Skip to main content

View Diary: A Conservative Argument for Raising the Minimum Wage (108 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I would take you more seriously if you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wisper

    had some support for your positions.  

    First, your diary assumes that a $15 minimum wage surrounded by essentially today's economics in other areas.  That means an immediate -- or almost immediate -- increase to $15.  If you were arguing for a increase to $15 over the next 10 years, then the rest of your assumptions would be invalid.

    Second, quoting just this:

    "the measured employment effects are so consistently small".  
    as if it refutes what I say shows a decisive lack of analytic thinking.  The measured employment effects OF WHAT? That is the question.   What CAUSES those small employment effects?  "The measured effects of A MODEST INCREASE in the minimum wage" is what that phrase refers to.  In other words, just as I said, a MODEST increase in the minimum wage has "consistently small" effects on unemployment.  That conclusion does not, in any way, shape, or form apply to a DOUBLING of the minimum wage.  Please show me one study -- just one -- that shows that a DOUBLING of the minimum wage, done in the short term (when there is no accompanying inflation to justify it) has "small effects" on unemployment.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.  

    Third, you are not negotiating a settlement here.  You are making what is supposed to be a fact-based argument for a policy decision.  I simply pointed out that your supposed fact-based argument for a doubling of the minimum wage is not based on facts, but is based on fantasy, and is not supported by any serious economic study.  Studies support a "modest" increase, not a doubling.

    Finally, this:  

    Then again, since you've never found a progressive position that you agree with, I'd have been shocked to find you agreeing with a significant increase in the minimum wage.
    What I said -- a modest increase in the minimum wage would have small effects on employment, and that the minimum wage needs to increase -- is in complete accord with the position of the Democrats in Congress and the President.  I don't care at all that you find it unacceptable or not "progressive" enough.  If "progressive" means "not in any way connected to empirical data or basic economics," then I'm not a progressive.    

    What I said is that the diary is "unrealistic" -- which it is, in assuming that you can double the minimum wage in the short term (assuming all of today's other economics) with no adverse effect on unemployment -- and "unhelpful" -- which any diary arguing for a policy position that has such obvious holes in the logic clearly is.

    If you want an increase in the minimum wage -- something I agree is necessary -- you are better off spending time advocating realistic goals based on obvious facts.  This diary -- based on clearly erroneous assumptions -- does not convince any one who is not already on the extreme partisan left that the minimum wage should be doubled.  And, by making such transparently flawed arguments, it does not help the cause of a realistic increase in the minimum wage, which should be the goal here.  

    •  Fortunately, I wouldn't take you seriously (9+ / 0-)

      under any circumstances.

      First, the numbers I used were EXAMPLES (you might have heard of those before?) to show the argument.  Nowhere did I say it should be raised to $15 an hour; I said I used that because I can't imagine anyone having any financial security with less.  But where the amount should be is open for argument.  Second, what the hell would I use but today's situation?  Do you think I should have guessed what the situation will be in 10 years and then used that guess as the basis of my example?  

      This was not intended to be "realistic" in all details.  It was intended to establish the very realistic fact that right now taxpayers are subsidizing the too low  minimum wage.  However, since you don't want to discuss this theory any more than you want to discuss the ACTUAL finding of the study you cite, you try to pick apart silly aspects and essentially change the subject.  Look, there's a really shiny thing over there!"  Sorry, I'm not buying.  The fact of the matter is that the government IS subsidizing a much too low minimum wage right now and that means every person who pays taxes is doing so as well.  You ARE contributing to the purchase of a Big Mac regardless of whether you're buying one.  Since you can't argue with that fact, you go for the low hanging fruit and try and pick it apart by creating your own strawmen.  

      Yes, unfortunately you are in accord with too many of the Democrats in Congress.  Not, however, with the President who supports increasing the minimum wage.  And more and more of the Democrats in Congress are beginning to agree.  In this diary, I merely discussed another angle that could help get more of them, and even some Republicans, to agree as well.

    •  I think you're taking the point too literally. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gustynpip

      The argument is more poignant at the extreme of $15, but the same argument is true for any increase.

      END.

      "Jersey_Boy" was taken.

      by New Jersey Boy on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 06:56:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (169)
  • Community (68)
  • Civil Rights (44)
  • Baltimore (42)
  • Elections (35)
  • Culture (35)
  • Bernie Sanders (34)
  • Economy (31)
  • Texas (29)
  • Law (27)
  • Environment (26)
  • Labor (25)
  • 2016 (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (21)
  • Education (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Freddie Gray (20)
  • Health Care (20)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Racism (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site