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.
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).
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."
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.
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.
Unless you are in a post-scarcity economy, fewer workers means less income for the entire economy. If productivity rises the opportunity cost of one less worker increases.
Edit: poorer is poorer in a marginal sense, not an absolute sense.
On December 06 2013 08:49 HunterX11 wrote: [quote]
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."
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.
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.
Unless you are in a post-scarcity economy, fewer workers means less income for the entire economy. If productivity rises the opportunity cost of one less worker increases.
We could have a post-scarcity economy in the U.S. today I'm fairly certain. Sure, it would be artificially propped up by exploitation of the developing world and ecologically unsustainable, but those criticisms are equally true of our current scarcity economy.
The hard part of scarcity is people's wants. It's easy to have a basic post-scarcity economy if people just don't want much stuff. It wouldn't require exploitation of anyone. But a lot of people tend to want lots of things; and there's some people who just want more. But true post-scarcity is far away right now.
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?
because there's nothing left to do that's worth hiring americans to do
Except for the 150 million or so people that are working, right?
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.
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.
The US is the biggest polluter in the world, therefore any initiative, like the one you quoted, is "hilarious"? Shouldn't you be ecstatic that the US is at least taking measures to reduce the pollution... and maybe it will, at some point, even no longer be the #1 polluter in the world?
And no clue what dragging the 2nd world war into this has to do with anything, but I am sure you have a credible link between the Manhattan project and the greenhouse effect, right?
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.
You are right, employers need workers to perform jobs. However, it's not always possible to fire workers to make up for a wage increase. Workers are often hired to fill a role, not to necessarily make an individual based difference in the bottom line. This means that the increased wages of these workers will likely translate to reduced investment in other areas of the business, and in some cases laid off workers. Of course, if the business serves a lot of people who rely on (near) minimum wages, they will see their demand for their products increase with the increase in wages. It is possible the business could suffer no adverse effects. This would explain the data we find with minimum wages, that there are very small negative effects if any at all.
On December 06 2013 07:10 TheFish7 wrote: You all saw this article from Bloomberg, right? It describes how the average WalMart employee receives about $1,000 / year in public assistance (transfer payments). McDonalds workers also get a ton of public dollars, and it's all due to the low wages that they're being paid, combined with the rules we have on public assistance. He goes on to describe some cooky ideas on how to fix the problem, but I'd think this would be an issue both sides of the isle could get behind. They may not agree on how to fix it, but I'd be willing to bet most Americans are not a fan of their tax dollar subsidizing large corporations that make huge profits every year.
The assistance go to the workers though, not the businesses. Unless there's a compelling argument that public assistance depresses wages I see no reason to characterize the assistance as a business subsidy.
He is implying the assistance is what permit Walmart and Mc Donalds to give such low wages in the first place.
Yes, agreed, that's the implication. But what's the mechanism for driving the wages down? Is it something like wage subsides increase the amount of people willing to work and that increased supply drives down the price for unskilled labor?
"Willing to work" makes everything you say wrong. It's not a simple market, people, at this level of income, do not "desire" to work, they have to.
If the subsides were to end, Walmart would be forced to drive wages up because the wages would go under a subsistance level, subsistance level that dictate the level of the lowest income (since Adam Smith). The supply and demand modelisation of labor market is so 1930ish btw. What about all the work showing that an increase in minimal wage can go along with a decrease in unemployment ?
On December 06 2013 07:10 TheFish7 wrote: You all saw this article from Bloomberg, right? It describes how the average WalMart employee receives about $1,000 / year in public assistance (transfer payments). McDonalds workers also get a ton of public dollars, and it's all due to the low wages that they're being paid, combined with the rules we have on public assistance. He goes on to describe some cooky ideas on how to fix the problem, but I'd think this would be an issue both sides of the isle could get behind. They may not agree on how to fix it, but I'd be willing to bet most Americans are not a fan of their tax dollar subsidizing large corporations that make huge profits every year.
The assistance go to the workers though, not the businesses. Unless there's a compelling argument that public assistance depresses wages I see no reason to characterize the assistance as a business subsidy.
He is implying the assistance is what permit Walmart and Mc Donalds to give such low wages in the first place.
Yes, agreed, that's the implication. But what's the mechanism for driving the wages down? Is it something like wage subsides increase the amount of people willing to work and that increased supply drives down the price for unskilled labor?
"Willing to work" makes everything you say wrong. It's not a simple market, people, at this level of income, do not "desire" to work, they have to.
If the subsides were to end, Walmart would be forced to drive wages up because the wages would go under a subsistance level, subsistance level that dictate the level of the lowest income (since Adam Smith). The supply and demand modelisation of labor market is so 1930ish btw. What about all the work showing that an increase in minimal wage can go along with a decrease in unemployment ?
Not necessarily. Because the unskilled are often uneducated about risks and obscure problems that occur, they would be willing to work for less than the lowest "necessary" income level to remain competitive in the market. They would expose themselves to higher levels of risk, and in the case that they didn't prepare at all, cause great cumulative damage to society and the economy as those risks turned into disasters.
On December 06 2013 07:10 TheFish7 wrote: You all saw this article from Bloomberg, right? It describes how the average WalMart employee receives about $1,000 / year in public assistance (transfer payments). McDonalds workers also get a ton of public dollars, and it's all due to the low wages that they're being paid, combined with the rules we have on public assistance. He goes on to describe some cooky ideas on how to fix the problem, but I'd think this would be an issue both sides of the isle could get behind. They may not agree on how to fix it, but I'd be willing to bet most Americans are not a fan of their tax dollar subsidizing large corporations that make huge profits every year.
The assistance go to the workers though, not the businesses. Unless there's a compelling argument that public assistance depresses wages I see no reason to characterize the assistance as a business subsidy.
He is implying the assistance is what permit Walmart and Mc Donalds to give such low wages in the first place.
Yes, agreed, that's the implication. But what's the mechanism for driving the wages down? Is it something like wage subsides increase the amount of people willing to work and that increased supply drives down the price for unskilled labor?
"Willing to work" makes everything you say wrong. It's not a simple market, people, at this level of income, do not "desire" to work, they have to.
If the subsides were to end, Walmart would be forced to drive wages up because the wages would go under a subsistance level, subsistance level that dictate the level of the lowest income (since Adam Smith). The supply and demand modelisation of labor market is so 1930ish btw. What about all the work showing that an increase in minimal wage can go along with a decrease in unemployment ?
Not necessarily. Because the unskilled are often uneducated about risks and obscure problems that occur, they would be willing to work for less than the lowest "necessary" income level to remain competitive in the market. They would expose themselves to higher levels of risk, and in the case that they didn't prepare at all, cause great cumulative damage to society and the economy as those risks turned into disasters.
You seem to be talking about some kind of transition period where people briefly work below subsistence levels before everything turns into shit and rebellion is in the air. Seems like he was talking about the untenable, rebellion in the air turning point.
Rick Santorum said Thursday that Nelson Mandela had fought against "some great injustice" -- apartheid -- just as Republicans are fighting against the great injustice of Obamacare.
“He was fighting against some great injustice, and I would make the argument that we have a great injustice going on right now in this country with an ever-increasing size of government that is taking over and controlling people’s lives -- and Obamacare is front and center in that,” Santorum said Thursday in an interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
O'Reilly had opened the conversation by saying that, though Mandela was a "communist," he was still "a great man. What he did for his people was stunning," continuing that he was still able to respect him despite their different political views. O'Reilly then asked Santorum why the Republican Party wasn't able to resolve its ideological differences with the same respect.
"Nelson Mandela stood up against a great injustice and was willing to pay a huge price for that, and that's the reason he's mourned today," Santorum said. "But you're right, what he was advocating for wasn't necessarily the right answer."
On December 06 2013 07:10 TheFish7 wrote: You all saw this article from Bloomberg, right? It describes how the average WalMart employee receives about $1,000 / year in public assistance (transfer payments). McDonalds workers also get a ton of public dollars, and it's all due to the low wages that they're being paid, combined with the rules we have on public assistance. He goes on to describe some cooky ideas on how to fix the problem, but I'd think this would be an issue both sides of the isle could get behind. They may not agree on how to fix it, but I'd be willing to bet most Americans are not a fan of their tax dollar subsidizing large corporations that make huge profits every year.
The assistance go to the workers though, not the businesses. Unless there's a compelling argument that public assistance depresses wages I see no reason to characterize the assistance as a business subsidy.
He is implying the assistance is what permit Walmart and Mc Donalds to give such low wages in the first place.
Yes, agreed, that's the implication. But what's the mechanism for driving the wages down? Is it something like wage subsides increase the amount of people willing to work and that increased supply drives down the price for unskilled labor?
"Willing to work" makes everything you say wrong. It's not a simple market, people, at this level of income, do not "desire" to work, they have to.
If the subsides were to end, Walmart would be forced to drive wages up because the wages would go under a subsistance level, subsistance level that dictate the level of the lowest income (since Adam Smith). The supply and demand modelisation of labor market is so 1930ish btw. What about all the work showing that an increase in minimal wage can go along with a decrease in unemployment ?
What's the subsistence level amount? $2/day?
What about all the work that shows an increase in minimum wages will decrease employment? Economists are pretty evenly split on the topic, and the conventional policy wisdom is to increase the minimum when the economy is strong and not when the economy is weak.
Rick Santorum said Thursday that Nelson Mandela had fought against "some great injustice" -- apartheid -- just as Republicans are fighting against the great injustice of Obamacare.
“He was fighting against some great injustice, and I would make the argument that we have a great injustice going on right now in this country with an ever-increasing size of government that is taking over and controlling people’s lives -- and Obamacare is front and center in that,” Santorum said Thursday in an interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
O'Reilly had opened the conversation by saying that, though Mandela was a "communist," he was still "a great man. What he did for his people was stunning," continuing that he was still able to respect him despite their different political views. O'Reilly then asked Santorum why the Republican Party wasn't able to resolve its ideological differences with the same respect.
"Nelson Mandela stood up against a great injustice and was willing to pay a huge price for that, and that's the reason he's mourned today," Santorum said. "But you're right, what he was advocating for wasn't necessarily the right answer."
The unemployment rate declined from 7.3 percent to 7.0 percent in November, and total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 203,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in transportation and warehousing, health care, and manufacturing.
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.6 percent in the third quarter of 2013 (that is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the "second" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 2.5 percent.
On December 06 2013 07:10 TheFish7 wrote: You all saw this article from Bloomberg, right? It describes how the average WalMart employee receives about $1,000 / year in public assistance (transfer payments). McDonalds workers also get a ton of public dollars, and it's all due to the low wages that they're being paid, combined with the rules we have on public assistance. He goes on to describe some cooky ideas on how to fix the problem, but I'd think this would be an issue both sides of the isle could get behind. They may not agree on how to fix it, but I'd be willing to bet most Americans are not a fan of their tax dollar subsidizing large corporations that make huge profits every year.
The assistance go to the workers though, not the businesses. Unless there's a compelling argument that public assistance depresses wages I see no reason to characterize the assistance as a business subsidy.
He is implying the assistance is what permit Walmart and Mc Donalds to give such low wages in the first place.
Yes, agreed, that's the implication. But what's the mechanism for driving the wages down? Is it something like wage subsides increase the amount of people willing to work and that increased supply drives down the price for unskilled labor?
"Willing to work" makes everything you say wrong. It's not a simple market, people, at this level of income, do not "desire" to work, they have to.
If the subsides were to end, Walmart would be forced to drive wages up because the wages would go under a subsistance level, subsistance level that dictate the level of the lowest income (since Adam Smith). The supply and demand modelisation of labor market is so 1930ish btw. What about all the work showing that an increase in minimal wage can go along with a decrease in unemployment ?
What's the subsistence level amount? $2/day?
What about all the work that shows an increase in minimum wages will decrease employment? Economists are pretty evenly split on the topic, and the conventional policy wisdom is to increase the minimum when the economy is strong and not when the economy is weak.
No the subsistance level is cultural - as I said since Adam Smith (he counted beer consumption as a necessity for English workers, and not for French). The loss of the subsides, for some population, would be such a huge loss of income that it would most likely end up in discussions, but well no one can be sure about it it's true. I can't believe 50 millions + people would agree on losing a third of their income.
Your conventional policy wisdom is absolutly wrong. Again, you show your own ignorance by refusing to study actual economy in all its contradictions and not just the main "branch". Economists today actually even question the qualities of having a rigid labor market in a situation of crisis. Why would you need to increase minimum wage when the economy is strong ? And for god sake, why would you do the dumb thing to actually lower minimum wage in situation of crisis, it's the best way to push the country further into the crisis considering "around 73.9 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.1 percent of all wage and salary workers" (source : http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm). Economists are split, between retards who believe in fairy tails and actual economists, it's true tho.
On December 06 2013 07:10 TheFish7 wrote: You all saw this article from Bloomberg, right? It describes how the average WalMart employee receives about $1,000 / year in public assistance (transfer payments). McDonalds workers also get a ton of public dollars, and it's all due to the low wages that they're being paid, combined with the rules we have on public assistance. He goes on to describe some cooky ideas on how to fix the problem, but I'd think this would be an issue both sides of the isle could get behind. They may not agree on how to fix it, but I'd be willing to bet most Americans are not a fan of their tax dollar subsidizing large corporations that make huge profits every year.
The assistance go to the workers though, not the businesses. Unless there's a compelling argument that public assistance depresses wages I see no reason to characterize the assistance as a business subsidy.
He is implying the assistance is what permit Walmart and Mc Donalds to give such low wages in the first place.
Yes, agreed, that's the implication. But what's the mechanism for driving the wages down? Is it something like wage subsides increase the amount of people willing to work and that increased supply drives down the price for unskilled labor?
"Willing to work" makes everything you say wrong. It's not a simple market, people, at this level of income, do not "desire" to work, they have to.
If the subsides were to end, Walmart would be forced to drive wages up because the wages would go under a subsistance level, subsistance level that dictate the level of the lowest income (since Adam Smith). The supply and demand modelisation of labor market is so 1930ish btw. What about all the work showing that an increase in minimal wage can go along with a decrease in unemployment ?
Not necessarily. Because the unskilled are often uneducated about risks and obscure problems that occur, they would be willing to work for less than the lowest "necessary" income level to remain competitive in the market. They would expose themselves to higher levels of risk, and in the case that they didn't prepare at all, cause great cumulative damage to society and the economy as those risks turned into disasters.
Yeah, that's the sad part about all that. But I believe they would disagree if they don't have enough income to buy their malboro anymore.
Rick Santorum said Thursday that Nelson Mandela had fought against "some great injustice" -- apartheid -- just as Republicans are fighting against the great injustice of Obamacare.
“He was fighting against some great injustice, and I would make the argument that we have a great injustice going on right now in this country with an ever-increasing size of government that is taking over and controlling people’s lives -- and Obamacare is front and center in that,” Santorum said Thursday in an interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
O'Reilly had opened the conversation by saying that, though Mandela was a "communist," he was still "a great man. What he did for his people was stunning," continuing that he was still able to respect him despite their different political views. O'Reilly then asked Santorum why the Republican Party wasn't able to resolve its ideological differences with the same respect.
"Nelson Mandela stood up against a great injustice and was willing to pay a huge price for that, and that's the reason he's mourned today," Santorum said. "But you're right, what he was advocating for wasn't necessarily the right answer."
Rick Santorum said Thursday that Nelson Mandela had fought against "some great injustice" -- apartheid -- just as Republicans are fighting against the great injustice of Obamacare.
“He was fighting against some great injustice, and I would make the argument that we have a great injustice going on right now in this country with an ever-increasing size of government that is taking over and controlling people’s lives -- and Obamacare is front and center in that,” Santorum said Thursday in an interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
O'Reilly had opened the conversation by saying that, though Mandela was a "communist," he was still "a great man. What he did for his people was stunning," continuing that he was still able to respect him despite their different political views. O'Reilly then asked Santorum why the Republican Party wasn't able to resolve its ideological differences with the same respect.
"Nelson Mandela stood up against a great injustice and was willing to pay a huge price for that, and that's the reason he's mourned today," Santorum said. "But you're right, what he was advocating for wasn't necessarily the right answer."
How the hell does this kind of disrespect even get dreamt up. Doesn't he at least have some staff that can tell him that it is a terrible idea?
Mandela, an all around respected man, and an inspiration for most of the world, dies. Some lowlife politician tries to stand in his shadow by drawing an incredibly stupid simile. So incredibly tasteless.
Rick Santorum said Thursday that Nelson Mandela had fought against "some great injustice" -- apartheid -- just as Republicans are fighting against the great injustice of Obamacare.
“He was fighting against some great injustice, and I would make the argument that we have a great injustice going on right now in this country with an ever-increasing size of government that is taking over and controlling people’s lives -- and Obamacare is front and center in that,” Santorum said Thursday in an interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
O'Reilly had opened the conversation by saying that, though Mandela was a "communist," he was still "a great man. What he did for his people was stunning," continuing that he was still able to respect him despite their different political views. O'Reilly then asked Santorum why the Republican Party wasn't able to resolve its ideological differences with the same respect.
"Nelson Mandela stood up against a great injustice and was willing to pay a huge price for that, and that's the reason he's mourned today," Santorum said. "But you're right, what he was advocating for wasn't necessarily the right answer."
How the hell does this kind of disrespect even get dreamt up. Doesn't he at least have some staff that can tell him that it is a terrible idea?
Mandela, an all around respected man, and an inspiration for most of the world, dies. Some lowlife politician tries to stand in his shadow by drawing an incredibly stupid simile. So incredibly tasteless.
And Reagan's efforts to prop up the Apartheid regime and keep Mandela in jail were just like Harriet Tubman and the underground railroad.
Rick Santorum said Thursday that Nelson Mandela had fought against "some great injustice" -- apartheid -- just as Republicans are fighting against the great injustice of Obamacare.
“He was fighting against some great injustice, and I would make the argument that we have a great injustice going on right now in this country with an ever-increasing size of government that is taking over and controlling people’s lives -- and Obamacare is front and center in that,” Santorum said Thursday in an interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
O'Reilly had opened the conversation by saying that, though Mandela was a "communist," he was still "a great man. What he did for his people was stunning," continuing that he was still able to respect him despite their different political views. O'Reilly then asked Santorum why the Republican Party wasn't able to resolve its ideological differences with the same respect.
"Nelson Mandela stood up against a great injustice and was willing to pay a huge price for that, and that's the reason he's mourned today," Santorum said. "But you're right, what he was advocating for wasn't necessarily the right answer."
How the hell does this kind of disrespect even get dreamt up. Doesn't he at least have some staff that can tell him that it is a terrible idea?
Mandela, an all around respected man, and an inspiration for most of the world, dies. Some lowlife politician tries to stand in his shadow by drawing an incredibly stupid simile. So incredibly tasteless.
Seriously.. Thats like "you have to resign now" material right there...
EPT
