Reply With Quote
here's some truth.
wc: "dad, we don't have any food"
dad: "i can't talk right now, my table is ready"
Milton Friedman used to try and model dynamics like that on the macro level and ended up looking clueless coming out the wash. You are basically regurgitating 1996 Gramm, Clinton, and Gingrich with their Contract With American ideology/rhetoric.
I'm still waiting for a GOP type to acknowledge the tradeoff in health insurance premiums for businesses and individuals. If it's more than 6% or 2% respectively, you come out ahead at the end.
On average, individuals are spending 20% of their income on health care and families more. Even with copays and the like they are going to come out way ahead.
By your logic we should cancel public schools, medicare, the VA, etc. An educated population helps the economy not hinder. Health care has an almost vertical demand slope because after all without your health your QoL is or youre dead. That has an economic impact as well.
Reductio ad absurdum for self-serving ideology -I'm guessing you're on medicare- lost its luster 20 years ago. Millenials sure ain't buying it.
here's some truth.
wc: "dad, we don't have any food"
dad: "i can't talk right now, my table is ready"
I could see him following orders at an internment camp or forcibly sterilizing people.
Hey Cobra man, let's go shoot some Mexicans at the border
Look for another one. I've got too big a dog in that fight, as I own a business that employs 20 people that derives 70% of its revenue from the sale and administration of group health insurance plans. Ironically our services are in such demand because we take compliance with the various government regulations (COBRA, HIPAA, HITEC, & ACA) out of the hands of our clients - took several employees all of January, plus thousands of lines of code to generate the brand new 1095 forms - investment we made that ought to pay off in future years, unless, of course, the goal posts get moved again, or taken away altogether.
I agree.
You're not increasing the money supply, are you? You're simply coercing the transfer of money from one class of people to another, right? Do employers spend less than employees?To the people doing the demanding, the good costs less, so they can afford to buy more of it, relative to their desire to consume the good/service.
supply and demand relative to labor is a LOT trickier, because labor is the primary good that is sold massively within an economy.
Short term, make labor more expensive, and a lot of small decisions on the part of individual businesses will be to use less of it (micro-economic level). Over time though, give people more money for the labor they provide, and they will spend it in the economy, increasing all sorts of demands for other goods/services. In the mid-long term it is a lot harder to quantify cause/effect.
NO effect? Why do it?Cities that have increased minimum wage have provided some good laboratories for this. The best data that I have seen is that raising the minimum wage really has no overall effect.
Fewer jobs mean less production. Less production means a smaller economy, less growth, smaller pie. Economic growth and production ought to be the ultimate goal of economic policy. The more there is to go around, the better off. Make the rules, make them fair, let the games begin. There needs to be safety nets in place, and we need to stop encouraging jobs that only make money and don't produce goods and services (capital gains shouldn't be different from any other "income") - I could go on - I have enough moderation in my views that I couldn't pass a Republican litmus test, but I've got enough sense in them, to fail the Democrat's as well.Many conservatives who don't really understand economics like to argue that there "will be fewer jobs", to which I reply so ing what?
No.
Not exactly. No one is forcing an employer to hire anyone, or pay for service they don't need. I am not being coerced to give someone money for the candybar I want.
On the aggregate, it appears to be a wash.
To improve quality of life for those effected.
Allowing parents working 80 hour work weeks to spend time with their kids probably has some beneficial effects that would be hard to quantify.
Allowing people the luxury of time may also allow for job training or even advancement of education.
Moral and economic reasons, in other words. I would do it simply for the moral reason, but there is some argument to be made that there is some wider societal benefit as well to having people with some free time to do things not related to simple sustainment of life.
False. Re: productivity
"Less production means a smaller economy"
"production" is not how economies are measured. Your argument does not follow.
Economies are measured by net income. If you improve net incomes then you improve the economy by definition.
Increasing minimum wage doesn't really appear to have have an effect on either.
But the onus is on me to prove that. I will troop out and find some studies, so you don't have to simply take my word for it.
Because I value intellectual honesty, I will also try to find a few confounding studies. It interests me, and I am more concerned about the truth than my ego.
"If you laid all economists out end to end, they would still not reach a conclusion." -some famous guy or other.
Didn't mean to give you homework. Par for the board is speaking out your ass (except Winehole) - I appreciate the effort, however. I, also, am interested in truth. I understand that the size of an economy is the net total of incomes, but if there is more production - then the TOTAL of incomes will be greater, because the net value of the work is greater. Pay a guy to make 4 widgets the same as you pay him to make 5, and you will get 4, not 5 widgets. 5 > 4.
Again, I am not making an argument for slave wages, nor even for getting rid of the minimum wage, or even not raising it some. I am simply trying to delve into the economics of such choices, from a fundamentally pedestrian knowledge of economics. Capitalism, as bad of a rap as it has, has given us the best standard of living, world-wide, by several magnitudes of any other economic system. Since 1990 alone over a billion people have been pulled out of "extreme poverty."
http://www.economist.com/news/leader...rld-should-aim.
With those kinds of results, we all ought to look with suspect eyes at people who demonize capitalism. What is their real agenda? It can't be to truly help the underprivileged, can it? Capitalism DOES that better than anything. It was the collapse of Soviet sponsored socialism that garnered in this wonderful period, after all. My cynical side suspects it is because they want to exploit the naivete of others (millennials) for personal gain and power.
you acceded to everything I just said in a previous thread.
I can repost it if you like.
True that. It's honestly frightening.
shooting immigrants at the border. I can link that too, but the search function works just as well....
I got a kick out of your observation of his "faithful correspondence." Something I had not noticed til now.
was better. not such a faithful correspondent now.
former poster of the year. this forum, once upon a time, was more keyed to his improvised obfuscations according to his frequency of posting.
much less so now.
similar goes for Yonivore. has he got a new handle now?
gtown, I assume, has a new sock puppet if he hasn't croaked. hard to tell.
Thank you for admitting your obvious conflict of interest. Bernie's plan goes through and you're out of a ton of business.
You still don't address it directly. What percentage of your payroll is spent on health care?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions