2016 Election Thread

[Mike Sixel]

 

We don't teach "America is Awesome", but our curriculum would have you either teach "California is awesome" or "Texas is awesome" depending upon where it is made.  

 

Our education system is challenging students at an unprecedented rate, the problem is the rest of the world is pushing even harder.  And they can push harder because your average American doesn't invest in education with their children and wants teachers to be magical wizards that solve all problems for a fraction of the rate they'd pay a babysitter to watch a movie with their kid.

 

Sure we do, the AP board was just pressured to do just that in their curriculum.

[Mike Sixel]

 

If minimum wages do work (they don't) then there is nothing unrealilistic about it.  You can't have it both ways.  Or if you think you can you can do the proper economic work to find the exact right minimum wage to the penny, cause round #'s are what panderers come up with.

 

Are you calling me a panderer? I'd love to have a discussion here w/o name calling, about what works or doesn't work around the world.

 

And, no, saying $50 is not the same as saying $9 or $15 or some other much, much smaller. You may as well have thrown out $1000.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Are you calling me a panderer? I'd love to have a discussion here w/o name calling, about what works or doesn't work around the world.

 

And, no, saying $50 is not the same as saying $9 or $15 or some other much, much smaller. You may as well have thrown out $1000.

 

If minimum wages work then either you (the politicians who put them into effect) can come up with a rough estimate where they stop working or they never stop working.  I'll ask it again this time expecting an actual answer.  Why not $50 an hour?  Or $1000 an hour.  Clearly Democrats aren't proposing that high of a minimum wage.  Really odd given the direct question has been asked over and over and the response is to ignore the question and hurl insults for even asking it.  I have a degree in economics I know exactly what the answer is.  Dirty little secret it's the exact answer that any Republican who isn't willing to raise it 50 cents has.  I know Democrats want to project hatred of poor people on us, but if Republicans actually hated poor people they would pass a $20 an hour minimum wage and send the bill to Mark Dayton or Barrack Obama's desk.

[Craig Arko]

If it requires a minimum wage of $50/hr or $1000/hr to keep up with the inflationary costs of minimal food and housing, then I guess that's what would be required. It may get to that point some day. But today it's not. So today those aren't the proposals.

 

How would you solve the problem without precipitating an armed revolt? Louis XVI didn't fare to well with that. Neither did George III.

[Mike Sixel]

Still looking for that post where I said Republicans hate poor people re: the minimum wage.......after I find that, I'll get back to you with why I don't think $1000 an hour should be the minimum wage.....

[USAFChief]

 

If minimum wages work then either you (the politicians who put them into effect) can come up with a rough estimate where they stop working or they never stop working.  I'll ask it again this time expecting an actual answer.  Why not $50 an hour?  Or $1000 an hour.  Clearly Democrats aren't proposing that high of a minimum wage.  Really odd given the direct question has been asked over and over and the response is to ignore the question and hurl insults for even asking it.  I have a degree in economics I know exactly what the answer is.  Dirty little secret it's the exact answer that any Republican who isn't willing to raise it 50 cents has.  I know Democrats want to project hatred of poor people on us, but if Republicans actually hated poor people they would pass a $20 an hour minimum wage and send the bill to Mark Dayton or Barrack Obama's desk.

Can you explain why minimum wage laws "don't work?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Sure we do, the AP board was just pressured to do just that in their curriculum.

 

If you're talking colleges, I agree, but they've been dumbed down for a long, long time.  You can thank the left-wing for that.

 

And yes, I'd agree we have certainly destroyed our higher education system.  It's one of the least talked about travesties of the last 40 years.

[Craig Arko]

 

If you're talking colleges, I agree, but they've been dumbed down for a long, long time.  You can thank the left-wing for that.

 

And yes, I'd agree we have certainly destroyed our higher education system.  It's one of the least talked about travesties of the last 40 years.

I do often wonder about how much of a role the growth of intercollegiate athletics into essentially a mega-business operated under the auspices of an academic institution has played in this.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I do often wonder about how much of a role the growth of intercollegiate athletics into essentially a mega-business operated under the auspices of an academic institution has played in this.

 

It's a big part, but only part.  Colleges were incentivized decades ago to allow every half-wit who can fill out FAFSA paperwork into their institution.  So, naturally, you give yourself more opportunities to do that when you dumb down the rigor and turn your whole recruiting pitch from "come get a great education" to "look at how good our football team is and all the shiny new buildings we have!"

 

I can't understate how catastrophic that element of the Great Society was for our society.  

[mikecgrimes]

 

If it requires a minimum wage of $50/hr or $1000/hr to keep up with the inflationary costs of minimal food and housing, then I guess that's what would be required. It may get to that point some day. But today it's not. So today those aren't the proposals.

 

How would you solve the problem without precipitating an armed revolt? Louis XVI didn't fare to well with that. Neither did George III.

 

Should it be illegal for me to sell my extra Twins ticket for less then the price of a hot dog at the ballpark?  I get that you want to connect cost of living to wages but the two have nothing to do with each other.  A wage is a legally agreed upon contract between two parties.  Causing more unemployment because you're angry at job creators only hurts the worst off.  

 

Feel the Bern

[Craig Arko]

Should it be illegal for me to sell my extra Twins ticket for less then the price of a hot dog at the ballpark?  I get that you want to connect cost of living to wages but the two have nothing to do with each other.  A wage is a legally agreed upon contract between two parties.  Causing more unemployment because you're angry at job creators only hurts the worst off.  

 

Feel the Bern

I think we speak completely different languages. This is why communication is so difficult.

[PseudoSABR]

 

 A wage is a legally agreed upon contract between two parties.  Causing more unemployment because you're angry at job creators only hurts the worst off.  

Business owners (or investors) shouldn't be protected from market conditions any more than employees.  Civil rights, like the outlawing of slavery (or child labor, or safety conditions etc.), imposes costs on business owners that they must either deal with, or make way for other businesses owners who can find ways of operating more efficiently, raise prices, or be willing to earn less profit.   As long as there is demand for services and products, those business owners are just as replaceable as the employees. 

 

It's a real bummer for business owners to operate in a democracy; boo-hoo.  

 

Feel the trickle down economics.  Wait for it.  Wait for it.  

[mikecgrimes]

 

Business owners (or investors) shouldn't be protected from market conditions any more than employees.  Civil rights, like the outlawing of slavery (or child labor, or safety conditions etc.), imposes costs on business owners that they must either deal with, or make way for other businesses owners who can find ways of operating more efficiently, raise prices, or be willing to earn less profit.   As long as there is demand for services and products, those business owners are just as replaceable as the employees. 

 

It's a real bummer for business owners to operate in a democracy; boo-hoo.  

 

Feel the trickle down economics.  Wait for it.  Wait for it.  

 

So hey business owners do better and take less profit?  You must think those supply and demand curves do some goofy stuff.  It would be a dang shame if the Republicans sent a $20 minimum wage to a Democrats desk.  I have a feeling Democrats would get real honest real quick.

[mikecgrimes]

What do you say to the guy who would work take your order at Wendy's for $14.20 an hour?  I suppose stop trying to break the law?

[Squirrel]

 

What do you say to the guy who would work take your order at Wendy's for $14.20 an hour?  I suppose stop trying to break the law?

What the hell does that mean?

[USAFChief]

So hey business owners do better and take less profit?  You must think those supply and demand curves do some goofy stuff.  It would be a dang shame if the Republicans sent a $20 minimum wage to a Democrats desk.  I have a feeling Democrats would get real honest real quick.

Reasonable people have enacted laws forbidding business owners from using children as labor, from harassing their employees, and from a host of other things, with no damage to those businesses.

 

Minimum wage laws aren't materially different. In fact, they've been around for decades, and the country hasn't collapsed.

 

Raising it again wouldn't be disastrous either.

 

I hope the Republican Congress takes your advice, passes a $20 law, and sends it to the president. We'll be just fine. Your Wendy's order will cost a bit more is all.

[Badsmerf]

I'm no economics professor, but why are you so against raising minimum wage? Isn't China a good enough example of what a lack of minimum wage will do? Large companies don't care about the lowest workers, they care about profits. Look at Walmart. They are a gigantic company based on keeping a majority of worker wages low, a majority part time to avoid having to pay benefits, and a product based on sweat shops in China. I avoid Walmart as much as possible because of this.

[DaveW]

No one is saying the GOP hates poor people, they LOVE poor white southerners, those make up a huge part of their base (go look at who makes up Trumps voting base)

 

They just hate poor people and minorities who live in the cities.

[mikecgrimes]

 

What the hell does that mean?

 

It means minimum wage laws have unintended consequences.  

 

I'm no economics professor, but why are you so against raising minimum wage? Isn't China a good enough example of what a lack of minimum wage will do? Large companies don't care about the lowest workers, they care about profits. Look at Walmart. They are a gigantic company based on keeping a majority of worker wages low, a majority part time to avoid having to pay benefits, and a product based on sweat shops in China. I avoid Walmart as much as possible because of this.

 

I have no problem with minimum wages, they serve little purpose so long as they never catch up to inflation and thus cost major unemployment) but if thats the law you want to pass go do it.  I have a huge problem if they go to poor people and based on that take credit for helping them out.  Wal-Mart and China sweat shops aren't going to keep you down, inner city education and everyone telling you you should strive for the minimum will though.  People make what they want to make in this country with rare exception.

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

Reasonable people have enacted laws forbidding business owners from using children as labor, from harassing their employees, and from a host of other things, with no damage to those businesses.

Minimum wage laws aren't materially different. In fact, they've been around for decades, and the country hasn't collapsed.

Raising it again wouldn't be disastrous either.

I hope the Republican Congress takes your advice, passes a $20 law, and sends it to the president. We'll be just fine. Your Wendy's order will cost a bit more is all.

 

So you think peoples price elasticity when it comes to fast food is high?  If it cost $9.50 for a value meal I can tell you I will never buy fast food again.  I'll gladly pack a lunch if fast food goes up another 20%.  The business model doesn't work, but hey it will help the worker out right?  Not to mention  machines would take over the fast food industry overnight.  They already exist but aren't cost effective, $20 minimum wage and they will be.

[DaveW]

 

I'm no economics professor, but why are you so against raising minimum wage? Isn't China a good enough example of what a lack of minimum wage will do? Large companies don't care about the lowest workers, they care about profits. Look at Walmart. They are a gigantic company based on keeping a majority of worker wages low, a majority part time to avoid having to pay benefits, and a product based on sweat shops in China. I avoid Walmart as much as possible because of this.

My masters is in Economics and I still don't know what he is getting at.

[DaveW]

 

So you think peoples price elasticity when it comes to fast food is high?  If it cost $9.50 for a value meal I can tell you I will never buy fast food again.  I'll gladly pack a lunch if fast food goes up another 20%.  The business model doesn't work, but hey it will help the worker out right?  Not to mention  machines would take over the fast food industry overnight.  They already exist but aren't cost effective, $20 minimum wage and they will be.

You do realize that not all "minimum wage" jobs are fast food related, right? Not even 10%

 

Not sure how you can have a machine replace a landscaper (cost effectively), a low end construction worker (cost effectively), a cook in a restaurant, a waiter in a restraurant, an apartment maintenance guy, a pizza delivery driver, a dockhand etc (and those are just the jobs I did in high school and college for basically minimum wage, and not mentioning the other tens of thousands of other types of minimum wage jobs that exist)

 

And don't fool yourself, if fast food prices go up 20% nearly everyone would still eat there, because most people are still too lazy to eat healthy/make there own lunch to begin with. In fact, places like McDonalds (much like bars) are some of the most recession proof businesses one could own!

[biggentleben]

Seriously, people make what they want to make?

 

No, I work in the career field I want to work in. That someone values a guy who runs with a football or throws a baseball nearly 1,000 times more than the work I do is not my decision. I work in mental health, and my wife is a teacher. We were playing around the other night and did the numbers. On a $15/hr minimum wage, we'd take a minuscule hit in our day jobs, but the increase in pay from our part-time jobs would more than make up for that. I would say that we're both working in positions that are not only valuable to society, but absolutely vital to society, but the worth placed on that position, regardless of how much education I pay for, is much lower than my brother who sells agricultural equipment.

 

Sure, I could find a job that pays me more and leave my field of interest and skill and be miserable. Of course, seeing as I'm so close to working at Wendy's in wage, I must be an ex-con as eluded to earlier, right? So no way any "respectable" job would hire me. Nevermind that I work part-time in the correctional system, not behind the bars, so that assumption is out the window as well.

[Willihammer]

How different is that then lying about what minimum wage increases do?  Both are pandering to those who don't know better.  That's politics.

Agree. Most people react with their emotions and aren't thoughtful about the consequences of a raise in the federal minimum wage to $12 (advocated by Clinton) or $15 (advocated by Sanders). They are counting on voters to act irrationally and vote for the "good" guy.

 

The truth is that either of those increases would directly impact growth in the middle of the country where prices are lower. Retail and restaurants in Texas, Kansas, Alabama etcwho are still paying at 7.25 would not be able to cope with the new law and be forced to lay off a disproportionate share of their employees, if not forced to close shop outright. New job openings would place even higher emphasis on prior experience and make entry into the labor market more difficult. Not to mention that as prices go up, the new armies of unemployed would need to be paid even more in benefits, increasing the costs of social programs (and the taxes needed to pay for them).

 

It is pandering, absolutely.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Agree. Most people react with their emotions and aren't thoughtful about the consequences of a raise in the federal minimum wage to $12 (advocated by Clinton) or $15 (advocated by Sanders). They are counting on voters to act irrationally and vote for the "good" guy.

The truth is that either of those increases would directly impact growth in the middle of the country where prices are lower. Retail and restaurants in Texas, Kansas, Alabama etcwho are still paying at 7.25 would not be able to cope with the new law and be forced to lay off a disproportionate share of their employees, if not forced to close shop outright. New job openings would place even higher emphasis on prior experience and make entry into the labor market more difficult. Not to mention that as prices go up, the new armies of unemployed would need to be paid even more in benefits, increasing the costs of social programs (and the taxes needed to pay for them).

It is pandering, absolutely.

Pandering? That's an insulting analysis.  A minimum wage increase is not emotionally or irrationally motivated.  (In fact, I think the only side of the discussion that has made a play for pathos so far is the anti-minimum wage side). It's completely rational to demand a livable wage.  It would have huge economic boom for not only those earning a living-wage, but those that provide basic services.   

 

What's irrational is an economic system that favors labor markets that devalue civil rights. (Hi China, Hi child labor, Hi no minimum wage)

What's irrational is when pro-free-market people complain about government interference in wages, but happily except their government granted limited liability, their bureaucratically-enabled share holding, and a host of other policy that end-rounds the market to encourage investment and buttress business.

What's irrational is the way the GDP has outpaced real wages for decades (well, since this concept of trickle-down economics).

What's irrational is refusing to institute an economic policy that would help the majority of Americans because that policy would make it hard for some small business in some places to stay open.  

What's irrational is to believe that the market won't provide someone who is willing to do business paying a higher minimum wage.  

 

It couldn't be that the problem in Kansas or Alabama is wage related? No.  More business incentives will fix poverty.  Less business regulation will fix poverty.  

 

*Really, the people that benefit from no wage increase are those who capture bigger profits as the GDP grows and don't pass it on to their workers (because often they are low/no-skill jobs, where experience means little).  I say let's get new ownership.  The new boss, might be the same as the old boss, but he'll have to pay more. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

What do you say to the guy who would work take your order at Wendy's for $14.20 an hour?  I suppose stop trying to break the law?

Honestly, when conservatives finally understand that crime is connected to poverty, this nation will be a lot better off.  

 

If you want to paint a minimum wage hike as being tough on crime; I'm all for it.

[biggentleben]

So, here's a little break down I did recently with a consumer who badly wants to work.

 

SSI benefits ~$725 per month if he does nothing but sit at home all day long

 

Part-time job at 10 hours per week at $8.50 minimum wage = $85/weekly, or $368.31 per month.

 

Social Security allows the first $60 of income to be "free" and then from that point 50% of every dollar earned is taken away from pay, so $154.51 removed from the check. $725-$154+$368 = $939

 

So, $939 > $725, and it sounds great for the consumer, right?

 

Except, due to a seizure disorder, the consumer cannot drive himself to work. Bus in town is $5 per trip, $6 on the same day. If he works his 10 hours over 5 days of 2 hours each (something manageable for his illness), he spends $25/week, or $108.33 per month. Subtract that from the $939, and suddenly you're left with $831. And that's all without any costs assumed for clothes for work or anything like that.

 

For $106 per month, would you join the work force? Now, I will say that 90% of those I work with could never handle a consistent 10 hours per week, but the way the system of pay and costs is set up, there's a very minimal reward for those who do attempt to enter the work place. Then, those who enjoy berating the poor and calling them criminals will also call that gentleman lazy because he doesn't find the value in earning $106/month.

[Mike Sixel]

The certainty that some are speaking with, when economists on the "other side" don't agree is fascinating to me. These are economic theories, not economic facts. VERY smart people disagree on the consequences of raising the minimum wage. I do know it hasn't put COSTCO out of business to pay more money than their competitors, for example......

 

As for "inner city education" being an issue, what party, exactly, continues to cut that and put more money in private schools? Because I'd argue that the cycle of poverty (we are one of the least class mobile systems on the planet, that is, if you are born poor, you are more likely to be poor as an adult than in Europe) is a real issue here. And, let's be honest, one party has no issue with that, based on their actions.

[USAFChief]

So you think peoples price elasticity when it comes to fast food is high?  If it cost $9.50 for a value meal I can tell you I will never buy fast food again.  I'll gladly pack a lunch if fast food goes up another 20%.  The business model doesn't work, but hey it will help the worker out right?  Not to mention  machines would take over the fast food industry overnight.  They already exist but aren't cost effective, $20 minimum wage and they will be.

Someone will need to start a factory to build those machines, someone will need to sell them, someone will need to install them, and someone will need to maintain and repair them.

 

If you stop eating fast food, the grocery store will need to hire more people because people like you are shopping there more often.

 

Or, more likely, you still eat there because the price difference isnt signifiant enough to change the decision you made that convenience is worth paying more for.

 

If not, oh well. Business models go obsolete all the time. We survived the loss of the horse drawn carriage industry, we'll be ok if Wendy's can't make it, too.

[Vanimal46]

Forgive my ignorance on the matter of increasing minimum wage, I'm just trying to learn since there's arguments on both sides. Let's say the minimum wage was increased to $15/ hr. Wouldn't the price of goods and services also go up on account of more currency being out there in the market? And essentially cancel out the increase in wages? 

 

And also, if the minimum wage is $15/hr, and those kind of positions are typically lower skill-sets/education requirements to obtain those positions, what will that mean for higher skill-set positions? My math could be wrong, but $15/hr is roughly $31k a year before taxes.. Compared to an engineer of any discipline (mechanical, electrical, civil), entry level starts off around $50-60k, more senior engineers are in the $100k range. I just don't know if low skill jobs should even come close to other higher skill-set positions out there..