page 2

9/1/2008 10:45:29 PM

Quote :

"Thinking people will just start donating if they have a little more money is as bad as thinking people could actually work selflessly for the common good. You're just on the opposite side of the coin of stupidity. Not to mention the numerous other problems we'd have with your system."

So you basically think the government knows better than you....how to spend your money for your own good?

And please tell me the other numerous problems we'd have????? I'm dying to know what you can come up with.

9/2/2008 12:18:37 PM

Quote :

"Thinking people will just start donating if they have a little more money is as bad as thinking people could actually work selflessly for the common good. You're just on the opposite side of the coin of stupidity. "

I actually disagree. We are a generous people. And Id say that people who make alot more give alot more.

I believe in the last couple years we have been the country who has donated the most, outside of govt.

NEW YORK (AP) -- Americans gave nearly $300 billion to charitable causes last year, setting a new record and besting the 2005 total that had been boosted by a surge in aid to victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma -- and the Asian tsunami.

9/2/2008 12:32:25 PM

Quote :

"Again, it is the wrong workers being added to the statistics."

Do you have any evidence for this theory?

Quote :

"They clearly do not."

Again, think about what this statement means for CEOs.

Quote :

"The individuals in question are those that refuse minimum wage work at $5.15 but are eager participants at $6."

Who said they were eager? Have you ever worked a low-wage job?

Quote :

"And I find you poor in logic."

I'd say I'm hurt, but I'd be lying.

Quote :

"You don't know how the things you say could be true, beyond some advertisement effect which would seem to have the reverse results from those you claim."

Look, I didn't make this stuff myself. I've read it from respected economists. Despite all your protests, an increase in minimum wage will increase both wages and employment if wages are below equilibrium level. Basic economics. As it's dubious abstraction to begin with, why couldn't wages be below equilibrium in the real world? I see no reason to believe economic theory applies perfectly here.

9/7/2008 9:52:00 AM

Quote :

"Despite all your protests, an increase in minimum wage will increase both wages and employment if wages are below equilibrium level. Basic economics. As it's dubious abstraction to begin with, why couldn't wages be below equilibrium in the real world? I see no reason to believe economic theory applies perfectly here."

The existance of over supply disproves the assertion of being below equilibrium. If an inventory of limousines goes unrented every evening then logic dictates that the price charged is currently above equilibrium, not below.

Similarly for the labor market. That some individuals on this very day in history have been seeking employment to feed their desperate family for longer than their unemployment benefits, we can say there are not enough jobs to match the supply of workers, and logic dictates that we conclude prices are in effect above equilibrium.

[Edited on September 7, 2008 at 10:10 AM. Reason : .,.]

9/7/2008 10:09:38 AM

^ So you're suggest that whenever people can't find a job, wages must be above equilibrium? Really? So wages have been above equilibrium forever?

By the way, another reasonable theory for why wages could below equilibrium would be that employers have more market power than workers.

9/7/2008 10:18:06 AM

^Which, again, is disproved by the fact that unemployment is indemic. Yes, some unemployment is inevitable due to the information problem (the unemployed fail to realize when a job becomes available). But we are no where near the historical lows of 2%. As such, this is not turnover unemployment, it is equilibrium unemployment, thus whatever market power companies may have, they are demonstrably using it to keep wages too high... An odd choice of behavior.

Quote :

"Do you have any evidence for this theory?"

It was a graph I saw. It graphed black employment versus overall employment during a 25% jump in the minimum wage during the 50s. Overall employment continued its historical rise while black employment fell. In effect, black workers only had jobs because their racist employers were greedy. Once there was no longer a legal wage differential between whites and blacks, the black workers were told to take a hike.

Afterall, if you check the congressional record, one of the primary purposes of the minimum wage as it was imposed by FDR during the Great Depression was to stop southern black workers from bidding jobs away from northern white workers.

9/7/2008 10:27:49 AM

Obama says today that if the economy is still not doing so hot, he would not get rid of the Bush Tax cuts.

How does this affect his overall economic policy? How will the public view it?

9/7/2008 9:51:25 PM

^^ Can you cite a published economist who supports this theory? If employment stands at above 2%, then wages cannot be below equilibrium level. I'm curious. If it were that simple, various economists sure waste time.

For the record, the argument that wages could be below equilibrium comes from Michael K. Evans:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Bb68Q5OIW4gC&pg=PA337&lpg=PA337&dq=%22below+equilibrium%22+%2B+minimum+wage+%2B+unemployment&source=web&ots=kRbuITgkBU&sig=Fq7RNzh3242sz-tTBvpWsqBOeGg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA338,M1

Are you familiar with the idea of multiple possible equilibria? This model has minimum wage shifting the equilibrium from one favorable to capitalist to one favorable workers. Regardless of theories and models, the data doesn't support the idea that minor changes to minimum wage will have a dramatic effect in either direction. Data from the ground cause problems. That's why economists have to scramble for explanations beyond the basics.

9/7/2008 10:32:50 PM

Uhm, hasnt anyone heard of the natural rate of unemployment, you know, like in every macro class ever? Its around 4-5%. It takes into account the recycling of jobs, job searches, etc. Also, when the hell was unemployment 2%?

Every different job type has its own 'e'. Theres no one right wage, and its somewhat irrelevant for this discussion. We know what happens when we raise the minimum wage and its not good. It doesnt help the people were trying to help, a few examples: added cost to small businesses, likely less employment, if more employment then less full time workers, encourages more skilled workers to crowd out those with less skills for the lesser skilled jobs, gives incentive for the unskilled to leave hs and college. Not to mention who actually works for the min wage. Its mostly young people (under 25) and theyre mostly parts of households who make over 40k. 90% of people on the min wage will be above it within a year. Etc etc etc. There are a million reasons why it is in effective.

Its basically rent-control. It sounds nice but has so many unintended consequences it ends up hurting the people its designed to help. There are better ways to solve the problem (training, EITC).

If I had to guess, Id say that there is a shortage of jobs at the min wage. There are a lot more people who would take jobs at the wage than there are jobs open. That implies a shortage in definition. This is primarily because there are people who would work for less, but are unable to as there is a price floor. So everyone who is willing to work for the less than the min wage, say 7, is immediately grouped into the category of 7, ie min wage acts as a floor. So in the graph you can see that the D is higher than S at the given Q resulting from the price floor.

Very scientific graph, I know

--------------------------
The Q2 figures came out a little while ago. GDP grew at 3.3%, which is good. Especially considering the recent problems. Too bad the media only reports it when its below 2%. Employment is still a slight problem at 5.5-6%; I believe Michigan has a rate of 8-9% right now, yikes. Not historically bad as a whole but bad from the great moderation.
------------
One last thing, about taxing the rich. I wont go into a huge 'people are morons' rant but I will say something briefly. Taxes have a tendency to not stay in place. You put them here, and they scatter throughout the economic web the person has. For the rich and corporations, that means jobs prices and dividends. So while were placing the burden on them, they react and it gets somewhat redistributed. Not to say that it totally scatters by any means.

[Edited on September 9, 2008 at 4:27 AM. Reason : its late, apologies for the inarticulate blabber]

9/9/2008 4:20:41 AM

Right Viper, there are potential mechanisms which suggest the supply curve for labor sometimes slopes to the right (\), hence producing local equillibriums. But, for this whole time I have been asking you to describe that mechanism and you have not. Should I do your job for you here?

Either way, this mechanism would cause the same effect whether you increase the minimum wage or increase the Earned Income Tax Credit, with the benefit that if it turns out that you are not at a local equillibrium, an EITC will not cause the poorest among us to die in the street as an increase in the minimum wage would.

So, again, there is no way in theory or practice that the minimum wage is a good idea; whatever benefits it is capable of producing can be produced with an EITC without the risk of killing those we are trying to help.

[Edited on September 9, 2008 at 9:05 AM. Reason : .,.]

9/9/2008 9:03:33 AM

^ I have described a mechanism or two. You just reject whatever I type out of hand or claim increasing both employment and wages hurts the poorest among us. I've also cited a published economist who doesn't share your extreme view of minimum wage law.

9/9/2008 10:12:06 PM

Quote :

"What does bother me is the "regressive" tax cut he is creating in which those already paying the least taxes get the largest tax decrease (both by percentage and in real dollars). Yet he wants to give the lower class more social services to which the paying burden will be those in the working class and middle classes."

So once these people effectively pay no taxes, or get more back in services than they pay in, should they be able to vote?

Should no taxation without representation work the other way around?

9/9/2008 10:27:36 PM

Quote :

"^ I have described a mechanism or two. You just reject whatever I type out of hand or claim increasing both employment and wages hurts the poorest among us. I've also cited a published economist who doesn't share your extreme view of minimum wage law."

As I said, you posted one and I did not dismiss it, I explained to you why it was not logically sound. As for your published economist, they too were lacking in any explanation as to how labor market regulations would have no impact upon the operation of labor markets.

9/9/2008 11:04:44 PM

^ No, you didn't. You suggested it would hurt the poorest of the poor even while increasing both wages and employment.

9/9/2008 11:14:04 PM

I'm sorry. Forgive me for believing that sending human beings to die in the street made a policy logically unsound.

9/9/2008 11:23:08 PM

^ So capitalism would be logically unsound?

9/9/2008 11:26:55 PM

If by 'capitalism' you mean putting GoldenViper in charge of the economy, then yes, all of us will wind up dying in the street sooner or later.

But if by 'capitalism' you mean setting men free to seek a job if they need one on the terms other men are willing to give them, then no. Anyone faced with dying in the street will use their mind to make themselves useful to society without fear of being arrested by men with guns for the crime of survival, all in the name of making GoldenViper sleep better.

9/10/2008 12:01:12 AM

No, capitalism explicitly withholds goods and services from folks for the supposed purpose for increasing overall wealth. Increasing wages and employment while hurting the poorest of the poor strikes me as a parallel. You oppose one but support the other. Why?

By the way, would you like a hat to go with that straw man you've created? Please stop lying and/or assuming.

9/10/2008 12:18:52 AM

Quote :

"No, capitalism explicitly withholds goods and services from folks for the supposed purpose for increasing overall wealth. Increasing wages and employment while hurting the poorest of the poor strikes me as a parallel. You oppose one but support the other. Why?"

Because in my instance everyone survives to complain another day. People do not starve to death due to low wages, they starve to death due to a lack of wages. In your instance someone will very likely have their life sacrificed for the 'greater good' by men with guns.

That is the distinction. If you want to sacrifice yourself then go for it. But do not presume to sacrifice others for your cause.

9/10/2008 12:48:35 AM

sustainable economic systems (and therefore sustainable societies) are like life, in that they are a dynamic equiilibrium.

pure capitalism is (for better or worse) as good or bad as the absence of it. therefore there is never any such thing in pure form, nor is a society ever devoid of it. in the purest sense, the only thing that keeps you from taking what i've got by force/enslaving me/controlling my choices (and vice versa), is the risk and reward profile associated with such actions.

if capitalism is afunction of "value", then laws, morality, pleasant fictions, are all derivatives of capitalism. all derivatives of risk and reward. sustaining a dynamic equilibrium is a matter of having the derivatives of a given value accurately track the pure metric of said value -- and vice versa.

9/10/2008 1:57:18 AM

Quote :

"No, capitalism explicitly withholds goods and services from folks for the supposed purpose for increasing overall wealth."

Can you explain how and why this occurs? What form of economic system do you find more efficient? (empirical, as well as theoretical, support would help here)

9/10/2008 6:32:56 AM

Quote :

"No, capitalism explicitly withholds goods and services from folks for the supposed purpose for increasing overall wealth. "

It 'withholds' these goods and services because you're not allowed to steal the things you need from others via the government?

9/10/2008 12:24:00 PM

^No, not at all. Its simply an efficiency vs. equity tradeoff. When we transfer money (income, anything) we lose some efficiency.

9/10/2008 5:04:44 PM

^ Can you please define efficiency and equity as you've used them above? How does this relate to capitalism having a negative effect on society?

9/10/2008 6:23:22 PM

^Typically, any transfer of wealth takes away some potential from the economy (efficiency, in the sense that someone is worse of because of the trade) for some increased fairness (equity, social justice). So when we tax the rich more, give money to the poor, medicaid, financial aid, social security, blah blah blah, etc. These are all programs that are geared towards equity, the social well-being of society. Not because theyre some pareto efficient move, ie no one is hurt by the transfer. A pure business society (extreme capitalism, evil corporations, all that crap) would leave those behind who cant fend for themselves. As the loving and caring people we are, we help them out. So we split up the economic pie and shrink it a tad (as taxes lead to lost value through inefficiency that you normally think of) so that were more fair. If we didnt bother cutting up the economic pie as much, it would likely be bigger and incomes would have an even bigger gap.

So in short, were trading some potential (efficiency) for increased social fairness (equity)

9/10/2008 8:16:41 PM

Quote :

"So in short, were trading some potential (efficiency) for increased social fairness (equity)"

no, you are losing efficiency for, at best, the hope of increased fairness, no matter how dubious a term such as "social fairness" is. I would think it is most fair to reward people for their work.

9/10/2008 10:14:36 PM

^ Well you havent said anything new? I wasnt arguing that fair (a concept that allows children and idiots to participate in arguments) is needed or is a good thing. Im merely saying what the idea is. And yes, when we tradeoff, we take less of one for more of the other. So yeah, were not really disagreeing I dont think

9/10/2008 11:31:25 PM

Quote :

"If this is what the market salary is than fine, but Mr. Obama shouldn't be playing wage maker over the natural forces of the market."

--HUR

Natural forces of the market also lead to bad things. Such as monopolies. Or underfunding something the public takes for granted.

The market isn't perfect. To assume that teachers--or anyone for that matter--is worth exactly what the "market" is paying them is kind of assumptious; it's even more assumptious to assume that for a public servant.

9/10/2008 11:45:33 PM

Quote :

"These are all programs that are geared towards equity, the social well-being of society."

So you are saying it's more fair to have these programs in society?

9/10/2008 11:48:12 PM

i believe the word for which you were looking is "assuming." not "assumptious."

9/10/2008 11:51:07 PM

Yeah, Firefox was not being kind to me but I soldiered on.

9/11/2008 12:03:14 AM

im not saying what is fair or not. i was answering a girls question. you sacrifice efficiency when you transfer money. thats all.

9/11/2008 12:18:11 AM

^A price we're all willing to pay, whether people admit it or not. Politics is just how much who gets to pay that price.

9/11/2008 12:22:49 AM

Quote :

"Natural forces of the market also lead to bad things. Such as monopolies. Or underfunding something the public takes for granted."

True, the market may exhibit negative externalities, but these are few in number and can be narrowly targeted. Setting wages is far different from pollution, therefor wage setting should be left to free individuals to decide.

Quote :

"The market isn't perfect. To assume that teachers--or anyone for that matter--is worth exactly what the "market" is paying them is kind of assumptious;"

There is hardly a market for education. It is predominately a government-run monopoly with uniform wages. If teacher wages were set by the market, the math teacher would be earning much more than the arts teacher.

[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 6:46 AM. Reason : .]

9/11/2008 6:44:00 AM

So is NC's public school education a government-run monopoly or a market with 100 competitors? It's run by the counties. I think teachers have preferences for some counties, too...

9/11/2008 11:48:05 AM

It is currently a toss-up. I call it a monopoly because schools have little incentive to attract new students and because the barrier to entry for new competitors requires an act of the legislature.

9/11/2008 12:59:41 PM

^^ That's the central problem with our system. Those 100 schools do not compete. Students are designated a school by their district and often are not permitted to switch to another school. This removes any incentive on the school's part to do everything necessary to retain its customers as they will recieve funding regardless of performance.

9/11/2008 1:39:11 PM

^,^^
Its a monopsony, meaning there is, essentially, one large buyer in the market (state of NC)

9/11/2008 1:54:06 PM

I would define it as a monopoly, given the supply is largely coming from the government. The demand for education is ultimately coming from the students/parents rather than the governnment itself. This is somewhat similar to the government forcing you to pay them x amount a year for groceries and subsequently giving you the option to either obtain them from their government-run grocery stores or spend additional funds to go to a private grocery store, of which there are few given they must compete with the government stores, which distribute food that the taxpayers have already paid for)



[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2008 3:04:30 PM