At 9/18/13 08:14 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Sounds like you just contradicted yourself in back-to-back sentences. Apparently you're arguing for a $1 raise while acknowledging even that much could bring a competitive business into financial trouble.... prompting any number of potential remedies, all of which have nothing to do with the minimum wage.

No actually that was a typo and I didn't want to double post to correct it since there is no edit button.

No, that's not how I roll. I respond in kind with remarks aimed at making you feel dumb, hopefully prodding you to do more research, to think about your position and maybe have some fun responding to me in a way that surprises me.

Oh cool so you're trolling because you're incapable of refuting that chart. Well okay then. I guess that's the end of this conversation.

At 9/18/13 08:20 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: hose food industry idiots

you're a troll

The Newgrounds politics forum.

That army picture is somewhat misleading. If a soldier is in the tour of duty, his food, clothing, room and board, and transportation costs are all paid for, so that 25,000 dollars is *all* spending money. Plus he'll get a decent pension.

Not saying a soldier's job is better than a burger flippers, or worse, but there are too many variables left out in that picture.

Income inequality isn't a terribly salient reason to raise the minimum wage, as we are talking about a relatively small increase in a wage that few americans earn. It's not going to put a dent

I also suspect that chart of income stagnation would be worse if the cost of living index used relied upon the same methodology that was used at the beginning of the trend which appears to have begun in the early 1970s.

Though what I would like to see is a graph of changes in income when AGE has been controlled for. Fewer young people are working now than ever before, and more and more aged 55+ Americans are either coming out of retirement to work or putting off retirement out of insecurity [financial and otherwise]

At 9/17/13 10:41 PM, Korriken wrote: Let me clue you in, it's impossible to attain financial equality. It's been tried, it has never worked and never will work.

Agreed. Egalitarian systems are fun, ideal, and it'd be amazing if we could do them...but they're too counter to the competitive drives that all humans have. So I agree a class system is unfortunately needed. But we do need to adjust how it works...because right now we are creating a system where there is NO upward mobility for the lower classes and the upper classes continue to maximize their money and power feeding off the poorer. This is the kind of crap we were supposed to have leaders and government to stop.

Setting a maximum wage would wreak havoc on the workforce,

Yep, it's a bad idea to say "you can't make more then this" but many private sector companies already do it. It's however usually a situation that doesn't kick in until so far down the employees career track that they may never attain it because they will not stay at the same level or even with the company that long. I'm also not a giant fan of a FEDERAL minimum since cost of living varies from state to state so I think a state based system is a better option (barring massive corruption of course).

especially given that a LOT of people don't even make a wage,

I like numbers here. Please give numbers. I mean, I know industries where they don't, and they subsist on tips (a system I'd personally like to see removed and people just be paid an actual wage). But I don't like vaguries like "a LOT" I'd like hard numbers.

the money they make depends on how well they do.

Not always, no. The money they make depends on how someone ARBITRARILY feels they did, or on generosity, or on the fact that that person simply believes they need to pay the extra for a service (I'm speaking of the restaurant industry there). This is why I'd like that system abolished in favor of real wages.

Some people make an sell things.

These would be things like car salesman. This is not the same as servers though. Car sales and such work on commission, which is not the same as tipping. Commission involves a SET and EXPECTED percentage of every sale to the consumer, the consumer is not ACTIVE in giving the individual the wage like in tipping, rather they buy the product and it is up to the employer to then give the employee the wage based on the formula used for how much percent of the sale the seller gets. "Making" varies. If we mean physical production, that's usually factory work whose payment and wage mechanics are equivalent to most any job like wal-mart or what not. If intellectual property content or invention, that is definitely an animal unique to itself, but there can still be set qualifiers depending on the field.

To impose a limit on how much a person can make will fail for the same reason why communism will always fail, you can't legislate away human ambition.

Very true.

you'll never achieve "equality" no matter how hard you try. There will ALWAYS be someone who has something someone else does not.

You won't, but what you do need to achieve is economic mobility (which study after study says we don't have in any real way or abundance right now), otherwise the society stagnates, the rich feed off the poor and things collapse.

At 9/18/13 08:28 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: That chart, again, doesn't make your argument for you.

Refuting the chart with the a longer equivalent of "nuh uh" is not helping your argument either.

I assert that chart merely states the nature of things.

Which is really all he asserted too in the end. "My chart shows the nature of things, and this is a problem that needs fixing". I'm sure Feoric will kindly correct me/step in himself if anything I just said misrepresented him in any way.

You assert that chart shows something "wrong".

Riiight...and you haven't really posted evidence to show how he's wrong about the chart showing something wrong. You've merely thrown up some possible examples with nothing to go with it. Dodging his questions and straw manning him as he said.

Care to comment before your ban, troll?

Welcome to the mod tea....oh wait, we never modded you. So what exactly makes you think that you can make decisions about who gets banned and whose trolling etc etc? Because last I checked, you don't get to do that unless you're a mod. So, I'm going to kindly ask you to never, ever, make statements like this again unless/until we decide to put you on the team. Because otherwise your breaking our backseat modding rule and I take enforcing that one very seriously. Thanks for your anticipated understanding and cooperation.

if they raise the minimum wage wouldn't that mean you would have to pay more out of taxes? I mean if if you make 15 dollars a hour then after taxes you get the gross income of someone who makes 12 dollars a hour? I dunno just throwing it out there.

At 9/18/13 07:28 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: This image circulating on Facebook says it all:

Pay is one thing though, in fact government jobs in general do not pay very well. They make up for that by having alot of benefits, thus Veterans get free healthcare, they get school paid off and their cost of living probably isn't even that high in comparison to the people you're referring too. I mean there's a reason people have called the military the most undemocratic and socialist institution of the government.

At 9/15/13 12:58 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote:

At 9/15/13 11:24 AM, Der-Lowe wrote: The OP's approach is pretty cynical;

Holy crap dude, where have you been all this time? It's been awhile.

Hi Rydia!!! How have you been?
Myself, I've been studying, travelling, working, researching. Ya know.

At 9/15/13 01:47 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: California is raising the minimum wage to $10 by 2016. Of course, California is an absolute basket case that is hemorrhaging money even when the cost of living is so high there. Obviously there are multiple reasons for this, but that's another topic entirely. I'm wondering what this is going to do to the state.

Most likely increased employment and a small price increase.

At 9/16/13 11:43 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: The only decent argument I've ever heard for not raising the minimum wage is what it does to small business owners who do not have large amounts of capitol and consequently hire less employees due to the costs associated with payroll which increase thanks to a need to pay a higher minimum (and then perhaps a premium on top of that to be competitive).

The thing with this line of argument is that small business owners will be hit the hardest by pretty much any regulation, because they are, well, um, small. Their fragility is not a case for abandoning every kind of regulation, but quite on the contrary, for policies targeted at strengthening the relative position of small business.

At 9/17/13 06:48 PM, ArtistJ wrote: What is really needed is Maximum wages and to fight the culture of inequality at its base, which is to eliminate the mindset that people of lower class's time is worth less, that physical effort is worth relatively little and that investment is worth a lot, and that people in positions that force them to live below a common dignity are entitled to more.

The problem is that high wages are not the main leading force of inequality in the US; it's profits, as the graph shows. Capping wages would only exacerbate the issue because companies wouldn't have to pay high wages even to those with specific skills. Plus, why would you set a maximum wage when you could tax them instead?

At 9/19/13 04:19 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Hi Rydia!!! How have you been?
Myself, I've been studying, travelling, working, researching. Ya know.

Got myself a second Master's, a better job, and a husband since I last heard from you. I doubt I'll be having kids though. Not interested.

Most likely increased employment and a small price increase.

Though it being California, how many illegals would snap those jobs up? The welfare state over there is one major reason they're in trouble.

At 9/19/13 04:19 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 9/15/13 12:58 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote:

At 9/15/13 11:24 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

If Card Kreuger is the best study done, does that mean that nothing better has been done within the last 20 years?

More importantly are there good defenses that can be found online against the criticisms made of the study since?

At 9/20/13 12:01 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

More importantly are there good defenses that can be found online against the criticisms made of the study since?

Wait nevermind, found some stuff.

At 9/19/13 07:19 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote:

At 9/19/13 04:19 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Hi Rydia!!! How have you been?
Myself, I've been studying, travelling, working, researching. Ya know.

Got myself a second Master's, a better job, and a husband since I last heard from you. I doubt I'll be having kids though. Not interested.

Cool. I did a semester abroad, and I guess you could say I got a master's degree? System's different here so I got like half a masters and now I wanna go to France to get another one (an explicit one) but eh, no French professors in my uni so the bridge to be built for me to go is kinda hard. I'll probably end up in some uni from the US *sigh*

Most likely increased employment and a small price increase.

Though it being California, how many illegals would snap those jobs up? The welfare state over there is one major reason they're in trouble.

Ohh, you mean you have people getting paid I think the expression in English "under the table"?
I've been casually treading on the subject lately, thinking about possible policy when informality is a problem, mainly because 30%+ of the argentine employees are not paid legally (which is sadly well below the latin american average).
If your question is what happens what happens when you raise the minimum wage and a significant part of the labor force is working illegally, the answer is nothing, since the law is not enforced. That's what happened in Argentina during the initial raise of the minimum wage in the early 2000s.
But I think the situation is different in the US because you actually have two clearly differentiated markets: illegal and legal residents, whereas employers in Argentina can choose to make a person an illegal or a legal worker.
Let me get you back on that, I know some people who can guide me on that.

At 9/20/13 12:18 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 9/20/13 12:01 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

More importantly are there good defenses that can be found online against the criticisms made of the study since?

Wait nevermind, found some stuff.

Share!

At 9/20/13 12:01 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

More importantly are there good defenses that can be found online against the criticisms made of the study since?

Wait nevermind, found some stuff.

Share!

Your the academically trained economist, go find your own damn research. >:(

On a more serious note. You did call it the *best* study, the fact that it was made 20 years ago notwithstanding. So my assumption had been that you needed to have known more about what happened afterwards then you let on.

I did a google search of "Card Krueger Controversy" and skimmed through the writings on the first 3 pages or so of Google listings. I also Google searched 'Card Krueger debate' -- got some more stuff.

I'm rather torn about the minimum wage thing right now. I used to always have minimum wage jobs, working in California, and I always felt like it was shit. Finally, I found a better paying job, and I could afford to be a consumer! No more living off hand outs and stealing food from wherever I worked!

The problem I imagine now though, especially with California going to $10/hour minimum wage, is that I am afraid of everyone simply raising their prices to counteract their obligation to pay people more.

I feel like my nice bit of earnings will be all for nothing, and it makes me afraid to participate as a consumer, for fear that I need to save my money for a major price hike in everything across the board.

So fuck raising the minimum wage. Find better jobs and keep them, or minimum wage is all you deserve.

At 9/23/13 11:01 PM, Psycho666 wrote: The problem I imagine now though, especially with California going to $10/hour minimum wage, is that I am afraid of everyone simply raising their prices to counteract their obligation to pay people more.

That, and the way California is, it'll probably end up being something like minimum wage is raised 15% but taxes are raised 25%,

At 9/13/13 08:15 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: In all seriousness, if we were to raise the minimum wage, how much do you think would be fair? No way to $15, but maybe there could be a sliding scale for places that are more expensive. Like, minimum wage would be a little higher in NYC than, say, Fargo.

Interesting fact: Ohio's minimum wage is higher than the federal, but it's tied to inflation.

Not to mention the sheer fact that constant rise of the minimum wage is only going to make it worse for businesses alike, small businesses will go out of business and big businesses will relocate even outside the United States.

To simply put, raising minimum wage will only make things worse, it will be bad for businesses and worse for the locals as prices for food and water go up due to such an ill-fated reason.

If anything, I say rework the tax codes to improve things and reduce other taxes on a reasonable scale and perhaps offer incentives to companies that offered raises.

At 9/26/13 05:31 PM, Thecrazyman wrote: If anything, I say rework the tax codes to improve things and reduce other taxes on a reasonable scale and perhaps offer incentives to companies that offered raises.

Very few of the minimum wage employers are scraping by on such thin margins that they couldn't easily stand to raise wages a bit. If they're like that now, why do you think lower taxes would encourage the to do otherwise?

When it comes to the minimum wage workers... well, they're minimum wage. They don't pay much if any taxes at all. Changing taxes here won't make any difference.

There are already incentives to pay employees better: better quality individuals applying for the jobs; better productivity; less turnover and the resulting costs of training; and so on. The incentives are there and yet most large employers (I don't include small employers as they are far more likely to be skating on razor thin margins) still pay their workers the minimum allowed wage.