• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.
So I told my friend the good news, she'd be getting a raise because minimum wage is to go up.

Her reaction?

"Now prices will go up too"

Fucking America man
 

KingK

Member
So I told my friend the good news, she'd be getting a raise because minimum wage is to go up.

Her reaction?

"Now prices will go up too"

Fucking America man

I'd say I get that response from about 60%+ of the people I know working at or near minimum wage (which is pretty much everyone I know since I'm a college student). It's amazing how easily people have been brainwashed to oppose their own interests.
 
That's not true. But at the low minimum wage levels it is a very weak relationship.

Right right, of course theres some relationship, but not enough to move the needle.

I love when people try and argue "if you double wages youre saying prices wont rise? TRUMP CARD LOL"

Truthfacts:

The minimum wage for waitstaff in most states is $2.13 an hour. No paid breaks.
In California, waitstaff get $8 (tips are extra). Mandatory paid breaks.

AKA: Wages are almost 4x higher.

And yet the Applebees "2 for $20" menu is identical in LA and Omaha. As is 99% of the rest of the menu. Same with almost every chain.

Prices are set by what the market will pay, not based on the input costs, even when labor costs 4x as much.
 
I'd say I get that response from about 60%+ of the people I know working at or near minimum wage (which is pretty much everyone I know since I'm a college student). It's amazing how easily people have been brainwashed to oppose their own interests.

The idea that prices will increase if wages goes up makes sense at face value. College (age group really) students in general are uninformed and uninterested. If you're older and working minimum wage or below poverty line, chances you're just as uninterested and uninformed. That and the power of the religious rights morality war they've waged. I'm not really amazed people vote against their own interests. More like frustrated. I mean, the concept of a debt ceiling escapes most people. I'm beyond being amazed :(
 
I can't understand why it seems Obama is so adamant about nominating Summers over Yellen.

It's to the point of absurdity now. Why is it so important to him? Why is he willing to risk any political capital he has on this?

Yellen is a no-brainer. I mean, it's like the easiest and most obvious thing he could do over these 4 years.

I'm perplexed.
 
More good news from California

Suck it Meg Whitman
In the waning hours of the 2013 legislative session, the Assembly on Thursday sent Gov. Jerry Brown a bill allowing undocumented immigrants to receive driver’s licenses.

The surprise 55-19 vote moved California a signature away from putting into law a measure that immigrant advocates have sought fruitlessly for years, with past attempts thwarted by legislative vote and gubernatorial veto.

“This is a moment, members,” sponsor Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Watsonville, said in closing remarks on the Assembly floor, “that years from now you’re going to look back on.”

In a statement released shortly after the vote, Brown signaled he will sign the bill.

“This bill will enable millions of people to get to work safely and legally,” Brown said in the statement. “Hopefully, it will send a message to Washington that immigration reform is long past due.”

Earlier Thursday, the state Senate resuscitated the left-for-dead bill on a 28-8 vote and returned it to the Assembly, marking an apparent reversal: Alejo had said Wednesday that he would defer action on the measure until January.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/09/13/3495173/california-lawmakers-approve-measure.html#storylink=cpy

Also

292-aHzGV.AuSt.4.jpeg
 
I can't understand why it seems Obama is so adamant about nominating Summers over Yellen.

It's to the point of absurdity now. Why is it so important to him? Why is he willing to risk any political capital he has on this?

Yellen is a no-brainer. I mean, it's like the easiest and most obvious thing he could do over these 4 years.

I'm perplexed.
loyalty

I wouldn't be surprised if summers gets voted down. Dems don't want him and don't trust him. I don't know why he keeps going so hard against his caucus with the house the way it is. Chained-CPI, NSA, Syria, Summers
 
loyalty

I wouldn't be surprised if summers gets voted down. Dems don't want him and don't trust him. I don't know why he keeps going so hard against his caucus with the house the way it is. Chained-CPI, NSA, Syria, Summers

I get loyalty being his original intention and that's fine, but once it became known it was a bad choice, i don't understand his calculation here. Why is his loyalty to him this strong? Does he blow him on long days at the office? What's going on?
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Well, this is a pretty douchey thing to do:

Florida has issued an order that will prevent residents from finding out how they can sign up for expanded subsidized health insurance at county health departments.

The directive bans the outreach activities of "navigators," or counselors hired under the Affordable Care Act to help low-income, uninsured residents sign up for the state's expanded insurance program.

"This is another blatant and shameful attempt to intimidate groups who will be working to inform Americans about their new health insurance options and help them enroll in coverage, just like Medicare counselors have been doing for years," said U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Fabien Levy.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...obamacare-aides-at-public-health-centers?lite
 
I get loyalty being his original intention and that's fine, but once it became known it was a bad choice, i don't understand his calculation here. Why is his loyalty to him this strong? Does he blow him on long days at the office? What's going on?
I really think loyalty matters that much to him. There was a couple of stories about the white house being completely flabbergasted with opposition to him. I think they see it as personal opposition rather than principled disagreement on monetary and fiscal policy.
 
So my friend continues to argue that raising the minimum wage will put every company out of business and make everyone be unemployed.

I want to just say "fuck it, take econ 101"

....

but econ 101 just helps to confirm that mistaken belief by relying on the most simplistic of theoretical examples rather than 100 years of hard data

:(
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
So my friend continues to argue that raising the minimum wage will put every company out of business and make everyone be unemployed.

I want to just say "fuck it, take econ 101"

....

but econ 101 just helps to confirm that mistaken belief by relying on the most simplistic of theoretical examples rather than 100 years of hard data

:(

But...even econ 101 doesn't say increasing the minimum wage will do those things that your friend claims.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
But...even econ 101 doesn't say increasing the minimum wage will do those things that your friend claims.

No, it does. A price floor on a econ 101 supply demand chart creates a supply surplus which leads to unemployment. There's a lot of arguments as to why this doesn't end up being the case, at least not significantly, but those aren't taught in most econ 101 courses as far as I know.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
No, it does. A price floor on a econ 101 supply demand chart creates a supply surplus which leads to unemployment. There's a lot of arguments as to why this doesn't end up being the case, at least not significantly, but those aren't taught in most econ 101 courses as far as I know.

No, I meant the extreme consequences that his friend claims. I know econ 101 does say that unemployment will increase, but not to such huge extents.
 
No, I meant the extreme consequences that his friend claims. I know econ 101 does say that unemployment will increase, but not to such huge extents.

Econ 101 doesn't teach the extent at all. Only that it happens. Econ 101 certainly endorses the argument that ue and prices increase significantly because monopsony and asymmetric information are not concepts introduced. It's done in generality but unless you end up with an professor who wants to make a comment about it, that's what you will take away from it.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
No, I meant the extreme consequences that his friend claims. I know econ 101 does say that unemployment will increase, but not to such huge extents.

I guess that depends on if they teach the extent, but in my class they didn't. They're happy to just get you to confirm the basics of price floors.
 
I guess that depends on if they teach the extent, but in my class they didn't. They're happy to just get you to confirm the basics of price floors.

If you get a fairly liberal professor/ta they might make a comment or two about it but its just about teaching the concept of price floors and really just understanding the process. And since it is Econ 101 most don't care enough to correct you since for them this is just busy work.
 
If you get a fairly liberal professor/ta they might make a comment or two about it but its just about teaching the concept of price floors and really just understanding the process. And since it is Econ 101 most don't care enough to correct you since for them this is just busy work.

Im sorry, did you say "liberal professor" and econ 101...?
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
All my poli sci and econ professors were pretty neutral when it came to teaching.

Pretty pathetic liberal academic complex we got here.


Also, Real Time's back tonight! :D
 
Yup my micro/macro Econ professor was neutral in class.
I learned a lot more through my Anthro classes, especially with regards to modern economic problems.
 
The idea that prices will increase if wages goes up makes sense at face value. College (age group really) students in general are uninformed and uninterested. If you're older and working minimum wage or below poverty line, chances you're just as uninterested and uninformed. That and the power of the religious rights morality war they've waged. I'm not really amazed people vote against their own interests. More like frustrated. I mean, the concept of a debt ceiling escapes most people. I'm beyond being amazed :(

It's not so surprising when economic truths go against conventional wisdom such as the household spending analogy.
 

pigeon

Banned
So my friend continues to argue that raising the minimum wage will put every company out of business and make everyone be unemployed.

I want to just say "fuck it, take econ 101"

....

but econ 101 just helps to confirm that mistaken belief by relying on the most simplistic of theoretical examples rather than 100 years of hard data

:(

Does he know that California (among other states) already has a significantly higher minimum wage than the national average and we're doing pretty well economically?
 

FyreWulff

Member
Yeah, it makes no sense to bar anyone from getting driver's licenses. It's proof that you know how to drive a car and proves residency, not an award of citizenship.

If you can pay for plates, insurance, and the ID, you've paid for access to the roads.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
National Journal did a pretty good job at covering the many reasons why Larry Summers is a terrible choice.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-case-against-larry-summers-20130912

Nor has Summers ever admitted that the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, often cited as one of his main achievements as Treasury secretary, led directly to the financial crash, a conclusion of the FCIC report. Summers's sponsorship of the act was the culmination of his long fight to prevent the regulation of derivatives trading. Channeling the views of Wall Street, he believed that even a hint of regulation would send all derivatives trading overseas, costing America business. (It was the unspoken assumption in those years that what was good for Wall Street was good for the U.S. economy, and vice versa.) When Brooksley Born, then the chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, devised a 1998 proposal suggesting that over-the-counter derivatives be regulated, he called her, livid. Although she did not report to him, he dressed her down loudly. Born's deputy, Michael Greenberger, says he walked in as the call was ending. "She was ashen," he recalls. "She said, 'That was Larry Summers. He was shouting at me.' "

Summers told Born that a group of bankers had come to his office to say it did enormous damage to their business just for her to raise these questions, and he let her know she should just stop doing it. Born later said, "I was astonished a position would be taken that you shouldn't even ask questions about a market that was many, many trillions of dollars in notional value—and that none of us knew anything about."

Even after the financial crash of 2008, Summers did not relent in his view that little else could have been done back then, despite the FCIC's report and other studies that concluded otherwise. Summers's boss and mentor, then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, conceded during the post-crash hearings in 2010 that Born was "right about derivatives regulation." Even former President Clinton later admitted he should have reined in derivatives trading.
 
So my friend continues to argue that raising the minimum wage will put every company out of business and make everyone be unemployed.

I want to just say "fuck it, take econ 101"

....

but econ 101 just helps to confirm that mistaken belief by relying on the most simplistic of theoretical examples rather than 100 years of hard data

:(
the Economic Policy Institute, Levy Institute, and a lot of the bloggers post about this with studies to back them up. It's a good way to learn.

Also, if you are into econometrics and science in general, the Santa Fe Institute also has some good resources.

Yeah, it makes no sense to bar anyone from getting driver's licenses. It's proof that you know how to drive a car and proves residency, not an award of citizenship.

If you can pay for plates, insurance, and the ID, you've paid for access to the roads.

"illegals have same rights as citizens" "stop rewarding criminals" and all that jazz.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Dude straight up told gold bugs, Ron Paul disciples and tea partiers not to bother arguing their shit with him because he was sick of it and would embarrass them beyond belief. He was fucking awesome.

Did some still try?
 
Nope, he was dead serious. He'd explain stuff as much as you wanted but if you tried arguing that shit he'd kick you out for the day.

Class isn't the time to do it. You should go see them on their office hours (assuming they have them) or something to discuss. That's what I did and I learned something and changed my opinion.

FWIW, I was a TA for econ 101 (or rather the whole micro-applied-macro series for a year) which at the time meant I basically taught the class (or my 1/6 portion of the class) and worked with the professors directly, so I knew their approach to econ 101. We didn't have gold bugs and paultards back then, though. People who waste class time in an effort to push their agenda are annoying as fuck. There's no time for that, in any field if you have legit questions (not related to the curriculum at the moment), see the Professor (or whomever) during free time. In my experiences, they are very enthusiastic about that.
 
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114682/ppp-polling-methodology-opaque-flawed

Nate Silver has been flinging shit at PPP on Twitter. I'm not sure why. I've always assumed he knows how the data he uses is made (pretty much every polling firm futzes with stuff in an attempt to generate more accurate predictions), but if he doesn't that's pretty silly (Sam Wang agrees).
Nate is being ridiculous. His entire model in 2012 would have been thrown completely out of whack by bullshit posters like Rasmussen if PPP wasn't around.
 
Nate is being ridiculous. His entire model in 2012 would have been thrown completely out of whack by bullshit posters like Rasmussen if PPP wasn't around.

What's funny is that he does the same kind of weighting and adjustment in the name of accuracy that he's insulting PPP over, his is just easier because it's meta.
 

Diablos

Member
Ewww...


Republicans are now leading Democrats on handling several key issues, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll.

The poll, released Friday, shows more Americans think that the Republicans are doing a better job on the economy, foreign policy and reducing the federal deficit.

The GOP has an edge of 7 percentage points over the Democrats on the issue of foreign policy. This is up from 2006, when the GOP was behind by 9 percentage points.

And while Democrats still lead among issues such as health care and looking out for the middle class, their lead has been steadily decreasing. The Wall Street Journal highlights that the Democrats only hold a 17 percentage point lead over the GOP in looking out for the middle class, the lowest margin in decades. The Democrats also see the lowest margin ever on dealing with health care, at 8 percentage points.

Additionally, only 27 percent of Americans think the economy will improve over the next year, the lowest since July 2012.

The poll was conducted Sept. 5-8 and surveyed 1,000 adults with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

tCrognY.gif


I know it is just one poll, but anything like this with an already GOP controlled House is never a good thing to read if you are hoping for a Democratic victory next year.

Too many of our fellow Americans are imbeciles.
 
Ewww...

tCrognY.gif


I know it is just one poll, but anything like this with an already GOP controlled House is never a good thing to read if you are hoping for a Democratic victory next year.

Too many of our fellow Americans are imbeciles.
Yeah and in that same poll Democrats are winning on the generic ballot by 3, not enough to win the majority but certainly enough to pick up a few seats. But why would the media want to report that part?
 
Ewww...




tCrognY.gif


I know it is just one poll, but anything like this with an already GOP controlled House is never a good thing to read if you are hoping for a Democratic victory next year.

Too many of our fellow Americans are imbeciles.

This is why I am completely disillusioned by politics...and have posted increasingly less and less. American electorate is just too dumb. I am sorry but it is the truth. Unless that changes we will keep electing dingbats and screwing ourselves over.
 

Snake

Member
When this whole thing started, the idea of the US getting an enforcement through the UNSC was a 'when pigs fly'-level prospect. Russia would never in a million years tolerate it after Libya.

So it's fairly shocking that, according to these articles, the agreement includes a Chapter VII enforcement. If Syria agrees to this then Obama gets everything he could have asked for and more. "Another masterstroke by Putin": the new "good news for John McCain!"
 

Wilsongt

Member
Like clockwork.



John McCain and Lindsey Graham criticise US-Russia deal on Syria


The Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham have criticised the deal struck by the US and Russia regarding the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile. In a statement released on Saturday, McCain and Graham said the deal would give the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, time "to delay and deceive" while the country's civil war continued.

The statement said: "It requires a willful suspension of disbelief to see this agreement as anything other than the start of a diplomatic blind alley, and the Obama administration is being led into it by Bashar Assad and [Russian president] Vladimir Putin."

I swear. It's like they have these responses pre-written. I guess they need some sort of pillow talk in the evenings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom