The Gaming Den

Occluded Sun wrote:

Shatner wrote:However, the amount Americans on-average are getting paid has, when you adjust for inflation, gone down since the '60s, so raising the wage to back up to historical levels is more of a correction than an unheard of imposition.

Because market forces mean nothing, the differences in the markets between now and then mean nothing, and wages should be what you decide they should be.

The difference between markets then and now is the increasing concentration of market share in a handful of international megacorporations and the decreasing willingness of the government to use anti-trust laws to target (ubiquitous) anti-competitive practices or even pursue the basic policies needed to guarantee the economy runs at full employment.

You do not live in a world of rational healthy markets which have, unfortunately, decided that the value of a United States worker is less than what it once was. You live in a world where a handful of people have won at capitalism and are buying governments, and they dress up their "preserve my empire" platform in a lot of pseudo-libertarian bullshit targeted at people like you. But the forces which have drove down wages since the 60's are not actually unfortunate but inevitable changes in an ultimately functional market economy. They are symptoms of the total collapse of our market economy into a modern aristocracy of oligarches who, absent the competition necessary to restrain them, are able to push up prices and push down wages without being punished by competitors.

Here's my math:

1. People who work more than 40 hours a week get less done per week than those who work 40 hours a week.
2. Thus, we shouldn't encourage people to work more than 40 hours a week.
3. Thus, people should be able to live and support their families on 40 hours of wages a week.
4. That's approximately 2000 hours of work a year.
5. The cost of living as a family of two parents with two children in NYC is about $80,000/year. (Having one parent not work lowers the cost by a bunch, but not enough to offset going from 4000 hours of wages to 2000 hours of wages)
6. Thus, people with families who are living in NYC need to make $20/hr
7. Thus, we should mandate that they get paid at least that much.
8. If it's cheaper to hire non-parents, parents will have more trouble finding jobs.
9. We don't want to go extinct.
10. Thus, we should set the minimum wage for everyone at enough to support a family.
11. Thus, minimum wage, at least in NYC, should be at least $20/hr

RadiantPhoenix wrote:[*] Thus, minimum wage, at least in NYC, should be at least $20/hr[/list]

The point here should be that Federal Law is not the best, or even a possible, remedy for problems exclusive to one of the two or three highest standard of living cost locations in the country.

The federal minimum wage should be set at $15 an hour, and the state of New York, or the City of New York, can then make the minimum wage in NYC more, just like Seattle did, just like San Francisco can.

Or just do away with the minimum wage and replace it with a basic income, so that every adult in the country gets $40,000 from the government to cover basic living expenses.

hyzmarca wrote:Or just do away with the minimum wage and replace it with a basic income, so that every adult in the country gets $40,000 from the government to cover basic living expenses.

If I thought a Basic Income was possible in the next year, I would be willing to give any credence at all to arguments that we should not increase the minimum wage because Basic Income is better.

But as is, this is just Perfect enemy of the Good. We need the minimum wage now, and we can get it now. We aren't going to get Basic Income now. And when Minimum Wage increase comes in and makes everything better for basically everyone, and puts a lie to republican shitstain crap, then 5 years later people will be willing to maybe listen about basic income without crying communism.

a)
What does basic income have to do with communism?
Show me one communist state/country that has basic income.

b)
Why the fuck are people still scared of communism?
They would probably still be scared and reject it even if it meant better living standards for everybody below a certain treshhold . .
But then that probably should not surprise me seeing how much they are against free health care and gun control laws . . i just don't understand people <.<

c.)
A basic income of maybe 12k per year in addition to what they make in their job as long as the job does not pay above a certain treshold to make living for the poor possible while they can do stuff with the money they make by working sounds like a good middle ground for me . .
Probably cut other wellfare costs by quite a bit i'd imagine?

Stahlseele wrote:What does basic income have to do with communism?
Show me one communist state/country that has basic income.

It's communism because People get Things for free, and that's Bad. Because Period.

Kaelik wrote:

RadiantPhoenix wrote:[*] Thus, minimum wage, at least in NYC, should be at least $20/hr

The point here should be that Federal Law is not the best, or even a possible, remedy for problems exclusive to one of the two or three highest standard of living cost locations in the country.

The federal minimum wage should be set at $15 an hour, and the state of New York, or the City of New York, can then make the minimum wage in NYC more, just like Seattle did, just like San Francisco can.

That sounds reasonable. That's why I said "in NYC"

Occluded Sun wrote:

Shatner wrote:However, the amount Americans on-average are getting paid has, when you adjust for inflation, gone down since the '60s, so raising the wage to back up to historical levels is more of a correction than an unheard of imposition.

Because market forces mean nothing, the differences in the markets between now and then mean nothing, and wages should be what you decide they should be.

The problem is that "market forces" mean two different things today.

First, it can be about the actual economic forces acting on the actual world. These can be studied by, as several posters already quoted, examining what happens when one american state raises the minimum wage while others don't. Evidence collected from studying these market forces supports the view that raising the minimum wage is positive.

But then, "market forces" can also mean what Koch brothers and Friends want it to mean, through their several Think Tanks producing on-demand """"science"""", which is then fed to a complicit media. I usually smell the bullshit in these immediately because these """"studies"""" aren't fact based. It's argument from authority, misleading analogies or barely disguised moral fables all the way down.

What this means is that without you posting some actual real world based studies showing the deleterious effects of raising wages to keep up with productivity, I'll keep reading what you wrote as statements of your religious beliefs.

Honestly, "$15 an hour minimum wage" is just a soundbitey argument for the actual solutions needed.

What needs to happen is that frontline retail/foodservice workers need to stop being treated as slaves. I mean they need to be able to:

• Know their schedules in advance. Seriously, many frontline workers do not know their quit times today nor when their next shift is.
• Have a fixed schedule if they want one,
• Take time off for sickness and emergencies without fear of losing their job. Here in PA, employment is at will, so unless you had FMLA paperwork in or can prove discrimination "you called off on Tuesday" is a valid reason for termination. Prior Employers have threatened to sack me when I attempted to take an unpaid sick day from a job which offered zero paid time off ever.
• Leave the premises immediately at any time in case of emergency. Stores have locked people I know in the store past their shift in the name of "security" during closing duties.
• Have input into the safety of their work environment. Retail workers are on their feet all day, interacting with an unpredictable public and can be responsible for shelving, and stacking products in ways that can be strenuous and even hazardous. Foodservice work adds cutting and burning hazards, often slippery floors and sometimes hazardous cleaning chemicals into the mix. Employees need to have input into how best to minimize these hazards rather than being told to deal with it and get back to work as they are now.

But none of those are as easy for the public to understand nor as quick to say as "$15 minimum wage".

In order for basic workers to not be treated as slaves, employers need to need to keep them happy. Which requires a seller's market in labor. Which requires that there be more positions open than can be profitably filled.

Guess what that requires?

A consumer class capable of enough domestic spending to make the creation of new firms - and the expansion of existing ones - profitable.

Now, a question I don't already have the answer to: should minimum wage be based on the assumption that one parent stays home to take care of the kids, or that both parents work and use day-care?

RadiantPhoenix wrote:Now, a question I don't already have the answer to: should minimum wage be based on the assumption that one parent stays home to take care of the kids, or that both parents work and use day-care?

From what I keep hearing about day care costs, isn't that the same thing?

DSMatticus wrote:A consumer class capable of enough domestic spending to make the creation of new firms - and the expansion of existing ones - profitable.

Wrong. You can't simply create new jobs out of nothing. Economics doesn't mix well with busywork.

RadiantPhoenix wrote:Now, a question I don't already have the answer to: should minimum wage be based on the assumption that one parent stays home to take care of the kids, or that both parents work and use day-care?

That's less of an economic decision and more of a societal one, since you have to first ask which is better, daycare or a stay-at-home parent.

Now, my personal opinion is that daycares should be available to all and should be subject to heavy oversight and quality controls. The way it's done in France, for example, seems a lot better than how it's done in the US. I say that in part because everyone should have the option of choosing, as opposed to the invisible hand demanding that someone stay home to watch the kids.

You could get that by having everyone who is employed be paid enough to afford access to hot-and-cold running daycares or you could do it by having these things be paid for via taxation (like conventional schools). It doesn't even need to be local taxation; it could be a state- or nation-wide thing where the government collects taxes from everyone and then pays some amount of that pool of cash to fund the nation's daycares. However, there are political realities that can't be ignored, so if large steps toward socialism aren't possible but improvements to the minimum wage are, don't let best be the enemy of good and all that.

Occluded Sun wrote:In order for basic workers to not be treated as slaves, employers need to need to keep them happy. Which requires a seller's market in labor. Which requires that there be more positions open than can be profitably filled.

Guess what that requires?

A basic income that's sufficient to cover basic needs such that people don't have to work shitty low-pay jobs just to survive. If people could survive comfortably not working, they'll need better incentives to work shitty jobs.



Alternately, cripple a substantial number of able-bodied workers in order to reduce the labor pool without reducing consumer demand. But that's morally reprehensible and would produce the same effect as Basic Income via disability insurance.

hyzmarca wrote:A basic income that's sufficient to cover basic needs such that people don't have to work shitty low-pay jobs just to survive.

Wrong. You can't conjure money into existence out of nothing, and those unpleasant jobs still need to be done. They're low-pay because supply outstrips demand.

Occluded Sun wrote: Wrong. You can't simply create new jobs out of nothing. Economics doesn't mix well with busywork.

The fuck? You totally can. Nobody is stopping you from paying people to do pretty much anything legal. I could pay somebody to follow me around and hum jaunty tunes. I could pay someone to literally do nothing. And you know what? Paying somebody to do nothing is OK because that money will get spent in the economy and keep changing hands and (hopefully) improve lives. It's better if you're paying people to do productive things, but since the alternative to paying people is NOT paying them (which leads to starvation, unrest, and crime) I'd rather see people get paid for nothing.

People not being desperate makes for a better society.

Double posting and that's fine because arguing with OS means you can't be wrong.

Occluded Sun wrote: Wrong. You can't conjure money into existence out of nothing...

That is literally what the treasury does (unless you think paper is super valuable or something). Lots of governments can do it.

Where do you think money comes from?

Occluded Sun wrote:You can't conjure money into existence out of nothing...

TIL Occluded Sun has never heard of fiat money.

Let me restate that: you can't conjure value into existence. You can of course construct as many value counters as you want - but there are consequences to doing that.

Occluded Sun wrote:Let me restate that: you can't conjure value into existence. You can of course construct as many value counters as you want - but there are consequences to doing that.

Governments can also destroy value counters, it's called taxes. What the fuck is your point?

Also, Human lives have intrinsic value because that person matters to someone. You should not let human lives be destroyed just because "hur dur I think there's enough work for everyone to be working."

Will 15$ minimum wage cause fast food prices to rise?

Stahlseele wrote:b)
Why the fuck are people still scared of communism?

The same reason they're 'scared' of perpetual motion schemes, turning lead into gold, and mining the Moon for dairy products.