US Politics: midterm elections are nigh: do you know where your voting rights are?

[Shryke]

If funds are diverted to a living allowance, that wouldn't be maximizing economic output.

I'm not in favor of maximizing economic output or opposed to living allowances. I'm opposed to government imposing those things.

Nope. Remember, that living allowance you pay those people goes right through them like bad chinese food and directly in to the consumer goods market. It also has a ton of knock-on effects that are good for economic output.

Redistribution can mostly definitely increase economic output.

[Shryke]

Thank you Shryke for your participation. But you're backtracking and arguing ad hominem, now. Whether the information is "Libertarian" sourced doesn't qualify its validity. You say that I'm pulling "shit out my ass" because I'm not providing evidence, but now it's because I have not explained distortions, even though at the very beginning of this argument I did--by example of unemployment. I rationalized this point in subsequent comments by explaining legal unemployment. You put forward that I need data to back it up--despite that the conceptual understanding is derived a priori. You then suggest that I'm arguing against all evidence, despite the fact, that I'm obviously not. You've now gone on to explain supply and demand to me and insinuate that a wikipedia snippet suggest that "excessive" minimum-wage--though I don't see how the "modifier" changes the argument--may in fact create unemployment, but a "reasonable" one will not because of the stimulation of "aggregate demand" which by the way is a concept from those "simple" models with which you take issue.

I don't care about what makes you "giggle." I don't care about your perceptions of my understanding of economics unless it influences your participation in this argument. All I care about are your points. Make them. Because all you've argued thus far are tautologies. Please spare the redundancies.

A long roundabout way of saying nothing. You literally did not answer a single one of my points but instead just whinged about me poking holes in your bullshit. So now you've retreated to claims of ... ad hominem? That word, I do not thinking it means what you think it means.

I'm not backtracking, I'm making the same point I have been all along. You are claiming via the neoclassical supply-demand model (whether you understand that you are or not) that the minimum wage is a price floor and thus will cause a mismatch between demand and supply. And then, when it was pointed out that, in fact, the evidence all suggests that the minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment, you have retreated to saying it causes "distortions". Which is both pulled out of your ass (cause what are distortions in the supply-demand model of the labour market if not unemployment) and an attempt to side-step the evidence by claiming there's some other problem that you refuse to define. It's nothing but you dodging the issue that your own argument is contradicted by the evidence by inventing a new problem ("distortions") that you are unable or unwilling to define.

Define what your "distortions" are. You've mentioned unemployment (which is in fact the only one under the model you are using) but we've already shown and you have already accepted that this is a distortion that does not occur. So what do you mean otherwise?

Cause until you can give an actual concrete measurable, your continued harping on "distortions" is nothing but hot air. What are these distortions?

PS - the fact that your link is a website set up deliberately to push a libertarian economics agenda is incredibly relevant. It's why you'll note (or I guess, not notice in your case) that the site sticks only to the neoclassical model and does not mention recent work that I saw.

[ThinkerX]

The problems, as Commodore alluded to earlier, Terra, are not the goals, per se. It's the means by which these goals are effectuated that presents a problem. In other words, it's the imposition. If people voluntarily gather and agree up on a wage for which they will submit their labor, there's no problem. When the government intervenes and imposes a price with which both employer and employee are forced to comply, there's a problem. Why must the liability of "undue economic pressure," however vague that is, forcibly be transferred from one party to another or shared by both parties? A better question: why would one espouse an ideology that seeks to impose and force obligations?

Because in most cases, the one party (employer) is deliberately trying to screw over the other party (employee). Without some sort of constraint, what we end up here is the second party 'voluntarily agreeing' to a new form of serfdom. In the corporate world, profit for those at the top comes before EVERYTHING else. If screwing over employees increases that profit, then so be it.

From where I'm standing, 'Libertarianism' is misnamed; it is actually feudalism in disguise. All too many of the utter fools subscribing to this political philosophy believe that they will be little kings in this system. In actuality, the ONLY ones who will be able to make that claim will be those at the very top. The rest will have to pay these elites for EVERYTHING, work under whatever conditions and for whatever pay these elites decree, pay tolls to drive on roads owned by the elite, and find that somehow, a decent education is always priced just out of reach. Very likely, voting would be restricted solely to the property owning caste in this system. The way I see it, this is how the corporate libertarian elite ALREADY acts in the parts of the world they can do so in.

[Shryke]

I understand this argument, that economic necessity is the same as coercion, but I will never agree. Working for low wages is not the same as working at gunpoint. Walmart employees are not slaves.

Starvation is not a sort of gun to the head now?

Since when? Since when in all of human history?

Why do most arguments against Libertarians include "in their world..." Am I mistaken, and in fact I've been communicating with Libertarians through an interdimensional fiber-optic network (You go Verizon!)

Because liberatarian ideas only work in mythical worlds of spherical cows and people who don't need to eat or a whole bunch of other bullshit.

The problems, as Commodore alluded to earlier, Terra, are not the goals, per se. It's the means by which these goals are effectuated that presents a problem. In other words, it's the imposition. If people voluntarily gather and agree up on a wage for which they will submit their labor, there's no problem. When the government intervenes and imposes a price with which both employer and employee are forced to comply, there's a problem. Why must the liability of "undue economic pressure," however vague that is, forcibly be transferred from one party to another or shared by both parties? A better question: why would one espouse an ideology that seeks to impose and force obligations?

Because you are ignoring that both parties are not in an equal position to bargain here. Which goes back to the above point that libertarian ideals exist only in a simplistic world of spherical cows, infinite planes and the strange inability for monopoly/monopsony to exist ... somehow.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

You're talking about 3% of american workers. Half of those 3% are under 25. Half of those work part time. These jobs are the first step on the corporate ladder and few families are relying on minimum wage alone to get by. But liberals can't play the hero without first making someone a victim. I can't wait for Tuesday!

[1918me]

You're talking about 3% of american workers. Half of those 3% are under 25. Half of those work part time. These jobs are the first step on the corporate ladder and few families are relying on minimum wage alone to get by.

Ah yes, I really wish I lived in your world, where poverty is a non-issue and all those shitty jobs are just overflowing with opportunity. Because all those janitors and cashiers that I knew years ago are CEOs now, and not still struggling to survive well into old age. Have you tried living in poverty lately? Because I think it might behoove you to reconsider your dismissive attitude.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

But after Tuesday you'll still be you, will you not?

I may be a more cheerful me

[TrueMetis]

You're talking about 3% of american workers. Half of those 3% are under 25. Half of those work part time. These jobs are the first step on the corporate ladder and few families are relying on minimum wage alone to get by. But liberals can't play the hero without first making someone a victim. I can't wait for Tuesday!

:lmao:

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Ah yes, I really wish I lived in your world, where poverty is a non-issue and all those shitty jobs are just overflowing with opportunity. Because all those janitors and cashiers that I knew years ago are CEOs now, and not still struggling to survive well into old age. Have you tried living in poverty lately? Because I think it might behoove you to reconsider your dismissive attitude.

Janitors and cashiers can make more than minimum wage if they are productive employees. And when did I say poverty doesn't exist? What I said was that most minimum wage earners are young and work part time. Either going to school or just getting started in the work force. When they graduate they will definitely earn more than the minimum. If they are just starting a career, it takes time to move up at any place that you work. But if you are a responsible, productive employee, your company will pay you what your worth. And if you not happy, you are free to go elsewhere.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

I think you will be.

I think my predictions upthread were bad and I would amend them already. I do still think that Hagan holds onto NC, but I think Ernst is probably going to win Iowa and Begich may not keep Alaska.

The Hagan/Tillis show has been a hell of a race. If I'm not mistaken, the most money spent in this election.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

:lmao:

Where you not aware of that our something? If not, that would be kind of funny I guess.

[1918me]

And when did I say poverty doesn't exist?

Nowhere, but I never claimed you did. You just seemed to be dismissing the genuine struggles of people who have no choice but to take minimum-wage (or thereabouts) jobs.

But if you are a responsible, productive employee, your company will pay you what your worth.

Your company is going to pay you the minimum amount they can get away with, and your romantic notion of appropriate economic retribution is a little (a lot) too clean-cut for my liking. You said that minimum wage jobs are "the first step on the corporate ladder," but how many of those workers have you personally known to rise to the top? Because me, well, I've known many very smart, talented people who've worked those jobs, and I only wish that someone as wise as you were there to explain how they should be living it up by now.

And if you not happy, you are free to go elsewhere.

To another minimum wage job. Yes.

[Nunki]

Where you not aware of that our something? If not, that would be kind of funny I guess.

I think the point is that a ladder, by definition, necessitates at least a second available step.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Nowhere, but I never claimed you did. You just seemed to be dismissing the genuine struggles of people who have no choice but to take minimum-wage (or thereabouts) jobs.

Your company is going to pay you the minimum amount they can get away with, and your romantic notion of appropriate economic retribution is a little (a lot) too clean-cut for my liking. You said that minimum wage jobs are "the first step on the corporate ladder," but how many of those workers have you personally known to rise to the top? Because me, well, I've known many very smart, talented people who've worked those jobs, and I only wish that someone as wise as you were there to explain how they should be living it up by now.

To another minimum wage job. Yes.

If you are a valuable employee and good at whatever it is you do, a company isn't going to have a problem paying you more than the minimum wage. Even in jobs that are usually associated with minimum pay like fast food or retail, time and productivity will see you making more money. The thing is these jobs are low skill. That means they can get kids to do these jobs straight out of school. If you're older than 25/30 years old still working for minimum wage at good burger, I think you should probably do some soul searching as to why you are where you are in your life. Why haven't you moved up or changed careers? Have you done your absolute best to provide for yourself and earn a living? Do you want it enough, or do you just want someone to give it to you? Have any of you answered the question that's been asked at least three times? If raising the minimum wage is so beneficial, why isn't it raised to $100/hr? I'd flip the hell out of some burgers for $100 an hour.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

I think the point is that a ladder, by definition, necessitates at least a second available step.

So are you saying that people that make minimum wage are not allowed to advance or be promoted?

[1918me]

So are you saying that people that make minimum wage are not allowed to advance or be promoted?

(S)he's saying that they very rarely have the opportunity to move up, because evidently, (s)he's not naive about the realities of the workforce.

If raising the minimum wage is so beneficial, why isn't it raised to $100/hr?

This line of rhetoric always gets trotted out during these discussions, so what do you want me to say? That obviously the idea is ludicrous? That maybe there's a difference between necessitating that employee's get paid a living wage, and some kind of dream world were everybody's rich? It's grossly disingenuous to suggest that the situations are even remotely comparable, and the fact that you seem to think that this is some kind of "gotcha" moment is an insult to the intelligence of every poster here.

I'm going to take my leave of this conversation here, as I realize that your worldview is completely irreconcilable with mine. If you choose to believe that the millions of Americans who have no choice but to work low-paying jobs are just lazy, or that they just don't want to better themselves, or that they just haven't done enough soul searching, then fine. You're welcome to those beliefs, and I imagine it must be very comforting to trust that you live in such a just world, where hard work is invariably rewarded with a good job, and only the talentless and lazy are impoverished. If only life weren't so complicated.

[ThinkerX]

If you are a valuable employee and good at whatever it is you do, a company isn't going to have a problem paying you more than the minimum wage. Even in jobs that are usually associated with minimum pay like fast food or retail, time and productivity will see you making more money. The thing is these jobs are low skill. That means they can get kids to do these jobs straight out of school. If you're older than 25/30 years old still working for minimum wage at good burger, I think you should probably do some soul searching as to why you are where you are in your life. Why haven't you moved up or changed careers? Have you done your absolute best to provide for yourself and earn a living? Do you want it enough, or do you just want someone to give it to you? Have any of you answered the question that's been asked at least three times? If raising the minimum wage is so beneficial, why isn't it raised to $100/hr? I'd flip the hell out of some burgers for $100 an hour.

No. What happens is that employees who hang around start getting more and more flack from management, REGARDLESS of competence. Reason is, with seniority comes pay increases. So rather than pay the old hand $10 an hour, management will run that employee off so they can pay somebody else $7 an hour to do the same work. And if you do manage to hit bottom level management, well then you get to take the hit for the shenanigans of upper management. The corporate goal is to make money for those at the top at all costs. Paying employees more reduces profit. I have seen both happen repeatedly.

Your corporate/libertarian heroes are greedy scumbags attempting to turn the US into a minimum wage nation.

[paddington]

Surely if an employee is paid a living wage, then there is less need for state welfare, along with more people with disposable incoming. An more stuff being sold to absorb that disposable income.

So could a living wage create greater demand and more jobs?

[Wee baby Shamus]

Olester McGriff, an African-American man, lives in Dallas. He has voted in several Texas elections. This year when he went to the polls he was unable to vote due to the new photo ID law. Mr. McGriff had a kidney transplant and can no longer drive; his driver’s license expired in 2008. He tried to get an ID twice prior to voting. In May, he visited an office in Grand Prairie and was told he could not get an ID because he was outside of Dallas County. In July, he visited an office in Irving and was told they were out of IDs and would have to come back another day.

Bullshit story. If he can get to the Grand Pairie DMV in one day, then he can get to 3 others in one day. The local dmv page shows that there are 3 other DMV's within 13 miles from the one in Irving. 13 miles isn't far. Hell, I'm getting ready to go to work and my office is just over 13 miles away.

I also doubt that the Irving DMV was "out" of ID's.

Here is a link for the Irving DMV that shows the distance between 4 DMV's.

http://local.dmv.org/texas/dallas-county/irving/1003-w.-sixth-st./dmv-office-locations.php

I also love how the voter fraud crowd says that incidence after incidence of proving voter fraud is deemed insignificant. Well it seems that every incidence of someone being denied an ID is insignificant.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Creepo knows how far 13 miles is and thus knows everything pertinent about this man's life and schedule and fuck him and his right to vote, he should have done better.