California is first state to approve $15 minimum wage

[Kellhound]

Because I am stating the extremely obvious. If you spend 5 minutes actually looking at the data you find that the states that are the most prosperous and where the population have the highest living standards, are virtually all blue states. Then if you do the exact opposite and look for which states are the least prosperous and the poorest in the nation you will see that they are virtually all red states.

Here for example is a list of household income by state -
http://blogs.voanews.com/all-about-a...oorest-states/

Top = virtually all blue.
Red = virtually all red.

The right of course tries to mask this by throwing in their own made up metrics. For example which is the most business friendly, which is the most competitive, etc, which they themselves decide the criteria on. But if any of these were actually true and/or had the effect they claimed then why exactly are virtually all the richest most prosperous states blue and the poorest red? I'm sorry but measures such as education levels, gdp per capita, household income data, etc, don't lie. If you want your state to be rich vote democrat. If you want it to be poor vote republican. End of.

Yet California has the highest poverty rate geographically adjusted in the US and 35th worst poverty rate based on national household income numbers.

[alexw]

Yet California has the highest poverty rate geographically adjusted in the US and 35th worst poverty rate based on national household income numbers.

a) What do you mean geographically adjusted?

b) you mean its basically lower-middle of the pack.

c) well done for cherry-picking one particular state on one particular metric so that it (somewhat) suits your argument.

d) Again doesn't negate the fact that the richest most prosperous states are virtually all blue states while the poorest are red when averaged across multiple metrics. Or are you going to claim this isn't the case?

[SirPiken]

Cost if living is so high they need it.

Any business that has minimum wage employees will raise the price on their goods and/or services thus raising the cost of living so this makes perfect sense.

[Kellhound]

a) What do you mean geographically adjusted?

b) you mean its basically lower-middle of the pack.

c) well done for cherry-picking one particular state on one particular metric so that it (somewhat) suits your argument.

d) Again doesn't negate the fact that the richest most prosperous states are virtually all blue states while the poorest are red when averaged across multiple metrics.

A: Geographically adjusted takes into account cost of living, so it is a more appropriate measure than comparing to national poverty standards.
B: Or dead last when cost of living is taken into account.
C: It is both the lowest ranked State and the state this thread is about.
D: It shows "richest and most prosperous" can also have the highest real poverty rates, which should never be true.

[alexw]

A: Geographically adjusted takes into account cost of living, so it is a more appropriate measure than comparing to national poverty standards.
B: Or dead last when cost of living is taken into account.
C: It is both the lowest ranked State and the state this thread is about.
D: It shows "richest and most prosperous" can also have the highest real poverty rates, which should never be true.

B: It has the highest cost of living because of real estate values. That is an economic bubble and is not about the real wealth generating capacity of California.
C: No it is cherry picking.
D: Only you are saying that. And you did not counter my point that when averaged across multiple metrics the richest most prosperous states are virtually all blue and the poorest virtually all red. Is this true or not? A simple yes or no and/or direct answer to the point raised will do.

[Kellhound]

B: It has the highest cost of living because of real estate values. That is an economic bubble and is not about the real wealth generating capacity of California.
C: No it is cherry picking.
D: Only you are saying that. And you did not counter my point that when averaged across multiple metrics the richest most prosperous states are virtually all blue and the poorest virtually all red. Is this true or not? A simple yes or no and/or direct answer to the point raised will do.

B: It still forces more people to live in poverty, it creates more have nots.
C: Only because you dont like the numbers.
D: The richest often have a higher disparity between the haves and have nots. But that should never be the case in a Blue state. I know that is a number you REALLY want to look away from, so I understand why you will not accept it.

[DeadmanWalking]

B: It has the highest cost of living because of real estate values. That is an economic bubble and is not about the real wealth generating capacity of California.
C: No it is cherry picking.
D: Only you are saying that. And you did not counter my point that when averaged across multiple metrics the richest most prosperous states are virtually all blue and the poorest virtually all red. Is this true or not? A simple yes or no and/or direct answer to the point raised will do.

It is not cherry picking if the thread is about California. You are just looking for a way to dismiss facts that don't fit your personal narrative

[alexw]

B: It still forces more people to live in poverty, it creates more have nots.
C: Only because you dont like the numbers.
D: The richest often have a higher disparity between the haves and have nots. But that should never be the case in a Blue state. I know that is a number you REALLY want to look away from, so I understand why you will not accept it.

B: Are you going to actually directly respond to the point I raised at some point?
C: Are you going to actually directly respond to the point I raised at some point?
D: Are you going to actually directly respond to the point I raised at some point?

- - - Updated - - -

It is not cherry picking if the thread is about California. You are just looking for a way to dismiss facts that don't fit your personal narrative

No the thread is about the minimum wage in California not its poverty rate. Moreover the post he responded to was a direct comparison between red and blue states stating that blue states are richer and more prosperous and that red states are poorer (in itself a response to Knada claiming the exact opposite (see I directly responded on point to the claim being made!)).

So why did he not respond directly to the point I was making? Is it because that point is factually correct? Instead he cherry picks and goes into whataboutery land because he doesn't like the truth and doesn't want to admit it.

[Yvaelle]

How the fuck does that one compute?

Well Wells, you see - long ago we had 100% rural employment, and 100% of employed people were rural - everyone foraged, hunted, crafted, built shelter, took care of children, etc.

Then the conservative apocalypse struck. The dreaded socialists invaded their lands, began building bigger tribes - with greater specialization - and better social safety nets to maximize gross productivity. They even went so far as to learn new knowledge and record it - the same thing that got us kicked out of Eden! The heretics! The fools!

Soon - sure enough - they'd built entire cities full of knowledge, heretical technology, governance ruled by policy interested in their collective best interest. It was a dark time for conservatives - these social people were ruining their way of life - luring the children to their 'societies' with promises of a better life. Unemployment fell dramatically in rural areas - as fewer people were foraging and hunting anymore. So you see - liberalism is to blame for the fall of conservative traditions

[Sprinky]

1> My argument doubled all wages, not just minimum-wage earners. So claiming otherwise just means you weren't paying attention.
2> Profit margins were retained throughout. Again; you're not paying attention.
3> Yes, prices rise, but not as rapidly as wages.

It would really help if you took the time to actually read and understand what you were presented with. Because you're claiming this that were explicitly off the table in my example.

My apologies if I missed something from your example. However I still cant see where you are getting this extra money from because it has to come from somewhere. I guess in the short the extra money could come from businesses that are slow to realise that they need to rise their prices therefore creating a small period where the wage rises actually help people. However there is limited money to go around, and I cant see the money coming out of the pockets of the 1% to go to the under achievers.

Further to your example. If I am understanding you correctly you are saying that I will still make the same cash amount as I made previously per widget but my profit margin (which is a percentage) will be halved. So now before I can go and buy a didget from my favourite didget shop I need to sell 3 widgets instead of the 2 widgets that I had to sell previously. So obviously I am going to want to keep my profit margin percentage the same as I don't want to be poorer than before.

[THE Bigzoman]

People who say there are no economic costs to raising price floors are either kidding themselves, are completely ignorant of how divisive the topic is among economists, or are taking the studies that assert this claim while ignoring several others that contradict it.


I don't even think there are a noticeable number of economists that make this claim. At best, they say that the solid benefits come at minimal costs, making minimum wage policies not terrible.

Even the regression studies in the 90s dance around it in ways.--A "modest" increase in the minimum wage leads to a negligible increase in unemployment, for example, and only achieve those results when they make very specific adjustments to their regression models.

[Endus]

My apologies if I missed something from your example. However I still cant see where you are getting this extra money from because it has to come from somewhere.

There is no "extra money". Money doesn't have a set value, to begin with. We're not talking about changing the amount of money in the money supply, we're talking about changing the distribution. Profit margins, while remaining static, are lowering, in proportional terms. So those reaping the profits are earning proportionally less, while the workers are earning proportionally more, while the actual money supply remains relatively static, outside adjustments that have to be made for inflation, and are already made as it is.

Further to your example. If I am understanding you correctly you are saying that I will still make the same cash amount as I made previously per widget but my profit margin (which is a percentage) will be halved. So now before I can go and buy a didget from my favourite didget shop I need to sell 3 widgets instead of the 2 widgets that I had to sell previously. So obviously I am going to want to keep my profit margin percentage the same as I don't want to be poorer than before.

You seriously aren't paying attention. If we increased the minimum wage, this would affect everyone. So the didget shop owner is facing the same pressures.

Sure, the widget and didget shop owners can increase prices even further, so that they can make even more profit, but then their profiteering is what's keeping wages and prices in parity, not the wage increase. This is exactly what I meant when I said you were introducing secondary factors and then blaming their effects on the wage increase.

- - - Updated - - -

People who say there are no economic costs to raising price floors are either kidding themselves, are completely ignorant of how divisive the topic is among economists, or are taking the studies that assert this claim while ignoring several others that contradict it.


I don't even think there are a noticeable number of economists that make this claim. At best, they say that the solid benefits come at minimal costs, making minimum wage policies not terrible.

Even the regression studies in the 90s dance around it in ways.--A "modest" increase in the minimum wage leads to a negligible increase in unemployment, for example, and only achieve those results when they make very specific adjustments to their regression models.

600 economists, back in 2014, who signed off on a letter asking Congress to increase the min wage and index it to cost-of-living; http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/

I haven't seen anything from an independent and non-politically-biased group that argued that minimum wage increases are uniformly "bad". Nor has anyone argued that there wouldn't be some negative effects. Just that the positive effects significantly outweigh them. By looking back at history, increasing the minimum wage has never led to widespread job losses, even with relatively dramatic increases like '73-'81. What job losses there were, were largely teenagers working part-time and so forth, not full-time employed adults, even those earning minimum wage.

[Adam Jensen]

Or people could just work more than one job, get roommates, live with family, cut back on non-necessities, etc... Its called paying your dues and working your way up to a good job

WTF? Seriously?

I don't have time for a second job, I don't have the stress for a second job. I can't get a job where my family lives because they are no jobs available.

I wasn't born to work 80 hours a week for some other fuckface for the rest of my life. No one was.

[RickJamesLich]

Man them goal posts -- First it was we never did this before...and now it's time's were different.

And then the automation argument....Which is a good thing. By all means automate and introduce a Basic Income System.

So the Nordic Countries are using technology and they're still capable of paying livable wages, free college, and universal healthcare....Well I'll be damned. Nice to see you supporting the Nordic Model for once Rick.

You can mention all you want about these layoffs that are going to happen with a minimum wage increase all you like. We have historical data that proves that there has been no correlation of layoffs due to wage increases in the last 40+ years.

And you close off again by claiming $15 is a ridiculous amount which can only prove my former argument that you're possibly a vastly underpaid individual believing that $31,200/year is some magnificent paycheck.

As I said this technology is just arriving in the fast food industry there so yes, it appears that jobs will be lost. And no I didn't say that would impact free college, yes, them goal posts as you put it lol. But yes, that will definitely impact employment.

And have you examined that historical data and saw what happened when the minimum wage was first implemented? Here's a link from the great Thomas Sowell on this very topic



And based off of employers saying that this will happen again, I'm not sure that it's entirely a stretch. The effects are that it's increased poverty that is still lasting today.

And why would you not think $15 an hour is silly for paying someone to flip burgers? Let me guess, you think they should be paid $50 an hour? lol.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is a daft argument. In essence you are saying we should destroy technology to let people stay in low pay low productivity jobs. Now if this was a good thing to do we should destroy farm vehicles and let people pick crops by hand. Ditto with factories producing all the other consumer goods we enjoy. They should be destroyed and everything done by hand to increase the number of jobs to soak up the underemployed.

In reality automation is always and forever a good thing. There is absolutely no negative to automation that is not a result of our own creation/inaction. So lets automate, automate everything we possibly can. Then institute a citizens income along with it. If we do that how is anyone actually worse off (except in right wing minds who hate the idea of "free stuff" and like to see unemployed people punished)?

I'm not saying we should destroy technology - rather we do not need to provide more incentives for businesses to lay people off. As I've said, this stuff is inevitable but ultimately raising the minimum wage by such a large amount will only exacerbate the problem, but most commonly this would impact young people that are looking to break in to the workforce for the first time. Automation is a good thing, but it still does carry some negative consequences.

[Captain N]

At this point Rick you're grasping at straws -- You began by saying that we never had a wage increase this large. We did and you changed to well it's never been that big...It has...In fact it's been bigger. Your Sowell clip is hilarious because you're ignoring 40 years worth of historical data just to fit your narrative. Then you went into this automation rant about how the Nordic Countries are switching to technology....Well that's great if they have the technology and they're still paying decent wages as well as keeping all their social programs you're showing some massive support for their methods.

Considering I work for a company that pays its housekeepers $21-$24/hour I have no qualms with cashiers, food service employees, and other low skill jobs making enough to pay for housing, clothing, and able to put aside for an emergency. I'm sorry if you think people shouldn't be allowed a livable wage because you were unfortunate enough to be goaded into low wages yourself despite whatever education and/or skills you have.

[Sprinky]

There is no "extra money". Money doesn't have a set value, to begin with. We're not talking about changing the amount of money in the money supply, we're talking about changing the distribution. Profit margins, while remaining static, are lowering, in proportional terms. So those reaping the profits are earning proportionally less, while the workers are earning proportionally more, while the actual money supply remains relatively static, outside adjustments that have to be made for inflation, and are already made as it is.



You seriously aren't paying attention. If we increased the minimum wage, this would affect everyone. So the didget shop owner is facing the same pressures.

Sure, the widget and didget shop owners can increase prices even further, so that they can make even more profit, but then their profiteering is what's keeping wages and prices in parity, not the wage increase. This is exactly what I meant when I said you were introducing secondary factors and then blaming their effects on the wage increase.

Just to be clear, as the owner of the widget shop, I still want to be able to afford the same amount of didgets as I could before. Maths isn't my strong point as you can probably tell (that's why I have a book keeper & good accountant) but I do have good business sense, and I'm not going to be the one that suffers (or gains) from the wage increases as I will still be buying the same amount of didgets at the end of every week. Does that show my point?

[Blur4stuff]

you need to count workers just above minimum wage as well. most of them aren't teenagers working their first job. they are adults using that job as their income for their families.

also, doesn't matter if it's burger flipping or toilet scrubbing. if you continually put in an honest day's work you deserve to afford all necessities with zero government welfare or private charity. this means a safe/clean place to live, food, access to basic utilities, healthcare, etc...

there's easily more than enough money and resources to accomplish this

[breadisfunny]

Not sure where you get your information from, perhaps you can provide a link? From what I've seen the minimum wage in most places was $1.25 in 1960 and eventually was $2.00 in 1974. Not to mention, many business owners, including people in this very thread have already stated this will cause them massive problems.

That being said, you're going to have to explain this "taking shots at illegal immigrants and the poor" thing.... where did I take shots at them?

gee i thought that was the point of capitalism to weed out the weak? or does that only apply to large corporations?

- - - Updated - - -

At this point Rick you're grasping at straws -- You began by saying that we never had a wage increase this large. We did and you changed to well it's never been that big...It has...In fact it's been bigger. Your Sowell clip is hilarious because you're ignoring 40 years worth of historical data just to fit your narrative. Then you went into this automation rant about how the Nordic Countries are switching to technology....Well that's great if they have the technology and they're still paying decent wages as well as keeping all their social programs you're showing some massive support for their methods.

Considering I work for a company that pays its housekeepers $21-$24/hour I have no qualms with cashiers, food service employees, and other low skill jobs making enough to pay for housing, clothing, and able to put aside for an emergency. I'm sorry if you think people shouldn't be allowed a livable wage because you were unfortunate enough to be goaded into low wages yourself despite whatever education and/or skills you have.

he's moving the goalposts is what he's doing.

[alexw]

I'm not saying we should destroy technology - rather we do not need to provide more incentives for businesses to lay people off. As I've said, this stuff is inevitable but ultimately raising the minimum wage by such a large amount will only exacerbate the problem, but most commonly this would impact young people that are looking to break in to the workforce for the first time. Automation is a good thing, but it still does carry some negative consequences.

But that is exactly what you are saying. You are saying automation is a bad thing because people are being laid off because of it. There are really only two choices, either it is on the whole a positive which means more is better, or it is on the whole a negative which means we want less of it. By saying we should not raise the minimum wage because it will increase automation you are directly inferring that it is the latter, that it is on the whole a bad thing which we want less off. Ergo if its bad thing then we should just get rid of it, destroy the technology involved and de-automate. You cannot argue that automation is a good thing while at the same time saying we should have less of it which is what you are doing.

Myself I believe that automation is a good thing and that one of the reasons we should raise the minimum wage is because it will increase the rate of automation. Then we just put in place policies to share out the remaining work better and provide incomes to those whose jobs are automated away. So for example imagine that 50% of these jobs were automated away. We could then reduce the hours worked by everyone doing these jobs by 50% so that the remaining work is shared out, and the doubling in productivity (they are essentially making the same amount of output in half the time) means that total incomes (with the proper policies in place) would be exactly the same as before. How is that not a good thing? You earn exactly the same as before in half the time spent working!

[RickJamesLich]

At this point Rick you're grasping at straws -- You began by saying that we never had a wage increase this large. We did and you changed to well it's never been that big...It has...In fact it's been bigger. Your Sowell clip is hilarious because you're ignoring 40 years worth of historical data just to fit your narrative. Then you went into this automation rant about how the Nordic Countries are switching to technology....Well that's great if they have the technology and they're still paying decent wages as well as keeping all their social programs you're showing some massive support for their methods.

Considering I work for a company that pays its housekeepers $21-$24/hour I have no qualms with cashiers, food service employees, and other low skill jobs making enough to pay for housing, clothing, and able to put aside for an emergency. I'm sorry if you think people shouldn't be allowed a livable wage because you were unfortunate enough to be goaded into low wages yourself despite whatever education and/or skills you have.

You bring up me ignoring historical data yet you do the same thing by ignoring the poverty that minimum wage laws has created. Feel free to link any of your historical data though, I'll be waiting patiently lol. But yes, as the clip stated, the introduction of minimum wage laws exacerbated unemployment and poverty, in particular for blacks in America.

And now you are moving the goal posts once again on the subject of Nordic countries lol. I'm merely stating that we are seeing the beginnings of unemployment for them again, you ignore this and say "well they still have their social programs intact" purposely ignoring that I've stated that this is the introductory stage. Keep bringing it up if it helps you feel better. You also ignore the businesses, that you know, hire these people at the same time, stating that there will be lay offs.

When those cashiers, food service employees, and other low skill workers are unemployed, you may be singing a different toon? Or maybe you will be unaware? Perhaps because you won't encounter the consequences you think they are not a big deal lol. And likewise the concept that anything less than $15 an hour is "not a livable wage" is hilarious. How many are starving in America right now?

- - - Updated - - -

gee i thought that was the point of capitalism to weed out the weak? or does that only apply to large corporations?

The problem is that if companies go under, then jobs are lost. If jobs are lost, people are unemployed. If unemployment rises, that's less people you can tax. With less people paying taxes, social programs inevitably take a hit.

he's moving the goalposts is what he's doing.

Nah, just showing him why he is wrong in ways that he probably doesn't comprehend yet.