Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

The Progressive Revolution: From Democratic to Liberal to Progressive to Socialist


Muda69

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, Bobref said:

The evidence suggests otherwise.

Yes it does.  Here is more:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/new-york-city’s-15-minimum-wage-now-officially-disaster-71761

Quote

New York City’s $15 minimum wage, which began to take effect Dec. 31, 2018, was meant to bolster earnings and quality of life, but for a lot of residents, it’s doing the opposite.

Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation in 2016 to increase the New York York State’s minimum wage to $15.00/hr. The lowest minimum wage in NY at the time was $9.60. NYC’s “big employers” (11 or more employees) were the first to be forced to increase minimum wage pay toward the end of 2018. The rest of NYC’s smaller-scale businesses won’t have to pay up until December of 2019, according to data on Cuomo’s website.

Cuomo claims to have created the bill with “the needs of workers and businesses alike” in mind, but a lot of business owners in the boroughs beg to differ. They say the extra money comes with an unforeseen cost: higher good prices, fewer working hours and layoffs.

“Many people working in the restaurant industry wanted to work overtime hours, but due to the increase, many restaurants have cut back or totally eliminated any overtime work,” Andrew Riggie, executive director of the New York City Hospitality Alliance, told Fox News. “There’s only so much consumers are willing to pay for a burger or a bowl of pasta.”

Roughly 77 percent of NYC restaurants have slashed employee hours. Thirty-six percent said they had to layoff employees and 90 percent had to increase prices following the minimum wage hike, according to a NYC Hospitality Alliance survey taken just one month after the bill took effect.

Only about 4 percent of survey respondents indicated that none of the above changes took place in their restaurants.

...

So according to logic from the likes of Dante only those 4 percent of survey respondents truly are worthy of staying in business.  If you can't continue to grow your business,  keep prices the same, and keep all your current employees even under these draconian wage hike laws you deserve to fail.

Edited by Muda69
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Yes it does.  Here is more:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/new-york-city’s-15-minimum-wage-now-officially-disaster-71761

So according to logic from the likes of Dante only those 4 percent of survey respondents truly are worthy of staying in business.  If you can't continue to grow your business,  keep prices the same, and keep all your current employees even under these draconian wage hike laws you deserve to fail.

Pretty much.

  • Thanks 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, in Cincinnati: Fifth Third Bancorp to Raise Minimum Hourly Wage to $18

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fifth-third-bancorp-raise-minimum-130000513.html

 

Will this move by this socialistic Company trigger bank failures across America because those firms simply can't compete?

Edited by gonzoron
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Meanwhile, in Cincinnati: Fifth Third Bancorp to Raise Minimum Hourly Wage to $18

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fifth-third-bancorp-raise-minimum-130000513.html

 

Will this move by this socialistic Company trigger bank failures across America because those firms simply can't compete?

If you don’t see the difference between a private employer deciding that its employees, in its specific business, are productive enough to warrant an increase in wages vs. government mandating an across the board wage increase in all employers in all types of businesses, regardless of productivity or profit margin, there’s really no hope for you.

  • Like 2
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bobref said:

If you don’t see the difference between a private employer deciding that its employees, in its specific business, are productive enough to warrant an increase in wages vs. government mandating an across the board wage increase in all employers in all types of businesses, regardless of productivity or profit margin, there’s really no hope for you.

You completely missed my point due to your tunnel vision, but thanks for playing. It's the free market at work, and was a legitimate question. Which you didn't answer. 

Edited by gonzoron
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

You completely missed my point due to your tunnel vision, but thanks for playing. It's the free market at work, and was a legitimate question. Which you didn't answer. 

It may have been “legitimate,” in the sense it was sincere. But I assumed it was sarcastic, given the obviousness of the answer — which was implicit in my previous post. In any event, the answer is “no.”

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, gonzoron said:

Meanwhile, in Cincinnati: Fifth Third Bancorp to Raise Minimum Hourly Wage to $18

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fifth-third-bancorp-raise-minimum-130000513.html

 

Will this move by this socialistic Company trigger bank failures across America because those firms simply can't compete?

If they and other banks do fail due to their own freely chosen policies it will be their own fault, and not the fault of government.   There is a difference, sorry that you no longer can see that.  

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

If they and other banks do fail due to their own freely chosen policies it will be their own fault, and not the fault of government.   There is a difference, sorry that you no longer can see that.  

If the citizens and businesses don’t like it in New York City, they can leave. It’s a local government issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

If the citizens and businesses don’t like it in New York City, they can leave. It’s a local government issue.

True.  And the local government will suffer reduced tax revenues as a result. Again, the fault of bad government policies/laws.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

If the citizens and businesses don’t like it in New York City, they can leave. It’s a local government issue.

This begs the question whether it is a wise policy for local government to enact. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Well, do you or don’t you have an opinion you wish to share?

Yes, in case you missed it:

9 hours ago, gonzoron said:

If the citizens and businesses don’t like it in New York City, they can leave. It’s a local government issue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every Democrat in the Senate Supports a Constitutional Amendment That Would Radically Curtail Freedom of Speech: https://reason.com/2019/08/12/every-democrat-in-the-senate-supports-a-constitutional-amendment-that-would-radically-curtail-freedom-of-speech/

Quote

Every Democrat in the Senate is backing a constitutional amendment that aims to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 decision in which the Supreme Court lifted legal restrictions on what corporations and unions are allowed to say about politics at election time. That would be troubling enough, since Citizens United, which involved a film that was banned from TV because it was too critical of Hillary Clinton, simply recognized that Americans do not lose their First Amendment rights when they organize themselves in a disfavored way. But the so-called Democracy for All Amendment goes much further than nullifying one Supreme Court decision. It would radically rewrite the constitutional treatment of political speech, allowing Congress and state legislatures to impose any restrictions on election-related spending they consider reasonable.

"To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process," Section 1 says, "Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections." By allowing restrictions on money spent by anyone to influence elections, that provision would nullify a principle set forth in the landmark 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo.

...

The rationale for that conclusion is not, as critics often claim, that "money is speech." The point, rather, is that people must spend money to communicate with large numbers of their fellow citizens. Limits on spending therefore restrict their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights. If the government banned computers and smartphones, that would clearly violate the First Amendment—not because computers and smartphones are speech but because they are necessary to participate in online debate.

The Democracy for All Amendment would ditch this understanding of the First Amendment and instead rely on legislators' self-restraint in deciding which limits on spending are "reasonable." Courts reviewing the resulting rules would have precious little guidance in deciding when they went too far.

...

"Every American deserves to have an equal voice at the ballot box, regardless of the size of their bank account," says Sen. Tom Carper (D–Del.), a lead co-sponsor of the amendment. Chris Coons, the other Democratic senator from Delaware, likewise promises that the amendment will "give all Americans an equal voice in our elections."

Carper and Coons are not saying that every American should get an equal vote. They are saying that every American should have an equal influence on the political debate, which is impossible but would seem to require, at the very least, that no one be allowed to spend more on election-related speech than the poorest American can afford. The Supreme Court has explicitly said that such equalization of speech is inconsistent with the First Amendment. As now-Justice Elena Kagan noted in a 1996 law review article, it is well-established that "the government may not restrict the speech of some to enhance the speech of others."

...

Carper describes this license for censorship as "a straightforward constitutional amendment that will restore the health and integrity of our campaign finance system." That's true only if "health and integrity" require muting some voices so that others may be heard. But that goal is plainly at odds with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. While the amendment has zero chance of actually being adopted, the fact that the entire Senate Democratic Caucus thinks it's a fine idea speaks volumes about the party's disregard for those freedoms.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, gonzoron said:

New Study Defending NYC’s Minimum Wage Law is Fake News: https://mises.org/wire/new-study-defending-nyc’s-minimum-wage-law-fake-news

Quote

Last week Business Insider published an article with the eye-opening title “NYC's $15 minimum wage hasn't brought the restaurant apocalypse — it's helped them thrive.”

Given the political momentum for the “Fight for 15” movement, culminating in the House voting in favor of a $15 national minimum wage last month, the article made for perfect social media fodder. Finally, proof that a basic understanding of labor economics is simply – to borrow from the last Democratic debate – another “right wing talking point.”

Unfortunately both the article and, more importantly, the study it is based on do not hold up particularly well upon any sort of serious analysis.

For one, the idea that minimum wage laws have been the key to the success of New York City's food scene is ridiculous on its face. To be fair, the underlying study makes sure to point out that it “does not suggest that New York City’s sharp minimum wage increase caused restaurant employment to soar,” in spite of BI’s headline; the problem, however, is that in doing so it simply dismisses a major issue with the analysis – that the costs of NYC’s minimum law are impossible to measure. After all, the question is what would NYC’s restaurant scene look like if not for the recent minimum wage law increase, not how it looks in comparison to other major cities. It’s a classic situation of the seen and the unseen.

The Data Doesn’t Support the Study’s Conclusions

Understandably, this line of argument is likely to be unpersuasive to someone not already convinced of the folly of minimum wage increases. The real issue with the study is that a deeper look into the numbers paint a far-less rosy picture than any of the authors would like us to believe.

For example, the study looks at the performance of restaurant labor in NYC between 2013 and 2018. The issue here is that New York City’s $15 minimum wage law wasn’t signed until 2016, more than halfway through the analysis.

The details of the law itself are also relevant. The legislation had two different wage increase schedules, based on the size of the business.

For businesses with at least 11 employees:

  • $11.00 per hour on December 31, 2016
  • $13.00 per hour on December 31, 2017
  • $15.00 per hour on December 31, 2018.

For businesses employers with 10 or fewer:

  • $10.50 per hour on December 31, 2016
  • $12.00 per hour on December 31, 2017
  • $13.50 per hour on December 31, 2018
  • $15.00 per hour on December 31, 2019

While the study claims that the data “clearly shows that the large wage floor rise did not diminish various indicators of restaurant performance, including job growth,” their own data shows otherwise.

For example, Figure 1 of the study shows that while there was significant growth in restaurant employment between 2016 and 2017, growth from 2017 and 2018 stagnated to a slower rate than non-restaurants. This would seem to contradict the authors' findings.

nyc wage chart1.png

Further, looking beyond the study, a New York City report found that “In 2018, employment at full-service restaurants fell by 2,700 jobs, the first decline since 2002.”

The limitation of the study also means it could not take into account changes to New York City restaurant employment after the $15 per hour rate kicked in.

As Investor Business Daily noted in February:

In just the last three months of last year, 4,000 workers lost jobs at full-service restaurants, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show.

By the end of last year, there were fewer restaurant workers in the city than in November 2016. Even though overall employment climbed by more than 163,000.

It went on to project further job losses based on industry survey data:

New York City Hospitality Alliance survey found that 47% of full-service restaurants expect to cut jobs this year to cope with the latest wage hike. Last year, 36% said they'd eliminated jobs. The picture is worse at limited-service restaurants. The survey found half reported cutting jobs last year. And 53% say they'll do so this year.

As AEI's Mark Perry noted, "it usually takes an economic recession to cause year-over-year job losses at NYC's full-service restaurants."

nyc-minimum-wage-recession-768x564.jpg

In related news, we’ve seen significant growth in automation in cities like New York, in part due to the increasing cost of labor. Once again we see policies passed in the name of helping workers end up just benefiting businesses that can afford the upfront cost of automation, explaining decisions like Amazon’s recent expansion of their cashier-less grocery stores.

....

Minimum Wage and Youth Unemployment

Lastly, left entirely unaddressed in the study is any attempt to measure the costs of minimum wage increases on those most vulnerable to its effects, such as young workers without resumes, and those who are re-entering the workforce. As politicians arbitrarily increase the minimum wage, these are the workers at greatest risk of being priced out of the market. As such, we’d expect to see higher unemployment rates for these workers.

The data suggests that this is precisely what we see. 

In July, national youth unemployment (16-24 year olds) was at 8.5%.

The most recent data I can find for New York City youth unemployment is from 2017, showing the city unemployment rate for 20-24 year-olds was at almost 16%. To try to get a better comparison, national youth unemployment in 2017 averaged at 9.3%. Still, the NYC data’s focus on 20-24 year-olds means that a true apples-for-apples comparison of 16-24 year-olds would likely result in a much higher unemployment rate given that, nationally, the unemployment rate for 16-19 year-olds is substantially higher than their (relative) elders.

While the disproportionally high NYC youth unemployment rates may not be entirely driven by minimum wage laws, basic economic analysis would suggest it plays a significant role in what the Brookings Institute has described as a looming “urban youth unemployment crisis.” Naturally, cities are responding not by ending their intervention in labor markets, but by creating new government programs.

With that, a new opportunity for a bad economic study has been created.

 

  • Disdain 1
  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Kids are supposed to be in school.

24/7?   I have a sixteen year old nephew who recently got a job at a local restaurant working something like 20 hours week, mostly after school.   It's decent experience for him in the 'real world'  and puts some spending money in this pocket.

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

24/7?   I have a sixteen year old nephew who recently got a job at a local restaurant working something like 20 hours week, mostly after school.   It's decent experience for him in the 'real world'  and puts some spending money in this pocket.

Cute anecdote; but it’s not data. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...