847 replies to this topic

[AnBr]

How much you need to make to afford rent in every state

[Progressive whisperer]

Rich T Bikkies, on 27 May 2016 - 11:41 AM, said:

In the fantabulosa free-market America of neocon dreams, whose responsibility is it to provide jobs for people who have been replaced by robots or Chinese or Indians paid peanuts? Of course that's less fun than blaming the "takers": those who have not tried at all hard to get the jobs that no longer even exist.

How many burgers can the 1% consume?

It is someone else's responsibility to provide jobs, without collecting any fees or taxes. If the company fails for lack of consumers, that's the consumer's fault too.

[Practical Girl]

PW, that's one of the reasons that I'm coming closer to supporting GMI. Enough to elevate adults out of poverty. I'm against means testing for GMI, since I think that's a guaranteed path to the "shiftlessness" some of us worry about with this sort of program.

[AnBr]

Practical Girl, on 27 May 2016 - 12:50 PM, said:

PW, that's one of the reasons that I'm coming closer to supporting GMI. Enough to elevate adults out of poverty. I'm against means testing for GMI, since I think that's a guaranteed path to the "shiftlessness" some of us worry about with this sort of program.

I am not sure we can avoid it. Some of this is simple greed with little forethought, but some of this is inevitable as we advance into the future. It is what is the basis of the 'post work society'. I don't see how we can have a stable society without some kind of GMI. I don't know when we might reach a critical mass of people without work, but there will be only about three outcomes from it, two of them terrible and one that will not sit well with many.

I have been thinking about this for some time and have never come up with any good solutions. What keeps coming back to me starts smelling of some form of socialism, which my mind keeps wanting to reject. A economy or society cannot last very long if too many have no means of support. So what is the solution if most industries are automated with no consumers? The government owning the means of production? If not, the owners of said facilities will not provide their wares gratis. They might not have have a choice but to pay for a GMI for these people. I'm sure that they will find all other solutions even more distasteful.

[Practical Girl]

Sinan- brother, give me some wisdom! I've fought you, tooth and nail, on this. I'm ready to be reasonable-maybe even practical.

[AnBr]

The end of capitalism has begun.

[AnBr]

Eduardo Porter - "A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty"

This strikes me a bit like Porter has a preformed conclusion and is looking for conformation of his belief.

[AnBr]

[LFC]

Manufacturing jobs no longer pay like they used to, and a full third of people employed in "frontline manufacturing" are on some form of government assistance. The example at the start of the piece is of a worker making $9.50/hr in Ohio, well below every minimum wage figure I've heard being floated (except from Republicans who float a minimum wage of $0).

Quote

Wade's experience is surprisingly common for lower-skilled manufacturing workers, researchers at the University of California-Berkeley have concluded. In a new report out Tuesday, Ken Jacobs, Zohar Perla, Ian Perry and Dave Graham-Squire find that one-third of the families of "frontline manufacturing production workers" are enrolled in a government safety-net program. The families' benefits cost state and local governments about $10 billion a year on average from 2009 to 2013, the analysis found.

Those production workers, roughly 6 million, represent about half of all manufacturing workers. They include metal workers, assemblers and machinists, but not managers or software developers.

It used to be that these blue-collar jobs provided a "ladder to the middle class" for workers without college degrees, said Jacobs, the chair of Berkeley's Center for Labor Research and Education. The findings show, Jacobs said that “with manufacturing jobs, production jobs, that’s really no longer true. The new production jobs are less likely to be union and more likely to be low wages.”

Many of the workers who draw supplementary government assistance work full time, in jobs that, like Wade's, are staffed through temping agencies. Nearly half the families of production workers who logged at least 35 hours a week, 45 weeks a year, and who were employed through staffing agencies, received government welfare of some kind, the report found.

[Progressive whisperer]

 LFC, on 09 June 2016 - 07:48 AM, said:

Manufacturing jobs no longer pay like they used to, and a full third of people employed in "frontline manufacturing" are on some form of government assistance. The example at the start of the piece is of a worker making $9.50/hr in Ohio, well below every minimum wage figure I've heard being floated (except from Republicans who float a minimum wage of $0).

"Class warfare", and guess which class has been fighting and winning most?

[AnBr]

Another argument for a GMI is that companies would have to pay more to entice people to take their shit jobs. The trick with a GMI would be to set an amount that could sustain people, but not so much to be a disincentive to work as long as the pay was reasonable.

[AnBr]

https://www.facebook...61519823883476/

[AnBr]

One more step toward the post work society.

https://farmbot.io/

[AnBr]

I am putting this here because of the fact that such disproportionate incomes bear directly on the need for a minimum wage.

Highest-paid CEOs run worst-performing companies, research finds

[AnBr]

And... Economists Give Up on Milton Friedman's Biggest Idea.

Quote

One of the core pieces of modern macroeconomic theory, handed down to us by the great Milton Friedman, probably missed the mark. And now it might be on the way out. And this shift has big implications for how we think about economic policy and finance.

The idea is called the permanent income hypothesis (PIH). Friedman first put it on paper in 1957, and it still holds enormous sway in the econ profession. The PIH says that people’s consumption doesn’t depend on how much they earn today, but on how much they expect to earn over their lifetime. If a one-time windfall of money drops into your lap, says Friedman’s theory, you won’t rush out and spend it all -- you’ll stick it in the bank, because you know the episode won’t be repeated. But if you get a raise, you might start spending more every month, because the raise was a signal that your earning power has increased for the long term.

[AnBr]

Nick Hanauer Interview.



https://www.youtube....h?v=th_F_dTGqQc

[Traveler]

Really interesting study on how MW in Seattle seems to work pretty well.

Quote

The study to which I’m referring examines the impact of the first stage of the minimum-wage increase in Seattle. In April 2015, the city raised its minimum wage from around $9.50 to $11, on the way to $15 an hour by 2017 (for employers with 500 or more employees and certain other employers; the minimum wage for most Seattle businesses rose to $10 in April 2015, and $15 will not go into effect for all Seattle businesses until 2021). The pay of affected workers went up almost 12 percent, compared to a 5 percent increase for workers in nearby, similar places that weren’t bound by the increase. The study’s authors concluded that the increase raised the pay of affected workers by seven percentage points more than might otherwise have occurred.

The study also found that, relative to historical trends, the rate at which low-wage workers affected by the increase stayed employed rose by about three percentage points. For workers in the control group, it was up four points. Thus, absent the minimum-wage increase, there’d arguably be one percentage point more affected workers employed in Seattle.

[Practical Girl]

From Traveler's link:

Quote

It means that the vast majority of low-wage workers end up with higher earnings. Even if some workers lose some hours of work, their annual income often goes up (which, in fact, is another finding from the study).

Minimum-wage opponents who claim that increases will cripple local economies, either overall or even in their low-wage sectors, thus get no help from the Seattle results.

Fascinating. Opponents of the MW increase seem to ignore that we are an economy 70% reliant on consumer spending. More money in the pocket allows for more spending. I'll be interested in findings that examine beyond the effect on employers/employees (more hours, businesses not failing) into whether or not this MW raise caused an uptick in local economic spending.

EDIT: Another consideration that I think opponents miss is where people live vs where they work. Work in Seattle, but live in a suburb/bedroom community (where they shop/eat/get gas/buy cars etc, so it's not unreasonable to expect that those higher wages will be spent in less expensive outlying communities.

[LFC]

 Practical Girl, on 11 August 2016 - 09:57 AM, said:

Fascinating. Opponents of the MW increase seem to ignore that we are an economy 70% reliant on consumer spending.

They've studiously doing this (perhaps ideologically is a better word) since Tinkle Down Economics was introduced under Reagan.

[LFC]

 AnBr, on 10 August 2016 - 10:07 PM, said:

Nick Hanauer Interview.

If you don't have time for the whole thing, watch for a few minutes from 7:45. Here is an amazing description of what's going on.

Quote

What's so important for your viewers to recognize is that the claim that when jobs go up, employment goes down sounds like a law of nature. Sounds like legit economics. What it really is, is a negotiating strategy. It's a con job. Actually it's an intimidation tactic masquerading as an economic theory. The oldest trick in the business persons wage suppression handbook, and believe me I've run like 35 companies, somebody comes in and asks me for a raise and I threaten their jobs. Works like a charm and has since the invention of capitalism. Saying to the broad public, "if wages go up, employment will go down", saves people from having to have that one on one conversation. It's a way of negotiating wages at scale. So when Paul Ryan says, you know, if we raise the minimum wage it's going to cost millions of jobs, he's simply negotiating for the Koch brothers at scale. That's all he's doing.