|
enraged_camel posted:Again this assumes that the cost of most if not all goods will not rise to compensate for the increased income, in which case demand will go back to its original level. That's because we know how economics works.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:33 |
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Again this assumes that the cost of most if not all goods will not rise to compensate for the increased income, in which case demand will go back to its original level. What suggests it will? Edit: ~ You're assuming the cost of most if not all goods will not rise to compensate for increased income concentration, in which case we won't be able to afford food and clothes anymore. ~ Accretionist fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Again this assumes that the cost of most if not all goods will not rise to compensate for the increased income, in which case demand will go back to its original level. Yeah, it isn't a assumption I need to worry about because the economic data I have seen on minimum wages shows it doesn't happen and this effectively wouldn't be different. Supply is far from static on consumer goods and most other expenses, and part of what I proposed is to provide public housing to meet demand in case of constrained supply (also prices are increasing largely because of shifts in population not the income of an established population). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:What suggests it will? The prices of status goods that people with money compete for, like homes in neighborhoods with the best schools, have gone up as the rich have gotten richer. It's a thing that happens. What is your argument for why the prices people pay won't go up if those same people are all at least, say, $15,000 richer every year? Ardennes posted:Yeah, it isn't a assumption I need to worry about because the economic data I have seen on minimum wages shows it doesn't happen and this effectively wouldn't be different. How is this the same as the very marginal minimum wage increases that have been studied?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:00
|
|
wateroverfire posted:What is your argument for why the prices people pay won't go up if those same people are all at least, say, $15,000 richer every year? I don't think the argument is that prices won't go up. The argument is that the increases in wage/gmi will make up for the rise in prices because labor/taxes is a small fraction of the price when it comes to a given good. Also, again, any and all plans like a GMI would be slowly instituted, it would never be $15k overnight, for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:The prices of status goods that people with money compete for, like homes in neighborhoods with the best schools, have gone up as the rich have gotten richer. It's a thing that happens. You are saying that people with low fixed income are going to get into bidding wars with rich people over property? That is your explanation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:The prices of status goods that people with money compete for, like homes in neighborhoods with the best schools, have gone up as the rich have gotten richer. It's a thing that happens. F - 0/10 "most if not all goods" quote:What is your argument for why the prices people pay won't go up if those same people are all at least, say, $15,000 richer every year? F - 0/10 They will go up. Never said they wouldn't. People're saying they won't go up commensurate to $15K. I have no interest in tilting at strawmans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:How is this the same as the very marginal minimum wage increases that have been studied? Probably because the prices still haven't matched them to meet them even if the gains are far more limited. Prices are going to increase, but the assumption is that prices will go up to quite literally the entire amount. As for property, a GMI would actually mean the poor would be able to compete better for housing, and while prices will increase....I doubt the GMI is going to eat itself. How is this going to work anyway? I mean there are a certain amount of people in a city, and while there will be higher demand for better housing stock, the existing stock will still exist. Even if the landlords improve it and ask for more rent, they can only demand what the market will bear. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
I mean, yes, people at the bottom are going to demand better living conditions, and are likely going to pay more for them. But that represents a QoL increase. It is not like they are suddenly going try to outbid each other over yurts and hovels. Edit: Also, the idea of neighborhoods with better schools sounds like a social problem that might need addressing too. It is too bad that the people on these forums who support wealth transfer, decreasing income inequality, and providing the basic necessities to all people are entirely against the idea of addressing disparity in school quality! archangelwar fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:I mean, yes, people at the bottom are going to demand better living conditions, and are likely going to pay more for them. But that represents a QoL increase. It is not like they are suddenly going try to outbid each other over yurts and hovels. Granted, a GMI would almost certainly stabilize neighborhoods that are poor and while on its own it might not be enough, if anything you may create better neighborhoods by stabilizing them. There are plenty of neighborhoods in Southern Chicago that could use it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
If you look at other major programs that have been implementd historically, such as social security, they didn't appear in isolation. They were part of broader reform packages which were implemented due to a mixture of populist pressure, elite advocacy and political mobilization. A world where the balance of forces in society is such that a minimum income is a conceivable policy goal would presumably be a world where the political will exists to tackle an issue like affordable housing. It is true on some level that making life easier for the poor would be disruptive to the functioning of American capitalism. Not to the degree that some posters in here are implying, but nevertheless there would be disruptions. Some business models that are predicated on paying low wages might suffer, even if demand increased, because hopefully people with higher incomes would expect better working conditions and would have the bargaining clout to demand them once they had a sour e of income to fall back on. Overall implementing policies that prevent poverty and then patching up the problems this creates, such as inflation or disruptions in the labour market, is a vastly better solution than having millions of food insecure households and individuals living in the midst of the worlds wealthiest society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Overall implementing policies that prevent poverty and then patching up the problems this creates, such as inflation or disruptions in the labour market, is a vastly better solution than having millions of food insecure households and individuals living in the midst of the worlds wealthiest society. I mean, it would not be hard to look around at all the other countries that have implemented similar policies, or smaller scale experiments to find evidence of redistribution resulting in hyperinflation. If you want to make an economic claim, use some actual loving economics to support it. I am tired of this "economics works this way, except when it disagrees with me, so it works this way now this one time" poo poo. Edit: And I mean the royal you not you Helsing 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:You are saying that people with low fixed income are going to get into bidding wars with rich people over property? That is your explanation? Accretionist ironically asked Accretionist posted:Edit: ~ You're assuming the cost of most if not all goods will not rise to compensate for increased income concentration, in which case we won't be able to afford food and clothes anymore. ~ Which I may have misinterpreted? That read to me like "You're assuming the cost of goods will not rise to compensate for increased income inequality" in which case yes, for the goods people with more money care about, that's a thing that happens. If that's not what you meant Accretionist then sorry, but also what you wrote doesn't seem to make sense. Ardennes posted:Probably because the prices still haven't matched them to meet them even if the gains are far more limited. Prices are going to increase, but the assumption is that prices will go up to quite literally the entire amount. The minimum wage hasn't been a price floor in any of the places it has been raised (Except probably SeaTec. We'll see how that goes), so when it has gone up it hasn't put very much money into peoples' pockets. That is quantitatively different than giving everyone an additional $15,000 every year, which by design puts a lot of money into peoples' pockets. At the same time, if you're taxing the people who own stores and businesses to fund the redistribution, all of them have a strong incentive to raise prices to restore their margins. The labor market effects are similarly likely to raise costs. Ardennes posted:How is this going to work anyway? I mean there are a certain amount of people in a city, and while there will be higher demand for better housing stock, the existing stock will still exist. Even if the landlords improve it and ask for more rent, they can only demand what the market will bear. The markets will bear more at most levels - more or less until the range where the GMI is a trivial amount of money - and landlords are going to be paying higher taxes. That is going to push prices up and unless there's some group of property owners who aren't subject to the same pressures people will have to pay. Whether price increases will eat up the whole of the GMI is impossible to predict just by spitballing, but that a good chunk of it will go to inflation is a pretty uncontrovertial statement. And if on net people only end up with a small percent of the GMI as actual improvement why not just go after a few targeted improvements and save the monumental effort of funding a GMI in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Overall implementing policies that prevent poverty and then patching up the problems this creates, such as inflation or disruptions in the labour market If you could patch them up, sure, maybe. What leads you to believe that would be possible? Certainly modern experience seems to indicate it's either not possible to engineer the economy to that great a degree or that we don't know how.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:45
|
|
wateroverfire posted:The minimum wage hasn't been a price floor in any of the places it has been raised (Except probably SeaTec. We'll see how that goes), so when it has gone up it hasn't put very much money into peoples' pockets. That is quantitatively different than giving everyone an additional $15,000 every year, which by design puts a lot of money into peoples' pockets. At the same time, if you're taxing the people who own stores and businesses to fund the redistribution, all of them have a strong incentive to raise prices to restore their margins. The labor market effects are similarly likely to raise costs. Yes, but it will be a net gain. If you're taxing the 1% and directly redistributing the cash, the rises in the cost of labor will not outweigh the gain in disposable income because the cost of labor in any given good is very small. Places like food service are where you're most likely to see price increases, but consumer electronics, furniture, housing, etc have no reason to become more expensive due to the 1% being taxed more. It's not businesses, it's people. wateroverfire posted:If you could patch them up, sure, maybe. What leads you to believe that would be possible? Certainly modern experience seems to indicate it's either not possible to engineer the economy to that great a degree or that we don't know how. Nobody said GMI is anywhere near possible in today's political climate. The question is should we do it. The answer is yes. Can we? Only if the elected leaders pursue it, and I don't see that happening any time soon.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:
Actually, it is. And given you have made no effort to defend it is quite telling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:The markets will bear more at most levels - more or less until the range where the GMI is a trivial amount of money - and landlords are going to be paying higher taxes. That is going to push prices up and unless there's some group of property owners who aren't subject to the same pressures people will have to pay. I don't really think there should be a universal GMI, it should be means-tested. quote:Whether price increases will eat up the whole of the GMI is impossible to predict just by spitballing, but that a good chunk of it will go to inflation is a pretty uncontrovertial statement. And if on net people only end up with a small percent of the GMI as actual improvement why not just go after a few targeted improvements and save the monumental effort of funding a GMI in the first place? Probably because you need to address income and the place of it in the first place, and the issue of automation and lower levels of employment. There needs to be far more than a few targeted improvements as well especially considering the severity of inequality in the US (and actual poor living standards for significant portions of the population).
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If you could patch them up, sure, maybe. What leads you to believe that would be possible? Certainly modern experience seems to indicate it's either not possible to engineer the economy to that great a degree or that we don't know how. "Modern experience" here clearly just means your gut feeling. I would suggest modern experience suggests the opposite. If you look, for example, at the functioning of any industrial economy during a major war you can see how a high level of economic intervention and coordination proved to be incredibly effective at simultaneously increasing production, encouraging technological innovation, and maintaining or even raising living standards for workers. Those highly coordinated war economies also created the institutional, technological and social basis for a 30 year economic boom and a (by historical standards) broadly based middle class society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I don't really think there should be a universal GMI, it should be means-tested. Whether it is means tested or not comes out in a wash if you alter tax code to compensate, as those with means would simply pay back their UBI via increased tax. Paying everyone ensures there are no administrative errors that cause someone to slip through the cracks. I mean, I would take means testing over nothing. Also, UBI is not an endgame policy, it is a stop gap to begin reduction of inequality while providing immediate assistance to those who are suffering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Whether it is means tested or not comes out in a wash if you alter tax code to compensate, as those with means would simply pay back their UBI via increased tax. Paying everyone ensures there are no administrative errors that cause someone to slip through the cracks. Agreed. UBI.is best thought of as an intermediate step for mobilizing people, not a one shot technocratic fix to everything wrong with our thoroughly awful economy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Whether it is means tested or not comes out in a wash if you alter tax code to compensate, as those with means would simply pay back their UBI via increased tax. Paying everyone ensures there are no administrative errors that cause someone to slip through the cracks. Yeah, you can always do it through the tax code, but the system itself is better left outside of it (for example if you need to submit a return to get a GMI/UBI).
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, it isn't a assumption I need to worry about because the economic data I have seen on minimum wages shows it doesn't happen and this effectively wouldn't be different. I think you're dismissing it too quickly. The two are quite different. Minimum wage opponents feared an increase in prices because they were coming at it from a supply-side economics perspective. They asserted, incorrectly, that if goods cost more to produce (because workers now cost more), companies would pass that on to customers in the form of increase in prices. On the demand side, things obviously didn't change either because minimum wage increases affect a relatively small part of the population. Increasing prices after a minimum wage hike would alienate a large percentage of customers who did not get a government-mandated raise. If your burritos cost $8 and you increase it to $10 on the basis that minimum wage increased, the guy who makes $35,000 a year and was not affected by minimum wage in the first place might go "gently caress that, I'm not paying $10 for a god drat burrito" and walk out. In contrast, a basic income scheme would affect everyone on the demand-side. So the guy who made $35,000 now makes $50,000 and can now comfortably afford a $10 burrito. So why not increase the price to $10? You would sell the same number of burritos but would make more per burrito. Higher margins like that are a no-brainer from a business perspective. For the record, I'm still overwhelmingly supportive of a basic income scheme. I'm just suggesting that the hypothetical results may not be as rosy as you guys make it look when you describe it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:In contrast, a basic income scheme would affect everyone on the demand-side. So the guy who made $35,000 now makes $50,000 and can now comfortably afford a $10 burrito. So why not increase the price to $10? You would sell the same number of burritos but would make more per burrito. Higher margins like that are a no-brainer from a business perspective. So competition is no longer a factor in economics? Like it drops out the moment it is inconvenient? I mean, sure, collusion might cause margins to arbitrarily increase, but I am not sure I understand there to be much collusion in the burrito market. If you are saying that people with disposable income might spend more on higher quality food, I could be sympathetic to such an argument. But once again, we are talking about a QoL (or perceived QoL) improvement, not simple inflation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:In contrast, a basic income scheme would affect everyone on the demand-side. So the guy who made $35,000 now makes $50,000 and can now comfortably afford a $10 burrito. So why not increase the price to $10? You would sell the same number of burritos but would make more per burrito. Higher margins like that are a no-brainer from a business perspective. As income rises, so will tax liability. Effective-benefit will decrease along a gradient as income rises. Few will be +$15k. Also, you've got competition, reservation prices, product substitution and I know there's more I'm forgetting. There's real hurdles to price increases
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I think you're dismissing it too quickly. The two are quite different. Minimum wage opponents feared an increase in prices because they were coming at it from a supply-side economics perspective. They asserted, incorrectly, that if goods cost more to produce (because workers now cost more), companies would pass that on to customers in the form of increase in prices. On the demand side, things obviously didn't change either because minimum wage increases affect a relatively small part of the population. Increasing prices after a minimum wage hike would alienate a large percentage of customers who did not get a government-mandated raise. If your burritos cost $8 and you increase it to $10 on the basis that minimum wage increased, the guy who makes $35,000 a year and was not affected by minimum wage in the first place might go "gently caress that, I'm not paying $10 for a god drat burrito" and walk out. If the guy who is making 35 is making 37k and the guy making 0 is now making 15k, it may cause higher demand but there is only so much the store owner can charge more. He may have more customers now, the guy starving for a hot dog can now buy one but he isn't going to want to price out a new customer especially if the existing customer isn't making that much more. Also, there are plenty of hot dogs out there, so supply (as with most consumer goods) is quite flexible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Like seriously, if all of the theories concerning prices in economics can be boiled down to "charge whatever the gently caress I want, I think these mooks can pay it" then why have prices dropped on anything ever? Why is gas now $3/gallon? I am pretty sure that people were still buying gas at $4/gallon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Like seriously, if all of the theories concerning prices in economics can be boiled down to "charge whatever the gently caress I want, I think these mooks can pay it" then why have prices dropped on anything ever? Why is gas now $3/gallon? I am pretty sure that people were still buying gas at $4/gallon. Delayed impact. Any day now the US will collapse into a mountain of skulls. We need to abolish the minimum wage and legalize company towns or we're all dead!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Basic income is getting some slight mainstream attention here in the Netherlands (population 16 million) and they did a bit on TV calculating its cost. Getting rid of all the myriad wealth transfers and personal subsidies and the associated massive bureaucracy would save 125 billion. Giving every single adult 760 euro per month (equal to the current state pension), every child 380 and reserving another 20 billion for people handicapped who can't work and live of 760 euro. That would come to 155 billion, the 30 billion gap represents about 4% GDP or slightly more than our current budget deficit. Currently the economically centre-right social-liberal party D66 has voiced it's support for further investigation while the prime-minister, of the conservative-liberal party has voiced his opposition. No means testing or demeaning mandatory busywork that infects the current Dutch welfare system. Which is something I'm not reading in this discussion is how demeaning the current system where you have to jump through hoops the entire time, fitting into society's definition of a "deserving" recipient. Similarly the idea of food stamps like you have in the US where you are dictated how to spend money sounds awful. Unfortunately the reason the support for a basic income is coming from social-liberals and greens here rather than labour and socialists seems to be their paternalistic moralism. I unironically agree with MIGF, if people want to spend their income on hookers and blow, let them. AlexanderCA fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:The prices of status goods that people with money compete for, like homes in neighborhoods with the best schools, have gone up as the rich have gotten richer. It's a thing that happens. They're not because we're funding UBI with steep progressive taxes, so the people bidding on these high status goods are less rich after getting UBI but subtracting taxes. So by your reasoning, prices in swank neighborhoods go down now that the ultrarich have less disposable income to waste in bidding wars. You're welcome! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Like seriously, if all of the theories concerning prices in economics can be boiled down to "charge whatever the gently caress I want, I think these mooks can pay it" then why have prices dropped on anything ever? Why is gas now $3/gallon? I am pretty sure that people were still buying gas at $4/gallon. Supply and demand is the perfect godlike method of price discovery with no distortions or economic coercion possible...until the day you give $1 to a poor and then we're through the looking glass, price uncouples from supply, up is down, zebras are spotted, and Nazis once again ride on dinosaurs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
AlexanderCA posted:Unfortunately the reason the support for a basic income is coming from social-liberals and greens here rather than labour and socialists seems to be their paternalistic moralism. Well, the entire idea of a basic income scheme is that it is unconditional. The moment you attach conditions to it, it becomes indistinguishable from regular welfare and you lose most of the cost savings trying to figure out whether people are spending the money on state-approved stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Tax cuts can never help anything because if you give them more money, the rich will just outbid each other on status goods and inflate away all their gains. Fight inflation, republicans. Return the top tax rate to 90% and give us sound money and a balanced budget.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
A good campaign slogan for mincome: American citizens, heed the call of doubling or tripling your income tax burden so that a bunch of autistic shut-ins are freed from the burden of work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:02
|
|
on the left posted:A good campaign slogan for mincome: American citizens, heed the call of doubling or tripling your income tax burden so that a bunch of autistic shut-ins are freed from the burden of work. Americans =/= the 1% Your classism is showing
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
on the left posted:A good campaign slogan for mincome: American citizens, heed the call of doubling or tripling your income tax burden so that a bunch of autistic shut-ins are freed from the burden of work. Funny how this reasoning never applies when yall want to drop a quarter of the annual GDP on pointless foreign wars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Americans =/= the 1% The 1% doesn't not have enough income to pay 50% of GDP in taxes, they only take home about 20% of income.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
on the left posted:A good campaign slogan for mincome: American citizens, heed the call of doubling or tripling your income tax burden so that a bunch of autistic shut-ins are freed from the burden of work. The average beneficiary would be the average American, and I've gotten traction with people using, "There's only so many ways to unwind plutocracy," lines of argument. Data like this always helps, too.   People want a healthier economy and greater equality. This gives it to them. Besides, there's plenty of unsavory Russian oligarchs we could plaster everywhere as models for who would pay the most into the system. Make them the role models of the opposition. Edit: THE OLIGARCH TAX  BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T VOTE FOR THAT Accretionist fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Funny how this reasoning never applies when yall want to drop a quarter of the annual GDP on pointless foreign wars. but if we don't have a super stealth fighter jet fleet that uses  as fuel then what'll happen when the belkans send the hresvelgr to attack us?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:11
|
|
on the left posted:The 1% doesn't not have enough income to pay 50% of GDP in taxes, they only take home about 20% of income. Wealth too honey
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:33 |
|
|
Capital gains too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:44
|
|
