California is first state to approve $15 minimum wage

[Cthulhu 2020]

I mean, the data we've got is so thin that I can't really imagine how you can make that claim. If you think the future of the economy is this obvious, this set in stone for people that haven't even begun to work yet, you're a fuckin' genius of prognostication and I suggest invest according to whatever the obvious outcomes are.

"Haven't even begun to work yet"? So 13-15 years isn't working yet? Those just barely starting out are having to deal with the lowest minimum wage in decades, and social mobility is at its worst since the great depression.

This is one stat among many - the overall trend is a decrease in household size, not an increase.

Lower household size can be attributed to more than people moving out. There's far more apartment complexes than ever, far more young people living in apartments. Millenials are buying homes years later than the past averages, and lower household size also is attributed to lower birth rates. Lower household size takes into account MANY factors. More young people are living at home than they have in a long time. And those who are living on their own are doing so in rented apartments, not owned homes like was the past trends.

[Deleted]

rip small businesses

this kind of pisses me off. if companies cant afford to pay a decent wage, then so be it.
im sorry, but its always the poorest that get shafted & you get all the employers saying "oh, we cant afford it". no, but you can afford that big house you live in, that expensive car(s) that you own. good on california (from a brit). i just wish our living wage was as high, our equivilent is just over $10 per hour.
our government is talking about £9 or $13 by 2020, but i wont be holding my breath as these fuckers change their mind on policies like the wind changes direction.

[Spectral]

"Haven't even begun to work yet"? So 13-15 years isn't working yet? Those just barely starting out are having to deal with the lowest minimum wage in decades, and social mobility is at its worst since the great depression.

People that are 16-18 are typically not working (or aren't in their careers). Those that are 30 have, on average, been working, yes, but it's not at all clear that their earnings or quality of life will be worse than previous generations. The group that came of age during the recession is probably screwed due to bad timing and luck, but the next crop we don't really know much about yet.

Lower household size can be attributed to more than people moving out. There's far more apartment complexes than ever, far more young people living in apartments. Millenials are buying homes years later than the past averages, and lower household size also is attributed to lower birth rates.

No shit. I was addressing the claim that household income data is used by "right wing economists" to fraudulently paint a positive picture. That notion is exactly backwards - there are fewer paired households than in the past and less people per household.

[alexw]

How in the world could you know this? The oldest millennials are 30 years old. Declaring that they'll definitely make less at age 60 than previous generations seems more than a little premature. Declaring that 16 year olds will earn less at every stage of their life is definitely premature.

We don't know this definitely right now, but they certainly are on trend for this according to the data we currently have. They are basically missing or are going to miss all the key life milestones by a wide margin.

http://uk.askmen.com/news/power_mone...y-screwed.html

If things continue as they are (i.e. the system stays the same) then millennials will be poorer than their parents at every stage of their lives. That is not a strategy for social harmony or having a prosperous nation.

[Random010203]

Lower household size can be attributed to more than people moving out. There's far more apartment complexes than ever, far more young people living in apartments. Millenials are buying homes years later than the past averages, and lower household size also is attributed to lower birth rates.

Going to actually have to agree with Batman on this one. Apartment markets are absolutely saturated right now, rates are sky high for even studios (at least in the NE USA). It isn't practical or affordable to be spending 10,000 to 15,000 a year on an apartment which gives you no assets at the end of your lease.

[Shadowferal]

...not pretty...

[Random010203]

People that are 16-18 are typically not working (or aren't in their careers).

Around 70% of 16 to 18 year old teenagers work according to the government, maybe not in a career, but they still hold a job.

[Spectral]

...not pretty...

Titling this "losing ground" is just weird. The top graph pretty plainly shows a larger growth in the "Upper" portion than in the "Lower" portion. A better title would be something like, "The Middle Class is Diverging". Their are more economic winners and more economic losers, with less people who are just doing alright. That's definitely a concern and we should talk about it, but just painting it as an across the board loss isn't really right.

[Random010203]

this kind of pisses me off. if companies cant afford to pay a decent wage, then so be it.
im sorry, but its always the poorest that get shafted & you get all the employers saying "oh, we cant afford it". no, but you can afford that big house you live in, that expensive car(s) that you own. good on california (from a brit). i just wish our living wage was as high, our equivilent is just over $10 per hour.
our government is talking about £9 or $13 by 2020, but i wont be holding my breath as these fuckers change their mind on policies like the wind changes direction.

OK m8, that's just not fair, and obviously you didn't do the math so let me fill you in. Let's say a company has 4 workers, those workers are paid 10 dollars an hour with no OT. The expenses for that business just for those four labor workers would be 40 hours*4 workers*$10 an hour=$1600 a week just in labor, not including any other fees or costs. Now lets raise that wage to $15 an hour. That new total is now 40 hours*4 workers*15 an hour=$2400! The employer now has to pay an additional $800 just in expenses. That is DEVASTATING to small business owners especially small hobby shops, pizza joints, and low demand businesses.

Become a business owner, and then run the numbers, your tune will change real quick.

[Cthulhu 2020]

People that are 16-18 are typically not working (or aren't in their careers). Those that are 30 have, on average, been working, yes, but it's not at all clear that their earnings or quality of life will be worse than previous generations. The group that came of age during the recession is probably screwed due to bad timing and luck, but the next crop we don't really know much about yet.

True enough that it's too early to tell what the end game holds for them, but the trend so far is low, and if you're older, you should know how important a good start is, and how it can affect the tone for the rest of your life, even if the economy does improve dramatically.

[Spectral]

Around 70% of 16 to 18 year old teenagers work according to the government, maybe not in a career, but they still hold a job.

Gonna need a citation on this one. The BLS data I find breaks it out into 16-19, 16-17, and 18-19. That data shows 16-17 year olds participating at 22.4% and 16-19 year olds at 34.9%.

- - - Updated - - -

True enough that it's too early to tell what the end game holds for them, but the trend so far is low, and if you're older, you should know how important a good start is, and how it can affect the tone for the rest of your life, even if the economy does improve dramatically.

Sure. I'm 30. The recession didn't meaningfully impact me, but the false-step of choosing a career that I scrapped when I was 28 cost me a lot of money. I have no doubt that the recession did some serious damage to the crop graduating college in those years, but I'm much more optimistic about the future. The data Shadowferal points is consistent with the hypothesis that technology (and policies) have driven divergence in winners and losers. As I've said a number of times in the thread, I'm in favor of addressing that via redistribution.

[Random010203]

Gonna need a citation on this one. The BLS data I find breaks it out into 16-19, 16-17, and 18-19. That data shows 16-17 year olds participating at 22.4% and 16-19 year olds at 34.9%.

I could be completely skewing my logic, statistics aren't my bread and butter, but this article links the unemployment rate at 30% for that demographic. Assuming we can make the assumption that it includes all people that can work for that age group, that would calculate a 70% working force for that group no?

https://www.epionline.org/release/o254/

[alexw]

People that are 16-18 are typically not working (or aren't in their careers). Those that are 30 have, on average, been working, yes, but it's not at all clear that their earnings or quality of life will be worse than previous generations. The group that came of age during the recession is probably screwed due to bad timing and luck, but the next crop we don't really know much about yet.

This is just wrong. It is already extremely clear that the earnings and quality of life of millennials will be much worse than their parents at every stage of their lives. We have lots and lots of data going back decades to plot trends and it is quite clear from that data how those trends work out. That means if we take millennials and plot those trends for them we can see how they will end up because those trends are very very stable over the generations.

Take just one trend student debt. We know how much debt they have. We know how much prior generations had. We know generally the rate at which generations are able to pay it off. Thus we can extrapolate how long it will take to clear for each one. Ergo we know millennials will be burdened down by college debts for far longer and it will take a far higher share of their incomes than it did for boomers.

[Spectral]

I could be completely skewing my logic, statistics aren't my bread and butter, but this article links the unemployment rate at 30% for that demographic. Assuming we can make the assumption that it includes all people that can work for that age group, that would calculate a 70% working force for that group no?

https://www.epionline.org/release/o254/

No worries - employment rate isn't the number of people in a group working. It's the number of people trying to find work that are working. Most people in the 16-19 demographic aren't in the labor force at all yet and aren't counted in the U3-U6 data.

[Random010203]

No worries - employment rate isn't the number of people in a group working. It's the number of people trying to find work that are working. Most people in the 16-19 demographic aren't in the labor force at all yet and aren't counted in the U3-U6 data.

Thanks for clarifying, I figured there was more to it than what I assumed lol.

[Deleted]

OK m8, that's just not fair, and obviously you didn't do the math so let me fill you in. Let's say a company has 4 workers, those workers are paid 10 dollars an hour with no OT. The expenses for that business just for those four labor workers would be 40 hours*4 workers*$10 an hour=$1600 a week just in labor, not including any other fees or costs. Now lets raise that wage to $15 an hour. That new total is now 40 hours*4 workers*15 an hour=$2400! The employer now has to pay an additional $800 just in expenses. That is DEVASTATING to small business owners especially small hobby shops, pizza joints, and low demand businesses.

Become a business owner, and then run the numbers, your tune will change real quick.

it wont mate, trust me. if you cant afford to pay someone a decent living wage, go bust.

[jakeic]

OK m8, that's just not fair, and obviously you didn't do the math so let me fill you in. Let's say a company has 4 workers, those workers are paid 10 dollars an hour with no OT. The expenses for that business just for those four labor workers would be 40 hours*4 workers*$10 an hour=$1600 a week just in labor, not including any other fees or costs. Now lets raise that wage to $15 an hour. That new total is now 40 hours*4 workers*15 an hour=$2400! The employer now has to pay an additional $800 just in expenses. That is DEVASTATING to small business owners especially small hobby shops, pizza joints, and low demand businesses.

Become a business owner, and then run the numbers, your tune will change real quick.

If the business can't afford to pay the new minimum wage then it was operating under a faulty model, and as such it can either adjust to the new reality or close. But your analogy assumes that this business operates in a vacuum, which they don't, every other business will have increased labor costs which will propagate through as a slight increase in prices and a lowering of profit margins. Additionally, your analogy doesn't take into account the increased spending going on that could affect the businesses revenue.

Finally, businesses are not righteous by their existence and a businesses right to exist does not supersede its employees right to a fair wage.

[Random010203]

it wont mate, trust me. if you cant afford to pay someone a decent living wage, go bust.

Some people would love to get $10 dollars an hour, I'm sure all the people working at grocery stores making 7.25 would LOVE to make that much money. You're acting like businesses owners are deliberately trying to screw the common man, which in most times isn't the case. They still have to make a profit so their business survives.

- - - Updated - - -

If the business can't afford to pay the new minimum wage then it was operating under a faulty model, and as such it can either adjust to the new reality or close. But your analogy assumes that this business operates in a vacuum, which they don't, every other business will have increased labor costs which will propagate through as slight increased prices and a lowering of profit margins. Additionally, your analogy doesn't take into account the increased spending going on that could effect the businesses revenue.

Finally, businesses are not righteous by their existence and a businesses right to exist does not supersede its employees right to a fair wage.

You're right, they don't operate in a vacuum, which means there are even more expenses to employing someone other than the overhead for their compensation.

This can include: Productivity due to training someone new, uniform expenses, tool expenses, transportation expenses, the list goes on. Training isn't free, so if we take my analogy out of the vacuum and put it into the real world, it becomes EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE.

The difference between 10 and 15 is FIVE dollars, that has nothing to do with a "faulty model" if it was a .25 cents increase, then maybe you would have some argument. but a 1.5 times increase is just ludicrous.

[Endus]

Going to actually have to agree with Batman on this one. Apartment markets are absolutely saturated right now, rates are sky high for even studios (at least in the NE USA). It isn't practical or affordable to be spending 10,000 to 15,000 a year on an apartment which gives you no assets at the end of your lease.

This doesn't hold up. We're arguing that such small businesses will pass that expense along to their customers. The problem with your analysis, here, is that the prices would increase by a small amount, much less than the wage bump, leaving those low-income earners with greater purchasing power, after all things are factored in.

Nobody has been arguing that prices will or should be forced to remain static. We've been saying the increase in wages outpaces the resulting inflation in prices, because wages are only a fractional cost of what goes into a price point.

Businesses that go under due to a minimum wage hike do so not because of the wage increase, but due to a business model that left little wiggle room to adapt to changing conditions. In short; they fucked up, and that's why they closed their doors. Most small businesses weather minimum wage hikes without an issue.

[Random010203]

This doesn't hold up. We're arguing that such small businesses will pass that expense along to their customers. The problem with your analysis, here, is that the prices would increase by a small amount, much less than the wage bump, leaving those low-income earners with greater purchasing power, after all things are factored in.

Uh, yeah....I never disagreed with that sentiment, I completely and utterly agree that prices would NOT increase by a large variable amount.

I was simply agreeing about the current apartment housing situation.