Support NeoGAF

[wutwutwut]

If your response is hyperbole, then you're really not being sincere about the topic.

Who the fuck is suggesting $100 an hour?

Good, clearly we've established that there is such a thing as a minimum wage that is too high, and the point of peak effectiveness is less than $100.

Now the question is: is it
(a) less than $12
(b) around $12
(c) around or over $15

You claim it's (c). I claim it's (b). What evidence do you have for (c)?

 

[wutwutwut]

I want to be clear that I do support more redistribution targeted toward the working poor, like expanded EITC -- particularly for childless couples and non-custodial parents.

 

[Foffy]

Good, clearly we've established that there is such a thing as a minimum wage that is too high, and the point of peak effectiveness is less than $100.

Now the question is: is it
(a) less than $12
(b) around $12
(c) around or over $15

You claim it's (c). I claim it's (b). What evidence do you have for (c)?

Look at the rate it's climbed and frozen to, as well as look at the returns via income versus the increase and personal productivity in labor.

Both here show a kind of paralysis to wages in general. If one was paid based on per capita productivity, minimum wage is already above the teens, into the early twenties.

My internet is being profoundly shite, so I can't bombard information at the moment, but I will try and give some information referring to the Great Decoupling problem I mentioned earlier, as I know that's a rather esoteric term.

I'd suggest watching the embedded video on this page to get a grasp to the problem of wages simply being paralyzed. For this reason, the idea of an increase is either resisted because people believe this will incorrectly cause a type of hyperinflation and displacement of labor -- the displacement is an inevitability, so this is really a nonsense qualm -- or people are so normalized to what we have that fixing it seems too stark, so baby increments are suggested and incorrectly asserted as a large enough solution.

When nearly 40% of Americans can't even make double the poverty line in terms of incomes, in the wealthiest, most productive nation in the history of the human species, you have to wonder just what in the fuck has gone wrong, here. It starts with a precariat class, and that includes frozen wages with a lack of growth to scales it should be linked towards. Productivity per capita is the clearest example, to me, on how this link has been severed.

May I ask why you think $12 is enough? Why is this the goldilocks minimum?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Why does everyone always bitch about the minimum wage when the problem has never been people at the low end of the scale? Wealth inequality happens at both ends, and you can't just say "ok, labor can't undercut each other" and be done with it; there needs to be a maximum in place too. Otherwise, what do you accomplish? At the very least, you can't focus on the minimum wage and ignore the upper income tax bracket being the lowest it's been in decades. Might that impact income inequality? You want to make America great again? Like the 1950s? Maybe 90% taxes on the highest incomes would help.

 

[pigeon]

Don't worry, Bernie will run again in 2020 to pit Democrats against each other once again.

If Bernie runs in 2020 he'll run a deliberately more defensive campaign and probably win the overwhelming majority of Democratic primary votes.

 

[pigeon]

Good, clearly we've established that there is such a thing as a minimum wage that is too high, and the point of peak effectiveness is less than $100.

Now the question is: is it
(a) less than $12
(b) around $12
(c) around or over $15

You claim it's (c). I claim it's (b). What evidence do you have for (c)?

I mean, what evidence do you have for b?

I submit that the fact that the minimum wage is lower in real dollars than it was previously is evidence, however scant, that option c is more likely. Unless you can point to a negative consequence of the previous minimum wage level.

 

[CCS]

The problem with the federal government having to lead on the minimum wage (because by and large states sure as hell aren't) is that it's not the sort of thing where you have a one size fits all solution. Neither $12 nor $15 is the right level, in some areas about $12 is right, in some about $15 is right, and in some cities you're probably looking at $20 or even more as a living wage. It's then a question of what gives you the best trade off between it not being too low in areas where living costs are high versus not being too high in areas where living costs are low.

I mean, in an ideal world the federal government wouldn't set a minimum wage at all, and each state would set an appropriate minimum wage (with possibly even further devolution to cities, for example San Fran and the surrounding areas need a higher minimum wage than north Cali). But given we have to take things as they are, I'm not sure which somewhat arbitrary number is better.

EDIT: Looking at changes in the real value of the minimum wage is a good argument that the average national minimum wage should be higher. However, what it can't tell you is how many people live and work in areas where productivity has barely increased, and where economic conditions are sufficiently suppressed that a higher minimum wage would be counterproductive. This comes back to the no one size fits all solution issue.

 

[pigeon]

I mean, in an ideal world the federal government wouldn't set a minimum wage at all, and each state would set an appropriate minimum wage (with possibly even further devolution to cities, for example San Fran and the surrounding areas need a higher minimum wage than north Cali). But given we have to take things as they are, I'm not sure which somewhat arbitrary number is better.

This is exactly how the minimum wage works? The Bay Area does have a higher minimum wage than the rest of the country, set by local legislation.

 

[Foffy]

The problem with the federal government having to lead on the minimum wage (because by and large states sure as hell aren't) is that it's not the sort of thing where you have a one size fits all solution. Neither $12 nor $15 is the right level, in some areas about $12 is right, in some about $15 is right, and in some cities you're probably looking at $20 or even more as a living wage. It's then a question of what gives you the best trade off between it not being too low in areas where living costs are high versus not being too high in areas where living costs are low.

I mean, in an ideal world the federal government wouldn't set a minimum wage at all, and each state would set an appropriate minimum wage (with possibly even further devolution to cities, for example San Fran and the surrounding areas need a higher minimum wage than north Cali). But given we have to take things as they are, I'm not sure which somewhat arbitrary number is better.

Ideally, people would have a minimum income, so a minimum wage would no longer be needed. People would be able to refuse work for low pay because they have bargaining power by simply being able to refuse. One of the reasons people -- conservatives -- are able to normalize aversion to minimum wage increases is that it will pull people out of being able to get jobs, the apparent objective goal of human life. Better to have full employment at starvation wages, it seems..

Until that is done, we're going to be trying to stitch up a ballooning pig. That oinker's gonna blow up sometime.

 

[CCS]

This is exactly how the minimum wage works? The Bay Area does have a higher minimum wage than the rest of the country, set by local legislation.

Sorry, I missed a few words out. What I was trying to say is that every state/area would set an appropriate minimum wage by themselves, so there wouldn't be any need for a national push to raise it to some arbitrary number everywhere.

 

[pigeon]

Ideally, people would have a minimum income, so a minimum wage would not longer be needed. People would be able to refuse work for low pay because they have bargaining power by simply being able to refuse.

Until that is done, we're going to be trying to stitch up a ballooning pig. That oinker's gonna blow up sometime.

Yeah, this is the problem I keep having with this conversation. We should just have a basic income and stop trying to prop up the labor market with price controls when the threat of death is pressing down hard on the other end.

 

[Vimes]

Usual suspects haven't learned shit I see.

Like how much more stark of a lesson in realpolitik can you get than watching a bunch of GOP obstructionist goons, having spent their entire history sniping from the sidelines, actually having to govern for once?

And yet the ragging on Clinton, Pelosi, and Bauman, and anyone with the slightest whiff of "establishment" continues.

How did you all imagine the Sanders presidency? I believe in his aims, but he's demonstrated absolute ineptitude at showing the political calculus to actually accomplish any of it. It would have been a shitshow. We have trouble enough from the legacy of Obama keeping his distance from the party.

If Bernie runs in 2020 he'll run a deliberately more defensive campaign and probably win the overwhelming majority of Democratic primary votes.

More like the overwhelming majority of social media users. The inability of the BoBs to dominate anything beyond the internet conversation was demonstrated in 2016.

 

[wutwutwut]

I mean, what evidence do you have for b?

I submit that the fact that the minimum wage is lower in real dollars than it was previously is evidence, however scant, that option c is more likely. Unless you can point to a negative consequence of the previous minimum wage level.

http://www.epi.org/publication/rais...d-lift-wages-for-35-million-american-workers/

The rule of thumb is that the minimum wage works well until it reaches around 50% of median wage. The EPI published and Hillary chose $12 based on that.

Yeah, this is the problem I keep having with this conversation. We should just have a basic income and stop trying to prop up the labor market with price controls when the threat of death is pressing down hard on the other end.

Again, there are politically feasible ways to do this right now, like EITC expansion.

 

[Foffy]

Yeah, this is the problem I keep having with this conversation. We should just have a basic income and stop trying to prop up the labor market with price controls when the threat of death is pressing down hard on the other end.

Paradoxically, all those free marketers don't even realize this is literally the ticket to a free market.

After all, if one says the market acts normally and reasonably, this can only be done without coercion. We live in a society where it's entirely based upon coercion, because one does not have the freedom from work. It's work or starve. This deeply limits people's abilities, forcing them into holes with seldom an escape.

James Livingston recently wrote about the problems the demands of jobs make in this way and thensome, which I think it's a good supplemental piece to my point. Arguably, it hits the problems of the imposition of jobs I often harp on as perhaps one of, if not the most toxic idea held by masses, because it's so secular.

 

[pigeon]

http://www.epi.org/publication/rais...d-lift-wages-for-35-million-american-workers/

The rule of thumb is that the minimum wage works well until it reaches around 50% of median wage. The EPI published and Hillary chose $12 based on that.


Again, there are politically feasible ways to do this right now, like EITC expansion.

Literally by definition, the EITC requires you to get a job.

This is a totally ineffective way to deliver a basic income and give workers more negotiation power, for reasons which should be extremely obvious.

 

[sc0la]

Unless you can point to a negative consequence of the previous minimum wage level.

The highest real minimum wage was given to the boomers and they went on to ruin everything.

 

[wutwutwut]

Literally by definition, the EITC requires you to get a job.

This is a totally ineffective way to deliver a basic income and give workers more negotiation power, for reasons which should be extremely obvious.

EITC is supplemental basic income if you have a job. I... like the idea of basic income, but don't think we're at the point yet (politically or economically) that the state can support you even if you don't have a job.

 

[pigeon]

EITC is supplemental basic income if you have a job. I... like the idea of basic income, but don't think we're at the point yet (politically or economically) that the state can support you even if you don't have a job.

I don't see why there would be an economic problem. It's not like we're running out of stuff. What we're running out of is motivation to innovate, which is a consequence of low labor value, which is caused by coercion in the job market. If we fix that our total factor productivity will start rising again. Arguably a basic income will just pay for itself.

Politically, maybe not, but that's why I'm here pointing out the moral and economic imperative for implementing a basic income, to build a political groundswell for it. Stop sabotaging me and join me! Your voice will count that much more since there are so few of us.

 

[FyreWulff]

EITC is supplemental basic income if you have a job. I... like the idea of basic income, but don't think we're at the point yet (politically or economically) that the state can support you even if you don't have a job.

Basic income payouts would be speedily reclaimed via taxation, as in a basic income economy, there would be less anxiety about spending since you could spend more money since more was coming the next month guaranteed.

All we're doing right now anyway by keeping the minimum wage artificially low is that we spend money on food stamps and welfare to shore up the shitty employers that employ people with substandard jobs payments. We're already spending the money - we might as well stop going through the theatrical motions where people pretend the low minimum wage isn't causing this.

 

[Foffy]

EITC is supplemental basic income if you have a job. I... like the idea of basic income, but don't think we're at the point yet (politically or economically) that the state can support you even if you don't have a job.

The issue is more political than economic. Guy Standing, the leading figure on the concept of basic income for the last 30 years, has said practically every nation on earth can do it. If India can consider going federal with it, so can America.

In America, we really believe if you don't work, you're a parasite. Worse still, we also believe in so much dualistic nonsense that we truly believe people are paid "what they're worth" and link socioeconomic standings to free will isolationism and that alone. Worse still, many believe that doing something like this is literally "giving up" on people, something Hillary Clinton said publicly when asked about it.

Of course, she was planning in private to use TANF as a pool to do UBI programs, if elected, but we only know this via email leaks...

The political will is lacking because of many long periods of propaganda. Ages long stories of Protestant work ethic mixed with a constantly commodified world that sees that same world in too great of separation is the perfect cocktail to be caught in, and we as members of society are absolutely drunk on it.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Usual suspects haven't learned shit I see.

Like how much more stark of a lesson in realpolitik can you get than watching a bunch of GOP obstructionist goons, having spent their entire history sniping from the sidelines, actually having to govern for once?

And yet the ragging on Clinton, Pelosi, and Bauman, and anyone with the slightest whiff of "establishment" continues.

How did you all imagine the Sanders presidency? I believe in his aims, but he's demonstrated absolute ineptitude at showing the political calculus to actually accomplish any of it. It would have been a shitshow. We have trouble enough from the legacy of Obama keeping his distance from the party.

More like the overwhelming majority of social media users. The inability of the BoBs to dominate anything beyond the internet conversation was demonstrated in 2016.

Everytime I lay a defense for Bernie by stating the facts it is because Hillary-stans attack first. This time with ponies and herp a derp so true, amazing, 10000 percent.

You guys should really let it go. But you can't! You're not being provoked...you just like to shoot shit for whatever reasons I do not know.

But yeah, blame the usual suspects who didnt start the fight.

I hate Hill but I voted for her in the general. I can hold my nose. How bout you guys grow up and move on from having Bernie be your punching bag? You are poor representatives for your queen or I guess from the snippets from the book, just right. I dunno. I don't get ya guys.

 

[Vimes]

It's not like we're running out of stuff. What we're running out of is motivation to innovate, which is a consequence of low labor value, which is caused by coercion in the job market.

Hmm. This is a good point.

If we fix that our total factor productivity will start rising again. Arguably a basic income will just pay for itself.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't productivity rising in parallel with humans being taken out of the workforce?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Everytime I lay a defense for Bernie by stating the facts it is because Hillary-stans attack first. This time with ponies and herp a derp so true, amazing, 10000 percent.

You guys should really let it go. But you can't! You're not being provoked...you just like to shoot shit for whatever reasons I do not know.

But yeah, blame the usual suspects who didnt start the fight.

I hate Hill but I voted for her in the general. I can hold my nose. How bout you guys grow up and move on from having Bernie be your punching bag? You are poor representatives for your queen or I guess from the snippets from the book, just right. I dunno. I don't get ya guys.

Please never lecture anyone on maturity again.

 

[pigeon]

Hmm. This is a good point.



Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't productivity rising in parallel with humans being taken out of the workforce?

Oddly enough, productivity acceleration is actually slowing. We still have productivity growth, but the amount is less every year instead of more.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Please never lecture anyone on maturity again.

Convincing argument you have there with your drive by shit post.

 

[Suikoguy]

Convincing argument you have there with your drive by shit post.

How have you yet to notice that there has not been a single reply to any of your posts taking you seriously?

Yet you keep going on rants, basically talking to yourself and accusing others of shit posting.

Just amazing.

By all means, continue.

 

[Pixieking]

How have you yet to notice that there has not been a single reply to any of your posts taking you seriously?

Yet you keep going on rants, basically talking to yourself and accusing others of shit posting.

Just amazing.

By all means, continue.

I tried taking them seriously, and they ignored me. Ironic, really, considering I now have them on ignore.

 

[pigeon]

Please stop responding to him ty

 

[Deleted member 231381]

He's not wrong insofar as that for a group of people who constantly complain about others relitigating the 2016 primaries, it's a bit rich to be posting the memoirs of a failed and irrelevant politician with no aim other than tarnishing the 2020 frontrunner.

Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν.

 

[Pixieking]

He's not wrong insofar as that for a group of people who constantly complain about others relitigating the 2016 primaries, it's a bit rich to be posting the memoirs of a failed and irrelevant politician with no aim other than tarnishing the 2020 frontrunner.

Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν.

*shrugs* I personally think it's a bit suspicious that only those two pages have been leaked so far. I'd much rather read about her thoughts on Putin, Trump, and the deplorables. And I'd be surprised if her complaints about Bernie went much beyond those two pages (at least in terms of specifics). If I were of a cynical mind, I'd say they were leaked specifically to start more bickering and in-fighting.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I don't think political sour grapes needs a more malevolent explanation. Nobody here seems to need Russian prompting to bitch about anyone else, we do it for free.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Yet you keep going on rants, basically talking to yourself and accusing others of shit posting.

That wasn't a shit post?

I'll chime in when I'm compelled to. Thanks for understanding.

If you love the Pony remarks, great.
#WhatHappenedToTheHighRoad?

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I have a question about disaster relief.

If Harvey did 160 billion in damage, who pays for it? Does congress need to make a 160 billion dollar relief bill, do insurance companies pay for most of it, or are most people just screwed out of their homes/cars/posessions?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I have a question about disaster relief.

If Harvey did 160 billion in damage, who pays for it? Does congress need to make a 160 billion dollar relief bill, do insurance companies pay for most of it, or are most people just screwed out of their homes/cars/posessions?

Bit of all three, plus state government relief spending too.

 

[nature boy]

Daddy Vlad not happy about North Korea:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1428605

"Russia condemns North Korea's exercises, we consider that they are a provocation ... (But) ramping up military hysteria will lead to nothing good. It could lead to a global catastrophe," he told reporters.

He said it was “ridiculous” that the US first slapped Russia with sanctions carried in the same bill that penalised North Korea, and “then asked us to help impose sanctions on North Korea."
"This is being done by people who mix up Australia with Austria," he added.

CAN'T WAIT FOR THE TWEETS

Spoiler

not gonna happen

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Sanctions on North Korea won't work either. There's no realistic sanction that is more harmful to North Korea than the prospect of losing regime security; they're already basically an autarchy. There's no good you can take away that would cause them to go 'fine, no more nukes'.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

With everything happening, I really can't find it in myself to care about Hillary Clinton's book or whatever she has to say about Bernie Sanders. I wish it wasn't about to get a ton of attention.

Yeah, agreed. I honestly can't think of a political topic that would be less interesting to read about. Maybe that prize would actually go to the posts salivating about making the thread, for the purposes of roiling up Bernie fans. Surely, there are enough things of actual consequence going on right now.

 

[Pixieking]

Yeah, agreed. I honestly can't think of a political topic that would be less interesting to read about. Maybe that prize would actually go to the posts salivating about making the thread, for the purposes of roiling up Bernie fans. Surely, there are enough things of actual consequence going on right now.

I mean, considering my posts on this were 8 or 10 hours ago, and I moved the conversation on with my post querying how to make the apathetic left/centre left voters care, it's weird to bring this back to the front. I even gave a reasoned answer to why I think there may be value to an OT on the book - things to unpack and that may be of interest.

But whatevs. *shrug emoji*

 

[tbm24]

I take it when I get my hands on this Hillary book and want to talk about it, I'll be somehow hurting the current state of affairs by invoking her existence? Only thing I can realistically take from the last two pages.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Sounds about right, yeah.

 

[jtb]

this cowardly piece of shit

@realDonaldTrump
Congress, get ready to do your job - DACA!

 

[Mark Andrew]

this cowardly piece of shit

@realDonaldTrump
Congress, get ready to do your job - DACA!

Will be amazing to watch the man who called for a Muslim ban argue that he ended DACA over constitutional concerns.

 

[benicillin]

I take it when I get my hands on this Hillary book and want to talk about it, I'll be somehow hurting the current state of affairs by invoking her existence? Only thing I can realistically take from the last two pages.

I think that would depend on the context. I've just got no interest in seeing people continue to relitigate the primary in service of more YAAAS QUEEN SLAY BERNIE. Like, she lost, the election is over, and like all Democrats (in name or not) he's been out there advocating and fighting for the party and party platform.

this cowardly piece of shit

@realDonaldTrump
Congress, get ready to do your job - DACA!

He never takes responsibility for literally anything. This shouldn't still shock me, but it does.

 

[tbm24]

this cowardly piece of shit

@realDonaldTrump
Congress, get ready to do your job - DACA!

Trump ending DACA didn't surprise me. I knew that was coming because it's simple for him to do. Trump tweeting about it like this? He's going to be doing this shit for he next 6 months until the dreamers are tossed in prisons and shipped out. Then he'll continue to do it.

 

[jtb]

Hillary kinda lost me with this Peter Daou shilling. We really didn't need that.

Yeah, yeah, private citizen. Whatever. Do better.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Am I the only one that thinks framing Bernie's argument that too many politicians supported virtually all of the several trillion dollars in spending on war since 9/11 and never asked how much it would cost.. but then turned around and to say we can't afford to pay for a single payer bill and act like it's ridiculous that someone is even proposing it, as "2 second abs" is really stupid or...

Their differences in votes and records of where their priorities are here in this regard was absolutely not just superficial marketing stuff. I mean yeah she eventually supported a public option which is good.. but it isn't like it was easy to get her there. Bernie practically had to hold his endorsement hostage to make it happen.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

By "it wasn't easy to get her there" you mean "she supported since at least the 90s"

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Am I the only one that thinks framing Bernie's argument that too many politicians supported virtually all of the several trillion dollars in spending on war since 9/11 and never asked how much it would cost.. but then turned around and to say we can't afford to pay for a single payer bill and act like it's ridiculous that someone is even proposing it, as "2 second abs" is really stupid or...

Their differences in votes and records of where their priorities are here in this regard was absolutely not just superficial marketing stuff. I mean yeah she eventually supported a public option which is good.. but it isn't like it was easy to get her there. Bernie practically had to hold his endorsement hostage to make it happen.

I also find it amusing how Clinton's lukewarm package is sold as 'she could feasibly pass hers, Bernie's is just unrealistic!'. Go read Clinton's policy commitments, then consider what a lame-duck Clinton could pass in the face of a Republican House and Senate. She wasn't going to able to achieve even a quarter of her campaign issues, if that. Both of them were setting out what they would ideally do, rather than what political constraints would necessarily allow for - and the fact she won't own up to that just smacks of hypocrisy.

 

[Mark Andrew]

Amazing that Trump wants a dysfunctional Congress to take up tax reform and some kind of DACA fix, when we needed a Harvey relief package like yesterday and there’s three weeks left to both keep the government running and avoid default.

 

[jtb]

I also find it amusing how Clinton's lukewarm package is sold as 'she could feasibly pass hers, Bernie's is just unrealistic!'. Go read Clinton's policy commitments, then consider what a lame-duck Clinton could pass in the face of a Republican House and Senate. She wasn't going to able to achieve even a quarter of her campaign issues, if that. Both of them were setting out what they would ideally do, rather than what political constraints would necessarily allow for - and the fact she won't own up to that just smacks of hypocrisy.

I don't think the expectation was that she would have a GOP house and senate.

anyways, it strikes me as a moot point as Trump and the 2016 election have given all the moderate Dems a ton of cover to move to the left. Which they have happily taken.