Political sectarianism in America

[Nick Danger]

I'm a bit rushed here but Australia has a population of 25 million people. So you'll say you're exaggerating or include a metro area that is really in three states, but you're wrong. Also, Sydney has a population of 5 million people. It's a fairly large city. I live in a mid-size city and trust me Sydney is like any big city...high rents, people living close together, public transport...it's cleaner than our big cities and is beautiful to the north with the Harbour and the opera house. I'm not here to defend the reputation of Australia but you don't really know what you're talking about.

The statement about the poverty line is obviously not true also.

Don't confuse my argument by throwing a bunch of facts at me, Bronco. I'll be honest, I didn't know Australia had 25 million people, I thought it was 10-15 million for some reason, which would put NYC, LA, and the Chicago metropolitan areas above it. Still, I can say confidently, armed with all the facts, that New York City, in any case, has about the same population as all of Australia. So my watermelon-to-grape argument stands, just slighty deflated - we'll say canteloupe-to-grape.

Far as your unfortunate state of mass poverty, Bronco, I stand by my statement. The average monthly income in Australia is $3780, and in the USA it is $3258, which is a difference of 16%. But the cost-of-living in Australia is...well, let's take a look shall we - https://www.nationmaster.com/country...Cost-of-living - (BTW I make no statements about the reliability of this source but hey it's a source).

I suppose, depending on your lifestyle, you could live in Australia for a mere 50% more than it costs to live in the USA. On the other hand, if you're a smoking renter who eats eggs and cares about fashion, it would cost you at least twice as much to live in Australia.

Basically you can add $10,000 to the poverty level in the USA, since one of our government's favorite games is constantly lowering the poverty level to make it seem like we have fewer poor people. To give you some math on that, the poverty level from 40 years ago in the USA is only about $3000 lower than it is now, whereas the cost-of-living over those 40 years has more than doubled.

A realistic poverty level in the USA is around $30,000. If you're making $30k/yr, you can rent a small place, have a few things, feed yourself on low-quality food, drive a piece-of-shit car, and usually have money to put gas in it, but probably not always. That's what we call poverty.

My understanding of the average wage in Australia is that it is debatable. The news exaggerates it, the government exaggerates it, but according to a study by your own Grattan Institute, the median tax-filer income in Australia is just under $45,000.

If we say on average it costs a person 75% more to live in Australia than to live in the USA, that puts your comparative average income at around $33,000. I'll be the first to admit that doesn't constitute "the vast majority of Australians living in poverty." Though you are definitely poor. But as you already know about me, Bronco, I write for effect, and sometimes I exaggerate to make a point.

My point in this case is that Flighty's comparison of the USA to Australia - with the obvious undertone of "Look what Australia has accomplished economically and yet the USA still sucks balls!" - is a horseshit comparison that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[broncofan]

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/cost...ates/australia

I also don't vouch for the accuracy of this site but the numbers make more sense to me. This shows a difference in cost of living of about 17.5% which is more consistent with my intuition and is not much different from the 16% difference in average income.

Also consider that in the breakdown of costs Australians pay about 10% less for housing. For people making below median income by far housing is the most important expense.

His point had less to do with overall prosperity and more to do with equity. Maybe things do cost a bit more when workers are paid more but worker satisfaction is greater.

In the two links below, the poverty rate in Australia is listed as 13.3% and in the U.S. is listed as 14.8%. I am also curious about definitions. For instance, what is the average out of pocket expense for healthcare in Australia v. the U.S.? To me a greater measure of poverty is not whether you can get the exact kind of food you want but whether you can afford housing, medical care, and enough food.

His point was about the feasibility of a living wage. He was merely pointing out that a higher minimum wage doesn't drive unemployment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Povert...in_U.S._states
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Povert...0in%20poverty.

[Nick Danger]

His point was about the feasibility of a living wage. He was merely pointing out that a higher minimum wage doesn't drive unemployment.

Bronco, I'm fine with conceding everything about Australia to your intuition, because even though we don't agree politically I do perceive that you are not a dipshit. I would like to point out that the figures on the site I linked don't agree with your "10% less for housing" statement. The numbers here - https://www.nationmaster.com/country...Cost-of-living - say that real estate is 57% higher in Australia than the USA and renting is 65% more expensive. If you say that isn't true and in fact the opposite is true, then I'll just take your word for it, I'm merely a citizen of the internet and I've never actually been to Australia.

HOWEVER, what I'm not prepared to concede is that a minimum wage increase isn't going to result in a shit-ton of unemployment.

The first thing I'd say, which is actually a point against my argument but I'll go ahead and get it out of the way, is that very, very few people in the USA work for minimum wage, which is what, $7-something/hr? Even fast-food jobs I see advertised every day offer $10/hr. In cities with a particularly high cost-of-living, those same fast-food jobs are already paying $15/hr.

So a federal $15/hr minimum wage doesn't seem like a big deal taken in that context. But what we're talking about, Bronco, is a FEDERAL minimum wage. A McDonald's in Manhattan can undoubtedly afford to pay $15/hr or even more, but the exact same operation in Bodunk, Arkansas absolutely cannot. If they have to pay all their employees $15/hr, they will cease to make a profit and be forced to close. But not before firing half their employees and trying to convince the remainder to do twice the work.

The market has to determine the wage. A job is worth what it's worth. I employ two people, a mechanic and a bookkeeper/receptionist. I like them both and I want them to stay around forever so I pay them well - better than the market demands for their skillsets. It's worth it to me because I know them and trust them. But if I was mandated to pay them more - MUCH more - than I'm currently paying them, I'd have to let them go and find other solutions. I'm already paying them the most it makes financial sense to pay them. And good for them, I don't begrudge a penny of it, but that's my ceiling, we're already there.

Most of these liberal politicians are based in high-income, high cost-of-living areas. Nancy Pelosi's out of San Francisco. Kamala Harris had a privileged upbringing in the Bay Area as well. Joe Biden's been a D.C. insider for nearly 50 years, and Chuck Schumer is straight out of the 212. They are completely out of touch with Middle America and the paycheck-to-paycheck economy that most people live in. And it's painfully obvious that they are clueless about what is required to run a low-profit, high-volume business in Shitberg Ohio.

But we'll see, Bronco, we'll see. I think you can do things at the federal level in Australia that you simply can't do in the USA. Each state has a different economy, within those states are other tiers, and even within single cities there are multiple economic zones. I'm in Nashville right now visiting family. Gas up the street is at $2.23 but if I drive across town to my sister's house it's $2.68.

The $15/hr minimum wage is definitely going to happen. For all their talk of bi-partisanship, the Democrats are going to do what they always do whenever they get the opportunity - ram their agenda down Republican throats. The minimum wage increase is a big part of the agenda they promised to poor, stupid Americans in order to garner some of the Type 2 Republican vote.

We'll see, for sure. My prediction is 20% unemployment by 2024, and not strictly due to the minimum wage hike but in conjunction with other known Democratic business policies like increased regulation and licensing. I guess yours and Flighty's prediction is "No impact at all." So we'll see.

[broncofan]

I'd like to read more about this but I can think of a couple reasons why this wouldn't lead to the unemployment you envision. One reason is that the largest employers probably are national franchises and corporations that can afford to pay this much. The other reason is that businesses that fail or on the cusp of failing probably don't fail because of payroll costs. I will read about it but compared to the cost of insurance, rent, accounting, inventory, and any loans for equipment I imagine payroll is less of a stress point. Yes paying a worker 2400 a month is worse than paying 1200 a month but some of that is wiped away with expense deduction. I'll read and get back to you.

I agree the cost of living in Aus. v U.S. was not what we're talking about. We both found sources that said different things.

[filghy2]

I'd like to read more about this but I can think of a couple reasons why this wouldn't lead to the unemployment you envision.

This article provides a good discussion of the employment impacts, and probably reflects where the balance of economic opinion is at nowadays.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...5-minimum-wage

To be clear, I'm not saying the effect will be zero, though it probably won't be significant enough to be noticeable amongst everything else. But the 20% unemployment rate claim is clearly ludicrous given that would be about twice as high as its ever been since the Great Depression.

I'm wondering what ND thinks caused the Great depression. Increased regulation perhaps? Too bad it started 3 years before FDR came into office. Or did one-quarter of the workforce suddenly get lazy and decide not to work any more?

[filghy2]

Apples to oranges, Flighty. Or actually, considering there are 3 metropolitan areas in the USA with a higher population than the entire continent of Australia, I'd say more like watermelons to grapes.

Or we could just talk about eggs. I.E., the fact that a dozen of them will cost you around $5 USD in Australia. (I just bought a dozen 2 days ago for $1.18.) Australian inflation is legendary. Of course, when you have a state-owned central bank, you can keep inflation and wages aligned almost perfectly, even if your economy is constantly at the mercy of the larger economies on which it relies for imports.

So despite the lavish Australian prosperity of which you speak, the vast majority of Australians live below what we in the USA consider the poverty line.

You seem to have a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock, cobber.

Just to save you and bronco the trouble of relying on random websites that may or may not be accurate, some bright sparks at the OECD have already calculated minimum wages adjusted for the cost of living. The Australian minimum hourly wage is equivalent to US$12.14, which is 67% higher than the current US federal minimum, with no apparent effect on unemployment. https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...age-by-country

It also looks like median income adjusted for the cost of living in Australia and the US is actually pretty similar, so if you were thinking of sending a food parcel you needn't bother.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

[broncofan]

You seem to have a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock, cobber.

I deserve the wooden spoon award for my efforts at economics. The only other phrases I've retained are "spit the dummy", "pull your head in mate", and people telling me "onya" which I assumed meant I was kicking some ass. The above is a good one in that you can figure its meaning without having heard it but I'm not sure about the use of cobber. Went out generations ago....Nick is gonna look like a real asshole when he calls an Australian "cobber" while telling them he's surprised no six year olds at Newtown were clinging to life after being shot with a Bushmaster xm-15.

Anyhow, at the risk of taking this thread in too many other directions, thanks for the links. That's very helpful.

[Nick Danger]

You seem to have a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock, cobber.

Just to save you and bronco the trouble of relying on random websites that may or may not be accurate, some bright sparks at the OECD have already calculated minimum wages adjusted for the cost of living. The Australian minimum hourly wage is equivalent to US$12.14, which is 67% higher than the current US federal minimum, with no apparent effect on unemployment. https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...age-by-country

It also looks like median income adjusted for the cost of living in Australia and the US is actually pretty similar, so if you were thinking of sending a food parcel you needn't bother.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

I knew there was a reason I fucked with you, Flighty. Every now and then you surprise me with that sparkly sense of humor you keep so well-hidden most of the time. I LOL'd at your post though I did have to google "cobber."

So, $12.14/hr. That's not very high. In fact, I'd say that's pretty close to what any unskilled worker in the USA who isn't a zit-faced zoomer would actually accept as a low-end wage. It's really not that close to $15/hr, a $2.86/hr difference is pretty large on that tier of the economy.

But Bronco and I have agreed, and hopefully you will too, that we will simply accept that Australila is indeed a first-world country in need of no care packages, with PERHAPS a slightly lower standard of living than the USA but it really doesn't matter.

Fact is, Flighty, that we can't take our economic cues from Australia. They have completely different needs and problems. They aren't a big manufacturing country, for example, so most of their machinery is imported, most of their vehicles are imported, most of their electronics are imported. They export a lot of beef whereas the USA eats most of what it kills. They've got their own stock market. They export most of their oil. They've got pretty much the same history of slavery as the USA (replace "Africans" with "Pacific Islanders") but they don't have to answer for it because, I suppose, they aren't the USA. They aren't nearly as diverse as the USA, and in fact until 1973, only white Europeans were allowed to immigrate. That's not racist, BTW, only the USA is racist.

I think the USA is a unique economy (just like most economies are but the USA is always MORESO), and we'll have to wait to be certain about the impact of the $15 minimum wage. We can predict and pontificate but we won't know until we walk a mile in those $15 shoes. I've made my prediction.

It's interesting to me that you want to talk about the Great Depression as if it can't happen again. It actually has happened again. We've hit 10% unemployment twice since the Great Depression, in 1982 and again in 2009. We're just better at bouncing back now than we were in 1929, and we've become MUCH better at hiding poverty from public view. There are bubbles in the market, Flighty. Big, ugly, unstable bubbles. Our fiat economy is like a balloon resting on a bed of nails. Put a little pressure on it and it will probably stay inflated. Put a lot of pressure on it and you'll be left with a small piece of wet rubber and a bleeding hand.

This Democratic administration intends to put a LOT of pressure on that balloon.

[broncofan]

So, $12.14/hr. That's not very high. In fact, I'd say that's pretty close to what any unskilled worker in the USA who isn't a zit-faced zoomer would actually accept as a low-end wage. It's really not that close to $15/hr, a $2.86/hr difference is pretty large on that tier of the economy.

What's the difference between 12.14 an hour and 7.25? Quick math! He did all that work for the both of us so please don't tell me you missed his point entirely. It's already been adjusted for cost of living. So if American minimum wage workers make 7.25 an hour and it purchases 7 dollars and 25 cents of stuff and Australians make a wage per hour that purchases the equivalent of $12.14 who would you rather be?

In conclusion, pull your fuckin' head in cobber. Filghy is a strong debater generally but economics is his wheelhouse. I'm gonna sit back, enjoy a budweiser and watch;

[Stavros]

I'm gonna sit back, enjoy a budweiser and watch

Budweiser, Broncofan? Seriously?