Beware the Ides of March -- U.S. Politics March 2021

VHS it seems like you are really taking this one example to heart and this anecdote is not a basis for policy, you have to understand that surely?

if we have rent controls for small business, won't the landlords have to close their small businesses

I also worked for a year on a wage subsidy for a struggling film co-op and it kickstarted my career. It's mostly that I am talking from somewhere where such subsidy exists and work and have had great benefits.

I don't know why we're stopping at covering 50% of their wages when we could do 100%?

struggling film co-op

Co-op is a business. With owners.

and in this case, the owners were not the workers.

VHS I was not proposing subsidizing commercial rents as a method of helping workers' wages, I was pointing out a cost that, in your account, ACTUALLY closed the business you described, and one which nobody including you is proposing we subsidize. So I'm still scratching my head why, seemingly alone out of all forms of overhead/expenses/costs, labor is the one that needs to be massively (massively!) subsidized, on the vague say-so of owners who speculate (without any evidence, certainly none that's been shared to this thread) that a higher minimum wage will lead to them closing rather than leading to them postponing their planned jacuzzi purchase at the lake house.

milo's aggro stridency here is imo not really helpful and i don't advocate it as a posting strategy, but argument-wise he is otm on this one.

we have asked the workers. they say that subsidizing the petite bourgeoisie in any way is too big a sacrifice, even if it doubles their wages.

― Judge Roi Behan (Aimless), Friday, March 5, 2021 3:54 PM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

You know this is unfair, Aimless.

The problem is that the bugbear of "small business owners" is not some sort of downtrodden class— they are, for the most part, people who were born, raised, and continue to be middle-class to upper-middle class. Much of how this subject is treated depends upon an irresponsible and reckless view of the class dynamics of US society, which views "small business owners" as some sort of bloc of people who began small businesses on just a dream and a prayer, when there was really *a not insignificant amount of money* behind them, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to start businesses.

So when these small business owners claim that minimum wage increases would "kill their business," what they're actually saying is, "I got mine and I deserve it, fuck the people who allow me to claim the status that I have."

Aggro because I don't think VHS is acting in good faith - when he starts with something like 'it's a fallacy to say small businesses and Fortune 500 companies should be treated the same' (and starts formulating after several posts that that means small businesses should get direct subsidies) and pretending to not understand what 'socializing risk' means, I have my doubts about sincerity.

like, if you "can't" pay your workers a living wage, either...

a) take less out of the business as profit for yourself, like you would when solving any other expenses-vs-receipts problem
b) find some other cost you can reduce... maybe don't spring for the full-color ads in the sunday paper, or whatever, like you would when solving any other expenses-vs-receipts problem
c) increase your prices, like you would when solving any other expenses-vs-receipts problem, or
d) discover to your horror that your business model depends at some inescapable fundamental level on underpaid labor, in which case your business model s evil and needs to be made impossible to operate, for example by requiring that businesses pay a living wage. if the leftist state deems that the service your business provides is so important it must be done even if it can't be done at a profit AND with a living wage, then the state should just provide this service as a subsidized utility/infrastructure/public good.

VHS I was not proposing subsidizing commercial rents as a method of helping workers' wages, I was pointing out a cost that, in your account, ACTUALLY closed the business you described, and one which nobody including you is proposing we subsidize. So I'm still scratching my head why, seemingly alone out of all forms of overhead/expenses/costs, labor is the one that needs to be massively (massively!) subsidized, on the vague say-so of owners who speculate (without any evidence, certainly none that's been shared to this thread) that a higher minimum wage will lead to them closing rather than leading to them postponing their planned jacuzzi purchase at the lake house.

― honkin' on bobo, honkin' with my feet ten feet off of beale (Doctor Casino), Friday, March 5, 2021 7:45 PM (five seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

I was really just responding to one hypothetical and my answer is only a proposed solution that problem in particular: what if the wage increase could lead to bankruptcy? If a wage increase can be absorbed in the profits by the business owner, there would be no reason to give the worker any subsidy. The owner would have to pay the 15$ and too bad for his lake house. If the increase could lead to actual additional unemployment, which I maintain is a possibility in some cases, I don't see the harm in giving the balance to workers directly so they can continue working there. I prefer this subsidy because it goes directly in the pocket of the worker, instead of some potentially useless overhead and expenses being wasted by the owner.

i get where you're coming from, milo. i guess my approach to ppl seemingly posting in bad faith is sort of like defensive driving or the like - let them be the jerk if that is indeed what's happening, but no need to escalate the intensity or contribute to bad vibes that either cause others to not post, or encourages them to rise to that intensity level.

not saying i actually live up to this myself btw

d) discover to your horror that your business model depends at some inescapable fundamental level on underpaid labor, in which case your business model s evil and needs to be made impossible to operate, for example by requiring that businesses pay a living wage. if the leftist state deems that the service your business provides is so important it must be done even if it can't be done at a profit AND with a living wage, then the state should just provide this service as a subsidized utility/infrastructure/public good.

https://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/017/061/air_horn.png

but VHS, every single business in the country would claim they were in such a state of crisis! and those that got this unbelievable sweetheart deal would have a staggering advantage over any competitors who just... pay the minimum wage.

also we've had minimum wages for the better part of a century - what is it about this particular phased increase that requires this bespoke solution?

I prefer this subsidy because it goes directly in the pocket of the worker, instead of some potentially useless overhead and expenses being wasted by the owner.

i think what people are trying to explain to you is that DOES result in money going to the boss in the form of profits he could not make without his workers. there is no scenario where this does not happen.

There’s probably no point in continuing this conversation with a Canadian but I guess we can try

if the government is going to give people wages just give it to them, don't let a boss keep stealing workers' time

i think what people are trying to explain to you is that DOES result in money going to the boss in the form of profits he could not make without his workers. there is no scenario where this does not happen.

― superdeep borehole (harbl), Friday, March 5, 2021 8:00 PM (nine seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

Not in the case where he can't pay the 15$ because the business goes bankrupt, no.

In any other case, yes, it would be absurd.

The business in that situation are so vanishingly few as to not matter from a policy perspective. Forget em. Sorry!

Even in that scenario - why wouldn't a new business replace the poorly run one that couldn't survive. (Once again: starting a small business that extracts excess value from labor is a choice - working is not.)

Which industries do you think cannot survive with higher wages?

but VHS, every single business in the country would claim they were in such a state of crisis! and those that got this unbelievable sweetheart deal would have a staggering advantage over any competitors who just... pay the minimum wage.

Also this a million times - good accountants and a willingness to act a bit shady can make just about any small business look like it's on the verge of collapse. If you're willing to pay people $7.25 an hour, you are not above cooking the books to get the government to give you money.

i'm trapped in a maze of subsidies and means tests constructed to help one vape store not go bankrupt

if a vape store isn't selling drugs under the table, that's on them for bad business practices

The business in that situation are so vanishingly few as to not matter from a policy perspective. Forget em. Sorry!

― Canon in Deez (silby), Friday, March 5, 2021 8:03 PM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

If those businesses can close without having a decipherable impact on communities, then I would agree, yes.

Here's how UI unfolded -->

1/ Biden: $400/week through Sept

2/ House Ds: $400/week through August

3/ Senate Deal 1 (early today): $300/week through Sept. + up to $10K in tax forgiveness

4/ Senate Deal 2 w/ Manchin (just now): $300/week thru Sept. 6, + ~$10K tax forgiveness

— Jeff Stein (@JStein_WaPo) March 6, 2021

Manchin held this up for an entire day to end UI benefits three weeks early and make a few hundred bucks taxable

Bernie should start walking with a cane, then beat Manchin to death with it on the Senate floor.

and it could have been worse

but VHS, every single business in the country would claim they were in such a state of crisis! and those that got this unbelievable sweetheart deal would have a staggering advantage over any competitors who just... pay the minimum wage.

also we've had minimum wages for the better part of a century - what is it about this particular phased increase that requires this bespoke solution?

― honkin' on bobo, honkin' with my feet ten feet off of beale (Doctor Casino), Friday, March 5, 2021 7:59 PM (nine minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Government works with the business and the worker to arrive at a deal, to which after the worker reports to the government how it went. Sure there, could be some shady accounting practices but you can say this of absolutely every legislation.

The sweet deal argument sounds a little too much like the 'why would we subsides college tuition for the upper middle classes'. I just don't think it would matter.

if the government is going to give people wages just give it to them, don't let a boss keep stealing workers' time

― superdeep borehole (harbl), Friday, March 5, 2021 8:00 PM (thirteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

We were discussing wages specifically, but BI would generally be my preferred solutions to inequality yes.

Sure there, could be some shady accounting practices but you can say this of absolutely every legislation.

What are the shady accounting practices of raising the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2024?

The sweet deal argument sounds a little too much like the 'why would we subsides college tuition for the upper middle classes'. I just don't think it would matter.

That's a concern-trolling argument against universal programs - the argument you're making is closer to "we should subsidize college tuitition only for the upper middle class." It is in no way a universal program.

We should require working-class students to do the homework of upper-middle class students in order to give them more time to work on their drop-shipping startups.

ok milo i'm ready to join you, my head is spinning

That's a concern-trolling argument against universal programs - the argument you're making is closer to "we should subsidize college tuitition only for the upper middle class." It is in no way a universal program.

― Joe Bombin (milo z), Friday, March 5, 2021 8:17 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

How am I against universal programs? Did I ever argue against the minimum 15$ wage? Against universal health care? Against subsidized college tuitions? I want every worker to be paid 15$, you want every business owner to pay 15$, that's the only difference, one that affects seemingly a small amount of population.

lmao ok duder

Entire western world use wage subsidies efficiently to alleviate poverty*

Americans on the left: nah we can't. Business owner and his 7 employees need to go bankrupt.

I'm done, going to enjoy my socialized health care and having no college debt in better ways. Enjoy.

Hmmm a vhs that re-winds before ejecting

poverty exits outside america

it even exists

xp - Just vhs being kind.

alleviate =/= eliminate, fwiw

idgi is this about how labour costs must be kept down so employers can make a profit and the resulting deprivation can be alleviated by the state? because there seem to be a lot of unnecessary moves there

50% of the wages of 20% of the workforce seems like a program unlikely to be found elsewhere.

Outside of COVID wage programs, which are maybe not the standard fare.

there seem to be a lot of unnecessary moves there

if you want the Congress to legislate along the most rational line of economic policy any time soon, you are whistling up the wind.

I still like Dr. Seuss, so I decided to read Green Eggs and Ham.

RT if you still like him too! pic.twitter.com/2pbRbSiJD6

— Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) March 6, 2021

The 2024 budget will only get passed when Biden agrees to mandate racist Seuss books in every elementary school library.

mandatory

mandate worked