The Machismo discussion from the Biden/Haris thread so he can stop derailing it.

[Machismo]

Wrong. See, it’s not about you it’s about EVERYONE. And with a minimum wage it’s especially about those at the lowest level, such as those just entering the work force. For them they have 9+ years of costs before they get to where you are now. Seriously, stop thinking about you and think about the big picture. That’s what this is meant to address.

And I'm fine, but this was supposed to be at the lower end of the spectrum, and for me to be spending hundreds less per month on transportation, on a new car... seems off.

[Machismo]

You saying the link doesn’t give a graph? If not I will look for it again for you.

One my phone with 1 bar of signal while waiting on children. So can’t at the moment but will look.

As far as a swing and a miss, looks who’s talking there beagle eye. You couldn’t be more oblivious if you tried and I sincerely hope you are trying to remain uninformed to be this good at it.

I'm saying that the $15 is entirely arbitrary. So, why not $100?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, because you can’t seem to grasp that 10 years ago isn’t the same as 5 from now.

Well, shall I buy a new car tomorrow, and keep you updated over the next decade?

I have no doubt that some people spend $900 a month on car ownership, especially if they buy new ones as soon as they finish paying off the last one My father tears through a pickup every 2 years. My best friend buys a new car every time he sees something that looks flashy.

But, we're talking about the most basic of needs, and $900+ a month seems very high for the low end.

[Zan15]

We were discussing a single person with zero kids, as was pointed to in the article he presented.


My whole argument is that it's arbitrary, not based on hard numbers, and would harm many of the areas like West Virginia... which is why guys like Manchin opposed it.

The burden is still on you guys. Until you can show why it's exactly $15, then you have nothing to offer.
And, if you are going to say, "Why not $15?" I'll reply with... why not $100?

Your whole argument is arbitrary as well since you have provided no data that 15 dollars is wrong.

You keep saying it will harm WV but you provide no data on how?

is there a story that supports this?


BTW you were the one that talked about meals for a family of 5 i guess this is why it started to get muddled.
Not sure why any discussion about min wage be limited to just a single person

[Breccia]

Lets continue that discussion here rather than liter the page with crap.

Wait, what?

Okay, fine.

I got some data analysis going from 1945+ and this is what I found:

1) 2020 was the 11th year ina row with no raise to the minimum wage. Since 1945, that's never happened before and is likely the real issue here.

In the 76 years that stared with 1945, I tied the minimum wage directly to the CPI, not the rate of inflation, to talk about its purchasing power. These were ranked #1 to #76.

2) In the years 1961 to 1970, we saw years 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8.
2a) The best year was 1968, the year the minimum waige went from $1.25 to $1.60
2b) The CPI-adjusted 1967 minimum wage, highest on my list, was $11.89
3) In the years 1971 to 1980, we saw years 5, 7, 9 and 10.
4) In those two years, the worst year ws 1974, which was ranked #30.
5) In the year 1974, the minimum wage had stayed the same for six years straight. It was raised in 1975 (#10) and 1976 (#5)

It shouldn't be a huge surprise that, the longer the minimum wage goes without changing, the worse it gets.

6) The worst years for the CPI-adjusted minimum wage were 1945 to 1949. The minimum wage was not doing the job. Years #72 through #76 were all here, and the CPI-adjusted minimum wage was $5.75 dropping to $4.35
6a) The minimum wage was raised in 1950 from 40 cents to 75, $8.05 CPI-adjusted, year #38. This was an enormous change.

7) Years #68 #70 and #71 were 2004, 2005 and 2006, The minimum wage hadn't been raised in 7, 8 and 9 years respectively. It was raised each of the next 3 years, which in turn were #60 #44 and #26 in that order. This compares directly to what happened in 1950, just slower.
7a) Remember, this was when W's recession hit. And the CPI-adjusted minimum wage, and therefore the purchasing power of the nation's poorest, still went up.
7b) If you were employed, of course.
7c) The CPI-adjusted minimum wage in 2006, just before it was raised, was $6.61. Again, to make this clear, it has not been that low since 1950.

8) The Trump years were #49 #54 #58 and #62 in that order. Remember, that's out of 76.

9) Extrapolating from the last ten years, if the minimum wage does not change, its purchasing power will continue to drop. Duh. But it will reach that low point of 2005's in two years, and drop below 2006's value -- again, that's the lowest it's been since 1950 -- in 2025 or so.

So there are three obvious choices on the field:
A) Do nothing, and soon drop to the worst the US has seen since the boomers were in diapers.
B) Raise to $15, which basically hasn't happened before. (It may have happened pre-1945 but I don't have CPI for those years)
C) Raise to $12, which will put it on par with the 1968 highest we've seen -- proving the USA can, in fact, do this.



EXTRA: I also found GDP growth by year and ran each of the following regressions;
a) CPI-adjusted minimum wage vs. GDP growth that year
b) vs. growth the following year
c) vs. growth two years later
d) and vs. growth three years later

None of them gave an r-squared value past 0.01 or something else stupid small.

10) There is no demonstrable corellation between the minimum wage, and GDP growth rate in the immediate future.
10a) Raising the minimum wage does not tank the economy. Other forces control that far more, such as W's recession or COVID.
10b) Raising the minimum wage doesn't boost the economy all that much, either.

[Machismo]

No, it isn’t. It’s based on statistical data and economic projections done by people who specialize in such things. What are your qualifications again? Pushing for privatized roads so that we have to pay for every street we use to the owner?

And yet, nobody has shown that statistical data and economic projections.

That's the problem.

[Endus]

I'm saying that the $15 is entirely arbitrary. So, why not $100?

Seriously, this has been answered at least a half-dozen times by as many posters.

Stop asking dishonest "questions" that only serve to demonstrate your bad faith intent.

[Machismo]

Your whole argument is arbitrary as well since you have provided no data that 15 dollars is wrong.

You keep saying it will harm WV but you provide no data on how?

is there a story that supports this?


BTW you were the one that talked about meals for a family of 5 i guess this is why it started to get muddled.
Not sure why any discussion about min wage be limited to just a single person

Once again, the fucking burden is on you people who want the $15.

And yes, I have... because it has literally never been close to that number, when inflation is taken into account. That was provided multiple times, and ignored.

It was about a single person, because the person provided an article about the minimum liveable wage in Missouri being about $39k for a single person.... which strikes me as absurd.

[Themius]

Wait, what?

Okay, fine.

I got some data analysis going from 1945+ and this is what I found:

1) 2020 was the 11th year ina row with no raise to the minimum wage. Since 1945, that's never happened before and is likely the real issue here.

In the 76 years that stared with 1945, I tied the minimum wage directly to the CPI, not the rate of inflation, to talk about its purchasing power. These were ranked #1 to #76.

2) In the years 1961 to 1970, we saw years 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8.
2a) The best year was 1968, the year the minimum waige went from $1.25 to $1.60
2b) The CPI-adjusted 1967 minimum wage, highest on my list, was $11.89
3) In the years 1971 to 1980, we saw years 5, 7, 9 and 10.
4) In those two years, the worst year ws 1974, which was ranked #30.
5) In the year 1974, the minimum wage had stayed the same for six years straight. It was raised in 1975 (#10) and 1976 (#5)

It shouldn't be a huge surprise that, the longer the minimum wage goes without changing, the worse it gets.

6) The worst years for the CPI-adjusted minimum wage were 1945 to 1949. The minimum wage was not doing the job. Years #72 through #76 were all here, and the CPI-adjusted minimum wage was $5.75 dropping to $4.35
6a) The minimum wage was raised in 1950 from 40 cents to 75, $8.05 CPI-adjusted, year #38. This was an enormous change.

7) Years #68 #70 and #71 were 2004, 2005 and 2006, The minimum wage hadn't been raised in 7, 8 and 9 years respectively. It was raised each of the next 3 years, which in turn were #60 #44 and #26 in that order. This compares directly to what happened in 1950, just slower.
7a) Remember, this was when W's recession hit. And the CPI-adjusted minimum wage, and therefore the purchasing power of the nation's poorest, still went up.
7b) If you were employed, of course.
7c) The CPI-adjusted minimum wage in 2006, just before it was raised, was $6.61. Again, to make this clear, it has not been that low since 1950.

8) The Trump years were #49 #54 #58 and #62 in that order. Remember, that's out of 76.

9) Extrapolating from the last ten years, if the minimum wage does not change, its purchasing power will continue to drop. Duh. But it will reach that low point of 2005's in two years, and drop below 2006's value -- again, that's the lowest it's been since 1950 -- in 2025 or so.

So there are three obvious choices on the field:
A) Do nothing, and soon drop to the worst the US has seen since the boomers were in diapers.
B) Raise to $15, which basically hasn't happened before. (It may have happened pre-1945 but I don't have CPI for those years)
C) Raise to $12, which will put it on par with the 1968 highest we've seen -- proving the USA can, in fact, do this.



EXTRA: I also found GDP growth by year and ran each of the following regressions;
a) CPI-adjusted minimum wage vs. GDP growth that year
b) vs. growth the following year
c) vs. growth two years later
d) and vs. growth three years later

None of them gave an r-squared value past 0.01 or something else stupid small.

10) There is no demonstrable corellation between the minimum wage, and GDP growth rate in the immediate future.
10a) Raising the minimum wage does not tank the economy. Other forces control that far more, such as W's recession or COVID.
10b) Raising the minimum wage doesn't boost the economy all that much, either.

One thing to note about all this is that there are other methods to use which... I tend to prefer over just straight inflation. There's the "static" way and then the "dynamic" way that takes into accounts an ever-changing basket of goods. The latter puts things in a much worse light.

[Endus]

And yes, I have... because it has literally never been close to that number, when inflation is taken into account. That was provided multiple times, and ignored.

It wasn't "ignored". It was dismissed as irrelevant, because the minimum wage has never been sufficient to be a living wage, as it was originally intended to be.

It's an attempt to shift goalposts. A tactic you enjoy making use of.

Edit: And just to show I can back my stance up with actual evidence, here's FDR explaining his intent in crafting a minimum wage;

"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.

“By business I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.”

Both specifies that he meant it to be a living wage, and confirms that his understanding of the term was the same as we use today; the wages of a decent living, not just basic subsistence.

[Breccia]

I tend to prefer over just straight inflation.

Like I said, they're roughly the same. I used CPI because I had it handy from recent classwork. That picture above? That's inflation. CNN did that already. But compare those peaks and valleys to my data -- they're in the same spot.

[Machismo]

Yes, I have. You didn’t read through it enough to understand it and then complained that they didn’t explain(when they do quite well through citations). Seriously, what are your qualifications in economics?

Where?

Show me.

Show me for exactly $15, and that it's not arbitrary.

As for the rest, that wa already torn to shit by the push for $900 a month for transportation being on the lowest end.

[Machismo]

Seriously, this has been answered at least a half-dozen times by as many posters.

Stop asking dishonest "questions" that only serve to demonstrate your bad faith intent.

Nope, it's been dodged, there's a difference.

If people are going to push arbitrary bullshit, expect it in return.

What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

[Zan15]

Not really lucky, I just held onto it longer than 5 years. That's why i questioned their numbers, especially considering that's supposed to be on the lower end of costs for such things.

I make a pretty good living, and if those numbers were high for me, I can only imagine that there's plenty of people paying far less.

yah but on the flip side there are plenty of people who own cars that are both more expensive than you and higher upkeep. Thus the averages in the numbers quoted.

Like i said i am a prime example of the polar opposite of you that is why we have averages.

If I didn't buy the extended warranty my average would be multiples higher than it is thanks to fords problem with transmissions and suspensions.

I had 2800 dollars worth of work so far in march on suspension, breaks, tires and oil changes. Of course i only paid about 220.00 after the warranty work.
Already had 3 transmissions since 2017-2018.
and my car only cost me 12k. 16k with warranty. 18k with taxes. 20k with interest. (350 dollars a year on taxes also added to cost of ownership you probably don't have)

I've only owned it for 4 years in may.

so now put us two together and we can probably inch closer to that original # quoted.

[Machismo]

It wasn't "ignored". It was dismissed as irrelevant, because the minimum wage has never been sufficient to be a living wage, as it was originally intended to be.

It's an attempt to shift goalposts. A tactic you enjoy making use of.

Then, why start now?

By your own calculator, it's not $15 an hour.

- - - Updated - - -

Cost of living. Go read up on it. Inflation is but one factor. C’mon, you’re the one saying experts are wrong. Show us how they are. I’ve linked a very comprehensive piece with a ton of citations on how it’s all calculated. Your best response is that over the last 9 years it cost less than it will over 9 years starting in 2025. No shit sherlock.

- - - Updated - - -



I did. You refuse to read it and keep claiming that the past is the same as the future. Good luck with that. Based on your logic you shouldn’t be making what you do. Because in 1950 someone paid for their shit at a much lower cost.

Nope, I read it.

- - - Updated - - -

yah but on the flip side there are plenty of people who own cars that are both more expensive than you and higher upkeep. Thus the averages in the numbers quoted.

Like i said i am a prime example of the polar opposite of you that is why we have averages.

If I didn't buy the extended warranty my average would be multiples higher than it is thanks to fords problem with transmissions and suspensions.

I had 2800 dollars worth of work so far in march on suspension, breaks, tires and oil changes. Of course i only paid about 220.00 after the warranty work.
Already had 3 transmissions since 2017-2018.
and my car only cost me 12k. 16k with warranty. 18k with taxes. 20k with interest. (350 dollars a year on taxes also added to cost of ownership you probably don't have)

I've only owned it for 4 years in may.

so now put us two together and we can probably inch closer to that original # quoted.

yes, plenty of people do own more expensive cars... good for them.

This is supposed to be the bare minimum... the low end.

[Machismo]

Nope. You didn’t. Why should we base cost of living on your past 9 years(14 years after the fact) instead of 100 years earlier? You make far too much and overpay for your transportation. Shit shouldn’t cost more than $1/month.

If we did that, then it still doesn't come close to $15 an hour.

[Endus]

Nope, it's been dodged, there's a difference.

Liar.

That's a straight-up lie.

Then, why start now?

Because the minimum wage has never once in its entire history every actually fulfilled what it was expected to achieve. Already explained this.

By your own calculator, it's not $15 an hour.

I'll also note you've completely ignored that argument. Because you aren't actually interested in discussing this. Just shitting on any attempt to bump the minimum wage.

Yes, by my preferred standard, $15 is not enough. But if the political capital is there to achieve a $15 minimum wage, that's a hell of a lot closer to my standard than the current minimum wage. So I'll accept that as a practical step forward while continuing to push for even more.

This shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp.

[Machismo]

Liar.

That's a straight-up lie.



Because the minimum wage has never once in its entire history every actually fulfilled what it was expected to achieve. Already explained this.



I'll also note you've completely ignored that argument. Because you aren't actually interested in discussing this. Just shitting on any attempt to bump the minimum wage.

You would be one to talk. You've lied so many times about what I've said... including in this thread.

No, it simply hasn't done what YOU WANT IT TO DO.

There's a difference.

Your own calculator for a "living wage" doesn't reflect a baseline of $15 an hour. Don't blame me, blame the guy who provided your source.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, it does. See, cost of living.., nevermind. You’re willfully ignorant when it comes to this.

You mean the cost of living that says one should expect to pay $920 a month for transportation on the very low end?

[Endus]

You would be one to talk. You've lied so many times about what I've said... including in this thread.

By all means, point out any one single lie I've made.

Note that pointing out your inconsistencies in ways that challenge your self-image doesn't count as a "lie", just a truth you don't like hearing.

No, it simply hasn't done what YOU WANT IT TO DO.

There's a difference.

Again, a lie.

The opinion I cited there was not mine. It was the opinion of the man who instituted it.

Your own calculator for a "living wage" doesn't reflect a baseline of $15 an hour. Don't blame me, blame the guy who provided your source.

And now you're lying about my position. I never claimed $15 was a living wage. I said I support it because it's closer to a minimum wage, but not sufficient to meet that expectation.

[Machismo]

By all means, point out any one single lie I've made.

Note that pointing out your inconsistencies in ways that challenge your self-image doesn't count as a "lie", just a truth you don't like hearing.



Again, a lie.

The opinion I cited there was not mine. It was the opinion of the man who instituted it.



And now you're lying about my position. I never claimed $15 was a living wage. I said I support it because it's closer to a minimum wage, but not sufficient to meet that expectation.

That has been done numerous times...

You claimed I was lying when I support unions.

That easy.

[Endus]

That has been done numerous times...

You claimed I was lying when I support unions.

That easy.

False.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53087047
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53087074
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53087088
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53087097

You are lying about that. You claim to support them, but you don't support them having the legal capacity to actually bargain or protect workers. Which means you don't support them. And when challenged on this, you went down a spiral of shifting goalposts until you started expected consumers to step in, which means you weren't even talking about trade unions any more at all.

I wasn't lying about a thing. Just pointing out that your position was a house of cards built on a sand dune in a windstorm. It falls apart immediately when you poke at it.

It's like saying "I support black people, but if cops need to shoot them proactively to feel safe and frame them for drug use to keep the streets safe, so be it". You immediately prove the original statement of support false by everything that comes after.