BigBallinStalin wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote: BigBallinStalin wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Okay, explain what's wrong with the substitution effect. Explain which economic models you're talking about. Explain which variables for whatever models are being left out.
Launch into the attack of macro- and microeconomics.
Explain why all that is something more important than the right of people to live decently BEFORE whomever happens to own the company, etc gets to take a hefty profit.
Explain why that justifies passing on pollution, medical problems and a bad climate to our grandchildren...
Explain why those models and whatever even justify what you are saying.
I'm not going to sit here for 8 hours teaching you economics. You should be capable of doing that on your own. I've already posted more than enough ITT.
However, if you criticize something (e.g. economics), then actually have something intelligent to say about it. Since you obviously cannot support your previous positions after being asked to do so, then go read a book. Internet dialogue isn't what you need.
Except, this has nothing to do with economics. This has to do with why you think economics should have so much more say in the world than any other piece of data or information.
But since you can't explain the inadequacies of economics, then your current contention is baseless.
Actually, I have explained, but you ignoret hat and pretend that your debate still has validity.
Ah, but see that is the very problem with your arguments. I am not disputing your knowledge of economics or economics at all. I am saying that economics is limited. It is limited in scope, and particularly in time. Yet, you would have use look to this ephemeral set of statistics, essentially analyzing human responses to various factors as the dictating rule of not even just the country, but our world.
I will start with the substitution effect. Juan answered part of that, basically that companies have already downsized and so forth so much that they cannot do much more. I would argue that companies naturally move toward this model of “efficiency” regardless of the wage. The impact of increasing the minimum wage is real, but its basically a speeding up of what would already happen, and does not last long. After 2 years, the employment rates, hiring rates, etc go back to at least what they were before. The greatest substitution is actually a move to disability claims, but that is from higher paid factory type jobs. People in those jobs are used by rather high wages, work they can manage. Too often, their skills won’t allow them to move into other decent paying jobs, and they are “too old” (too unused to school or with other issues) so they go on disability once unemployment runs out.
Anyway, does that bother me? The disability part, absolutely, but that is irrelevant to the minimum wage bit.
The minimum wage substitution, no. Why? Partly, its philosophy. If I am going to be supporting someone, then I sure don’t want it to be so that investors in PepsiCo, Wal-Mart or McDonald’s can take more profit. Have them pick up trash, build trails or work in schools. Its not great, but its “real”. Businesses need to fail or succeed on their own, without my tax support.
BUT..there is another, bigger reason. Look back at what happened during and after the Depression. Times were hard, but it was also a time of heavy innovation and invention. A lot of that WAS due to government investment (and I don’t mean just the military investment of WWII). Today, things are not so easy. Most of the “easy” technological fixes have happened already. However, for just creating jobs, it doesn’t really matter if the “technology” advancement is a new power source or a better shirt design.
But.. that is for the relative short term. In the long term, the truth is that we are limited by our resources. That has always been true. It is, of course, part of why the US got to be such a superpower. However, the idea you seem to embrace as some kind of theological “given” is that humanity will just, almost by magic, come up with new fixes. That is where I firmly disagree. Two things have to happen for that to occur. First, we have to do much, much better in education. We don’t know which kid is going to finally crack the code to making algae fuel truly economical, or who will develop the new algorithm that will change the way medicine approaches cures forever. Supporting and educating the widest range of children helps ensure that whoever that child is, he or she is able to take the steps needed. BUT.. even beyond those few miracle makers, our society is more and more moving into a technological front so that more and more jobs require a higher level of education.
Second, we have to have a sense of need and purpose. That happened in the 1950’s and 60’s. Today, Nightstrike argues that paying less than a thousandth of a sent for someone else’s healthcare is “abusive”. You both argue that expecting employers to pay someone enough so that they can live without taxpayer supports is cutting into profits. I say if that is what they have to do to make a profit, then they are not really making a profit, they are soaking up tax dollars and pretending it is a profit. THAT is why our economy is failing.
I am not saying that raising the minimum wage will somehow solve our debt problems. I AM saying that it won’t make things worse, I am saying that it is part of the paradigm shit that must happen if we are to dig ourselves out of this hole.
When you want to get out of debt, you cut back on necessary purchases, but only a stupid person or a very, very desperate person cuts their 401K. Today, way too many families are in that boat. It is NOT, as many claim because they are simply stupid and buying McDonald’s happy meals and cable TV instead of investing, it is because they are buying food, medical care – sometimes their kids educations. And, following most of the Republican plans (and note.. Democratic plans are not much better) we would no longer have Social Security, no longer have Medicare. It might seem good now, but come 20 years from now, it will mean millions of elderly fully and completely dependent upon taxpayers for support… unless, of course, we just do away with them. And, for all folks like Nightstrike talk about wanting “right to life”, if things are not done now, thought now NOW in an intelligent fashion, that is what will happen… indirectly (by plain and simply not providing the proper care, because there plain and simply wont be any money) or directly (because folks just won’t hook up someone who cannot pay to life support, for example).
MY point is that all of that is going to happen, whether the minimum wage is raised or not. BUT, if the minimum wage is raised, then at least part of that equation works.. the part that puts more people TRULY off government support instead of this pretense of so many folks who are working, but still being a drain on taxpayers.
Oh, and yes, I would increase taxes – because we MUST. I would raise Social security contributions, establish a long term unemployment program and a long term disability program (completely separated from the retirement social security system). I would also do a few things like cutting spousal support for younger people (if everyone is expected to work, everyone is expected to work!), BUT instead allow or perhaps require spouses to contribute to the SS funds of non-working spouses, particularly if they are taking care of the kids. (that would require a lot of complicated details, to keep it from being oppressive or abusive).