Elections ***Second Democratic Primary Debate play-by-play thread: Night 1. ***

[superpunch]

Agreed man. Plus a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage and free college makes any transition easier and less fearful. With those three things in place you can start a business while working a menial job and still do OK while improving things.

Lmao at $15/ hour minimum wage in rural areas and small towns, especially in the South, and territories like Puerto Rico.. Literally everything not family owned and operated would shut down. Entire cities and towns. Minimum wage is something that should only be decided at state and local levels of government.

 

[Prokofievian]

Lmao at $15/ hour minimum wage in rural areas and small towns, especially in the South, and territories like Puerto Rico.. Literally everything not family owned and operated would shut down. Entire cities and towns. Minimum wage is something that should only be decided at state and local levels of government.

Alternatively it could be negotiated for by sector between employers and unions representing that sector. This is how it's done in the Nordics, and the Union can negotiate on lower wages for employees in undesirable places. Two birds with one stone right there: strong unions and liveable wages minimizing the disemployment effect.

However, you are making really big claims for the disemployment effect of minimum wages, as everyone has done for decades. There is a wage that will have the disemployment effect you describe: a minimimum wage of 1000 dollars per hour would easily disemploy just about every single person everywhere. But it should obviously not be accepted at face value that a 15 dollar minimum wage would have catastrophic effects. That claim needs to be supported by data. There are conversely many research papers showing that minimum wage raises on average cause wage growth in the lowest earning brackets, and that disemployment effects are quite small (suggesting that demand curves aren't a straight line in this case).

 

[superpunch]

Alternatively it could be negotiated for by sector between employers and unions representing that sector. This is how it's done in the Nordics, and the Union can negotiate on lower wages for employees in undesirable places. Two birds with one stone right there: strong unions and liveable wages minimizing the disemployment effect.

However, you are making really big claims for the disemployment effect of minimum wages, as everyone has done for decades. There is a wage that will have the disemployment effect you describe: a minimimum wage of 1000 dollars per hour would easily disemploy just about every single person everywhere. But it should obviously not be accepted at face value that a 15 dollar minimum wage would have catastrophic effects. That claim needs to be supported by data. There are conversely many research papers showing that minimum wage raises on average cause wage growth in the lowest earning brackets, and that disemployment effects are quite small (suggesting that demand curves aren't a straight line in this case).

In small towns, the business owners don't even make $15/ hour. I don't think you understand how poor flyover country is in America. I don't think a lot of liberals living in cities do either. They just assume that all of America is just like them when that couldn't be further from the truth. 2/3 of America is covered with towns of like 100 people with a gas station, a convenience store, and a restaurant. The rest of the town is employed by farming or on government benefits and too old to work or too drug addicted to work. A $15/ hour minimum wage would shut those down and people would have to drive entire states away just to get cup noodles and gas.

Then we have territories (islands outside of the mainland US) that are borderline third world countries. They struggle even with the $7.25 national minimum wage. A $15/ hour minimum wage would shut down everything. America isn't the Nordics, which are small homogenous countries. America is huge and diverse.

It makes sense setting national minimum wages in the Nordic countries they're the size of individual US states, which is the level of government where the minimum wage should be decided in America. That's why the minimum wage is $7.25 nationally but higher in many localities; $15/ hour in San Francisco and Seattle, $14/ hour in DC, $12/ hour in the entire state of California, etc.

I guess what I'm trying to say is imagine that Sweden was just a little bigger and also had say Macedonia in its territory. Imagine if Sweden's minimum wage laws then covered Macedonia, that would be ridiculous.

 

[Prokofievian]

In small towns, the business owners don't even make $15/ hour. I don't think you understand how poor flyover country is in America. I don't think a lot of liberals living in cities do either. 2/3 of America is covered with towns of like 100 people with a gas station, a convenience store, and a restaurant. The rest of the town is employed by farming or on government benefits and too old to work or too drug addicted to work. A $15/ hour minimum wage would shut those down and people would have to drive entire states away just to get cup noodles and gas.

Then we have territories (islands outside of the mainland US) that are borderline third world countries. They struggle even with the $7.25 national minimum wage. A $15/ hour minimum wage would shut down everything. America isn't the Nordics, which are small homogenous countries. America is huge and diverse.

I'm just interested in the data, meng. Especially when American politics is concerned, but also in my own country, what is typical of political rhetoric is this: anything that will benefit the richest class will have copious spill over effects and everyone will rejoice in shared betterment, and anything that is meant to benefit the poorest class will have catestrophic second order effects that will only make the situation worse. Very little of this is ever supported by data, more often conjecture or theorems from Chicago school types.

It makes sense setting national minimum wages in the Nordic countries they're the size of individual US states, which is the level of government where the minimum wage should be decided in America. That's why the minimum wage is $7.25 nationally but higher in many localities; $15/ hour in San Francisco and Seattle, $14/ hour in DC, $12/ hour in the entire state of California, etc.

I guess what I'm trying to say is imagine that Sweden was just a little bigger and also had say Macedonia in its territory. Imagine if Sweden's minimum wage laws then covered Macedonia, that would be ridiculous.

No, the Nordics don't have a federally mandated minimum wage law. It is also not correct to say that they don't have a minimum wage. How it works is that every single sector, even the managerial class, is represented by a union. That union negotiates on all manner of things on behalf of employees in that sector, including what minimum wage you could work for in that sector. This includes the ability to take into account rural cost of living adjustments.

 

[superpunch]

I'm just interested in the data, meng. Especially when American politics is concerned, but also in my own country, what is typical of political rhetoric is this: anything that will benefit the richest class will have copious spill over effects and everyone will rejoice in shared betterment, and anything that is meant to benefit the poorest class will have catestrophic second order effects that will only make the situation worse. Very little of this is ever supported by data, more often conjecture or theorems from Chicago school types.

The US GDP per capita is $60K. It's $30K in Puerto Rico. $30K in many 'flyover' states too. And that wealth is usually concentrated in one capital city in those states; meaning the true GDP/ capita in most of the state is actually like half that. So San Francisco's GDP per capita is $100K meanwhile in a small city in flyover country it's $15K. That's why you can't have a national minimum wage set to cost of living; the cost of living is massively different all over the place.

No, the Nordics don't have a federally mandated minimum wage law. It is also not correct to say that they don't have a minimum wage. How it works is that every single sector, even the managerial class, is represented by a union. That union negotiates on all manner of things on behalf of employees in that sector, including what minimum wage you could work for in that sector. This includes the ability to take into account rural cost of living adjustments.

That would never get implemented in America, sounds way too socialist. I don't think I'd want that even if it benefited me, it sounds stifling and controlling. Does that mean that wages across industries (not companies) are set to specific ranges for specific job titles and that rank and promotion are based on years of experience?

 

[Prokofievian]

The US GDP per capita is $60K. It's $30K in Puerto Rico. $30K in many 'flyover' states too. And that wealth is usually concentrated in one capital city in those states; meaning the true GDP/ capita in most of the state is actually like half that. So San Francisco's GDP per capita is $100K meanwhile in a small city in flyover country it's $15K. That's why you can't have a national minimum wage set to cost of living; the cost of living is massively different all over the place.

And? The disemployment effect should be? Will the poor be better or worse off on average? Specifically, let's say you disemployed 1% of people with a $15 minimum wage, but on average everyone still employed made 10% more. Would that be worth it to you?

That would never get implemented in America, sounds way too socialist. I don't think I'd want that even if it benefited me, it sounds stifling and controlling. Does that mean that wages across industries (not companies) are set to specific ranges for specific job titles and that rank and promotion are based on years of experience?

No, it's just that you can't work below a minimum and that minimum is tied to the sector you work in. So, an airplane mechanic does not make the same as a waiter. You are otherwise free to negotiate your salary in so far as the employer is also willing to do so. You don't even have to be a member of the union, but then you lose union benefits like health insurance for uncovered things and legal representation. But the working conditions, including a minimum wage is negotiated by a union.

 

[superpunch]

And? The disemployment effect should be? Will the poor be better or worse off on average? Specifically, let's say you disemployed 1% of people with a $15 minimum wage, but on average everyone still employed made 10% more. Would that be worth it to you?

I'm saying that the people that own businesses in those parts of the country don't even make $15/ hour. A $15/ hour minimum wage wouldn't just raise unemployment by a few %; it would unemploy everyone just like it would in Macedonia.

 

[Prokofievian]

I'm saying that the people that own businesses in those parts of the country don't even make $15/ hour. A $15/ hour minimum wage wouldn't just raise unemployment by a few %; it would unemploy everyone just like it would in Macedonia.

I have my doubts, shall we say.

 

[superpunch]

I have my doubts, shall we say.

I know, I get it. It's hard to comprehend how poor a lot of America is unless you see it first hand. Most people living in northern or coastal cities and suburbs have never seen it first hand.

America is huge -- it's a union of states where most state are the size of individual European countries. Think of America as all of Europe and individual states as individual European countries. Sweden's gdp per capita is $56K; Norway's is $76K. Go to Eastern Europe and you start seeing places with gdp per capitas of like $10-$20K. Now imagine Scandinavia and Eastern Europe are in the same country.. and you have the USA.

The economy of a liberal city in California is high technology; the economy of a small southern town is one guy growing potatoes then the rest of the city being a service industry around the money generated from that and welfare. Two completely different places.

 

[superpunch]

I have my doubts, shall we say.

Let me tell you about the town my dad grew up in. It used to be bustling, lively. The economy was based around factories. There was lots of money going around. If you wanted a decent wage, you could work at a factory and make that money. The last factory to leave was a soda bottling plant. Now there's nothing that generates money there. The only way out is to make grades good enough for college scholarships or join the military. But old people still stay there. People without the ambition to go to college or join the military still stay there. So, now it's a town filled with nothing that generates any money, old people, and unambitious people. Predictably, the previously bustling downtown is gone. The only businesses left are a liquor store, a fast food restaurant, a dollar store, a small grocery store, a barber shop, and a few antique shops with no employees just owned by old people with nothing else to do. The only money in the economy is generated by old peoples' savings and welfare.

The richest guy with the biggest ball swinging job in town is the cashier at the dollar store, rolling in just a bit more money than the guys on welfare.

The only way that place could support a $15/ minimum wage without losing the few businesses it does have left would be more welfare payments pumping money into the economy. $15/ hour without more welfare would make the town even more depressing. Then the town would just be old people that are too poor to move out surrounded by unemployed drug addicts that used to work at the dollar store, and no place to buy groceries unless they drive an hour away (which they already have to do just to buy clothes or see a movie).

Honestly these places shouldn't exist anymore. I don't want to pump even more welfare into them to just keep them barely stringing along like zombies. They should just be allowed to disappear and become abandoned relics of the past.

HUGE parts of the US are exactly the same. Their economic generating activities are completely hollowed out by industry leaving the US and being shipped off to developing countries.

 

[Prokofievian]

I know, I get it. It's hard to comprehend how poor a lot of America is unless you see it first hand. Most people living in northern or coastal cities and suburbs have never seen it first hand.

America is huge -- it's a union of states where most state are the size of individual European countries. Think of America as all of Europe and individual states as individual European countries. Sweden's gdp per capita is $56K; Norway's is $76K. Go to Eastern Europe and you start seeing places with gdp per capitas of like $10-$20K. Now imagine Scandinavia and Eastern Europe are in the same country.. and you have the USA.

The economy of a liberal city in California is high technology; the economy of a small southern town is one guy growing potatoes then the rest of the city being a service industry around the money generated from that and welfare. Two completely different places.

I don't dispute any of that. There are two horse towns everywhere, including in the Nordics (hence why the unions allow for negotiation of minimum wage based on regional living conditions). I grew up in a small town that depended on a mill, next to a small town that depended on a smelter. Down the road there were towns whose existence used to depend on mines that had long since closed, and whose continued existence is tenuous at best.

What I question is that a 15 dollar minimum wage wouldn't have a positive effect in the aggregate.