Pages

Friday, April 1, 2016

Corporate Shill Andrew Cuomo Raises NY Minimum Wage to $15

He's a corporate shill as he supports Hillary Clinton and anyone who does that does it because they are a corporate shill.

Yet it is perplexing to consider: why would a corporate shill raise the MW to $15 an hour?

This tells us something:

1. Either corporate shills aren't as bad as Bernie would have us think

2. Or if they are every bit as bad, then Andrew Cuomo is not a corporate shill

3. Which would mean that Hillary isn't a corporate shill.

This is too weird. I thought you couldn't support her for any reason except that you are a corporate shill.

Anyway, it's true, my state of NY, the great state of NY, has raised the MW to $15 an hour in the face of considerable GOP and industry opposition. Good on him and good for NY.

"Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and state legislative leaders announced on Thursday that they had reached a budget agreement that would raise the minimum wage in New York City to $15 by the end of 2018, but initiate slower increases elsewhere, even in the city’s wealthy suburbs."

"For Mr. Cuomo, the wage agreement came with clear concessions, as some lawmakers outside the city won a softer phase-in period. Long Island and Westchester County will not reach a $15 wage for nearly six years; areas north of Westchester are assured only of reaching $12.50 by 2021."

"In announcing the $15 wage, New York became the second state to embrace that threshold; California lawmakers passed a similar measure only hours earlier on Thursday. The movement began in earnest in New York City in late 2012, when fast-food workers began the so-called Fight for $15, which became a nationwide effort to increase wages and support unions."

"The wage issue was one of the final obstacles to reaching a timely accord on the next state budget, estimated to be more than $150 billion, which mixes high-profile policy measures with nuts-and-bolts infrastructure spending and aid to schools."

"With the minimum wage deal and another hard-fought measure — one that would eventually provide employees across the state 12 weeks of paid time off to care for newborns or sick relatives and for families dealing with military deployments — the governor was able to claim victory on two signature issues."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/nyregion/new-york-budget-deal-with-higher-minimum-wage-is-reached.html

It will be interesting to see the impact of this. As a liberal, I believe it will be good. But again, while a $15 wage sounds very good, its only good assuming you find gainful employment. 

We are now in the throes of what economists call a natural experiment. The wage won't hit $15 at every part of the state overnight and economists will be able to gauge its impact. Still it will be interesting to watch. 

In the next few years economists are gong to have some real data for their natural experiment on higher minimum wages and their effects. 

A great day for NY. 

29 comments:

  1. Mike, O/T: MF finally took the bait (not mine, but Egmont's). Here's a taste:

    "The axiom of action, which grounds our actual understanding of economic categories and principles, has not, contrary to your claims, been “proven false.”. It is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be proven false, because PROVING ANYTHING is itself a human action."

    "Smothering this blog with ignorance and self-righteous indignation, projecting your flaws on others, is proof that you don’t understand praxeology. You’re a fraud."


    Oh, man, that's perfect! "It is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be proven false" ... haha... that's why (internet) Austrianism is as big a brain worm (maybe worse) than religion. Fundamentalist religion at that.

    Meanwhile Egmont addresses Scott. I hope Egmont finds a new happy home on themoneyillusion.com... for years, if not decades to come. =)

    You ever see my concept for Scott in hell? Take a gander:
    http://banking-discussion.blogspot.com/2014/07/scott-in-hell.html

    ... now he's got a whole lecture circuit to take in ... for all eternity!: E. Harding on politics, and then MF, Ray Lopez, Gary Anderson, and now Egmont! At least he'll have some variety.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, thats' MF. Impossible to be proven false.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's why you say 'for some reason' you never talk directly to MF. LOL. You're not a total masochist.

      Delete
  3. Basically on anything you want to talk about MF is impossible to be proven false. His nickname ought to be Unfalsifiable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, "Unfalsifiable" is a good nickname for him. What's hilarious is he accuses others (and in particlar Egmont) of being like fundamentalist religious nuts, not even considering the possibility they might be wrong.

      My quasi-evil plan to throw both MF and Egmont in a bag and poke it with a stick until they start fighting continues to pay dividends. I feel somewhat slighted that MF didn't address my "magic neuron" post (nobody did), but MF did go on to address a couple of points I made indirectly... explaining that even if some god-like super human could study us empirically, or even if our actions are deterministic, then praxeology still holds because we ARE humans, and thus we cannot use empirical science on human actions. Anyway, I decided to give the bag another poke... ostensibly taking MF's side again, against Egmont Kakarot-Handtke (whom I refer to Egmont Karaoke-Hanky) in a parody of MF's argument.

      That's partly a test for Egmont as well... to see if he understands it's satire.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Uh oh. Two deleted comments? What could they have said that had to be stricken from the records? LOL

      Delete
    5. Lol... it's just that I went off on a long tangent (a couple of them)... so I thought I'd spare you.

      Delete
  4. I saw you comment to Egmont. Great stuff. LOL

    "I hope for your sake you will someday understand this' LOL

    That really does sound like Major

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wonder if Major will like this? Or will even he figure out it's a parody? I doubt it as he wouldn't see Praxelogy as something that can be lampooned.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well done, Tom! Major does seem to be taking you totally seriously here and he likes what he's seeing!

    I thought he might, as he has no sense of irony whatsoever, thanks to his dogmatism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol... so funny. Egmont didn't address me, so I assume he saw what I was doing (although you'd think he'd point out to MF that I was mocking him). I have a sense Egmont doesn't have much of a funny bone either. I guess the bar is pretty low for using Poe's law with those two: definitely not "wizard level" trolling on my part.

      One of the two erased comments above was (partly) my attempt to get a youtube Maoist with a whole series on debunking Austrian economics and praxeology (as if it needs a whole series), sucked into the fight. Here's the guy: Jason Unruhe.

      Can you imagine if Scott picked up a Maoist commentator too? Lol... I guess I should take it easy on poor old Scott... I don't actually dislike him. But something about all those nut-balls fighting in his comments section really just tickles me. I can imagine him rolling his eyes...

      Delete
    2. ... and I'm pretty sure if Scott saw my comment, he would see that it's a parody. Perhaps anybody but MF could see that?

      Delete
    3. Also I see that MF didn't notice me correcting him regarding positivism and post-positivism. I put the link in there to Popper and everything... but he persists in calling Egmont a positivist.

      Delete
    4. Actually a Maoist would be a perfect foil to MF. Imagine the crazy! (Jason actually sounds pretty sane dismantling Austrianism and praxeology though).

      MF is so used to calling anybody who poo poo's praxeology a "statist" and a socialist, that I wonder what he'd do if he came up against a REAL statist and socialist?... especially one who's spent a lot of time thinking about exactly what's wrong with praxeology.

      Delete
    5. ... he might get so disgusted, he'd abandon Sumner's comments section for good! Lol... maybe I'm doing a Scott a favor!

      Delete
    6. A Maoist and MF duking it out at Money Illusion. I'd almost pay to see it. A pay per view event for nerds!

      Delete
  7. The Maoist actually has a pretty interesting analysis of praxis. Basically it's pure Kantian theory. Empirical data is meaningless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't watch the whole thing, not even one episode. But it was OK, eh? I noticed he's toned down the crazy from when I first encountered him some years back. He used to dress in a military style uniform (insurgent style), and stand in front of a giant hammer and sickle and/or stylised Moa portrait. I think the dark hipster suite and tie is a big improvement.

      Delete
  8. Uh oh. I do see that Unruhe next has a two parter on the question of: 'Is all sex rape?'

    ReplyDelete
  9. He's sort of an interesting guy, I checked him out on Twitter. Here is a tweet:

    "I am always amazed at the level of childishness that is thrown at me by other so-called Marxists. I wish they'd spend that energy on theory."

    https://twitter.com/MaoistRebelNews

    ReplyDelete
  10. He does hate Kourtney Kardashian-I've written about my adoration for her before!

    "#AskKourtney Any chance your bourgeois labour value leaching family could just go away?"

    https://twitter.com/MaoistRebelNews/status/713098436313268224

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It'll give you a reason to take MF's side once in a while
      ... Provided he's Kardashian neutral at least. ;)

      ...and actually, I think MF makes some good points about Egmont's ideas in his latest.

      ----

      For maximum fun I wish I could keep my handle "I love tard fights"... But I'm afraid Scott would have to fish those out every time, and he'd soon tire of that, especially when all I'm doing is my best to polute an old post with inane banter. But that would be like shoving the irony in their faces, right?

      Also I notice Scott ignored Egmont from the get go, even though he addressed Scott directly. I guess Egmont met the qualifications right out of the gate:

      1. Verbose
      2. No sign of listening & a fool
      3. Rude

      Recall his criteria for ignoring someone? I remarked that my politeness saved me, whereas you suspected brevity was your saving grace... is that right?

      Delete
    2. Something like that. I haven't been commenting there much lately but that's mostly because I've been so focused on the election.

      MF makes some good points against 'positivism?'

      Delete
  11. The good news, is that the MF-Egmont debate is intensifying. A furious volley of comments particularly on MF"s side.

    I have to give you credit for some good work here. Very effectively trolling-even if as you say they are sort of easy targets.

    Neither has any evident sense of irony which makes for the best rant fests.

    ReplyDelete
  12. More vintage MF: 'Austrianism has not been proved false. Austrianism cannot be proved false...'

    ReplyDelete
  13. Egmont had a good comeback at Major today. These guys are well matched for each other.

    Good work Tom.

    Egmont:

    "Imagine for a moment an aircraft flying from, say, New York to Paris. Now we can ask why? One way to answer the question is to speculate about the motives and reasons of the passengers, the pilot, the crew, the flight controllers, and the managers and stockholders of the airline. The other way to look at the flight is to think about the laws of aerodynamics, thermodynamics and so forth."

    "The first way of explanation is the Austrian way and it yields the same trivial psychologistic crap over and over again. Notice: Whatever the subjective motives and actions of passengers are they do — as a matter of principle — NOT explain the phenomenon of flight."

    "The second way is the scientific method. Thinking people, this excludes Austrians, know that there is no such thing as an irrefutable law of human action that could explain flying."

    "So, just as flying is explained by the objective laws of physics, the economy is explained by the objective laws of economics."

    "Needless to say that Austrians never got that point: “Mises’ contribution was very simple and at the same time extremely profound. He pointed out that the whole economy is the result of what individuals do.” (Foreword, von Mises, 2007, p. v)

    "This is as extremely profound as ‘the sun goes up’.

    "You already two times declared that you have won the debate. Do you realize that this has been the selling proposition of the ancient Sophists, which Plato criticized? Plato made it clear that a SCIENTIFIC debate is about episteme=knowledge and NOT about doxa=opinion and to twit an audience, or what Popper called ‘the bad taste of a finicky scholasticism’.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have to say that in this context I get the extreme Austrian-Major view. As economics is a social science about human activity it is dehumanizing to apply natural laws to the social sciences.

    Now, that doesn't mean I accept this argument, but I think this is the overriding premise from which MF-Murray Rothbard style Austrianism starts from.

    ReplyDelete