Minimum Wage

[DBT]

If pay increases lag behind inflation, this is the same as not getting a pay rise in practical terms. Your income, your actual purchasing power is falling, which is what I meant;

''This week came the news that once again a record low has been set for wages growth. The wages price index in the past year rose by just 1.9% – a full percentage point below the level of growth that occurred when Australia was in the midst of the global financial crisis. It means that real wages have not grown at all for more than three years.''

Australian economy is a bad illustration because it's too small and too dependent on export of raw materials to China and prices on these materials. You have had a lot of unjustified by reality growth during boom in China and the rest of the world, now pendulum swings back

Regardless of the resources boom, demand in China, etc, the basics of pay scale ratios and bargaining power remains true.

Workers who managed to get into the mines or their related support industries, Engineering, etc, did better because the demand for workers increased along with pay rates being offered. Those who were not participating in the resources boom did not experience a whole lot of benefit in the form of higher income.

Yes, it's separate. There is no reason for developed economies such as US/EU/etc to grow and when government tries to force the growth by deficit spending it end up in all these debt going into pockets of assholes in WallStreet.

I'm talking about the ability to negotiate income within any given boom or bust period. Those in upper management are largely insulated from struggling to make ends meet because of their privileged positions within the economic system, and their wealth.

 

[barbos]

Australian economy is a bad illustration because it's too small and too dependent on export of raw materials to China and prices on these materials. You have had a lot of unjustified by reality growth during boom in China and the rest of the world, now pendulum swings back

Regardless of the resources boom, demand in China, etc, the basics of pay scale ratios and bargaining power remains true.

Workers who managed to get into the mines or their related support industries, Engineering, etc, did better because the demand for workers increased along with pay rates being offered. Those who were not participating in the resources boom did not experience a whole lot of benefit in the form of higher income.

I think indirectly everybody did through higher demand from high paid miners.

Yes, it's separate. There is no reason for developed economies such as US/EU/etc to grow and when government tries to force the growth by deficit spending it end up in all these debt going into pockets of assholes in WallStreet.

I'm talking about the ability to negotiate income within any given boom or bust period. Those in upper management are largely insulated from struggling to make ends meet because of their privileged positions within the economic system, and their wealth.

I understand that, but it's irrelevant for overall economy. In developed and more internal demand driven economies such as US/EU if majority of people are squeezed in terms of pay then demand for products and services and therefore prices will drop. The only way to screw the whole country is to be export and low internal demand less developed country. in US/EU Maximum they can do is to screw some smallish segments of workforce.
Negotiating is all good but when GM/Ford pays $100k to their assembly line workers you know it's not sustainable for long.

 

[Bomb#20]

KT:
When an employer is not paying their full time employee a high enough wage to live on, and that employee has to make up the difference by obtaining subsidies from the government, then there is little difference between that and the government paying that subsidy directly to the employer so that they can then pay a living wage to their employee.

Bomb:
When you pay your full time employee $7.70/hr and that's not a high enough wage to live on, and that employee has to make up the difference by obtaining subsidies from the government, then there is little difference between that and the government paying that subsidy directly to Alec Baldwin so that he can then pay a living wage to your employee.

And there's one more part: KT says this is an argument for why a subsidy to the employee is a subsidy to the employer.

So what we have is this:

When X works full time for Y and Y is not paying X enough to live on, and X has to make up the difference by obtaining subsidies from the government, then there is little difference between that and the government paying that subsidy directly to Z so that Z can then pay a living wage to X. Therefore the subsidy to X is a subsidy to Z.​

Both arguments fit that same structure -- we just fill in different values for the variables.

KT claims the argument is sound when Y equals Z. I gather you agree with him.

We are all agreed that it is unsound when Y does not equal Z.

So help me out here. Point out where in KT's argument there is a reasoning step that goes either:

Inference A: Y = Z. Therefore, since we know fact F about Y, F must also be a fact about Z.​

or:

Inference B: Y = Z. Therefore, since we know fact F about Z, F must also be a fact about Y.​

If some argument doesn't contain a step equivalent to either inference A or inference B, then whether that argument is sound or unsound can hardly depend on whether Y = Z.

Alec Baldwin is not logically equivalent to "the employer" because Alec Baldwin has no demonstrable relationship to the employee at all. That relationship is implied -- and shouldn't really have to be argued for -- in KT's example by the words "their full time employee"

Yes, yes, we all know KT specified that Y = Z, and that he limited his claim of soundness to the case where Y = Z. But since his argument does not appear to contain either inference A or inference B, for you to propose that the argument is sound when it's used on his Y equal to Z scenario, but unsound when it's used on my Y not equal to Z scenario, is a "Special Pleading Fallacy".

and, in the broader context of the discussion, because the employer's lack of willingness to pay a living wage is, apparently, due to his finite profit margins.

KT's statement is that the employer's profit margins are the same whether the government gives HIM the money or gives the money to his employees.

None of that changes depending on whether Y equals Z. If Alec Baldwin had infinite profit margins he'd probably be willing to give everyone in the world enough to live on. Alec Baldwin's profit margin is the same whether the government gives HIM the money and he hands it over to your employees or the government gives the money to your employees. So none of that is an Inference A or an Inference B. If you can't explain how Y = Z matters to the logic of the argument, then you're special pleading.

In every way that counts, the final distribution of the subsidy is exactly the same and winds up in the hands of the employees, and the employer's profit margins remain unaffected.

Good grief, man! How can you not see that's evidence against KT's contention? In an actual subsidy to an employer, say, in the Dairy Export Incentive Program, the money winds up in the hands of the employer, not in the hands of somebody else. But in KT's argument, what you say is exactly right: in every way that counts, the final distribution of the subsidy is exactly the same and winds up in the hands of the employees, and the employer's profit margins remain unaffected. The net change in the employer's wealth is zero. If you want to call that a subsidy to the employer, it's a subsidy to the employer of zero dollars and zero cents.

since any reasonable interpretation of KT's previous posts includes the CLEAR implication that he is talking about the economic relationship between employees and employers. The definition of "employer" being "that which has hired the employee and pays the employee a wage." This is not something that needs to be spelled out, and you are CLEARLY intelligent enough to know this.

Yes, yes, we've already established that you have a vast capacity to reply to "What's Phase 2?" with "Phase 1 is steal underpants.".

That KT was talking only about the Y=Z case is not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether there is any reason whatsoever to suppose that the Y=Z case is an exception to the general rule that:

When X works full time for Y and Y is not paying X enough to live on, and X has to make up the difference by obtaining subsidies from the government, then there is little difference between that and the government paying that subsidy directly to Z so that Z can then pay a living wage to X. Therefore the subsidy to X is a subsidy to Z.​

is an unsound argument. When you just tell me over and over that he was talking about employers, and you never show me an Inference A or an Inference B that could serve as the required justification for making an exception for the Y=Z case, that's a Special Pleading fallacy.

 

[DBT]

Regardless of the resources boom, demand in China, etc, the basics of pay scale ratios and bargaining power remains true.

Workers who managed to get into the mines or their related support industries, Engineering, etc, did better because the demand for workers increased along with pay rates being offered. Those who were not participating in the resources boom did not experience a whole lot of benefit in the form of higher income.

I think indirectly everybody did through higher demand from high paid miners.

No, in some places the higher incomes of mine workers drove prices up while those working in town as shop assistants, bus drivers, etc, just continued to get their award rates. So their purchasing power went down. It did benefit the country as a whole, but not necessarily work that was not related to the mines.

Workers with skills that the mines wanted, Boilermakers, Fitters, Drivers, etc, got tremendous pay rates at the height of the boom, but this did not translate to all sectors and all workers in Australia.

 

[barbos]

I think indirectly everybody did through higher demand from high paid miners.

No, in some places the higher incomes of mine workers drove prices up while those working in town as shop assistants, bus drivers, etc, just continued to get their award rates. So their purchasing power went down. It did benefit the country as a whole, but not necessarily work that was not related to the mines.

That's all we need to know. I really doubt there were significant number of people who were complaining over mining boom money wise.

Workers with skills that the mines wanted, Boilermakers, Fitters, Drivers, etc, got tremendous pay rates at the height of the boom, but this did not translate to all sectors and all workers in Australia.

I bet nobody among them was complaining.

 

[DBT]

No, in some places the higher incomes of mine workers drove prices up while those working in town as shop assistants, bus drivers, etc, just continued to get their award rates. So their purchasing power went down. It did benefit the country as a whole, but not necessarily work that was not related to the mines.

That's all we need to know. I really doubt there were significant number of people who were complaining over mining boom money wise.

Workers with skills that the mines wanted, Boilermakers, Fitters, Drivers, etc, got tremendous pay rates at the height of the boom, but this did not translate to all sectors and all workers in Australia.

I bet nobody among them was complaining.

That the mining boom helped Australia's economy get through the GFC without recession doesn't mean that all Australian workers benefited from the mining boom by having their incomes raised. Workers not employed by the mines or their supply chains still only got their basic rates.

 

[barbos]

That's all we need to know. I really doubt there were significant number of people who were complaining over mining boom money wise.

Workers with skills that the mines wanted, Boilermakers, Fitters, Drivers, etc, got tremendous pay rates at the height of the boom, but this did not translate to all sectors and all workers in Australia.

I bet nobody among them was complaining.

That the mining boom helped Australia's economy get through the GFC without recession doesn't mean that all Australian workers benefited from the mining boom by having their incomes raised. Workers not employed by the mines or their supply chains still only got their basic rates.

Well, they benefited from not going through recession, did not they?
Anyway, my point is, statistics you gave earlier is dishonest because it compares boom time to something which more less a norm and concludes that things are going bad.
It's similar to Hillary comparing her husband economy to what US had during Bush/etc. That's not fair comparison. Bill had a boom which in fact was a cause of the following bust during Bush tenure.

 

[DBT]

That's all we need to know. I really doubt there were significant number of people who were complaining over mining boom money wise.

Workers with skills that the mines wanted, Boilermakers, Fitters, Drivers, etc, got tremendous pay rates at the height of the boom, but this did not translate to all sectors and all workers in Australia.

I bet nobody among them was complaining.

That the mining boom helped Australia's economy get through the GFC without recession doesn't mean that all Australian workers benefited from the mining boom by having their incomes raised. Workers not employed by the mines or their supply chains still only got their basic rates.

Well, they benefited from not going through recession, did not they?
Anyway, my point is, statistics you gave earlier is dishonest because it compares boom time to something which more less a norm and concludes that things are going bad.
It's similar to Hillary comparing her husband economy to what US had during Bush/etc. That's not fair comparison. Bill had a boom which in fact was a cause of the following bust during Bush tenure.

Not dishonest at all. The stats speak for themselves. Nothing to do with me personally. That ordinary workers benefited from the mining by not becoming unemployed in a recession did not improve their income. They still worked for the same crappy low rates as before the GFC. Meanwhile the rich got richer. This unconscionable situation being the point.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Working class or middle class? I don't think this statement is actually true.

I meant middle class.

That makes more sense.

Is DeVry that expensive?

Around $5,000 per emester, last time I checked. Community colleges and publicly funded vocational schools are cheaper, but not by much.

Are you asking me to explain to you why blue collar workers having more money means more customers/sales for small business owners?

No, I was asking if you were running for POTUS.

Then your statement is idiotic. There's a CLEAR correlation between the economic health of the working and middle classes, with the latter benefiting strongly from gains in the former. I don't see why you would seek to imply that correlation is "meaningless" to talk about.

These are technical details.

Right... so "technically" America is still a democracy.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'll just address the part of your post that WASN'T a load of horseshit:

In an actual subsidy to an employer, say, in the Dairy Export Incentive Program, the money winds up in the hands of the employer, not in the hands of somebody else.

In context, we're talking about a subsidy for an employer to offset the cost of a living wage. This hypothetical subsidy is being compared to the real subsidy to workers in the former of welfare programs. The Dairy Export Incentive Program is not a logically valid example in this context, since it does not specifically provide subsidies to companies on the condition that they provide a living wage for their employees.

KT's point, in the context of the discussion with Loren Pechtel, is that the subsidies for poor workers is equivalent to a subsidy for the company, since the only way the company is able to sustain low wages -- and resulting higher-than-otherwise profit margins -- is because the government is helping to make up the difference for employees who otherwise couldn't sustain that level of pay for any length of time. Arguably, the supply of unskilled labor (or at least, of workers desperate enough to take such a shitty paycheck) isn't high enough to be sustainable and they would end up having to raise their wages eventually anyway.


As to the rest of the horseshit in your post:

 

[barbos]

That's all we need to know. I really doubt there were significant number of people who were complaining over mining boom money wise.

Workers with skills that the mines wanted, Boilermakers, Fitters, Drivers, etc, got tremendous pay rates at the height of the boom, but this did not translate to all sectors and all workers in Australia.

I bet nobody among them was complaining.

That the mining boom helped Australia's economy get through the GFC without recession doesn't mean that all Australian workers benefited from the mining boom by having their incomes raised. Workers not employed by the mines or their supply chains still only got their basic rates.

Well, they benefited from not going through recession, did not they?
Anyway, my point is, statistics you gave earlier is dishonest because it compares boom time to something which more less a norm and concludes that things are going bad.
It's similar to Hillary comparing her husband economy to what US had during Bush/etc. That's not fair comparison. Bill had a boom which in fact was a cause of the following bust during Bush tenure.

Not dishonest at all. The stats speak for themselves. Nothing to do with me personally. That ordinary workers benefited from the mining by not becoming unemployed in a recession did not improve their income. They still worked for the same crappy low rates as before the GFC. Meanwhile the rich got richer. This unconscionable situation being the point.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

 

[barbos]

I meant middle class.

That makes more sense.

Is DeVry that expensive?

Around $5,000 per semester, last time I checked. Community colleges and publicly funded vocational schools are cheaper, but not by much.

Sounds affordable for middle class.

Are you asking me to explain to you why blue collar workers having more money means more customers/sales for small business owners?

No, I was asking if you were running for POTUS.

Then your statement is idiotic. There's a CLEAR correlation between the economic health of the working and middle classes, with the latter benefiting strongly from gains in the former. I don't see why you would seek to imply that correlation is "meaningless" to talk about.

Correlation is not a causation. And I merely cringed at you repeating overused mantra. which is yes, meaningless.
Middle class is not worse than before, it's relatively (to super rich) worse, and even that is debatable because they use dishonest statistics comparing amount of money people have

These are technical details.

Right... so "technically" America is still a democracy.

You are implying change, when in reality it's the same, your perception has changed.

 

[DBT]

That's all we need to know. I really doubt there were significant number of people who were complaining over mining boom money wise.

Workers with skills that the mines wanted, Boilermakers, Fitters, Drivers, etc, got tremendous pay rates at the height of the boom, but this did not translate to all sectors and all workers in Australia.

I bet nobody among them was complaining.

That the mining boom helped Australia's economy get through the GFC without recession doesn't mean that all Australian workers benefited from the mining boom by having their incomes raised. Workers not employed by the mines or their supply chains still only got their basic rates.

Well, they benefited from not going through recession, did not they?
Anyway, my point is, statistics you gave earlier is dishonest because it compares boom time to something which more less a norm and concludes that things are going bad.
It's similar to Hillary comparing her husband economy to what US had during Bush/etc. That's not fair comparison. Bill had a boom which in fact was a cause of the following bust during Bush tenure.

Not dishonest at all. The stats speak for themselves. Nothing to do with me personally. That ordinary workers benefited from the mining by not becoming unemployed in a recession did not improve their income. They still worked for the same crappy low rates as before the GFC. Meanwhile the rich got richer. This unconscionable situation being the point.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Some can be, but not all stats are misleading. Some do happen to paint a relatively accurate picture of social and economic conditions within a society, unemployment rates, income distribution based on tax records, etc.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That makes more sense.

Is DeVry that expensive?

Around $5,000 per semester, last time I checked. Community colleges and publicly funded vocational schools are cheaper, but not by much.

Sounds affordable for middle class.

Less so for the working class, which is what *I* was talking about. For some of those families, their kids will be leaving college with debts that will take them the rest of their lives to pay off and with interest rates they'll wind up paying two to three times what they already borrowed. Middle class families can (sometimes) pay out of pocket and avoid that whole trap, but poor and working class families can't.

Correlation is not a causation.

Yes, and the CAUSAL factors are intricate and complicated and are actually the subject of thousands and thousands of pages of scholarly research. Short version: increased income for the working class means increased economic mobility and better outcomes for the middle class. The very few exceptions to this trend usually involve some sort of forced communist wealth redistribution via taxation or property seizure, which is not what any of us are talking about.

You are implying change, when in reality it's the same, your perception has changed.

Then I reiterate: I am no longer convince that America is -- or has ever really been -- a democracy in the strictest sense of the word.

 

[DBT]

The only large scale city/state democracy - in the strict sense - may have been ancient Athens, and that was probably only for a very brief time. It appears that human nature just loves personal prestige, position and power too much for any egalitarian or Democratic system to last the test of time .....

 

[barbos]

That makes more sense.

Is DeVry that expensive?

Around $5,000 per semester, last time I checked. Community colleges and publicly funded vocational schools are cheaper, but not by much.

Sounds affordable for middle class.

Less so for the working class, which is what *I* was talking about. For some of those families, their kids will be leaving college with debts that will take them the rest of their lives to pay off and with interest rates they'll wind up paying two to three times what they already borrowed.

Only if they go to study english literature, social studies and .... law (at some not top 10 school). So problem is mostly due to universities scamming students into pursuing worthless degrees.

Middle class families can (sometimes) pay out of pocket and avoid that whole trap, but poor and working class families can't.

If some poor kid is very good at physics he would be able to get his education for free. But in general, as I said, american higher education system is a for profit scam for the most part.

Correlation is not a causation.

Yes, and the CAUSAL factors are intricate and complicated and are actually the subject of thousands and thousands of pages of scholarly research. Short version: increased income for the working class means increased economic mobility and better outcomes for the middle class. The very few exceptions to this trend usually involve some sort of forced communist wealth redistribution via taxation or property seizure, which is not what any of us are talking about.

Most of these studies are highly biased unfortunately.

You are implying change, when in reality it's the same, your perception has changed.

Then I reiterate: I am no longer convince that America is -- or has ever really been -- a democracy in the strictest sense of the word.

What took you so long?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That makes more sense.

Is DeVry that expensive?

Around $5,000 per semester, last time I checked. Community colleges and publicly funded vocational schools are cheaper, but not by much.

Sounds affordable for middle class.

Less so for the working class, which is what *I* was talking about. For some of those families, their kids will be leaving college with debts that will take them the rest of their lives to pay off and with interest rates they'll wind up paying two to three times what they already borrowed.

Only if they go to study english literature, social studies and .... law (at some not top 10 school).

Uh... yeah... my wife came out of Carthage with $68,000 in student loan debt for a Business Degree. I still have $19,000 left for a bachelor's in computer science from UIC. It's going to take each of us a little over 25 years to pay off the rest of those debts, assuming they don't jack up our interest rates a third time.

What took you so long?

Youthful optimism takes a long time to run its course.

 

[barbos]

That makes more sense.

Is DeVry that expensive?

Around $5,000 per semester, last time I checked. Community colleges and publicly funded vocational schools are cheaper, but not by much.

Sounds affordable for middle class.

Less so for the working class, which is what *I* was talking about. For some of those families, their kids will be leaving college with debts that will take them the rest of their lives to pay off and with interest rates they'll wind up paying two to three times what they already borrowed.

Only if they go to study english literature, social studies and .... law (at some not top 10 school).

Uh... yeah... my wife came out of Carthage with $68,000 in student loan debt for a Business Degree. I still have $19,000 left for a bachelor's in computer science from UIC. It's going to take each of us a little over 25 years to pay off the rest of those debts, assuming they don't jack up our interest rates a third time.

I forgot to include business degrees into the list of useless, made for scamming degrees.

What took you so long?

Youthful optimism takes a long time to run its course.

So it's jst coincidence that Trump was elected?

 

[Derec]

Perhaps McDonald's should create a church and proselytize to gather a flock of celibate workers who will sacrifice the pursuit of happiness, so that hamburgers maybe profitably sold at a price which will increase shareholder value.

Aren't they already largely that?

 

[Derec]

Uh... yeah... my wife came out of Carthage with $68,000 in student loan debt for a Business Degree. I still have $19,000 left for a bachelor's in computer science from UIC.

$68k is completely ridiculous for a Bachelor's. Or did she get an MBA as well?
Is Carthage one of those for-profit universities that is advertised on TV with socks?
A bit weird to name your school after a city state that was utterly destroyed. I guess crossing the Alps with elephants to take the war to the Romans is cool, but still.

It's going to take each of us a little over 25 years to pay off the rest of those debts, assuming they don't jack up our interest rates a third time.

You do know you have the right to consolidate and fix the rate when it is low? I am still paying on my student loan, but I consolidated right after graduating and fixed it at 3.7%.