CSNbbs

(09-21-2020 03:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2020 01:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Those arguing that you should be able to 'earn a living' working a minimum wage job are quite literally asking for a participation trophy.

I’m someone arguing that, and I am arguing that someone who is willing and able to work 40 hours a week in a productive manner should be able to live in an equally productive manner - afford housing, save money to build wealth, not live paycheck to paycheck if they are responsible with their spending.

It isn’t a participation trophy, but rather appropriate compensation for their labor and time.

Do you believe that someone working 40 hours a week in a productive manner is undeserving of living like this?

What is a participation trophy, except the same idea of 'appropriate compensation' for their effort and time?

In such a short response, you have numerous words with nebulous definitions.... words like productive work and productive life, responsible with their spending and appropriate compensation.... now, adapt that to quite literally thousands of locations and value judgements... and those words have almost no generally accepted definition. That's not a knock, it's just a reality.

2.3% of American earn Minimum Wage... about the lowest that number has been since the BLS started reporting it. The highest number is 15.1% back in 1981. Hasn't been above 6% since 1998.

Compare that to 70% of Americans that have less than $1,000 in savings. And you want to set wages so high that the bottom 2.3% of earners can save enough to become investors while earning 0.3% in interest from the bank? What kind of incentive is THAT to save? People will spend it. They're already doing it earning vastly more than $15/hr. How 'productive' does someone have to be to save money?

How about instead we eliminate payroll taxes which primarily serve as 'forced savings' and fund it instead with a 20% VAT and a prefund up to say $50,000. If that min wage worker spends everything he earns, he's still ahead because of the payroll taxes. If he saves even a dollar, he earns a 20% rate of return on that saving, PLUS the 0.3% from the bank, lol. THAT'S investor returns and an incentive to keep the 40 inch LCD as opposed to buying the new 65' 4k OLED. Just a thought.

The problem with your theory is that you're pushing on a string. That's a really good metaphor for the situation. There is no way to engage in a thorough analysis of the various possibilities on this forum. For simplicity, I'll defer to the CBO here as they have a cute tool showing various possibilities. It's not accurate, but it's not horrible.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55681#:~...20workers.

How does increasing the minimum wage affect family income? By boosting the income of low-wage workers who keep their jobs, a higher minimum wage raises their families’ real income, lifting some of those families out of poverty. However, income falls for some families because other workers lose their jobs and business owners must absorb at least some of the higher costs of labor. For those reasons, the net effect of a minimum-wage increase is to reduce average family income.

As they also say, there are some jobs and some situations where that won't be the case... an example would be if an area like SF established a $15 wage, but people could move to Oakland and commute.

But I digress. My point is that because we can't define those terms, we can't define all sorts of things. My son earns double the min wage you suggest and lives in 300sf in NY without a car or car insurance. I know guys in Houston who earn 8/hr and live such that they can send hundreds, sometimes over $1,000 to their families every month. They're 'saving' on $8/hr and lots of people can't on 4 times that.

Minimum wage jobs are not designed for people to live alone much less become an investor and raise a family on. They are designed for people to develop skills and gain experience so that they can get a better paying job. When the percentage of people earning min wage is low, I believe that to be true. I can't tell you what percentage of the population has minimal skills, but I 3-4% wouldn't surprise me.... especially when you consider places like Buc-ees who start people out at $10-11/hr, but they require smiles and a great attitude... which are qualities some people have, but others can acquire as skills without having to learn them on the job.

Of course, there are people who for numerous reasons and in numerous situations (the major employer in a small town closes) where experienced people are forced into min wage jobs, but that is not who they are designed for... so we shouldn't build fiscal policy around exceptions. Let the government (both local AND Federal as appropriate) address the exceptions. If you build the policy for the exception, then you will find that lots of people will simply expand their baseline as their income grows. See the 70% with <$1,000 in savings but only 2.3% earning min wage.


Bottom line, a wage where you need zero experience or skills and yet you can not only live, but save money and become an investor without skills or experience is a participation trophy. Everyone wins! It's also IMO a pipe dream according to the data on saving.

Lad, what do you think a guy whose job is eliminated (or a newcomer to the labor force whose job never gets created) because of a mandatory wage hike should make?

(09-21-2020 05:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line, a wage where you need zero experience or skills and yet you can not only live, but save money and become an investor without skills or experience is a participation trophy.

Such a wage also means there is no incentive to get experience or skills.

Democrats, in general, do not believe becoming an investor is a good thing. If they thought it was good thing, they would not throw so many obstacles in the way of investing.

(09-21-2020 05:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Lad, what do you think a guy whose job is eliminated (or a newcomer to the labor force whose job never gets created) because of a mandatory wage hike should make?

He's busy.

(09-21-2020 11:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2020 05:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Lad, what do you think a guy whose job is eliminated (or a newcomer to the labor force whose job never gets created) because of a mandatory wage hike should make?

He's busy.

Told you he's busy.

I'm just shaking my head that someone JUST entering the workforce with zero skills and zero experience being able to 'afford housing and save money to build wealth' as getting a participation trophy. You show up, you get to live on your own, pay your bills and if you're not foolish with your money, become wealthy without ever getting a pay raise because you developed skills or for your experience.

That is 100% a 'participation trophy'... and the epitome of the very thing that we were discussing here. If you feel that being given participation trophies was a mistake and feel stifled by 'succeeding' without having to go to significant effort, then don't DEMAND them from your government (our 'next' mom and dad).


ETA: I just thought of this. If you're good with your money then you have a marketable skill that is worth more than minimum wage.

It is the epitome of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Sure, we'll hire you. How much do you need?

(09-22-2020 09:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]It is the epitome of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

+1.

And the left keeps fighting the collectivist/socialist tag (even here), yet the former issue is forefront in the analysis there.

If a person's labor is worth $15/hour, he will get it.

If not, the Democrats will give it to him anyway.

So, no incentive to improve oneself.

(09-22-2020 10:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]If a person's labor is worth $15/hour, he will get it.

A lot of economists would state it the other way: if a person can get $15/hour for his labor, then that's what his labor is worth.

(09-22-2020 03:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2020 10:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]If a person's labor is worth $15/hour, he will get it.

A lot of economists would state it the other way: if a person can get $15/hour for his labor, then that's what his labor is worth.

Tomato, potato.

I could not get employment at $1000/hour. I don't have the skills or the experiences to warrant that. But with Lad arguing my case, that that is what I need to live the life I want, I am sure somebody will be coerced into paying it.

And I hope it is soon. I need the money.

Perhaps the debate about the I-35 bus caravan belongs in this thread.

Justice Alito

But Alito's point is that one speaks those words at increasing risk of being shut down. In many corporate and academic contexts, as well as in society at large, people actually do suffer penalties and forfeit opportunities for saying such things. In practice, to label someone a bigot is to silence reasonable conversation.

See my signature...
“The moment when someone attaches you to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you. And when you want to have a conversation, they will assert that they already know everything important there is to know about you because of that association. And that's not the way to have a conversation.”


― Neil deGrasse Tyson

(11-18-2020 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Justice Alito

But Alito's point is that one speaks those words at increasing risk of being shut down. In many corporate and academic contexts, as well as in society at large, people actually do suffer penalties and forfeit opportunities for saying such things. In practice, to label someone a bigot is to silence reasonable conversation.

The author presents many spot-on observations on the current state of public discourse:

- "I decided to track down this putatively offensive address and see for myself, having come to expect a considerable dissonance between reports about a conservative event and the thing itself.

- "...the adjectives 'fiery,' 'ireful" and 'infuriated' are almost comically inappropriate. One may conclude that critics chose these words to stir up the opposition of people who will never take the time to watch or read the speech for themselves."

- "One example was the statement that 'the pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty.' Alito emphasized that he was making no comment about the necessity or prudence of the restrictions, much less about the devastation wrought by the coronavirus. It is simply an 'indisputable statement of fact' that the restrictions have been 'severe, extensive and prolonged.'
Anyone who has lived in the U.S. in 2020 should find this statement uncontroversial. But even the more moderate critics seized on it."

- "In practice, to label someone a bigot is to silence reasonable conversation. Alito's critics know this, and their denials are disingenuous. They participate in the silencing. In fact, many of them have called Alito a bigot simply for pointing out that people are called bigots." [Note: being absurdly called a bigot has a familiar ring.]

- "Descriptions of the speech trade on the fact that the great majority of people who see the headlines and skim the articles about Alito's allegedly fiery, ireful, caustic address will not take the time to watch it and judge for themselves. Such apocalyptic terms preemptively close off discussion of some of today's most pressing issues."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/teenag...li=BBnbfcL

I presume he doesn't watch Power Book II.

PBII is a very good show. I am watching it, as I watched its predecessor, Power. It is black-centric, with the show runner black and producers and directors and writers nearly all black and the cast 90-95% black. If your ears cannot take the n-word, don't tune in, because you will hear it 50-100 times per one hour episode. Sometimes they even let certain white characters say it.

Who had "Dr Suess, American racist" on their cancel culture bingo cards?

(03-03-2021 08:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Who had "Dr Suess, American racist" on their cancel culture bingo cards?

It's an interesting issue given that the decision came down from the "Seuss" estate, and that the good Dr. himself had previously indicated he wasn't necessarily proud of some of the depictions he had made during his career.

Quote:Six Dr. Seuss books will no longer be published because of their use of offensive imagery, according to the business that oversees the estate of the children’s author and illustrator.

In a statement on Tuesday, Dr. Seuss Enterprises said that it had decided last year to end publication and licensing of the books by Theodor Seuss Geisel. The titles include his first book writing under the pen name Dr. Seuss, “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street” (1937), and “If I Ran the Zoo” (1950).

“These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong,” Dr. Seuss Enterprises said in the statement. The business said the decision came after working with a panel of experts, including educators, and reviewing its catalog of titles...

In “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street,” a character described as “a Chinaman” has lines for eyes, wears a pointed hat, and carries chopsticks and a bowl of rice. (Editions published in the 1970s changed the reference from “a Chinaman” to “a Chinese man.”) In “If I Ran the Zoo,” two characters from “the African island of Yerka” are depicted as shirtless, shoeless and resembling monkeys...

Before he became a giant of children’s literature, Mr. Geisel drew political cartoons for a New York-based newspaper, PM, from 1941 to 1943, including some that used harmful stereotypes to caricature Japanese and Japanese-Americans. Decades later, he said he was embarrassed by the cartoons, which he said were “full of snap judgments that every political cartoonist has to make.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/books...treet.html

(03-03-2021 08:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-03-2021 08:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Who had "Dr Suess, American racist" on their cancel culture bingo cards?

It's an interesting issue given that the decision came down from the "Seuss" estate, and that the good Dr. himself had previously indicated he wasn't necessarily proud of some of the depictions he had made during his career.

Quote:Six Dr. Seuss books will no longer be published because of their use of offensive imagery, according to the business that oversees the estate of the children’s author and illustrator.

In a statement on Tuesday, Dr. Seuss Enterprises said that it had decided last year to end publication and licensing of the books by Theodor Seuss Geisel. The titles include his first book writing under the pen name Dr. Seuss, “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street” (1937), and “If I Ran the Zoo” (1950).

“These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong,” Dr. Seuss Enterprises said in the statement. The business said the decision came after working with a panel of experts, including educators, and reviewing its catalog of titles...

In “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street,” a character described as “a Chinaman” has lines for eyes, wears a pointed hat, and carries chopsticks and a bowl of rice. (Editions published in the 1970s changed the reference from “a Chinaman” to “a Chinese man.”) In “If I Ran the Zoo,” two characters from “the African island of Yerka” are depicted as shirtless, shoeless and resembling monkeys...

Before he became a giant of children’s literature, Mr. Geisel drew political cartoons for a New York-based newspaper, PM, from 1941 to 1943, including some that used harmful stereotypes to caricature Japanese and Japanese-Americans. Decades later, he said he was embarrassed by the cartoons, which he said were “full of snap judgments that every political cartoonist has to make.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/books...treet.html

Yeah... I'm not a fan of over-reaching cancel culture but (based on a quick read of the above) this doesn't seem to be that. Seems pretty reasonable for the estate to make this decision IMO.

Cancel culture is all about punishing people for wrongthink, even if the wrongthink is decades or even centuries old.

Personally, I don't think people should be punished for wrongthink. Especially if the wrongthink was the prevalent thinking during their era. Tolerance for other viewpoints is one of the hallmarks of being American. Well, it used to be.