California is first state to approve $15 minimum wage

[Darththeo]

Sounds like a waste of effort and regulation then. If no one's standard of living is increasing significantly, what's the point other than some virtue signaling?

Because it is far more transparent. It is far more direct. Those are both traits I approve of and it does impact them positively if all be it slightly.

[Spectral]

It was sarcasm to mock his "point."

His point was a straightforward statement that having children is a choice. Your sarcasm and mockery was just saying, "well, some people believe it's not", if we're to take this post at face value. I don't get how that works. It's not really a joke, it's hard to read as sarcasm, it reads more like just being contrarian and argumentative. Whatever, I guess.

[Aggrophobic]

rip small businesses

You guys must have pretty shitty businesses if you pay your employees less than $10,50.

[alexw]

If they want more than this ~85 cent raise per year they are going to have to earn it. We are not going to hand them higher wages simply because additional supplies exist.

Oh flippin hell. Did a single word of what I said sink into your brain? That the reason the economy is so shit for so many people is precisely because of the low wages on offer and high inequality? Why on earth do you want that? When if wages were higher it would vastly improve the economic performance of the US?

Please please explain to me why in God's name you want a basically shit poorly functioning economy.

[Mistame]

Except that isn't what you stated ... you literally argued against a minimum wage having a family of 4 above the poverty line. You argued a strawman and I called you out on it, just not directly.

I stated that a single minimum wage income shouldn't be enough to cover a family of four and that if a single income isn't enough to cover the costs of said family, then both parents should work. I never referenced the "poverty line" nor implied that an income at that level is or should be sufficient. In fact, I happen to believe that two incomes at the minimum wage should be enough to cover a family of four (that means that the current wage is too low). So again, you either took it out of context or you're simply trolling.

Do I really have to mention the r-word?

Really? An outlier? Hell, even then there's always abortion. Edit: I see you're walking back your comment now. Figures.

[Barnabas]

By the time this kicks in you'll be able to live in a nicer place in tijuana if you make minimum wage?

[Darththeo]

I stated that a single minimum wage income shouldn't be enough to cover a family four and that if a single income isn't enough to cover the costs of said family, then both parents should work. I never referenced the "poverty line" nor implied that an income at that level is or should be sufficient. In fact, I happen to believe that two incomes at the minimum wage should be enough to cover a family of four (that means that the current wage is too low). So again, you either took it out of context or you're simply trolling.

And you responded to my post to argue against what I stated which wasn't even in contrast to what you are claiming. No one mentioned a family needed to live comfortably on a single income. No one mentioned a single income supporting a family of 4. There was literally no reason for you to respond to my post. You literally turned my post into a strawman to spout your crap on. Hence why I responded sarcastically to your point about children being a choice.

[alexw]

The money created is a small percent of the total. It isn't "magicked".

- - - Updated - - -



How much per month?

He is correct. Money is magicked from nothing. Money is created as a debt obligation when a loan is made, so that on one side you have x money and on the other x debt. Bankers literally print money into existence very time they make a loan by simply typing numbers on a keyboard. This is virtually all of the US money supply.

[PC2]

The entire system is based on the "good word" of the government. It is all magicked. Current currency doesn't even amount to an IOU. It is based on the good word of the government, there is nothing else behind it. It is smoke and mirrors ... all magic. Money has no real value.

It does have value for as long as we are using it as a medium of exchange. As you put more of it into more people hands, resource scarcity doesn't change much thus cost goes up to compensate.

[DisposableHero]

So it's a larger transfer. That's fine. I'm fine with a larger transfer. Just advocate for it openly rather than magicking money into existence with nonexistent efficiency gains.

The human psychology aspect is a large part you cannot ignore. People are motivated much more by making their own money than being handed money by the government and that motivation factor significantly effects their trajectory as a productive (or not) member of society. Paying the transfer in wages, rather than as a universal benefit means it comes with a return on investment for society in the form of economic productivity. When wages are livable and people can generate a sense of accomplishment and pride from working even low end jobs a non-trivial amount of them tend to be much more productive, which means the difference between a low overhead direct transfer and a minimum wage law is reaped in increased economic activity from both more work being produced and more disposable income being in the economy.

For someone who touts their education, skills, and pride in their earning power as arrogantly as you do on these forums, this difference should be obvious.

[Spectral]

He is correct. Money is magicked from nothing. Money is created as a debt obligation when a loan is made, so that on one side you have x money and on the other x debt. Bankers literally print money into existence very time they make a loan by simply typing numbers on a keyboard. This is virtually all of the US money supply.

Discussing monetary supply is pretty obviously a distraction from discussing transfers. It's a pretty dishonest move. I guess the ambiguity, by is introduced by the word "magic". Still, this is essentially someone saying, "hey, that money's got to come from somewhere, there's no free lunches" and someone replying, "well, the way the money supply works is in fact via fiat currency". It's not a valid or useful reply.

[Wyrt]

This is necessary due to the high cost of living in California.

[Luxxor]

there is nothing experimental about it. either you increase wages to keep up with inflation or watch part of your population starve to death.

HAHAAHAHAHAHHAHA omg, starve to death? 1 in 8 People on the planet are obese.

Liberals doing what they do best, sinking CA into the sea.

[Darththeo]

It does have value for as long as we are using it as a medium of exchange. As you put more of it into more people hands, resource scarcity doesn't change much thus cost goes up to compensate.

Hence why I stated "real" value. There is nothing behind it supporting it. It is smoke and mirrors.

[Spectral]

The human psychology aspect is a large part you cannot ignore. People are motivated much more by making their own money than being handed money by the government and that motivation factor significantly effects their trajectory as a productive (or not) member of society. Paying the transfer in wages, rather than as a universal benefit means it comes with a return on investment for society in the form of economic productivity. When wages are livable and people can generate a sense of accomplishment and pride from working even low end jobs a non-trivial amount of them tend to be much more productive, which means the difference between a low overhead direct transfer and a minimum wage law is reaped in increased economic activity from both more work being produced and more disposable income being in the economy.

I already said that if the goal is to provide low-skilled individuals with the impression that they're really earning that higher wage, minimum wage has an advantage. I think psychological benefit is one of few plausible arguments in favor of higher minimum wage over increased transfers. If the goal is just increased living standards and circulating money, scaling an EITC to income and continuing to reward work has the same effect. You're arguing something that I already agreed with.

For someone who touts their education, skills, and pride in their earning power as arrogantly as you do on these forums, this difference should be obvious.

OK

[Darththeo]

HAHAAHAHAHAHHAHA omg, starve to death? 1 in 8 People on the planet are obese.

Liberals doing what they do best, sinking CA into the sea.

You are aware obese people can in fact starve to death right?

[PC2]

Hence why I stated "real" value. There is nothing behind it supporting it. It is smoke and mirrors.

That's why you put most of your net worth in functional business capital, buildings, real estate, etc.

[Wyrt]

HAHAAHAHAHAHHAHA omg, starve to death? 1 in 8 People on the planet are obese.

Liberals doing what they do best, sinking CA into the sea.

16.4% of Californian families are below the poverty line.

[Luxxor]

You are aware obese people can in fact starve to death right?

Not for a very long time, point is that its a giant exaggeration to say people will starve to death. This isnt North Korea but some spoiled millennials seem to think so.

- - - Updated - - -

16.4% of Californian families are below the poverty line.

And? No ones starving to death.

[Wyrt]

And? No ones starving to death.

People who are working full time should not be below the poverty line.