American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

A $15 min wage in Mississippi would cause businesses to close in some areas and people to lose their jobs. There is just not enough money in some local economies to absorb that increase.

If you are ok with that, then fine. But at that point it just seems like you are more concerned with wins for "progressive" ideas than actually benefitting people.

In Canada at least - you are more likely to earn minimum wage at a large company than a small company. Large companies can use the low minimum wage and use the money they save to market and brand themselves so they can put the smaller companies out of business.

Minimum wage is $15 in Alberta and less than $12 in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Are those places doing better than Alberta?

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It would also be kind of silly to pretend a 50% reduction in the cost of literally everything is a remotely logical comparison to raising the wages of those who are below a living wage to a living wage, but you still went ahead with it, so let’s not pretend silly is out of the question.

As much as I do love a good socialist utopia (reduce by 50%? forget it, let’s make everything free and just give it out according to need), we’re talking things that are a little more realistic here. The rebuttals are just the same tired excuses.

“But it will cause problems!” Cool, which problems and how exactly? Because we’re trying to fix a very big problem that exists right now, not hypothetical fantasy problems that may or may not exist in the future.

“But businesses will close!” maybe they’re bad businesses? Businesses close now. What are you doing to save them now? There will be more people with more money, perhaps they will even be able to save enough to start that business they’ve always wanted to start!

“$15 isn’t the magic number!” cool, let’s find the number that is correct, whether that’s city-by-city or area-by-area, and go with that one.

“What about business owners?” What about the greater numbers of people they employ?

“Costs will just go up!” Sure, and let’s have the living wage everyone gets go up with them. A select number of people hold the vast majority of the wealth, and people are acting like it’s a bad thing if people at the bottom rung keep getting more money and the gap starts to close.

The system isn’t that complex. We invented it. Every single complexity that exists is one we invented and one we can change if we want to.

The biggest single issue is that people don’t want it to change. People like that there are people who are poorer than they are. The system might be broken, but gosh darn it, I’ve done ok so how bad can it be. Any change that might have an impact on them that could be perceived as negative is too much.

As I said, mandate higher minimum wages to match a cost of living, or implement a UBI. We’re all paying for it either way, so let’s go. Or everyone middle class and lower can keep licking the boots of the rich and continue waiting patiently for whatever they want to send down the line. Because it’s been so, so much, hasn’t it?

I was choosing a 50% figure to intentionally be silly and make a point. You responded to a post about raising the minimum wage in Calgary to $30/hour and in SF to $100k/annum with support for those raises. That $30/hour would be a 230% increase above Alberta's increased minimum wage this year.

The silliness of such dramatic proposals is why I asked if you were actually being serious in the first place.

I'm not even opposed to minimum wage increases. I am opposed to dramatically raising minimum wages at levels like that and telling businesses that can't afford it to just close up shop. That’s just a harmful thing to do.

You saying that cost of living, labor markets, and the economy aren't complex suggests to me this isn't going to be a productive conversation though. From my point of view, acknowledging these things are complex systems issues is foundational to even recognizing the basic nature of what we’re discussing.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I don’t think there are any examples of doubling a min wage in an economy similar to areas in Mississippi in terms of the total pool of money and average income. So it’s kind of guessing. Raising min wage isn’t going to bring more money into a small, local economy.

For the record - I agree with your general point. The minimum wage of Mississippi should probably be lower than the minimum wage in Washington or whatever rich state you want to put in there.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Mississippi minimum wage is $7.25 right now. Heck - even $10 would be a decent increase.

That’s probably the right amount with some kind of escalator over time. A policy like that takes into account local economies is a good option. Bernie loudly saying $15 across the board is the only acceptable solution is stalling any ability to develop a sound policy of getting a desirable income of helping people without the unintended consequences.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

That’s probably the right amount with some kind of escalator over time. A policy like that takes into account local economies is a good option. Bernie loudly saying $15 across the board is the only acceptable solution is stalling any ability to develop a sound policy of getting a desirable income of helping people without the unintended consequences.

Somewhere in one of these minimum wage threads (actually a few times) someone has posted the answer to this question.

It’s something like 60% of median wage should be minimum.

Edit: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/wh...is-pretty-safe

Pretty good article which links to the research it’s based on

Mississippi weekly wage is 843 which based on a 40hr week is 21 which would put 60% at 12.50 or so. With a 35hr average work week it would be $14.50

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I don’t think there are any examples of doubling a min wage in an economy similar to areas in Mississippi in terms of the total pool of money and average income. So it’s kind of guessing. Raising min wage isn’t going to bring more money into a small, local economy.

So you admit you're completely speculating based on zero evidence, but then doubling-down with definitive statements?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I was choosing a 50% figure to intentionally be silly and make a point. You responded to a post about raising the minimum wage in Calgary to $30/hour and in SF to $100k/annum with support for those raises. That $30/hour would be a 230% increase above Alberta's increased minimum wage this year.

The silliness of such dramatic proposals is why I asked if you were actually being serious in the first place.

I'm not even opposed to minimum wage increases. I am opposed to dramatically raising minimum wages at levels like that and telling businesses that can't afford it to just close up shop. That’s just a harmful thing to do.

You saying that cost of living, labor markets, and the economy aren't complex suggests to me this isn't going to be a productive conversation though. From my point of view, acknowledging these things are complex systems issues is foundational to even recognizing the basic nature of what we’re discussing.

I would think a key to a productive conversation would be to reference what I said verbatim, not purposefully misrepresenting or misunderstanding without asking for clarification and going off that, no?

I said "Let's raise the minimums then." I support a living wage, we should raise minimums to a living wage. My response was serious, but I also had the gift of knowing nfotiu was lying about the living wage in Calgary being $30/hr and $100k/year in SF. If those were the living wage numbers, I would still agree. But they're not. So when I said I was serious, I was serious that minimums should be living wages. I just assumed you also knew nfotiu was making up numbers to make a point.

I also didn't say "cost of living, labor markets, and the economy aren't complex" I said "The system isn’t that complex. We invented it. Every single complexity that exists is one we invented and one we can change if we want to." You quoted that, so I assume you read it, and it doesn't require context to avoid misinterpreting it as "the system isn't complex" when I specifically mention the "complexities." 'That' is a pretty key word here. The point being, it's human. We engineered the complexity into it. We can engineer it out.

If you want a productive conversation, sure. First step: let's keep it honest. Second step: let's assume we're beyond the foundational basics and that everyone understands "the economy" and everything related is complex. It'll make for a more interesting conversation. Just saying it's complex like that is a salient point in and of itself is kind of lazy. You reducing it down to "just crank hard on one lever to fix the system's problems. It would certainly cause a lot of other problems" means you're coming in late to the conversation and asking to be hand held on stuff people have already addressed. Which is fine, but don't act like we're all starting at zero again once you show up.

[SebC]

Something I think isn't being accounted for by either side of this discussion is competitive markets.

If you suddenly had to pay $15/hr and your competitors don't, yes, you'd go out of business fast. They have lower costs than you, thus can offer their product at lower cost, and will eat up your market share. But raise costs for everyone, and you can raise your prices. Higher price still lowers quantity demanded of course, but it's far less of an effect on your business than the "just you" scenario, and it is partially mitigated by money in the system increasing demand (unless what you sell is an "inferior good" that gets substituted out when people have more money).

On the flip side, a business that employs low-value workers is constrained by its competitors and it is not some kind of failure of its ownership that it cannot unilaterally pay its employees more.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by GGG

Somewhere in one of these minimum wage threads (actually a few times) someone has posted the answer to this question.

It’s something like 60% of median wage should be minimum.

Edit: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/wh...is-pretty-safe

Pretty good article which links to the research it’s based on

Mississippi weekly wage is 843 which based on a 40hr week is 21 which would put 60% at 12.50 or so. With a 35hr average work week it would be $14.50

https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/...5Onwards&hl=en

This says Mississippi’s median wage is $24k/year or more like 461/week. And about 11-12/hour. A $15 min wage is a few dollars higher than the median wage.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And yes, I agree that a $15 national minimum wage is a bad idea. It should be $15 as a baseline

Isn't that the same thing? A minimum?

I see what you're saying but it's kind of pointless if its not a law. The Democrats really should start with passing a $10 national minimum wage and have it go up $1 every two years. This would prevent places like Pennsylvania having a $7 one. Problem is state legislatures not passing laws so the feds have to.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/...5Onwards&hl=en

This says Mississippi’s median wage is $24k/year or more like 461/week. And about 11-12/hour. A $15 min wage is a few dollars higher than the median wage.

I was using BLS average weekly wage which is total income / total hours worked. This was not the correct value to use. The median income is not correct either. The study on the linked article refered to median wage. So you would need the median income / average hours worked and then take 60% of that.

BLS averages

https://www.bls.gov/regions/southeas...ississippi.htm

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So you admit you're completely speculating based on zero evidence, but then doubling-down with definitive statements?

There is some level that raising a min wage to will cause unintended consequences. It is the onus of the people proposing a 15 national minimum wage to show evidence that $15 is below that number in large areas of the country. Pointing to cities that doubled their min wage to a number far below the median wage does not make that case.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Isn't that the same thing? A minimum?

I see what you're saying but it's kind of pointless if its not a law. The Democrats really should start with passing a $10 national minimum wage and have it go up $1 every two years. This would prevent places like Pennsylvania having a $7 one. Problem is state legislatures not passing laws so the feds have to.

Yeah, the way I phrased it sounds like 6 of one half a dozen of the other. I was being a little cheeky.

It’s a bad idea in of it being the minimum wage everywhere, when the minimum wage should actually be higher in some places. So $15 is great nationally to ensure no one is below it, but some states are going to have to step up and go beyond it to have the same effect. It would be bad if all states just decided that was good enough (just as it would be even worse now if all states were at the federal minimum). Thankfully, there are a few areas even above $15 even despite the federal minimum of $7.25. So I don’t think it’s much of a worry.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I would think a key to a productive conversation would be to reference what I said verbatim, not purposefully misrepresenting or misunderstanding without asking for clarification and going off that, no?

Yeah, so....

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Do you actually mean that?

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I also didn't say "cost of living, labor markets, and the economy aren't complex" I said "The system isn’t that complex. We invented it. Every single complexity that exists is one we invented and one we can change if we want to." You quoted that, so I assume you read it, and it doesn't require context to avoid misinterpreting it as "the system isn't complex" when I specifically mention the "complexities." 'That' is a pretty key word here. The point being, it's human. We engineered the complexity into it. We can engineer it out.

I disagree that we engineered the complexities into it or that we can just change them if we want to. I don't see that as credible.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If you want a productive conversation, sure. First step: let's keep it honest. Second step: let's assume we're beyond the foundational basics and that everyone understands "the economy" and everything related is complex. It'll make for a more interesting conversation. Just saying it's complex like that is a salient point in and of itself is kind of lazy. You reducing it down to "just crank hard on one lever to fix the system's problems. It would certainly cause a lot of other problems" means you're coming in late to the conversation and asking to be hand held on stuff people have already addressed. Which is fine, but don't act like we're all starting at zero again once you show up.

I was pretty honest, beginning by asking a question to clarify your position. You're responding with a condescending and impolite tone, but I don't actually see you writing anything that makes me find you particularly thoughtful or credible. I'm not wasting time on that. Enjoy your day.

[rubecube]

Every time I see anything written about Pete's role as transportation secretary, this scene immediately plays in my head.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1538952321534636032

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Yeah, so....






I disagree that we engineered the complexities into it or that we can just change them if we want to. I don't see that as credible.

I was pretty honest, beginning by asking a question to clarify your position. You're responding with a condescending and impolite tone, but I don't actually see you writing anything that makes me find you particularly thoughtful or credible. I'm not wasting time on that. Enjoy your day.

Some valuable differences in how we ask for clarification there. You got the answer you asked for, but didn't ask for the clarification you needed and still went off on it anyway. Can't fix that for you.

But to the topic, let me get this straight (if you respond, if not, whatever), you don't think we engineered the complexities into a system we created every single part of and you don't think we can change them if we want to? So, what's the point of recognizing that they're complex? If we didn't create the complexity and can't change it, what are we doing? Just noting "hey, it's complex, nothing we can do about that complexity though"? Cool. Exciting. How did the systems become complex, then? Who or what created the rules that govern the systems that have lead to their complexity? Understanding that, to me, is the basics. If you think the basics are way further back than that, just "it's complex" then yeah, this is not going to be a productive conversation.

And hey, you enjoy your day as well. I don't particularly care how you waste your time, but thanks for wasting a little more of it to tell me off

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I would think a key to a productive conversation would be to reference what I said verbatim, not purposefully misrepresenting or misunderstanding without asking for clarification and going off that, no?

I said "Let's raise the minimums then." I support a living wage, we should raise minimums to a living wage. My response was serious, but I also had the gift of knowing nfotiu was lying about the living wage in Calgary being $30/hr and $100k/year in SF. If those were the living wage numbers, I would still agree. But they're not. So when I said I was serious, I was serious that minimums should be living wages. I just assumed you also knew nfotiu was making up numbers to make a point.

Where is the lie? You claimed that a min living wage in Mississippi is $15.60 an hour. The calculator someone posted earlier showed that Calgarians have to spend about more than double in local currency vs Jackson, MS. Why wouldn't that make $30 the living wage in Calgary if you are doing apples to apples comparisons?

San Francisco rent is nearly 4 times Cincinnati's. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44725026

There are plenty of reports of 6 figure earners living in their cars, and you can see streets lined with people living in cars, some of them pricey late model cars, if you visit.

It seems pretty obvious if you spend time in different parts of the USA that you can live a better life in a lot of rural US areas making $10/hour than making $30/hour in a big, California city.

Can you make a case that is not true?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Where is the lie? You claimed that a min living wage in Mississippi is $15.60 an hour. The calculator someone posted earlier showed that Calgarians have to spend about more than double in local currency vs Jackson, MS. Why wouldn't that make $30 the living wage in Calgary if you are doing apples to apples comparisons?

San Francisco rent is nearly 4 times Cincinnati's. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44725026

There are plenty of reports of 6 figure earners living in their cars, and you can see streets lined with people living in cars, some of them pricey late model cars, if you visit.

It seems pretty obvious if you spend time in different parts of the USA that you can live a better life in a lot of rural US areas making $10/hour than making $30/hour in a big, California city.

Can you make a case that is not true?

I'm plenty familiar with California and the Bay specifically, thanks. And I would happily argue it takes more than a "visit" to understand, whether you're talking about San Francisco, Oakland, or Soledad.

Numbeo is good for a very general, loose idea of different cities. It's user generated data. Jackson had 37 contributors over the last 18 months, the rent and apartment prices were based on one data entry. Calgary had over 500 in the last 12 months. It relies on the averages of the user inputs, so the data isn't something to hang your whole argument on.

Here's a reference for living wage in Calgary: https://livingwagealberta.ca/living-wage/

Here's one for Jackson, the MIT methodology is pretty respected: https://livingwage.mit.edu/metros/27140

Coming from two difference sources, their methodology likely differs slightly, but both seem reputable. $18.60 vs. $21.18 (for two adults, both working, with kids). I don't have a reference for individual (no kids) living wage in Calgary, but for Jackson it's $16.10 from the same source. If you wanted to make an assumption for Calgary, based on their data for other cities individual vs. family, it's probably around $22 for an individual in Calgary.

The reason Jackon's living wage goes up when you add children and Calgary's goes down is because Canadians and Albertans specifically enjoy a lot of child-related subsidies or subsidies that increase based on household size, such as Canada Child Benefit, Climate Action Incentive, Alberta Child Care Subsidy, and Alberta Child and Family Benefit. Calgarians also avoid much of the healthcare-related costs that having children involves, whether direct or based on insurance payments.

SF, for the record, is $30.81 individual and $40.37 for two adults, two kids. Or: $64,084/yr for an individual and $83,969.60/yr per adult, in a two kid household.

I have family without kids down there making less than $80k per year. They're doing just fine. Haven't slept in the Tesla yet, but great anecdote I'm sure.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Honestly, consumers don't want to pay what things are actually worth and that is a big issue. The cost of the product or service would be passed on to the consumer, and suddenly the new minimum wage is no different than the old minimum wage.

Is the problem that consumers "don't want to pay" or that they cannot afford to pay.

I'm sure it's a little of both. But when you're barely making enough money to keep a roof over your head, yeah, you're going to look to pay as little as possible for everything. It's the circuitous model that keeps Walmart employees spending their paycheck at Walmart.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s not just a left problem. How many people do you know that believe minimum wage jobs should be “stepping stones” for teens or shouldn’t be a career? What are their politics? How many do you know believe it’s ok for educated immigrants to be relegated to minimum wage jobs or hire undocumented immigrants for cheap labour (we know one!)? What are their politics? How many executives and hiring professionals require increasingly higher levels of education and work experience for entry level jobs? Do you think they’re all leftists?

Just piggybacking on this because it's part of the conversation that I think gets overlooked in the minimum wage debate.

If all minimum wage jobs are for teenagers, shouldn't we expect fast food places to only be open from 4-9pm? Should grocery stores also be like this? Should you only be able to grab a coffee on your drive home from work but not to?

Early days in the pandemic we lauded these "low skill" jobs as essential but we cannot find a way to make sure these essential jobs keep people fed and clothed and housed?

If we all agree that these jobs should exist, how can we then tell those workers that they deserve to live in poverty?

And re: small businesses, as someone who worked for one for 15 years...oh well. If your business model requires you to keep your employees below a living wage you are a bad business owner. You're bad at it and you shouldn't have a business. You're not entitled to a profit.

This also applies to big businesses, and stopping them would do a lot to help small businesses. Go back to taxing big businesses and the wealthiest earners at 1960s levels and use that money to buoy small businesses through the process of increasing overall wages. Provide tax cuts only to businesses that have a reasonable executive-to-lowest salary discrepancy, which stops Amazon and McDonalds and Walmart from getting tax breaks while they have employees drawing public benefits.

When poor people get more money they spend it, it's been proven time and time again. Lower and middle income earners having more money helps all businesses, including the small ones. And no, a minimum wage increase across the board will not fix all of the problems but it's like the gun debate: you cannot simply do nothing . People are losing their homes, children are going without food. Something has to give and the absolute bare minimum we can do is get the lowest wages up to something slightly dignified. If we hadn't waited 15 years maybe we wouldn't need drastic change.

[GirlySports]

Good point. I never thought of the more hours and conveniece factor. More hours equals more workers at lower prices for our convenience. Remember when Walmart went 24/7 here? Now "only" back to 7am to 11pm