Thanks, this is helpful for understanding this discussion.

If your intended audience "cannot get it", then it is a terrible debate tactic. (I was on my debate team at Chico State.)

I don't even see an ability to play chicken. Nobody is even bluffing that Covid relief without 15 min wage is a no go. Apparently just saying that out loud is too much of a political hit for 48 senators.

Disagree. There are a ton of logical fallacies people make and even when you explain to them why they are foundational unsound arguments they do not get it.

Thus why you see people continue to use Results based Thinking in poker and in debate.

that does not mean you join them in that fallacy and also that you do not point out it is fallacy and wrong and actually destroys the foundation of their argument.


If you took debate classes you understand that Step 1 is ALWAYS to examine the foundations of their argument before engaging the content of their argument.

The foundation is often factual and thus easier to counter where as the content is often subjective and thus harder to counter.

Thus if a foundational part is flawed ('no person who wears a green shirt ever does evil') and you can easily prove that underlying foundation is incorrect (Hitler wore a green shirt) then they are wrong before you even have to debate the merits of what they say after that.

I agree with all of the above.

But, if the intended audience doesn't understand your argument, then it is a poor tactic.

If you hit a point where a person will not accept they are basing their view on a logical fallacy and insist it is correct and they want to continue, then you do not continue upon a foundation of that fallacy. They will win the fallacious discussion then as they framed it wrong but you accepted it.

So you stick to your guns. You tell them simply 'this is factual or true whether you are able to ever comprehend it or not' and if they do not comprehend that is on them, not you.

ffs

Hi Cuepee,

Since you seem to be quite hung up on this point of yours that I apparently can't comprehend, let's just assume your comparison was 100% solid. I remain curious what has you so convinced that there is no way Manchin could be opposing the $15 minimum wage increase for any reason other than supporting his donors. And, does the new poll I linked that shows more Americans in favour of an $11 minimum wage than a $15 minimum wage give you paus for thought?

It's interesting that a poll appears that makes Manchin's position look like the right one just at the right time.

The Dems got it ?

I thought that 2T was going to the taxpayers in various ways.

If it only goes to registered Dems that's more to go around for us good guys.

What possible downside could there be with raising the minimum wage to $15/hr in a state (WV) where the median wage is about $15/hr?

Yes, it certainly is. Just one reason I wouldn't take it as gospel, but still a potentially interesting data point.

It's not really my argument to make, as I'm not opposed to it. But I understand there are some people that feel that states should be free to decide their own minimum wages, and others that feel a higher minimum wage is a bad idea economically, will lead to layoffs, etc., and likely some believe both of those things.

Median still means a lot of people earn below the given amount.

Minimum wage is a tricky thing, there is truth to the argument that a fixed amount for minimum wage deprives the market of flexibility.

The Scandinavian countries, often used on this forum as good examples of social democracies with extensive welfare states and worker protections, do not have a minimum wage for example (Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden). They instead rely on wage bargaining, usually through mandated negotiations between employee organizations and employer organizations. This gives flexibility, depending on the overall financial prospects of the country. In bad times the employer organizations tend to be lenient on demands and vice versa, but they do have the power to go hard if they see the employer organizations do not go a similar route for management salaries, bonuses etc. That said, they do have legislation to protect against social dumping and worker exploitation.

Of course, mandated wage bargaining is probably even more unlikely than minimum wages in the US which leans extremely hard towards pro-employer legislation, so minimum wage might be the only legislative means possible to ensure a job can provide at least a bare minimum of financial security.

its not so much that there is no other reason possible. He is also a small business owner in his State and is reported to pay MW so it might also be his personal profits and pocket book.'


My point is he would have no defensible excuse for voting against that would not fall apart as complete BS if he is the face of tanking this legislation and the media is always sticking microphones in his face.

Reporter : Ok Manchin you killed this bill and no one gets covid relief or the $15 minimum wage. Walk us through the reasons you felt this was such an important hill to die upon when overwhelming voters want this bill including both those who are Democrat and Independent voters in your State.

Manchin : Well yes. I know my dem and independent voters love it and want it. I know the party ran on it as an election plank and are just fulfilling a promise. I know we have just about every mandate possible from Popular vote to Electoral College to The House to the Senate and POTUS but the reason i felt compelled to scorch my own personal image and our entire party is that this is a matter of principle for me.

Reporter : what principle? You know and stated every voting block you have is for this and you have been given the strongest mandate we've seen in modern history to enact it. So explain this principle.

Manchin.: Umm, errrr, let me get back to you.

A huge uptick in unemployment? There are probably reasons why half the state makes below 15 if your stat is true.

I'll put this here as it has links to numerous studies on this refuting that claim.

Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Cause Job Loss
By Holly Sklar

Extensive research refutes the claim that increasing the minimum wage causes increased unemployment and business closures. (See list below.)

Edit for those who don't like to click through to outside links here are all the different studies they looked at.

-------

Selected Research in chronological order

Lawrence F. Katz and Alan B. Krueger, “The Effect of the Minimum Wage on the Fast Food Industry,” Industrial Relations Section, Princeton University, February 1992.

David Card, “Using Regional Variation in Wages to Measure the Effects of the Federal Minimum Wage,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, October 1992.

David Card and Alan Krueger, Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995).

David Card and Alan B. Krueger, “Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania: Reply,” American Economic Review, December 2000 (in this reply, Card and Krueger update earlier findings and refute critics).

Jared Bernstein and John Schmitt, Economic Policy Institute, Making Work Pay: The Impact of the 1996-97 Minimum Wage Increase, 1998.

Jerold Waltman, Allan McBride and Nicole Camhout, “Minimum Wage Increases and the Business Failure Rate,” Journal of Economic Issues, March 1998.

A Report by the National Economic Council, The Minimum Wage: Increasing the Reward for Work, March 2000.

Holly Sklar, Laryssa Mykyta and Susan Wefald, Raise The Floor: Wages and Policies That Work For All Of Us (Boston: South End Press, 2001/2002), Ch. 4 and pp. 102-08.

Marilyn P. Watkins, Economic Opportunity Institute, “Still Working Well: Washington’s Minimum Wage and the Beginnings of Economic Recovery,” January 21, 2004.

Amy Chasanov, Economic Policy Institute, No Longer Getting By: An Increase in the Minimum Wage is Long Overdue, May 2004.

Fiscal Policy Institute, States with Minimum Wages above the Federal Level Have Had Faster Small Business and Retail Job Growth, March 2006 (update of 2004 report).

John Burton and Amy Hanauer, Center for American Progress and Policy Matters Ohio, Good for Business: Small Business Growth and State Minimum Wages, May 2006.

Paul K. Sonn, Citywide Minimum Wage Laws: A New Policy Tool for Local Governments, (originally published by Brennan Center for Justice) National Employment Law Project, May 2006.

Liana Fox, Economic Policy Institute, Minimum Wage Trends: Understanding past and contemporary research, November 8, 2006.

Paul Wolfson, Economic Policy Institute, State Minimum Wages: A Policy That Works, November 27, 2006.

Arindrajit Dube, Suresh Naidu and Michael Reich, “The Economic Effects of a Citywide Minimum Wage,” Industrial & Labor Relations Review, July 2007.

Jerold L. Waltman, Minimum Wage Policy in Great Britain and the United States (New York: Algora, 2008), pp. 17-19, 132-136, 151-162, 178-180.

Sylvia Allegretto, Arindrajit Dube and Michael Reich, Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment?, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Univ. of CA, Berkeley, June 28, 2008.

Michael F. Thompson, Indiana Business Research Center, “Minimum Wage Impacts on Employment: A Look at Indiana, Illinois and Surrounding Midwestern States,” Indiana Business Review, Fall 2008.

Hristos Doucouliagos and T. D. Stanley, "Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis," British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 47, no. 2, 2009.

Sylvia Allegretto, Arindrajit Dube and Michael Reich, Spacial Heterogeneity and Minimum Wages: Employment Estimates for Teens Using Cross-State Commuting Zones, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Univ. of CA, Berkeley, June 25, 2009.

Arindrajit Dube, T. William Lester and Michael Reich, Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders: Estimates Using Contiguous Counties, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Univ. of CA, Berkeley, August 2008.
Published by The Review of Economics and Statistics, November 2010.

John Schmitt and David Rosnick, The Wage and Employment Impact of Minimum‐Wage Laws in Three Cities, Center for Economic and Policy Research, March 2011.

Sylvia Allegretto, Arindrajit Dube and Michael Reich, Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment? Accounting for Heterogeneity and Selectivity in State Panel Data, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Univ. of CA, Berkeley, June 21, 2010.
Published by Industrial Relations, April 2011.

Anne Thompson, What Is Causing Record-High Teen Unemployment? Range of Economic Factors Drives High Teen Unemployment, But Minimum Wage Not One of Them, National Employment Law Project, October 2011.

Sylvia Allegretto, Arindrajit Dube, Michael Reich and Ben Zipperer, Credible Research Designs for Minimum Wage Studies, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, IRLE Working Paper No. 148-13, 2013

John Schmidt, Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?, (Important overview of years of research), Center for Economic and Policy Research, February 2013.

Michael Reich, Ken Jacobs and Miranda Dietz (eds.), When Mandates Work: Raising Labor Standards at the Local Level (Berkeley CA: University of California Press) 2014.

Michael Reich, The Troubling Fine Print In The Claim That Raising The Minimum Wage Will Cost Jobs, (Response to CBO report), Think Progress, February 19, 2014.

Michael Reich, No, a Minimum-Wage Boost Won’t Kill Jobs, (Response to CBO report), Politico, February 21. 2014.

Michael Reich, Ken Jacobs and Annette Bernhardt, Local Minimum Wage Laws: Impacts on Workers, Families and Businesses, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, IRLE Working Paper No. 104-14, March 2014.

Dale Belman and Paul J. Wolfson, The New Minimum Wage Research, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Employment Research 21:2, 2014.

Dale Belman and Paul J. Wolfson, What Does the Minimum Wage Do?, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, (book) 2014.

Center for Economic and Policy Research, States That Raised Their MinimumWage in 2014 Had Stronger Job Growth Than Those That Didn't, April 2014.

Center for Economic and Policy Research, Update on the Thirteen States that Raised their Minimum Wage, August 2014.

Daniel Kuehn, The Importance of Study Design in the Minimum Wage Debate, Economic Policy Institute, September 2014.

Justin Wolfers and Jan Zilinsky, Higher Wages for Low-Income Workers Lead to Higher Productivity, Peterson Institute for International Economics, January 13, 2015.

Peterson Institute for International Economics, Raising Lower-Level Wages: When and Why it Makes Economic Sense, April 2015.

David Cooper, Lawrence Mishel and John Schmit, We Can Afford a $12.00 Federal Minimum Wage in 2020, Economic Policy Institute, April 2015.

National Employment Law Project, City Minimum Wage Laws: Recent Trends and Economic Evidence, Updated May 2015.

Alan Stonecipher and Ben Wilcox, Minimum Wage Policy and the Resulting Effect on Employment, Integrity Florida, July 20, 2015

Paul J. Wolfson and Dale Belman, 15 Years Of Research on U.S. Employment and the Minimum Wage, Tuck School of Business Working Paper No. 2705499, December 2015

National Employment Law Project, Raise Wages, Kill Jobs? Seven Decades of Historical Data Find No Correlation Between Minimum Wage Increases and Employment Levels, May 2016

I'll add this one since I don't see it in that list.


Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?

I might take 11 indexed to inflation, which is what Manchin says he'd vote for.

But I suspect he wouldn't if it were put on the floor.

It's interesting this is the only example you come up with. It leads me to a couple of follow-up questions to satisfy my curiosity. Do you think it's not possible that he has economy/job-related concerns about it? If not, is that because of something you know about Manchin, or just your assessment of politicians in general?

I guess it depends on what you consider defensible. He's willing to go to $11/hour, so it can't be about states' rights, which I think I might have mistakenly put out there before. That being the case, I imagine the only argument he would make would be an economic one, which is the only plausible reason outside of donors, and obviously he's not going to use that. But I don't think it's as big an issue as you do. Politicians do things people consider indefensible all the time. He can respond that he was OK with $11, but thinks $15 is a bridge too far, will cost too many jobs, etc. Why does he need to go any further than that? Now he's even got a poll he can point to that says Americans agree with him.

I do not think he has defensible or believable economy/job-related concerns he can elaborate that will serve as any defense once the earth is scorched and voters, including his own are looking for scalps.


And that is more the point than anything. A politician can say anything and I am not disputing that. Manchin could say a Martian came down and told me if I don't vote against he would destroy the earth. Nothing stops him from doing so.

Does that mean voters will buy it? Will it be a good enough excuse to offset their rage and desire for scalps when two of the most important and highest supported by his entire voting base (Dems and Independents)? No. And he is no fool and would know that.

And i have not seen the recent poll and don't need to for this specific discussion as it is not part of what I am commenting on.

Sure some compromise vote $11 tied to inflation might work well enough. My comments were on all or none being the situation that the Dems put Manchin too.

And i still say the Dems have no reason to compromise and would be stupid too. They have arguably the strongest hand (i won't repeat the bullet list again) that we have seen in the modern age of politics to bully this through with.

If you basically ran on two major planks and you have this much hand, and it is so easy to force it through, why would you not? Please don't tell me the Parliamentarian or the Monster that is Manchin as those are not reason to force it. Not even a little bit.

If you can bully Bernie (and almost every other politician at some point) by tucking literally detestable legislation under populace legislation KNOWING they know they cannot be the face of tanking the popular legislation, and we KNOW this is one of the oldest and TRIED AND TRUE tactics in politics, hands down, then certainly you can bully Manchin with a highly desirable and beneficial to HIM piece of good legislation tucked under another highly desired piece of legislation.

ZOMG we are bullying you to be more popular with your needed voting base!

Just to clarify, I linked it a few posts ago because I thought it spoke somewhat to your argument that his stance doesn't have support. I'm not convinced we know that for certain.

I think a few of us have been pretty clear on this. I (and I believe a number of others) don't think it's nearly as easy to force Manchin on board as you do. I don't think we're ever going to be on the same page on that, and that's fine.

Looking forward to Manchin switching parties! GOP back in control of the Senate!

Yes. We need to get back to repealing Obamacare (Romney's conservative plan) ASAP.

You are using tinted glasses. Some people would lose their jobs, and some people would get their hours cut, some people will be put out of the labor market (all of which come from a social and economic demographic the D's court the most), and it would also harm small businesses (which is why the D's want to help pay them for it). This really isn't debatable.

The minimum wage is an idea people like, and it's not something born out economic theory. Both sides of the economic thought try and make the economics line up with their ideology.

The truth is, the MW will help some people (probably those making between $11 and $15 dollars an hour), but it's going to hurt entry level workers, small businesses, and those in poverty who can or want to work. You will also see more businesses go to an independent contractor model.

If you don't think anything I've said it is true, look at an industry that's easiest to outsource...call centers.

What people need to understand on this topic is that creating a fear of 'Monsters' as a reason for a Party not to act is silly if not dishonest.

The history of US party politics has it as a NORM that not only are members of one's own party put in positions to have their heads squeezed to acquiesce and vote with the party for what is deemed important but distasteful legislation to others by attaching it in a bill to deemed 'Must Pass' legislation by the party brass, but even members of the opposition get their heads squeezed so that they are forced into voting for it.

Understand that. Opposition politicians maneuvered into voting for Bills their constituents deem repugnant and that they really don't want, when the Party in power realizes the Opposition would face significant blow back if they tank the front facing 'Must Pass', legislation to get rid of the lesser unwanted bill,

This is so commonly done that it does not even raise an eyebrow now when such 'anathema' bills to the Opposition are attached. It is simply NORMAL.


So you counter 'what about the MONSTERS!!!'

Yes all the Monsters that are mentioned upthread not only exist in this scenario but they are on steroids. The 'Opposition Member' actually has a moral stance and a defense to scorch the earth. "My constituents hate it'.

And yet the Party in Power presses on.


So you counter "well but it would be possible for the Party in Power to present the Bills separately, or in another form, 'compromise', so do they really have all the Power?. That could tip the power to the Opposition'.

True, that is why they DO NOT do it.


What they do IN FACT do is press their advantage and put the opposition into a very unfavourable position.

Why? Because the Party in power, ...those at the top of that Party really want to pass this legislation and see it as something they are willing to fight for and take risks, even when they know their is quite a bit of risk due to the Opposition having real reasons act on Morals and Constituent dislike and vote against.

The key words their being 'The party in power and those at the top really want the legislation and see it as something to fight for". If they do not, they seek any and all excuses to give their power to others and let it drop, even when the 'opposition' is literally their own party member who has overwhelming constituent will to pass it.


But you know... MONSTERS. 'He could' ...'he might' ... 'what if'... FLOL. Time to d*cktuck and drop it and run if you are Dem leadership and wait until the GOP takes back power and maneuvers you time and again mercilessly into voting for hated legislation as they press their advantage while laughing at letting fear of monsters run their agenda.