Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Any sources cited are bound to be criticized as partisan or biased, so feel free to find your own.
The author doesn't make a good point throughout his entire article. It's just one long drivel piece. Beyond that I don't care if the source is inherently biased. I only care about their reasoning used on that piece. Here's one of the most blatantly false points in the thing.
You actually do see young people in various professional businesses and halls of government. They’re called interns. So we’ve got lots of young people finding employers willing to take them on at $0/hour, and yet apparently there is this “indeterminate bargaining zone” where employers’ quantity of labor demanded is the same between 1 cent and $7.25 (or $9). Does this range also count as a “modest increase”? Or does even Krugman admit that getting rid of the minimum wage altogether would help reduce the 25%+ teen unemployment rate, while increasing it from $7.25 to $9 would be negligible in the other direction?
There are specific stipulations that he conveniently ignored. For sources I'll use Forbes and the department of labor. I was actually looking for department of labor or IRS guidelines, as both publish guidelines on the matter. One of the important premises of his article was that minimum wage creates a gap in value to the employer. He neglects to mention that regulations do not allow for an unpaid intern to displace a paid employee. To legally replace something with intern labor means you're back to at least minimum wage. The reason I find your reasoning distasteful is that I'm almost positive you're already aware of these things without my linking them. The entire concept of a minimum wage relies on it retaining some meaningful value throughout periods of inflation. When that fails, the proposed corrections become more severe and it isn't as easily shoehorned in with other cost changes.
Forbes legal requirements for unpaid internships
I've read through both, so I can quote sections if you prefer. There are other things. That was just the most blatant misrepresentation. As you can see you can't legally displace productive work with unpaid labor. Larger companies typically use unpaid interns to vet potential candidates for hire after graduation, so it still has value to them. Where this may decrease internship opportunities is among smaller local businesses.
Originally Posted by wizard69
So when are you going to start thinking logically. The fact of the matter is that the areas of this country with the most liberal approaches to the homeless have the most serious homeless issues.
Edit: fixed sentence structure
I'm curious whether your state and municipality has policies that have accomplished something positive there. For example if the police come across someone who is loitering and obviously homeless, how is it dealt with in your city of residence? As for San Francisco, it's one of those areas where I think many of the low wage jobs will become automated. It's not limited to an issue of minimum wage though. Affordable housing keeps being pushed further out to the point where it becomes less viable to make the commute for lower wage work when balanced against other responsibilities. I suspect that many poorer individuals hold down more than one job. In cases with kids one might work two jobs while the other deals stays with the kids to mitigate childcare expenses. In such cases commuting distance could become a big factor as a moderately high wage can be less effective than a second job with both being closer to their residence. Parts of California have certain rent control policies, but they aren't as aggressive as NY. In most cities they don't apply to newer buildings or anything classified as a luxury unit. In cases of extreme gentrification residents are often bought out. It basically covers relocation expenses. As for the typical rent control where it does apply, it's typically limited to 5-7% per year. That is limited, but it's trivial if applied on an annual basis over many years. Most of the policies surrounding the homeless in California are almost triage, but I think much of that is a lack of desire to really fund anything beyond that. Admitting many of them to mental wards or detention facilities as you suggest does not seem like it would mitigate costs given the average cost per resident in some of those facilities.
Originally Posted by wizard69
In any event I don't think a lot of people grasp how hopeless it is to try to help somebody that is mentally ill without intensive supervision.
Actually I don't buy that either. Far more than half the population I run into is far below that intelligence level. Of course that probably depends upon how you measure the IQ and how you define intelligence but it is amazing just how many stupid people there are out and about.
I'll add that IQ was never designed to measure intelligence. The test was initially derived to help diagnose learning disabilities.
Edited by hmm - 5/5/14 at 6:49pm