'Real Change for Workers': Living Wage Backers Declare Victory in Local Election

[manifold]

except it will end up in court

Because right-wingers hate it when courts legislate against the will of the people.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am a moderate that can think and charge his mind. SO you're against modern civilization?

You're a "moderate" who is just a tad to the left of Pol Pot.

 

[manifold]

It would be better if it didn't, and we could watch unemployment hit 70% in the area.

I'll take that bet.

So long as we can agree on a cutoff date and stakes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How does calling anyone an idiot persuade them to listen to you?

Sure it makes you feel good about yourself. But who cares if the nation still goes to hell because we can't persuade anyone to listen to us?

Matthew isn't going to listen to you - regardless of how nice you might be.

Matthew is going to spew bullshit from Communist Dreams and MSNBC, that's what he's here for. You're not going to convince him to think, even if you say "pretty please." Matthew has an agenda, and it leaves no room for a brain.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So who should decide?

The market.

Anything else is insane, and doomed to failure.

You cannot legislate the wind to stop blowing.

 

[manifold]

So who should decide?

The market.

Anything else is insane, and doomed to failure.

You mean like the market decided on asbestos, pollution and banking regulations?

Got any arguments newer than 1896?

And what about that bet?

 

[The Rabbi]

what are you talking about rabbi?

whoosh!

 

[The Rabbi]

I looked over the rest of the article and like the idea of raising the minimum wage on larger businesses. They're the ones making the insane profit.

How about going from 7.25/hour to 9/hour nationally on all businesses making more then 20 million a year??? This would help build a stronger middle class in this country...Also takes away the rights talking point how we're going to hurt small business.

Hey, why not $50/hr?
I float this idea and the lefties, like you, can never tell me why it isn't a good idea. If 9/hr is good then why not 50?

Because that would be too high.

Care to explain your no-doubt flawless and detailed analysis?

 

[manifold]

Hey, why not $50/hr?
I float this idea and the lefties, like you, can never tell me why it isn't a good idea. If 9/hr is good then why not 50?

Because that would be too high.

Care to explain your no-doubt flawless and detailed analysis?

Keep reading the thread and you'll come across it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Summary of Proposition 1, to enact mandated worker benefits in SeaTac | Washington Policy Center

That's the point.

Small business employing less than 5 persons are exempt, unions are exempt. So that leaves medium business as the target. This is designed to drive medium business out so that union power can expand.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because that would be too high.

So who decides what is too high? And why is it too high? don't you want everyone to become millionaries?

In this case, the voters. And $50/hr is too high because it fails the reasonable person test. That whole argument is an appeal to absurdity fallacy. Just like arguing that if lower taxes improve the economy, then why not 0%.

OK, how about $30/hr?
Lowering taxes to 0% would spur the economy. But it would mean there would be money to pay for things that gov't needs to do.
You can (and it has been done) calculate the optimum level of overall taxation--more will decrease production to you get less tax revenue, less will lessen tax revenue without any benefit. And it's been done. Not that anyone in Washington is listening of course.
So why don't you share with us your similar analysis for wages?

 

[The Rabbi]

Can Rabbi explain how being against higher min wages creates more jobs?

Not increasing the minimum wage doesn't create more jobs. It prevents us from losing jobs that already exist. It's called common sense. You increase the cost of something and less people can purchase it.

Artificially increasing the cost of labor decreases the amount of labor that will be purchased.

Letting the market dictate prices will increase people working. Market forces can determine what the minimum wage is much better than the government can. It also prevents government from inflating the currency. Which is the real problem.

I think you already know this and are just going to pretend as though nothing I said matters. Feel free.

You are forgetting that those that receive the higher income now have more disposable income which does create more jobs. Henry Ford increased the pay of his workers and ended up selling more vehicles because the rising tide of incomes created more affluence.

If the pay of everyone making under $70k pa was increased by $10/hr that would result in a booming economy within a year. Corporations would take it as tax deductions because it is an expense and individuals would have an additional $2k pa in their paychecks. Since it is conservative dogma to state that individuals know better how to spend their money than government does the 130 million people with that extra $2k are going to put it to good use.

The math works, the conservative principles are sound and while the corporations and shareholders might see an initial dip but it will be more than offset by the subsequent benefits that come from a booming economy.

Ford increased wages to attract workers from machine shops. They didnt want to work in factory conditions, which were difficult and dehumanizing. Once Ford shut down the machine shops, he lowered everyone's wages.
"Tax deduction" does not equal free. Just saying.
The math does not work. The only way companies could continue to earn profit would be by raising their prices, wiping out any gains to wage earners.
Oops.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It would be better if it didn't, and we could watch unemployment hit 70% in the area.

I'll take that bet.

So long as we can agree on a cutoff date and stakes.

The intent is to put mid-sized business out of business. Large, union controlled concerns are using government to force their competitors out of the market. Unions and small business are exempt.

So unemployment will rise, but certain sectors will be protected. Also be aware, that many who lose jobs because of this will simply travel to Seattle for jobs. This will take money from their pockets since they have to commute, but it will hide the impact of this idiocy. I stand by my statement with a modification, employment at affected business will drop 70%

 

[The Rabbi]

Because that would be too high.

Care to explain your no-doubt flawless and detailed analysis?

Keep reading the thread and you'll come across it.

OK I did. Is it in white print on the white background?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You mean like the market decided on asbestos, pollution and banking regulations?

Ohhh, a red herring - how clever.

Got any arguments newer than 1896?

And what about that bet?

You got any not out of the Manifesto?

 

[The Rabbi]

except it will end up in court

Because right-wingers hate it when courts legislate against the will of the people.

Actually conservatives hate it when gov't wants to dictate terms of an agreement between two private parties.

 

[manifold]

So who decides what is too high? And why is it too high? don't you want everyone to become millionaries?

In this case, the voters. And $50/hr is too high because it fails the reasonable person test. That whole argument is an appeal to absurdity fallacy. Just like arguing that if lower taxes improve the economy, then why not 0%.

OK, how about $30/hr?
Lowering taxes to 0% would spur the economy. But it would mean there would be money to pay for things that gov't needs to do.
You can (and it has been done) calculate the optimum level of overall taxation--more will decrease production to you get less tax revenue, less will lessen tax revenue without any benefit. And it's been done. Not that anyone in Washington is listening of course.
So why don't you share with us your similar analysis for wages?

$30 is clearly not as absurd as $50, but I still say it's too high. I live on the opposite coast, but around here I'd say $12-15 is number I could live with. And you're right about my analogy, what I was actually thinking about was the argument the lowering taxes increases tax revenue (clearly got my wires crossed on that one). The truth is sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't and there are too many factors to consistently predict which way it will go. As far as the minimum wage goes, we're at an impasse right out of the gate since you don't believe in the concept at all, whereas I do. So to see you making arguments haggling over the level strikes me as a tad disingenuous. No offense.

 

[manifold]

It would be better if it didn't, and we could watch unemployment hit 70% in the area.

I'll take that bet.

So long as we can agree on a cutoff date and stakes.

The intent is to put mid-sized business out of business. Large, union controlled concerns are using government to force their competitors out of the market. Unions and small business are exempt.

So unemployment will rise, but certain sectors will be protected. Also be aware, that many who lose jobs because of this will simply travel to Seattle for jobs. This will take money from their pockets since they have to commute, but it will hide the impact of this idiocy. I stand by my statement with a modification, employment at affected business will drop 70%

The sillyness of throwing your own statement under the bus and then claiming to stand beside it nothwithstanding, I think we both agree that predicting an officially recorded unemployment rate of 70% is absurd, so I won't try to hold you to that. But surely some of the adverse impact would have to show up on recorded unemployment statistics. Right now it's 6%, two years ago it was 11.9%. Where do you see it twelve months from now?

 

[The Rabbi]

In this case, the voters. And $50/hr is too high because it fails the reasonable person test. That whole argument is an appeal to absurdity fallacy. Just like arguing that if lower taxes improve the economy, then why not 0%.

OK, how about $30/hr?
Lowering taxes to 0% would spur the economy. But it would mean there would be money to pay for things that gov't needs to do.
You can (and it has been done) calculate the optimum level of overall taxation--more will decrease production to you get less tax revenue, less will lessen tax revenue without any benefit. And it's been done. Not that anyone in Washington is listening of course.
So why don't you share with us your similar analysis for wages?

$30 is clearly not as absurd as $50, but I still say it's too high. I live on the opposite coast, but around here I'd say $12-15 is number I could live with. And you're right about my analogy, what I was actually thinking about was the argument the lowering taxes increases tax revenue (clearly got my wires crossed on that one). The truth is sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't and there are too many factors to consistently predict which way it will go. As far as the minimum wage goes, we're at an impasse right out of the gate since you don't believe in the concept at all, whereas I do. So to see you making arguments haggling over the level strikes me as a tad disingenuous. No offense.

A number you could live with? Why? You like the pretty shapes?
For a single mom with 4 kids at home, it isn't nearly enough. For a 16yr old getting his first job, it is way too much.
You just threw an arbitrary number out there with no thought whatsoever. That is the gist of my argument with you. there is no rational reason, if you subscribe to the idea gov't should be mandating a min wage, why that wage shouldn't be $50/hr or 30 or even 100. "It seems to high" is not an argument. There are plenty of people who do in fact make 100/hr. Or more.
You'll need to be more persuasive than "I like the pretty numbers".

 

[martybegan]

'Real Change for Workers': Living Wage Backers Declare Victory in Local Election

'This shows that folks are fed up with the way the economy works'

Voters in the Seattle suburb of SeaTac, Washington took on rising wealth inequalities at the ballot box Tuesday, likely passing a living wage measure that will boost the minimum wage of over 6,000 workers to $15 an hour.

"This shows that folks are fed up with the way the economy works and want to resolve it on a local level," said Stefan Moritz of Unite Here Local 8 in SeaTac in an interview with Common Dreams.

The measure—known as Proposition 1—will apply to workers in travel-related industries, including airport, hotel, car rental, parking lot workers—among them employees at the the airport McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, and Starbucks.

However, the minimum wage boost will exclude workers for small businesses, and unionized shops will have the option of overriding the minimum wage through a collective bargaining agreement. Yet, backers say the bill will raise standards for all workers.

The $15 minimum wage marks the second-highest in the United States and more than double the federal minimum wage, which is set at $7.25 an hour. This working-class town of 27,000 already had the state's hourly minimum wage of $9.19.

'Real Change for Workers': Living Wage Backers Declare Victory in Local Election | Common Dreams

This should fail on consitutional grounds as a bill of attainer, it specifically targets one group while explicitly excluding others.