Minimum wage/BUI (split from Immigration)

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I can’t help but notice that still only one of us is supporting our comments with analyses and citations whereas the other keeps making unfounded and seemingly hysterical claims. 

Agree. One of us seems like Bernie Sanders on steroids. The other is arguing for appropriate increases and a reasonably set UBI, as a better tool for decreasing poverty and maintaining more individual freedoms and free enterprise, while recognizing that free enterprise can't always exist where there is unfettered capitalism supported by both the Democrats and GOP, when lobbyists maintain undue influence.

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

7 years at $7.25 puts that data at 2016. That was the year California and New York started raising their minimum wages. Both are now at or above $12, along with Connecticut and perhaps other states. Both data sets could be correct.

Thanks again. I looked at the date and it said 2021, but suspect you are correct.

Note that I've recently been citing from those arguing for $15 federal minimum wage.

 

Not that I agree with them.

But they do seem well intended.

Edited February 1, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would also if I thought it would work well for everyone.

“Everyone” is the wrong metric. There will always be some that benefit and some that are harmed. No change is perfect. As I’ve shared since the beginning... on net, this does far more good than harm. I’ve never claimed no harm.

If you demand that no business ever be hurt or that there never be disruption caused by changes like these, then we’d be forever stuck in place and no progress would ever occur. The minimum wage would still be 25 cents/hr (or about $4.45/hr in today’s dollars) all while the price of goods and housing and services continue to inflate and soar.

[J.C.MacSwell]

36 minutes ago, iNow said:

“Everyone” is the wrong metric. There will always be some that benefit and some that are harmed. No change is perfect. As I’ve shared since the beginning... on net, this does far more good than harm. I’ve never claimed no harm.

If you demand that no business ever be hurt or that there never be disruption caused by changes like these, then we’d be forever stuck in place and no progress would ever occur. The minimum wage would still be 25 cents/hr (or about $4.45/hr in today’s dollars) all while the price of goods and housing and services continue to inflate and soar.

Fair. Just keep in mind that the "deplorables" in rural and/or economically depressed areas may see more harm than good. That could be a higher price to pay for having their freedoms restricted than what others see in the equivalent good in other areas. You're telling them, some of them, that they have no value to add without overall detriment, when you place yourself between them and their employer.

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

49 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

One of us seems like Bernie Sanders on steroids.

I’d likely approach this conversation differently if we at least had universal healthcare, but we don’t. I did, however, wear my mittens whilst walking the dog in subfreezing temperatures earlier 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, iNow said:

I’d likely approach this conversation differently if we at least had universal healthcare, but we don’t. I did, however, wear my mittens whilst walking the dog in subfreezing temperatures earlier 

LOL. I biked in same with gloves and got cold hands.

I hope you guys get Universal healthcare.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

 

An infrastructure bill and environmental program mandating the installation of green energy would create millions of jobs, as would bills for public transportation improvements. This is not an economic limitation, but a political one. The government absolutely can stimulate the job growth you dismiss. 

Then do that. Offer more and the need for a minimum wage disappears. 

If it can be done effectively by all means do it (okay...not all means...)

But this is both an economic limitation and political one. And lawmakers (when unimpeded by lobbyists) can be good at setting the ground rules...but rarely good at carrying it out.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Offer more [jobs] and the need for a minimum wage disappears. 

That does not follow. Many people today are already working 3 jobs and yet remain in poverty. 

[MigL]

Even in 'progressive' Canada, different areas have different minimum wages.
In Ontario, our min wage is $14.25/hr, while JC's Nova Scotia is substantially lower at $12.55/hr.
( highest is Alberta at $15/hr and lowest is Saskatchewan at $11.32/hr ).
Then again, this is in Canadian dollars, but at least we have universal Health Care.

These areas have different costs of living associated with them. The costs of housing and rent, in particular, are wildly different.
Average home prices in areas of BC, Alberta, and Ontario top $1 million; in my area ( outside the Greater Toronto Area ) even old wartime homes are selling for $1/2 Million, and rent, for such a house, would run to $15-1600/ per month. 
While a $15/hr wage might allow you to pay the rent in Nova Scotia, it definitely won't cut it in Ontario.
Minimum wage needs to be adjusted to differing geoeconomic areas.

[iNow]

55 minutes ago, MigL said:

Minimum wage needs to be adjusted to differing geoeconomic areas.

It already is, but there’s still a nationally set standard minimum... even in Canada. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

That does not follow. Many people today are already working 3 jobs and yet remain in poverty. 

If you can provide jobs offers for everyone at higher wages, what is the need for minimum wage?

11 hours ago, iNow said:

 

An infrastructure bill and environmental program mandating the installation of green energy would create millions of jobs, as would bills for public transportation improvements. This is not an economic limitation, but a political one. The government absolutely can stimulate the job growth you dismiss. 

Why aren't you doing it already? Why wait for the minimum wage to go up to $15? Spend the money...it's really only paper/not even paper...if it's so easy why haven't all the Democrat Governors already done it? Are they evil? Or do they realize limitations you prefer to ignore?

 

[swansont]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

Even in 'progressive' Canada, different areas have different minimum wages.
In Ontario, our min wage is $14.25/hr, while JC's Nova Scotia is substantially lower at $12.55/hr.
( highest is Alberta at $15/hr and lowest is Saskatchewan at $11.32/hr ).
Then again, this is in Canadian dollars, but at least we have universal Health Care.

And having universal health care means you can get by with a lower wage than someone who doesn’t have it. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why aren't you doing it already? Why wait for the minimum wage to go up to $15? Spend the money...it's really only paper/not even paper...if it's so easy why haven't all the Democrat Governors already done it? Are they evil? Or do they realize limitations you prefer to ignore?

Because this is largely driven by the federal government, and we have one party dead-set against doing these things. US state and local governments can’t have deficit spending the way the federal government does, so they can’t fund certain initiatives. 

10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Then do that. Offer more and the need for a minimum wage disappears. 

How do you ensure these jobs are not minimum-wage jobs?

[iNow]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why aren't you doing it already?

In addition to the many reasons swansont has shared... Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with how voting districts have been deeply gerrymandered and how the electoral college has installed leaders who badly lost the popular vote?

[iNow]

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report suggesting that raising the minimum wage to $15/hr would likely lead to a loss of about 1 to 1.5 million jobs over the next 5 years, with a parallel reduction in poverty for 1 million people... all with the understanding that these are estimates and that predictions are hard, especially about the future. 

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-02/56975-Minimum-Wage.pdf
 

Quote

For 2025, the average estimate is that employment would be reduced by 1.4 million workers; the median estimate is 1.0 million workers. The mean exceeds the median in this case because there is a significant possibility of large reductions in employment. CBO estimates that there is a one- third chance of that effect’s being between about zero and 1.0 million workers and a one-third chance of its being between 1.0 million and 2.7 million workers.

<...>
Because increasing the minimum wage would shift income toward families with lower income, it would boost overall demand in the short term. Lower-income families spend a larger proportion of any additional income on goods and services than do families with higher income. That increased demand for goods and services would reduce the drop in employment for several years after the implementation of a higher minimum wage, CBO projects.

<...>
The number of people in poverty would be reduced by 0.9 million.

 

[swansont]

Interesting that they don't seem to break that down by jobs lost vs people voluntarily leaving a job (a second job) because they don't need to work the extra hours. (I recall that was part of some analysis for the ACA, for people who worked solely to have insurance)

[iNow]

40 minutes ago, swansont said:

Interesting that they don't seem to break that down by jobs lost vs people voluntarily leaving a job (a second job) because they don't need to work the extra hours. (I recall that was part of some analysis for the ACA, for people who worked solely to have insurance)

Exactly. It's also been criticized for using an outdated framework on how to calculate job movements in the modern economy. 

However, even if it's perfectly accurate, it still shows that it would improve the lives of nearly 40 million people, and bring a million out of poverty completely, even if a million or 1.5 would be displaced from their current positions over 5 years. 

As a sense of scale, we saw 21 million jobs lost in 2020. One million is a lot, but also a lot less than we've faced many times. 

[iNow]

I found this graphic simple to digest, but also informative:

 

SOURCE: https://geofred.stlouisfed.org/map/?th=pubugn&cc=5&rc=false&im=fractile&sb&lng=-95.317&lat=38.686&zm=5&sl&sv&am=Average&at=Not Seasonally Adjusted, Annual, Dollars per Hour, no_period_desc&dt=2021-01-01&fq=Annual&rt=state&sti=116667&un=lin

And here's another interesting view, this time from the Wall Street Journal. 

How Much Does the Federal Minimum Wage Buy You? Now vs. Then:

[J.C.MacSwell]

Does that chart just indicate to you that Federal minimum wages now fall comparatively short of 1968 levels? (I think we can agree on that)

Does it not also show the need for letting states set their own minimums? 

Also the black indicator doesn't represent the current situation except in states with minimum wages set at the current Federal minimum.

How does using the local median rent level represent affordable housing for minimum wage earners? To the degree it's useful does it correlate the same today as 50 years ago?

In any case, does the chart not make a strong case overall for setting minimum wages locally and not nationally?

For example, It seems that one could live comfortably right now in Pittsburgh making Federal minimum, working just 30 hours to make median rent affordable. Why mess with that? Are they all really going to be able to work just 15 hours to still have median rent affordable after mandating a 15/hr minimum? Or will many be out of jobs?

Would you advocate a $30 State minimum wage for California? Why not?

 

 

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Does that chart just indicate to you that Federal minimum wages now fall comparatively short of 1968 levels? (I think we can agree on that)

Does it not also show the need for letting states set their own minimums? 

Also the black indicator doesn't represent the current situation except in states with minimum wages set at the current Federal minimum.

How does using the local median rent level represent affordable housing for minimum wage earners? To the degree it's useful does it correlate the same today as 50 years ago?

In any case, does the chart not make a strong case overall for setting minimum wages locally and not nationally?

For example, It seems that one could live comfortably right now in Pittsburgh making Federal minimum, working just 30 hours to make median rent affordable. Why mess with that? Are they all really going to be able to work just 15 hours to still have median rent affordable after mandating a 15/hr minimum? Or will many be out of jobs?

Would you advocate a $30 State minimum wage for California? Why not?

Any society that feel's the need for a minimum wage, has lost sight of what society mean's. 

[Curious layman]

San Jose should put theirs up to $20.

85 hours a week, that's heavy.

I earn about $15 an hour, takes me about 23 hours to earn my bills. I can't imagine having to work 85 hours a week just to pay bills. 

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Does it not also show the need for letting states set their own minimums? 

No, that does not follow from this or related charts, IMO. States can surely adjust minimums above the federal floor, but the federal floor is needed to address the national economy on the whole. The unit of measure here is the USA, not “Alabama.” Opinions may differ here, but I believe it’s unhealthy and uncompetitive globally to treat each state as its own little country or fiefdom not subject to federal standards or minimums. 
 

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It seems that one could live comfortably right now in Pittsburgh making Federal minimum, working just 30 hours to make median rent affordable.

Being able to afford rent is not the same as living comfortably, but yes. It’s easier doing it in Pitt than in places like San Francisco or DC.

Now, if only these folks could earn enough money per hour to relocate and move their families comfortably to those cheaper locales, then maybe then these market forces could work better, but alas... these low wages have the unintended consequence of indenturing workers in servitude without the ability to pickup and go elsewhere. 

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Would you advocate a $30 State minimum wage for California? Why not?

I haven’t researched nor even thought about it so will refrain from comment. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

 

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

I haven’t researched nor even thought about it so will refrain from comment. 

You seem quite willing to mandate a $15 minimum for Alabama. If they can do that why not $30 for California?

Or have you researched Alabama? 

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

You seem quite willing to mandate a $15 minimum for Alabama. If they can do that why not $30 for California?

Or have you researched Alabama? 

Society is not limited to either.

[Curious layman]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Society is not limited to either.

You Stoned?

Edited March 6, 2021 by Curious layman

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

You Stoned?

I'm getting a little tired of this assumption; present your argument...

[Curious layman]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm getting a little tired of this assumption; present your argument...

Relax, just a bit of humour Mr cryptic. Apologies.