Seattle's Wage Hike Not Working

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Can you point to another private entity that is forced to set aside money to pay benefits to retired employees that have not even been hired yet? If not then your "Because it is a private pension fund" doesn't really hold water.

The USPS is a special case, because they used to be a regular government entity, and now they are a quasi-private entity that is still under some Congressional control. The USPS has to bounce everything off of Congress before they act, so they are going to be held to a higher standard than most private companies. Any private company is supposed to fund their pension plan "sufficiently," but pension plans always go down with the ship anyway.

Not many companies still use pension plans because their future liability can only be estimated. And since pension plans are seldom, if ever, fully funded, they are all "unfunded liabilities" in that sense. In the private sector, that's a risk; but the government can always meet its obligations, so there is no need to "fund" a government pension plan with govt. bonds ahead of time.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

That's a little harsh. If you said this to Conservative I would agree, but I wouldn't label MR that way.

That being said, I've gotten the impression that he has already made up his mind on various issues, and is rather slow to change his opinions, regardless of the evidence presented. I may be wrong, but that's the way it appears to me.

If you had been debating MR as long as I have, you would change "slow" to "glacial," and that's only if you were trying to be nice. I'm past trying to be nice (I really did try for a while). I have seen zero evidence that MR is willing to listen to both sides of an argument, and a ton of evidence that he bases his positions solely on whether they are "liberal" or "conservative."

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

You've said about a thousand times that there are no downsides to deficits and debt and now you say there are but you won't tell us what those downsides are. I knew you would squirm out of it. Once again, what are the downsides to too much deficits and debt?

I just told you the downside - it is possible for demand to outstrip the economy's ability to meet that demand. I'm sorry if you are not capable of understanding that, but your intellectual shortcomings are not my problem to solve.

 

[Gaea]

1. Crock and dodge. The left consistently says that the poor don't make enough money to pay their bills and complain about the growing income disparity and then when large minimum wage increases are forced on employers with the end result being NO increase in take home pay then all of a sudden the left claims that the poor CAN live on the same take home pay but it is an increase in the general welfare to work less hours. Come on.

Obviously people CAN live on minimum wage when the federal government gives them free money and free food and subsidized housing.

The point of raising the minimum wage is to reduce peoples' dependence on the government, and raise their standard of living. Yes, working less for the same pay IS an increase in standard of living.

4. You are applying one group's set of values to everyone

My point is "small government" means whatever the hell you want it to mean. It's arbitrary (and therefore meaningless).

5. Again, the left puts too much emphasis on income disparity. The best way to solve the problem is to lift the poor up (not necessarily with cash money) without taking from the rich. But, I am all for sticking it to the one percent, but only the one percent and not necessarily taking from the one percent and giving it to the poor, just not allowing the one percent to have ridiculous amounts of money by instituting some form of regulations or laws and then let the chips fall where they may, not necessarily directed at the poor.

Your statement was that basic income doesn't decrease income disparity. Basic income does decrease income disparity. Which, you apparently acknowledge, since you don't dispute what I just said.

 

[VanceMack]

Obviously people CAN live on minimum wage when the federal government gives them free money and free food and subsidized housing.

The point of raising the minimum wage is to reduce peoples' dependence on the government, and raise their standard of living. Yes, working less for the same pay IS an increase in standard of living.


My point is "small government" means whatever the hell you want it to mean. It's arbitrary (and therefore meaningless).



Your statement was that basic income doesn't decrease income disparity. Basic income does decrease income disparity. Which, you apparently acknowledge, since you don't dispute what I just said.

Who said 'minimum wage' was supposed to provide for you a livable income? Wages have everything to do with the value of work performed, not the individuals personal financial needs.

 

[Gaea]

Who said 'minimum wage' was supposed to provide for you a livable income? Wages have everything to do with the value of work performed, not the individuals personal financial needs.

Boy, I am really getting a lot of mileage out of this quote!

No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.

 

[VanceMack]

Boy, I am really getting a lot of mileage out of this quote!

Great...you took FDR's 'opinion' and you assume that is gospel?

Do you suppose in FDRs days they had kids working shoe shine boxes? paper boys? tell me...do you think FDR expected EVERY job to be a livable wage?

 

[Green Hornet]

Who said 'minimum wage' was supposed to provide for you a livable income? Wages have everything to do with the value of work performed, not the individuals personal financial needs.

Franklin Roosevelt when it was proposed " “By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act).

 

[Gaea]

Great...you took FDR's 'opinion' and you assume that is gospel?

Do you suppose in FDRs days they had kids working shoe shine boxes? paper boys? tell me...do you think FDR expected EVERY job to be a livable wage?

Well, FDR was the president when the first minimum wage law was passed. I'd say he's an authority on the subject. :lol:

 

[VanceMack]

Well, FDR was the president when the minimum wage law was implemented. I'd say he's an authority on the subject. :lol:

Do you similarly oppose unions?

And you didnt answer the question. Do you suppose in FDRs days they had kids working shoe shine boxes? paper boys? tell me...do you think FDR expected EVERY job to be a livable wage? Or was his interest as promoted in this act directed towards industry and trades work?

 

[Kushinator]

Great...you took FDR's 'opinion' and you assume that is gospel?

Do you suppose in FDRs days they had kids working shoe shine boxes? paper boys? tell me...do you think FDR expected EVERY job to be a livable wage?

What is the economic advantage of subsidizing industries, by eliminating the labor price floor, that utilize low-skill labor?

 

[VanceMack]

Franklin Roosevelt when it was proposed " “By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act).

And there is a difference between a livable wage and a 'minimum wage'. FDRs proposals targeted INDUSTRY...not burger flippers and part time sales.

in 1938, the federal minimum wage was established at $.25 across the country. Do you think that was a 'livable wage' and took into account cost of living in separate areas? And did they or did they not delineate between 'covered workers' and 'non-covered workers'?

 

[Neomalthusian]

What is the economic advantage of subsidizing industries, by eliminating the labor price floor, that utilize low-skill labor?

Calling the absence of a government-imposed price floor a "subsidy" creates a loaded question, because you're asking someone to defend a government subsidy when it isn't a government subsidy.

 

[VanceMack]

What is the economic advantage of subsidizing industries, by eliminating the labor price floor, that utilize low-skill labor?

Probably the same as providing 800 billion in shovel ready stimulus packages, only some of which supported jobs that did the same thing.

 

[Ganesh]

Boy, I am really getting a lot of mileage out of this quote!

The economy's got a lot of mileage out of New Deal policies.

 

[Kushinator]

Calling the absence of a government-imposed price floor a "subsidy" creates a loaded question, because you're asking someone to defend a government subsidy when it isn't a government subsidy.

Allowing a company to profit from minimum labor costs is a drag on economic efficiency. It is a reason why the southern slavery states were massively under-developed in terms of productivity enhancing investment. We don't have elevator operators anymore... why? Because it is far more efficient to purchase a mechanically programed elevator given the relative wage cost. Same goes for many low-skill/low-wage jobs that have disappeared throughout the years, as technology (through the aid of increasing wage floors) has rendered them undesirable. If you don't live in New Jersey, you will not see that many full-service gas stations. Why? The economic benefit just doesn't justify the cost. It is far more efficient to break even on gasoline sales and leverage your operation towards retail convenience. I can go on and on....

The message i'm trying to get across is this: a minimum wage forces capital investment, which is far more important for long-term economic growth than some ill-conceived notion of freedom via wage slavery. Having a minimum wage that is indexed to inflation accomplishes this.

 

[Kushinator]

Probably the same as providing 800 billion in shovel ready stimulus packages, only some of which supported jobs that did the same thing.

The level of government expenditure that was included in the ARRA was a net addition to aggregate output. You will not be capable of arguing otherwise.... So i ask, what is your point?

 

[Neomalthusian]

The economy's got a lot of mileage out of New Deal policies.

New Deal policies went into full swing at a time when basically no policy would have held us back. The postwar boom was not a consequence of New Deal policies.

 

[Kushinator]

The postwar boom was not a consequence of New Deal policies.

The post-war boom was indeed a consequence of the massive investment in machinery and productivity enhancing technology due to large expenditures (and demand) from the federal government.

 

[VanceMack]

The level of government expenditure that was included in the ARRA was a net addition to aggregate output. You will not be capable of arguing otherwise.... So i ask, what is your point?

About 520 billion went to ridiculous tax credits and entitlement programs to provide a one time and failed filling of the debt hole in many cities brought about by poor economic planning and budgeting, and to pay off existing debts. Government intervention at its finest.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Allowing a company to profit from minimum labor costs is a drag on economic efficiency.

Even with a price floor there is a minimum labor cost, and some companies compete fiercely on lowest cost and thus will always "profit from minimum labor costs" (your words). It starts to sound like the minimum wage proponent just simply opposes, broadly speaking, any successful firms that compete on cost.

It is a reason why the southern slavery states were massively under-developed in terms of productivity enhancing investment. We don't have elevator operators anymore... why? Because it is far more efficient to purchase a mechanically programed elevator given the relative wage cost. Same goes for many low-skill/low-wage jobs that have disappeared throughout the years, as technology (through the aid of increasing wage floors) has rendered them undesirable. If you don't live in New Jersey, you will not see that many full-service gas stations. Why? The economic benefit just doesn't justify the cost. It is far more efficient to break even on gasoline sales and leverage your operation towards retail convenience. I can go on and on...

The message i'm trying to get across is this: a minimum wage forces capital investment, which is far more important for long-term economic growth than some ill-conceived notion of freedom via wage slavery. Having a minimum wage that is indexed to inflation accomplishes this.

It sounds like you are almost advocating wage floors as an incentive to make the types of capital investment that will move away from any need for low wage labor altogether. But then you toss rhetoric like "wage slavery" into the discussion, for what reason I have no idea. Dramatic flair?

If minimum wage advocates wanted to push society past the need for robotic and mindless human labor altogether, and incentivize the types of technological capital investment that will permanently eliminate mindless robot jobs more quickly than it's already happening, that would make for a more interesting discussion. But that isn't the slant I see coming from many of the advocates of higher minimum wages.

 

[Ganesh]

New Deal policies went into full swing at a time when basically no policy would have held us back. The postwar boom was not a consequence of New Deal policies.

New Deal policies saved the US from depression, and probably saved capitalism itself, in the long run. The further spending for the war was essentially the New Deal on steroids, something urged by progressives (although for different issues), and opposed by regressive ideology and special interests. The right only relented when the threats included them, and not just the unwashed masses.

 

[Gaea]

Do you similarly oppose unions?

I don't understand your question.

And you didnt answer the question. Do you suppose in FDRs days they had kids working shoe shine boxes? paper boys? tell me...do you think FDR expected EVERY job to be a livable wage? Or was his interest as promoted in this act directed towards industry and trades work?

I believe the minimum wage has always been intended to apply to all jobs that adults are hired to work.

 

[Kushinator]

About 520 billion went to ridiculous tax credits and entitlement programs to provide a one time and failed filling of the debt hole in many cities brought about by poor economic planning and budgeting, and to pay off existing debts. Government intervention at its finest.

That's what happens during an financial crisis of epic proportion; state and local municipalities run into massive shortfalls, and are implicitly prohibited from accessing credit markets. In the absence of this monetary injection, what would they be forced to do? Cut costs, which would have put downward pressure on the economy, as the people they would be forced to layoff pay bills, buy groceries, pay taxes, etc... all with the proceeds from their salaries.

You will need a far stronger grasp of macroeconomics if you wish to further this discussion. You are not providing anything i haven't already debunked, many times prior.


Do you by chance have any idea how much of the countries net

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Who said 'minimum wage' was supposed to provide for you a livable income? Wages have everything to do with the value of work performed, not the individuals personal financial needs.

That is absolutely untrue, especially in a time when the demand for labor is low. Wages are a matter of supply and demand, nothing more. Businesses pay their labor as little as possible, based on the labor market, not some percentage of the value of their work.