|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Krugman has also said that infinity debt isn't a good idea. Actually I'll make this easier JC, show me a single sane human being that has said infinity debt is a good idea. E: Popular Thug Drink posted:i think infinity debt is an excellent idea, as well as $100/hr min wage. goddamnit
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
it's backed up by truckloads of reseach, which i expect you to know about if you took even a single day of econ 101
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:14
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's backed up by truckloads of reseach, which i expect you to know about if you took even a single day of econ 101 do you expect me to parse the meaning of your words without an accompanying visual aid?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:There has been ample reason to think the $15 point is at or near the point where it causes significant problems. Essentially zero economists recommend $15 (including Pinckney who wrote a book on dealing with inequality within capitalism), though far from being against minimum wage on principle, they generally support $10. No, there hasn't. None of the data indicate that we need to avoid a $15 minimum wage. The reason for supporting a $10-$12 minimum wage (or moving toward $15 in several steps) is because we have data showing that a small minimum wage increase won't have negative repercussions. That's not the same as saying that jumping straight to a $15 minimum wage would result in bad outcomes; it just means that we don't know for sure. In all likelihood, it would probably be fine (since these hypothetical negative outcomes aren't observed at any wage increase), but we have a lot of evidence to support a $3-$5/hour increase, so that's a good place to start.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Technically you're right, but not for the reasons that you think you're right; time for a history lesson! also even were it the case that the true relation of tax rate and revenues is a parabolic curve, there's no indication on which side of the maxima our tax rate actually is
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Technically you're right, but not for the reasons that you think you're right; time for a history lesson! So Laffer made a sketch to describe an economic concept. And then a bunch of morons misinterpreted it to be an actual representation of empirical data. And then they ran with it, and nothing could be done to convince them that the sketch was not intended to be used in the way they were interpreting it? That sounds exactly like what happened in this thread! Raskolnikov38 posted:First, I said point out where a MMT proponent says infinity debt is good, not someone with an axe to grind against them. I never claimed MMT says infinity debt is good, I said they claim there won't be negative consequences to running debts forever. And Krugman describes here why they're wrong, and not considered to be part of the economic mainstream, which is exactly what I claimed. Who What Now posted:Please, it's painfully obvious that you do think that a person's economic productivity and their worth as a person are on in the same, but you're just barely self-aware enough to realize what a shitheel that makes you out to be. Why else would you be constantly saying that disabled people could never earn and should never receive a living wage? ElCondemn posted:He's saying nobody deserves to live unless they can justify their value to a company. Or just to be a little more accurate to his argument, he's going to say the government should take care of people, work is not for providing for yourself or your family. What work is for exactly and why we should care that people are employed is a mystery. Yes, my argument is that we should not have the expectation that work will provide for everyone's needs. Some people cannot work at all, and they should be supported by the government. Some people are able to work, but not very well compared to most people, and they should be supported by the government in addition to whatever wage they can earn. Some people are able to work, and really productively, and we should tax these people to provide support for the two other groups. This seems like a pretty straightforward position.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So Laffer made a sketch to describe an economic concept. And then a bunch of morons misinterpreted it to be an actual representation of empirical data. And then they ran with it, and nothing could be done to convince them that the sketch was not intended to be used in the way they were interpreting it? Not really, there are some important differences: 1) The most important difference is that Laffer never tried to defend the arbitrariness of his curve, whereas you've stated several times that your graph doesn't have arbitrary features. He also didn't call it a graph 2) Laffer was asked to come up with his curve, whereas you came up with your "graph" all on your own 3) The Laffer curve has a lot more in the way of units, scale, and labeling. It's actually closer to being a graph than your drawing, but it's still not a graph But it is similar in a few ways that you might not like: 1) The Laffer curve was presented as a reason to not raise income taxes, much like you've presented your curve as a reason to not raise the minimum wage. Both are bad reasons, since there's no data to suggest where we are on either curve 2) Laffer actually does believe that his curve has some predictive power, and I suspect that you do too, or else you would have no reason to post it. By "predictive power" I mean that you really believe that raising the minimum wage to $15/hour would cause net harm to the poor, despite having no data or evidence to back this up. 3) The Laffer curve is a huge joke, the name Laffer a laughingstock, just like your curve, and your username The Laffer curve wasn't misrepresented; it was meant to be used as a justification to prevent a tax increase. That was the idea that Laffer was trying to get across. He didn't have any data to back up his reasoning. That's pretty similar to what you're doing, I agree! QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jun 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I never claimed MMT says infinity debt is good, I said they claim there won't be negative consequences to running debts forever. And Krugman describes here why they're wrong, and not considered to be part of the economic mainstream, which is exactly what I claimed. How nice of you to just skip over the part where I challenge Krugman's article. In his opinion piece Krugman picks a paper written by a barely notable financial analyst to knock over and can only knock it over by inventing a scenario that past events have not borne out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
We will accelerate money to a significant fraction of lightspeed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Laffer wasn't wrong because he made a graph. Laffer was wrong when he asserted that current tax rates were to the right of the revenue maximizing point on the graph. I think you need pretty much every basic economic concept explained to you better because right now you fail to grasp even the simplest, most obvious parts. You would benefit from taking Econ 101 because while you understand the models are oversimplified, you don't understand how, or what implications adding complexity would imply. Laffer was wrong because he made a graph based on nothing in order to support an argument for a preconceived conclusion. Like you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
I smoke a lot of pot but I swear last night in prime time Walmart had some loving high production value commercial aired, again in prime time, that had a line about raising wages and the camera panned across Checkout Aisle #15 at the same time like some hosed Orwellian subtext I think I either dreamed up or may be the only one high enough to pay attention to wal mart commercials. But I swear. It was there, man. I seen it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
loving  here watch I'm not making it up: http://youtu.be/kQqfPm1qOvY
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:No, there hasn't. None of the data indicate that we need to avoid a $15 minimum wage. The reason for supporting a $10-$12 minimum wage (or moving toward $15 in several steps) is because we have data showing that a small minimum wage increase won't have negative repercussions. That's not the same as saying that jumping straight to a $15 minimum wage would result in bad outcomes; it just means that we don't know for sure. In all likelihood, it would probably be fine (since these hypothetical negative outcomes aren't observed at any wage increase), but we have a lot of evidence to support a $3-$5/hour increase, so that's a good place to start. Naturally you extrapolate the existing data to say we can have infinite small increases. I don't. It continues to be wrong to say that negative effects haven't been observed. Negative effects have been observed from marginalized sub groups to changing immigration patterns to price increases. I'll repeat: essentially zero credible sources support $15 and most that do support something close support a localized variant where wages are pegged to local wages/prices. That makes tons more sense. It's not $15.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Much better to imagine a data point at the catastrophic minimum wage of $texas-with-a-dollar-sign and extrapolate back to $15 We should pay marginalized sub-groups zero and whip them to get them into the fields, then they'll all have jobs and the scourge of idleness will be gone. That's what jobs are for right, to keep people from idling? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Jun 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:We will accelerate money to a significant fraction of lightspeed. Krugman's got you covered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Naturally you extrapolate the existing data to say we can have infinite small increases. I don't. Neither do I, you're saying stupid things again quote:It continues to be wrong to say that negative effects haven't been observed. Negative effects have been observed from marginalized sub groups to changing immigration patterns to price increases. * In a small number of studies, while others studying the same effects found no change or the opposite change quote:I'll repeat: essentially zero credible sources support $15 and most that do support something close support a localized variant where wages are pegged to local wages/prices. That makes tons more sense. It's not $15. The sources all support a safe, data-backed increase. Let's start there, measure the change, and implement another increase if the results were approximately null (as they always have been). We'll get to $15 eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The sources all support a safe, data-backed increase. Let's start there, measure the change, and implement another increase if the results were approximately null (as they always have been). We'll get to $15 eventually. Just theoretically, how do you want to quantify how soon it's okay to assume the results are true? Previously, this period has led to wage increases lagging behind inflation, leading to a decrease in actual wages and spending power as corporate profits skyrocketed. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it's probably the most effective one, but we need stronger controls than 'when there's a consensus' on raising wages, given that the nature of economics and power politics means a full consensus is effectively impossible due to private agendas and idealogies being treated as factual evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Naturally you extrapolate the existing data to say we can have infinite small increases. I don't. It continues to be wrong to say that negative effects haven't been observed. Negative effects have been observed from marginalized sub groups to changing immigration patterns to price increases. I'll repeat: essentially zero credible sources support $15 and most that do support something close support a localized variant where wages are pegged to local wages/prices. That makes tons more sense. It's not $15. hmm.. would you say.. the negative effects increase... exponentially???
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Just theoretically, how do you want to quantify how soon it's okay to assume the results are true? In theory you could tie the national min wage to some peg like "average median wages" and have it adjust every so often automatically with a proviso every so often its reviewed by a national board (I am thinking maybe the NLRB.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:In theory you could tie the national min wage to some peg like "average median wages" and have it adjust every so often automatically with a proviso every so often its reviewed by a national board (I am thinking maybe the NLRB.) If you peg the minimum wage to either the median wage or inflation you're risking runaway inflation. I don't think it's a good idea. Every time you increase the minimum wage it's reasonable to expect both the median and inflation will rise, even if it's just a little bit each time you're creating a positive feedback loop (until it reaches equilibrium which should be the point where everyone is making the same wage). That's why I think a living wage would be the right goal, that way it can float wherever we want it to as long as it covers everyone's needs but still allow society to function as it currently does (at least for as long as is possible).
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
The median can't rise if you peg the minimum wage to some fraction of the median, that's what medians are for. You are probably thinking of the mean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The median can't rise if you peg the minimum wage to some fraction of the median, that's what medians are for. I don't think you understand what I'm saying, as the highs get higher and the lows disappear the middle will move. edit: The middle being the minimum wage, it will continue to increase while the median remains the same. Which doesn't seem like a solution, you're just pegging the minimum wage to some number that may or may not provide enough. Edit2: I definitely said the wrong thing earlier, but I'll leave it for posterity. I meant "every wage increase will create more wage increases". ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I don't think you understand what I'm saying, as the highs get higher and the lows disappear the middle will move. That's why I am saying you'd review review the policy/rate every so often by a board (and not congress who i don't trust) so that if you're say, worried about inflation, you could hold off the rate increase for X number of years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
How does indexing the minimum wage to inflation cause inflation now? The real value of the wage remains the same, as does its purchasing power. When the price of other inputs goes up because of inflation, does that cause more inflation?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's why I am saying you'd review review the policy/rate every so often by a board (and not congress who i don't trust) so that if you're say, worried about inflation, you could hold off the rate increase for X number of years. I understand, instead of our current system where doing nothing keeps things the same, doing nothing with your proposal would still allow increases. I just don't think it's a good idea to increase automatically, at least not using an arbitrary point. If it increases automatically it should do it as a response to a negative effect. For instance, if we see an increase in requests for temporary assistance we should increase the minimum wage, but if everything is cool I don't think we should automatically increase it. My goal isn't to "redistribute wealth", it's to ensure people are being helped.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:If you peg the minimum wage to either the median wage or inflation you're risking runaway inflation. I don't think it's a good idea. Every time you increase the minimum wage it's reasonable to expect both the median and inflation will rise, even if it's just a little bit each time you're creating a positive feedback loop (until it reaches equilibrium which should be the point where everyone is making the same wage). That's why I think a living wage would be the right goal, that way it can float wherever we want it to as long as it covers everyone's needs but still allow society to function as it currently does (at least for as long as is possible). This is a reasonable anaysis (I mean, basically it's just math) but how do you imagine a living wage is less inflationary? The cost of the bucket of goods construed as "everyone's needs" itself varies with the purchasing power of the people buying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How does indexing the minimum wage to inflation cause inflation now? The real value of the wage remains the same, as does its purchasing power. The price of the inputs isn't the problem, it's the amount of money in circulation. As more money enters circulation scarcity falls, which makes each dollar less valuable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How does indexing the minimum wage to inflation cause inflation now? The real value of the wage remains the same, as does its purchasing power. Indexing it to inflation would be a good control. I just think for practical purposes you wouldn't want it changing every year automatically and there might be times where you wouldn't want it change at all for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:When the price of other inputs goes up because of inflation, does that cause more inflation? Yes, actually, that is how the feedback loop works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:This is a reasonable anaysis (I mean, basically it's just math) but how do you imagine a living wage is less inflationary? The cost of the bucket of goods construed as "everyone's needs" itself varies with the purchasing power of the people buying. That's definitely true but certain goods and services can and are subsidised, purchasing power should have little effect on the essentials (except for housing). I believe there's a point where most people's needs are met but demand is still up because people still want things. It's not a travesty if everyone can't get the iphone 12, but if they can't get a meal for their kid it is a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
If the minimum wage isn't automatically raised, you're just going to have a gigantic uphill battle every time you try to raise it. Just like we are now, just like we have with every previous minimum wage increase. People's lives do not have time to wait for Congress' opinion to swing in their favor, and when it does it will be too little, too late - as it has been.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:If the minimum wage isn't automatically raised, you're just going to have a gigantic uphill battle every time you try to raise it. Just like we are now, just like we have with every previous minimum wage increase. People's lives do not have time to wait for Congress' opinion to swing in their favor, and when it does it will be too little, too late - as it has been. That's why I said take it out of congresses hands and put it in the hands of a non-partisan panel specifically charged with reviewing wages. i think the NLRB could be expanded in such a way
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:That's definitely true but certain goods and services can and are subsidised, purchasing power should have little effect on the essentials (except for housing). I believe there's a point where most people's needs are met but demand is still up because people still want things. It's not a travesty if everyone can't get the iphone 12, but if they can't get a meal for their kid it is a problem. Purchasing power is most relevant for housing, education and health care, basically. I think if those three items are included in living wage you'll have an inflationary nightmare assuming everything about the way those things are produced and distributed doesn't change as well. But if those three items aren't included it's hard to conceptualize what would be meant by a living wage. Maybe I'm reading you wrong and you're saying the government should just provide those things?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Purchasing power is most relevant for housing, education and health care, basically. I think if those three items are included in living wage you'll have an inflationary nightmare assuming everything about the way those things are produced and distributed doesn't change as well. But if those three items aren't included it's hard to conceptualize what would be meant by a living wage. Maybe I'm reading you wrong and you're saying the government should just provide those things? Ideally, but until that point we still need to give the most amount of people the ability to provide for themselves and their families. I'm all for other changes to make it more reasonable, but stopping because it's "too much" seems wrong regardless of the number. edit: also I wouldn't add education in there, it's good and nice to help people become better educated, but it's not going to prevent them from living if they can't go to college. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Yes, actually, that is how the feedback loop works. If you increase the money supply by say 10%, it is natural to expect that all prices, including wages, will increase by 10%. How exactly would this create a feedback loop of moreandmoreandmoreandmore inflation? We index things to inflation all the time. If I don't get an annual raise one year, I'd consider that a pay cut, maybe I should thank my boss for doing his part to keep down inflation instead?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:If you peg the minimum wage to either the median wage or inflation you're risking runaway inflation. I don't think it's a good idea. Every time you increase the minimum wage it's reasonable to expect both the median and inflation will rise, even if it's just a little bit each time you're creating a positive feedback loop (until it reaches equilibrium which should be the point where everyone is making the same wage). That's why I think a living wage would be the right goal, that way it can float wherever we want it to as long as it covers everyone's needs but still allow society to function as it currently does (at least for as long as is possible). Not all infinite series sum to infinity. The only way you could create a positive feedback loop that caused runaway inflation would be if minimum wage labor costs were 100% of total costs, but they're not, not even close. If you assumed that minimum wage labor costs were 50% of total costs, which is a massive overestimate, a 100% rise in minimum wage would only translate to a 50% rise in prices. So then wages go up by 50% again, and prices go up by 25%, so wages go up by 25% and prices increase by 12.5%, etcetera. The series sums to a total increase of 200%, including the original increase, not infinity. And again, minimum wage labor costs are a lot less than 50% of total costs so the effect is much smaller than this example.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you increase the money supply by say 10%, it is natural to expect that all prices, including wages, will increase by 10%. How exactly would this create a feedback loop of moreandmoreandmoreandmore inflation? Inflation is going to happen, each increase causes more inflation, if the goal is to reach parity with the inflation rate you'll never reach it as it's a moving target. VitalSigns posted:We index things to inflation all the time. If I don't get an annual raise one year, I'd consider that a pay cut, maybe I should thank my boss for doing his part to keep down inflation instead? I don't really care if anyone gets a pay cut, as long as they can still feed, clothe and house themselves it's not a problem to me. Is it unfair? maybe, but that's not something I care too much about, the world isn't fair.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Not all infinite series sum to infinity. The only way you could create a positive feedback loop that caused runaway inflation would be if minimum wage labor costs were 100% of total costs, but they're not, not even close. That's assuming each wage increase translates to an increase in prices at the same rate. But either way I'm not saying this is going to happen, I'm just saying there are effects to indexing that could be negative and I prefer a system that focuses on providing a living wage instead of ensuring raises are fair.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Inflation is going to happen, each increase causes more inflation, if the goal is to reach parity with the inflation rate you'll never reach it as it's a moving target. If inflation is 5% this year, and we hold nominal wages steady, that means the real costs of production have fallen. This is going to cause a drop in demand, which means the now more-profitable businesses have less incentive to reinvest in their companies because people have less money to spend, ie the saver's paradox. Keeping real wages steady doesn't cause more inflation. Now if you actually raise the real wage (by say increasing it to $15 right now), that might cause some immediate price increases but as JeffersonClay explained that series is definitely going to converge (and converge quickly, labor is less than half of the cost of goods, the entire raise probably won't be passed on to consumers, the people making minimum wage are less than 100% of the work force, etc)
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
There is no difference between setting a minimum wage at a "living wage" and then indexing for inflation and setting the minimum wage at whatever level allows workers to support themselves at current price levels. They are literally exactly the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 20:13
|
|