Support NeoGAF

[theprodigy]

Which three?

Take a guess!

 

[Holmes]

Are you really comparing accounting for differences in living costs due to geography to... slavery?

Ne touche pas.

 

[B-Dubs]

Which three though?

That's entirely up to you. You have 5 options to chose from.

 

[BoboBrazil]

Hillary is being investigated by the FBI, chances are IF something comes of it, it'd be a small reprimand, but that won't change the optics. The Republicans would have a field day of playing up the "non trust-worthy" narrative. So by the same logic nominating Hillary comes with the probability of a looming political nightmare, and when it was nothing more than speculation she handled it poorly. Sanders has the weakness that older voters recoil at the word socialism, but the more the media attempts to derail his campaign with the label the more it becomes baked in, and thus a less potent attack. I'd image most of the people who view the label as a deal-breaker are already NOT voting democratic.

Nothing will come of the FBI probe into Hilary's charity. They are trying to hit her with anything they can. No telling what horrible stuff they would dig up on Bernie Sanders. All through history, when someone like him goes in hard to one side they get dominated in the general. We don't need that to happen at such an important time in history, even if you think the chance is small that he would get beat.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Bernie's policy proposal is to raise minimum wage to $15 by 2020. Perhaps he gets $12.50 by 2024, or something thereabouts, if he gets a favorable Congressional makeup in 2018 or 2020. The entire thrust of Bernie's campaign is trying to push things as far to the left as they'll go, so of course he's going to make promises that are farther to the left than what can actually be achieved. Like every other presidential candidate, he's making promises that play to his base, and will push for his policies while being willing to compromise in the general direction of what he's proposing.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Bernie's policy proposal is to raise minimum wage to $15 by 2020. Perhaps he gets $12.50 by 2024, or something thereabouts, if he gets a favorable Congressional makeup in 2018 or 2020. The entire thrust of Bernie's campaign is trying to push things as far to the left as they'll go, so of course he's going to make promises that are farther to the left than what can actually be achieved. Like every other presidential candidate, he's making promises that play to his base, and will push for his policies while being willing to compromise in the general direction of what he's proposing.

plays to the base but alienates the middle that you need to win. With Trump you take the middle and run with it. Why give it up?

Bernie is going to run a far left campaign for November leaving the center to be snatched up by Trump, Rubo or Cruz.

 

[eBay Huckster]

remember that time when bill clinton said uncomfortable things about race

 

[Macho Madness]

Numbers for y'all: 6 5 7 45 765 4

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

Bernie's policy proposal is to raise minimum wage to $15 by 2020. Perhaps he gets $12.50 by 2024, or something thereabouts, if he gets a favorable Congressional makeup in 2018 or 2020. The entire thrust of Bernie's campaign is trying to push things as far to the left as they'll go, so of course he's going to make promises that are farther to the left than what can actually be achieved. Like every other presidential candidate, he's making promises that play to his base, and will push for his policies while being willing to compromise in the general direction of what he's proposing.

Doesn't that go wholly against his main attractor of dating what's on his mind and being truthful?

 

[B-Dubs]

Numbers for y'all: 6 5 7 45 765 4

Something you lost will soon turn up

 

[Makai]

4 8 15 16 23 42

 

[benjipwns]

Cost of living varies wildly across the US.

You set the national wage to $15, you are going to cripple many areas of the country.

The national minimum is the floor- it has to be set to something that accommodates the lowest common denominator. That's why you don't say "Lets go to $15!" - because it's showing reckless disregard for reality.

Maybe those areas should work harder and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

 

[disastermouse]

Should I be surprised that you two have no valid rebuttal to these basic facts?

Morality. It's a science! Survey says we can't stop killing brown people because we have to keep the mortician employed.

Polling data tracks unwell across all lines that if we abolish war, we'll have too many unemployed.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

plays to the base but alienates the middle that you need to win. With Trump you take the middle and run with it. Why give it up?

Bernie is going to run a far left campaign for November leaving the center to be snatched up by Trump, Rubo or Cruz.

Eh, I don't really buy that Bernie wouldn't walk himself back to the center at all. He's playing up his progressive cred because that's what he thinks the Dems should always have been fighting for, but come the general, they'll play up his history of legislating across the aisle and being willing to compromise for the sake of getting things done. Plus he strikes the anti-establishment, anti-special interests chord that is also running through the political center, so it's not like he brings nothing to the table in terms of moderate appeal. Everybody that's not a solid Democrat strongly dislikes Hillary, so it's not as though she doesn't have huge downsides as a moderate-appealing candidate. Against Trump, I think Bernie wins handily. Against Cruz or Rubio, I don't know, because neither one of them is remotely close to moderate, such that I don't think they'd be successful in trying to portray themselves as such, but Rubio, especially, has this weirdly appealing quality that deflects from his batshit nuttery, so it's hard to say. He'd get crushed by Kasich, and maybe even by Bush, but neither of them have a shot.

 

[disastermouse]

That you hear that from what I said is scary.

That you don't realize what you sound like is scary.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

4 years is nothing- especially when we have near-zero inflation right now.

$15/hr is going to be totally inadequate in Manhattan and San Francisco by 2020. I would hope their minimum wage is higher than that by then. It's already inadequate actually. Go ahead and see what $15/hr will get you in San Fran. Minimum wage, as FDR intended, should provide for a decent living. No where in the country can do that on $7.25 or even $10/hr. $12 would probably be sufficient in some areas (on the basis that your housing costs shouldn't exceed 1/3 of income), but not most of the country. I think $15 is an ideal floor for 2020, no matter where you are in the country. Places like San Fran should be higher than $15 by then.

 

[Poodlestrike]

That you don't realize what you sound like is scary.

Because there is absolutely no other explanation and he's definitely in the wrong and you're definitely in the right and that is for certain.

Yes.

Definitely.

 

[kirblar]

$15/hr is going to be totally inadequate in Manhattan and San Francisco by 2020. I would hope their minimum wage is higher than that by then. It's already inadequate actually. Go ahead and see what $15/hr will get you in San Fran. Minimum wage, as FDR intended, should provide for a decent living. No where in the country can do that on $7.25 or even $10/hr. $12 would probably be sufficient in some areas (on the basis that your housing costs shouldn't exceed 1/3 of income), but not most of the country. I think $15 is an ideal floor for 2020, no matter where you are in the country. Places like San Fran should be higher than $15 by then.

That's why you let San Fran and NY raise it themselves.

National is the baseline. Because it's the baseline, you adjust it based off the lowest cost of living areas in the country.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I wonder how Trump vs. Jeb in a townhall is going to go... will be a bit more interesting without Trump able to do putdowns.

 

[NeoXChaos]

$15/hr is going to be totally inadequate in Manhattan and San Francisco by 2020. I would hope their minimum wage is higher than that by then. It's already inadequate actually. Go ahead and see what $15/hr will get you in San Fran. Minimum wage, as FDR intended, should provide for a decent living. No where in the country can do that on $7.25 or even $10/hr. $12 would probably be sufficient in some areas (on the basis that your housing costs shouldn't exceed 1/3 of income), but not most of the country. I think $15 is an ideal floor for 2020, no matter where you are in the country. Places like San Fran should be higher than $15 by then.

but the minimum wage is not supposed to be a livable wage that's why its called minimum wage.

Walmart and McDonalds would rather go under than pay their employees $15 an hour.

 

[disastermouse]

Because there is absolutely no other explanation and he's definitely in the wrong and you're definitely in the right and that is for certain.

Yes.

Definitely.

Begone, slaver scum.

(Kidding, obviously)

He is wrong, but more importantly, he's on the wrong side of history, which is the wrongerest!

I'm still wired from my workout.

 

[disastermouse]

That's why you let San Fran and NY raise it themselves.

National is the baseline. Because it's the baseline, you adjust it based off the lowest cost of living areas in the country.

No, you base it off the median of the country.


So, how long have you been a Republican, anyway?

 

[benjipwns]

but the minimum wage is not supposed to be a livable wage that's why its called minimum wage.

Walmart and McDonalds would rather go under than pay their employees $15 an hour.

I think they'll gladly accept a massive tax subsidy from the Clinton Administration to become retail wage leaders.

 

[kirblar]

Am I actually being accused of supporting the southern secession?

That's a new one.

Cost of living differences are a real thing. Here's data from a liberal source on it- http://web.archive.org/web/20120417034702/http://nlihc.org:80/sites/default/files/oor/2012-OOR-Housing-Wage-Map_0.pdf

Notice what the lowest amount is?

Spoiler

$11.41, which is a hair under $12

No, you base it off the median of the country.


So, how long have you been a Republican, anyway?

No, you don't. You set it to where you need to for the lowest areas and you let the states/cities raise it on their own if they want.

Uh, never? Unless you're talking about the republicans in the age of Lincoln.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

That's why you let San Fran and NY raise it themselves.

National is the baseline.

They did raise it themselves. It needs to go higher over the next few years, though.

The average cost of a one bedroom apartment in Oklahoma, outside of a city, is $603.12. Going by the rule that your rent should not exceed 1/3 of your income, a person making $12/hr working 40 hr/week would take home about $1,600 a month after taxes. That's over $200/month shy of the 1/3 rule. And that's in rural Oklahoma.

 

[benjipwns]

Am I actually being accused of supporting the southern secession?

That's a new one.

Cost of living differences are a real thing. Here's data from a liberal source on it- http://web.archive.org/web/20120417034702/http://nlihc.org:80/sites/default/files/oor/2012-OOR-Housing-Wage-Map_0.pdf

Notice what the lowest amount is? http://web.archive.org/web/20120417034702/http://nlihc.org:80/sites/default/files/oor/2012-OOR-Housing-Wage-Map_0.pdf

This viciously evil right-wing study assumes that rent should be any % of ones wages. Slaves gave part of their labor in exchange for housing.

Notice what the lowest amount is?

Spoiler

$11.41, which is a hair under $12

Puerto Rico doesn't exist confirmed.

 

[disastermouse]

but the minimum wage is not supposed to be a livable wage that's why its called minimum wage.

Walmart and McDonalds would rather go under than pay their employees $15 an hour.

Argue it with FDR:

It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.

http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/ODNIRAST.HTML

 

[Elaugaufein]

but the minimum wage is not supposed to be a livable wage that's why its called minimum wage.

Walmart and McDonalds would rather go under than pay their employees $15 an hour.

I'm totally going to sound like a Right Winger for part of this, so fair warning:

One way or the other you're going to be paying people a living wage. Whether its by mandating a livable minimum wage or by making up the difference in welfare payments to those who aren't getting paid enough. That or you let people slowly die through insufficient nutrition / medical care / housing (which I'll admit is a more popular solution than I'd have anticipated).

Setting a minimum wage below living and then making up the difference in welfare is effectively subsidizing company wages out of the public pocket. Why should companies who can't afford to run themselves be living off the public largess ?

 

[kirblar]

They did raise it themselves. It needs to go higher over the next few years, though.

The average cost of a one bedroom apartment in Oklahoma, outside of a city, is $603.12. Going by the rule that your rent should not exceed 1/3 of your income, a person making $12/hr working 40 hr/week would take home about $1,600 a month after taxes. That's over $200/month shy of the 1/3 rule. And that's in rural Oklahoma.

One-bedrooms are a bad baseline because they ignore families/roommates.

 

[Makai]

I don't think you should adjust for cost of living in a minimum wage. New York is more expensive to live in because it's awesome. I can't hop on a Subway or go to an early TV screening in Oklahoma.

 

[disastermouse]

Uh, never? Unless you're talking about the republicans in the age of Lincoln.

Hey, with Democrats like you, we don't even need Republicans!

Let's tell Ted Cruz to go home. His wife will be super-bummed, but we'll all be better off.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

This is what happens when you go too long without chopping people's heads off

 

[kirblar]

I don't think you should adjust for cost of living in a minimum wage. New York is more expensive to live in because it's awesome. I can't hop on a Subway or go to an early TV screening in Oklahoma.

NY/San Fran have insane rents primarily because of geography.

 

[shinra-bansho]

but the minimum wage is not supposed to be a livable wage that's why its called minimum wage.

Walmart and McDonalds would rather go under than pay their employees $15 an hour.

This is relatively hyperbolic. I would imagine the relative impact would probably be greater felt by smaller businesses. Also, I don't know about those semantics, I imagine the idea is the minimum that would be required to subsist, ie theoretically "livable."

Meanwhile, some of you seem to have gotten the impression that you can be openly obnoxious and/or antagonistic to others in this thread, when that's something reserved for myself. And maybe benji.

 

[disastermouse]

I'm totally going to sound like a Right Winger for part of this, so fair warning:

One way or the other you're going to be paying people a living wage. Whether its by mandating a livable minimum wage or by making up the difference in welfare payments to those who aren't getting paid enough. That or you let people slowly die through insufficient nutrition / medical care / housing (which I'll admit is a more popular solution than I'd have anticipated).

Setting a minimum wage below living and then making up the difference in welfare is effectively subsidizing company wages out of the public pocket. Why should companies who can't afford to run themselves be living off the public largess ?

You don't sound like a right-winger, you sound like a pragmatist.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I don't think you should adjust for cost of living in a minimum wage. New York is more expensive to live in because it's awesome. I can't hop on a Subway or go to an early TV screening in Oklahoma.

Agree in theory. In practice you have to though. People getting paid the minimum wage can't actually afford relocation to somewhere more suitable. Not to mention that if they could New York's economy would crater until a new baseline of minimum payment for living in New York while keeping the city functional emerged.

 

[kirblar]

Puerto Rico doesn't exist confirmed.

Oh, oops.

I'm actually not sure you even bother trying to account for them, since they make Kansas's economic and tax policy look like a utopia by comparison.

 

[disastermouse]

NY/San Fran have insane rents primarily because of geography.

And partly because investment values have replaced use values because Capital needs a place to call home.

 

[theprodigy]

but the minimum wage is not supposed to be a livable wage that's why its called minimum wage.

Walmart and McDonalds would rather go under than pay their employees $15 an hour.

wait a minute WTF is this post on multiple levels

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

This is what happens when you go too long without chopping people's heads off

Make America cut off heads again.

 

[Macho Madness]

wait a minute WTF is this post on multiple levels

I wish I knew.

 

[benjipwns]

http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/ODNIRAST.HTML

No employer and no group of less than all employers in a single trade could do this alone and continue to live in business competition. But if all employers in each trade now band themselves faithfully in these modern guilds--without exception-and agree to act together and at once, none will be hurt and millions of workers, so long deprived of the right to earn their bread in the sweat of their labor, can raise their heads again. The challenge of this law is whether we can sink selfish interest and present a solid front against a common peril.

It is a challenge to industry which has long insisted that, given the right to act in unison, it could do much for the general good which has hitherto been unlawful. From today it has that right.

Many good men voted this new charter with misgivings. I do not share these doubts. I had part in the great cooperation of 1917 and 1918 and it is my faith that we can count on our industry once more to join in our general purpose to lift this new threat and to do it without taking any advantage of the public trust which has this day been reposed without stint in the good faith and high purpose of American business.

But industry is challenged in another way. It is not only the slackers within trade groups who may stand in the path of our common purpose. In a sense these groups compete with each other, and no single industry, and no separate cluster of industries, can do this job alone for exactly the same reason that no single employer can do it alone. In other words, we can imagine such a thing as a slacker industry.

This law is also a challenge to labor. Workers, too, are here given a new charter of rights long sought and hitherto denied. But they know that the first move expected by the Nation is a great cooperation of all employers, by one single mass-action, to improve the case of workers on a scale never attempted in any Nation. Industries can do this only if they have the support of the whole public and especially of their own workers. This is not a law to foment discord and it will not be executed as such. This is a time for mutual confidence and help and we can safely rely on the sense of fair play among all Americans to assure every industry which now moves forward promptly in this united drive against depression that its workers will be with it to a man.

It is, further, a challenge to administration. We are relaxing some of the safeguards of the anti-trust laws.

...

If we ask our trade groups to do that which exposes their business, as never before, to undermining by members who are unwilling to do their part, we must guard those who play the game for the general good against those who may seek selfish gains from the unselfishness of others. We must protect them from the racketeers who invade organizations of both employers and workers. We are spending billions of dollars and if that spending is really to serve our ends it must be done quickly. We must see that our haste does not permit favoritism and graft. All this is a heavy load for any Government and one that can be borne only if we have the patience, cooperation, and support of people everywhere.

...

In a few industries, there has been some forward buying at unduly depressed prices in recent weeks. Increased costs resulting from this Government-inspired movement may make it very hard for some manufacturers and jobbers to fulfill some of their present contracts without loss. It will be a part of this wide industrial cooperation for those having the benefit of these forward bargains (contracted before the law was passed) to take the initiative in revising them to absorb some share of the increase in their suppliers' costs, thus raised in the public interest, It is only in such a willing and considerate spirit, throughout the whole of industry, that we can hope to succeed.

Under Title I of this Act, I have appointed Hugh Johnson as Administrator and a special Industrial Recovery Board under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of Commerce. This organization is now prepared to receive proposed Codes and to conduct prompt hearings looking toward their submission to me for approval. While acceptable proposals of no trade group will be delayed, it is my hope that the ten major industries which control the bulk of industrial employment can submit their simple basic Codes at once and that the country can look forward to the month of July as the beginning of our great national movement back to work.

...

Between these twin efforts--public works and industrial reemployment -- it is not too much to expect that a great many men and women can be taken from the ranks of the unemployed before winter comes. It is the most important attempt of this kind in history. As in the great crisis of the World War, it puts a whole people to the simple but vital test:--"Must we go on in many groping, disorganized, separate units to defeat or shall we move as one great team to victory?"

No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.

Grouped according to their several interests, individuals form classes; they form trade-unions when organized according to their several economic activities; but first and foremost they form the State, which is no mere matter of numbers, the suns of the individuals forming the majority. Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number; but it is the purest form of democracy if the nation be considered as it should be from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, expressing itself in a people as the conscience and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one, and ending to express itself in the conscience and the will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically molded by natural and historical conditions into a nation, advancing, as one conscience and one will, along the self same line of development and spiritual formation.

...

The Fascist State is, however, a unique and original creation. It is not reactionary but revolutionary, for it anticipates the solution of certain universal problems which have been raised elsewhere, in the political field by the splitting up of parties, the usurpation of power by parliaments, the irresponsibility of assemblies; in the economic field by the increasingly numerous and important functions discharged by trade unions and trade associations with their disputes and ententes, affecting both capital and labor; in the ethical field by the need felt for order, discipline, obedience to the moral dictates of patriotism.

Fascism desires the State to be strong and organic, based on broad foundations of popular support. The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporative, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organized in their res­pective associations, circulate within the State. A State based on millions of individuals who recognize its authority, feel its action, and are ready to serve its ends is not the tyrannical state of a mediaeval lordling. It has nothing in common with the despotic States existing prior to or subsequent to 1789.

Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves the individual adequate elbow room. It has curtailed useless or harmful liberties while preserving those which are essential.

...

The Ministry of Corporations is not a bureaucratic organ, nor does it wish to exercise the functions of syndical organizations which are necessarily independent, since they aim at organizing, selecting and improving the members of syndicates. The Ministry of Corporations is an institution in virtue of which, in the centre and outside, integral corporation becomes an accomplished fact, where balance is achieved between interests and forces of the economic world. Such a glance is only possible within the sphere of the state, because the state alone transcends the contrasting interests of groups and individuals, in view of co-coordinating them to achieve higher aims. The achievement of these aims is speeded up by the fact that all economic organizations, acknowledged, safeguarded and supported by the Corporative State, exist within the orbit of Fascism; in other terms they accept the conception of Fascism in theory and in practice.

...

We have constituted a Corporative and Fascist state, the state of national society, a State which concentrates, controls, harmonizes and tempers the interests of all social classes, which are thereby protected in equal measure. Whereas, during the years of demo-liberal regime, labour looked with diffidence upon the state, was, in fact, outside the State and against the state, and considered the state an enemy of every day and every hour, there is not one working Italian today who does not seek a place in his Corporation or federation, who does not wish to be a living atom of that great, immense, living organization which is the national Corporate State of Fascism.

teehee

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

One-bedrooms are a bad baseline because they ignore families/roommates.

FDR stated, when establishing these laws, that a minimum wage should allow for a decent living, not a bare subsistence level. I think being able to afford your own, average one-bedroom apartment in a rural area is a perfectly good metric for what constitutes a "decent living." Being relegated to sharing living space in a place like rural Oklahoma, or a rural area in my home state of WV, is not a decent living. If we're suggesting that a good baseline for a decent living is sharing a two-bedroom apartment in some middle of nowhere town, that's a pretty sad state of affairs.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

This function is pure fuckery:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomae's_function

(Real Analysis homework)

 

[Elaugaufein]

teehee

Next you're going to tell me that politicians sound like politicians.

 

[kirblar]

And partly because investment values have replaced use values because Capital needs a place to call home.

The housing issues in cities (w/ NY/SF as the extreme examples) are primarily due to NIMBYism. New building is intentionally made more difficult by the residents voting for these policies, which increases their investments while hurting both businesses (developers) and lower/middle income people who don't own property. Cities which aren't able to crank on these roadblocks as hard (due to zoning being controlled more at the state level in their area) have ended up with less housing issues because of it.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Is there actually some definition somewhere of what the "living" wage is supposed to pay for by the way? What's decent? Like does everybody get iPhones or are they stuck with Xiaomis?

 

[disastermouse]

teehee

I'm curious, Benji - where do you stand on the legitimacy of the employment contract?

 

[Elaugaufein]

Is there actually some definition somewhere of what the "living" wage is supposed to pay for by the way? Like does everybody get iPhones or are they stuck with Xiaomis?

Nope. It's not like you could anyway. The functional needs for living in a society in 17th Century England and 21st Century America are totally different. If you did write down a definition the same thing would happen to it as happened to the minimum wage, someone would fail to adjust it for political purposes and it'd languish into complete meaninglessness (unless you really think you need adequate tools for tilling your crops in Manhattan).

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I'm curious, Benji - where do you stand on the legitimacy of....?

Lemme just stop you right there....