OldGimletEye Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I certainly don't say that but setting the minimum wage at $75,000 a year is likely to have macroeconomic impact for the negative. Of course. Let's not be ridiculous. No serious liberal commentator is suggesting that. Also, it's important to realize that raising the minimum wage to fight poverty is only one tool in the tool kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Of course. Let's not be ridiculous. No serious liberal commentator is suggesting that. Also, it's important to realize that raising the minimum wage to fight poverty is only one tool in the tool kit. This is my difficulty the minimum wage, where ever it is set, will always be the least you can pay someone. As such isn't its relative value the same... wherever it is set? If not isn't it because fewer total people are being employed mitigating the inflationary impact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: This is my difficulty the minimum wage, where ever it is set, will always be the least you can pay someone. As such isn't it's relative value the same... wherever it is set? If not isn't it because fewer total people are being employed mitigating the inflationary impact? I have no idea what your point is here. The point here is that you can raise the minimum wage without raising unemployment or losses in output. There are theoretical reasons to believe that. And there is empirical backing for it too. Sure, we can dispute the size of the raise. And maybe we might go for more conservative estimates. But, if there is both the theory and evidence then why not try to do so? And the bigger point is: Whenever conservatives claim that raising the minimum wage will necessarily cause more unemployment, well that's not necessarily true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: I have no idea what your point is here. The point here is that you can raise the minimum wage without raising unemployment or losses in output. There are theoretical reasons to believe that. And there is empirical backing for it too. Sure, we can dispute the size of the raise. And maybe we might go for more conservative estimates. But, if there is both the theory and evidence than why not try to do so? And the bigger point is: Whenever conservatives claim that raising the minimum wage will necessarily cause more unemployment, well that's not necessarily true. I get that. What I'd really like to know is where is the tipping point between "no effect" and "It's crazy to raise the minimum wage to $75,000.00 a year". If the $75,000.00 figure is "crazy" it seems clear to me that the minimum wage can have impact. Where is the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I get that. What I'd really like to know is where is the tipping point between "no effect" and "It's crazy to raise the minimum wage to $75,000.00 a year". If the $75,000.00 figure is "crazy" it seems clear to me that the minimum wage can have impact. Where is the line? Alan Kreuger who authored one of the most influential papers about minimum wage believes you can have a $12.00 minimum wage without adverse effects. Some think you can go as high as $15.00. There is obviously an area of dispute there. The fact that we are not exactly certain where the optimum lies is really no excuse to keep the federal minimum wage at $7.25. As to your basic question. There is plenty of research out there suggesting what the relevant elasticities might be. If your going to go the route of "golly we just don't have any idea of where the line might be!! So, I guess we can't do anything!!!" Well, that isn't true. We do have some idea of how far we can go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Alan Kreugar who authored one of the most influential papers about minimum wage believes you can have a $12.00 minimum wage without adverse effects. Some think you can go as high as $15.00. There is obviously an area of dispute there. The fact that we are not exactly certain where the optimum lies is really no excuse to keep the federal minimum wage at $7.25. As to your basic question. There is plenty of research out there suggesting what the relevant elasticities might be. Is there a link to such a discussion, I'm interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Is there a link to such a discussion, I'm interested. Here's one. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/the-minimum-wage-how-much-is-too-much.html?_r=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Is there a link to such a discussion, I'm interested. Here is Krueger talking about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/the-minimum-wage-how-much-is-too-much.html?_r=0 If you are interested in reading and finding studies, it isn't hard. Do something like google, "Econometic Studies Minimum Wage." Ninja'd by @LongRider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 17 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: PQJ, Kalbear, Dr.P, Is someone forcing you to read this discussion? It's in US politics, which I do care about, and is about the legality of the draft, which is both something I don't care about and off topic. Is someone forcing you to shitpost in a topic about something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Just now, Kalbear said: It's in US politics, which I do care about, and is about the legality of the draft, which is both something I don't care about and off topic. Is someone forcing you to shitpost in a topic about something else? No. That's how the conversation evolved. I'm sorry you didn't care for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: No. That's how the conversation evolved. I'm sorry you didn't care for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 I found this to be a good article to explain the issue about Trump talking to Taiwan's prez. A good for someone like me who doesn't know much about Chinese/Taiwan/USA relations. New York Times article Quote When President-elect Donald J. Trump spoke on the phone with Taiwan’s president on Friday, he was wading into one of Asia’s longest-running and sensitive issues: the dispute between Taiwan and mainland China. Though the call alarmed experts, who say it risks upending decades of American efforts to manage the dispute, nonexperts could be forgiven for scratching their heads about the uproar. What follows, then, is a guide to the China-Taiwan issue: why it is so delicate, what role the United States has in the matter and why the phone call is significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Because it does amuse me, Trump went to a Heroes and Villains costume party last night. Dressed as himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Just now, LongRider said: I found this to be a good article to explain the issue about Trump talking to Taiwan's prez. A good for someone like me who doesn't know much about Chinese/Taiwan/USA relations. New York Times article Good article. Leave it to Trump to botch a delicate issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 4 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Because it does amuse me, Trump went to a Heroes and Villains costume party last night. Dressed as himself. "Trump's White House chief strategist, Steve Bannon, also attended the exclusive celebration, but did not wear a costume." Bannon didn't have one either? I hear SNL has one he could borrow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said: Good article. Leave it to Trump to botch a delicate issue. I found these two paragraphs to quite chilling, actually; Quote In this way, the issue is not that he caused offense or broke with tradition, but rather that he introduced real uncertainty about how the United States will approach this issue under his leadership. In international relations, especially on tense issues, a lack of clarity or predictability can be destabilizing because it forces all states to plan for the worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Just now, LongRider said: I found these two paragraphs to quite chilling, actually; Well, yeah it is chilling. I think this all goes back to Trump's lack of understanding over policy matters, whether foreign or domestic. I think Trump just believes he can wing shit. And with some stuff you have to know what in the hell you're doing. There is little room for error. It's good Trump never got into the bomb defusal business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Well, yeah it is chilling. I think this all goes back to Trump's lack of understanding over policy matters, whether foreign or domestic. I think Trump just believes he can wing shit. And with some stuff you have to know what in the hell your doing. There is little room for error. It's good Trump never got into the bomb defusal business. When I read these type of articles, I remember reading articles by people who have worked with Trump, a biographer, and an entertainer and they said (paraphrasing) 'He's worse than you think he is. Really, he's much worse.' I took them at their word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Just now, LongRider said: When I read these type of articles, I remember reading articles by people who have worked with Trump, a biographer, and an entertainer and they said (paraphrasing) 'He's worse than you think he is. Really, he's much worse.' I took them at their word. Yeah, it reminds me of the comment by one of Trump's accountants that the person asking all the penetrating and insightful questions about the tax implications of Trump's businesses wasn't Trump, but his wife Ivana Trump. Remember incurious George? Now we have incurious Donald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawkcabi Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 18 minutes ago, LongRider said: "Trump's White House chief strategist, Steve Bannon, also attended the exclusive celebration, but did not wear a costume." Bannon didn't have one either? I hear SNL has one he could borrow... Wouldn't he still need a costume though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.