Just give every 90k a year
I don't see the big deal it's not like money doesn't just grow on trees? it's made out of paper!!
I mean it kinda makes sense
People get paid more= people spend more, aggregate demand will rise because people will have more money to spend
Aggregate demand rises= more supply needed for things, production may increase and for the increase in production you may need more jobs
[QUOTE=http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/ADandS/AD/Shift.html]Distribution of Income: This is directly related to wages and profits. When worker's real wages increase, then people will have more money on their hands because their overall income has increased. When this happens they tend to consume more causing the consumption expenditures to increase.
[/QUOTE]
Can't this very easily go the other way?
Paying people more means smaller companies have less money, which means they can hire less, which means less jobs.
[QUOTE=Oizen;51505825]Can't this very easily go the other way?
Paying people more means smaller companies have less money, which means they can hire less, which means less jobs.[/QUOTE]
That's when prices can adjust to try and maintain a similar level of income, which is inflation but some minimum wages haven't adjusted for inflation in awhile
[QUOTE=KillRay;51505842]That's when prices can adjust to try and maintain a similar level of income, which is inflation but some minimum wages haven't adjusted for inflation in awhile[/QUOTE]
I don't know of anywhere in this country that minimum wage adjusts with inflation. Does that happen anywhere here?
[QUOTE=Oizen;51505825]Can't this very easily go the other way?
Paying people more means smaller companies have less money, which means they can hire less, which means less jobs.[/QUOTE]
This is a huge simplification but in aggregate economics, wages and the prices of things are supposed to be relatively proportional, they're basically bundled together in a variable called Price Level. It is assumed that when prices change, wages are adjusted as well in order to make sure aggregate supply and demand are being kept in equilibrium. If consumers have more disposable income that they're willing to spend then companies are able to get away with increasing prices to maintain profit. The theory is definitely there and increasing wages is more likely to benefit the economy than harm it, but I can definitely see it being real messy for some smaller businesses.
What she says though is true, if you graph it all out it makes complete sense, it's just that she said it with near-zero confidence because its just a stupid sounding sentence. It honestly makes more sense than most of the things Trump has said about the economy.
[editline]9th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Anti Christ;51505899]I don't know of anywhere in this country that minimum wage adjusts with inflation. Does that happen anywhere here?[/QUOTE]
I think he means that some states have increased their minimum wage to [I]try [/I]and meet inflation, even though they haven't fully gotten there yet.
[QUOTE=KillRay;51505815]I mean it kinda makes sense
People get paid more= people spend more, aggregate demand will rise because people will have more money to spend
Aggregate demand rises= more supply needed for things, production may increase and for the increase in production you may need more jobs[/QUOTE]
That doesn't take account for the prices of products rising in accordance to a mandatory rise in minimum wage.
Higher wages = higher prices = less demand = less jobs = increase in automation = less jobs
By Hillary's logic if we increase in the minimum wage to 100 dollars per hour all of our problems would be solved. And regardless, employers could just outsource.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51505967]That doesn't take account for the prices of products rising in accordance to a mandatory rise in minimum wage.
Higher wages = higher prices = less demand = less jobs = increase in automation = less jobs
By Hillary's logic if we increase in the minimum wage to 100 dollars per hour all of our problems would be solved.[/QUOTE]
So what do we do to increase wages so that they come in line with inflation? I mean, inflation [i]has[/i] been happening, and the minimum wage has the [i]lowest[/i] buying power it's had in decades, IIRC. Meanwhile, companies are doing alright while the working class suffers. Productivity is high, we produce more than enough food, create more than enough product, etc. Yet the majority of the wealth is concentrated in a very small number of people, because it's their 'economic responsibility' in capitalism to gather it.
What do we do to counter the fact that our society is becoming increasingly automated, and increasingly efficient, to the point where the value of basic human labor actually looks like it's getting ready to fall below the line required to keep people alive?
Something is going to have to give here, and I really doubt the answer is going to be 'stop automation'.
So should we just remove the minimum wage and entrust our livelhoods to the good will of corporations because as far as I can tell Dimitrik, you don't want the people to have the power to bargain
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51505967]That doesn't take account for the prices of products rising in accordance to a mandatory rise in minimum wage.
Higher wages = higher prices = less demand = less jobs = increase in automation = less jobs
By Hillary's logic if we increase in the minimum wage to 100 dollars per hour all of our problems would be solved. And regardless, employers could just outsource.[/QUOTE]
personally i think automation is inevitable, and while higher wages may encourage it to come out faster it still isn't free to impliment for such companies, especially small ones
and if prices and wages meet at a decent point demand wont fall as hard, its all about balance
as for that last point, i dont think anywhere in this 10 second clip was such an extreme increase in minimum wage mentioned lol. a reasonable increase is due though
My point is that raising the minimum wage does not accomplish anything if the economy is not working properly to begin with. It will continue not to function properly if government bailouts, blackmailing (such as what Trump is doing), and economic fascism is still practiced.
"economic fascism"????
Minimum wage has a multitude of effects, many good and bad. There's been cases studied where raising the minimum wage actually INCREASED employment in low skilled jobs such as fast food. You can't just universally say what you're saying. Really you should look at a specific policy being put up and talk about it and whether it's likely to cause problems or not based on conditions and evidence.
Was expecting a 10 minute plus takedown of Hillary's economic policy, got a 10 second potato recording. How disappointing.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51506093]Was expecting a 10 minute plus takedown of Hillary's economic policy, got a 10 second potato recording. How disappointing.[/QUOTE]
She didn't even mention minimum wage lol. What she said was 100% true.
"Hillary tries to economics and succeeds" is basically the accurate title. And I hate her economic policy overall too
My attitude towards minimum wage hinges on what it's meant to be. If it's meant to be a living wage then it should adjust with the price of housing, basic goods, and utilities and be achieveable in a reasonable work week (40-50 hours).
If a minimum wage isn't meant to be a living wage then I see no reason to have a minimum wage to begin with.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51505967]That doesn't take account for the prices of products rising in accordance to a mandatory rise in minimum wage.
Higher wages = higher prices = less demand = less jobs = increase in automation = less jobs
By Hillary's logic if we increase in the minimum wage to 100 dollars per hour all of our problems would be solved. And regardless, employers could just outsource.[/QUOTE]
Prices have been keeping pace with inflation for decades, wages haven't. That is not healthy. The economy literally works in accordance to rates of consumption and production, if people are consuming less than they produce then there's an inefficiency.
Also, companies would not increase their prices to a level that would cause them to lose business, if businesses choose to raise prices to meet the increase wages then demand won't go down, it'll simply go back to equilibrium.
Also no that is not Hillary's logic. That's like saying Reagan's logic was to have 0 taxes then all our problems would be solved.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51506036]My point is that raising the minimum wage does not accomplish anything if the economy is not working properly to begin with. It will continue not to function properly if government bailouts, blackmailing (such as what Trump is doing), and economic fascism is still practiced.[/QUOTE]
One thing to start, a free market will not sit still, even when without corruption like you say. Due to the country wanting to expand GDP and control inflation, shifts in monetary and fiscal policy WILL require minimum wage and prices to shift. It's something you absolutely cannot just ignore
Second, minimum wage will always increase aggregate demand. When people have more money, they will spend more money. It will never just do nothing, despite it "not working well"
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51506036]My point is that raising the minimum wage does not accomplish anything if the economy is not working properly to begin with. It will continue not to function properly if government bailouts, blackmailing (such as what Trump is doing), and economic fascism is still practiced.[/QUOTE]
The economy has lots of broken parts and wages are one of them, in fact they're probably one of the most broken. Nothing will solve all of our problems and our markets will never be 100% efficient, but alleviating those problems is the best thing we can do.
Also please go and buy yourself a fucking textbook dude because you seem to be completely talking out of your ass.
people who work 38 hours or more a week should not be in poverty
[QUOTE=abcpea;51506154]people who work 38 hours or more a week should not be in poverty[/QUOTE]
cost of living needs to stop rising for that to happen.
[QUOTE=Pops;51506262]cost of living needs to stop rising for that to happen.[/QUOTE]
That's the last thing that's gonna happen.
Even increasing minimum wage has a slightly higher possibility of happening.
[QUOTE=Pops;51506262]cost of living needs to stop rising for that to happen.[/QUOTE]
It kind of can't. Like KillRay said, nothing in an economy stops, you just have to make sure all the parts are keeping pace with one another.
[QUOTE=cdr248;51506401]It kind of can't. Like KillRay said, nothing in an economy stops, you just have to make sure all the parts are keeping pace with one another.[/QUOTE]
In a natural free market based on savings, prices drop as technology improves, production increases, and competition rises.
What we have instead is an unsustainable debt based bubble economy that's poised to burst the minute anything interrupts the circulation system of the dollar throughout the world.
Some jobs are NOT worth the minimum wage, when you increase the minimum wage, the work that becomes unemployable increases, competition for jobs worth minimum wage goes up and wages remain at minimum wage and many people are never able to get their first jobs and just give up.
Our economy is fucking backwards, the reason work place conditions suck so much right now is in part because so much more of the burden is constantly being pushed on a shrinking workforce and driving employers either out of business or out of country. And what the statistics don't account for is the number of businesses that have been prevented from starting, the products and services that never had a chance to enter the market because actually starting a business here costs so much overhead and is such a risky investment/liability that you would either have to be extremely lucky or already be a multi-millionaire to pull it off.
What kind of businesses even fucking succeed here any more? Silicone valley? Yeah, our most profitable companies are those that scale infinitely with minimal resources investment (software sites, twitter, instagram, facebook), or those that do everything they can to avoid hiring american workers in actual production (anyone who actually mass produces products for average consumers). That's fucked.
It's honestly really disheartening to see this kind of [URL="https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51361-HouseholdIncomeFedTaxes_OneCol.pdf"]shit[/URL]:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/y7bsXLC.png[/img]
[editline]9th December 2016[/editline]
Like to be fair to dimitrik, raising wages really aren't considered to be that great of a stimulus tool because there are other ways to boost the economy more directly, but right now the economy doesn't really need that. GDP and productivity are at an all time high but we still feel like we're worse off than we were pre-2008, and that's because the majority of americans aren't feeling the effects of our economy's success. That's why Bernie, Hillary, and Donald talk more about income equality and jobs that they do about aggregate economic growth, it's because aggregate growth isn't the problem, it's the inequality.
*This is my personal take
Individuals are trying to hide their money in the ground like dogs so they can claim that they don't have it and can't afford to lower prices or raise wages for workers. What they've done is they've made recessionary conditions become the new normal. Things feel normal now after 2008, but the objective truths about the economy's health and the consensus story of average working americans do not line up. People are not making enough money to live, even the educated are beginning to struggle, and thousands are losing their jobs and have little hope for any kind of upward mobility. The 1% bracket has practically vaccumed up all the economic gains of the past few decades and the new generation of laborers are barely going to be making any more then their parents, which doesn't help considering the jumps in living costs over the past few years. They're forcing this consumption/production imbalance that I've been talking about and are making [I]that [/I]the new equilibrium. This is inefficiency for the sake of personal gain, not public welfare.
What a sad state of affairs american politics has caught itself in when you could literally parody something a politician has said by posting a live quote of them saying it.
god now i'm honestly just fucking livid
I am going to have to be a fully independent adult very soon and I am very worried about the world that I'll have to navigate when that happens. Regardless of how much Trump does or doesn't do during his presidency doesn't matter as much considering the current attitudes of americans are already fucked six ways from sunday. I remember conservatives decrying the way Obama handled the country's debt and yeah I get it. The way the debt was handled was stupid, shortsighted, and overly political. However, now those folks are voting for and enthusiastically supporting a candidate that [I]practically promises[/I] to balloon the debt far more than Obama could have. YOU LITERALLY CANNOT FUCKING REDUCE TAXES AND CLOSE THE DEBT AT THE SAME TIME. I like to defend government spending and the debt because I know it can work very well under careful hands. Unfortunately the Obama administration didn't handle shit too well, but now all I see is that the debt is not only being handed down to worse hands, but [I]literally the worst[/I] hands. It's an avoidable situation that I can only predict is going to become a big, fat, and fucking tangible problem. I can only wish that Trump has a handwritten IO-fucking-U from the big JC himself.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51506103]My attitude towards minimum wage hinges on what it's meant to be. If it's meant to be a living wage then it should adjust with the price of housing, basic goods, and utilities and be achieveable in a reasonable work week (40-50 hours).
If a minimum wage isn't meant to be a living wage then I see no reason to have a minimum wage to begin with.[/QUOTE]
As long as the US is in a position where workers are in no position to demand higher wages (weak unions and lack of benefits to fall back on), the US will need to enforce a livable minimum wage.
What does that even mean? What's considered livable? How many hours should you have to sit at a register every week to pay for a one bedroom apartment, in which city?
Cost of living can change dramatically depending on which street your on and what your living standards are. Frankly I don't think an employer should be expected to fund a small house for two kids in NYC, all medical costs, and everything they need to survive for every employee they have that works 29 hours of sitting behind a register every week.
I don't think I see wages the way other people seem to, I think about them in terms of what they actually buy, what they're paying for, instead of the dollar amount, and I don't think every job entitles you to a comfortable middle class existence at the expense of your employer, unless the work you perform is actually worth it.
It's an entirely different thing if it's taxes covering things like medical, that change alone would probably boost employment massively simply on how much of a cost savings that is to employers. But making every employer responsible for providing an employee a middle class existence is a great way to make sure that no one gets employed in jobs that are not absolutely required for the company to function. It kills legitimate business.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;51507961]What does that even mean? What's considered livable? How many hours should you have to sit at a register every week to pay for a one bedroom apartment, in which city?
Cost of living can change dramatically depending on which street your on and what your living standards are. Frankly I don't think an employer should be expected to fund a small house for two kids in NYC, all medical costs, and everything they need to survive for every employee they have that works 29 hours of sitting behind a register every week.
I don't think I see wages the way other people seem to, I think about them in terms of what they actually buy, what they're paying for, instead of the dollar amount, and I don't think every job entitles you to a comfortable middle class existence at the expense of your employer, unless the work you perform is actually worth it.
It's an entirely different thing if it's taxes covering things like medical, that change alone would probably boost employment massively simply on how much of a cost savings that is to employers. But making every employer responsible for providing an employee a middle class existence is a great way to make sure that no one gets employed in jobs that are not absolutely required for the company to function. It kills legitimate business.[/QUOTE]
Minimum wage should at least be able to support an individual, not an entire family. At the very least I ask that a bachelor living by himself shouldn't have to work multiple jobs to get by.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
