Left-Right Differences

[One Bad Pig]

Source: Dennis Prager

Why do liberals support a higher minimum wage if doesn't do good? Because it makes the recipients of the higher wage feel good (even if other workers lose their jobs when restaurants and other businesses that cannot afford the higher wage close down) and it makes liberals feel good about themselves: We liberals, unlike conservatives, have soft hearts.

Why do liberals support race-based affirmative action? For the same reasons. It makes the recipients feel good when they are admitted to more prestigious colleges. And it makes liberals feel good about themselves for appearing to right the wrongs of historical racism.

The same holds true for left-wing peace activism: Supporting "peace" rather than the military makes liberals feel good about themselves.

Perhaps the best example is the self-esteem movement. It has had an almost wholly negative effect on a generation of Americans raised to have high self-esteem without having earned it. They then suffer from narcissism and an incapacity to deal with life's inevitable setbacks. But self-esteem feels good.

And feelings — not reason — is what liberalism is largely about. Reason asks: "Does it do good?" Liberalism asks, "Does it feel good?"

(Read the whole article here; see prior articles in the series here and here.)

© Copyright Original Source

[seanD]

Only thing I don't agree with is "supporting peace or the military." That's a false dichotomy. I mean, I doubt anyone (or at least most), even those who show staunch support for the military, want war. Also, is it better to just blindly show support for military (which really is a false pretense in and of itself; this country doesn't REALLY support the military based on how vets are often treated by its own government in the aftermath... but that's a whole other issue), or is it better to oppose military actions when those military actions are questionable? Iraq is a perfect example. Was it better to blindly show support for a war that we found out later was not only a grave mistake but based on questionable intent, or was it better to question the war at its outset?

[One Bad Pig]

Only thing I don't agree with is "supporting peace or the military." That's a false dichotomy. I mean, I doubt anyone (or at least most), even those who show staunch support for the military, want war. Also, is it better to just blindly show support for military (which really is a false pretense in and of itself; this country doesn't REALLY support the military based on how vets are often treated by its own government in the aftermath... but that's a whole other issue), or is it better to oppose military actions when those military actions are questionable? Iraq is a perfect example. Was it better to blindly show support for a war that we found out later was not only a grave mistake but based on questionable intent, or was it better to question the war at its outset?

Please read the rest of the article.

[RumTumTugger]

Please read the rest of the article.

and the other 2 as well.

[seanD]

Please read the rest of the article.

I still disagree. It's interesting that he uses one example, WW2, as an argument against pacifism which I agree (I doubt it was by chance he didn't bring up any of the successive military actions). WW2 was justified. But opposition to war is necessary at all times because it keeps a balance (even though I personally often disagree with the moral reasons) and gives us the option of debate when the military actions are in fact questionable.

Btw, you linked to part 3 two times.

[One Bad Pig]

I still disagree. It's interesting that he uses one example, WW2, as an argument against pacifism which I agree (I doubt it was by chance he didn't bring up any of the successive military actions). WW2 was justified. But opposition to war is necessary at all times because it keeps a balance (even though I personally often disagree with the moral reasons) and gives us the option of debate when the military actions are in fact questionable.

He also used the example of withdrawing from Iraq. Ideally, there would be no war - but sometimes we need to oppose war by waging it.

Btw, you linked to part 3 two times.

Actually, I didn't - the editor goofed (looks like he inadvertently changed the title to part 2 when he put up part 3).

[seanD]

He also used the example of withdrawing from Iraq. Ideally, there would be no war - but sometimes we need to oppose war by waging it.

Actually, I didn't - the editor goofed (looks like he inadvertently changed the title to part 2 when he put up part 3).

And he was wrong about that too. I actually noticed quite a few flaws in his article. For example, pulling out of Iraq was based on the timeline the Bush admin had already set prior. Panetta pleaded with the Iraq government for the troops to stay but Iraq government wasn't having it. I don't see how he got a left/right issue from that. Yes, a lot of liberals praised Obama for pulling out but they were wrong too. I just wanted to make a point about why peace activism is necessary, even when it isn't always right. Me focusing on his other flaws would have bogged me down from that single point I wanted to make.

[Sam]

Source: Dennis Prager

Why do liberals support a higher minimum wage if doesn't do good? Because it makes the recipients of the higher wage feel good (even if other workers lose their jobs when restaurants and other businesses that cannot afford the higher wage close down) and it makes liberals feel good about themselves: We liberals, unlike conservatives, have soft hearts.

Why do liberals support race-based affirmative action? For the same reasons. It makes the recipients feel good when they are admitted to more prestigious colleges. And it makes liberals feel good about themselves for appearing to right the wrongs of historical racism.

The same holds true for left-wing peace activism: Supporting "peace" rather than the military makes liberals feel good about themselves.

Perhaps the best example is the self-esteem movement. It has had an almost wholly negative effect on a generation of Americans raised to have high self-esteem without having earned it. They then suffer from narcissism and an incapacity to deal with life's inevitable setbacks. But self-esteem feels good.

And feelings — not reason — is what liberalism is largely about. Reason asks: "Does it do good?" Liberalism asks, "Does it feel good?"

(Read the whole article here; see prior articles in the series here and here.)

© Copyright Original Source

Why do Conservatives continue to propagate the myth that liberals advocate various positions just because it feels good? Because that's a whole lot easier than dealing with the actual policy arguments that liberals make and the independent analyses of the position.

Source: The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income. CBO. 2014.02.18

44995-land-table1b.jpg

...

Image 005.jpg

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Minimum Wage. IGM Forum. 2013.02.26

Image 004.jpg

© Copyright Original Source

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Twain

[Sam]

He also used the example of withdrawing from Iraq. Ideally, there would be no war - but sometimes we need to oppose war by waging it.

How did we oppose war in Iraq by waging it? What country was Hussein imminently about to attack? Did the Iraq War prevent regional destabilization?

[seer]

Why do Conservatives continue to propagate the myth that liberals advocate various positions just because it feels good? Because that's a whole lot easier than dealing with the actual policy arguments that liberals make and the independent analyses of the position.

From your link:

Increasing the minimum wage would have two principal effects on low-wage workers. Most of them would receive higher pay that would increase their family’s income, and some of those families would see their income rise above the federal poverty threshold. But some jobs for low-wage workers would probably be eliminated, the income of most workers who became jobless would fall substantially, and the share of low-wage workers who were employed would probably fall slightly.

OK, so they agree that some will lose their jobs. But how do they know how many small businesses decide not to hire that next person or two because the wages are too high? They are only guessing. And when you give a hamburger flipper $15.00 a hour, which they want to do in my state, what does that do to my buying power?

[One Bad Pig]

Why do Conservatives continue to propagate the myth that liberals advocate various positions just because it feels good?

Because it is very often accurate.

Because that's a whole lot easier than dealing with the actual policy arguments that liberals make and the independent analyses of the position.

Source: The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income. CBO. 2014.02.18

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7117[/ATTACH]

...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7118[/ATTACH]

© Copyright Original Source

You think the CBO is independent?

From the graphic which you provide: "Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices."

In other words, everybody loses (because the lucky few who get an earnings increase also face the higher prices) - and that's even in the imaginary world where raising the minimum wage magically produces a net increase in real income, which is not logically possible.

Source: Minimum Wage. IGM Forum. 2013.02.26

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7119[/ATTACH]

© Copyright Original Source

For those low-skilled workers who can find employment, that would indeed be desirable. For everybody else, not so much.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Twain

That points both ways, Sam.

[Sam]

From your link:



OK, so they agree that some will lose their jobs. But how do they know how many small businesses decide not to hire that next person or two because the wages are too high? They are only guessing. And when you give a hamburger flipper $15.00 a hour, which they want to do in my state, what does that do to my buying power?

The CBO was dealing with estimates regarding a $10.10 wage and a $9.00 wage. There hasn't been sufficient study to determine the likely effect of a $15/hour minimum wage. It could be a net positive, like the $10.10 or $9.00 proposals or it could be a net negative. There isn't enough research or experience done to tell either way yet. The high-water mark for the minimum wage was $1.60 in 1968, which translates to ~$11.00 in 2015.

[seer]

The CBO was dealing with estimates regarding a $10.10 wage and a $9.00 wage. There hasn't been sufficient study to determine the likely effect of a $15/hour minimum wage. It could be a net positive, like the $10.10 or $9.00 proposals or it could be a net negative. There isn't enough research or experience done to tell either way yet. The high-water mark for the minimum wage was $1.60 in 1968, which translates to ~$11.00 in 2015.

It doesn't matter Sam, you own link tells us that jobs will be lost and that you will increase the price the rest of us have to pay for goods and services.

[Sam]

Because it is very often accurate.

You think the CBO is independent?

From the graphic which you provide: "Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices."

In other words, everybody loses (because the lucky few who get an earnings increase also face the higher prices) - and that's even in the imaginary world where raising the minimum wage magically produces a net increase in real income, which is not logically possible.


For those low-skilled workers who can find employment, that would indeed be desirable. For everybody else, not so much.

As you can read from the link, that's nowhere near the conclusion drawn by the CBO (which is, indeed, an independent, non-partisan organization). The CBO also found that the impact on employment losses from a $10.10 minimum wage could be anything from zero to one million — there's simply no way to tell. But "everybody loses" is not what was determined by the CBO or by the majority of IGM economists polled in 2013.

And the CBO study linked shows that the statement "the lucky few who get an earnings increase also face higher prices" is not accurate. Here's the graphic again:

Image 006.jpg

As you can see, the overall real change in income (light blue) is higher for every group except those making six times or more the federal poverty level (approximately $140,000/year for a family of four). So everybody under the 88th income percentile in 2014 would have seen a real overall rise in income.

That points both ways, Sam.

Sure -- but if you're going to point that back at me, please first make sure you're accurately understanding and restating the source documents!

[Sam]

It doesn't matter Sam, you own link tells us that jobs will be lost and that you will increase the price the rest of us have to pay for goods and services.

No, that's not what the CBO study stated at all. That CBO study didn't even address potential product cost increases. And the CBO was clear to state that its projection ranged from zero job losses to one million job losses.

It is notable that we've had a much higher minimum wage than the current wage in the past and have not seen a correlation between the minimum wage and inflation increases. This is a specious argument built on "common sense" economics rather than real economics.

ETA: And the CBO estimate of zero to one million lost jobs, again, is based on a $10.10 minimum wage. Raising the wage to $9.00 would, by CBO estimates, potentially cost 200,000 jobs on the high end but could also slightly increase the number of jobs available.

Minimum wage increases are quite complex and so arguing that increasing minimum wage will always and necessarily lead to a net negative impact is unwarranted.