Do be strictly fair, Kal, there are some legitimate issues there. Our real struggle isn’t over methods, but intent. It is fair to call such persons allies and comrades, so long as their arguments do not prove to be obstructionist, such that the perfect becomes the mortal enemy of the middlin’ fair.
Seasonally appropriate, the Greatest Socialist Ever Born said “Rebuke them not, for he who is not against us is with us.”
Verily.
Agreed. I get a little nuts about this subject.
Did I ever say I didn’t? I said that wasn’t the whole argument. Look, if there were no other way to get money in the hands of the needy that didn’t also aggrevate the illegal immigration problem we would rightly say, so be it-- we’ll just have to learn to live with the added illegals. But there **are **other ways. Something you seem strangely eager to ignore.
Well, if it were only “the libertarians” you’d have a point. But the program, by the fact that it already exists, clearly has more support behind it across the political spectrum than the LW has. Is it your contention that the LW has more poltical support than the EITC? If not, then what is your point?
The operative word being “working”. What of those who are put out of work by prohibitively high wages? And, yes, bumping the MW up to a LW will reduce the number of jobs. As Krugman says in the Sam’s cite, that is not something that is in dispute.
So, we’re left with two propsals on the table. Both will direct money to the needy, but one proposal will cut employment, encourage the underground economy to grow, attact more illegal immigrants into the country, and siphon off as much, if not more money into the hands of people who are not the intended targets. And yet, you cling to that alternative. If, as you say, they are equal, why not opt for mine since I’m convinced they aren’t equal. Humor me, and the poor will be lifted up.
Yes, I would prefer that option. And just so you know-- my favorite is apple, ala mode.
Those are your words. But if that is your argument, then drop the feined appreciation for economic arguments and make an argument based on fairness.
Please go back and read the Krugman article. You can pretend that something is worth more than it really is, but that doesn’ make it actually worth more. Misery isn’t being “offered”, just pay for what the service is worth. This is not a land of serfs.
Uhm, if you’ve been following along I’ve been saying this from my earliest discussion with Voyager in this thread, and I’ve said over and over in other threads. This is not somthing that I finally “get”. I’m simply expressing the same thoughts but appealing to your own argument. Of course, it’s a lot more fun to mock the other guy than debate with him, isn’t it?
Utter nonsense. I have no idea what this means or how it fits in with our discussion.
What are you talking about? These fat cat CEOs pay a lot more income tax than even moderately wealthy folks like you or me. If we need to make them pay more, so be it. That’s a better alternative than putting the breaks on the job creation machine.
You haven’t been paying attention. As **Sam **and I have said over and over, and as was pointed out in the Krugman article, it’s better to give money directly to the needy out of the general fund than to fuck around with wage controls. How is that not a proposal? How is offering to expand the EITC not a proposal?
Do you think that the LW is being held back by nothing more than pooh-poohing “conservatives”? Get real. I doubt you could find more than 20 Democrats in Congress who would get behind a LW bill. That is an idea so far out in left field as to be a non-starter.
But what will we get from Congress? A bipartisan consensus to tweak the MW up to a level where almost everyone is already at anyway. Sounds great to the voters even if it accomplishes little. About as creative, new and exciting as what came out of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
Oops. That should’ve been 20 Democrats in the Senate, not the Congress.
Another very interesting passage in the Krugman article does a pretty good job of explaining why some people are for a living wage:
This is a big one. Governments love to shift social burdens to other people through legislation, because it’s off-budget. But if you expand the EITC, you have to be explicit about the costs, and either run up taxes, increase the deficit, or cut spending elsewhere. So social planners have learned to push their policies through the back door and make the costs be absorbed by other people through legislation.
Krugman continues:
They don’t like the fact that labor is just another commodity like wheat or lumber. People aren’t commodities, damn it! They shouldn’t have to go hat-in-hand to the government for protection because some cold-hearted bastard won’t pay them a living wage! Besides, businessmen are rich, most are evil, they make obscene profits, so let’s make them pay!
That’s the general sentiment. The plucky laborers against the greedy capitalists. A living wage is seen as a way to force the capitalists to share more of the pie. They don’t care that the economics are not on their side. They don’t care that there are better ways to achieve the same goals. They’re sure that economic arguments are just a smokescreen - a way for the sympathisers of business and rapacious capitalism to blow smoke over the issue, confuse people, and protect the strong from the weak. It’s all about class warfare, not science or economics.
Until reality asserts itself. Then they look to blame someone else.
Normally just after the economy goes completely tits up. Then they will be all confused and looking for someone to blame…instead of looking for the person to blame somewhere in their own mirror.
The irony of course is the same folks who are always ranting about remembering history wrt stuff like Iraq completely ignore history when it comes to economics…as if THIS time will be different damn it! 
-XT
Trouble is, they ain’t happening. Not even being talked about. Minimum wage is being talked about, and the context of “living wage” is useful, IMO. Again, as I said, I don’t want the perfect to become the enemy of the good. As well, a lot of Americans just haven’t done the math, 40 hours times 6 and a half minus rent, minus food… Hey! These guys are being boned!
Oh, but it is. At least the extent of such an effect is in dispute, I’ve read such disputes, as probably have you. The predictions range from gotterdamerung to a prickly period of adjustment. You guys are brandishing Krugman at me like a crucifix to Dracula. I like the guy, that’s about it.
Because you are not of The Body, you are not One with Landreiu. Why not both? Go massive, don’t just cripple poverty, stomp it to an oozing puddle.
You’ll eat pecan pie and like it! But we are largely in agreement, don’t let’s behave like Democrats.
John, you are not equipped to take my inventory. Please drop such insinuations as “feigned”.
Well, of course, “worth” is one of those words, like “value”. Slippery, slithery words. As I noted above, a greed-addled CEO is lavishly compensated when a fireman or teacher is not. There is no service I need so desperately that I am willing to have its provider confined to poverty. I almost never eat in restaraunts, and need no burgers flipped. I do not stay in hotels, and need my toilet cleaned and my sheets turned down. Naturally, I am rather sanguine at the prospect of a rising cost in the service industries. I don’t use much of them, I need no landscaping, etc. So, if wages for the service industry are raised, the impact will be felt by persons who use those services. Why should we imagine that those services would vanish because affluent people won’t pay for them?
I’ll take your word for that.
Simplicity itself. Its not possible to soak up money from the poor, they ain’t got none. Money’s going to come from somewhere, yes? Well, then start with those who have more than they need. Duh.
There are no poor CEOs. Blazingly obvious.
It’s not an outrageous expectation, it’s just problematic. In our society there are people at the bottom and people at the top. The top will always be making $20 M bonuses like Goldman Sachs bankers while the bottom will struggle to buy food. People perceive that as inherently unfair. Even I think those bonuses are a bit excessive.
I guess the solution is to try and improve the economic landscape so people have opportunities to succeed. Better opportunities for education. Support for small businesses. Policies that encourage job growth. Every time one of you talks about “punishing” some big corporation all you do is hurt the employees who work there. What does the accounting firm Arthur Andersen learn from the Enron fiasco? Nothing. All you get is several thousand employees out of work while the partners sail away on their golden parachutes.
Anyhow there is no one simple solution otherwise they would have used it.
What happened to “if the people lead, the leaders will follow”? And what’s being “talked about” is a miniscule inrease in the MW. Wonderful. When that’s done and Congress thinks it has solved the problem, will you agree to talk about EITC?
In the same way that some scientists dispute Climate Change and Evolution.
Is that your proposal? Do both?
I call it like I see it.
Nope. It means what one person is willing to pay for something. There is nothing wrong with things being worth different amount to different people. It’s no more ill defined than “velocity” is in physics-- which depends on your frame of reference.
Start? They pay nothing now?
That’s incorrect, but if it were true, it would still be irelavent to what I said. We needn’t talk about CEOs at all, just set the tax rate at what we need to finance the program. There are plenty of movie stars, lawers, and even Progressive Politicians who make more money than most CEOs. You want to add another tax bracket? If that flies, then more power to you.
Portraying your opponents arguments as comic-book simplicity ought to be beneath you. But who would expect anything different from a running dog jackal of the ruling class? (You guys got a ruling class in Canada? I just heard that you guys got politics. Who knew?)
Have such arguments never been misused? Was it not, just as I said, that every major progressive movement has been vigorously opposed as ruinous and socialistic? Did the eight hour day destroy America? The end of child labor bring the economy to its knees?
Unless he says something you agree with. Then he becomes an unfallible oracle, and the mere mention of his name trumps all opposing argument.
Yeah. Weird. Some people, huh?
Yeah, gee, Sam if only I were more like you, wreathed in the light of Reason, innocent of bias… Would that mean I’d have to become Canadian?
You want to try arguing any of the points raised by any of us? Or are you content to sit there and take little potshots at the posters attempting to debate with you? So far, I haven’t seen a damned thing from you in this thread other than snarky character assassination and oblique, vague comments about the injustice of it all.
When come back, bring an argument.
The point you are missing about the reference to the Krugman article is that while there are lots of policy poistions that econoimsts will argue over, very few dispute the fundamental workings of the market and value of free trade. You don’t trust **Sam **or me, fine. We’re practically libertarians, which is almost like being a leper in some circles. But Krugman is one of your own. He’s a progressive, for heaven’s sake. If you won’t listen to him, all hope is lost.
By your own admition you claim to understand almost nothing about economics. And yet you dismiss it as if it were voodoo when someone makes an economic argument. It’s not that hard to understand… unless you try to tease something like “fairness” out of it. It’s one thing to demand safety regulations, but it’s another think entirely to demand that the market be something that, by its very nature, it is not and cannot be.
Damn, Sam! This is two posts after you offer a one sentence character jab of pure snark! Don’t really care that much, ain’t delicate, but would you mind terribly not pretending to be a virgin slumming with the sluts?
Well, now, about this monolith of economic thinking, such that things are decided on a “flat Earth” or “creationist” level of blissful consensus.
Maybe not.
Now, isn’t this that immutable principle, offered in this thread as a given, that raises in the minimum wage causes unemployment and that all competent economists agree?
Now, I don’t have the expertise to criticize methodology, But unless this citation is bogus in the extreme, the claim that the issue is resolved beyond any further debate would be in doubt. Fully half of the economists polled agreed, but that is hardly in the realm implied by the snark about Creationists. And note: the percentage of those who disagreed with supposed Universal Truth is growing over the years.
Doesn’t strike me as cataclysmic, but then, I just fell off the turnip truck…
Now, mind, I’m not trying to assert that raising minimum wage will not adversely affect employment, I don’t know. But clearly if there is this much debate the matter is not as settled as herein claimed. And all argument based on that certainty is flawed.
PS: Links at site to all kinds of fancy letterhead, C.V.'s, all that good shit.
Of course, we have no way of knowing the context of the question you cited, or what the other questions were. For example, if the questions were this:
That 46% agree with the first and 26% partly agrree does not mean that the rest believe minimum wages have no effect. The others may simply believe that other confounding factors can make the effect on labor of marginal minimum wage increases difficult to ascertain.
I also wonder why the caveat is in there about ‘young and unskilled workers’. What if the questions were like this?
Then the results would be a lot more ambiguous, wouldn’t they?
If you asked, “Doubling the minimum wage would have no effect on unemployment”, how many economists do you think you could find who would agree?
In any event, even taking the question at face value, let’s turn it around - if a poll of climatologists found that 73% of them agreed fully or partially with the statement, “human Co2 emission is increasing the temperature of the Earth by some amount over time”, and 27% disagreed, would you use that as a justification to oppose efforts to prevent global warming? Or would you accept the prevailing viewpoint as your working thesis when advocating public policy?
Yeah, Sam, I’ve heard of things like that, where the question is posed poorly, either out of incompetence or cunning, such that the results are tainted or even misleading. I have no reason to suspect that is the case, have you?
Heck, wasn’t even looking for that, but some study a while back concerning just that subject, the effect on raising the minwag on unemployment. Google took me to Wiki, and this plopped out. Which was good enough for my purposes, since I was after a pretty small fish: that the issue was not as cut and dried as you make out. And it isn’t.
Note: the same Wiki article has plenty of other references as well, chock a block with linkys, several of which are wholly supportive of the notion that raising the minwag has powerful negative impact, etc. So there is a level of debate on the issue, which is about all I was on about.
And even that is of limited significance. Only that a crucial argument against the MW/LW proposal is not wholly credible. There are others, I am sure, but this one falls a bit short of its advertisement.
But, gee whiz, guy, you wanted argument and citation, so I gave. Now you want a thorough documentation of the methodology? A bit thick, don’t you think? A less generous person might think you simply find the result distressing, and are casting baseless aspersions.