![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
enders-shadow.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThis post got me thinking.
I am firmly in favor of:
A) A higher minimum wage in the whole US, and my home state of NY
B) Honesty in politics
While the OP I linked to is not exactly dishonest, it's not exactly honest either.
And this is not to put flak upon the poster there, but it's an example of political rhetoric that is used to leverage one side of a conversation, ignoring nuance.
the graphic in the linked to OP:
1) Doesn't seem to take into account state laws that raise min wage over fed laws
2) Doesn't take into account the vast difference in housing throughout a state
My objection is more with 2 than 1. 1 is easy to take care of, but 2 is not easy.
New York City is WAYYYY more expensive than Rochester or Buffalo, NY; or a large number of other places within the state I could name. Yet, this graphic gives us a number, presumably an average. But that average is way skewed. But how else should they do it? Give us on graphic for NYC and another for the rest of NY State? That wouldn't work either, because then you'd need to break it down for other cities and so on. So what do we do?
We must talk about things in the big picture without getting bogged down in details, otherwise we will have to talk for eons before we can understand what needs to be done. So while I agree that the min wage needs to go up, across the US, I have a problem with the info-graphics created to support that argument. They lack nuance, and as such, are deceiving. Even if they don't mean to be, and are honestly doing the best they can to compile and sort the data, the inevitability of misleading data is going to doom us all.
That said.
Happy saint patty's day.
Was I drunk when I wrote this? You decide.
I am firmly in favor of:
A) A higher minimum wage in the whole US, and my home state of NY
B) Honesty in politics
While the OP I linked to is not exactly dishonest, it's not exactly honest either.
And this is not to put flak upon the poster there, but it's an example of political rhetoric that is used to leverage one side of a conversation, ignoring nuance.
the graphic in the linked to OP:
1) Doesn't seem to take into account state laws that raise min wage over fed laws
2) Doesn't take into account the vast difference in housing throughout a state
My objection is more with 2 than 1. 1 is easy to take care of, but 2 is not easy.
New York City is WAYYYY more expensive than Rochester or Buffalo, NY; or a large number of other places within the state I could name. Yet, this graphic gives us a number, presumably an average. But that average is way skewed. But how else should they do it? Give us on graphic for NYC and another for the rest of NY State? That wouldn't work either, because then you'd need to break it down for other cities and so on. So what do we do?
We must talk about things in the big picture without getting bogged down in details, otherwise we will have to talk for eons before we can understand what needs to be done. So while I agree that the min wage needs to go up, across the US, I have a problem with the info-graphics created to support that argument. They lack nuance, and as such, are deceiving. Even if they don't mean to be, and are honestly doing the best they can to compile and sort the data, the inevitability of misleading data is going to doom us all.
That said.
Happy saint patty's day.
Was I drunk when I wrote this? You decide.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 04:05 (UTC)Up to a certain point. Then growth plateaus, as does staffing. But no one is arguing a business can only be successful if in a position of infinite growth and hiring. Sometimes it is fine to be 'just right' in size.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 04:07 (UTC)That's not a guarantee, and that also assumes that you're getting the correct value from that employee. His or her value at $6.50/hr might be markedly different at $7.25.
Sometimes it is fine to be 'just right' in size.
And minimum wage also distorts that. If a company is at the "just right" zone, and truly can't afford to pay more out, but suddenly adds hundreds of dollars a week to payroll, something has to happen to make that up.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 06:52 (UTC)Like how we sometimes lose some skin cells--sometimes we lose some companies, and that's OK.
But the good companies have enough cushion that paying an extra couple hundred a week (ya know, so their employees can buy food from their pay, instead of need food stamps) will not impact their business heavily.
And again, if a company cant pay its workers enough to survive, they shouldnt be doing business.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 13:04 (UTC)Not necessarily. It may be a small business with a niche opportunity, it may be a business that is struggling at the time during a downturn in the economy or any other number of reasons.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 15:14 (UTC)the rule is: if you cannot pay your employees a living wage you shouldnt be in business.
slave-wages arent acceptable under the guise of: but if i pay you like people, i'd go out of business!
too fucking bad.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 15:18 (UTC)That's your rule, not the rule of many others.
slave-wages arent acceptable under the guise of: but if i pay you like people, i'd go out of business!
Slave wages are zero dollars and no opportunity to quit. We don't have that here.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 15:40 (UTC)If you think that in todays America, $1/hour isn't slave labor, well, I don't know.
And before you scream how no one is making a dollar an hour, the point is this:
there is a spectrum to slave-wages. it's not only zero dollars. it can also be so little that its not possible to live off of.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 15:52 (UTC)Unfortunately, we cannot ofer $1/hr to anyone legally.
there is a spectrum to slave-wages. it's not only zero dollars. it can also be so little that its not possible to live off of.
There is no spectrum. Slavery is involuntary.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 15:53 (UTC)not
SLAVERY
jeesh you're arguing dishonestly today.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 15:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/3/12 07:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/3/12 09:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/3/12 11:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/3/12 11:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/3/12 11:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/3/12 11:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/3/12 11:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/3/12 12:04 (UTC)I don't know if you're sincere and unlike Luz (probably), I don't really care. You can be insincere all you want. But at least don't derail debates by taking disingenuous positions.
(no subject)
Date: 19/3/12 12:55 (UTC)I'm not taking a disingenuous position her,e I'm sorry you feel that way.
(no subject)
Date: 19/3/12 13:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 14:45 (UTC)But the old mill is quite often the anchor of a community. If it goes, so does the town. Old ghost towns are quite common.
American car companies are still located in the rust belt from Pittsburgh steel through Detroit all the way to Milwaukee. If the Detroit 3 go bankrupt, it will kill a lot of jobs. Goodyear in Ohio might still survive. Dofasco in Pittsburgh might still survive. Probably even Harley-Davidson in Milwaukee. But butterfly effects ripple out through time and space and can be felt/seen in far away Wall Street and Washington DC and even further. Such closures not only effect the entire country, but the world economy!
Profits and losses of huge corporations are in the billions. On that scale, any faults in their cannot be traced back directly to wages, even when auto workers command high wages through union demands. But fact is rather obvious that there would be higher profits and fewer losses if wages were much lower.
Maybe, in 2008 GM and Dodge should have been allowed to close business as economic natural laws intended. It would have been better for Ford to remain the only and last of Detroit's glory.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 16:37 (UTC)