Rise of Minimum wage?

[tzor]

I am saying none of that matters because the real issue that will determine our grandchildren's future is global warming

I strongly disagree. Our grandchildren's future will probably be impacted by global warming but it will not be the real issue that determines their future.

Economics will still be the main issue facing our grandchildren; we are looking at a total and absolute collapse of the dollar (by then) with a complete collapse of all personal wealth.

When there is such a total collapse that turns us into a third world nation, it doesn't matter if resources are either moderately out of reach (because you have no wealth whatsoever) or that they are very much out of reach (because they are scarcer and being horded by those people who still have wealth). You don't have them in either case.

(And the world's greatest nation; the powerhouse of food production; yes I'm talking about CANADA ... ain't global warming grand ... will probably have a working border policy and keep us all out.)

[BigBallinStalin]

Lol, okay. Based on your history of posting, I doubt that. Perhaps you can find a link to your previous posts which allegedly explain the following:

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.


Or maybe the hidden secrets are locked in some random professor?


"you just choose to ignore it as a bunch of "irrelevant externalities"."

Perhaps you can quote me on that?

I am saying none of that matters because the real issue that will determine our grandchildren's future is global warming, lack of resources and all the current economic models are about interepreting current business, favor current practices.

That doesn't need to be the case, should not, but you are in the campe that constantly claims any real solution is just not economical or that some magic technological genie will just magically come up with a solution if the free market is allowed to work on its own. You say that, despite the fact that this has not yet happened in the entire history of humanity.

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, so if you have a particular problem with something (hence, your baseless criticism against economics), then deal with that instead of dodging.

Nor am I going to give you a PhD lesson in natural resources or their usages or limits.

BUT...I am saying why you feel you can ignore the fact that the data you use to make your decisions is utterly skewed by fundamentally ignoring real resource limits, technological limits and basic human rights.

You're being very similar to Viceroy and premio's art of argumentation.

1. Evolution is wrong!
2. others: explain.
3. NO!

Actually, they explained somewhat, so they did better than you.

[Lootifer]

To take on the role of devils advocate and trying to pick up Players argument...

You might be right about free markets leading to sustainable outcomes in the long term BBS; but first you much consider the long term in your business models, how much of the long term is considered when the typical CEO tenure is 3-6 years?

[Juan_Bottom]

[PLAYER57832]

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).

[thegreekdog]

What were those years again?

[PLAYER57832]

I am saying none of that matters because the real issue that will determine our grandchildren's future is global warming, lack of resources and all the current economic models are about interepreting current business, favor current practices.

Or it'll be about the alarmist governments that will get a windfall of taxes by continuing to push global warming in order to line their pockets with carbon taxes that will utterly devistate businesses and the middle class.

Yeah, well, the trouble is science relies on facts, not politics for its conclusions.

[BigBallinStalin]

To take on the role of devils advocate and trying to pick up Players argument...

You might be right about free markets leading to sustainable outcomes in the long term BBS; but first you much consider the long term in your business models, how much of the long term is considered when the typical CEO tenure is 3-6 years?

So how strong is the principal-agent problem? And how does it relate to changes in their demand for labor? I dunno, I don't study management. If that's a problem, politicians serve shorter terms, are harder to 'fire', lack a profit-and-loss incentive, etc.

Whatever the implications of 3-6 year term CEOs may be, we still have to asked "compared to what"? Of what portion of all businesses within the US use CEOs? What are the substitutes for CEOs and how do they perform?

Then there's the internal questions. How much influence does CEO have over hiring decisions at the lower level? If it's very little, then why even bother about CEOs?

[BigBallinStalin]

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).

So that's your criticism of economics? (still not seeing it---hell, most of your post is about economics).

RE: Sub. effect. PLAYER: "Well, it's happening anyway." And "raising it won't make things worse" (because....? "it's happening already"). What happens when you raise the price of something beyond its market price? Gee, if PLAYER can answer that, then she'd have to change her mind about her position.

That's an awful way to justify something. Sorry but the rest is too tangential for anyone to bother with. I know if I question you on X, Y, and Z, I'll get more fluff and less details or facts.

[patches70]

After 2 years, the employment rates, hiring rates, etc go back to at least what they were before.

Are they? Why do you say that? You think that because of the government published the unemployment rate?

How is that rate figured?

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.

Are you sure about that? What does this imply?-

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 because they are buying food, medical care – sometimes their kids educations

In 1970 people were buying all these very same things. A typical family of four had Dad working a job, mom stayed home with Johnny and Suzy. And they were able to not only get by but to actually save a little bit of money and they were buying the exact same sort of stuff back then.

Not so today. Mom and Dad have to work and often enough one or both of them are working multiple jobs. And barely scrapping by. If a medical emergence happens and one of them is laid out for a while they are screwed. In 1970 if Dad got sick at least mom could go get a job to carry the family through.

But what has changed? You think it's because companies have been soaking up the profit?

What about the declining value of the dollar? Some 90% or so loss of value since 1970.
What happened?

To pay for all the social programs you'd like to see Nixon slammed the Gold window and took us on a pure fiat currency. Where is this little tidbit in your theory of why people are so screwed?

Don't you realize that the ultimate power that is even greater than government, social pressures and virtually anything else is the power to determine the value of our work? The value of the medium in which all secular things are measured? Our currency.

In other words, if you ignore the economics then you are doomed to failure. If you don't understand the economics then you won't understand what is happening. And all fiat currencies end this way. Raising the minimum wage is of no help or benefit. The falling wages are but a symptom, the underlying foundation is what is flawed, is what is sick, our currency system.

Make all the social progress you want, it all falls apart because it's all measured in that system. And if the system is slanted, everything built upon that system is slanted as well and eventually topples down. As fiat currencies always do.

And so castles built on sand tumble into the sea, eventually

Oh, and to get out of debt you don't cut necessary purchases, you cut unnecessary purchases. The trick is to figure out what is necessary or not, a severe problem our government and many individuals have......

The simple rule of thumb is-
Food, cause you have to have that to live.
Shelter
Utilities.
After that, the emergency fund.

Then you start worrying about retirement funds, entertainment and whatever else it is you want/need/desire.

[PLAYER57832]

So that's your criticism of economics? (still not seeing it---hell, most of your post is about economics).

No, but some of your interpretation of economics, perhaps.

RE: Sub. effect. PLAYER: "Well, it's happening anyway." And "raising it won't make things worse" (because....? "it's happening already"). What happens when you raise the price of something beyond its market price? Gee, if PLAYER can answer that, then she'd have to change her mind about her position.

That's an awful way to justify something. Sorry but the rest is too tangential for anyone to bother with. I know if I question you on X, Y, and Z, I'll get more fluff and less details or facts.

Since the basic sum of your argument is "bad stuff will happen", yes, it is pretty reasonable. I am saying "this won't make more bad stuff happen and will make some things better".

As for the rest that you call "too tangential"... well, there you go, like I said -- You dismiss that which you fail to understand.

And, per my understanding of economics. Economics is, at its heart, really just a specialized kind of population dynamics statistics. Its very specific. Most pop dy stats start with an assumption/ artificial constraint that essentially says that population or set of populations (for example, a lake) is/are isolated. We know it isn't, but even with computers, figuring the variables for multiple populations at once is too complicated. We can sort of look at a lake as a whole, but in no way shape or form can we really and truly look at something as broad as the Gulf of Mexico, never mind the entire ocean. Economics does something similar. Its necessary, but when you start taking that data to say it overrides all other data, such as natural resource data, such as real illness impacts and such... then you fail.


Oh, and what happens when you raise the price of something beyond market price.. the market adjusts in one way or another. In this case, since people’s basic needs are relatively static, either employers will pay more or do without. If they do without, then other businesses will come around, in time.

So much of our system is skewed by maintaining CURRENT business and CURRENT energy uses that there is just no room for real innovation to happen “naturally”. It gets stifled before it can begin.

[PLAYER57832]

After 2 years, the employment rates, hiring rates, etc go back to at least what they were before.

Are they? Why do you say that? You think that because of the government published the unemployment rate?

How is that rate figured?

No, its a common economic debate, something I have heard repeated many, many times by many different economists. Not all agree, which is why its a debate.

In this case, folks tend to look at the employment rate and hiring rates, not the unemployment rate. These are people who fully understand the limits of the various puplished figures.

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.

Are you sure about that? What does this imply?-

I raise a family, I live in a community where roughly 80% of the kids in the district recieve reduced or free lunches. Yes, I am quite sure that to support yourself and one child on less than $8.00 an hour, you need help with food, rent, childcare and clothing. AND that is being very, very conservative. (garage sale clothes, because they are cheaper than the Goodwill, gardening, setting the heat low in winter and either doing without air or setting it very high in the summer... etc, etc, etc).

What it implies is that people think "Walmart will bring low cost goods and jobs". Not "Wal-mart means we will have to pay more in Medicaid and food stampls). Both are true, but the latter is why its false profit and essentially false savings.

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 because they are buying food, medical care – sometimes their kids educations

In 1970 people were buying all these very same things. A typical family of four had Dad working a job, mom stayed home with Johnny and Suzy. And they were able to not only get by but to actually save a little bit of money and they were buying the exact same sort of stuff back then.

Not so today. Mom and Dad have to work and often enough one or both of them are working multiple jobs. And barely scrapping by. If a medical emergence happens and one of them is laid out for a while they are screwed. In 1970 if Dad got sick at least mom could go get a job to carry the family through.

But what has changed? You think it's because companies have been soaking up the profit?

Wew a lot of stuff in a few short sentences.

The biggest change is that, yes, companies.. or more correctly investors are soaking up a greater percentage of the income from companies than in the past. Note that despite the emergence of 401Ks and IRAs, the bulk of investment income goes to a few very wealthy individuals, namely the top 1%. The percentage of wealth that goes to them has very much increased relative to what average people get.

Earlier in this thread someone posted statistics saying that if the minimum wage had been adjusted for inflation, it would now be over $20 an hour.

Medical care has been a HUGE change. In 1970, it was a big deal to go and get your appendix out. You generally had to stay in the hospital 4-5 days. Transplants and most heart surgeries were truly experimental and rare. Leukemia was still a death sentence. Etc, etc, etc.

You eluded to another change… the influx of women into the workplace. That influx is a big part of why the loss of income to the middle class has been not quite as noticed as it ought to be. When families go from one wage earner to 2, then the fact that one or both wages are not increasing as much as they ought compared to the costs of things is not necessarily as obvious as it would be if we were still in a one-wage society. At the same time, recognize that many women entered the workplace for little or no real and true income. In many cases, mom’s income goes straight to childcare, a nicer wardrobe for her, etc. This was particularly true initially, when the idea of women working was still somewhat anomalous. At the same time, even today, most women (Oprah, a few other exceptions aside) make far less than men in the same occupations. This, ironically enough, has helped to keep business costs down more than they would have… and is part of why women’s entry into the workplace was smoother than it otherwise might have been. (than it was for blacks, say).

What about the declining value of the dollar? Some 90% or so loss of value since 1970.
What happened?

Inflation, but not sure where you get that figure.
As noted above, the adjusted minimum wage would be over $20 an hour, not the “mere $9.00” being proposed today. (I have spoken of $8 previously, which is why I refer to that figure)

To pay for all the social programs you'd like to see Nixon slammed the Gold window and took us on a pure fiat currency. Where is this little tidbit in your theory of why people are so screwed?

LOL… much more complicated than that, really. It was Reagan that really began the “screw the middle class” slide.

Don't you realize that the ultimate power that is even greater than government, social pressures and virtually anything else is the power to determine the value of our work? The value of the medium in which all secular things are measured? Our currency.

In other words, if you ignore the economics then you are doomed to failure. If you don't understand the economics then you won't understand what is happening. And all fiat currencies end this way. Raising the minimum wage is of no help or benefit. The falling wages are but a symptom, the underlying foundation is what is flawed, is what is sick, our currency system.

You assume most people are able to negotiate a wage. In truth, they are not. Also, in truth most women, even very skilled and educated women don’t.

Make all the social progress you want, it all falls apart because it's all measured in that system. And if the system is slanted, everything built upon that system is slanted as well and eventually topples down. As fiat currencies always do.

And you feel I am opposed to that, why?

See, that is precisely why we need a minimum wage. Right now, the system is heavily slanted against work, against real goods in favor of investments which are available only to the very elite. Any time a society is so skewed, it begins to fail upon itself. When you add in the utter ignorance of natural resource use… we have a real crisis.

And so castles built on sand tumble into the sea, eventually

Oh, and to get out of debt you don't cut necessary purchases, you cut unnecessary purchases. The trick is to figure out what is necessary or not, a severe problem our government and many individuals have......

The simple rule of thumb is-
Food, cause you have to have that to live.
Shelter
Utilities.
After that, the emergency fund.

Then you start worrying about retirement funds, entertainment and whatever else it is you want/need/desire.

Uh, no, an intelligent person CUTS all of the above, very harshly, to the bares minimum AND puts retirement right along with an emergency fund. Because, while taking care of today is important, if you forget about tomorrow, you are not preventing disaster, you are just postponing it. And, in the case of no retirement, it is postponed to a time when you no longer have the ability to earn.

[Night Strike]

Businesses need to fail or succeed on their own, without my tax support.

Unless they're "too big to fail" and must get union bailouts and permanent bailouts for the future.

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.

You might be justified if mandatory increases in minimum wage was the only new regulation that the government was putting on businesses. But they're putting thousands of pages of regulations and taxes on businesses.....and that's only Obamacare. Every piece adds up to the problem of the government wielding entirely too much control and mandate over businesses. That's why several business founders have come out and said that their businesses would have never made it if they had tried to start under today's government.

[keiths31]

Businesses need to fail or succeed on their own, without my tax support.

But if you apply this logic to people, then you are a right wing nut. Correct?

[Lootifer]

Businesses need to fail or succeed on their own, without my tax support.

But if you apply this logic to people, then you are a right wing nut. Correct?

Haha. Awesome. To the no context quotes!

[patches70]

I'm a gonna try one more time, Player. If you don't get, well, you don't get it.

you talk about the rising cost of things, but everything has gotten cheap, a lot cheaper. Technology, mass production, more efficient ways of doing things has driven the price of everything down to the cheapest things have ever been in the history of mankind.

You can see this by simply valuing things with something other than fiat dollars. You can use gold, commodities, silver, beans, coal, oil, doesn't matter, comparing from what once was to today and you'll see how much cheaper everything really is.

For instance, a loaf of bread cost 35 cents in 1970. Today, at least two bucks. In 1970 you could have bought almost three loaves of bread for a dollar. Today, you can't even get a half a loaf for a dollar. You think bread has gotten more expensive?
It hasn't.
In 1970 an ounce of gold would have bought you 100 loaves of bread. Today, that same ounce of gold would buy you over 800 loaves of bread. The bread is demonstrably shown to be cheaper.
You don't have to use gold or just look at bread. Go by the price of oil, price of beans, tin, copper, anything and compare to just about anything and you'd see, everything is cheaper.

It's not that our goods and services have gotten more expensive, it's that the medium we are using to exchange those goods is getting less and less valuable. This trend has increased quickly since 1970 where as before that, while our currency was actually pegged to something other than a promise from Uncle Sam, it's value remained much more stable for a very long time.

You think inflation is just a natural thing? Demand inflation (or I suppose Cost-Push if you are Keynsian) is more or less natural, no matter what type of currency one would use, when there is scarcity there is increased cost. This of course gives incentive to produce more of what is scarce. Which is a good thing, we get better and more efficient, we conserve more and we are encouraged to search for alternatives.

But the inflation I am demonstrating isn't demand inflation. It's currency devaluation and it isn't natural, it's engineered.

Here is the value of the dollar over time-



Now lets look at global inflation



The reason that families can't afford the things on one income like they used to pre 1970's is because it is government policy to inflate our debts away (and the Fed is more than willing to carry out the policy). It is because we are in debt that 80% of your community can't afford food, even though the true cost of food has dramatically decreased. Food is cheaper and more plentiful than it has ever been in the history of mankind. Yet, more and more people cannot afford things without more and more help. How is this possible?
Which only worsens the problem as more and more currency is created thus devaluing the currency already in circulation until the point we'll all be poor.

And it's all from the currency itself, not the actual costs of the things we are buying. Those costs are cheaper than ever.
Those who understand how this works are in a position to make the proper choices and benefit. Those who haven't got a clue only suffer more and more. Those who run the system keep the clueless pointing fingers at everything else except for the one thing that really matters.
The value of the currency in which all these transactions are processed. The underlying foundation of it all.

You ignore that and so do too many people.

Why has the dollar lost so much value? It's monetary inflation-


That's the monetary base. Look at that spike. That's the money supply, and that's why food costs so much. It's not because there is a shortage of bread, it's because we keep pumping out more and more dollars.
And thus is one of the downsides to Fractional Reserve monetary systems.

This is all very predictable and by ignoring this we'll never solve any of our problems because this problem is the root of it all.

That system is what everything else is built on. There isn't a monetary system in the world except for a very tiny amount of exceptions, that this type of system is in place.
Raise the minimum wage, raise the monetary base. It's a vicious cycle that keeps feeding on itself. And it's not just the minimum wage, plenty of other factors are involved as well.
And the sad part is, the only way out is so painful that no one has the fortitude to go through with it. Eventually it'll all collapse, that is inevitable. Until then though, we just extend and pretend. And that's what you're doing, Player, pretending like everyone else.

[PLAYER57832]

Businesses need to fail or succeed on their own, without my tax support.

Unless they're "too big to fail" and must get union bailouts and permanent bailouts for the future.

No, I definitely thought that was a bad idea... and said so many times.

My response would be "then divide them and don't EVER let them get that big again!"

Buy hey, that would "interfere with private commerce".

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.

You might be justified if mandatory increases in minimum wage was the only new regulation that the government was putting on businesses. But they're putting thousands of pages of regulations and taxes on businesses.....and that's only Obamacare. Every piece adds up to the problem of the government wielding entirely too much control and mandate over businesses. That's why several business founders have come out and said that their businesses would have never made it if they had tried to start under today's government.

Oh please... if you want to get into every single piece of legislation, then fine. Bring up whatevery you like and I might even agree, but to claim "oh I dislike these 20 rules (or 100 or even a thousand or more) so I am going to oppose the minimum wage is not a sensible argument.

Saying all regulation is bad is no more sensible than saying all regulation is good. Each must be judged on their own merit.

[PLAYER57832]

Businesses need to fail or succeed on their own, without my tax support.

But if you apply this logic to people, then you are a right wing nut. Correct?

No, not really. But business is an artificial construct made to benefit people. Its value is only what it can contribute to humanity. Humanity has its own value.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm a gonna try one more time, Player. If you don't get, well, you don't get it.

you talk about the rising cost of things, but everything has gotten cheap, a lot cheaper. Technology, mass production, more efficient ways of doing things has driven the price of everything down to the cheapest things have ever been in the history of mankind.

You can see this by simply valuing things with something other than fiat dollars. You can use gold, commodities, silver, beans, coal, oil, doesn't matter, comparing from what once was to today and you'll see how much cheaper everything really is.

For instance, a loaf of bread cost 35 cents in 1970. Today, at least two bucks. In 1970 you could have bought almost three loaves of bread for a dollar. Today, you can't even get a half a loaf for a dollar. You think bread has gotten more expensive?
It hasn't.
In 1970 an ounce of gold would have bought you 100 loaves of bread. Today, that same ounce of gold would buy you over 800 loaves of bread. The bread is demonstrably shown to be cheaper.
You don't have to use gold or just look at bread. Go by the price of oil, price of beans, tin, copper, anything and compare to just about anything and you'd see, everything is cheaper.

Oil is not cheaper, nor is water. Water is about to get much, much more expensive. Oil will likely maintain its relative low price for a while, becuase its artificially propped down.

Most other things have gotten superficially cheaper, but in many cases that isn't a bargain. The quality is much poorer and production has harmful impacts that are simply discounted.

It's not that our goods and services have gotten more expensive, it's that the medium we are using to exchange those goods is getting less and less valuable. This trend has increased quickly since 1970 where as before that, while our currency was actually pegged to something other than a promise from Uncle Sam, it's value remained much more stable for a very long time.

Nice theory, have heard it before.
The biggest trouble is you ignore the fact that real value doesn’t actually come from Gold. It comes from products that people make and buy. Gold is a universally understood value mechanism, but returning to the gold standard is hardly a panacea. There actually were a couple of threads on that here, even.

You think inflation is just a natural thing?

It’s ultimately a factor/result of growth.

Demand inflation (or I suppose Cost-Push if you are Keynsian) is more or less natural, no matter what type of currency one would use, when there is scarcity there is increased cost. This of course gives incentive to produce more of what is scarce. Which is a good thing, we get better and more efficient, we conserve more and we are encouraged to search for alternatives.

Except, you just assume there are alternatives and the above mechanisms are actually working. Today, the oil/gas and coal industries have skewed the system very heavily to that any other source of energy is nothing close to competitive. Also, there are some real technological issues. Any ideas to exchange oil for other substances or methods of energy expenditure are all just pipe dreams at this point or represent something as bad or worse than oil in regards to environmental costs.

Water is far worse. The fact is we are essentially “mining” groundwater and few are even paying attention to that fact. Not paying attention to a problem is not a great way to find solutions.

But the inflation I am demonstrating isn't demand inflation. It's currency devaluation and it isn't natural, it's engineered.

Here is the value of the dollar over time-



Now lets look at global inflation



The reason that families can't afford the things on one income like they used to pre 1970's is because it is government policy to inflate our debts away (and the Fed is more than willing to carry out the policy). It is because we are in debt that 80% of your community can't afford food, even though the true cost of food has dramatically decreased. Food is cheaper and more plentiful than it has ever been in the history of mankind. Yet, more and more people cannot afford things without more and more help. How is this possible?

This I don’t disagree with at all, though I probably disagree with your timeline and how it happened. I blame Reagan for the bulk, for the pieces that mean average people are paying for the damage while those near the top are grossing more in their pockets than ever.

Most people really don’t care about all that. They want to go out to their job, work hard, take home a paycheck that meets their needs and, if they are lucky, goes a bit beyond for a simple vacation, a few small luxuries like eating out once in a while or going to the amusement park or a show occasionally. They want to know that if they work hard for most of their lives, for what used to be 20-30 years and now is more like 40-50 years, they can then retire in decent condition, though nothing close to luxury. THAT is what has been lost by the prior administrations policies… and not fixed by Obama, with the slight exception of some of the healthcare law provisions (not the entire act, though it is better than what we had before).

Which only worsens the problem as more and more currency is created thus devaluing the currency already in circulation until the point we'll all be poor.

And it's all from the currency itself, not the actual costs of the things we are buying. Those costs are cheaper than ever.
Those who understand how this works are in a position to make the proper choices and benefit. Those who haven't got a clue only suffer more and more. Those who run the system keep the clueless pointing fingers at everything else except for the one thing that really matters.
The value of the currency in which all these transactions are processed. The underlying foundation of it all.

You just gave a very good explanation of why currency is not the underlying foundation of it all.

For individuals, gold is certainly an excellent investment, provided you have the means and ability to hold onto it. More than you can hold/carry is of little value except as another investment.

However, countries operate on a different scale, have for some time. I am not opposed to the gold standard, but basically, my understanding is that there just is not enough gold to do the job any longer.

You ignore that and so do too many people.

Not really

Why has the dollar lost so much value? It's monetary inflation-


That's the monetary base. Look at that spike. That's the money supply, and that's why food costs so much. It's not because there is a shortage of bread, it's because we keep pumping out more and more dollars.
And thus is one of the downsides to Fractional Reserve monetary systems.

This is all very predictable and by ignoring this we'll never solve any of our problems because this problem is the root of it all.

That system is what everything else is built on. There isn't a monetary system in the world except for a very tiny amount of exceptions, that this type of system is in place.
Raise the minimum wage, raise the monetary base. It's a vicious cycle that keeps feeding on itself. And it's not just the minimum wage, plenty of other factors are involved as well.
And the sad part is, the only way out is so painful that no one has the fortitude to go through with it. Eventually it'll all collapse, that is inevitable. Until then though, we just extend and pretend. And that's what you're doing, Player, pretending like everyone else.

OK, your argument would be valid if I were saying that raising the minimum wage were the fix or that it should happen in isolation. I am saying that for right now, immediately, we need to make sure that at the very least, people who are working can at least support themselves without relying upon tax dollars. That stops one source of “bleeding out”, albeit not a huge bleed.

The biggest bleed involves not allowing so much profit to just migrate up, leaving the rest of us to pay for the messes made in the process. Build a big factory, run it to the ground, then leave it for the city to deal with .. maybe a generation down the road or maybe just a few years down the road. Consequences? You get to be a millionaire, though you may take some hits here and there. You never paid taxes, the people who’s land was condemned to make way for your factor are long gone and even if they were not, the land cannot be restored to farmland once its held a factory (not without a LOT of money and effort, if even then).

Or, look at the damage of that whole securitized loan debacle.. and notice how many (few, that is… try 0 ) decision makers in that wound up getting punished at all? Who is paying? People who got mortgages with good intentions, some who probably should not have had the mortgages, some who were legitimately qualified, but had downturns and some who were and still are or should be in good shape, except that the bank has changed the rules on them. All of them got “taken” by the banks, as did we taxpayers when we were forced to bail them out.


Before that, it was energy, before that it was the S & L crisis… before that, well then we have Reagan and his nice trick of taking the social security trust and using it as his handy cash fund to balance the budget.

Even so, none of that matters if we don’t have clean, readily accessible clean water and some kind of cheap fuel. It doesn’t matter if enough people in the world lack food and see America as the target, the one to blame. It doesn’t matter if changing climate means whole areas are under water, storms keep getting more and more severe. Any one of those things will impact the economy far more than being on or off the gold standard.

[Juan_Bottom]

Incomes of bottom 90 percent grew $59 in 40 years
During the same period, average income for the top 10 percent of Americans rose by $116,071
(when you adjust those incomes for inflation)


http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/incomes ... _40_years/

Sorry guys, there's nothing to be done. This is just how inflation works.

[tzor]

Yeah, well, the trouble is science relies on facts, not politics for its conclusions.

Rolling on the floor on that one Player; this ain't the evolution thread. All of your economic arguments generally fall back to an appeal on emotion, not science.

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah, well, the trouble is science relies on facts, not politics for its conclusions.

Rolling on the floor on that one Player; this ain't the evolution thread. All of your economic arguments generally fall back to an appeal on emotion, not science.

No, but nice try.

And.. just putting up a few charts and stats proves nothing. You have to understand the data, its limits and what the stats/figures are implying.

For example, I could tell you there are 50 fish in a pond or say there are 500 -- and be equally correct, IF the error is +/-99.9999%

Most economic predications have less than a 10% success rate after 2 years. In many cases a pure guess would be more accurate.

[BigBallinStalin]

So that's your criticism of economics? (still not seeing it---hell, most of your post is about economics).

No, but some of your interpretation of economics, perhaps.

RE: Sub. effect. PLAYER: "Well, it's happening anyway." And "raising it won't make things worse" (because....? "it's happening already"). What happens when you raise the price of something beyond its market price? Gee, if PLAYER can answer that, then she'd have to change her mind about her position.

That's an awful way to justify something. Sorry but the rest is too tangential for anyone to bother with. I know if I question you on X, Y, and Z, I'll get more fluff and less details or facts.

Since the basic sum of your argument is "bad stuff will happen", yes, it is pretty reasonable. I am saying "this won't make more bad stuff happen and will make some things better".

As for the rest that you call "too tangential"... well, there you go, like I said -- You dismiss that which you fail to understand.

And, per my understanding of economics. Economics is, at its heart, really just a specialized kind of population dynamics statistics. Its very specific. Most pop dy stats start with an assumption/ artificial constraint that essentially says that population or set of populations (for example, a lake) is/are isolated. We know it isn't, but even with computers, figuring the variables for multiple populations at once is too complicated. We can sort of look at a lake as a whole, but in no way shape or form can we really and truly look at something as broad as the Gulf of Mexico, never mind the entire ocean. Economics does something similar. Its necessary, but when you start taking that data to say it overrides all other data, such as natural resource data, such as real illness impacts and such... then you fail.


Oh, and what happens when you raise the price of something beyond market price.. the market adjusts in one way or another. In this case, since people’s basic needs are relatively static, either employers will pay more or do without. If they do without, then other businesses will come around, in time.

If what you said was true, then the government can set prices at whatever rate with no negative consequences. You make no sense because you don't understand what you criticize. You're just as terrible as Viceroy on evolution, so there's no point in me wasting time with you about this.

[Night Strike]

Businesses need to fail or succeed on their own, without my tax support.

Unless they're "too big to fail" and must get union bailouts and permanent bailouts for the future.

No, I definitely thought that was a bad idea... and said so many times.

My response would be "then divide them and don't EVER let them get that big again!"

I wasn't referring only to banks.

[PLAYER57832]

So that's your criticism of economics? (still not seeing it---hell, most of your post is about economics).

No, but some of your interpretation of economics, perhaps.

RE: Sub. effect. PLAYER: "Well, it's happening anyway." And "raising it won't make things worse" (because....? "it's happening already"). What happens when you raise the price of something beyond its market price? Gee, if PLAYER can answer that, then she'd have to change her mind about her position.

That's an awful way to justify something. Sorry but the rest is too tangential for anyone to bother with. I know if I question you on X, Y, and Z, I'll get more fluff and less details or facts.

Since the basic sum of your argument is "bad stuff will happen", yes, it is pretty reasonable. I am saying "this won't make more bad stuff happen and will make some things better".

As for the rest that you call "too tangential"... well, there you go, like I said -- You dismiss that which you fail to understand.

And, per my understanding of economics. Economics is, at its heart, really just a specialized kind of population dynamics statistics. Its very specific. Most pop dy stats start with an assumption/ artificial constraint that essentially says that population or set of populations (for example, a lake) is/are isolated. We know it isn't, but even with computers, figuring the variables for multiple populations at once is too complicated. We can sort of look at a lake as a whole, but in no way shape or form can we really and truly look at something as broad as the Gulf of Mexico, never mind the entire ocean. Economics does something similar. Its necessary, but when you start taking that data to say it overrides all other data, such as natural resource data, such as real illness impacts and such... then you fail.


Oh, and what happens when you raise the price of something beyond market price.. the market adjusts in one way or another. In this case, since people’s basic needs are relatively static, either employers will pay more or do without. If they do without, then other businesses will come around, in time.

If what you said was true, then the government can set prices at whatever rate with no negative consequences.

I see, so according to you setting a bare minimum for wages just means that the entire free market system is thrown out the window?

You make no sense because you don't understand what you criticize. You're just as terrible as Viceroy on evolution, so there's no point in me wasting time with you about this.

You keep saying that. What you really mean is that I disagree with you.
In truth, if anything it’s the opposite. I am not denying the theories you put forward at all, I am merely pointing out their limits. You seem to believe that economics has no basic limits. That defies the very principles you tout.

I am also saying that basic human rights take precedence. The right to earn a basic living from a full day;s work is pretty basic.