2016 Presidential Horse Race

[GoIrish41]

You're disproving your own point. If raising the minimum wage actually worked, we'd only ever have had to do it once. The fact that we "need" to keep raising it over and over and over again is proof of my argument. $2.00 not enough? Raise it to $3.00. Wait, $3.00 not enough? Raise it to $5.00. $5.00 not enough? Let's try $6.50. And on and on and on. People are demanding $15.00 now, and you cite a letter supporting $10.10. If we do that, then ten years from now we end up with the exact same argument about $17.50, $20.00, etc. It's the Red Queen's Race.

Mods, I'm as guilty as anyone but would it be possible to move the minimum wage conversation to the politics thread so this one can go back to the election?

I said set it at the right level for today and then adjust for inflation. Prices go up. How about we set your wages at the rate you were hired at and say, "well, there it stays until retirement"? If you always have the same job at your company, I will bet you would not like it much. Someone getting hired 10 years from now to work in the same cube is going to get hired at a higher rate than you did. That is how it is. The minimum wage is not the only thing that drives inflation. How is this disproving my point? You said that raising the minimum wage hurts minimum wage workers ultimately? My point is that it helps them and the evidence proves that out.

The reason that CEOs can make $15M or $20M salaries is because they are picking the pockets of individual workers (especially on the low end) in America, and racing to the bottom when they move jobs overseas.

This is an issue during this election. Why move it?

 

[RDU Irish]

I said set it at the right level for today and then adjust for inflation. Prices go up. How about we set your wages at the rate you were hired at and say, "well, there it stays until retirement"? If you always have the same job at your company, I will bet you would not like it much. Someone getting hired 10 years from now to work in the same cube is going to get hired at a higher rate than you did. That is how it is. The minimum wage is not the only thing that drives inflation. How is this disproving my point? You said that raising the minimum wage hurts minimum wage workers ultimately? My point is that it helps them and the evidence proves that out.

The reason that CEOs can make $15M or $20M salaries is because they are picking the pockets of individual workers (especially on the low end) in America, and racing to the bottom when they move jobs overseas.

This is an issue during this election. Why move it?

I can get behind CEOs being overpaid due to crony boards and passive investors letting management write their own paycheck, but this is just ignorant.

 

[wizards8507]

I said set it at the right level for today and then adjust for inflation. Prices go up. How about we set your wages at the rate you were hired at and say, "well, there it stays until retirement"? If you always have the same job at your company, I will bet you would not like it much. Someone getting hired 10 years from now to work in the same cube is going to get hired at a higher rate than you did. That is how it is. The minimum wage is not the only thing that drives inflation. How is this disproving my point? You said that raising the minimum wage hurts minimum wage workers ultimately? My point is that it helps them and the evidence proves that out.

The reason that CEOs can make $15M or $20M salaries is because they are picking the pockets of individual workers (especially on the low end) in America, and racing to the bottom when they move jobs overseas.

This is an issue during this election. Why move it?

If you're still in a minimum wage job ten years after you start it, you are a certified idiot. It took me one year to go from "crew member" to "crew trainer" and another year to "shift manager" at a fast food job and I was sixteen years old. If you're a grown ass adult and not more capable than sixteen-year-old-me, then you're either an addict or just plain lazy.

 

[GoIrish41]

If you're still in a minimum wage job ten years after you start it, you are a certified idiot. It took me one year to go from "crew member" to "crew trainer" and another year to "shift manager" at a fast food job and I was sixteen years old. If you're a grown ass adult and not more capable than sixteen-year-old-me, then you're either an addict or just plain lazy.

OK, but that is not the point. You said if we are going to correct the minimum wage, we should only have to do it once. I disagree. Prices go up. It has to be adjusted annually for inflation to ensure that we don't "have this conversation again in 10 years." Do you think what you make today is going to be worth the same amount 10 years from now? Should the guy who starts work then get the same entry pay as someone who starts today? Hell no. My daughter didn't start at the same hourly wage as I did when I started working. As prices go up, the minimum wage is adjusted. When it first came into being, it was $.25 an hour. Sometimes I think some of you guys wish it was still there. And just as cost of living drives the entry level at your company, the minimum wage also needs to be adjusted. I don't even know why I bother. I think you knew what my point was. I think you couldn't wait to tell us yet again how you were head fry cook or whatever you were when you were in high school. lol I get it ... you flip a mean burger and everyone thought you wore the smock proudly. Congrats!

I know a bunch of people who lost their jobs in 2008 during the recession and instead of taking public assistance, went to work at low-paying service sector jobs. Are they idiots? I also know a bunch of my kids' friends who are working their way through college and have been in the same service job for three or four years. Idiots? Take a step back from your own personal situation from a decade ago and realize that not everybody has the same circumstances that you did. Recognize that the world is changing. Do you think the people who put 40 hours a week in at WalMart don't want to work somewhere else? Christ, I can't even stand to go into one of those stores and they are trapped there 40 hours a week -- literally financially trapped. They work their because there isn't anything better. They made more than $16 billion in profit last year and they don't pay their employees enough to live on. It's shameful.

 

[wizards8507]

OK, but that is not the point. You said if we are going to correct the minimum wage, we should only have to do it once. I disagree. Prices go up. It has to be adjusted annually for inflation to ensure that we don't "have this conversation again in 10 years." Do you think what you make today is going to be worth the same amount 10 years from now? Should the guy who starts work then get the same entry pay as someone who starts today? Hell no. My daughter didn't start at the same hourly wage as I did when I started working. As prices go up, the minimum wage is adjusted. When it first came into being, it was $.25 an hour. Sometimes I think some of you guys wish it was still there. And just as cost of living drives the entry level at your company, the minimum wage also needs to be adjusted. I don't even know why I bother. I think you knew what my point was. I think you couldn't wait to tell us yet again how you were head fry cook or whatever you were when you were in high school. lol I get it ... you flip a mean burger and everyone thought you wore the smock proudly. Congrats!

No, that's exactly the opposite of the point I'm making. I am not saying "look how exceptional I was that I was able to advance in a fast food job." I'm saying "you don't need to be exceptional to advance in a fast food job. You can be mediocre and still do better than minimum wage."

In other words, nobody* is stuck in a minimum wage job through anyone's fault other than their own. You depict a world in which only the advantaged are able to escape poverty, but that's not the case at all. Hell, you don't even have to work that hard. If you never touch drugs, never abuse alcohol, show up to work on time, and smile once in awhile, you'll succeed by accident. In short, if you're making minimum wage, you deserve it.

*Again, everything I've said in this thread excludes those with legitimate disabilities. Those folks should be taken care of.

I know a bunch of people who lost their jobs in 2008 during the recession and instead of taking public assistance, went to work at low-paying service sector jobs. Are they idiots?

Maybe. My father lost his manufacturing job around the same time and he was offered a position with Wendy's as an hourly manager. He ended up finding a new manufacturing job before he started, but it would have been fine as a temporary solution. Emphasis on temporary. Note that he's not an engineer, welder, electrician, or mechanic. Just a manufacturing line-worker who shows up every day and does his job.

I also know a bunch of my kids' friends who are working their way through college and have been in the same service job for three or four years. Idiots?

Probably. I graduated into one of the worst job markets in 100 years. My friends are doctors, lawyers, engineers, and CPAs. Not a single one of us were in a service job for even a day after graduation, let alone three or four years. Why? Because we studied medicine, and law, and engineering, and accounting. We went to class. We only drank on the weekends. Success in this country is damn easy if you make good decisions.

Do you think the people who put 40 hours a week in at WalMart don't want to work somewhere else? Christ, I can't even stand to go into one of those stores and they are trapped there 40 hours a week -- literally financially trapped. They work their because there isn't anything better.

Horse. Shit. I don't care if they can't get out. Tell me how they got their in the first place. Lots of people from my high school are in jobs like that. Why? They got pregnant at 16. They dropped out of college. They majored in "General Studies." They abuse FMLA with phantom "disabilities." They skip work when a new video game comes out. That's on them.

 

[GoIrish41]

I can get behind CEOs being overpaid due to crony boards and passive investors letting management write their own paycheck, but this is just ignorant.

1% of the working population in this country work for WalMart. Without raising a single price in a single store, they could give every employee a nearly $5 raise. Instead, they choose buy back their own stock while their workers don't make enough to live. Call it what you will, but I think its clear that they don't give a damn about their employees so long as they keep raking in the greenbacks.

Walmart Can Afford To Pay All Workers $25,000 Without Raising Prices | ThinkProgress

 

[Wild Bill]

1% of the working population in this country work for WalMart. Without raising a single price in a single store, they could give every employee a nearly $5 raise. Instead, they choose buy back their own stock while their workers don't make enough to live. Call it what you will, but I think its clear that they don't give a damn about their employees so long as they keep raking in the greenbacks.

Walmart Can Afford To Pay All Workers $25,000 Without Raising Prices | ThinkProgress

They give a damn only to the extent the employee brings equal or greater value than the sum they're paid. No different than any other employer.

I have yet to come across a company that pays based on their employees needs "to live".

 

[pkt77242]

I want to address one issue with having no minimum wage or not raising it at all as inflation goes up. Wizard haven't you talked about how college can be affordable if students work during HS to save up and work during college to help pay for it (at least I believe it was you)? If so with the rising cost of college doesn't that become more and more difficult, if wages for the type of jobs that HS and college students work is stagnant? I can easily find numbers on college tuition increase from 2013, so we will use that year. From 2003-2013 college tuition increased about 80% while minimum wage increased by about 40% (5.15 to 7.25). Doesn't that make it harder for students to save the necessary money for college, or to work their way through it?

 

[GoIrish41]

No, that's exactly the opposite of the point I'm making. I am not saying "look how exceptional I was that I was able to advance in a fast food job." I'm saying "you don't need to be exceptional to advance in a fast food job. You can be mediocre and still do better than minimum wage."

In other words, nobody* is stuck in a minimum wage job through anyone's fault other than their own. You depict a world in which only the advantaged are able to escape poverty, but that's not the case at all. Hell, you don't even have to work that hard. If you never touch drugs, never abuse alcohol, show up to work on time, and smile once in awhile, you'll succeed by accident. In short, if you're making minimum wage, you deserve it.

*Again, everything I've said in this thread excludes those with legitimate disabilities. Those folks should be taken care of.

No matter ... it had nothing to do with the point that was being made. Your suggestion that setting the minimum wage ONCE, we should never have to set it again. It does not matter how long someone works in a minimum wage job. The point is that 10 years from now, everything will be more expensive, so asking a person to start at a job making significantly less in real dollars than a person starting today is bullshit. Thump your chest all you want about how stupid someone is who decides to work at Starbucks for a decade ... it was not the point. The point is prices go up and so too should the minimum wage. Period.

* you are a real humanitarian. lol

 

[GoIrish41]

They give a damn only to the extent the employee brings equal or greater value than the sum they're paid. No different than any other employer.

I have yet to come across a company that pays based on their employees needs "to live".

They made $16 Billion in profit in 2014. How much more value can they bring?

 

[pkt77242]

They give a damn only to the extent the employee brings equal or greater value than the sum they're paid. No different than any other employer.

I have yet to come across a company that pays based on their employees needs "to live".

I kind of disagree. Companies generally want to pay as little as possible to adequately fill that position, which isn't necessarily the same as the value the employee brings to the company.

I will also add that we end up subsiding those companies profits because their employees end up on medicaid, food stamps, etc. because their wages are low (and in many cases their benefits suck).

I will give a anecdotal story (though from my understanding it is pretty true about the sector). When I graduated from college I worked as a manager for a bank (a large national one), and what we payed for health insurance was tiered off of how much we made. So the more you took home in pay, the more you contributed to the cost of your health insurance. Our tellers for example probably paid about 2/3 of what I did for the same insurance (and this isn't a complaint, I loved that they took care of them in that way).

 

[GowerND11]

I feel like a lot of this arguing is a lot like the Nature V Nurture argument. On one side we have Wizards screaming "Nature." On the other is GoIrish screaming "Nurture."*

*Just an example, maybe you guys would argue for the opposite.

Anyways, the point of me saying this is I believe the truth in the situation lies somewhere in the middle, but both sides are going to argue for their beliefs and neither will be fully right.

 

[kmoose]

1% of the working population in this country work for WalMart. Without raising a single price in a single store, they could give every employee a nearly $5 raise. Instead, they choose buy back their own stock while their workers don't make enough to live. Call it what you will, but I think its clear that they don't give a damn about their employees so long as they keep raking in the greenbacks.

Walmart Can Afford To Pay All Workers $25,000 Without Raising Prices | ThinkProgress

How many hours do those workers work? Why should someone who works 1,000 hours a year make $25/hr in retail?

 

[GoIrish41]

How many hours do those workers work? Why should someone who works 1,000 hours a year make $25/hr in retail?

It is talking about full time workers.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Leftwing PolitiFact: Obama's Claim ISIS Is 'Contained' - 'True' - Breitbart

It's absolutely true that ISIS as a conventional actor is contained, which is clearly what Obama was talking about there. Obviously terrorism is a different problem set.

e. I see you guys already had this discussion, Buster was all over it.

 

[IrishinSyria]

What am I supposed to do when someone says "I understand the economics," and then proceeds to parrot an economic fallacy? If someone says "I understand math... two plus two equals seven," I'm going to respond with "you obviously don't understand math."


That's exactly my point. These aren't doctoral-caliber principles. It's pretty basic stuff. My frustration isn't with the posters on this board so much as the economic illiteracy of the entire voting population.

I mean part of the problem is that it is so basic level that it misses the point. Basic level econ- hur dur straight line supply and demand stuff- misses a lot of the complexity involved in something like a minimum wage. If we believe that the demand for low end labor is relatively inelastic- and the weight of evidence suggests that it is, we won't be losing too many jobs if we increase the minimum wage by a modest amount.

Minimum wage has been fixed for a while now. If the demand for labor were really elastic, we'd see more and more minimum wage jobs being created as inflation chips away at what the real minimum wage is year after year. Obviously, that hasn't happened, so there's little reason to believe that a raise will lead to a sharp drop in demand.

As for automation, that's coming regardless of wage increased. The barrier there is fixed costs and technology, not the plentiful supply of low cost labor. As those fixed costs fall and the technology improves becomes more accessible, minimum wage (and higher level) jobs will give way to computers no matter what.

So yeah, page one of the econ textbook shows you losing jobs by increasing minimum wages. Page 2 adds significant qualifiers to that.

e. and that's not even getting into the macro effects of putting more money into the hands of the people who spend the highest % of their income.

 

[kmoose]

It is talking about full time workers.

Then the math doesn't add up.......... The Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. According to the article, the people they are talking about could make $25,000 a year if WalMart would only give them a $5.83/hr raise.

$7.25 + $5.83 = $13.08. $13.08 x 2080 (standard 40 hour a week work year) = $27,026.

 

[potownhero]

Minimum wage has been fixed for a while now. If the demand for labor were really elastic, we'd see more and more minimum wage jobs being created as inflation chips away at what the real minimum wage is year after year. Obviously, that hasn't happened, so there's little reason to believe that a raise will lead to a sharp drop in demand.

Econ 101 - Assuming no other variables...Clearly THATS not the case.

As for automation, that's coming regardless of wage increased. The barrier there is fixed costs and technology, not the plentiful supply of low cost labor. As those fixed costs fall and the technology improves becomes more accessible, minimum wage (and higher level) jobs will give way to computers no matter what.

Again Econ 101 - Basic Cost Benefit Analysis - And Obviously the cost of Labor does matter when making the comparison and then decision with regards to Capital Budgeting.


Come on man....I've read your post before and this one was below you. You smarter than this.

 

[GoIrish41]

Then the math doesn't add up.......... The Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. According to the article, the people they are talking about could make $25,000 a year if WalMart would only give them a $5.83/hr raise.

$7.25 + $5.83 = $13.08. $13.08 x 2080 (standard 40 hour a week work year) = $27,026.

Without re-reading the article I believe they defined full time as 34 hours. I could be mistaken though. It also said "at least $25000".

 

[kmoose]

Without re-reading the article I believe they defined full time as 34 hours. I could be mistaken though.

Ok. So 34 hours per week times 52 weeks in a year = 1768 hours worked per year. $25,000 divided 1768 hours comes out to $14.14 per hour. With federal minimum wage being $7.25 per hour, $14.14 per hour is 195% of that. Why should Walmart have to pay double the minimum wage to someone who just walked in the door on their first day?

 

[GoIrish41]

Ok. So 34 hours per week times 52 weeks in a year = 1768 hours worked per year. $25,000 divided 1768 hours comes out to $14.14 per hour. With federal minimum wage being $7.25 per hour, $14.14 per hour is 195% of that. Why should Walmart have to pay double the minimum wage to someone who just walked in the door on their first day?

I suppose they don't have to, and I did not suggest they did. I think the point is that they could raise wages without raising prices. Maybe the broader point is that the "we have to raise prices and pass it on to consumers if we give raises" argument is bullshit. Because the authors have identified a way to do just that. WalMart buys back their own stock from investors because their employees are a pretty good bet to increase the value of each share. But, even though they don't make enough to get by, the employees are not rewarded for the enormous success they bring the company while the CEO and execs are compensated in the $millions. Perhaps you don't have a problem with that. I do.

 

[kmoose]

I suppose they don't have to, and I did not suggest they did. I think the point is that they could raise wages without raising prices. Maybe the broader point is that the "we have to raise prices and pass it on to consumers if we give raises" argument is bullshit. Because the authors have identified a way to do just that. WalMart buys back their own stock from investors because their employees are a pretty good bet to increase the value of each share. But, even though they don't make enough to get by, the employees are not rewarded for the enormous success they bring the company while the CEO and execs are compensated in the $millions. Perhaps you don't have a problem with that. I do.

I know quite a few people (more than a dozen, but less than 20) who work, or have worked, for WalMart. All but two or three of them are very happy with the way they are compensated, their benefits, and the way that they are treated at work. At least one of those who wasn't is the type of person who would rather play Xbox and smoke a couple of bowls, rather than go to work. So consider the source. So no, based on the experiences of those that I know, I don't have a problem with how WalMart treats their employees.

 

[GoIrish41]

I know quite a few people (more than a dozen, but less than 20) who work, or have worked, for WalMart. All but two or three of them are very happy with the way they are compensated, their benefits, and the way that they are treated at work. At least one of those who wasn't is the type of person who would rather play Xbox and smoke a couple of bowls, rather than go to work. So consider the source. So no, based on the experiences of those that I know, I don't have a problem with how WalMart treats their employees.

Alright then. Surprisingly enough we do not agree.

 

[Buster Bluth]

If you're still in a minimum wage job ten years after you start it, you are a certified idiot. It took me one year to go from "crew member" to "crew trainer" and another year to "shift manager" at a fast food job and I was sixteen years old. If you're a grown ass adult and not more capable than sixteen-year-old-me, then you're either an addict or just plain lazy.

Yet the greater point of discussion isn't those at minimum wage, but those who are <$13/hr, <$14/hr, <$15/hr, etc.

I think I've said plainly on here that it is specifically our lack of decently paying jobs for "idiots" that separates us from the America of forty years ago.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Ouch. Carson's advisors throw him under the bus.

Faced with increasing scrutiny about whether Mr. Carson, who leads in some Republican presidential polls, was capable of leading American foreign policy, two of his top advisers said in interviews that he had struggled to master the intricacies of the Middle East and national security and that intense tutoring was having little effect.

“Nobody has been able to sit down with him and have him get one iota of intelligent information about the Middle East,” said Duane R. Clarridge, a top adviser to Mr. Carson on terrorism and national security. He also said Mr. Carson needed weekly conference calls briefing him on foreign policy so “we can make him smart.”

 

[GoIrish41]

Ouch. Carson's advisors throw him under the bus.

Wow! Do his advisers work for the liberal media? I hear they are out to get him.

 

[MJ12666]

Wow1 Do his advisers work for the liberal media? I hear they are out to get him.

No, but based on interviews with individuals who are actually employed by the Carson campaign the individual quoted in the story is not a Carson adviser, has nothing to do with the campaign and the author of the story did not do any due diligence before publishing the story.

 

[GoIrish41]

No, but based on interviews with individuals who are actually employed by the Carson campaign the individual quoted in the story is not a Carson adviser, has nothing to do with the campaign and the author of the story did not do any due diligence before publishing the story.

Thanks. I thought it sounded a bit crazy coming from his own advisors. Got a link? I'm interested to see if they actually denied the claims.

 

[pkt77242]

No, but based on interviews with individuals who are actually employed by the Carson campaign the individual quoted in the story is not a Carson adviser, has nothing to do with the campaign and the author of the story did not do any due diligence before publishing the story.

LOL.

The Carson campaign reacted swiftly to the Times' story, casting Clarridge in a statement as "an elderly gentleman" who isn't part of Carson's inner circle.

"He is coming to the end of a long career of serving our country. Mr. Clarridge's input to Dr. Carson is appreciated, but he is clearly not one of Dr. Carson's top advisers," said Carson spokesman Doug Watts.

But Williams, who has no official role with Carson' campaign but regularly talks to the candidate, acknowledged in an interview with The Associated Press that advisers beyond Clarridge are distressed at the pace of Carson's progress.

Williams estimates Carson has been spending "40 percent of his time" in foreign policy briefings in recent weeks.

"I know they're frustrated," Williams said of the team advising Carson. "They know that Dr. Carson is bright. He understands. ... There's just so much there."

Williams in the above quote is Carson's business manager.

Adviser: Carson struggling with details on foreign policy - US News

 

[MJ12666]

Thanks. I thought it sounded a bit crazy coming from his own advisors. Got a link? I'm interested to see if they actually denied the claims.

Actually I saw the interview with a campaign spokesman I think it was on CNN or MSNBC.