The alternative to the living wage.

[Ryantology]

Correlation does not imply causation. An argument can be made that Washington and San Francisco are experiencing growth because they are coastal.

Very true, but why they are experiencing growth is kind of beside the point. The primary argument against the minimum wage is that it kills jobs. Whatever the reason for the growth, there is growth going on, and the highest minimum wages in the country are obviously not stopping these areas that also have the highest job growth in the country. It's not an isolated phenomenon, either; the top places on both lists have many above-average minimum wages. According to the anti-MW narrative, these are the places which should be seeing the worst job losses, yet of those top 20 states, 11 have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum.

This is what minimum wage advocates have been saying the whole long time there's been a minimum wage, and eight decades of a consistently-rising minimum wage should show so much evidence of job destruction that it should have ruined the economy long before I was born. If you were right, you should not need to still be making doomsday predictions 80 years after the minimum wage was instated.

It's time to admit that it works, already, and get with the program.

[Heywood]

Very true, but why they are experiencing growth is kind of beside the point. The primary argument against the minimum wage is that it kills jobs. Whatever the reason for the growth, there is growth going on, and the highest minimum wages in the country are obviously not stopping these areas that also have the highest job growth in the country. It's not an isolated phenomenon, either; the top places on both lists have many above-average minimum wages. According to the anti-MW narrative, these are the places which should be seeing the worst job losses, yet of those top 20 states, 11 have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum.

This is what minimum wage advocates have been saying the whole long time there's been a minimum wage, and eight decades of a consistently-rising minimum wage should show so much evidence of job destruction that it should have ruined the economy long before I was born. If you were right, you should not need to still be making doomsday predictions 80 years after the minimum wage was instated.

It's time to admit that it works, already, and get with the program.

16 years ago Washington state raised its minimum wage and then indexed it to inflation. The jobs that were killed....were killed 16 years ago. Now you have 14 years of job growth....if there were no minimum wage that growth would have been higher. The problem with your thinking is you only look at that which is easily seen...the people who benefit from the minimum wage. When people get laid off or not hired in the first place....that happens after the minimum wage was implemented/raised.

When minimum wage was implemented Black and Whites had the same unemployment rate. But as time went on black unemployment rate plummeted as Blacks were no longer able to under bid their white counter parts as they had been doing. After emancipation Blacks were digging themselves out of poverty....it took legislation like minimum wage laws to keep them in the ghetto and insure they stayed there.

Minimum wage does help some....but it hurts others. You ignore the people it hurts. Further...it hurts people who need the most help.

A universal basic income also helps some and hurts others. The difference is the universal basic income hurts people who can afford the hurt.

[Ryantology]

A universal basic income also helps some and hurts others. The difference is the universal basic income hurts people who can afford the hurt.

I actually agree with the idea of a basic income. It would be a huge step forward. But it's too pipe-dreamy at the moment for me to ignore methods that do help people.

And, really, one year of slacking job growth doesn't justify 14 years of growth? Are the only solutions we're allowed to consider the perfect ones? Because, even the UBI is far from perfect.

[Heywood]

A universal basic income also helps some and hurts others. The difference is the universal basic income hurts people who can afford the hurt.

I actually agree with the idea of a basic income. It would be a huge step forward. But it's too pipe-dreamy at the moment for me to ignore methods that do help people.

And, really, one year of slacking job growth doesn't justify 14 years of growth? Are the only solutions we're allowed to consider the perfect ones? Because, even the UBI is far from perfect.

Its not one year of slacking job growth. It the jobs killed times 16 years. Now a minimum wage helps some but hurts others. Your argument is that it does more good than harm. I don't think that is the case. It devastated the African American communities by cutting the bottom rungs off the economic ladder. I think today African Americans would have been as well off as whites if not for Jim Crow laws and arbitrary wages floors designed to protect the white man's ability to earn a living wage.

[Ryantology]

Its not one year of slacking job growth. It the jobs killed times 16 years. Now a minimum wage helps some but hurts others. Your argument is that it does more good than harm. I don't think that is the case. It devastated the African American communities by cutting the bottom rungs off the economic ladder. I think today African Americans would have been as well off as whites if not for Jim Crow laws and arbitrary wages floors designed to protect the white man's ability to earn a living wage.

So, now the argument against the minimum wage is that it prevented blacks from lowballing whites for pay? If harming blacks was the point of the minimum wage, conservatives would be out there carrying signs saying that it's time for a $15 minimum in Seattle.

[Minimalist]

I think CEO pay is too high, however I think it is more of a nuisance than a real problem.

That's because you haven't thought it through. Forget "salaries" for these assholes. Far too many are given stock options as part of their compensation package which gives them an incentive to manipulate the stock price for their own benefit. There is no long-term planning in the corporate world. We're lucky if they look beyond the next quarterly earnings report so they can figure out if they want to cash-in or not.

[Heywood]

I think CEO pay is too high, however I think it is more of a nuisance than a real problem.

That's because you haven't thought it through. Forget "salaries" for these assholes. Far too many are given stock options as part of their compensation package which gives them an incentive to manipulate the stock price for their own benefit. There is no long-term planning in the corporate world. We're lucky if they look beyond the next quarterly earnings report so they can figure out if they want to cash-in or not.

I have been compensated with stock options and they've always come with vesting periods. Usually 20-25% vest each year. For instance if in 2010 I received 1000 options, 1 year later I could exercise 200 of them. The next year 400 of them, the next year 600 and so on. If I wanted to exercise all of them I would have to wait 4-5 years.

Since you are always 4-5 years away from being able to exercise all your options, manipulating stock price for short term gain means torching the value of your unvested options.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that CEO's never play shenanigans with the books. Some do....but most do not. The claim there is no long term planning in the corporate world is simply false.