iNow

Jesus man. You’re really reaching now

Which experts? Got a link? This isn’t jazz. Stop focusing on the notes I don’t play and read the words I do. Maybe try answering the actual GD questions I’m asking instead of dancing around them and evading. You either have a valid point that’s supportable or you’re inventing fictions and arguing a personal opinion.

The logic here is rather twisted, to the point of being fallacious and nonsequitur. There is no change to whether or not an inexperienced individual is being allowed or not allowed to work. They’re simply going to be paid a wage more aligned with a commonly accepted minimum when they do. I’m assuming nothing. I’m relying on the preponderance of evidence which demonstrates their underlying premises and consequent claims to be mistaken to the point of fictional.

The assumption here seems to be that higher minimum wage means it’s harder for teenagers to get that first job because there will be fewer jobs available. That’s nonsense since job gains outpace job losses in this scenario. I’m sure there are very many fine people at the Frazer institute, but given their heavy funding from corporations and special interests it’s unsurprising they’d publish a flawed fluff piece like this.

Plz note my edit made while you were composing your reply

To be fair, I’d like to know which people specifically, especially since it underlies this entire thread and it’s ridiculous poll I’m a fair man, though. Let me make my point another way by asking a simple and rather straight forward question. Out of every million times a woman comes forward about being sexually harassed, abused, or assaulted, precisely how many of those million are you saying represent contrived accusations, lies, and falsehoods?

Still awaiting even a single citation which confirms your premise as valid.

Thank you for answering, but is this another WAG, or is there analysis to support the assertion that the region would benefit more from UBI over higher federal wage minimums for the workers living there?

I’m sure a transcript exists

Nobody’s arguing that false accusations aren’t even made or that people aren’t on rare occasions punished unfairly. That barely ever happens, though. Most claims are true and based on actual events. In fact, what’s FAR more likely to happen is that victims fail to report or bring forward their experience to authorities... not that they make up something which never happened. That’s a defense common among abusers.

Do you also think the UBI should be adjusted and differently applied across regions? If not, why not? Extremely

Let’s dial back the emotion a bit. My suspicion is you heard something different than what was intended or actually conveyed. Anyone who says there’s no room for doubt in 100% of cases is an idiot. Most people say our default position should be to believe them, and to validate their claims as much as we can before dismissing them. But that’s not what you and others are describing here. We’d be able to clear this up really quite quickly if citations were provided. Nobody has, at least none which support the strawman being argued against. I wonder why.

Our default position should be to assume they’re telling the truth. That’s not the same as saying belief should be automatic 100% of the time with zero doubt whatsoever. Why so many otherwise very smart people struggle with this simple nuance boggles the mind.

Hard to say, but at least I’m putting forth supporting resources for my claims. I’ll just note also that you completely ignored the other analyses and meta analyses which further supported the conclusion described.

Thanks for saving me the time. +1

This is the part to which I’m referring: “should be automatically 100% believed without doubt.”

I challenge you to provide even one citation supporting this absurd comment.

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/2/20678821/15-federal-minimum-wage-increase-study But there I go again, making a moral argument 🙄

This comparison with guests at a cocktail party sums it up well for me: https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/this-cult-is-ruining-peoples-lives

Seen through this lens, it makes even more sense. https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-news/pages/federal-minimum-wage-increase-good-for-business-cost-too-much.aspx

I can make both moral and fiscal arguments, and my fiscal arguments have not relied on moral stances. I shouldn’t have to point this out given how many times I’ve referred to the data. I can see my point got missed by introducing such an emotional example like slavery. I was merely saying businesses suffered then too, but we still did it because it was the right thing to do. Some businesses will go under due to this change. Some states will be more heavily impacted. That’s not the metric that matters. It’s too simplistic and naive. Jobs will also be created. People will have more money in their own pockets to spend at other peoples businesses, then those people will have more money to spend and the virtuous cycle continues. More people will complete educations and get degrees. They’ll have new ideas and new networked connections. New businesses will be started as people no longer have to work 3 jobs to make ends meet. Kids health will go up as they’re better fed and have their parents nearby more often. The list continues. If you focus only on immediate costs to some particular sub populations and ignore the returns... if you forget this is an investment and not just an expenditure, then of course you’ll be against it. This is an issue of creative destruction. I urge you to focus a bit more on the creation than on the destruction, which nearly all analyses say will be smaller anyway. Adjusted for inflation, minimum wage today should actually be closer to $25/hr. Can we please get our heads out of our asses and stop standing as an obstacle to the still too low baby step of $15/hr?

It’s fascinating watching this story evolve and unfold in real time.

And that’s still possible. They’re welcome to go anywhere above the federal minimum they want. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, see the link I shared, specifically: Yes, some states will feel the impact more than others, but the people living in those states also need to be able to survive and eat. We can make all the fiscal and economic arguments we want, but for me this (much like universal healthcare) is a moral issue, not a money one. The plantation owners also didn’t want to start paying their slaves and several couldn’t sustain themselves when slavery ended. Too bad. It was the right thing to do, just like this is.

I realize you already answered my question here. Now, is this just an opinion... a WAG, as it seems to be? Or, is there analysis we can review that supports it? I ask because your personal confidence has zero to do with the numbers potential validity.

No. We agree some employers will suffer. The data suggests, however, there will be a net gain in jobs due to the change to $15/hr. It’s unclear to me what point you’re trying to make. It’s been acknowledged already that there’s some threshold at which continued increases in the wage floor will do more harm than good to overall employment. You’ve been asked where that threshold is. That question has repeatedly gone unanswered. You seem to think $15 is at or near that point, but have been decidedly evasive and cagey in answering it head on, so it’s entirely possible I’m misunderstanding you. I’m trying to understand you better and need your partnership to do so. Will you please clarify in one or two sentences where your concern is specifically, around what hourly wage is too high (and move away from the vague claims about which we all already agree that there’s “some threshold” above which wage increases result in unacceptable job loss)? Fair enough. That’s not where the discussion has been for most of the thread, though. I haven’t been putting links and quotes into my posts merely as decoration, you know. Perhaps consider reviewing them and their citations.