Revisiting the Shaggy Soothsayers

[Pato del Muerto 53466]

21 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Now....imagine you were Mr. Phlegm.....

We are all mr phlegm, just at different points along the path. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

21 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Damn I was erudite back then. Thanks.

I actually thought you were a different poster. We mostly disagreed on the shag and seem to mostly agree here.  That probably has more to do with the Republican party falling off a cliff than it has to do with with us changing our views. But you still throw down knowledge. Bozo too. 

Overall, there is less real discussion going on than there used to be though. Trumpism is essentially indefensible and discussion of nuanced policy positions seems almost as pointless as deciding what color to paint the living room while the house is on fire. 

 

[washparkhorn 9973]

9 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I actually thought you were a different poster. We mostly disagreed on the shag and seem to mostly agree here.  That probably has more to do with the Republican party falling off a cliff than it has to do with with us changing our views. But you still throw down knowledge. Bozo too. 

Overall, there is less real discussion going on than there used to be though. Trumpism is essentially indefensible and discussion of nuanced policy positions seems almost as pointless as deciding what color to paint the living room while the house is on fire. 

 

That's is unfortunate for many reasons, but understandable with Trump. 

I learned and learn from the core and the new core. It is a like a free seminar in modern American politics. Real experiences and knowledge are invaluable. Keep up the fight. I listened then and now. 

[Biff Tannen 46163]

17 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Overall, there is less real discussion going on than there used to be though. Trumpism is essentially indefensible and discussion of nuanced policy positions seems almost as pointless as deciding what color to paint the living room while the house is on fire.

Yep.  I tried to stay out of the CR back then and my political interest was not very high (I still voted, but had no idea about most of the down ballot stuff) then when the dotard was elected it was a wake up call.  I came in here going, "whoa, where did we fuck up?"  

Not that CR isn't a cesspool now, as it always was, but it's more of a place for me to try and learn about the latest attempts to subvert our democracy and otherwise watch it all burn to the ground.  If I'm going to be trapped in this burning house, I at least like to know why.

[Pato del Muerto 53466]

That’s the spirit. 
 

im still indifferent. If I’m trapped in the burning house, it doesn’t matter why. 

[horn4life 3838]

Economically the GOP plans have repeatedly been proven to be failures.  This is especially true this go round of tax cuts.  Now it is very important here to distinguish, between the presumed outcome and the publicly espoused policy.  The publicly espoused policy says that rich folks are going to take the money invest it in the US and create jobs and thus upwards pressure on wages to help the worker.  The other side of the verbal coin is that Corporations are going to invest all the extra money in the US and create more jobs creating upwards pressure on wages.  Neither of which happened, as far as rationalizing the costs of borrowing from the future in comparison to the increase in desired worker wages. The presumed outcome is that mostly wealthy old white people who write the biggest checks to campaigns are going to thank us because they absolutely will be able to give us millions more in donations, because of the savings.  It's fun to tell the fairytale about the policy being about wages that never materialize, while the debt accumulates at an unprecedented level during a time of plenty.

I will say that 50 years ago the economic policy espoused today by Republicans did have more of the publicly espoused effect.  Simply because investment options were limited geographically and the richest in the US invested in the US.  If you give a billionaire another $50 million, they can just as easily invest it in Taiwan.  There is no guaranteed wage pressure created at all.  Same with Corporations making massive stock buybacks, and even greater mobility globally in investment.  So again no guarantee in job creation in the US to put upward pressure on wages.  The reason I said all this is because these wrong headed assumptions (that were true many years ago) are the reason that the GOP has resisted a living wage.  The assumption being business investment and competition will push wages up naturally.  

I support a living wage.  Simply as I believe that a non-living wage places a unique burden on taxpayers to subsidized sub-living wage workers via social programs.  I will also say that one of the biggest issues with wages (compensation) is the mind boggling shift disproportionately to the percentage of total compensations (wages, stock options, etc.) towards a very few at the top of the company.  A $15 an hour wage is good for most communities in that every single additional dollar a low wage worker spends will be largely spent in their own community on basis. This creates a multiplier affect that trickles the money through local businesses. I have no problem admitting that initially upward adjustments to minimum wages to living wages will have some job contraction.  Simply as some businesses are so close to the edge they can't afford not to be subsidized by taxpayer supporting their workers. But overall after the adjustment period the effect should be less dependence by worker on taxpayer subsidy, as well as increased economic stimulus locally.  Not to mention the moral aspect of the paying people enough to be able to put a roof over their head and some food on the table.

It's nice to see my assumptions come to fruition (though I would need to look a lot more closely as taxpayer subsidies to employees to be certain.)

If you want true economic stimulus WITHIN the borders of the U.S., providing additional dollars to wage workers is simply the best investment you can make from a tax policy perspective. If you want to hire employees you need to be able to pay them enough to live on IF they are full time.  If a worker is not page a living wage the taxpayer must subsidize the worker so they can survive. 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 32076]

13 minutes ago, horn4life said:

 

I will say that 50 years ago the economic policy espoused today by Republicans did have more of the publicly espoused effect.  Simply because investment options were limited geographically and the richest in the US invested in the US.  If you give a billionaire another $50 million, they can just as easily invest it in Taiwan.  There is no guaranteed wage pressure created at all.  Same with Corporations making massive stock buybacks, and even greater mobility globally in investment.  So again no guarantee in job creation in the US to put upward pressure on wages.  The reason I said all this is because these wrong headed assumptions (that were true many years ago) are the reason that the GOP has resisted a living wage.  The assumption being business investment and competition will push wages up naturally.  

 

 

 

Solid post.  Especially the above.  Hell, you can invest it in the US, but any labor component to the investment is more likely than not going abroad and thereby placing actual downward pressure on domestic wages.

Globalization has been a real bitch.

[Nivek 17408]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Solid post.  Especially the above.  Hell, you can invest it in the US, but any labor component to the investment is more likely than not going abroad and thereby placing actual downward pressure on domestic wages.

Globalization has been a real bitch.

Globalization (with respect to market competitiveness)  is the latest red herring.  Executive compensation, tax policy (which allows Google to claim to be Irish) and Buffet to pay a smaller percentage is the real problem.  

[washparkhorn 9973]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Globalization has been a real bitch.

Gutted the working class and has hollowed out the middle class. And it has left us vulnerable to nations who mean us harm (See F35 dependent on Chinese parts). 

[washparkhorn 9973]

2 minutes ago, Nivek said:

 Executive compensation, tax policy (which allows Google to claim to be Irish) and Buffet to pay a smaller percentage is the real problem.  

Agree - in addition to globalization, which has left the virtuous capitalist cycle in ruin. 

[Jiggy-Z 3509]

11 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Economically the GOP plans have repeatedly been proven to be failures.  This is especially true this go round of tax cuts.  Now it is very important here to distinguish, between the presumed outcome and the publicly espoused policy.  The publicly espoused policy says that rich folks are going to take the money invest it in the US and create jobs and thus upwards pressure on wages to help the worker.  The other side of the verbal coin is that Corporations are going to invest all the extra money in the US and create more jobs creating upwards pressure on wages.  Neither of which happened, as far as rationalizing the costs of borrowing from the future in comparison to the increase in desired worker wages. The presumed outcome is that mostly wealthy old white people who write the biggest checks to campaigns are going to thank us because they absolutely will be able to give us millions more in donations, because of the savings.  It's fun to tell the fairytale about the policy being about wages that never materialize, while the debt accumulates at an unprecedented level during a time of plenty.

I will say that 50 years ago the economic policy espoused today by Republicans did have more of the publicly espoused effect.  Simply because investment options were limited geographically and the richest in the US invested in the US.  If you give a billionaire another $50 million, they can just as easily invest it in Taiwan.  There is no guaranteed wage pressure created at all.  Same with Corporations making massive stock buybacks, and even greater mobility globally in investment.  So again no guarantee in job creation in the US to put upward pressure on wages.  The reason I said all this is because these wrong headed assumptions (that were true many years ago) are the reason that the GOP has resisted a living wage.  The assumption being business investment and competition will push wages up naturally.  

I support a living wage.  Simply as I believe that a non-living wage places a unique burden on taxpayers to subsidized sub-living wage workers via social programs.  I will also say that one of the biggest issues with wages (compensation) is the mind boggling shift disproportionately to the percentage of total compensations (wages, stock options, etc.) towards a very few at the top of the company.  A $15 an hour wage is good for most communities in that every single additional dollar a low wage worker spends will be largely spent in their own community on basis. This creates a multiplier affect that trickles the money through local businesses. I have no problem admitting that initially upward adjustments to minimum wages to living wages will have some job contraction.  Simply as some businesses are so close to the edge they can't afford not to be subsidized by taxpayer supporting their workers. But overall after the adjustment period the effect should be less dependence by worker on taxpayer subsidy, as well as increased economic stimulus locally.  Not to mention the moral aspect of the paying people enough to be able to put a roof over their head and some food on the table.

It's nice to see my assumptions come to fruition (though I would need to look a lot more closely as taxpayer subsidies to employees to be certain.)

If you want true economic stimulus WITHIN the borders of the U.S., providing additional dollars to wage workers is simply the best investment you can make from a tax policy perspective. If you want to hire employees you need to be able to pay them enough to live on IF they are full time.  If a worker is not page a living wage the taxpayer must subsidize the worker so they can survive. 

 

 

Additionally, the the story the R's like to also weave is that the tax cut would increase govt revenue through lower taxation of significantly more taxable income thereby reducing the deficit and growing the economy.  This was the same song and dance that Reagan started with "supply side" economics, which George Bush I colorfully termed "voodoo" economics.

The policy is based on an economic truism which somehow got spun as a theory known as the Laffer Curve, which simply states that there is a relationship between taxation and government revenue and that there exist an optimal rate of taxation that maximizes government revenue that is somewhere between 0% and 100% taxation.  The thing that makes this policy sell is that there is some truth to it depending on where one believes we are on the curve.  If we are to the right of the optimal point on the curve and are taxing too much, then a tax reduction would in fact increase revenue.  Also, any tax cut will in fact stimulate the economy in the short term, but the question is whether they stimulate it enough to pay for themselves both short and long term.  Of course most voters have no idea of any of these subtleties.

The dangerous thing about this policy, aside from the fact that evidence has shown that we are already to left of the optimal point on the curve, is that it is easy and produces "sugar high" results in the short term as evidenced by increase in stock price and a stimulated economy while further accumulating wealth at the very top end and further increasing the deficit.  If one is only concerned about getting reelected then it is a perfect strategy although grossly negligent  and irresponsible.

 

[elfenix 34749]

Love how a) the group here has concluded this policy has worked because of the local employment rate and b) posts like “everything a Republican has said over the last 40 years is a lie.” is celebrated with 15 or so upvotes. 
A lot of real thinking going on in here. No echo chamber at all. 

A) you'd have to look at the local employment rate to determine the impact of a local wage policy

B) ad hominem fallacy

If you want to try to add something intelligent or interesting, go right on ahead.

[ChiTownDoc 21345]

On 1/30/2020 at 12:11 PM, Brisketexan said:

 

I should neg this with extreme malice but I do like my spot on the ledge.  

[ChiTownDoc 21345]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yep.  I tried to stay out of the CR back then and my political interest was not very high (I still voted, but had no idea about most of the down ballot stuff) then when the dotard was elected it was a wake up call.  I came in here going, "whoa, where did we fuck up?"  

Not that CR isn't a cesspool now, as it always was, but it's more of a place for me to try and learn about the latest attempts to subvert our democracy and otherwise watch it all burn to the ground.  If I'm going to be trapped in this burning house, I at least like to know why.

I was always socially very far left.  But held on to some middle right views in terms of the economy.  Much has changed - Both sides run up debt now.  And it could be argued carrying a big stick was important in the 70’s/80’s in terms of military spending.  Just like the R’s economic views no longer make sense in a global economy their military views are idiotic too - wars are fought w cyber warfare / dirty bombs - terrorism etc.  It’s like the Brits getting mopped up still lining up in a straight line and charging the other side.  Everything has changed - except the Republicans views on how to handle those things.  

[TwiceHorn 32076]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Globalization (with respect to market competitiveness)  is the latest red herring.  Executive compensation, tax policy (which allows Google to claim to be Irish) and Buffet to pay a smaller percentage is the real problem.  

I didn't say it was the sole source of our problems, but by calling it a red herring, you go way to far.

All the tax revenue in the world isn't going to fix the fact that we have no jobs for morons anymore.

[yoladu 4190]

Slorch:

Quote

Hope you enjoy your $5...um $15 cup of coffee.

5 1/2 years later...

 

The Starbucks at 601 Union Street, Seattle, WA is charging $3.65 for a Grande Latte

https://www.menuwithprice.com/menu/starbucks/washington/seattle/126128/

 

[DDD Dad 14647]

On 1/30/2020 at 12:11 PM, Brisketexan said:

The Republicans will sell you on tales of lovely scantily clad women.  But then this will show up at your house to berate you and lie to you:

[wildcat09 29579]

38 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I didn't say it was the sole source of our problems, but by calling it a red herring, you go way to far.

All the tax revenue in the world isn't going to fix the fact that we have no jobs for morons anymore.

Yeah, but the tax code and the way we've structured our financial system incentivize outsourcing. Opening up China certainly added labor competition, but public policy didn't need to incentivize outsourcing. 

[RPM 26622]

7 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No offense but your BILs dad sounds like a piece of shit.

None taken. He's a pious, hypocritical, piece of shit Trumpkin to be specific.

[babysdaddy 2731]

51 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I didn't say it was the sole source of our problems, but by calling it a red herring, you go way to far.

All the tax revenue in the world isn't going to fix the fact that we have no jobs for morons anymore.

Yang gang? Wrong thread for this but $1,000/month for everyone over 18 would cost $3T/year. 

[elfenix 34749]

1 hour ago, Dr. Beeper said:

So, their minimum wage policy is the sole determinant in their unemployment rate?

no, it's not, but when you're responding to garbage like this:

Quote

The workforce at all levels is going to shrink dramatically in three years, unemployment (despite people dropping out of the workforce there) will hover in the mid-teens, the foreclosure rate's going to spike, crime's going to soar, and the population will drop about 15 to 20 percent.

it's probably fine. 

1 hour ago, Dr. Beeper said:

B) Fair enough but it is eye opening. It’s like, why even have a discussion here?

having lots of people posrep something discourages you from posting?  i don't recall that stopping people on the previous incarnation of this site.  maybe it's that you had to click the rep button to see how much rep something got. 

[Incredulity 11876]

15 minutes ago, elfenix said:

no, it's not, but when you're responding to garbage like this:

it's probably fine. 

having lots of people posrep something discourages you from posting?  i don't recall that stopping people on the previous incarnation of this site.  maybe it's that you had to click the rep button to see how much rep something got. 

Well crowdsourcing is routinely called for and celebrated by many of the leftists on this board.  A particularly effective tool when the board, and posters, are in its infancy.  Magnifying the circle jerk tendencies around here.

[DDD Dad 14647]

1 minute ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Having this get 19 pos reps stifles conversation: “yeah, here's the thing: everything a republican has told us is true for the last ~40 years (my lifetime) is a straight up fucking lie. this is no different.”

It becomes a left echo chamber. Yes, that it was concealed from view on the old site helped the other side of an argument. Here it is a deterrent and “Politics” is a much bigger circle jerk than “Cloak Room”. What exacerbates it is if someone sees pos rep in a lofty place, they’ll want to join in and visibly participate, making it higher. 

It doesn't stifle conversation.  EMAW continues to post unfunny and stupid cartoons and memes.  I know that's circumstantial evidence, but I think it ought to be considered here.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5169]

6 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Some of us go back aways.

Somehow I forgot that site even existed.

[elfenix 34749]

19 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Well crowdsourcing is routinely called for and celebrated by many of the leftists on this board.  A particularly effective tool when the board, and posters, are in its infancy.  Magnifying the circle jerk tendencies around here.

it's really just jimmyjazz.  or jimmyjames?  one of them. and, from observation, it's mostly for people who are completely disingenuous trolls.  not people who are being true to themselves, like emaw.

 

anyway, if all y'all conservatives hadn't wimped out and run off to totally-not-cloak-up threads in bada it would be balanced. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by elfenix

[DDD Dad 14647]

7 minutes ago, elfenix said:

it's really just jimmyjazz.  or jimmyjames?  one of them. and, from observation, it's mostly for people who are completely disingenuous trolls.  not people who are being true to themselves, like emaw.

 

anyway, if all y'all conservatives hadn't wimped out and run off to totally-not-cloak-up threads in bada it would be balanced. 

Maybe we should bring back [serious] tags.

(ducking and running for cover)

[bolverk 30323]

3 hours ago, Jiggy-Z said:

Additionally, the the story the R's like to also weave is that the tax cut would increase govt revenue through lower taxation of significantly more taxable income thereby reducing the deficit and growing the economy.  This was the same song and dance that Reagan started with "supply side" economics, which George Bush I colorfully termed "voodoo" economics.

The policy is based on an economic truism which somehow got spun as a theory known as the Laffer Curve, which simply states that there is a relationship between taxation and government revenue and that there exist an optimal rate of taxation that maximizes government revenue that is somewhere between 0% and 100% taxation.  The thing that makes this policy sell is that there is some truth to it depending on where one believes we are on the curve.  If we are to the right of the optimal point on the curve and are taxing too much, then a tax reduction would in fact increase revenue.  Also, any tax cut will in fact stimulate the economy in the short term, but the question is whether they stimulate it enough to pay for themselves both short and long term.  Of course most voters have no idea of any of these subtleties.

The dangerous thing about this policy, aside from the fact that evidence has shown that we are already to left of the optimal point on the curve, is that it is easy and produces "sugar high" results in the short term as evidenced by increase in stock price and a stimulated economy while further accumulating wealth at the very top end and further increasing the deficit.  If one is only concerned about getting reelected then it is a perfect strategy although grossly negligent  and irresponsible.

 

If you ever played SIM City back in the day, establishing the "correct" tax rate was a big part of the game. Raise it too much and you end up killing economic growth in your town; lower it too much and you go bankrupt. While it was a bit simplistic, it was a really strong teaching tool that I kind of wish our polity would be forced to play.

[workswithseed 2204]

34 minutes ago, elfenix said:

it's really just jimmyjazz.  or jimmyjames?  one of them. and, from observation, it's mostly for people who are completely disingenuous trolls.  not people who are being true to themselves, like emaw.

 

anyway, if all y'all conservatives hadn't wimped out and run off to totally-not-cloak-up threads in bada it would be balanced. 

Yeah, most conservatives are gone unfortunately. That's probably why I miss Escriva. 

I'm not the best debater of conservative thought by a country mile.

[bolverk 30323]

11 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Yeah, most conservatives are gone unfortunately. That's probably why I miss Escriva. 

I'm not the best debater of conservative thought by a country mile.

To be fair, most of what we call "conservative thought" nowadays, as it relates to economic and fiscal policy (to stay on topic), is kind of hard to justify, so I don't blame you for finding difficulty in trying to defend it.

Edited January 31, 2020 by bolverk
refining language for precision and clarity

[Bozo_Casanova 26846]

How does the unemployement rate in the Seattle Tacoma Bellvue MSA verify the stunning success of a minimum wage policy in a small portion of it?
I am for a higher minimum wage, but frankly think it should be done federally.  Any real economic damage is local and micro due to significant cost differences across imaginary lines in the sand(one side of road vs other)  

Interesting. I think the federal minimum wage is important, but locally set minimums are far more responsive to the facts on the ground, not to mention the consent of the governed. In general I prefer local government though.

[Tom 2960]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

Well crowdsourcing is routinely called for and celebrated by many of the leftists on this board.  A particularly effective tool when the board, and posters, are in its infancy.  Magnifying the circle jerk tendencies around here.

Man, I'm old enough to remember when Incredulity played the part of a concerned middle of the road independent just asking questions.

How many people have been crowdsourced from the CR that weren't blatantly trolling?

[DDD Dad 14647]

Just now, Tom said:

Man, I'm old enough to remember when Incredulity played the part of a concerned middle of the road independent just asking questions.

How many people have been crowdsourced from the CR that weren't blatantly trolling?

I'm going to take a WAG and say none.

[Incredulity 11876]

4 minutes ago, Tom said:

Man, I'm old enough to remember when Incredulity played the part of a concerned middle of the road independent just asking questions.

How many people have been crowdsourced from the CR that weren't blatantly trolling?

It’s ok, you regret being cunty. Just do better. 

[staboner 5084]

bozo doing work

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Why is shaggy even still up? Only like 2 people post on it. 

[Nivek 17408]

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

Yeah, most conservatives are gone unfortunately. That's probably why I miss Escriva. 

I'm not the best debater of conservative thought by a country mile.

They were never conservative.   I can claim I am a unicorn it doesn't make my shit cupcakes.  

[horn4life 3838]

10 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Love how a) the group here has concluded this policy has worked because of the local employment rate and b) posts like “everything a Republican has said over the last 40 years is a lie.” is celebrated with 15 or so upvotes. 

A lot of real thinking going on in here. No echo chamber at all. 

I am happy to look at any place instance where trickle down has had an effect greater than the cost of the tax cuts.  If you can find it let us know, in "the echo chamber' because to me is simply math and economics.  I wish GOP economic policies had worked.  Instead of just adding to the debt and creating greater wealth disparity in our nation.

 

[Incredulity 11876]

Debt concern troll leftist is my favorite leftist.

[BurntOrange&White 41847]

I think $15 could work in some places but federally it won’t work as a whole and will hurt small towns and etc. I’d guess $10 should be federal minimum wage

[bolverk 30323]

33 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Debt concern troll leftist is my favorite leftist.

You have to go all the way back to Nixon/Ford to see the debt/GDP ratio fall under a Republican administration. By contrast, it's fallen in every Democratic one (except Obama) since WW2.

Kennedy/Johnson lowered the debt. Carter lowered the debt. Clinton lowered the debt.

Reagan/Daddy Bush raised the debt. Little Bush raised the debt. Trump is raising the debt.

We all know why it went up with Obama: the Great Depression forced federal revenues to fall from a cliff with fewer tax collections while spending went up for stimulus.

Would you care to explain why it's still increasing under Trump?

[TwiceHorn 32076]

15 hours ago, babysdaddy said:

Yang gang? Wrong thread for this but $1,000/month for everyone over 18 would cost $3T/year. 

Well, yes, you NEED tax revenue to do that.  You also need a legislative package.

[TwiceHorn 32076]

13 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Interesting. I think the federal minimum wage is important, but locally set minimums are far more responsive to the facts on the ground, not to mention the consent of the governed. In general I prefer local government though.

Aaaah, one of those "local control" guys.  I know all about you, surly told me all about your kind!  🤬🤬

[TwiceHorn 32076]

15 hours ago, elfenix said:

it's really just jimmyjazz.  or jimmyjames?  one of them. and, from observation, it's mostly for people who are completely disingenuous trolls.  not people who are being true to themselves, like emaw.

 

anyway, if all y'all conservatives hadn't wimped out and run off to totally-not-cloak-up threads in bada it would be balanced. 

JimmyJames.  He's not an idiot that I can see, but a veerrrry emotional poster.

[TwiceHorn 32076]

16 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Yeah, but the tax code and the way we've structured our financial system incentivize outsourcing. Opening up China certainly added labor competition, but public policy didn't need to incentivize outsourcing. 

Agree.  Not sure it's so much the tax code.  Relocation of corporate domicile has little to do with exporting mfg to Asia. 

But the monomaniacal focus on profit to the exclusion of everything else does.  Organized labor screwed the pooch as well.

[bolverk 30323]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Aaaah, one of those "local control" guys.  I know all about you, surly told me all about your kind!  🤬🤬

In fairness, it does kind of make sense to recognize that cost of living expenses vary from place to place and, therefore, $8/hr (or whatever the federal minimum is) doesn't make as much sense in Seattle as it does in Silsbee.

(I know you were joking.)

Edited February 1, 2020 by bolverk

[TwiceHorn 32076]

Seriously, engaging in the convenience of setting one nationwide rule by federal legislation has some appeal (particularly for the legislators taking the credit).

But unless a one-size-fits-all solution is truly required for the situation, it's probably a bad idea.  In a lot of contexts, people aggrieved by some problem lose sight of that fact.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

19 hours ago, Nivek said:

Globalization (with respect to market competitiveness)  is the latest red herring.  Executive compensation, tax policy (which allows Google to claim to be Irish) and Buffet to pay a smaller percentage is the real problem.  

Yep.  We’re dealing with a top heavy jenga tower.  The designers can keep shifting and rearranging blocks at the base and blaming them  for the instability, but until they take a good number off the top and shore up the bottom half, nothing is going to change.

Edited February 1, 2020 by Judge Roybeanbag

[bolverk 30323]

Since the 1960s, the minimum has stayed within the same general range in terms of generic purchasing power but, personally, I'd like to see it taken up a notch or two to be less of a minimum floor and more of a baseline livable.

The inflation-adjusted numbers really tell the story at least from a national perspective (local mileage may vary).

Edited February 1, 2020 by bolverk

[TornACL 7792]

On 1/31/2020 at 7:13 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Well, to be fair, a BA is a lousy credential to practice the dismal science.  Especially when that BA came about because you didn't have the 2.5 needed to get into upper division business (not "you" you, the royal you).

Hey! That's me! 

[TornACL 7792]

I work in a field that requires close interaction with the labor markets re: minimum wage. 

With subcontractors, the rising minimum wage forced businesses to seek efficiency and innovation in their operations. 

Wages rise, contractors try to pass the entirety of the labor cost increase onto their customers. Customers tell them to fuck off, and say, offer to pay half. And so companies go back to the drawing board and find creative solutions to protect margins. 

This did not have the disastrous results that the doomsayers predicted. While on a micro level some jobs may have been made redundant, there apparently is plenty of demand still out there even at the higher wage rates. 

One issue with the Seattle SeaTac area increase that was crazy was the retroactive payment element, even to departed employees. Companies had a hell of a time chasing down those people to give them free money in order to be compliant. But that's a minor headache and no reason to rethink policy. 

I am all for businesses being smarter instead of being lazy and bloated and covering it by paying their worker bees fuck all. Even removing one worthless do nothing area manager making six figs will get you ~five more workers.