|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
We have the same crap here in Germany, welcome to the 21st century, where the taxpayers pay the employees, because employers paying for their own employees is basically socialism.
|
On December 06 2013 10:45 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 10:35 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 10:10 coverpunch wrote:On December 06 2013 10:01 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage? Unemployment would increase as a higher number of people require multiple jobs, and labor force participation would drop as more people would give up on the formal economy (though weirdly enough those two effects could cancel either each out in formal unemployment figures). People who have a job but are looking for a second job doesn't increase unemployment. Weirdly, I think there might be something to the labor force participation thing, as workers willing to do multiple jobs at low wages price out and discourage people who want higher wages for low skill work. The idea is that if having one or two jobs and looking for another is untenable, then you'll have a higher number of workers with multiple jobs. If the number of jobs doesn't increase, then the number of people with any jobs will decrease. It's kind of like how polygamy leads to more unmarried people. Why would the number of jobs not increase?
Why would they? Population growth is outpacing employment, and has been for quite a while. I believe that to be the main problem that is plaguing this country.
|
On December 06 2013 10:44 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 10:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 10:01 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage? Unemployment would increase as a higher number of people require multiple jobs, and labor force participation would drop as more people would give up on the formal economy (though weirdly enough those two effects could cancel either each out in formal unemployment figures). OK, I think I get what you are saying. The general idea behind wage subsidies, if I'm not mistaken, is that they either subsidize the supply of labor or the demand for labor, depending on how they are structured. Assuming they work, there would be benefits to society as a whole, including the employer. Higher minimum wages try to do the same thing, basically. They problem I see with that is that as you raise it, more employers will hit a point where they are better off reducing employment and revenue than paying the higher wage. So it's "messier" in that respect, though to be fair, wage subsidies are messy politically as well. Ironically the least messy way would be a simple guaranteed minimum income that was properly progressive so as not to provide any disincentives to earn any more money. That's precisely what Milton Friedman advocated.
Yeah, it's an interesting idea and there has been a lot of talk about that lately. A recent not quite noahpinion post was pretty discouraging on the topic though:
While I'm sure there were many reasons basic income lost its luster, one big factor was the results of a series of experimental implementations of the idea. Between 1968 and 1982, the government sponsored four separate randomized trials, providing $63 million in basic income to more than ten thousand individuals. These studies concluded that a basic income set at the current poverty rate significantly reduced the average amount of time worked by recipients by the equivalent of 2-4 weeks of full time employment, as compared to the existing welfare system. The experiments also seemed to suggest that providing a basic income increased the likelihood of family breakup. While there have been a few smaller studies since then that are more encouraging, it's not surprising that many policymakers reacted to these studies by concluding, in the words of Jim Manzi, of basic income that it "is a fascinating and useful thought experiment, but it's not useful public policy."
Link
I have no idea if those trials involved a poorly designed guaranteed minimum or not or if changing cultural / economic realities (ex. increasing automation) would mean different results.
|
On December 06 2013 10:45 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 10:35 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 10:10 coverpunch wrote:On December 06 2013 10:01 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage? Unemployment would increase as a higher number of people require multiple jobs, and labor force participation would drop as more people would give up on the formal economy (though weirdly enough those two effects could cancel either each out in formal unemployment figures). People who have a job but are looking for a second job doesn't increase unemployment. Weirdly, I think there might be something to the labor force participation thing, as workers willing to do multiple jobs at low wages price out and discourage people who want higher wages for low skill work. The idea is that if having one or two jobs and looking for another is untenable, then you'll have a higher number of workers with multiple jobs. If the number of jobs doesn't increase, then the number of people with any jobs will decrease. It's kind of like how polygamy leads to more unmarried people. Why would the number of jobs not increase?
Why would it increase just because people need more work? After all, we're not talking about lowering the amount of wages employers pay themselves. And why wouldn't the number of jobs decrease as people's disposable income, and therefore demand for goods and services, decreases?
|
States not expanding Medicaid under Obamacare will be collectively lose more than $35 billion in federal funds in 2022 alone, according to a new report from the Commonwealth Fund.
Texas ($9.2 billion), Florida ($5 billion), Georgia ($2.9 billion), Virginia ($2.8 billion) and North Carolina ($2.6 billion) will be the biggest losers, according to the organization, which supports Obamacare. The study's projections of the budget impact nearly a decade out relied on estimates of Medicaid expansion eligibility and spending in 2022 from the Urban Institute to reach its conclusion.
The report covered 20 states, all with Republican governors and/or state legislatures that refused to expand Medicaid under the health care reform law after the U.S. Supreme Court made it optional in June. It did not include several states (such as Pennsylvania and New Hampshire) where expansion is not yet finalized, but state officials are working toward it.
“In states that elect not to expand Medicaid, millions of their most vulnerable residents will be unable to gain health insurance,” Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal said in a statement. “Those same states will be forgoing billions in federal funds while paying for other areas to provide expanded coverage. In light of these facts, it seems likely that non-expanding states will face increasing pressure over time to reconsider their decisions.”
Under Obamacare, the federal government covers 100 percent of the costs for the first three years and never less than 90 percent after that.
Source
|
On December 06 2013 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 10:44 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 10:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 10:01 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage? Unemployment would increase as a higher number of people require multiple jobs, and labor force participation would drop as more people would give up on the formal economy (though weirdly enough those two effects could cancel either each out in formal unemployment figures). OK, I think I get what you are saying. The general idea behind wage subsidies, if I'm not mistaken, is that they either subsidize the supply of labor or the demand for labor, depending on how they are structured. Assuming they work, there would be benefits to society as a whole, including the employer. Higher minimum wages try to do the same thing, basically. They problem I see with that is that as you raise it, more employers will hit a point where they are better off reducing employment and revenue than paying the higher wage. So it's "messier" in that respect, though to be fair, wage subsidies are messy politically as well. Ironically the least messy way would be a simple guaranteed minimum income that was properly progressive so as not to provide any disincentives to earn any more money. That's precisely what Milton Friedman advocated. Yeah, it's an interesting idea and there has been a lot of talk about that lately. A recent not quite noahpinion post was pretty discouraging on the topic though: Show nested quote +While I'm sure there were many reasons basic income lost its luster, one big factor was the results of a series of experimental implementations of the idea. Between 1968 and 1982, the government sponsored four separate randomized trials, providing $63 million in basic income to more than ten thousand individuals. These studies concluded that a basic income set at the current poverty rate significantly reduced the average amount of time worked by recipients by the equivalent of 2-4 weeks of full time employment, as compared to the existing welfare system. The experiments also seemed to suggest that providing a basic income increased the likelihood of family breakup. While there have been a few smaller studies since then that are more encouraging, it's not surprising that many policymakers reacted to these studies by concluding, in the words of Jim Manzi, of basic income that it "is a fascinating and useful thought experiment, but it's not useful public policy." LinkI have no idea if those trials involved a poorly designed guaranteed minimum or not or if changing cultural / economic realities (ex. increasing automation) would mean different results.
How is that discouraging? Perhaps if you are a Puritan who thinks it is a sin to have any free time it's bad, but considering how wealthy and productive America is, and how little time we have off work compared to less wealthy and less productive countries, maybe having two to four weeks less work really is a reasonable equilibrium point. After all, part of the point of a GMI is to make work truly voluntary by removing the threat of total ruin and even literal death that employers collectively hold over the heads of employees absent a safety net. I'll admit that current attitudes in America do often trend toward a moral desire to punish the poor and idle for their wickedness, but I don't think that's insurmountable, especially since there are social and economic benefits to be had by their betters from helping them out aside from simple mercy.
|
On December 06 2013 10:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +States not expanding Medicaid under Obamacare will be collectively lose more than $35 billion in federal funds in 2022 alone, according to a new report from the Commonwealth Fund.
Texas ($9.2 billion), Florida ($5 billion), Georgia ($2.9 billion), Virginia ($2.8 billion) and North Carolina ($2.6 billion) will be the biggest losers, according to the organization, which supports Obamacare. The study's projections of the budget impact nearly a decade out relied on estimates of Medicaid expansion eligibility and spending in 2022 from the Urban Institute to reach its conclusion.
The report covered 20 states, all with Republican governors and/or state legislatures that refused to expand Medicaid under the health care reform law after the U.S. Supreme Court made it optional in June. It did not include several states (such as Pennsylvania and New Hampshire) where expansion is not yet finalized, but state officials are working toward it.
“In states that elect not to expand Medicaid, millions of their most vulnerable residents will be unable to gain health insurance,” Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal said in a statement. “Those same states will be forgoing billions in federal funds while paying for other areas to provide expanded coverage. In light of these facts, it seems likely that non-expanding states will face increasing pressure over time to reconsider their decisions.”
Under Obamacare, the federal government covers 100 percent of the costs for the first three years and never less than 90 percent after that. Source
Nothing new. Republicans have made it there job to see the ACA fail regardless of the cost in human life.
|
On December 06 2013 10:41 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 07:34 xDaunt wrote:
Walmart doesn't really give a shit about what its employees earn from sources other than Walmart. It only cares about its bottom line: what Walmart has to pay its employees in both wages and benefits. As such, it's only going to pay whatever it has to in order to fill its labor needs. Whether that's enough for someone to live on is irrelevant to Walmart. So the issue is whether the employees will work for Walmart at minimum wage without the existence of government subsidies. I tend to think that the answer is yes. stop thinking about what individual actors in the system are thinking or doing, and start thinking about how the system works if there weren't those government subsidies, the minimum wage would have to be higher in order to arrive at the value of labor power. basically those government subsidies are a way to allow the corporations to pay wages which are below the value of labor power in the society - the value of labor power is determined by the state of class struggle, it's just that in this case the class struggle has been carried out against the welfare-state apparatus instead of against the employers (to the benefit of the employers)
I am thinking about it in terms of how the system works. If the government sets the price of labor at a value at which employers cannot extract any surplus value for given jobs, then those jobs disappear. At that point, the worker is paid nothing as opposed to something that is arguably close to the value of labor power.
Edit: And with regards to your argument about the government subsidizing the gap between the value of labor power and the minimum wage, I have two comments. One, I'm not sure that there is such a gap. Second, even if there was such a gap, it still doesn't change the bottom line calculus of employers. Either jobs generate a profit for the employer or they don't. If they don't, they won't exist.
|
On December 06 2013 10:56 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 10:45 coverpunch wrote:On December 06 2013 10:35 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 10:10 coverpunch wrote:On December 06 2013 10:01 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage? Unemployment would increase as a higher number of people require multiple jobs, and labor force participation would drop as more people would give up on the formal economy (though weirdly enough those two effects could cancel either each out in formal unemployment figures). People who have a job but are looking for a second job doesn't increase unemployment. Weirdly, I think there might be something to the labor force participation thing, as workers willing to do multiple jobs at low wages price out and discourage people who want higher wages for low skill work. The idea is that if having one or two jobs and looking for another is untenable, then you'll have a higher number of workers with multiple jobs. If the number of jobs doesn't increase, then the number of people with any jobs will decrease. It's kind of like how polygamy leads to more unmarried people. Why would the number of jobs not increase? Why would it increase just because people need more work? After all, we're not talking about lowering the amount of wages employers pay themselves. And why wouldn't the number of jobs decrease as people's disposable income, and therefore demand for goods and services, decreases?
You're talking yourself in circles. Jobs don't increase just because people need work but also because employers need workers to perform jobs. Since workers are also consumers, as people do more work and get paid, they demand more goods. Wages aren't being lowered but workers but the medium term problem has not been a shortage of jobs so much as a mismatch.
In the Rubik's cube of this issue, you actually need the job availability argument to justify raising the minimum wage. It makes no sense to forcibly raise wages if there are already too few jobs for all the unemployed workers out there. If you are correct that the number of jobs is shrinking, we should be cutting the minimum wage to encourage more hiring and create more slack that requires more workers.
|
Also your argument isn't supported in any way by jobs data, either in October or 2013.
|
|
|
On December 06 2013 12:13 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 10:56 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 10:45 coverpunch wrote:On December 06 2013 10:35 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 10:10 coverpunch wrote:On December 06 2013 10:01 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage? Unemployment would increase as a higher number of people require multiple jobs, and labor force participation would drop as more people would give up on the formal economy (though weirdly enough those two effects could cancel either each out in formal unemployment figures). People who have a job but are looking for a second job doesn't increase unemployment. Weirdly, I think there might be something to the labor force participation thing, as workers willing to do multiple jobs at low wages price out and discourage people who want higher wages for low skill work. The idea is that if having one or two jobs and looking for another is untenable, then you'll have a higher number of workers with multiple jobs. If the number of jobs doesn't increase, then the number of people with any jobs will decrease. It's kind of like how polygamy leads to more unmarried people. Why would the number of jobs not increase? Why would it increase just because people need more work? After all, we're not talking about lowering the amount of wages employers pay themselves. And why wouldn't the number of jobs decrease as people's disposable income, and therefore demand for goods and services, decreases? You're talking yourself in circles. Jobs don't increase just because people need work but also because employers need workers to perform jobs. Since workers are also consumers, as people do more work and get paid, they demand more goods. Wages aren't being lowered but workers but the medium term problem has not been a shortage of jobs so much as a mismatch. In the Rubik's cube of this issue, you actually need the job availability argument to justify raising the minimum wage. It makes no sense to forcibly raise wages if there are already too few jobs for all the unemployed workers out there. If you are correct that the number of jobs is shrinking, we should be cutting the minimum wage to encourage more hiring and create more slack that requires more workers.
Except that when the minimum wage gets raised, there is no discernible effect on employment. There have even been instances (in the 90s) when raising the minimum wage substantially was correlated with decreasing unemployment.
![[image loading]](http://aneconomicsense.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/minimum-wage-vs-unemployment-rates-1950-jan-2013.png?w=584&h=401)
Source
|
On December 06 2013 11:02 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 10:44 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 10:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 10:01 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage? Unemployment would increase as a higher number of people require multiple jobs, and labor force participation would drop as more people would give up on the formal economy (though weirdly enough those two effects could cancel either each out in formal unemployment figures). OK, I think I get what you are saying. The general idea behind wage subsidies, if I'm not mistaken, is that they either subsidize the supply of labor or the demand for labor, depending on how they are structured. Assuming they work, there would be benefits to society as a whole, including the employer. Higher minimum wages try to do the same thing, basically. They problem I see with that is that as you raise it, more employers will hit a point where they are better off reducing employment and revenue than paying the higher wage. So it's "messier" in that respect, though to be fair, wage subsidies are messy politically as well. Ironically the least messy way would be a simple guaranteed minimum income that was properly progressive so as not to provide any disincentives to earn any more money. That's precisely what Milton Friedman advocated. Yeah, it's an interesting idea and there has been a lot of talk about that lately. A recent not quite noahpinion post was pretty discouraging on the topic though: While I'm sure there were many reasons basic income lost its luster, one big factor was the results of a series of experimental implementations of the idea. Between 1968 and 1982, the government sponsored four separate randomized trials, providing $63 million in basic income to more than ten thousand individuals. These studies concluded that a basic income set at the current poverty rate significantly reduced the average amount of time worked by recipients by the equivalent of 2-4 weeks of full time employment, as compared to the existing welfare system. The experiments also seemed to suggest that providing a basic income increased the likelihood of family breakup. While there have been a few smaller studies since then that are more encouraging, it's not surprising that many policymakers reacted to these studies by concluding, in the words of Jim Manzi, of basic income that it "is a fascinating and useful thought experiment, but it's not useful public policy." LinkI have no idea if those trials involved a poorly designed guaranteed minimum or not or if changing cultural / economic realities (ex. increasing automation) would mean different results. How is that discouraging? Perhaps if you are a Puritan who thinks it is a sin to have any free time it's bad, but considering how wealthy and productive America is, and how little time we have off work compared to less wealthy and less productive countries, maybe having two to four weeks less work really is a reasonable equilibrium point. After all, part of the point of a GMI is to make work truly voluntary by removing the threat of total ruin and even literal death that employers collectively hold over the heads of employees absent a safety net. I'll admit that current attitudes in America do often trend toward a moral desire to punish the poor and idle for their wickedness, but I don't think that's insurmountable, especially since there are social and economic benefits to be had by their betters from helping them out aside from simple mercy.
It's discouraging because less work means that society as a whole is poorer.
You can be of the opinion that it's a worthwhile trade-off, of course.
|
On December 06 2013 12:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 12:13 coverpunch wrote:On December 06 2013 10:56 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 10:45 coverpunch wrote:On December 06 2013 10:35 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 10:10 coverpunch wrote:On December 06 2013 10:01 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage? Unemployment would increase as a higher number of people require multiple jobs, and labor force participation would drop as more people would give up on the formal economy (though weirdly enough those two effects could cancel either each out in formal unemployment figures). People who have a job but are looking for a second job doesn't increase unemployment. Weirdly, I think there might be something to the labor force participation thing, as workers willing to do multiple jobs at low wages price out and discourage people who want higher wages for low skill work. The idea is that if having one or two jobs and looking for another is untenable, then you'll have a higher number of workers with multiple jobs. If the number of jobs doesn't increase, then the number of people with any jobs will decrease. It's kind of like how polygamy leads to more unmarried people. Why would the number of jobs not increase? Why would it increase just because people need more work? After all, we're not talking about lowering the amount of wages employers pay themselves. And why wouldn't the number of jobs decrease as people's disposable income, and therefore demand for goods and services, decreases? You're talking yourself in circles. Jobs don't increase just because people need work but also because employers need workers to perform jobs. Since workers are also consumers, as people do more work and get paid, they demand more goods. Wages aren't being lowered but workers but the medium term problem has not been a shortage of jobs so much as a mismatch. In the Rubik's cube of this issue, you actually need the job availability argument to justify raising the minimum wage. It makes no sense to forcibly raise wages if there are already too few jobs for all the unemployed workers out there. If you are correct that the number of jobs is shrinking, we should be cutting the minimum wage to encourage more hiring and create more slack that requires more workers. Except that when the minimum wage gets raised, there is no discernible effect on employment. There have even been instances (in the 90s) when raising the minimum wage substantially was correlated with decreasing unemployment. + Show Spoiler +Source
I don't think the proper argument is that you would necessarily see the effect in unemployment. It could appear in the labor participation rate, for example. Additionally, the minimum wage affects a small segment of the population, so if it did show up there it may only appear as a fraction of a percent.
|
|
|
The minimum wage affects anyone near it. If you are +2$ off the minimum wage, and see the lower ranked guy get within 1$, you will riot.
|
As part of an unfolding administrative effort to curb U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, President Barack Obama announced an executive order Thursday that would nearly triple the share of energy federal agencies obtain from renewable sources.
To “promote energy security, combat climate change, protect the interests of taxpayers, and safeguard the health of our environment, the federal government must lead by example,” declared a memorandum from the president announcing the order.
The government currently obtains more than 7 percent of its energy from renewable sources, according to a fact sheet distributed by the White House, but the president said recent increases in domestic energy production make a 20 percent target feasible by 2020. The higher target, the White House argued, would “reduce pollution in our communities, promote American energy independence, and support homegrown energy produced by American workers.”
It’s the latest in a series of piecemeal unilateral steps Obama’s administration has taken to make some regulatory headway against the growing threat of climate change. In June, the administration announced a plan to cap the carbon emissions from new and existing power plants.
In August 2012, the administration finalized new vehicle fuel standards that would require cars and light-duty trucks to average 54.5 miles per gallon by model year 2025.
Source
|
On December 06 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 11:02 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 10:44 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 10:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 10:01 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote:On December 06 2013 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2013 08:27 HunterX11 wrote:
To be fair, it is true that some jobs could just be eliminated, such as the greeters. That's not so great either, though. What's ironic though is that if subsidizing the living costs of employees who depend on 100% of their wages isn't supposed to have a significant impact, then why would raising minimum wage? It's the same reasoning, just in the other direction. No, it's not the same. The employer pays for one increase and the government pays for the other. If they can't afford to pay people more, then government assistance is subsidizing the supply of labor, and if they can afford to pay more, then the government is subsidizing the demand for wages. The idea is the Walmart is better off than its workers, so it would be better to subsidize the supply of wages, with of course the caveat that it could have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. But if the government really isn't subsidizing Walmart right now as you claim, then clearly either their demand for labor or their supply of wages is inelastic, and raising minimum wage would either put them out of business (which I find fairly implausible), or have little effect on them at all. What do you suppose would happen to the supply and demand for unskilled labor if you dropped the subsidies and didn't increase the minimum wage? Unemployment would increase as a higher number of people require multiple jobs, and labor force participation would drop as more people would give up on the formal economy (though weirdly enough those two effects could cancel either each out in formal unemployment figures). OK, I think I get what you are saying. The general idea behind wage subsidies, if I'm not mistaken, is that they either subsidize the supply of labor or the demand for labor, depending on how they are structured. Assuming they work, there would be benefits to society as a whole, including the employer. Higher minimum wages try to do the same thing, basically. They problem I see with that is that as you raise it, more employers will hit a point where they are better off reducing employment and revenue than paying the higher wage. So it's "messier" in that respect, though to be fair, wage subsidies are messy politically as well. Ironically the least messy way would be a simple guaranteed minimum income that was properly progressive so as not to provide any disincentives to earn any more money. That's precisely what Milton Friedman advocated. Yeah, it's an interesting idea and there has been a lot of talk about that lately. A recent not quite noahpinion post was pretty discouraging on the topic though: While I'm sure there were many reasons basic income lost its luster, one big factor was the results of a series of experimental implementations of the idea. Between 1968 and 1982, the government sponsored four separate randomized trials, providing $63 million in basic income to more than ten thousand individuals. These studies concluded that a basic income set at the current poverty rate significantly reduced the average amount of time worked by recipients by the equivalent of 2-4 weeks of full time employment, as compared to the existing welfare system. The experiments also seemed to suggest that providing a basic income increased the likelihood of family breakup. While there have been a few smaller studies since then that are more encouraging, it's not surprising that many policymakers reacted to these studies by concluding, in the words of Jim Manzi, of basic income that it "is a fascinating and useful thought experiment, but it's not useful public policy." LinkI have no idea if those trials involved a poorly designed guaranteed minimum or not or if changing cultural / economic realities (ex. increasing automation) would mean different results. How is that discouraging? Perhaps if you are a Puritan who thinks it is a sin to have any free time it's bad, but considering how wealthy and productive America is, and how little time we have off work compared to less wealthy and less productive countries, maybe having two to four weeks less work really is a reasonable equilibrium point. After all, part of the point of a GMI is to make work truly voluntary by removing the threat of total ruin and even literal death that employers collectively hold over the heads of employees absent a safety net. I'll admit that current attitudes in America do often trend toward a moral desire to punish the poor and idle for their wickedness, but I don't think that's insurmountable, especially since there are social and economic benefits to be had by their betters from helping them out aside from simple mercy. It's discouraging because less work means that society as a whole is poorer. You can be of the opinion that it's a worthwhile trade-off, of course.
This isn't necessarily true at all, however. Look at how much productivity has risen. By your definition, a post-scarcity society would be poorest of all. Consider a theoretical example where wages actually rose with increased productivity: one could simply reduce the amount of work performed for the same amount of earnings--THAT would be the tradeoff which would leave society no poorer.
|
And? This age bracket have less experience and a small skill-set (if any). It would be a shock if the number was lower to be honest. The problem isn't what the nominal wage is, the problem is the fact that the wages you earn don't buy you much. Instead of mandating higher minimum wages which would increase unemployment (making 0$ is worse than non-zero), how about we attack the root of the issue. Inflation, subsidies, anti-trust, regulatory state, Government expenditure and taxation, etc. Individuals should keep the money they make, instead of taking the money from them, paying petty bureaucrats and the institutions and infrastructures which parasitically redistribute it, the Federal Reserve should be abolished and the policies of inflation should become defunct, as well as making it easier for new businesses to compete with established firms.
For all the people complaining about the large Corporations your actions continue to make them more powerful. If you want to beat them you have to make it easier for competitors to enter the market. Making the cost so exorbitant from Corporate Welfare, Cantillon effects of inflation, and the insane costs of the Regulatory-State make it almost impossible for anyone to come in and compete with these people, which in turn makes us worse off as consumers and employees.
This is why progressives are so infuriating to deal with - you see the problem, but you don't understand how it arose. Perhaps if you read your own historians like Gabriel Kolko a strong coalition might get somewhere. Instead of defending Corporatist status-quo apparatchiks like Krugman perhaps more reading of Buchanan, Kolko, Benjamin Tucker, and Boettke.
We could do a lot to help the average American by dismantling the Welfare State (Corporate and individual) and slashing tax rates (abolishing the Payroll tax would be nice...), ending the Fed and abolishing legal tender laws, and gutting the Regulatory-State to allow for more competition. By the way, this does not mean turning the environment into lakes of pollution (which the Government is responsible for in the first place by not enforcing property rights). If you want to tackle the problems of pollution it has to start with the courts and the recognition and enforcement of property rights (e.g. Public Choice has all ready shown the complete ineptitude and ineffectiveness of regulatory bodies...hell just look at the past 30 years of history!)
However, carry on with more of the same, expecting different results.
|
On December 06 2013 13:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +As part of an unfolding administrative effort to curb U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, President Barack Obama announced an executive order Thursday that would nearly triple the share of energy federal agencies obtain from renewable sources.
To “promote energy security, combat climate change, protect the interests of taxpayers, and safeguard the health of our environment, the federal government must lead by example,” declared a memorandum from the president announcing the order.
The government currently obtains more than 7 percent of its energy from renewable sources, according to a fact sheet distributed by the White House, but the president said recent increases in domestic energy production make a 20 percent target feasible by 2020. The higher target, the White House argued, would “reduce pollution in our communities, promote American energy independence, and support homegrown energy produced by American workers.”
It’s the latest in a series of piecemeal unilateral steps Obama’s administration has taken to make some regulatory headway against the growing threat of climate change. In June, the administration announced a plan to cap the carbon emissions from new and existing power plants.
In August 2012, the administration finalized new vehicle fuel standards that would require cars and light-duty trucks to average 54.5 miles per gallon by model year 2025. Source
This is hilarious considering the US Government is the #1 polluter in the world. Beyond that, the Federal Government allows pollution ranges for certain interests which violate folks property rights. These pollution privileges are an affront. I'm tired of the hypocrisy and idiocy of the Government, it's mouthpieces, and propaganda centers aka Government-schools. This is brought to you by the way by the same institution which irradiated Nagasaki and Hiroshima, oh and much of Nevada, a bunch of pacific islands, etc.
PS: Everyone loves economic Nationalism too... >.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
