MUScoop

MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: rocket surgeon on June 23, 2017, 07:31:32 PM

Title: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 23, 2017, 07:31:32 PM
we discussed this a couple years ago when it first being introduced.  some thought it was badly needed and others were a little more pragmatic.  well, according to this article citing some once promising restaurants, the minimum wage is a business killer-well color me surprised 

http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article155979969.html
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Eldon on June 23, 2017, 08:52:15 PM
we discussed this a couple years ago when it first being introduced.  some thought it was badly needed and others were a little more pragmatic.  well, according to this article citing some once promising restaurants, the minimum wage is a business killer-well color me surprised 

http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article155979969.html

(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i310/enterprise-psi/phorum/meme/star-trek-in-before-the-lock.gif)
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GooooMarquette on June 23, 2017, 09:19:56 PM
(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i310/enterprise-psi/phorum/meme/star-trek-in-before-the-lock.gif)

Me too....
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: tower912 on June 23, 2017, 09:32:09 PM
Put it in the politics.  Oh, wait.....
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 23, 2017, 10:00:20 PM
The US has 4 million minimum wage jobs.  Half have the title "cashier."

Yes, below would have happened eventually but the minimum wage hike is causing it to happen faster.

McDonalds Is Replacing 2,500 Human Cashiers With Digital Kiosks: Here Is Its Math
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-23/mcdonalds-replacing-2500-human-cashiers-digital-kiosks-here-its-math

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu_hilltopper on June 23, 2017, 10:06:02 PM
Filed under economics.

It also belongs in the daily dose of doom thread. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 24, 2017, 05:18:08 AM
Filed under economics.

It also belongs in the daily dose of doom thread.

my apologies-we can move it to the "doom" thread if it makes others feel more comfortable.
 
  anywhooo, as cooler heads prevail-thank you!  my intentions were not to go all MU82 here.  it's merely pointing out that a topic we had discussed back in 2014-minimum wage hikes and their effectiveness.  back in 2014 of course. all we had was some pragmatic speculation and opinions.  what i was merely stating here is some real evidence coming in as to the efficacy of that very poorly thought out (imho) plan that most practical thinkers correctly predicted to be doomed for failure.  i don't care what ones political persuasion is.  the fact is this fails regardless. "feel good" chit has got to pass the "but is it practical test" as well.

    for those of you trying to paint me in to a political corner, your motives are too transparent ::).   we've been, for the most part, been able to have civil discussions lately around such topics as these without inserting vitriolic political partisanship and it seems to have worked out pretty good.  of course some of us try to tickle the edges a little, but come on man!  this was a very resourceful topic following up on a previously discussed issue.   as hilltopper correctly states-ECONOMICS for $100 alex would be a more accurate observation and i very much appreciated that
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 24, 2017, 06:21:06 AM
People should not have to rely on the "minimum wage" jobs for a career and to support a family. So, imo, those types of jobs shouldn't have increases.

I do believe, however, that the lower end of the career workforce does need increases.

The upper end, the super high end, couldn't live on slightly less? As an example, a local hospital CEO made $17 mil in the same year they put a hiring freeze and salary increase freeze on nursing staff. That stresses and Burns everyone out. Not to mention effects patient care. You're telling me he couldn't live on $10 mil and use the difference to support nursing staff? Crazy, to me

Of course, you also have situations like this, where those career jobs are disappearing: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/23/business/economy/indiana-united-technology-factory-layoffs.html
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on June 24, 2017, 06:26:50 AM
my apologies-we can move it to the "doom" thread if it makes others feel more comfortable.
 
  anywhooo, as cooler heads prevail-thank you!  my intentions were not to go all MU82 here.  it's merely pointing out that a topic we had discussed back in 2014-minimum wage hikes and their effectiveness.  back in 2014 of course. all we had was some pragmatic speculation and opinions.  what i was merely stating here is some real evidence coming in as to the efficacy of that very poorly thought out (imho) plan that most practical thinkers correctly predicted to be doomed for failure.  i don't care what ones political persuasion is.  the fact is this fails regardless. "feel good" chit has got to pass the "but is it practical test" as well.

    for those of you trying to paint me in to a political corner, your motives are too transparent ::).   we've been, for the most part, been able to have civil discussions lately around such topics as these without inserting vitriolic political partisanship and it seems to have worked out pretty good.  of course some of us try to tickle the edges a little, but come on man!  this was a very resourceful topic following up on a previously discussed issue.   as hilltopper correctly states-ECONOMICS for $100 alex would be a more accurate observation and i very much appreciated that


You have a history of posting political commentary.  You painted yourself in the corner. 

Try to be more self-aware.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 24, 2017, 07:41:05 AM
People should not have to rely on the "minimum wage" jobs for a career and to support a family. So, imo, those types of jobs shouldn't have increases.

I do believe, however, that the lower end of the career workforce does need increases.

The upper end, the super high end, couldn't live on slightly less? As an example, a local hospital CEO made $17 mil in the same year they put a hiring freeze and salary increase freeze on nursing staff. That stresses and Burns everyone out. Not to mention effects patient care. You're telling me he couldn't live on $10 mil and use the difference to support nursing staff? Crazy, to me

Of course, you also have situations like this, where those career jobs are disappearing: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/23/business/economy/indiana-united-technology-factory-layoffs.html

Most CEO CASH salaries are rounding errors to the companies' bottom line (CEOs are mostly paid in stock and off performance bonuses).  If he did what you wanted, and gave back half his salary, virtually the same freeze would have occurred.

While I don't know the specifics of the case you're talking about, the fact is the company most likely made the decision for competitive reasons.  If their nurses are overpaid, it affects everyone in the company.  Further, if it was as unfair as you suggest, those nurses are free to go down the street to another hospital that does not have a hiring freeze.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GooooMarquette on June 24, 2017, 09:24:03 AM

People should not have to rely on the "minimum wage" jobs for a career and to support a family. So, imo, those types of jobs shouldn't have increases.


I agree with you in theory.

In practice, many less educated people - those who used to depend on factory jobs and such - no longer have many options.  It's easy to say they should go back to school and get the education they need to get a "career-oriented" job.  And the younger ones without kids should probably be doing that.  But people who have kids and already live check to check can ill-afford to give up their minimum wage jobs while they have young mouths to feed.  For older workers who have been laid off from factory jobs that will never come back, its equally difficult.  If you're 50+ and go get a degree, you'll be in your mid-50s when you try to get into the "career-oriented" workforce.  Not an easy task.

Like I said, I agree in theory that people shouldn't bet their careers on fast food type jobs...but the real life reality in this economy is that the options they have are pretty limited.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 24, 2017, 09:28:00 AM
I agree with you in theory.

In practice, many less educated people - those who used to depend on factory jobs and such - no longer have many options.  It's easy to say they should go back to school and get the education they need to get a "career-oriented" job.  And the younger ones without kids should probably be doing that.  But people who have kids and already live check to check can ill-afford to give up their minimum wage jobs while they have young mouths to feed.  For older workers who have been laid off from factory jobs that will never come back, its equally difficult.  If you're 50+ and go get a degree, you'll be in your mid-50s when you try to get into the "career-oriented" workforce.  Not an easy task.

Like I said, I agree in theory that people shouldn't bet their careers on fast food type jobs...but the real life reality in this economy is that the options they have are pretty limited.

Right. That was unsaid in my post. I agree with you.

We have to face the reality that there are less career jobs out there. So to stabilize the lower end of the economy/society, increase wages across the board for the mid to lower end. Or somehow increase career job opportunities.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MUBurrow on June 24, 2017, 09:44:05 AM
Disagree that this isn't a political thread - any fair and thoughtful discussion necessarily hits on the implicit subsidies given to businesses when you don't force them to pay a living wage, or the need for the social safety net to pick up the gap between what McDonalds pays and what it takes to support someone's children if the rest of us demand $1 McDoubles.  The belief that we can meaningfully discuss the economic consequences of the minimum wage without discussing the interplay with the political system on, you know, the people actually working those jobs, makes it easy to see how we got here.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: PBRme on June 24, 2017, 10:13:52 AM
The subsidy is not to the business it is to the person.  If your work product is not enough to earn a "living wage" how is that the fault of the business.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MUBurrow on June 24, 2017, 12:23:35 PM
The subsidy is not to the business it is to the person.  If your work product is not enough to earn a "living wage" how is that the fault of the business.
(https://secretlifeofareader.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/leviathan-kindle.jpg?w=239&h=304) (http://muftah.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Screen-Shot-2013-02-21-at-5.02.21-PM.png)
(http://www.blog.museumonmainstreet.org/photos/the_way_we_worked_child_l/09007_1997_001_pr.jpg)




Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on June 24, 2017, 12:42:36 PM
we discussed this a couple years ago when it first being introduced.  some thought it was badly needed and others were a little more pragmatic.  well, according to this article citing some once promising restaurants, the minimum wage is a business killer-well color me surprised 

http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article155979969.html

The article is an opinion piece.  It does not provide extensive analysis of past history, other circumstances or an industry wide average.  Other scientific studies (one by Cal-Berkeley) have came to the exact opposite conclusions examining minimum wage increases. 

The bottom line is that there are two many variables in these situations allowing anyone to argue essentially anything they wish to prove their point. 

Maybe it is best to stick with the humane thing to do and to pay people a living wage for the work they complete.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: real chili 83 on June 24, 2017, 01:01:14 PM
There are tons of high paying jobs in the trades that go unfilled. Minimum wage is mostly a political issue, as unions use it as a benchmark for negotiations.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on June 24, 2017, 01:43:31 PM
There are tons of high paying jobs in the trades that go unfilled. Minimum wage is mostly a political issue, as unions use it as a benchmark for negotiations.

This is only partially true.  There are significant high paying jobs in the IT/Tech industry that are going unfilled.  But they are not going to hire just anyone.  There are many that remain unemployed/underemployed with degrees and training in this sector that are deemed unqualified because of where their degrees/training comes from (e.g. community colleges).  They want highly trained, elite workers for these jobs, and frankly there will never be enough of them from the US alone. 

So the companies leave them intentionally unfilled (just work the existing salaried people harder).  The job openings serve the purpose of making the overworked employees think he company is trying.  But the company will not hire people that meet the requirements, as they deem them not good enough and it is more profitable to work the existing employees longer hours.

Same thing goes for other sectors.  There was a recent study that showed that ~70% of job openings are deemed hard/unable to be filled.  But only 14% lack applicants that meet the job requirements. 

The jobs go unfilled from a combination of the companies not actually wishing to fill the jobs, poor salary and/or poor work quality/locations. 

Poor salary is a huge problem.  A $16 an hour job is considered well-paying in these types of reports on unfilled jobs, but often the person could pay the student loans (to get the training) and/or child care needed to take the job.  Economically the $16 an hour job does not match the opportunity cost.  But the companies will not pay more. 

The greatest evidence of this is that typically when there are so many vacancies, low unemployment and skills gaps, salaries rise.  They have not in our economy, because the situation is not as it seems.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on June 24, 2017, 01:49:37 PM
my apologies-we can move it to the "doom" thread if it makes others feel more comfortable.
 
  anywhooo, as cooler heads prevail-thank you!  my intentions were not to go all MU82 here.  it's merely pointing out that a topic we had discussed back in 2014-minimum wage hikes and their effectiveness.  back in 2014 of course. all we had was some pragmatic speculation and opinions.  what i was merely stating here is some real evidence coming in as to the efficacy of that very poorly thought out (imho) plan that most practical thinkers correctly predicted to be doomed for failure.  i don't care what ones political persuasion is.  the fact is this fails regardless. "feel good" chit has got to pass the "but is it practical test" as well.

    for those of you trying to paint me in to a political corner, your motives are too transparent ::).   we've been, for the most part, been able to have civil discussions lately around such topics as these without inserting vitriolic political partisanship and it seems to have worked out pretty good.  of course some of us try to tickle the edges a little, but come on man!  this was a very resourceful topic following up on a previously discussed issue.   as hilltopper correctly states-ECONOMICS for $100 alex would be a more accurate observation and i very much appreciated that

You used teal in your OP.

You hardly used capital letters at all (but you did in "MU82," so thanks).

You mostly didn't make sense.

And you cited a "study" that had very little basis in fact.

Therefore, rocketman, there was no threat of you going "all MU82."
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 24, 2017, 01:54:11 PM

You have a history of posting political commentary.  You painted yourself in the corner. 

Try to be more self-aware.

no need for the lecture ward.  if i go political, just as anyone else, they should be called on it.  until then, read what's in front of you.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 24, 2017, 02:32:46 PM
  "You hardly used capital letters at all (but you did in "MU82," so thanks)"

  but but that's your name, right?  just showing a little respect, ain'er?

no basis in fact?  did you read it?  i get when people don't agree with the facts, but that doesn't mean there is no basis in fact.  what do i have to do?  go out and actually quote the owners of the closed down businesses?  oh, i get it, they closed the business down because they were making too much money and wanted to prove the "living wage" people wrong ?-(

  this is all a simple common sense business decision.  if i had to jack up my salaries to whatever number above and beyond what the market dictates-i'm gone.  in other words, it's not rocket surgery ;D

forgetful-regarding "the humane" thing to do?  give our people the tools and a GOOD EDUCATION.  prepare them for what they need to know to make a "living wage"  i understand it's more complicated then that, but not everyone is capable and not everyone is entitled to anything.  life ain't fair.  we can't keep telling them that they should be making X.  get out there and prove you are worthy.  they can start with showing up to work on time for 2-3 days in a row.  then go for 4...
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on June 24, 2017, 03:00:32 PM
  "You hardly used capital letters at all (but you did in "MU82," so thanks)"

  but but that's your name, right?  just showing a little respect, ain'er?

no basis in fact?  did you read it?  i get when people don't agree with the facts, but that doesn't mean there is no basis in fact.  what do i have to do?  go out and actually quote the owners of the closed down businesses?  oh, i get it, they closed the business down because they were making too much money and wanted to prove the "living wage" people wrong ?-(

  this is all a simple common sense business decision.  if i had to jack up my salaries to whatever number above and beyond what the market dictates-i'm gone.  in other words, it's not rocket surgery ;D

forgetful-regarding "the humane" thing to do?  give our people the tools and a GOOD EDUCATION.  prepare them for what they need to know to make a "living wage"  i understand it's more complicated then that, but not everyone is capable and not everyone is entitled to anything.  life ain't fair.  we can't keep telling them that they should be making X.  get out there and prove you are worthy.  they can start with showing up to work on time for 2-3 days in a row.  then go for 4...

Rocket, your latter statements do not match the existing state of our economy and employment situations.  Salaries are stagnant.  Employers for a long time have made the argument of "cutting costs" to drive down wages regardless of how much harder people work, or how many more hours they work, or regardless of developing new tools and getting a good education. 

Even now when there are supposedly tremendous vacancies, they do not increase wages.  Most of these jobs are at or barely above a living wage.  The problem is how we have orchestrated our employment structure, where the corporate elite continuously get massive wages, while they argue that the plebeians will have to make due with salary freezes. 

All this comes at times when companies are hoarding record amounts of cash. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 24, 2017, 11:07:16 PM
Rocket, your latter statements do not match the existing state of our economy and employment situations.  Salaries are stagnant.  Employers for a long time have made the argument of "cutting costs" to drive down wages regardless of how much harder people work, or how many more hours they work, or regardless of developing new tools and getting a good education. 

Even now when there are supposedly tremendous vacancies, they do not increase wages.  Most of these jobs are at or barely above a living wage.  The problem is how we have orchestrated our employment structure, where the corporate elite continuously get massive wages, while they argue that the plebeians will have to make due with salary freezes. 

All this comes at times when companies are hoarding record amounts of cash.

i can agree with your comments somewhat-yes there are discrepancies.  it is not a perfect system, but better than anywhere else in the world.  our economic system however, allows for corrections. 

marissa mayer is one good example of what you described.   
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on June 25, 2017, 07:01:29 AM
The US has 4 million minimum wage jobs.  Half have the title "cashier."

Yes, below would have happened eventually but the minimum wage hike is causing it to happen faster.

McDonalds Is Replacing 2,500 Human Cashiers With Digital Kiosks: Here Is Its Math
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-23/mcdonalds-replacing-2500-human-cashiers-digital-kiosks-here-its-math

http://fair.org/home/fast-food-automation-an-old-idea-gets-new-life-to-bash-fight-for-15/
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: PBRme on June 25, 2017, 07:51:13 AM
This is only partially true.  There are significant high paying jobs in the IT/Tech industry that are going unfilled.  But they are not going to hire just anyone.  There are many that remain unemployed/underemployed with degrees and training in this sector that are deemed unqualified because of where their degrees/training comes from (e.g. community colleges).  They want highly trained, elite workers for these jobs, and frankly there will never be enough of them from the US alone. 

So the companies leave them intentionally unfilled (just work the existing salaried people harder).  The job openings serve the purpose of making the overworked employees think he company is trying.  But the company will not hire people that meet the requirements, as they deem them not good enough and it is more profitable to work the existing employees longer hours.

Same thing goes for other sectors.  There was a recent study that showed that ~70% of job openings are deemed hard/unable to be filled.  But only 14% lack applicants that meet the job requirements. 

The jobs go unfilled from a combination of the companies not actually wishing to fill the jobs, poor salary and/or poor work quality/locations. 

Poor salary is a huge problem.  A $16 an hour job is considered well-paying in these types of reports on unfilled jobs, but often the person could pay the student loans (to get the training) and/or child care needed to take the job.  Economically the $16 an hour job does not match the opportunity cost.  But the companies will not pay more. 

The greatest evidence of this is that typically when there are so many vacancies, low unemployment and skills gaps, salaries rise.  They have not in our economy, because the situation is not as it seems.

In my company we have determined it is cheaper to pay overtime than to hire an additional employee.  In most cases the employee appreciates the opportunity for extra earnings and we avoid the training and hiring costs.

It is cheaper because healthcare costs have risen so fast in recent years (15.4% for my company in 2017).  The average employee now costs over $10/hour just for healthcare in addition there is unemployment, workers comp, and other bennies and costs .  Since we only calculate benefits over the first forty hours the forty first hour in many cases is cheaper than any of the first forty. Our starting wage is $16 and Ave is $23
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on June 25, 2017, 01:09:29 PM
i can agree with your comments somewhat-yes there are discrepancies.  it is not a perfect system, but better than anywhere else in the world.  our economic system however, allows for corrections. 

marissa mayer is one good example of what you described.

Curious what you mean by Marissa Mayer being a good example of that.  I knew her, so am curious what you mean.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 25, 2017, 03:01:00 PM
Curious what you mean by Marissa Mayer being a good example of that.  I knew her, so am curious what you mean.

immediate past ceo of yahoo.  held position from 2012-2017.  depending on which business publication/article you read, she either did very well or very bad for the company.  as you mention the

   "  the corporate elite continuously get massive wages, while they argue that the plebeians will have to make due with salary freezes.  "

  marissa mayer made approx. $900,000 per week or $122.5 mil.  yes, yahoo's stock price did rise 151% during her 4 + years tenure, but much of that was due to ownership of 15% of alibaba and yahoo japan.  take away those 2 entities and yahoo's remaining business dropped $2.4 billion

just saying, she must be one those "corporate elite" you must be referring to, ain'er?  just wondering if you've confronted her on her obscene salary?  i have nothing against her at all, just exhibit 1.  actually, i think it's great that she was able to break that glass ceiling,  lifting that leg really high to urinate with the big dogs
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 25, 2017, 05:48:45 PM
immediate past ceo of yahoo.  held position from 2012-2017.  depending on which business publication/article you read, she either did very well or very bad for the company.  as you mention the

   "  the corporate elite continuously get massive wages, while they argue that the plebeians will have to make due with salary freezes.  "

  marissa mayer made approx. $900,000 per week or $122.5 mil.  yes, yahoo's stock price did rise 151% during her 4 + years tenure, but much of that was due to ownership of 15% of alibaba and yahoo japan.  take away those 2 entities and yahoo's remaining business dropped $2.4 billion

just saying, she must be one those "corporate elite" you must be referring to, ain'er?  just wondering if you've confronted her on her obscene salary?  i have nothing against her at all, just exhibit 1.  actually, i think it's great that she was able to break that glass ceiling,  lifting that leg really high to urinate with the big dogs

Why was Marissa Mayer your chosen example?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 25, 2017, 05:50:03 PM
immediate past ceo of yahoo.  held position from 2012-2017.  depending on which business publication/article you read, she either did very well or very bad for the company.  as you mention the

   "  the corporate elite continuously get massive wages, while they argue that the plebeians will have to make due with salary freezes.  "

  marissa mayer made approx. $900,000 per week or $122.5 mil.  yes, yahoo's stock price did rise 151% during her 4 + years tenure, but much of that was due to ownership of 15% of alibaba and yahoo japan.  take away those 2 entities and yahoo's remaining business dropped $2.4 billion

just saying, she must be one those "corporate elite" you must be referring to, ain'er?  just wondering if you've confronted her on her obscene salary?  i have nothing against her at all, just exhibit 1.  actually, i think it's great that she was able to break that glass ceiling,  lifting that leg really high to urinate with the big dogs

Before Mayer, Yahoo was a struggling company.   They had three CEOs between 2009 and 20012 before Mayer took over.  (Carol Bartz, Scott Thompson, and Ross Levinsohn)

Mayer was a star at Google and destine to make hundreds of millions if she stayed put.  So she was taking a great reputational risk going to "broken" Yahoo and she was compensated for that risk.  Becuase she cannot now go back to make what she could before Yahoo.  They needed to pay up for the risk she was taking.

Regarding her salary.  There were two possible outcomes,

1. She turned Yahoo around in which case her salary is a rounding error and well worth it.

2. She failed at turning around Yahoo and is was destine to get swallowed up and many would lose their jobs.  In this case, here salary does not matter.

I think what you all fail to recognize is the vital importance of a CEO and the strategic decisions they make.  To put it bluntly, employees can be replaced.  Above jesmu84 was complaining about a hiring freeze for nurses.  For the organization, they don't matter that much.  They will not make or break the company.  Other/new nurses can be found. 

But a CEO can make or break a company.  They matter, and they matter to a health care company more than all the nurses combined.  This is why CEO pay really does not matter.  If they make a good decision, they are the most underpaid employee in a company.  If they make bad decisions, the cost to the organization is many many times their salary and, again, their salary does not matter.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 25, 2017, 06:07:37 PM
Why was Marissa Mayer your chosen example?

because i just saw an article on her and listened to a talk show that used her as a most recent example of ceo pay.  if the talk show would have been on robert welch or jeffrey immelt, i would have used them as an exhibit.  nothing else 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 25, 2017, 06:10:20 PM
Before Mayer, Yahoo was a struggling company.   They had three CEOs between 2009 and 20012 before Mayer took over.  (Carol Bartz, Scott Thompson, and Ross Levinsohn)

Mayer was a star at Google and destine to make hundreds of millions if she stayed put.  So she was taking a great reputational risk going to "broken" Yahoo and she was compensated for that risk.  Becuase she cannot now go back to make what she could before Yahoo.  They needed to pay up for the risk she was taking.

Regarding her salary.  There were two possible outcomes,

1. She turned Yahoo around in which case her salary is a rounding error and well worth it.

2. She failed at turning around Yahoo and is was destine to get swallowed up and many would lose their jobs.  In this case, here salary does not matter.

I think what you all fail to recognize is the vital importance of a CEO and the strategic decisions they make.  To put it bluntly, employees can be replaced.  Above jesmu84 was complaining about a hiring freeze for nurses.  For the organization, they don't matter that much.  They will not make or break the company.  Other/new nurses can be found. 

But a CEO can make or break a company.  They matter, and they matter to a health care company more than all the nurses combined.  This is why CEO pay really does not matter.  If they make a good decision, they are the most underpaid employee in a company.  If they make bad decisions, the cost to the organization is many many times their salary and, again, their salary does not matter.

she did go on a little "shopping spree" and instituted the bell curve for employee retention. 

great explanation of how ceo's sail the ship
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MUBurrow on June 25, 2017, 06:16:16 PM
I think what you all fail to recognize is the vital importance of a CEO and the strategic decisions they make.  To put it bluntly, employees can be replaced.  Above jesmu84 was complaining about a hiring freeze for nurses.  For the organization, they don't matter that much.  They will not make or break the company.  Other/new nurses can be found. 

But a CEO can make or break a company.  They matter, and they matter to a health care company more than all the nurses combined.  This is why CEO pay really does not matter.  If they make a good decision, they are the most underpaid employee in a company.  If they make bad decisions, the cost to the organization is many many times their salary and, again, their salary does not matter.

Its not failing to recognize the impact of a CEO on a company's stock value. Its calling out the mistaken assumption that a rise in the company's stock value bears significant correlation to the number and social mobility of its employees.

The benefits of a rise in that stock value reside in the hands of wealth accumulators who do not pump that money back into the economy to any real degree, except to potentially invest in other similarly situated companies, the fortunes of which, again, do not provide for the social mobility of its employees. And from that dissonance arises a host of other false economic narratives about the relationship between "free markets" and "welfare."

One side note on the health care conversation though - those pointing out the difficulty of rising health care costs on employers are correct. But if we really gave a damn about how to both making it easy for employers to keep people employed, and keeping people healthy and insured, we'd abandon the system of employer-provided insurance in favor of (gasp) exchanges and maybe even an intentionally loss-leading public option.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 25, 2017, 06:33:28 PM
Its not failing to recognize the impact of a CEO on a company's stock value. Its calling out the mistaken assumption that a rise in the company's stock value bears significant correlation to the number and social mobility of its employees.

The benefits of a rise in that stock value reside in the hands of wealth accumulators who do not pump that money back into the economy to any real degree, except to potentially invest in other similarly situated companies, the fortunes of which, again, do not provide for the social mobility of its employees. And from that dissonance arises a host of other false economic narratives about the relationship between "free markets" and "welfare."

One side note on the health care conversation though - those pointing out the difficulty of rising health care costs on employers are correct. But if we really gave a damn about how to both making it easy for employers to keep people employed, and keeping people healthy and insured, we'd abandon the system of employer-provided insurance in favor of (gasp) exchanges and maybe even an intentionally loss-leading public option.

I agree with this analysis
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on June 25, 2017, 06:52:03 PM
Before Mayer, Yahoo was a struggling company.   They had three CEOs between 2009 and 20012 before Mayer took over.  (Carol Bartz, Scott Thompson, and Ross Levinsohn)

Mayer was a star at Google and destine to make hundreds of millions if she stayed put.  So she was taking a great reputational risk going to "broken" Yahoo and she was compensated for that risk.  Becuase she cannot now go back to make what she could before Yahoo.  They needed to pay up for the risk she was taking.

Regarding her salary.  There were two possible outcomes,

1. She turned Yahoo around in which case her salary is a rounding error and well worth it.

2. She failed at turning around Yahoo and is was destine to get swallowed up and many would lose their jobs.  In this case, here salary does not matter.

I think what you all fail to recognize is the vital importance of a CEO and the strategic decisions they make.  To put it bluntly, employees can be replaced.  Above jesmu84 was complaining about a hiring freeze for nurses.  For the organization, they don't matter that much.  They will not make or break the company.  Other/new nurses can be found. 

But a CEO can make or break a company.  They matter, and they matter to a health care company more than all the nurses combined.  This is why CEO pay really does not matter.  If they make a good decision, they are the most underpaid employee in a company.  If they make bad decisions, the cost to the organization is many many times their salary and, again, their salary does not matter.

I strongly disagree with the last two paragraphs.  CEO's are typically the easiest person to replace.  The key to being a good CEO of an established company; don't be an idiot. 

Your paragraphs are the typical reasons that people say the top brass need big salaries and raises, but they do not hold up when one examines their actual job actions and the sheer number of people that could perform just as well.

Since Marissa was brought up; she is nothing special and I'm pretty certain she would agree.  In terms of being able to make good business decisions and make big changes, she is easily replaced.  Her value to Yahoo, was her being perceived of as a "big star," essentially the same general idea of the "hollywood star" that can't actually act, nothing special besides the perception.  Perception drives investors (to raise stock price; but with little actual value outside of investing), yahoo ended more of a disaster than it started. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 25, 2017, 07:52:20 PM
  "perception drives investors (to raise stock price; but with little actual value outside of investing), yahoo ended more of a disaster than it started."

maybe initially, but after the honeymoon wears off, the market likes $$$ and potential for more$$$.  the pretty girl at the bar may get a few free drinks, but eventually she's gonna have to produce-ehyn'a?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jay Bee on June 25, 2017, 08:13:23 PM
The upper end, the super high end, couldn't live on slightly less? As an example, a local hospital CEO made $17 mil in the same year they put a hiring freeze and salary increase freeze on nursing staff.

#FakeNews
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 26, 2017, 06:36:02 AM
I agree with this analysis

Actually every word was wrong and dangerous.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on June 26, 2017, 08:23:10 AM
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/seattles-minimum-wage-hike-may-have-gone-too-far/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/seattles-minimum-wage-hike-may-have-gone-too-far/)

Timely article. First study out (far from settled science) but seems to indicate Seattle's minimum wage law may have crossed a boundary where the market finds alternatives. Overall, in 2016 with the minimum wage at $13 the minimum wage workers lost $125 a month in salary. Again, may be a blip or the methodology may be off, but it does seem to reinforce the idea that the minimum wage salary band is only elastic to a certain point where it may become inelastic (automation, etc).
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on June 26, 2017, 08:31:06 AM
As far as CEO pay goes, I'm leery of any public decreed salary levels. Logically, I think it makes sense that CEO pay is overblown for their value but once you start controlling salary there, where does it stop? Additionally, the changes we've made in the wake of Enron to make CEO's more responsible is actually hurting the performance of companies because now they have to meet Wall Street standards of performance which is not always a useful standard.

There is a company I know that generates a ton of cash that could be used to reinvest in new technologies and capabilities (2-3 year cycle time from concept to delivery) but have been told in no uncertain terms that that level of reinvestment can't happen because Wall Street would take that as a signal that the companies burn rate is going up and so they will theoretically become less profitable. Right or wrong, how Wall Street is valuing the company(and therefore CEO compensation) is now driving decisions as opposed to what makes the most sense for a company.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on June 26, 2017, 09:39:22 AM
Malcolm Gladwell discusses CEOs in one of his books. Almost certain it's Outliers.

A brief summary: Company structure of employees, management, and operations are more important than the CEO. CEOs of successful companies get hired by struggling companies. The successful company continues to be successful under a new CEO. The struggling company continues to struggle under the hotshot new CEO.

Finding a true CEO star, such as Steve Jobs, is very rare.  But that doesn't stop companies from over valuing the average CEO.  Too much credit or blame is placed at the feet of the CEO.

My opinion: There needs to be a recalibration of value of employees.  Some companies do a better job than others of fairly compensating employees at different levels.  But far too many over value the top employees and under value the lower and mid level employees.

Minimum wage is the wrong thing to be focusing on.  Changing the mentality of employee value is the biggest obstacle in this country. I have no idea how to accomplish that but this is the conversation we should be having.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on June 26, 2017, 10:03:14 AM
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/seattles-minimum-wage-hike-may-have-gone-too-far/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/seattles-minimum-wage-hike-may-have-gone-too-far/)

Timely article. First study out (far from settled science) but seems to indicate Seattle's minimum wage law may have crossed a boundary where the market finds alternatives. Overall, in 2016 with the minimum wage at $13 the minimum wage workers lost $125 a month in salary. Again, may be a blip or the methodology may be off, but it does seem to reinforce the idea that the minimum wage salary band is only elastic to a certain point where it may become inelastic (automation, etc).

You make sense, as usual. Still, as you say, I'd like to see more time passing before any kind of real conclusion is drawn.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Eldon on June 26, 2017, 11:09:14 AM
The article is an opinion piece.  It does not provide extensive analysis of past history, other circumstances or an industry wide average.  Other scientific studies (one by Cal-Berkeley) have came to the exact opposite conclusions examining minimum wage increases. 

The bottom line is that there are two many variables in these situations allowing anyone to argue essentially anything they wish to prove their point. 

Maybe it is best to stick with the humane thing to do and to pay people a living wage for the work they complete.

That's no reason to give up.  There are statistical, econometric ways of controlling for the many confounding variables.

There is a pretty broad consensus that small changes to the minimum wage--especially when eased in gradually--have a very small negative effect on employment, i.e., it leads to people getting fired/not hired.

I think a couple of caveats are worth noting.  First, many studies examine minimum wage changes and calculate an aggregate average across states and time.  This averaging masks the considerable heterogeneity across states, e.g., a minimum wage hike in Mississippi is more likely to have bite than one in Connecticut.  Second, these empirical studies are based on sophisticated regression analyses; but sophisticated or not, all regressions rely on "infinitesimally small" changes in the variable of interest.  Going from a $7.25 minimum wage to a $15 minimum wage is hardly "infinitesimal."

Here is a nice little literature review (what you guys in the natural sciences call "meta analysis") that sums up the recent work on the effects of raising the minimum wage on employment.

http://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1220&context=empl_research

"[T]he implied employment declines following a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage are very small— between −0.03 and −0.6 percent—and statistically insignificant."

Here is a very recent article on the consensus on the minimum wage findings:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2017/06/17/sorry-advocates-the-minimum-wage-debate-is-not-over/#67614097dd76

The tldr of this Forbes link is that there is no consensus yet on the economic effects of the minimum wage because employment is only ONE of the many effects.  Economists are still tracing out the other, unintended consequences of a minimum wage hike.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 26, 2017, 11:26:40 AM
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/seattles-minimum-wage-hike-may-have-gone-too-far/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/seattles-minimum-wage-hike-may-have-gone-too-far/)

Timely article. First study out (far from settled science) but seems to indicate Seattle's minimum wage law may have crossed a boundary where the market finds alternatives. Overall, in 2016 with the minimum wage at $13 the minimum wage workers lost $125 a month in salary. Again, may be a blip or the methodology may be off, but it does seem to reinforce the idea that the minimum wage salary band is only elastic to a certain point where it may become inelastic (automation, etc).

Good. Burn the whole system down. Get rid of those types of jobs. Force our country to come up with more stable jobs for people or pivot to a different type of social situation (basic income, for example).
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Eldon on June 26, 2017, 11:27:03 AM
And in true what-a-coincidence form, I get this across my feed

Minimum Wage Increases, Wages, and Low-Wage Employment: Evidence from Seattle
by Ekaterina Jardim, Mark C. Long, Robert Plotnick, Emma van Inwegen, Jacob Vigdor, Hilary Wething

This paper evaluates the wage, employment, and hours effects of the first and second phase-in of the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance, which raised the minimum wage from $9.47 to $11 per hour in 2015 and to $13 per hour in 2016. Using a variety of methods to analyze employment in all sectors paying below a specified real hourly rate, we conclude that the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016. Evidence attributes more modest effects to the first wage increase. We estimate an effect of zero when analyzing employment in the restaurant industry at all wage levels, comparable to many prior studies.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w23532.pdf

EDIT: I just saw Eng's 538 link, which links to this study. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 26, 2017, 11:27:15 AM
Malcolm Gladwell discusses CEOs in one of his books. Almost certain it's Outliers.

A brief summary: Company structure of employees, management, and operations are more important than the CEO. CEOs of successful companies get hired by struggling companies. The successful company continues to be successful under a new CEO. The struggling company continues to struggle under the hotshot new CEO.

Finding a true CEO star, such as Steve Jobs, is very rare.  But that doesn't stop companies from over valuing the average CEO.  Too much credit or blame is placed at the feet of the CEO.

My opinion: There needs to be a recalibration of value of employees.  Some companies do a better job than others of fairly compensating employees at different levels.  But far too many over value the top employees and under value the lower and mid level employees.

Minimum wage is the wrong thing to be focusing on.  Changing the mentality of employee value is the biggest obstacle in this country. I have no idea how to accomplish that but this is the conversation we should be having.

Bingo.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on June 26, 2017, 11:35:42 AM
Good. Burn the whole system down. Get rid of those types of jobs. Force our country to come up with more stable jobs for people or pivot to a different type of social situation (basic income, for example).

Don't disagree, but IMO the issue isn't necessarily a career issue, it's an educational one. We are not configuring out educational system to prepare the future workforce for a different job type.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 26, 2017, 11:59:09 AM
Don't disagree, but IMO the issue isn't necessarily a career issue, it's an educational one. We are not configuring out educational system to prepare the future workforce for a different job type.

Sure. But what do you do for those that are 40, 50, 60 that are not a part of the "future" workforce? Those people are still going to be employed for the next couple decades. Minimum wage jobs are not going to be enough to sustain.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on June 26, 2017, 01:03:46 PM
Sure. But what do you do for those that are 40, 50, 60 that are not a part of the "future" workforce? Those people are still going to be employed for the next couple decades. Minimum wage jobs are not going to be enough to sustain.

How many 40, 50 or 60 year olds make minimum wage?  It's very few. And as a person who used to be the CFO of a company that employed hundreds of workers at or near minimum wage, anyone that old that who was at our bottom was there for one of these reasons: 1. they had cognitive issues of some sort that prevented them from performing more valuable work, 2.had drug or alcohol problems that prevented them from keeping a job for any length of time, or 3.  voluntarily limited their options to a point where a minimum wage job was the only work available (only wanted to work certain hours, or didn't want a job that any real responsibility).  Anyone that showed any hint of leadership or enthusiasm, or even dependability was promoted above minimum wage within a matter of months.  I don't have any reason to believe that isn't the case at most places.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MUBurrow on June 26, 2017, 01:21:30 PM
Question for the folks arguing that the minimum wage needn't be connected to the cost of supporting oneself and minor dependents - do you think there should be a minimum wage at all? If you think there should be a minimum wage, but that it need not relate to the cost of living to support folks, what metrics should be used to determine it?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 26, 2017, 01:37:20 PM
How many 40, 50 or 60 year olds make minimum wage?  It's very few. And as a person who used to be the CEO of a company that employed hundreds of workers at or near minimum wage, anyone that old that who was at our bottom was there for one of these reasons: 1. they had cognitive issues of some sort that prevented them from performing more valuable work, 2.had drug or alcohol problems that prevented them from keeping a job for any length of time, or 3.  voluntarily limited their options to a point where a minimum wage job was the only work available (only wanted to work certain hours, or didn't want a job that any real responsibility).  Anyone that showed any hint of leadership or enthusiasm, or even dependability was promoted above minimum wage within a matter of months.  I don't have any reason to believe that isn't the case at most places.

I misspoke in my previous report. I shouldn't have said minimum wage. I'm more referring to the low pay of mid- or low-tier workers. Especially when relative to others in the work force. Again, in my field, looking at techs/hospital support staff vs nurses/clinical staff vs hospital administrators. It's insane.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on June 26, 2017, 01:50:19 PM
I misspoke in my previous report. I shouldn't have said minimum wage. I'm more referring to the low pay of mid- or low-tier workers. Especially when relative to others in the work force. Again, in my field, looking at techs/hospital support staff vs nurses/clinical staff vs hospital administrators. It's insane.

A lot of the issue with that field has nothing to do with the work force, it has everything to do with the fact that a large portion of that industry is disconnected from "natural" market forces. Some of the disconnect is the nature of the business (health is highly variable and inelastic) but even more is the result of government intervention, things like Medicaid/Medicare, regulations, etc. Nearly the only control healthcare providers have over their cost of doing business is the labor force. Additionally, because healthcare doesn't take a holistic approach to the value they are delivering so the folks that are customer facing but low wage aren't appreciated by the industry instead the focus is on the rockstars (doctors).
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on June 26, 2017, 01:54:04 PM
Question for the folks arguing that the minimum wage needn't be connected to the cost of supporting oneself and minor dependents - do you think there should be a minimum wage at all? If you think there should be a minimum wage, but that it need not relate to the cost of living to support folks, what metrics should be used to determine it?

In an ideal political environment, I would 100% support an elimination of all minimum wage laws. Much like the elimination of Medicare, it very well could be a good idea, but it is politically insane so I accept it as part of a pragmatic approach to getting anything done (by not suggesting it).
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 26, 2017, 07:59:30 PM
our poor people are the richest poor people in the world.  one of the problems with people who don't earn very much is prioritizing.  living within their means,  there is a lot of peer pressure to have "air jordans" the newest cell phone, expensive designer/pre-ripped jeans, etc.  all the commercials glorifying unnecessary chit.  i call some of these people "dime-store rich"  if you cannot afford something, another child, the new car, you can't have it-don't try to buy it!!
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jay Bee on June 26, 2017, 08:06:50 PM
our poor people are the richest poor people in the world.  one of the problems with people who don't earn very much is prioritizing.  living within their means,  there is a lot of peer pressure to have "air jordans" the newest cell phone, expensive designer/pre-ripped jeans, etc.  all the commercials glorifying unnecessary chit.  i call some of these people "dime-store rich"  if you cannot afford something, another child, the new car, you can't have it-don't try to buy it!!

There are many of these types. So many seem to be OK with it & believe "oh, make whatever dumb choices you want... you still DESERVE as a right from them rich folk"... it's amazing. Sad. But so true.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on June 26, 2017, 08:09:58 PM
our poor people are the richest poor people in the world.  one of the problems with people who don't earn very much is prioritizing.  living within their means,  there is a lot of peer pressure to have "air jordans" the newest cell phone, expensive designer/pre-ripped jeans, etc.  all the commercials glorifying unnecessary chit.  i call some of these people "dime-store rich"  if you cannot afford something, another child, the new car, you can't have it-don't try to buy it!!

This is right-wing clap-trap at its finest.

Do you know that upwards of 20% of families can't even afford the most basic Internet? They don't own cellphones. They sleep in roach-infested digs. They drive 15+ year-old cars that constantly need repair. Etc. AND they work multiple jobs just to afford that.

Are there some who "game the system"? Absolutely, a relatively very few. Are there some who are living way above their means as you portray? Absolutely.

But it's always easy for rich folks to whine about the poor folks stealing another bite of caviar from them. That is all you rich people eat, right? Caviar, washed down by Dom Perignon while sailing on one of your 8 yachts, right?

Generalize much?

Oh ... and Air Jordans? Wake up, rocket. It's 2017.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 26, 2017, 08:12:33 PM
there are a number of articles out casting seattle's minimum wage hike "experiment" as failing.  i am just going to post the links and let them speak for themselves

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/26/news/seattle-minimum-wage-15/index.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/study-seattles-15-minimum-wage-costs-jobs-48282722

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/study-seattles-15-minimum-wage-costs-jobs-48282722

   "But experts on the minimum wage questioned the methods of the University of Washington researchers."

     rule #1-when one doesn't like the outcome of something they support-axk the "experts"

  it would be nice to know who these "experts" are

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/minimum-wage-hikes-a-feel-good-lie-that-destroys-jobs-and-minority-kids-futures/

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/06/seattle-minimum-wage-study.html


i'm not going to bother putting the fox news article in as  most experts believe them to be "fake news" anyway
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 26, 2017, 08:20:13 PM
  "Oh ... and Air Jordans? Wake up, rocket. It's 2017."

  no need to get so angry.  i was using "air jordans" as an example of stuff they can't afford and stuff they can do without.  note, the "quotation marks" were used to note "for example" and not literally air jordans.  how about just using your own example of whatever higher end show is in vogue?  would you have understood better if i would have used the big ballers brand
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 26, 2017, 08:26:51 PM
This is right-wing clap-trap at its finest.

Do you know that upwards of 20% of families can't even afford the most basic Internet? They don't own cellphones. They sleep in roach-infested digs. They drive 15+ year-old cars that constantly need repair. Etc. AND they work multiple jobs just to afford that.

Are there some who "game the system"? Absolutely, a relatively very few. Are there some who are living way above their means as you portray? Absolutely.

But it's always easy for rich folks to whine about the poor folks stealing another bite of caviar from them. That is all you rich people eat, right? Caviar, washed down by Dom Perignon while sailing on one of your 8 yachts, right?

Generalize much?

Oh ... and Air Jordans? Wake up, rocket. It's 2017.

Wow!

95% of US adults have cell phones
http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/

87% Use the internet
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/07/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/

A third of non-internet users (34%) did not go online because they had no interest in doing so or did not think the internet was relevant to their lives. Another 32% of non-internet users said the internet was too difficult to use, including 8% of this group who said they were “too old to learn.” Cost was also a barrier for some adults who were offline – 19% cited the expense of internet service or owning a computer.

Add it up and only 3% of US adults say they don't use the becase they cannot afford it.

And poor people are fatter than rich people
http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/why-poverty-leads-obesity-and-life-long-problems

The average car age in the US is 11.6 years.  So 15 is just a bit longer thant he average
http://www.autonews.com/article/20161122/RETAIL05/161129973/average-age-of-vehicles-on-road-hits-11.6-years

You're wrong on every sob story you made up so that elitist like you can be morally superior.

All that said, there is one area the poor have indeed been falling behind ... social mobility.  Elitist like you push for policies that make inequality worse. 

82 = the real smuggles.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 26, 2017, 08:34:12 PM
there are a number of articles out casting seattle's minimum wage hike "experiment" as failing.  i am just going to post the links and let them speak for themselves

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/26/news/seattle-minimum-wage-15/index.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/study-seattles-15-minimum-wage-costs-jobs-48282722

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/study-seattles-15-minimum-wage-costs-jobs-48282722

   "But experts on the minimum wage questioned the methods of the University of Washington researchers."

     rule #1-when one doesn't like the outcome of something they support-axk the "experts"

  it would be nice to know who these "experts" are

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/minimum-wage-hikes-a-feel-good-lie-that-destroys-jobs-and-minority-kids-futures/

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/06/seattle-minimum-wage-study.html


i'm not going to bother putting the fox news article in as  most experts believe them to be "fake news" anyway

It did fail. Minimum wage appears not to be the correct target for trying to influence social mobility. Can we learn and grow from this and the Kansas City experiment?

http://www.businessinsider.com/kansas-experiment-with-tax-cutting-failed-on-its-own-terms-2017-6

My guess is no. That would mean thinking together toward a mutual goal.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on June 26, 2017, 09:01:47 PM
There are many of these types. So many seem to be OK with it & believe "oh, make whatever dumb choices you want... you still DESERVE as a right from them rich folk"... it's amazing. Sad. But so true.

My issue with this line of thinking is that it doesn't take into account that some (won't same many or most but it's a consequential amount), aren't making poor or dumb choices, institutionally it is stacked against them. There is fundamental inequality baked into the system that makes escaping the "bad luck" of your birth difficult. Until we figure out how to solve the institutional issue, I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Eldon on June 26, 2017, 09:33:37 PM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/BX3Bkp9eSFBm0/giphy.gif)


Stay strong, Topper!!  Hang in there
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on June 26, 2017, 10:16:47 PM
82 = the real smuggles.

Except I didn't call myself "smug."

You and rocket are right.

All poor people are gaming the system, stealing from the downtrodden millionaires and billionaires out there.

Maybe the Orange Menace will ban them next.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 27, 2017, 12:02:50 AM
our poor people are the richest poor people in the world.  one of the problems with people who don't earn very much is prioritizing.  living within their means,  there is a lot of peer pressure to have "air jordans" the newest cell phone, expensive designer/pre-ripped jeans, etc.  all the commercials glorifying unnecessary chit.  i call some of these people "dime-store rich"  if you cannot afford something, another child, the new car, you can't have it-don't try to buy it!!

C'mon Rocket. I haven't weighed in on this thread because honestly, I don't have the economic know how to know whether raising the minimum wage is the right thing or not. I want everyone to be paid a living wage, but I don't know that raising the minimum wage is the right way to do that. I have been intrigued and learning from people on both sides of the argument. But this is baloney.

Are there poor people who buy unnecessary things that they can't afford? Absolutely. But I would estimate the number of people who are in poverty or kept in poverty because they buy new cell phones (or whatever you want to throw in here) is is very close to 0%. They are in poverty because they were born into it, didn't have access to quality education, and can't get a job to pay a living wage. They might buy something they can't afford (which we all buy things we shouldn't) but that is merely a small symptom, not the disease.

The number one cause of personal bankruptcy in this country? Medical bills. Not new air jordans. That comes from the same line of thinking as "you can't give homeless people money, they'll spend it on booze and drugs." A very small minority might. Most will use it to get food or bus fare so they can get to a shelter. But for some reason we always focus on the vast minority who abuse the system instead the of thousands of hard working people who are doing everything they can to survive.

The don't have children you can't afford is an interesting one. I agree. Parents need to be honest about their ability to afford a child because if they're not, the child suffers. But if you take a step back and think about it, how messed up is that concept? Because you are poor you need to not have sex to avoid having a kid. I mean you could have protected sex but that is not a 100% guarantee and besides, a lot of people will judge you for using birth control and tell you that you are a sinner. Not only that, but we are now trying to get rid of programs in the country the provide free birth control. So now in order for poor people to have sex they have to spend the little money they have on birth control to avoid having a baby that they can't afford. Can you imagine if someone told you that you couldn't have sex with your spouse anymore? The fact that we don't have to think about it is an example of privilege. So is the fact that we judge poor people for buying new cell phones they don't need but we don't judge non-poor people for the same thing.

Long winded way of saying, in a majority of cases, the people aren't the cause of their own poverty. The cycle of poverty is.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 27, 2017, 12:03:30 AM
Double post
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 27, 2017, 07:22:50 AM
Eight million more people to fire and minimum wage hikes will make this happen as fast as possible.

Amazon’s Move Signals End of Line for Many Cashiers
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/upshot/amazons-move-signals-end-of-line-for-many-cashiers.html?_r=0

But it has become increasingly clear that parts of every job will be automated — and that the service sector is next. Although certain service jobs like health aide or preschool teacher still seem safe, others, like those in retail and food service, are already being displaced. It’s not hard to teach a machine to do routine tasks like scanning bar codes, stocking shelves or dunking fries in oil.

Eight million people, 6 percent of American workers, are retail salespeople and cashiers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Cashier jobs are expected to grow 2 percent by 2024, significantly slower than 7 percent job growth over all, and technology is the main reason, according to the bureau.

Half the time worked by salespeople and cashiers is spent on tasks that can be automated by technology that’s currently in use, according to a recent McKinsey Global Institute report. Two-thirds of the time on tasks done by grocery store workers can be automated, it said. Another report, by Forrester, estimated that a quarter of the tasks salespeople do would be automated this year, and 58 percent by 2020.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: reinko on June 27, 2017, 07:26:21 AM
Eight million more people to fire and minimum wage hikes will make this happen as fast as possible.

Amazon’s Move Signals End of Line for Many Cashiers
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/upshot/amazons-move-signals-end-of-line-for-many-cashiers.html?_r=0

But it has become increasingly clear that parts of every job will be automated — and that the service sector is next. Although certain service jobs like health aide or preschool teacher still seem safe, others, like those in retail and food service, are already being displaced. It’s not hard to teach a machine to do routine tasks like scanning bar codes, stocking shelves or dunking fries in oil.

Eight million people, 6 percent of American workers, are retail salespeople and cashiers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Cashier jobs are expected to grow 2 percent by 2024, significantly slower than 7 percent job growth over all, and technology is the main reason, according to the bureau.

Half the time worked by salespeople and cashiers is spent on tasks that can be automated by technology that’s currently in use, according to a recent McKinsey Global Institute report. Two-thirds of the time on tasks done by grocery store workers can be automated, it said. Another report, by Forrester, estimated that a quarter of the tasks salespeople do would be automated this year, and 58 percent by 2020.

Throw in the 3.5 million truck drivers who will lose jobs once automation takes over the semi truck business and we gots some problems ahead of us.  What say you, Heisy, autonomous semi trucks by 2025?  Sooner?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 27, 2017, 07:34:59 AM
Throw in the 3.5 million truck drivers who will lose jobs once automation takes over the semi truck business and we gots some problems ahead of us.  What say you, Heisy, autonomous semi trucks by 2025?  Sooner?

Sooner ...

Last month Ford fired it CEO Mark Fields and hired Jim Hackett because Fields was not moving the company fast enough to electric/driverless and ending the dealer model and selling cars on a subscription basis.

So if Ford reason for being today is to create driverless vehicles, take the under on 2025.

For professionals ... 80% or so of surgeons and lawyers are also at risk of having their jobs eliminated.  Most of what most of them do can be replaced by robots/AI.  In fact, Law school enrollment is at a 30 year low and falling precisely because everyone sees the writing on the wall.

Shakepesere wrote, "kill all the lawyers"... computers might do exactly that.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on June 27, 2017, 07:41:00 AM
Sooner ...

Last month Ford fired it CEO Mark Fields and hired Jim Hackett because Fields was not moving the company fast enough to electric/driverless and ending the dealer model and selling cars on a subscription basis.

So if Ford reason for being today is to create driverless vehicles, take the under on 2025.

For professionals ... 80% or so of surgeons and lawyers are also at risk of having their jobs eliminated.  Most of what most of them do can be replaced by robots/AI.  In fact, Law school enrollment is at a 30 year low and falling precisely because everyone sees the writing on the wall.

Shakepesere wrote, "kill all the lawyers"... computers might do exactly that.
This ain't gonna happen any time soon, if ever.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 27, 2017, 07:41:26 AM
Except I didn't call myself "smug."

You and rocket are right.

All poor people are gaming the system, stealing from the downtrodden millionaires and billionaires out there.

Maybe the Orange Menace will ban them next.




Nads, how are yo holdin's doin' since da "Orange Menace" took office, hey?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 27, 2017, 07:41:26 AM
C'mon Rocket. I haven't weighed in on this thread because honestly, I don't have the economic know how to know whether raising the minimum wage is the right thing or not. I want everyone to be paid a living wage, but I don't know that raising the minimum wage is the right way to do that. I have been intrigued and learning from people on both sides of the argument. But this is baloney.

Shaking my head at the economic ignorance here.  What happens when you raise the price of something?  You get less of it!  This is true for labor (minimum wage) and burgers.

You're just letting your fear of being politically incorrect to come out and say what is obviously true ... raising the minimum wage causes the most vulnerable, usually a woman or minority, to lose their job.

Speaking of "just raise the price of burgers to pay higher minimum wages" .... when you rise the price you get less of it!

The Wall Street Journal
May 31, 2017
Diners Are Finding $13 Burgers Hard to Swallow
Number of outlets peddling gourmet toppings has nearly quadrupled since 2005, but sticker-shocked consumers opt for home grilling instead

https://www.wsj.com/articles/diners-are-finding-13-burgers-hard-to-swallow-1496241667

As the number of outlets serving “better” burgers—featuring nontraditional toppings and artisan buns—has skyrocketed over the past decade, so has the average burger tab, turning some customers off.

Brian Cockerline, a 20-year-old Rutgers University student, used to go to Five Guys for a burger once a week in South Plainfield, N.J. With fries and a drink, his tab was about $13.

Now, he is cooking burgers at home instead.

Lunch traffic to quick-serve hamburger restaurants fell 5% last year—the biggest year-over-year decline that market-research firm NPD Group Inc. has recorded.


Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on June 27, 2017, 07:44:08 AM



Nads, how are yo holdin's doin' since da "Orange Menace" took office, hey?
Didn't stop you from complaining about prior president non-stop.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 27, 2017, 07:54:32 AM
Didn't stop you from complaining about prior president non-stop.




Hoo new Crean wuz ever president, ai na?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Eldon on June 27, 2017, 08:04:22 AM
And here's a peak behind the curtain regarding the Seattle minimum wage study done by the the U of Washington profs (the one that is talked about in all the links upthread, i.e., the one putting Seattle's wage hike in a negative light):

The City Knew the Bad Minimum Wage Report Was Coming Out, So It Called Up Berkeley

Saltsman raises a good question, pointing to a paragraph on the title page of the study that says the Berkeley report was “prepared at the request of the Mayor of Seattle.” This was odd, Saltsman noted, given that the city was already funding a series of six studies from the University of Washington on the impacts of the wage law. Why look outside the city for research when taxpayers are already funding local number crunching?

He had a theory: Those UW studies just weren’t positive enough. Saltsman pointed out that Reich is a go-to academic for proponents of a $15-an-hour minimum wage across the country. Reich is also affiliated with the Berkeley Labor Center. As the Albany (N.Y.) Times Union noted last year, the center “has done at least six … studies on the minimum wage in California municipalities, all showing that a wage increase would be beneficial.”


The UC-Berkeley report came out about a week before the U of Washington report.  The U of Washington authors wisely replicated the results of the Berkeley paper showing that their own paper is more general, more credible. 

Note that it was the mayor who funded the Berkeley study, despite already funding six others.  I'm going to go out on a (short) limb and say that that study was not funded out of his own pocket.  Add that to the cost of a minimum wage hike.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/seattle-is-getting-an-object-lesson-in-weaponized-data/

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jficke13 on June 27, 2017, 08:32:49 AM
This ain't gonna happen any time soon, if ever.

Man I hope it does. Dealerships are the vestigal effect of a products liability shield legal tactic from the 20s-30s. They serve absolutely no point.

I'll call it here: Once Amazon is done revolutionizing the grocery industry, they'll cut a deal with an automaker and have Prime Auto, click, deliver, no negotiating.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 27, 2017, 08:44:45 AM
Shaking my head at the economic ignorance here.  What happens when you raise the price of something?  You get less of it!  This is true for labor (minimum wage) and burgers.

You're just letting your fear of being politically incorrect to come out and say what is obviously true ... raising the minimum wage causes the most vulnerable, usually a woman or minority, to lose their job.

Speaking of "just raise the price of burgers to pay higher minimum wages" .... when you rise the price you get less of it!

The Wall Street Journal
May 31, 2017
Diners Are Finding $13 Burgers Hard to Swallow
Number of outlets peddling gourmet toppings has nearly quadrupled since 2005, but sticker-shocked consumers opt for home grilling instead

https://www.wsj.com/articles/diners-are-finding-13-burgers-hard-to-swallow-1496241667

As the number of outlets serving “better” burgers—featuring nontraditional toppings and artisan buns—has skyrocketed over the past decade, so has the average burger tab, turning some customers off.

Brian Cockerline, a 20-year-old Rutgers University student, used to go to Five Guys for a burger once a week in South Plainfield, N.J. With fries and a drink, his tab was about $13.

Now, he is cooking burgers at home instead.

Lunch traffic to quick-serve hamburger restaurants fell 5% last year—the biggest year-over-year decline that market-research firm NPD Group Inc. has recorded.


Heisy....I didn't say I was for the minimum wage going up. I said I was enjoying hearing from both sides. Hold the outrage. The part that I was disputing was the assertion that poor people are poor because they buy useless things they can't afford.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 27, 2017, 08:45:11 AM
Wow!

95% of US adults have cell phones
http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/

87% Use the internet
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/07/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/

A third of non-internet users (34%) did not go online because they had no interest in doing so or did not think the internet was relevant to their lives. Another 32% of non-internet users said the internet was too difficult to use, including 8% of this group who said they were “too old to learn.” Cost was also a barrier for some adults who were offline – 19% cited the expense of internet service or owning a computer.

Add it up and only 3% of US adults say they don't use the becase they cannot afford it.

And poor people are fatter than rich people
http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/why-poverty-leads-obesity-and-life-long-problems

The average car age in the US is 11.6 years.  So 15 is just a bit longer thant he average
http://www.autonews.com/article/20161122/RETAIL05/161129973/average-age-of-vehicles-on-road-hits-11.6-years

You're wrong on every sob story you made up so that elitist like you can be morally superior.

All that said, there is one area the poor have indeed been falling behind ... social mobility.  Elitist like you push for policies that make inequality worse. 

82 = the real smuggles.

I only want to take on this fatter than wealthy people topic. How often do you go through the west side and see grocery stores that have adequate food selection? How many gyms do you see through there? How many after school sports are parents able to enroll their kids in? The issue isn't gluttony like you insinuate it's lack of proper nutrition and fitness.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 27, 2017, 08:50:11 AM
I only want to take on this fatter than wealthy people topic. How often do you go through the west side and see grocery stores that have adequate food access? How many gyms do you see through there? How many after school sports are parents able to enroll their kids in? The issue isn't gluttony like you insinuate it's lack of proper nutrition and fitness.

Not to mention that I can feed a family on unhealthy crap for a lot cheaper than I can on fresh fruits, veggies, and proteins. And if you rely on soup kitchens or food pantries for food? Forget about it. All they have are highly processed canned food. That's why donating canned goods is at best not helpful and and at worst detrimental. Much better to donate straight cash (homie) so they can buy fresh food for the people they serve.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 27, 2017, 09:23:44 AM
This ain't gonna happen any time soon, if ever.

ATL ... Ford fired its freaking CEO because he was not moving fast enough in this direction!!  So Bill Ford, with his approval of the board of directors, are wrong and the Auto industry business model is not changing? Good luck with this thinking.

A car is a waste of money.  95% of the time it sits unused.  The subscription model*** (zip car on a huge/massive scale) and ride sharing are expected to the majority of car sales in the future.  Dealers will go away and manufactures will sell the rest directly via the Tesla showroom model.

Now before you laugh it off remember that newspapers publishers did the same, retailers did the same, taxi owners did the same.  They are now all poor and bitter.  Don't join them.

*** subscription model = MILLIONS of cars in the network meaning there are multiple cars on every block. All are connected to the net.  You push a button on your phone, it finds the closest car and gives you the unlock code.  You use it and drop it off when done, the GPS records its location for the next use.

Why would you do this?  Here are your options ...

1. $30 to $80k/year for a car, pay nearly a thousand a year for insurance, you pay to fix.  You pay to store (a garage)

2. $300 to $800/month subscription (depending on the class of car you choose) plus a small gas sir charge (say $20/month) (Note, if the car needs gas, you fill it up, the sensors note how much you paid and net that against your subscription.

Which direction you think the world is going ... again, the Ford CEO was changed because of this view of the world.



Man I hope it does. Dealerships are the vestigal effect of a products liability shield legal tactic from the 20s-30s. They serve absolutely no point.

I'll call it here: Once Amazon is done revolutionizing the grocery industry, they'll cut a deal with an automaker and have Prime Auto, click, deliver, no negotiating.


It amazing how so many people have a hard time understanding that basic way they work is going to massively change.  This is why start-ups take their business away.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 27, 2017, 09:26:34 AM
Man I hope it does. Dealerships are the vestigal effect of a products liability shield legal tactic from the 20s-30s. They serve absolutely no point.

I'll call it here: Once Amazon is done revolutionizing the grocery industry, they'll cut a deal with an automaker and have Prime Auto, click, deliver, no negotiating.

Why stop at auto? They can do prime real estate
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on June 27, 2017, 09:28:33 AM
our poor people are the richest poor people in the world.  one of the problems with people who don't earn very much is prioritizing.  living within their means,  there is a lot of peer pressure to have "air jordans" the newest cell phone, expensive designer/pre-ripped jeans, etc.  all the commercials glorifying unnecessary chit.  i call some of these people "dime-store rich"  if you cannot afford something, another child, the new car, you can't have it-don't try to buy it!!

No.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 27, 2017, 09:32:25 AM
Why stop at auto? They can do prime real estate

It's already underway ... AirBnB!!
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 27, 2017, 09:33:17 AM
Throw in the 3.5 million truck drivers who will lose jobs once automation takes over the semi truck business and we gots some problems ahead of us.  What say you, Heisy, autonomous semi trucks by 2025?  Sooner?

I tend to place myself in the "self driving vehicles are coming sooner than most people think" camp.  Obviously, when this happens, it's going to have a huge impact on those who drive for a living.  However, I would think that they still will have a requirement -- at least for a while -- that a human be present in the vehicle.  Granted, it would be a very low skill job almost akin to a security guard/baby sitter for the truck and cargo.  I would think that the Teamsters (and other organized labor) would impose considerable pressure to ensure that federal regulations require a person to be present in the self-driving vehicle.  Has anyone seen this issue addressed?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: reinko on June 27, 2017, 09:38:31 AM
Man I hope it does. Dealerships are the vestigal effect of a products liability shield legal tactic from the 20s-30s. They serve absolutely no point.

I'll call it here: Once Amazon is done revolutionizing the grocery industry, they'll cut a deal with an automaker and have Prime Auto, click, deliver, no negotiating.

It's already moving in that direction, CarMax, eBay auto, Truecar, NowCar, Carvana...
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 27, 2017, 09:39:02 AM
I tend to place myself in the "self driving vehicles are coming sooner than most people think" camp.  Obviously, when this happens, it's going to have a huge impact on those who drive for a living.  However, I would think that they still will have a requirement -- at least for a while -- that a human be present in the vehicle.  Granted, it would be a very low skill job almost akin to a security guard/baby sitter for the truck and cargo.  I would think that the Teamsters would impose considerable pressure to ensure that federal regulations require a person to be present in the self-driving vehicle.  Has anyone seen this issue addressed?

Yes CA passed a rule that all driverless cars must have a steering wheel and brake.  Tesla has driverless options now and when engaged, the steering wheel vibrates every three minutes.  If the driver does not acknowledge he is still paying attention by grabbing the wheel, it stops.  It is a cultural thing ... that will change over time.

FYI - we already have driverless trucks now.  There are thousands of trucks that can drive themselves on an interstate only.  The problem is the rules say the driver must sit in the driver seat.  Instead, most are in the back sleeping.  So regulators are considering adding seat sensors so the driverless options only works with someone sitting in the front seat.  Again, it is cultural.

(Once semis go fully driverless, some talk that they can only operate on the interstate overnight.  That gets them off the roads during business hours reducing traffic and accidents.  To incentive this, they will allow them to drive at 100mph or more.  That way they can cover almost 1000 miles when everyone is sleeping and traffic is sparse.)
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MUBurrow on June 27, 2017, 10:30:50 AM
Shaking my head at the economic ignorance here.  What happens when you raise the price of something?  You get less of it!  This is true for labor (minimum wage) and burgers.

You're just letting your fear of being politically incorrect to come out and say what is obviously true ... raising the minimum wage causes the most vulnerable, usually a woman or minority, to lose their job.

Speaking of "just raise the price of burgers to pay higher minimum wages" .... when you rise the price you get less of it!

The Wall Street Journal
May 31, 2017
Diners Are Finding $13 Burgers Hard to Swallow
Number of outlets peddling gourmet toppings has nearly quadrupled since 2005, but sticker-shocked consumers opt for home grilling instead

https://www.wsj.com/articles/diners-are-finding-13-burgers-hard-to-swallow-1496241667

As the number of outlets serving “better” burgers—featuring nontraditional toppings and artisan buns—has skyrocketed over the past decade, so has the average burger tab, turning some customers off.

Brian Cockerline, a 20-year-old Rutgers University student, used to go to Five Guys for a burger once a week in South Plainfield, N.J. With fries and a drink, his tab was about $13.

Now, he is cooking burgers at home instead.

Lunch traffic to quick-serve hamburger restaurants fell 5% last year—the biggest year-over-year decline that market-research firm NPD Group Inc. has recorded.


So what is your point here? That this is representative of a bad trend because it lends to fewer $8/hour jobs at quick-serve hamburger restaurants and a reduction in the stock values of those companies?

Edited to acknowledge that Five Guys is privately-held but that the 5% statistic presumably is derived almost entirely from public company franchises.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jay Bee on June 27, 2017, 11:00:01 AM
Edited to acknowledge that Five Guys is privately-held but that the 5% statistic presumably is derived almost entirely from public company franchises.

Bad (incorrect) presumption.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MUBurrow on June 27, 2017, 11:14:41 AM
Bad (incorrect) presumption.

Okay, then ignore it to acknowledge that a lot of the larger companies making inroads in that market remain privately-held. Replacing McDonalds, Wendys, and Burger King with 5 Guys, CKE and In-N-Out really doesn't change the conversation.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 27, 2017, 11:57:09 AM
Yes CA passed a rule that all driverless cars must have a steering wheel and brake.  Tesla has driverless options now and when engaged, the steering wheel vibrates every three minutes.  If the driver does not acknowledge he is still paying attention by grabbing the wheel, it stops.  It is a cultural thing ... that will change over time.

FYI - we already have driverless trucks now.  There are thousands of trucks that can drive themselves on an interstate only.  The problem is the rules say the driver must sit in the driver seat.  Instead, most are in the back sleeping.  So regulators are considering adding seat sensors so the driverless options only works with someone sitting in the front seat.  Again, it is cultural.

(Once semis go fully driverless, some talk that they can only operate on the interstate overnight.  That gets them off the roads during business hours reducing traffic and accidents.  To incentive this, they will allow them to drive at 100mph or more.  That way they can cover almost 1000 miles when everyone is sleeping and traffic is sparse.)

Source?

Another big deal with semis going driverless is that all those truck stops/gas stations/restaurants and all the people working in those areas will lose jobs. When/if semis go without drivers, a HUGE part of the economy and small-town jobs will be blown away
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jficke13 on June 27, 2017, 12:28:58 PM
Source?

Another big deal with semis going driverless is that all those truck stops/gas stations/restaurants and all the people working in those areas will lose jobs. When/if semis go without drivers, a HUGE part of the economy and small-town jobs will be blown away

I hate to be that guy, but Ford did to buggy whips what autonomous will do to truck drivers. Does it suck for those negatively affected? Sure does. Maybe with the benefit of foresight society/economy could do something for those folks that are put out.

Not holding my breath though.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on June 27, 2017, 12:44:10 PM
ATL ... Ford fired its freaking CEO because he was not moving fast enough in this direction!!  So Bill Ford, with his approval of the board of directors, are wrong and the Auto industry business model is not changing? Good luck with this thinking.

A car is a waste of money.  95% of the time it sits unused.  The subscription model*** (zip car on a huge/massive scale) and ride sharing are expected to the majority of car sales in the future.  Dealers will go away and manufactures will sell the rest directly via the Tesla showroom model.

Now before you laugh it off remember that newspapers publishers did the same, retailers did the same, taxi owners did the same.  They are now all poor and bitter.  Don't join them.

*** subscription model = MILLIONS of cars in the network meaning there are multiple cars on every block. All are connected to the net.  You push a button on your phone, it finds the closest car and gives you the unlock code.  You use it and drop it off when done, the GPS records its location for the next use.

Why would you do this?  Here are your options ...

1. $30 to $80k/year for a car, pay nearly a thousand a year for insurance, you pay to fix.  You pay to store (a garage)

2. $300 to $800/month subscription (depending on the class of car you choose) plus a small gas sir charge (say $20/month) (Note, if the car needs gas, you fill it up, the sensors note how much you paid and net that against your subscription.

Which direction you think the world is going ... again, the Ford CEO was changed because of this view of the world.

It amazing how so many people have a hard time understanding that basic way they work is going to massively change.  This is why start-ups take their business away.

Economically it doesn't make sense for the vast majority of americans to go to a subscription car service.  It will cost them more money. 

The cost of the car does not go away.  The cost of repairs/insurance/gas etc., does not go away.  But with subscription car service, the company now also has to pay for space/parking, corporate infrastructure and employees + profit. 

All those costs have to be passed on to the consumer, which means the average cost per mile driven will substantially increase. 

That doesn't mean it will not happen, it will as people increasingly can't afford the upfront costs to buy a vehicle, due to falling wages and a widening income gap.  It will be another example of a "revolution" based on people being increasingly poor, and the wealthy finding new ways to prey on the middle class.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on June 27, 2017, 01:34:12 PM
ATL ... Ford fired its freaking CEO because he was not moving fast enough in this direction!!  So Bill Ford, with his approval of the board of directors, are wrong and the Auto industry business model is not changing? Good luck with this thinking.

A car is a waste of money.  95% of the time it sits unused.  The subscription model*** (zip car on a huge/massive scale) and ride sharing are expected to the majority of car sales in the future.  Dealers will go away and manufactures will sell the rest directly via the Tesla showroom model.

Now before you laugh it off remember that newspapers publishers did the same, retailers did the same, taxi owners did the same.  They are now all poor and bitter.  Don't join them.

*** subscription model = MILLIONS of cars in the network meaning there are multiple cars on every block. All are connected to the net.  You push a button on your phone, it finds the closest car and gives you the unlock code.  You use it and drop it off when done, the GPS records its location for the next use.

Why would you do this?  Here are your options ...

1. $30 to $80k/year for a car, pay nearly a thousand a year for insurance, you pay to fix.  You pay to store (a garage)

2. $300 to $800/month subscription (depending on the class of car you choose) plus a small gas sir charge (say $20/month) (Note, if the car needs gas, you fill it up, the sensors note how much you paid and net that against your subscription.

Which direction you think the world is going ... again, the Ford CEO was changed because of this view of the world.

It amazing how so many people have a hard time understanding that basic way they work is going to massively change.  This is why start-ups take their business away.
Ford's CEO was fired because their stock price was down +30% in is tenure.  There are innumerable reasons for that. 

Regarding the transition to a dealer-less distribution model:  This is not really my area of expertise but I'll give it a shot.

Ford Motor Company has roughly 3,400 dealerships in the United States.  Ford has 15% market share (give or take) so they are but a small fraction of total dealerships in the industry.
 
Every single one of those dealerships has signed a Sales & Service Agreement. 

In order to move to the "no-dealer" model, Ford would have to do one of two things: 

1) Buy out every existing dealer they have (massive outlay of $$)
2) Terminate the S&S Agreement of every dealer who didn't take the buyout (Massive outlay of $$ and years and years of litigation)

I don't know about Ford's S&S agreements, but I do know that it is nearly impossible to terminate a dealer at the OEM I work for.  Other OEMs (eg. Nissan) have written their agreements to make it much easier.  Franchisee laws favor the franchisee, not the franchisor, so even assuming they could terminate, the cost would be monumental and it would take years and years to resolve.

These are the realities.  You act like this is a no-brainer and is going to happen overnight.  This is absolutely an unrealistic view.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 27, 2017, 01:35:04 PM
1. $30 to $80k/year for a car, pay nearly a thousand a year for insurance, you pay to fix.  You pay to store (a garage)

2. $300 to $800/month subscription (depending on the class of car you choose) plus a small gas sir charge (say $20/month) (Note, if the car needs gas, you fill it up, the sensors note how much you paid and net that against your subscription.

Not saying that I disagree that subscription cars are the way of the future, but where did you get these numbers? I have never paid close to $30-80K a year for a car. Car payments are in the realm of $4000 a year, I budget $50 a month for gas (which is enough for me, others probably need more) so $600, insurance is in the $1000 a year range, and I pay $550 a year for parking. Registration in Texas is like $80 IIRC (gonna need to do that soon so thanks for the reminder). I know there other other incidental costs like accidents, routine maintenance, car washes, speeding tickets, etc. But not enough to push my ~$7K all the way up to $30K. Plus, I'll have paid my car off in the next year so $4000 of that goes away.

I'm also not sure about the $320 a month for a car subscription. That seems low to me but could absolutely be wrong. I don't lease, but I believe $300ish a month would be about an average cost for a non-luxury lease. But you also need to pay insurance, parking, gas, etc. I assume a car subscription service would push these costs onto their clientele. Did you pull these numbers from somewhere?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on June 27, 2017, 01:40:11 PM
Not saying that I disagree that subscription cars are the way of the future, but where did you get these numbers? I have never paid close to $30-80K a year for a car. Car payments are in the realm of $4000 a year, I budget $50 a month for gas (which is enough for me, others probably need more) so $600, insurance is in the $1000 a year range, and I pay $550 a year for parking. Registration in Texas is like $80 IIRC (gonna need to do that soon so thanks for the reminder). I know there other other incidental costs like accidents, routine maintenance, car washes, speeding tickets, etc. But not enough to push my ~$7K all the way up to $30K. Plus, I'll have paid my car off in the next year so $4000 of that goes away.

I'm also not sure about the $320 a month for a car subscription. That seems low to me but could absolutely be wrong. I don't lease, but I believe $300ish a month would be about an average cost for a non-luxury lease. But you also need to pay insurance, parking, gas, etc. I assume a car subscription service would push these costs onto their clientele. Did you pull these numbers from somewhere?
I know where.  I'll give you one guess...it rhymes with "gas".
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 27, 2017, 01:53:48 PM
FYI - we already have driverless trucks now.  There are thousands of trucks that can drive themselves on an interstate only.  The problem is the rules say the driver must sit in the driver seat.  Instead, most are in the back sleeping.  So regulators are considering adding seat sensors so the driverless options only works with someone sitting in the front seat.

Source?

Yeah, I am wondering about that too.  I simply don't believe that this is true.  There's one of two things going on here:  either you're a time traveler, or you used the wrong verb tense.

I know where.  I'll give you one guess...it rhymes with "gas".

Make that one of three things.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on June 27, 2017, 02:03:19 PM
Geez and when we have a time sensitive load we often pay for team drivers so 1 can drive while the other sleeps, need to bid our loads out to the Schneider autonomous trucks I guess. Got a contact for that division?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Eldon on June 27, 2017, 03:32:30 PM
Source?

Another big deal with semis going driverless is that all those truck stops/gas stations/restaurants and all the people working in those areas will lose jobs. When/if semis go without drivers, a HUGE part of the economy and small-town jobs will be blown away

And this makes you happy, no?

Good. Burn the whole system down. Get rid of those types of jobs. Force our country to come up with more stable jobs for people or pivot to a different type of social situation (basic income, for example).
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 27, 2017, 03:37:25 PM
and all this "not so good" news regarding the minimum wage and it hasn't even reached the $15/hour level they are shooting for.  this is a big union and political scam.  unions want it to boost their bottom line and politicians are using it to garner votes.  who the heck wouldn't be for making more per hour without any additional education or responsibility.  they keep frothing these people up with bad info and then blame the businesses
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 27, 2017, 03:39:54 PM
   "Not to mention that I can feed a family on unhealthy crap for a lot cheaper"

mcdonalds offers salads and apple slices(used to anyway) instead of grease and fries.  i don't think the apple slices went over so well either-big shocker, ayyn'a?  ::)
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 27, 2017, 03:47:24 PM
   "Not to mention that I can feed a family on unhealthy crap for a lot cheaper"

mcdonalds offers salads and apple slices(used to anyway) instead of grease and fries.  i don't think the apple slices went over so well either-big shocker, ayyn'a?  ::)

The salads are most expensive than the standard burger and fries...
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 27, 2017, 03:48:58 PM
Source?

Another big deal with semis going driverless is that all those truck stops/gas stations/restaurants and all the people working in those areas will lose jobs. When/if semis go without drivers, a HUGE part of the economy and small-town jobs will be blown away

2015 story saying driveerless trucks are coming in the summer of 2015
https://www.wired.com/2015/05/worlds-first-self-driving-semi-truck-hits-road/

Uber's first driverless truck delivery took place last fall.  It delivered 50,000 cans of Bud
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/ubers-self-driving-truck-makes-first-delivery-50000-beers/

And yes it will devastate the economy of many jobs.  But it cannot be stopped because it is cheaper than what we have now.  That makes it an unstoppable force.

https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/25/the-driverless-truck-is-coming-and-its-going-to-automate-millions-of-jobs/

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 27, 2017, 03:51:33 PM
   "Not to mention that I can feed a family on unhealthy crap for a lot cheaper"

mcdonalds offers salads and apple slices(used to anyway) instead of grease and fries.  i don't think the apple slices went over so well either-big shocker, ayyn'a?  ::)

1. The salads are typically more expensive than the unhealthy crap.

2. Their salads ain't very healthy.

3. People who are truly food insecure can't afford McDonald's. $4 per person for a meal? That's way outside budget. Its much more common that they are shopping for highly processed canned goods that they can buy in bulk and make it last for as long as possible.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: WI inferiority Complexes on June 27, 2017, 03:53:58 PM
Why would you do this?  Here are your options ...

1. $30 to $80k/year for a car....you pay to fix.

These 80k per year cars aren't even under warranty?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 27, 2017, 03:57:38 PM
2015 story saying driveerless trucks are coming in the summer of 2015
https://www.wired.com/2015/05/worlds-first-self-driving-semi-truck-hits-road/

Uber's first driverless truck delivery took place last fall.  It delivered 50,000 cans of Bud
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/ubers-self-driving-truck-makes-first-delivery-50000-beers/

And yes it will devastate the economy of many jobs.  But it cannot be stopped because it is cheaper than what we have now.  That makes it an unstoppable force.

https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/25/the-driverless-truck-is-coming-and-its-going-to-automate-millions-of-jobs/

So...what you're saying is that you have nothing to support your original post (suggesting that there currently are thousands of trucks and that at least some drivers in the back sleeping while these trucks are doing their thing).  I think you were exaggerating a bit; the articles you linked describe some fairly limited testing.  However, I suspect that what you described will be a reality before long.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 27, 2017, 04:12:14 PM
And this makes you happy, no?

Yes and no. Getting rid of a minimum wage cashier? Yes. Getting rid of a gas station/restaurant owner? No.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 27, 2017, 04:12:44 PM
Ford's CEO was fired because their stock price was down +30% in is tenure.  There are innumerable reasons for that. 

Regarding the transition to a dealer-less distribution model:  This is not really my area of expertise but I'll give it a shot.

Ford Motor Company has roughly 3,400 dealerships in the United States.  Ford has 15% market share (give or take) so they are but a small fraction of total dealerships in the industry.
 
Every single one of those dealerships has signed a Sales & Service Agreement. 

In order to move to the "no-dealer" model, Ford would have to do one of two things: 

1) Buy out every existing dealer they have (massive outlay of $$)
2) Terminate the S&S Agreement of every dealer who didn't take the buyout (Massive outlay of $$ and years and years of litigation)

I don't know about Ford's S&S agreements, but I do know that it is nearly impossible to terminate a dealer at the OEM I work for.  Other OEMs (eg. Nissan) have written their agreements to make it much easier.  Franchisee laws favor the franchisee, not the franchisor, so even assuming they could terminate, the cost would be monumental and it would take years and years to resolve.

These are the realities.  You act like this is a no-brainer and is going to happen overnight.  This is absolutely an unrealistic view.

Are you people not paying attention to what is happening in the Auto industry?  Yes, Ford was down 40%, but so is GM.

As of tonight

             Market Cap          Car sold in 2016            Stock price change last 4 years
Tesla     $59.5 billion              86,000                                        243%
GM       $51.6 billion             10 million                                          5%
Ford     $44.1 billion              2.6 million                                  -27.5%
                                                                          S&P 500          24.1%

Why is a company that sells 86,000 cars worth more than companies that sell millions of cars?  Why is the stock price of those companies that make millions of cars have stock prices going DOWN while the overall market is going up?

Answer, the legacy car companies are toast.  The world is radically changing and too many of them like ATL are insisting nothing is changing and the world is racing away without them.

I'll let Bill Ford, Chairman of Ford (and owner of the Lions) explain

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2017/05/22/ford-appoints-jim-hackett-as-ceo.html

“We’re moving from a position of strength to transform Ford for the future,” Bill Ford said. “Jim Hackett is the right CEO to lead Ford during this transformative period for the auto industry and the broader mobility space. He’s a true visionary who brings a unique, human-centered leadership approach to our culture, products and services that will unlock the potential of our people and our business.”

Does this sound like a guy that is going to satisfy union demands and dealer worries?  He's dropping both of them like a bad habit and moving forward.  Because if he does not, Telsa, Uber, Apple, Google will and take their business from them.

And what did new Ford CEO Jim Hackett do before being name CEO of Ford?

Ford Motor Co on Monday named James Hackett, who heads its unit developing self-driving cars, as chief executive officer, responding to investors' growing unease about the U.S. automaker's stock price and prospects.

And why was he chosen ...

Executive Chairman Bill Ford Jr. and the board have been unhappy with the company's performance and sought reassurance that investments in self-driving cars, electric vehicles and ride services would pay off. The Ford family controls the automaker through a special class of voting rights stock.

Ford Jr. told reporters at a news conference that the automaker needs to make decisions faster.
"We have to modernize the business" and move "decisively to address underperforming areas," he said.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 27, 2017, 04:14:47 PM
and all this "not so good" news regarding the minimum wage and it hasn't even reached the $15/hour level they are shooting for.  this is a big union and political scam.  unions want it to boost their bottom line and politicians are using it to garner votes.  who the heck wouldn't be for making more per hour without any additional education or responsibility.  they keep frothing these people up with bad info and then blame the businesses

The people who decided that executive pay should raise significantly since the 70s compared to lower level jobs not keeping up with inflation
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 27, 2017, 04:15:07 PM
So...what you're saying is that you have nothing to support your original post (suggesting that there currently are thousands of trucks and that at least some drivers in the back sleeping while these trucks are doing their thing).  I think you were exaggerating a bit; the articles you linked describe some fairly limited testing.  However, I suspect that what you described will be a reality before long.

I agree with this analysis
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 27, 2017, 04:16:54 PM
1. The salads are typically more expensive than the unhealthy crap.

2. Their salads ain't very healthy.

3. People who are truly food insecure can't afford McDonald's. $4 per person for a meal? That's way outside budget. Its much more common that they are shopping for highly processed canned goods that they can buy in bulk and make it last for as long as possible.

lose the cell phone, drop the internet, quit smoking and drinking, get your clothes from goodwill, ride the bus.  yes, i know it sounds heartless, but you do what you have to do to survive short of breaking the law.  maybe this would motivate some to strive for better than "minimum wage?  go back to school for a trade?  learn how to manage people, show up for work, finish school, do not become a parent until you can handle it emotionally and financially 

  when we continue to give give give, one has no incentive to better themselves.  are there exceptions?  absolutely, but when you give away "free" stuff, you will draw a crowd.  has anyone here ever fed stray cats?  no, i'm not comparing our less than fortunate to stray cats, just the concept.  there are people who can help themselves, but do not.  then there are some people who cannot help themselves-just like handicapped parking tags, the more able bodied people are ruining it for those who do genuinely need help
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 27, 2017, 04:18:24 PM
So...what you're saying is that you have nothing to support your original post (suggesting that there currently are thousands of trucks and that at least some drivers in the back sleeping while these trucks are doing their thing).  I think you were exaggerating a bit; the articles you linked describe some fairly limited testing.  However, I suspect that what you described will be a reality before long.

That was the a statement by the head of the Carnegie Mellon Robotic unit at an investment conference I attended last year.

And yes, limited testing is hundreds if not thousands of trucks.  It is not 5 or 6.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 27, 2017, 04:21:35 PM
That was the a statement by the head of the Carnegie Mellon Robotic unit at an investment conference I attended last year.

And yes, limited testing is hundreds if not thousands of trucks.  It is not 5 or 6.

I never said anything about 5 or 6; that's just your straw man.  In fact, I never made a claim at all.  I merely expressed some of my opinions on where automated cars/trucks are heading (and I think we generally share the same opinion on this issue).  Then you made an extremely exaggerated claim that everyone who read it knew was BS.  And when asked for support of that claim, you provided citations that did not even remotely support the claim.

It's OK.  You got a little excited and ahead of yourself.  No harm done.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 27, 2017, 04:27:29 PM
lose the cell phone, drop the internet, quit smoking and drinking, get your clothes from goodwill, ride the bus.  yes, i know it sounds heartless, but you do what you have to do to survive short of breaking the law.  maybe this would motivate some to strive for better than "minimum wage?  go back to school for a trade?  learn how to manage people, show up for work, finish school, do not become a parent until you can handle it emotionally and financially 

  when we continue to give give give, one has no incentive to better themselves.  are there exceptions?  absolutely, but when you give away "free" stuff, you will draw a crowd.  has anyone here ever fed stray cats?  no, i'm not comparing our less than fortunate to stray cats, just the concept.  there are people who can help themselves, but do not.  then there are some people who cannot help themselves-just like handicapped parking tags, the more able bodied people are ruining it for those who do genuinely need help

how do they afford school to go get a better job?

They are showing up for work, their work is just known as minimum wage.

Your parent point coming from you is completely hilarious. But hey keep telling people no sex that's worked great so far
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 27, 2017, 04:30:28 PM
I never said anything about 5 or 6.  In fact, I never made a claim at all.  I merely expressed some of my opinions on where automated cars/trucks are heading (and I think we generally share the same opinion on this issue).  Then you made an extremely exaggerated claim that everyone who read it knew was BS.  And when asked for support of that claim, you provided citations that did not even remotely support the claim.

It's OK.  You got a little excited and ahead of yourself.  No harm done.

So what are we arguing about, how many self-driving cars and trucks are on the road?  If anything, I understated it.

I can just imagine this place in 2006 and the introduction of the smartphone and all you guys yawning and struggling to see what it is better, or will be better than your current phone

(http://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4yz74vp9v1qfa3uu.jpg)


On another note did you know that Uber operates an entire fleet of driverless cars in Pittsburgh?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhigh/2017/01/24/why-did-uber-pilot-driverless-cars-in-pittsburgh-here-is-why/#37165a0043b0
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on June 27, 2017, 04:33:34 PM
So what are we arguing about, how many self-driving cars and trucks are on the road?  If anything, I understated it.

I can just imagine this place in 2006 and the introduction of the smartphone and all you guys yawning and struggling to see what it is better, or will be better than your current phone

(http://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4yz74vp9v1qfa3uu.jpg)


On another note did you know that Uber operates an entire fleet of driverless cars in Pittsburgh?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhigh/2017/01/24/why-did-uber-pilot-driverless-cars-in-pittsburgh-here-is-why/#37165a0043b0



<sigh>

No one is questioning that driverless trucks are in the future.  You exaggerated and instead of owning up to it, are trying to refute points that no one is making.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on June 27, 2017, 04:34:29 PM
how do they afford school to go get a better job?

They are showing up for work, their work is just known as minimum wage.

Your parent point coming from you is completely hilarious. But hey keep telling people no sex that's worked great so far


Not to mention that oftentimes people have children during different economic circumstances than they currently face.  I mean, it's an 18+ year commitment.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 27, 2017, 04:36:49 PM


<sigh>

No one is questioning that driverless trucks are in the future.  You exaggerated and instead of owning up to it, are trying to refute points that no one is making.

exaggerated what?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 27, 2017, 04:40:56 PM
So what are we arguing about, how many self-driving cars and trucks are on the road?  If anything, I understated it.

I didn't know we were arguing.  You made an extremely exaggerated statement about thousands of self-driving semis (with drivers sleeping in the back).  I doubted you.  I asked for a citation, in part because -- like you -- I'm very interested in this subject.  You provided some citations to articles that I actually found quite interesting -- but they didn't even remotely support your initial claim of thousands of semis with sleeping drivers.  Then you threw out a straw man ("5 or 6") and then shifted the goal posts ("hundreds if not thousands" and dropping the issue of sleeping drivers).  I mentioned it.  You shifted the goal posts again ("self driving cars and trucks").

All in all...a typical Tuesday for you.  Really, there's nothing wrong with admitting you exaggerated a bit.  I honestly believe that you're very well informed on this issue, and we agree.  You just got a little bit ahead of yourself.  It's OK.

P.S. - Even though I never made the claim, I strongly suspect the actual number of self-driving semis on the road is considerably closer to "5 or 6" than it is to "thousands" (and again, not even touching your claim of drivers sleeping in the back). 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 27, 2017, 04:44:28 PM
On another note did you know that Uber operates an entire fleet of driverless cars in Pittsburgh?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhigh/2017/01/24/why-did-uber-pilot-driverless-cars-in-pittsburgh-here-is-why/#37165a0043b0

Yes, I was aware of that.  Very cool.  As I said up-thread:  it's coming.  Faster than people realize.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 27, 2017, 04:52:26 PM
I didn't know we were arguing.  You made an extremely exaggerated statement about thousands of self-driving semis (with drivers sleeping in the back).  I doubted you.  I asked for a citation, in part because -- like you -- I'm very interested in this subject.  You provided some citations to articles that I actually found quite interesting -- but they didn't even remotely support your initial claim of thousands of semis with sleeping drivers.  Then you threw out a straw man ("5 or 6") and then shifted the goal posts ("hundreds if not thousands" and dropping the issue of sleeping drivers).  I mentioned it.  You shifted the goal posts again ("self driving cars and trucks").

All and all...a typical Tuesday for you.  Really, there's nothing wrong with admitting you exaggerated a bit.  I honestly believe that you're very well informed on this issue, and we agree.  You just got a little bit ahead of yourself.  It's OK.

P.S. - Even though I never made the claim, I strongly suspect the actual number of self-driving semis on the road is considerably closer to "5 or 6" than it is to "thousands" (and again, not even touching your claim of drivers sleeping in the back).

When you asked for a link, I did not know it was about the driver sleeping in the back.  I thought you were questioning the very existence of driverless trucks in the first place.  That is why I provided those links.  (lots of Luddites around here)

Again, I attended an investment conference where it was said.  So it was hearsay ... I don't have a link or can "prove" it happened.

The point of that antidote, like the vibrating steering wheel on a Tesla (you do know that every Tesla you see can go driverless, called autopilot, if the owner paid to upgrade to that feature, and most have), was about how accepting people are of this new technology and regulation has to remind then that it is still experimental and must be treated that way.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 27, 2017, 05:01:10 PM
When you asked for a link, I did not know it was about the driver sleeping in the back.  I thought you were questioning the very existence of driverless trucks in the first place.  That is why I provided those links.  (lots of Luddites around here)

Again, I attended an investment conference where it was said.  So it was hearsay ... I don't have a link or can "prove" it happened.

The point of that antidote, like the vibrating steering wheel on a Tesla (you do know that every Tesla you see can go driverless, called autopilot, if the owner paid to upgrade to that feature, and most have), was about how accepting people are of this new technology and regulation has to remind then that it is still experimental and must be treated that way.

Actually, I was looking for a link about both ("thousands" and sleeping drivers), but no biggie.  And yes, I am also well aware of the Tesla feature.  I actually have a friend who had an accident while his Tesla was on autopilot when someone swerved into his lane.  The other driver blamed him, but as soon as he quietly told the cop that the car was on autopilot, the cop attributed fault to the other driver (the other evidence also suggested who was at fault -- so he didn't base his decision solely on the autopilot).  Believe it or not, much of my knowledge on this issue was initiated by your comments and things you've posted.  I'm aware that you're well-informed on this subject.  That's why I was a bit taken aback by the obvious exaggeration.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on June 27, 2017, 05:01:38 PM
That was the a statement by the head of the Carnegie Mellon Robotic unit at an investment conference I attended last year.

And yes, limited testing is hundreds if not thousands of trucks.  It is not 5 or 6.

You are flat out wrong, like always.  Uber's self driving Truck (originally the startup company Otto) testing involved exactly 1, and only 1 truck.  It drove 120 total miles in 2016.


Alphabet is also in the self-driving Truck category.  It has 1, and only 1 truck currently doing any on-road testing. 


You greatly exaggerated in your initial statements and then double and tripled down on those statements. 


Tesla hopes to unveil a self-driving Truck at the end of this year, like their cars, it will have self-driving ability but require a person at the wheel. 


Those who actually work in this field think that it will be at least 5, and likely closer to 10 years before the Semi market is significantly penetrated by self-driving vehicles. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on June 27, 2017, 06:21:08 PM
Are you people not paying attention to what is happening in the Auto industry?  Yes, Ford was down 40%, but so is GM.

As of tonight

             Market Cap          Car sold in 2016            Stock price change last 4 years
Tesla     $59.5 billion              86,000                                        243%
GM       $51.6 billion             10 million                                          5%
Ford     $44.1 billion              2.6 million                                  -27.5%
                                                                          S&P 500          24.1%

Why is a company that sells 86,000 cars worth more than companies that sell millions of cars?  Why is the stock price of those companies that make millions of cars have stock prices going DOWN while the overall market is going up?

Answer, the legacy car companies are toast.  The world is radically changing and too many of them like ATL are insisting nothing is changing and the world is racing away without them.

I'll let Bill Ford, Chairman of Ford (and owner of the Lions) explain

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2017/05/22/ford-appoints-jim-hackett-as-ceo.html

“We’re moving from a position of strength to transform Ford for the future,” Bill Ford said. “Jim Hackett is the right CEO to lead Ford during this transformative period for the auto industry and the broader mobility space. He’s a true visionary who brings a unique, human-centered leadership approach to our culture, products and services that will unlock the potential of our people and our business.”

Does this sound like a guy that is going to satisfy union demands and dealer worries?  He's dropping both of them like a bad habit and moving forward.  Because if he does not, Telsa, Uber, Apple, Google will and take their business from them.

And what did new Ford CEO Jim Hackett do before being name CEO of Ford?

Ford Motor Co on Monday named James Hackett, who heads its unit developing self-driving cars, as chief executive officer, responding to investors' growing unease about the U.S. automaker's stock price and prospects.

And why was he chosen ...

Executive Chairman Bill Ford Jr. and the board have been unhappy with the company's performance and sought reassurance that investments in self-driving cars, electric vehicles and ride services would pay off. The Ford family controls the automaker through a special class of voting rights stock.

Ford Jr. told reporters at a news conference that the automaker needs to make decisions faster.
"We have to modernize the business" and move "decisively to address underperforming areas," he said.

If this guy isn't worried about what dealers think he isn't going to be in his position for very long.

You don't understand the dynamic of the business. Dealer networks have immense leverage over manufacturers now and for the foreseeable future.

Do you think Ford wants to sell any new cars/trucks during the next 5-10 years?   If they do they need their dealer network more than their dealer network needs them.

A well-operated dealership pays all their operating costs through their service business. Selling cars is purely profit for these guys. If Ford pisses them off they will either switch their focus to used cars (better margins anyway) or to another manufacturer's business as the majority of dealership operators own multiple brands. 

Let me say it again.  Unless Ford wants to see their sales/profitability/stock price tank for the next 5-10 years, they will do what their dealer network wants. .
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 27, 2017, 06:25:35 PM
lose the cell phone, drop the internet, quit smoking and drinking, get your clothes from goodwill, ride the bus.  yes, i know it sounds heartless, but you do what you have to do to survive short of breaking the law.  maybe this would motivate some to strive for better than "minimum wage?  go back to school for a trade?  learn how to manage people, show up for work, finish school, do not become a parent until you can handle it emotionally and financially 

  when we continue to give give give, one has no incentive to better themselves.  are there exceptions?  absolutely, but when you give away "free" stuff, you will draw a crowd.  has anyone here ever fed stray cats?  no, i'm not comparing our less than fortunate to stray cats, just the concept.  there are people who can help themselves, but do not.  then there are some people who cannot help themselves-just like handicapped parking tags, the more able bodied people are ruining it for those who do genuinely need help

I know. Give to the poor. Such a crazy concept. Jesus and those Jesuits were suckers!

So how are people supposed to afford this education? How do they fill out the application for school if they don't have internet? How do they do their homework and write their term papers? How do they get a management type job if they show up for the interview in clothes from Goodwill? It's all possible, but you need to recognize the tremendous barriers that are in the way. Why is it so offensive to you that some would seek to remove some of those barriers?

Don't have a baby until they're financially ready? Is that code for "don't have sex until you're financially ready?" That's the only way to guarantee that you don't have a baby. Is that a reasonable expectation?

The "quit drinking and smoking" and "start showing up for work" seems to imply things that are not true. Most people in poverty are not smokers or alcoholics. Most also show up regularly for work. You seem to be implying that most people who are poor are there because they choose to be. They aren't. They were born into poverty. Escaping that takes a tremendous amount of hard work, a good amount of luck, and more than a little support from others.

All these things are examples of privilege by the way.

You seemed very concerned that a few people will take advantage of people's (or government's) kindness. Some will. Just as there are billionaires who take advantage of tax loopholes (In fact, I would guess but have no proof that upper class folks "abuse the system" at a much more frequent rate than lower class folks). Why focus on the vast minority or people who abuse the system? Why not focus on the vast majority who are in genuine need? If you have a program that helps 95 people, but 5 people abuse it, why screw over the 95 just to keep the 5 from abusing it?

A disclaimer, none of the above post is about the original topic, the minimum wage. That is a separate but related conversation.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 27, 2017, 06:30:03 PM
how do they afford school to go get a better job?

They are showing up for work, their work is just known as minimum wage.

Your parent point coming from you is completely hilarious. But hey keep telling people no sex that's worked great so far

here is a great web site with quite a few options for grants.  note i didn't say loans

http://www.collegegrant.net/trade-school-grants/
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 27, 2017, 06:34:41 PM
here is a great web site with quite a few options for grants.  note i didn't say loans

http://www.collegegrant.net/trade-school-grants/

Grants!?!?!? That sounds like giving to the poor! And we all know:

  when we continue to give give give, one has no incentive to better themselves.

But in all seriousness, grant programs like this are wonderful things. And that's why is is important that programs exist to help remove the barriers people must overcome in order to escape poverty. But you have to realize that this is just one barrier. There are hundreds more that people most overcome. Hell there are barriers that need to be overcome to even apply for the grant.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 27, 2017, 06:42:57 PM
  "So how are people supposed to afford this education? How do they fill out the application for school if they don't have internet? How do they do their homework and write their term papers? "

   the libraries

remember-we can't be everything to everyone.  with all due respect tamu, you seem to be going "half empty"  no one said this is easy.  baby steps...we aren't going to solve this issue in a couple of years.  this really picked up steam 50-60+ years ago. did we have all these programs during the great depression? people can be resourceful when the have to be.  if we could get 10-15-20% change over the next 5-10 years, that would be huge.  it starts with attitude adjustments and bipartisanship.  the divisiveness being handed down over the past generations is so anti-productive. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 27, 2017, 07:22:21 PM
  "So how are people supposed to afford this education? How do they fill out the application for school if they don't have internet? How do they do their homework and write their term papers? "

   the libraries

remember-we can't be everything to everyone.  with all due respect tamu, you seem to be going "half empty"  no one said this is easy.  baby steps...we aren't going to solve this issue in a couple of years.  this really picked up steam 50-60+ years ago. did we have all these programs during the great depression? people can be resourceful when the have to be.  if we could get 10-15-20% change over the next 5-10 years, that would be huge.  it starts with attitude adjustments and bipartisanship.  the divisiveness being handed down over the past generations is so anti-productive.

The libraries. Another example of a free service provided to the poor.

You seem to be missing the point Rocket. You have made several comments about how poor people are poor by choice and that we shouldn't help them because it encourages them to stay poor.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on June 27, 2017, 07:32:11 PM



Nads, how are yo holdin's doin' since da "Orange Menace" took office, hey?

I'd be happy to respond to this, but I speak English and I have no idea what you're asking.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 27, 2017, 07:34:00 PM
If this guy isn't worried about what dealers think he isn't going to be in his position for very long.

You don't understand the dynamic of the business. Dealer networks have immense leverage over manufacturers now and for the foreseeable future.

Do you think Ford wants to sell any new cars/trucks during the next 5-10 years?   If they do they need their dealer network more than their dealer network needs them.

A well-operated dealership pays all their operating costs through their service business. Selling cars is purely profit for these guys. If Ford pisses them off they will either switch their focus to used cars (better margins anyway) or to another manufacturer's business as the majority of dealership operators own multiple brands. 

Let me say it again.  Unless Ford wants to see their sales/profitability/stock price tank for the next 5-10 years, they will do what their dealer network wants. .

You realize you sound exactly like taxi driver 5 years ago, a retailer 10 years ago and a newspaper editor 15 years ago.

Telsa's stock price tells you what you need to do.  Follow your advice and its Kmart all over again.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on June 27, 2017, 07:39:34 PM
This originally started as rocket gloating about higher minimum wages having a negative effect. (He'll say he wasn't gloating, but we know he was, especially given his many follow-up posts about how the high-living poor are just crushing the spirit of the downtrodden millionaires.)

Smuggles joined in to gloat right alongside rocket, but then shifted the conversation to driverless cars and other forms of automation - which might be causing more job losses than anything else, and surely will cause more and more over time. The so-called president thinks coal jobs are coming back but of course they aren't, in part because there are more efficient and safer ways to produce energy and in greater part because automation has taken over. Things that used to take hundreds of humans to do in the coal industry now take less than a dozen.

Not to mention the thousands upon thousands of driverless trucks that are transporting the coal, each with a lazy union driver sleeping in the back, of course.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 27, 2017, 07:52:02 PM
You are flat out wrong, like always.  Uber's self driving Truck (originally the startup company Otto) testing involved exactly 1, and only 1 truck.  It drove 120 total miles in 2016.


Alphabet is also in the self-driving Truck category.  It has 1, and only 1 truck currently doing any on-road testing. 


You greatly exaggerated in your initial statements and then double and tripled down on those statements. 


Tesla hopes to unveil a self-driving Truck at the end of this year, like their cars, it will have self-driving ability but require a person at the wheel. 


Those who actually work in this field think that it will be at least 5, and likely closer to 10 years before the Semi market is significantly penetrated by self-driving vehicles.

Here is what I wrote ...

FYI - we already have driverless trucks now.  There are thousands of trucks that can drive themselves on an interstate only.  The problem is the rules say the driver must sit in the driver seat.  Instead, most are in the back sleeping.  So regulators are considering adding seat sensors so the driverless options only works with someone sitting in the front seat.  Again, it is cultural.

You are correct above, I was referring to a version of "cruise control on steroids" that keeps the truck in its lane on the interstate and paces itself based on traffic.  That is what he was referring to about the driver going in the back for a nap.

I was not referring to a complete point-to-point driverless truck.  You correctly noted these trucks.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 27, 2017, 10:00:39 PM
Here is what I wrote ...

You are correct above, I was referring to a version of "cruise control on steroids" that keeps the truck in its lane on the interstate and paces itself based on traffic.  That is what he was referring to about the driver going in the back for a nap.

I was not referring to a complete point-to-point driverless truck.  You correctly noted these trucks.

Again though, you miss the point. Nearly everyone asked for your source on "thousands".

You didn't have one. Okay to admit
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on June 27, 2017, 10:01:12 PM
Here is what I wrote ...

You are correct above, I was referring to a version of "cruise control on steroids" that keeps the truck in its lane on the interstate and paces itself based on traffic.  That is what he was referring to about the driver going in the back for a nap.

I was not referring to a complete point-to-point driverless truck.  You correctly noted these trucks.

Even your statement on 1000's of trucks is grossly inaccurate, and it is a simple numbers game to realize such a statement is absurd. 


The Semi's that are on the roads that can "drive themselves on interstates" are still test vehicles from really only 3 companies.  Let's run the numbers on how much it would cost for 1000's of test vehicles (or even simply 1000). 

A Semi costs around $150k without any special technology.  Outfitting it with current technology would cost a minimum of $250k (that is if autonomous technology could be translated directly to the Semi...it can't, and it is far more expensive right now).

That would put the price for even only 1000 test vehicles at:

$400M, just the vehicles themselves would cost $150M.

No business man is going to spend $400M on test vehicles so they can test 1000's, when there is no additional benefit (data wise) above 3-10 vehicles.  That is why typical test fleets are on the order of 3-10 vehicles, around a $2-5M investment. 

Right now there are at most 20-50 of these Semi's on the roads, mostly in California.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was as low as 5-10 total vehicles.

 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on June 27, 2017, 10:03:41 PM
Again though, you miss the point. Nearly everyone asked for your source on "thousands".

You didn't have one. Okay to admit

I've read thousands of posts by Smuggles. Not sure he ever has admitted he was wrong. Maybe he has and I missed that one time. Instead, he says he's so sure about himself that he's smug. Which is how he got his name.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 27, 2017, 11:38:56 PM
I was wrong. ... thousands applies to UPS alone.

Truckers Gain an Automated Assist
Computers relieve drivers of some big-rig duties; systems aim to cut accidents, save fuel

https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/truckers-gain-an-automated-assist-1438939801

One core technology is the truck’s collision-mitigation system, whose cameras and radar beams scan the roadway. When they detect another vehicle, an onboard computer adjusts the throttle or applies the brakes to maintain a safe distance.

Freightliner says that about 46% of its Cascadias sold this year have the anticollision system, up from 24% a year ago. Brake-system manufacturer Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC says sales of its collision-avoidance system have been rising an average of 24% annually for three years. Bendix rival Wabco Holdings Inc. expects sales of its comparable system to grow 32% this year, after last year’s 49% jump.

United Parcel Service Inc. has ordered 2,600 heavy-duty trucks this year with Bendix’s system, and plans to eventually expand that to its entire fleet of more than 16,000 highway trucks. The system also provides blind-spot alerts and warnings when a vehicle drifts out of its lane—safety features that UPS considers a precursor to more automated driving technologies.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on June 28, 2017, 12:36:36 AM
I was wrong. ... thousands applies to UPS alone.

Truckers Gain an Automated Assist
Computers relieve drivers of some big-rig duties; systems aim to cut accidents, save fuel

https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/truckers-gain-an-automated-assist-1438939801

One core technology is the truck’s collision-mitigation system, whose cameras and radar beams scan the roadway. When they detect another vehicle, an onboard computer adjusts the throttle or applies the brakes to maintain a safe distance.

Freightliner says that about 46% of its Cascadias sold this year have the anticollision system, up from 24% a year ago. Brake-system manufacturer Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC says sales of its collision-avoidance system have been rising an average of 24% annually for three years. Bendix rival Wabco Holdings Inc. expects sales of its comparable system to grow 32% this year, after last year’s 49% jump.

United Parcel Service Inc. has ordered 2,600 heavy-duty trucks this year with Bendix’s system, and plans to eventually expand that to its entire fleet of more than 16,000 highway trucks. The system also provides blind-spot alerts and warnings when a vehicle drifts out of its lane—safety features that UPS considers a precursor to more automated driving technologies.

Yeah, quadruple down why don't you.  Those vehicles are not remotely anything like what people have been discussing here.  They are neither autonomous nor can they even be driven without a person constantly manning the wheel. 

It is a collision avoidance system analogous to what is on most higher end vehicles. 

If you had said initially that thousands of Semi's have collision avoidance systems that can detect a possible collision before it happens, everyone here would have said, of course there are...what's your point.

You specified vehicles similar to Tesla's autopilot mode, that can largely drive themselves but require people to be in the driver's seat...indicating that most end up napping in the backseat.

Anyone who takes a nap away from the wheel in these vehicles is going to crash...and crash quickly.

Here was a chance for you to simply say you were wrong, you were misremembering an article or misstated numbers.  Instead you are jumping through flaming hoops to try to pretend you didn't say something incorrect.  It is quite sad.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 28, 2017, 07:17:39 AM
Here was a chance for you to simply say you were wrong, you were misremembering an article or misstated numbers.  Instead you are jumping through flaming hoops to try to pretend you didn't say something incorrect.  It is quite sad.

It's quite apparent to anyone who reads these boards that he is literally incapable of admitting he's wrong. And I'm using that word in the traditional sense - not the way it's frequently used these days.

If this discussion keeps going, he's likely to start citing statistics about power steering or automatic transmissions.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 28, 2017, 07:28:53 AM
Yeah, quadruple down why don't you.  Those vehicles are not remotely anything like what people have been discussing here.  They are neither autonomous nor can they even be driven without a person constantly manning the wheel. 

It is a collision avoidance system analogous to what is on most higher end vehicles. 

If you had said initially that thousands of Semi's have collision avoidance systems that can detect a possible collision before it happens, everyone here would have said, of course there are...what's your point.

You specified vehicles similar to Tesla's autopilot mode, that can largely drive themselves but require people to be in the driver's seat...indicating that most end up napping in the backseat.

Anyone who takes a nap away from the wheel in these vehicles is going to crash...and crash quickly.

Here was a chance for you to simply say you were wrong, you were misremembering an article or misstated numbers.  Instead you are jumping through flaming hoops to try to pretend you didn't say something incorrect.  It is quite sad.

What about you as it this statement you wrote does not square ...

The Semi's that are on the roads that can "drive themselves on interstates" are still test vehicles from really only 3 companies.  Let's run the numbers on how much it would cost for 1000's of test vehicles (or even simply 1000).

I look forward to some tortured definition of autonomous.  My definition is if you don't need your feet on the pedals (anti-collision) or hands on the wheel (lane assist), it's autonomous.  That is what the article describes and UPS alone has 2,600 of them.  There are thousands of trucks with this capability on the road today, not 3 test trucks.

Quit being Luddite like ATL who thinks the future of autos is pleasing unions and satisfying dealers.  This industry is going to have epic change and will bear little resemblance to its current self in a few years. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 28, 2017, 07:48:38 AM
What about you as it this statement you wrote does not square ...

The Semi's that are on the roads that can "drive themselves on interstates" are still test vehicles from really only 3 companies.  Let's run the numbers on how much it would cost for 1000's of test vehicles (or even simply 1000).

I look forward to some tortured definition of autonomous.  My definition is if you don't need your feet on the pedals (anti-collision) or hands on the wheel (lane assist), it's autonomous.  That is what the article describes and UPS alone has 2,600 of them. There are thousands of trucks with this capability on the road today, not 3 test trucks.

First of all, that might be the definition you're using now, but it is absolutely not the definition you were using that led to this entire discussion.  You've moved the goal posts.  Noted.

Second of all, that's not even remotely what the article describes.  An alert when you're leaving the lane is not autonomous in any normally used sense of the word.  I frequently drive a work car that has this feature (as well as the predictive cruise control that adjusts speed to traffic).  While it's leaps and bounds ahead of technology of years past, it's not even remotely "autonomous."  Even you would acknowledge that these features, as helpful as they are, are not even remotely at the level of what Tesla is offering (which is approaching  actual autonomy - but still doesn't allow the "sleeping in the back" that started the whole thing).  As forgetful said, anyone who goes in the back to sleep (your initial claim...as much as you're trying to deflect from that fact) will crash, and crash quickly.  In fact, anyone who takes their hands off the wheel will likely crash about as quickly as they would in a car that is not equipped with the feature -- they'll just have an alert telling them that the crash is coming.

You were right about one thing, however, we did get to see a tortured definition of autonomous.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on June 28, 2017, 07:56:25 AM
First of all, that might be the definition you're using now, but it is absolutely not the definition you were using that led to this entire discussion.  You've moved the goal posts.  Noted.

No, this is my original statement ...

FYI - we already have driverless trucks now.  There are thousands of trucks that can drive themselves on an interstate only

The sleeping in the back was a statement I heard at an investment conference last year (noted this multiple times).  As I noted before, that is all I can say about that. (my use of the word "most" was ill-advised as I do not know how many have done it.)

Anytime you want to get back to the issue of technology impacting jobs, I'm ready.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 28, 2017, 08:09:05 AM
No, this is my original statement ...

The sleeping in the back was a statement I heard at an investment conference last year (noted this multiple times).  As I noted before, that is all I can say about that. (my use of the word "most" was ill-advised as I do not know how many have done it.)

Anytime you want to get back to the issue of technology impacting jobs, I'm ready.

Putting aside the fact that you're quoting only part of your original statement, your newly truncated original statement is still ridiculously wrong.  Those UPS trucks cannot drive themselves.  Even on an interstate.  And you know this.  Everyone knows it.  We're all simultaneously amused/annoyed/worried by your inability to simply acknowledge that you were wrong.

Incidentally, your constant shifting of the goal posts shows that you know you were wrong.  I suspect that is as close to an admission that we're going to get.  You made your original statement.  You were asked for a source for the whole statement -- even the sleeping in the back thing.  You shifted the goal posts and provided links to articles about just a couple of test trucks and one very short autonomous trip.  When it was pointed out that the links didn't support your initial claim, you moved on to talking about Teslas.  These initial efforts by you to focus on actual autonomous vehicles reveal that is what you were talking about.  When it was pointed out that Teslas are not semis, you started focusing on fairly common safety features that are being put in semis that are not even close to your initial autonomous vehicle claims.

Now go ahead and express your amazement that I'm still posting about this.  We've grown accustomed to that and realize that's how you concede defeat.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on June 28, 2017, 08:22:23 AM
Autonomous vehicles are coming, of that there is no doubt. However the timeline is at least out beyond 5 years and it has nothing to do with dealerships luddites or whatever, it has to do with data.

Autonomous vehicles generate and rely on 40 terabytes of data for every 8 hours of driving. To put that into perspective a 787 flying from NYC to London(roughly 8 hours) will generate a half a terabyte of data.

There are roughly 87,000 commercial flights a day in the US, which would generate 43.5 petabytes of data; it's probably lower than that, as flights are shorter and less data intensive they the latest model 787 but it provides a good marker. If we translate that into the number of autonomous vehicle hours supported by that data payload it works out to roughly 1,087 vehicles on the road if they average 4 hours of travel each day.

Let's put another marker, it's been estimate that all of YouTube requires roughly 400 petabytes of a data a year to stay up and running. The average American drives 1.4 hours a day (511 hours a year conservatively) which means roughly 20 petabytes of data a year per car. So 20 cars could be supported on the data storage that supports all of YouTube.

It's estimated that Google has 15 exabytes of data storage available to it in 15 data centers around the globe. That's a million terabytes which would be consumed in an hour if 200,000 autonomous cars were driving.

They will figure out how to compress the data better, reduce the overall payload, and increase cloud storage capacity.....but that's going to take considerably more than 5 years to figure it all out.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 28, 2017, 08:24:33 AM
The sleeping in the back was a statement I heard at an investment conference last year (noted this multiple times).  As I noted before, that is all I can say about that. (my use of the word "most" was ill-advised as I do not know how many have done it.)

That's getting close to an admission you were wrong (albeit blaming someone else).  Progress.  Good work.

However, if you're being honest, I do think you know how many have done it.  None.  You know as well as I do that if those UPS drivers leave the wheel they're going to crash pretty quickly.  You also know that the test drivers in the truly autonomous vehicles stay at the wheel during the tests.  What you described in your initial statement is surely coming.  And soon.  It's just not here quite yet.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on June 28, 2017, 08:28:26 AM
So, how about that minimum wage?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 28, 2017, 08:29:28 AM
Autonomous vehicles are coming, of that there is no doubt. However the timeline is at least out beyond 5 years and it has nothing to do with dealerships luddites or whatever, it has to do with data.

Autonomous vehicles generate and rely on 40 terabytes of data for every 8 hours of driving. To put that into perspective a 787 flying from NYC to London(roughly 8 hours) will generate a half a terabyte of data.

There are roughly 87,000 commercial flights a day in the US, which would generate 43.5 petabytes of data; it's probably lower than that, as flights are shorter and less data intensive they the latest model 787 but it provides a good marker. If we translate that into the number of autonomous vehicle hours supported by that data payload it works out to roughly 1,087 vehicles on the road if they average 4 hours of travel each day.

Let's put another marker, it's been estimate that all of YouTube requires roughly 400 petabytes of a data a year to stay up and running. The average American drives 1.4 hours a day (511 hours a year conservatively) which means roughly 20 petabytes of data a year per car. So 20 cars could be supported on the data storage that supports all of YouTube.

It's estimated that Google has 15 exabytes of data storage available to it in 15 data centers around the globe. That's a million terabytes which would be consumed in an hour if 200,000 autonomous cars were driving.

They will figure out how to compress the data better, reduce the overall payload, and increase cloud storage capacity.....but that's going to take considerably more than 5 years to figure it all out.

Interesting information.  Thanks.  That is an aspect of the movement to autonomous vehicles that I hand't spent a lot of time thinking about.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on June 28, 2017, 08:34:20 AM
What about you as it this statement you wrote does not square ...

The Semi's that are on the roads that can "drive themselves on interstates" are still test vehicles from really only 3 companies.  Let's run the numbers on how much it would cost for 1000's of test vehicles (or even simply 1000).

I look forward to some tortured definition of autonomous.  My definition is if you don't need your feet on the pedals (anti-collision) or hands on the wheel (lane assist), it's autonomous.  That is what the article describes and UPS alone has 2,600 of them.  There are thousands of trucks with this capability on the road today, not 3 test trucks.

Quit being Luddite like ATL who thinks the future of autos is pleasing unions and satisfying dealers.  This industry is going to have epic change and will bear little resemblance to its current self in a few years.
My God, you need to educate yourself on basic safety features currently available in cars. 

Anti-collision DOES NOT mean that the driver doesn't need his hands on the wheel or his feet on the pedals.  It means that if the driver doesn't react to an imminent crash, the vehicle will attempt to avoid it autonomously.  The car does not even remotely come close to driving itself.  Lane assist is if the car senses you drifting out of your lane, it responds either with a buzzer in the seat or by a corrective steer.  My $30,000 sedan has adaptive Cruise Control, which automatically adjusts speed if a slower car is in front of me.  I promise you I still need to keep my hands on the wheel.

None of these things are even remotely in the same universe as autonomous driving which is why nobody takes you seriously...

Oh, and I will bet whatever you like that in 5 years Ford is still selling the vast majority (you can define what that means -- at a minimum it's 90-95%) of it's cars via the traditional dealership model.  You don't have the first clue what it will take in terms of $$ and time to unwind it.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on June 28, 2017, 08:41:18 AM
So, how about that minimum wage?
Who cares?  Cars are more fun to argue about  ;D
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 28, 2017, 08:47:00 AM
My God, you need to educate yourself on basic safety features currently available in cars. 

Anti-collision DOES NOT mean that the driver doesn't need his hands on the wheel or his feet on the pedals.  It means that if the driver doesn't react to an imminent crash, the vehicle will attempt to avoid it autonomously.  The car does not even remotely come close to driving itself.  Lane assist is if the car senses you drifting out of your lane, it responds either with a buzzer in the seat or by a corrective steer

Neither of these things are even remotely in the same universe as autonomous driving. 

See, I didn't know that they were making corrections -- I thought they were just alerts.  The car I drive merely alerts when you leave the lane, but it's a couple years old (and not very expensive).  So, some of my comments above may have been wrong.

However, I stand by my statement that these fairly common safety features are not in the universe of autonomous driving.  I'd also invite Heisy to drop into Bendix's website (the company that UPS is using per the article) and see their description of their system.  It's purely an adaptive cruise control and braking feature.  There is no mention of steering.  However, UPS might well have something along those lines too...it's just not mentioned in the article.  Edited to add:  Bendix has another system that does provide a "rumble strip" alert when a truck is drifting from a lane.  So, UPS drivers who decide that their trucks are "autonomous" will receive an alert before they crash.  Good to know.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on June 28, 2017, 08:57:15 AM
See, I didn't know that they were making corrections -- I thought they were just alerts.  The car I drive merely alerts when you leave the lane, but it's a couple years old (and not very expensive).  So, some of my comments above may have been wrong.

However, I stand by my statement that these fairly common safety features are not in the universe of autonomous driving.  I'd also invite Heisy to drop into Bendix's website (the company that UPS is using per the article) and see their description of their system.  It's purely an adaptive cruise control and braking feature.  There is no mention of steering.  However, UPS might well have something along those lines too...it's just not mentioned in the article.
I don't know how widespread the auto-correct (I think it's called Lane Assist) steering capability is...probably not very, but it is available on the top trim levels in most of vehicles the company I work with manufactures. 

We are in agreement that Heisy either doesn't know what autonomous driving is (unlikely) or is just being disingenuous to try to "win" an internet debate. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 28, 2017, 09:03:48 AM
The libraries. Another example of a free service provided to the poor.

You seem to be missing the point Rocket. You have made several comments about how poor people are poor by choice and that we shouldn't help them because it encourages them to stay poor.

i briefly scanned my comments and i didn't really see anything intimating that we "shouldn't help them"  as a matter of fact, i have proposed the opposite as we already have many "safety nets" in place to help them.  one of them is within your comment-libraries.  yes libraries are one of the free services we provide.  i also posted the site that lists all the grants available and where to find them.  you may be misunderstanding  my comments as i am for helping them, NOT providing them with a lifestyle.  what i mean by that is becoming dependant upon our "free services"  they were meant as a temporary aid until they can get back on their feet. 

"poor by choice"  not sure i said that either, but rather poor by choices made maybe.  bad decisions and then claiming victim status.  politicians love this one b/c it creates a full time job=advocacy for more of our money as opposed to helping them get out of their rut
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on June 28, 2017, 09:08:28 AM
This back and forth is SO classically Smuggles. Even when he admits he is wrong, he isn't really admitting it. It always comes with numerous caveats that provide a way for him to double, triple, quadruple or quintuple-down on his original error-filled thesis.

Smuggles, the problem is that even when you do make good points, you're like the boy who cried wolf. You exaggerate, fib and shift the goalposts so often that your credibility is shot. Not to beat a dead horse (none of us ever do that here on Scoop!), but the AAPL thing was a great example. You have made some real good stock calls. But you were SO certain, SO forceful in your insistence that AAPL at 90-ish was a bad investment, that it damaged any good stock calls you might or might not have made.

Not one of those trucks can drive itself. "Thousands." You're a trip.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Eldon on June 28, 2017, 09:12:32 AM
Another hot-off-the-press minimum wage study (using a very credible research design)

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/06/minimum-wage-evidence-danish-discontinuity.html

tldr: Denmark increases minimum wage 40% (!) once a worker turns 18.  Workers very near the wrong side of the 18-year old cutoff see their employment drop by 33%.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on June 28, 2017, 09:14:22 AM

They will figure out how to compress the data better, reduce the overall payload, and increase cloud storage capacity.....but that's going to take considerably more than 5 years to figure it all out.

No worries.  This guy can figure it out.  He already has the compression part done:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4Uwu4uCYAAamJm.jpg)



Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 28, 2017, 10:38:47 AM
i briefly scanned my comments and i didn't really see anything intimating that we "shouldn't help them"  as a matter of fact, i have proposed the opposite as we already have many "safety nets" in place to help them.  one of them is within your comment-libraries.  yes libraries are one of the free services we provide.  i also posted the site that lists all the grants available and where to find them.  you may be misunderstanding  my comments as i am for helping them, NOT providing them with a lifestyle.  what i mean by that is becoming dependant upon our "free services"  they were meant as a temporary aid until they can get back on their feet. 

"poor by choice"  not sure i said that either, but rather poor by choices made maybe.  bad decisions and then claiming victim status.  politicians love this one b/c it creates a full time job=advocacy for more of our money as opposed to helping them get out of their rut

Since you briefly scanned your comments, I'll point out what I'm talking about.

The "poor by choice": You have implied that people are poor because they buy unncesseary things:

one of the problems with people who don't earn very much is prioritizing.  living within their means,  there is a lot of peer pressure to have "air jordans" the newest cell phone, expensive designer/pre-ripped jeans, etc.  all the commercials glorifying unnecessary chit.  i call some of these people "dime-store rich"

lose the cell phone, drop the internet, quit smoking and drinking, get your clothes from goodwill, ride the bus.  yes, i know it sounds heartless, but you do what you have to do to survive short of breaking the law. 

You have implied that people are poor because they are alcoholics, smokers, and I assume drug user was implied

quit smoking and drinking

You have implied that people are poor because they have babies they can't afford. Which again I ask, is your expectation that people don't have sex until they make a middle class income?

if you cannot afford something, another child, the new car, you can't have it-don't try to buy it!!

do not become a parent until you can handle it emotionally and financially 


You have also implied that poor people are lazy by both not showing up for work and not getting an education

go back to school for a trade?  learn how to manage people, show up for work, finish school

there are people who can help themselves, but do not.

You have also implied that poor people choose to game the system

then there are some people who cannot help themselves-just like handicapped parking tags, the more able bodied people are ruining it for those who do genuinely need help

You have also implied that poor people are fat by choice (and thus are spending too much on food)

   "Not to mention that I can feed a family on unhealthy crap for a lot cheaper"

mcdonalds offers salads and apple slices(used to anyway) instead of grease and fries.  i don't think the apple slices went over so well either-big shocker, ayyn'a?  ::)

All of these are stereotypes and myths about people in poverty that are extremely dangerous. You have listed repeatedly all the choices you think people make to be poor. That if they just didn't make all these bad choices they could get out of poverty. The reality is that the VAST majority of people who are poor are there because they were born into it. They didn't have good nutrition growing up, they didn't get to go to summer camp, they didn't have a choice of what school they went to (and in most cases their only choice was a bad one), if they got jobs all of the money came back to the home to help pay for rent, food, clothes, and school supplies. The second largest group in poverty? people with mental disabilities. The third largest group? People who got their because of medical debt. They weren't buying the new air jordans. They were buying a surgery that they needed or a child needed to survive. Only after these three huge groups do you start to get to your "dime store rich" people as you called it.

I don't know that "victim status" is the word that I would use to describe most people in poverty. But if by "victim status" you mean that they got into poverty because of forces beyond their control then yes, a vast majority of people in poverty are victims.

As for the "shouldn't help them" sentiment. I got that from here:

  when we continue to give give give, one has no incentive to better themselves.  are there exceptions?  absolutely, but when you give away "free" stuff, you will draw a crowd.  has anyone here ever fed stray cats?  no, i'm not comparing our less than fortunate to stray cats, just the concept.

You said I was a glass half empty person. I'm not. I believe that if you "give give give" people will use that to try and improve their lives. I don't think that people are lazy and asking to be in poverty. Now you did go onto provide a site with grants. That is wonderful (and an example of "give give giving"). But you have to understand that removes one small barrier for a very small portion of the population. If you dropped out of high school because you needed to work full time to help your parent put food on the table then a grant to a trade school means nothing to you.

You are good man Rocket, but what I think I am reacting to is that you seem to demand perfection from those in poverty. If they make a frivolous purchase, then they are choosing to be poor and are now abusing the system. If they have an unplanned pregnancy, then they are choosing to be poor and are now abusing the system. If they aren't going to school then they must be lazy and are now abusing the system. Human beings aren't perfect, and will never be perfect. They deserve some grace when they make mistakes especially when they start so far down on the economic food chain. I mean you don't see people judging you for your frivolous purchases. Don't you know that you could be middle upper class by now if you didn't buy all those things you didn't need! (I'm making some assumptions based on someone who is a career rocket surgeon  ;D)

Now in a way, you are right to demand perfection. Because perfection and more than a little luck is what is required to escape the cycle of poverty without help from others. But the reality is, you could be the perfect poor person, go back to school, work three jobs, never have sex to avoid unplanned pregnancy, don't make any frivolous purchases and you could still end up in poverty. The system is rigged against them. That is why "safety net" programs are so important and why it is critical that that we don't judge those who use them. Yes, there will be some who abuse it. We should take steps to keep that from happening. But at the same time we need to recognize that the abusers are the vast minority and to treat all in poverty as abusers is at best disingenuous and at worst can be extremely harmful. Especially when politicians use the small % of abusers as a justification for cutting safety net programs.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on June 28, 2017, 10:42:49 AM
What about you as it this statement you wrote does not square ...

The Semi's that are on the roads that can "drive themselves on interstates" are still test vehicles from really only 3 companies.  Let's run the numbers on how much it would cost for 1000's of test vehicles (or even simply 1000).

I look forward to some tortured definition of autonomous.  My definition is if you don't need your feet on the pedals (anti-collision) or hands on the wheel (lane assist), it's autonomous.  That is what the article describes and UPS alone has 2,600 of them.  There are thousands of trucks with this capability on the road today, not 3 test trucks.

Quit being Luddite like ATL who thinks the future of autos is pleasing unions and satisfying dealers.  This industry is going to have epic change and will bear little resemblance to its current self in a few years. 
No, UPS has ordered 2600, even your prior posts didn't state these were even delivered yet.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: StillAWarrior on June 28, 2017, 11:20:55 AM
No, UPS has ordered 2600, even your prior posts didn't state these were even delivered yet.

Nevermind the fact that the article describes these as, "...safety features that UPS considers a precursor to more automated driving technologies."  In other words, what UPS considers "safety features" that are "a precursor to more automated driving technologies," Heisy considers autonomous driving.   Hell, you can get a Toyota Corrolla adaptive cruise control and lane departure alerts for under $20k.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on June 28, 2017, 11:25:43 AM
I just love it when a Scoop thread turns into a dick-swinging contest.

That reminds me....has anyone seen Keefe lately?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on June 28, 2017, 03:47:47 PM
I just love it when a Scoop thread turns into a dick-swinging contest.

That reminds me....has anyone seen Keefe lately?

I heard if you say his name into a mirror three times he'll show up in your bathroom with vintage 80s porn on betamax
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on June 28, 2017, 07:57:38 PM
Since you briefly scanned your comments, I'll point out what I'm talking about.

The "poor by choice": You have implied that people are poor because they buy unncesseary things:

You have implied that people are poor because they are alcoholics, smokers, and I assume drug user was implied

You have implied that people are poor because they have babies they can't afford. Which again I ask, is your expectation that people don't have sex until they make a middle class income?


You have also implied that poor people are lazy by both not showing up for work and not getting an education

You have also implied that poor people choose to game the system

You have also implied that poor people are fat by choice (and thus are spending too much on food)

All of these are stereotypes and myths about people in poverty that are extremely dangerous. You have listed repeatedly all the choices you think people make to be poor. That if they just didn't make all these bad choices they could get out of poverty. The reality is that the VAST majority of people who are poor are there because they were born into it. They didn't have good nutrition growing up, they didn't get to go to summer camp, they didn't have a choice of what school they went to (and in most cases their only choice was a bad one), if they got jobs all of the money came back to the home to help pay for rent, food, clothes, and school supplies. The second largest group in poverty? people with mental disabilities. The third largest group? People who got their because of medical debt. They weren't buying the new air jordans. They were buying a surgery that they needed or a child needed to survive. Only after these three huge groups do you start to get to your "dime store rich" people as you called it.

I don't know that "victim status" is the word that I would use to describe most people in poverty. But if by "victim status" you mean that they got into poverty because of forces beyond their control then yes, a vast majority of people in poverty are victims.

As for the "shouldn't help them" sentiment. I got that from here:

You said I was a glass half empty person. I'm not. I believe that if you "give give give" people will use that to try and improve their lives. I don't think that people are lazy and asking to be in poverty. Now you did go onto provide a site with grants. That is wonderful (and an example of "give give giving"). But you have to understand that removes one small barrier for a very small portion of the population. If you dropped out of high school because you needed to work full time to help your parent put food on the table then a grant to a trade school means nothing to you.

You are good man Rocket, but what I think I am reacting to is that you seem to demand perfection from those in poverty. If they make a frivolous purchase, then they are choosing to be poor and are now abusing the system. If they have an unplanned pregnancy, then they are choosing to be poor and are now abusing the system. If they aren't going to school then they must be lazy and are now abusing the system. Human beings aren't perfect, and will never be perfect. They deserve some grace when they make mistakes especially when they start so far down on the economic food chain. I mean you don't see people judging you for your frivolous purchases. Don't you know that you could be middle upper class by now if you didn't buy all those things you didn't need! (I'm making some assumptions based on someone who is a career rocket surgeon  ;D)

Now in a way, you are right to demand perfection. Because perfection and more than a little luck is what is required to escape the cycle of poverty without help from others. But the reality is, you could be the perfect poor person, go back to school, work three jobs, never have sex to avoid unplanned pregnancy, don't make any frivolous purchases and you could still end up in poverty. The system is rigged against them. That is why "safety net" programs are so important and why it is critical that that we don't judge those who use them. Yes, there will be some who abuse it. We should take steps to keep that from happening. But at the same time we need to recognize that the abusers are the vast minority and to treat all in poverty as abusers is at best disingenuous and at worst can be extremely harmful. Especially when politicians use the small % of abusers as a justification for cutting safety net programs.

Perhaps the post of the year.

Eff it ... no "perhaps" about it.

The ultimate compliment: I wish I had written it!
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 28, 2017, 08:07:55 PM
Since you briefly scanned your comments, I'll point out what I'm talking about.

The "poor by choice": You have implied that people are poor because they buy unncesseary things:

You have implied that people are poor because they are alcoholics, smokers, and I assume drug user was implied

You have implied that people are poor because they have babies they can't afford. Which again I ask, is your expectation that people don't have sex until they make a middle class income?


You have also implied that poor people are lazy by both not showing up for work and not getting an education

You have also implied that poor people choose to game the system

You have also implied that poor people are fat by choice (and thus are spending too much on food)

All of these are stereotypes and myths about people in poverty that are extremely dangerous. You have listed repeatedly all the choices you think people make to be poor. That if they just didn't make all these bad choices they could get out of poverty. The reality is that the VAST majority of people who are poor are there because they were born into it. They didn't have good nutrition growing up, they didn't get to go to summer camp, they didn't have a choice of what school they went to (and in most cases their only choice was a bad one), if they got jobs all of the money came back to the home to help pay for rent, food, clothes, and school supplies. The second largest group in poverty? people with mental disabilities. The third largest group? People who got their because of medical debt. They weren't buying the new air jordans. They were buying a surgery that they needed or a child needed to survive. Only after these three huge groups do you start to get to your "dime store rich" people as you called it.

I don't know that "victim status" is the word that I would use to describe most people in poverty. But if by "victim status" you mean that they got into poverty because of forces beyond their control then yes, a vast majority of people in poverty are victims.

As for the "shouldn't help them" sentiment. I got that from here:

You said I was a glass half empty person. I'm not. I believe that if you "give give give" people will use that to try and improve their lives. I don't think that people are lazy and asking to be in poverty. Now you did go onto provide a site with grants. That is wonderful (and an example of "give give giving"). But you have to understand that removes one small barrier for a very small portion of the population. If you dropped out of high school because you needed to work full time to help your parent put food on the table then a grant to a trade school means nothing to you.

You are good man Rocket, but what I think I am reacting to is that you seem to demand perfection from those in poverty. If they make a frivolous purchase, then they are choosing to be poor and are now abusing the system. If they have an unplanned pregnancy, then they are choosing to be poor and are now abusing the system. If they aren't going to school then they must be lazy and are now abusing the system. Human beings aren't perfect, and will never be perfect. They deserve some grace when they make mistakes especially when they start so far down on the economic food chain. I mean you don't see people judging you for your frivolous purchases. Don't you know that you could be middle upper class by now if you didn't buy all those things you didn't need! (I'm making some assumptions based on someone who is a career rocket surgeon  ;D)

Now in a way, you are right to demand perfection. Because perfection and more than a little luck is what is required to escape the cycle of poverty without help from others. But the reality is, you could be the perfect poor person, go back to school, work three jobs, never have sex to avoid unplanned pregnancy, don't make any frivolous purchases and you could still end up in poverty. The system is rigged against them. That is why "safety net" programs are so important and why it is critical that that we don't judge those who use them. Yes, there will be some who abuse it. We should take steps to keep that from happening. But at the same time we need to recognize that the abusers are the vast minority and to treat all in poverty as abusers is at best disingenuous and at worst can be extremely harmful. Especially when politicians use the small % of abusers as a justification for cutting safety net programs.


   abstinence from sex??  that's it! now you've crossed the line and

  in all seriousness, is contraception really that expensive.  no, i am not that strict of a catholic to accuse those who use it of violating God's will. 

implications of choosing poverty?  nope.  the continuity of making bad choices leading to generations of poverty-yes. not going to school, not showing up for work on a regular basis.  hanging with the wrong crowd.  i know it's tough in the inner city.  have i lived there? i thank God i haven't had to along with many other things.   

  as for "safety nets"  there have to be limitations because too many people have made accepting aid a lifestyle and a replacement for having to work.  it leaves them with more free time than they can handle.  the free time is where the bad choices are made.  government aid was originally put in to place as a temporary crutch.  i remember when people were either too proud or ashamed to accept government aid, food stamps, et.al.  now, it's an entitlement and it's ruining it for people who legitimately need help.

i cannot disagree with most of the rest of your statements.  there is no simple solution, but as humane as it may sound to help people, remember, no good deed goes unpunished.  by continually giving, in the long run, we are really doing most of these people a disservice and we are essentially enslaving them to the system.  they aren't free-rather they are beholden to the government.  many can't or won't work because it may make them ineligible to receive their aid.  and on and on.  so it's just easier(less complicated) for them not to work which leads us back to an excess of free time...vicious cycle we have created, but we meant well, right?
 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 28, 2017, 10:03:37 PM
Yes. Birth control is expensive if you don't have or can't afford insurance/prescription coverage. If that's a point of contention, we should be encouraging programs and care centers that would make birth control and education affordable and easily accessible.

Is that a good idea?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on June 28, 2017, 10:19:54 PM
Yes. Birth control is expensive if you don't have or can't afford insurance/prescription coverage. If that's a point of contention, we should be encouraging programs and care centers that would make birth control and education affordable and easily accessible.

Is that a good idea?

Of course it is. But unwed sexy time is a sin, so no birth control for you!

That way, you get preggers. And if you happen to live in one of the many Republican-controlled states where it has become practically impossible for women (especially poor ones) to get an abortion, you have the kid you don't want and can't afford.

And when that kid grows up in abject poverty, a few years later the rocketmen out there can blame the kid for making the bad choice of being born into poverty. Shame on that kid!
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: B. McBannerson on June 28, 2017, 11:19:40 PM
Low level Seattle workers hurt per University of Washington.  Hours cut back, net pay take home dropped. Maybe they can figure out a good solution between business and workers.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/seattle-s-minimum-wage-hike-hurting-low-level-workers-study-says.html
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 29, 2017, 12:36:56 AM

   abstinence from sex??  that's it! now you've crossed the line and

  in all seriousness, is contraception really that expensive.  no, i am not that strict of a catholic to accuse those who use it of violating God's will.   

Its not when there are planned parenthoods giving it out for free. But there are those out there trying to shut that down. And when your below the poverty line even a box of condoms can be an enormous purchase. Plus, even with all the birth control in the world, it is still possible to have a baby. I'm glad you don't judge those who use birth control. I have often found those who judge unplanned babies also judge birth control which literally means they don't think poor people should be allowed to have sex.

implications of choosing poverty?  nope.  the continuity of making bad choices leading to generations of poverty-yes. not going to school, not showing up for work on a regular basis.  hanging with the wrong crowd.  i know it's tough in the inner city.  have i lived there? i thank God i haven't had to along with many other things.   

  as for "safety nets"  there have to be limitations because too many people have made accepting aid a lifestyle and a replacement for having to work.  it leaves them with more free time than they can handle.  the free time is where the bad choices are made.  government aid was originally put in to place as a temporary crutch.  i remember when people were either too proud or ashamed to accept government aid, food stamps, et.al.  now, it's an entitlement and it's ruining it for people who legitimately need help.

Rocketman, I'm telling you, these are myths. The vast majority of poor people show up for work on time (hell, they probably show up for work more frequently than us with our vacation days and sick days). The vast majority do go to school but they can only afford to go to the local public school that is underfunded and likely has teachers that overworked, underpaid, and in many cases checked out and unqualified. Most of them would kill for a chance to get a higher degree or a trade degree but they need to work full time so they can send money home to their family. Very few are "accepting aid as a lifestyle and a replacement for work." Most are embarrassed that they need to accept aid and are working multiple jobs to try and get off of it. You are looking at the smallest % of those in poverty and generalizing it to the rest of the group. Don't label an entire group of people based on the actions of a few bad apples. Unless you think it is fair for people to assume that all white men from Milwaukee are cannibalistic serial killers because of Dahmer.

i cannot disagree with most of the rest of your statements.  there is no simple solution, but as humane as it may sound to help people, remember, no good deed goes unpunished.  by continually giving, in the long run, we are really doing most of these people a disservice and we are essentially enslaving them to the system.  they aren't free-rather they are beholden to the government.  many can't or won't work because it may make them ineligible to receive their aid.  and on and on.  so it's just easier(less complicated) for them not to work which leads us back to an excess of free time...vicious cycle we have created, but we meant well, right?
 

I'm not saying that we don't constantly evaluate the aid we are giving and try to improve it. But I am saying that you don't stop giving because a vast minority will abuse it. Why focus on the one who abuses and ignore the dozens who legitimately need it and use it?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 29, 2017, 12:38:33 AM
Perhaps the post of the year.

Eff it ... no "perhaps" about it.

The ultimate compliment: I wish I had written it!

(https://media.tenor.com/images/95bb9311c731ef168e1dd385c580f275/tenor.gif)
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 29, 2017, 05:46:53 AM
tamu-i'm sure you are correct up to a point, but the numbers of people who have altogether stopped looking for work is at all time highs-i understand that we do have many many hard working people who can't afford stuff, but if the market cannot support just giving them more money per hour so they can buy condoms, et.al. houston, we've got a ........

  " ........................ in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not in the labor force, the highest number on record. That number rose steadily during the presidents two terms, reaching a record 95,055,000 in November 2016, then setting another record (95,102,000) in December."

   *note-i am not using this quote for political purposes.  rather, as a reference of a point in time

  i've got to think there are some able bodied people in that 95 + million.  that's a lot of people who have made some bad choices and continue to do so.  they are not counted in the unemployment numbers which nationally, range between 4-5%.

   i just googled condoms-i see many ads for FREE condoms to 12 pak for $3.99.  not sure how much for the harlit ?-(     .30 for anywhere from 20 seconds to an afternoon delight ein'er?  that KY stuff is expensive though-gonna have to be innovative-what's a can of cool whip go for :D

if a certain group of people would allow school choice so there would be some competition to the public versions and give parents an alternative.  it would or should force both the public and the choice schools to better themselves

everyone throws out there "living wage"  what is that?  one's "living wage" may not be the same as anothers.  if you force a McDonalds for example to pay their workers a "living wage", they have to raise their prices accordingly and then the very people we are talking about will not be able to afford them

      *mcdonalds as an example can be any other number of lower priced dining options-burger king, kfc, wendy's, popeye's, long johnny silvers, arby's, carl jr's etc

but back to this "living wage" thing-businesses are no more responsible for paying a random salary to someone so they can "live" than they can dictate what and how they spend that money on,  a business is subject to what the market allows and what he/she deems is worthy.  now they may price themselves out of the market as well, but that is how the game is played.  there are risks involved on both sides.  have you ever tried opening a business?  there are many hurdles and risks involved before you even get to be able to pay your employees a "living wage".  one of the challenges of a business owner is to find GOOD employees.  when ya do, you pay them well or you lose them. 

but back to the original premise of this post-if that 95 + million number is even close-that's a lot of people who aren't working of which man could, but are using the "system" as a lifestyle choice=free time=ruh-roh time
 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 29, 2017, 06:55:40 AM
A living wage is something predetermined. It's not variable to each person.

I would also highly doubt that there are even half as many jobs available as people who aren't working. 40 million job openings right now? That aren't seasonal/temporary/minimum wage? No freaking way
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 29, 2017, 07:28:09 AM
tamu-i'm sure you are correct up to a point, but the numbers of people who have altogether stopped looking for work is at all time highs-i understand that we do have many many hard working people who can't afford stuff, but if the market cannot support just giving them more money per hour so they can buy condoms, et.al. houston, we've got a ........

  " ........................ in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not in the labor force, the highest number on record. That number rose steadily during the presidents two terms, reaching a record 95,055,000 in November 2016, then setting another record (95,102,000) in December."

   *note-i am not using this quote for political purposes.  rather, as a reference of a point in time

  i've got to think there are some able bodied people in that 95 + million.  that's a lot of people who have made some bad choices and continue to do so.  they are not counted in the unemployment numbers which nationally, range between 4-5%.

   i just googled condoms-i see many ads for FREE condoms to 12 pak for $3.99.  not sure how much for the harlit ?-(     .30 for anywhere from 20 seconds to an afternoon delight ein'er?  that KY stuff is expensive though-gonna have to be innovative-what's a can of cool whip go for :D

if a certain group of people would allow school choice so there would be some competition to the public versions and give parents an alternative.  it would or should force both the public and the choice schools to better themselves

everyone throws out there "living wage"  what is that?  one's "living wage" may not be the same as anothers.  if you force a McDonalds for example to pay their workers a "living wage", they have to raise their prices accordingly and then the very people we are talking about will not be able to afford them

      *mcdonalds as an example can be any other number of lower priced dining options-burger king, kfc, wendy's, popeye's, long johnny silvers, arby's, carl jr's etc

but back to this "living wage" thing-businesses are no more responsible for paying a random salary to someone so they can "live" than they can dictate what and how they spend that money on,  a business is subject to what the market allows and what he/she deems is worthy.  now they may price themselves out of the market as well, but that is how the game is played.  there are risks involved on both sides.  have you ever tried opening a business?  there are many hurdles and risks involved before you even get to be able to pay your employees a "living wage".  one of the challenges of a business owner is to find GOOD employees.  when ya do, you pay them well or you lose them. 

but back to the original premise of this post-if that 95 + million number is even close-that's a lot of people who aren't working of which man could, but are using the "system" as a lifestyle choice=free time=ruh-roh time
 

Googling condoms A) requires internet that you yourself said they should cut off because it's a frivolous expense. B) requires forethought for every sexual escapade. If you're doing the deed when you're in High School how much forethought is there really?

Go to your local Walgreens a twelve pack is much more than 2.99
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on June 29, 2017, 08:51:23 AM
tamu-i'm sure you are correct up to a point, but the numbers of people who have altogether stopped looking for work is at all time highs-i understand that we do have many many hard working people who can't afford stuff, but if the market cannot support just giving them more money per hour so they can buy condoms, et.al. houston, we've got a ........

  " ........................ in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not in the labor force, the highest number on record. That number rose steadily during the presidents two terms, reaching a record 95,055,000 in November 2016, then setting another record (95,102,000) in December."


You do realize that there are a number of reasons why this might be the case.

**Baby-boomer retirements
**Spouses leaving the workforce to care for a child
**People leaving to go back to school

But the number of people collecting unemployment has decreased steadily for eight years.  So my guess is that your presumption for why they are leaving is off base.

So you think people are leaving the labor force because they can be better off living on government programs?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on June 29, 2017, 09:03:31 AM
tamu-i'm sure you are correct up to a point, but the numbers of people who have altogether stopped looking for work is at all time highs-i understand that we do have many many hard working people who can't afford stuff, but if the market cannot support just giving them more money per hour so they can buy condoms, et.al. houston, we've got a ........

  " ........................ in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not in the labor force, the highest number on record. That number rose steadily during the presidents two terms, reaching a record 95,055,000 in November 2016, then setting another record (95,102,000) in December."

   *note-i am not using this quote for political purposes.  rather, as a reference of a point in time

  i've got to think there are some able bodied people in that 95 + million.  that's a lot of people who have made some bad choices and continue to do so.  they are not counted in the unemployment numbers which nationally, range between 4-5%.

   i just googled condoms-i see many ads for FREE condoms to 12 pak for $3.99.  not sure how much for the harlit ?-(     .30 for anywhere from 20 seconds to an afternoon delight ein'er?  that KY stuff is expensive though-gonna have to be innovative-what's a can of cool whip go for :D

if a certain group of people would allow school choice so there would be some competition to the public versions and give parents an alternative.  it would or should force both the public and the choice schools to better themselves

everyone throws out there "living wage"  what is that?  one's "living wage" may not be the same as anothers.  if you force a McDonalds for example to pay their workers a "living wage", they have to raise their prices accordingly and then the very people we are talking about will not be able to afford them

      *mcdonalds as an example can be any other number of lower priced dining options-burger king, kfc, wendy's, popeye's, long johnny silvers, arby's, carl jr's etc

but back to this "living wage" thing-businesses are no more responsible for paying a random salary to someone so they can "live" than they can dictate what and how they spend that money on,  a business is subject to what the market allows and what he/she deems is worthy.  now they may price themselves out of the market as well, but that is how the game is played.  there are risks involved on both sides.  have you ever tried opening a business?  there are many hurdles and risks involved before you even get to be able to pay your employees a "living wage".  one of the challenges of a business owner is to find GOOD employees.  when ya do, you pay them well or you lose them. 

but back to the original premise of this post-if that 95 + million number is even close-that's a lot of people who aren't working of which man could, but are using the "system" as a lifestyle choice=free time=ruh-roh time
 

I stopped looking for work in 2010 before I turned 50. I, and many like me, skew the stats you cite as they affect impoverished people. It was not a "bad choice" for me because I could afford to be semi-retired (OK ... MOSTLY-retired!) and because I have a wife who works. Stop lumping together everybody who fits every statistic you want to use.

As for school choice, it is being forced down NC taxpayers' throats, as more taxpayer money is being given away to those who go to private (usually religious) schools. Early returns have been, to put it kindly, disappointing.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article135823973.html

Last July, the Thomas Fordham Institute released a study on the effectiveness of vouchers (called Opportunity Scholarships in North Carolina) in educating children in comparison to public schools. This is an organization that says on its website that its Policy Priorities are, “… policies and practices leading to a lively, accessible marketplace of high-quality education options for every young American (including charter schools, magnet schools, voucher programs, and online courses)…” In short, a very pro-voucher organization.

So what did this report say that the Fordham Institute undertook, ostensibly to promote the expansion of vouchers in America? It said that vouchers have failed miserably. That’s right, a pro-voucher group had to put out a report that concluded that vouchers are failing our children. And keep in mind, this isn’t an outlier of empirical studies of vouchers’ effectiveness in educating our children. Two other recent studies (one in Indiana and another in Louisiana) came to the same conclusion.


That was in March. A couple of other studies have come out since then showing more lackluster results - the kids were better off in public schools.

Now, maybe these cases are the exceptions. Time will tell. But obviously voucher programs are not some proven panacea, some golden ticket to success.

As for the cost of condoms, you don't get it. Yes, condoms are relatively cheap. So are other things that poor people should or shouldn't be able to afford. It all adds up. It's not just the $3 or $6 or $9 for condoms ... it's for condoms, plus food, plus a way to communicate in today's society (internet, cellphones, etc), plus clothing, plus shelter, etc.

One of my very best friends works two jobs, one at minimum wage, one slightly higher, just to try to give his family the most basic needs, and yet folks like you want to claim he is somehow gaming the system if he takes any public aid. What about the effen public aid that billionaires take for their ballparks, factories and hedge funds? Worry more about the people who are REALLY moving the dial - the corporate cheats who are stealing millions of dollars from you and me every day!

rocket, every point you make is full of either assumptions or generalizations or both. I won't even go into Jesus' hundreds of pleas to care for "the least of these."
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Eldon on June 29, 2017, 09:50:00 AM
A living wage is something predetermined. It's not variable to each person.

I would also highly doubt that there are even half as many jobs available as people who aren't working. 40 million job openings right now? That aren't seasonal/temporary/minimum wage? No freaking way

Where did you see that?

The most recent JOLTS report from the BLS shows six million openings (it's April's numbers because of the time lag).

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Eldon on June 29, 2017, 09:54:55 AM

You do realize that there are a number of reasons why this might be the case.

**Baby-boomer retirements
**Spouses leaving the workforce to care for a child
**People leaving to go back to school

But the number of people collecting unemployment has decreased steadily for eight years.  So my guess is that your presumption for why they are leaving is off base.

So you think people are leaving the labor force because they can be better off living on government programs?

This hits the nail on the head.

https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2012/cflmarch2012-296-pdf.pdf

This Chicago Fed report, despite being from 2012, is the clearest exposition, IMO, of the decline in the labor-force participation rate.

Here's the abstract (if you click the link it automatically downloads):

The authors conclude that just under half of the post-1999 decline in the U.S. labor force
participation rate, or LFPR (the proportion of the working-age population that is employed
or unemployed and seeking work), can be explained by long-running demographic patterns,
such as the retirement of baby boomers. These patterns are expected to continue, offsetting
LFPR improvements due to economic recovery.


We project LFPR through 2020 and contend that some of these demographic patterns, particularly the ongoing retirement of baby boomers, are likely to accelerate the LFPR decline.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 29, 2017, 10:04:36 AM
Where did you see that?

The most recent JOLTS report from the BLS shows six million openings (it's April's numbers because of the time lag).

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf

Sorry if my post confused. I was saying that there are NOT 40 million jobs available right now.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Eldon on June 29, 2017, 10:10:56 AM
Sorry if my post confused. I was saying that there are NOT 40 million jobs available right now.

No worries, no confusion.  I posted the link to show that you are indeed correct--40 million is a huge number.  I was simply wondering where you saw the 40 million statistic.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on June 29, 2017, 10:35:11 AM
This hits the nail on the head.

https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2012/cflmarch2012-296-pdf.pdf

This Chicago Fed report, despite being from 2012, is the clearest exposition, IMO, of the decline in the labor-force participation rate.

Here's the abstract (if you click the link it automatically downloads):

The authors conclude that just under half of the post-1999 decline in the U.S. labor force
participation rate, or LFPR (the proportion of the working-age population that is employed
or unemployed and seeking work), can be explained by long-running demographic patterns,
such as the retirement of baby boomers. These patterns are expected to continue, offsetting
LFPR improvements due to economic recovery.


We project LFPR through 2020 and contend that some of these demographic patterns, particularly the ongoing retirement of baby boomers, are likely to accelerate the LFPR decline.


Careful, Eldon, we are in a post-facts society now, and this is sure to upset the narratives of more than a few.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on June 29, 2017, 11:16:24 AM
Lot of good content, and I know I'm treading on thin ice by asking this question, but I really do want to understand the logic. It will be oversimplified but bear with me.

Why does it make sense to actively deny means of birth control or the termination of pregnancies for principled reasons (moral, religious, etc principles) but then to deny support economically or socially to children who are the result of being denied access to the means of prevention?

In other words, what principles allow us to say, "abstinence only, etc" and interfering in their lives, but then saying "well you're on your own" when they have a child?

If we are being logically consistent the principle that generates a kid should also serve to support the kid, or the principle prevents the kid but also expects those who have a kid to take care of it......what am I missing?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on June 29, 2017, 11:19:54 AM
You are missing the point that with a certain segment of society, any sort of government support is viewed as a freebie that underwrites the moral character of the individual.

Unless of course it is a development tax credit or a tax deduction of some kind.  Then it's a wise investment.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 29, 2017, 11:24:43 AM
Rocket. That 95 million number isn't poor people who are living off social services. That is the number of Americans, age 16 and up, that aren't working. Included in that number is millions of retirees, millions of high school students, millions of college students, millions of grad students, millions of stay at home parents/trophy husbands/wives, millions or thousands (honestly not sure) of sick/disabled individuals who can't work, millions or thousands (honestly not sure) of full time caretakers, thousands of older adults who are going back to school, and thousands of upper class folks who are living off trust funds and inheritance. I also don't know, but I wonder if the millions of people who are incarcerated are included in this number as well. I'm also not sure but I think people who are completing unpaid internships, volunteer work, or working off the books are also included. I'd have to look closer to be sure. But my guess is the % of the 95 million who are poor people who just decided not to work is very small.

  i've got to think there are some able bodied people in that 95 + million.  that's a lot of people who have made some bad choices and continue to do so.  they are not counted in the unemployment numbers which nationally, range between 4-5%.

This is the part that you don't seem to understand. These people didn't make bad choices to get to poverty. The vast majority of them were born there. The next biggest group were stricken with some sort of mental illness. The third biggest group made the choice to pay for surgeries that they couldn't afford because without them they or someone they loved would have died. Only after these three groups do you start to get to people who fell into poverty because of repeated poor decisions. You are picking at a small % of the population and acting as if it describes the whole lot of them. That's the same as saying all white people are serial killers because a select few of white people are.

Yes, people in poverty do make bad decisions. And those bad decisions help keep them in poverty. But they make bad decisions at the same rate as people in other socioeconomic classes. The difference is that they started behind the eight ball. I don't judge people for being human beings and making mistakes. Especially when they didn't have the same opportunity for education that I did. You have probably made more poor financial decisions (frivolous purchases) than the average poor person simply because you have more income to do so. You just got a massive head start over them because of the situation of your birth. Why should we judge poor people for buying cell phones but not judge you for buying things you don't need just because you were born into a wealthier family? How is that justice? The answer is that we shouldn't judge either of you.

The other sad reality is, even if a poor person is perfect...They go to school. They work multiple jobs. They make no frivolous purchases. They don't have kids....they could still end up in poverty. There is a limited amount that people in poverty can control. They can do everything right but if things outside their control don't go their way....lose their job because the business is bought out, car breaks down, they get sick or injured, a family member gets sick or injured, they lose their job as semi truck driver because they only need one guy sleeping in the back of the automatic truck, or simply no business will hire them because of their background....they will stay in poverty.

I'm not going to get into the choice school debate. I equate it to communism. Great in theory but so far terrible in practice. You ever been to one of DeVos' schools in Michigan? Horror shows, most of them. I got my masters in education from a university in Michigan and got to see and study some of it firsthand. If properly regulated, I could see it working so I won't dismiss them outright but they have a long way to go.

Finally, keep in mind that I have never said that I am for raising the minimum wage. I appreciate the thought behind but unfortunately the practicality of it seems to actual hurt those it helps. I do think that is because the value of an employee is terribly low in this country but we can't force businesses to value their employees more. This conversation for me has been all about your comments on why people are in poverty and what it takes for them to escape it.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on June 29, 2017, 11:37:26 AM
Lot of good content, and I know I'm treading on thin ice by asking this question, but I really do want to understand the logic. It will be oversimplified but bear with me.

Why does it make sense to actively deny means of birth control or the termination of pregnancies for principled reasons (moral, religious, etc principles) but then to deny support economically or socially to children who are the result of being denied access to the means of prevention?

In other words, what principles allow us to say, "abstinence only, etc" and interfering in their lives, but then saying "well you're on your own" when they have a child?

If we are being logically consistent the principle that generates a kid should also serve to support the kid, or the principle prevents the kid but also expects those who have a kid to take care of it......what am I missing?

You are missing absolutely nothing, mu03eng, but you are running the risk of being labeled a liberal. Which I know you're not.

We go back to one of the all-time great quotes on the subject:

Conservatives believe that from the standpoint of the federal government, life begins at conception and ends at birth.
-- Barney Frank.

It's a snarky, wise-arse comment, but the Republicans prove it true over and over and over again -- most recently just this week with the latest swipe at healthcare reform.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 29, 2017, 11:40:03 AM
Lot of good content, and I know I'm treading on thin ice by asking this question, but I really do want to understand the logic. It will be oversimplified but bear with me.

Why does it make sense to actively deny means of birth control or the termination of pregnancies for principled reasons (moral, religious, etc principles) but then to deny support economically or socially to children who are the result of being denied access to the means of prevention?

In other words, what principles allow us to say, "abstinence only, etc" and interfering in their lives, but then saying "well you're on your own" when they have a child?

If we are being logically consistent the principle that generates a kid should also serve to support the kid, or the principle prevents the kid but also expects those who have a kid to take care of it......what am I missing?

THANK YOU!

I constantly run into this argument and it drives me insane. You're a sinner if you use birth control or get an abortion but I'll be damned if I pay a penny towards helping you raise that kid you didn't want.

To be clear, I absolutely respect the opinions of people who are pro-life, its a moral question that I struggle with daily but I don't want this to turn into an abortion conversation. I just think that at least as much but probably more attention should be turned to the welfare of the child after its born rather than before it is born.

Being anti-birth control on the other hand....I don't get that at all.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 29, 2017, 12:00:35 PM
THANK YOU!

I constantly run into this argument and it drives me insane. You're a sinner if you use birth control or get an abortion but I'll be damned if I pay a penny towards helping you raise that kid you didn't want.

To be clear, I absolutely respect the opinions of people who are pro-life, its a moral question that I struggle with daily but I don't want this to turn into an abortion conversation. I just think that at least as much but probably more attention should be turned to the welfare of the child after its born rather than before it is born.

Being anti-birth control on the other hand....I don't get that at all.

I think it comes down to 2 things. Abortion = murder. Fine. So abortion is never acceptable.

The second part is personal responsibility. If you aren't financially or personally or whatever ready to have a kid, then you shouldn't be in a situation where you could have a kid. If we turn around and help pay/support that kid/family, you're erasing the personal responsibility and no one learns.

That's what I understand, anyway
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on June 29, 2017, 01:41:05 PM
You are missing the point that with a certain segment of society, any sort of government support is viewed as a freebie that underwrites the moral character of the individual.

Unless of course it is a development tax credit or a tax deduction of some kind.  Then it's a wise investment.

Not sure if this was in response to me, but yes agreed that was some of the warped logic I was trying to get at. I have zero issue with having a principled stand, as long as that principle is applied consistently.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 29, 2017, 02:18:22 PM
tamu-i do appreciate your input, dialogue and respectful replies.  i don't think however, that we will ever be able to put our finger on all the causes of poverty as it is a multi-faceted issue to say the least.

back to the original topic-i found this situation in maine to be quite interesting-maine restaurant workers are lobbying to prevent the minimum wage law from taking effect.  in other words, they don't want it.

   "I don’t need to be ‘saved,’ and I’ll be damned if small groups of uninformed people are voting on my livelihood,” said Sue Vallenza, a Maine bartender who spoke to the Post. Vallenza further said she’s already seeing less in tips as a result of customers who believe the wage hike had already went into effect."

 http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-maine-minimum-wage-20170628-story.html
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on June 29, 2017, 02:39:05 PM
tamu-i do appreciate your input, dialogue and respectful replies.  i don't think however, that we will ever be able to put our finger on all the causes of poverty as it is a multi-faceted issue to say the least.

back to the original topic-i found this situation in maine to be quite interesting-maine restaurant workers are lobbying to prevent the minimum wage law from taking effect.  in other words, they don't want it.

   "I don’t need to be ‘saved,’ and I’ll be damned if small groups of uninformed people are voting on my livelihood,” said Sue Vallenza, a Maine bartender who spoke to the Post. Vallenza further said she’s already seeing less in tips as a result of customers who believe the wage hike had already went into effect."

 http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-maine-minimum-wage-20170628-story.html

This is an apples to oranges comparison.
The Maine issue pertained only to the minimum wage of restaurant servers, who feared it would reduce their tips, which are their primary source of income.
It's not relevant to fast food workers, custodians, cashiers, CNAs, etc.
 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 29, 2017, 07:02:03 PM
This is an apples to oranges comparison.
The Maine issue pertained only to the minimum wage of restaurant servers, who feared it would reduce their tips, which are their primary source of income.
It's not relevant to fast food workers, custodians, cashiers, CNAs, etc.

so you don't believe the minmum wage increase wil have ANY effect on those workers you identify?  yes i realize the bartenders, et.al are seeing their tips being reduced and those that you mention do not rely on or get tips.  but we are talking about customers spending money.  whether it's in the form of a tip or just paying the bill, it's still money. if the restaurant has to raise it's prices because of the involuntary raising of the minimum wages, they just won't go to the restaurant period-once again-boiling the frog
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on June 29, 2017, 07:48:34 PM
This hits the nail on the head.

https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2012/cflmarch2012-296-pdf.pdf

This Chicago Fed report, despite being from 2012, is the clearest exposition, IMO, of the decline in the labor-force participation rate.

Here's the abstract (if you click the link it automatically downloads):

The authors conclude that just under half of the post-1999 decline in the U.S. labor force
participation rate, or LFPR (the proportion of the working-age population that is employed
or unemployed and seeking work), can be explained by long-running demographic patterns,
such as the retirement of baby boomers. These patterns are expected to continue, offsetting
LFPR improvements due to economic recovery.


We project LFPR through 2020 and contend that some of these demographic patterns, particularly the ongoing retirement of baby boomers, are likely to accelerate the LFPR decline.

This is a catch all for all your posts in this thread.  Thank you for all the information and well thought out posts. 

Although I still think most of these "effects of minimum wage increases" studies are still flawed by too many unknown or incompletely understood variables, your information is much appreciated.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 29, 2017, 08:02:10 PM
tamu-i do appreciate your input, dialogue and respectful replies.  i don't think however, that we will ever be able to put our finger on all the causes of poverty as it is a multi-faceted issue to say the least.

back to the original topic-i found this situation in maine to be quite interesting-maine restaurant workers are lobbying to prevent the minimum wage law from taking effect.  in other words, they don't want it.

   "I don’t need to be ‘saved,’ and I’ll be damned if small groups of uninformed people are voting on my livelihood,” said Sue Vallenza, a Maine bartender who spoke to the Post. Vallenza further said she’s already seeing less in tips as a result of customers who believe the wage hike had already went into effect."

 http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-maine-minimum-wage-20170628-story.html

We shouldn't have to tip at all. Tipping shouldn't be expected. And it shouldn't be a necessary part of a server/bartender's pay.

https://youtu.be/q_vivC7c_1k
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on June 29, 2017, 08:05:07 PM
We shouldn't have to tip at all. Tipping shouldn't be expected. And it shouldn't be a necessary part of a server/bartender's pay.

https://youtu.be/q_vivC7c_1k

Agreed. There are many countries in which tipping is not a thing.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jockey on June 29, 2017, 10:34:31 PM
Rocket. That 95 million number isn't poor people who are living off social services. That is the number of Americans, age 16 and up, that aren't working. Included in that number is millions of retirees, millions of high school students, millions of college students, millions of grad students, millions of stay at home parents/trophy husbands/wives, millions or thousands (honestly not sure) of sick/disabled individuals who can't work, millions or thousands (honestly not sure) of full time caretakers, thousands of older adults who are going back to school, and thousands of upper class folks who are living off trust funds and inheritance. I also don't know, but I wonder if the millions of people who are incarcerated are included in this number as well. I'm also not sure but I think people who are completing unpaid internships, volunteer work, or working off the books are also included. I'd have to look closer to be sure. But my guess is the % of the 95 million who are poor people who just decided not to work is very small.

This is the part that you don't seem to understand. These people didn't make bad choices to get to poverty. The vast majority of them were born there. The next biggest group were stricken with some sort of mental illness. The third biggest group made the choice to pay for surgeries that they couldn't afford because without them they or someone they loved would have died. Only after these three groups do you start to get to people who fell into poverty because of repeated poor decisions. You are picking at a small % of the population and acting as if it describes the whole lot of them. That's the same as saying all white people are serial killers because a select few of white people are.

Yes, people in poverty do make bad decisions. And those bad decisions help keep them in poverty. But they make bad decisions at the same rate as people in other socioeconomic classes. The difference is that they started behind the eight ball. I don't judge people for being human beings and making mistakes. Especially when they didn't have the same opportunity for education that I did. You have probably made more poor financial decisions (frivolous purchases) than the average poor person simply because you have more income to do so. You just got a massive head start over them because of the situation of your birth. Why should we judge poor people for buying cell phones but not judge you for buying things you don't need just because you were born into a wealthier family? How is that justice? The answer is that we shouldn't judge either of you.

The other sad reality is, even if a poor person is perfect...They go to school. They work multiple jobs. They make no frivolous purchases. They don't have kids....they could still end up in poverty. There is a limited amount that people in poverty can control. They can do everything right but if things outside their control don't go their way....lose their job because the business is bought out, car breaks down, they get sick or injured, a family member gets sick or injured, they lose their job as semi truck driver because they only need one guy sleeping in the back of the automatic truck, or simply no business will hire them because of their background....they will stay in poverty.

I'm not going to get into the choice school debate. I equate it to communism. Great in theory but so far terrible in practice. You ever been to one of DeVos' schools in Michigan? Horror shows, most of them. I got my masters in education from a university in Michigan and got to see and study some of it firsthand. If properly regulated, I could see it working so I won't dismiss them outright but they have a long way to go.

Finally, keep in mind that I have never said that I am for raising the minimum wage. I appreciate the thought behind but unfortunately the practicality of it seems to actual hurt those it helps. I do think that is because the value of an employee is terribly low in this country but we can't force businesses to value their employees more. This conversation for me has been all about your comments on why people are in poverty and what it takes for them to escape it.

The Orange Pig stated that unemployment was 42% in this country.

Only the stupid believe this to be true.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 30, 2017, 05:20:17 AM
surely you meant 4.2% rather than 42, ey?  must be the preoccupation with #45  i'll say however, if one thinks the unemployment rate is 42%, some remedial civics class would be in order at the very least

wisconsin's is anywhere from 4.0-4.2% as a nation, yes it is, but maybe for a tick up to 4.3%

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-idUSKBN18T0BT

let's see here, whatever number you believe to be true, it is a far cry better than the previous 8 years where it was whatever the Whitehouse actuaries were instructed to put out
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Frenns Liquor Depot on June 30, 2017, 05:50:57 AM
surely you meant 4.2% rather than 42, ey?  must be the preoccupation with #45  i'll say however, if one thinks the unemployment rate is 42%, some remedial civics class would be in order at the very least

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/29/511493685/ahead-of-trumps-first-jobs-report-a-look-at-his-remarks-on-the-numbers (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/29/511493685/ahead-of-trumps-first-jobs-report-a-look-at-his-remarks-on-the-numbers)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/01/29/donald-trump-wants-to-increase-the-unemployment-rate-by-1-from-4-7-to-5-7/#618d88e96224 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/01/29/donald-trump-wants-to-increase-the-unemployment-rate-by-1-from-4-7-to-5-7/#618d88e96224)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/01/23/what_trump_s_spokesman_dodge_a_question_about_the_unemployment_rate.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/01/23/what_trump_s_spokesman_dodge_a_question_about_the_unemployment_rate.html)
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on June 30, 2017, 07:34:26 AM
let's see here, whatever number you believe to be true, it is a far cry better than the previous 8 years where it was whatever the Whitehouse actuaries were instructed to put out


The only way you could be more Fox News is if you groped someone in the workplace.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jay Bee on June 30, 2017, 08:11:09 AM

The only way you could be more Fox News is if you groped someone in the workplace.

You must mean he's fair & balanced?

As someone who wrote for a Fox News show, I'm very hurt by such attacks!
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on June 30, 2017, 09:22:52 AM
We've done a good job keeping the political mud slinging to a minimum in this thread. Let's keep it that way.  Back on target fellas.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: B. McBannerson on June 30, 2017, 09:38:43 AM
I guess no politics is alive and well here.  Verbal attacks, etc.  Like watching Obama call Palin a pig, or Trump calling Mike out for a bloody facelift.  So much positive energy.  :o
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 30, 2017, 10:21:07 AM
I guess no politics is alive and well here.  Verbal attacks, etc.  Like watching Obama call Palin a pig, or Trump calling Mike out for a bloody facelift.  So much positive energy.  :o

(https://i.imgflip.com/1i9tnp.jpg)
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on June 30, 2017, 10:41:37 AM
You must mean he's fair & balanced?

As someone who wrote for a Fox News show, I'm very hurt by such attacks!


I'm sure you can find a safe space somewhere.  My guess is that you should try the Vikings trophy case.  You won't be bothered much.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu_hilltopper on June 30, 2017, 10:44:01 AM
These people didn't make bad choices to get to poverty. The vast majority of them were born there. ...<snip>

Yes, people in poverty do make bad decisions. And those bad decisions help keep them in poverty. But they make bad decisions at the same rate as people in other socioeconomic classes. .. Especially when they didn't have the same opportunity for education that I did. You have probably made more poor financial decisions (frivolous purchases) than the average poor person simply because you have more income to do so. You just got a massive head start over them because of the situation of your birth. Why should we judge poor people for buying cell phones but not judge you for buying things you don't need just because you were born into a wealthier family? How is that justice? The answer is that we shouldn't judge either of you.

The other sad reality is, even if a poor person is perfect...They go to school. They work multiple jobs. They make no frivolous purchases. They don't have kids....they could still end up in poverty. There is a limited amount that people in poverty can control.

Lots of good stuff in that post, but I'll add some comments.

I understand that "These people didn't make bad choices to get to poverty / born there" and "Yes, people in poverty do make bad decisions / help keep them in poverty" are slightly different sentiments, but the distinction is not overwhelming.   The point the right wants to make is that we are all given opportunities to help ourselves.  Public schools can be looked at as the largest anti-poverty investment ever made.  (Yet it's in a shameful state!)

I would suspect the idea that "the poor make bad choices at the same rate as others" does not have great data behind it.  What would be a truer statement is those in poverty have little margin for error in their bad choices, while others do.

I don't conscribe to your theory that no one can be judged, not the poor nor rich.  If you want to make poor choices and eff up your life, as long as you don't impact others with your dumbness, well, that's America for you.  But once you do impact others, bear a new child into the world without means, require assistance from others for food, housing, basic support, or enter the criminal justice system -- all of which the poor and non-poor do alike at different rates --  .. then yes, there's an amount of "judgement" that is natural and part of human nature. 

That may not be the society we want, it's the society we have.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on June 30, 2017, 11:14:20 AM
I guess no politics is alive and well here.  Verbal attacks, etc.  Like watching Obama call Palin a pig, or Trump calling Mike out for a bloody facelift.  So much positive energy.  :o

Except Obama never called Palin a pig, not even close. But nice try!
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on June 30, 2017, 11:20:38 AM
surely you meant 4.2% rather than 42, ey?

Nope, 42%. That's what the Orange Menace said during a 2015 press conference in which he announced his "tax plan":

"The number isn't reflective. I've seen numbers of 24 percent -- I actually saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. Forty-two percent." He continued, "5.3 percent unemployment -- that is the biggest joke there is in this country. … The unemployment rate is probably 20 percent, but I will tell you, you have some great economists that will tell you it's a 30, 32. And the highest I've heard so far is 42 percent."

He loves the "here's what I heard" method of conveying "facts."

Of course, ever since he became the so-called president and the unemployment numbers continued to be good, he has held them up as signs of him doing a fabulous job!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/10/19-times-trump-called-the-jobs-numbers-fake-before-they-made-him-look-good/?utm_term=.0b6ecfa84a8b
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 30, 2017, 12:07:25 PM
Except Obama never called Palin a pig, not even close. But nice try!

I'm gonna save chicos the trouble. He's gonna post Obamas comment about you can't put lipstick on a pig and say it was calling palin a pig because she referenced the difference between a hockey mom and pitbull being lipstick. He will ignore the fact that that's a fairly common expression to further his point. Then people will get frustrated and the thread will be locked.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on June 30, 2017, 12:21:34 PM
I'm gonna save chicos the trouble. He's gonna post Obamas comment about you can't put lipstick on a pig and say it was calling palin a pig because she referenced the difference between a hockey mom and pitbull being lipstick. He will ignore the fact that that's a fairly common expression to further his point. Then people will get frustrated and the thread will be locked.

Thanks.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jockey on June 30, 2017, 03:34:58 PM

I'm sure you can find a safe space somewhere.  My guess is that you should try the Vikings trophy case.  You won't be bothered much.

Well done!!!!!!
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on June 30, 2017, 04:56:25 PM
Lots of good stuff in that post, but I'll add some comments.

I understand that "These people didn't make bad choices to get to poverty / born there" and "Yes, people in poverty do make bad decisions / help keep them in poverty" are slightly different sentiments, but the distinction is not overwhelming.   The point the right wants to make is that we are all given opportunities to help ourselves.  Public schools can be looked at as the largest anti-poverty investment ever made.  (Yet it's in a shameful state!)

I would suspect the idea that "the poor make bad choices at the same rate as others" does not have great data behind it.  What would be a truer statement is those in poverty have little margin for error in their bad choices, while others do.

I don't conscribe to your theory that no one can be judged, not the poor nor rich.  If you want to make poor choices and eff up your life, as long as you don't impact others with your dumbness, well, that's America for you.  But once you do impact others, bear a new child into the world without means, require assistance from others for food, housing, basic support, or enter the criminal justice system -- all of which the poor and non-poor do alike at different rates --  .. then yes, there's an amount of "judgement" that is natural and part of human nature. 

That may not be the society we want, it's the society we have.

ok "suck-up alert" is turned off

  this is a great comment!  i like the distinctions along with the clarifications; i can go with this

   
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: B. McBannerson on June 30, 2017, 07:35:24 PM
Except Obama never called Palin a pig, not even close. But nice try!

A couple of things, since I have the time with my glass of wine.

1) I think our current President is a vile man and didn't vote for him or his party.  I won't in 2020, either.
2) How often are we told that men can't answer for how women feel.  Whites for African Americans (and vice versa).  Straight for gay (and vice versa).  I'm a man, so I can only go on what some women said about his pig remarks.  Remember, Ms. Palin said the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is lipstick. He then went with his comment.  It has a double meaning.  Obama is very smart, it was a clever rhetorical play. Both sides do it.  Community Organizer is a veiled use of language by the right.

Glamour magazine is a woman's magazine.  Amanda Carpenter is a woman ( a conservative woman).  She disagrees with you.  Not close, is that for you to decide or women?  How many women? Just one?  10%? 30%?  http://www.glamour.com/story/barack-obama-got-away-with

3) Some people view it as an old saying that a crap burger is still a crap burger even with Dijon mustard.  Yet there are people (women mostly) that have asked the phrase be not used as implies pigs are ugly women and even makeup isn't going to help.
4) Let's pretend it is 1984 and President Reagan said lipstick on a pig in reference to Mondale and Ferraro.  Would the same benefit of the doubt you are giving Mr. Obama be given to Mr. Reagan? How would our media punditry treat the remark?
5)  I could have used his remarks about Special Olympians, or Nancy Reagan.  Or this year's candidate that called roughly half the electorate a basket of deploreables.  Or Romney's comments dehumanizing people, Trump's never ending attacks on people. The lists are long on both sides.

My point I was making is there are a lot of attacks by both sides, this isn't new, but sure has ramped up.  With lefty actors wishing for a president's death, a crazy lefty trying to wipe out GOP congressmen a few weeks ago followed by some crazy professors and even a DNC member (since fired) upset that he didn't succeed.  Meanwhile, on the right crazy righties doing ads about a coming civil war and to stock up on ammunition, crazy righties threatening to take out liberals. 

It's out of hand, and both sides are doing.  A crazy president and a liberal press that is out of control in baiting the adolescent President.  Both need to stop it.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on June 30, 2017, 08:51:11 PM
A couple of things, since I have the time with my glass of wine.

1) I think our current President is a vile man and didn't vote for him or his party.  I won't in 2020, either.
2) How often are we told that men can't answer for how women feel.  Whites for African Americans (and vice versa).  Straight for gay (and vice versa).  I'm a man, so I can only go on what some women said about his pig remarks.  Remember, Ms. Palin said the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is lipstick. He then went with his comment.  It has a double meaning.  Obama is very smart, it was a clever rhetorical play. Both sides do it.  Community Organizer is a veiled use of language by the right.

Glamour magazine is a woman's magazine.  Amanda Carpenter is a woman ( a conservative woman).  She disagrees with you.  Not close, is that for you to decide or women?  How many women? Just one?  10%? 30%?  http://www.glamour.com/story/barack-obama-got-away-with

3) Some people view it as an old saying that a crap burger is still a crap burger even with Dijon mustard.  Yet there are people (women mostly) that have asked the phrase be not used as implies pigs are ugly women and even makeup isn't going to help.
4) Let's pretend it is 1984 and President Reagan said lipstick on a pig in reference to Mondale and Ferraro.  Would the same benefit of the doubt you are giving Mr. Obama be given to Mr. Reagan? How would our media punditry treat the remark?
5)  I could have used his remarks about Special Olympians, or Nancy Reagan.  Or this year's candidate that called roughly half the electorate a basket of deploreables.  Or Romney's comments dehumanizing people, Trump's never ending attacks on people. The lists are long on both sides.

My point I was making is there are a lot of attacks by both sides, this isn't new, but sure has ramped up.  With lefty actors wishing for a president's death, a crazy lefty trying to wipe out GOP congressmen a few weeks ago followed by some crazy professors and even a DNC member (since fired) upset that he didn't succeed.  Meanwhile, on the right crazy righties doing ads about a coming civil war and to stock up on ammunition, crazy righties threatening to take out liberals. 

It's out of hand, and both sides are doing.  A crazy president and a liberal press that is out of control in baiting the adolescent President.  Both need to stop it.

(https://i.imgur.com/zC0k1Qp.gif)
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 01, 2017, 06:02:02 AM
A couple of things, since I have the time with my glass of wine.

1) I think our current President is a vile man and didn't vote for him or his party.  I won't in 2020, either.
2) How often are we told that men can't answer for how women feel.  Whites for African Americans (and vice versa).  Straight for gay (and vice versa).  I'm a man, so I can only go on what some women said about his pig remarks.  Remember, Ms. Palin said the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is lipstick. He then went with his comment.  It has a double meaning.  Obama is very smart, it was a clever rhetorical play. Both sides do it.  Community Organizer is a veiled use of language by the right.

Glamour magazine is a woman's magazine.  Amanda Carpenter is a woman ( a conservative woman).  She disagrees with you.  Not close, is that for you to decide or women?  How many women? Just one?  10%? 30%?  http://www.glamour.com/story/barack-obama-got-away-with

3) Some people view it as an old saying that a crap burger is still a crap burger even with Dijon mustard.  Yet there are people (women mostly) that have asked the phrase be not used as implies pigs are ugly women and even makeup isn't going to help.
4) Let's pretend it is 1984 and President Reagan said lipstick on a pig in reference to Mondale and Ferraro.  Would the same benefit of the doubt you are giving Mr. Obama be given to Mr. Reagan? How would our media punditry treat the remark?
5)  I could have used his remarks about Special Olympians, or Nancy Reagan.  Or this year's candidate that called roughly half the electorate a basket of deploreables.  Or Romney's comments dehumanizing people, Trump's never ending attacks on people. The lists are long on both sides.

My point I was making is there are a lot of attacks by both sides, this isn't new, but sure has ramped up.  With lefty actors wishing for a president's death, a crazy lefty trying to wipe out GOP congressmen a few weeks ago followed by some crazy professors and even a DNC member (since fired) upset that he didn't succeed.  Meanwhile, on the right crazy righties doing ads about a coming civil war and to stock up on ammunition, crazy righties threatening to take out liberals. 

It's out of hand, and both sides are doing.  A crazy president and a liberal press that is out of control in baiting the adolescent President.  Both need to stop it.

Nope. Speaking of "baiting," not gonna let you do it. You can talk to yourself on this one, chicos.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 02, 2017, 09:42:33 AM
Worry more about the people who are REALLY moving the dial - the corporate cheats who are stealing millions of dollars from you and me every day!

I apologize for quoting my own previous post, but something that just happened here in NC made me want to refer back to this.

Here's a nice, freshly-minted corporate welfare cheat for you: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article159156729.html

Carolinas Healthcare System has agreed to pay a $6.5 million False Claims Act settlement to settle charges over its billing practices brought by a whistleblower, U.S. Attorney Jill Rose said Friday. Prosecutors contended the Charlotte-based hospital system had been improperly “up-coding” claims for urine drug tests in order to receive much higher payments than CHS would have if billed properly. According to court documents, from 2011 to 2015, Carolinas HealthCare conducted urine drug tests, categorized as “moderate complexity” tests by the Food and Drug Administration, but submitted claims indicating the company had conducted “high complexity” tests. As a result, federal health care programs paid CHS and certain facilities under contract with the system about $80 more per test for the claims submitted with the higher-paying code.

What we have here is the largest hospital/medical group in the Carolinas and one of the largest in the country. It is "nonprofit," so it enjoys favorable tax treatment. Its 25 or so top executives each make more than $1 million; its outgoing CEO made $6.6 million in 2015. In other words, it is swimming in money even as taxpayers like us help pay for its operations.

And yet its executives allowed a system to flourish in which major fraud was perpetrated against us taxpayers. It was only caught thanks to a whistleblower, and the fine it paid was dwarfed by the amount of fraud committed. This is not the first time this medical group has been caught cheating the government (meaning all of us).

So sure, any fraud is bad. I wish welfare mothers and other poor people didn't cheat to get an extra $50 for food here or $100 for shelter there (although I understand why they do) - or even money for "air jordans."

But here is just ONE CASE of major corporate fraud that is probably equal to tens of thousands of cases of the kind of individual fraud that rocketman and others love to scream about.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jay Bee on July 02, 2017, 10:07:54 AM
But here is just ONE CASE of major corporate fraud that is probably equal to tens of thousands of cases of the kind of individual fraud that rocketman and others love to scream about.

"Major corporate fraud"? c'mon dude.

"In 2010, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rejected the long standard American Medical Association’s CPT billing codes for drug screens in favor of its own coding system. In 2013 and 2014, CHS asked two separate outside consultants toreview our coding process. Both confirmed our coding selection. Carolinas HealthCare System takes compliance with Medicare and Medicaid regulations very seriously and our Corporate Compliance Department is dedicated to facility and physician compliance.

CHS takes the concerns of our employees very seriously. In fact, our anonymous HelpLine, which was implemented in 1999, was set up for the exact purpose of encouraging teammates to voice concerns should they arise.

CHS has fully cooperated in the Government’s review of this matter, but after almost two years we determined it was in our best interest to move forward and resolve this issue. The $6.5 million amount that CHS is paying to resolve this matter accounts,in part, for the difference between what CHS was reimbursed for the drug screens, and what Medicare and Medicaid alleges that CHS should have been reimbursed had it used a different code. We are pleased to put this matter behind us so that we can continue focusing on providing the expert level of care that our patients and community demand and deserve."
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jficke13 on July 02, 2017, 11:01:11 AM
Nope. Speaking of "baiting," not gonna let you do it. You can talk to yourself on this one, chicos.

Do we honestly think this is Chicos? Or has his screen name become the handy "this dude is bloviating in a manner reminiscent of Chicos, so I'm going to address him as Chicos" shorthand?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 02, 2017, 03:11:47 PM
"Major corporate fraud"? c'mon dude.

Yes, major fraud. Just because the PR department has an excuse handy, defrauding taxpayers out of millions and millions of dollars is major fraud.

If a "welfare queen" did something 1/10,000th as bad, it would be Major, Major, Major Fraud to many, and they'd want to lock her up.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 02, 2017, 03:56:32 PM
  "But here is just ONE CASE of major corporate fraud that is probably equal to tens of thousands of cases of the kind of individual fraud that rocketman and others love to scream about."

   what? huh? what the...how did i become a strawman just sitting here minding my own business?  if it's not chicos, it's me, or heisy, or doc warrior, or others?   hmmmm....notice a pattern here?  seems like that girls basketball job is getting to ya ein'er?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on July 02, 2017, 04:04:54 PM
Rocket - I implore you to listen to this.

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/04-carlos-doesnt-remember
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on July 02, 2017, 05:33:37 PM
  "But here is just ONE CASE of major corporate fraud that is probably equal to tens of thousands of cases of the kind of individual fraud that rocketman and others love to scream about."

   what? huh? what the...how did i become a strawman just sitting here minding my own business? 


Are you sh*tting me?  Because you said this:

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=54395.msg935126#msg935126

And then followed it up with a bunch of typical talking points.  As I said back on the first page of this thread, you are completely lacking in self-awareness.  And now you want to play the victim?  Hilarious. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 02, 2017, 06:00:37 PM

Are you sh*tting me?  Because you said this:

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=54395.msg935126#msg935126

And then followed it up with a bunch of typical talking points.  As I said back on the first page of this thread, you are completely lacking in self-awareness.  And now you want to play the victim?  Hilarious.

i am referring to the "major corporate fraud" part that i supposedly ignore over welfare people cheating on their food stamps.  now, in reference to comment #52 that you highlight;  i stand by it.  there is nothing wrong there except when viewed thru the lens of you libbys.  nice cherry pick though.  and if you continued to read my comments and my conversation with tamu, a reasonable person would see that i am not the cold-hearted, un-feeling cro-magnon you try to make us out to be. i know-victim me ::)  as a matter of fact, there was much about tamu's conversation that i agreed with along with hilltopper's excellently put "coup de gras" #196 at the end
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 02, 2017, 06:48:31 PM
i am referring to the "major corporate fraud" part that i supposedly ignore over welfare people cheating on their food stamps.  now, in reference to comment #52 that you highlight;  i stand by it.  there is nothing wrong there except when viewed thru the lens of you libbys.  nice cherry pick though.  and if you continued to read my comments and my conversation with tamu, a reasonable person would see that i am not the cold-hearted, un-feeling cro-magnon you try to make us out to be. i know-victim me ::)  as a matter of fact, there was much about tamu's conversation that i agreed with along with hilltopper's excellently put "coup de gras" #196 at the end

rocket, you have such stream-of-consciousness silliness that you don't even remember what you say. x

I don't think you're a caveman. You just judge poor people more harshly than rich people for the same behavior, and you favor Reverse Robin Hood behavior as most on your side of the aisle do. I mean, just look at those two healthcare bills! Even the Orange Menace called the House version "mean" (after holding a party to celebrate it, of course), and the Senate one was so draconian that unicorns moderate Republicans were running from it.

And of course, when in doubt, bring out "liberal," "libs," "libbys," etc. Labeling and name-calling are always the easy, fall-back put-down.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: PBRme on July 03, 2017, 08:57:37 AM
rocket, you have such stream-of-consciousness silliness that you don't even remember what you say. x

I don't think you're a caveman. You just judge poor people more harshly than rich people for the same behavior, and you favor Reverse Robin Hood behavior as most on your side of the aisle do. I mean, just look at those two healthcare bills! Even the Orange Menace called the House version "mean" (after holding a party to celebrate it, of course), and the Senate one was so draconian that unicorns moderate Republicans were running from it.

And of course, when in doubt, bring out "liberal," "libs," "libbys," etc. Labeling and name-calling are always the easy, fall-back put-down.

Are you referring to name calling like "orange menace" or your own outright hypocrisy is oblivious to you
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on July 03, 2017, 09:02:42 AM
Are you referring to name calling like "orange menace" or your own outright hypocrisy is oblivious to you

Orange Menace is actually a pretty tame nickname.  He deserves worse.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 03, 2017, 09:17:28 AM
Are you referring to name calling like "orange menace" or your own outright hypocrisy is oblivious to you

I was talking about calling our fellow Scoopers names. I think I have done a pretty good job of avoiding that unseemly practice over the years. (Although I do confess to having nicknamed chicos and rocket "Yogi and Boo-Boo." For shame!)

President P-Grabber, our Liar in Chief, is a very public figure. He is fair game, and I'm sure he'd agree to that, given that he practices name-calling multiple times daily. One would think the leader of the free world would be above that, but he wasn't above bragging about getting to spy on naked teenagers, so apparently anything goes with him and his sheeple.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on July 03, 2017, 10:06:29 AM
Orange Menace is actually a pretty tame nickname.  He deserves worse.

Vander Orange Menace?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jay Bee on July 03, 2017, 12:40:25 PM
I was talking about calling our fellow Scoopers names. I think I have done a pretty good job of avoiding that unseemly practice over the years. (Although I do confess to having nicknamed chicos and rocket "Yogi and Boo-Boo." For shame!)

President P-Grabber, our Liar in Chief, is a very public figure. He is fair game, and I'm sure he'd agree to that, given that he practices name-calling multiple times daily. One would think the leader of the free world would be above that, but he wasn't above bragging about getting to spy on naked teenagers, so apparently anything goes with him and his sheeple.

^^^^ Begging for a break
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on July 03, 2017, 12:51:04 PM
^^^^ Begging for a break

Don't become like Bobby.

(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-07/21/15/enhanced/webdr07/anigif_enhanced-2963-1437506456-2.gif)

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu_hilltopper on July 03, 2017, 03:55:01 PM
For the record .. please just call POTUS Trump.   

I always hated when people posted "Obambi" and whatnot .. it's just a cheap and unnecessary shot to use that kind of slang.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Mutaman on July 03, 2017, 07:25:39 PM
I heard if you say his name into a mirror three times he'll show up in your bathroom with vintage 80s porn on betamax

Here's an authentic picture of Keefe. That affair in Scottsdale was just a ruse.(http://i0.wp.com/radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/bob-crane-murder-son-robert-crane-investigates-killer-john-carpenter-pp.jpg?resize=540%2C400)
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on July 03, 2017, 07:30:29 PM
I encourage all to listen to season 1 - episodes 4-6 - of Malcolm Gladwell's Revisionist History. It gets right at some of the topics covered in this thread. Namely, why it's so difficult for poor people to get to even middle class level. And, especially, how misguided we are in the capitalization of talent/skill in the US. It's pretty incredible.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on July 03, 2017, 08:16:16 PM
For the record .. please just call POTUS Trump.   

I always hated when people posted "Obambi" and whatnot .. it's just a cheap and unnecessary shot to use that kind of slang.

+1000.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: WellsstreetWanderer on July 03, 2017, 08:22:02 PM
rocket, you have such stream-of-consciousness silliness that you don't even remember what you say. x

I don't think you're a caveman. You just judge poor people more harshly than rich people for the same behavior, and you favor Reverse Robin Hood behavior as most on your side of the aisle do. I mean, just look at those two healthcare bills! Even the Orange Menace called the House version "mean" (after holding a party to celebrate it, of course), and the Senate one was so draconian that unicorns moderate Republicans were running from it.

And of course, when in doubt, bring out "liberal," "libs," "libbys," etc. Labeling and name-calling are always the easy, fall-back put-down.
The Congress is trying to fix the healthcare mess. It is not a pretty process but responsible people are trying and nothing is perfect but something must be done. 14 counties here in Nevada are losing ALL insurance come January.
Surgeon and  i disagree with you how to help the poor and underprivaleged.  I think a hand up is more effective way rather than the mantra of how bad the country is.POTUs is committed to help in a positive wzy with jobs,etc. The previous occupant of th WH gave out phones and little else.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Mutaman on July 03, 2017, 08:50:32 PM
The Congress is trying to fix the healthcare mess. It is not a pretty process but responsible people are trying and nothing is perfect but something must be done.

No question about it. And that's why an overwhelming 17% of Americans approve of their efforts. maybe they should throw in a free phone.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/senate-gop-health-care-bill-has-dismal-approval-rating-poll.html
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jockey on July 03, 2017, 09:30:03 PM
For the record .. please just call POTUS Trump.   

I always hated when people posted "Obambi" and whatnot .. it's just a cheap and unnecessary shot to use that kind of slang.

I vowed when the creep was elected that it was only fair to show him the same respect that he showed to Mr. Obama. Hence, I usually just call him the "orange pig".

However, out of respect for you, I will do my best to keep it under control.

No promises, though ;)
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 03, 2017, 10:05:18 PM
^^^^ Pleading for a ban

Luv ya, too, JB!
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Mutaman on July 03, 2017, 10:15:32 PM
It is not a pretty process but responsible people are trying and nothing is perfect but something must be done.

Also have to agree that I've been pretty impressed with the way these responsible people have been opening this process up for a public debate. The hearings on the proposed new law have been both educational
and stimulating. i really have enjoyed watching these responsible men consider the implications of various health care policy proposals in the bipartisan committee sessions that have been  carried live on C-SPAN. Watching votes on all the amendments has been also very interesting.
Thank goodness for responsible Republicans.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: B. McBannerson on July 03, 2017, 10:16:33 PM
I encourage all to listen to season 1 - episodes 4-6 - of Malcolm Gladwell's Revisionist History. It gets right at some of the topics covered in this thread. Namely, why it's so difficult for poor people to get to even middle class level. And, especially, how misguided we are in the capitalization of talent/skill in the US. It's pretty incredible.

I listened. Some really good things in there. Do not agree with all.  This is why I linked to the University of Washington study on the Seattle minimum wage.  For some reason you thought I was triggered. 

Here is the Washington Post article on that study, and it feeds right into what you are saying in that it is difficult for poor people to get to the middle class. The study suggests Seattle's minimum wage hike is making it even harder for the poor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/?utm_term=.5c57be313af4
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: B. McBannerson on July 03, 2017, 10:20:36 PM
rocket, you have such stream-of-consciousness silliness that you don't even remember what you say. x

I don't think you're a caveman. You just judge poor people more harshly than rich people for the same behavior, and you favor Reverse Robin Hood behavior as most on your side of the aisle do. I mean, just look at those two healthcare bills! Even the Orange Menace called the House version "mean" (after holding a party to celebrate it, of course), and the Senate one was so draconian that unicorns moderate Republicans were running from it.


What do you suggest they do?  Obamacare is failing as additional insurance companies pull out. This has been going on since 2014 when the Dems had the Senate and Presidency.  Should Congress continue to let it go in that direction?  There is no real fix, any fix is more bad policy.  A bad law from the start, doomed to fail.  Any approach to fix it, people whine about it.

What is your solution, kindly asking.  I don't know, it is a complex issue for sure.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Mutaman on July 03, 2017, 10:24:30 PM
What do you suggest they do? 

See my post of 10:15:32 PM for starters.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: B. McBannerson on July 03, 2017, 10:26:53 PM
Yes, major fraud. Just because the PR department has an excuse handy, defrauding taxpayers out of millions and millions of dollars is major fraud.

If a "welfare queen" did something 1/10,000th as bad, it would be Major, Major, Major Fraud to many, and they'd want to lock her up.

Wouldn't the right answer be to deal with corporate fraud and individual fraud?  Including gov't fraud?  That case in New Jersey the last few weeks, that fraud means poor people are not receiving what was meant for them.  http://www.nj.com/ocean/index.ssf/2017/07/the_14_people_charged_with_benefits_fraud_in_lakewood.html
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: B. McBannerson on July 03, 2017, 10:37:00 PM

(Once semis go fully driverless, some talk that they can only operate on the interstate overnight.  That gets them off the roads during business hours reducing traffic and accidents.  To incentive this, they will allow them to drive at 100mph or more.  That way they can cover almost 1000 miles when everyone is sleeping and traffic is sparse.)

This is great.  I travel to Illinois, California, NM, Ark, MO and AZ quite a bit.  Driving is an enjoyment, but in some of those locations it isn't.  With trucks off the road, I'm more inclined to want to drive than ever before.  The notion of not wanting to own a car and to share it, some will get on board with.  My kids say no way. They brought up a great point.  When you rent a car, it feels like 500 people drove it.  That is what will happen with this share a ride.  People will not take care of them because they do not own them.

No pride of ownership.  Spill a drink in it, no big deal. Vomit. Eh.  Kids rip the seat, not my problem.  These things are going to get torn to hell and the cost of cleaning and maintaining will be high. This doesn't even begin to get into spreading of some interesting fluids and other wonderful things we all get to now sit in for these mobile petri dishes.  Get those trucks off the road, let me drive.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 04, 2017, 05:23:02 AM
  " Spill a drink in it, no big deal. Vomit. Eh.  Kids rip the seat, not my problem.  These things are going to get torn to hell and the cost of cleaning and maintaining will be high. This doesn't even begin to get into spreading of some interesting fluids and other wonderful things we all get to now sit in for these mobile petri dishes. "

  bad bad visual-got me to thinking-checked in to this nice suite at new york new york in vegas a couple weeks ago.  i like 'em cuz the wife and i each have our own w.c.'s for you know, when that moment arrives(not that moment)  anyway, instead of 2 w.c.'s they have this big f'ing jacuzzi tub right there in the middle...wtf?? didn't tell me one the toilets was one made for 2 or...?  not all the clorox, viagra, booze and baywatch babes would get me near that...hang on a second, my wife is looking at my kinda funny.  well, throw in char mckinney and some antibiotics and we'll give it a thought though...wait, now my wife's carrying armloads of my stuff outside-gotta go ;D
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on July 04, 2017, 08:16:35 AM
I listened. Some really good things in there. Do not agree with all.  This is why I linked to the University of Washington study on the Seattle minimum wage.  For some reason you thought I was triggered. 

Here is the Washington Post article on that study, and it feeds right into what you are saying in that it is difficult for poor people to get to the middle class. The study suggests Seattle's minimum wage hike is making it even harder for the poor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/?utm_term=.5c57be313af4

Yup. Seems to be, at least in this case - similar to Kansas - a failed experiment by one of the political sides.

My point in asking others to listen to the podcast was to possibly have them understand/realize what situations are out there for others. Had nothing to do with minimum wage, per se
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 04, 2017, 02:15:25 PM
I listened. Some really good things in there. Do not agree with all.  This is why I linked to the University of Washington study on the Seattle minimum wage.  For some reason you thought I was triggered. 

Here is the Washington Post article on that study, and it feeds right into what you are saying in that it is difficult for poor people to get to the middle class. The study suggests Seattle's minimum wage hike is making it even harder for the poor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/?utm_term=.5c57be313af4

The problem with that study is you can find other reputable studies that show something different. You also cannot take anything away from their conclusions is they do not know the source of the actual problems they define, and if it is even the minimum wage increase.


There are other exacerbating circumstances also.  You and others like to point to this saying it shows raising the minimum wage doesn't help, it hurts.  That is a false conclusion from even the data presented.  What could possibly be concluded is that raising the minimum wage too quickly in that particular market had unintended consequences according to this particular methodology. 


Most research indicates that minimum wage hikes have a profound impact on mitigating the growing wealth gap and improving the quality of life for the lowest wage earners.  The key is how to implement the wage hike slowly and more universally, Seattle did it fairly rapidly, others have gradually increased it with better effects.  We have neglected the minimum wage for a long time, leaving it at historical lows. 


There is always going to be a period of adaptation.  Some restaurants/markets will adapt quickly and intelligently.  They thrive, their employees thrive.  Others make poor choices or fail to adapt, they fail.  That leads to an initial period of heightened turnover that can last for 5-years or more.  You should wait 5 years to judge the results. 


On top of these expected aspects, additional market pressures exist, such as new rules regarding health care, that particularly hit the industries discussed here.  One cannot easily separate these variables with documented precision right now.  Again, that can lead to false conclusions.  I would contend that the methodology employed by these individuals cannot decouple these additional variables accurately.


The authors of the paper actually note that there are limitations to their method, particularly the lack of an extended and lengthy time series to estimate effects.  They also say it cannot be used to estimate effects of laws on a statewide or national level. 


There are numerous other potential flaws in their methodology that would bias the result to a near 0 or slightly negative effect on employment/wages.  Most of these flaws have not been remotely examined. 


My point is that this study is just another study.  It should not be relied upon to make broad sweeping claims as we do not even know that their methodology can accurately capture the effects of the minimum wage increase, nor do we know if the market has actually adapted to the changes and that conditions reflect the long term impact of the minimum wage increase. 


Time will tell...we are not there yet.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Plaque Lives Matter! on July 04, 2017, 11:43:15 PM
Vander Orange Menace?

This post did not get enough appreciation
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 05, 2017, 04:52:20 AM
The problem with that study is you can find other reputable studies that show something different. You also cannot take anything away from their conclusions is they do not know the source of the actual problems they define, and if it is even the minimum wage increase.


There are other exacerbating circumstances also.  You and others like to point to this saying it shows raising the minimum wage doesn't help, it hurts.  That is a false conclusion from even the data presented.  What could possibly be concluded is that raising the minimum wage too quickly in that particular market had unintended consequences according to this particular methodology. 


Most research indicates that minimum wage hikes have a profound impact on mitigating the growing wealth gap and improving the quality of life for the lowest wage earners.  The key is how to implement the wage hike slowly and more universally, Seattle did it fairly rapidly, others have gradually increased it with better effects.  We have neglected the minimum wage for a long time, leaving it at historical lows. 


There is always going to be a period of adaptation.  Some restaurants/markets will adapt quickly and intelligently.  They thrive, their employees thrive.  Others make poor choices or fail to adapt, they fail.  That leads to an initial period of heightened turnover that can last for 5-years or more.  You should wait 5 years to judge the results. 


On top of these expected aspects, additional market pressures exist, such as new rules regarding health care, that particularly hit the industries discussed here.  One cannot easily separate these variables with documented precision right now.  Again, that can lead to false conclusions.  I would contend that the methodology employed by these individuals cannot decouple these additional variables accurately.


The authors of the paper actually note that there are limitations to their method, particularly the lack of an extended and lengthy time series to estimate effects.  They also say it cannot be used to estimate effects of laws on a statewide or national level. 


There are numerous other potential flaws in their methodology that would bias the result to a near 0 or slightly negative effect on employment/wages.  Most of these flaws have not been remotely examined. 


My point is that this study is just another study.  It should not be relied upon to make broad sweeping claims as we do not even know that their methodology can accurately capture the effects of the minimum wage increase, nor do we know if the market has actually adapted to the changes and that conditions reflect the long term impact of the minimum wage increase. 


Time will tell...we are not there yet.

workers are making less overall, hours are being cut and businesses are closing.  now, let's just say you are a business man and you want to open something in say, seattle or someplace where they haven't instituted a minimum wage policy to kick in and ramp up.  where will you put your business?

  ya see, it's easy to watch from afar, but when it's your money or mine for that matter, i don't need a study
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on July 05, 2017, 07:05:22 AM
Back to the Minimum Wage ...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/30/news/minimum-wage-hikes-july-1/index.html
Here's where workers will get a boost on July 1, and how much they'll start making.

* Chicago: $11 an hour.
* Cook County, Illinois: $10 an hour.
* Emeryville, California: $15.20 an hour for businesses with more than 56 employees, and $14 an hour for businesses with 55 or fewer employees.
* Flagstaff, Arizona: $10.50 an hour.
* Los Angeles: $12 an hour for businesses with more than 26 employees, and $10.50 an hour for businesses with 25 or fewer employees.
* Maryland: $9.25 an hour.
* Milpitas, California: $11 an hour.
* Montgomery County, Maryland: $11.50 an hour.
* Oregon: $10.25 an hour. (Exception: $11.25 an hour in the Portland metro area, and $10 an hour in some counties designated as "non-urban.")
* Pasadena, California: $12 an hour for businesses with 26 or more employees, and $10.50 an hour or businesses with 25 or fewer employees.
* San Francisco: $14 an hour.
* San Jose, California: $12 an hour.
* San Leandro, California: $12 an hour.
* Santa Monica, California: $12 an hour for businesses with 26 or more employees, and $10.50 an hour or businesses with 25 or fewer employees.
* Washington, D.C.: $12.50 an hour.

Who are the minimum wage workers?The Bureau of Labor Statistics released a yearly report on this subject.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2016/home.htm

In 2016, 79.9 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.7 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 701,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.5 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 2.2 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 2.7 percent of all hourly paid workers.


52% of all minimum wage workers are in the fast food industry.  Can they afford it? 

From page three of this thread ... the price of a burger does matter

The Wall Street Journal
May 31, 2017
Diners Are Finding $13 Burgers Hard to Swallow
Number of outlets peddling gourmet toppings has nearly quadrupled since 2005, but sticker-shocked consumers opt for home grilling instead

https://www.wsj.com/articles/diners-are-finding-13-burgers-hard-to-swallow-1496241667

As the number of outlets serving “better” burgers—featuring nontraditional toppings and artisan buns—has skyrocketed over the past decade, so has the average burger tab, turning some customers off.

Brian Cockerline, a 20-year-old Rutgers University student, used to go to Five Guys for a burger once a week in South Plainfield, N.J. With fries and a drink, his tab was about $13.

Now, he is cooking burgers at home instead.


So what is the fast food industry doing about it?  Getting rid of workers as fast as possible(while many here want to feel better by citing discredited studies about the minimum wage.)

From page 2 of this thread:

McDonalds Is Replacing 2,500 Human Cashiers With Digital Kiosks: Here Is Its Math
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-23/mcdonalds-replacing-2500-human-cashiers-digital-kiosks-here-its-math

And now this ...

http://www.youtube.com/v/smmLfwU5W-4&

Robots are coming to a burger joint near you
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/04/miso-robotics-is-bringing-artificial-intelligence-to-restaurants.html

And this guy that might know a thing or two about the minimum wage ...

In a decade, many fast-food restaurants will be automated, says Yum Brands CEO
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/28/in-a-decade-many-fast-food-restaurants-will-be-automated-says-yum-brands-ceo.html
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on July 05, 2017, 07:26:11 AM
Sure. But what do you do for those that are 40, 50, 60 that are not a part of the "future" workforce? Those people are still going to be employed for the next couple decades. Minimum wage jobs are not going to be enough to sustain.

More from the BLS study on the minimum wage:

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2016/home.htm

45% of minimum wage workers are 16 to 24
21% are age 40 to 65
3% are 65+

21% are married
13% are divorced
65% never married

Can we finally put to rest this canard that minimum wage workers are trying to raise a family?  That demographic exists but it is very small.  And those that are only capable of a minimum wage job and have a family have plenty of other government assistance programs besides the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is an entry level job and when you raise the price of something, you get less of it (and more robots and kiosks, see above)

As Chili correctly noted, the minimum wage is a political issue as unions use it as a benchmark (i.e., a job gets 200% of the minimum wage) so the unions are leading the charge to raise it for their workers, they don't care what it does to teenagers trying to get a job.

Oh, and according to this table, 5% of union workers are 16 to 24 versus 45% of 16 to 24 are minimum wage earners.  Unions don't care what havoc the cause to the 16 to 24-year-old job market because so few of them are their members.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t01.htm
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on July 05, 2017, 07:58:40 AM
More from the BLS study on the minimum wage:

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2016/home.htm

45% of minimum wage workers are 16 to 24
21% are age 40 to 65
3% are 65+

21% are married
13% are divorced
65% never married

Can we finally put to rest this canard that minimum wage workers are trying to raise a family?  That demographic exists but it is very small.  And those that are only capable of a minimum wage job and have a family have plenty of other government assistance programs besides the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is an entry level job and when you raise the price of something, you get less of it (and more robots and kiosks, see above)

As Chili correctly noted, the minimum wage is a political issue as unions use it as a benchmark (i.e., a job gets 200% of the minimum wage) so the unions are leading the charge to raise it for their workers, they don't care what it does to teenagers trying to get a job.

Oh, and according to this table, 5% of union workers are 16 to 24 versus 45% of 16 to 24 are minimum wage earners.  Unions don't care what havoc the cause to the 16 to 24-year-old job market because so few of them are their members.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t01.htm

Point is, we do a poor job in the us of placing decent value on low-level employees. Including those that are just above the minimum wage standard

Raise minimum wage then raise other lower levels, bring down upper levels and everyone wins.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on July 05, 2017, 08:08:02 AM
Point is, we do a poor job in the us of placing decent value on low-level employees. Including those that are just above the minimum wage standard

Raise minimum wage then raise other lower levels, bring down upper levels and everyone wins.

Huh?  How many more millions have to suffer under socialist ideals for you to understand this has never worked?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 05, 2017, 08:25:36 AM
Point is, we do a poor job in the us of placing decent value on low-level employees. Including those that are just above the minimum wage standard

Raise minimum wage then raise other lower levels, bring down upper levels and everyone wins.

This seems to be vaguely evocative of "From each according to their ability and to each according to their need"

Really not on-board with you there.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU Fan in Connecticut on July 05, 2017, 08:58:09 AM
No question about it. And that's why an overwhelming 17% of Americans approve of their efforts. maybe they should throw in a free phone.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/senate-gop-health-care-bill-has-dismal-approval-rating-poll.html

Further on the subject.  Some real actual fix suggestions not being discussed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/nine-ways-to-really-fix-obamacare/2017/06/30/dc5a8fc4-5cfc-11e7-a9f6-7c3296387341_story.html?utm_term=.d021d87ea300
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: B. McBannerson on July 05, 2017, 09:02:38 AM
Are you referring to name calling like "orange menace" or your own outright hypocrisy is oblivious to you

"When they go low, we go high."   Shortest lived ethos in history



Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on July 05, 2017, 09:15:37 AM
"When they go low, we go high."   Shortest lived ethos in history




Not really.  It's all relative.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 05, 2017, 09:36:52 AM
Further on the subject.  Some real actual fix suggestions not being discussed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/nine-ways-to-really-fix-obamacare/2017/06/30/dc5a8fc4-5cfc-11e7-a9f6-7c3296387341_story.html?utm_term=.d021d87ea300

eh, not sure how much they are fixes as opposed to just fingers to be stuck in the dike to keep an already poorly constructed system.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MUBurrow on July 05, 2017, 11:02:25 AM
Per my comments earlier in this thread, I'm sympathetic to the cause of narrowing the gap between the minimum wage and the actual cost of living, given the disjointed, line item approach to the social safety net. But for me, arguing about the minimum wage as a lens for either the status of the middle class over the past 30 years or the current standard of living for low-earners is bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 05, 2017, 12:11:28 PM
eh, not sure how much they are fixes as opposed to just fingers to be stuck in the dike to keep an already poorly constructed system.

I think there are some excellent ideas there and some less so. It's at least a place to begin a conversation.

But wow ... there are many special interest groups who would not like many of these proposals. Which is always the biggest impediment on getting real things accomplished in politics (even at the city level).

I confess that I did like this from the article:

Obamacare was, in fact, the long-standing Republican alternative to the more radical health-care reforms, such as a single-payer system, that Democrats have proposed since the Truman era. What President Barack Obama and his party pushed through Congress in 2010 was more conservative — and more pro-private sector — than what Richard M. Nixon proposed in the 1970s, or what Republican Gov. Mitt Romney implemented in Massachusetts in 2006. Put simply, Obama dared Republicans to take yes for an answer. In a polarized America, they still said no.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 05, 2017, 12:34:45 PM
I think there are some excellent ideas there and some less so. It's at least a place to begin a conversation.

But wow ... there are many special interest groups who would not like many of these proposals. Which is always the biggest impediment on getting real things accomplished in politics (even at the city level).

I confess that I did like this from the article:

Obamacare was, in fact, the long-standing Republican alternative to the more radical health-care reforms, such as a single-payer system, that Democrats have proposed since the Truman era. What President Barack Obama and his party pushed through Congress in 2010 was more conservative — and more pro-private sector — than what Richard M. Nixon proposed in the 1970s, or what Republican Gov. Mitt Romney implemented in Massachusetts in 2006. Put simply, Obama dared Republicans to take yes for an answer. In a polarized America, they still said no.

Like most things in politics, special interest groups are why we get the bastardized version of healthcare (both in the past and the present). You know what the difference is between a horse and a camel? The camel is a horse designed by committee. Healthcare is some sort of really poorly designed camel.

One thing to keep in mind is that this all basically comes down to a fight between state's rights and federalism. That fight makes healthcare nearly impossible to resolve because it is felt at the individual and local level, not at the federal level. IMO one of the most overlooked stories of the current technology age is how it has allowed the "nationalization" of issues away from the local levels. People in California can now comment and influence decisions in Pennsylvania and vice versa. A federal bill that applies to all is now understood at the local level and then reflected back to the national level (it's bad for this region so it must be bad for all, etc).

I do wonder if the entitlement fight at the national level might eventually break the current government model of the US, either with a move to full federalism, or with a return to distributed governance and a weaker central government.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 05, 2017, 03:38:52 PM
Like most things in politics, special interest groups are why we get the bastardized version of healthcare (both in the past and the present). You know what the difference is between a horse and a camel? The camel is a horse designed by committee. Healthcare is some sort of really poorly designed camel.

One thing to keep in mind is that this all basically comes down to a fight between state's rights and federalism. That fight makes healthcare nearly impossible to resolve because it is felt at the individual and local level, not at the federal level. IMO one of the most overlooked stories of the current technology age is how it has allowed the "nationalization" of issues away from the local levels. People in California can now comment and influence decisions in Pennsylvania and vice versa. A federal bill that applies to all is now understood at the local level and then reflected back to the national level (it's bad for this region so it must be bad for all, etc).

I do wonder if the entitlement fight at the national level might eventually break the current government model of the US, either with a move to full federalism, or with a return to distributed governance and a weaker central government.

I hadn't thought about all that, mu03. Very deep stuff. Some of it is troubling, but I'm not as high on states' rights as some are. The states have gotten an awful lot wrong! (But of course, so have the feds. It's a debate that will never end.)

But yeah, look at the out-of-state money that comes into so many state elections now. We had local judge elections getting campaign money from thousands of miles away in 2016!

I don't see how one turns the clock back on this, um, "progress," for better or worse. Almost surely worse.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jay Bee on July 05, 2017, 06:43:52 PM
Point is, we do a poor job in the us of placing decent value on low-level employees. Including those that are just above the minimum wage standard

Raise minimum wage then raise other lower levels, bring down upper levels and everyone wins.

False. Companies do a great job of placing decent value on low-level employees, but have to deal with the gov't as well, unfortunately.

Do well, be rewarded. Simple.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 05, 2017, 07:14:39 PM
False. Companies do a great job of placing decent value on low-level employees, but have to deal with the gov't as well, unfortunately.

Do well, be rewarded. Simple.

This is BS.  Doing well and being rewarded are poorly related these days.

It's like saying that slavery was good, because the plantations did a great job of placing decent value on low-level employees and were just disrupted by gov't.  I mean, why would anyone open a plantation in a state that didn't have slavery...it is not economical, clearly slavery is a good thing.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jay Bee on July 05, 2017, 07:16:08 PM
This is BS.  Doing well and being rewarded are poorly related these days.

It's like saying that slavery was good, because the plantations did a great job of placing decent value on low-level employees and were just disrupted by gov't.  I mean, why would anyone open a plantation in a state that didn't have slavery...it is not economical, clearly slavery is a good thing.

Slavery was awful and those people didn't have a choice. Comparing illegal and unthinkable activities such as slavery to a guy choosing to work a fast food job is sad, bub.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on July 05, 2017, 07:16:46 PM
If we had true capitalism in this country, I'd agree that we'd be fine. But we don't. So we have to have some societal and governmental regulation to even the playing field. Otherwise, the endgame will be royalty and peasants.

Again, compare the numbers. Minimum wage vs inflation. Executive pay vs low level employee pay. Where the money is concentrated. Etc. Huge changes in the last 30 years.

The lower classes have always gotten kinda screwed. The middle class has seen a significant change in the recent past. Want to make America great again? Make the middle class the focal point of policy.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 05, 2017, 07:19:52 PM
Point is, we do a poor job in the us of placing decent value on low-level employees. Including those that are just above the minimum wage standard

Raise minimum wage then raise other lower levels, bring down upper levels and everyone wins.

  wait a minute, everybody wins?  what is that?  sounds like everyone gets a trophy to me. 

  what do you propose we raise the minimum wage to?  and to what levels do you bring the "upper levels" to?  try this in your household and get back to me on how it works out
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on July 05, 2017, 07:26:37 PM
  wait a minute, everybody wins?  what is that?  sounds like everyone gets a trophy to me. 

  what do you propose we raise the minimum wage to?  and to what levels do you bring the "upper levels" to?  try this in your household and get back to me on how it works out

I live alone. Works out fine

Yes. Everyone wins. As in society. Our communities. The places we live. The populace, as a whole, succeeds. I'm not talking free hand-outs. I'd get rid of most of the social safety nets and raise wages for the bottom 90%. Of course, that's gotta come from somewhere - and those top 10%, the ones who run things - aren't going to do it themselves

I don't have the specific numbers on minimum wage, etc. That's for the expert economists, etc. to figure out. You hear a lot of the lower-middle and middle tier that get all up in arms about raising minimum wage because they feel then they're getting screwed. Well, they are, but not by the lower end. They should be going up too.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 05, 2017, 07:33:17 PM
False. Companies do a great job of placing decent value on low-level employees, but have to deal with the gov't as well, unfortunately.

Do well, be rewarded. Simple.

False.

You should have started your post with: "High-quality, moral, fair-minded companies ... "

Then I would have agreed with you. Unfortunately, many companies try to get away with whatever they can.

I won't say it's all or even the majority, just as you shouldn't have suggested that all companies do a "great job."

Here's an example from my not-too-distant past. When I moved to NC, I decided it would be fun to get a part-time job at a golf course. So I got a menial job cleaning carts, putting members' clubs on carts, etc. I was told I'd get $9/hour.

My first paycheck comes ... and they paid me $8/hour. I thought there was just an oversight, so I pointed it out to my boss.

"Well, I just decided to start you at $8/hour," he said, as matter-of-factly as he could.

I had about 5 seconds to decide if I wanted to press it. Given that it was basically a shyte job, I decided to.

"OK ... but you told me the day you hired me that you'd pay me $9/hour."

Silence for about 10 seconds. Then, after a sigh, "All right. I'll call our HR department and have it adjusted."

My next paycheck I got the $9, but they never went back and credited me the extra buck an hour for the time I had worked in my first pay period. Why? Because they didn't have to. They were "the man," I was the peon, and tough crap if I didn't like it - despite them promising me more.

Fact is, I took the job for the free golf I got to play when members weren't on the course, and the wage $8, $9, $10, whatever ... that didn't really matter for the 2-3 five-hour shifts I'd work.

It was just the principle of it. The boss told me he'd pay me something but tried to get away with paying me less ... just because. He didn't even try to weasel out of it by claiming it was an "accounting error." And then, when caught, he didn't even give me the $15-20 or whatever I was denied in the first paycheck.

Again, I won't say that all employers are like that, or even most, or even 50% or even 33%. But a shyteload are. Hell, that's not the only example I could give from me or my wife's employment history.

Many companies will get away with whatever they can. If you don't believe that, you're in fairytale land.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jay Bee on July 05, 2017, 08:08:39 PM
^^^ pathetic story about a thief. We're talking about a company having the right to offer whatever pay they like, and potential employees deciding if they are agreeable to it or not. The bizarro sob stories don't represent the topic
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on July 05, 2017, 08:20:02 PM
False. Companies do a great job of placing decent value on low-level employees, but have to deal with the gov't as well, unfortunately.

Do well, be rewarded. Simple.

Or, in the case of our top executives, do terrible, be rewarded.
See: Carly Fiorina
Leo Apotheker
Jeff Smisek
Richard Fuld
Eckhard Pfeiffer
Stephen Hilbert
Franklin Raines
Marissa Meyer
Michael Ovitz
Philippe Dauman
And so on and so forth

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on July 05, 2017, 08:38:33 PM
^^^ pathetic story about a thief. We're talking about a company having the right to offer whatever pay they like, and potential employees deciding if they are agreeable to it or not. The bizarro sob stories don't represent the topic

Exactly. The big, bad "company" didn't do anything wrong - some a-hole working for the company did. That there are people in the private or public sector who are a-holes is a given. A-holes are everywhere.

The question isn't about what to do with the a-holes. The question is to what degree do we want the public sector interfering and artificially altering markets. Going after criminals (fraud, etc.) is a legit governmental function. Telling private companies how much to pay their employees? More harm than help, IMHO.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MUBurrow on July 05, 2017, 08:57:10 PM
The question isn't about what to do with the a-holes. The question is to what degree do we want the public sector interfering and artificially altering markets. Going after criminals (fraud, etc.) is a legit governmental function. Telling private companies how much to pay their employees? More harm than help, IMHO.

This is where I agree to disagree - which, I think, is a good source of disagreement, and is supposed to be the key divide between the left-leaning and the right-leaning (honestly the political discourse has become so bastardized, its hard to tell anymore). And there are a lot of really good rich, mature conversations to happen around this topic that just aren't happening because everyone is busy calling each other names.

I'll be the first to admit that there are plenty of examples of government getting it wrong. But for me, I think we are far too defeatist about our ability to shape the world we want to live in, for fear of upsetting the invisible hand. At the risk of being labeled a commie, I think responsible approaches to the tax code, regulation of the financial industry, the health care insurance market, etc., can help us start to work our way back toward a wealth bell curve, and I don't think that stating from the outset that my goal would be approximating that bell curve  is unacceptably redistributionist.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 05, 2017, 09:21:51 PM
^^^ pathetic story about a thief. We're talking about a company having the right to offer whatever pay they like, and potential employees deciding if they are agreeable to it or not. The bizarro sob stories don't represent the topic

Perfect. You didn't like that it upset your narrative, so you dismissed it as bizarro ... even if it happens ALL THE TIME.

Shall I share an anecdote about a person (not me) who worked for a major international corporation, got nothing but great job reviews for two decades and then had the CEO lie to his face about compensation he was promised but now was not going to be paid?

What? That wasn't about the "company" but about a "pathetic CEO"?

Hell, how about our so-called president stiffing numerous contractors for work they performed, guys who couldn't afford the legal fees to take his orange arse to court?

The Orange Menace WAS the company. The CEO who dealt with my friend IS the company. And my boss at the golf course WAS the representative of that company. None of 'em went rogue, Sarah Palin; all were representing their company's interests, trying to save every last nickel on the backs of the peons.

I can't believe you honestly think that "companies" - or whomever you think represents them - always "do a great job of placing decent value on low-level employees."

It's never "the man" who's the bastard but the poor schlub who didn't work hard enough or who "tried to get away with stuff." How naive. It must be wonderful to always root for the overdog!

What next? "Reverse racism" is a worse problem than actual racism?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 05, 2017, 09:25:50 PM
Slavery was awful and those people didn't have a choice. Comparing illegal and unthinkable activities such as slavery to a guy choosing to work a fast food job is sad, bub.

So slavery is awful, but paying someone a wage that they cannot survive on is not?  But if you don't like that one, how about paying coal miners in money they can only use at company stores, where they will go into debt and be tied to the company for life?

You seem to want to say that the working poor taking minimum wage jobs have a choice.  What is their choice?  They are taking the only work available to them, where most often they are in this situation not because of anything of their own doing, but merely where they were born.

Slavery, company coin, non-living wage labor are all far more similar than they are different.  They are labor exploited in non-humane ways for the benefit of the wealthy.


Slavery was once legal and considered good for the slaves, it is now illegal and considered unthinkable.  Paying in company coin was once legal and considered good for the employees.  It is now considered unthinkable and is illegal.  The minimum wage was created, because people were exploiting workers with unlivable wages, which with the new law made it illegal and unthinkable to pay people sub-sustenance level wages.  Now, you and others here are saying we do not need the minimum wage, let business handle it.

If we did remove the minimum wage, we would quickly go back to the illegal and unthinkable conditions. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 05, 2017, 09:29:16 PM
^^^ pathetic story about a thief. We're talking about a company having the right to offer whatever pay they like, and potential employees deciding if they are agreeable to it or not. The bizarro sob stories don't represent the topic

How about the fact that our very own president repeatedly doesn't pay his contractors.  Saying if they don't like it take him to court, and when they do try to sue he buries them in legal work for years to the point that he bankrupted many of them?


Such scenarios are not uncommon and our president is well known for it. 

If you give companies the right to set the salary at what they want, why should they pay them anything at all?  Why not switch to the chinese model of just letting them live in dormatories and providing them food?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on July 05, 2017, 09:45:17 PM


If you give companies the right to set the salary at what they want, why should they pay them anything at all?  Why not switch to the chinese model of just letting them live in dormatories and providing them food?

Have you forgotten the supply side of the equation? Someone has to be willing to do the work for what you are willing to pay.  And isn't the reason we shouldn't enforce the current immigration law is that we have so many jobs that Americans refuse to do?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 05, 2017, 09:50:25 PM
Have you forgotten the supply side of the equation? Someone has to be willing to do the work for what you are willing to pay.  And isn't the reason we shouldn't enforce the current immigration law is that we have so many jobs that Americans refuse to do?

You are forgetting a lot of elements to the equation.  Much as FDR created a high-paying federal works program to force wages up, right now wages are kept somewhat reasonable (and minimum wages haven't been challenged), because of welfare.

The same people challenging minimum wages also challenge welfare completely are want a work requirement.  Right now it is wiser to be on welfare, then to work for minimum wage...keeping things ok.  If those challenging welfare/minimum wages get their way supply is not an issue. 

Immigration has nothing to do with jobs americans do not want to do; you are confusing immigration laws, with illegals.  Illegals work off the books, for sub-minimum wage, in jobs americans refuse to do, because welfare is economically more intelligent.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on July 05, 2017, 09:59:57 PM
Illegals work off the books, for sub-minimum wage, in jobs americans refuse to do, because welfare is economically more intelligent.

The majority of illegals in this country work legitimate jobs with fake work visas and are making better than the minimum wage. You would be surprised at the number of union members who are illegal, and the unions protect them.  At a company I worked for, we had several instances where we could prove that an employee had a fake I-9 and/or social security card, and the union filed a grievance when we fired them.  These were people making $15-$20 an hour plus full benefits.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on July 05, 2017, 10:17:51 PM
This is where I agree to disagree - which, I think, is a good source of disagreement, and is supposed to be the key divide between the left-leaning and the right-leaning (honestly the political discourse has become so bastardized, its hard to tell anymore). And there are a lot of really good rich, mature conversations to happen around this topic that just aren't happening because everyone is busy calling each other names.

I'll be the first to admit that there are plenty of examples of government getting it wrong. But for me, I think we are far too defeatist about our ability to shape the world we want to live in, for fear of upsetting the invisible hand. At the risk of being labeled a commie, I think responsible approaches to the tax code, regulation of the financial industry, the health care insurance market, etc., can help us start to work our way back toward a wealth bell curve, and I don't think that stating from the outset that my goal would be approximating that bell curve  is unacceptably redistributionist.

You're right. Rather than arguing anecdotal "my boss lied to me" silliness the subject should be the role of government - I'd argue that role doesn't include advocating for every disgruntled employee.

The first item that needs to be accepted in this sort of dialogue is that well meaning people on both sides of the argument want a fairer, stronger and more prosperous union for all citizens. That assumed...

I ascribe to Milton Friedman and his economic dictums because I believe history proves that free markets have done more to alleviate hunger and other forms of human suffering than all governments, religions, charities, etc., combined. The deeper the government goes to restrict or interfere with these forces the greater the misery for her citizens. Seems obvious (to me, anyway) looking at history

Now, can a country made great and wealthy on free market principles withstand some tinkering on the edges to insure a safety net for her least fortunate? As long as it doesn't abandon principles that made it wealthy, sure.

IMO, the evidence shows that socialism does no better for its poor than does capitalism - other than giving them more company. And just as in capitalism, the elites/rich do great - only there' fewer of them. The best thing about capitalism for its citizens? There's mobility for the lower and middle classes - one's economic status is not determined at birth.

Again it's my opinion, but I think there is a great deal of truth in Chuchill's contrast of capitalism/socialism: one is the system under which the fruits are divided unequally, the other is the system that divides the misery equally.

I'll take my chances on a government safety net and the charity of free men and women in an economy as vibrant and unfettered as is feasible over one directed from Washington. The former may contain some cruelty (man is imperfect, after all) but not near as much as the latter.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 05, 2017, 10:22:16 PM
You are forgetting a lot of elements to the equation.  Much as FDR created a high-paying federal works program to force wages up, right now wages are kept somewhat reasonable (and minimum wages haven't been challenged), because of welfare.

The same people challenging minimum wages also challenge welfare completely are want a work requirement.  Right now it is wiser to be on welfare, then to work for minimum wage...keeping things ok.  If those challenging welfare/minimum wages get their way supply is not an issue. 

Immigration has nothing to do with jobs americans do not want to do; you are confusing immigration laws, with illegals.  Illegals work off the books, for sub-minimum wage, in jobs americans refuse to do, because welfare is economically more intelligent.

Article in the Charlotte paper just this week about a farm in danger of going under because the H2B visa program is not letting LEGAL immigrants into the country to work as had been the case just last year and the year before. The owner kept increasing the wage he was willing to pay, reaching $15/hour, and the owner was quoted as saying NOT A SINGLE AMERICAN applied for any of the jobs. Not one! Right about now, the owner is thinking that America is not being made great again.

Editing to add link: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article159412859.html
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 05, 2017, 10:29:39 PM
The majority of illegals in this country work legitimate jobs with fake work visas and are making better than the minimum wage. You would be surprised at the number of union members who are illegal, and the unions protect them.  At a company I worked for, we had several instances where we could prove that an employee had a fake I-9 and/or social security card, and the union filed a grievance when we fired them.  These were people making $15-$20 an hour plus full benefits.

I'm aware that this exists, but I don't believe your statement of "the majority" is correct.

And I'm not sure what industry this is, but if it is factory work, it is shameful to be paying $15 an hour for a union job.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 05, 2017, 10:40:43 PM
You're right. Rather than arguing anecdotal "my boss lied to me" silliness the subject should be the role of government - I'd argue that role doesn't include advocating for every disgruntled employee.

Anecdotes always seem silly because they don't "prove" anything. I knew that when I was writing it.

I wrote it in response to JB saying that all companies take care of their lower-level employees wonderfully. He KNOWS that isn't true, and I used an anecdote to show it.

It's like saying that we don't need environmental regulation because all companies would be good stewards to the environment. It sounds lovely but we know for a fact it isn't true. Even with the laws we have, companies look for ways to pollute anyway. Without 'em, we're Beijing.

Otherwise, Lenny, I agree with most of what you say. I am a capitalist myself, and I know of no better system. I root for more side dishes of compassion to go with my main course of capitalism, and I'm willing to help pay for those side dishes, but maybe that's naive on my part. I'd like people to try harder to put themselves in other people's shoes. Again, probably naive.

Seriously, though, you and I aren't far apart on a lot of this stuff.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Mutaman on July 05, 2017, 11:29:08 PM


I ascribe to Milton Friedman and his economic dictums because I believe history proves that free markets have done more to alleviate hunger and other forms of human suffering than all governments, religions, charities, etc., combined.

This is a really simplistic way of viewing Milton Friedman or the way he looked at the world. Sort of Paul Ryan's view of economics.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: PBRme on July 06, 2017, 07:08:24 AM
This is a really simplistic way of viewing Milton Friedman or the way he looked at the world. Sort of Paul Ryan's view of economics.

If you read "Free to Choose" that is exactly the view to which Milton Friedman would subscribe.

In spite of your glib and unsupported statement.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on July 06, 2017, 07:09:43 AM
IMO, the evidence shows that socialism does no better for its poor than does capitalism - other than giving them more company. And just as in capitalism, the elites/rich do great - only there' fewer of them. The best thing about capitalism for its citizens? There's mobility for the lower and middle classes - one's economic status is not determined at birth.
Isn't this really the crux of the issue?  Some people still believe this to be true and to those folks, everything going on in the country is some normal part of our great capitalistic society.  Winners and losers and all that.

Others are worried that it is no longer true and want to use government as a way to help those stuck in the lower class, mostly (they believe) through no/little fault of their own. 

I don't know who's right and I'm sure (like in anything else) we could all find all sorts of studies to confirm our own personal viewpoint. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on July 06, 2017, 09:07:12 AM
This is a really simplistic way of viewing Milton Friedman or the way he looked at the world. Sort of Paul Ryan's view of economics.

You're absolutely, positively wrong about Friedman. Not surprising.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: B. McBannerson on July 06, 2017, 09:12:47 AM
The problem with that study is you can find other reputable studies that show something different. You also cannot take anything away from their conclusions is they do not know the source of the actual problems they define, and if it is even the minimum wage increase.


It may be just another study, but found it remarkable it was done by University of Washington, commented on by the Washington Post, and if the article was read, backed as very credible by MIT.  That is why it has received the coverage it has, even in left of center periodicals.

What struck me is wages go up, which is not surprising.  However, total take home pay goes down, which is also not surprising.  A business has to make money to survive.

Those that challenge this notion here, where a fixed cost (labor) rises unfettered by a gov't action without the ability to recoup those costs in a market environment (raising prices suppresses demand), leads me to believe those individuals have never had to meet a payroll, owned a business.  Merely my opinion.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on July 06, 2017, 09:23:15 AM
I'm aware that this exists, but I don't believe your statement of "the majority" is correct.

And I'm not sure what industry this is, but if it is factory work, it is shameful to be paying $15 an hour for a union job.

The Institute of Tax and Economic Policy, which is a non-partisan group, cites several studies that estimate that between 50 and 75 percent of illegal immigrants pay federal and state income tax through payroll deductions. That means they are not being paid "under the table".

https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/immigration2017.pdf

And the job I was talking about wasn't a factory job, but it was a job that literally required no skills that any able-bodied person doesn't possess.  And at the time, $15 an hour was more than 2.5 times the minimum wage.  Add the benefits and it was closer to 4 times the minimum wage.

And if any union wage can be described as "shameful", isn't that on the union, not the employer?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jay Bee on July 06, 2017, 09:23:40 AM
I wrote it in response to JB saying that all companies take care of their lower-level employees wonderfully. He KNOWS that isn't true, and I used an anecdote to show it.

It's like saying that we don't need environmental regulation because all companies would be good stewards to the environment.

You are free to have bad beliefs and silly opinions, but please refrain from lying about what I said. “All companies” is not true – you are lying about what I said.

Sorry you let yourself get gypped at your ball washing job, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I’ll give you a story as well. As a teen I work at McDonald’s. I got a raise. They wrote the amount on a form. I asked for a copy. They paid me the appropriate amount going forward. If they had not, I would have demanded it back.

You also entered into a contract for a certain pay rate (verbal, apparently.. not always the best idea, but still sounds like you have a valid contract). You could have demanded it back.

There was legal relief available to you as well. That’s where government and/or courts can come into play – enforcement of contracts. Those rules exist to protect all parties. It’s not a perfect system, but is far better than handcuffing and strong arming businesses to pay some arbitrary minimum.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 06, 2017, 09:46:25 AM
I hadn't thought about all that, mu03. Very deep stuff. Some of it is troubling, but I'm not as high on states' rights as some are. The states have gotten an awful lot wrong! (But of course, so have the feds. It's a debate that will never end.)

But yeah, look at the out-of-state money that comes into so many state elections now. We had local judge elections getting campaign money from thousands of miles away in 2016!

I don't see how one turns the clock back on this, um, "progress," for better or worse. Almost surely worse.

Absolutely, states get stuff wrong all the time, but that's the beauty of the system, other states can learn lessons (good and bad) and approach a problem in their own way to achieve success.

This is ultimately why I have a big issue with the idea that Romneycare means Obamacare should be acceptable, etc. Romneycare probably worked for Massachusetts but that's also largely because it was law crafted for the unique characteristics of Massachusetts. Transporting that (I know they didn't literally do that but you get my point) to the federal level won't work because the demographics and culture of Massachusetts is going to be different then California or New Mexico or Mississippi.

One of the funny things(not haha funny but ironic funny) is that right now, fully one-third of US citizens are on some form of government health insurance (Medicare or Medicaid), I even found an article that indicates that half of all health insurance is government-based (though I'm dubious of the source). Let's assume the 1/3 number is more accurate....if the healthcare system is broken or not working then those programs have to be at least partially responsible for the break, however reforming or changing those programs seems to be a non-starter.

There is no doubt those programs provide a necessary service (I have nephews that receive necessary care from programs supported by medicaid that would otherwise be unavailable) however, they have somehow transformed from providing extraordinary care to providing standard care which reduces the effectiveness of the overall system. So for every kid that needs services for say autism there are adults who are using it for standard healthcare delivery for various reasons. This trajectory is unsustainable.


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/medicaid-and-medicare-enrollees-now-outnumber-full-time-private-sector-workers (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/medicaid-and-medicare-enrollees-now-outnumber-full-time-private-sector-workers)
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 06, 2017, 09:56:00 AM
Isn't this really the crux of the issue?  Some people still believe this to be true and to those folks, everything going on in the country is some normal part of our great capitalistic society.  Winners and losers and all that.

Others are worried that it is no longer true and want to use government as a way to help those stuck in the lower class, mostly (they believe) through no/little fault of their own. 

I don't know who's right and I'm sure (like in anything else) we could all find all sorts of studies to confirm our own personal viewpoint.

Part of the issue is that government policy from the Obama administration was directly responsible for the widening gap between the haves and have nots. Fiscal policy was created that floated the stock market and changed pay rules for executives to focus it on long range growth.....as a result the executives have more financial benefit from a bull market and the poor have limited to no access to the wealth "generation" from the stock market. I'm not arguing whether this was intended or not (and it's continued in the Trump administration) My point is that government policies has directly led to the disparity but that disparity was than point to as an issue by the very people that created it.

The law of unintended consequences has never been more proven or demonstrated than in the last 10 years.   

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MUBurrow on July 06, 2017, 10:21:22 AM
One of the funny things(not haha funny but ironic funny) is that right now, fully one-third of US citizens are on some form of government health insurance (Medicare or Medicaid), I even found an article that indicates that half of all health insurance is government-based (though I'm dubious of the source). Let's assume the 1/3 number is more accurate....if the healthcare system is broken or not working then those programs have to be at least partially responsible for the break, however reforming or changing those programs seems to be a non-starter.

There is no doubt those programs provide a necessary service (I have nephews that receive necessary care from programs supported by medicaid that would otherwise be unavailable) however, they have somehow transformed from providing extraordinary care to providing standard care which reduces the effectiveness of the overall system. So for every kid that needs services for say autism there are adults who are using it for standard healthcare delivery for various reasons. This trajectory is unsustrightble.

For me, the overwhelming popularity of Medicare and Medicaid highlights how disingenuous it is for us to claim that "free markets" really have much, if anything, to do with our end goals on health care. Its okay for us to admit sometimes that we don't like the results that an actual "free market" would give us in certain sectors, and then craft a solution accordingly (and maybe with a bit less moralistic burden to swallow what the invisible hand gives us). In health care, that's due to what we societally deem an unacceptable result of the free market have-nots, e.g., we're not willing to live in a country where children would commonly die for want of health care. And that's good! And I don't think we should have to feel Catholic guilt because we interfered in the "free market" for health care services to craft our desired result. 

We do this all the time, and I just wish we would admit it more and not feel so tethered to lusting after a poor approximation of a "free market." Energy is another good example. That's a market dominated by a few enormous natural resource-mining energy companies wherein the barriers to entry and market control have all but eroded any resemblance to a free market. Then on the local level, we use government-sanctioned monopolies. Energy is not a free market. And this is without speaking to the supply-side subsidies throughout the whole chain. But then when we begin to talk about renewable energy, for some reason, the conversation switches to "an inability to compete in the free market." That market is anything but free, and if you required the current players to internalize all of their externalities, whether pollution or subsidies or governmental protection (e.g. proposed taxes for folks with solar panels to subsidize grid maintenance), the conversation would be a lot different. And hell, maybe renewables would still lose - but at least then we'd be having an academically honest conversation.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on July 06, 2017, 11:19:42 AM
For me, the overwhelming popularity of Medicare and Medicaid highlights how disingenuous it is for us to claim that "free markets" really have much, if anything, to do with our end goals on health care. Its okay for us to admit sometimes that we don't like the results that an actual "free market" would give us in certain sectors, and then craft a solution accordingly (and maybe with a bit less moralistic burden to swallow what the invisible hand gives us). In health care, that's due to what we societally deem an unacceptable result of the free market have-nots, e.g., we're not willing to live in a country where children would commonly die for want of health care. And that's good! And I don't think we should have to feel Catholic guilt because we interfered in the "free market" for health care services to craft our desired result. 

We do this all the time, and I just wish we would admit it more and not feel so tethered to lusting after a poor approximation of a "free market." Energy is another good example. That's a market dominated by a few enormous natural resource-mining energy companies wherein the barriers to entry and market control have all but eroded any resemblance to a free market. Then on the local level, we use government-sanctioned monopolies. Energy is not a free market. And this is without speaking to the supply-side subsidies throughout the whole chain. But then when we begin to talk about renewable energy, for some reason, the conversation switches to "an inability to compete in the free market." That market is anything but free, and if you required the current players to internalize all of their externalities, whether pollution or subsidies or governmental protection (e.g. proposed taxes for folks with solar panels to subsidize grid maintenance), the conversation would be a lot different. And hell, maybe renewables would still lose - but at least then we'd be having an academically honest conversation.

This is so true.
The reality is, nobody really wants free markets. This is true, perhaps especially so, of the capitalist titans of industry who proclaim their love of free markets but would collectively poop their Brooks Brothers suit pants if we got rid of their tax credits, tax-sharing agreements, property assessment discounts, TIF districts, research grants, etc., etc. They want truly free markets no more than Bernie Sanders. They just want the market rigged in a different direction.

What's maddening is how often this is portrayed - including here sometimes - as an either/or proposition. As in, either you're a free marketers or you're a socialist. the reality is most people - and the vast majority of Western governments - blend the two. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu_hilltopper on July 06, 2017, 11:39:55 AM
This might have been posted .. relevant:

Minimum wage set to drop in Missouri
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/st-louis-minimum-wage-will-revert-back-to-in-august/article_0428b488-d4e2-5778-895b-f44ad92cc65a.html


Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu_hilltopper on July 06, 2017, 11:43:41 AM
Stolen from reddit .. I found this interesting:


A few facts worth mentioning in any minimum wage article:
-When the minimum wage was first enacted in 1938, it would make you 80% of the GDP per capita and only a few years later increased to 90%, the equivalent of $24 an hour in today's economy.
-Between then and the early 1970s, it stayed above 70% of GDP per capita, the equivalent of $18.60 an hour nearly every year.
-The minimum wage was raised significantly by every president, Republican and Democrat from '38 to '81.
-The US minimum wage was a living wage every year from '38 until some time in the late '80s, and no serious political candidate would have suggested it shouldn't be until Reagan.
-Every year that the minimum wage is not increased, it effectively drops by about 2% in purchasing power.
-As a percent of GDP per capita, over 70% of employed Americans now make less than the New Deal era minimum wage... even just adjusted for CPI inflation that figure is over 40% makes less than the 1968 minimum wage.
-Entry level wages still are that high (or fairly close to it) all over the rest of the developed world.
-The US has one of the lowest minimum wages as a percent of GDP per capita in the entire world, including the developing world, lower than places like India.

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6llqoi/st_louis_will_drop_minimum_wage_from_10_to_770/djux9ck/
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 06, 2017, 12:05:37 PM
For me, the overwhelming popularity of Medicare and Medicaid highlights how disingenuous it is for us to claim that "free markets" really have much, if anything, to do with our end goals on health care.

So because people like getting "free" stuff that means we don't believe in free markets? Quite frankly, our problem with healthcare is that no one actually understands what the end goals are. Healthcare is almost talked about in political terms and not in terms that actually are about health and/or care.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 06, 2017, 12:18:42 PM
You are free to have bad beliefs and silly opinions, but please refrain from lying about what I said. “All companies” is not true – you are lying about what I said.

You said:

Companies do a great job of placing decent value on low-level employees, but have to deal with the gov't as well, unfortunately.

I responded with:

You should have started your post with: "High-quality, moral, fair-minded companies ... "

Then I would have agreed with you. Unfortunately, many companies try to get away with whatever they can.

I won't say it's all or even the majority, just as you shouldn't have suggested that all companies do a "great job."


I then went into my anecdote, which you dismissed with a wave of your hand, as you like to do.

pathetic story about a thief. We're talking about a company having the right to offer whatever pay they like, and potential employees deciding if they are agreeable to it or not.

Your total refusal to accept that any company could do the opposite what you claimed was, IMHO, you implying that "all companies do a great job ... "

And now you have taken umbrage with that.

So either you are acknowledging that companies sometimes intentionally screw their lower-level employees (which I guess would make you a "liar" in your first post) ... or you are doubling-down while also falling back on pathetic name-calling tactics.

And we haven't even gotten around to defining "decent value" yet! I'm guessing you have a different definition of it than a minimum-wage worker might.

Have a nice day!
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on July 06, 2017, 12:41:14 PM
Stolen from reddit .. I found this interesting:


A few facts worth mentioning in any minimum wage article:
-When the minimum wage was first enacted in 1938, it would make you 80% of the GDP per capita and only a few years later increased to 90%, the equivalent of $24 an hour in today's economy.
-Between then and the early 1970s, it stayed above 70% of GDP per capita, the equivalent of $18.60 an hour nearly every year.
-The minimum wage was raised significantly by every president, Republican and Democrat from '38 to '81.
-The US minimum wage was a living wage every year from '38 until some time in the late '80s, and no serious political candidate would have suggested it shouldn't be until Reagan.
-Every year that the minimum wage is not increased, it effectively drops by about 2% in purchasing power.
-As a percent of GDP per capita, over 70% of employed Americans now make less than the New Deal era minimum wage... even just adjusted for CPI inflation that figure is over 40% makes less than the 1968 minimum wage.
-Entry level wages still are that high (or fairly close to it) all over the rest of the developed world.
-The US has one of the lowest minimum wages as a percent of GDP per capita in the entire world, including the developing world, lower than places like India.

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6llqoi/st_louis_will_drop_minimum_wage_from_10_to_770/djux9ck/

I am not sure GDP per capita is the proper way to analyze the minimum wage.  1938 was during the Great Depression.  Of course the GDP was in the crapper.  And do you really advocate that minimum wage should be $24 an hour? Perhaps it's a way to measure wealth distribution, but not necessarily whether a minimum wage rate is appropriate.

Perhaps we should use inflation to analyze it The minimum wage in 1938 was 25 cents an hour.  That's about $4.25 in today's dollars.  Yes, that's low, but hey, statistics.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 06, 2017, 01:28:20 PM
No government has ever truly been capitalistic (or communist for that matter).   They have all been varying degrees of socialist. The demonization of socialism has always been amusing to me. As Pakuni said,  no one actually wants truly free markets.

My economic views are much more conservative than my social views (not saying that much).  The question for me has always been about whether it's better to inconvenience many to stop the abuse of a few. I do believe that most companies are moral entities that treat their employees fairly.  But there are some that commit abuses and because there isn't as much social mobility as people think,  the disadvantaged who work for them are forced to deal with it.

Take the FLSA update that almost went through.  It inconvenienced people in my office. The update would have put restrictions unwanted by those it was designed to help.  For example,  my office said employees would no longer be able to have email connected to their phones because if they were checking email after hours they would need to pay them for that. That was obnoxious and slowed our productivity. But I recognize that in the fast food industry for example,  there are workers who are forced to work 80 hour weeks with no overtime pay. Is the inconvenience of people in my office (and others like them)  worth the abuse others go through? I don't have a good answer. In general,  I'm a fan of state governments figuring out economic issues. They are just more likely to know what is sustainable in their state.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on July 06, 2017, 01:53:42 PM
This is so true.
The reality is, nobody really wants free markets. This is true, perhaps especially so, of the capitalist titans of industry who proclaim their love of free markets but would collectively poop their Brooks Brothers suit pants if we got rid of their tax credits, tax-sharing agreements, property assessment discounts, TIF districts, research grants, etc., etc. They want truly free markets no more than Bernie Sanders. They just want the market rigged in a different direction.

What's maddening is how often this is portrayed - including here sometimes - as an either/or proposition. As in, either you're a free marketers or you're a socialist. the reality is most people - and the vast majority of Western governments - blend the two.

The reality is not that "nobody wants free markets". The reality is that big business, big labor, etc., (any big special interest group) doesn't want free markets. They want special treatment. Governments don't want free markets, either. They interfere with what government's desire to expand and consolidate their power. The result of the unholy alliance is, as you point out, a blend - free markets and individual freedom, to a greater or lesser extent, are the losers in that blend.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on July 06, 2017, 01:56:42 PM
The reality is not that "nobody wants free markets". The reality is that big business, big labor, etc., (any big special interest group) doesn't want free markets. They want special treatment. Governments don't want free markets, either. They interfere with what government's desire to expand and consolidate their power. The result of the unholy alliance is, as you point out, a blend - free markets and individual freedom, to a greater or lesser extent, are the losers in that blend.


Most individuals don't want free market either.  They wants their social security, Medicare, etc.  They want government regulation of safety, food, etc.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MUBurrow on July 06, 2017, 02:58:49 PM
The reality is not that "nobody wants free markets". The reality is that big business, big labor, etc., (any big special interest group) doesn't want free markets. They want special treatment. Governments don't want free markets, either. They interfere with what government's desire to expand and consolidate their power. The result of the unholy alliance is, as you point out, a blend - free markets and individual freedom, to a greater or lesser extent, are the losers in that blend.

See what frustrates me is that this isn't the binary you're making it out to be. This "either you love free markets or you want special treatment" at best ignores the consequences of a truly free market. Here is what I find to be a particularly prescient Adam Smith quote: "Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality... for one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred poor."

Is that truly what we want to strive toward? A world with 20 rich men and 10,000 poor? By putting ourselves into this binary of "either you want freedom or you back government's desire to expand and consolidate its power" we're boiling our options down to either being a commie or looking around at a disappearing middle class, wage stagnation for a vast majority of earners and continuous wealth consolidation in a smaller and small minority and saying "well, I guess that's just the consequences of loving freedom." We have more nuanced choices than that, and we all suffer by automatically demonizing the right leaning, who want to approximate free markets as closely as possible, as uncaring and solely self-interested or the left-leaning as lazy or anti-freedom.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU Fan in Connecticut on July 06, 2017, 03:23:51 PM
See what frustrates me is that this isn't the binary you're making it out to be. This "either you love free markets or you want special treatment" at best ignores the consequences of a truly free market. Here is what I find to be a particularly prescient Adam Smith quote: "Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality... for one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred poor."

Is that truly what we want to strive toward? A world with 20 rich men and 10,000 poor? By putting ourselves into this binary of "either you want freedom or you back government's desire to expand and consolidate its power" we're boiling our options down to either being a commie or looking around at a disappearing middle class, wage stagnation for a vast majority of earners and continuous wealth consolidation in a smaller and small minority and saying "well, I guess that's just the consequences of loving freedom." We have more nuanced choices than that, and we all suffer by automatically demonizing the right leaning, who want to approximate free markets as closely as possible, as uncaring and solely self-interested or the left-leaning as lazy or anti-freedom.
I just read this yesterday in the print edition. 
It seems to be right on your point. 

The Conservative Case for Unions
How a new kind of labor organization could address the grievances underlying populist anger

JONATHAN RAUCH  JULY/AUGUST 2017 ISSUE 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-conservative-case-for-unions/528708/
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on July 06, 2017, 03:38:05 PM
The reality is not that "nobody wants free markets". The reality is that big business, big labor, etc., (any big special interest group) doesn't want free markets. They want special treatment. Governments don't want free markets, either. They interfere with what government's desire to expand and consolidate their power. The result of the unholy alliance is, as you point out, a blend - free markets and individual freedom, to a greater or lesser extent, are the losers in that blend.

I suspect that most people who claim they want truly free markets either are blissfully unaware or willfully ignorant of the implications of truly free markets.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on July 06, 2017, 03:39:38 PM
See what frustrates me is that this isn't the binary you're making it out to be. This "either you love free markets or you want special treatment" at best ignores the consequences of a truly free market. Here is what I find to be a particularly prescient Adam Smith quote: "Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality... for one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred poor."

Is that truly what we want to strive toward? A world with 20 rich men and 10,000 poor? By putting ourselves into this binary of "either you want freedom or you back government's desire to expand and consolidate its power" we're boiling our options down to either being a commie or looking around at a disappearing middle class, wage stagnation for a vast majority of earners and continuous wealth consolidation in a smaller and small minority and saying "well, I guess that's just the consequences of loving freedom." We have more nuanced choices than that, and we all suffer by automatically demonizing the right leaning, who want to approximate free markets as closely as possible, as uncaring and solely self-interested or the left-leaning as lazy or anti-freedom.

I don't want to demonize anyone - but it's my opinion that those who ascribe to the Friedman philosophy are better student of history. Pre free markets, poverty and suffering were the norms. They are still the norms in areas untouched by or rejecting of free market principles.

We'll never see a perfect solution for the human condition, but individual freedoms + a market economy produces much better results than any alternative I've ever seen.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on July 06, 2017, 03:46:25 PM
I suspect that most people who claim they want truly free markets either are blissfully unaware or willfully ignorant of the implications of truly free markets.

What are the horrible consequences of free markets that you fear? If there are abuses (child labor, monopolies that restrict competition, etc.,) societies are free to enact common sense laws for its citizens protection.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on July 06, 2017, 04:14:24 PM
What are the horrible consequences of free markets that you fear? If there are abuses (child labor, monopolies that restrict competition, etc.,) societies are free to enact common sense laws for its citizens protection.
That's my point .... what you're calling "common sense laws for its citizens protection" are, in fact, government interference with the free market.
You can't claim you want a truly free market while also supporting government regulation of private enterprise, such as restricting who a business can hire or preventing someone from working via child labor laws.
Well, you can, it's just inconsistent.

The debate isn't free market vs socialism, as you've posited it. The debate is how to best strike the necessary balance between a free market and a government freely elected to serve the best interests of its citizens. It's a worthy, honest debate that's being held all across the world every day, with people way smarter than me or you making worthy, intelligent arguments up and down the spectrum.

Regarding your earlier post, how do you define "free market principles?" To me that seems exceptionally vague. So vague that one could find "free market principles" at work in nearly every country on earth. Even the most socialist countries on earth, particularly in the Western world, have extensive free market elements.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 06, 2017, 04:42:17 PM
That's my point .... what you're calling "common sense laws for its citizens protection" are, in fact, government interference with the free market.
You can't claim you want a truly free market while also supporting government regulation of private enterprise, such as restricting who a business can hire or preventing someone from working via child labor laws.
Well, you can, it's just inconsistent.


Exactly.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jockey on July 06, 2017, 09:08:13 PM
What are the horrible consequences of free markets that you fear? If there are abuses (child labor, monopolies that restrict competition, etc.,) societies are free to enact common sense laws for its citizens protection.

Glad to see you coming out of the closet in favor of regulation :)
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on July 06, 2017, 09:38:43 PM


Regarding your earlier post, how do you define "free market principles?" To me that seems exceptionally vague. So vague that one could find "free market principles" at work in nearly every country on earth. Even the most socialist countries on earth, particularly in the Western world, have extensive free market elements.

If you think that voluntary interactions between free people (consumers and businessmen) generally produce better results than government decrees you believe in free market principles.

If you think that individuals will spend their own earned income more wisely and carefully than government bureaucrats you believe in free market principles.

If you think competition is more likely to produce innovation and prosperity than government or government/private "partnerships" (crony capitalistic quasi monopolies) you believe in free market principles.

I could go on and on, but hopefully you get my drift. That doesn't mean that government can't protect its citizens from businesses (or individuals) who would do them harm. That's government's most vital role, so you can't shoot somebody or poison them with toxic waste - etc., etc., etc.

We are imperfect and so is our world. That vexes us so we want to eliminate those imperfections. If you think that the world, as imperfect as it is, is a better and more prosperous place when men and women are most free, you believe in free market principles.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on July 06, 2017, 09:44:14 PM
Glad to see you coming out of the closet in favor of regulation :)

Problem is, government is better at creating monopolies (FCC) than regulating them. Also, it's not uncommon for special interest groups to co-op the agencies who are supposed to control them.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 06, 2017, 10:14:04 PM
If you think that voluntary interactions between free people (consumers and businessmen) generally produce better results than government decrees you believe in free market principles.

If you think that individuals will spend their own earned income more wisely and carefully than government bureaucrats you believe in free market principles.

If you think competition is more likely to produce innovation and prosperity than government or government/private "partnerships" (crony capitalistic quasi monopolies) you believe in free market principles.

I could go on and on, but hopefully you get my drift. That doesn't mean that government can't protect its citizens from businesses (or individuals) who would do them harm. That's government's most vital role, so you can't shoot somebody or poison them with toxic waste - etc., etc., etc.


We are imperfect and so is our world. That vexes us so we want to eliminate those imperfections. If you think that the world, as imperfect as it is, is a better and more prosperous place when men and women are most free, you believe in free market principles.

So not a truly free market. A socialist government that leans heavily towards capitalism instead of communism. I think most people in the country agree with that. We just disagree on how much protection people need (though its a lot closer than our polarized parties would have people think).

Going back to the original topic. I think everyone should be paid a living wage. I question that raising the minimum wage is an effective way to do that. Reading this thread has been for the most part enjoyable because I have gotten to hear a lot of different perspectives.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on July 07, 2017, 06:37:41 AM


Going back to the original topic. I think everyone should be paid a living wage. I question that raising the minimum wage is an effective way to do that. Reading this thread has been for the most part enjoyable because I have gotten to hear a lot of different perspectives.

Going back to the original topic, I think that demanding employers pay a "living wage" (enough to support a family of 4) for unskilled, entry level workers is one of the reasons (along with a monopolistic, failing public school system, draconian drug prohibition laws and various welfare programs) for the cycle of inner city poverty we still see today. Good intentions, bad results to me = bad policy.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on July 07, 2017, 07:55:58 AM
Going back to the original topic, I think that demanding employers pay a "living wage" (enough to support a family of 4) for unskilled, entry level workers is one of the reasons (along with a monopolistic, failing public school system, draconian drug prohibition laws and various welfare programs) for the cycle of inner city poverty we still see today. Good intentions, bad results to me = bad policy.

So you think living wages and welfare programs are responsible for the cycle of inner city poverty, but no mention of a few centuries of institutiional oppression based on race? No mention of voter suppression, school segregation, unequal treatment by the justice system, redlining, workplace discrimination, etc.
I mean, there's some truth in what you say ... the schools are bad (why?) and the drug war has inordinately targeted inner city users/dealers (again, why?). But while you're pointing out that the house needs a new paint job, you're ignoring the crumbling foundation and collapsing roof.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 07, 2017, 08:03:21 AM
So you think living wages and welfare programs are responsible for the cycle of inner city poverty, but no mention of a few centuries of institutiional oppression based on race? No mention of voter suppression, school segregation, unequal treatment by the justice system, redlining, workplace discrimination, etc.
I mean, there's some truth in what you say ... the schools are bad (why?) and the drug war has inordinately targeted inner city users/dealers (again, why?). But while you're pointing out that the house needs a new paint job, you're ignoring the crumbling foundation and collapsing roof.

Ok, so you agree in principal that worrying about a living wage (painting the house) while allowing the institutional issues to continue (crumbling foundation) is a pointless exercise. Good, so let's get the politicians to focus on the foundation first shall we?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on July 07, 2017, 08:11:15 AM
Ok, so you agree in principal that worrying about a living wage (painting the house) while allowing the institutional issues to continue (crumbling foundation) is a pointless exercise. Good, so let's get the politicians to focus on the foundation first shall we?

Clever rhetorical trick, but that's a complete bastardization of what I wrote.

That said, if there were a way for Washington to magically do away with the consequences of institutional racism in one fell swoop and they could only do that or deal with stagnant wages among the working classes, then I would choose the former.
But it's not possible  for Washington to magically do away with the consequences of institutional racism in one fell swoop, and if there were, there's no reason they couldn't do that and deal with stagnant wages among the working classes.
See: False dilemma.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on July 07, 2017, 08:12:27 AM

Going back to the original topic. I think everyone should be paid a living wage. I question that raising the minimum wage is an effective way to do that. Reading this thread has been for the most part enjoyable because I have gotten to hear a lot of different perspectives.

Here's the thing: Not every worker needs a living wage. I'm talking about high school students, retirees, and 2nd income earners like a stay at home mom or dad.  These workers are looking for a little extra cash, a little work experience for HS students, and sometimes in the case of the retiree or stay at home parent, something to do.

There main source of income is parents, retirement savings, or a financially successful spouse.  So there is a market for workers that do not need a living wage.

I view minimum wage as a starting point to make sure companies aren't paying slave wages.  Plus, cost of living varies greatly from state to state and even regionally within states.  So the federal minimum wage is yet again a starting point. States, counties, and cities can all tailor their minimum wage to the cost of living.

But again, the bigger issue is getting more money into the middle earners.  The median household income in the US went down 2.5% from 1999 to 2015.  Cumulative inflation during that time was 42%.  So how do we get the median household income to go up? My opinion is that raising the median household income will spur the economy by getting more money into the hands of consumers.

That will hopefully cause a domino effect where consumers spend a little more, prices can rise a little bit, and thus wages can increase for the bottom 20%.  Right now our economy has depressed wages, which leads to pressure to keep the costs of goods and services low.  The end result is a widening wealth gap.  I don't think that is ultimately sustrightble.

I'm not sure what the solution is.  But that is the problem more so than minimum wage.  If the middle class is strong, money will trickle in both directions to the upper and lower class.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 07, 2017, 08:52:45 AM
Clever rhetorical trick, but that's a complete bastardization of what I wrote.

That said, if there were a way for Washington to magically do away with the consequences of institutional racism in one fell swoop and they could only do that or deal with stagnant wages among the working classes, then I would choose the former.
But it's not possible  for Washington to magically do away with the consequences of institutional racism in one fell swoop, and if there were, there's no reason they couldn't do that and deal with stagnant wages among the working classes.
See: False dilemma.

Didn't think it was particularly clever but thanks. My ultimate point is that stagnant wages are a symptom of the underlying issues that we refuse to address...fix the problem, the symptom goes away. However politicians use things like "living wage" as a mechanism to perpetuate the system that is causing the issue in the first place. The institutions and policies this country has been running on the last 60 years are no longer sustainable and need to be replaced with new, modern policy....a living wage is not one of those policies because it's contrary to modern economic and technological reality.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on July 07, 2017, 08:54:09 AM
But again, the bigger issue is getting more money into the middle earners.  The median household income in the US went down 2.5% from 1999 to 2015.  Cumulative inflation during that time was 42%.  So how do we get the median household income to go up? My opinion is that raising the median household income will spur the economy by getting more money into the hands of consumers.


The solution is to make money worth more in the long term - to raise interest rates.

Yeah that would suck in the short term.  Borrowing would cost more which means people would buy less things.  Furthermore people would be incentivized to save money versus spending it.  But in the long run, I think that is the only way to push wages up.  And that mortgage payment becomes relatively cheaper.  And the saved money earns more interest and would eventually be injected back into the economy.

And I'm not talking about going back to the 80s and early 90s when it was around 9 or 10.  But around the late 90s, early 2000s when it was around 8.  Right now it is at 4.25. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 07, 2017, 09:51:29 AM

The solution is to make money worth more in the long term - to raise interest rates.

Yeah that would suck in the short term.  Borrowing would cost more which means people would buy less things.  Furthermore people would be incentivized to save money versus spending it.  But in the long run, I think that is the only way to push wages up.  And that mortgage payment becomes relatively cheaper.  And the saved money earns more interest and would eventually be injected back into the economy.

And I'm not talking about going back to the 80s and early 90s when it was around 9 or 10.  But around the late 90s, early 2000s when it was around 8.  Right now it is at 4.25.

This is correct and largely the reason the gap between the haves and have nots has widened in the last 10 years. As the adage goes it takes money to make money, and lower income earners have fewer mechanisms for wealth generation than do those who are 1. high income earners 2. significant in place wealth(inheritance, etc) 3. Both. The two main mechanisms for low income earners to generate additional wealth is savings and investment in properties. Both of these mechanisms have been severely retarded based on fiscal policies in the last 10 years.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 07, 2017, 10:17:22 AM
Here's the thing: Not every worker needs a living wage. I'm talking about students, retirees, and 2nd income earners like a stay at home mom or dad.  These workers are looking for a little extra cash, a little work experience for students, and sometimes in the case of the retiree or stay at home parent, something to do.

There main source of income is parents, retirement savings, or a financially successful spouse.  So there is a market for workers that do not need a living wage.


First, lets look at students.  Yeah, what you say may be true for students that come from upper middle class/wealthy families, that their main source of income may be their parents, but for the majority of the population (and myself growing up) that is not the case.  For the poor, if they want anything in life, the kids are on their own. 

In that regards, in 1979, working minimum wage you could pay for an entire year of tuition working less than 400 hours in the year.  That means you could pay tuition and have extra cash for spending by just working a full-time summer minimum wage job. 

Today, to pay for college you would have to work 3400 hours at minimum wage. So almost 2 full time jobs year round.  Add in attending school full-time, and every waking hour of your day would be spent in school or at work...forget studying.

For 2nd income earners/retirees the minimum wage is so low that it does not make economic sense for them to enter the market, and because of this they are a rarity in the labor pool.  An example would be a 2nd income earner.  Child care averages $200 per week.  Working 40-hours a week at minimum wage will make you $290 before taxes.  It is a losing proposition.  Even if you worked part-time, simply getting child care for after school (after-school baby sitter) costs $214 a week.  You lose either way.

Bottom line is, your statement has no merit for the bulk of the population.  The minimum wage is absurdly low. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 07, 2017, 10:23:10 AM
It may be just another study, but found it remarkable it was done by University of Washington, commented on by the Washington Post, and if the article was read, backed as very credible by MIT.  That is why it has received the coverage it has, even in left of center periodicals.

What struck me is wages go up, which is not surprising.  However, total take home pay goes down, which is also not surprising.  A business has to make money to survive.

Those that challenge this notion here, where a fixed cost (labor) rises unfettered by a gov't action without the ability to recoup those costs in a market environment (raising prices suppresses demand), leads me to believe those individuals have never had to meet a payroll, owned a business.  Merely my opinion.

Such statements are not well formulated, at least you added "merely my opinion".  The reason this article received so much coverage is that its conclusions refute decades of economics research.  That means to the people that have had to meet payrolls, and have owned business, and have studied this their entire lives, the article was shocking, because it refuted the vast majority of knowledge. 

Now, on to other parts of your statement.  There is a difference in sciences between credible and correct.  The article is indeed credible, it used methods consistent with the field and where potential flaws and errors exist, they noted the problems.  That means the data is credible and because it is transformative in disagreeing with the bulk of the field, has high merit (coverage).  It doesn't mean it is accurate at all though.  They developed new methodology that even they note has flaws (and as I noted in my original post that you truncated).  Over the next several years, that new methodology and their results will be checked and cross checked to see if their method and conclusions were remotely valid. 

Credible and merit worthy, yes.  Valid...too early to tell.  Just another study in a lengthy literature history of minimum wage studies.  And it disagrees with the vast majority of published studies and experience.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 07, 2017, 10:53:51 AM
First, lets look at students.  Yeah, what you say may be true for students that come from upper middle class/wealthy families, that their main source of income may be their parents, but for the majority of the population (and myself growing up) that is not the case.  For the poor, if they want anything in life, the kids are on their own. 

In that regards, in 1979, working minimum wage you could pay for an entire year of tuition working less than 400 hours in the year.  That means you could pay tuition and have extra cash for spending by just working a full-time summer minimum wage job. 

Today, to pay for college you would have to work 3400 hours at minimum wage. So almost 2 full time jobs year round.  Add in attending school full-time, and every waking hour of your day would be spent in school or at work...forget studying.

For 2nd income earners/retirees the minimum wage is so low that it does not make economic sense for them to enter the market, and because of this they are a rarity in the labor pool.  An example would be a 2nd income earner.  Child care averages $200 per week.  Working 40-hours a week at minimum wage will make you $290 before taxes.  It is a losing proposition.  Even if you worked part-time, simply getting child care for after school (after-school baby sitter) costs $214 a week.  You lose either way.

Bottom line is, your statement has no merit for the bulk of the population.  The minimum wage is absurdly low.

Your comparison doesn't work, simply because very few students pay for all college out of pocket. Inevitably loans are taken out at a minimum for tuition. That means for an in-state student at UW Madison the worst case scenario is a student would have to cover the real time cost of ~$14,860 a year so 2050 hours which would be the equivalent of a full time job. OK, so that's not good, I agree. However, why is the solution to increase wages as opposed to reducing the cost of college? Furthermore, the types of jobs college students can do during the year or in the summer are preciously the types of jobs that are ripe for automation and most likely impacted by a wage increase.

This is a primary example of acting the symptom without impacting the root cause. And usually when you treat symptoms instead of the cause you get side effects that are usually not good.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jficke13 on July 07, 2017, 11:08:15 AM
[...]

In that regards, in 1979, working minimum wage you could pay for an entire year of tuition working less than 400 hours in the year.  That means you could pay tuition and have extra cash for spending by just working a full-time summer minimum wage job. 

Today, to pay for college you would have to work 3400 hours at minimum wage. So almost 2 full time jobs year round.  Add in attending school full-time, and every waking hour of your day would be spent in school or at work...forget studying.

[...]

That may have something to do with the divergent increase* in the cost of tuition relative to other goods/services rather than the relative decrease in the earnings of minimum wage jobs.

*An increase made entirely possible by the federal guarantee of student loan debt, but that's a whole 'nother argument for a whole 'nother day.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 07, 2017, 11:22:40 AM
Your comparison doesn't work, simply because very few students pay for all college out of pocket. Inevitably loans are taken out at a minimum for tuition. That means for an in-state student at UW Madison the worst case scenario is a student would have to cover the real time cost of ~$14,860 a year so 2050 hours which would be the equivalent of a full time job. OK, so that's not good, I agree. However, why is the solution to increase wages as opposed to reducing the cost of college? Furthermore, the types of jobs college students can do during the year or in the summer are preciously the types of jobs that are ripe for automation and most likely impacted by a wage increase.

This is a primary example of acting the symptom without impacting the root cause. And usually when you treat symptoms instead of the cause you get side effects that are usually not good.

The question is, how do you reduce the cost of college without impacting education?  Remember, when you use a state college as an example it is heavily subsidized by taxes/state government.  So that is well below actual cost.  One solution is to increase the amount paid by the state.  People will balk at that, but state funding for colleges have not kept up with inflation.  Cutting costs is not as trivial as you think it is, and people are working on it. 

When it comes down to it, using the college example, there are two problems.  College has outpaced inflation, and minimum wage has not matched inflation.  I would also argue that inflation is not a good metric for matching how one would expect college/healthcare to increase in cost (GDP is a better metric as these entities are a microcosm of the entire economy).  Tuition still outpaces GDP, but largely because of a massive increase in demand. 

So what is the real problem?  The biggest source of all these problems is that wages for the working class have failed to keep up with increases in productivity (and with it GDP growth), that means the working class is less and less able to maintain their position in the economy.  The problem is infinitely larger for those making minimum wage.  The source of the problem is WAGES.  The question is how do we solve that problem.

You are correct, this will get worse with automation, which is why there is a big question on what we will do as a society when the bulk of the population is unemployed at no fault of their own.  That is a separate, but connected problem, than the issue of WAGES in the US and our inability to match wages to productivity growth.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 07, 2017, 11:28:19 AM
That may have something to do with the divergent increase* in the cost of tuition relative to other goods/services rather than the relative decrease in the earnings of minimum wage jobs.

*An increase made entirely possible by the federal guarantee of student loan debt, but that's a whole 'nother argument for a whole 'nother day.

I discuss it a bit in the post above.  But suggesting the cost of tuition/room and board should scale with inflation isn't very accurate. 

I agree that student loan debt guarantees are a part of the problem, but it is way more complicated than that.

I also agree that it is a whole 'nother argument for a whole 'nother day.

I only brought it up, because there was the suggestion that "students" didn't need more than minimum wage.  If there was ever a time that they did it is now.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 07, 2017, 11:35:22 AM
The question is, how do you reduce the cost of college without impacting education?  Remember, when you use a state college as an example it is heavily subsidized by taxes/state government.  So that is well below actual cost.  One solution is to increase the amount paid by the state.  People will balk at that, but state funding for colleges have not kept up with inflation.  Cutting costs is not as trivial as you think it is, and people are working on it. 

When it comes down to it, using the college example, there are two problems.  College has outpaced inflation, and minimum wage has not matched inflation.  I would also argue that inflation is not a good metric for matching how one would expect college/healthcare to increase in cost (GDP is a better metric as these entities are a microcosm of the entire economy).  Tuition still outpaces GDP, but largely because of a massive increase in demand. 

The answer is in your very own response and jfickle's response just above yours: government has enabled college cost growth to exceed the fundamental economics that would otherwise govern the cost curve. Easy access to credit (college loan) as well as direct subsidization has given universities the ability increase "cost" without it actually being anchored to true CoGS. It's a false correlation to say that quality of education is directly related to the cost of delivering that education. There is a government-college complex (similar to the military-industrial complex) that exists within this country that is driving this impact...fix that and you don't have to artificially impact wages.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on July 07, 2017, 11:41:12 AM
Forgetful-

I am a stay at home Dad so I know the economic equation.  My job paid me nearly twice the minimum wage.

For one child the cost of child care would've been about 3/4 of my take home pay.  Now with two children, I am coming out ahead by staying at home.

When both kids get to school age, I plan to re-enter the work force.  I've done some freelancing on the side but that still probably won't leave me positioned to get a full time job in my former career.  Nor is full time employment something I have time for.  I prefer having the freedom to run errands, clean the house, and whatever else to help our household run smoothly.

But even working at minimum wage for 15 hours per week would bring in about $3,500 net income to my family, in not more. That is not insignificant.

Second wage earners, retirees, and students may be a small part of the work force but they still play a part in the market.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on July 07, 2017, 11:52:58 AM
Let me clarify, students should have been high school students.  I'll edit the above. College students are another matter.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 07, 2017, 12:01:46 PM
Let me clarify, students should have been high school students.  I'll edit the above. College students are another matter.

For high school students it largely doesn't work anymore either.  The majority of high school students no longer work.  There was another thread discussing this.  It is largely because of how much the time constraints of school have expanded and the expectations of massive extra curricular activities. 

In 2015, high school aged students (16-19) made up only 5.6% of those making minimum wage.  80% were 25-years or older.  74% of all minimum wage workers were working FT at minimum wage. 

It used to be more true, that high school students made up the bulk of minimum wage workers, but not anymore. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on July 07, 2017, 12:06:03 PM
For high school students it largely doesn't work anymore either.  The majority of high school students no longer work.  There was another thread discussing this.  It is largely because of how much the time constraints of school have expanded and the expectations of massive extra curricular activities. 

In 2015, high school aged students (16-19) made up only 5.6% of those making minimum wage.  80% were 25-years or older.  74% of all minimum wage workers were working FT at minimum wage. 

It used to be more true, that high school students made up the bulk of minimum wage workers, but not anymore.

Thanks for the info.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on July 07, 2017, 12:15:24 PM
For high school students it largely doesn't work anymore either.  The majority of high school students no longer work.  There was another thread discussing this.  It is largely because of how much the time constraints of school have expanded and the expectations of massive extra curricular activities. 

In 2015, high school aged students (16-19) made up only 5.6% of those making minimum wage.  80% were 25-years or older.  74% of all minimum wage workers were working FT at minimum wage. 

It used to be more true, that high school students made up the bulk of minimum wage workers, but not anymore.

Which brings up a point -

Has anyone posted anything regarding the trend of the percentage of people working at minimum wage vs. the workforce as a whole?  For example, my kids did not have minimum wage jobs in high school - they had jobs that paid more than the minimum wage.

Also, the tighter the job market, the more employers have to pay - even if it is something that is traditionally a minimum wage job.  When I lived in Boston in the mid-80's, during the so-called "Massachusetts Miracle", I would often see signs posted at McDonald's that said they were paying $7 -$8 an hour.  At the time, Massachusetts Minimum Wage was $3.65.  I had friends back in Milwaukee who were Marquette grads who weren't making that.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 07, 2017, 12:19:42 PM
Which brings up a point -

Has anyone posted anything regarding the trend of the percentage of people working at minimum wage vs. the workforce as a whole?  For example, my kids did not have minimum wage jobs in high school - they had jobs that paid more than the minimum wage.

Also, the tighter the job market, the more employers have to pay - even if it is something that is traditionally a minimum wage job.  When I lived in Boston in the mid-80's, during the so-called "Massachusetts Miracle", I would often see signs posted at McDonald's that said they were paying $7 -$8 an hour.  At the time, Massachusetts Minimum Wage was $3.65.  I had friends back in Milwaukee who were Marquette grads who weren't making that.

It has not been brought up, that I'm aware of, but is a good point.  The percentage of workers being paid minimum wage is near historic lows.  Most are indeed making more than minimum wage. 


That is largely a product of saturation of the labor market and the cost/benefit analysis compared to welfare.  It was close to 15% of the working population back in 1970, below 5% now. 


Honestly, one of the best ways to reduce welfare rolls is to increase minimum wage (imo).
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 07, 2017, 12:24:11 PM
The Institute of Tax and Economic Policy, which is a non-partisan group, cites several studies that estimate that between 50 and 75 percent of illegal immigrants pay federal and state income tax through payroll deductions. That means they are not being paid "under the table".

https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/immigration2017.pdf

And the job I was talking about wasn't a factory job, but it was a job that literally required no skills that any able-bodied person doesn't possess.  And at the time, $15 an hour was more than 2.5 times the minimum wage.  Add the benefits and it was closer to 4 times the minimum wage.

And if any union wage can be described as "shameful", isn't that on the union, not the employer?

Thank you for this information.  I had no idea it was this high.  I would caution though that it doesn't mean they were not being paid under the table.  Many illegals (I have no idea how many) pay taxes voluntarily, because they are advised that doing so enhances the likelihood of them being granted legal status in the future. 

It means that the employers may pay them under the table, but the illegals (employees) want to stay above board.

Nonetheless, I learned something, thank you.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on July 07, 2017, 12:52:46 PM
It has not been brought up, that I'm aware of, but is a good point.  The percentage of workers being paid minimum wage is near historic lows.  Most are indeed making more than minimum wage. 


That is largely a product of saturation of the labor market and the cost/benefit analysis compared to welfare.  It was close to 15% of the working population back in 1970, below 5% now. 


Honestly, one of the best ways to reduce welfare rolls is to increase minimum wage (imo).

That assumes that no one loses their job because their employer doesn't think that either the job or the employee is worth the higher wage.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GooooMarquette on July 07, 2017, 12:56:14 PM
Which brings up a point -

Has anyone posted anything regarding the trend of the percentage of people working at minimum wage vs. the workforce as a whole?  For example, my kids did not have minimum wage jobs in high school - they had jobs that paid more than the minimum wage.

Also, the tighter the job market, the more employers have to pay - even if it is something that is traditionally a minimum wage job.  When I lived in Boston in the mid-80's, during the so-called "Massachusetts Miracle", I would often see signs posted at McDonald's that said they were paying $7 -$8 an hour.  At the time, Massachusetts Minimum Wage was $3.65.  I had friends back in Milwaukee who were Marquette grads who weren't making that.

I don't know the overall stats, but your story from the 80s is certainly playing out today where I live.  Grocery stores, fast food chains and such are all advertising entry level jobs for $10 or more - well above our current minimum wage of $7.75 in MN.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 07, 2017, 01:01:08 PM
The last couple of pages has yielded a very interesting discussion. Thanks to those participating.

Also thanks to those who would "snark it up" by staying out (including me!).

Keep going, folks. I like learning, seeing various sets of facts and formulating an opinion.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on July 07, 2017, 01:06:38 PM
Thank you for this information.  I had no idea it was this high.  I would caution though that it doesn't mean they were not being paid under the table.  Many illegals (I have no idea how many) pay taxes voluntarily, because they are advised that doing so enhances the likelihood of them being granted legal status in the future. 

It means that the employers may pay them under the table, but the illegals (employees) want to stay above board.

Nonetheless, I learned something, thank you.

In order to pay taxes, you have to have a social security number.  Very few people would go through the hassle of getting a fake SSN just so they can pay in a third of their money in taxes (and don't forget you have to pay both sides if FICA and Medicare if you are self-employed.  If you are going to go through the risk of letting the government know that you exist by filing a tax return, you might as well get a real job with that fake SSN and work your way up to a position with benefits.

I meant to add that just because someone gets paid under the table, it doesn't mean that they are getting less than the minimum wage.  Just ask anyone who lost their undocumented nanny because someone else offered them more money.  It is a pretty open market for cash workers; everyone knows what the going rate is for the particular job.  Do you really think the guys that hang out in the Home Depot parking lot are going to tile a bathroom or do finish carpentry for $5 an hour? 

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 07, 2017, 01:20:51 PM
In order to pay taxes, you have to have a social security number.  Very few people would go through the hassle of getting a fake SSN just so they can pay in a third of their money in taxes (and don't forget you have to pay both sides if FICA and Medicare if you are self-employed.  If you are going to go through the risk of letting the government know that you exist by filing a tax return, you might as well get a real job with that fake SSN and work your way up to a position with benefits.

I meant to add that just because someone gets paid under the table, it doesn't mean that they are getting less than the minimum wage.  Just ask anyone who lost their undocumented nanny because someone else offered them more money.  It is a pretty open market for cash workers; everyone knows what the going rate is for the particular job.  Do you really think the guys that hang out in the Home Depot parking lot are going to tile a bathroom or do finish carpentry for $5 an hour?

Agreed on being paid under the table not necessarily equating to being paid below minimum wage.  How much they are paid largely depends on where in the country it is occurring. 

As far as paying taxes.  One doesn't need a SSN, and 3 million people pay taxes each year without one.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/facts-about-individual-tax-identification-number-itin

The other aspect is one doesn't have to go to extremes to get a fake SSN.  They are fairly easy to get and they don't even have to be real numbers, there is zero back checks/communication between the IRS and the employer, so as long as information is provided it counts and taxes get taken out of paychecks...the person just can't get social security ever, or tax returns since they don't actually exist.  There is actually a massive pool of taxes for people that don't exist...fake SSNs.

One may ask, why we simply don't put in rules that crosscheck between employers and the IRS to make sure these things are legit.  The bottom line is that the wealthy elite do not want to decrease access to cheap labor.   

So how about a compromise.  Crackdown on illegal labor, require crosschecks between employers/IRS with heavy fines for violations, and increase the minimum wage.  Any job losses (and its not clear that there would be any...most literature says there would be minimal change in employment) would largely fall on illegal immigrants.  Seems win win, no?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on July 07, 2017, 01:27:22 PM
Agreed on being paid under the table not necessarily equating to being paid below minimum wage.  How much they are paid largely depends on where in the country it is occurring. 

As far as paying taxes.  One doesn't need a SSN, and 3 million people pay taxes each year without one.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/facts-about-individual-tax-identification-number-itin

The other aspect is one doesn't have to go to extremes to get a fake SSN.  They are fairly easy to get and they don't even have to be real numbers, there is zero back checks/communication between the IRS and the employer, so as long as information is provided it counts and taxes get taken out of paychecks...the person just can't get social security ever, or tax returns since they don't actually exist.  There is actually a massive pool of taxes for people that don't exist...fake SSNs.

One may ask, why we simply don't put in rules that crosscheck between employers and the IRS to make sure these things are legit.  The bottom line is that the wealthy elite do not want to decrease access to cheap labor.   

So how about a compromise.  Crackdown on illegal labor, require crosschecks between employers/IRS with heavy fines for violations, and increase the minimum wage.  Any job losses (and its not clear that there would be any...most literature says there would be minimal change in employment) would largely fall on illegal immigrants.  Seems win win, no?

I am in total agreement.  If they made employers do electronic verification of Social Security numbers at the time of hire, it would cut way down on illegal immigration.  Currently, you only have to demonstrate that the documentation "appears" to be authentic.  And yes, there are places I have worked where  the bar was set pretty low, including having 3 unrelated people apply for jobs at the same time who have consecutively numbered Social Security cards.  What a crazy coincidence that was!
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 07, 2017, 01:30:48 PM
I have an admittedly naive question about automation.

I recognize all of the financial benefits to automating certain jobs.....but at what point do we start to question the morality of it? I know McDonald's could save millions of dollars by firing all of their cashiers and replacing them with ordering kiosks. Is that right? Should we as consumers demand that companies keep those jobs for actual human beings? Should the government intervene by offering incentives for companies who continue to hire human beings for jobs that they could have automated? At some point does the government need to stop certain jobs from being automated? What happens when all the truck drivers, cashiers, uber drivers, administrative assistants, etc all lose their jobs? What do those millions of people do?

All big picture questions I've been wondering about.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on July 07, 2017, 01:37:41 PM
I have an admittedly naive question about automation.

I recognize all of the financial benefits to automating certain jobs.....but at what point do we start to question the morality of it? I know McDonald's could save millions of dollars by firing all of their cashiers and replacing them with ordering kiosks. Is that right? Should we as consumers demand that companies keep those jobs for actual human beings? Should the government intervene by offering incentives for companies who continue to hire human beings for jobs that they could have automated? At some point does the government need to stop certain jobs from being automated? What happens when all the truck drivers, cashiers, uber drivers, administrative assistants, etc all lose their jobs? What do those millions of people do?

All big picture questions I've been wondering about.

Automation benefits society as a whole, and somehow, the world seems to adapt.

What happened to all of the blacksmiths and buggy whip makers and stable boys and stage coach drivers when cars became popular?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 07, 2017, 01:47:37 PM
I have an admittedly naive question about automation.

I recognize all of the financial benefits to automating certain jobs.....but at what point do we start to question the morality of it? I know McDonald's could save millions of dollars by firing all of their cashiers and replacing them with ordering kiosks. Is that right? Should we as consumers demand that companies keep those jobs for actual human beings? Should the government intervene by offering incentives for companies who continue to hire human beings for jobs that they could have automated? At some point does the government need to stop certain jobs from being automated? What happens when all the truck drivers, cashiers, uber drivers, administrative assistants, etc all lose their jobs? What do those millions of people do?

All big picture questions I've been wondering about.

Not intending to be flippant or disrespectful, just trying to make a point quickly: Should congress have outlawed the cotton gin, interchangeable parts, or the internal combustion engine?

There is no doubting that the next 5-15 years will result in massive displacement of "traditional" employment models. However, IMO, we shouldn't be trying to retain the traditional model so much as determine what the new model looks like and how we can move people to be value add in the new model.

At a very basic level, we should assume anything that is repetitive or largely repeatable will become automated. So the key is to change the workforce so that they are providing value add on top of repetitive outputs. There is no doubting figuring that out will be very difficult and filled with effort, but I think it's inevitable.

Lastly, one thing to keep in mind, with these changes the cost to produce goods goes down. This means that more and more goods are accessible by lower and lower income earners. This is partially why poor in the US are measurably more wealthy than say poor in Timbucktoo.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 07, 2017, 02:15:21 PM
I have an admittedly naive question about automation.

I recognize all of the financial benefits to automating certain jobs.....but at what point do we start to question the morality of it? I know McDonald's could save millions of dollars by firing all of their cashiers and replacing them with ordering kiosks. Is that right? Should we as consumers demand that companies keep those jobs for actual human beings? Should the government intervene by offering incentives for companies who continue to hire human beings for jobs that they could have automated? At some point does the government need to stop certain jobs from being automated? What happens when all the truck drivers, cashiers, uber drivers, administrative assistants, etc all lose their jobs? What do those millions of people do?

All big picture questions I've been wondering about.

well there are many that like to argue we must be more like europe in many ways.  for whatever reason, i'm not quite sure, but ya gotta be careful what ya wish for-

https://www.cnet.com/news/mcdonalds-hires-7000-touch-screen-cashiers/

and this is just macdonalds
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jay Bee on July 07, 2017, 03:40:58 PM
I have an admittedly naive question about automation.

I recognize all of the financial benefits to automating certain jobs.....but at what point do we start to question the morality of it? I know McDonald's could save millions of dollars by firing all of their cashiers and replacing them with ordering kiosks. Is that right?

Geez

Not only is it right, but it would be wrong not to.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 07, 2017, 03:47:04 PM
I have an admittedly naive question about automation.

I recognize all of the financial benefits to automating certain jobs.....but at what point do we start to question the morality of it? I know McDonald's could save millions of dollars by firing all of their cashiers and replacing them with ordering kiosks. Is that right? Should we as consumers demand that companies keep those jobs for actual human beings? Should the government intervene by offering incentives for companies who continue to hire human beings for jobs that they could have automated? At some point does the government need to stop certain jobs from being automated? What happens when all the truck drivers, cashiers, uber drivers, administrative assistants, etc all lose their jobs? What do those millions of people do?

All big picture questions I've been wondering about.

In 1965 a senate committee was predicting that due to rising productivity, American's would be working 20-hour work weeks and getting 7-weeks of vacation a year.  Business found a solution to the problem.  Pay them less and keep the profits for themselves. 

Instead of this taking place, more people now work (women filling the workforce), we work longer hours, we are immensely more productive and we make less and are less happy.  During the 70's and 80's and continuing until today, wages didn't keep up with productivity gains.  Instead people worked harder for less and profits went to the top 1%. 

Now we are getting predictions like this again, that automation will make most people unemployed.  I assure you, they won't let the population sit idle an actually have time to institute change, business will find a way to use labor and make more profit for the top 1%.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 07, 2017, 04:04:17 PM
people should be tripping over each other to get the training/education to fix these automated machines.  yes, i realize they are already out there, but the more automation we institute, the more we will need.  i consatntly tell my IT guy, they are worth their weight in gold...the good ones who can communicate and ya don't feel like you are getting ripped off.  kinda like the cabbie taking the long way
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on July 07, 2017, 04:48:37 PM
people should be tripping over each other to get the training/education to fix these automated machines.  yes, i realize they are already out there, but the more automation we institute, the more we will need.  i consatntly tell my IT guy, they are worth their weight in gold...the good ones who can communicate and ya don't feel like you are getting ripped off.  kinda like the cabbie taking the long way

While you make a good point about fixing the machines. The math still doesn't work out in favor of the human labor force. 1 fast food joint has 4 "cashiers". They could hire 1 full-time tech to work on them as needed. What about all the other human workers that have been displaced?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on July 07, 2017, 04:49:28 PM
Here's the thing: Not every worker needs a living wage. I'm talking about high school students, retirees, and 2nd income earners like a stay at home mom or dad.  These workers are looking for a little extra cash, a little work experience for HS students, and sometimes in the case of the retiree or stay at home parent, something to do.

There main source of income is parents, retirement savings, or a financially successful spouse.  So there is a market for workers that do not need a living wage.

I view minimum wage as a starting point to make sure companies aren't paying slave wages.  Plus, cost of living varies greatly from state to state and even regionally within states.  So the federal minimum wage is yet again a starting point. States, counties, and cities can all tailor their minimum wage to the cost of living.

But again, the bigger issue is getting more money into the middle earners.  The median household income in the US went down 2.5% from 1999 to 2015.  Cumulative inflation during that time was 42%.  So how do we get the median household income to go up? My opinion is that raising the median household income will spur the economy by getting more money into the hands of consumers.

That will hopefully cause a domino effect where consumers spend a little more, prices can rise a little bit, and thus wages can increase for the bottom 20%.  Right now our economy has depressed wages, which leads to pressure to keep the costs of goods and services low.  The end result is a widening wealth gap.  I don't think that is ultimately sustrightble.

I'm not sure what the solution is.  But that is the problem more so than minimum wage.  If the middle class is strong, money will trickle in both directions to the upper and lower class.

Bullcrap. Trickle down economics works. Cut taxes for the wealthy and watch everyone prosper.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 07, 2017, 05:02:43 PM
Here's a question: If all of the fast-food restaurants go to automation, putting tens of millions of people out of work, who will eat at the restaurants? Rich people ain't going to those places, and those of lesser means won't be able to afford it.

One reason Wal-Mart gave for finally raising its minimum wage company-wide was that its accountants pointed out that Wal-Mart employees couldn't afford to shop at Wal-Mart.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jay Bee on July 07, 2017, 06:16:42 PM
Here's a question: If all of the fast-food restaurants go to automation, putting tens of millions of people out of work, who will eat at the restaurants? Rich people ain't going to those places, and those of lesser means won't be able to afford it.

Plenty of "rich people" (your definition is ____?) eat fast food
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on July 07, 2017, 06:25:23 PM
Here's a question: If all of the fast-food restaurants go to automation, putting tens of millions of people out of work, who will eat at the restaurants? Rich people ain't going to those places, and those of lesser means won't be able to afford it.

One reason Wal-Mart gave for finally raising its minimum wage company-wide was that its accountants pointed out that Wal-Mart employees couldn't afford to shop at Wal-Mart.

80% of the American Population eat fast food at least once a month.
(That's over 200 million people a month)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163868/fast-food-major-part-diet.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=USA%20-%20Wellbeing

(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/k1gi6q3afueldk4ame6jpa.png)

That means if you automate all the fast food restaurants, they can lower their prices (they have to, the competition is so great it demands it) and the living standard of the entire country goes up.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 07, 2017, 07:00:33 PM
80% of the American Population eat fast food at least once a month.
(That's over 200 million people a month)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163868/fast-food-major-part-diet.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=USA%20-%20Wellbeing

(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/k1gi6q3afueldk4ame6jpa.png)

That means if you automate all the fast food restaurants, they can lower their prices (they have to, the competition is so great it demands it) and the living standard of the entire country goes up.

Looking at that poll, it looks like the majority of respondents said they AT MOST eat at fast-food restaurants once or twice per month.

During the Great Recession, McDonald's was one of the few stocks that didn't get killed because its business increased nicely, suggesting that those who used to eat at higher-priced places "downsized" to Mickey D's.

I probably was wrong saying "rich folks" don't go to fast-food places because, as JB alluded to, it's all how one defines "rich." I do think that, long term, there could be a problem if we have millions upon millions of people who used to grill burgers and man registers unemployed. But I don't know. I don't pretend to have all the answers.

As somebody else said, our society has had an ability to survive automation and evolve over the centuries. I mean, I haven't used a blacksmith in at least a few months!

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 07, 2017, 07:02:42 PM
My question was more philosophical in nature than serious.  I'm a huge fan of dystopian novels and about half of them start with too many jobs being automized
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on July 07, 2017, 07:08:06 PM
While you make a good point about fixing the machines. The math still doesn't work out in favor of the human labor force. 1 fast food joint has 4 "cashiers". They could hire 1 full-time tech to work on them as needed. What about all the other human workers that have been displaced?

I found this article to be very informative and thought-provoking.  It's from Cracked, so there is humor and inappropriate language interspersed, but some excellent points are made:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/computers-wont-take-your-jobs-theyre-creating-new-ones/

Thanks to the internet, we've all got an embarrassment of riches in terms of stuff to panic about. Between ISIS, North Korea, our orange-faced president, and the grim nightmare specter of Hillary Clinton's emails, everyone has something to worry over. And one of the most common panic buttons on rotation across the headlines is that ROBOTS ARE GONNA TAKE ALL OF OUR JOBS! JESUS TITBALLS, PANIC!

But is the situation really this dire? I took a deep dive into the evidence and sat down with some experts to try to figure that out. Here's what I learned ...

#5. Historically, Computers Create More Jobs Than They Kill

When you spend a lot of time reading articles on the upcoming automation jobpocalypse, you'll see one statistic cited above all others:



And that absolutely seems worth panicking about. Unemployment crept above 20 percent during the worst part of the Great Depression. 47 percent unemployment would spell the end of our civilization. If these headlines are correct, we're 20 years away from unimaginable change. But those headlines -- and the study contained in them -- don't tell the whole story.

First off, those researchers are only claiming that 47 percent of all current jobs will be automatable within 20 years. But that automation doesn't happen in a vacuum. For example, the authors of that study make a point about how computer algorithms are increasingly doing the work of lawyers and patent attorneys:


But rather than leading to a vast unemployment crisis for paralegals, the field is expected to grow by 8 percent through 2024. Computers are capable of doing a lot of the work paralegals used to do, which means their employers are able to offer more services, for less, to more customers than ever before. For the foreseeable future, paralegals will get to keep paralegalin'.

"What happens when you automate something? You make it cheaper, you make it better-quality, and that drives up consumer demand." That's Professor Jim Bessen, a lecturer at Boston University who studies the "economics of innovation." He authored a comprehensive study on how automation impacts jobs. He argues that computers tend to increase employment in most fields, and I am almost 75 percent certain he's not an agent of Skynet. Professor Bessen doesn't think much of the 47 percent study: "It's just complete bullcrap. They identified jobs like accountant and bank loan officer. There's just too many things that humans do."

I reached out to the authors of that study for commentary, and they never got back to me. (Possibly because Professor Bessen terminated them to aid the rise of the machines, possibly because they thought Cracked was a much more hardcore version of High Times.) But Professor Bessen was able to make some compelling points about how automation's impacted employment over the last hundred-ish years. He pointed out that the impact of machines on the tailoring field wasn't exactly what you'd expect:

"Typically at the end of the 19th century, the average person would have just one set of clothing," but as machines made clothing cheaper to make, "the amount of cloth that was consumed per capita went up 10 times, so that offset the amount of labor required per yard of cloth." It turns out that "for the first 100 years of textile automation, automation was accompanied by growing employment."

You see that in a lot of fields. When ATMs were first introduced, people thought they'd put thousands of bank tellers out of jobs. Here's what actually happened to the employment rate of bank tellers:


It turns out that an entire job field being wiped out by machines is actually a pretty rare occurrence: "I looked at the number of occupations in 1950 and how many disappeared, and of the ones that disappeared, how many could be put down to automation. And it turns out there's only one. The one occupation that can be attributed to largely disappearing because of automation? Elevator operator."

"But Cracked, you machine-fondling hobgoblins," you may ask, "what about self-driving cars? What about all those manufacturing jobs that don't exist anymore? My uncle lost his job to a machine you robo-sympathetic race traitors!" First off, Jesus, chill the hell out. Second ...

#4. The Risk Isn't Unemployment -- It's Inequality

The most common criticism of Professor Bessen's ATM point is that while teller jobs experienced a boom, that boom has started to level off and decline. And Professor Bessen freely pointed out that the boom in textile jobs didn't last: "In [the] 1940s, 1950s, we had almost half a million production workers in the textile industry, and today it's under 20,000. There's been a huge drop in jobs in the textile industry... some of that is due to globalization, but most of it, actually 3/4ths of it, is automated."

Oooooooooooooooh crap, everyone! Get back on the panic bus! The machines ARE going to take all of our jobs. Internet, you can resume freaking out.



Only, maybe don't freak out. The gradual elimination of certain jobs by machine still doesn't mean an unemployment crisis. In 1950, the unemployment rate was 5.3 percent. And our current unemployment rate, after decades of automation ... is 4.3 percent. When you look at, say, the employment rate for manufacturing jobs since 1960, it seems like a disaster:


Global Macro Monitor

And for people who loved their manufacturing jobs, it was. But we didn't wind up living in a jobless hellscape where welders were reduced to sucking robotic cocks to pay their rent. Here's Professor Bessen again: "What you find is in manufacturing industries, computer automation still does tend to reduce jobs, but in service, healthcare, and finance, it's associated with growing employment rather than declining."

Employment in the service industry has ballooned from 13 percent to 30 percent in the last 60 years. And that brings us to one of the actual, real worries of automation: Machines aren't going to leave us unemployed, but they might force a lot of us to work craptier, lower-paying gigs. U.S. income inequality is at the highest level it's been since 1928.

"Obviously, the unemployment level is pretty low right now," says Bessen. "It doesn't seem like machines are putting a lot of people out of work, and that's what a deeper dive into the data said. But it doesn't mean everything's rosy and there's nothing to worry about. There are a lot of people who are losing jobs, but more jobs are being created in other occupations and other places, and it's a difficult transition."

The actual quasipocalyptic danger of automation isn't machines taking all the jobs; it's that machines turn middle-income people into lower-income people. They also create a ton of good jobs. Pretty much every article you read on the Internet is written by someone who wouldn't have a job if not for computers. But it's not like someone who's manned a drill press at a Ford plant for 15 years can hop right into being a social media guru or an internet comedy writer. Retraining takes time and money, and someone with kids and a mortgage probably can't afford to go grab another degree when a robot takes their job.

So we do have reasons to be worried about automation. But there's also a reason to be excited, because ...

#3. Computers Are Making Work More Satisfying For A Lot of People

Data gathered from workers in the UK and the U.S. indicates that job satisfaction is on the rise. More people are more content in their careers today. Some of that happiness may be that many folks are just happy to have a job. But it does appear that a lot of people find their jobs more satisfying than they did a decade or two ago.

One reason for this might be that since computers can handle so many rote tasks, the jobs left for people are more creative and thus more fulfilling. This lines up with Professor Bessen's expectations for the future: "You're going to see more creative occupations. We've been seeing that. One of the examples I look at is typesetters and graphic designers. Desktop publishing came along, and it eliminated most of the jobs of typesetters and compositors, but it created many more jobs ... Stuff that would've been done on the typewriter 30 or 40 years ago is much more highly designed. There's much more creative content. You're also seeing growth in jobs where interpersonal skills are important. Independent bookstores have actually been growing, and Amazon itself has actually been growing into having brick-and-mortar bookstores."

Some of the apocalyptic predictions about automation are absolutely true. For one thing, self-driving cars are going to wipe out millions of jobs. Even Professor Bessen expects to see that happen in the next decade or two. It's going to suck for a lot of people, probably a lot of people you know. A good 20 percent of you are reading this in between Ubering people around your city. Computers absolutely give y'all something to fear.

But remember how the service industry blossomed like a cash-filled flower as manufacturing jobs collapsed? Well, we're currently seeing another industry blossom thanks to more and better computers. And yes, I realize the flower analogy didn't add anything to that paragraph. Let's just all move past it and talk about how the entertainment industry is in the middle of exploding. It grew 66 percent from 1998 to 2010.

More of the workforce makes a living off of creating content right now than they have at any other point in human history. Spending on entertainment hit a high point, per family, in 2008. It declined slightly as the recession set in, but over the last few years it's steadily crept back up, and in 2016, we spent more on entertainment than we had in 2008. Digital media has caused a huge surge in entertainment jobs -- and not just in Los Angeles, but as far afield as a whole bunch of African nations.

The fact that hundreds of thousands of people are making money off of YouTube, Patreon, Indiegogo, and Kickstarter doesn't negate the fact that hundreds of thousands more lost their jobs thanks to computers. The Venn diagram of "unemployed smelters" and "YouTube celebrities" probably doesn't overlap much. So the big question we're all going to have to answer in the next 20 years isn't "How do we deal with robot-created unemployment?" It's "How do we retrain people to do all these new jobs before they go bankrupt and wind up eating the rich?"

#2. We're Going To Need To Give Poor People Free Money

This entry is not about universal basic income. A lot of people have written about how universal basic income, a permanent minimum wage for everyone who can't work, will be necessary once the machines take over.


Futurism/NPR

Finland is currently in the middle of a study on how well universal basic income actually works, as are cities in California, India, Italy, Canada, and beyond. It'll be a few years before we have a lot of scientific data on exactly how well it works. In the meantime, the United States also has millions of people who hate paying for public schools. People who oppose a $15 minimum wage probably won't get on board the "free money for everyone" train.

But there's an option in between basic income and letting millions of people go homeless when we finally teach robots how to drive. A charity called GiveDirectly is currently experimenting with what they call "unconditional cash transfers." Basically, they give limited amounts of money to impoverished people -- the equivalent of a year or two's wages -- in the hope that they'll invest this money in their future.


GiveDirectly

Your inner Republican might assume that giving poor people a sudden pile of cash would primarily benefit the methamphetamine market. But GiveDirectly has actual data on how their cash transfers work. I talked to Johannes Haushofer, an assistant professor at Princeton and an economist for MIT's Poverty Action Lab. He conducted a study on GiveDirectly's cash transfers in Kenya. From 2011 to 2013, they gave randomly selected households roughly two year's worth of expenses. Everything was randomized. In some households, the wife got the money; in other households, the husband. Some households received lump sum payments, and others received monthly payments.

The first thing they noticed is that no one went right out and spent their big pile of cash on alcohol and flat-screen TVs. They spent it on new roofs for their homes, investing in their own businesses, educating themselves and their families, and, of course, buying enough food to not starve to death. The families who received the payments showed long-term benefits: They were less stressed, better educated, healthier, and had more "durable" assets (livestock, a nice home) than they did before the study.

Another cash transfer study, conducted in Bangladesh, showed a 38 percent increase in earnings for extremely poor people who received piles o' money. This study of 10,000 poor people in six countries also found that poor people tend to invest the money they get in cash transfers into their futures, rather than additional six-packs. We don't know yet if universal basic income would work, but there's actually reason to believe that temporary cash transfers might be a better solution to the problems of automation. Haushofer says: "The labor supply response of a basic income grant could be different from a cash transfer. You might imagine that if you just get money once, you know that next year you're on your own again, it doesn't make sense to reduce your labor supply. But when you're good for the rest of your life, you might think differently."

I should also note that Haushofer is still bullish on the idea of basic income: "There are surveys on how people would respond to basic income, and those are generally pretty optimistic in terms of whether people would stop working ... so I don't want to paint it black. I think it's a great idea and should be tried, and I'm optimistic that it'll work well." But the point is that, right now, we know cash transfers can help lift people out of a poverty spiral.

It may be that most Americans will never accept the idea of paying for someone else to get a permanent meal ticket. But you could sell cash transfers as basically paying for people who've lost their jobs to learn how to do new ones. The payment is a stopgap, so they can keep contributing to the economy and not die in the streets while they learn how to go from, say, mining coal to coding. Professor Bessen agreed: "The problem with a permanent basic income may well be that it discourages people from making the effort to retrain. So temporary support seems to be much more suited to the real problem" -- that is, the problem caused by computers.

If we're willing to be smart about it, automation doesn't need to be a humanitarian disaster. And there's at least one way in which it might make the world an objectively better place ...

#1. Automation Might Benefit The Ladies Most Of All

Without getting too political, we can all agree that the last six months haven't been exactly the most inspiring days in the long battle for women's equality. There's a reason The Handmaid's Tale is seen as so relevant right now, and it's got nothing to do with the fact that bonnets are making a comeback.

Barring the establishment of an anti-women theocratic murder state, women are actually poised to benefit the most from automation. This Atlantic video with Jerry Kaplan of Stanford and Saadia Zahidi of the World Economic Forum makes the case that "automation could place a premium on the type of work that women tend to be good at, like person-to-person interaction, reading human emotion, collaboration, and creativity."

When I brought this up to Professor Bessen, he cautioned that "the evidence is weak," but "it also seems quite plausible". He pointed out two findings from his own research:

"Young women were often key in adopting new technologies. For example, it was mainly young women who worked with the new textile technologies in the Industrial Revolution, and also when these industries industrialized in Japan and China. Second, that pattern appears to be true today for information technology; women are more likely to use computers at work, all else equal."

But wait, there's more! In his research on cash transfers, Professor Haushofer also found a surprising benefit for women. The cash transfers lead to a drop in domestic violence, both in the households that received the money and in their neighbors. We don't exactly know why yet. My theory is that toxic radiation bestowed sentience on a pile of cash, which now fights spousal abuse as the Green Knight. Professor Haushofer noted another possibility:

"It could be that, in the treatment households, the husband stops beating his wife for whatever reason, either because she feels empowered now or because he's less stressed and less aggressive. The wife might then share this with her friends, it could echo around the village and become a new norm that it's not OK for the husband to beat his wife. That's one possible channel, but we don't have good evidence yet as to whether that's true or not."

Other research into cash transfers around the world has made similar observations. And this study from the EU noted that unemployment among men led to a decrease in domestic violence, while unemployment among women caused it to increase. There's compelling evidence to suggest that when people have more money, they're less vulnerable to abusive pretty boys. This, uh, probably isn't that surprising to anyone reading this from Ferguson or South Baltimore. But it is one more reason to look to the coming robocalypse with excitement, rather than dread.

The Age of Machines is upon us, and it might be pretty sweet.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 07, 2017, 07:24:53 PM
A lot of the arguments saying that "automation" will not affect jobs is based on the fact that innovation creates more jobs. 

In this case though, why wouldn't the new jobs also be performed by automated machines?

There is no reason to assume that the new jobs would require human labor. 

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 07, 2017, 07:42:45 PM
Good stuff chick.  Really enjoyed the article. The stuff on basic income was interesting....and it even connected back to the original topic! I love the idea in theory but can't imagine something like that ever being passed in the US. The studies they reference seem to contradict the narrative that handouts lead to lazy poor.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Tugg Speedman on July 07, 2017, 08:33:43 PM
A lot of the arguments saying that "automation" will not affect jobs is based on the fact that innovation creates more jobs. 

In this case though, why wouldn't the new jobs also be performed by automated machines?

There is no reason to assume that the new jobs would require human labor.

I agree, at the end of the day, technology and automation will create more jobs than it eliminates.  Most of them don't exist now and many of them have not even been thought of.  Like eBay sellers, YouTube personalities, Uber drivers, Airbnb, task rabbit, etc. ... before connected computers even if it was proven you returned in a time machine from the future, past generations would not believe these could be actual jobs.  Likewise, the new jobs that technology will create, that your grandkids might have, you cannot even imagine today.

But first, comes the productivity increases and the loss of existing jobs first, then comes the creation.  See the rapid adopt rates of new technology.  What different this time is the automation will come fast and the existing jobs will disappear fast.  The new jobs will come to slower.,

In 1900, 50% of all jobs were on a farm.  In 2000 it was less than 2%.  This took generations.  Today's automation could do the same to the economy but now in just a few years.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 07, 2017, 08:35:20 PM
  "tens of millions of people out of work, who will eat at the restaurants? "  ?????

well the cashiers union ought to be ashamed of themselves


all yous people arguing for living wages, equal pay, eliminating poverty, etc etc.  do you really think we will ever achieve anything even close?  i mean, it's always good, ethical and the right thing to do, to help the less fortunate and i believe everyone here tries to do their own part in their own ways, but many of you are arguing that we need to do it at someone else's expense.  and don't start on the "fair share" thing because the gubmint is already TAKING more than they need.  it's all the waste that drives me crazy.  so many of our pols use our tax money to enrich themselves by using the "golden rule" to continue to get re-elected and on and on.  yeah, i wanna see more shrimp on treadmill studies and $43 million on cng conversion gas stations in pakistan...and we are in debt? 

    The John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport has an impressive $18 million runway made of reinforced concrete that's big enough to land any airplane in North America. The airport also has a $7 million air traffic control tower, a $14 million hanger and $8 million radar. Most of the time, the only thing the airport doesn't have is airplanes.

this snipet from ABC news-
"An average of just 20 people a day flew out of the Murtha Airport last year. But, the airport was just awarded more federal money -- $800,000 in stimulus funds to repave an alternate runway.
Located in Johnston, Pa., 56 miles from Pittsburgh, the Murtha Airport is a monument to the power of Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who has steered some $150 million in taxpayer dollars to the airport over the last decade."
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on July 07, 2017, 09:26:14 PM
Good stuff chick.  Really enjoyed the article. The stuff on basic income was interesting....and it even connected back to the original topic! I love the idea in theory but can't imagine something like that ever being passed in the US. The studies they reference seem to contradict the narrative that handouts lead to lazy poor.

Even as someone who considers herself a fiscal conservative, I find the idea of basic income intriguing, especially if that includes the premise that literally everyone gets it (from Donald Trump on down) and all other entitlement programs are completely eliminated.  It would likely be far less expensive than our current programs to administer.  Here are the main issues I see with it:

1.  How much does a child get?  If an adult gets, say, $20K a year, do you get $20K for each kid you pop out as well?  Is it a sliding scale based on  the age of your child?
2.  What would be the cultural and societal ramifications of having tens of millions of able-bodied adults that have literally nothing to do all day?  As the say, an idle mind [and body, for that matter], is the devil's playground.
3.  How long before we start making exceptions and additions to the basic income for certain people until we are right back to where we started, with dozens of specialized programs with their own bureaucracies and set asides?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 08, 2017, 06:54:34 AM
Even as someone who considers herself a fiscal conservative, I find the idea of basic income intriguing, especially if that includes the premise that literally everyone gets it (from Donald Trump on down) and all other entitlement programs are completely eliminated.  It would likely be far less expensive than our current programs to administer.  Here are the main issues I see with it:

1.  How much does a child get?  If an adult gets, say, $20K a year, do you get $20K for each kid you pop out as well?  Is it a sliding scale based on  the age of your child?
2.  What would be the cultural and societal ramifications of having tens of millions of able-bodied adults that have literally nothing to do all day?  As the say, an idle mind [and body, for that matter], is the devil's playground.
3.  How long before we start making exceptions and additions to the basic income for certain people until we are right back to where we started, with dozens of specialized programs with their own bureaucracies and set asides?

As essentially a libertarian and fiscal conservative I too am intrigued by the concept of basic income. I agree with all you said but my biggest concern is that for it to work society has to say this is what you get and no more. Spend all your money, too bad get some work there isn't anymore. As soon as stories surface of people starving in the street, we're right back to where we were before.

On the flip side I could see it really freeing up innovation. Could you imagine if Einstein hadn't needed to be a patent clerk?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 08, 2017, 07:40:13 AM
On the flip side I could see it really freeing up innovation. Could you imagine if Einstein hadn't needed to be a patent clerk?

Then we wouldn't know Einstein at all!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkMiWH4n1lw
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 08, 2017, 11:43:48 AM
I agree, at the end of the day, technology and automation will create more jobs than it eliminates.  Most of them don't exist now and many of them have not even been thought of.  Like eBay sellers, YouTube personalities, Uber drivers, Airbnb, task rabbit, etc. ... before connected computers even if it was proven you returned in a time machine from the future, past generations would not believe these could be actual jobs.  Likewise, the new jobs that technology will create, that your grandkids might have, you cannot even imagine today.

But first, comes the productivity increases and the loss of existing jobs first, then comes the creation.  See the rapid adopt rates of new technology.  What different this time is the automation will come fast and the existing jobs will disappear fast.  The new jobs will come to slower.,

In 1900, 50% of all jobs were on a farm.  In 2000 it was less than 2%.  This took generations.  Today's automation could do the same to the economy but now in just a few years.

We don't agree.  I don't see any reason why new jobs would not be automated at all. 

Other major transitions (agricultural to industrial) created a shift in the economic landscape.  Mechanical tools could perform agricultural work better than us, and crop yields went up...but all the tools needed to be made by man.  We've had a slow transition where industry has gradually become automated, and we have lost manufacturing jobs in the process, which has led us to a current problem in much of the country. 

When automation is fully implemented, there are few if any jobs that cannot be completed by robotics/automation.  So new jobs may be created, but they will not require manual labor.  They will also be performed by automation/robotics. 

The only reason this doesn't happen is if the people in charge deem it too dangerous to have people not working (idle hands), and create labor to keep them busy.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 08, 2017, 02:37:24 PM
Back in 1980 or so, my best friend at MU wrote a philosophy paper titled something like: "Computers ... They Must Be Destroyed!"

Who knew he'd turn out to have been right?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on July 08, 2017, 02:59:34 PM
Back in 1980 or so, my best friend at MU wrote a philosophy paper titled something like: "Computers ... They Must Be Destroyed!"

Who knew he'd turn out to have been right?

(http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/TIME-Machine-of-the-Year.jpg)
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 08, 2017, 06:32:21 PM
(http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/TIME-Machine-of-the-Year.jpg)

Nice.

And now that I think of it, the paper was titled "Computers ... They Must Be Stopped."

(Management apologizes for the inconvenience.)
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jockey on July 08, 2017, 09:50:32 PM
Ted Kaczynski on technology:

“The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.”


He may have been nuts, but he wasn't crazy.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jockey on July 08, 2017, 10:04:35 PM

One of the funny things(not haha funny but ironic funny) is that right now, fully one-third of US citizens are on some form of government health insurance (Medicare or Medicaid), I even found an article that indicates that half of all health insurance is government-based (though I'm dubious of the source). Let's assume the 1/3 number is more accurate....if the healthcare system is broken or not working then those programs have to be at least partially responsible for the break, however reforming or changing those programs seems to be a non-starter.

There is no doubt those programs provide a necessary service (I have nephews that receive necessary care from programs supported by medicaid that would otherwise be unavailable) however, they have somehow transformed from providing extraordinary care to providing standard care which reduces the effectiveness of the overall system. So for every kid that needs services for say autism there are adults who are using it for standard healthcare delivery for various reasons. This trajectory is unsustrightble.


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/medicaid-and-medicare-enrollees-now-outnumber-full-time-private-sector-workers (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/medicaid-and-medicare-enrollees-now-outnumber-full-time-private-sector-workers)

You bring up a very interesting subject. The question, I guess, is why so many are on gov't assistance.

I would posit that the people who complain about the high number on gov't assistance are the exact same people who worked for decades to destroy unions - the very institution that provided medical insurance to millions of families for decades. So after working so hard then (just as they do now) to prevent families from having medical insurance, what did they think would take its place?

Why should families like the Waltons become billionaires 50 or 60 times over by paying such low wages that we taxpayers have to provide insurance for THEIR employees? Low wages and schedules that leave most employees short of hours to get insurance provided by the company force the majority of their people to look to the government to provide them with basic care.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 09, 2017, 04:00:17 PM
  " Low wages and schedules that leave most employees short of hours to get insurance provided by the company force the majority of their people to look to the government to provide them with basic care."

  wasn't one of the main reasons for triggering cuts in hours, full time to part time due to obamacare?  the employer mandate to provide health insurance to full time workers-30 hours or more triggered employers to get as many people below the 30 hour/week threshold
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Macallan 18 on July 13, 2017, 12:51:32 PM
On the flip side I could see it really freeing up innovation. Could you imagine if Einstein hadn't needed to be a patent clerk?

There was an interesting article about a program the Canadian government did between 1974 and 1979 in which they gave a basic income guarantee (BIG) to an entire town.

Here is an article about it - https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nze99z/the-mincome-experiment-dauphin

Some recipients used the money to pay for essentials; others used it as supplementary income to purchase things that could help them increase their earning potential, like new vehicles. One major benefit of the program was a sense of security, potentially counteracting the sort of worrying that can​weigh heavily on the minds of the poor.

Some participants commented that knowing they had a set amount of money coming in made them more likely to try things like starting a new business as they would still be getting paid if the business was slow to start or ended up failing.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: CTWarrior on July 13, 2017, 02:05:10 PM
Ted Kaczynski on technology:

“The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.”


He may have been nuts, but he wasn't crazy.

Was cleaning out the bookshelf two weekends ago and came across Eating the Dinosaur by Chuck Klosterman that I had never read.  I finished it this past weekend and it devoted a chapter to Ted Kazcynski's manifesto (or whatever you would call it) and said he made a lot of sense in many areas regarding man's relationship to technology.  Klosterman pointed out that the method he used to get people to read was of course the method of a nut job, though he said it much more eloquently than did I.  Anyway, fairly interesting and easy read about how people treat the truth, effect of media, etc.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: B. McBannerson on July 13, 2017, 11:42:32 PM
Yes, major fraud. Just because the PR department has an excuse handy, defrauding taxpayers out of millions and millions of dollars is major fraud.

If a "welfare queen" did something 1/10,000th as bad, it would be Major, Major, Major Fraud to many, and they'd want to lock her up.

$1.3 Billion in fraud potentially found, largest in US history?  Gov't going after over 400 people  Everyone needs their day in court so let us see how it is resolved.  If they are found guilty, you don't think it is a good idea to send a message to others that this will not be tolerated anymore? That the $1.3Billion should go to the people that really need it?  Go after the corporations and the individuals I say.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/07/13/largest-health-care-fraud-takedown-us-history-412-people-charged-schemes-worth-13-billion

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 14, 2017, 09:44:45 AM
$1.3 Billion in fraud potentially found, largest in US history?  Gov't going after over 400 people  Everyone needs their day in court so let us see how it is resolved.  If they are found guilty, you don't think it is a good idea to send a message to others that this will not be tolerated anymore? That the $1.3Billion should go to the people that really need it?  Go after the corporations and the individuals I say.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/07/13/largest-health-care-fraud-takedown-us-history-412-people-charged-schemes-worth-13-billion

Yes, I saw this story earlier today, and of course I think they should be punished. All of these accused are doctors, nurses and pharmacists.

Again, if a welfare queen commits "fraud" so she can get $10 extra per week to feed her kids, many want to lock her up. But that problem is so overblown, with the Reagan-era scaremongering starting much of it. It is the large-scale fraud we should be going after first, second and third - the insiders (as in this probe), the corporations, etc.

I'll be interested in following this case to see what actually becomes of it, to see if jail time is actually meted out, and to see if the powerful people of means see one day in jail.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on July 14, 2017, 10:26:33 AM
Yes, I saw this story earlier today, and of course I think they should be punished. All of these accused are doctors, nurses and pharmacists.

Again, if a welfare queen commits "fraud" so she can get $10 extra per week to feed her kids, many want to lock her up. But that problem is so overblown, with the Reagan-era scaremongering starting much of it. It is the large-scale fraud we should be going after first, second and third - the insiders (as in this probe), the corporations, etc.

I'll be interested in following this case to see what actually becomes of it, to see if jail time is actually meted out, and to see if the powerful people of means see one day in jail.

The larger point you're missing is that duping the bureaucrats running a monopoly that doesn't have a bottom line that has to be met is way easier than defrauding people in a relatively transparent, competitive and free market. If governments squander our money due to inefficiencies or fraud they just take more $ to cover the losses. Businesses under those conditions cease to operate.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 14, 2017, 10:42:50 AM
The larger point you're missing is that duping the bureaucrats running a monopoly that doesn't have a bottom line that has to be met is way easier than defrauding people in a relatively transparent, competitive and free market. If governments squander our money due to inefficiencies or fraud they just take more $ to cover the losses. Businesses under those conditions cease to operate.

The larger point you're missing is that Health Care is not a transparent, competitive and free market.  Health care agencies fraudulently tae our money due to greed.  They do not cease to operate, because health care is a need and is not governed by a free market. 

This $1.3B case is a drop in the bucket compared to much of what is going on in this country.  I know many people that are aware of health care providers committing fraud, that do not report it for fear that the insurance companies will come after them for the money and/or they will have a hard time finding another doctor to treat them for ongoing medical conditions...often involving pain management. 

I also know of people that did report the fraud to the health care organization, that were then blacklisted from treatment everywhere else.

Anyone more worried about welfare queens, then corporate/healthcare fraud has their head in the sand.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on July 14, 2017, 10:54:24 AM
The larger point you're missing is that duping the bureaucrats running a monopoly that doesn't have a bottom line that has to be met is way easier than defrauding people in a relatively transparent, competitive and free market. If governments squander our money due to inefficiencies or fraud they just take more $ to cover the losses. Businesses under those conditions cease to operate.

Ever hear of AIG? GM? Chrysler (twice)? TARP? The Savings and Loan industry? Bear Stearns?

The notion that it's only government that can get away with squandering money due to inefficiencies and fraud without ceasing to exist is plainly false. It's equally false that it's only government that takes more of our $ to cover the losses. Corporations do it to the tune of billions of dollars. They just need their friends in Washington to serve as their bagmen.

And that's not even going into how the government offering protection via bankruptcy to businesses that fail due to inefficiencies and fraud turns into added costs for us consumers.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against any particular bailout ... that's a whole other debate. Just pointing out that the notion that businesses fail due to fraud, inefficiency, etc., often are allowed to survive at a high cost to taxpayers.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 14, 2017, 11:02:27 AM
The larger point you're missing is that Health Care is not a transparent, competitive and free market.  Health care agencies fraudulently tae our money due to greed.  They do not cease to operate, because health care is a need and is not governed by a free market. 

Healthcare is not governed by a free market because that is the way the government has set it up. Yes, healthcare is a need but so is food, we manage to purchase that on a relatively free market without issue, healthcare should be on the same type of spectrum.

I know there was a bunch of debate about free market vs socialism and I'm going to avoid some of that absolutism in this response (not saying you are doing that)

I view this stuff on a spectrum with absolute free market(no government at all, libertarian wet dream) on one end and absolute socialism(single payer, super liberal wet dream). Currently, IMO healthcare as it is constructed is skewed far to close to the socialism end and needs to move closer to free market. There are far too many artificial mechanisms that result in poor healthcare results and/or inefficiencies in the market. One of the easiest examples is competition across state lines.

Examples of ways to make healthcare more truly free market:
-Eliminate state based definition of healthcare requirements (allow insurance to compete across state lines)
-Treat healthcare provided by companies to employees as revenue and tax it accordingly
-Eliminate companies ability to self insure, this will require individuals to purchase their own insurance on the market.....additionally it should make insurance truly portable as the individual is buying it not the company.

These things will never happen, but a boy can dream.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 14, 2017, 11:05:54 AM
Ever hear of AIG? GM? Chrysler (twice)? TARP? The Savings and Loan industry? Bear Stearns?

The notion that it's only government that can get away with squandering money due to inefficiencies and fraud without ceasing to exist is plainly false. It's equally false that it's only government that takes more of our $ to cover the losses. Corporations do it to the tune of billions of dollars. They just need their friends in Washington to serve as their bagmen.

And that's not even going into how the government offering protection via bankruptcy to businesses that fail due to inefficiencies and fraud turns into added costs for us consumers.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against any particular bailout ... that's a whole other debate. Just pointing out that the notion that businesses fail due to fraud, inefficiency, etc., often are allowed to survive at a high cost to taxpayers.

Those are largely one offs, there isn't a systemic policy of government stepping in to save a company from it's own mistakes, especially those involving fraud (WorldCom, Enron, etc).

And companies have no bankruptcy protection is loss is associated with fraud they committed.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on July 14, 2017, 11:17:30 AM
Ever hear of AIG? GM? Chrysler (twice)? TARP? The Savings and Loan industry? Bear Stearns?

The notion that it's only government that can get away with squandering money due to inefficiencies and fraud without ceasing to exist is plainly false. It's equally false that it's only government that takes more of our $ to cover the losses. Corporations do it to the tune of billions of dollars. They just need their friends in Washington to serve as their bagmen.

And that's not even going into how the government offering protection via bankruptcy to businesses that fail due to inefficiencies and fraud turns into added costs for us consumers.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against any particular bailout ... that's a whole other debate. Just pointing out that the notion that businesses fail due to fraud, inefficiency, etc., often are allowed to survive at a high cost to taxpayers.

As I've said on many occasions, the unholy alliance between big business and big government also takes accountability away from some favored businesses or corporations within those businesses. I'm just as against those situations that create a lack of accountability to consumers from corporations bailed out by government as I am by the lack of accountability by government itself.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on July 14, 2017, 11:33:46 AM
Healthcare is not governed by a free market because that is the way the government has set it up. Yes, healthcare is a need but so is food, we manage to purchase that on a relatively free market without issue, healthcare should be on the same type of spectrum.

Of course, the federal government spends about $25 billion a year subsidizing farm operations, often in such a way that encourages a certain type of food production over another (i.e. much of the subsidies go to farmers growing animal-feed crops, little of it goes to those growing fruits).

Regardless, food isn't a great analogy here. Not many (any) people are required to purchase food in a situation in which the lives of themselves or a family member is in immediate peril. If you show up to your local grocery store and the cut of steak you were looking for is too expensive, you aren't going to die. Nobody's child's life has been decided by whether or not they can afford a certain type of cereal. Nobody has to spend thousands of dollars in advance to purchase healthcare in case they need it in the future, only to face denial from the supermarket when it comes time to pick up the groceries. Nobody walks into a grocery store and is denied service because of what they had previously eaten.

Quote
Examples of ways to make healthcare more truly free market:
-Eliminate state based definition of healthcare requirements (allow insurance to compete across state lines)

Agreed.

Quote
-Treat healthcare provided by companies to employees as revenue and tax it accordingly
-Eliminate companies ability to self insure, this will require individuals to purchase their own insurance on the market.....additionally it should make insurance truly portable as the individual is buying it not the company.

These things appear to be mammoth taxes/cost impositions upon workers. Or are you assuming that companies will automatically transfer their healthcare costs into wages? If so, that's a pretty large assumption.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on July 14, 2017, 11:40:21 AM
Those are largely one offs, there isn't a systemic policy of government stepping in to save a company from it's own mistakes, especially those involving fraud (WorldCom, Enron, etc).

With all due respect, it's way off to suggest these are "one offs" when there were 972 recipients of just TARP funding. Chrysler alone has been bailed out twice. The S&L bailout involved hundreds of institutions.

Quote
And companies have no bankruptcy protection is loss is associated with fraud they committed.
What about inefficiencies?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 14, 2017, 02:36:03 PM
With all due respect, it's way off to suggest these are "one offs" when there were 972 recipients of just TARP funding. Chrysler alone has been bailed out twice. The S&L bailout involved hundreds of institutions.
What about inefficiencies?

I'm talking about TARP being a one off. The government was the one that chose to bail those companies out, it's not like it's codified in regulations or something.

And yes companies can escape inefficiencies but so can I As a private citizen via bankruptcy.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 14, 2017, 09:00:44 PM
These things appear to be mammoth taxes/cost impositions upon workers. Or are you assuming that companies will automatically transfer their healthcare costs into wages? If so, that's a pretty large assumption.

I don't think it's all that large an assumption simply because it just becomes part of the salary competition that already goes on. Additionally, companies will save money simply by not having to have infrastructure and bureaucracy to manage that portion of their compensation package.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 14, 2017, 10:40:25 PM
Healthcare is not governed by a free market because that is the way the government has set it up. Yes, healthcare is a need but so is food, we manage to purchase that on a relatively free market without issue, healthcare should be on the same type of spectrum.

I know there was a bunch of debate about free market vs socialism and I'm going to avoid some of that absolutism in this response (not saying you are doing that)

I view this stuff on a spectrum with absolute free market(no government at all, libertarian wet dream) on one end and absolute socialism(single payer, super liberal wet dream). Currently, IMO healthcare as it is constructed is skewed far to close to the socialism end and needs to move closer to free market. There are far too many artificial mechanisms that result in poor healthcare results and/or inefficiencies in the market. One of the easiest examples is competition across state lines.

Examples of ways to make healthcare more truly free market:
-Eliminate state based definition of healthcare requirements (allow insurance to compete across state lines)
-Treat healthcare provided by companies to employees as revenue and tax it accordingly
-Eliminate companies ability to self insure, this will require individuals to purchase their own insurance on the market.....additionally it should make insurance truly portable as the individual is buying it not the company.

These things will never happen, but a boy can dream.

See, I'm not sure healthcare as constructed is skewed closer to socialism than it is to free market.

Obamacare lets insurance companies call a huge percentage - maybe even a majority - of the shots.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 14, 2017, 11:50:55 PM
See, I'm not sure healthcare as constructed is skewed closer to socialism than it is to free market.

Obamacare lets insurance companies call a huge percentage - maybe even a majority - of the shots.

should this be in teal?  if obamacare allowed the insurance companies to call the shots, it wouldn't be near the mess it is.  exhibit A-i don't want paternity care coverage.  insurance companies would gladly pool ala carte type coverage together.  across state lines woud be even better.  obamacare is one size fits all
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 15, 2017, 06:00:19 AM
should this be in teal?  if obamacare allowed the insurance companies to call the shots, it wouldn't be near the mess it is.  exhibit A-i don't want paternity care coverage.  insurance companies would gladly pool ala carte type coverage together.  across state lines woud be even better.  obamacare is one size fits all

The insurance companies are partners with the government, and they lobbied excessively to have their place at the table. The drug companies, too, to a lesser extent.  The reason for the cost spike is that the insurance companies have to get theirs. The best way to cut costs would be to eliminate the middle man, but I'm resigned to the fact that - unlike almost every other developed nation in the world - we probably won't have universal healthcare in my lifetime.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on July 15, 2017, 06:16:33 AM
The insurance companies are partners with the government, and they lobbied excessively to have their place at the table. The drug companies, too, to a lesser extent.  The reason for the cost spike is that the insurance companies have to get theirs. The best way to cut costs would be to eliminate the middle man

Actually the best way to cut costs would be to eliminate the government (the real middle man) from the equation and also allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 15, 2017, 08:51:14 AM
Actually the best way to cut costs would be to eliminate the government (the real middle man) from the equation and also allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.

On the surface, that makes sense as one way to help make it work. I am leery about how much actual competition there will be and how much that really would help, however. Insurance rates have risen at much higher than the cost of inflation all across the country for years, a situation that began back when Obama was still a community organizer.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on July 15, 2017, 11:29:43 AM
Healthcare is not governed by a free market because that is the way the government has set it up. Yes, healthcare is a need but so is food, we manage to purchase that on a relatively free market without issue, healthcare should be on the same type of spectrum.

I know there was a bunch of debate about free market vs socialism and I'm going to avoid some of that absolutism in this response (not saying you are doing that)

I view this stuff on a spectrum with absolute free market(no government at all, libertarian wet dream) on one end and absolute socialism(single payer, super liberal wet dream). Currently, IMO healthcare as it is constructed is skewed far to close to the socialism end and needs to move closer to free market. There are far too many artificial mechanisms that result in poor healthcare results and/or inefficiencies in the market. One of the easiest examples is competition across state lines.

Examples of ways to make healthcare more truly free market:
-Eliminate state based definition of healthcare requirements (allow insurance to compete across state lines)
-Treat healthcare provided by companies to employees as revenue and tax it accordingly
-Eliminate companies ability to self insure, this will require individuals to purchase their own insurance on the market.....additionally it should make insurance truly portable as the individual is buying it not the company.

These things will never happen, but a boy can dream.

How about we eliminate quotas on how many new doctors we have each year.  Allow anyone to practice medicine provided they pass a general knowledge/skills test.

Let the free-market decide who is actually qualified/unqualified to practice medicine. 

I agree, that most would be against that, but the moment you are against that you have completely removed any concept of competition from healthcare, and it is no longer a free-market based system.

The things you describe to "fix the system" with "boy's dreams" will have little to no effect on healthcare costs in the US.  High health costs are not caused by not allowing insurance to compete against state lines, or not taxing employer health care, nor by companies self insuring. 

The costs are due to health care being a NEED, and because of that if the costs rise, people just have to cut back everywhere else.  Demand is fixed and increasing because of an aging population.  Supply is fixed (and restricted from growth by limited residency positions).  That leads to rapidly increasing costs that are not going to be fixed by bandaids or allowing insurance sales across state lines.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: B. McBannerson on July 15, 2017, 12:09:41 PM


(http://www.wvgazettemail.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/CH/20170713/DM0405/170719828/AR/0/AR-170719828.jpg&imageVersion=SoftCropArticlePictures)


An article this week from Walter Williams, professor at George Mason.  Professor Williams argues raising the minimum wage is cruel.  Explains in detail the restaurant closings, the raising of prices that hurt the poor and impact to those that supposedly are to be helped by such a policy change.



http://www.richmond.com/opinion/their-opinion/walter-williams/walter-williams-column-raising-the-minimum-wage-is-cruel/article_be6c83c2-c4fa-5e72-92db-61196ba06b80.html

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: B. McBannerson on July 15, 2017, 12:13:58 PM
St. Louis into the fray as their recent hike will be rolled back

http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-st-louis-businesses-pressured-to-keep-10-minimum-wage-2017-7
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 15, 2017, 02:49:27 PM

(http://www.wvgazettemail.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/CH/20170713/DM0405/170719828/AR/0/AR-170719828.jpg&imageVersion=SoftCropArticlePictures)


An article this week from Walter Williams, professor at George Mason.  Professor Williams argues raising the minimum wage is cruel.  Explains in detail the restaurant closings, the raising of prices that hurt the poor and impact to those that supposedly are to be helped by such a policy change.



http://www.richmond.com/opinion/their-opinion/walter-williams/walter-williams-column-raising-the-minimum-wage-is-cruel/article_be6c83c2-c4fa-5e72-92db-61196ba06b80.html

  many here just cannot grasp the fact that mandating a higher wage just doesn't work.  i understand it would be the "humane", "feel good" thing to do, but it's just another careful what you wish for action.  it's just not the way our market works.  besides, although i don't have any numbers on this,  i'm guessing very few businesses are able to pay "minimum wage" and maintain decent employees.  you get what you pay for.  by raising the minimum wage, everything else will soon follow(cost of goods, rent, etc) and we will be right back where we started.   
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on July 15, 2017, 03:17:46 PM
  many here just cannot grasp the fact that mandating a higher wage just doesn't work.  i understand it would be the "humane", "feel good" thing to do, but it's just another careful what you wish for action.  it's just not the way our market works.  besides, although i don't have any numbers on this,  i'm guessing very few businesses are able to pay "minimum wage" and maintain decent employees.  you get what you pay for.  by raising the minimum wage, everything else will soon follow(cost of goods, rent, etc) and we will be right back where we started.   

So what's your solution for decreasing income inequality? Or do you care?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 15, 2017, 03:36:56 PM
Here's an editorial about Obamacare that was in today's Charlotte Observer:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article161423163.html?#emlnl=Afternoon_Newsletter

It roughly expresses my feelings about the situation. The key parts to me ...

A report out this week shows once again that despite what Republicans have claimed for months, the Affordable Care Act isn’t in a death spiral. It’s not collapsing. It’s not imploding. In fact, according to the Kaiser Foundation, Obamacare is stabilizing. Insurers earned more revenue per person on the exchanges last quarter than ever. Insurers are set to make profits on those exchanges in 2017 across the country.

But not all of the country. In some places, Obamacare has legitimately struggled, with insurers fleeing and leaving consumers with little or nothing to choose from on the ACA exchanges.

Those places have something in common, however: Almost all of them are in Republican states.

Let’s dig into Kaiser’s numbers a little more. According to the Foundation’s interactive map, in the 974 U.S. counties with only one insurer, only 23 are in states in which Democrats control the legislature.

The takeaway: In Republican-controlled states, where lawmakers have railed against the ACA and refused to expand Medicaid, consumers are largely facing fewer insurance options. In Democratic-controlled states, lawmakers have expanded Medicaid and worked to make Obamacare healthy. And it is, in those states.


That's why the few Republican governors who have agreed to expand Medicaid have refused to roll it back to the way it was: It is actually popular and working in their states, and they don't want to face the wrath of their constituents by taking it away from them.

The editorial goes on to say that, statistically, the poorest and sickest populations live in red states, so the legislators there consistently are hurting their own constituents.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on July 15, 2017, 06:17:12 PM
The editorial goes on to say that, statistically, the poorest and sickest populations live in red states, so the legislators there consistently are hurting their own constituents.
And voters continue to vote against their own self-interest
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 15, 2017, 06:39:53 PM
And voters continue to vote against their own self-interest

The right has historically been most successful when they convince poor and middle class white people to side with their race rather than with their socio-economic status.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 15, 2017, 06:47:56 PM
So what's your solution for decreasing income inequality? Or do you care?

I'm not quite this aggressive about it, but I think this question is an important one. Like Rocket said, raising the minimum wage is the "humane/feel good" thing to do....but I also agree with him and others that it is not necessarily an effective way to do it. But the conversation always seems to stop there. Its about proving that something doesn't work rather than working to find out what does work. Same thing with healthcare. I'm not nearly educated enough on it to make a recommendation on health care, but I don't think its enough to say Obamacare doesn't work. I would rather have an inefficient plan that helps people than no plan at all. Then we can make improvements in the meantime.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 15, 2017, 08:02:00 PM
So what's your solution for decreasing income inequality? Or do you care?

yes i do care.  i just try to do my part and pay my employees well above minimum wage.

     my solution(s)-finish high school, don't drink and do drugs, stay out of jail, don't have kid(s) until you are ready for the responsibilities, get a job, go to job on time, listen, learn, more training/maybe a trade, college for a career, be a good person
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 15, 2017, 08:09:34 PM
yes i do care.  i just try to do my part and pay my employees well above minimum wage.

     my solution(s)-finish high school, don't drink and do drugs, stay out of jail, don't have kid(s) until you are ready for the responsibilities, get a job, go to job on time, listen, learn, more training/maybe a trade, college for a career, be a good person

And we're back

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/oh-lord-no.gif)
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 15, 2017, 09:06:06 PM
And we're back

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/oh-lord-no.gif)

if i'm reading the gif right, me thinks you are saying i'm out of line or too "right wing" or...?  tell me, with all due respect, how my suggestions/solutions could fail to present someone with a chance to become successful.  these are just my opinions.  are they unrealistic?  just axk this guy-

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/devast8-face-tatoo-man-no-work-new-zealand-mark-cropp-drunk-brother-home-made-alcohol-prison-two-a7840356.html
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 15, 2017, 09:52:10 PM
if i'm reading the gif right, me thinks you are saying i'm out of line or too "right wing" or...?  tell me, with all due respect, how my suggestions/solutions could fail to present someone with a chance to become successful.  these are just my opinions.  are they unrealistic?  just axk this guy-

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/devast8-face-tatoo-man-no-work-new-zealand-mark-cropp-drunk-brother-home-made-alcohol-prison-two-a7840356.html

Because we had a three page conversation earlier in this thread about how this:

     my solution(s)-finish high school, don't drink and do drugs, stay out of jail, don't have kid(s) until you are ready for the responsibilities, get a job, go to job on time, listen, learn, more training/maybe a trade, college for a career, be a good person

....is not how people end up in poverty. Top three reasons: 1. Born into it (well over 50 %) 2. Mental disability 3. Medical debt. All the things you listed are myths and stereotypes. They do happen but not nearly at the rates you are suggesting.

To focus on the drunk, addicted, and lazy poor is at best disingenuous and at worst a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise the impoverished. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

Your response also seems to indicate that everyone is on their own. No one is deserving of any help. Its all on them.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 15, 2017, 10:02:04 PM
if i'm reading the gif right, me thinks you are saying i'm out of line or too "right wing" or...?  tell me, with all due respect, how my suggestions/solutions could fail to present someone with a chance to become successful.  these are just my opinions.  are they unrealistic?  just axk this guy-

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/devast8-face-tatoo-man-no-work-new-zealand-mark-cropp-drunk-brother-home-made-alcohol-prison-two-a7840356.html

Thank you for acknowledging this. Someone born into poverty could do everything right. Work three jobs, find time to go to school, never touch a drop of alcohol, never have sex to avoid unplanned pregnancy, never miss a day of work, etc, never buy themselves something for fun, only make purchases absolutely necessary for life, be the perfect poor person by your standards.....And all they would get is a chance to escape poverty. Its only a chance because there are things beyond their control that keep them there.

You, I, and most of us here on this website got a huge head start over people in poverty just because of the families we were born into. If not for the conditions of our birth we could be in poverty right now....even if we were the exact same person that we are now. Why must we demand perfection of some and offer no help or grace, simply because we got a better break when we were born? Especially when we have so much more access to education than those born into poverty do.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jockey on July 15, 2017, 11:16:55 PM

You, I, and most of us here on this website got a huge head start over people in poverty just because of the families we were born into. If not for the conditions of our birth we could be in poverty right now....even if we were the exact same person that we are now. Why must we demand perfection of some and offer no help or grace, simply because we got a better break when we were born? Especially when we have so much more access to education than those born into poverty do.

Well said!!!!!

I never take my situation for granted. There was nothing that I did that caused me to be born into a good, caring family.  I realize how lucky I am.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 16, 2017, 12:13:54 AM
So what's your solution for decreasing income inequality? Or do you care?

 i understand we had a conversation about that, but i was just answering jesmu's question honestly and imho of course
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 16, 2017, 12:20:34 AM
Thank you for acknowledging this. Someone born into poverty could do everything right. Work three jobs, find time to go to school, never touch a drop of alcohol, never have sex to avoid unplanned pregnancy, never miss a day of work, etc, never buy themselves something for fun, only make purchases absolutely necessary for life, be the perfect poor person by your standards.....And all they would get is a chance to escape poverty. Its only a chance because there are things beyond their control that keep them there.

You, I, and most of us here on this website got a huge head start over people in poverty just because of the families we were born into. If not for the conditions of our birth we could be in poverty right now....even if we were the exact same person that we are now. Why must we demand perfection of some and offer no help or grace, simply because we got a better break when we were born? Especially when we have so much more access to education than those born into poverty do.

we may have gotten a headstart or gotten lucky, but that aside, all those things i stated were also in place.  if it is utopia within and throughout all of our lives you are striving for, fugetaboutit.  follow my solutions and you would see more good than bad changes
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 16, 2017, 09:00:05 AM
i understand we had a conversation about that, but i was just answering jesmu's question honestly and imho of course

Rocket, I don't know if you realize how your answer is coming off. When asked what you would do to help those in poverty your answer was "Nothing. The poor need to stop drinking, getting addicted, having unprotected sex, and being lazy." You used prettier words but that's what your answer was.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 16, 2017, 11:21:36 AM

....is not how people end up in poverty. Top three reasons: 1. Born into it (well over 50 %) 2. Mental disability 3. Medical debt. All the things you listed are myths and stereotypes. They do happen but not nearly at the rates you are suggesting.

Facts are not as attractive as alternate facts to the rockets of the world.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jay Bee on July 16, 2017, 12:04:40 PM
Income inequality can be a great thing.

When a relatively poor person creates a business and has a great experience, makes lots of money and becomes wealthy... should we complain about how bad she is? Should we demand she takes some of her hard earned money and spread it to everyone else who did not take on the risk she did?

There are certain things that affect income inequality that can and should be addressed.. but lumping it together as one thing is goofy imo. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 16, 2017, 12:54:43 PM
Rocket, I don't know if you realize how your answer is coming off. When asked what you would do to help those in poverty your answer was "Nothing. The poor need to stop drinking, getting addicted, having unprotected sex, and being lazy." You used prettier words but that's what your answer was.

i never said "nothing.  ok, let me lay out what i do for those in poverty-pay my taxes, go to church/donate part of my hard earned salary(of which i put my self at risk with every patient i see, not to mention running the business) some of which goes toward those in need.  i donate some of my services and discounts to those less fortunate.  i've volunteered for the mission of mercy multiple times. all of this is not static; it's ongoing and it's how i roll

     as i believe i've said somewhere within this enormously enlightening thread, there is only so much we can do, yet it never seems to be enough.  all we can do is continue to help where we can.  we will never completely get rid of this problem. however, we need to continue to give people chances, to make some lives better and to give someone reasons to smile 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jay Bee on July 16, 2017, 01:23:29 PM
Some people seem to think wealth is a finite pie, and want to split it up equally.

It's frankly bizarre thinking to me.

I think when you attack "income inequality", you're going after a side effect of a mixture of great things, ok things, bad things. Go ahead and try to deal with the bad things, but a rallying cry of "we need income equality" is nuts.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on July 16, 2017, 01:47:07 PM
i never said "nothing.  ok, let me lay out what i do for those in poverty-pay my taxes, go to church/donate part of my hard earned salary(of which i put my self at risk with every patient i see, not to mention running the business) some of which goes toward those in need.  i donate some of my services and discounts to those less fortunate.  i've volunteered for the mission of mercy multiple times. all of this is not static; it's ongoing and it's how i roll

     as i believe i've said somewhere within this enormously enlightening thread, there is only so much we can do, yet it never seems to be enough.  all we can do is continue to help where we can.  we will never completely get rid of this problem. however, we need to continue to give people chances, to make some lives better and to give someone reasons to smile


Rocket ... I'm sure you do those things and that's generous of you. I have no doubt that, in those regards, you're helping in some small way.
The problem is when you and others negate your own efforts by supporting and endorsing policies and attitudes that limit the chances you say you want people to have.

Conservatives say "don't have kids until you're ready," but then limit access to birth control, oppose realistic sex education in schools, want to make abortion as difficult as possible (if not impossible), and maintain a system where lower classes have seen their wages stagnant at best for decades while those in the top 10-20 percent have seen significant growth.

You say "stay out of jail" yet support policies that put low-income people behind bars at a far greater rate than the rest of society, even for the same offense, and back a aprty that recently killed senetencing reform. And, of course, someone in jail can't work to support a family, creating more poverty.

You say "stay off drugs" but the GOP is proposing a health care plan that drastically cuts funding for treatment for poor addicts.

You say "go to job on time" yet back a GOP platform that wants to slash funding for public transportation.

You're a mass of contradictions.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 16, 2017, 02:07:00 PM

Rocket ... I'm sure you do those things and that's generous of you. I have no doubt that, in those regards, you're helping in some small way.
The problem is when you and others negate your own efforts by supporting and endorsing policies and attitudes that limit the chances you say you want people to have.

Conservatives say "don't have kids until you're ready," but then limit access to birth control, oppose realistic sex education in schools, want to make abortion as difficult as possible (if not impossible), and maintain a system where lower classes have seen their wages stagnant at best for decades while those in the top 10-20 percent have seen significant growth.

You say "stay out of jail" yet support policies that put low-income people behind bars at a far greater rate than the rest of society, even for the same offense, and back a aprty that recently killed senetencing reform. And, of course, someone in jail can't work to support a family, creating more poverty.

You say "stay off drugs" but the GOP is proposing a health care plan that drastically cuts funding for treatment for poor addicts.

You say "go to job on time" yet back a GOP platform that wants to slash funding for public transportation.

You're a mass of contradictions.

Post of the week. And it's only Sunday.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: B. McBannerson on July 16, 2017, 03:51:36 PM
Some people seem to think wealth is a finite pie, and want to split it up equally.

It's frankly bizarre thinking to me.

I think when you attack "income inequality", you're going after a side effect of a mixture of great things, ok things, bad things. Go ahead and try to deal with the bad things, but a rallying cry of "we need income equality" is nuts.

For business owners, of which I have been in that world, it is very simple. Those that push back seem to be non-business owners and want to feel good about something.  The basic laws of economics are at work. If wages go up, then prices go up.  If the market will not support those prices, the business has to cut costs, labor included through fewer jobs or fewer hours.

What isn't being addressed in the downstream momentum. If you force businesses to pay the hamburger guy $15, then the guy that was already making $15 at another job is demanding more money. The cascading dominoes kick in and we're right back where we started.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu_hilltopper on July 16, 2017, 05:48:00 PM
Because we had a three page conversation earlier in this thread about how this:

....is not how people end up in poverty. Top three reasons: 1. Born into it (well over 50 %) 2. Mental disability 3. Medical debt. All the things you listed are myths and stereotypes. They do happen but not nearly at the rates you are suggesting.

To focus on the drunk, addicted, and lazy poor is at best disingenuous and at worst a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise the impoverished. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

Your response also seems to indicate that everyone is on their own. No one is deserving of any help. Its all on them.

This is the crux .. and the split.  Yes, being born poor, having a disability, and medical debt may be the top 3 indicators of being in poverty -- and (perhaps conveniently for the argument?)  they are all uncontrollable. 

But it's foolish to ignore rocket's (and others) factors for poverty:  Dropping out of High School.  Having children too early.  Substance abuse.   Committing crime / incarceration.    Those are all controllable.

So we have two sets of factors, all with differing weights.   The right focuses on the factors that are controllable, the left says that's unfair, focus on the uncontrollable.

Suggesting that one side has the right set of factors is where the folly begins.  They're all important.  You don't need one anti-poverty program.  You need a 100, each picking away at the heap.   If ~half those programs aren't squared at improving personal responsibility, we're going nowhere.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on July 16, 2017, 07:32:56 PM

Rocket ... I'm sure you do those things and that's generous of you. I have no doubt that, in those regards, you're helping in some small way.
The problem is when you and others negate your own efforts by supporting and endorsing policies and attitudes that limit the chances you say you want people to have.

Conservatives say "don't have kids until you're ready," but then limit access to birth control, oppose realistic sex education in schools, want to make abortion as difficult as possible (if not impossible), and maintain a system where lower classes have seen their wages stagnant at best for decades while those in the top 10-20 percent have seen significant growth.

You say "stay out of jail" yet support policies that put low-income people behind bars at a far greater rate than the rest of society, even for the same offense, and back a aprty that recently killed senetencing reform. And, of course, someone in jail can't work to support a family, creating more poverty.

You say "stay off drugs" but the GOP is proposing a health care plan that drastically cuts funding for treatment for poor addicts.

You say "go to job on time" yet back a GOP platform that wants to slash funding for public transportation.

You're a mass of contradictions.

The illegitimacy rate among blacks is well north of 70% in the US. It's by miles the biggest reason that a disproportionate percentage of blacks are poor, don't do well in school and end up in prison. There's nothing wrong with advocating for free birth control, more funding for mental health issues or better public transportation - but IMO the effect of those kinds of changes would barely move the needle.

There is work to be done regarding racial tolerance and basic fairness in our country. Unfortunately attitudes and institutions move slowly. But focusing on small (again, IMO) stuff like voter suppression (couldn't believe you raised that one in a previous spread) while ignoring the disintegration of the family unit is tantamount to complaining about the lack of cough medicine available in the middle of a worldwide plague.


Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 16, 2017, 07:42:06 PM

Rocket ... I'm sure you do those things and that's generous of you. I have no doubt that, in those regards, you're helping in some small way.
The problem is when you and others negate your own efforts by supporting and endorsing policies and attitudes that limit the chances you say you want people to have.

Conservatives say "don't have kids until you're ready," but then limit access to birth control, oppose realistic sex education in schools, want to make abortion as difficult as possible (if not impossible), and maintain a system where lower classes have seen their wages stagnant at best for decades while those in the top 10-20 percent have seen significant growth.

You say "stay out of jail" yet support policies that put low-income people behind bars at a far greater rate than the rest of society, even for the same offense, and back a aprty that recently killed senetencing reform. And, of course, someone in jail can't work to support a family, creating more poverty.

You say "stay off drugs" but the GOP is proposing a health care plan that drastically cuts funding for treatment for poor addicts.

You say "go to job on time" yet back a GOP platform that wants to slash funding for public transportation.

You're a mass of contradictions.

  i understand the differences in belief systems, but pak-man, you are over-simplifying what many of us believe.  our belief system is a little more pragmatic than you make it out to be. this isn't a one size fits all argument.  if i were to try to characterize your side of the argument the same way you try to characterize ours, i would say you just want all the money made thrown into a big pool and then divided up so everyone get's the same amount across the board.  now we know that ain't real feasible, but...which brings me to my question to you-what do you propose we do to "eliminate" poverty? 

your post was very good, but it was just trumped(no pun) by hilltopper who put into words in 1 post that i have probably been struggling to say in 10
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on July 16, 2017, 07:45:45 PM
This is the crux .. and the split.  Yes, being born poor, having a disability, and medical debt may be the top 3 indicators of being in poverty -- and (perhaps conveniently for the argument?)  they are all uncontrollable. 

But it's foolish to ignore rocket's (and others) factors for poverty:  Dropping out of High School.  Having children too early.  Substance abuse.   Committing crime / incarceration.    Those are all controllable.

So we have two sets of factors, all with differing weights.   The right focuses on the factors that are controllable, the left says that's unfair, focus on the uncontrollable.

Suggesting that one side has the right set of factors is where the folly begins.  They're all important.  You don't need one anti-poverty program.  You need a 100, each picking away at the heap.   If ~half those programs aren't squared at improving personal responsibility, we're going nowhere.

I don't entirely disagree, and I don't think anyone here has suggested it's only one (controllable) or the other (uncontrollable).

But I think it would be wrong to ignore that the "controllable" factors often are borne out of the "uncontrollable," or to pretend that they aren't related.
Why do kids born into poverty drop out significantly more often than kids born into middle and upper income? Why do poor kids wind up incarcerated more often. Why is teen and out-of-wedlock pregnancy more common in poorer communities?

As I see it, the only choices are that either the lower income kids are somehow inherently inclined to make these poor life choices/decisions, or that something about the circumstances into which they were born and raised makes those choices more likely.
I think that's where some here miss the boat ... they seem to believe that poor people are making bad decisions in the same environment, with the same advantages and disadvantages, and under the same circumstances that better off people are making good decisions.
(Clearly I'm talking about likely outcomes here ... plenty of rich kids make bad decisions and plenty of poor kids excel, but on average, it's heavily tilted).
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu_hilltopper on July 16, 2017, 08:07:57 PM
I think I said it earlier .. all classes can make bad choices.   But I do see the value in believing that being born into poverty does NOT absolve you from making bad choices.   Everyone does indeed have a choice on their life's path, and this is where liberals (of which I believe I am one) go wrong believing conservatives are wrong on their demands for personal responsibility.

Conservatives (admittedly not 2017's version) want a contract with those in poverty .. meet some basic norms, and we'll fund programs that give you the opportunity for upward mobility.   The left sees this as not just wrong, but vicious.    Aaaaand welcome to 2017.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 16, 2017, 08:23:14 PM
I think I said it earlier .. all classes can make bad choices.   But I do see the value in believing that being born into poverty does NOT absolve you from making bad choices.   Everyone does indeed have a choice on their life's path, and this is where liberals (of which I believe I am one) go wrong believing conservatives are wrong on their demands for personal responsibility.

Conservatives (admittedly not 2017's version) want a contract with those in poverty .. meet some basic norms, and we'll fund programs that give you the opportunity for upward mobility.   The left sees this as not just wrong, but vicious.    Aaaaand welcome to 2017.

Ultimately you are correct, all classes can make bad choices...however the have very limited ability to recover from poor choices. The rich have plenty of opportunities to overcome  mistakes in large part simply by institutional construct. Your left right comparison is spot on, the problem is that both sides don't actually see the issues, they see constituencies they need to retain.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jockey on July 16, 2017, 09:35:16 PM
Some people seem to think wealth is a finite pie, and want to split it up equally.


I don't think anyone here or elsewhere that favors a higher minimum wage has ever said that.

But just make up an argument and then make up imaginary people who disagree with it.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on July 16, 2017, 09:38:28 PM
The illegitimacy rate among blacks is well north of 70% in the US. It's by miles the biggest reason that a disproportionate percentage of blacks are poor, don't do well in school and end up in prison. There's nothing wrong with advocating for free birth control, more funding for mental health issues or better public transportation - but IMO the effect of those kinds of changes would barely move the needle.

There is work to be done regarding racial tolerance and basic fairness in our country. Unfortunately attitudes and institutions move slowly. But focusing on small (again, IMO) stuff like voter suppression (couldn't believe you raised that one in a previous spread) while ignoring the disintegration of the family unit is tantamount to complaining about the lack of cough medicine available in the middle of a worldwide plague.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed the context in which I cited voter suppression. By way of reminder, it was mentioned as one of many historical examples in which blacks have been denied basic rights in this country. I wasn't writing about voter suppression in 2017. I was writing about 1957. And 1927. And 1867.
Though I'm somewhat surprised to learn that in your mind being denied the right of self governance is tantamount to the sniffles.
Unalienable rights endowed by our creator? Pfft. Overrated.

Anyhow, I'm pretty sure I know where you're going with this ... black families were doing great until LBJ introduced welfare in the 1960s, setting in motion the disintegration of the black family. It's a favored conservative argument typically used to cast aside the responsibility of racist policies for the plight of black community's today It's also not correct.
I'll leave it to your fellow libertarian Steve Chapman to explain why (far better than I could):


They're right, up to a point. It's far from optimal for 72 percent of black children to be born out of wedlock. Social ills would diminish if there were more stable, two-parent black households.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it's incomplete. Worse, it's often used to gloss over intractable realities that continue to hinder black progress.
It's true that whites don't force blacks to have children out of wedlock. But it's wrong to suggest that whites bear no responsibility. Poverty is often the result of lack of access to good jobs or any jobs, and discrimination by employers didn't stop in 1965 — and hasn't stopped yet.

...
It's tempting to blame African-American social ills on the modern welfare state, which allegedly breeds idleness. But most poor black households are poor despite having at least one adult who works. The welfare reform of the 1990s, which induced many recipients to take jobs, didn't reverse the decline of marriage.
Poor black neighborhoods are not the unassisted creation of poor black people but largely the malignant result of factors beyond their control. These places generate a vicious cycle of poverty and dysfunction that mires children in desperate conditions. Then we wonder why many of these kids end up unemployed, addicted to drugs, behind bars or murdered.
Moynihan's report contained a passage that conservatives rarely quote: "Three centuries of injustice have brought about deep-seated structural distortions in the life of the Negro American. ... The cycle can be broken only if these distortions are set right."


full column here:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-whites-blacks-families-moynihan-report-perspec-0226-jm-20150225-column.html
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on July 16, 2017, 10:45:57 PM
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed the context in which I cited voter suppression. By way of reminder, it was mentioned as one of many historical examples in which blacks have been denied basic rights in this country. I wasn't writing about voter suppression in 2017. I was writing about 1957. And 1927. And 1867.
Though I'm somewhat surprised to learn that in your mind being denied the right of self governance is tantamount to the sniffles.
Unalienable rights endowed by our creator? Pfft. Overrated.

Anyhow, I'm pretty sure I know where you're going with this ... black families were doing great until LBJ introduced welfare in the 1960s, setting in motion the disintegration of the black family. It's a favored conservative argument typically used to cast aside the responsibility of racist policies for the plight of black community's today It's also not correct.
I'll leave it to your fellow libertarian Steve Chapman to explain why (far better than I could):


They're right, up to a point. It's far from optimal for 72 percent of black children to be born out of wedlock. Social ills would diminish if there were more stable, two-parent black households.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it's incomplete. Worse, it's often used to gloss over intractable realities that continue to hinder black progress.
It's true that whites don't force blacks to have children out of wedlock. But it's wrong to suggest that whites bear no responsibility. Poverty is often the result of lack of access to good jobs or any jobs, and discrimination by employers didn't stop in 1965 — and hasn't stopped yet.

...
It's tempting to blame African-American social ills on the modern welfare state, which allegedly breeds idleness. But most poor black households are poor despite having at least one adult who works. The welfare reform of the 1990s, which induced many recipients to take jobs, didn't reverse the decline of marriage.
Poor black neighborhoods are not the unassisted creation of poor black people but largely the malignant result of factors beyond their control. These places generate a vicious cycle of poverty and dysfunction that mires children in desperate conditions. Then we wonder why many of these kids end up unemployed, addicted to drugs, behind bars or murdered.
Moynihan's report contained a passage that conservatives rarely quote: "Three centuries of injustice have brought about deep-seated structural distortions in the life of the Negro American. ... The cycle can be broken only if these distortions are set right."


full column here:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-whites-blacks-families-moynihan-report-perspec-0226-jm-20150225-column.html

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt - it was indeed my impression that when you spoke of institutional racism and mentioned voter suppression you meant the present, not 50 or more years ago. It is, after all, still a popular meme on the left in the present. Apologize for misinterpreting.

I don't for a minute think the Great Society's unintended consequences are the only reason for the disintegration of the black family in America. As I've previously stated, though, mixed with a monopolistic public school system, a justice system that disproportionally incarcerates black youths for what I consider non criminal drug offenses and the remnants of 200 years of overt and covert racism gives you one very lethal stew.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 16, 2017, 10:49:25 PM
In a poll a year ago, 66% of working-class white Americans said they believe discrimination against white people is "as big a problem" as discrimination against people of color.

https://mic.com/articles/147196/new-polls-shows-almost-half-of-all-americans-think-reverse-racism-is-a-real-problem#.Ef1KlNH2K
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on July 17, 2017, 09:09:30 AM
In a poll a year ago, 66% of working-class white Americans said they believe discrimination against white people is "as big a problem" as discrimination against people of color.

https://mic.com/articles/147196/new-polls-shows-almost-half-of-all-americans-think-reverse-racism-is-a-real-problem#.Ef1KlNH2K

Not defending their position, but that poll is the symptom of the negative aspects of identity politics. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the position, if you call out one group of people as more worthy than another group of people, that second group is going to be offended by it. It has almost nothing to do with whether the first group "deserves" it or not.

No idea how you overcome that, other than to not "pick favorites" however the problem is because of the institutional and historical issues that favorites should be picked, at least from a perception standpoint.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on July 17, 2017, 10:28:33 AM
I don't for a minute think the Great Society's unintended consequences are the only reason for the disintegration of the black family in America. As I've previously stated, though, mixed with a monopolistic public school system, a justice system that disproportionally incarcerates black youths for what I consider non criminal drug offenses and the remnants of 200 years of overt and covert racism gives you one very lethal stew.

I think that's very fair. Like you and Chapman, I think the level of single-parent households in the black community - and low-income white communities, where it's also a problem - is very much a factor in the cycle of poverty.

This is obviously a tangent, but when you speak of the monopolistic public school system, how would you address that without either gutting the public school system or simply doing away with the notion of public education?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on July 17, 2017, 12:44:50 PM


This is obviously a tangent, but when you speak of the monopolistic public school system, how would you address that without either gutting the public school system or simply doing away with the notion of public education?

My solution, to the extent that there is one, would start with the expansion of choice - vouchers, tax credits, even local co-ops that might serve the community (at least segments of it) better than the present system. The public school system is a reality that will never be undone regardless of my thoughts on the issue. More competition to rather than more money for a system producing poor results seems logical to me - especially when the failing system operates under a conflict of interest where teacher's rights/benefits supersede student's performance.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 17, 2017, 04:35:03 PM
Not defending their position, but that poll is the symptom of the negative aspects of identity politics. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the position, if you call out one group of people as more worthy than another group of people, that second group is going to be offended by it. It has almost nothing to do with whether the first group "deserves" it or not.

No idea how you overcome that, other than to not "pick favorites" however the problem is because of the institutional and historical issues that favorites should be picked, at least from a perception standpoint.

Hmmm.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on July 17, 2017, 05:54:38 PM
My solution, to the extent that there is one, would start with the expansion of choice - vouchers, tax credits, even local co-ops that might serve the community (at least segments of it) better than the present system. The public school system is a reality that will never be undone regardless of my thoughts on the issue. More competition to rather than more money for a system producing poor results seems logical to me - especially when the failing system operates under a conflict of interest where teacher's rights/benefits supersede student's performance.

Except that, when controlling for socioeconomic status, studies show there is no benefit to private schools vs public schools.  Socioeconomic status and parental involvement are the two biggest factors in how a child does in school.

I'd actually go the other way, increasing public school funding.  Lengthen the school year and get creative.

More field trips, especially museums and exposure to the arts.  Real life skills classes, like finances, how to apply to college and for financial aid, how to right a resume, how to dress for a job interview.

More teachers, better teachers, smaller class sizes, and special classrooms for at risk students that are failing to achieve success in school.  Make public schools better for all.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on July 17, 2017, 06:25:00 PM
Except that, when controlling for socioeconomic status, studies show there is no benefit to private schools vs public schools.  Socioeconomic status and parental involvement are the two biggest factors in how a child does in school.

Right. As the authors of 'Freaknomics' found many years ago, the #1 predictor of a child's academic success isn't his or her school district or teacher or type of school. It's the number of books in his or her home.
In other words, educated parents who care about learning produce educated kids who care about learning.

There are hosts of problems with some of our public school systems (and, to be fair, others that are beyond outstanding), but it's laughable  that  some continue to first and foremost blame teachers, who at best have kids for 5-6 hours a day/180 days a year, while ignoring the other, often more important, influences on a child's education.
Like, let's ignore that a kid is growing up in a gang-infested neighborhood, where walking to school is a dangerous proposition, where his single-parent mother works two jobs to put meager food on the table, where he has to raise his younger siblings cause his mom is always at work and dad is in prison or just absent, where there are no books or computers in the home, where there are no expectations of success, where future prospects aren't clearly evident.
No, that kid's real problem is the teacher's union.
OK.

I'm not saying that teacher's unions aren't at times counterproductive, but on the list of things negatively influencing education these days, they're way, way down the list.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 17, 2017, 07:14:25 PM
Income inequality can be a great thing.

When a relatively poor person creates a business and has a great experience, makes lots of money and becomes wealthy... should we complain about how bad she is? Should we demand she takes some of her hard earned money and spread it to everyone else who did not take on the risk she did?

There are certain things that affect income inequality that can and should be addressed.. but lumping it together as one thing is goofy imo.

I don't think the woman in your example is "bad" because she made money. I don't think anyone thinks that way. I know plenty of "good" rich people. I know plenty of "bad" poor people.

Other than a few extremists, no one believes in equally distributing all money. Income disparity is a good thing. What we want to see is that even with income disparity, no one is below the poverty line. Its fine if there are haves and have nots. We just don't want the have nots to be in poverty. Some believe that the easiest way to do that is to take some from the very rich. I don't necessarily think it has to be that way.

The other thing I would like to see is that someone's socio-economic status isn't so heavily decided by their parents. The reality is if you are born into poverty you are very likely to stay in poverty. If you are born in the upper class, you are very likely to remain in the upper class. Even if the person in poverty is smarter, works harder, and is more talented than the person born to the upper class family. I don't know how to fix that, I just think it should be.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 17, 2017, 07:35:21 PM
This is the crux .. and the split.  Yes, being born poor, having a disability, and medical debt may be the top 3 indicators of being in poverty -- and (perhaps conveniently for the argument?)  they are all uncontrollable. 

But it's foolish to ignore rocket's (and others) factors for poverty:  Dropping out of High School.  Having children too early.  Substance abuse.   Committing crime / incarceration.    Those are all controllable.

So we have two sets of factors, all with differing weights.   The right focuses on the factors that are controllable, the left says that's unfair, focus on the uncontrollable.

Suggesting that one side has the right set of factors is where the folly begins.  They're all important.  You don't need one anti-poverty program.  You need a 100, each picking away at the heap.   If ~half those programs aren't squared at improving personal responsibility, we're going nowhere.

See I don't think this is the crux. I think the crux is that one side thinks things like being born into poverty, mental disability, and medical debt is "uncontrollable." There are things that can be done to control it or at least minimize its impact on those affected. But these are often viewed as handouts  or excuses.

I think the other part of the crux is that some think some of those "controllable" factors are always controllable. If a teenager drops out of high school because his/her parents need him to get a full time job to put food on the table is that really controllable? If a person is raped, birth control fails, or their partner lies about using a condom/being on the pill, is having that baby controllable? If your parents are criminals and force you into crime is that controllable? If you've never received proper education on safe sex, home economics, drug use and your parents, teachers, friends are giving you bad information is that truly controllable? Many of the times, yes its controllable. But not always.

There also the cause and effect pieces. As Pakuni alluded to, poverty leads to dropping out of school, addiction, having children too early, incarceration etc. Those things don't typically lead to poverty.

I believe in personal accountability though I do scoff at some of the requirements I've heard. They often demand perfection when that's simply not reasonable for most human beings. We make mistakes and deserve grace. No drugs? I get that. That's just saying you have to uphold the law. But no alcohol? Period? If someone told me that I wasn't deserving of help because I enjoy a beer once a week I would tell them to go screw off.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 17, 2017, 07:46:14 PM
I think I said it earlier .. all classes can make bad choices.   But I do see the value in believing that being born into poverty does NOT absolve you from making bad choices.   Everyone does indeed have a choice on their life's path, and this is where liberals (of which I believe I am one) go wrong believing conservatives are wrong on their demands for personal responsibility.

Conservatives (admittedly not 2017's version) want a contract with those in poverty .. meet some basic norms, and we'll fund programs that give you the opportunity for upward mobility.   The left sees this as not just wrong, but vicious.    Aaaaand welcome to 2017.

Agreed. But the problem is that being born into the middle or upper class does absolve you from making bad choices in a majority of cases. I have a friend, love him to death. He was born into a middle class family. He is an alcoholic (though he has it managed now), has tried every narcotic known to man and been addicted to several of them at various times. Gone to rehab and relapsed multiple times. Been to jail multiple times. Despite this, he has steady employment and is firmly in the middle class. He's there because his parents were able to afford to send him to treatment multiple times and judges were willing to give him leniency because of his class (and I would guess because of his race as well). If he had been born into a family in poverty, he would likely be homeless or in jail.

My friend screwed up multiple times but he was able to figure it out and become an extremely productive member of society. I don't think people born into poverty deserve less grace simply because of their socio-economic status. In fact, I think they deserve more grace because they have less access to education.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on July 17, 2017, 08:08:09 PM
Agreed. But the problem is that being born into the middle or upper class does absolve you from making bad choices in a majority of cases. I have a friend, love him to death. He was born into a middle class family. He is an alcoholic (though he has it managed now), has tried every narcotic known to man and been addicted to several of them at various times. Gone to rehab and relapsed multiple times. Been to jail multiple times. Despite this, he has steady employment and is firmly in the middle class. He's there because his parents were able to afford to send him to treatment multiple times and judges were willing to give him leniency because of his class (and I would guess because of his race as well). If he had been born into a family in poverty, he would likely be homeless or in jail.

My friend screwed up multiple times but he was able to figure it out and become an extremely productive member of society. I don't think people born into poverty deserve less grace simply because of their socio-economic status. In fact, I think they deserve more grace because they have less access to education.

This is a great example, TAMU. Thanks for stating it so clearly and concisely.

When we talk about one of our borderline MU teams here on Scoop, one of the phrases often used is "margin for error." For example, one might have felt our 2003 team had more "margin for error" than our team the next season did.

The same is true in real life. The children of upper-middle class and truly well-off folks have a huge margin for error. If they get arrested, mommy and daddy bail 'em out immediately, make sure they have a good lawyer, make sure they wear a suit to their hearing before a judge, etc, etc, etc. Even middle-class parents, who maybe don't have lots of cash immediately available, will find money to "save" their kids in these situations. The children of impoverished people? They have zero margin for error. One mishap or misunderstanding and they are totally screwed, often for the rest of their lives.

I like to think all of our brothers and sisters here at Scoop recognize this and realize how lucky most of us have been to have been raised by two caring parents, to have not gone to bed hungry and to have had a roof over our heads. Major margin-for-error stuff.

Add to that ... most of us have been fortunate to have been born white because the racist element in this country is still so pervasive even in 2017. When we cross the street toward somebody, they don't immediately suspect us of no good. When we go out for a drive, we don't risk getting pulled over just because we are the "wrong" color.

A lot of socioeconomic stuff there, but it's also the reality that is white privilege.

It doesn't mean poor black kids are condemned to fail. It just means their margin for error is very small.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Mutaman on July 18, 2017, 03:25:05 PM
i never said "nothing.  ok, let me lay out what i do for those in poverty-pay my taxes,

https://youtu.be/JVtc3fnbJ-s
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 18, 2017, 07:44:37 PM
Agreed. But the problem is that being born into the middle or upper class does absolve you from making bad choices in a majority of cases. I have a friend, love him to death. He was born into a middle class family. He is an alcoholic (though he has it managed now), has tried every narcotic known to man and been addicted to several of them at various times. Gone to rehab and relapsed multiple times. Been to jail multiple times. Despite this, he has steady employment and is firmly in the middle class. He's there because his parents were able to afford to send him to treatment multiple times and judges were willing to give him leniency because of his class (and i would guess because of his race as well). If he had been born into a family in poverty, he would likely be homeless or in jail.

My friend screwed up multiple times but he was able to figure it out and become an extremely productive member of society. I don't think people born into poverty deserve less grace simply because of their socio-economic status. In fact, I think they deserve more grace because they have less access to education.

  glad to hear your friend has been figuring it out.

      have you ever seen a "rap sheet" for some the "less fortunate" out there?  and they got their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th.....chances because of ....?  ?-(
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 18, 2017, 08:35:27 PM
  glad to hear your friend has been figuring it out.

      have you ever seen a "rap sheet" for some the "less fortunate" out there?  and they got their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th.....chances because of ....?  ?-(

Have you? Because I can give you dozens of studies that show that those with lower socio-economic statuses and minority status receive harsher sentences for the same crimes. Don't trot out tired old cliches. Actually do the research.

And why did you put less fortunate in quotation marks?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 18, 2017, 09:29:46 PM
Have you? Because I can give you dozens of studies that show that those with lower socio-economic statuses and minority status receive harsher sentences for the same crimes. Don't trot out tired old cliches. Actually do the research.

And why did you put less fortunate in quotation marks?

   i put "less fortunate" in " " marks because many have different interpretations of the "less fortunate"

yes i have seen many rap sheets and they happen to take up way too many dead trees for me.  studies?  i'm open.  let's see a few.  tired cliches?  and what may those be?  are you trying to tell me that those in the lower socio-economic classes do not get a few chances?  comes a time man when enough is enough and we  need to remove people from society when they show that they cannot behave themselves.   you've heard of recidivism, eyn'a?  i don't even want to guess what chance# that was
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 18, 2017, 09:45:49 PM
   i put "less fortunate" in " " marks because many have different interpretations of the "less fortunate"

yes i have seen many rap sheets and they happen to take up way too many dead trees for me.  studies?  i'm open.  let's see a few.  tired cliches?  and what may those be?  are you trying to tell me that those in the lower socio-economic classes do not get a few chances?  comes a time man when enough is enough and we  need to remove people from society when they show that they cannot behave themselves.   you've heard of recidivism, eyn'a?  i don't even want to guess what chance# that was

So was my friend needed to be removed from society? I'm not saying there isn't a point where yes, people do need to be removed from society. Just that it seems that "point" is at different positions on the scale for different people.

Do you deny that people from lower socio-economic statuses have less "margin for error" as Pakuni put it?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jay Bee on July 18, 2017, 10:25:43 PM
And why did you put less fortunate in quotation marks?

Some of you folks might be so 'loving' or searching to do 'good' that it hurts you/us.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: B. McBannerson on July 18, 2017, 10:30:04 PM
Right. As the authors of 'Freaknomics' found many years ago, the #1 predictor of a child's academic success isn't his or her school district or teacher or type of school. It's the number of books in his or her home.
In other words, educated parents who care about learning produce educated kids who care about learning.

There are hosts of problems with some of our public school systems (and, to be fair, others that are beyond outstanding), but it's laughable  that  some continue to first and foremost blame teachers, who at best have kids for 5-6 hours a day/180 days a year, while ignoring the other, often more important, influences on a child's education.
Like, let's ignore that a kid is growing up in a gang-infested neighborhood, where walking to school is a dangerous proposition, where his single-parent mother works two jobs to put meager food on the table, where he has to raise his younger siblings cause his mom is always at work and dad is in prison or just absent, where there are no books or computers in the home, where there are no expectations of success, where future prospects aren't clearly evident.
No, that kid's real problem is the teacher's union.
OK.

I'm not saying that teacher's unions aren't at times counterproductive, but on the list of things negatively influencing education these days, they're way, way down the list.

So all those Washington politicians, including presidents, that choose to send their kids to private schools instead of public - nevermind. 

Here's a study that says private schools beat public, one of the reasons I sent one child to Marquette.  At the collegiate level, most of the top 50 schools in the nation are private, but one can get an excellent education at any number of private or public.

I've attended both.  Pros and cons to both.  My kids went to very good public schools, private for college. To each their own.

An article from a different perspective  https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/private-schools-vs-public-schools-why-private-schools-are-better

For some people, private is truly better, same is true for public.  It would not surprise me if this also came down along ideological lines to some extent, it seems to all too often.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 19, 2017, 05:28:15 AM
So was my friend needed to be removed from society? I'm not saying there isn't a point where yes, people do need to be removed from society. Just that it seems that "point" is at different positions on the scale for different people.

Do you deny that people from lower socio-economic statuses have less "margin for error" as Pakuni put it?

re: your friend? yes-as you said, he went to rehab a few times, relapsed a few times, back to rehab and for right now, he is doing well-i hope he continues to get it today, then the next today and the next...by going to rehab, he was removing himself from society until he could learn how to cope safely for others and himself-God bless him

do those in a lower socio-economic caste have less margin for error?  from a standpoint of access to our legal system, i.e. dream teams of lawyers?  absolutely.  from a standpoint of who gets the most chances at breaking the law before they are sent to the cross-bars motel?  that's a more complicated question and depends on the severity of the crime(s).  unfortunately, many of those aren't taken too seriously until they kill someone.  then i guess that's really really bad.  even when they have multiple violations involving guns(you know, guns are bad bad bad) well they sure in the heck aren't legally carrying that gun.  that in and of itself should be enough for the "anti-gun" crowd to throw him/her away for a long long time,  so often they plea out the illegal gun thing and slap them on the hands for the other stuff and let them out on a signature bond.  now what the heck do the judges or commissioners think they are going to do while out on signature bond?  decide to go back to school? go job hunting? (buzz kill)  or go knock off another corner grocery store...hmmm, i'll take door #3 for recidivism alex. 

tamu, please just do a quick check on length of rap sheets and severity of crimes committed before you talk about "chances"  we have too many judges allowing for these people to staying our society for too long, hurting innocent people.  are these judges ever held accountable? 

  i thought justice was blind?  isn't that what they tell us anyway?  you know, you see that scale thingy with the blind folded babe on every lawyer and judges desk.  well they make great paper weights anyway
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 19, 2017, 05:59:24 AM
So all those Washington politicians, including presidents, that choose to send their kids to private schools instead of public - nevermind. 

Here's a study that says private schools beat public, one of the reasons I sent one child to Marquette.  At the collegiate level, most of the top 50 schools in the nation are private, but one can get an excellent education at any number of private or public.

I've attended both.  Pros and cons to both.  My kids went to very good public schools, private for college. To each their own.

An article from a different perspective  https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/private-schools-vs-public-schools-why-private-schools-are-better

For some people, private is truly better, same is true for public.  It would not surprise me if this also came down along ideological lines to some extent, it seems to all too often.

great points!  i went to private grade school, public high school, then MU.  sent my kids thru private grade, middle and high school all the way thru MU.   for them, i would do it over in a heart beat.  yes, the $10k tuition for high school stung a little knowing i could have saved that toward their college education, but they are on their way to becoming 2 very successful guys of which i am very proud of.  they are probably in a better financial position now than i was at that same time out of school and i have to credit all the above for that. 
there are some excellent public schools in our area, but i would have had to send them further away as well. 

here's the other issue that could become a whole topic in and of itself-"grade inflation" 

  this is endemic and quite honestly, i don't know how to stop this moving train.  with the increase in "A" students across the board, yet falling ACT and SAT scores, how does one properly evaluate someones education?  as we have seen since 1998, the "A" student has gone from 37% to 48% of thegraduating classes-wow!  we are sending out a new generation of brainiacs, eyn'a?  i doubt it.  but all these kids and their parents think so anyway.  the ramifications of this are far and wide

   https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/07/17/easy-a-nearly-half-hs-seniors-graduate-average/485787001/
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 19, 2017, 08:11:16 AM
re: your friend? yes-as you said, he went to rehab a few times, relapsed a few times, back to rehab and for right now, he is doing well-i hope he continues to get it today, then the next today and the next...by going to rehab, he was removing himself from society until he could learn how to cope safely for others and himself-God bless him

So my friend was given multiple chances to get it right. But you complain about other people getting multiple chances. And thank you for assuming he went to rehab. He didn't, he was dragged.

do those in a lower socio-economic caste have less margin for error?  from a standpoint of access to our legal system, i.e. dream teams of lawyers?  absolutely.  from a standpoint of who gets the most chances at breaking the law before they are sent to the cross-bars motel?  that's a more complicated question and depends on the severity of the crime(s).  unfortunately, many of those aren't taken too seriously until they kill someone.  then i guess that's really really bad.  even when they have multiple violations involving guns(you know, guns are bad bad bad) well they sure in the heck aren't legally carrying that gun.  that in and of itself should be enough for the "anti-gun" crowd to throw him/her away for a long long time,  so often they plea out the illegal gun thing and slap them on the hands for the other stuff and let them out on a signature bond.  now what the heck do the judges or commissioners think they are going to do while out on signature bond?  decide to go back to school? go job hunting? (buzz kill)  or go knock off another corner grocery store...hmmm, i'll take door #3 for recidivism alex. 

You missed the point of my question. I wasn't talking about margin for error just in the legal system. I mean in general. Do people born into poverty have less margin for error in escaping poverty than those not born into poverty.

tamu, please just do a quick check on length of rap sheets and severity of crimes committed before you talk about "chances"  we have too many judges allowing for these people to staying our society for too long, hurting innocent people.  are these judges ever held accountable? 


Rocket, I work regularly with the police in my job. I'm well aware of what's out there. Why is a dentist looking at rap sheets regularly? I'm sure there are examples of people who get too many chances. But my guess is most of your "long rap sheets" contain a bunch of crimes with short maximum sentences. And since prison takes low level criminals and turns them into violent ones.....the mass incarceration system churns on.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/141027_iachr_racial_disparities_aclu_submission_0.pdf


i thought justice was blind?

Its cute that you think that.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on July 19, 2017, 08:42:28 AM
So all those Washington politicians, including presidents, that choose to send their kids to private schools instead of public - nevermind. 

Here's a study that says private schools beat public, one of the reasons I sent one child to Marquette.  At the collegiate level, most of the top 50 schools in the nation are private, but one can get an excellent education at any number of private or public.

I've attended both.  Pros and cons to both.  My kids went to very good public schools, private for college. To each their own.

An article from a different perspective  https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/private-schools-vs-public-schools-why-private-schools-are-better

For some people, private is truly better, same is true for public.  It would not surprise me if this also came down along ideological lines to some extent, it seems to all too often.

I have attended both private and public schools.  Will likely send my kids to Catholic school. 

The opinion piece you linked does spell out why people might prefer a private school to a public school.  Largely it comes down to feeling like you have some control of inputs. Religious ed, special curriculum, safety, being surrounded by students from like minded families, shared values, etc.

 But nowhere does it say students will perform better in private school.  Which if the crux of my argument.  The idea of expanding access to private schools through vouchers is not the solution to poorly performing public school students.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on July 19, 2017, 09:17:21 AM
do those in a lower socio-economic caste have less margin for error?  from a standpoint of access to our legal system, i.e. dream teams of lawyers?  absolutely.  from a standpoint of who gets the most chances at breaking the law before they are sent to the cross-bars motel?  that's a more complicated question and depends on the severity of the crime(s).  unfortunately, many of those aren't taken too seriously until they kill someone.  then i guess that's really really bad.  even when they have multiple violations involving guns(you know, guns are bad bad bad) well they sure in the heck aren't legally carrying that gun.  that in and of itself should be enough for the "anti-gun" crowd to throw him/her away for a long long time,  so often they plea out the illegal gun thing and slap them on the hands for the other stuff and let them out on a signature bond.  now what the heck do the judges or commissioners think they are going to do while out on signature bond?  decide to go back to school? go job hunting? (buzz kill)  or go knock off another corner grocery store...hmmm, i'll take door #3 for recidivism alex. 

You really convinced yourself that those people you painted that "have multiple violations involving guns" are getting released on signature bonds? I think you're confusing the white collar criminals you see getting arrested on Law & Order with reality.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 19, 2017, 07:17:29 PM
   "Rocket, I work regularly with the police in my job. I'm well aware of what's out there. Why is a dentist looking at rap sheets regularly?"

  well, let's see; my nephew is a chief of police, his brother has been the elected county sheriff for multiple terms, my cousin is retiring the sheriff's department.  he has been in charge of the swat team.  my family, fortunately or not is full of attorneys, including a retired judge.  we have discussed this topic from both sides

as for your friend-if he is still doing well, that's all that counts.  not many people go running into their jail cell screaming of joy
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 19, 2017, 10:17:18 PM
   "Rocket, I work regularly with the police in my job. I'm well aware of what's out there. Why is a dentist looking at rap sheets regularly?"

  well, let's see; my nephew is a chief of police, his brother has been the elected county sheriff for multiple terms, my cousin is retiring the sheriff's department.  he has been in charge of the swat team.  my family, fortunately or not is full of attorneys, including a retired judge.  we have discussed this topic from both sides

as for your friend-if he is still doing well, that's all that counts.  not many people go running into their jail cell screaming of joy

Thank you. That does give some more context. So a dentist in a family full of law enforcement? I'm sure there's a joke in their somewhere.

We've been going around in circles for a while now. I'll leave by just repeating my main point and you are free to have the last word.  Everyone has a chance to make it in America. But everyone has a different margin for error for achieving that chance. In my opinion, too much of that margin for error is decided by factors beyond an individual's control. Specifically, what family they were born into. I believe it is our duty as decent human beings, and specifically for me my duty as a Christian to try to even that playing field as much as possible.

"Every valley shall be filled in, every mountain and hill made low. The crooked roads shall become straight, the rough ways smooth." Luke 3:5
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on July 20, 2017, 05:57:09 AM
Thank you. That does give some more context. So a dentist in a family full of law enforcement? I'm sure there's a joke in their somewhere.

We've been going around in circles for a while now. I'll leave by just repeating my main point and you are free to have the last word.  Everyone has a chance to make it in America. But everyone has a different margin for error for achieving that chance. In my opinion, too much of that margin for error is decided by factors beyond an individual's control. Specifically, what family they were born into. I believe it is our duty as decent human beings, and specifically for me my duty as a Christian to try to even that playing field as much as possible.

"Every valley shall be filled in, every mountain and hill made low. The crooked roads shall become straight, the rough ways smooth." Luke 3:5

and you had to end with a Luke...hard to argue with him 8-)  your thoughts and motivations cannot be faulted as they exhibit an empathy we all should have to some degree or another.   however, it is the differing modes of action, sans advocacy that should be heeded.  we have in place, a number of programs etc. to address these areas.  our government(inefficient as they are) has instituted many "safety nets" which mandate us to participate and that is fine.  some of these programs work better than others.  the original goals of many of these programs were just that-"safety net".  meaning, we're here to help if/when it is needed,  to get one back on their feet again and then back into society.  i understand there are some who will never be able to, for numerous reasons, return to society as a capable person.  this is the part that has EXPANDED.  examples-the explosion of "handicapped" stickers for parking/disabilities, service dogs for whatever, welfare has become a lifestyle, etc-those are just EXAMPLES of how people are stretching the original meaning/purpose of what these programs original intentions were. 

  i feel that i am a pretty honest guy and i guess my expectations are that more people would be the same.  i hate people taking advantage of others for selfish gain.  i hate cheating.  i think we as a society can do better, rooting out the scum and the miscreants(too many to enumerate) and getting the help to those who not only need it, but appreciate it to the point that they may(note, i said MAY, not expected)) someday be able to pay it forward.

my ending psalm or thought would be an addendum to yours; may those who abuse the system,  someday(soon) wake up to see the wrongs of their actions.  much like your friend who went in to rehab kicking and screaming only to come out realizing his wrongs.  realizing the good life perpetrates more and becomes an obstacle to relapse.  we must see the rewards of our actions in order to maintain a life worth living; doing the right thing and then continuing.   

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Eldon on August 14, 2017, 12:33:29 PM
For those of you who care about data, evidence, etc., here is a new study (one of the authors, Neumark, is one of the foremost experts (https://www.amazon.com/Minimum-Wages-Press-David-Neumark/dp/0262515083/) on the minimum wage):

People Versus Machines: The Impact of Minimum Wages on Automatable Jobs
by Grace Lordan and David Neumark

We study the effect of minimum wage increases on employment in automatable jobs - jobs in which employers may find it easier to substitute machines for people - focusing on low-skilled workers from whom such substitution may be spurred by minimum wage increases. Based on CPS data from 1980-2015, we find that increasing the minimum wage decreases significantly the share of automatable employment held by low-skilled workers, and increases the likelihood that low-skilled workers in automatable jobs become unemployed. The average effects mask significant heterogeneity by industry and demographic group, including substantive adverse effects for older, low-skilled workers in manufacturing. The findings imply that groups often ignored in the minimum wage literature are in fact quite vulnerable to employment changes and job loss because of automation following a minimum wage increase.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w23667.pdf
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on September 26, 2017, 08:17:16 AM
Is Target on a suicide mission?

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/25/target-to-raise-its-hourly-minimum-wage.html
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on September 26, 2017, 08:23:02 AM
Is Target on a suicide mission?

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/25/target-to-raise-its-hourly-minimum-wage.html

Absolutely not. This was a business decision. No one is forcing them to raise their wages.

They are going to attract better employees than the Walmart across the street that pays less.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: B. McBannerson on September 26, 2017, 08:55:48 AM
Is Target on a suicide mission?

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/25/target-to-raise-its-hourly-minimum-wage.html

Target was $80 a share last year.  Hasn't been above $60 in 2017.  They've been on some kind of mission. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MUBurrow on September 26, 2017, 09:31:31 AM
Target was $80 a share last year.  Hasn't been above $60 in 2017.  They've been on some kind of mission.

And it was $37.50 in 2000 and only spent about 6 mos below the mid 30's all through the recession. Meanwhile, glassdoor reports the avg target wage at $10 for just about all in-store jobs.  I was going to say that I think they'll be okay, but that's actually not true - but that has everything to do with the decline or retail and next to nothing to do with bumping their customer service people a couple bucks.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on September 26, 2017, 09:52:11 AM
And it was $37.50 in 2000 and only spent about 6 mos below the mid 30's all through the recession. Meanwhile, glassdoor reports the avg target wage at $10 for just about all in-store jobs.  I was going to say that I think they'll be okay, but that's actually not true - but that has everything to do with the decline or retail and next to nothing to do with bumping their customer service people a couple bucks.

Agree. Target has many problems that have nothing to do with minimum wage, bathroom policy or other political hot-button items.

They had a major credit breach and mismanaged the response to it. They tried to go into Canada and totally botched it, losing billions of dollars before leaving the country with their tail between their legs. They were late to the grocery party, late to the Internet party and late to doing most things that can help a retailer survive (let alone thrive) in this current environment.

Morningstar (a respected financial research center) says Wal-Mart has a "wide moat," meaning it has significant competitive economic advantages. Morningstar says Costco has a wide moat. They say Amazon has a wide moat. They say TJX (parent company to T.J. Maxx and Marshalls) has a "narrow" moat, meaning it has some competitive advantages but lacks some others.

Target? Morningstar lists the moat as "None." None!

And I agree with that, because there is absolutely no reason for any shopper to choose Target. What can you buy there that you can't buy elsewhere, usually less expensively? In the course of just a few years, Wal-Mart has refashioned itself to be America's No. 1 grocery chain. It also has made great strides with its presence in e-commerce. Target is woefully behind.

According to financial analyst finviz.com, Target has grown earnings by only 1.4% annually the last 5 years and is expected to see earnings shrink by 3.3% annually the next 5 years.

In other words, lots of problems.

Not that anybody's asking, but I view this minimum wage hike as a shot worth taking. As chick said, at the very least it could entice good Wal-Mart employees to leave and join their team. Maybe customer service will improve and that will help bring in more shoppers (or at least retain the shoppers they have).

The average Target employee still will be paid less than the average Costco employee, though.

Costco not only pays better but it offers good benefits. As a result, it has the happiest, most loyal employees. As a result, it faces far less turnover, which is always costly for companies. And because most Costco employees like their jobs, they work harder and they give better service to customers, who in turn like shopping there. Costco customers are so loyal they pay just for the right to shop there!

Remember those horrific Target earnings numbers? Well, Costco's earnings grew 10.1% annually the past 5 years and are expected to grow 10.5% annually the next 5 years.

Treating their employees well, starting with an excellent wage, has not hurt Costco.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on September 26, 2017, 10:01:27 AM
Absolutely not. This was a business decision. No one is forcing them to raise their wages.

They are going to attract better employees than the Walmart across the street that pays less.

Oh, I agree.
I just think it helps illustrate the folly of those who argue in favor of low wages by claiming pay hikes will decimate businesses and lead to all low-wage workers being replaced by robots.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on September 26, 2017, 10:11:59 AM
Oh, I agree.
I just think it helps illustrate the folly of those who argue in favor of low wages by claiming pay hikes will decimate businesses and lead to all low-wage workers being replaced by robots.

If you make a higher wage mandatory, and force companies to pay more to a person than the value it is receiving in return, it certainly will.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on September 26, 2017, 10:16:25 AM
If you make a higher wage mandatory, and force companies to pay more to a person than the value it is receiving in return, it certainly will.

You're making an assumption that people are paid an amount equal to the value they provide.
And, I'll note, the people who make that argument when it comes to low-wage workers never seem to have a problem with executive compensation that exceeds the value those workers provide.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on September 26, 2017, 10:26:31 AM
You're making an assumption that people are paid an amount equal to the value they provide.
And, I'll note, the people who make that argument when it comes to low-wage workers never seem to have a problem with executive compensation that exceeds the value those workers provide.

So let's just make this easy on everyone and reduce those accounting and HR departments....let's pay everyone the same wage!!!
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on September 26, 2017, 10:36:38 AM
Agree. Target has many problems that have nothing to do with minimum wage, bathroom policy or other political hot-button items.

They had a major credit breach and mismanaged the response to it. They tried to go into Canada and totally botched it, losing billions of dollars before leaving the country with their tail between their legs. They were late to the grocery party, late to the Internet party and late to doing most things that can help a retailer survive (let alone thrive) in this current environment.

Morningstar (a respected financial research center) says Wal-Mart has a "wide moat," meaning it has significant competitive economic advantages. Morningstar says Costco has a wide moat. They say Amazon has a wide moat. They say TJX (parent company to T.J. Maxx and Marshalls) has a "narrow" moat, meaning it has some competitive advantages but lacks some others.

Target? Morningstar lists the moat as "None." None!

And I agree with that, because there is absolutely no reason for any shopper to choose Target. What can you buy there that you can't buy elsewhere, usually less expensively? In the course of just a few years, Wal-Mart has refashioned itself to be America's No. 1 grocery chain. It also has made great strides with its presence in e-commerce. Target is woefully behind.

According to financial analyst finviz.com, Target has grown earnings by only 1.4% annually the last 5 years and is expected to see earnings shrink by 3.3% annually the next 5 years.

In other words, lots of problems.

Not that anybody's asking, but I view this minimum wage hike as a shot worth taking. As chick said, at the very least it could entice good Wal-Mart employees to leave and join their team. Maybe customer service will improve and that will help bring in more shoppers (or at least retain the shoppers they have).

The average Target employee still will be paid less than the average Costco employee, though.

Costco not only pays better but it offers good benefits. As a result, it has the happiest, most loyal employees. As a result, it faces far less turnover, which is always costly for companies. And because most Costco employees like their jobs, they work harder and they give better service to customers, who in turn like shopping there. Costco customers are so loyal they pay just for the right to shop there!

Remember those horrific Target earnings numbers? Well, Costco's earnings grew 10.1% annually the past 5 years and are expected to grow 10.5% annually the next 5 years.

Treating their employees well, starting with an excellent wage, has not hurt Costco.

Part of Target's problem is that they've had significant turnover in leadership and culturally they are failing. My cousin has been a lifer at Target corporate in Minnie since we graduated in 2003. The corporate culture and strategy has changed significantly over the last 4-5 years which has detrimentally impacted the performance of the company. 3 years ago my cousin, who is in a very significant position there, said he would retire with Target and he couldn't imagine anywhere else. Just saw him in August and he's actively looking for a new job because he doesn't believe in their vision anymore.

Part of the issue is that Target didn't try to differentiate it tried to compete. What I mean by that is it tried to copy competitors like Wal-Mart and beat them at their own game, instead of steering their own differentiated path.

For the record, Wal-Mart is not winning because they have great customer service or are a great place to shop....they are winning because they figured out the game of playing with other peoples money the fastest and best. Their payment terms for goods received is astounding and means that the inventory on their shelf never has to be paid with "their money" so they are cash rich and can throw that weight around with procurement. Much like Amazon is not really a consumer goods company its a logistics company...Wal-Mart isn't a consumer goods company its a financial services company. And that's where Target has gone wrong (same with Kohl's etc) they think of themselves as consumer goods companies.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on September 26, 2017, 10:39:23 AM
You're making an assumption that people are paid an amount equal to the value they provide.
And, I'll note, the people who make that argument when it comes to low-wage workers never seem to have a problem with executive compensation that exceeds the value those workers provide.

The people who pay these executives must think they provide value.  Who else would be more fit to make that decision?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on September 26, 2017, 10:42:27 AM
The people who pay these executives must think they provide value.  Who else would be more fit to make that decision?

Who makes decisions about executive pay?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MUBurrow on September 26, 2017, 10:51:37 AM
If you make a higher wage mandatory, and force companies to pay more to a person than the value it is receiving in return, it certainly will.

The issue here for me is how we calculate value, which is completely obfuscated by the externalities we choose to recognize vs those we choose to ignore. If we continue to include in our value calculation only what the market will bear while myopically staring at the effect on capital - e.g. Target maintaining its dividend or raise its stock price over a 12-month horizon - from a policy perspective, that can only lead to a race to the bottom for a vast majority of the workforce.

There is a real, calculable cost to wringing our hands over a $2/hr raise for low wage employees in a company that has doubled in stock price over the last 7-8 years.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MUBurrow on September 26, 2017, 10:57:11 AM
Executive pay no matta. Macroeconomic policy that facilitates labor sharing in the successes of capital is far more important than how much 1040 income a handful of C-Suiters enjoy.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on September 26, 2017, 11:14:43 AM
Executive pay no matta. Macroeconomic policy that facilitates labor sharing in the successes of capital is far more important than how much 1040 income a handful of C-Suiters enjoy.

And the real funny joke is that the time horizon for low wage jobs in the consumer industry is no more than 10 years. Cashiers won't be a thing 10 years from now, so moving their wage level from $11 to $15 now will have little impact on the long term valuation of the companies.

However, the very positive thing is that over that same time horizon manufacturing will be moving back to the US at significant levels. It will be very automated manufacturing but it will bring a significant level of entry level jobs with it that IF we transform our educational system, those who previously would have gone the cashier route will now be able to go the manufacturing route.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/america-is-still-making-things/512282/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/america-is-still-making-things/512282/)

https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/03/tech-and-the-renaissance-of-manufacturing-in-america/ (https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/03/tech-and-the-renaissance-of-manufacturing-in-america/)

http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/the-future-of-manufacturing (http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/the-future-of-manufacturing)
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on September 26, 2017, 11:14:56 AM
Executive pay no matta. Macroeconomic policy that facilitates labor sharing in the successes of capital is far more important than how much 1040 income a handful of C-Suiters enjoy.

In the big picture, you're correct. Trimming some CEO pay isn't going to create the capital necessary to raise incomes for lower-wage workers across the board.
But I still find it hypocritical that some of those most vehemently opposed to raising pay for low-income workers are the same people who have no problem with executive pay that in no way reflects the reality of their value to the company. The best rationalization they can come up with - as warriorchick did above - is a limp "well, somebody must think they're worth it."
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on September 26, 2017, 11:18:24 AM
In the big picture, you're correct. Trimming some CEO pay isn't going to create the capital necessary to raise incomes for lower-wage workers across the board.
But I still find it hypocritical that some of those most vehemently opposed to raising pay for low-income workers are the same people who have no problem with executive pay that in no way reflects the reality of their value to the company. The best rationalization they can come up with - as warriorchick did above - is a limp "well, somebody must think they're worth it."

Got a better idea? Last time people tried to impact executive pay they came up with this system which ties their pay to longish term performance...something I'd argue is currently fueling in large part the current bubble in the stock market.

I'm not opposed to reigning in executive pay if someone can come up with a mechanism that actually does it.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on September 26, 2017, 11:52:21 AM
Got a better idea? Last time people tried to impact executive pay they came up with this system which ties their pay to longish term performance...something I'd argue is currently fueling in large part the current bubble in the stock market.

I'm not opposed to reigning in executive pay if someone can come up with a mechanism that actually does it.

For starters, I'd require publicly traded companies to form compensation committees made up of shareholders who are not executives in similar industries (and perhaps not executives anywhere). The compensation game is in part rigged because those making the decisions (board members who often are executives at other companies) have a vested and personal interest in maximizing executive compensation.
Second, tie pay to a company's long-term and overall performance, such as including debt status and extending the time at which stock options can be sold, not just short-term measures like stock price.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on September 26, 2017, 02:11:16 PM
For starters, I'd require publicly traded companies to form compensation committees made up of shareholders who are not executives in similar industries (and perhaps not executives anywhere). The compensation game is in part rigged because those making the decisions (board members who often are executives at other companies) have a vested and personal interest in maximizing executive compensation.
Second, tie pay to a company's long-term and overall performance, such as including debt status and extending the time at which stock options can be sold, not just short-term measures like stock price.

The shareholders are the owners of the company.  They should be able to pay their executives whatever they please. Unlike third parties who want to dictate to companies how their employees should be paid, that money is coming out of their own pockets,   If they don't like what the executives are getting paid, elect like-minded board members or sell the stock.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on September 26, 2017, 02:17:33 PM
For starters, I'd require publicly traded companies to form compensation committees made up of shareholders who are not executives in similar industries (and perhaps not executives anywhere). The compensation game is in part rigged because those making the decisions (board members who often are executives at other companies) have a vested and personal interest in maximizing executive compensation.
Second, tie pay to a company's long-term and overall performance, such as including debt status and extending the time at which stock options can be sold, not just short-term measures like stock price.

Not unreasonable steps, if somewhat impractical in implementation(at least the compensation committee who at best could be advisory). I'm curious as to what you think would be a positive outcome/metric of a reformed executive compensation program. What does executive compensation look like after we're done with it, how will we know that we've "right sized" their compensation?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: muwarrior69 on September 26, 2017, 02:25:52 PM
And the real funny joke is that the time horizon for low wage jobs in the consumer industry is no more than 10 years. Cashiers won't be a thing 10 years from now, so moving their wage level from $11 to $15 now will have little impact on the long term valuation of the companies.

However, the very positive thing is that over that same time horizon manufacturing will be moving back to the US at significant levels. It will be very automated manufacturing but it will bring a significant level of entry level jobs with it that IF we transform our educational system, those who previously would have gone the cashier route will now be able to go the manufacturing route.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/america-is-still-making-things/512282/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/america-is-still-making-things/512282/)

https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/03/tech-and-the-renaissance-of-manufacturing-in-america/ (https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/03/tech-and-the-renaissance-of-manufacturing-in-america/)

http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/the-future-of-manufacturing (http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/the-future-of-manufacturing)

Not so sure about that. My wife and I always use a cashier at the grocery store. Why self check and bag your groceries when a cashier will do that for you. I think cashiers are good customer service.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu03eng on September 26, 2017, 02:29:16 PM
Not so sure about that. My wife and I always use a cashier at the grocery store. Why self check and bag your groceries when a cashier will do that for you. I think cashiers are good customer service.

10 years from now you either won't be going to the store at all, or you won't need to use self check. Think RFID tags in products which get scanned as you walk out the door and linked to your account via your phone which automatically provides your preferred methodology of pay.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on September 26, 2017, 02:32:59 PM
Not so sure about that. My wife and I always use a cashier at the grocery store. Why self check and bag your groceries when a cashier will do that for you. I think cashiers are good customer service.

I am sure you would also prefer the bagger to follow you outside and load your groceries into the car, but that doesn't happen any more, either.  Why?  The cost of labor. 

For what it's worth, I prefer a cashier, too.  They can scan way faster than me.  The Jewel by my house took out all of their self-scanners.  I am not sure if that was the case across the entire chain or not.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on October 01, 2017, 05:25:22 AM
the meijer i occasionally go to, they will send roving baggers to the automated checkouts and bag your goodies as you finish scanning and paying.  don't ya love it when they put like one thing per bag?  i know they are instructed to either double bag anything over x ibs. how many customers come back in to bitch with broken eggs, etc and a hole in the bag
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: B. McBannerson on October 01, 2017, 10:35:52 AM
10 years from now you either won't be going to the store at all, or you won't need to use self check. Think RFID tags in products which get scanned as you walk out the door and linked to your account via your phone which automatically provides your preferred methodology of pay.

Already happening in some places.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: g0lden3agle on October 01, 2017, 02:35:48 PM
Not so sure about that. My wife and I always use a cashier at the grocery store. Why self check and bag your groceries when a cashier will do that for you. I think cashiers are good customer service.

Some day not too far off into the future you won't have a choice because the self checks save the companies money.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on October 01, 2017, 02:44:04 PM
Some day not too far off into the future you won't have a choice because the self checks save the companies money.

Actually, some day not too far off just the opposite might be true. Some major chains (Albertson's, CVS, for example) are removing them either entirely or in part, and others (Costco, Trader Joe's) refuse to add them. While they do save on labor costs, companies are finding out that they add to repair costs, increase store thefts and are generally unpopular with customers.
My guess is neither employee checkout or self-checkout will go away entirely anytime soon.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on October 01, 2017, 03:49:38 PM
Actually, some day not too far off just the opposite might be true. Some major chains (Albertson's, CVS, for example) are removing them either entirely or in part, and others (Costco, Trader Joe's) refuse to add them. While they do save on labor costs, companies are finding out that they add to repair costs, increase store thefts and are generally unpopular with customers.
My guess is neither employee checkout or self-checkout will go away entirely anytime soon.

I have an acquaintance who brags about how he steals from grocery stores using their automated checkouts. He'll buy expensive vegetables and use the codes for far cheaper ones, claim to only have 4 bakery items in a bag when he has six, use expired coupons, etc. He doesn't call it "stealing," but I told him that's exactly what it is. His reaction: "They're a big-money company, I'm just an Average Joe trying to get by." I wonder how many "Average Joes" are doing stuff like this. I'm guessing it adds up to significant losses for the grocers.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on October 01, 2017, 05:36:52 PM
I have an acquaintance who brags about how he steals from grocery stores using their automated checkouts. He'll buy expensive vegetables and use the codes for far cheaper ones, claim to only have 4 bakery items in a bag when he has six, use expired coupons, etc. He doesn't call it "stealing," but I told him that's exactly what it is. His reaction: "They're a big-money company, I'm just an Average Joe trying to get by." I wonder how many "Average Joes" are doing stuff like this. I'm guessing it adds up to significant losses for the grocers.

I used to know an acquaintance that did the same thing.  One of his favorites was to go get a bunch of cashews and list them use the code as peanuts...and other such things. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on October 01, 2017, 06:12:37 PM
I have an acquaintance who brags about how he steals from grocery stores using their automated checkouts. He'll buy expensive vegetables and use the codes for far cheaper ones, claim to only have 4 bakery items in a bag when he has six, use expired coupons, etc. He doesn't call it "stealing," but I told him that's exactly what it is. His reaction: "They're a big-money company, I'm just an Average Joe trying to get by." I wonder how many "Average Joes" are doing stuff like this. I'm guessing it adds up to significant losses for the grocers.

not to worry how much it's costing the grocers-it's built into the price WE pay.  if not for your "acquaintance" maybe some of the chit we buy wouldn't be so expensive-no biggie though as us above average joes can afford it, eyn'a?   :( 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on October 01, 2017, 10:12:54 PM
not to worry how much it's costing the grocers-it's built into the price WE pay.  if not for your "acquaintance" maybe some of the chit we buy wouldn't be so expensive-no biggie though as us above average joes can afford it, eyn'a?   :(

We are in agreement, rocket. A rarity ... but it occasionally happens!
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on October 02, 2017, 09:04:36 PM
We are in agreement, rocket. A rarity ... but it occasionally happens!

hey!    see, we can all just get along-high 5-eyn'a

    nice game by your panthers by the way!   what did cam have 40 gazillion fantasy points?  shocked the ...crap outta the NFL- back on the soopa bowl wagon?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on October 02, 2017, 09:58:08 PM
hey!    see, we can all just get along-high 5-eyn'a

    nice game by your panthers by the way!   what did cam have 40 gazillion fantasy points?  shocked the ...crap outta the NFL- back on the soopa bowl wagon?

I stopped playing fantasy football in 1993. I was the commissioner of a league and in Year 6 of my run, two of the owners got so angry at each other that they stopped being friends. I disbanded the league and I haven't looked back. Now, I watch a game if I want to and I don't watch one if I don't want to, and I could give a crap about fantasy sports. When somebody tells me how many points their TE had this week, my eyes glaze over ... and I think, "Shyte, did I used to sound like that?"

But yeah, thanks. My boyz played quite well for most of the game. Cam was outstanding. If he plays like that, it's difficult to beat the Panthers.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on October 02, 2017, 09:59:50 PM
Part of Target's problem is that they've had significant turnover in leadership and culturally they are failing. My cousin has been a lifer at Target corporate in Minnie since we graduated in 2003. The corporate culture and strategy has changed significantly over the last 4-5 years which has detrimentally impacted the performance of the company. 3 years ago my cousin, who is in a very significant position there, said he would retire with Target and he couldn't imagine anywhere else. Just saw him in August and he's actively looking for a new job because he doesn't believe in their vision anymore.

Part of the issue is that Target didn't try to differentiate it tried to compete. What I mean by that is it tried to copy competitors like Wal-Mart and beat them at their own game, instead of steering their own differentiated path.

For the record, Wal-Mart is not winning because they have great customer service or are a great place to shop....they are winning because they figured out the game of playing with other peoples money the fastest and best. Their payment terms for goods received is astounding and means that the inventory on their shelf never has to be paid with "their money" so they are cash rich and can throw that weight around with procurement. Much like Amazon is not really a consumer goods company its a logistics company...Wal-Mart isn't a consumer goods company its a financial services company. And that's where Target has gone wrong (same with Kohl's etc) they think of themselves as consumer goods companies.

Somehow I missed this response to my post of a week or so ago, mu03. Thanks for the very detailed response.

I sold some of my TGT stock more than a year ago but I still have some. I'm holding in an attempt to get back to even, which I admit is stupid and illogical. I'm stubborn and hate taking losses, but sometimes it's necessary. I'm very down on Target as both a company and an investment, and I really appreciate your insight.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on October 02, 2017, 10:05:21 PM
I stopped playing fantasy football in 1993. I was the commissioner of a league and in Year 6 of my run, two of the owners got so angry at each other that they stopped being friends. I disbanded the league and I haven't looked back. Now, I watch a game if I want to and I don't watch one if I don't want to, and I could give a crap about fantasy sports. When somebody tells me how many points their TE had this week, my eyes glaze over ... and I think, "Shyte, did I used to sound like that?"

But yeah, thanks. My boyz played quite well for most of the game. Cam was outstanding. If he plays like that, it's difficult to beat the Panthers.

That's some crazy over competitive owners.  I participate in one fantasy league, we created it forever ago as a way for some of my old friends to stay in contact.  All for fun, and the one event each year that we will all be at (the draft) to keep in touch.  Most of us though, honestly, could not care less about who wins, its just fun, which is probably the best way to look at fantasy sports.

Now real sports, like pickup games...we will all still throw elbows at each other.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on October 02, 2017, 11:15:49 PM
That's some crazy over competitive owners.  I participate in one fantasy league, we created it forever ago as a way for some of my old friends to stay in contact.  All for fun, and the one event each year that we will all be at (the draft) to keep in touch.  Most of us though, honestly, could not care less about who wins, its just fun, which is probably the best way to look at fantasy sports.

Now real sports, like pickup games...we will all still throw elbows at each other.

Much healthier attitude, forgetful. Enjoy!
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jsglow on October 03, 2017, 08:40:46 AM
Much healthier attitude, forgetful. Enjoy!

Like you guys, I have ZERO interest in fantasy.  Never have, never will.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on October 03, 2017, 08:58:04 PM
Somehow I missed this response to my post of a week or so ago, mu03. Thanks for the very detailed response.

I sold some of my TGT stock more than a year ago but I still have some. I'm holding in an attempt to get back to even, which I admit is stupid and illogical. I'm stubborn and hate taking losses, but sometimes it's necessary. I'm very down on Target as both a company and an investment, and I really appreciate your insight.

You've done the hard part - admitted you picked a lemon (everyone does) and admitted you've been stubborn about it (almost everyone is). The worst thing that could happen to you would be for Target to rally back to break even. The best thing that could happen is for you to hit the sell button.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on October 03, 2017, 09:23:27 PM
You've done the hard part - admitted you picked a lemon (everyone does) and admitted you've been stubborn about it (almost everyone is). The worst thing that could happen to you would be for Target to rally back to break even. The best thing that could happen is for you to hit the sell button.

Agreed, Lenny.

The pisser is that I actually identified TGT as a troubled investment well over a year ago ... but only sold 1/4 of my position at $78. Shoulda sold it all, of course.

What I have left really isn't that much - and getting less every day, ha! - which is why I don't get my undies in a bundle over it. It pays a good dividend, so I'm getting paid to wait.

It's an interesting company because it's been through a lot of trouble the last several years, most of its own making, as mu03 detailed.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jay Bee on October 04, 2017, 08:30:44 PM
Agreed, Lenny.

The pisser is that I actually identified TGT as a troubled investment well over a year ago ... but only sold 1/4 of my position at $78. Shoulda sold it all, of course.

What I have left really isn't that much - and getting less every day, ha! - which is why I don't get my undies in a bundle over it. It pays a good dividend, so I'm getting paid to wait.

It's an interesting company because it's been through a lot of trouble the last several years, most of its own making, as mu03 detailed.

Yep, sitting at a div yield of 4%+, that's a primary reason I'm still in. Only hopped in TGT several months back.. I believe at $52.38.. it's now at $58.66 (+12%). Sometimes crappy stocks get beaten down so much I can't resist.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on October 04, 2017, 09:48:55 PM
Yep, sitting at a div yield of 4%+, that's a primary reason I'm still in. Only hopped in TGT several months back.. I believe at $52.38.. it's now at $58.66 (+12%). Sometimes crappy stocks get beaten down so much I can't resist.

Nice, JB. IMHO, Target has become a "trading stock." Buy low, sell high. You did a great job of buying low! I'm a long-term investor and am not interested in owning more of a troubled company that is well behind the leaders in an ultra-competitive industry.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on October 05, 2017, 08:55:50 PM
Nice, JB. IMHO, Target has become a "trading stock." Buy low, sell high. You did a great job of buying low! I'm a long-term investor and am not interested in owning more of a troubled company that is well behind the leaders in an ultra-competitive industry.

Exactly Mike. Traders look for "overbought or "oversold" opportunities. Even a "dead cat bounce" can make you a nice profit. But investors want to stay away from dead cats.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jay Bee on January 03, 2018, 10:17:54 AM
Yep, sitting at a div yield of 4%+, that's a primary reason I'm still in. Only hopped in TGT several months back.. I believe at $52.38.. it's now at $58.66 (+12%). Sometimes crappy stocks get beaten down so much I can't resist.

Closed the first trading day of the year near $68. Up 29% since my purchased, ignoring the handsome dividend.

I am the anti-Heisy
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MollaeiLaw on May 27, 2018, 12:17:57 PM
spam, spam spam.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: real chili 83 on May 27, 2018, 12:19:45 PM
You can use your EIN to start and conduct business in United States, open up a U.S. bank account, hire employees, comply with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), apply for permits or licenses, and file taxes.
https://mollaeilaw.com/blog/foreign-ein/

How about Uggs?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on December 30, 2018, 12:24:01 PM
I'm hooping because I saw an update on the seattle situation

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1079438656706961408?s=19
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on December 30, 2018, 01:05:23 PM
Wow.  It's almost as if people have been feeding the public a load of bull about the impact of an increase in the minimum wage.  Gosh, I wonder why that's the case???
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 30, 2018, 02:22:57 PM
I'm hooping because I saw an update on the seattle situation

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1079438656706961408?s=19

Is that the same Krugman that predicted the crash of the stock market in November of ‘16?  Can’t recall.....yup, same Krugman.


"It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?  A first-pass answer is never… So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight." Paul Krugman of the New York Times the day after the election.

Economy overall going very well right now, let’s see how things go when downturns happen and fixed costs like labor have to be shed.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 30, 2018, 02:30:27 PM
Wow.  It's almost as if people have been feeding the public a load of bull about the impact of an increase in the minimum wage.  Gosh, I wonder why that's the case???

Many equal studies and examples that prove the opposite.  If your theory was spot on, why not make minimum wage $50 an hour?

How about economics is ‘t An exact science which is why finding 500 economists, many of them Nobel prize winners will say raising min wage is a bad idea and 500 different economists will come up with the exact opposite argument.

How can this be?  How can this be?  Instead it’s always the other guy is wrong. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on December 30, 2018, 02:37:05 PM
Is that the same Krugman that predicted the crash of the stock market in November of ‘16?  Can’t recall.....yup, same Krugman.


"It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?  A first-pass answer is never… So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight." Paul Krugman of the New York Times the day after the election.

Economy overall going very well right now, let’s see how things go when downturns happen and fixed costs like labor have to be shed.

Did you read the article?

It wasn't written by Krugman, or even by anybody at Krugman's employer (the not-failing NYTimes).

It's an opinion piece by Bloomberg's Barry Ritholtz.

The author does a good job of using facts -- yes, I know; facts are so passe -- to support his position that the minimum-wage hike actually has helped the very businesses that they were supposed to hurt.

Your statement that things could change if we enter into another recession could end up being true. But for now, the fact is that so far, the hysteria about minimum-wage hikes crushing Seattle's restaurant industry was extremely misplaced.

That's what Ritholtz's look clearly shows, and Krugman agrees so he tweeted out the article.

Otherwise, it has nothing to do with Krugman, so your rant was dopey.

And BTW ... it appears Krugman very well might have been right about the market and the recession; he was just a couple years too early.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on December 30, 2018, 02:39:14 PM
Many equal studies and examples that prove the opposite.  If your theory was spot on, why not make minimum wage $50 an hour?

How about economics is ‘t An exact science which is why finding 500 economists, many of them Nobel prize winners will say raising min wage is a bad idea and 500 different economists will come up with the exact opposite argument.

How can this be?  How can this be?  Instead it’s always the other guy is wrong.

The evidence/studies/examples are not equal
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 30, 2018, 02:40:46 PM
My point was Krugman has been specularly wrong in the past....so off the charts wrong it was embarrassing. 

Harvard did a study last year On min wage impact on Calif that was negative.  UW did one on Seattle that said same....then same UW crew did a new one this year released in October that was mixed.

My point is, both sides will do the dance of SEE I TOLD YOU SO, and that includes Krugman.   The economy is booming right now, it biases many results, not good and bad.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 30, 2018, 02:42:50 PM
The evidence/studies/examples are not equal

Says you?  Harvard? Yale? Univ of Chicago?  Liberal, Conservative? 

Again, I can come up with 500 economists that say yes and 500 that say no, but only certain ones count....right?  LOL.

Same goes for 5-4 Supreme Court Decisons, one side is COMPLETELY wrong.....


Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on December 30, 2018, 02:54:21 PM
My point was Krugman has been specularly wrong in the past....so off the charts wrong it was embarrassing. 

And my point is that Lunardi is wrong about where Marquette will be seeded, but that has nothing to do with Ritholtz's fact-based opinion piece.

You don't like Krugman, and you are embarrassing yourself with your false equivalences.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on December 30, 2018, 03:04:33 PM
Is that the same Krugman that predicted the crash of the stock market in November of ‘16?  Can’t recall.....yup, same Krugman.


"It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?  A first-pass answer is never… So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight." Paul Krugman of the New York Times the day after the election.

Economy overall going very well right now, let’s see how things go when downturns happen and fixed costs like labor have to be shed.

Krugman made an incorrect stock market forecast two years ago, ergo someone else's study about the minimum wage impact in Seattle is wrong.
#logic

As for the economy ... duh. When an economic downturn happens, labor costs will be shed, regardless of where the minimum wage sits.

Going back through this thread is a feast for @OldTakesExposed. So many very wrong predictions of doom.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on December 30, 2018, 03:14:40 PM

Harvard did a study last year On min wage impact on Calif that was negative. 

That study was stupid. It made Yelp ratings a key data point, and essentially determined that only restaurants with bad Yelp reviews were more likely to close if they had to pay their workers more. In other words, restaurants that were struggling anyhow. The wage hike had no impact on well-reviewed restaurants.
And it was only in San Francisco, not a statewide study.
The final conclusions:
“Research has shown that increases to the minimum wage have had modest or no impact on total employment – potentially because higher-rated or larger businesses are insulated from this shock, and potentially because business shifts to the remaining businesses which could lead to increased hiring."
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on December 30, 2018, 03:17:23 PM
Is that the same Krugman that predicted the crash of the stock market in November of ‘16?  Can’t recall.....yup, same Krugman.


"It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?  A first-pass answer is never… So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight." Paul Krugman of the New York Times the day after the election.

Economy overall going very well right now, let’s see how things go when downturns happen and fixed costs like labor have to be shed.

You are greatly misstating what Krugman said. He said that the global instability that Trump would bring about "COULD" result (would probably result) in a global recession, because of two reasons:

1.  The Fed would lose independence as it becomes bullied by the Whitehouse (currently happening).
2.  The Fed will not have any tools at its disposal to stimulate the economy (one of the biggest concerns of all economists).

Both are actually occurring, the only thing that hasn't yet is some impetus to turn the economy south. If it does happen, Krugman will be right, the economy will never truly recover from the damage done, as the position of the US in the global market place will be forever damaged because we lose are leadership position. But he never said it would happen, he said it "could/probably would" occur.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Babybluejeans on December 30, 2018, 03:22:05 PM
Is that the same Krugman that predicted the crash of the stock market in November of ‘16?  Can’t recall.....yup, same Krugman.


"It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?  A first-pass answer is never… So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight." Paul Krugman of the New York Times the day after the election.

Economy overall going very well right now, let’s see how things go when downturns happen and fixed costs like labor have to be shed.

Remember when you told everyone how much you were enjoying the money you were getting from the Very Amazing Tax Reform Law, until you learned the law hadn’t kicked in yet? Good times in the superbar!
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on December 30, 2018, 03:24:48 PM

And BTW ... it appears Krugman very well might have been right about the market and the recession; he was just a couple years too early.

So if I say that someday we'll have a recession and someday we'll have a recovery does that mean I'm prescient?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on December 30, 2018, 03:32:41 PM
Many equal studies and examples that prove the opposite.  If your theory was spot on, why not make minimum wage $50 an hour?

How about economics is ‘t An exact science which is why finding 500 economists, many of them Nobel prize winners will say raising min wage is a bad idea and 500 different economists will come up with the exact opposite argument.

How can this be?  How can this be?  Instead it’s always the other guy is wrong. 


Yep.  You are wrong.  Good call.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on December 30, 2018, 03:53:38 PM
So if I say that someday we'll have a recession and someday we'll have a recovery does that mean I'm prescient?

I'd prefer it if you were president!
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 30, 2018, 05:57:44 PM

Yep.  You are wrong.  Good call.

I think you just admitted you are.

There’s a reason why economics is not an absolute science and why Nobel laureates can say the exact opposite regarding the same issue.

Glad you came around to understanding that.

So rather than the same bullcrap that always goes on here, let’s just admit both sides will only site studies that support their side and trash studies that oppose it.  Both sides will do a “I told you so” until things aren’t going their way and then they will be silent.


Cool.  Great.  Shut down the thread because otherwise the same nonsense until the end of time.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on December 30, 2018, 05:59:26 PM
I think you just admitted you are.

There’s a reason why economics is not an absolute science and why Nobel laureates can say the exact opposite regarding the same issue.

Glad you came around to understanding that.

So rather than the same bullcrap that always goes on here, let’s just admit both sides will only site studies that support their side and trash studies that oppose it.  Both sides will do a “I told you so” until things aren’t going their way and then they will be silent.


Cool.  Great.  Shut down the thread because otherwise the same nonsense until the end of time.


Declares victory with no evidence presented, then wants the topic shut down.

Same ole Chicos.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on December 30, 2018, 06:07:04 PM
In my company we have determined it is cheaper to pay overtime than to hire an additional employee.  In most cases the employee appreciates the opportunity for extra earnings and we avoid the training and hiring costs.

It is cheaper because healthcare costs have risen so fast in recent years (15.4% for my company in 2017).  The average employee now costs over $10/hour just for healthcare in addition there is unemployment, workers comp, and other bennies and costs .  Since we only calculate benefits over the first forty hours the forty first hour in many cases is cheaper than any of the first forty. Our starting wage is $16 and Ave is $23

This makes a lot of sense PBR, and I'm sure your existing employees appreciate the OT.

Obviously, this decision of yours was made independently of any minimum wage, as you pay far more.

I wish you and your business great fortune in 2019 and beyond.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 30, 2018, 06:13:56 PM

Declares victory with no evidence presented, then wants the topic shut down.

Same ole Chicos.

What evidence do you want? That’s the entire point. If I present 500 economists including Nobel laureates, you will dismiss it and come up with your own 500.  If I provide the Harvard study from 2017

https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2017/05/03/minimum-wage-hikes-drive-eateries-out-of-business.html

You will dismiss it with another study.

If I provide a study from UCLA in 2018 that says it is impossible that at least one of or all things must happen if wages are increased. (Profits cut, jobs cut, costs passed on to consumers)....you will come up with something else that says differently.

I’m trying to save everyone a lot of time and energy.  That’s All.  It is economics, it isn’t absolute science.  Do the back and forth we go forever?  Only evidence that either raise people care about is what supports their position? What could go wrong.  It’s the same bullcrap we get when one only watch’s FOX or Only watches MSNBC....confirmation bias has done wonders for us so far, eh? 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on December 30, 2018, 06:15:47 PM

I’m trying to save everyone a lot of time and energy.  That’s All. 



Then don't respond.  If you don't want to participate, go away.  It's very simple.

But you don't merely want to save people's time.  You want everyone to think you are some wise sage with this stuff.  But you're not fooling anyone. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 30, 2018, 06:19:49 PM
I took my kids to the NFL studios this morning so they could watch how the Red Zone is done live and mission control of 15 games at one time.  On the tour they explained how it used to take 100 people to do this, now it takes about 30....robotic cameras, digital monitoring that used to be done by a person, sensors driving stats in real-time in shoulder pads, ball, etc.  Human beings let go as a result.

Now other industries gearing up, people to fix those robotic cameras, sensors, etc....but this is the world.  They were literally showing my kids huge rooms that used to have maybe 15 to 20 people working in them and now have one or two....almost all of it automated.  Reality check for my kids, unfortunate huge reality check for those that have been let go already.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Lennys Tap on December 30, 2018, 06:20:30 PM
I'd prefer it if you were president!

And I that you be!
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 30, 2018, 06:22:51 PM


Then don't respond.  If you don't want to participate, go away.  It's very simple.

But you don't merely want to save people's time.  You want everyone to think you are some wise sage with this stuff.  But you're not fooling anyone.

I provided you what you asked for, evidence...which you will now say isn’t really true, has flaws, etc.   which furthers my point.  This debate will never end, nor the legal decisions that go 5-4 (it’s always political on the side that went 5 unless it went 5 to that person’s side and then it is just narrow justice), not the gun debate, or any other that goes on here. 

Entrenched, dig in, heels strongly into the ground, scream at each other, refuse to accept either view even if evidence is there, wash, rinse, repeat, fluff dry
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on December 30, 2018, 06:29:22 PM
I took my kids to the NFL studios this morning so they could watch how the Red Zone is done live and mission control of 15 games at one time.  On the tour they explained how it used to take 100 people to do this, now it takes about 30....robotic cameras, digital monitoring that used to be done by a person, sensors driving stats in real-time in shoulder pads, ball, etc.  Human beings let go as a result.

Now other industries gearing up, people to fix those robotic cameras, sensors, etc....but this is the world.  They were literally showing my kids huge rooms that used to have maybe 15 to 20 people working in them and now have one or two....almost all of it automated.  Reality check for my kids, unfortunate huge reality check for those that have been let go already.


Then how come unemployment was at a 50 year low in September?  See this convinces me you know very little about economics.  Sure people can lose their jobs to technology in the short term.  But technology adds to the economy way more than it takes away.  The fact is that the people who once filled those positions are now doing something else. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on December 30, 2018, 06:30:08 PM
I provided you what you asked for, evidence...which you will now say isn’t really true, has flaws, etc.   which furthers my point.  This debate will never end, nor the legal decisions that go 5-4 (it’s always political on the side that went 5 unless it went 5 to that person’s side and then it is just narrow justice), not the gun debate, or any other that goes on here. 

Entrenched, dig in, heels strongly into the ground, scream at each other, refuse to accept either view even if evidence is there, wash, rinse, repeat, fluff dry


Again, you don't like it?  Then leave.  Don't waste your time in this topic.

It's clear you are out of your depth anyway.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 30, 2018, 11:01:28 PM

Then how come unemployment was at a 50 year low in September?  See this convinces me you know very little about economics.  Sure people can lose their jobs to technology in the short term.  But technology adds to the economy way more than it takes away.  The fact is that the people who once filled those positions are now doing something else.

How come unemployment is at a 50 year low across most of the country in places that did NOT adjust min wage?


It’s happening everywhere....that’s my point.  Unemployment is down whether changes were made or not.  Now, when the down cycle happens (always does) and businesses have to tighten, what will happen?  Question will be whether it happens at a greater pace than in other years during down cycles.  Prices also went up, to pay for those increases.  The wages have to come out of somewhere....profits, jobs/hours, or consumer prices.  Economic fact even Krugman agrees to because he wrote it in his textbook.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: SoCalEagle on December 30, 2018, 11:10:13 PM
I provided you what you asked for, evidence...which you will now say isn’t really true, has flaws, etc.   which furthers my point.  This debate will never end, nor the legal decisions that go 5-4 (it’s always political on the side that went 5 unless it went 5 to that person’s side and then it is just narrow justice), not the gun debate, or any other that goes on here. 

Entrenched, dig in, heels strongly into the ground, scream at each other, refuse to accept either view even if evidence is there, wash, rinse, repeat, fluff dry

It's called making an argument in order to persuade a neutral third party that your side has merit.  It's a lost art, as most (including you, apparently) now simply believe "I have my facts, and you have your facts" so why try to persuade.  What you don't appear to realize is that you are not trying to convince the other side that you are 100% correct.  You are trying to bolster your argument by demonstrating that your argument has merit.  This usually starts with being credible (i.e you have posted clear, concise, reasonable arguments in the past) .... but that's another story altogether.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on December 31, 2018, 09:40:55 AM
How come unemployment is at a 50 year low across most of the country in places that did NOT adjust min wage?


It’s happening everywhere....that’s my point.  Unemployment is down whether changes were made or not.  Now, when the down cycle happens (always does) and businesses have to tighten, what will happen?  Question will be whether it happens at a greater pace than in other years during down cycles.  Prices also went up, to pay for those increases.  The wages have to come out of somewhere....profits, jobs/hours, or consumer prices.  Economic fact even Krugman agrees to because he wrote it in his textbook.

Except this runs counter to the doom and gloom you and others offered up earlier in this thread. If your predictions were correct, businesses and labor markets in places like Seattle and San Francisco would be faltering relative to the rest of the nation. They're not. Those places are booming, often at a pace ahead of the rest of the nation.
Never in this thread did any of you naysayers say the negative impacts would be felt only in a down economy. Raising that now is just a desperate attempt to save your bad forecasts of disaster.

Nobody disputes the wages have to come from somewhere. So, what's your point?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 31, 2018, 10:03:13 AM
Can you explain the Harvard and UCLA studies to me?  The ones that say in certain industries labor cuts are happening?  And what happens when the inevitable downturn happens?  If raising min wage is so wonderful, why isn’t $45 an hour?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on December 31, 2018, 10:14:16 AM
Can you explain the Harvard and UCLA studies to me?  The ones that say in certain industries labor cuts are happening?  And what happens when the inevitable downturn happens?  If raising min wage is so wonderful, why isn’t $45 an hour?
1. I already explained the Harvard study. It didn't say what you claimed it said. You haven't provided the UCLA story for me to explain.
2. Because it's not economically feasible and can't be tied to any actual benchmark (such as growth in personal income, adjustment for inflation, etc.).
And if that's the best argument you've got at this point, you should stop posting rather than continuing to embarrass yourself.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on December 31, 2018, 10:47:15 AM
Did you read the article?

It wasn't written by Krugman, or even by anybody at Krugman's employer (the not-failing NYTimes).

It's an opinion piece by Bloomberg's Barry Ritholtz.

The author does a good job of using facts -- yes, I know; facts are so passe -- to support his position that the minimum-wage hike actually has helped the very businesses that they were supposed to hurt.

Your statement that things could change if we enter into another recession could end up being true. But for now, the fact is that so far, the hysteria about minimum-wage hikes crushing Seattle's restaurant industry was extremely misplaced.

That's what Ritholtz's look clearly shows, and Krugman agrees so he tweeted out the article.

Otherwise, it has nothing to do with Krugman, so your rant was dopey.

And BTW ... it appears Krugman very well might have been right about the market and the recession; he was just a couple years too early.

This was my favorite part about the dopey rant:

let’s see how things go when downturns happen and fixed costs like labor have to be shed.

LOL labor is the very definition of variable cost in the restaurant business

Typical of business-y types like Chicos, trying to use jargon to sound smart and "win" an argument but ultimately revealing their ignorance in the process
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on December 31, 2018, 10:56:30 AM
This makes a lot of sense PBR, and I'm sure your existing employees appreciate the OT.

Obviously, this decision of yours was made independently of any minimum wage, as you pay far more.

I wish you and your business great fortune in 2019 and beyond.

I want to know what kind of insurance PBR's company is offering that costs them over $20K per year per employee.  My organization's most expensive plan choice -BCBS with a low deductible - is less than that for family coverage, and that is before the employee's payroll deductions.  Our average net cost for coverage among all of our plans is closer to $4-5 per hour.

Is this a union thing?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on December 31, 2018, 11:14:27 AM
I want to know what kind of insurance PBR's company is offering that costs them over $20K per year per employee.  My organization's most expensive plan choice -BCBS with a low deductible - is less than that for family coverage, and that is before the employee's payroll deductions.  Our average net cost for coverage among all of our plans is closer to $4-5 per hour.

Is this a union thing?

You should have addressed this to PBR, chickadee, as I obviously don't know. I hope he reads it and answers.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on December 31, 2018, 11:17:08 AM
labor is the very definition of variable cost in the restaurant business

So true. My wife was a restaurant manager for a few years. Always dealing with employees who didn't show up, who quit without notice (a couple of times in the middle of shifts), who stole, etc.

And every time somebody leaves or is fired, the newbies have to be trained, a pretty expensive process.

It's a tough business to make money in, which is why there are so many closings.

The vast majority of the employees my wife dealt with were good, reliable people. But as in any situation, the bad apples always stand out.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on December 31, 2018, 12:47:41 PM
I want to know what kind of insurance PBR's company is offering that costs them over $20K per year per employee.  My organization's most expensive plan choice -BCBS with a low deductible - is less than that for family coverage, and that is before the employee's payroll deductions.  Our average net cost for coverage among all of our plans is closer to $4-5 per hour.

Is this a union thing?

Can't speak for PBR, But the employer part of my benefits for a family plan runs $22800 a year, and that is for a plan with a $2k deductible from BCBS.  That is before adding dental and life insurance.  And there are no unions.

It also doesn't include the employer match (8%) to the 401k, at least at my employer, the employer match does not apply to overtime or additional pay.

It is vastly cheaper to pay an existing employee overtime, or force them to take on more work (salaried employees) than to bring in a new employee.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on December 31, 2018, 12:50:25 PM
$22800 a month?  That has to be a year right?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on December 31, 2018, 12:53:02 PM
$22800 a month?  That has to be a year right?

My bad, I meant year.  $22800 a month would be absurd, I'd tell them to just pay me the cash and I'd worry about everything for that kind of money.

Corrected.

As an aside. A $2700 deductible family plan from MU cost the university ~$19200 a year.  Add in dental and it is costing the University over $20k per year per employee.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 31, 2018, 01:34:23 PM
This was my favorite part about the dopey rant:

LOL labor is the very definition of variable cost in the restaurant business

Typical of business-y types like Chicos, trying to use jargon to sound smart and "win" an argument but ultimately revealing their ignorance in the process

LOL.  Labor can be both fixed or variable....yes, even in the restaurant business.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012915/do-minimum-wage-laws-make-labor-fixed-or-variable-cost.asp

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 31, 2018, 01:38:36 PM
Krugman made an incorrect stock market forecast two years ago, ergo someone else's study about the minimum wage impact in Seattle is wrong.
#logic

As for the economy ... duh. When an economic downturn happens, labor costs will be shed, regardless of where the minimum wage sits.

Going back through this thread is a feast for @OldTakesExposed. So many very wrong predictions of doom.

Incorrect?  He made one of the most unstable predictions in stock market history.  It's one thing to say the market is going down, he said it would NEVER RECOVER, that's how much TPS the man has.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 31, 2018, 01:46:28 PM
1. I already explained the Harvard study. It didn't say what you claimed it said. You haven't provided the UCLA story for me to explain.
2. Because it's not economically feasible and can't be tied to any actual benchmark (such as growth in personal income, adjustment for inflation, etc.).
And if that's the best argument you've got at this point, you should stop posting rather than continuing to embarrass yourself.

Which was exactly my point earlier, I provided a study from Harvard....you say it is stupid.  Exactly exactly exactly what I said would happen. Both sides bring "studies" and "data", the other sides shout it down, say how discredited it is, etc.  Exactly what I said happens, and you proved it out.

So why is either side bothering?  Seriously, why get all hopped on it? 

The UCLA study says exactly what I said....nobody knows. There is no consensus.  Economics is not an absolute science, so all the blathering by Krugman, or lefties that it works, and all the blather by righties that it doesn't....no consensus.  There are arguments for and against.  Does that help SoCal?

http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty-and-research/anderson-review/minimum-wage-primer-leamer

"Here, we attempt to explain why there is still no consensus on this single question that economists have grappled with for half a century, and the most populated cities and states in America now find critical to their futures. In this primer, we bring forward the most pertinent and promising research on the minimum wage and employment to show the facts both determined and alleged. And we describe the limits of data sets, flaws in control group designs and political influences on both camps that keep the debate raging."
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on December 31, 2018, 01:53:20 PM
Which was exactly my point earlier, I provided a study from Harvard....you say it is stupid.  Exactly exactly exactly what I said would happen. Both sides bring "studies" and "data", the other sides shout it down, say how discredited it is, etc.  Exactly what I said happens, and you proved it out.

So why is either side bothering?  Seriously, why get all hopped on it? 

The UCLA study says exactly what I said....nobody knows. There is no consensus.  Economics is not an absolute science, so all the blathering by Krugman, or lefties that it works, and all the blather by righties that it doesn't....no consensus.  There are arguments for and against.  Does that help SoCal?

http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty-and-research/anderson-review/minimum-wage-primer-leamer

"Here, we attempt to explain why there is still no consensus on this single question that economists have grappled with for half a century, and the most populated cities and states in America now find critical to their futures. In this primer, we bring forward the most pertinent and promising research on the minimum wage and employment to show the facts both determined and alleged. And we describe the limits of data sets, flaws in control group designs and political influences on both camps that keep the debate raging."


For someone who is so concerned about people wasting their time, you certain are typing a lot of tripe to waste people's time.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on December 31, 2018, 02:01:25 PM
Incorrect?  He made one of the most unstable predictions in stock market history.  It's one thing to say the market is going down, he said it would NEVER RECOVER, that's how much TPS the man has.

I already explained how you are grossly misrepresenting what Krugman said.  You are still wrong.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on December 31, 2018, 02:34:21 PM
Which was exactly my point earlier, I provided a study from Harvard....you say it is stupid.  Exactly exactly exactly what I said would happen. Both sides bring "studies" and "data", the other sides shout it down, say how discredited it is, etc.  Exactly what I said happens, and you proved it out.

So why is either side bothering?  Seriously, why get all hopped on it? 

The UCLA study says exactly what I said....nobody knows. There is no consensus.  Economics is not an absolute science, so all the blathering by Krugman, or lefties that it works, and all the blather by righties that it doesn't....no consensus.  There are arguments for and against.  Does that help SoCal?

http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty-and-research/anderson-review/minimum-wage-primer-leamer

"Here, we attempt to explain why there is still no consensus on this single question that economists have grappled with for half a century, and the most populated cities and states in America now find critical to their futures. In this primer, we bring forward the most pertinent and promising research on the minimum wage and employment to show the facts both determined and alleged. And we describe the limits of data sets, flaws in control group designs and political influences on both camps that keep the debate raging."

Funny.
In earlier instances in this thread, plenty of people (most of whom have been wise enough to have hightailed it out of this discussion for now) had no problem forecasting doom for places where the minimum wage was hiked. It was simple economics, we were told. Now that it hasn't happened, you come here claiming nobody could possibly know the true impacts of increasing the minimum wage.
I wonder what changed?

And like the Harvard study, the UCLA study doesn't say what you claimed it says. In fact, the UCLA study isn't really a study, and really doesn't say anything. It simply rehashes what other studies have found and critiques them.
If you're going to cite studies to defend your arguments, you should at least make sure the studies defend your argument.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on December 31, 2018, 03:21:41 PM
Beyond even studies or theories or speculation about what a $45 minimum wage would do to a government/economy/corporation, the real reason that isn't done is because too much money would have to come down from the 1%. And those are the ones with power/control.

So unless it was in their best economic interest (it wouldn't be, at least in the short term), it wouldn't happen, regardless of what any study demonstrated.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on December 31, 2018, 03:36:32 PM
You should have addressed this to PBR, chickadee, as I obviously don't know. I hope he reads it and answers.

That's what I trying to do.  :)
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on December 31, 2018, 03:37:35 PM
That's what I trying to do.  :)

Unlike Tugg/Heisey/Smuggles or chicos/Cheeks/hoopaloop/WarriorDad, I am not suffering from multiple personality disorder!
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 31, 2018, 04:00:36 PM
I already explained how you are grossly misrepresenting what Krugman said.  You are still wrong.

How am I misrepresenting what he said? It was so bad, his words....that he had to issue an apology to give him any face saving.  That's how ridiculous it was.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 31, 2018, 04:01:19 PM
Unlike Tugg/Heisey/Smuggles or chicos/Cheeks/hoopaloop/WarriorDad, I am not suffering from multiple personality disorder!

Not WarriorDad, I would be happy to go back to Chicosbailbonds....will mods let me reclaim it?  I guess up to them.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 31, 2018, 04:15:32 PM

And like the Harvard study, the UCLA study doesn't say what you claimed it says. In fact, the UCLA study isn't really a study, and really doesn't say anything. It simply rehashes what other studies have found and critiques them.
If you're going to cite studies to defend your arguments, you should at least make sure the studies defend your argument.

I haven't yet linked to a UCLA study, I linked a UCLA commentary by their business school regarding the debate, which includes their studies and others. 

They determined fewer hours going to employees despite higher wages, which meant a net of lower wages or no change at all.  Employers hire more workers, but at fewer hours per.  Is that a good thing?

https://www.labor.ucla.edu/new-ucla-study-shows-la-retail-workers-face-hours-crisis/

https://abc7.com/business/ucla-study-finds-problems-with-unpredictable-hours-of-retail-workers/3217088/


An older study, is here from 2015

https://dailybruin.com/2015/11/25/qa-ucla-professor-talks-new-study-on-las-minimum-wage-increase/

Says raising wages will help some, hurt others, hurt some businesses....in other words, mixed results...hmm.



Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: forgetful on December 31, 2018, 04:22:53 PM
How am I misrepresenting what he said? It was so bad, his words....that he had to issue an apology to give him any face saving.  That's how ridiculous it was.

I explained it already.

I have no dog in this fight. Out of my area of expertise. I only commented because you misrepresented what was said.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on December 31, 2018, 04:34:51 PM
I haven't yet linked to a UCLA study, I linked a UCLA commentary by their business school regarding the debate, which includes their studies and others. 

They determined fewer hours going to employees despite higher wages, which meant a net of lower wages or no change at all.  Employers hire more workers, but at fewer hours per.  Is that a good thing?

https://www.labor.ucla.edu/new-ucla-study-shows-la-retail-workers-face-hours-crisis/

https://abc7.com/business/ucla-study-finds-problems-with-unpredictable-hours-of-retail-workers/3217088/


An older study, is here from 2015

https://dailybruin.com/2015/11/25/qa-ucla-professor-talks-new-study-on-las-minimum-wage-increase/

Says raising wages will help some, hurt others, hurt some businesses....in other words, mixed results...hmm.

Again, please read your links before you post them. This is getting embarrassing.

The first study is concerning unstable work hours, and in no way links them to the minimum wage, and certainly doesn't claim inconsistent schedules are a result of a minimum wage hike. In fact, it was a study of all retail workers - not just minimum wage workers. It is simply irrelevant.

Here's what the study actually finds:
The unpredictability is fueled by the growing popularity of “just-in-time scheduling” software that predicts consumer demand to generate shifts. That helps stores efficiently match work hours to busy and slow periods, but can make it difficult for workers to plan their lives or attain full-time employment.

And the "older study" you link isn't a study at all ... it's a Q&A with a professor talking about a study he is going to be working on. That study won't be complete until 2021.
 (FWIW, the professor here is a guy who's been on record as being opposed to a minimum wage hike years before he started this study ... hope that doesn't shade his findings).
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 31, 2018, 04:56:13 PM

And the "older study" you link isn't a study at all ... it's a Q&A with a professor talking about a study he is going to be working on. That study won't be complete until 2021.
 (FWIW, the professor here is a guy who's been on record as being opposed to a minimum wage hike years before he started this study ... hope that doesn't shade his findings).

LOL.  Hmm, so any climate scientists that already on record of their position before the study, sure hope it doesn't shade their findings.  Any pro minimum wage economists that support Min Wage hike, their studies also should be questioned because their findings might be shaded.....this is the new rationale? Or it is that those folks have integrity because they align with your position, but others don't have integrity because they are against it?  Again, back to what I've said...both sides...discrediting studies, etc.   And yes, it was actually a study.   I linked the Q&A, but it was based on a study they did.  Leamer was just hired in November by the city of Pasadena along with a Berkeley prof to analyze min wage increase impacts on their city.  Results expected in 2019, hopefully nothing is "shaded" in their results. 

Again, please read your links before you post them. This is getting embarrassing.

The first study is concerning unstable work hours, and in no way links them to the minimum wage, and certainly doesn't claim inconsistent schedules are a result of a minimum wage hike. In fact, it was a study of all retail workers - not just minimum wage workers. It is simply irrelevant.

Indeed it is embarrassing....because all you had to do was read this in the summary:

"The report notes that recent local and statewide strengthening of workers’ rights protections, such as the minimum wage increase and paid sick time, are rendered irrelevant for many retail workers due to their unstable work schedules."

Yes, minimum wage is not only RELEVANT to the discussion and specifically CALLED OUT BY UCLA, but the study suggests the Min Wage increases have done no good because more people hired, less hours for all.  Now, why would corporations do this?  TO SAVE MONEY.  You can pretend that the corporations aren't doing this all you wish, but that would be for the naive to state the obvious.  Corporations save MONEY by having less full time employees they don't have to schedule and pay at the full wage.  UCLA calls out that the wage increase has been essentially made void by this practice....now why on earth would a corporation do this? Hmmm. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 31, 2018, 05:10:01 PM
I explained it already.

I have no dog in this fight. Out of my area of expertise. I only commented because you misrepresented what was said.

Krugman's other beauties:  "By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than that of fax machines."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paul-krugman-internets-effect-economy/


How can I misrepresent someone when I put his words on display, not mine?

He said it about the stock market after the election.  Global crisis, NEVER coming back.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/krugman-trump-global-recession-2016-231055


He then admitted he used his own political bias to make the outlandish remarks and had a "mea culpa" for his absurdity months later. I guess he had no choice because of the fool he was made to look.  About as bad as his takes on certain policy issues that were completely opposite of his utterances in his OWN BOOKS he authored. 



Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jockey on December 31, 2018, 05:10:30 PM
Same old, same old.

Chicos and Heisy showing their stupidity by trying to prove they are smarter than everyone here.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 31, 2018, 05:41:42 PM
Same old, same old.

Chicos and Heisy showing their stupidity by trying to prove they are smarter than everyone here.

I'm definitely not smarter than anyone here, can admit that easily. I find you to be one of the smartest guys, but that's why I'm curious, when declaring you don't care for the USA currently...your words... why not advocate for Mexico instead? Why is it that everyone that claims they are moving to Canada never advocates moving to Mexico?  Weird. 

But you are definitely smarter than me and I'd nominate you as smartest guy on Scoop....definitely one of the top 5.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on December 31, 2018, 05:48:57 PM
I'm definitely not smarter than anyone here, can admit that easily.



Nothing to admit. It’s pretty f*cking obvious.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 31, 2018, 05:57:52 PM

Nothing to admit. It’s pretty f*cking obvious.

Yup, that's why you are in the top 5, too.  On that pedestal. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on December 31, 2018, 06:00:38 PM
chicos, don't be discouraged,
Smuggles ain't so hard to understand.
chicos, if you try now,
I know that you can lend a helping hand.

Because there's good in everyone
And a new day has begun
You can see the morning sun if you try.

And I know, things will be better
Oh yes they will for chicos and Smuggles, man.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on December 31, 2018, 06:10:06 PM
chicos, don't be discouraged,
Smuggles ain't so hard to understand.
chicos, if you try now,
I know that you can lend a helping hand.

Because there's good in everyone
And a new day has begun
You can see the morning sun if you try.

And I know, things will be better
Oh yes they will for chicos and Smuggles, man.

Not discouraged, thanks for the helping hand.  We've all made mistakes, right caveman? 

Happy New Year

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Babybluejeans on December 31, 2018, 06:14:25 PM
People in my Republican Party have to admit that the U.S. economy was saved from the brink by Obama, rallied for nearly a decade straight under Obama. And we admit Trump enjoyed the bounce of 8 years of strong economic policy under Barry O. But now that Trump’s own non-Republican policies have come to bear we get...a looming recession. Krugman shmugman, WarriorDad, if you put your often misplaced anger in the right place, you’d be thanking our cheesedick president with a single finger.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Jockey on December 31, 2018, 10:50:23 PM

Nothing to admit. It’s pretty f*cking obvious.

I wonder who we should put in the Top 5 with us. Maybe we should just keep  it as the Top 2 and anyone else can slot in below.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Herman Cain on December 31, 2018, 11:27:03 PM
Minimum Wages jobs are meant to be for people in transition, first time members of the workplace, seasonal workers, those who have other primary interests etc. They are not meant to be for those seeking a full time career etc.

A no minimum wage environment would be tremendously beneficial for this country and maximize those being employed . Employers seek the best employees they can find and the market would determine appropriate wages.  The most critical item for those entering the work force is experience. New entrants to the work force who gain experience are worth a lot to a future employer. More employees and more experience creates a bigger economy for all.

Also smart companies will not pay bottom dollar. For example, the $15 dollar an hour wage is now all the rage . Yet, in my company we put that $15 wage in place over 30 years ago for our clerical types. This was way above market at the time , but it resulted in our getting a steady stream of people who were top quality working their way to higher and better jobs.  We were able to compete with huge corporations because we had top talent up and down the company.

If there was a no minimum wage environment , our company would significantly increase employment  and would groom the best of those workers for very good jobs down the road. The total net compensation dollars we would pay would likely go up. For example , we  could afford to  put a helper on every truck that goes out. Our drivers would be more efficient and the helpers would learn the basics of the business . People would likely not stay helpers for long, as they would go on to more skilled roles.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: dgies9156 on December 31, 2018, 11:33:32 PM
Minimum Wages jobs are meant to be for people in transition, first time members of the workplace, seasonal workers, those who have other primary interests etc. They are not meant to be for those seeking a full time career etc.

A no minimum wage environment would be tremendously beneficial for this country and maximize those being employed . Employers seek the best employees they can find and the market would determine appropriate wages.  The most critical item for those entering the work force is experience. New entrants to the work force who gain experience are worth a lot to a future employer. More employees and more experience creates a bigger economy for all.

Also smart companies will not pay bottom dollar. For example, the $15 dollar an hour wage is now all the rage . Yet, in my company we put that $15 wage in place over 30 years ago for our clerical types. This was way above market at the time , but it resulted in our getting a steady stream of people who were top quality working their way to higher and better jobs.  We were able to compete with huge corporations because we had top talent up and down the company.

If there was a no minimum wage environment , our company would significantly increase employment  and would groom the best of those workers for very good jobs down the road. The total net compensation dollars we would pay would likely go up. For example , we  could afford to  put a helper on every truck that goes out. Our drivers would be more efficient and the helpers would learn the basics of the business . People would likely not stay helpers for long, as they would go on to more skilled roles.

While I don't completely agree with Brother Herm, some of his points are incredibly interesting.

There are parts of Wisconsin, for example, where a minimum wage salary would be laughed at. There are more jobs than there are workers. Anyone want to guess how equilibrium is achieved?

Point: a robust economy with full employment cure social ills. More importantly, if there is considerable opportunity, the minimum wage will be largely irrelevant. It would be needed for grocery sackers, pool attendants, and other jobs filled by 16-18 year olds.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on January 01, 2019, 06:46:46 AM
People in my Republican Party have to admit that the U.S. economy was saved from the brink by Obama, rallied for nearly a decade straight under Obama. And we admit Trump enjoyed the bounce of 8 years of strong economic policy under Barry O. But now that Trump’s own non-Republican policies have come to bear we get...a looming recession. Krugman shmugman, WarriorDad, if you put your often misplaced anger in the right place, you’d be thanking our cheesedick president with a single finger.

This is why we can’t have good old fashioned discussions about some things.  baby dude, your comment took a severe political turn here and warrants a New Years ban hammer.  You don’t think people are chomping at the bit here to counter your post?  We could have put you in the top 5 smarty pants category, but this one gets you a dunce hat.  Now go stick your nose in the corner for a while🤷🏼‍♂️

   I sense no anger in cheeks matter of fact comments.  On the contraire Pierre I heard some disparaging remarks from the vocal majority or pack, in this case...the magna cum loudlies
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on January 01, 2019, 08:04:55 AM
States minimum wage laws to take affect today up to $14/hour(district of Columbia) while $12/hour in California and Washington and Massachusetts with a few in the $10 range.  Maryland is going the tba route-must be the ole wet finger in the wind method.  There are many cities and counties developing their own minimum wage over these

https://www.laborlawcenter.com/state-minimum-wage-rates/


One observation seems to be that some of the most highest taxed areas of the country are eager to push this up with a few exceptions of course. Part of this tells me that the corresponding government wants a piece of this-Smells like a mandatory tax increase without using the “t” word.  Raising the minimum wage and “free” stuff appears to be the mantra to get “attention”  now who in the gosh darn heck don’t like “free” stuff? Eyn’a? 😳. What the hell, i might as well propose free Marquette tickets to anyone who wants them


Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on January 01, 2019, 03:28:49 PM
States minimum wage laws to take affect today up to $14/hour(district of Columbia) while $12/hour in California and Washington and Massachusetts with a few in the $10 range.  Maryland is going the tba route-must be the ole wet finger in the wind method.  There are many cities and counties developing their own minimum wage over these

https://www.laborlawcenter.com/state-minimum-wage-rates/


One observation seems to be that some of the most highest taxed areas of the country are eager to push this up with a few exceptions of course. Part of this tells me that the corresponding government wants a piece of this-Smells like a mandatory tax increase without using the “t” word.  Raising the minimum wage and “free” stuff appears to be the mantra to get “attention”  now who in the gosh darn heck don’t like “free” stuff? Eyn’a? 😳. What the hell, i might as well propose free Marquette tickets to anyone who wants them

Pretty cynical. But I'll take the tickets, thanks. PM me and I'll tell you where to send 'em!
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on January 01, 2019, 07:57:25 PM
People in my Republican Party have to admit that the U.S. economy was saved from the brink by Obama, rallied for nearly a decade straight under Obama. And we admit Trump enjoyed the bounce of 8 years of strong economic policy under Barry O. But now that Trump’s own non-Republican policies have come to bear we get...a looming recession. Krugman shmugman, WarriorDad, if you put your often misplaced anger in the right place, you’d be thanking our cheesedick president with a single finger.

Wait, only a month ago Obama was claiming this was his economy...which is it.

Presidents don’t control the economy and highly partisan hacks think they do. 

But thanks for making it political Baby, nothing has changed.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on January 02, 2019, 09:51:42 AM
LOL.  Hmm, so any climate scientists that already on record of their position before the study, sure hope it doesn't shade their findings.

If a scientist writes an op-ed piece saying he/she believes climate changes causes depression, then two years later launches a study to determine whether climate changes causes depression, then yes, you should question whether the impending findings are influenced by the scientist's predisposition.
Likewise, if an economist writes an op-ed saying a minimum wage hike will lead to job, then launches a study to determine the impacts of a minimum wage increase, it's not unreasonable to wonder whether his predisposition will influence his findings.
This all seems obvious.
Are you now a science denier?

Quote
Indeed it is embarrassing....because all you had to do was read this in the summary:

Chicos, I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse here or truly don't get it, so I'll go over this slowly for you and then drop it, assuming that if you can't get it, you never will (or are choosing not to):
- The UCLA study you claimed showed negative effects of minimum wage increases was not a study of the minimum wage. Or minimum wage increases. Or minimum wage workers. It was a study of the negative effects of inconsistent work shifts among retail workers who - you may be shocked to learn - don't all earn minimum wage.
- The study made no examination of the minimum wage or any increase in the minimum wage.
- The only mention of the minimum wage is stating that the benefits of a minimum wage hike were counteracted by workers' inconsistent hours. This is not, as you continue to  claim, an indictment or criticism of minimum wage hikes.
- The study does not, as you falsely claim, say inconsistent hours are a result of minimum wage hikes. That's something you made up. It says inconsistent hours are a result of scheduling software that shifts workers around based on forecasts of when they'll be needed most.
- Lastly, writing your bogus claims  in ALL CAPS makes them no less bogus.

Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on January 02, 2019, 11:29:33 AM
Will have to get back to you, still picking my chin off the floor after reading Jill Abramson’s bombshell today about The NY Times ( she was the former managing editor) media bias and the lack of credibility they have brought to journalism as a result of their approach.  Refreshing. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on January 02, 2019, 11:48:38 AM
Will have to get back to you, still picking my chin off the floor after reading Jill Abramson’s bombshell today about The NY Times ( she was the former managing editor) media bias and the lack of credibility they have brought to journalism as a result of their approach.  Refreshing.

She wrote that the NYT (which fired her) doesn't like Trump.
That's a bombshell to you?

(https://media.giphy.com/media/13AlEjfx6ej7aM/giphy.gif)


Liberal rags like the National Review, The Economist and Weekly Standard (RIP) also dislike Trump.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on January 02, 2019, 12:03:51 PM
She wrote that the NYT (which fired her) doesn't like Trump.
That's a bombshell to you?

(https://media.giphy.com/media/13AlEjfx6ej7aM/giphy.gif)


Liberal rags like the National Review, The Economist and Weekly Standard (RIP) also dislike Trump.


That’s not what she wrote, she specifically got into their bias and their approach which is hurting their credibility. 

I don’t like him either, didn’t vote for him, but not 100% of what he does is wrong, and that’s the point.  Yes, Bill Kristol and the Nevers have always been about cheap labor, lots of wars, and their way of life.....and their empire is closing down as a result.  Billy has a junior Utah senator to be his mouthpiece now.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on January 02, 2019, 12:30:40 PM

That’s not what she wrote, she specifically got into their bias and their approach which is hurting their credibility.   

Yes, it is what she said.
Here's the quote:
“Though Baquet said publicly he didn’t want the Times to be the opposition party, his news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump,” Abramson wrote in the book, which is set for release on Jan. 19. “Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis.”

As for hurting their credibility ... she's entitled to her opinion, but the facts say their credibility is hurting to the tune of 4 million subscribers (up from 3 million in 2016) and a 51 percent increase in quarterly profits in 2018. Failing, indeed.

Your explanation of why several conservative publications are also anti-Trump is an ad hominem attack on Bill Kristol and Mitt Romney. Classic Chicos.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on January 02, 2019, 12:35:43 PM
I have been especially impressed with the WSJ's coverage. That's definitely a conservative paper, and they have done their job admirably.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Cheeks on January 02, 2019, 12:45:20 PM
Hatred of man driving what they seem newsworthy is by default, not news.  Very unfortunate, but that is where we are.  He could cure cancer and they would bitch a fit about it or not Report it at all.

He’s a contemptible person, but somewhere along the way some facts also have to accidentally make it into your news reporting.  But hey, their choice as they continue to drive the entire industry’s trust into the ground.  Fine by me....their colors were always bright to me and so many others, it’s something when their former managing editor comes out and states it publicly as if we didn’t know.

All the news WE feel is fit to print and how WE decide it will be printed (if we decide at all)
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on January 02, 2019, 12:47:44 PM
He could cure cancer and they would bitch a fit about it or not Report it at all.

This may be the most Chicos Chico you ever Chicoed.

Anyhow, about that minimum wage ...
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: D'Lo Brown on January 02, 2019, 12:53:57 PM
Hatred of man driving what they seem newsworthy is by default, not news.  Very unfortunate, but that is where we are.  He could cure cancer and they would bitch a fit about it or not Report it at all.

He’s a contemptible person, but somewhere along the way some facts also have to accidentally make it into your news reporting.  But hey, their choice as they continue to drive the entire industry’s trust into the ground.  Fine by me....their colors were always bright to me and so many others, it’s something when their former managing editor comes out and states it publicly as if we didn’t know.

All the news WE feel is fit to print and how WE decide it will be printed (if we decide at all)

What is this now about having to invent new things to be aggrieved about, in order to satisfy the need for a continually aggrieved mind state? Reality is no longer enough. I see and hear this kind of stuff constantly.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: jesmu84 on January 02, 2019, 01:10:15 PM
Hatred of man driving what they seem newsworthy is by default, not news.  Very unfortunate, but that is where we are.  He could cure cancer and they would bitch a fit about it or not Report it at all.

He’s a contemptible person, but somewhere along the way some facts also have to accidentally make it into your news reporting.  But hey, their choice as they continue to drive the entire industry’s trust into the ground.  Fine by me....their colors were always bright to me and so many others, it’s something when their former managing editor comes out and states it publicly as if we didn’t know.

All the news WE feel is fit to print and how WE decide it will be printed (if we decide at all)

Uh.. isn't this what nearly every news publication does?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on January 02, 2019, 02:22:32 PM
What is this now about having to invent new things to be aggrieved about, in order to satisfy the need for a continually aggrieved mind state? Reality is no longer enough. I see and hear this kind of stuff constantly.
In Chico's World,
1) Facts never make it into the NYT, even accidently
2) It is the NYT which is driving the distrust of the entire industry
3) The NYT would not report on a cure for cancer if a failed businessman happened to find it

Reality ceased to be an important thing on that side of the spectrum a long time ago.  Now, whatever you want to believe is real IS real to them.  I really don't know what the long-term cure is for those that invent their own facts and own "reality".
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Babybluejeans on January 02, 2019, 04:52:40 PM
What is this now about having to invent new things to be aggrieved about, in order to satisfy the need for a continually aggrieved mind state? Reality is no longer enough. I see and hear this kind of stuff constantly.

Unfortunately this need has consumed my Republican Party, because it works in elections. So it’s anger over solutions. It’s sad and has got to stop.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on January 02, 2019, 05:46:59 PM
  Either you guys don’t see it or don’t want to see it, but as I’ve said many times in the past, journalism is and has been dead for quite some time.  It’s just more dead now than before.  Bernard Goldberg has written a couple of books about it going back to 2001. He spent over 30 years working within the media, most specifically CBS.  He has 14 emmys.  Sharyl attkisson also worked for CBS for over 20 years, pretty much the same type of issues, different perspective.  There are no standards of professionalism within journalism.  It’s a free for all, kinda like art.  If any of the other “professions” were monitored like journalism, we would be in A LOT of trouble.

 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on January 02, 2019, 05:52:24 PM
  Either you guys don’t see it or don’t want to see it, but as I’ve said many times in the past, journalism is and has been dead for quite some time.

With all due respect, this is (to steal a phrase) dumb and dangerous.

Also not true.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on January 02, 2019, 07:36:45 PM
  Either you guys don’t see it or don’t want to see it, but as I’ve said many times in the past, journalism is and has been dead for quite some time.  It’s just more dead now than before.  Bernard Goldberg has written a couple of books about it going back to 2001. He spent over 30 years working within the media, most specifically CBS.  He has 14 emmys.  Sharyl attkisson also worked for CBS for over 20 years, pretty much the same type of issues, different perspective.  There are no standards of professionalism within journalism.  It’s a free for all, kinda like art.  If any of the other “professions” were monitored like journalism, we would be in A LOT of trouble.
If you believe this, why to do you lap up the statements from right-wing media like it is the nectar of the gods and regurgitate it without any critical thinking about its veracity?
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Pakuni on January 02, 2019, 08:04:30 PM
If you believe this, why to do you lap up the statements from right-wing media like it is the nectar of the gods and regurgitate it without any critical thinking about its veracity?

In all fairness, if you got your news and information from the same sources as rocket, you too would believe journalism is dead.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: D'Lo Brown on January 02, 2019, 08:58:24 PM
Reality ceased to be an important thing on that side of the spectrum a long time ago.  Now, whatever you want to believe is real IS real to them.  I really don't know what the long-term cure is for those that invent their own facts and own "reality".

Same cure that cures all of us, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on January 03, 2019, 12:17:31 AM
  There are many who believe the same as I, many more than you would ever care to acknowledge. Are you afraid that some may believe different from you; or are they just “dumb”?  My opinion?  Many of the people who understand as I or variations there of, choose to remain anonymous or silent.  They may fear for their own or their family’s safety, their jobs or they just accept things as they are. What control do we really have?  Dismiss it as you will, but that doesn’t change things.  Ultimately, in the grand scheme of things, it’s really small stuff
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: dgies9156 on January 03, 2019, 07:29:27 AM
OK, this thread has been hijacked into a discussion of the media, and OK, a very interesting topic, which is why I'll bite. Full disclosure: I'm an ex-newspaper reporter and magazine reporter who left the field years ago for greener (and I do mean greener) pastures.

1) Anyone who thinks the allegations of "media bias" are new and news doesn't understand journalism. Advocacy journalism with its inherent bias has been around since, oh, about the time someone put a chisel to a rock to share an idea. Throughout history, those with the printing press controlled what was said and how it was said. In the 20th century, William Randolph Hearst used his newspapers to advocate a run for president (which did not work).

2) The 1970s and even early 1980s were a golden age of journalism. Thousands and thousands of "Watergate Babies" went into the field. Investigative reporting was the flavor of the day and most newspapers/television stations that investigated local and regional matters were good at it. But it cost a great deal of money to run an I-team and, not surprisingly, people want to talk about these stories more than they want to read about them.

3) The most aggregious example conservatives cite of media bias is the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns. Sure, the media slobbered over President Obama. But conservatives who complain fail to understand why they slobbered. President Obama was a great story. Hundreds of years from now, sociologists and others will be studying how American society went from making African-Americans legal outcasts to electing an African-American President.  The writers get immortality, or as close to it as you can get.

4) To the specific issue of covering the minimum wage, most folks I know in the business tend to be great writers and very liberally educated (in the academic sense).  But few people I know who went into journalism did so to cover economics, business and finance. These three issues underpin just about everything that happens in American life. As a consequence, the writing we see tends to be emotional and anecdotal rather than focused on economic reality. Greed sells. Supply and demand, automation and capital seeking the highest return does not.

5) The biggest problem the media has is barriers to entry. In the old days (until the 1990s), these barriers were huge. Now they're non-existent and just about any blogger can put an opinion out that may or may not catch on. This is what objective journalism is competing against. If there's a reason objective journalism has morphed into advocacy journalism, it's because this is what the world wants. And few people can sniff money better than publishers. That's why we debate the facts. They get obscured amid advocacy. As we used to say about a business publication in Chicago, "Never let the facts get in the way of a good conclusion!"

No doubt the mainstream media has its problems covering a lot of things. Budgets are tighter, news is more shallow and targeted and frankly, there's a real question of what does the public want to pay for. Even when a publication is behind a pay wall, the paywall nowhere near makes up for the lost circulation and advertising revenue of days gone by.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on January 03, 2019, 08:08:06 AM
  There are many who believe the same as I, many more than you would ever care to acknowledge. Are you afraid that some may believe different from you; or are they just “dumb”?  My opinion?  Many of the people who understand as I or variations there of, choose to remain anonymous or silent.  They may fear for their own or their family’s safety, their jobs or they just accept things as they are. What control do we really have?  Dismiss it as you will, but that doesn’t change things.  Ultimately, in the grand scheme of things, it’s really small stuff
Huh?

So many people believe, like you, that journalism is dead.  I wonder were you might have gotten that opinion?  And if you truly believe that, why do you continue to repeat what you saw and heard on Fox and its like?  Is their "journalism" NOT dead?

And do tell, which of your opinions are causing threats to you and your family's safety??
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on January 03, 2019, 08:18:55 AM
  There are many who believe the same as I, many more than you would ever care to acknowledge. Are you afraid that some may believe different from you; or are they just “dumb”?  My opinion?  Many of the people who understand as I or variations there of, choose to remain anonymous or silent.  They may fear for their own or their family’s safety, their jobs or they just accept things as they are. What control do we really have?  Dismiss it as you will, but that doesn’t change things.  Ultimately, in the grand scheme of things, it’s really small stuff


Yeah.  You're so oppressed.  Gimme a break...
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on January 03, 2019, 09:44:01 AM
Y'all don't know what it's like ... being male, middle-class and white.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on January 03, 2019, 12:23:38 PM
IBTL.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: rocket surgeon on January 03, 2019, 07:22:05 PM

Yeah.  You're so oppressed.  Gimme a break...


Nope, but tell that to William arkin, a 30 year news veteran of NBC who penned a long resignation letter essentially decrying the state of “journalism” today.  Why the “quotation” marks?  Because it depends on what your definition of journalism is.

     Arkin, a military vet himself is staunchly anti-war and definitely not a supporter of our POTUS, but summarily opines his disdain for NBC in particular and “journalism” in general
That darned oppressed man, eyn’a?  Might as well discount him too cuz what the heck does he know anyway😳
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU82 on January 03, 2019, 08:08:53 PM
rocket, is this where I'm supposed to go find an "expert" to share his or her opinion that defends my point of view? We could play this game all year ... and it's only Jan. 3.

Thank goodness for the hard-working men and women of our 4th Estate ... now more than ever. Many of them are American heroes.

That's MY expert opinion.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: GGGG on January 03, 2019, 08:21:19 PM

Nope, but tell that to William arkin, a 30 year news veteran of NBC who penned a long resignation letter essentially decrying the state of “journalism” today.  Why the “quotation” marks?  Because it depends on what your definition of journalism is.

     Arkin, a military vet himself is staunchly anti-war and definitely not a supporter of our POTUS, but summarily opines his disdain for NBC in particular and “journalism” in general
That darned oppressed man, eyn’a?  Might as well discount him too cuz what the heck does he know anyway😳



Says the guy has posted sh* from Fox News.  Gimme a break and wake the f*ck up. 
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: warriorchick on January 03, 2019, 09:12:03 PM
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BrilliantFrequentKiwi-size_restricted.gif)
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: MU Fan in Connecticut on January 04, 2019, 11:08:43 AM


Says the guy has posted sh* from Fox News.  Gimme a break and wake the f*ck up.

At least he can't claim the b.s. most watched news network thing anymore.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: Golden Avalanche on January 04, 2019, 11:52:10 AM


Says the guy has posted sh* from Fox News.  Gimme a break and wake the f*ck up.

Evergreen response.
Title: Re: minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good
Post by: mu_hilltopper on January 04, 2019, 03:25:13 PM
12 pages .. this has run its course.