Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    TracyMorganFreeman

    + friends - friends
    1,161 link karma
    192,790 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] Economists are debating the effects of minimum wage increases after the University of California, Berkeley, published a study Thursday showing pay increases for restaurant workers did not harm job growth in six major U.S. cities TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago * (lasted edited 17 hours ago) in Economics

    The total went up by 5k. if you are claiming 5.5k people were fired despite the total going up by 5k, then that would mean that 10.5k new hires would have had to have been made to arrive at the total.

    In other words, who cares about the least skill being fired according to you.

    Oh? Whats all that you were just talking about how employers were obviously making moves ahead of the change being implemented?

    Yes. The number making 11 or more an hour went up before the 11 an hour part was implemented.

    Its not cherry picking, I am using the rest of the data to explain the data that you are fixated on.

    Except it doesn't explain it.

    I'm using both the subset and the total, and you're using only the total.

    You're fixated on one set of data without any critical examination applied with respect to how it relates to other data.

    A nonsense concept, you are arguing that the more skilled workers should sit idly by, unemployed, to make room for the less skilled workers- are you even a capitalist? Do you even acknowledge efficiency as a positive quality?

    Once again, still can't get the concept of already employed workers taking on more responsibilities as somehow them not being employed.

    I've explained this about 4 times now so at this point you're just being obtuse.

    Bingo, now you're getting it. One employer raising their employees wages on their own is punished for it, all employers raising their prices in unison are not.

    But workers are.

    As usual, half the equation.

    JOBS. ARE. UP.

    They were growing before as well, and ONCE AGAIN the labor participation rate went DOWN which means fewer people are employed.

    You don't even know how to interpret this data it seems.

    Total headcount is up, there are less people unemployed.

    Unemployment only counts those in the workforce.

    If milk is on sale for $2, do you say "wow, I would have paid $4 for that, here take all of my money!!"? No, you don't. So, when employers find that while they would pay over $19 for labor, they were able to get much of it for less than $13, so they took that deal. Later, when the government said they needed to pay more, they did.

    Annnd woosh.

    Let's add "equilibrium price", a fundamental concept in economics, to your litany of economic ignorance.

    You have neither.

    The labor participation rate going down and prices going up means you do.

    No, that just makes you entitled, Americans aren't slaves who exist to work for as little incentive as you deem appropriate.

    The irony of thinking people are entitled to a particular wage while calling supply and demand entitlement is lost on you.

    Again with the contempt for working people. Why do you hate Americans?

    Oh getting desperate now. Explaining how the world works and how your method isn't effective must mean I hate your goal.

    Whoa now, the parents of the low wage worker are not extending this favor so that the employer can enrich themselves, they're doing it for their own child's benefit.

    Irrelevant to the point.

    Suddenly now parents aren't subsidizing the employer, but the government is. Special pleading to boot.

    Disabled? Then she isn't working now is she...

    You have a very narrow understanding of disability then, among other things. I'm a disabled veteran and I work full time.

    Sure they do, we can objectively calculate the amount of money that a person will need to live in an area, so that they can continue providing that labor.

    Except not everyone has the same needs. Someone who is diabetic or in a wheel chair or has dietary restrictions or has children will have a different living wage.

    There is no single living wage. It's a nebulous concept that ignore nuance and economic reality.

    Wages are the price for labor. The price of anything, labor included, isn't based solely on the demands of the seller.

    Pay them less than that, and one day they will no longer be able to work

    Sure, as long as you ignore that individual income=/=household income.

    The majority of minimum wage earners are secondary and tertiary household earners. The average household income of households with at least one minimum wage earner is 41K a year.

    This isn't about economics, this is about you needing to look down on someone

    My first job was zero wages only tips. Stop being so narcissistic that you think the only reason anyone might disagree with your preferred method of helping someone is that they don't care.

    You can living in a small studio apartment, bike to work, and live off rice, milk, and beans(all without malnutrition) with minimal water and electricity for around the federal minimum wage.

    But people are used to all manner of luxuries provided by the west, so like I said: the "living wage" is a nebulous term for a moving target of luxuries.

    Imagine that, their work ethic is good, they keep on working despite being fully aware of their incoming crisis, yet you demand that they be economically destroyed for working a job that you deem beneath you.

    Your productivity is more than your work ethic. You help no one artificially increasing the cost of employing them, which means either they are less likely to be employed or less likely to afford the things they buy(because guess what all the things they buy, not just the ones they produced, have gone up in price with industry wide wage increases).

    The who doesn't care is you. You don't care who is more or less employed. You don't care if the most vulnerable more likely to be unemployed the higher the minimum wage. You don't care about those people's right to contract. You stopped looking once you got the data that supported the conclusion that makes you feel good, because you seem to never stop and think that there is a difference between doing good and feeling good.

    [–] Imagine if it was dads instead of moms TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in MensRights

    "I voluntarily took on more burdens, so others should subsidize me more."

    Oh you didn't make it to starbucks on time and didn't bother to make your own coffee? Well the rest of the world kept turning it isn't going to wait around for you.

    [–] This like... really bad TracyMorganFreeman 3 points ago in MensRights

    Correct, because it's a statutory crime. It's like speeding or a DUI. The act itself is the crime, regardless of harm done.

    [–] Economists are debating the effects of minimum wage increases after the University of California, Berkeley, published a study Thursday showing pay increases for restaurant workers did not harm job growth in six major U.S. cities TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago * (lasted edited 2 days ago) in Economics

    That is exactly what we should be seeing, that the number of low wage workers should be going down... What part of minimum wage are you not grasping? . Clearly there have been some exclusions and exemptions littered about, but that ought to be a goose egg.

    Sigh. The number of people who made less than $19 an hour was also going down.

    I want to know why ANY workers are earning less than $15 an hour in a $15 minimum wage economy

    PROBABLY because the $13 dollar minimum wage part of didn't kick in until the third quarter of 2016. It's almost as if you think it just went to $15 right off the bat.

    In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.

    Which just makes you ignorant. The value of labor isn't based solely on the demands of those selling it. A "living wage" is just a useless term that doesn't mean anything and "poverty" is now just a moving target of increasing luxuries people take for granted.

    A 20 year old kid living with their parents has a different "living wage" than a disable mother of two, but the latter isn't more productive at a given job than the former simply for needing a higher wage to get by.

    The reality is that those businesses don't rely on government assistance to survive. If those employees weren't employed they would need MORE assistance, which means if anything the company is subsidizing the government's program.

    What part of "All" are you not understanding? "All" includes both sides of $13.

    What part of more <13 lost jobs than all gained jobs that are you not understanding?

    Yes I do, the subject is a single digit percentage of the workforce, you are essentially saying "how dare you use evidence". What are you even doing here?

    No I'm saying "how dare you cherry pick your data".

    So there you go, total went from 32k to 37k, so it is safe to say that the 5500 people in question stopped earning under $13 an hour and started earning MORE.

    Ignoring the part where the number making less than 19 an hour also went down, and the total of those making less than 19 and less than 13 going down was greater than the number overall going up.

    It's important to keep more than one thought in your head.

    Whether or not 5k new people moved to town and took up sub $13 an hour jobs while a further 5k people got raises

    Uh no because that metric went down.

    the fact of the matter is that jobs haven't been killed.

    This is because you don't even understand the claim.

    DISEMPLOYMENT is not the same killing jobs. Disemploying the least productive people and employing others to do their jobs is still disemployment.

    Your "disemployment" doesn't exist. You are claiming that these people had to have been let go because their labor obviously wasn't worth that much, BUT ITS THE SAME JOB!

    And not everyone is equally productive at the same job. This isn't a complex idea.

    Not only have they demonstrated their capability of doing the job for having been employed at it in the first place

    NOPE. People who have just started are not up to speed and for some time are a loss for the employer, and depending on the job can take up to a year to get up to speed(incidentally over 80% of people who start at minimum wage have a raise within a year)

    When you increase that wage their productivity doesn't increase, meaning the losses during that time increase.

    Never mind how insane the proposition is, firing an experienced person to hire on two inexperienced

    Still not getting the point I see. It isn't hiring on two inexperienced. It's taking already employed people and having them take on more responsibilities/jobs.

    11k is bigger than 7k, and thats just the restaurant industry, you have 16.5k jobs to explain overall.

    5.5K lost in the restaurant industry from <13 and <19 is bigger than the 4.5K gained overall in it.

    Simply cherry picking data.

    That a position can actually be made not-low wage should not bamboozle you, these are economically vulnerable people, they will settle for any wage because they have to, which means it is entirely certain that their employers are using this as leverage against them to get their labor for cheap

    And? That is irrelevant to the conversation here.

    As has been demonstrated here, yes, their employers can in fact afford more, and yes, there is no economic malady that befalls us for it.

    Employers can always afford to raise prices when their competitors are too, especially when the vulnerable newly unemployed people now are getting MORE assistance from the government to pay for it.

    It's important to keep more than one thought in your head to critically analyze.

    Don't think I didn't notice you neglecting to address my chart at all, not that I'm surprised as you've relied on cherry picking data this whole time.

    This is the problem with MW advocates: they don't actually care about the rights of people and the right to contract. They think they know what's best for people, so are okay with violating people's rights so they can think they are helping the most vulnerable people, when there's no evidence they are. This entire time you've said you don't care about the labor participation rate despite it being the indicator of people increasingly or decreasingly part of the workforce.

    You simply want to use the numbers that vindicate your position, and attack weird strawmen no one ever claimed.

    The MW is a price control, which means it can only do one of two things: allow trade at the equilibrium price or not. If it does, then the MW is superfluous(this is what MW advocates point to when the MW is so low as to not actually impact anything but still treated as a victory). If it doesn't, then you get a shortage of goods or customers.

    [–] Economists are debating the effects of minimum wage increases after the University of California, Berkeley, published a study Thursday showing pay increases for restaurant workers did not harm job growth in six major U.S. cities TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in Economics

    That was a quiz, you failed to act in any way to better your understanding of the world around you. The answer is that in the restaurant industry, we went from 32,648 working 11,938k hours to 37,283 working 14,440k hours. 14% increase in headcount, 20% increase in hours.

    Once again ignoring my point. Those making less than $13 an hour had fewer jobs each and every quarter.

    You're choosing which data to look at.

    Hint: you don't get to use overall employment data to see the effects on what is a single digit percent of the workforce.

    There is no probably, I have told you several times exactly what I am looking at: RESTAURANTS

    Oh I know. You used all restaurant workers, ignoring the segment of restaurant workers that had fewer jobs quarter on quarter for the entire set of data.

    Restaurant workers under $13 went from 11,980 to 6480. Total restaurant workers went from 32,648 to 37,283. Under $19 went from 21,800 to 21,647

    So that's a loss of 5500+ loss of 153 and gain of 4635, or a net loss of 1,018 which would be 2.73% of restaurant workers.

    All this means is higher paid restaurant workers took up the slack, and overall the most economically vulnerable people lost out on jobs.

    I have, you haven't.

    No, you literally went from when the law was passed to the end of the data. That's it.

    You've done nothing to account for the trend before.

    The median wage is 30k. A minimum wage of $15 a hour would bring half of the working population up to the current median. Don't even attempt to tell me that we would only lose 1.8 trillion in gdp if the lower half of the working population stopped working.

    Once again, you assume those people will remain employed.

    As usual, you ignore half the equation.

    The claim is that hiking the minimum wage hurts growth, I refute that claim.

    No, it's that it creates disemployment, and I pointed out exactly where it occurred.

    You refuted nothing.

    Total jobs are up, dramatically. Here is some math I know you won't do, calculate how many people would need to move to Seattle to counteract all of the people you claim are being permanently laid off, and still produce the growth observed. Then look up the actual population growth.

    In other words, look at data that doesn't do anything to address the claim of creating disemployment.

    Meanwhile, look again. It turns out that hey minimum wage increases only affect certain workers, and it happens to be the least skilled and most economically vulnerable, something you don't see when you look at the aggregate, even if it's "just" the aggregate of a given industry.

    [–] 500,000+ Men, Over Half A Million Men, Die By Suicide Every Year. When Will Anyone Notice Outside Of The Bubble? TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in MensRights

    Feminists can openly identify as one and still reliably get voted into public office to effect legislation that harms men.

    If anything feminism is worse, because it has plausible deniability.

    > Just because you dont like reality doesn't indicate that everyone is involved with the feminist man hating conspiracy to keep you down.

    It isn't a conspiracy. Feminists are very open about their preferred policies.

    [–] 500,000+ Men, Over Half A Million Men, Die By Suicide Every Year. When Will Anyone Notice Outside Of The Bubble? TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in MensRights

    It isn't hating women. It's hating the infantilization of women feminism has reinforced, which hurts men as well.

    Feminism is one of the biggest obstacles to men's rights, so it should be unsurprising it is criticized.

    [–] Venezuela Raises Minimum Wage 3,000% and Lots of Workers Get Fired TracyMorganFreeman 4 points ago in Economics

    In the long run inflation makes the minimum wage meaningless.

    > but in a real economy a minimum wage or change in minimum wage will have an impact on aggregate demand which will then then have an effect ultimately on labor demand, making the overall effect a lot more nuanced than you suggest.

    As long as we ignore the productivity of minimum wage workers not increasing simply because of wage increases.

    In a [real economy](https://imgur.com/oQt3pQe) unemployment increases among the most economically vulnerable the higher the minimum wage is relative to the average wage.

    [–] Economists are debating the effects of minimum wage increases after the University of California, Berkeley, published a study Thursday showing pay increases for restaurant workers did not harm job growth in six major U.S. cities TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago) in Economics

    Yes, and I said yes. Do you need me to do the math for you too? Tough.

    A tacit admission you didn't do the math. You just went from beginning to end, not accounting for the trend before, and that includes before passage as companies will already adjust from an impending law.

    Of course looking at the hours and jobs of those under $13 an hour you clearly see a steady decline, so you're probably just looking at the total aggregate, ignoring that the minimum wage affects a small segment of the workforce, and thinking overall growth is totally due to the minimum wage increasing.

    So it's likely just more higher wage earners taking on more responsibilities and kicking lower wage earners out of the workforce for not being productive enough to warrant the wage.

    Which is exactly what I said happened.

    [–] Economists are debating the effects of minimum wage increases after the University of California, Berkeley, published a study Thursday showing pay increases for restaurant workers did not harm job growth in six major U.S. cities TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in Economics

    I'm still going to need a source on this "we enslaved the elderly in ww2 and everyone was ok with it" claim.

    Oh didn't you know? We enslaved people through the draft, some of which wasn't for combat.

    We just don't call it slavery then, and it was for "the good of the country".

    Whether there are ten thousand people not looking for a job, or ten million people not looking for a job, the fact of the matter is the same.

    Pretty sure fewer people working means fewer people producing things. It actually does matter how many are not working.

    I've answered your question, I have substantiated the answer with the source, what more could you possibly need?

    Hours going up commensurately. I didn't just throw that word in for giggles.

    [–] Tesla workers speak out: 'Anything pro-union is shut down really fast' TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in news

    Before I read these, It is often the case that the real cause is absolute poverty not inequality. Did they account for this?

    [–] Tesla workers speak out: 'Anything pro-union is shut down really fast' TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in news

    Any of the nordic countries. They're small, and far more homogeneous culturally.

    Given the culturally pluralistic nature of the US its arguable you can't easily or feasibly compare it to other countries in a meaningful way.

    [–] 13% in US says they'll be in debt for rest of their lives. Reality may be even worse TracyMorganFreeman 0 points ago in Economics

    You conflate household expenditures with cost of living.

    If they've increased their consumption that's them just living beyond their means.

    More importantly saying "we have..." tells us nothing about the trend there.

    You also confuse trends and snapshot data.

    [–] 13% in US says they'll be in debt for rest of their lives. Reality may be even worse TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in Economics

    Singapore's economy has failed too many people to call it a success.

    Based on?

    They're talking about quartiles and income blocks, not about what they can afford.

    Weird given one cited making less than 30K and the other is just the abstract but doesn't define "low income".

    [–] Economists are debating the effects of minimum wage increases after the University of California, Berkeley, published a study Thursday showing pay increases for restaurant workers did not harm job growth in six major U.S. cities TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in Economics

    No, if someone retires, THEN YOU CAN'T FORCE THEM TO WORK.

    They did during WWII.

    Thats why we use the U3 unemployment series and not the U6, if they aren't looking for work, then they're not looking for work.

    There's more than one reason one leaves the workforce than retirement.

    Hours are up, WAY UP.

    Are they commensurately up with number of jobs? If not, then hours per worker went down.

    [–] Tesla workers speak out: 'Anything pro-union is shut down really fast' TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in news

    Oh well then comparing the US to Iceland or Denmark or Norway is also a bad faith comparison.

    [–] Tesla workers speak out: 'Anything pro-union is shut down really fast' TracyMorganFreeman -1 points ago in news

    It has more people than Norway, Finland, or Iceland.

    they have their own share of problems that stems from it that they have to deal with.

    Not due to inequality though.