Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
gsloth Offline
perpetually tired
*

Posts: 6,378
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation: 51
I Root For: Rice&underdogs
Location: Central VA

Donators
Post: #41
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
OO - I can, for one. But maybe that's because I have a family to support, but have occasionally found myself on unemployment when one contract runs out but I don't immediately find another one.

I don't know what that one man was talking about, but in my case, I'm at the top of the max unemployment compensation allowed in my state (due to how much I earn in the quarters prior to going on unemployment), and in my most recent "time off," I only pulled down $378 per week (pre-tax). So I don't know how anyone can say that unemployment replaces good salaries, unless you're earning minimum wage.* And if you were earning minimum wage previously, then your unemployment check would have been smaller than what I earned.

* (I slightly amend this statement lower down, but given the data it presents, I still find that statement hard to accept unless you're in one of a couple lucky states.)

$378 per week is not bad for many, but comes nowhere close to replacing what I previously earned. But it's also a disincentive to find a temporary, lower paying job in the interim, because there's a 1:1 dollar loss if I earn something during the week. And instead I'm giving up possibly up to 40 hours per week that I could spend on looking for a job more commensurate to my actual skills or doing projects around the house. (Yes, the honey-do list comes into play.)

Also, right now, unemployment doesn't last 5 years. With emergency action by Congress last year, unemployment now pays up to 99 weeks, depending on the state you're in and whether unemployment is really bad. See the site below that breaks down some of the statistics. Before the emergency action, the longest duration in some states was 79 weeks, though some allowed as little as 46 weeks.

http://fileunemployment.org/unemployment...n-by-state

I do see from this that only 2 states payed a max of more than $600 per week. Must be nice to go on unemployment in Massachusetts. Then again, I'd get taxed pretty hard there, too.
10-21-2010 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #42
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(10-21-2010 01:28 PM)gsloth Wrote:  OO - I can, for one. But maybe that's because I have a family to support, but have occasionally found myself on unemployment when one contract runs out but I don't immediately find another one.

I don't know what that one man was talking about, but in my case, I'm at the top of the max unemployment compensation allowed in my state (due to how much I earn in the quarters prior to going on unemployment), and in my most recent "time off," I only pulled down $378 per week (pre-tax). So I don't know how anyone can say that unemployment replaces good salaries, unless you're earning minimum wage.* And if you were earning minimum wage previously, then your unemployment check would have been smaller than what I earned.

* (I slightly amend this statement lower down, but given the data it presents, I still find that statement hard to accept unless you're in one of a couple lucky states.)

$378 per week is not bad for many, but comes nowhere close to replacing what I previously earned. But it's also a disincentive to find a temporary, lower paying job in the interim, because there's a 1:1 dollar loss if I earn something during the week. And instead I'm giving up possibly up to 40 hours per week that I could spend on looking for a job more commensurate to my actual skills or doing projects around the house. (Yes, the honey-do list comes into play.)

Also, right now, unemployment doesn't last 5 years. With emergency action by Congress last year, unemployment now pays up to 99 weeks, depending on the state you're in and whether unemployment is really bad. See the site below that breaks down some of the statistics. Before the emergency action, the longest duration in some states was 79 weeks, though some allowed as little as 46 weeks.

http://fileunemployment.org/unemployment...n-by-state

I do see from this that only 2 states payed a max of more than $600 per week. Must be nice to go on unemployment in Massachusetts. Then again, I'd get taxed pretty hard there, too.



\OK. My apologies, i worked from memory. After your post, I went back to the DVR.

The 5/4/2 year graphs were from Denmark. when they had 5 years of unemployment benefits, most people found work in the fifth year. They reduced it to four, and then most people found work in 4 years. They recently cut it in half. No report yet on what will happen, but i rather expect most people will find a new job in about 2 years now.

The man about the unemployment wrote software manuals. I have no idea how much that paid. He said he passed up a half dozen jobs, because they paid less than unemployment, and "That would amount to a pay cut. Why would I want to do that"? His quote; "When there were only a few weeks left, i did start looking at jobs I had been passing up the chance to apply for." They gave his name. I don't know what state he lives in.

They did talk with people at an employment agency in Fresno, Cal, when the unemployment rate is 17%. They said that 25-35% of the unemployed are not serious about getting jobs, that the only reason they interview at all is because the umemployment benefits require it, but they show up in sandals, shorts and t-shirts. They say they call them for a position, and they say, No thanks, Im on unemployement. That was at Denham Resources in Fresno.
(This post was last modified: 10-21-2010 02:12 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
10-21-2010 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
At Ease Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,068
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 117
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #43
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
Quote:Suicide rates grow more slowly in states that increase their minimum wage, according to a U.S. study that suggests this might be one strategy for curbing deaths by suicide.

Although a small proportion of the population works for minimum wage, people living in low-income households have a higher risk of suicide than more affluent people, researchers note in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Raising the minimum wage has been linked to a number of positive outcomes for low-income Americans including higher odds of graduating high school and lower odds of having unmet medical needs.

For the current study, researchers examined data on suicide rates and minimum wages in all 50 U.S. states from 2006 to 2016. Over this period, there were approximately 432,000 deaths by suicide.

Every $1.00 increase in a state’s minimum wage was associated with a 1.9 percent decrease in its annual suicide rate, the researchers calculated.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-healt...reddit.com
04-29-2019 02:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,248
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #44
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(04-29-2019 02:38 PM)At Ease Wrote:  
Quote:Suicide rates grow more slowly in states that increase their minimum wage, according to a U.S. study that suggests this might be one strategy for curbing deaths by suicide.

Although a small proportion of the population works for minimum wage, people living in low-income households have a higher risk of suicide than more affluent people, researchers note in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Raising the minimum wage has been linked to a number of positive outcomes for low-income Americans including higher odds of graduating high school and lower odds of having unmet medical needs.

For the current study, researchers examined data on suicide rates and minimum wages in all 50 U.S. states from 2006 to 2016. Over this period, there were approximately 432,000 deaths by suicide.

Every $1.00 increase in a state’s minimum wage was associated with a 1.9 percent decrease in its annual suicide rate, the researchers calculated.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-healt...reddit.com

So the answer is to raise the minimum wage by 50 clams to eliminate suicide. Brilliant!
04-29-2019 03:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,138
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1766
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #45
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
Now, is this association because states with higher minimum wages tend to have lower suicide rates, or is it because states with lower suicide rates tend to have higher minimum wages? What is the causal connection?
04-29-2019 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
At Ease Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,068
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 117
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #46
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
Quote: New York City restaurant workers saw their pay increase by 20% after a $15 minimum-wage hike — and a new report says business is booming despite warnings that the boost would devastate the city's restaurant industry.

During the period NYC raised the minimum wage from $7.25 in 2013 to $15 in 2019, the city's restaurant industry outperformed the rest of the country in job growth and expansion, according to a new study.

The study, authored by researchers from the New School and NYC-based think tank National Employment Law Project, found no negative employment effects after the city increased its minimum wage to $15. NYC restaurant workers saw a 20% to 28% increase in their pay, representing the largest hike for a big group of low-wage workers since the 1960s, Gothamist reported.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nyc-rest...reddit.com
08-09-2019 11:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,248
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #47
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(08-09-2019 11:51 AM)At Ease Wrote:  
Quote: New York City restaurant workers saw their pay increase by 20% after a $15 minimum-wage hike — and a new report says business is booming despite warnings that the boost would devastate the city's restaurant industry.

During the period NYC raised the minimum wage from $7.25 in 2013 to $15 in 2019, the city's restaurant industry outperformed the rest of the country in job growth and expansion, according to a new study.

The study, authored by researchers from the New School and NYC-based think tank National Employment Law Project, found no negative employment effects after the city increased its minimum wage to $15. NYC restaurant workers saw a 20% to 28% increase in their pay, representing the largest hike for a big group of low-wage workers since the 1960s, Gothamist reported.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nyc-rest...reddit.com

Dabnabit, somehow AE popped off my ignore list.

Well if the fing whack a mole wants to whack a mole, perhaps the dude wants to tell the full story:

https://www.investors.com/politics/edito...recession/

Quote:A New York City Hospitality Alliance survey found that 47% of full-service restaurants expect to cut jobs this year to cope with the latest wage hike. Last year, 36% said they'd eliminated jobs. The picture is worse at limited-service restaurants. The survey found half reported cutting jobs last year. And 53% say they'll do so this year.
Quote: "It usually takes an economic recession to cause year-over-year job losses at NYC's full-service restaurants," notes economist Mark Perry, "so it's likely that this is a 'restaurant recession' tied to the annual series of minimum-wage hikes that brought the city's minimum wage to $15 an hour at the end of last year."

Perry compiled the nearby chart, which shows the recent year-over-year declines since New York started hiking its minimum wage.

Even during the Great Recession, restaurant workers didn't suffer as much as they are now. In fact, over the course of the recession, which lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, the number of restaurant jobs in the city actually increased by 1,800.

It's getting so bad that fast-food workers now want the city to protect them from getting fired without "just cause."

Funny that the whack a mole doesnt bother with that part.

The only thing worse than a whack a mole is a one-sided, dishonest whack a mole shill. But according to AE everything is manna from heaven.... lolz.

Back to the settings to place AE back where he truly belongs.
(This post was last modified: 08-09-2019 12:51 PM by tanqtonic.)
08-09-2019 12:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,771
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #48
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(08-09-2019 12:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-09-2019 11:51 AM)At Ease Wrote:  
Quote: New York City restaurant workers saw their pay increase by 20% after a $15 minimum-wage hike — and a new report says business is booming despite warnings that the boost would devastate the city's restaurant industry.

During the period NYC raised the minimum wage from $7.25 in 2013 to $15 in 2019, the city's restaurant industry outperformed the rest of the country in job growth and expansion, according to a new study.

The study, authored by researchers from the New School and NYC-based think tank National Employment Law Project, found no negative employment effects after the city increased its minimum wage to $15. NYC restaurant workers saw a 20% to 28% increase in their pay, representing the largest hike for a big group of low-wage workers since the 1960s, Gothamist reported.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nyc-rest...reddit.com

Dabnabit, somehow AE popped off my ignore list.

Well if the fing whack a mole wants to whack a mole, perhaps the dude wants to tell the full story:

https://www.investors.com/politics/edito...recession/

Quote:A New York City Hospitality Alliance survey found that 47% of full-service restaurants expect to cut jobs this year to cope with the latest wage hike. Last year, 36% said they'd eliminated jobs. The picture is worse at limited-service restaurants. The survey found half reported cutting jobs last year. And 53% say they'll do so this year.
Quote: "It usually takes an economic recession to cause year-over-year job losses at NYC's full-service restaurants," notes economist Mark Perry, "so it's likely that this is a 'restaurant recession' tied to the annual series of minimum-wage hikes that brought the city's minimum wage to $15 an hour at the end of last year."

Perry compiled the nearby chart, which shows the recent year-over-year declines since New York started hiking its minimum wage.

Even during the Great Recession, restaurant workers didn't suffer as much as they are now. In fact, over the course of the recession, which lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, the number of restaurant jobs in the city actually increased by 1,800.

It's getting so bad that fast-food workers now want the city to protect them from getting fired without "just cause."

Funny that the whack a mole doesnt bother with that part.

The only thing worse than a whack a mole is a one-sided, dishonest whack a mole shill. But according to AE everything is manna from heaven.... lolz.

Back to the settings to place AE back where he truly belongs.

The article from AE said that the study found "no negative employment effects of the city increasing its minimum wage to $15." yet yours said there was.

It would be interesting to see which article is leaving out crucial information.
08-09-2019 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
At Ease Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,068
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 117
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #49
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(08-09-2019 01:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The article from AE said that the study found "no negative employment effects of the city increasing its minimum wage to $15." yet yours said there was.

It would be interesting to see which article is leaving out crucial information.

Some context on the economist featured in the JD's link:

Quote:Perry has been looking hard for evidence of a decline in Seattle jobs, especially in the restaurant industry, for months. In August and again in October he claimed he found it: In the first piece, he reported that restaurants in the Seattle metropolitan statistical area had shed 1,300 jobs between January and June 2015, while employment in other categories had risen. In his follow-up extending the statistics through September, he reported that restaurant employment in the Seattle metropolitan statistical area had fallen by a net 700, while restaurant employment in the state, outside of Seattle, had risen.

The problem, as several commentators pointed out, was that the Seattle metropolitan statistical area is not the same as the city of Seattle. It’s huge — three counties encompassing 39 cities, with a population of 3.6 million compared to Seattle’s 660,000 residents — and only Seattle had enacted a $15 minimum wage. As regional economist Annaliese Vance-Sherman told the economics blogger Invictus of Ritholtz.com, “It is not possible to draw conclusions about the city based on the MSA.”

Now, Perry is back, armed with what he says are Seattle-only statistics. “Seattle’s ‘radical experiment’ might be a model for the rest of the nation not to follow,” he wrote on Feb. 18. He cited figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that Seattle employment fell by more than 11,000 from April, the date of the first minimum wage hike, through December. He compared these numbers to the Seattle MSA, writing that “while jobs in the city of Seattle were tanking starting last April, employment in the suburbs surrounding Seattle was increasing steadily to a new record high in November.”

Unfortunately, local economists say Perry is still using bad data. Although he attributes the city-only numbers to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, they’re not reliable jobs numbers. Perry’s source is the Local Area Unemployment Statistics file, or LAUS, which is based on a small sampling. It’s aimed at counting the number of employed people living in the sample area (in this case, Seattle), not the number of jobs. The data are "prone to error,” University of Washington economist Jacob Vigdor told me by email, and “basically worthless for any serious analysis."

Indeed, Vigdor — who is overseeing the university’s analysis of minimum-wage data — notes that the same statistics for Bellevue and Everett, Wash., showed exactly the same percentage decrease that Perry found in Seattle, even though they haven’t increased their minimum wage. (See below.)

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik...olumn.html
(This post was last modified: 08-09-2019 08:48 PM by At Ease.)
08-09-2019 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #50
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
I favor a rise in the minimum wage to $100/hr. Everybody will have a job, and everybody will be wealthy. Utopia.
08-09-2019 01:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,932
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 85
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #51
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(08-09-2019 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I favor a rise in the minimum wage to $100/hr. Everybody will have a job, and everybody will be wealthy. Utopia.

I wonder what At Ease would say? Then again, he doesn't actually say anything.
08-11-2019 10:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #52
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(08-11-2019 10:02 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(08-09-2019 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I favor a rise in the minimum wage to $100/hr. Everybody will have a job, and everybody will be wealthy. Utopia.

I wonder what At Ease would say? Then again, he doesn't actually say anything.


The higher the MW, the better off everybody is. It’s a simple relationship that simple people endorse.
08-11-2019 10:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,771
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #53
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(08-11-2019 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-11-2019 10:02 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(08-09-2019 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I favor a rise in the minimum wage to $100/hr. Everybody will have a job, and everybody will be wealthy. Utopia.

I wonder what At Ease would say? Then again, he doesn't actually say anything.


The higher the MW, the better off everybody is. It’s a simple relationship that simple people endorse.

Yes, every thing is just that simple. You don’t get a response because you’re being intentionally disingenuous.

You don’t like higher taxes, and would like them to be lower, right? Does that mean you would advocate for not taxing anyone? See. Stupid question.
08-11-2019 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #54
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(08-11-2019 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-11-2019 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-11-2019 10:02 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(08-09-2019 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I favor a rise in the minimum wage to $100/hr. Everybody will have a job, and everybody will be wealthy. Utopia.

I wonder what At Ease would say? Then again, he doesn't actually say anything.


The higher the MW, the better off everybody is. It’s a simple relationship that simple people endorse.

Yes, every thing is just that simple. You don’t get a response because you’re being intentionally disingenuous.

You don’t like higher taxes, and would like them to be lower, right? Does that mean you would advocate for not taxing anyone? See. Stupid question.

Your whole last paragraph is wrong. I don’t know whether to call it lies, or propaganda, or what.

For one thing, we were talking about the minimum wage, not taxes. I guess this has been a burr under your saddle for a while.

So two issues. I will take them one at a time.

Taxes are necessary. Too high or too widespread, they are negatives. I believe in less taxes. Your side believes in more. Punishing the horse that pulls the wagon will eventually result in a dead horse and a stationary wagon.

I like the Fair Tax.

Now, back to the topic before we took the Lad detour - Minimum wage.

I use the very large MW to illustrate to those willing to see what the repercussions are of raising the MW. As a former employer, I understand the dynamics of pricing goods and services to cover overhead, which includes labor costs. Democrats seem to think the money comes out of thin air. It doesn’t. Small increases win MW will bring about small increases in prices for goods and services. Those in turn make up small increases in cost of living. In the end the bottom tier stays the bottom tier. Raise it to $100, and the bottom tier will stay the bottom tier. That is the lesson you are so assiduously avoiding. Now all this does not happen at once. Nobody puts up a sign that say “Hamburgers are going up $1 effective immediately because I gave most of my workers a 50% raise.”
But over time, other workers demand raises to stay proportionately ahead of the bottom tier, costs rise, and then prices rise, raising the COL for all,who are customers. I was trying to illustrate that by taking it to an extreme. But you are so defensive of all Democrat proposals that you miss the point.

I hope this clears up some things for you, but my expectation is that you ignore it in favor of assigning other motivations to me. Again.
(This post was last modified: 08-11-2019 11:16 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
08-11-2019 11:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,932
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 85
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #55
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(08-11-2019 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-11-2019 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-11-2019 10:02 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(08-09-2019 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I favor a rise in the minimum wage to $100/hr. Everybody will have a job, and everybody will be wealthy. Utopia.

I wonder what At Ease would say? Then again, he doesn't actually say anything.


The higher the MW, the better off everybody is. It’s a simple relationship that simple people endorse.

You don’t get a response because you’re being intentionally disingenuous.

I'm afraid you are letting the general trump the specific.
In At Ease's case, he doesn't respond to anything because he is a loser with nothing to say.
08-11-2019 11:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,248
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #56
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(08-11-2019 11:19 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(08-11-2019 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-11-2019 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-11-2019 10:02 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(08-09-2019 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I favor a rise in the minimum wage to $100/hr. Everybody will have a job, and everybody will be wealthy. Utopia.

I wonder what At Ease would say? Then again, he doesn't actually say anything.


The higher the MW, the better off everybody is. It’s a simple relationship that simple people endorse.

You don’t get a response because you’re being intentionally disingenuous.

I'm afraid you are letting the general trump the specific.
In At Ease's case, he doesn't respond to anything because he is a loser with nothing to say.

Nothing to say, except for his precious links that is. Now, for an AE style link on the subject:



(This post was last modified: 08-11-2019 01:52 PM by tanqtonic.)
08-11-2019 11:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #57
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(08-11-2019 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-11-2019 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-11-2019 10:02 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(08-09-2019 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I favor a rise in the minimum wage to $100/hr. Everybody will have a job, and everybody will be wealthy. Utopia.

I wonder what At Ease would say? Then again, he doesn't actually say anything.


The higher the MW, the better off everybody is. It’s a simple relationship that simple people endorse.

Yes, every thing is just that simple. You don’t get a response because you’re being intentionally disingenuous.

You don’t like higher taxes, and would like them to be lower, right? Does that mean you would advocate for not taxing anyone? See. Stupid question.

There are people who advocate for not taxing anybody. Tehy are called anarchists, and that make up a large part of the militant arm of your party, Anftfa.
08-11-2019 03:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,771
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #58
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(08-11-2019 11:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-11-2019 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-11-2019 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-11-2019 10:02 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(08-09-2019 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I favor a rise in the minimum wage to $100/hr. Everybody will have a job, and everybody will be wealthy. Utopia.

I wonder what At Ease would say? Then again, he doesn't actually say anything.


The higher the MW, the better off everybody is. It’s a simple relationship that simple people endorse.

Yes, every thing is just that simple. You don’t get a response because you’re being intentionally disingenuous.

You don’t like higher taxes, and would like them to be lower, right? Does that mean you would advocate for not taxing anyone? See. Stupid question.

Your whole last paragraph is wrong. I don’t know whether to call it lies, or propaganda, or what.

For one thing, we were talking about the minimum wage, not taxes. I guess this has been a burr under your saddle for a while.

So two issues. I will take them one at a time.

Taxes are necessary. Too high or too widespread, they are negatives. I believe in less taxes. Your side believes in more. Punishing the horse that pulls the wagon will eventually result in a dead horse and a stationary wagon.

I like the Fair Tax.

Now, back to the topic before we took the Lad detour - Minimum wage.

I use the very large MW to illustrate to those willing to see what the repercussions are of raising the MW. As a former employer, I understand the dynamics of pricing goods and services to cover overhead, which includes labor costs. Democrats seem to think the money comes out of thin air. It doesn’t. Small increases win MW will bring about small increases in prices for goods and services. Those in turn make up small increases in cost of living. In the end the bottom tier stays the bottom tier. Raise it to $100, and the bottom tier will stay the bottom tier. That is the lesson you are so assiduously avoiding. Now all this does not happen at once. Nobody puts up a sign that say “Hamburgers are going up $1 effective immediately because I gave most of my workers a 50% raise.”
But over time, other workers demand raises to stay proportionately ahead of the bottom tier, costs rise, and then prices rise, raising the COL for all,who are customers. I was trying to illustrate that by taking it to an extreme. But you are so defensive of all Democrat proposals that you miss the point.

I hope this clears up some things for you, but my expectation is that you ignore it in favor of assigning other motivations to me. Again.

07-coffee3

I'll ignore most of that post because it doesn't add much to the conversation.

I bring up taxes because there is a concept called the Laffer Curve, which describes how there is an optimal level of taxation. People can disagree with where that optimal % is, but there is a general consensus on the overall idea of the Laffer Curve.

With minimum wage, a similar curve will exist. So trying to discuss minimum wage increases by arguing that we should push the minimum wage to a level that is absurdly high (an order of magnitude above where it currently is) isn't grounded in reality.
08-11-2019 04:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,248
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #59
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(08-11-2019 04:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-11-2019 11:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-11-2019 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-11-2019 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-11-2019 10:02 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  I wonder what At Ease would say? Then again, he doesn't actually say anything.


The higher the MW, the better off everybody is. It’s a simple relationship that simple people endorse.

Yes, every thing is just that simple. You don’t get a response because you’re being intentionally disingenuous.

You don’t like higher taxes, and would like them to be lower, right? Does that mean you would advocate for not taxing anyone? See. Stupid question.

Your whole last paragraph is wrong. I don’t know whether to call it lies, or propaganda, or what.

For one thing, we were talking about the minimum wage, not taxes. I guess this has been a burr under your saddle for a while.

So two issues. I will take them one at a time.

Taxes are necessary. Too high or too widespread, they are negatives. I believe in less taxes. Your side believes in more. Punishing the horse that pulls the wagon will eventually result in a dead horse and a stationary wagon.

I like the Fair Tax.

Now, back to the topic before we took the Lad detour - Minimum wage.

I use the very large MW to illustrate to those willing to see what the repercussions are of raising the MW. As a former employer, I understand the dynamics of pricing goods and services to cover overhead, which includes labor costs. Democrats seem to think the money comes out of thin air. It doesn’t. Small increases win MW will bring about small increases in prices for goods and services. Those in turn make up small increases in cost of living. In the end the bottom tier stays the bottom tier. Raise it to $100, and the bottom tier will stay the bottom tier. That is the lesson you are so assiduously avoiding. Now all this does not happen at once. Nobody puts up a sign that say “Hamburgers are going up $1 effective immediately because I gave most of my workers a 50% raise.”
But over time, other workers demand raises to stay proportionately ahead of the bottom tier, costs rise, and then prices rise, raising the COL for all,who are customers. I was trying to illustrate that by taking it to an extreme. But you are so defensive of all Democrat proposals that you miss the point.

I hope this clears up some things for you, but my expectation is that you ignore it in favor of assigning other motivations to me. Again.

07-coffee3

I'll ignore most of that post because it doesn't add much to the conversation.

I bring up taxes because there is a concept called the Laffer Curve, which describes how there is an optimal level of taxation. People can disagree with where that optimal % is, but there is a general consensus on the overall idea of the Laffer Curve.

With minimum wage, a similar curve will exist. So trying to discuss minimum wage increases by arguing that we should push the minimum wage to a level that is absurdly high (an order of magnitude above where it currently is) isn't grounded in reality.

The main problem with your thesis is that the Laffer Curve deals with a net outcome that is objective --- monies flowing into Treasury that cannot be disputed.

Your hypothetical construct *requires* a subjective weighting of any number of items to measure a 'utils to society concept.' In other words, the Laffer Curve deals with an objective basis to measure its effect; your stalking horse has zero objective bases from which to make that determination.

I would say there is a huge fing difference in the two based simply on that.

In more traditional bases, there is zero difference between rent control and minimum wage; they are both artificial constructs levied on the market. For the last 90 years it is pretty much black letter economics that rent controls almost always leads to Pareto sub-optimum equilibrium.

Further, the role of a price ceiling is indistinguishable from a price floor -- regardless of what the market item the supply and demand are in. The math, analysis, and results are all the same.

Perhaps you can tell us those differences that lead to your conclusion, and more on this Laffer Curve for the price controlled market.
08-11-2019 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,248
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #60
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
And actually OO's comments on the time effect of such benefits is spot on. Yet you decide to do the millennial 'whateeeevvvvvveeerrr' to that.

And funny thing is that OO describes the Laffer Curve, and you in a hugely condescending manner say "There is this thing called a Laffer Curve'. Either you didnt read or understand OO's post, or are being a condescending ******* to his post. Neither one really adds to your snide response, especially when it starts out with the coffee jigamathingy.
(This post was last modified: 08-11-2019 05:26 PM by tanqtonic.)
08-11-2019 05:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.