|
QuarkJets posted:Yes, in order to control prices, just not directly. Sheesh Right but note, for what it's worth, how despite that goal directly setting prices wasn't the chosen path. quote:It would require opening enough $15/hour positions to hire every single person who is currently paid less than $!5/hour, but I think that most minimum wage proponents here would be fine with that. Raise upper tax brackets and let's create a poo poo-ton of well-paying government jobs; employers like McDonalds will have to raise wages in order to compete. That sounds great. Get your magic wand out and let's get started We don't actually have to create more jobs than the current population of the country (I.E. 45% more jobs) and given that we already spend money on infrastructure, research and education it's easier to imagine those things happening than minimum wage alone being used to create the same long term benefits.
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:57 |
|
asdf32 posted:In other news market economies work. Well, sure, if you're going to argue that bubbles don't exist and prices are always accurate, we all have you figured for an idiot anyways.
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:If you redefine "flora" as "supply" and "fauna" as "demand" you see that really everything is either supply or demand including you and me and this plant spouting from the manure I pretend is my brain. Well the manure would explain why percentages allude him.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, sure, if you're going to argue that bubbles don't exist and prices are always accurate, we all have you figured for an idiot anyways. If I were VitalSigns I'd simply say "but the housing market was regulated!". Actually I will say that but I'll add that the government has little or nothing to do with most prices in the economy. The market for..looking around the room..table lamps for example doesn't really have bubbles and it's not because government regulators have a close eye on the market.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The government doesn't control prices. It influences supply in various ways. It doesn't need to control prices because the market does that just fine. If you're arguing that the government should buy surplus labor at $15/hr and use it for work projects and infrastructure in order to influence the price of labor on the open market, and that this would be far superior to minimum wage, then I completely agree.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 04:18
|
|
asdf32 posted:If I were VitalSigns I'd simply say "but the housing market was regulated!". Actually I will say that but I'll add that the government has little or nothing to do with most prices in the economy. The market for..looking around the room..table lamps for example doesn't really have bubbles and it's not because government regulators have a close eye on the market. So does this disorder, where you zip around near the topic without ever hitting it, does it just happen online, or does it impinge on your regular conversations too?
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you're arguing that the government should buy surplus labor at $15/hr and use it for work projects and infrastructure in order to influence the price of labor on the open market, and that this would be far superior to minimum wage, then I completely agree.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:If I were VitalSigns I'd simply say "but the housing market was regulated!". Actually we deregulated investment banks with Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and put financial derivatives beyond the reach of regulators in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, and as a direct consequence we got the kind of speculative mania, irrational prices, and terrible crash that we had before the regulatory reforms that were originally put in place in the 1930s. So the answer to someone asking, in the 1970s, why we don't have another catastrophic bubble like we did in 1929 and isn't that proof of the awesome wisdom of the market is to list the regulatory actions that prevent it. On the other hand, if someone in the 1970s didn't know anything about the world, and concluded that stability was a divine blessing of the free market, and started a twenty-year orgy of cutting regulations beginning in the 1980s, well I expect such a ridiculous event might have disastrous consequences. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:27 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:You and the modern money folks. I always liked that theory because it gives capital a chance to put up or shut up. You can't crow on and on about superior results and never, ever, produce them. But that would increase the national debt. Debt! DEBT. 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But that would increase the national debt. This was for GWB right?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I think $15 is an appropriate minimum wage for the majority of los angeles where average yearly income is at or above 60,000 per year, but might have negative overall effects in neighborhoods like Koreatown and Watts and Pico-Union where the average wage is half that or less. Going back a bunch of pages I'm loving the idea that $15 minimum is going to hurt the poorer neighborhoods and is only appropriate in the rich areas. Up is down, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Caros posted:This was for GWB right? Ahahaha such innocence.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:If I were VitalSigns I'd simply say "but the housing market was regulated!". Actually I will say that Hahahahaha no not really. It was deregulated for years, along with banking and that's how we got 2008.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Actually we deregulated investment banks with Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and put financial derivatives beyond the reach of regulators in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, and as a direct consequence we got the kind of speculative mania, irrational prices, and terrible crash that we had before the regulatory reforms that were originally put in place in the 1930s. lol Farm subsidies = massive government involvement in the food market that basically sets prices and prevents famine Tax benefits for mortgage payments, preferential mortgage access for poor households, massive government sponsored enterprises insuring collateralized mortgage debt, extensive regulation of investment banks, huge supply of public housing = free market
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
So your argument is that because there was any regulation, it had not been 'deregulated'? Do you have the mental capacity to understand the concept of 'degree'? Because the repeal of Glass-Steagall was actually a really big loving factor in the 2007-8 financial crisis - to then blame, what, tax benefits on mortgage payments (used mostly by poors) for reckless and unnecessarily risky use of speculative financial products (used mostly by the really loving rich) is...it's insane. You're a moron, who is also insane.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 12:54
|
|
|
Haha wow. Noted cause of the 2008 financial crisis:
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
Someone say Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. My body is ready.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
Fannie May but Freddie don't.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
Hey wait, before we forget (probably too late), which market meets or probably exceeds VitalSign's new definition of deregulated?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Hey wait, before we forget (probably too late), which market meets or probably exceeds VitalSign's new definition of deregulated? Anything with a bad outcome. If there's famine, it was the free market, if there's cheap food, government intervention to "stabilize" prices was the reason. Even if every intervention he listed drives up prices.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Hey wait, before we forget (probably too late), which market meets or probably exceeds VitalSign's new definition of deregulated? wikipedia posted:Deregulation is the process of removing or reducing state regulations. BTW, I love it when you get sassy. Reminds me of the Thanksgiving when my little cousin was kicking and screaming about how he actually belonged at the big kids' table. So we let him sit with the big kids, then he proceeded to knock over his grape juice and violently poo poo himself. Good times.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:BTW, I love it when you get sassy. Reminds me of the Thanksgiving when my little cousin was kicking and screaming about how he actually belonged at the big kids' table. So we let him sit with the big kids, then he proceeded to knock over his grape juice and violently poo poo himself. Good times. Hey if he understands percent increases he's actually a step up from asdf.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
rudatron posted:So your argument is that because there was any regulation, it had not been 'deregulated'? Do you have the mental capacity to understand the concept of 'degree'? Because the repeal of Glass-Steagall was actually a really big loving factor in the 2007-8 financial crisis - to then blame, what, tax benefits on mortgage payments (used mostly by poors) for reckless and unnecessarily risky use of speculative financial products (used mostly by the really loving rich) is...it's insane. You're a moron, who is also insane. I'm glad you recognize that this would be a bad argument in that simplistic a form.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Arguing that because there are tax benefits on mortgage payments = the market is not really free, and can therefore be absolved of systemic dysfunction, is the argument being deployed in the post before mine. There's no other reason to make such an asinine response like that. I'm not sure either you or geriatic pirate are interested in any kind of insightful or fruitful discussion. Both of you seem to prefer pointless, dishonest one liners to protect your own egos. You're probably better off posting in a lolbertarian hugbox, where your dumb poo poo can fly around unquestioned.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Anything with a bad outcome. If there's famine, it was the free market, if there's cheap food, government intervention to "stabilize" prices was the reason. Even if every intervention he listed drives up prices. It's funny to me that you think the "free market" has a mind of its own. That there must be some invisible force that keeps things fair that's inherent in the market. Regulation is the only tool that can and does allow us to control/diminish suffering that the market would inflict.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I'm not sure either you or geriatic pirate are interested in any kind of insightful or fruitful discussion. :growingironicat.gif: This thread is a shitposting mobius strip. A serpent shoving its head up its own rear end.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
I looked a few pages back and didn't see this article posted or discussed and I had some questions after doing a bit of research. http://www.wsj.com/articles/better-than-raising-the-minimum-wage-1432249927?KEYWORDS=buffet In summary, Warren Buffett wrote an article about how expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit is a better alternative to raising the minimum wage. I understand how the EITC works, but what I am curious about are the implications that this solution has vs. raising the minimum wage. In the article, he states the following, quote:That second goal crumbles in the face of any plan to sizably increase the minimum wage. I may wish to have all jobs pay at least $15 an hour. But that minimum would almost certainly reduce employment in a major way, crushing many workers possessing only basic skills. Smaller increases, though obviously welcome, will still leave many hardworking Americans mired in poverty. Is there any actual evidence that increasing the minimum wage reduces employment? I searched google for a few articles and found this helpful page from the US Department of Labor and am wondering if this is a good source. Specifically, I looked at the following page: http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm Does anyone have any additional information that compares these two options?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
MrSargent posted:I looked a few pages back and didn't see this article posted or discussed and I had some questions after doing a bit of research. Well he is wrong on the employment angle, it is probably been the most talked about issue of this thread. It doesn't really seem to. The issue with the EITC is that it comes out of the budget, and therefore some way needs to fund it without crowding out all other types of spending. The EITC at this point is quite small (especially for individuals) compared to the gains from a higher minimum wags and you are going to have to find a lot of money somewhere to get people up to the equivalent of $15 a hour much less $10. More or less, it shifts the burden of taking care of employees from the company that employs them to the government. It also increases the likelihood that part of the money going to fund it comes from either budget cuts on other services and/or regressive taxes. Finally, a higher minimum wage is generally a good thing budget wise, it brings more revenue in to the government, which if anything produces the potential for a larger net good. Basically, the EITC is fine as long as you can find a way to dramatically increase federal revenue to pay for it. (You can deficit spend, but usually in the US that means other programs will get the shaft.)
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
EITC is also less predictable/dependable than a guaranteed wage, puts burden on the individual to file, track, and collect a rebate, and requires additional administrative overhead costs.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Well he is wrong on the employment angle, it is probably been the most talked about issue of this thread. It doesn't really seem to. Buffet is talking about a raise to $15 / hour (around the 45th percentile for wages), which would almost certainly have both large price and employment effects. All the research studies small changes in the minimum wage because those changes are all there have been. But even in that data the results are mixed - some studies show effects, others don't. There are no studies that can shed empirical light on the question of whether raising the minimum wage to almost the median wage will cause problems but dude stop and think a moment O.o.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:There are no studies that can shed empirical light on the question of whether raising the minimum wage to almost the median wage will cause problems But we totally set our hair on fire and assume that it will "crush employment in a major way."
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Buffet is talking about a raise to $15 / hour (around the 45th percentile for wages), which would almost certainly have both large price and employment effects. All the research studies small changes in the minimum wage because those changes are all there have been. But even in that data the results are mixed - some studies show effects, others don't. There are no studies that can shed empirical light on the question of whether raising the minimum wage to almost the median wage will cause problems but dude stop and think a moment O.o. His argument is it is going to be in a major way to the point of "crushing" low skilled workers. Lifting the wage floor may have an effect, but he is almost certainly overstating it and at the same time, he ignores the increases in consumption that counter-balances it. Ultimately, the US doesn't have a supply issue, it has a consumption one (economically speaking) and higher wages will likely mean a close increase in economic activity in the medium-term, and in the short-term it also mean lowering household debt burden and increasing savings. As far as employment effects we will see soon in Los Angeles if this actually happens, median income in the US isn't much higher than the national average and LA has a large number of lower income households. The case is already in progress. Ultimately, I will admit that in certain areas like Mississippi, its effect is going to be more unpredictable but then the question is if it is actually going to be worse for low-income workers as a whole. I said before and I will say it again, but I wouldn't have a problem with phased increases depending on median state income. But even I would like to see some hard data on its real effect on employment and prices. As for the EITC, it is a red herring, it like a basic income/mincome is a great sounding idea that falls apart when people try to replace living wages (much less figuring out how to fund it). I am glad the EITC exists, and wouldn't have a problem with it being raised but it is no replacement for a jump in wages. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:27 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted::growingironicat.gif: I loved that game on my Nokia.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Ultimately, I will admit that in certain areas like Mississippi, its effect is going to be more unpredictable but then the question is if it is actually going to be worse for low-income workers as a whole. I said before and I will say it again, but I wouldn't have a problem with phased increases depending on median state income. But even I would like to see some hard data on its real effect on employment and prices. Were previous increases to the minimum wage detrimental to places like Mississippi? Why should we assume another increase would be vastly different than previous times?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Were previous increases to the minimum wage detrimental to places like Mississippi? Why should we assume another increase would be vastly different than previous times? Previous increases to the federal minimum wage, and state increases generally, have been small and generally amounted to inflation adjustments. Even so, some studies have identified employment effects. Raising the federal minimum to almost the national median is an increase different in kind and scope. We should anticipate significant effects both in prices and employment.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Previous increases to the federal minimum wage, and state increases generally, have been small and generally amounted to inflation adjustments. Even so, some studies have identified employment effects. Raising the federal minimum to almost the national median is an increase different in kind and scope. We should anticipate significant effects both in prices and employment. Would you say that the research suggests that employment will be "crushed in a major way"?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:His argument is it is going to be in a major way to the point of "crushing" low skilled workers. Lifting the wage floor may have an effect, but he is almost certainly overstating it and at the same time, he ignores the increases in consumption that counter-balances it. Ultimately, the US doesn't have a supply issue, it has a consumption one (economically speaking) and higher wages will likely mean a close increase in economic activity in the medium-term, and in the short-term it also mean lowering household debt burden and increasing savings. Mostly it's going to mean a bunch of inflation, and at the end of that a higher price level with maybe less activity. The increase in consumption is the red herring.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Would you say that the research suggests that employment will be "crushed in a major way"? I would say Buffet knows what he's talking about more than, e.g, you.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Were previous increases to the minimum wage detrimental to places like Mississippi? Why should we assume another increase would be vastly different than previous times? It is theoretically possible that you could get to an extreme it would have those effects but like I said, I would need to see evidence of it. wateroverfire posted:Mostly it's going to mean a bunch of inflation, and at the end of that a higher price level with maybe less activity. The increase in consumption is the red herring. The total wages being increased would still only be a small portion of total activity as was shown before. To have less activity, price levels would have to raise quicker than minimum wage when the minimum wage is going to be rapidly increasing but only a portion of total wages much less other activity. Prices very will likely will rise, but low-end wages are never going to be the only determinant of them. Also, individuals getting state support/social insurance will have them indexed to prices/wages in the first place. wateroverfire posted:I would say Buffet knows what he's talking about more than, e.g, you. Buffet has a bit of a bias in that he doesn't want to pay his workers poo poo and would rather the government do it. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:53 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:57 |
|
wateroverfire posted:I would say Buffet knows what he's talking about more than, e.g, you. lol
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 19:44
|
|