![[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 15:29 (UTC)B) Honesty in politics
How about we start paying all elected officials minimum wage? It seems like a start.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 17:05 (UTC)Min wage should be that, minimum.
I'd sooner tie their pay to the average or median income of their respective districts.
Cause I do admit that raising the minimum wage too much too quickly could cause problems (raising it to $20/hour tomorrow wouldn't work)
But making they're pay tied to the average means that when they're district feels a pinch, so do they.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 17:14 (UTC)But I thought raising the minimum wage doesn't impact anything else!!!
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 17:17 (UTC)if it didn't impact anything it'd be useless to do it.
it obviously impacts THINGS.
but the fact that something can be done in an EXTREME manner and that in that EXTREME manner it yields negative results doesn't imply that doing it in a smaller, sensible manner is bad.
it's sorta like the difference between a beer or two with dinner and twelve shots of Bacardi 151.
argue honestly.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 17:18 (UTC)Argue honestly - artificially raising wages creates negative impacts. You clearly believe it even after arguing otherwise.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 17:19 (UTC)i mean, seriously, argue honestly you *******************************************************************
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 17:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 17:29 (UTC)I do not support raising it by almost 200% immediately.
That's not a backtrack. I never said I supported raising it to $20/hour.
I bet you will not find many (if any) in this comm who honestly feel raising it to $20/hour, tomorrow, would be a good idea.
Over time, it may hit $20/hour, and while that sounds like a lot to us, to those who saw the min wage come into existence at 25 cents/hour would be shocked at our 7.25/hour min wage, it's obviously just a sign of the times.
The point is always to deal with TODAY. Today a min wage increase is needed. Not to $20/hour, that's too high. But to something closer to $10/hour. That's what our min wage was in the 60's, if you look at it in terms of purchasing power.
It's disheartening Jeff, to argue with you, and then see you pull this kind of bullshit.
You know nobody is arguing for a $20/hour min wage today. Not me, not Bernie Sanders, shit, not nobody I've talked with about this issue.
But raising two dollars is very different than raising it twelve dollars.
Apples and oranges.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 17:37 (UTC)Why won't that have a negative impact? That's the part you're backtracking on.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 17:49 (UTC)If you drink 12 shots of bacardi 151, you are likely going to have a negative reaction to the alcohol. You may vomit, you'll feel shitty, you'll be light headed, and you'd be a very dangerous driver.
Those symptoms won't occur if you have 1 beer with dinner.
Similarly, the problems one might face if the min wage went up to $20/hour won't be faced if we raise it to $9/hour.
The problem comes in the excess of doing something, not in doing it.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 17:55 (UTC)That you're even admitting negative impacts is an improvement here.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 17:57 (UTC)However, negative impacts are not required.
I have frequently had a beer with dinner and not felt negative impacts.
If I recall properly, studies have been done showing that a glass of red wine a night will improve your health.
Meanwhile, that doesn't mean a bottle of red wine a night would do the same.
You are taking my admission of what will happen if you GO TO AN EXTREME and using that as some sort of moral victory. You're fooling yourself.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 18:19 (UTC)You did not notice the negative effects, you mean.
If I recall properly, studies have been done showing that a glass of red wine a night will improve your health.
Much like a higher inimum wage might put more money in your pocket, it doesn't mean all the results are positive.
You are taking my admission of what will happen if you GO TO AN EXTREME and using that as some sort of moral victory. You're fooling yourself.
What I'm doing is pointing out the inconsistency in thought.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 18:21 (UTC)Perfectly consistent.
Oh, ok, what negative effects did I have after 1 beer with dinner, tell me, oh sage.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 18:24 (UTC)Perfectly consistent.
Except when moderation doesn't yield positive results, of course.
Oh, ok, what negative effects did I have after 1 beer with dinner, tell me, oh sage.
It impacts everything from mood to congitive abilities. Even one beer.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 18:32 (UTC)"Except when moderation doesn't yield positive results, of course."
That, however, is debated.
We are not debating if EXTREME action yields positive results. I'm not interested in EXTREME actions WRT minimum wage.
Can you be more specific about how i am NEGATIVELY impacted by one beer?
I must say that I have studied alcohol and drugs, academically, so I will not accept mere rhetoric. Give me some biological FACTS that support the claim that ONE BEER will negatively impact my mood
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 18:35 (UTC)Right, because you see the damage such actions can do.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 18:37 (UTC)Same thing goes for extremist religions.
You never studied philosophy huh?
Moderation in all things, excess in nothing said the Oracle at Delphi.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 18:22 (UTC)ME: If I recall properly, studies have been done showing that a glass of red wine a night will improve your health.
YOU: Much like a higher inimum wage might put more money in your pocket, it doesn't mean all the results are positive.
that makes no sense.
a glass of red wine a night doesnt give u negative health effects, but positive ones.
your not making sense.
(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 18:25 (UTC)It might give you net positive effects. That doesn't mean that it's net negative.
It's a poor analogy in any regard. Alcohol isn't wages.