2016 Election Thread

[Mike Sixel]

In some cases, prices have gone up, or business have decided to stop running. But, generally, the history shows that prices don't go up enough to cancel out the increase.

 

Indeed, an opposite effect has occurred in many small towns. When Wal Mart came in, undercut prices like crazy, many people lost good paying jobs. They then took low paying jobs with Wal Mart....jobs that didn't pay enough to shop there and live at the level they did before. Cutting prices partly by cutting wages really only works out well for business owners (if you take the Wal Mart and Costco data as conclusive across the world, which it isn't, but it is fascinating).

[Willihammer]

 

Forgive my ignorance on the matter of increasing minimum wage, I'm just trying to learn since there's arguments on both sides. Let's say the minimum wage was increased to $15/ hr. Wouldn't the price of goods and services also go up on account of more currency being out there in the market? And essentially cancel out the increase in wages? 

 

And also, if the minimum wage is $15/hr, and those kind of positions are typically lower skill-sets/education requirements to obtain those positions, what will that mean for higher skill-set positions? My math could be wrong, but $15/hr is roughly $31k a year before taxes.. Compared to an engineer of any discipline (mechanical, electrical, civil), entry level starts off around $50-60k, more senior engineers are in the $100k range. I just don't know if low skill jobs should even come close to other higher skill-set positions out there..

This is the sort of questioning that should be asked more. Markets are generally efficient and its extremely difficult to anticipate all of the short and long-term impacts of price controlling one of them. Which is why the default position should be to leave them alone unless a situation really warrants intervention, which I'm not convinced is the case with respect to the federal minimum wage in 2015.

 

It also gets at the concept of nominal vs real income, a concept most people behind the $15 minimum wage movement don't seem to understand or don't care to think about. Yes the minimum wage has stayed flat for a while but inflation has stayed low too.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Seriously, people make what they want to make?

 

No, I work in the career field I want to work in. That someone values a guy who runs with a football or throws a baseball nearly 1,000 times more than the work I do is not my decision. I work in mental health, and my wife is a teacher. We were playing around the other night and did the numbers. On a $15/hr minimum wage, we'd take a minuscule hit in our day jobs, but the increase in pay from our part-time jobs would more than make up for that. I would say that we're both working in positions that are not only valuable to society, but absolutely vital to society, but the worth placed on that position, regardless of how much education I pay for, is much lower than my brother who sells agricultural equipment.

 

Sure, I could find a job that pays me more and leave my field of interest and skill and be miserable. Of course, seeing as I'm so close to working at Wendy's in wage, I must be an ex-con as eluded to earlier, right? So no way any "respectable" job would hire me. Nevermind that I work part-time in the correctional system, not behind the bars, so that assumption is out the window as well.

 

Ex con?  Wendys workers are ex cons?  It's amazing the leaps people make because they can't discuss economics.  Lets just make up what people said.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Ex con?  Wendys workers are ex cons?  It's amazing the leaps people make because they can't discuss economics.  Lets just make up what people said.

 

He probably misunderstood the part where you put in they were breaking the law. Perhaps you could assume positive intent, instead of evil.

 

Btw, this all started when you said lying about economic theory was the same about lying about past events that are factual.......are we ready to say that isn't the same kind of thing yet?

[TheLeviathan]

I think there's room for a minimum wage increase, but I'm generally opposed to a national one that high.  That is really an area state governments should be managing based on their own individual economic situations.  

 

But we might a well make working at Wendy's as profitable as being a social worker.  We've already decimated the value of a college education long ago, we might as well just dive in with both feet at this point.

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

Honestly, when conservatives finally understand that crime is connected to poverty, this nation will be a lot better off.  

 

If you want to paint a minimum wage hike as being tough on crime; I'm all for it.

 

Now I get it, you don't understand that a minimum wage law makes all other wages illegal.  In assuming that a lot of minimum wage workers are criminals in your head you project that onto me.  I understand the misunderstanding just keep in mind I don't share your views about people in poverty.  They are all capable of being good productive people.  Probably won't ever happen if all we ever do is let them know the minimum is the best you think they can do.

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

He probably misunderstood the part where you put in they were breaking the law. Perhaps you could assume positive intent, instead of evil.

 

Btw, this all started when you said lying about economic theory was the same about lying about past events that are factual.......are we ready to say that isn't the same kind of thing yet?

 

Present me some economic theory that suggest minimum wage laws have a net positive impact and I will.  Living wage is nice but people can make a living wage with or without minimum wage laws.

[Mike Sixel]

I'm not an economist....but these people are:

 

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/index.cfm/2015/7/top-economists-are-backing-sen-bernie-sanders-on-establishing-a-15-an-hour-minimum-wage

 

Like I said, and as my MBA professors said, economics is theory, and predictive, and we can't be sure....

 

[Mike Sixel]

Really, if you spend 5 seconds on Google, you can find lots of Nobel laureate and other professional economists that support not only a minimum wage, but a higher one. 

 

Proving my point, really, this is a theory, not a fact. Getting angry over discussing economic theory isn't my style, nor am I an expert, being over 20 years removed from taking such classes. I will just have to rely on the fact that some economists like the idea, and some don't.

[Mike Sixel]

btw, other mike, I enjoy the discussion mostly. no issues from me that we disagree, if we all agreed on everything, the world would never change.....and it would be boring and awful and die.

[mikecgrimes]

 

I'm not an economist....but these people are:

 

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/index.cfm/2015/7/top-economists-are-backing-sen-bernie-sanders-on-establishing-a-15-an-hour-minimum-wage

 

Like I said, and as my MBA professors said, economics is theory, and predictive, and we can't be sure....

 

That is an economic professor no doubt, I had one like him.  If you assign an economic positive to income inequality as he did you can come up with a net economic positive.  You might disagree with me but income equality is meaningless as it's not a zero sum game. 

 

The easiest path to income equality is to take away wealth not create it.

[DaveW]

 

I think there's room for a minimum wage increase, but I'm generally opposed to a national one that high.  That is really an area state governments should be managing based on their own individual economic situations.  

 

 

The problem is, as we have seen is that most states can't be trusted to actually look out or give a **** about the poor working class. (Look at how many states want to cut welfare significantly, or do other outreagous stuff to it, just yesterday a Mississpi policitian said he wants to make all welfare receipts adresses and idenitites public knowledge, WTF! This seems to be happening once a week or so)

 

But I agree with the premise, I'm not sure $15 is the magic number everywhere, I think in places like NYC, LA, Chicago, SF  it should be somewhere between $17-$18.50.

 

In places like Dallas, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Phoenix, Seattle maybe somewhere between $13.50-$16

 

Rural areas, smaller cities, it still needs to be higher then $7.25 IMO, it should be at least $10 an hour. Have it go up to $8.50 in year one, and $10 in year two. If a business can't figure out how to keep the doors open for a $2.75 raise over two years, then frankly, let them fail. That's business.

 

Even in a rural city $10 an hour should be the absolute bare minimum. $400 a week is still a joke to try to live on.

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

The problem is, as we have seen is that most states can't be trusted to actually look out or give a **** about the poor working class. (Look at how many states want to cut welfare significantly, or do other outreagous stuff to it, just yesterday a Mississpi policitian said he wants to make all welfare receipts adresses and idenitites public knowledge, WTF! This seems to be happening once a week or so)

 

But I agree with the premise, I'm not sure $15 is the magic number everywhere, I think in places like NYC, LA, Chicago, SF  it should be somewhere between $17-$18.50.

 

In places like Dallas, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Phoenix, Seattle maybe somewhere between $13.50-$16

 

Rural areas, smaller cities, it still needs to be higher then $7.25 IMO, it should be at least $10 an hour. Have it go up to $8.50 in year one, and $10 in year two. If a business can't figure out how to keep the doors open for a $2.75 raise over two years, then frankly, let them fail. That's business.

 

Even in a rural city $10 an hour should be the absolute bare minimum. $400 a week is still a joke to try to live on.

 

We do need welfare reform, but not for the reasons Republicans typically give.  Many of our systems are so flawed they don't even remotely accomplish the things we want them to.  We live in a system right now built on a combination of good ideas with horrible execution and bad ideas with good execution.  

 

As I said, I think there is room to increase the floor nationally, but $15 an hour is just a preposterously bad idea.  And there will be real costs economically for others, the problem with that is that we're never quite sure how those ramifications will be felt.

 

Many a good thing has been attempted and resulted in more bad ramifications than good.  Minimum wage is just begging for the same to happen without a good deal of caution.

 

If anything, the mark we should be concentrating our efforts on is not the minimum wage earners, but the middle class.  Mental and social health workers like Ben.  Teachers.  Truly small businesses.  The kinds of blue collar and glue jobs that keep a country going.

[Willihammer]

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/index.cfm/2015/7/top-economists-are-backing-sen-bernie-sanders-on-establishing-a-15-an-hour-minimum-wage

This means that, if the federal minimum wage had risen in step with both inflation and average labor productivity since 1968, the federal minimum wage today would be $26.00 an hour.

This seems disingenuous. The price control they're suggesting would have directly impacted inflation and probably productivity too. Over the 47 years since 1968, we can only guess as to how the compounding effects would have impacted the economy today. It seems quite possible that we would not have enjoyed the 4% annual GDP growth and real household growth in all income quintiles that we had over that timespan. Interest rates, the value of the dollar, balance of trade, it all would have been effected.

[Mike Sixel]

Or, we would have had a lot more spending from the lower classes, and our GDP would be even higher.....we don't know, do we? It's easy for people like us that don't spend all day working on this stuff to dismiss it, but again, this is theory (on which super smart people disagree), we just don't know for sure.

 

I tend to think that many of the philosophers of the 16-18th century, upon which we have based our belief that some government is necessary (and upon which much of old school Christianity is based, that is, we need rules or we'd totally ruin ourselves), is still true. I think there is a need for government regulations against child labor, slavery, and other things that are basically allowed under a free market economy. I think, though I am not sure, minimum wage laws are needed.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Forgive my ignorance on the matter of increasing minimum wage, I'm just trying to learn since there's arguments on both sides. Let's say the minimum wage was increased to $15/ hr. Wouldn't the price of goods and services also go up on account of more currency being out there in the market? And essentially cancel out the increase in wages? 

No, an increase in prices would not cancel out the benefit of a higher minimum wage.   Everyone would pay the higher price, not just those benefiting from a wage increase.  One could see a minimum wage hike as a subsidy we all pay through price.

 

I know people are opposed to spreading the wealth around, but when the GDP continues to outpace wages; the market isn't doing the job of spreading wealth.  The market is rigged so that wealth stays concentrated among the same few.

 

And regarding your point about high skill jobs. With any increase in minimum wage, there is some squeeze in the middle.  But plenty of high-skill jobs aren't economically valued the way we would have it.  In general, I don't want a class division between high-skill and low-skill people; because that creates the cycle of poverty mikewins referred to above. 

[mikecgrimes]

Quick point on price and then I'm going to try to move on.  If price increases would bring in more revenue the price increases would of already happened.  Higher wages for some would lead to higher demand among that group, but outside of a few price elastic items those demand increases wouldn't amount to much. 

 

Moving on...

 

Two big stories John Boehner resigns.  I don't know that it will have a huge impact on the nomination but the it gives the party a little more chance to move in the direction it seems the primary voter wants.

 

The second story I think despite not containing much real news has dominated every minute of cable news coverage all week, the pope is in town.  Normally probably no political impact at all, but because of the way Trump was being covered it kind of feels like the reset button has been hit.  I wouldn't be the least bit shocked if polls next week show a major slip, and for him once it starts I don't expect him to rebound to 30%. 

 

Anyways good minimum wage debate especially toward the end.  I probably get a little to fired up because of my background but I hope thats what were all here for.

[biggentleben]

Sad to see Boehner go from a political point of view. When you piss off both parties, you're likely doing something right. This will only lead to the Republican party moving even farther away from center, and, frankly, farther away from the opportunity to have a representative in the White House after 2016.

[Badsmerf]

Hey Mike, I'm still waiting for an argument against raising minimum wage. I really want to hear you out on this, not being an ass.

 

I've recently moved away from the conservative point if view on trickle down economics, because, well people are inherently greedy. I also don't believe all people that work these jobs are lazy, or don't want better jobs.

 

Anyway, just looking for the grounds of your opinion.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Hey Mike, I'm still waiting for an argument against raising minimum wage. I really want to hear you out on this, not being an ass.

I've recently moved away from the conservative point if view on trickle down economics, because, well people are inherently greedy. I also don't believe all people that work these jobs are lazy, or don't want better jobs.

Anyway, just looking for the grounds of your opinion.

 

It's all theory, so you know nobody wants to answer the question why not $50 or why not $1000 from an actual economic perspective.  I guess people from the opposing side could continue to hurl insults, but I'm done.

 

If you actually want an answer I strongly encourage you to take an economics class.  It's theory so in some peoples minds nothing you learn means a thing, but supply and demand curves, marginal cost and marginal benefit curves are all very real and business owners are only willing to fall on one side of the line.  Profit is part of the equation every business owner has a minimum level of profit.  Some way more then others, you can say to bad all you want but you can't mandate someone stay in business.

[biggentleben]

 

It's all theory, so you know nobody wants to answer the question why not $50 or why not $1000 from an actual economic perspective.  I guess people from the opposing side could continue to hurl insults, but I'm done.

 

If you actually want an answer I strongly encourage you to take an economics class.  It's theory so in some peoples minds nothing you learn means a thing, but supply and demand curves, marginal cost and marginal benefit curves are all very real and business owners are only willing to fall on one side of the line.  Profit is part of the equation every business owner has a minimum level of profit.  Some way more then others, you can say to bad all you want but you can't mandate someone stay in business.

 

So you're saying you don't understand it, in other words. Got ya.

[mikecgrimes]

No not at all. I've asked a clear question over and over and other then the cost of living explanation everyone has refused to answer it. It's not just here I've asked the politicians the question over and over even asking it as why not $15.01? People refuse to answer the question. I know why they don't answer the question, but to fall back on the its all theory argument without then using opposing theory to answer that question tells me the truth. That's why this issue is just as much about lies as anything Carly fiarino has said.

[biggentleben]

 

No not at all. I've asked a clear question over and over and other then the cost of living explanation everyone has refused to answer it. It's not just here I've asked the politicians the question over and over even asking it as why not $15.01? People refuse to answer the question. I know why they don't answer the question, but to fall back on the its all theory argument without then using opposing theory to answer that question tells me the truth. That's why this issue is just as much about lies as anything Carly fiarino has said.

 

So they refuse to directly answer you the way that you're refusing to directly answer the question smerf is asking?

[mikecgrimes]

I've answered it over and over.  I suppose I've been asked so much that I at times blow the question off, as the opposing side seems to always do.  First of all if they want to rase it to $15 phased  in as they propose I have no problem with the policy as it has virtually no real effect, I would never vote for it, but I see no harm.  I have a major problem with the pandering and the acting as if they have the political courage to inact meaningful change for the better, but thats politics.  I guess I've asked why not $50 enough times (an answer of we could raise it to around $24 based on this set of information would be sufficiant) to know the pro minimum wage crowd has no real intent of raising it to a level to test their theory (of which they don't seem willing to present).

 

So again I have answered every question directed my way.  If you want to add meaningful insight to the debate go for it.

[stringer bell]

Mod note: It looks to me like the conversation is devolving. A good conversation on minimum wage, but you're talking past each other and the sniping has started. Take a step back and review the comment policy. Thanks.

[PseudoSABR]

 

No not at all. I've asked a clear question over and over and other then the cost of living explanation everyone has refused to answer it. It's not just here I've asked the politicians the question over and over even asking it as why not $15.01? 

Well we shouldn't simply pick a number at random, but the wage we do pick should be based on where wages would be if they had grown at the same rate as GDP.  The market is broken when not even trickle-down effect seems to be happening.  There's far too much legal protection on the investment, ownership side and--obviously--not enough on the labor side.  

 

Like others, I think 15 dollars is rather absurd, but there's an intelligent way to institute a wage increase that would simulate a functional market.  I don't care if stat-geeks or policy-wonks that come up with it, but that the specific number is hard derived is disingenuous strike against the minimum wage. 

[Craig Arko]

[ashbury]

Every single extremist believes him or herself to be the rational one in the discussion.

[Craig Arko]

 

Every single extremist believes him or herself to be the rational one in the discussion.

They're all the square root of 2.

[ashbury]

They're all the square root of 2.

You and I, of course, being the transcendental exceptions.