70% of Food Stamps/Medicaid recipients work full time, new study GAO And more results

[Antiganon]

I've commented on my views in other threads, you simply whinge that I'm not a fan of your chosen political party. Lets go with something simple, an NHS. As of yet, no political party is for it.

You seem to solely run defense for your chosen consumer product. The Apple Fanboy of political parties.

I'm whinging that you don't seem to be a fan of any political party, policy aspiration, individual, or anything really. Every post you make on here seems done for the sole purpose of shitting on someone else's ideas, while you never actually espouse any of your own.

[Krakan]

You sure as hell implied that, when you argued that minimum wage workers wouldn't have increased buying power after a minimum wage increase.

The only way that's possible is if prices rise at the same rate. If they rise at a lower rate, you have increased buying power.



I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue, here. Be specific; what, exactly, about U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data is "biased" or "garbage"?



And?

If you think you've got a better data source, by all means, provide it. I'll note that your Canadian data contradicted your own point, so make sure you actually check your sources.



It's clear you've never done statistical analysis before, because it's an obvious downward trend line. You're denying visible reality, at this point.



And again, you're denying reality. It already dropped 1.2% to hit 9.2%. And now you're arguing that it's going to magically start going up again, despite all historical evidence regarding the minimum wage and how economies respond arguing against that conclusion.

You're making up fantastical counterfactual nonsense, and you have no evidence to back your assertions. The only source you have cited contradicted your claims.

It really just seems you are trying desperately to ignore housing inflation the most effected area each time such a increase happens. What buying power they gained will quickly be consumed by landlords while leaving those who managed to irk out a bit above minimum wage in a worse position as it is unlikely their wages will raise by the same amount.

Simply throwing money at the problem won't fix it and that is ignoring how common it is for companies to skirt the minimum wage as is.

[Howel]

It really just seems you are trying desperately to ignore housing inflation the most effected area each time such a increase happens. What buying power they gained will quickly be consumed by landlords while leaving those who managed to irk out a bit above minimum wage in a worse position as it is unlikely their wages will raise by the same amount.

So we should never raise wages, because it'll just disappear into landlords and whatnots pockets anyway? Just flatline wages till the end of times.

[JohnBrown1917]

It really just seems you are trying desperately to ignore housing inflation the most effected area each time such a increase happens. What buying power they gained will quickly be consumed by landlords while leaving those who managed to irk out a bit above minimum wage in a worse position as it is unlikely their wages will raise by the same amount.

Simply throwing money at the problem won't fix it and that is ignoring how common it is for companies to skirt the minimum wage as is.

That is why rent controll exists.

[Felya]

Don't try and rope me into your BS.

I made a mistake of putting value in your opinion... will never happen again.

I have spoken with them in messages and we don't agree with each other, but we also never had to be reduced to a sophomoric arguments.

No, you will never disagree in public. It’s been pointed out before.

As is done here all the time, by many people, including moderators. Just state your opinion and disagree without saying things like " Blah blah talking point", characterization statements, jumping in the middle of an argument and commenting without knowing everything, and more.

In this case, as someone I’ve had numerous discussions on the subject I thought my post would do two things:

1. Get a perspective that I know contradicts the point being made. Showing that I... thought... I understand your perspective and see value in it.
2. Because I... thought... you have not posted in a while and I value your perspective, so this was my way of giving you a soup box.

Yet, this is how you respond... this is why Theo is poison in this community. No dude... do what the rest of Theo ... do... just put me on ignore. I’m too genuine for you people... You will never be able to handle it.

Honestly, the continual Trumpism threat tells me everything I need to know. More of the same as with Obama and no one will be critical when it counts, if at all. If the Democrats perform in 2022 like they did in 2000. They are going to lose the House as well.

See... I thought you counted because of your criticism. I thought your opinion had value... I guess your projecting here is right and I was wrong. Stay muzzled...

Edit: This is what people expect from bias. You put your hand out... they bite it off... this is what is poisoning politics.

Edit 2: This is the irony of getting what you wanted, but it was not what you needed. I got you to respond, which is what I wanted, but as an attack on the forum in general, not be an example of the left being critical of democrats. Something that I had no interest in...

- - - Updated - - -

Simply throwing money at the problem won't fix it and that is ignoring how common it is for companies to skirt the minimum wage as is.

Than why did Trump’s largest tax cut in history for corporations, help the economy? Why do subsidies to farm, earn us victory in the trade war with China? I don’t understand how a billionaire can send out hundreds of emails and texts asking people for money, but it won’t work for everyone else. Why does the term ‘you have to have money, to make money’ not apply to the working class? Are we somehow different than rich people?

- - - Updated - - -

That is why rent controll exists.

Where does and in what form does rent control exist? Are you talking about NY and California, or the whole country?

[Endus]

It really just seems you are trying desperately to ignore housing inflation the most effected area each time such a increase happens. What buying power they gained will quickly be consumed by landlords while leaving those who managed to irk out a bit above minimum wage in a worse position as it is unlikely their wages will raise by the same amount.

Simply throwing money at the problem won't fix it and that is ignoring how common it is for companies to skirt the minimum wage as is.

Housing inflation occurs regardless of whether there's a minimum wage increase or not.

In fact; https://www.governing.com/topics/mgm...s-housing.html

"there’s no data showing minimum-wage levels have any effect on housing. "

Hell, you even admit that it won't be caused by inflation due to the minimum wage increase; you admit any such increase would be due to an entirely unrelated third factor; the greed of landlords.

Your position is based on fantasy and imagination, not reality.
Your own arguments contradict your conclusions.
It's nonsense.

[Krakan]

So we should never raise wages, because it'll just disappear into landlords and whatnots pockets anyway? Just flatline wages till the end of times.

Wages should raise or fall based on the demand for the labor.

While I agree that social aid should be given it should be in the form of government housing and necessities like food.

Money should never be a part of it.

- - - Updated - - -

That is why rent controll exists.

A workable solution if it is extremely regulated and all encompassing.

- - - Updated - - -

Housing inflation occurs regardless of whether there's a minimum wage increase or not.

In fact; https://www.governing.com/topics/mgm...s-housing.html

"there’s no data showing minimum-wage levels have any effect on housing. "

Hell, you even admit that it won't be caused by inflation due to the minimum wage increase; you admit any such increase would be due to an entirely unrelated third factor; the greed of landlords.

Your position is based on fantasy and imagination, not reality.
Your own arguments contradict your conclusions.
It's nonsense.

The idea that people who own assets they invested in wont leverage those assets to their fullest value when they suddenly have a new influx of demand isn't really based on fantasy.

[Felya]

The idea that people who own assets they invested in wont leverage those assets to their fullest value when they suddenly have a new influx of demand isn't really based on fantasy.

The idea that those assets will be leveraged to pay people more to do the same job they have been doing, is unrealistic. Your salary doesn’t increase with demand for your existing job. Your suggestion is one that doesn’t understand job security.

What happens to coal miners, when demand shifts to silicone valley? We bail out coal mine owners and demonize silicone valley?

[Krakan]

The idea that those assets will be leveraged to pay people more to do the same job they have been doing, is unrealistic. Your salary doesn’t increase with demand for your existing job. Your suggestion is one that doesn’t understand job security.

What happens to coal miners, when demand shifts to silicone valley? We bail out coal mine owners and demonize silicone valley?

I feel like there is a misunderstanding here. I am saying that property owners who rent or sell will demand a higher premium when the demand grows rapidly from people earning more income.

It doesn't really fit with the examples your giving as it addresses the value if a necessity.

[Endus]

The idea that people who own assets they invested in wont leverage those assets to their fullest value when they suddenly have a new influx of demand isn't really based on fantasy.

And still, no observable evidence for any such pattern in the data.

That's your issue. You make shit up, and pretend that your overactive imagination is reality, when there is absolutely no evidence that supports your conclusions.

[Felya]

I feel like there is a misunderstanding here. I am saying that property owners who rent or sell will demand a higher premium when the demand grows rapidly from people earning more income.

Why would housing demand grow with more income? If the job doesn’t require moving, there is no reason to move. In fact, shouldn’t it increase house buying, instead of moving to a more expensive rental?

It doesn't really fit with the examples your giving as it addresses the value if a necessity.

It’s the same... you need to justify moving from what you already have. If you have a lease, it doesn’t change with your increased pay. The same way your mortgage doesn’t increase with increased pay. Otherwise, you are simply arguing to set limits on rent increases for existing renters.

[Howel]

Wages should raise or fall based on the demand for the labor.

While I agree that social aid should be given it should be in the form of government housing and necessities like food.

Money should never be a part of it.

So two things in that regard. One is, you acknowledged that corporate is willing to skirt wage laws, but you don't think they'll work really hard to obfuscate the true value of labour to ensure they keep maximized profits? And that their position of power, which is ever expanding, ensures they can do this with fairly minimal effort.

Second, how far are you actually willing to take that? Is 25 % of the population working, but that work is not deemed valuable enough to live off, bad? 50 %, 75 %? At what point does the notion that profitable businesses employing people at sub living wages, problematic enough that we have to address said issue?

As for giving out food, instead of monetary ways... Dude, I know that it is because oh otherwise they'll spend it on drugs and whatnot; but the logistical and bureaucratic, and just the simple fact that not everyone has equally large fridges and some don't have freezers, makes that so monumentally more of a money sink and headache to manage, than I think you are prepared to make that change for.

[Endus]

Second, how far are you actually willing to take that? Is 25 % of the population working, but that work is not deemed valuable enough to live off, bad? 50 %, 75 %? At what point does the notion that profitable businesses employing people at sub living wages, problematic enough that we have to address said issue?

You'll note that they also, without questioning it, only accept the devaluation of labor from the employer's perspective. They, for some reason, are entirely unwilling or unable to consider that workers have needs.

If we want to talk about the base value of human labor, that evaluation must start with the support of that worker in a modestly comfortable lifestyle. A living wage. That's the bare minimum that should be acceptable. If you can't afford that, your business model is broken and not profitable, and your business should not exist. If it cannot survive without exploiting people by paying less than a living wage, it should be allowed to go bankrupt. The market will fill the void; the problem here is your abusive and exploitative business model, not the expectations that you pay your employees what they're worth.

Any kind of skill or experience that increases the value of a worker should mean a step up from this baseline value point.

The current situation is the equivalent of a factory needing to buy robots at $100,000/pop, and insisting they can't afford more than $30,000 each, and just assuming they can still get those robots and the government will pay the difference to the robot manufacturer to keep the economy going. That shit shouldn't fly. It's ridiculous, exploitative nonsense.

Paying people what they're actually worth shouldn't be an expectation that sees pushback.

[Krastyn]

You sure as hell implied that, when you argued that minimum wage workers wouldn't have increased buying power after a minimum wage increase.

The only way that's possible is if prices rise at the same rate. If they rise at a lower rate, you have increased buying power.

This, right here, is why I often don't bother responding to your posts because you either can't read, can't understand, or deliberately misrepresent what people type.

The bold part is a massive pile of bullshit. What I literally said was:

Now, I don't think this is overall a bad thing. The small amount of buying power I lost was small, and greatly offset by the benefit gained by those who were at the minimum. But I think bringing in a UBI is both easier, more effective, and more beneficial for workers than trying to decide what a minimum wage should be. People also seem to not realize that the raising of minimum wages benefits large companies more than smaller ones.

Notice the part in bold. I literally said that those at the minimum would get a boost.

Almost every response from you has been a strawman, misrepresenting what I said, or in this case, a flat out lie. Back to the ignore list for you.

[Endus]

This, right here, is why I often don't bother responding to your posts because you either can't read, can't understand, or deliberately misrepresent what people type.

The bold part is a massive pile of bullshit. What I literally said was:

Notice the part in bold. I literally said that those at the minimum would get a boost.

Read the sentence of yours before the bit you put in bold.

Where you argue that you lost buying power as a result of being paid more.

It's right there in black and white, and you just quoted it back at me, in your defense of not having said that.

Feel free to put me on ignore because I pointed out what you literally said in your own words, but it's not gonna make me look bad.

[Krastyn]

Read the sentence of yours before the bit you put in bold.

Where you argue that you lost buying power as a result of being paid more.

It's right there in black and white, and you just quoted it back at me, in your defense of not having said that.

Feel free to put me on ignore because I pointed out what you literally said in your own words, but it's not gonna make me look bad.

Another post, and another pack of lies and a failure at reading comprehension for you.

From earlier in that same post:

This isn't really true, on either point. It's been a long time since I've earned near minimum wage, but I can tell you the second part is definitely untrue. I worked at Subway in Alberta when minimum wage was $5/hour. After working there a while, I was making $8/hour, which was their cap. Then minimum wage went to $5.40/hour. Prices also rose. Then it went to $5.65 6 months later. Then another 6 months, to $5.90, and prices rose again. Their policy at that point was still capped at $8/hour. Any worker during that year who was above minimum wage, did not get a proportional bump when the minimum went up

I was making more than minimum wage, minimum wage rose and my wage did not. Hence why I said my buying power went down. You lied, again. Quite the habit of yours. Once again, right there in black and white, I said the opposite of what you're claiming I did.

Feel free to stop replying, since you keep literally posting lies.

[Endus]

Another post, and another pack of lies and a failure at reading comprehension for you.

From earlier in that same post:


I was making more than minimum wage, minimum wage rose and my wage did not. Hence why I said my buying power went down. You lied, again. Quite the habit of yours. Once again, right there in black and white, I said the opposite of what you're claiming I did.

Feel free to stop replying, since you keep literally posting lies.

And I explained to you that that's not how buying power is measured. It's measured against prices, not against other wage-earners. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p...asingpower.asp

Also, your short-term anecdote about your wage in just the immediate year or two after a minimum wage increase is not descriptive of long-term responses to that increase. I've provided multiple sources demonstrating that wages adjust and the number of people working for minimum wage declines, after a short-term bump. Both from Canada and the USA. And the one source you cited from the USA contradicted you directly on this point, rather than supporting you.

I haven't lied about anything.

[Krastyn]

And I explained to you that that's not how buying power is measured. It's measured against prices, not against other wage-earners. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p...asingpower.asp

And I asked previously, and you sidestepped, are you saying that the rise of minimum wage has zero impact on pricing? Because that's what you're implying, and not how things work in reality. A raise in minimum wage will have an impact on costs. Even if it is just a penny per good.

I haven't lied about anything.

So explain this:

when you argued that minimum wage workers wouldn't have increased buying power after a minimum wage increase.

Please show me where I argued minimum wage workers wouldn't have increased buying power after a minimum wage increase.

[Endus]

And I asked previously, and you sidestepped, are you saying that the rise of minimum wage has zero impact on pricing? Because that's what you're implying, and not how things work in reality. A raise in minimum wage will have an impact on costs. Even if it is just a penny per good.

It's a negligible impact on pricing, and it's vastly outpaced by the increase in buying power for everyone at or near the new minimum wage. These two factors cannot increase proportionally; prices must rise at a significantly slower rate. Unless you're inserting a third factor and hiding its effect to blame the minimum wage for that effect.

This is a mathematical fact; it literally cannot possibly work out differently.

So explain this:

Please show me where I argued minimum wage workers wouldn't have increased buying power after a minimum wage increase.

If you were making more money than minimum wage, and minimum wage goes up but yours does not, you will have lower buying power than you did prior.

With the caveat that you were talking about someone making nearly minimum wage. But, your first example was you making $8/hour when minimum wages went from $5.00 to $5.90. That might seem fair, except that in just a few more sentences, you acknowledged that the current minimum wage in the same store is $15, and their cap equivalent to that $8 wage is now $17. So, both higher than the new minimum wage, and much higher than it was before.

Whether that's an increase in buying power over the long term (it clearly is, over the short term) has to be measured against cost-of-living indices from each relevant era, which I'm not interested in tracking down, but that's largely an issue that exists because minimum wages aren't already pegged to inflation to adjust accordingly, in many cases. The argument that it's somehow not an increase in buying power because of relative comparisons to the minimum wage, that doesn't hold up, because that's not what the term refers to in the first place.

The admission of the current minimum wage and store cap completely contradicted what you were trying to argue, and you refused (and continue to refuse) to acknowledge that. That wages adjust to minimum wage increases, and that those making more than minimum wage also see increases to their wages. Perhaps not immediately, but the effect propagates through the labour economy over the next 2-3 years, before returning largely to where it was before the adjustment.

[Krastyn]

It's a negligible impact on pricing, and it's vastly outpaced by the increase in buying power for everyone at or near the new minimum wage. These two factors cannot increase proportionally; prices must rise at a significantly slower rate. Unless you're inserting a third factor and hiding its effect to blame the minimum wage for that effect.

You are arguing it's negligible. Is an extra 0.1% inflation negligible? Depends on where the person at in their financial state. Furthermore, at the end of the day in absolute terms, negligible is not zero. So if I say something went down, and it only went down a negligible amount, it still went down. So you lied

With the caveat that you were talking about someone making nearly minimum wage. But, your first example was you making $8/hour when minimum wages went from $5.00 to $5.90. That might seem fair, except that in just a few more sentences, you acknowledged that the current minimum wage in the same store is $15, and their cap equivalent to that $8 wage is now $17. So, both higher than the new minimum wage, and much higher than it was before.

Whether that's an increase in buying power has to be measured against cost-of-living indices from each relevant era, which I'm not interested in tracking down, but that's largely an issue that exists because minimum wages aren't already pegged to inflation to adjust accordingly, in many cases. The argument that it's somehow not an increase in buying power because of relative comparisons to the minimum wage, that doesn't hold up, because that's not what the term refers to in the first place.

Still waiting for you to show where I said the buying power of someone making minimum wage does not go up if minimum wage goes up. Nothing in what you wrote above shows that. I already linked to you where I said that the buying power of someone making minimum wage would rise if their wage did.