Support NeoGAF

[GhaleonEB]

No, only in Libertarian fantasy world. This has been studied and discussed ad nauseum. The general, non blindly ideological interpretation of employment data says that minimum wages have no negative effect on employment.

Yup. Wage growth has been tied closely to strong economic expansions and job growth. It was one of the underpinnings of the Clinton years. Over the past 15 years, wages have flatlined while healthcare costs consumed them, and that money getting sucked out of the broader economy has had a huge impact.

 

[Gaborn]

Any links? Because even my economics textbook says otherwise.

The University of Vermont agrees with you and me:

Additional Information

Most studies have found that the entire net effect of an increase in minimum wage results in a slight decrease in employment. A 10 percent increase would most likely lead to only a 1 percent reduction in employment. The more pressing issue is the matter of a livable wage. Even the state with the highest minimum wage does not meet the criteria for a livable wage. Over 24 cities throughout the United States have enacted a livable wage requirement, in order that people are able to meet their basic needs, such as food, shelter, heat, and clothing. This requirement has resulted in a minor cost increase for employers and a 2.2 percent decrease in employment. For a single person to meet his/her essential needs while living in Vermont, the person would need to make at least $7.98 an hour, and for a family of four it would need to make at least $19.82 an hour.

 

[XMonkey]

There is no sympathy for workers anymore. People are more sympathetic with the poor "millionaire" who needs to outsource his business because he simply cannot compete in the United States anymore. People are more sympathetic with foreign companies, "who won't bring jobs to the United States because the wages are too high," than they are with unions. People are more sympathetic with those who wish to remove "Burdensome taxes and Burdensome regulations from our OMG1111!!!!!!!!111111 most repressive regime in the world ever, government."

Wanna back that up? Because I don't believe it at all. Those may be the views of a sizeable vocal minority, but I don't think they represent the majority position of people in this country. Fox and the cable news media certainly like to give those views a lot of airtime, though. As it has been pointed out many times in this thread, most Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Increased wages means fewer jobs? Uh....were you around in the 90s? Granted most of those wage "Increases" were simply inflation, but the point still stands.

 

[quaere]

Wanna back that up? Because I don't believe it at all. Those may be the views of a sizeable vocal minority, but I don't think they represent the majority position of people in this country. Fox and the cable news media certainly like to give those views a lot of airtime, though. As it has been pointed out many times in this thread, most Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy.

I think a large number of Republicans believe in both raising taxes on the wealthy and all the things Sirpopopop posted.

 

[eznark]

Increased wages means fewer jobs? Uh....were you around in the 90s? Granted most of those wage "Increases" were simply inflation, but the point still stands.

causation/correlation...who cares!

 

[Incognito]

Difference between knowing the House was a goner, to the sharp turn that actually *DID* occur.

I don't think many people pegged the 63 House Seat Bloodbath. At this point - I might as well go back and see if anyone pegged it to be around those numbers.

iirc, i predicted -58 and -8, for the house and senate, respectively. a few predicted 60+, too. most were in the 40-55 range, though.

 

[speculawyer]

While "homeless and hungry" isn't as extreme as "dead," the example illustrates the concept.

Homeless & hungry eventually leads to dead.

 

[PhoenixDark]

That ended when the crazy out east won. I'm sure you remember GAF laughing and laughing at the O'Donnell primary victory because it essentially cost the GOP the senate? That was the narrative from then on, until election night.

Pretty much. 2010's wave was predictable given the economy, but dismissing the results would be ridiculous. Democrats got shit canned due to a poor economy. The economy will be poor next year. Yeah

 

[Oblivion]

Ugh. Stop referencing 2010 as if it actually meant anything;

Eh, sorry Wicked, my mang. But you know dang well that the Dems didn't just lose seats, they lost BIG. The biggest amount of losses since the fucking Great Depression. And this was to give power to the guys who said they were going to help unemployed people by taking AWAY unemployment benefits.

Don't put anything past this stupid country.

 

[empty vessel]

The University of Vermont agrees with you and me:

Solution: government jobs! They have the added benefit of increasing labor bargaining power (which is why corporate executives--and their successfully brainwashed masses--are hostile to the concept).

 

[XMonkey]

And yet the Democrats maintained a majority (lol) in the Senate after the 2010 midterms...

PD: Difference is, people voted in Republicans on the hope that they would go after job creation with a "laser-like focus". They instead focused on just about everything but that. As a result they now have a more obvious share of the blame so it's harder to pin a bad economy solely on Dems/Obama.

 

[Oblivion]

By the by, the killing minimum wage thing is a strange tactic, even for tea baggers. Presumably, one would think that the reason they're supporting such a thing to begin with is because the mininum wage is too HIGH, right? Afterall, they're not arguing that it's too LOW, since there's no one stopping employers from giving higher wages if they choose to. So therefore, the idea is to try and pay less than that, which may help lower unemployment, but end up not giving the worker that whole 'living wage' thing.

At least with trickle down bullshit, you're able to trick those who don't know better, but this idea just seemed retarded from the get go.

 

[Mike M]

Homeless & hungry eventually leads to dead.

Every condition eventually leads to dead.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Guys. If you aren't watching Fareed Zakaria GPS, you need to start. He has Hamid Karzai on the show today. A choice moment:

Zakaria: Are you stoking anti-American sentiment in order to make yourself more popular?

Karzai: ...
...
...
...
(answer that isn't no)

 

[jamesinclair]

So do Obamas poll numbers show a Bludger bump?

I mean the man

Spoiler

single handedly

caught one of the most wanted men in the country, just weeks after catching one of the most wanted men in the world.

Cant hide from Obama. Do the voters agree?

 

[leroidys]

Any links? Because even my economics textbook says otherwise.

My primary resources on this are actual economics publications, but here's a couple quick links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz#Efficiency_wages:_the_Shapiro-Stiglitz_model

https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/folbre/REST_a_00039-Dube_proof2.pdf

Basically, wages aren't something that are fully modeled by classical economics because they are not a commodity in the classical sense

Spoiler

and because classical economics is shit

This conversation seems so pointless and empty without big sicily around to tell me I'm a moran

 

[polyh3dron]

And yet the Democrats maintained a majority (lol) in the Senate after the 2010 midterms...

PD: Difference is, people voted in Republicans on the hope that they would go after job creation with a "laser-like focus". They instead focused on just about everything but that. As a result they now have a more obvious share of the blame so it's harder to pin a bad economy solely on Dems/Obama.

oh don't worry, the GOP will make their voters forget all about the shit they've been pulling and brainwash them into thinking the current economic state is ALL Obama's fault.

also, yeah. Karzai is a FUCKWIT.

 

[worldrunover]

Increased wages typically mean fewer jobs. That's why you don't see many elevator operators, door men, or bell boys these days.

So... having the unemployment rate lower is enough of a reason to stop paying livable wages? (not the the current minimum wage is really that livable as it is). This makes no sense. If you have more people below the poverty line then you just need that much more help from the government. At least people pay for their own unemployment benefits, initially anyway. Please explain how more poor people will benefit our society...

 

[airmangataosenai]

Everytime I see a poll where people acknowledge that they know letting us default on our debt would lead to a disaster but they don't support raising the debt ceiling.... I die a little inside. I'm seriously starting to fear for this country.

 

[GaimeGuy]

What in your opinion will solve our "education deficit"? You are aware for example that we spend more per student than just about any country in the world, right?

edit: also, what the hell is Zynga?

Edit2: Ah, the company behind farmville and so forth. I see.

Unified standards for education would be nice for a start.

 

[gcubed]

Pretty much. 2010's wave was predictable given the economy, but dismissing the results would be ridiculous. Democrats got shit canned due to a poor economy. The economy will be poor next year. Yeah

There are many things happening that make Obama losing very difficult. There is just as bad of an anti GOP sentiment in Congress as there was anti Dem 2 years ago with pollsters saying if the numbers don't change the GOP will lose the house in 2012. Couple that with the terrible GOP governors in swing states and a candidate that's not going to make the base "enthusiastic" and you have some HUGE hurdles to overcome. 2010 will cost the GOP 2012.

 

[Loudninja]

Judges order arrest of Gadhafi, son for slayings

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants Monday for Moammar Gadhafi, his son Seif, and his intelligence chief for crimes against humanity in the Libyan leader's four-month battle to cling to power.

Judges announced that the three men are wanted for orchestrating the killing, injuring, arrest and imprisonment of hundreds of civilians during the first 12 days of an uprising to topple Gadhafi from power, and for trying to cover up the alleged crimes.

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/judges-order-arrest-gadhafi-son-slayings-122452359.html

 

[eznark]

My primary resources on this are actual economics publications, but here's a couple quick links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz#Efficiency_wages:_the_Shapiro-Stiglitz_model

https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/folbre/REST_a_00039-Dube_proof2.pdf

Basically, wages aren't something that are fully modeled by classical economics because they are not a commodity in the classical sense

Spoiler

and because classical economics is shit

When refuting Stiglitz post Clinton appointment I simply refer to Stiglitz's pre-Clinton appointment (when he had a more consensus view of price floors) textbook, Economics.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Judges order arrest of Gadhafi, son for slayings

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/judges-order-arrest-gadhafi-son-slayings-122452359.html

Hundreds?

Not to seem cavalier about the deaths of innocent people, but if that's the order of magnitude of brutality that it takes to provoke the sort of international response that it has, then where is the summons for Bashar Al-Assad? Where is the international military force hell-bent on protecting civilians?

 

[Manmademan]

There are many things happening that make Obama losing very difficult. There is just as bad of an anti GOP sentiment in Congress as there was anti Dem 2 years ago with pollsters saying if the numbers don't change the GOP will lose the house in 2012. Couple that with the terrible GOP governors in swing states and a candidate that's not going to make the base "enthusiastic" and you have some HUGE hurdles to overcome. 2010 will cost the GOP 2012.

Absolutely this.

 

[eznark]

Hundreds?

Not to seem cavalier about the deaths of innocent people, but if that's the order of magnitude of brutality that it takes to provoke the sort of international response that it has, then where is the summons for Bashar Al-Assad? Where is the international military force hell-bent on protecting civilians?

As though this was ever about brutality.

 

[lo escondido]

Hundreds?

Not to seem cavalier about the deaths of innocent people, but if that's the order of magnitude of brutality that it takes to provoke the sort of international response that it has, then where is the summons for Bashar Al-Assad? Where is the international military force hell-bent on protecting civilians?

They are accused of killing hundreds in the first 12 days thats not all they killed. then they were about the light up bengazi and kill even more. And there are people dying every day according to wiki 13,000 have died on both sides.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

They are accused of killing hundreds in the first 12 days thats not all they killed. then they were about the light up bengazi and kill even more. And there are people dying every day according to wiki 13,000 have died on both sides.

Lots of people die in civil wars. But that doesn't address the question I asked.

As though this was ever about brutality.

Some people are really insistent on thinking that it is.

 

[eznark]

Some people are really insistent on thinking that it is.

I'm sure their attics contain "No Blood for Oil" picket signs.

 

[eznark]

Yesterday, the Journal Sentinel had front page (online) news regarding the "Prosser choked fellow justice!!!!!) citing an anonymous source.

Today, the Journal now has two sources saying Bradley attacked Prosser who defended himself...and the story is now nowhere near the front page.

Classy!

Also, lol anonymous sources.

 

[lo escondido]

Lots of people die in civil wars. But that doesn't address the question I asked.

It was based on the impending massacre in bengazi based on his actions before and his T.V. statements saying that he was going to go door to door and kill his enemies "inch by inch, room by room, home by home, alleyway by alleyway."

Some other quotes, "I haven't used force but when I do, everything will burn", and that he would fight "until the last drop of his blood had been spilt"

And I'm sure people would like to do more for the syrian people but there is less leverage and ability to do things there. That doesn't make the actions in libya wrong.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

It was based on the impending massacre in bengazi based on his actions before and his T.V. statements saying that he was going to go door to door and kill his enemies "inch by inch, room by room, home by home, alleyway by alleyway."

Some other quotes, "I haven't used force but when I do, everything will burn", and that he would fight "until the last drop of his blood had been spilt"

And I'm sure people would like to do more for the syrian people but there is less leverage and ability to do things there. That doesn't make the actions in libya wrong.

Wrong? No.

Misguided? Naive? Are you saying we should spring to action every time someone threatens to kill people?

 

[lo escondido]

Wrong? No.

Misguided? Naive? Are you saying we should spring to action every time someone threatens to kill people?

He had killed people it wasn't just a threat

And when we have the ability to, yes. I think that is very limited but when we are able to why not? And a lot of things go in to our ability to act. Money, international support, other factors and what not. If those line up like they did in this case yes I do think we should, and not only should but have the responsibility to.

 

[Kosmo]

Wrong? No.

Misguided? Naive? Are you saying we should spring to action every time someone threatens to kill people?

Lives saved or created...who's with me?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Lives saved or created...who's with me?

Fox News memetics produces something actually kind of funny. Who knew.

 

[Dude Abides]

Wrong? No.

Misguided? Naive? Are you saying we should spring to action every time someone threatens to kill people?

Are you saying it never is? Should we have intervened to try to prevent the Rwandan genocide?

 

[empty vessel]

Are you saying it never is? Should we have intervened to try to prevent the Rwandan genocide?

Ironically, Obama says that: "If [genocide is] the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now—where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife—which we haven't done. We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done."

http://www.slate.com/id/2171429/

(Well, not precisely that, since he doesn't say genocide can never be a criteria, but pretty close.)

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Are you saying it never is? Should we have intervened to try to prevent the Rwandan genocide?

I think it should be all or nothing, honestly. It seems absurd and capricious otherwise. And that's not simply with respect to the question of whether to intervene or not at all, but to the way in which the intervention is carried out. If genocide is the kind of thing that we really want to stop, then we need to stop it. Forcefully. This nonsense about "protecting civilians" in Libya is just that. If the international community has decided that Qaddafi is unfit to rule, then they should be actively working to depose him instead of bombing and hoping that he leaves. The approach right now is simply too careless to produce the desired result.

 

[Kosmo]

I think it should be all or nothing, honestly. It seems absurd and capricious otherwise. And that's not simply with respect to the question of whether to intervene or not at all, but to the way in which the intervention is carried out. If genocide is the kind of thing that we really want to stop, then we need to stop it. Forcefully. This nonsense about "protecting civilians" in Libya is just that. If the international community has decided that Qaddafi is unfit to rule, then they should be actively working to depose him instead of bombing and hoping that he leaves. The approach right now is simply too careless to produce the desired result.

It should be nothing. Anything else is unsustainable and full endorsement of the military-industrial complex.

 

[Jackson50]

It was based on the impending massacre in bengazi based on his actions before and his T.V. statements saying that he was going to go door to door and kill his enemies "inch by inch, room by room, home by home, alleyway by alleyway."

Some other quotes, "I haven't used force but when I do, everything will burn", and that he would fight "until the last drop of his blood had been spilt"

And I'm sure people would like to do more for the syrian people but there is less leverage and ability to do things there. That doesn't make the actions in libya wrong.

The impending attack on Benghazi was predicated upon continued insurgency. Moreover, honestly, I do not think rhetoric warrants an intervention, for Qaddafi also pledged "whoever hands over his weapons, stays at home without any weapons, whatever he did previously, he will be pardoned, protected." His threats were against insurgent forces. Had Qaddafi recaptured Benghazi or a ceasefire been negotiated, it would have ended the insurgency. That is why intervened. It is evident that the charges of genocide and other similar rhetoric used to justify the intervention were grossly exaggerated.

 

[lo escondido]

Ironically, Obama says that: "If [genocide is] the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now—where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife—which we haven't done. We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done."

http://www.slate.com/id/2171429/

(Well, not precisely that, since he doesn't say genocide can never be a criteria, but pretty close.)

That's why I say other factors have to play a part. We can't stop genocide in the congo. There are other factors but those shouldn't stop us if we can act in another.

 

[lo escondido]

The impending attack on Benghazi was predicated upon continued insurgency. Moreover, honestly, I do not think rhetoric warrants an intervention, for Qaddafi also pledged "whoever hands over his weapons, stays at home without any weapons, whatever he did previously, he will be pardoned, protected." His threats were against insurgent forces. Had Qaddafi recaptured Benghazi or a ceasefire been negotiated, it would have ended the insurgency. That is why intervened. It is evident that the charges of genocide and other similar rhetoric used to justify the intervention were grossly exaggerated.

"Insurgent forces", and taking gadaffi's word for it? lol

So if the rebel's (who started out just as a protest movement) had given up and let gaddafi do whatever we'd all be good?

Did you cheer for the egyptian protesters or those in tunis? because these insurgent forces are those very people who but were forced to take up arms.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

"Insurgent forces", and taking gadaffi's word for it? lol

So if the rebel's (who started out just as a protest movement) had given up and let gaddafi do whatever we'd all be good?

Did you cheer for the egyptian protesters or those in tunis? because these insurgent forces are those very people who were forced to take up arms.

Wrong. Very, very wrong. The protests in Egypt and Tunisia were most remarkable because of their peaceful nature.

And, by definition, the Libyan rebels are insurgents. The fact that no one really cares for Qaddafi doesn't change the definition of what an insurgent is.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

The impending attack on Benghazi was predicated upon continued insurgency. Moreover, honestly, I do not think rhetoric warrants an intervention, for Qaddafi also pledged "whoever hands over his weapons, stays at home without any weapons, whatever he did previously, he will be pardoned, protected." His threats were against insurgent forces. Had Qaddafi recaptured Benghazi or a ceasefire been negotiated, it would have ended the insurgency. That is why intervened. It is evident that the charges of genocide and other similar rhetoric used to justify the intervention were grossly exaggerated.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1099321.pdf

CONSIDERING accordingly that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Muammar Gaddafi is criminally responsible as an indirect co-perpetrator, under article 25(3)(a) of the Statute, for the following crimes committed by Security Forces
under his control in various localities of the Libyan territory, in particular in Benghazi, Misrata, Tripoli and other neighboring cities, from 15 February 2011 until at least 28 February 2011:

i. murder as a crime against humanity, within the meaning of article 7(l)(a)
of the Statute; and

ii. persecution as a crime against humanity, within the meaning of article
7(l)(h) of the Statute;

 

[lo escondido]

Wrong. Very, very wrong. The protests in Egypt and Tunisia were most remarkable because of their peaceful nature.

And, by definition, the Libyan rebels are insurgents. The fact that no one really cares for Qaddafi doesn't change the definition of what an insurgent is.

Uh the were peaceful and modeled after those by their neighboors..... but gaddafi sent his thugs and killed a few hundred, only then did they turn to arms. Should they have just lied down? Or do people not have the right to defend themselves?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Uh the were peaceful and modeled after those by their neighboors..... but gaddafi sent his thugs and killed a few hundred, only then did they turn to arms. Should they have just lied down? Or do people not have the right to defend themselves?

Non-violent protest is not supposed to be an easy thing to do; that's why it so powerful. But I'm not trying to say that they should have done anything. But that doesn't change the fact that when they took up arms to fight back, it became a civil war, albeit an asymmetrical one.

 

[eznark]

Lives saved or created...who's with me?

bravo

 

[Dude Abides]

Ironically, Obama says that: "If [genocide is] the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now—where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife—which we haven't done. We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done."

http://www.slate.com/id/2171429/

(Well, not precisely that, since he doesn't say genocide can never be a criteria, but pretty close.)

Yes, Obama is pretty incoherent on this issue. But I wonder if there can be a relatively coherent set of criteria for when intervention on humanitarian grounds is justified and when it isn't.

I think it should be all or nothing, honestly. It seems absurd and capricious otherwise. And that's not simply with respect to the question of whether to intervene or not at all, but to the way in which the intervention is carried out. If genocide is the kind of thing that we really want to stop, then we need to stop it. Forcefully. This nonsense about "protecting civilians" in Libya is just that. If the international community has decided that Qaddafi is unfit to rule, then they should be actively working to depose him instead of bombing and hoping that he leaves. The approach right now is simply too careless to produce the desired result.

But surely it can't practically be all or nothing. We can't intervene everytime some group of villagers halfway across the world wants to kill the inhabitants of a neighboring village. At the same time, I think most people believe there is some point at which military intervention can be justified on humanitarian grounds, the question is whether you can draw a reasonably clear line between the two.

 

[lo escondido]

Non-violent protest is not supposed to be an easy thing to do; that's why it so powerful. But I'm not trying to say that they should have done anything. But that doesn't change the fact that when they took up arms to fight back, it became a civil war, albeit an asymmetrical one.

I'm not arguing it isn't a civil war but thats doesn't make the two sides equal in their justifications one is still fighting for freedom and reform, the other is fighting for some genocidal maniac.