Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[visionary]

26 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I'm only on page 2 of the PBS/Marist poll, but it has some interesting stuff.  

 

If you subscribe to the concept that the coming elections will be won in the suburbs, the poll has support for Trump like this:

 

Small city/Suburban men - 49% approve/48% disapprove. (+1)

Small city/Suburban men - 33% approve/62% disapprove. (-29)

 

Given that more women are going to vote than men, this looks bad from Trump.  

Should the second row be women?

[thegreaterbuzzette]

man, you take a long weekend off to sell your house and come back to 10+ pages of great convo. Meanwhile @TheGreatBuzz sits around eating pizza and walking the dog. 🙂

 

On 7/19/2019 at 10:09 AM, PeterMP said:

 

I voted for Hillary and will absolutely vote for an Democrat in 2020.  But...

 

At some level, Trump's actual policies (ignore his language and tweets) are less of a change from the status quo (even globally) than what at least the far left wing of the Democratic party wants to enact.

 

We have laws in place for the border.  Trump is just trying to enforce them (the execution is bad).  Most countries don't let people just randomly come over their border.  I don't think there is a western country that has the same issue with the border that we do.  The last 30 years now has been a slow tilt in this country towards the wealthy and corporations.  Trump is just continued that slow tilt.

 

The courts and environmental regulations are the places where you could argue that Trump is massively and drastically pushing things to an extreme, though most people won't see/feel the effects of that for years.

 

On the other hand, the left Democrats at least are calling for relatively rapid extreme pushes to the left globally:

 

For example, Sanders talks about nationalized healthcare that covers everything (including prescription drugs) without co-pays or a deductible.  I don't think there's a non-communist/dictatorship (e.g. Cuba) in the world that does that.  In a country like Canada, individuals do have some out of pocket health care costs.

 

On healthcare, what Sanders has proposed is globally far left.

 

You have a similar issue with free college.  The countries that have free college tend to have very rigorous admission standards where you are shunted into a college or not college tract pretty early.

 

In Germany, for people 28-34 years old only 28% of the population has a college degree.  In the US that same number is 43%.

 

Nationally, paying for free college for 28% of the population that have been demonstrating for years before college they are high academic achievers is one thing.

 

Paying for free college for 43% of the country is another thing. (and really given how things work now unless we go to a German like system that number is likely going to go up i.e. if college is free there will people that don't currently go that will start going unless you restric them from going).

 

Coupling our current academic/college admission system (where lots of people have the chance to go to college, including people that were bad students in high school) with a German system of free college is globally far left.

 

And I don't think there is another country that is doing it.

 

(And if AOC plans to couple free college with some overhaul of the system to limit who goes to college she hasn't talked about it.)

Exactly, do people realize what they save in student loan or health care premiums will instead come out in their taxes?

 

On 7/19/2019 at 10:26 AM, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Sanders is not a Democrat.  What your post did was compare the middle ground of the GOP to the extreme left flank of the Democrats.  

So same arguement - Trump is not GOP?!

 

On 7/19/2019 at 11:25 AM, TheGreatBuzz said:

 I liken it to the old saying about gay marriage; "why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry?  They deserve the right to be just as unhappy as everyone else." 

Wait a minute.....

 

 

On 7/19/2019 at 12:46 PM, tshile said:

 

I get that.

 

But is a 15/20$ minimum wage a 'right to a living wage'?

 

The left loves to declare something a right to make it something everyone must have, then call people names if they disagree (because we must hate <insert class/race of people> because there's no other reason someone might not agree that something is a right and therefor must be done immediately.)

 

Don't forget that $15/20 an hour will be taxed to the point that take home pay is MAYBE pennies above what they net today. 

 

On 7/19/2019 at 1:14 PM, Jumbo said:

i'd like to point out  that buzzz keeps his cool better than just about anyone here, gets attacked too often inappropriately but not in mean or real a-hole way or there'd be penalties, but i'm looking for abuse and buzz is tough and well-tempered  (i await potential correction from buzzette)

 

One of his better traits. 

 

On 7/19/2019 at 1:14 PM, Jumbo said:

because there are , of course, tens of millions of decent worthy people who will still identify as republicans,, i'd prefer to see them work their party out of this and their ugly contingent rather than see their party's "destruction" as my take is we do much better with a dynamic struggle between classic (say last 100 years more or less) conservatives-middle of the roadsters--liberals versus one party or the other getting to completely indulge itself

On another thred we were told people like us are few and far between. That swing voters dont actually exists. Believe this is why people keep trying to tell @TheGreatBuzz that he will end up voting for trump in 2020. 

 

On 7/20/2019 at 11:18 AM, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I think all the people who want to destroy each other should just agree to meet up somewhere and get on with it. I’d just as soon get it out of the way so I can focus on enjoying the preseason.

Believe the plan is already in motion at Area 51.

 

On 7/22/2019 at 2:04 PM, No Excuses said:

Pretty interesting poll on where the public stands on policy issues:

 

 

Positions of center-left candidates are far more popular than positions of either the right wing or progressive left.

Follow up question - are you still in favor of all of these collectively if your tax liability triples? Make the people taking the poll have to vote what programs to remove to get the money needed to implement these.

 

9 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Have you ever had  a real conversation with somebody on the far right?

 

I actually think I'm pretty moderate on guns (and I think polls back that up), but I think using similar (not the same or equal) logic that you have @TheGreatBuzz would make an equal argument for me being apathetic towards gun rights and certainly any Democratic Presidential candidate.

 

He thinks gun rights are under assault NOW, not just from the far left or possibly some time in the future (he wants a federal conceal carry permit, which no Democratic Presidential candidate would support and every Democratic Presidential candidate is going to support further restrictions on guns).

 

40+% of women showed up to vote for Trump and against the first major female Presidential candidate ever.  Yet you are suggesting they are apathetic about women's issues.  Doesn't suggesting that 40+% of the female voting population (and really, plus the ones that could have voted and didn't) are apathetic to women's autonomy give you pause?

 

Conservative Christians will tell you that religious diversity (their religious diversity) is under attack now (because of protections to LGBTQ).

 

Many people will tell you that our democratic institutions have been under attack for decades (because of the federal bureaucracy and the courts (e.g.  Roe v. Wade and may of the actions of the EPA are actually an attack on our democratic institutions).

 

(And I think the EPA and the Supreme Court over the last ~60 years have done a lot of good and more good than bad, and I think a lot of time and a lot of people on the right are intellectually dishonest because they'll scream state rights on one issue and completely chop the states off at the knees on another.  But I'm also not sure that way some of the things were done were really for the best in the long term.)

 

Yes, many would agree that Trump is an attack on our democratic institutions, but he's also pushing back against decades long attack on our democratic institutions on another front.  That will be continued by any of the Democratic Presidential candidates.

 

They don't see a better option, and they'll live with Trump as a short term push against the longer term attack.

 

(twa posts a lot of garbage.   IMO, in the last year or so he is posting more and more garbage (from garbage web sites).  But when he posts something that actually represents what he thinks (not just a link with a drive by statement or a drive by statement), I'd suggest you try to read it carefully and consider that's somebody realsopinion (I don't think he's a Russian plant or a bot (he's been here too long for that)-, and there are a reasonable number of people out there (~45%) that think that way and will likely vote for Trump.  It is easy to dismiss twa as whatever, but for about 45% of the voting public, that's what you are dealing with.)

 

More generally, I'd say this country has (almost, I mean we had GW at the start and a few cases like FDR along the way) always been push and pull.  It has (almost) always been adversarial in nature.  We move forward in fits and starts as we fight with each other.

Yes this is anecdotal, but it happened.

As I walked into 2018 mid-terms a husband walking in front of me with wife "you remember who I told you to vote for right?"

 

Made me sick to my stomach on so many levels.

[Larry]

3 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Don't forget that $15/20 an hour will be taxed to the point that take home pay is MAYBE pennies above what they net today. 

 

That's all right.  You don't need any support whatsoever to throw out that claim.  

[thegreaterbuzzette]

8 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

That's all right.  You don't need any support whatsoever to throw out that claim.  

I work for the largest payroll/hr outsourcing firm in the world. So there's that knowledge. 

 

Let me expand, in haste to get that out after reading 10 pages. "Taxed" should read inflation, tax, healthcare premiums, minimized hours/lay offs/etc

[Momma There Goes That Man]

3 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

I work for the largest payroll/hr outsourcing firm in the world. So there's that knowledge. 

 

So you should have no problem showing the math on this? 

[twa]

You could use Bernie, increased the wage and cut hrs for staff. 

[thegreaterbuzzette]

11 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

So you should have no problem showing the math on this? 

 

22 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

That's all right.  You don't need any support whatsoever to throw out that claim.  

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55410 makes some great points. 

 

Quote

The $15 option would affect family income in a variety of ways. In CBO’s estimation, it would:

• Boost workers’ earnings through higher wages, though some of those higher earnings would be offset by higher rates of joblessness;
• Reduce business income and raise prices as higher labor costs were absorbed by business owners and then passed on to consumers; and
• Reduce the nation’s output slightly through the reduction in employment and a corresponding decline in the nation’s stock of capital (such as buildings, machines, and technologies).

On the basis of those effects and CBO’s estimate of the median effect on employment, the $15 option would reduce total real (inflation-adjusted) family income in 2025 by $9 billion, or 0.1 percent.

 

[Larry]

7 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

 

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55410 makes some great points. 

 

 

 

Curiously, I don't see "taxed to the point that take home pay is MAYBE pennies above what they net today" listed in your quote.  In fact, the only hard prediction I see in your quote is an assertion that the total impact (on everybody, not just minimum wage earners) will be zero.  

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

50 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

So same arguement - Trump is not GOP?!

Yeah, he is. Trump is not Republican. The GOP is not Republican. Neither are they conservative.

[thegreaterbuzzette]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Curiously, I don't see "taxed to the point that take home pay is MAYBE pennies above what they net today" listed in your quote.  In fact, the only hard prediction I see in your quote is an assertion that the total impact (on everybody, not just minimum wage earners) will be zero.  

 

I expanded on my initial haste comment what I meant by taxed. Meant more the overall net to net.

 

Which is exactly what "reduce total real (inflation-adjusted) family income in 2025 by $9 billion, or 0.1 percent."

 

it is indicating that raising of min wage would result in no true "gained wealth" as other items within economics would increase in parallel. 

 

other than what politicians are telling you - what is your background in micro/macro economics and studying of corporate financial docs?

[The Evil Genius]

So how has increasing the minimum wage above the current Federal minimum worked at the micro level (eg at the state level)? Seems like there would be a lot of hard data on that since at least 29 states (plus DC) pay above it.

 

I'm guessing the effect isn't negative...

 

Edit...the world's 5th largest economy pays $12 an hour minimum wage right now and will hit $15 an hour by 2022. Wonder if that rate will tank the California economy?

[PleaseBlitz]

43 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

I work for the largest payroll/hr outsourcing firm in the world. So there's that knowledge. 

 

 

Are you in the economics department?

[TradeTheBeal!]

The cbo makes it fairly clear that raising the minimum wage would result in substantial real income increases for the lower class (+5% or so) while having almost zero effect on real income for larger wage earners (-.1%).  Which, of course, is it’s intent.  Also basically the intent of every raising of the minimum wage since it was instituted.

 

So just to be clear to all the payroll/accounting wizards in our midst...raising the minimum wage is not done to increase the real income of people with wages 4-25 times greater than poverty level.  

 

The more you know...

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

I expanded on my initial haste comment what I meant by taxed. Meant more the overall net to net.

 

Which is exactly what "reduce total real (inflation-adjusted) family income in 2025 by $9 billion, or 0.1 percent."

 

it is indicating that raising of min wage would result in no true "gained wealth" as other items within economics would increase in parallel. 

 

So your point now is that well, if you change the claim from "taxed" to "all assorted economic factors", and change the demographic being examined from minimum wage employees to all workers, then your claim seems to hold up.  

 

For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with the new claim.  Just my gut feeling, but I think the economic impact of such a move is impossible to predict accurately.  (But then, I don't put a lot of faith in anybody's economic predictions, for that matter.  Too many variables.)

 

I think it's obvious that an increase like that would be inflationary.  I think it's equally obvious that said inflation will not wipe out all of the gains (for the minimum-wage crowd).  But it might well wipe out all of the gains for the work force as a whole.  I'm certainly not going to argue with it.  

 

I think it's obvious that it will reduce employment, some.  

 

I think it's obvious that it will result in wage increases for people who are making more than minimum wage.  (Market forces are right now dictating that those jobe be paid more than minimum, and those market forces will still exist.)  But that, the further one is from the minimum, the less the "rising tide" will lift their boat.  

 

This will, in turn, at least serve as a force in the direction of reducing income inequality.  (Although I don;t have a lot of faith that it would have a large impact.  Might not even reverse the trend, might just slow it down some.)  

 

[thegreaterbuzzette]

7 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

So how has increasing the minimum wage above the current Federal minimum worked at the micro level (eg at the state level)? Seems like there would be a lot of hard data on that since at least 29 states (plus DC) pay above it.

 

I'm guessing the effect isn't negative...

State level isn't exactly the same a micro....but I get what you are asking. A few points :

1- states with min wages above federal level are not double....which is what $15 would be

2 - compare the maps....higher min wage = less tax friendly. There is a clear correlation here, and I would argue causation.

 

tax map-  https://www.kiplinger.com/tool/taxes/T055-S001-kiplinger-tax-map/index.php 

 

Min wage map-  

http://www.ncsl.org/blog/2018/08/23/state-minimum-wage-developments.aspx

 

 

3- even beyond taxes, additional cost of goods sold would be passed on to consumers making things cost more money

.....when min wage raised at the state level this does not occur as much, due to large corporations being able to absorb these costs more easily or not having plants/large offices in states with higher min wage (aka work of lobbiest)

 

4- see photo attached, this illustrates a very important concept for economics. 

 

3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Are you in the economics department?

Do you mean finance? No, but if I did that would only give me the perspective of the company I work for. Instead, up until a few months ago I worked as the consulting partner for our clients helping with hiring/staffing/payroll decisions. Essentially had a seat at the boardroom table with a steady stream of 100-999 employee companies.

[Larry]

29 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

So how has increasing the minimum wage above the current Federal minimum worked at the micro level (eg at the state level)? Seems like there would be a lot of hard data on that since at least 29 states (plus DC) pay above it.

 

I would assume (Gonna be using that word a lot) that many of the positive and negative impacts of raising the MW in small areas will be magnified.  

 

If the city of Podunk raises the MW just in the city limits, then it's relatively easy for McDonald's and Home Depot to simply build their new stores one block outside the city limits, to escape the increase.  Podunk will experience more job flight, and less economic boost, than a national increase of the same amount would give them.  

 

On the other hand, if Podunk raises their minimum wage, the inflationary impacts of a wage hike will be vastly reduced, because most of the goods sold in Podunk come from outside of town, and therefore the cost of those goods won't see the upward pressure they would see, if all wages went up.  

 

If the whole state raises the wage, then it's tougher for (some) businesses to flee the increase, but it's still easier to dodge than a national increase.  

 

Although make no doubt:  Raising the cost of labor is guaranteed to cause some reduction in employment.  (Although said impact might be partially offset by said business' customers having more money to spend.  Low wage employees spend money, too.)  

[LadySkinsFan]

I've proposed this solution several times to offset the cost of providing government services to the employees who aren't paid a living wage by their employers.

 

Everyone has a Social Security number that is provided to employers and on W-9 and W-2 forms. The number is also used to sign up for and get approval for government services like food stamps and housing, and so on. 

 

It would be easy to track the payments for government services and tax those companies that are underpaying their employees to recoup the cost of those services.

 

Then maybe the companies will start paying people more.

[twa]

What if they are not worth a living wage?

 

 

[visionary]

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

That's all right.  You don't need any support whatsoever to throw out that claim.  

 

Do you think the wealthy are just going to take an assault on their ability to amass money with their asses in the air??

15 minutes ago, twa said:

What if they are not worth a living wage?

 

 

 

Dump the human, get a machine.

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Do you think the wealthy are just going to take an assault on their ability to amass money with their asses in the air??

 

Do you think if you just pull something out of your Philly and pretend I said it, then I'll start trying to defend the thing you made up?  

[CousinsCowgirl84]

29 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Everyone has a Social Security number that is provided to employers and on W-9 and W-2 forms. The number is also used to sign up for and get approval for government services like food stamps and housing, and so on. 

 

 

 

What about illegal immigrants? They don’t have a social security number. Surely they must be paid a living wage too?

 

Also... it seems like you are suggesting government contractors pay a special tax if they don’t pay their employees a living wage above the “minimum wage” which is set by the same government?  How long till the government contractors are increasing their bids to offset the special tax?

[CousinsCowgirl84]

15 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Do you think if you just pull something out of your Philly and pretend I said it, then I'll start trying to defend the thing you made up?  

 

 

You don’t have to defend what you didn’t say.  But you implied you do not believe empirically available evidence.

 

This surely looks like @thegreaterbuzzette‘s “pennies on the dollar” which you emplied was not supported by evidence.

 

 

[Renegade7]

Is that what were seeing in the cities that have already raised the minimum wage to $15?  My understanding is it's not going nearly as good or bad as people predicted.  The point is it hasnt kept up with inflation, but even them it's still not good enough for the cost of living in some places, some think 15 isnt high enough for Chicago and talking 20.

[Larry]

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

But you implied you do not believe empirically available evidence.

 

You're making up more things.  Neither you, nor the post I was responding to, provided a single piece of "empirically available evidence".  

 

In fact, if you read the thread, the person I responded to, in the post you complain about, walked quickly away from the claim I disputed, and replaced it with a completely different one.  (And one which I agreed with, at least to the level of "I could see that happening".)