how soon before the US in same state as Greece?

[Apech]

First half of this is quite good on why the US will never end up like Greece:

 

[Karl]

First half of this is quite good on why the US will never end up like Greece:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVaVPMMvyPk

 

I watched that previously. Steve Keen just seems to me to be like a new age economist. His ideas don't make any sense, it's as if he is unable to get beyond a limited view of economics. First he says it's idiotic to believe money doesn't matter which I agree with, as it certainly does matter, but then that's not actually what he is saying.

 

He seems unfamiliar with the laws of comparative advantage, or that having a balance of trade surplus isn't necessarily a good thing.

 

It's very weird. I think he is just a macro economist, which is to say, a modern day crystal ball gazer.

[thelerner]

if we go back to that simple example. If we do not save, we cannot produce. That's where we are headed.

 

fisherman saves enough to make a net and can now fish more efficiently. It can also be lent out. The fisherman agreeing to feed the berry picker whilst he constructs a berry picking device and increases berry production. He agrees to pay the fisherman a percentage of the berries as payment for the berry picker deferring that consumption. Everybody benefits.

imo if we went to 'pure' capitalism we'd inevitably end up back here or something more feudalistic.  You don't think people take advantage of technology now?  Thats silly, factories are being more automated and money saving devices are as or more sought after then ever. 

 

My problem with your simple scenario is you can't imagine the fisherman buying up the whole lake and turning other fisherman into low wage workers.  You can't imagine him using his wealth to buy up the berry farm and doing the same. 

 

maybe worse and realistically

(some) Businesses will cost cut until the lives of their employees, the public and environment is at risk.   Thats the fact, Jack, and we need rules regulations to keep such crimes from happening.   On the other hand, there are solid arguments that we have too many now, but to argue we should have none seems naive to me. 

 

You see unfettered capitalism as without sin.  I see it as a mixed bag, something that needs controls because people can be pretty shitty to each other and there needs to safeguards installed for the good of society.  As always its about finding the sweet spot and economically thats a moving target.   The seeds of recession are planted by exuberance of prosperity.

Edited August 7, 2015 by thelerner

[Karl]

imo if we went to 'pure' capitalism we'd inevitably end up back here or something more feudalistic.  You don't think people take advantage of technology now?  Thats silly, factories are being more automated and money saving devices are as or more sought after then ever. 

 

My problem with your simple scenario is you can't imagine the fisherman buying up the whole lake and turning other fisherman into low wage workers.  You can't imagine him using his wealth to buy up the berry farm and doing the same. 

 

maybe worse and realistically

(some) Businesses will cost cut until the lives of their employees, the public and environment is at risk.   Thats the fact, Jack, and we need rules regulations to keep such crimes from happening.   On the other hand, there are solid arguments that we have too many now, but to argue we should have none seems naive to me. 

 

You see unfettered capitalism as without sin.  I see it as a mixed bag, something that needs controls because people can be pretty shitty to each other and there needs to safeguards installed for the good of society.  As always its about finding the sweet spot and economically thats a moving target.   The seeds of recession are planted by exuberance of prosperity.

 

I don't really like the phrase 'pure capitalism'. It has this slight reek of Marxian ideology. Can we settle on calling it free market capitalism ?

 

You are seeing the economy as a fixed pie. What we want is more stuff, for less effort. We aren't wanting to create more jobs, that's backwards. The current state system monopolises production. The corporate crony is intent on producing fewer things and therefore less at higher profit. We, as consumers, want the complete opposite. We want an ever expanding base of goods and services at lower costs and higher quality as that makes us all wealthier. So automation is an exile to thing as it frees productive labour (which is a scarce resource) from the drudgery of less important production and makes it available for better uses.

 

It does not matter if he buys up the lake. You are falling for the 'exploited' labour ideology of Marx. What matters is production. If it is increasing then things are getting better, if it decreases then things are getting worse. The fisherman has to own the lake first, but there are many lakes, seas and rivers. If there isn't fish, then game, animals will be farmed. If the fisherman employs workers, then they are free to move to any productive area they see fit. No monopoly exists. I simply showed the example to explain how two producers of totally different capacity, can, between them, produce significantly more than individually.

 

Yes, we need laws and particularly that of private property protection. That, is really the only law on the planet. The others are derived from that one simple law. So, please don't think free market means no laws, it means the opposite, very strong and simple laws. The problem we have now is regulation and legalise designed to prevent competition.

 

I see the creeping ideology of the church in the word 'sin'. I cannot disavow you of that. It's a corruption, but if you are stuck with it then it can't be helped and you will see things from that perspective. I don't find people to be 'pretty shitty' until they are forced to be, when they have no other option but to be that way. When they have a better option they take that. Easy is better than harder, peace is better than conflict and so discussion is born-that's why we can communicate here and aren't resorting to pistols at dawn to resolve our differences. We prefer rational argument to irrational violence-at least I do :-)

 

 

[Brian]

The distinction becomes even more striking when you simply call it "trade."

 

Some people acknowledge that it is natural for humans to trade while others believe this concept is a cruel trick perpetrated by the evil elite to enslave the innocent masses.

 

These two dramatically different starting-points result in dramatically different end-points.

[Karl]

The distinction becomes even more striking when you simply call it "trade."

Some people acknowledge that it is natural for humans to trade while others believe this concept is a cruel trick perpetrated by the evil elite to enslave the innocent masses.

These two dramatically different starting-points result in dramatically different end-points.

 

Yes, simple 'trade' would be even better.

[Aetherous]

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and provide a little of the research for your consideration:

https://mitpress.mit.edu/index.php?q=books/minimum-wages

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/44995-MinimumWage.pdf

https://www.epionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Oakland_MW_Report1.pdf

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/06/02/seattle_raising_its_minimum_wage_to_15_it_s_history_in_the_making.html

http://epionline.org/studies/EPI_SanFrancisco_Studyv4.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/business/15-wage-in-fast-food-stirs-debate-on-effects.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1

http://borderlands-books.blogspot.com/2015/02/borderlands-books-to-close-in-march.html

http://epionline.org/studies/EPI_TheImpactof980FederalMinimumWage.pdf

https://www.minimumwage.com/2014/06/new-survey-seattles-15-misstep

https://www.epionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/120228_EPI_CanRaisingtheMinWageReducePovertyandHardship.pdf

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/Neumark%20et%20al%20MW%20evaluation%20May%202013%20ILRR%20final%20rev.pdf

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~jsabia/docs/Sabia_Burkhauser_Hansen_ILLR2012.pdf

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/min_wage_review.pdf

https://www.epionline.org/wp-content/studies/macpherson_06-2002.pdf

https://www.epionline.org/studies/r132

http://www.epionline.org/study/r131

http://www.epionline.org/study/r129

http://www.epionline.org/study/r128

http://www.people.vcu.edu/~lrazzolini/GR2010.pdf

http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.pdf

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324616604578302153328738108

https://www.minimumwage.com/2015/05/raise-the-wage-sponsors-dont-pay-any-wage-to-their-interns/

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_minimum_wage_and_the_danis.php?page=all&print=true

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/img/posts/Sabia_Burkhauser_SEJ_Jan10.pdf

http://www.facesof15.com

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/pdf/ib3866.pdf

 

I've gotten through about half of that list now...

 

The book in your first link seems interesting, and I will be picking it up soon. Of course that one would take quite a while to read thoroughly so I don't plan on eventually responding to it. But it seems nice that it's based on actual studies, and I do like to consider what serious people have to say if it's in opposition to my beliefs...perhaps I'm wrong.

 

Much of the arguments opposed to minimum wages, living wages, and wage increases, in the links above, come from a place of speculation. Various economists "predict" this or that.

 

The general idea is that wage increases cause some businesses to not be able to operate as efficiently, or at all, and that reduces overall jobs for the bottom percentage of workers. So instead of working for next to nothing, they won't be working, is the idea.

 

A lot isn't considered in that, though. Such as the fact that if workers have more money, they will be spending more money, and that opens up new job opportunities...there's a greater demand, and therefore a greater demand for workers to supply that. To be realistic, we have to broaden our perspective to what actually happens for the lowest earners, rather than being myopic. We have to not look at an immediate impact of a drastic wage increase, for instance...which cause business owners to freak out and jack up prices or fire employees...but look more long term, at least when we're considering implementing living wages. The goal of people who want a living wage is not to have it today, if that harms them and the economy, but to have it soon. I'm sure most will be relieved with a slow implementation, rather than no implementation at all.

 

There is absolutely no proof that a living wage itself harms the lowest skilled or bottom of the barrel workers.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Aetherous

[Karl]

It's simply supply and demand on the price curve.

 

Minimum wages is price fixing of the labour rate.

 

A) if it is below the curve it will have no effect.

if it is on the curve it will have no effect.

C) beyond the curve it will cause unemployment.

 

The higher it is beyond the curve the greater will be the damage to employment. It effectively hikes up the ladder and condemns the most needy to state dependence. As these form the vast majority then tax will be taken from the productive to the idle who have been condemned to that state.

 

Currently Wallmart have raised their minimum wages in one state and now are preparing to fire 1000 workers. The company cannot raise the cost of its produce because many of the shoppers are in that low wage earning group as well. The axe falls on the least productive. However there is another unintended consequence. The higher paid workers are now demanding Walmart raise their wages as well. Some are walking out and finding alternative employment as they feel they are undervalued. This is what happens when you mess with market fundamentals.

 

 

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015/jul/29/firm-preps-staff-for-wal-mart-layoffs-2/

 

 

 

 

The mistake you are making is to equate wages with productivity. The more people who are unproductive, then the greater the drag on the rest of the economy. Then there is the social cost of broken homes, crime, addiction, mental health.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Karl

[Aetherous]

Just pure nonsense.

[Karl]

Just pure nonsense.

Watch Walter Williams. He gives the numbers.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you say it's nonsense. You disagree with thousands of years of economic law ? Or you disagree at the reports that Walmart are shedding staff ?

 

If you knew you were hurting people by supporting this law would you stop supporting it ? Or wouod your intention just to push blindly on regardless?

Edited August 8, 2015 by Karl

[Aetherous]

The following will be as much time as I waste on replying...I shouldn't have even posted the emotive quip in the first place, because it was pointless, but it's easy to get worked up over these issues...

 

Watch Walter Williams. He gives the numbers.

I watched up to 1:35 and already saw through his first argument. Are you able to, as well?

 

I'm not sure why you say it's nonsense. You disagree with thousands of years of economic law ?

 

What thousands of years of economic law are you talking about? If that existed, I would disagree with it considering that 1 in 3 children in America are living in poverty level households as a result of "expert" economists. Why isn't our nation thriving?

 

I say it's nonsense because it's not even worth debating sometimes. I also said it because you said: "the mistake you are making is to equate wages with productivity"...no, I'm not making that mistake at all, but perhaps you are, by asserting a position that a minimum wage worker sometimes isn't worth that cost/isn't productive or valuable enough. The reality is that wages rarely ever equal a worker's worth...Football players can earn millions for playing a damn sport, and someone else can bust their ass in a job that no one else wants, which actually does require skills, and be paid the minimum, just because that's the way things are.

 

Or you disagree at the reports that Walmart are shedding staff ?

 

No, I fully believe it. But you can't handpick examples and expect that to relay the truth of an entire economy. Intelligent people are able to see through that.

 

If you knew you were hurting people by supporting this law would you stop supporting it?

 

What law...minimum wage? If I knew without a doubt that it hurt more than helped, I would not support it. However, I know without a doubt that it helps more than hurts for there to be a minimum wage.

 

If you knew that the Libertarian version of economics hurt more than helped, would you continue believing in it?

 

Or wouod your intention just to push blindly on regardless?

 

Would you? Do you consider yourself blind?

Do you think I consider myself blind?

What's the point of continuing a discussion?

[Karl]

The following will be as much time as I waste on replying...I shouldn't have even posted the emotive quip in the first place, because it was pointless, but it's easy to get worked up over these issues...

 

 

 

I watched up to 1:35 and already saw through his first argument. Are you able to, as well?

 

 

 

What thousands of years of economic law are you talking about? If that existed, I would disagree with it considering that 1 in 3 children in America are living in poverty level households as a result of "expert" economists. Why isn't our nation thriving?

 

I say it's nonsense because it's not even worth debating sometimes. I also said it because you said: "the mistake you are making is to equate wages with productivity"...no, I'm not making that mistake at all, but perhaps you are, by asserting a position that a minimum wage worker sometimes isn't worth that cost/isn't productive or valuable enough. The reality is that wages rarely ever equal a worker's worth...Football players can earn millions for playing a damn sport, and someone else can bust their ass in a job that no one else wants, which actually does require skills, and be paid the minimum, just because that's the way things are.

 

 

 

No, I fully believe it. But you can't handpick examples and expect that to relay the truth of an entire economy. Intelligent people are able to see through that.

 

 

 

What law...minimum wage? If I knew without a doubt that it hurt more than helped, I would not support it. However, I know without a doubt that it helps more than hurts for there to be a minimum wage.

 

If you knew that the Libertarian version of economics hurt more than helped, would you continue believing in it?

 

 

 

Would you? Do you consider yourself blind?

Do you think I consider myself blind?

What's the point of continuing a discussion?

 

Sadly, there is no point.

[Apech]

Sadly, there is no point.

 

 

Hallelujah ... shall we all go down the pub?