Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#2202 Nov 03 2015 at 12:34 PM Rating: Good
***
2,188 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
God ****. I had just come here to post that exact thing. I still have the link on my clipboard arrgh.
Well, you know what they say, you've gotta get up pretty early in the morning in order to get out of bed. Smiley: nod

____________________________
"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering, April 1946.
#2203 Nov 03 2015 at 9:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I had this nutty idea years ago that minimum wage should be tagged to cost of living increases like Social Security, etc.

I mentioned this to some folks at work recently (people who are largely GOP, btw) and their response was basically "Yeah, they should have. But making an adjustment now would be bad for the economy because inflation".

That Kool-Aid works, sadly.


Cross thread shenanigans, of course, but while reading some source on minimum wage, I came cross one (darn if I'm going to go look it up again), pointing out that back when the minimum wage was first established, it was the adjusted equivalent of like $4.50 or so in today's dollars. It was never intended to be a "living wage" (or anything close to it). Even at its height (somewhere in the 70s IIRC), it was only slightly higher in adjusted dollars than today. Again, the problem isn't that minimum wage doesn't pay enough, or hasn't kept up with inflation, but that there are too many people struggling to break out of the minimum wage gravity well. And that's a completely different set of problems that require a bit more work than a bumper sticker slogan like "fight for $15" or whatever is being used to rally people on the issue.

Ok. Enough with that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2204 Nov 04 2015 at 12:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Actually, it's a very real issue that minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation. In 1938, it was 25¢ and hour. Today it's $7.25 for a $7/hr increase. But, adjusted for inflation, it was $4.20/hr in 1938 meaning that the "real" increase has been $3.05 over the past 77 years.

At its height, it was (adjusted) $10.86/hr -- a fair bit higher than the current $7.25 mandate and, in fact, $10.10 has been a common "target" for advocates looking to raise the wage.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2205 Nov 04 2015 at 9:11 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Cross thread shenanigans, of course, but while reading some source on minimum wage, I came cross one (darn if I'm going to go look it up again),
So by read you mean "Completely fabricated and hope it sounds credible enough."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2207 Nov 04 2015 at 9:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Also, who cares what it was intended to do in 1938? In 1938, it was a step towards giving workers any rights at all and was passed during the Great Depression. More of the weird conservative obsession with clinging to stuff from decades or centuries ago as unchangeable or something. Is the specter of FDR going to rise from its grave and haunt us if we use his law as the basis for providing workers with a livable wage?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2208 Nov 04 2015 at 9:41 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Also, who cares what it was intended to do in 1938?
The political Amish!

"Anything before this era in time doesn't count, and anything after isn't as good so should be shunned."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2209 Nov 04 2015 at 8:03 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Actually, it's a very real issue that minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation. In 1938, it was 25¢ and hour. Today it's $7.25 for a $7/hr increase. But, adjusted for inflation, it was $4.20/hr in 1938 meaning that the "real" increase has been $3.05 over the past 77 years.


Ok. The way you wrote that is extremely misleading. The minimum wage in 1938 was the equivalent to a minimum wage of $4.20/hour today. The point being that not only has minimum wage kept up with inflation relative to its starting purchasing value, but it's in fact 72% higher than what it would be if we'd simply pegged it to inflation rates back in 1938. So those who argue for tying minimum wage to inflation should be arguing for a decease in minimum wage to $4.20/hour, not an increase.

Quote:
At its height, it was (adjusted) $10.86/hr -- a fair bit higher than the current $7.25 mandate and, in fact, $10.10 has been a common "target" for advocates looking to raise the wage.


Sure. If we want to arbitrarily pick the period when it had the highest relative value. But the point is that if we'd done as the "adjust to inflation" people want, we'd never had had that high point to begin with. Deciding to pick that highest value and adjust for inflation from there is spurious. You could randomly pick any time and start there, right? Why pick the highest one? Why not the lowest? Why not an average level?

And that's before pointing out that using the 70s as a benchmark for economic valuation is probably a really bad idea. One might even suggest that said time period perhaps should serve as a strong (or at least a decent) argument for *not* raising the minimum wage. It's just one data point, but we have an example where high relative minimum wage was directly correlated to one of the worst periods economically speaking in the US (post great depression at least). I find it ironic that now when we're in another poor spot, the same "let's raise the minimum wage" argument rears it's ugly head, as though we didn't learn our lesson the last time.

You can dismiss this as unrelated correlation, but given that sluggish job markets and high inflation are two of the downsides opponents to a high minimum wage argue about, maybe it's not something we should just ignore. I think we've gotten accustomed to certain economic realities that have existed since the 80s on, and forget that at least some of the reason we assume these are "normal" is because we changed economic approach after the disaster that was the 70s. It just seems like some people really really want to try to recreate those crappy economic conditions, and pegging minimum wage to the rate we had back then is just one more way to accomplish that.

So yeah. Bad idea. Bad point in time to peg the wage to. Why not aim for good economic times, and not bad?

Edited, Nov 4th 2015 6:19pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2210 Nov 04 2015 at 8:15 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Also, who cares what it was intended to do in 1938? In 1938, it was a step towards giving workers any rights at all and was passed during the Great Depression. More of the weird conservative obsession with clinging to stuff from decades or centuries ago as unchangeable or something. Is the specter of FDR going to rise from its grave and haunt us if we use his law as the basis for providing workers with a livable wage?


Except my point was to show that had we pegged it to inflation back then, we'd have a lower minimum wage today. Pegging it to inflation is based on the assumption that the economic realities never change over time. I was simply pointing out the irony that this was being leveled at me, and not those arguing for such a thing. I think we shouldn't have one at all. But that's a whole different argument. I was merely responding to the idea of just automatically adjusting it to inflation. It would not work, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2211 Nov 04 2015 at 8:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Also, who cares what it was intended to do in 1938?
The political Amish!

"Anything before this era in time doesn't count, and anything after isn't as good so should be shunned."


So let's pick another arbitrary point in the past and pretend things must be today as they were then? And of all the time periods to pick, we pick the 70s? Really?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2212 Nov 04 2015 at 9:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Except my point was to show that had we pegged it to inflation back then, we'd have a lower minimum wage today.

Which is probably why the one fellow was advocating pegging it to median full-time wages, not to inflation.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2213 Nov 05 2015 at 4:53 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
but given that sluggish job markets and high inflation are two of the downsides opponents to a high minimum wage argue about,
Said opponents being powerful advocates for trickle-down economics and claiming that low taxes for the wealthy guarantee new jobs, no doubt...Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#2214 Nov 05 2015 at 8:33 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Really?
You're the one that arbitrarily picked the era, Ezekiel. Your own fault it disproved your fanfiction.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2215 Nov 05 2015 at 8:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji was also the first person to mention the 70s:
gbaji previously wrote:
Even at its height (somewhere in the 70s IIRC), it was only slightly higher in adjusted dollars than today.

This was the comment that I was referring to when I noted that, at its 1968 height, it was actually $10.86 in adjusted dollars -- a good bit more than "slightly" over $7.25 (approximately 50% higher). But that's not a good narrative for him so now it's everyone else's fault for mentioning it. Of course, 1968 also wasn't in the 70s anyway so no one is picking that era except for him.

Edited, Nov 5th 2015 8:57am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2216 Nov 05 2015 at 4:40 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji was also the first person to mention the 70s:
gbaji previously wrote:
Even at its height (somewhere in the 70s IIRC), it was only slightly higher in adjusted dollars than today.

Clearly he meant the 1870s Smiley: schooled
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#2217 Nov 05 2015 at 5:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except my point was to show that had we pegged it to inflation back then, we'd have a lower minimum wage today.

Which is probably why the one fellow was advocating pegging it to median full-time wages, not to inflation.


Um... Ok. So he wasn't saying anything that contradicted what I was saying then, right? I was saying first that raising it to a "living wage" was a bad thing. He agrees. I further stated that pegging minimum wage to inflation was a bad idea. Apparently, he also agrees (or at least proposes something different). So... what was your point in bringing him up again?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2218 Nov 05 2015 at 6:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji was also the first person to mention the 70s:
gbaji previously wrote:
Even at its height (somewhere in the 70s IIRC), it was only slightly higher in adjusted dollars than today.

This was the comment that I was referring to when I noted that, at its 1968 height, it was actually $10.86 in adjusted dollars -- a good bit more than "slightly" over $7.25 (approximately 50% higher). But that's not a good narrative for him so now it's everyone else's fault for mentioning it. Of course, 1968 also wasn't in the 70s anyway so no one is picking that era except for him.


I love how you ignore the actual argument I'm making and zero right in on some factual inaccuracies in a post I made where I said I was just going on vague memory of some stuff I'd read over the previous couple days and didn't feel like going back and finding said info again. Wow. What a burn on me! Not.

Back on track though, $10.86 is also not a living wage, right? So once again, you're nit picking irrelevancies, while ignoring the core issue at hand. Even at it's adjusted height minimum wage did not meet anything we'd call a living wage. Because... wait for it... minimum wage is not intended to be sufficient to support a household on. It wasn't when it was created. It wasn't in 1968. It isn't today. So, as I have stated repeatedly, arguing for an increase in minimum wage because it's not high enough to support oneself is a complete nonstarter.

If you think we should raise the minimum wage anyway, then you need to make an argument that does not revolve on the needs of people to support themselves at that wage level. I'm still waiting for someone to present an argument the even comes remotely close to that criteria.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2219 Nov 05 2015 at 7:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I love how you ignore the actual argument I'm making and zero right in on some factual inaccuracies in a post I made where I said I was just going on vague memory of some stuff I'd read over the previous couple days and didn't feel like going back and finding said info again.

You know there's a way to avoid that, right? It's called "knowing something and having some facts correct before you start lecturing people".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2220 Nov 06 2015 at 8:33 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
NAPA, Calif. (AP) wrote:
A California man went to an emergency room with a terrible headache and nausea, slipped into a coma, and was told a tapeworm larva had been living in his brain when he woke up.

College student Luis Ortiz, 26, of Napa said doctors told him he needed immediate surgery to remove it.

"I was shocked," Ortiz said. "I just couldn't believe something like that would happen to me. I didn't know there was a parasite in my head trying to ruin my life."

The surgery and the aftermath have greatly impacted his life, Ortiz said. He had to drop out of school, move back home and find a temporary place for his dog. He can't drive or work.

"My memory is like a work in progress," he said. "It gets better from therapy," but he has to remind himself to do his memory exercises and other daily tasks.

Ortiz's neurosurgeon, Dr. Soren Singel, said Ortiz was lucky he arrived at the hospital when he did.

The worm was forming in a cyst that was blocking the flow of water to chambers in his brain, "like a cork in a bottle," Singel told the Napa Valley Register (http://bit.ly/1RQzfHc ).

Another 30 minutes of that blockage, and "he would have been dead," Singel said. "It was a close call."

Ortiz said his headaches began in late August and he didn't think much of it at first.

"I just ignored it," said Ortiz, who was attending California State University, Sacramento.

During the first days of September, Ortiz had been skateboarding on a warm day when the pain increased. When he arrived at his mother's house, he appeared disoriented and began to vomit. She rushed him to the hospital.

Singel said such parasitic worms in a body aren't too uncommon. The problem occasionally occurs if people eat pork infected with worms, he said.

But that could cause an intestinal parasite, not the brain cyst that Ortiz had.

Tapeworm eggs likely made it into Ortiz's intestine from something else he ate and eventually the single larva made it into his brain, Singel said.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said infection from pork tapeworms is a problem worldwide and is spread most easily in developing communities where pigs have access to human waste and where hygiene and sanitation are poor.

Tapeworm larvae can cause cysts in the body and are common enough that the World Health Organization calls the problem the most frequent preventable cause of epilepsy worldwide.

People can help prevent contamination by proper washing of hands, washing and peeling raw fruits and vegetables before eating, and being careful about drinking only safe water while traveling.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2221 Nov 06 2015 at 2:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
::spends the next two and a half hours reading about tape worms and how to get rid of them::

From what I've read so far, I'm pretty sure I've had them before. I had no idea what that strange spaghetti-like substance was before today. That was more than a decade ago. I wonder if they're still there Smiley: eek
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#2222 Nov 06 2015 at 3:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I used to have tape worms until I swallowed a bunch of Brazilian death spiders to get rid of 'em. As an aside, anyone know what eats Brazilian death spiders? Asking for a friend.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2223 Nov 06 2015 at 3:12 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I read what I believe to be a medical book, but I can't be darned to look it up now, that said your friend needs to swallow a bird to cure that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2224 Nov 06 2015 at 3:34 PM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I used to have tape worms until I swallowed a bunch of Brazilian death spiders to get rid of 'em. As an aside, anyone know what eats Brazilian death spiders? Asking for a friend.


The Candiru should clean them out of your system.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#2225 Nov 07 2015 at 12:04 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I used to have tape worms until I swallowed a bunch of Brazilian death spiders to get rid of 'em. As an aside, anyone know what eats Brazilian death spiders? Asking for a friend.
Don't kill them. Wait until you're older and need viagra, then get them to bite you from the inside. Instant 4 hour erection.
#2226 Nov 07 2015 at 9:42 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
I'd try Australian death spiders.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 347 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (347)