Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Fugus]

Its not factually wrong, increasing minimum wages costs jobs. It strains small businesses, and it can cause economic hardship for many.

I understand the political part of it, I am saying this part right here, you are factually wrong and have been shown why multiple times.

No matter how much you claim to be right, the facts, the statistics, and reality itself throughout history says you are wrong.

Not only are you wrong, you are going the complete wrong way in logic as well as the increase in wages tended to actually CREATE jobs to fill in the need due to the increased consumer demand and spending.

[Machismo]

I understand the political part of it, I am saying this part right here, you are factually wrong and have been shown why multiple times.

No matter how much you claim to be right, the facts, the statistics, and reality itself throughout history says you are wrong.

Not only are you wrong, you are going the complete wrong way in logic as well as the increase in wages tended to actually CREATE jobs to fill in the need due to the increased consumer demand and spending.

You saying "Nuh uh" doesn't make it factually wrong.

The CBO says it would cost 1.4 million jobs. I'm going to believe them over random dude on the interwebz.internet.

Of course, if raising it to $15 an hour would create jobs, then raise it to $50 and hour to create even more jobs...

Care to revise your absurd understanding of economics?

[Breccia]

I feel like I missed this?

Technicaly no, the previously cited sources posted here were "Biden was about to do it".

[PhaelixWW]

You saying "Nuh uh" doesn't make it factually wrong.

The CBO says it would cost 1.4 million jobs. I'm going to believe them over random dude on the interwebz.internet.

WaPo: No, a $15 minimum wage won’t cost 1.4 million jobs

[Machismo]

WaPo: No, a $15 minimum wage won’t cost 1.4 million jobs

The CBO disagrees.

[PhaelixWW]

The CBO disagrees.

Uh, yes.... yes, you just said that. That article is a rebuttal to the CBO.

Are you attempting to rebut the rebuttal with the original statement? I'm not sure you understand how this works...

[Elegiac]

The CBO disagrees.

The CBO's own report a) acknowledges a strong chance it actually doesn't impact employment at all, and b) admits that it can't actually predict the impact anyway.

Beyond providing its own estimates, the CBO report mentioned that many other studies analyzing a federal minimum wage hike have produced a wide range of potential outcomes: from “little or no effect of minimum wages on employment” to “substantial reductions in employment.”

The Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress, made a similar observation in an August 2019 report about minimum wages and the Raise the Wage Act.

“A previous consensus that increasing the minimum wage reduces employment, at least among teenagers, has been challenged by numerous recent studies suggesting little or no dis-employment effects of minimum wage increases,” CRS stated. “Producing projected impacts adds methodological complexity and requires potentially strong assumptions about overall wage growth and how employers will respond to wage changes in an unknown economic environment.”

So there’s simply no way to know for sure if jobs would be lost or how many.

[Fugus]

You saying "Nuh uh" doesn't make it factually wrong.

The CBO says it would cost 1.4 million jobs. I'm going to believe them over random dude on the interwebz.internet.

Of course, if raising it to $15 an hour would create jobs, then raise it to $50 and hour to create even more jobs...

Care to revise your absurd understanding of economics?

You saying “I’m right!” Doesn’t mean you are right either.

The CBO also says there is a lot of uncertainty in their projections currently as well.

But history has shown that when the wages go up, consumer demand goes up, which historically has been the job creator.

Unless you are talking about automation removing those jobs which is happening anyways and treating workers like wage slaves isn’t doing them any favors.

And you also forgot to mention how the changes according to the CBO impacted the rest as well, you know, by pulling them out of poverty which would mean less on welfare.

And you $50 remark. By that logic, if drinking a glass of water is healthy, then drinking an entire pool of it is even healthier..



And while the CBO projects that, we have actual historical data that says otherwise. We have studies where the $15 minimum wage helped the local areas after they were implemented that was so pronounced that they tried to create a study to say otherwise using restaurants by trying to exclude all franchises and any successful enough to open a second location.


So sorry, I will listen to the facts and the data before I listen to a guy on the internet who ignores it all to cling to his beliefs.

But, you got that single CBO projection on your side, so that does put you above a Trump supporter though.

But I would rather have a small section out of work and on welfare having about the same living they were working while the rest are off welfare living a higher quality of life and contributing more than to have a huge number working while still on welfare and the entire group still living that lower standard of living.

And I say this as a guy who has worked while on welfare before to the point I joined the military for a living wage before convenience stores, steel fabrication, wood mills, or PC repairs, none of them gave living wages around here back then.

I would rather live the same lifestyle on welfare that I had working while on welfare because the way they are structured you really don’t have an improvement working while collecting unless you have kids. I would rather be out of work living the same lifestyle than to hold the rest of the nation and it’s workers back. By holding them back, I would have gained nothing, I would just have watched them have less while I spun my wheels working to be on welfare anyways.

[Machismo]

Uh, yes.... yes, you just said that. That article is a rebuttal to the CBO.

Are you attempting to rebut the rebuttal with the original statement? I'm not sure you understand how this works...

Great, they disagree with each other.

Even the article states that job losses were up to 2% during minimum wage increases.

SO... they disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

You saying “I’m right!” Doesn’t mean you are right either.

The CBO also says there is a lot of uncertainty in their projections currently as well.

But history has shown that when the wages go up, consumer demand goes up, which historically has been the job creator.

Unless you are talking about automation removing those jobs which is happening anyways and treating workers like wage slaves isn’t doing them any favors.

And you also forgot to mention how the changes according to the CBO impacted the rest as well, you know, by pulling them out of poverty which would mean less on welfare.

And you $50 remark. By that logic, if drinking a glass of water is healthy, then drinking an entire pool of it is even healthier..



And while the CBO projects that, we have actual historical data that says otherwise. We have studies where the $15 minimum wage helped the local areas after they were implemented that was so pronounced that they tried to create a study to say otherwise using restaurants by trying to exclude all franchises and any successful enough to open a second location.


So sorry, I will listen to the facts and the data before I listen to a guy on the internet who ignores it all to cling to his beliefs.

But, you got that single CBO projection on your side, so that does put you above a Trump supporter though.

But I would rather have a small section out of work and on welfare having about the same living they were working while the rest are off welfare living a higher quality of life and contributing more than to have a huge number working while still on welfare and the entire group still living that lower standard of living.

And I say this as a guy who has worked while on welfare before to the point I joined the military for a living wage before convenience stores, steel fabrication, wood mills, or PC repairs, none of them gave living wages around here back then.

I would rather live the same lifestyle on welfare that I had working while on welfare because the way they are structured you really don’t have an improvement working while collecting unless you have kids. I would rather be out of work living the same lifestyle than to hold the rest of the nation and it’s workers back. By holding them back, I would have gained nothing, I would just have watched them have less while I spun my wheels working to be on welfare anyways.

If that's the case, then surely we should raise it to $100 an hour, right?

Think of all the jobs we'd create!!!

- - - Updated - - -

You saying “I’m right!” Doesn’t mean you are right either.

The CBO also says there is a lot of uncertainty in their projections currently as well.

But history has shown that when the wages go up, consumer demand goes up, which historically has been the job creator.

Unless you are talking about automation removing those jobs which is happening anyways and treating workers like wage slaves isn’t doing them any favors.

And you also forgot to mention how the changes according to the CBO impacted the rest as well, you know, by pulling them out of poverty which would mean less on welfare.

And you $50 remark. By that logic, if drinking a glass of water is healthy, then drinking an entire pool of it is even healthier..



And while the CBO projects that, we have actual historical data that says otherwise. We have studies where the $15 minimum wage helped the local areas after they were implemented that was so pronounced that they tried to create a study to say otherwise using restaurants by trying to exclude all franchises and any successful enough to open a second location.


So sorry, I will listen to the facts and the data before I listen to a guy on the internet who ignores it all to cling to his beliefs.

But, you got that single CBO projection on your side, so that does put you above a Trump supporter though.

But I would rather have a small section out of work and on welfare having about the same living they were working while the rest are off welfare living a higher quality of life and contributing more than to have a huge number working while still on welfare and the entire group still living that lower standard of living.

And I say this as a guy who has worked while on welfare before to the point I joined the military for a living wage before convenience stores, steel fabrication, wood mills, or PC repairs, none of them gave living wages around here back then.

I would rather live the same lifestyle on welfare that I had working while on welfare because the way they are structured you really don’t have an improvement working while collecting unless you have kids. I would rather be out of work living the same lifestyle than to hold the rest of the nation and it’s workers back. By holding them back, I would have gained nothing, I would just have watched them have less while I spun my wheels working to be on welfare anyways.

Even the WaPo article points to job losses of up to 2%...

[Elegiac]

If that's the case, then surely we should raise it to $100 an hour, right?

Dehydration being fatal doesn't mean you should chug sixteen gallons of water a day.

Fortunately no one would ever resort to an argument that ridiculous and puerile, right? /s

- - - Updated - - -

Even the WaPo article points to job losses of up to 2%...

Up to, meaning the level has varied with prior wage increases.

And daily reminder that correlation is not causation.

[Fugus]

If that's the case, then surely we should raise it to $100 an hour, right?

Think of all the jobs we'd create!!!

In that case we should lower it to a penny a month on salary, imagine all the jobs it would create. Just don’t let those bums be on welfare and turn into moochers.

Even the WaPo article points to job losses of up to 2%...

Even if the quality of life for that 2% is the same as when they were working while the rest are vastly improved while off welfare. That would still be a superior outcome.

And even the CBO says that is likely off.

[PhaelixWW]

Great, they disagree with each other.

Even the article states that job losses were up to 2% during minimum wage increases.

SO... they disagree.

Uh, yeah, why didn't you actually repeat the entire paragraph?

I found that for the typical study in the middle of the range of demonstrated effects, when average pay of affected workers rises by 10 percent after a mandated wage increase, their employment falls by at most 2 percent. But the studies that found job losses of that scale large tended to focus on narrow groups of affected workers (often teens or young adults) — who may be particularly affected. When I focused on studies that looked at overall low-wage workforce, the evidence on job losses were minute: In those cases, the job loss from the same 10 percent increase in average wage of affected workers amounts to maybe 0.5 percent. At that level of job loss, the wage gains far offset the losses: The low-wage workforce as a whole is better off from the policy.

If that's the case, then surely we should raise it to $100 an hour, right?

Think of all the jobs we'd create!!!.

Strawmen hyperbole are strawmen hyperbole. The fact that you're using this is an argument means that you know you don't actually have a real argument, so... thanks?

[Machismo]

Dehydration being fatal doesn't mean you should chug sixteen gallons of water a day.

Fortunately no one would ever resort to an argument that ridiculous and puerile, right? /s

- - - Updated - - -



Up to, meaning the level has varied with prior wage increases.

And daily reminder that correlation is not causation.

And there it is, that would mean the correlation in the WaPo article also doesn't mean anything, refuting them, as well.

- - - Updated - - -

In that case we should lower it to a penny a month on salary, imagine all the jobs it would create. Just don’t let those bums be on welfare and turn into moochers.



Even if the quality of life for that 2% is the same as when they were working while the rest are vastly improved while off welfare. That would still be a superior outcome.

And even the CBO says that is likely off.

Some countries do just fine with no forced minimum wage.

[jonnysensible]

Some countries do just fine with no forced minimum wage.

name em then

[Elegiac]

And there it is, that would mean the correlation in the WaPo article also doesn't mean anything, refuting them, as well.

So it looks like we're back to square one of you not having any evidence of your claims about minimum wage spiking the unemployment rate.

- - - Updated - - -

Some countries do just fine with no forced minimum wage.

Which are?

And you're not allowed to name countries with strong union protections in most to all industries that guarantee high wages without legal need, just as an addendum.

[Machismo]

Uh, yeah, why didn't you actually repeat the entire paragraph?




Strawmen hyperbole are strawmen hyperbole. The fact that you're using this is an argument means that you know you don't actually have a real argument, so... thanks?

It's great... unless you're that 2% who loses their jobs...

[Elegiac]

It's great... unless you're that 2% who loses their jobs...

And here I thought you believed in at-will employment.

You don't get to play workers' rights advocate while supporting union busting and wage suppression, sweaty.

[Machismo]

name em then

https://www.investopedia.com/article...imum-wages.asp

- - - Updated - - -

And here I thought you believed in at-will employment.

You don't get to play workers' rights advocate while supporting union busting and wage suppression, sweaty.

I do, and I also don't support this minimum wage increase, let them agree on a price all their own.

[Elegiac]

https://www.investopedia.com/article...imum-wages.asp

> Nearly all Swedish citizens belong to one of about 60 trade unions and 50 employers' organizations that negotiate wage rates for regular hourly work, salaries, and overtime. The minimum wage tends to hover near 60% to 70% of the average wage in Sweden.

> Once again, trade unions take care of ensuring that workers are paid a reasonable wage and seem to be doing a fine job of it, keeping the average minimum wage across industries at a healthy $20 per hour.

> Employees in Iceland are automatically enrolled in trade unions, which are responsible for negotiating baseline salaries for the industries they represent.

> Norway is yet another northern nation that has eschewed a federally mandated minimum wage in favor of having union-negotiated wages set by industry.

> However, Switzerland also relies heavily on trade unions and employee organizations to negotiate fair wages for each industry, meaning 90% of the Swiss earn more than the proposed minimum anyway.

I wonder what the common factor here is.

[Machismo]

Uh, yeah, why didn't you actually repeat the entire paragraph?




Strawmen hyperbole are strawmen hyperbole. The fact that you're using this is an argument means that you know you don't actually have a real argument, so... thanks?

He's the one who said increasing the minimum wage creates jobs.

- - - Updated - - -

> Nearly all Swedish citizens belong to one of about 60 trade unions and 50 employers' organizations that negotiate wage rates for regular hourly work, salaries, and overtime. The minimum wage tends to hover near 60% to 70% of the average wage in Sweden.

> Once again, trade unions take care of ensuring that workers are paid a reasonable wage and seem to be doing a fine job of it, keeping the average minimum wage across industries at a healthy $20 per hour.

> Employees in Iceland are automatically enrolled in trade unions, which are responsible for negotiating baseline salaries for the industries they represent.

> Norway is yet another northern nation that has eschewed a federally mandated minimum wage in favor of having union-negotiated wages set by industry.

> However, Switzerland also relies heavily on trade unions and employee organizations to negotiate fair wages for each industry, meaning 90% of the Swiss earn more than the proposed minimum anyway.

I wonder what the common factor here is.

Great, I fully support the use of unions.