|
Post by n00b on Feb 9, 2021 21:12:32 GMT -5
Living wage for a single adult in Montgomery, AL is $11.18. Add in 1 kid, and it's $22.82. Let's do $25/hour! Let's do $15 but just send everyone a check for $600 every week instead! I have this super idea where we can just take from each citizen according to their abilities then give to people according to their needs. I’m not sure if anybody has tried that before, but it would be a utopia!
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Feb 9, 2021 21:29:43 GMT -5
Let's do $15 but just send everyone a check for $600 every week instead! I have this super idea where we can just take from each citizen according to their abilities then give to people according to their needs. I’m not sure if anybody has tried that before, but it would be a utopia! This but unironically
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,938
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 10, 2021 7:21:51 GMT -5
Also, the field of Economics tends to just be the field of the economics of capitalism. It's almost completely captured by the structure in which it exists. This makes sense coming from your POV. Since John Maynard Keynes - Keynes has dominated college economic textbooks since the 1930's. Keynes is the essentially the economic theory adopted by the Democratic party for almost a century now. I don't agree with much of Keynes - or particularly some of the stuff that has been misapplied by the Government. I would consider it as an assault on the fundamental theory of Capitalism. Given that I sense you find orthodoxy Democratic party economic policy to be wrong and 'capitalist' probably makes sense from your POV.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 10, 2021 7:35:05 GMT -5
When was the last time Keynesian economics was dominant in Democratic politics? 1940? Maybe the Carter administration?
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,938
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 10, 2021 7:36:10 GMT -5
Let's go back to your claim that "no economist could believe that increasing the minimum wage wouldn't cause an increase in unemployment". Let's also look at the recent CBO report. www.cnbc.com/2021/02/08/democrats-press-ahead-on-15-minimum-wage-despite-deficit-worries-.htmlHere we see that some economists do dispute both the CBO report and also the general idea that increasing the minimum wage would increase unemployment. My big problem with "economic science" is that generally it's not. Not a science. It's a math model, but far too often nobody actually does the work to validate it in the real world. Anyway, the point here is that your claims that this is all obvious and irrefutable do not seem to be born out. Claims need to be tested. What tests have you done? There are what you might call several on-going tests of $15 minimum wage right now, involving various locations around the country having passes such laws. Of course, for most of them COVID has completely disrupted the economy far more than any measurable effects due to minimum wage, so as far as I know the verdict of the real-world testing is still unclear. Saying that All economist believe it will increase unemployment is an overstatement. There are some 'economist' that put political opinions ahead of economic theory (this happens on all spectrums). The article cited no one that said it wouldn't increase unemployment - it just said some (unidentified) economist dispute the 1.4M number. This could (probably) means they think the number of lost jobs would be less or even substantially less. Hard to make the argument that it wouldn't reduce employment in the short term by some number. I also specifically wrote that despite increases in unemployment - arguing that the overall impact is beneficial is a different argument. This is the argument put forth by Michael Reich and the study done by the Economic Policy Institute. Both claiming that this will increase Government revenues. I am highly skeptical that increasing the minimum wage will in turn increase money (Demand) in the economy that will 'grow' the economy. I believe that the likely impact will overall be negative. Certainly, some people will be making more money and it will be good for them. There will also be (more) people that will lose their job - which will be bad for them. The increased wages will drive some businesses out of business which isn't good for the economy. The increased money from some workers who are likely to spend a high % of their money, at best will be offset by the increased costs from those impacted business and is roughly a net zero to the economy.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,938
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 10, 2021 7:48:24 GMT -5
When was the last time Keynesian economics was dominant in Democratic politics? 1940? I would say that 100% of the Democratic politicians through the early part of this century were Keynesians - whether they knew it or not. The progressive elements of the party are trying to move away from this. 1940 is a joke - by early 1970 it was the phrase 'we are all Keynesians now'. Clinton and his economic team were Keyneisans. Heck Obama governed as a Keynesian.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 10, 2021 13:35:24 GMT -5
Saying that All economist believe it will increase unemployment is an overstatement. There are some 'economist' that put political opinions ahead of economic theory (this happens on all spectrums). LOL! And you don't? This is clearly a logical fallacy you have just expressed. Some people call it the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You say "all economists" agree with you. Then when I point out some don't, you say that by definition if they don't agree with you, then they aren't really economists but rather political hacks who call themselves economists.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 10, 2021 13:37:54 GMT -5
The article cited no one that said it wouldn't increase unemployment - it just said some (unidentified) economist dispute the 1.4M number. This could (probably) means they think the number of lost jobs would be less or even substantially less. Hard to make the argument that it wouldn't reduce employment in the short term by some number. There was actually the phrase "little to no job loss". So no, the article said that at least some economists *do* say it wouldn't increase unemployment. Of course, it's just an article, not a formal paper or anything. But again, your claim that no economists disagree with you was so extraordinary and unsupported that it was a snap to Goggle up examples of an economist disagreeing with you.
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Feb 10, 2021 13:38:24 GMT -5
It will increase unemployment because most small businesses cannot afford $15 an hour. It’s not rocket science. For God sake’s. Is there any Democrat with an ounce of common sense?
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Feb 10, 2021 13:39:29 GMT -5
But don’t listen to the guy who owned two small businesses. That would involve being educated.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 10, 2021 13:41:07 GMT -5
But don’t listen to the guy who owned two small businesses. Don't worry, we're not.
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Feb 10, 2021 13:43:00 GMT -5
But don’t listen to the guy who owned two small businesses. Don't worry, we're not. I am well aware of the elitist Democrats don’t listen to common business people. That’s been incredibly evident. So that’s no surprise Mike. A rich aerospace engineer now is an expert on small business.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 10, 2021 13:43:48 GMT -5
But don’t listen to the guy who owned two small businesses. That would involve being educated. Sounds like you're a sh!tty businessman if you can't even pay your employees $15 an hour.
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Feb 10, 2021 13:46:38 GMT -5
But don’t listen to the guy who owned two small businesses. That would involve being educated. Sounds like you're a sh!tty businessman if you can't even pay your employees $15 an hour. Well believe it or not people in rural America still need to buy groceries, they still need to buy drugs at the drugstore, they still need to read the news,. No one is getting rich, because we don’t have the population. But those services are still required. Only a uninformed Democrat who believes the city people are far more important would make a stupid comment like you just did.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 10, 2021 13:47:16 GMT -5
Sounds like you're a sh!tty businessman if you can't even pay your employees $15 an hour. Well believe it or not people in rural America still need to buy groceries, they still need to buy drugs at the drugstore, they still need to read the news,. No one is getting rich, because we don’t have the population. But those services are still required. Only a uninformed Democrat who believes the city people are far more important would make a stupid comment like you just did. Nope, pretty sure you suck at business.
|
|