Yeah...about that $15 minimum wage .....

[spanishninja]

Sitting around doesn't equal crime, I was laid off from my job and haven't stolen anything. Show some actual facts like I have in this thread or go yiff your pony.

I don't know if you're seriously arguing against the effects of unemployment on crime rates, but here's a scientific paper on the topic. Also, stop saying yiff like it's a real word.

https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstrea...ncimerates.pdf

[DesMephisto]

I don't know if you're seriously arguing against the effects of unemployment on crime rates, but here's a scientific paper on the topic. Also, stop saying yiff like it's a real word.

https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstrea...ncimerates.pdf

"Analyzing the relationship between unemployment and crime rate, we hypothesized that
there would be a positive correlation which our results support."

Correlation, you should go look that word up, then go and proceed to get an education before any psychologist anywhere laughs at you.

[Nadiru]

The economy isn't a living entity, it is litteraly a measure of monetary exchanges.

Economies aren't good or bad, people are.

Non-living entities can have something very wrong with them.

[Elegiac]

Non-living entities can have something very wrong with them.

That depends on whether or not you believe systemic flaws and systemic malfeasance are a thing. :P

[Nadiru]

That depends on whether or not you believe systemic flaws and systemic malfeasance are a thing. :P

Just because I don't agree with your prescriptions on how to solve systemic flaws scarcely means I don't think there's a problem

[Elegiac]

Just because I don't agree with your prescriptions on how to solve systemic flaws scarcely means I don't think there's a problem

I was referring to people who don't believe non-living entities can't be problematic.

A lot of the issue stems from a flaw in perspective; a lot of people are either unwilling or unable to look at the world from anything but an individual lens. History and society is less a process of human communities meeting their challenges and overcoming their predispositions and environmental obstacles and more of a narrative of individuals in complete command of their agency.

It's as basal and meaningless a view as 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'.

[spanishninja]

"Analyzing the relationship between unemployment and crime rate, we hypothesized that
there would be a positive correlation which our results support."

Correlation, you should go look that word up, then go and proceed to get an education before any psychologist anywhere laughs at you.

your trolling aside, are you also a climate change denier? After all, all the evidence between industrialization and temperature change has been correlative, with causation not being proven. Does that mean all the scientists are wrong?

On a serious note, more factors are at play in crime reduction than simply reducing unemployment. Reducing wealth inequality also is important. But I don't think you can seriously argue that reducing the amount of theoretically available time in the day to devote to committing crime would not reduce crime rates. You may not do illegal things in your free time, but you can't say that for everybody. And having people work less while making equal/less money does nothing to reduce idle time (potentially used for crime) or reduce wealth inequality.

Overall, I stand by the initial assertion that the goal of increasing minimum wages should be to increase income, not reduce hours worked.

[Elegiac]

your trolling aside, are you also a climate change denier? After all, all the evidence between industrialization and temperature change has been correlative, with causation not being proven. Does that mean all the scientists are wrong?

On a serious note, I don't think you can seriously argue that reducing the amount of theoretically available time in the day to devote to committing crime would not reduce crime rates. You may not do illegal things in your free time, but you can't say that for everybody.

I can safely say that based on observational evidence a surfeit of free time as it correlates to higher incidence of crime stems more from the fact that unemployment tends to lead to poverty which is -known- to have a causative relationship with antisocial behaviour.

[DesMephisto]

your trolling aside, are you also a climate change denier? After all, all the evidence between industrialization and temperature change has been correlative, with causation not being proven. Does that mean all the scientists are wrong?

On a serious note, more factors are at play in crime reduction than simply reducing unemployment. Reducing wealth inequality also is important. But I don't think you can seriously argue that reducing the amount of theoretically available time in the day to devote to committing crime would not reduce crime rates. You may not do illegal things in your free time, but you can't say that for everybody. And having people work less while making equal/less money does nothing to reduce idle time (potentially used for crime) or reduce wealth inequality.

Overall, I stand by the initial assertion that the goal of increasing minimum wages should be to increase income, not reduce hours worked.

There is actual evidence to support climate change, there isn't for your claim. That was a laughable article that looks like it was produced by a sophomore in college.

[Al Gorefiend]

"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." -Franklin D. Roosevelt June 16, 1933

Right now, the current minimum wage in many areas is not a livable wage.

And how many people set their standard of living beyond their means?

[kamuimac]

And how many people set their standard of living beyond their means?

most of them.

lets take easiest example - how many poor people use iphones when they could use much cheaper smartphones - and it builds up - if you waste money on X,Y,Z you are likely to waste money on A,B,C too .

thats why poor people stay poor - because they try to pretend they arent and end up without saving any money at all while spending all on usless shit.

[Elegiac]

most of them.

lets take easiest example - how many poor people use iphones when they could use much cheaper smartphones - and it builds up - if you waste money on X,Y,Z you are likely to waste money on A,B,C too .

thats why poor people stay poor - because they try to pretend they arent and end up without saving any money at all while spending all on usless shit.

I'm curious as to how you think a few hundred dollars for a phone that will last you a few years if you take care of it is going to offset the costs of medical bills, education, rent, and even food over the same period. God forbid people be allowed to have -one- luxury product, even ignoring that the price of consumer electronics has massively gone down whereas everything else has pretty much increased.

You don't get rich by saving money.

[melodramocracy]

And how many people set their standard of living beyond their means?

Pretty much everyone, which is why costs of living tend to outpace minimum wage.

[Bigbazz]

Doesn't a $15 minimum wage mean you're going to shift the whole economy and companies are going to be forced to take measures that result in job losses anyway? Thing is with things like this is that the companies are not going to just suck it up and carry on as usual, everything has to shift to adjust to this new base and you might end up in a worse place for it.

I'm obviously not an econimist, nor especially interested in the subject.. But it crops up a lot and I just wonder how people expect it's going to pan out, because increasing the minimum wage could put some companies out of business, other companies will attempt to replace people with automated systems (that they may have been holding out on due to costs) and prices of products and/or general living could simply increase at a faster than usual pace to meet the new standard living.

[Flutterguy]

This sounds like we need minimum hours laws!

[Elegiac]

Doesn't a $15 minimum wage mean you're going to shift the whole economy and companies are going to be forced to take measures that result in job losses anyway?

In a word: no.

- - - Updated - - -

This sounds like we need minimum hours laws!

Alternatively, lowering the definition of 'full-time' to thirty hours a week. Or mandate a shift to more salary-esque pay schemes.

[Bigbazz]

In a word: no.

- - - Updated - - -



Alternatively, lowering the definition of 'full-time' to thirty hours a week. Or mandate a shift to more salary-esque pay schemes.

You can't just say "in a word no" - That kinda just means you don't like what I'm saying but you also have no idea how to disagree with it from a logical point of view. By all means have an opinion, but that opinion can't be "you're not right because I don't like it".

[Mask]

Cut full time employees, add more part time employees. Pay is the same, you don't have to pay benefits. More temps, more interns. More half day Fridays. 6 hour shifts vs 8, no more overtime.

Looks like I just gained 2 extra hours a day to play World of Warcraft. Where do I sign up!

[Elegiac]

You can't just say "in a word no" - That kinda just means you don't like what I'm saying but you also have no idea how to disagree with it from a logical point of view. By all means have an opinion, but that opinion can't be "you're not right because I don't like it".

I said 'no' because I don't much care to reiterate what has already been said in this thread several times, but if you insist.

Firstly, the observational evidence; in no country, at no period time has a minimum wage hike ever resulted in appreciable much less long term unemployment. If anything, employment prospects have appeared to markedly improve due to the increased demand from the surplus buying power such hikes entail.

Secondly, companies do just 'suck it up'. If they're willing to let huge numbers of people go over a wage increase, clearly that labor wasn't necessary to begin with; moreover, there is a limit to how much cost they can pass on to the consumer by virtue of a) the market not being willing to tolerate a much higher price and b) the fact that labor is nowhere near 100% of production costs. There is mathematically always a net increase in buying power.

Thirdly, automation. Good riddance. A lot of the lowest paid work should quite frankly be automated because they are degrading, unsafe, or grinding. For the most part people will find jobs in other sectors that grow because of increased market demand, but even without a minimum wage hike the onset of increased technological refinement is going to result in this problem anyway.

[Bigbazz]

I said 'no' because I don't much care to reiterate what has already been said in this thread several times, but if you insist.

Firstly, the observational evidence; in no country, at no period time has a minimum wage hike ever resulted in appreciable much less long term unemployment. If anything, employment prospects have appeared to markedly improve due to the increased demand from the surplus buying power such hikes entail.

Secondly, companies do just 'suck it up'. If they're willing to let huge numbers of people go over a wage increase, clearly that labor wasn't necessary to begin with; moreover, there is a limit to how much cost they can pass on to the consumer by virtue of a) the market not being willing to tolerate a much higher price and b) the fact that labor is nowhere near 100% of production costs. There is mathematically always a net increase in buying power.

Thirdly, automation. Good riddance. A lot of the lowest paid work should quite frankly be automated because they are degrading, unsafe, or grinding. For the most part people will find jobs in other sectors that grow because of increased market demand, but even without a minimum wage hike the onset of increased technological refinement is going to result in this problem anyway.

That's a much better reply, thankyou. As for letting go jobs for automation seen as a good thing, a lot of people make a lot of fuss about this every day because lets say for example it's your mother/father, mid 50's and has maybe been working a position for 20-30 years that gets axed due to the new minimum wage making automation systems more attractive and the position is lost, a lot of those guys will struggle to find new work.

This sort of thing has already been happening a lot of course, but the newer minimum wage isn't going to work out for everybody. I'm not from the USA so forgive me if I'm wrong but a $15 minimum wage is basically double what it is now? That's no small difference, what makes you think that companies are willing to effectively double their workforce costs and just suck it up?