Printable View
How about you open your eyes. Any study directed towards success of people will be pointed as "you are only looking at success cases." Any evidence pointing towards the stupidity of lower income folks will be ignored as is typical. How many times do we have to show that poor folks drink, smoke and gamble more? The connection is there go open your eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
:haha:
You're a gem.
Lewk, this is one of the strangest things I've seen you post. Are you really unable to think of a single study design that might be able to mitigate that kind of bias at least in theory? Really? Even if you try to think like REALLY hard, like up to 9000?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
We don't have chain gangs and anyone who doesn't like their current job is perfectly welcome to either (A) get a new one or (B) choose to be unemployed. They may not be nice or pleasant choices, but they're still choices. Nobody points a gun at anyone's head and says you must work there.
This is demonstrated by often high turnover in such employment.
Not read the 2 pages following this as the thread seems to have exploded overnight and I don't have the time right now so sorry if this has been discussed.
Yes, pointing out you're not holding a gun to someone's head is a fantastic argument.
It is a metaphor. Minous asked if people were doing so willingly - answer is yes they are.
Of course you could go to socialist Europe were rather than having low minimum wage jobs upto two thirds of young people are unemployed if you want. That's not hypothetical its real though its ignored by those for whom its inconvenient towards their prejudices.
I answered his question now which do you think is better: A $7.25 minimum wage with prospects of promotion and no tax liable on that income - or unemployment with no jobs available?
Hey, you're not holding a gun to my head, we're good!
There's a nice swedish expression about choosing between the plague and cholera. I think one of the signs of development is getting to choose between good but different alternatives rather than between shitty ones. Tell me, do you believe a decision is a choice if it's made with a gun to the head?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No I don't believe a decision is a choice if it's made with a gun to the head (metaphorical or physical). Hence why I said that's not the case as evidenced by turnover.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I agree that its better not to have just shitty alternatives. That's why I think people should make responsible choices but they're not compelled to. Still its better to have shitty choices than no choice whatsoever.
And, just to try and finish Rand's sentences a bit, it's equally bad to force a business to fit into an arbitrary wage/hour/employment structure.
The argument about turnover is not persuasive without information about where they go when they leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It may not be too 'persuasive' but turnover it is a reality that site managers have to deal with. Now I can agree that maybe if the pay was better they might stay longer, but depending upon the job, I still can't see paying 10 to 15 bucks an hour right out of the gate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
What IS your definition of the word "arbitrary"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
It always surprises me that people are surprised at turnover. Job turnover is normal and, in aggregate, a sign of a healthy and flexible labor market. Church at individual firms may or may not be a good sign, depending on the particulars of the firm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
But this all goes back to the idea that we shouldn't be expecting/demanding that every job be a full-time job that supports an entire family.
Rand's argument seems to be that high turnover implies something about how much real choice these people have and that is what i find unpersuasiveQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I find your words "real choice" to be vague and unpersuasive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I said choice. I never said good choices or anything like it. High turnover demonstrates there's a choice to be there or not and its not a life of servitude that you're locked into.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Enoch, places like McDonald's have all the leverage in the New Economy. There are still about 5 job seekers for every position, and millions of workers displaced from the recession. Training costs aren't what they used to be, since our schools teach technology (and even IT idiots like me can use a computer and headset). 'Managing' costs aren't that great either, since corporations like McD have streamlined it as part of their franchise operations. Six months on the job can mean being the shift or team 'manager', with a 0.25/hour raise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Loki, you've got it backward. Updating minimum wage (to 70's levels) isn't about propping up dying industries. It's more about the growing employment sectors in service industries (fast-food, restaurant, retail, hospitality, elder care) still paying 70's wages. It's also not about "useless" vs "good" workers, or "hard" workers....but the value workers DO have to every business and their profits. Paying a modern wage doesn't stifle the desire to work, or block flexibility or innovations. But it can act as an economic stimulus, keep more workers from falling into poverty, reduce the need for "welfare", and repair some of the income inequality (that's been gutting the middle class for a couple of decades). Old theories won't work for the New Economy.
Dread, if we're going to push our consumption-service-based economy out of recession, that means having enough people with money to spend. Even on crap like McDonald's burgers. Not just the top 1-10%, Wall Street, or financial institutions, but the bulk of our population rebuilding the center. Anything else stands to exacerbate our current inequities and polarities, crush the social contract. I consider it a national challenge to transition to the New Economy without reverting to a cash-caste society.
Corporate America can continue to hoard their billions in profits, wringing out every last buck from millions of people. But that makes them part of the problem, not the solution.
And what do you do if you create over 50% youth unemployment as is a reality elsewhere? Is that part of your solution?
I'm also curious because I personally worked for McDonald's when I was at university over a decade ago now. They helped fund my education - and incidentally paid much more than my previous job at the socialist Co-Op chain. I wonder if you shut down what you've identified as the main source of jobs recently not just will you doom many to unemployment but also block many from funding themselves through College there. Perhaps you believe only those whose parents are wealthy enough to support their kids through College should go?
I fail to see though how creating unemployment and blocking self-funding through Higher Education helps your goals?
It's naive to believe that minimum wage plays a significant role in the lack of jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
My gut tells me they either go right back on the dole or graduateQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Using "youth" employment to pay low minimum wages is a lame justification. I think it's more harmful when adults are displaced from the work force, with long-term unemployment and under-employment.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Things are different than a decade ago. Using your past experience in today's job environment is like applying old theories in the new economy -- disconnected from reality.Quote:
I'm also curious because I personally worked for McDonald's when I was at university over a decade ago now. They helped fund my education - and incidentally paid much more than my previous job at the socialist Co-Op chain. I wonder if you shut down what you've identified as the main source of jobs recently not just will you doom many to unemployment but also block many from funding themselves through College there. Perhaps you believe only those whose parents are wealthy enough to support their kids through College should go?
Look, we also had 'high youth unemployment' in the late 70's-80's, when the economy was shifting from manufacturing to consumption services. They couldn't build malls or restaurants fast enough to keep all the teenagers employed as cashiers or waitstaff. My friends envied my job as a Sears "gas jerk", before we had self-serve gas stations. (The main reason I got that job was because of 'connections' through my dad at Allstate, and their conglomerate operations.)
It was a hump we cleared, with an uptick in college enrollments and student loans. There was growth in studies like Art History, Cultural Studies, all sorts of liberal arts degrees that turned out to be dead-ends....and the first to vanish with the transition to an information/technology age.
Many people went into the building and construction trades, and related services (that didn't require a college degree), because there was money to be made with the sprawl of consumption. They could have a middle-class lifestyle, raise a family, buy a house and a car, take a vacation. Those were the first jobs to vanish when the housing bubble popped, and the financial crisis turned into The Great Recession.
Efficiency and productivity has its down-sides, and unintended consequences. Jobs replaced by Blackberries, automation, digital innovations, smart phone apps. Jobs outsourced to developing nations who pay labor $2/day, conglomerates eating (and manipulating) costs of energy and transportation/distribution. They still make billions in profits by selling cheap to developed nations. Smart phones and sneakers, fast-food and frivolities.Quote:
I fail to see though how creating unemployment and blocking self-funding through Higher Education helps your goals?
Education is another bubble beginning to burst, especially "Higher Education". University grads got a rude awakening ~ '05, when they couldn't find a job in their field, yet carry five digit educational debts (that can't be discharged in bankruptcy). They're called Boomerangs because they had to move back home with their boomer parents. That includes grads in vaunted STEM fields....who tried to wait out the Great Recession by getting a second degree, a master's or doctorate. Many are still waiting. Some have taken unpaid internships to get their foot in the door, pump their resumes, and get "connections".
Meanwhile, I know a ton of "youth" who haven't even graduated from HS yet, but have started their own cottage industry in computer hacking (and doing home-computer repair, computer security, building websites, etc.) They benefit from open-source education, as do cyber schools. That's a good thing, but it comes with unintended consequences, like direct teaching jobs being lost to attrition.
Do you want fries with that? :donkey:
What can possibly go wrong with having half the male youths out of a job? :noob:
What can possibly go wrong with "47%" of employed adults not paying income taxes, because they're working at poverty wages?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Or not paying income taxes due to ridiculous tax brackets. :noob:
Nice to see you come around to the ridiculousness of using tax bracket breaks to fund public services. :bored:
And using: I have a family of 4 to feed is not an argument for a minimum skill job to get a 'living' wage.Quote:
GGT:Using "youth" employment to pay low minimum wages is a lame justification. I think it's more harmful when adults are displaced from the work force, with long-term unemployment and under-employment.
No its naive to believe it plays no role in the lack of jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
As is also happening in Sssocialist Europe that you seem to admire so much. Over 25% adult unemployment? Job done.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
So you're saying that nobody today uses part time work to pay for higher education?Quote:
Things are different than a decade ago. Using your past experience in today's job environment is like applying old theories in the new economy -- disconnected from reality.
So the answer to you having an issue with efficiency and outsourcing is to make America even less efficient and to make outsourcing far more profitable.Quote:
Efficiency and productivity has its down-sides, and unintended consequences. Jobs replaced by Blackberries, automation, digital innovations, smart phone apps. Jobs outsourced to developing nations who pay labor $2/day, conglomerates eating (and manipulating) costs of energy and transportation/distribution. They still make billions in profits by selling cheap to developed nations. Smart phones and sneakers, fast-food and frivolities.
So higher education is a bad thing and lets just make people unemployed? :bulb:Quote:
Education is another bubble beginning to burst, especially "Higher Education". University grads got a rude awakening ~ '05, when they couldn't find a job in their field, yet carry five digit educational debts (that can't be discharged in bankruptcy). They're called Boomerangs because they had to move back home with their boomer parents. That includes grads in vaunted STEM fields....who tried to wait out the Great Recession by getting a second degree, a master's or doctorate. Many are still waiting. Some have taken unpaid internships to get their foot in the door, pump their resumes, and get "connections".
So people are successful for taking control of their own fate. Yeah I'll be horridly opposed in principle to that. Oh wait, no that's what I believe in.Quote:
Meanwhile, I know a ton of "youth" who haven't even graduated from HS yet, but have started their own cottage industry in computer hacking (and doing home-computer repair, computer security, building websites, etc.) They benefit from open-source education, as do cyber schools. That's a good thing, but it comes with unintended consequences, like direct teaching jobs being lost to attrition.
Do you want fries with that? :donkey:
I'm kind of annoyed at the fact we are arguing the impact of minimum wage when we should be arguing the fact private property owners should be able to make business decisions the way they want. What right does the government have to stifle the freedom of business? Another pathetic example of tyranny of the majority banding against a minority. Even if its better for society to have a minimum wage (its not) societal "good" shouldn't trump liberty.
The United States was founded on the opposite principal, that is why. It wasn't founded to achieve maximum freedom for everyone, but to create "a more perfect union" with liberty as one of the tools in achieving this aim. Regardless, you yourself do not follow your own premise. We jail thieves because the liberty to steal from people is trumped by societal good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You were the one claiming it plays a significant role. So I guess this reply means you have changed your mind?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade