Raising Min Wage

[Maxima1]

Since you included no citations or description I went with the far more commonly used metric

I flat out said "median income" Not "median household income". We were also talking about people -- you know, minimum wage i.e. one person?

You just happened to pick the lowest year in the last 15 years by accident? Sure.

Please. You're not fooling anyone. You want to make a paltry 4k difference a few yrs later look like it proves some point of yours when it clearly doesn't. There was no reason for me to act disingenuous because 30K is much lower than many people think the 50th percentile makes, and I don't go on here to write essays and reports to succor people.

Just because people make 100k where you are doesn't mean that is remotely close to the median. In fact its almost 2x the median for police making your argument severely flawed.

There you go cherry picking -- the very thing you accuse me of. Look at median librarian. A high school graduate could do that job with no training!

The median for police is still significantly higher than the national median despite the other benefits they receive. Government workers use to sacrifice the front end for the back end, but now they get the front end and the back end! Those figures don't include the ample overtime (many states exempt private sector professionals from any compensation for any hours over 40 btw), subsidized health care, or pensions.

Is your argument that we need a higher minimum wage job because some people get paid a lot? Also - you are cherry picking information again.

That's part of it. Why are you against the minimum wage when it is already essentially done? There are a lot of jobs that clearly do not have their compensation determined by supply and demand.

Doing something because you think it won't hurt isn't a good argument

The US isn't even close to having bad inflation effects, etc. In fact, we had a trillion dollar output gap because aggregate demand is weak, since too many in positions for policy making have a asinine gold standard mindset.

Actually they found the exact opposite in Seattle - raising the minimum wage did hurt employment. From my earlier link:

Automation, etc. kill way more jobs than what a minimum wage does. Besides, the government can just do a guaranteed jobs program that pays a little less or bring about basic income. There's no reason why a rich country can't be inclusive of anyone willing and able to work.

Absolutely none of that supports your claim that 20-25% of jobs are good. Also a lot of that is simply based on your personal opinion.

It's not personal opinion. A librarian is a cush job. A resource officer is a cush job. Etc. I'm not going to say truck driver is a good job when you can live high on the government hog or as a union man on the gravy train (unionization without market penetration results in significant premiums). Since private sector clawed back almost all pensions, it's ****. Even then, the best private sector pensions can still be substantially less because you don't get COLAs.

For example - for many having a pension is a huge detriment due to the sorry state of pension funding in this country.

It hasn't happened yet, so you just gave a hypothetical. Some cities have already had courts determined that you can't take a dime, or in the case of federal workers, a small decrease (i.e. the military). Even if a change comes, it may result in a bunch of people getting grandfathered.There's also indications that it won't lead to that (see Canada)

The $100,000 club: Who’s really making big money these days

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/the-new-upper-class/

Saying you would take a 401k is like saying you forfeited your whole pension, so what's your point? BTW, another HUGE BENEFIT for these workers is job security. Economists estimate that's worth about ~15% of your salary because many people who have to change jobs end up with lower pay and other issues that erode their standing.

I would much rather have a defined contribution plan than a pension in Detroit or Illinois.

lmao There you go again with the cherry picking. Never mind that you look really clueless now since teachers in Detroit, Chicago, and other areas around those places are grossly overpaid making over twice the median in the area. Ever checked private sector teachers, btw?

https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/22105

Chicago teachers even more....

And that detriment isn't limited to government pensions. Why don't you go ask the Delphi salaried employees how well having a pension worked out for them.

lol Generally, a unionized worker also has better compensation upfront, too. It's such an asinine argument anyways. Many a union worker has been on the gravy train and will continue to be, and you aren't subject to risk (e.g. 2008 Great Recession) like a 401k would, nor having to take money out of your own pocket for a petty 4% match.

My case is mostly that your claims are wrong\cherry picked\based on anecdotal circumstances. For everything else I am glad that we have several cities notably raising minimum wage. There has been a lot of debate about the consequences but now we have large scale case studies to look at so we can see the benefits and consequences.

They're baseless claims and accusations. You haven't even followed up on some, because even you realized it was asinine e.g. your teen/20-something working at federal min when there's A LOT of jobs near the minimum wage.

I never said anything in regards to unemployment levels so not sure where you are going with that

You said that a hike in the minimum wage in Seattle resulted in a loss of hours as if it shouldn't have been done. But okay if you're just wanting to be argumentative.. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; more so because I mixed you up with someone else I first responded to.

 

[CitizenKain]

So someone WILLING to work minimum wage, should be given an increase because they're good at the job. Gotcha, makes sense now that you're a socialist.

So do have anything beyond saying something is socialist? Or is repeating a word you are obviously too stupid to understand as much as you can do?

 

[verticaldrive]

I rent a house that has two dishes attached to it. They were here when i started renting years ago, neither of which I use, and are probably outdated crap that won't work anymore. My brother bought a house with 3 dishes attached and hasn't gotten around to removing them, also, none of which he uses. There are a ton houses in this town with clusters of old dishes attached to them. Having dishes stuck to the house doesn't mean they are being used.

He exaggerated a little to drive the point home.

But if you want to see an example of what he's saying. Go to Baltimore City (where I worked for 4 years, lived for 10) to the ghetto. Drive down any residential neighborhood. You can see from the homes and the areas either people are on Section 8 renting or they own. These are low socioeconomic neighborhood with service workers. You see......

1. 5 DirectTV satellite dishes on every home.
2. A car not older than a few years (new) Cadillac, BMW, Lexus, Audi.
3. Expensive shoes, clothes, makeup, hair treatments.

And that is just the outside. If you had the opportunity to open each of their mailboxes and look their their mail, go into their homes and see the general husband/wife gf/bf conversations you will see more!

 

[ivwshane]

Bringing prices down to realistic levels in a real sense, not artificially, is what would help people the most. It would also make money 'cheaper' in a sense, to loan, and to give as cost of living raises. Using devalued dollars to make up for high prices is about the worst way to go.

To use a tech analogy, it reminds me of just jacking up the mhz and stats for a device to overcome an artificially bloated and inefficient operating system. (If we just ramp up the numbers high enough, things will seem smooth and fast!) Instead, it would be better to de-bloat and make the OS more efficient so that even a slower system could run it smoothly.

We do the same thing with healthcare and the insurance debacle. Hey, nevermind that a procedure has gotten to a ridiculous 'break you' price, not based on anything to do with actual market forces. Just construct a huge 'lets pretend we're all COVERED' layer of bullshit between the consumer and the price, and forget the price or any real world controls on it.

I see tossing more more more more money at the problem of high cost of living as somewhat a similar inefficient way of doing things.

So what you are saying is that the optimum outcome will never happen?

 

[fskimospy]

Bringing prices down to realistic levels in a real sense, not artificially, is what would help people the most. It would also make money 'cheaper' in a sense, to loan, and to give as cost of living raises. Using devalued dollars to make up for high prices is about the worst way to go.

To use a tech analogy, it reminds me of just jacking up the mhz and stats for a device to overcome an artificially bloated and inefficient operating system. (If we just ramp up the numbers high enough, things will seem smooth and fast!) Instead, it would be better to de-bloat and make the OS more efficient so that even a slower system could run it smoothly.

We do the same thing with healthcare and the insurance debacle. Hey, nevermind that a procedure has gotten to a ridiculous 'break you' price, not based on anything to do with actual market forces. Just construct a huge 'lets pretend we're all COVERED' layer of bullshit between the consumer and the price, and forget the price or any real world controls on it.

I see tossing more more more more money at the problem of high cost of living as somewhat a similar inefficient way of doing things.

This is incredibly wrong.

What you're arguing for is deflation, which increases the real value of debt. Guess who is the most in debt relative to their income? Poor people and middle class people. In addition, deflation would make lending more expensive as it would naturally increase the real rate of interest. (The $100 in debt you take out today would turn into $101 tomorrow or whatever even at 0% interest.)

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Raising the minimum wage is a fix for a symptom not a fix for the actual issue.

The actual fix for the issues this country faces can be fixed by either killing off baby boomers or by removing every one of their entitlements. Of course neither of those options are palatable so we are stuck trying to address the symptoms rather than the cause.

As baby boomers get older and take more minimum wage jobs the problems will only get worse. The good news is that as they die off things will get better. The question is; will the boomers leave this country in a better position than it is now when they leave with regards to policies the politicians they elect put in place? I'm doubtful.

....And what about all the millennials that start to realize that they are never going to get a real career with their gender studies, communications degree, or <insert worthless paper mill degree>? Oh wait, they are just going to replace those boomers you're complaining about - except the millennial group will be even larger.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So because they work 40 hours a week at a minimum wage job, you're for a rate increase? So my question still remains, why is it acceptable for you that someone works 40 hours making minimum wage.

What else should they be doing with their time you dolt? If you can't handle 40 hours a week of work while trying to build yourself up in life, I don't know what to tell you... I work 50-60 hour weeks all with the prospect that I will get promoted and have more experience for the future. At the same time, I do utilize my free time for further advancement in life.

If you can't handle working 40 hour weeks in life (which is a luxury for many of us) then you better be disabled physically/mentally because that isn't asking for much. God forbid you contribute to society amirite?

 

[Zstream]

What else should they be doing with their time you dolt? If you can't handle 40 hours a week of work while trying to build yourself up in life, I don't know what to tell you... I work 50-60 hour weeks all with the prospect that I will get promoted and have more experience for the future. At the same time, I do utilize my free time for further advancement in life.

If you can't handle working 40 hour weeks in life (which is a luxury for many of us) then you better be disabled physically/mentally because that isn't asking for much. God forbid you contribute to society amirite?

Went right over your head...

 

[Exterous]

I flat out said "median income" Not "median household income". We were also talking about people -- you know, minimum wage i.e. one person?

Actually just saying 'median income' doesn't equate to just one person. It doesn't specify one way or the other - thats basic english

Please. You're not fooling anyone. You want to make a paltry 4k difference a few yrs later look like it proves some point of yours when it clearly doesn't. There was no reason for me to act disingenuous because 30K is much lower than many people think the 50th percentile makes, and I don't go on here to write essays and reports to succor people.

It does prove a point. The point it proves is that the number you quoted is out dated. Also that I don't believe you just accidentally happened to pick the lowest point in recent history. Anything you read beyond that is fantasy in your own mind.

There you go cherry picking -- the very thing you accuse me of. Look at median librarian. A high school graduate could do that job with no training!

The median for a school librarian is still far below what you claimed it was 'around you'. Thats not cherry picking - thats just you making a flawed argument based on faulty\unrepresentative data. Also they must be at least a college graduate as a Bachelor's degree is required so a high school graduate actually can't do that unless they get the degree first.

Why are you against the minimum wage when it is already essentially done?

No idea where you dreamed that up since I have never said that. If you could stick to the facts and statements instead of making things that would be helpful.

Automation, etc. kill way more jobs than what a minimum wage does.

Your point wasn't what kills more jobs - your point was that 'studies show that minimum wage isn't that detrimental to employment levels'. I provided an academic study showing you were wrong. Moving on to automation is just moving the goal posts and does nothing to make you not wrong.

It's not personal opinion.

Yes it is. You cite 'no pension' as a negative. That is not a fact. That is a personal opinion.

It hasn't happened yet, so you just gave a hypothetical. Some cities have already had courts determined that you can't take a dime, or in the case of federal workers, a small decrease (i.e. the military). Even if a change comes, it may result in a bunch of people getting grandfathered.There's also indications that it won't lead to that (see Canada)

"It"? If you are talking about negative circumstances as a result of having a pension they absolutely have happened. I gave you two cases in my post that have already occurred.

lmao There you go again with the cherry picking.

You either don't understand what cherry picking is or are ignorant of the pension issues facing the country - if not both. If I was cherry picking I would have pointed out CA's >$1 trillion pension deficit. I picked Delphi but had plenty of options given the hundreds of failed pension plans the PBGC is currently struggling to backstop. But even with pension payouts slashed by as much as 70% the PBGC is falling further and further behind. It now has a 90% chance of being insolvent and unable to pay millions of pensions by 2025 and it will only last that long if it doesn't take on new plans

http://pbgc.gov/Documents/2015-annual-report.pdf

Never mind that you look really clueless now since teachers in Detroit, Chicago, and other areas around those places are grossly overpaid making over twice the median in the area. Ever checked private sector teachers, btw?

There is a flaw when comparing teacher salaries to the median. If you have an area full of people making minimum wage then even a below average teacher's salary will look absurd by comparison. It doesn't necessarily mean the pay scales are out of whack. Doesn't mean they aren't over paid either just that your argument is incomplete. A far greater issue for both is that they refuse many pension reform issues and actively work to ensure the ruin of their pension system. And with my wife teaching in the private sector I am familiar with the pay ranges - which run from significantly less than public school teachers to significantly more.

Generally, a unionized worker also has better compensation upfront, too. It's such an asinine argument anyways. Many a union worker has been on the gravy train and will continue to be, and you aren't subject to risk (e.g. 2008 Great Recession) like a 401k would, nor having to take money out of your own pocket for a petty 4% match.

Its obvious you don't understand risk or pension\retirement systems. As a pensioner you are still subject to risk - not to mention you have even less control than a defined contribution program if things start to go wrong. Pensions still haven't recovered from 2008 and continue to fall further and further behind on their funding. As an example CalPERS earned a ROI of 0.61% while their plan requires 7.5% to stay on target. It has continued to miss its goals despite one of the best stock market runs in history. MSPERS has gone from 65% in 2011 funded to 62.1% in 2015 despite this same ahistorically strong market. Even if we ignore the fact that defined contribution plans more than made up for 2008-2009 losses (assuming a consistent investment plan) the stock market has an established 100+ year history of overall positive returns. Pensions, meanwhile, have a drastically higher failure rate across a significantly smaller time frame and continue to decline despite the strong market. If they are falling farther behind in a strong market how well are they going to fare when the inevitable downturn hits again? Pretty obvious they will fare worse than a 401k

They're baseless claims and accusations.

Only if you ignore all the supporting argument links I've posted. And I only ahve so much time to correct your incorrect statements.

You said that a hike in the minimum wage in Seattle resulted in a loss of hours as if it shouldn't have been done. But okay if you're just wanting to be argumentative..

Pointing out you are attributing a stance to me that I have never taken isn't being argumentative - its pointing out that you have a reading comprehension issue

 

[Maxima1]

Actually just saying 'median income' doesn't equate to just one person. It doesn't specify one way or the other - thats basic english

Virtually everywhere it is written out as household income. If just personal, it is commonly left out as people think wage=salary=income. But again, why did you assume that? It appears to me you thought it could only apply to households, since it is obvious to anyone else that it must have been individual income if at 26k. There was no point to post about household income being ~50k if you knew that.

It does prove a point. The point it proves is that the number you quoted is out dated. Also that I don't believe you just accidentally happened to pick the lowest point in recent history. Anything you read beyond that is fantasy in your own mind.

Damn, what stupidity, I posted it because it got in the news and was quite memorable.

The median for a school librarian is still far below what you claimed it was 'around you'. Thats not cherry picking - thats just you making a flawed argument based on faulty\unrepresentative data.

I gave a relative value i.e. more than twice the median. Other states have lower medians than CA. Either way, the median is $57K for librarians. That's a joke no matter how you slice it. It doesn't include the pension or subsidized health care a lot of states have either.

Also they must be at least a college graduate as a Bachelor's degree is required so a high school graduate actually can't do that unless they get the degree first.

I know. I'm saying the degree is just educational inflation. Not to mention, there are plenty of bachelor degrees (even more rigorous ones such as chemistry) that pay zilch in the private sector, so your argument that the pay is justified due to their level of education is nonsensical. Btw, they really need a masters, which is amusing because even engineers only need a bachelors.

No idea where you dreamed that up since I have never said that. If you could stick to the facts and statements instead of making things that would be helpful.

What am I to conclude if you want to be argumentative with me on the wage increase in Seattle?

Your point wasn't what kills more jobs - your point was that 'studies show that minimum wage isn't that detrimental to employment levels'. I provided an academic study showing you were wrong. Moving on to automation is just moving the goal posts and does nothing to make you not wrong.

Jesus, man. Go read a damn labor economics book or take a labor economics class. Minimum wage doesn't affect employment levels nearly as much as idiot conservatives wish it to.

Yes it is. You cite 'no pension' as a negative. That is not a fact. That is a personal opinion.

That's not personal opinion. Go look at what McCain said about an enlisted military pension -- $1,8 million. Do you know why? COLAs Do you have any idea what kind of match you would need to get that kind of benefit in a 401k? And military gets the federal TSP i.e. akin to 401k. There's a reason why pensions have gone away almost completely in the private sector, and even if the private sector has them, they won't have a COLA.

"It"? If you are talking about negative circumstances as a result of having a pension they absolutely have happened. I gave you two cases in my post that have already occurred.

You gave cherry-picked examples. Detroit? lmao. Please. Go look up median income in that area and stick that up your pipe and smoke it! You picked a complete cesspool of a city. Chicago doesn't prove your point either. They have some of the highest paid teachers. Look at the results!

You either don't understand what cherry picking is or are ignorant of the pension issues facing the country - if not both. If I was cherry picking I would have pointed out CA's >$1 trillion pension deficit.

Just because there's a deficit, doesn't mean it'll end up not being paid out some way e.g. higher taxes or bailout from the federal level, etc.. Even if substantially cut, CA is one of the worst offenders with egregious compensation for state employees. Their back end will still be better and their front end already is. You sure as heck don't know what cherry-picking is.

I picked Delphi but had plenty of options given the hundreds of failed pension plans the PBGC is currently struggling to backstop. But even with pension payouts slashed by as much as 70% the PBGC is falling further and further behind. It now has a 90% chance of being insolvent and unable to pay millions of pensions by 2025 and it will only last that long if it doesn't take on new plans

http://pbgc.gov/Documents/2015-annual-report.pdf

No **** Sherlock! That supports MY argument. Private sector has rid the pension plan (for one, the back end sucks at attracting employees, since they underestimate the value), and there's greater risk of getting substantially less as you point out (i.e. the PBGC), while government employment is and will remain better compensated due to the different ways private sector and public sector are compensated. That's a phenomenon you can find all over the world. Your hypotheticals are just nonsense that aren't even playing out in countries.

There is a flaw when comparing teacher salaries to the median. If you have an area full of people making minimum wage then even a below average teacher's salary will look absurd by comparison. It doesn't necessarily mean the pay scales are out of whack.

Hello, McFly!? The median income = 31k. That means there are a lot of jobs $15 or less with no bennies, while a teacher gets far more per hour, not including the significantly less hours they'll work in a given year.

Doesn't mean they aren't over paid either just that your argument is incomplete. A far greater issue for both is that they refuse many pension reform issues and actively work to ensure the ruin of their pension system.

Private sector can't force neighborhoods to pay them. The gravy train will still continue, and they'll have their PR.

And with my wife teaching in the private sector I am familiar with the pay ranges - which run from significantly less than public school teachers to significantly more.

So because there are some that make "significantly more", it helps your argument? Even though we all know the median for private sector teachers is significantly lower? lmao Talk about flawed arguments. The marginal productivity of teachers reaches zero relatively fast. Most of what makes a good school a good school or a bad school a bad school are the students themselves.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_087.asp

Its obvious you don't understand risk or pension\retirement systems. As a pensioner you are still subject to risk - not to mention you have even less control than a defined contribution program if things start to go wrong. Pensions still haven't recovered from 2008 and continue to fall further and further behind on their funding. As an example CalPERS earned a ROI of 0.61% while their plan requires 7.5% to stay on target. It has continued to miss its goals despite one of the best stock market runs in history. MSPERS has gone from 65% in 2011 funded to 62.1% in 2015 despite this same ahistorically strong market. Even if we ignore the fact that defined contribution plans more than made up for 2008-2009 losses (assuming a consistent investment plan) the stock market has an established 100+ year history of overall positive returns. Pensions, meanwhile, have a drastically higher failure rate across a significantly smaller time frame and continue to decline despite the strong market. If they are falling farther behind in a strong market how well are they going to fare when the inevitable downturn hits again? Pretty obvious they will fare worse than a 401k

You are one of the most argumentative people I've ever met. A 401k is objectively worse than CalPERS! Please stop trying to peddle this nonsense that pension is somehow worse than a 401k, which likely has a match of about 4%. Good grief.

Only if you ignore all the supporting argument links I've posted. And I only ahve so much time to correct your incorrect statements.

You just post incomplete or misleading data.

Pointing out you are attributing a stance to me that I have never taken isn't being argumentative - its pointing out that you have a reading comprehension issue

There was no point for you to rant then if you don't even agree with what you stated previously.