Texas Republican Party reveals new platform.

[crimson5pheonix]

I did not, it's not in the document at the top of the thread.

You probably should if you're going to argue this.

It's not about what the minimum is set to, it's about who is setting it. Smalls towns in remote places do not generate the same amount of traffic as the same businesses would in cities. A hardware store in a midwestern hamlet can't afford the same payroll as the same store would in LA. A $15 minimum wage is totally unlivable in most major cities and untenable for many small towns, which is why the propose doing it by locality only.

Higher minimum wages seem to be working in small towns in states that passed them, maybe you're just wrong?

I appreciate your honesty, admitting that you only disagree to make a political stance independent of truth.

It's not the truth, it's an opinion. It's a difference of opinion and I'm acknowledging that, but it's an opinion nonetheless.

You mean they de-gerrymandered the map. The map had previously been cut up into this shape: https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/3ec714085db94377eec54fe75bf18ca3/Historical County Commissioners Precinct Map.pdf?_ga=2.234799767.806828974.1655896994-2075738854.1655896994

Which packed as many racial minorities as possible into a single district, giving them a single county representative and no voice at all in the other 4 precincts. That article talks about electing a black mayor as though that will go away, but that has nothing to do with county board districts. The city will still elect its mayor exactly the same. The article talks about the districts having a higher percentage of white voters than the overall population, as though that's the result of districting, but that's just pointing out that there are a lot of non-white, non-voters who live there.

Just, like, imagine if they were previously on the current map, and then they passed the old map packing all the minorities into one district. Would you not be upset at that?

Wow, way to completely dodge the article's point. They don't have a voice in the districts they're in now, they're such a minority in each district they may as well not vote. In the old version they got someone on the city council, giving them a voice in local politics and they explicitly lost that now. They have less representation in local politics than they did before. Because of republicans specifically. If you're going to "blame" the old map on democrats, then democrats gave them power and republicans took it away. You're not going to be able to dance around this.

Further noting you're studiously not talking about how the republican party hates gay republicans and how you believe we should stop fluoridating the drinking water.

 

[tstorm823]

Thank you for so obviously misrepresenting my points, makes it quite clear the value found in debating you.

I don't think it's obvious, and I think it's important that you see the position you are taking. There are people in this world whose debt isn't student debt but credit card debt that's not going to be forgiven, many of whom needed to borrow to survive. They do without a lot of things they would like because they can't afford it. And affording housing is tough for them. And if you forgive the student debt of a bunch of 20-somethings, you're going to give them more buying power which will run up costs for the actual poor. And your response to this is that poor people probably made bad decisions, and people don't buy more or less based on price, and it's better to get the young wealthier people into expensive cities.

 

[tstorm823]

It's not the truth, it's an opinion. It's a difference of opinion and I'm acknowledging that, but it's an opinion nonetheless.

Life begins at conception. That's not really debatable in any honest way.

Wow, way to completely dodge the article's point. They don't have a voice in the districts they're in now, they're such a minority in each district they may as well not vote. In the old version they got someone on the city council, giving them a voice in local politics and they explicitly lost that now. They have less representation in local politics than they did before. Because of republicans specifically. If you're going to "blame" the old map on democrats, then democrats gave them power and republicans took it away. You're not going to be able to dance around this.

The article is dumb and their point is dumb. If you think over a third of the populace may as well not vote because they have no power, you're delusional.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Life begins at conception. That's not really debatable in any honest way.

It is actually very debatable. What are you going to do about fertilized zygotes that leave the mother before they implant themselves?

The article is dumb and their point is dumb. If you think over a third of the populace may as well not vote because they have no power, you're delusional.

No actually it just explains a truth uncomfortable to you, the consequences of your political actions. It disempowered minorities in a very clear and demonstrable way, and you have no real argument against that.

Now tell me why you hate gay people and want to take guns into bars.

 

[tstorm823]

It is actually very debatable. What are you going to do about fertilized zygotes that leave the mother before they implant themselves?

What am I going to do about them? Nothing. That doesn't make them not alive.

No actually it just explains a truth uncomfortable to you, the consequences of your political actions. It disempowered minorities in a very clear and demonstrable way, and you have no real argument against that.

It disempowered one minority in a clear and demonstrable way. But it's better to be 1/3rd of the whole constituency in 5 districts than have a large majority in one district and little in the others. Now there are 5 districts that have to care about minority voting instead of 1. That empowers minorities in a clear and demonstrable way.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

What am I going to do about them? Nothing. That doesn't make them not alive.

It disempowered one minority in a clear and demonstrable way. But it's better to be 1/3rd of the whole constituency in 5 districts than have a large majority in one district and little in the others. Now there are 5 districts that have to care about minority voting instead of 1. That empowers minorities in a clear and demonstrable way.

No it doesn't, now tell me why you want your grandpa back in selective service. I'm very interested in hearing why this is a good idea.

 

[tstorm823]

No it doesn't, now tell me why you want your grandpa back in selective service. I'm very interested in hearing why this is a good idea.

You have officially run from every debate. Congratulations

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You have officially run from every debate. Congratulations

You're the one who doesn't debate. You still haven't answered about how the republicans have run off the gay republicans from before.

So once again, your avoidance of the topic is noted.

 

[tstorm823]

You're the one who doesn't debate. You still haven't answered about how the republicans have run off the gay republicans from before.

So once again, your avoidance of the topic is noted.

Except, you see, a debate is where people exchange ideas on a topic. I don't know if there is a word for throwing 100 different topics at the other person in place of discussion, but that's what you're doing, and it actually is avoidance. Do you feel like you are engaging in debate by bringing up a specific Republican organization not having a booth at a state level conference? That's relevant? That's debate? I don't think so.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Except, you see, a debate is where people exchange ideas on a topic. I don't know if there is a word for throwing 100 different topics at the other person in place of discussion, but that's what you're doing, and it actually is avoidance. Do you feel like you are engaging in debate by bringing up a specific Republican organization not having a booth at a state level conference? That's relevant? That's debate? I don't think so.

You've already whittled down several of the ones you yourself started with. You said they weren't trying to dismantle CPS, and they are. States with higher minimum wages flourish, even in rural areas and you don't want to talk about that. And this subject is the Texas republican party platform and you really don't want to talk about that. You want to defend black people losing political power as good, actually which pretty much just confirms the broad opinion that the republican party is a tentpole for racists.

 

[tstorm823]

You've already whittled down several of the ones you yourself started with. You said they weren't trying to dismantle CPS, and they are. States with higher minimum wages flourish, even in rural areas and you don't want to talk about that. And this subject is the Texas republican party platform and you really don't want to talk about that. You want to defend black people losing political power as good, actually which pretty much just confirms the broad opinion that the republican party is a tentpole for racists.

The CPS thing I accept I was unaware of. It was from a different document you just expected me to find myself, I suppose. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on Texas in any fashion, but I can imagine problems with a CPS organization that aren't specifically being against the idea of protecting children. I did find this lawsuit which doesnt speak highly of Texas CPS. Maybe a complete restructuring is justified, I don't know. To interpret it as "we don't want to protect children" is pretty manipulative.

If you're gonna claim something like higher minimum wages are better for rural areaas, you better bring reciepts. If you can show some real world data to evidence this (not opinion pieces, not twitter), you can have the point.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

The CPS thing I accept I was unaware of. It was from a different document you just expected me to find myself, I suppose. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on Texas in any fashion, but I can imagine problems with a CPS organization that aren't specifically being against the idea of protecting children. I did find this lawsuit which doesnt speak highly of Texas CPS. Maybe a complete restructuring is justified, I don't know. To interpret it as "we don't want to protect children" is pretty manipulative.

If you're gonna claim something like higher minimum wages are better for rural areaas, you better bring reciepts. If you can show some real world data to evidence this (not opinion pieces, not twitter), you can have the point.

Sure

The Effect of Minimum Wages on Low-Wage Jobs*

Abstract. We estimate the effect of minimum wages on low-wage jobs using 138 prominent state-level minimum wage changes between 1979 and 2016 in the United

academic.oup.com

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/irel.12267

A $12 Minimum Wage: Broad Benefits for Workers and Small Businesses Across Missouri - National Employment Law Project

A $12 minimum wage would benefit small businesses by allowing 677,000 workers and their families to spend more money locally.

www.nelp.org

 

[Buyetyen]

I have to say, I am impressed by how thoroughly Republicans have convinced their voters they don't want what's good for them. Affordable healthcare? Don't need it. Getting a raise via a higher minimum wage? Fuck no. Common sense gun control to prevent massacres? That's communism (somehow)!

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I have to say, I am impressed by how thoroughly Republicans have convinced their voters they don't want what's good for them. Affordable healthcare? Don't need it. Getting a raise via a higher minimum wage? Fuck no. Common sense gun control to prevent massacres? That's communism (somehow)!

I still like that they specifically say no protection for your gun rights for any fault with voter registration cards after spending their entire platform saying SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

 

[Agema]

The article is dumb and their point is dumb. If you think over a third of the populace may as well not vote because they have no power, you're delusional.

And yet that pretty much is effectively what first past the post results in: millions of people who may as well not have voted. I live in a safe seat. It goes to the same party, election after election. To all intents purposes, why even have an election? Just let the leading party pick its candidate and skip the vote.

Their vote might count where politicians gave a shit about the concept of representing all their voters, rather than just the ones who put a cross by their name. But then we see things like gerrymandering: it is contempt for democracy and contempt for voters. We really see it in the extremes of platforms such as the Texas Republicans, which effectively declare that they do not need to consider the opposition - over 40% of their own state populace - at all.

 

[tstorm823]

Sure

Wow. Just amazing work. Let's take a look:

The Effect of Minimum Wages on Low-Wage Jobs*

Abstract. We estimate the effect of minimum wages on low-wage jobs using 138 prominent state-level minimum wage changes between 1979 and 2016 in the United

academic.oup.com

"Our event-by-event analysis finds that the estimated missing jobs rose substantially in magnitude with the minimum-to-median wage (Kaitz) index. At the same time, the number of excess jobs also rose for these events to a nearly identical extent. As a consequence, there is no relationship between the employment estimate and the Kaitz index up to around 59%, confirming that the minimum wage changes in the United States that we study have yet to reach a level above which significant disemployment effects emerge. "

Which is to say, the closer the minimum wage is to the median wage, the more existing jobs disappeared with the minimum wage increase. It isn't just "well, everybody gets a raise", some people lose their job, specifically in places with lower median wages. But then more jobs appeared above the minimum wage, which is great and all, but they aren't the same jobs. If small businesses in a rural town cut staff or go under completely, the added jobs aren't going to appear in that town. Additionally, they find that the negative employment effects are found specifically in "tradeable" sectors of the economy, things like manufacturing, as opposed to "nontradeable" sectors like restaurants and hospitality. Do you know where industry is dying? Rural America. Do you know where all the restaurants and hospitality are? Cities.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/irel.12267

"Empirical work on the minimum wage typically estimates effects averaged across high- and low-wage areas. Low-wage labor markets could potentially be less able to absorb minimum wage increases, in turn leading to more negative employment effects."

And if you read into the study, you get a constant refrain of how all the other minimum wage studies find negative employment effects caused by minimum wage increases, but their study doesn't, except that it kinda does find that negative effect, particularly in low wage areas, but 0 change is within their confidence interval, so it's no change. For reference, here is their plot for the employment effect of minimum wage increases in low wage areas. This is what they're trying not to call a downward trend.

A $12 Minimum Wage: Broad Benefits for Workers and Small Businesses Across Missouri - National Employment Law Project

A $12 minimum wage would benefit small businesses by allowing 677,000 workers and their families to spend more money locally.

www.nelp.org

As best I can tell none of the information here can be used to try and understand differing effects by rural vs urban geography.

 

[Trunkage]

Wow. Just amazing work. Let's take a look:

The Effect of Minimum Wages on Low-Wage Jobs*

Abstract. We estimate the effect of minimum wages on low-wage jobs using 138 prominent state-level minimum wage changes between 1979 and 2016 in the United

academic.oup.com

"Our event-by-event analysis finds that the estimated missing jobs rose substantially in magnitude with the minimum-to-median wage (Kaitz) index. At the same time, the number of excess jobs also rose for these events to a nearly identical extent. As a consequence, there is no relationship between the employment estimate and the Kaitz index up to around 59%, confirming that the minimum wage changes in the United States that we study have yet to reach a level above which significant disemployment effects emerge. "

Which is to say, the closer the minimum wage is to the median wage, the more existing jobs disappeared with the minimum wage increase. It isn't just "well, everybody gets a raise", some people lose their job, specifically in places with lower median wages. But then more jobs appeared above the minimum wage, which is great and all, but they aren't the same jobs. If small businesses in a rural town cut staff or go under completely, the added jobs aren't going to appear in that town. Additionally, they find that the negative employment effects are found specifically in "tradeable" sectors of the economy, things like manufacturing, as opposed to "nontradeable" sectors like restaurants and hospitality. Do you know where industry is dying? Rural America. Do you know where all the restaurants and hospitality are? Cities.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/irel.12267

"Empirical work on the minimum wage typically estimates effects averaged across high- and low-wage areas. Low-wage labor markets could potentially be less able to absorb minimum wage increases, in turn leading to more negative employment effects."

And if you read into the study, you get a constant refrain of how all the other minimum wage studies find negative employment effects caused by minimum wage increases, but their study doesn't, except that it kinda does find that negative effect, particularly in low wage areas, but 0 change is within their confidence interval, so it's no change. For reference, here is their plot for the employment effect of minimum wage increases in low wage areas. This is what they're trying not to call a downward trend.
View attachment 6452

A $12 Minimum Wage: Broad Benefits for Workers and Small Businesses Across Missouri - National Employment Law Project

A $12 minimum wage would benefit small businesses by allowing 677,000 workers and their families to spend more money locally.

www.nelp.org

As best I can tell none of the information here can be used to try and understand differing effects by rural vs urban geography.

So, to sum up, to get more people working, we HAVE to take wages from poor workers. It's only fair

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Wow. Just amazing work. Let's take a look:

The Effect of Minimum Wages on Low-Wage Jobs*

Abstract. We estimate the effect of minimum wages on low-wage jobs using 138 prominent state-level minimum wage changes between 1979 and 2016 in the United

academic.oup.com

"Our event-by-event analysis finds that the estimated missing jobs rose substantially in magnitude with the minimum-to-median wage (Kaitz) index. At the same time, the number of excess jobs also rose for these events to a nearly identical extent. As a consequence, there is no relationship between the employment estimate and the Kaitz index up to around 59%, confirming that the minimum wage changes in the United States that we study have yet to reach a level above which significant disemployment effects emerge. "

Which is to say, the closer the minimum wage is to the median wage, the more existing jobs disappeared with the minimum wage increase. It isn't just "well, everybody gets a raise", some people lose their job, specifically in places with lower median wages. But then more jobs appeared above the minimum wage, which is great and all, but they aren't the same jobs. If small businesses in a rural town cut staff or go under completely, the added jobs aren't going to appear in that town. Additionally, they find that the negative employment effects are found specifically in "tradeable" sectors of the economy, things like manufacturing, as opposed to "nontradeable" sectors like restaurants and hospitality. Do you know where industry is dying? Rural America. Do you know where all the restaurants and hospitality are? Cities.

Uhhh, that's an interesting way to misread what they wrote. What they came up with is that raising the minimum wage over the years has not in fact caused a noticeable increase in unemployment. Like, you quote them saying " confirming that the minimum wage changes in the United States that we study have yet to reach a level above which significant disemployment effects emerge".

What do you think that means?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/irel.12267

"Empirical work on the minimum wage typically estimates effects averaged across high- and low-wage areas. Low-wage labor markets could potentially be less able to absorb minimum wage increases, in turn leading to more negative employment effects."

And if you read into the study, you get a constant refrain of how all the other minimum wage studies find negative employment effects caused by minimum wage increases, but their study doesn't, except that it kinda does find that negative effect, particularly in low wage areas, but 0 change is within their confidence interval, so it's no change. For reference, here is their plot for the employment effect of minimum wage increases in low wage areas. This is what they're trying not to call a downward trend.
View attachment 6452

Or perhaps they didn't find significant increases in unemployment. You also have misread the paper again, and I want you to find out what the difference in what that graph is graphing and what this graph is graphing.

A $12 Minimum Wage: Broad Benefits for Workers and Small Businesses Across Missouri - National Employment Law Project

A $12 minimum wage would benefit small businesses by allowing 677,000 workers and their families to spend more money locally.

www.nelp.org

As best I can tell none of the information here can be used to try and understand differing effects by rural vs urban geography.

Well I feel like this comes around to the "small rural stores can't keep up with high wages" and how higher wages benefit small businesses more than big businesses.

 

[tstorm823]

" confirming that the minimum wage changes in the United States that we study have yet to reach a level above which significant disemployment effects emerge".

What do you think that means?

It means that minimum wage changes do not cause unemployment to increase overall, which is reasonable to care about macroeconomically, but they specifically indicate that this is a result of offsetting negative and positive effects (some jobs go away cause they don't make economic sense at that wage, other jobs add from the increase in spending from those with higher wages). And those positive and negative effects do not happen in the same sectors of the economy.

I want you to find out what the difference in what that graph is graphing and what this graph is graphing.

View attachment 6455

Well one is the first quartile of of median wage, and the other is the 4th quartile of median wage.

 

[Silvanus]

I don't think it's obvious, and I think it's important that you see the position you are taking. There are people in this world whose debt isn't student debt but credit card debt that's not going to be forgiven, many of whom needed to borrow to survive. They do without a lot of things they would like because they can't afford it. And affording housing is tough for them. And if you forgive the student debt of a bunch of 20-somethings, you're going to give them more buying power which will run up costs for the actual poor. And your response to this is that poor people probably made bad decisions, and people don't buy more or less based on price, and it's better to get the young wealthier people into expensive cities.

So... forgive credit debt as well, then? I agree!