JesseEwiak
Member
Well, unless those unelected professionals are 5 judges knocking down a health care law and as a result, literally kill people. Then it totes awesome to have unelected professionals deciding things.
-
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 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Well, unless those unelected professionals are 5 judges knocking down a health care law and as a result, literally kill people. Then it totes awesome to have unelected professionals deciding things.
benjipwns
Banned
Median income for family of four in zip code * COL adjustment / 20 (hours) / 48 (wks) = Minimum wage in zip code.
We don't even need the council of economists.
No amount of labor advantages would distribute all of the gains of the last 40 years in productivity equally. Hell, even if there was some possibility it could, it would only distribute it among labor.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I didn't mean to make that claim, just that it would be a lot more equal. I don't think perfect equality is possible without perfect information.. so not before the robot uprising IMO
PhoenixDark
Banned
I fully expect this to prop up again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfidftLe5Z0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfidftLe5Z0
JesseEwiak
Member
Also, and I do apologize if I didn't make this clear, I only meant that if wages had gone up at the same rate productivity did for the past forty years, we'd have a $20 minimum wage, again, like the economic hellscape known as Austraila.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
How many times as the GOP talked about "african american/latino voters", how is that an effective tactic?
benjipwns
Banned
Something it should be noted that Hillary Clinton has yet to take a stand on.
We knew where Romney stood on the issue.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
We'll never see the emails
Fenderputty
Banned
NYCmetsfan
Banned
cool that they're now walking away from their party platform
Black Mamba
Member
A woman literally claimed Obama tried to nuke Charleston, South Carolina, while asking Rick Santorum a question.
https://twitter.com/A_H_Goldstein/status/578297448780705793
This woman's rant is AMAZING. Starts around 18:00 and only goes for about 2 minutes, well worth listening.
https://twitter.com/A_H_Goldstein/status/578297448780705793
This woman's rant is AMAZING. Starts around 18:00 and only goes for about 2 minutes, well worth listening.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I said "impoverished" as a clue to look at the third grouping, not the first. Those with household incomes below the poverty line moved interstate at a rate of 6.7%; those between 100% and 149% of the poverty line moved interstate at a rate of 4.8%, and those above 150% of the poverty line moved interstate at a rate of 5.5%.
[1] No, that isn't what matters. I said that it's good to have states competing for businesses and other residents, and that the ability of residents to leave serves as a check on state governments. I did not say, e.g., that the minimum wage is unnecessary because the poor are perfectly mobile and can go where they please at a moment's notice. You're still criticizing an argument that has not been made.
[2] It's like democracy isn't even a thing on these forums. (And I'd like to see you and APKmetsfan duke it out over how you believe lawyers should be the only ones making and interpreting laws.)
[3] It indicates precisely what I said it does: that the poor are not particularly immobile. Even ignoring that those households with incomes beneath the poverty level are more mobile than other households, the rate of interstate moves for those with incomes in excess of $50,000 is 6.3%, which isn't all that different from the 5.4% for those with incomes below $50,000 (and hides the fact that the latter rate involves the interstate movement of 10.3 million respondents, contrasted with the 3.2 million that make up the former).
And I'm not sure why Katrina is supposed to be important--the question we're discussing is not why people move but whether they can, but here are some data for other periods (links below are to Excel spreadsheets provided by the Census Bureau):
2012 - 2013
2011 - 2012
2000 - 2005
Despite what your stereotypes about the poor may suggest, the Census Bureau's data demonstrate that the poor are not at a particular disadvantage with respect to others when it comes to making interstate moves.
You know me too well.
The next time I rant on the subject, you can be sure I'll refer liberally to Justice Thomas's recent scholarly opinions on the subject.
No funny hats, no sale. Maybe #BringBackClippy (#ButWithAFunnyHat)?
You so crazy, South Carolina. It used to be people like that would be put into the asylum or kept in the back room so no one knew they existed. Today, they are our elected officials/are electing our officials.
A politician of more character would have corrected her on even the "communist dictator" claim. Not even addressing the "tried to nuke Charleston" claim is just spineless.
But this seems to have been the operating policy of Republicans since the Tea Party became a force - let town hall attendees say and claim whatever they want, don't correct them on anything, and deliver your message in the wake of the misinformation, confusion and fear.
Was McCain during his presidency run the last we saw of politicians actually taking the high road? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c-Ijky95dc
BertramCooper
Banned
In honor of the birth of the 2016 Donald Trump campaign, let's revisit the best response to a Trump tweet ever:
Haha that was great.
I had no idea there was actually a conspiracy theory about Obama trying to nuke Charleston.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/charleston.asp
Black Mamba
Member
So you admit it's a non-sequitor to the discussion of minimum wages? Because there's no other explanation for saying what you said without implying the argument you say you didn't make.
I mean, you said: "It helps ensure that governments don't become overbearing, since their residents can always leave." in relation to a discussion on the minimum wage. If that comment was unrelated to your argument, that is completely your fault, here.
Have I advocated for doing anything in an undemocratic way?
You're just spitting data without any knowledge of what the numbers mean. You're arguing that if I'm right, people with more income (over $50k) should be moving interstate more. Why should that be the case? Just because people can move interstate doesn't mean they want to do so. There are many factors involved. Leaving behind family, friends, your kids are in school and you don't want to disrupt them, you like where you live, you like your job, you can't sell your house, etc etc etc.
It also ignores that it's 17% more than below $50k, which is pretty significant, but as your comments here suggest, raw numbers have more meaning to you. I'd also like to point out to you that income =/= wealth. So even people who make $60k right now may be in a lot of debt and may not be able to move.
And there's another more obvious point. People don't want to move. If you're doing well for yourself, you might move one time to move where you want and then settle for life (roughly). Wealthier people have more freedom to move but have less reason to do so.
And again, you omit to acknowledge that the 5.4%, or any of the numbers, is highly misleading. They include military service, college students moving to a college, etc that are not part of the discussion that matters.
We're talking about the minimum wage, yes? And the issue of interstate mobility brought up matters in the context of the minimum wage. So when it comes to that mobility, we should be looking at numbers that don't include college kids, military personnel, state border towns, and the similar.
People were forced to move out during Katrina. It's a unique situation where not moving could lead to death.
All you've shown is that people rarely move interstate. Poor people may not move because it's expensive and rich people may not move because they don't want to move.
But the one thing you did prove is poor people rarely move across state lines which further supports my point. So in light of the fact that they rarely move across state lines, show something that would validate the claim that states with a higher minimum wage, all else equal, would attract more low wage workers (exempted to border towns, of course).
No, this isn't about that. It's your inability to properly interpret data in the chart.
Like I said, your links have proven the opposite of your assertions. You are very very wrong, here.
edit: FTR, I'm not going to sit here and argue there is no effect at all. That would be stupid. But the idea that states can actively compete on anything we'd consider a level that matters in this regard is absurd. The threat of your neighboring state raising the minimum wage isn't going to raise your own to compete because it's not an actual issue in the general scope.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Sometimes, a discussion about one narrow subject turns into a discussion about a broader subject with respect to which the narrow subject is but one aspect. So it is here. Before concluding that "[w]e need a high federal minimum wage," Frank the Great expressed a more general principle (national uniformity is better than states competing for businesses, since the latter leads to a "race to the bottom") from which that conclusion derives. I responded to the more general principle.
There's no need to try to parcel out blame here. This isn't kindergarten, and that you missed the existence of the broader discussion merits no further mention.
If you're suggesting that society should be ruled by experts rather than those to be ruled, and your rationale in doing so can be summarized as, "The masses are asses," then yeah. That's exactly what you're doing.
The numbers mean precisely what I said they mean: that the poor are not particularly immobile. They move interstate at roughly the same rate as (and even at a higher rate than) other income groups. In opposition to the data that I have provided, what do you have to offer? Stereotypes and suppositions?
If you want to exclude the military and college students from each of the categories (based on both annual income and poverty status), be my guest. But you'll need to do the hard work of analyzing the data to do so. I won't do your homework for you.
"This isn't about the topic of discussion! It's about you!"
Come off it, dude.
StopMakingSense
Member
I'm sorry, but this is an incredibly lazy. You are offering a set of data that does not support the argument you're making. You shouting it does does not make it so. It is basic confirmation bias. Does it normalize for things like students and young adults, who are more mobile at a particular time when they are earning much less/aren't earning anything out of college. There are Sso many variable to look at in terms of means and want that looking at those numbers do not tell you a single thing about how "immobile" they are, let alone make a sweeping generalization about the data.
If anything, all the data shows is that all people are fairly immobile.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
And the poor no moreso than anyone else. What point, exactly, do you all suppose I'm trying to make, if not that?
Shouldn't you be doing the homework though? The claim seems to be that mobility checks state power. So far you've provided evidence that the poor don't move substantially less than the middle or upper classes.
We don't know why they move, we don't know if it's easy to move, and we don't know that it checks state power like you said.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
That's a fair point, but keep in the mind the purpose for which I cited the Census Bureau data:
That data obviously are insufficient to support my claim that freedom to leave a state checks the power of the state's government. I will concede that point.
StopMakingSense
Member
Because your entire argument is that a) poor people should move to where there are jobs and whatevs so b) they should want to move more, which is one fine argument.
This argument then has the flip side of people with more means having less motive to move out of state.
Then you take this argument, then try to prove it with data that you argue, for the sake of your argument, that we should just assume that these needs/wants are actually equal and just look at the numbers of people moving and voila! Metaphoreus is correct!
The you have the gall to complain at people for trying to look at the data through the lens OF YOUR OWN ARGUMENT and trying to tell you you can't parse out the conclusion you want it to come out to.
Coriolanus
Banned
Because having democratically elected officials of a higher stance pick experts which freshly elected officials can remove at any point is the road to technocracy.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Quote the post in which I made that argument.
To be fair, he still hasn't explained the selection process for his Council of Economists Who Decide What the Minimum Wage Is.
StopMakingSense
Member
Aw hell i am getting people missed up with one another, and threads. Either way, the entire discussion revolves around this assumption.
Flat out: You can't just use that data to read in an ability/inability to move. It's just not meant for that sort of conclusion.
It's just a very poor analysis of the statistics. If you have say to reach your conclusion, "hey ignore all of these variables because they are inconvenient," then it's not a conclusion.
You even asked him to do the hard work of proving your own conclusion. His homework? It's your conclusion! You brought in the data, you made your conclusion from that data! Arg.
Coriolanus
Banned
Make it the same as picking the guy that runs the FED. Or whatever you guys call your central bank.
Black Mamba
Member
But you admit it was a non-sequitor, at least. Next time, make a new paragraph at least. Otherwise, people are going to assume it's part of the same argument.
Yeah, we should also vote on war plans. Who needs a Pentagon?
Of course, what I'm actually advocating, is we appoint independent professionals in economics through democratic means (at least in terms of the US's version of it) to use their expertise in determining the minimum wage rather than the local populations who in general are both ignorant in this field and may have personal preferences that are opposed to the common good.
I'm advocating for smart policy over stupid policy.
What's hilarious here is the very structure of America is that populations vote for people to make decisions for them. And you're taking umbrage with that.
No, they do not. The numbers say the exact fucking opposite. In fact, if it says anything concretely it is that everyone is immobile. You're trying to make an argument by comparing the rates of moving interstate between the poor and the not poor while ignoring that the rate is low for everybody. You cannot come to that conclusion by comparing those two data points because those data points are low.
If you want to argue "poor people can move interstate as easily as not poor people," then that is a different argument. But the argument you presented is that poor people are not particularly immobile and present me data that says poor people almost never move across states. Less than 2% of people under $50k (mind you, that's not all poor) move each year. That's the very definition of immobile. It is irrelevant if those above $50k are also under 2%.
I don't need to provide any additional data. The data you provided supports my claims.
And what stereotype have I even put out there? Has anything I said been factually incorrect. Directly quote each one.
I don't need to. It simply means your low sub 2% per year number is even lower than that in reality. All that matters is the number is extremely low. That's why you're wrong.
Okay, fine. It's about a misinterpretation of the data you made. Less personal
It. Does. Not. Show. That.
It shows that poor people and not poor people move at rates that aren't that far apart (though 17% can be interpreted as large). It does not make a claim about actual mobility.
Until you show data about why poor people move only 15-20% less than not poor people, you cannot make this claim.
Do you understand the difference, yet?
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
If you read, "the poor are not particularly immobile" to mean that the ratio of interstate movers to those who desire to move to a different state among the poor is similar to that ratio among others, then, yes, there's a hidden assumption in the conclusion. Namely, that the poor desire to move to a different state at a rate similar to that at which other groups desire to move to a different state. I'll concede that you could fairly read the claim in that way in some contexts, but I'm not sure why you would read it that way in the present context, given that the data provided do not address the rate at which different groups desire to move between states. Instead, my point has been:
No, I've made a pretty good case for my conclusion. If he wants to show that the relocation of members of the military or college students affects the data one way or another, so as to make it misleading, then he bears the burden of establishing that fact.
StopMakingSense
Member
Ah. I will concede then that you have a weird notion of what "mobility/immobility" mean then
. Divorced from all the balances of wants and needs, the pure number of how many of what arbitrary cohort moves in a vacuum is not a very meaningful metric.Let me put it this way, I'm a bit disabled. Now, I am just as likely as anyone to walk across this room to go the bathroom, but that isn't very meaningful in terms of the notion of "mobility" is it?
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
That dude (er, lady right now), and other heads of independent agencies (such as the FCC) are remarkably difficult to get rid of if they don't want to leave during their terms. Once those folks are appointed, they basically run a non-democratic government parallel to the democratic(ish) government established by the Constitution. (Not to mention that they combine the legislative, executive, and judicial powers in a single organization.)
The Constitutional structure is that the democratically elected Congress wield the legislative authority of the federal government. That's not direct democracy, but it's also not, "We'll choose you guys, and then you guys choose the people who will make the laws." Congress is not an electoral college; it's a legislature.
That is, actually, my argument, and has been since I first presented the Census data.
Coriolanus
Banned
Is "remarkably difficult" code for "can be done at any point whatsoever, provided that Congress had the power to overrule a presidential veto"?
Why, yes, it is.
That congress is unable to do so is a direct result of democracy.
Fenderputty
Banned
This is true. Not sure why anyone is arguing with you regarding this. However you did concede on one point. That point is the reason you brought up the data in the first place.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
So about Nintendo making mobile games....
Can we all agree its Obamas fault?
Can we all agree its Obamas fault?
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Are you talking about eliminating the agency to get rid of the incumbent?
Well, there's no need to be so mysterious. Are you referring to the claim that mobility serves as a check on government power? Because that wasn't why I brought the data up in the first place.
I don't see what the big deal is. Frankly, I wish they'd make a phone.
Fenderputty
Banned
Obama hasn't done his job until I can play Mario on my PS4.
Coriolanus
Banned
They're congress. They can rewrite the rules as they wish. If they wanted to make getting rid of the guy easier, they could.
Or is there something in your legislation that prevents modifying parts of an act of congress, instead forcing it to always throw the whole thing away?
Aaron Strife
Banned
I blame net neutrality.
Nintendo should never go third party if our democracy is any indication
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Your question gets into the weeds of administrative law, and I've had a long day. I'll get back to you on this the next chance I have to rant on the subject.
Coriolanus
Banned
This is why i`m finding your position on this so weird. All of this is administrative law 101.
(or is in my country anyway. fuck the cunt that decided to put allathat in the early parts of the constitution).
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Well, I disagree with the Supreme Court on much of its Constitutional jurisprudence regarding administrative law. So, my position is weird, in that sense. But Clarence Thomas agrees with me, so there's that.
Fenderputty
Banned
Mysterious? You concede that many points?
If that's not why you brought up the data, then I'm left wondering why. We've established it's meaningless within the context of the conversation.
I mean maybe you just like arguing with BM.
Black Mamba
Member
Or, you know, you can simply ask economists to devise a formula, present it to Congress, then have them vote it in. Then it's simply administered by the FED per the law. No one has to make a single decision ever again. Simply plug in data and enforce the law Congress wrote. They solicit expert opinion on most legislation. What is the difference, here?
First off, bullshit. You said: "but that some not insubstantial portion of the residents of a state can do so"
and "Finally, data compiled by the Census Bureau indicates that the poor are not especially immobile:
Then you posted data that shows they are immobile and the amount that moves across state lines is not very substantial.
Second,I await data that agrees with your new conclusion because you haven't provided any.
All you've might have shown is that poor people do move roughly 15-20% less than not poor people, but you haven't shown that it's as easy for them to do so.
Even if the data said not poor people move interstate 0.1% a year and poor people 1%, it still doesn't mean what you argue.
You must show the factors that lead poor people to not move and the factors to not poor to not move and make that comparison. Rates tell us nothing.
Wait, you agree with Meta that it's just as easy for a poor person to move to another state as a wealthy person? huh? Because that's his new argument.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I don't think the information is meaningless. At the very least it establishes that poverty is not the insurmountable barrier to interstate moves that some seem to think it is.
Anywho, in other minimum-wage news, Judge rejects franchises' bid to stop part of Seattle minimum-wage law:
EDIT:
Congress is the appropriate wielder of legislative power.
The data relate to that second statement you quote (following "finally"), not the first. Data showing that an insubstantial number of a state's residents do move to a new state does not, of itself, show that only an insubstantial number can. (And, of course, we should figure out what we mean by "insubstantial" if we're going to characterize 5.6% as either "substantial" or "insubstantial.")
Using "especially" or "particularly" (as I did in later posts) is an accepted way of speaking comparatively. "It is especially cold today" can mean that it's 60 F when it's normally 80 F, even though 60 F isn't really all that cold.
And you'll continue waiting for data that support my new conclusion at least until after I've formulated a conclusion other than the only one I have. For now, the data provided, which support the conclusion I claimed they did, will have to tide you over. (Note that they also refute your claim that poor people move between states 15-20% less than others, given that the rate at which those who moved to a new state between 2005 and 2010 is higher among those below the poverty line than above it. Not to mention that the most recent data I provided you shows a higher rate among those with less than $50,000 in income than those with more, too.)
PhoenixDark
Banned
Sounds like Seattle's minimum wage law is causing a lot of businesses to move or flop.
Fuck that, I want Nintendo games on Steam.
Black Mamba
Member
And then you post data that around only 1-2% of poor people move to a different state, some being college students and military.
How does that equate to your argument, again?
Reminder: Demonstrating the rate isn't that much worse for not poor people does not support your argument.
Can you post an article or an analysis along with this? Maybe some actual proof?
EDIT: I say this because according to businessmen in Seattle, they like it.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/truth-needle-is-15-wage-dooming-seattle-restaurants-owners-say-no/
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked