The unimportant news thread

[Ken B]

Indeed, as more people move online, the long-evolved conventions of spoken language and the rituals of public civility are being challenged as never before.

Twitter brings out the worst in people. Who needs it? That's what we have The Diner for.

[Ken B]

Natural, spiritual, organic. But will it work?
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Jharkhand-Shocker-Man-Beheaded-for-Better-Rains/2015/06/02/article2845459.ece

[Todd]

It is hard for me to be surprised by just how petty some people in a position of power can be, but this is one of those times.

[Todd]

The ink isn't even dry on all copies of the USA Freedom Act yet . . .

[Ken B]

Another confirmation-bias fetish object starts to fall apart. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121958/sociologist-alice-goffman-denies-murder-conspiracy-run

[Karl Henning]

Another confirmation-bias fetish object starts to fall apart. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121958/sociologist-alice-goffman-denies-murder-conspiracy-run

Ambivalence, by the way, is not a legal defense to conspiracy.

Damn, damn, damn.

[Ken B]

I bet your childhood was not like this. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3110801/What-children-seen-ISIS-beheads-Libyan-soldier-outside-mosque-education-purposes-youngsters-don-t-shocked.html

[Karl Henning]

We scarcely ever beheaded anyone for apostasy in those days.

[Ken B]

We scarcely ever beheaded anyone for apostasy in those days.

Boston always was lax.

[Todd]

I feel safer.

[Todd]

And you thought Comcast service was bad.

[Wendell_E]

$15/hr... sure, let's not make it reasonable like $10/hr, let's just double it overnight. Great plan. 

Not overnight:

Under the ordinance, the city minimum wage would increase to $10.50 per hour in July 2016 for businesses with 26 or more employees, with a one-year delay for smaller businesses. By 2016, the state minimum wage will have risen to $10 per hour.

The wage would then go up to $12 an hour by July 2017, $13.25 per hour by July 2018, $14.25 per hour by July 2019 and ultimately to $15 by July 2020.

http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20150610/15-minimum-wage-for-los-angeles-set-to-pass-city-council-today

[Ken B]

Not overnight:

http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20150610/15-minimum-wage-for-los-angeles-set-to-pass-city-council-today

Not doing it overnight does suggest doesn't it that the advocates understand there will be ill effects? Otherwise why not all at once? If not now, when as they say. And IMO is also suggests that they want to spread the harm out so it is less noticed.

[Wendell_E]

Not doing it overnight does suggest doesn't it that the advocates understand there will be ill effects?

It suggests there might be ill effects to doing it overnight.

[Todd]

I love minimum wage politics.  Liberals feel good, winning one for the little guy and addressing inequality.  Conservatives rail against the impact to small business.  Both sides have a campaign issue to rile up the base. 

Another thing I love is studies.  On the one hand, it will significantly improve the lives of minimum wage earners.  On the other hand, it might not.  Choose the study you like, and go with that.

For those interested in dealing with poverty and inequality, the minimum wage is not the best policy on which to focus legislative energies. 

And what happens as more unskilled jobs are automated away?

[ibanezmonster]

Not overnight:

http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20150610/15-minimum-wage-for-los-angeles-set-to-pass-city-council-today

That's a better strategy. It makes sense to be tied to inflation/cost of living somehow, although that seems to be only a prediction.

And what happens as more unskilled jobs are automated away?

Socialism?
That's the end result of capitalism and cutting costs, right?

[Todd]

Socialism?

That's the Marxist conclusion, and the Schumpeterian conclusion.  But that is only one possible outcome. 

[ibanezmonster]

That's the Marxist conclusion, and the Schumpeterian conclusion.  But that is only one possible outcome.

Hm, so what do you think are other possible results?

So if eventually all the fast food restaurants (for example) are replaced by robots (to even be competitive in the first place), there's the possibility of a large percentage of people being on welfare (not just as a supplement to income, but their entire income) because there aren't enough jobs... and then there is the possibility (which wouldn't happen in this country) that welfare is denied and mass amounts of people just starve to death.

Or the government could make excessive automation (like using robots) illegal for businesses, because you know they would start using them once they become more profitable, and it would lead to a chain reaction that would hurt the economy greatly.

In other words... $7-8/hour is just not enough to live on for nearly anyone, full time. So a lot of people supplement that with welfare/food stamps/whatever. If employees use robots because it's better than the eventual high minimum wage, they will just replace the employee with a robot and that person will have all of their income from the government, which could stress the system too much.

[Todd]

Hm, so what do you think are other possible results?

For the US, probably just tweaks to the current system involving more income redistribution and a more progressive tax structure.  It will take a long time, and the changes won't be monumental.  If an additional 2% of GDP is requisitioned by government and redistributed, that amounts to over $300 billion a year, for instance. 

[Ken B]

It suggests there might be ill effects to doing it overnight.

Boiling a frog slowly still boils the frog, no? Or more plainly: can you frame a coherent economic argument that shows the consequences of a minimum wage hike do not materialize if the hike is phased in? And if so, why not a hike to $40?