Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

They still don't understand that increasing the minimum wage does not increase wages. It cuts down on the number of wage earners, because small businesses have to lay people off, so they can afford to pay the new mandatory minimum wage. Less wage earners = less income. Small business is the backbone of the economy. Once again, its like Bill Cosby once said, "the government comes for the regular people first". Here they come.

But, at least Biden isn't Trump ....

Say whatever you want about it but one thing you can't say is that raising the minimum wage is unpopular

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/30/two-thirds-of-americans-favor-raising-federal-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour/

Florida, in the same election in which Trump beat Biden handily, also passed a state constitutional amendment to raise the minimum wage to...$15 by 2026. And it got over 60% of the vote.

https://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/florida-voters-approve-15-minimum-wage

That said I'm very skeptical this will get through under reconciliation. Both Manchin and Tester have publicly expressed opposition. I think a min wage hike is coming (the last one was in 2007) but probably will end up being well short of $15.

[iam416]

I'm skeptical it can be done through reconciliation but who even decides that? Is something eligible under reconciliation if simply enough Senators say it is, or are there actual laws governing this stuff?

I would assume the Supreme Court would have to weigh in, eventually. But, yeah -- the Senate is just going to do it and worry about legalities later.

That said, I think a minimum wage bill would probably pass as a stand-alone bill. I think you could peel off 10 Rs at least. I also think that it is probably bad for lower income people, great for high school kids at entry level jobs and overall a net negative (especially a raise THAT high). And I'm fairly certain that the impacts will be regressive in terms of lost jobs and passed on costs. And I'm 100% certain it has jackshit to do with Covid relief.

I'm not sure why we can't have a fucking straight-forward targeted relief bill. I'm fine w/ temporarily increasing unemployment (though, that has risks, too). I'm fine w/ some sort of targeted money drop -- but, for the love of fuck, I SHOULD NOT GET ANY MORE MONEY! The Feds have already given me nearly $4K and I haven't stopped working for a second. It's insane. And they should invest in money to the localties that MUST be used for Covid shit (testing, vaccines, etc). It cannot be some sort of general purpose money drop that States can use as they see fit.

If you're working with those 3 points, I don't really care what the amount is (within reason). Cetainly somewhere in between 0.6T and 1.9T is doable. But it's not just those 3 points. It's minimum wage. It's indirectly bailing out incompetenly run pension systems by states that refuse to make hard, adult choices. It's sending money to people like ME (another 3K or so!).

[iam416]

They still don't understand that increasing the minimum wage does not increase wages. It cuts down on the number of wage earners, because small businesses have to lay people off, so they can afford to pay the new mandatory minimum wage. Less wage earners = less income. Small business is the backbone of the economy. Once again, its like Bill Cosby once said, "the government comes for the regular people first". Here they come.

But, at least Biden isn't Trump ....

Yeah, that's probably true. It increases wages of people below the poverty line. It likely decreases the wages of people slightly above the poverty line. It eliminates entry level jobs. Most minimum wage jobs are held by persons under the age of 25 -- you know, entry level jobs. Kids working to make extra bucks. The percentage of minimum wage folks that are full-time wage earners is low.

I think the one thing that is certain is that businesses won't just say -- hey, thanks for that extra cost -- we'll stand pat. There will be a reaction that will negatively affect labor opportunities and/or increase costs of goods (regressive).

[iam416]

Personally, if you want to help lower income folks MORE, I think the correct route is something like increasing the EIC. I think everyone on the minimum wage front can at least agree that we don't know WHO will bear the costs. We know there are costs -- money ain't free -- so who will bear them? We just don't know. And, as I mentioned, there's a pretty high likelihood (IMO) that they're borne in a regressive way. In fact, personally, I really can't see any other way. So, poor people will disproportionately fund a raise for poor people.

The benefit of the EIC is that we know exactly who pays for it. Taxpayers via federal income tax. And we know exactly what our tax structure is (progressive!). So, we know that progressive costs are being using to provide beneftis to low income folks. And the increase in taxes is slight enough that it's not particularly likely to produce gads of unintended consquences or unknown consequences.

Then again, I've always loved the EIC. If you're going to provide benefits to low income folks, I've always loved the idea of tying those to actual work.

But, the EIC isn't a politically sexy idea.

[iam416]

I think a min wage hike is coming (the last one was in 2007) but probably will end up being well short of $15.

I think the median wage in the US is somewhere around $20 -- maybe just short. I think in some states, the median wage is actually less than $15. I think we'd all agree that there is some number out there that is too high. AOC and Bernie may, e.g., begrudgingly admitt hat $1000/hr is too high. For me, man -- 75% of the median wage seems really high. I'd put it more at 50% (which is still raise to $10ish). But the bigger the raise the more disrputive it's going to be.

Finally, as suggested above -- there are places where $15/hr is unlivable and $15/hr is completely livable. We're going to impose a drastic minium wage hike on the ENTIRE nation without regard to rather significantly varied costs-of-living. In particular, I'm not sure how on earth places like Southeast Ohio absorb that sort of bump. And I'm not sure what fucking good it does for people in, say, Southern California.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Say whatever you want about it but one thing you can't say is that raising the minimum wage is unpopular

Of course it's popular. The folks don't see past their paychecks. If they go up, that's good.

In terms of economic impact and social consequences, I've seen good arguments both for and against a minimum wage increase. The truth is that we really won't know the impact or consequences until it's implemented.

One position I take that I am constantly questioning is that income inequality - the wage and salary gaps that there is no question exist in the American economy - is harmful. I've got a strong disposition to the view that how you fare in the economy and life in general is based on the decisions you make along the way. IOW, you reap what you sow. That view ignores institutional barriers to upward mobility at all levels. The courts seem to think there are some and have generally taken steps to limit their impact. Whether those steps have been effective is another question altogether.

Anyway, The Center for American Progress takes a somewhat different approach to arguing for an increase in the minimum wage - it reduces reliance on social welfare programs and the costs of those to tax payers.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2021/01/27/495163/raising-minimum-wage-boost-economic-recovery-reduce-taxpayer-subsidization-low-wage-work/

This Brookings article is informative and more in line with my thinking on this. There are other ways to boost the potential for low wage earners and the unemployed that don't involve government directing an increase in the minimum wage that, IMO, is more likely to produce the outcome that Liney suggests, They focus on local efforts to ......

First, workforce development activities should do more to support worker mobility. Leading approaches in recent years have focused on meeting employer needs and building career pathways within single sectors, such as health care, manufacturing, and retail. Routes to the middle class, however, more often traverse industries than operate within them. With data on these real-world pathways, and greater focus on providing people with the skills to learn continuously on the job, local agencies can better prepare workers to navigate an increasingly tumultuous labor market toward a good-job destination.

Second, economic development officials should focus their programs and services on good jobs for the workers who need them most, rather than cultivate only the highest-paying jobs or—even worse—throw public money at bad jobs. In providing business incentives and supports, economic developers should consider factors including skill requirements, wages and benefits, and physical accessibility to ensure that the jobs they attract and retain truly help build a stronger local middle class.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/01/15/three-things-that-matter-for-upward-mobility-in-the-labor-market/

[iam416]

Anyway, The Center for American Progress takes a somewhat different approach to arguing for an increase in the minimum wage - it reduces reliance on social welfare programs and the costs of those to tax payers.

Assuming that is true, then think about who is bearing the costs. We know who is bearing the costs for benefits programs (whether it's straight welfare-type programs or EIC or otherwise). We know that those costs are paid for progressively by richer folks. Who do you think will bear the costs of a minimum wage increase? No one in their right mind thinks that businesses will just sit back and do nothing as their labor cost is significantly increased. How and to what extent will they transfer those costs to society at large? What other reations will they take?

It's a fairly complex issue. And, while we don't "know" what will happen in the future, the overwhelming weight of the research is that it will be a net negative. But, even if it were a net positive in terms of wages, I'd still want to know who is paying for those wages. I'm sure that a policy that basically has poorish people paying for raises for the lowest income workers doesn't makes sense, and I'm fairly sure that is what will happen.

[Da Geezer]

To reiterate something Talent said upthread, the $ 15 minimum is not something that can or should be nationalized. $ 30,000 (15 X 2,000 hours) is enough to live on in northern MI but not in Chicago. It would be great if the minimum could be a percentage of the median wage, but that would result in endless debate over the calculation.

Of course, the best way to raise the minimum wage is what Trump was doing pre-covid. Do you remember all the "Help Wanted" signs that were out there in 2019 and early 2020? Employers I know couldn't find enough workers, particularly the farmers who did indeed raise the pay for their fieldhands. Large-scale illegal immigration depresses the free-market "minimum", and it probably depresses the overall median wage too. The minimum wage issue has an illegal immigrant (who are less protected by government minimums) component.

[Tom W]

The other problem with raising the minimum wage for LEGAL employees is that there's less incentive for companies to hire people to handle tasks that don't require physical contact with customers- i.e. customer service. If you think it's a pain in the ass to get in touch with someone who actually does something useful now, just imagine what it will be like when the last remaining U.S-based call centers get relocated to Indopakistania.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Nebraska raised the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 a few years ago. What did Wiz do as a business owner? I raised my prices across the board and put a hiring freeze in place...my sales went up but profits went down. Had to lay off a few people after that. Eventually profits normalized. The effect was more on the workers than me. But I do know some restaurant owners who went out of business because of it. Now they want $15 federally mandated? Ok cool. This does nothing but hurt the people it's supposedly for. Always has and always will. But liberalism is about the illusion of helping people...showing you "care"...not about results.

[Hannibal]

Raising the minimum wage while adding 20 million new citizens eligible to earn it will have no negative consequences, I’m sure.

[crashcourse]

raising minimum wage will effectively reduce your eic, eligibility for food stamps putting you back where you started from if you are currently earning 10 dollars an hour you qualify. if you go to 15 dollars an hr 30K a year you dont
Probaly a lot of other programs out there that you burn yourself if you make that extra 10 K a year

[foxhopper]

Nobody seems to give a shit about the people who started at the bottom and after 5 years they are now making $15 an hour. Always great for morale when the new guy hires in for the same wage you worked years to obtain. Every time I have ever seen this happen pay wasn't increased across the board. It just screws the better employees who have moved up the ladder.

Not to mention the price of rent and everything else will go up and cancel all the gains in buying power. What good is getting a raise if the cost of living increases at the same rate...

Just another way of fooling the peons into thinking somebody is helping us...

[Ghengis Jon]

Lowering the political temperature.

https://phys.org/news/2021-02-deliberative-democracy-depolarize-america.html

[Jeff Buchanan]

Shocking vaccine news ........why are states and counties dominated by progressive leadership having problems distributing vaccines:

Why? A common problem seems to be a focus on process rather than on getting shots into arms. Some progressive leaders are effectively sacrificing efficiency for what they consider to be equity.

The term "equity" was brought up yesterday as a WTF does this mean question. When it comes to governments doing big jobs - like getting a massive vaccination program organized - it means that it fails when political ideology outweighs program design efficiencies.

I found it interesting that the NYTs was the news source that brought this up ...... it's because it is so blitheringly obvious that governments that worried about equity, fairness, getting vaccines to minorities or whatever you want to call this and baked it into their vaccination programs fucked it up. They had to report it.