plenty of papers proving that minimum wage does not affect employment levels in any significant way. Also, we've raised minimum wage many times in this country and others and the world has never ended. Then there's the slightly more nuanced "it will redistribute wealth among the poor" argument which comes from people who have read a lot of Neumark and Wascher, noted opponents of the minimum wage and source of most of anti-minimum wage arguments, despite their questionable research methods. They are against minimum wages but even their studies admit that it has no net effect on employment. Instead these people will drone on and on about how since we're just redistributing wealth among the lower class, nothing positive is actually happening and why do you hate poor people and therefore please don't raise the minimum wage. These arguments always lead into a bunch of pedantic bullshit with both sides criticizing each others studies for hundreds of pages (Neumark/Wascher vs Card/Kreuger) and they are pretty much the worst threads on SA, on par with discussing guns or Bernie Sanders and race. nachos fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Aug 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
One of the problems with such debates is that a great many people just love the idea of the poors suffering and going hungry but don't want to admit it publicly so they find other justifications. Other times it's people that bought into some propaganda that came out of some extremely rich guy who wanted to be even more extremely rich and decided "gently caress the poors" is the way to do that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Don't forget the old chestnut "Why stop at $15? Why not just do like $50 or $100, that's a lot of purchasing power!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:One of the problems with such debates is that a great many people just love the idea of the poors suffering and going hungry but don't want to admit it publicly so they find other justifications. Other times it's people that bought into some propaganda that came out of some extremely rich guy who wanted to be even more extremely rich and decided "gently caress the poors" is the way to do that. There's also the fact that people tie a lot of their personal value to wages in the US. Being paid more than someone else is considered a mark of recognition that you are better than that person - that you are faster, smarter, more competent, and more dedicated. People consider salary raises to be something they have earned through steadfast effort to be the best they can be, a fitting reward for exemplary and superior work. These perceptions typically aren't true, but in a culture where employee compensation is still largely considered a secret that workers shouldn't share with each other, it's easy to make excuses, ignore the fundamental inequalities, and assume that everyone else is paid based on how hard you think they work. The one opponent of minimum wage increases who has stuck with me the most over the years was someone who worked a fast food job making minimum wage, and had been doing so for several years. He angrily recounted how, after over a year of hard work, consistently going above and beyond to give his best effort, he got his first raise! His employer told him that because he had been working so much harder than his co-workers and producing such excellent results, he was getting a merit raise as a reward for all his hard work - and, of course, he shouldn't tell his co-workers about it, since their jealousy might poison the working environment. He was thrilled...until a month later, when the minimum wage incresed by the exact same amount as his merit raise. Suddenly, he was making minimum wage again! Of course, he didn't get another raise to offset that. Now he was furious. He was still making more than before the raise, but this wasn't about the money - it was about the fact that now his merit raise, his reward for all that hard work, was rendered moot and now all his lazy co-workers got the same raise despite the fact that they hadn't earned it like he had. Now, if you're observant, you'll see where this story's going, and what the critical flaw in his reasoning is. But let's keep going, because it doesn't end there. He was mad as hell, but he kept at it. He worked his rear end off, giving his lovely minimum wage fast food job his absolute best every single day, determined to impress his bosses and demonstrate that he deserved another merit raise to distinguish him from his lazy, worthless co-workers. And it seemed to have worked, because less than a year later, he was quietly being given another merit raise! He was ecstatic! His years of hard work were vindicated, and he was finally able to feel superior to his co-workers again...until a month or so later, when the minimum wage went up by the exact same amount as his raise, lifting everyone's wages up to the exact same level that he had only attained through hard work. What an unfortunate coincidence! You can imagine how he felt here...except that he'd never realized a very, very important detail. Minimum wage increases are not set to come into effect until well after they are passed, in order to give businesses plenty of time to adjust and prepare. The minimum wage increases may have caught him by surprise, but his employer had known for over a year that the minimum wage would be increasing by that exact amount on that exact date. And in case you hadn't guessed, the fact that the merit raise always came right before a minimum wage increase and was always be the exact same amount wasn't actually a coincidence at all. The whole thing was a clever ruse on the part of management to claim credit for the wage increase and incentivize employees to work harder. Those so-called "merit raises" actually had nothing to do with merit, and were probably given to most if not all of the minimum wage employees.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:One of the problems with such debates is that a great many people just love the idea of the poors suffering and going hungry but don't want to admit it publicly so they find other justifications. Main Paineframe posted:There's also the fact that people tie a lot of their personal value to wages in the US. It is hard to convince people making a moralist argument (the worst kind) that the strategic one has more merit. (The only way to change the game right now is to lift the floor.) Main Paineframe posted:Suddenly, he was making minimum wage again! Of course, he didn't get another raise to offset that. Now he was furious. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/occupy-wall-street-psychology/ http://www.nber.org/papers/w17234 quote:Why do low-income individuals often oppose redistribution? We hypothesize that an aversion to being in "last place" undercuts support for redistribution, with low-income individuals punishing those slightly below themselves to keep someone "beneath" them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 03:22
|
|