American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

No, I'm just saying that he's failing on a good chunk of his promises already. Some of the EOs have been good, but it's largely been exactly what I expected. The "return to normal" that does dick all for working people.
Bernie isn't the president, so it's time to stop using him as a whataboutism. If he was the president and failing to get anything done while holding both wings of Congress, I'd be all over him, too.

Biden supporters kept trumpeting his agenda as the most progressive in U.S. history. That's nice, but you have to actually follow through on those progressive elements if you want credit for them.

Bernie is obviously promising to implement things that a president can't do on his own, as was Biden. As was probably every presidential candidate ever. Yeah, they shouldn't promise those things, and should b held accountable when they don't. But not sure how much it matters if no one in that role could do anything differently.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Bernie is obviously promising to implement things that a president can't do on his own, as was Biden. As was probably every presidential candidate ever. Yeah, they shouldn't promise those things, and should b held accountable when they don't. But not sure how much it matters if no one in that role could do anything differently.

I guess I should have known that when centrists said they were going to hold Biden's feet to fire, it meant so they could gently lick his boot.

Why should voters believe anything the Democrats say when they go to the polls in 2022 and 2024 if the Democrats are going to be so inept at fulfilling their promises?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Uh no, we're talking about what Biden promised and what Americans as a whole want if you go by polling. $15/h minimum wage is insanely popular with voters across both parties and independents. As are $2000 stimulus cheques, both of which were promised by this administration.

Overly simplistic solutions that magically give everyone free money are popular. Congress should vet these ideas and make sure they are in a way that aren't going to cause more problems than they solve.

$2000 to everyone and $15 min wage across the board work well as campaign messages, but that doesn't mean they are the right solution to the right problems. If they are going to hurt as many people as they help, it should be stopped.

We've been through these a million times. I'm for both a substantial raise in min wage, and substantial money to help people hurt by COVID. It needs to be done the right way though in a way that helps the most people and hurts the least amount. Good implementation of ideas that work well is more important than blindly implementing flawed slogans.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Overly simplistic solutions that magically give everyone free money are popular. Congress should vet these ideas and make sure they are in a way that aren't going to cause more problems than they solve.

$2000 to everyone and $15 min wage across the board work well as campaign messages, but that doesn't mean they are the right solution to the right problems. If they are going to hurt as many people as they help, it should be stopped.

We've been through these a million times. I'm for both a substantial raise in min wage, and substantial money to help people hurt by COVID. It needs to be done the right way though in a way that helps the most people and hurts the least amount. Good implementation of ideas that work well is more important than blindly implementing flawed slogans.

You're right, we have been through this a million times, and each time you've failed to illustrate how these policies would hurt more people than they would help and what the viable alternatives are.

And again, if Biden didn't think they were good policies, he should have been honest instead of getting people's hopes up and then kicking them in the dick.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The minimum wage one is difficult because Manchin won't end the fillibuster and it will never get 60 votes. But there's no excuse to not get the relief money through reconciliation, and it's pretty much political malpractice to not do it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The minimum wage one is difficult because Manchin won't end the fillibuster and it will never get 60 votes. But there's no excuse to not get the relief money through reconciliation, and it's pretty much political malpractice to not do it.

It's not just Manchin either. There are about 6 Democratic senators who are against it and Biden has been lukewarm on the topic. These people clearly don't actually give a #### about getting anything done.

Also highlights the double-standard on Team Blue and their media cronies again.

We absolutely should be dunking all over Cruz for his trip to Cancun, but Biden taking off to Camp David to play Mario Kart while people are still in dire need of stimulus isn't folksy and cute. It's disgusting.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You're right, we have been through this a million times, and each time you've failed to illustrate how these policies would hurt more people than they would help and what the viable alternatives are.

And again, if Biden didn't think they were good policies, he should have been honest instead of getting people's hopes up and then kicking them in the dick.

This CBO study says a 15 min wage implemented over 4 years would put 1.4 million out of work.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/08/96548...-jobs-cbo-says

There are people who would be hurt by a no exception/across the board min wage increase to $15.

The $2000 plan give money to 2-3 times as many not affected financially by COVID than to people affected. That takes away from money that can go to those affected. It's also likely putting too much money back into the economy that will have long term downsides, but that's a different argument.

You seem more interested in getting wins for progressive slogans than actually having a government implement policy that helps the most people.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I guess I should have known that when centrists said they were going to hold Biden's feet to fire, it meant so they could gently lick his boot.

Why should voters believe anything the Democrats say when they go to the polls in 2022 and 2024 if the Democrats are going to be so inept at fulfilling their promises?

Why did voters believe in 2020? Did they even believe? I think an optimist would only have even expected that some promised policies might go through. For the most part though, what's happening is probably aligned with realistic expectations given the history of the candidates and the party.

Didn't take long.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Looks like Neera Tanden's nomination is going to be blocked by....Joe Manchin lol. He's going to be alternating between America's most loved and most hated politician for the foreseeable future.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

She’s too partisan, he says.

He also voted to confirm Richard Grenell and Jeff Sessions.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Looks like Neera Tanden's nomination is going to be blocked by....Joe Manchin lol. He's going to be alternating between America's most loved and most hated politician for the foreseeable future.

Lol. Have to be a few other Dems blocking her, too, right? Can't see Sanders and Warren confirming her.

[Senator Clay Davis]

You know this is going to end with someone even worse in place, but someone who will get GOP votes to confirm. And then "bipartisanship!"

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

This CBO study says a 15 min wage implemented over 4 years would put 1.4 million out of work.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/08/96548...-jobs-cbo-says

There are people who would be hurt by a no exception/across the board min wage increase to $15.

Did you even read this or did you just look at the headline?

A phase-in of a $15 minimum wage would also lift some 900,000 out of poverty, according to the nonpartisan CBO. This higher federal minimum could raise wages for an additional 10 million workers who would otherwise make sightly above that wage rate, the study found.

Potential job losses were estimated to affect 0.9 percent of workers, the CBO wrote, adding: "Young, less educated people would account for a disproportionate share of those reductions in employment."

If you're looking at this from a policy perspective, that's absolutely a net win for $15/h minimum wage.

[Oil Stain]

The people arguing against a $15 minimum wage today are the same people that were arguing against a minimum wage period, a forty hour work week, paid vacation, designated breaks, etc...

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Did you even read this or did you just look at the headline?



If you're looking at this from a policy perspective, that's absolutely a net win for $15/h minimum wage.

I read the whole thing. I don't know that the part you quoted as benefit is an obvious net win over 1.4 million people being put out of work.

There is a balancing act here to figure out what the best policy for raising the minimum wage that results in the fewest possible job losses. I just don't think that $15 across the board in that magic number. It's just a number that sounds good in a slogan.

I had heard a proposal to make it a percentage of median income by county, and that sounds like a lot better starting point to me.

I could keep my same job/same employer and move to NY and get an auto adjusted $60k raise and I know I'd be worse off financially than staying where I am. It's just not good policy to ignore the vast differences in how far a dollar goes in various parts of the country.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I read the whole thing. I don't know that the part you quoted as benefit is an obvious net win over 1.4 million people being put out of work.

There is a balancing act here to figure out what the best policy for raising the minimum wage that results in the fewest possible job losses. I just don't think that $15 across the board in that magic number. It's just a number that sounds good in a slogan.

I had heard a proposal to make it a percentage of median income by county, and that sounds like a lot better starting point to me.

I could keep my same job/same employer and move to NY and get an auto adjusted $60k raise and I know I'd be worse off financially than staying where I am. It's just not good policy to ignore the vast differences in how far a dollar goes in various parts of the country.

1.4M people are not probably going to be out of work because of a minimum wage raise.

Why do I say that? Because minimum wages have been raised multiple times in multiple places, and there is no real evidence that this has ever happened.

The prime case study currently in the US is Seattle, which passed 15$ per hour minimum wage law back in 2014.

There are plenty of economists claiming that this has backfired significantly and ended up hurting the low-paid workers, but this claim is based on really shaky evidence, and it's not about lost jobs.

The main source for this claim is a simple statistic: after 2014, the number of hours worked per minimum wage worker has declined to an extent that minimum wage workers on average make less money than before the hike in minimum wage.

This is however not a strong argument for two main reasons.

First, correlation is not causation. Seattle has been a tech boomtown in that same period, with a significant increase in better-than-minimum-wage jobs, both in tech and in the service industry and a very low unemployment rate. It's thus likely that people who used to work full time in minimum wage jobs because they had no other options simply now have better paid jobs. If those people are then replaced my multiple part-time workers who aren't looking for a full time job (students etc), the statistics would look the same.

In other words, just there is no evidence that the decrease in minimum wage hours worked is related to the increase in minimum wage, and there are better explanations available.

Second, free time has value, which is why part time workers will quite often cut their own hours if their wage increases. Instead of flipping burgers they might prioritize studying, or spending time with their family, or they might pick up an apprenticeship position in their own field. With an increased minimum wage, people working those jobs have more options in their life. This is kind of the point of earning more money in a capitalist economy.

There is (AFAIK) no evidence that the cut in minimum-wage hours was forced upon the workforcein Seattle, and there are studies to support the idea that given more money per hour, many people will choose to work less instead of earning more.

[Itse]

I would also point out another issue with the theory that minimum wage increase in Seattle has backfired because minimum wage workers have had their hours cut more than their per-hour wage increased:

If this was actually the case, wouldn't this be a huge win for the companies? They're getting by with less workers and less money paid out! That's pure profit! Every right wing pundit should be all for it

(BTW, there is actually plenty of evidence that increasing minimum wage does consistently end up increasing overall economic efficiency, exactly because so many employers are stupid and will continue to throw more cheap labor at problems instead of actually solving them, if they have that option.)

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Itse

1.4M people are not probably going to be out of work because of a minimum wage raise.

Why do I say that? Because minimum wages have been raised multiple times in multiple places, and there is no real evidence that this has ever happened.

The prime case study currently in the US is Seattle, which passed 15$ per hour minimum wage law back in 2014.

There are plenty of economists claiming that this has backfired significantly and ended up hurting the low-paid workers, but this claim is based on really shaky evidence, and it's not about lost jobs.

The main source for this claim is a simple statistic: after 2014, the number of hours worked per minimum wage worker has declined to an extent that minimum wage workers on average make less money than before the hike in minimum wage.

This is however not a strong argument for two main reasons.

First, correlation is not causation. Seattle has been a tech boomtown in that same period, with a significant increase in better-than-minimum-wage jobs, both in tech and in the service industry and a very low unemployment rate. It's thus likely that people who used to work full time in minimum wage jobs because they had no other options simply now have better paid jobs. If those people are then replaced my multiple part-time workers who aren't looking for a full time job (students etc), the statistics would look the same.

In other words, just there is no evidence that the decrease in minimum wage hours worked is related to the increase in minimum wage, and there are better explanations available.

Second, free time has value, which is why part time workers will quite often cut their own hours if their wage increases. Instead of flipping burgers they might prioritize studying, or spending time with their family, or they might pick up an apprenticeship position in their own field. With an increased minimum wage, people working those jobs have more options in their life. This is kind of the point of earning more money in a capitalist economy.

There is (AFAIK) no evidence that the cut in minimum-wage hours was forced upon the workforcein Seattle, and there are studies to support the idea that given more money per hour, many people will choose to work less instead of earning more.

You can't take one example and say that means that there is no scenario in which a raise to min wage costs jobs. There is some theoretical amount you can raise a min wage to that will cost jobs. If you raised it to $100, then there would obviously be job losses. So there is some number between where it is now and $100 that you will start seeing increasing job losses as it raises.

There are parts of the country that a $15 min wage is going to be a much higher percentage increase to min wage and average wage that it was in Seattle, and there just isn't data available for that type of increase and that is why job losses are being predicted for parts of the country.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

If minimum wage worked in 1975 why wouldn't the equivalent wage work now?

Why have a minimum wage at all?

If the minimum wage was a living wage, wouldn't it make sense that hours worked would go down? Rather than working a full time minimum wage job and supplementing with a part time minimum wage job, someone would need only to work the one job and thus be working less? Ergo minimum wage hours are reduced?

On it's face, to me, that's like saying "since we introduced child labour laws, the amount of kids working and supporting their families in the mines and factories has been reduced to practically zero. An utter failure!" Well isn't that kind of the point? Isn't the point of having a liveable minimum wage so people don't have to work multiple jobs to survive?

In addition I though sales and spending increased with the Seattle minimum wage increase? Poor people spend money where rich people save it. Suddenly a minimum wage worker can afford to eat out more, go to the movies, attend a Mariner's game, travel (a weekend in Olympia maybe or a hotel night downtown). All that helps to contribute to the service economy and can actually expand it.

It's 8:15am, and I'm just having my coffee so not citing sources like I normally would. Perhaps I'm misremembering, again coffee being currently consumed, but I used to think a $15 was a bad idea and had my mind changed.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

You can't take one example and say that means that there is no scenario in which a raise to min wage costs jobs. There is some theoretical amount you can raise a min wage to that will cost jobs. If you raised it to $100, then there would obviously be job losses. So there is some number between where it is now and $100 that you will start seeing increasing job losses as it raises.

There are parts of the country that a $15 min wage is going to be a much higher percentage increase to min wage and average wage that it was in Seattle, and there just isn't data available for that type of increase and that is why job losses are being predicted for parts of the country.

Yes, obviously there is a limit to everything, but there are also plenty of examples of high minimum wage raises with no negative effects.

For example Korea raised it's minimum wage 84% between 2005 and 2016 without any clear negative effects. In fact the overall effect on society has been so positive they ended up increasing the rate at which minimum wages increase, with yearly rises of more than 10%. (They started from a very low minimum wage.)

It's also just false to claim that a lower employment rate is bad, or call it "job loss", because that's not what's happening.

There is little evidence that when minimum wages increase, employers end up firing people or hiring less. What usually happens is that young people, especially those who live at home, choose to work less. Which is good. Teenagers shouldn't have to be working to support their families. The maximum amount of people working minimum wage jobs for the maximum amount of hours is not a goal we as a society should be striving. A high employment rate is not a goal in itself. A low employment rate of teenagers is a good thing.

You can't just take a statistic like employment rate, point that it's going down and say that "this is a bad thing" and claim that this means there's now more young people who are looking for jobs but can't get them, when the evidence points to the contrary.

Young people should be going to school or studying or living their lives, not wasting their lives flipping burgers, and this is what they quite often choose to do if mom and dad are already bringing home enough money.

So yeah, 1.4M less young people working is a thing that might happen, but not because they are forced out of the workforce, but because they are no longer forced into the workforce.

Obviously there are limits to everything and minimum wage raises can have negative effects, and obviously in a big country like the US some bad effects will happen somewhere, but actual studies done of minimum wage raises very consistently show that the negative effects mostly vary between minimal and non-existent.