Glenn Reynolds: After Yale, Mizzou, raise the voting age — to 25

[blah12345678]

Here's another thought...

Biologist that I am... I've read that the transition from childhood to adulthood is more than just going through puberty. Neurologists have claimed the brain is undergoing maturity and changes (physical changes) in the "growing up" years, and the brain's physical transformation isn't complete until about age 25!

This partially explains why such a high percentage of marriages fail, especially among the young. Recall how divorced will often say, "we became different people... we just drifted apart"? I submit that they got married too young... because they were "in love", of course... were not "on the same page from the get-go" with their adult issues but didn't know it at the time.

IOW... when you're 18, you haven't yet had time to even form your opinions/thoughts/feelings about the majority of life's "adult issues", and therefore you're not mature enough to be entrusted with something so important as the vote.

Remember when you were a teen and thought you had it all figured out? Then as you got older you realized how little you really understood? The teen years can be tumultuous not only for teens but for their parents... but it's understandable

I agree. 18 yr olds should NOT be allowed to vote.

This jibes with my theory that we humans (at least we North American, first-world humans) have two chronological lifetimes - the first from birth to 16, and the second from 16 to death. Being 16 is equivalent to being a "newborn" adult. 17 = 1, 18 = 2, etc.

In my experience, I "woke up" at age 7, in that I started remembering everything, started acquiring my childhood hobbies and interests, etc. My life wasn't just a blur anymore. Likewise, I do not think it's unreasonable to believe that a lot of us "woke up" around age 23. As in, stop acting like a dumbfuck and start getting serious about things. Paying attention. Striving to make good decisions based on considerations 2 moves beyond the immediate reaction, etc.

Not a hard and fast rule, but an observation...

 

[Scataphagos]

This jibes with my theory that we humans (at least we North American, first-world humans) have two chronological lifetimes - the first from birth to 16, and the second from 16 to death. Being 16 is equivalent to being a "newborn" adult. 17 = 1, 18 = 2, etc.

In my experience, I "woke up" at age 7, in that I started remembering everything, started acquiring my childhood hobbies and interests, etc. My life wasn't just a blur anymore. Likewise, I do not think it's unreasonable to believe that a lot of us "woke up" around age 23. As in, stop acting like a dumbfuck and start getting serious about things. Paying attention. Striving to make good decisions based on considerations 2 moves beyond the immediate reaction, etc.

Not a hard and fast rule, but an observation...

Like the old saying... "Youth is wasted on the young".

 

[piezoe]

What needed to be done was to let these asset bubbles collapse back in 2008...why do we need to essentially double the minimum wage? I'll tell you why...because the costs of rent, food, tuition, medical insurance and anything else you can imagine have gone skyward since we decided it was "prudent" to re-flate the collapsed credit bubble...Now, we risk enacting some of your favorite "centrally planned" economic measures of doubling the minimum wage as we are staring into the initial stages of another recession..Good luck to those kids and their $15 min wage when many of these businesses go into the tank and lay-offs begin to pick up...

The problem with these sorts of populist movements is that they are always trying to fit a square peg into a round hole...An economy held together by duct tape with 8 years of ZIRP and a "jobs recovery" of waitresses and bartenders is not the time to arbitrarily decide to double the minimum wage.

My opinion is that 15$ is too high as an intermediate term goal. You have to be very careful not to set a minimum above what productivity would warrant or you create new problems. Somewhere around 10$ is about right, but it has to be phased in. If we don't do it we are screwed. It is essential.

 

[piezoe]

my plan involves raising it regardless of the "inflation" rate
your plan bets on inflation and leaves it in the hands of the government.

It is pointless to ignore inflation. It is not the nominal value of money that counts, but the real value.

 

[der_kommissar]

My opinion is that 15$ is too high as an intermediate term goal. You have to be very careful not to set a minimum above what productivity would warrant or you create new problems. Somewhere around 10$ is about right, but it has to be phased in. If we don't do it we are screwed. It is essential.

I agree with you that a $15 minimum is far too high...a phased in approach seems sensible, however, I stand by my argument that these are measures that are being forced upon small businesses at a time of economic stagnation...This will most likely result in a massive shedding of jobs and a doubling of the workload for the fewer employees that remain...Essentially it will be a loss for everyone involved.

 

[piezoe]

I agree with you that a $15 minimum is far too high...a phased in approach seems sensible, however, I stand by my argument that these are measures that are being forced upon small businesses at a time of economic stagnation...This will most likely result in a massive shedding of jobs and a doubling of the workload for the fewer employees that remain...Essentially it will be a loss for everyone involved.

Probably not. There is a lot of both direct evidence and economic studies to show that if you raise wages when they are well below the level justified by productivity, as now in the U.S., there will be no negative effect on employment and possibly a positive one (assuming you don't raise them too much of course.) Current minimum is far below what is justified by productivity. Up to $10 or so, should be a very safe figure, $9 certainly would be safe in all regions of the country. This would be very good for the economy. Piketty in 'Capital in the 21st Century' has an excellent discussion of this (Pgs 308-313). When the minimum is too low, a rise in the minimum will be exactly what the doctor ordered to combat economic stagnation.

 

[ETcallhome]

Probably not. There is a lot of both direct evidence and economic studies to show that if you raise wages when they are well below the level justified by productivity, as now in the U.S., there will be no negative effect on employment and possibly a positive one (assuming you don't raise them too much of course.) Current minimum is far below what is justified by productivity. Up to $10 or so, should be a very safe figure, $9 certainly would be safe in all regions of the country. This would be very good for the economy. Piketty in 'Capital in the 21st Century' has an excellent discussion of this (Pgs 308-313). When the minimum is too low, a rise in the minimum will be exactly what the doctor ordered to combat economic stagnation.

I'm all for tying min wage to productivity, that would solve a lot of problems. But don't forget the other option, eliminating government price controls. It's never worked in the past, but we central planners keep hoping.

 

[CaptainObvious]

We also need to pass out pacifiers and diapers to college freshman. Maybe a comfort blankie as well so they can go to their happy place when they feel threatened.

 

[piezoe]

I'm all for tying min wage to productivity, that would solve a lot of problems. But don't forget the other option, eliminating government price controls. It's never worked in the past, but we central planners keep hoping.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "government price controls".

 

[ETcallhome]

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "government price controls".

who decides what the min wage should be? Who controls that price? We, the American people have decided that $7.25 is fair. How is that working out? And now, we the people, the government are going to set a new price control? So in your crazy world, the government (we the people) decides what the price of anything should be.

I'm a forex trader so I know how much the value of your dollar fluctuates everyday every minute, and it's a lot. So talking about the value of a dollar and how many of those fluctuating dollars a "worker" should be paid by we the people who are the government is quite comical. Especially when it's not our money, but somebody elses money. Oh yes, we are good at teling others how they should spend their money.

Getting back to it, since money today has no intrinsic value, what difference does it make? Raise it a nickel a quarter, take it out of the hands of the government and the economists who try to tell us what inflation is. The low wage earner knows all too well what inflation is and it has very little to do with what Janet says it is.

All I want to do is get things moving, even if it is just moving from one pocket to the other.

Or we can wait for you to make a big deal about moving it from $7.25 to $10.10 ob and as soon as you raise it and proclaim your victory over the evil employers, it will immediatly be "not enough" because no matter how much you give, it is never enough.

The private sector operates on at least some kind fiscal prudence, but the government operates on total greed. No matter how much you give them (us the people) it is never enough. And they (we) won't be happy until they have it all.