Perhaps, but it definitely wouldn't be a complete failure.
I'll take a +36 Democrat historical mediocre gain in the House in 2018. If that happens, the Democrats would control the House.
Last edited:
Are you ready for President Pence???
- Thread starter SUPERPOKES
- Start date
Perhaps, but it definitely wouldn't be a complete failure.
I'll take a +36 Democrat historical mediocre gain in the House in 2018. If that happens, the Democrats would control the House.
The Republican Party continues to do well in spite of being completely unable to pass shit because the democrats have no message...other than the white man is the devil.
What information do you consider "very recent"?
I understand this but are you implying that a partisan source can't supply accurate information?
Then you and I agree.
And I'd love to see an economic study on the minimum wage that some random protestors made up. I bet that would be some entertaining reading, lol!
It really is amazing. I mean I LOATHE the GOP and most of what it stands for and yet, I feel it is somewhat my duty to oppose leftists so our interests somehow align. Kind of crazy.
Again, if we are using the non-partisan metric of the historical average House seat gain by an opposing party, then the Republican House gains in 2014 were not successful per that metric.
You seem to want to use other metrics now in defining success. If that is the case, propose the other non-partisan metrics to use.
I am familiar with the study from researchers at UW-Seattle, as well as the competing study from researchers at Cal-Berkeley. And I agree with most economists who say the Seattle minimum wage needs further investigation before major conclusions are drawn.
I also will readily admit what most economists and yes, other liberals admit...that raising the minimum wage beyond a certain level is counterproductive. What that level (or the optimal minimum wage) is still is greatly debated among economists.
It is definitely much higher though than the current federal minimum wage, which means we have room to raise it without it being counterproductive.
Nope, but you also have to be willing to challenge the conclusions because of the potential bias of political leaning organizations. What if I told you that particular organization only puts information that agrees with their views on the subject? Could that be an obvious indicator of bias?
Hmmmm. So the target of $15 an hour, more than double the current, isn't based on well researched policy? I'd tend to think if it was, there wouldn't be great debate among economists.
2017, being as how this minimum wage of $15 an hour is only a few years old. Research into the effects of a minimum wage increase of more than double isn't out there because it has never happened before. Information from 2015 is largely irrelevant at this point.
I wouldn't be shocked, in fact, I would expect such action by any partisan group. However, that doesn't invalidate the independent studies and reports they provide. The internal material of those sources is what would invalidate them.
Does anyone have a real life example where no minimum wage has shown to really help working people?
How do you know that what they have provided are "independent studies and reports?" The fact that they didn't do them themselves? As I said, they can very well provide only information from partisan sources with preconceived conclusions. It literally happens all the time.
Then where's the evidence that $15 an hour is the right target? Oh, there isn't any and that is exactly what is being researched as we speak so we should actually be careful using any conclusions from previous increases as a distinct measure of this one because we may be comparing apples to oranges which is what more than doubling the minimum wage is as compared to the rather modest increases previously?
Now I'm with you. 2015 is so 2015.
Last I checked this stat Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, and Sweden had no minimum wage law. May have changed over the years though.
