min wage increase is bad, but tariffs are good?

some (but not all to their credit ) Trump fans in here are all excited over the tariff moves by trump .

Many of those same posters flip out over any minwage increase because it adds to the costs of goods/services.

Can you justify being for tariffs and against min wage ?

It's a false choice and a false premise. The main problem with the minimum wage is that it imposes the double-whammy of job losses and increased labor costs. Even Warren Buffet has argued that a better way to help the working poor is through the Earned Income Tax Credit, and I agree with him. Using the EITC spreads the cost of higher income for the poor much more broadly so that its impact on labor costs is greatly reduced.

Protective tariffs give you a net job growth for a minimal cost or no cost, as we've seen over and over again in economic history.

One of the good things Obama did was to impose stiff tariffs on Chinese tires, which had the effect of revitalizing the U.S. tire industry.
The main problem with the minimum wage is that it imposes the double-whammy of job losses and increased labor costs.
??? Tariffs have exactly those impacts, most especially in an economy that's at or near full capacity. Full capacity as goes labor is precisely where the U.S., which is right at structural unemployment level, currently finds itself. We know this from inferences made by economic theory (science use of "theory") and from recent empirical evidence: The Tariff of Abominations (1828), Smoot-Hawley and the Bush II Tariffs of 2002 (detailed in the paper linked just below).
  • The Unintended Consequences of U.S. Steel Import Tariffs: A Quantification of the Impact During 2002
    • 200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002. These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion in lost wages from February to November 2002.
    • One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and parts sectors.
    • Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000 jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.
    • More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500 Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).
    • Every U.S. state experienced employment losses from higher steel costs, with the highest losses occurring in:
      • California (19,392 jobs lost),
      • Texas (15,826 jobs lost),
      • Ohio (10,553 jobs lost),
      • Michigan (9,829 jobs lost),
      • Illinois (9,621 jobs lost),
      • Pennsylvania (8,400 jobs lost),
      • New York (8,901 jobs lost) and
      • Florida (8,370 jobs lost).
      • Sixteen states lost at least 4,500 steel consuming jobs each over the course of 2002 from higher steel prices.
The impact of tariffs is immensely well understood, and it doesn't take much but actually bothering to comprehend them at a very basic level to understand that the economic contraction that results from tariffs outstrip the narrow gains tariffs provide. What laymen think about them may be a matter of politics, but what economists have learned from studying them is not.




And the deleterious impacts of tariffs can been seen throughout an economy; they aren't just limited to the industry of the tariff itself, most especially when the tariff is on raw materials rather than on specific finished goods.

Impact of the Bush Steel Tariff on the value of the U.S. dollar (2002 - 2005)

The-Impact-of-Tariffs-and-Trade-Wars-on-the-US-Economy-and-the-Dollar_body_lkt2qc2r.png


Additional references on the impact of tariffs (a mix of ECON101 and distillate content):
You have a good point, Xelor -- ergo right now we don't need the additional jobs.

However that is not exactly true. We need BETTER jobs -- jobs from manufacturing. Steel and aluminum besides being strategic (i.e. if there is a big war we need our own steel and our own aluminum production stateside) are good union jobs.

So Trump is trying to take burger flippers from McD's and move them into steel and aluminum refineries, not to mention the strategic considerations.

I support Trump in this effort.

Fokk Europe.

Fokk Asia.
Whatever...I'm not going to debate/discuss normative economic opinions with you or anyone else here...most especially not with someone whose remarks make clear to me they either don't actually understand all or have willfully chosen to ignore key points I made in that post.
Your key points are good. They are also valid.

Your main personal character flaws however are that (1) you love to argue and (2) you love to advocate therefore (3) you never provide BOTH sides of the WHOLE STORY you only provide one side or the other.

I think it would be fun to play chess or backgammon against you.

But arguing against you is a tedious debate for me.

You are very bright and extremely well educated. Same as any typical college professor or economist or lawyer.

God bless you and keep you Xelor .
you never provide BOTH sides of the WHOLE STORY you only provide one or the other.
As go positive economics, there aren't two "sides;" there is only what has been shown and what has not been shown. That is the beauty of them. It's normative economics that has multiple "sides," as it were, indeed, more "sides" than a icosahedron.

I'm a strong adherent of policy making based on positive economics, not normative economics, whereby if positive economic analysis indicates that a given policy will have a net negative economic impact, I oppose the policy. Thus if a given macroeconomic policy has been shown to be detrimental to an economy's overall fortunes (what economists call "welfare"), I oppose it. My explications of government economic policies (or policies that will have a material economic impact, even if they aren't expressly financial/fiscal/economic in nature) are thus very straightforward:
  • X is a net negative impact to an economy.
  • X is what has been resoundingly shown to happen when economic policy A is implemented.
  • Because A results in a net decrement to the nation's economic fortunes, I oppose policy A.
As go economics, I don't argue and conclude from any other basis.


"Sides" are bases driven by who or what individual/group become winners and losers in the wake of any given policy/initiative. On a macroeconomic level, I don't care who specifically be those winners and loses. I care only for the overall fortunes of the nation.

Note: the two video below present the same concepts. I've presented both only because some may find one more approachable than the other.



 
Last edited:
It's a false choice and a false premise. The main problem with the minimum wage is that it imposes the double-whammy of job losses and increased labor costs. Even Warren Buffet has argued that a better way to help the working poor is through the Earned Income Tax Credit, and I agree with him. Using the EITC spreads the cost of higher income for the poor much more broadly so that its impact on labor costs is greatly reduced.

Protective tariffs give you a net job growth for a minimal cost or no cost, as we've seen over and over again in economic history.

One of the good things Obama did was to impose stiff tariffs on Chinese tires, which had the effect of revitalizing the U.S. tire industry.
The main problem with the minimum wage is that it imposes the double-whammy of job losses and increased labor costs.
??? Tariffs have exactly those impacts, most especially in an economy that's at or near full capacity. Full capacity as goes labor is precisely where the U.S., which is right at structural unemployment level, currently finds itself. We know this from inferences made by economic theory (science use of "theory") and from recent empirical evidence: The Tariff of Abominations (1828), Smoot-Hawley and the Bush II Tariffs of 2002 (detailed in the paper linked just below).
  • The Unintended Consequences of U.S. Steel Import Tariffs: A Quantification of the Impact During 2002
    • 200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002. These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion in lost wages from February to November 2002.
    • One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and parts sectors.
    • Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000 jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.
    • More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500 Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).
    • Every U.S. state experienced employment losses from higher steel costs, with the highest losses occurring in:
      • California (19,392 jobs lost),
      • Texas (15,826 jobs lost),
      • Ohio (10,553 jobs lost),
      • Michigan (9,829 jobs lost),
      • Illinois (9,621 jobs lost),
      • Pennsylvania (8,400 jobs lost),
      • New York (8,901 jobs lost) and
      • Florida (8,370 jobs lost).
      • Sixteen states lost at least 4,500 steel consuming jobs each over the course of 2002 from higher steel prices.
The impact of tariffs is immensely well understood, and it doesn't take much but actually bothering to comprehend them at a very basic level to understand that the economic contraction that results from tariffs outstrip the narrow gains tariffs provide. What laymen think about them may be a matter of politics, but what economists have learned from studying them is not.




And the deleterious impacts of tariffs can been seen throughout an economy; they aren't just limited to the industry of the tariff itself, most especially when the tariff is on raw materials rather than on specific finished goods.



Additional references on the impact of tariffs (a mix of ECON101 and distillate content):
You have a good point, Xelor -- ergo right now we don't need the additional jobs.

However that is not exactly true. We need BETTER jobs -- jobs from manufacturing. Steel and aluminum besides being strategic (i.e. if there is a big war we need our own steel and our own aluminum production stateside) are good union jobs.

So Trump is trying to take burger flippers from McD's and move them into steel and aluminum refineries, not to mention the strategic considerations.

I support Trump in this effort.

Fokk Europe.

Fokk Asia.
Whatever...I'm not going to debate/discuss normative economic opinions with you or anyone else here...most especially not with someone whose remarks make clear to me they either don't actually understand all or have willfully chosen to ignore key points I made in that post.
Your key points are good. They are also valid.

Your main personal character flaws however are that (1) you love to argue and (2) you love to advocate therefore (3) you never provide BOTH sides of the WHOLE STORY you only provide one side or the other.

I think it would be fun to play chess or backgammon against you.

But arguing against you is a tedious debate for me.

You are very bright and extremely well educated. Same as any typical college professor or economist or lawyer.

God bless you and keep you Xelor .
you never provide BOTH sides of the WHOLE STORY you only provide one or the other.
As go positive economics, there aren't two "sides;" there is only what has been shown and what has not been shown. That is the beauty of them. It's normative economics that has multiple "sides," as it were, indeed, more "sides" than a icosahedron.

I'm a strong adherent of policy making based on positive economics, not normative economics, whereby if positive economic analysis indicates that a given policy will have a net negative economic impact, I oppose the policy. Thus if a given macroeconomic policy has been shown to be detrimental to an economy's overall fortunes (what economists call "welfare"), I oppose it. My explications of government economic policies (or policies that will have a material economic impact, even if they aren't expressly financial/fiscal/economic in nature) are thus very straightforward:
  • X is what has been resoundingly shown to happen when economic policy A is implemented.
  • Because A results in a net decrement to the nation's economic fortunes, I oppose policy A.
As go economics, I don't argue and conclude from any other basis.


"Sides" are bases driven by who or what individual/group become winners and losers in the wake of any given policy/initiative. On a macroeconomic level, I don't care who specifically be those winners and loses. I care only for the overall fortunes of the nation.

Note: the two video below present the same concepts. I've presented both only because some may find one more approachable than the other.




Ergo you Xelor are a "citizen of the world". This viewpoint first became popular in Europe on the eve of WW1 (per Adam Hochschild, UC Berkeley professor, in "To End All Wars" https://www.amazon.com/End-All-Wars-Rebellion-1914-1918/dp/0547750315&tag=ff0d01-20 ).

The opposite "side" (viewpoint) is nationalism.

Like I said, you advocate, you do not educate.

A good educator presents both sides always.

You are leaving me to do that for you.

Nice try though.

When you try something like that it is called sophistry and it was invented first by Protagoras of ancient Athens.

There is no new thing under the sun.

You are just copying Protagoras 2,504 years later.

Protagoras - Wikipedia
 
The opposite "side" (viewpoint) is nationalism.
??? That remark isn't even relevant to what I wrote. What the hell is macroeconomic policy but policy implemented to boost the fortunes of a nation?
if a given macroeconomic policy has been shown to be detrimental to an economy's overall fortunes (what economists call "welfare"), I oppose it. My explications of government economic policies (or policies that will have a material economic impact, even if they aren't expressly financial/fiscal/economic in nature) are thus very straightforward:
  • X is a net negative impact to an economy.
  • X is what has been resoundingly shown to happen when economic policy A is implemented.
  • Because A results in a net decrement to the nation's economic fortunes, I oppose policy A.
Off-Topic:
Like I said, you advocate, you do not educate.
Who the hell engages in a policy debate for the purpose of educating? If one learns something from my remarks or the linked content I post, well, fine (to be sure, for folks not well versed on economic topics, there's much objective learning to be obtained from reading the content to which I link), but that isn't why I make the remarks I do, nor is it why I link the content I do.

I don't engage in policy discourse for the purpose of educating other participants. My assumption is that other debaters come very well prepared (i.e., educated in advance) to conversations in which they will advocate for and/or against a given policy. I assume that because I expect that I'm going to find other mature adults with whom to discuss a topic. And what is mature, to say nothing of rational (or respectful), about engaging in a debate/discussion on topics one barely understands?

Learning is about asking neutral questions (how often do you see anything other than loaded questions posed here?) of an individual(s) who is certain to know the answer(s), and then sitting back and listening, asking, when and where one doesn't understand, for clarifications. If one wants (Socratic) didacticism or dialectic expositions of a given topic, attend a seminar, symposium, conference or take a class. Indeed, that's what the other events noted and colleges, are, in part, for. (If one wants to learn about economics and avoid tuition costs, UC Berkeley's Introduction to Economics course, Khan Academy and AmosWeb are fine resources for that, and both are free. They aren't the only ones, but they are two that come readily to mind.)

The core of any policy debate is that of persuasion, not whether one does indeed change anyone else's points of view, but whether one's argument is syllogistically, logically, stronger than are the opposing ones. Electioneering is where emotionalism, normativism comes into play, but this venue, USMB, isn't an election campaign stumping/rally venue; thus emotionalism, normativism is of little value.​
 
Last edited:
some (but not all to their credit ) Trump fans in here are all excited over the tariff moves by trump .

Many of those same posters flip out over any minwage increase because it adds to the costs of goods/services.

Can you justify being for tariffs and against min wage ?
Raising minimum wage only brings inflation. It screws us who make more than minimum wage.

If we have unfair trade deals let republicans fix them. They aren’t all bad deals but some are.
 
Like I said, you advocate, you do not educate.
Off-Topic:
FWIW, quite often the only responses I can give to remarks posted here are didactic, because well, there's really no alternative. On other occasions my OP's are highly informative. Indeed, I doubt there's anyone here who includes as many information links in their posts as I do, and that's often so regardless of whether my posts are to argue for or against something. To wit:
Feel free to peruse my other threads and posts. You will find many, many examples of my providing or linking to informative/educational content.

While educating isn't the reason for the content and linked content in my posts, if one wants to use it that way, one can.​
 
Last edited:
It's a false choice and a false premise. The main problem with the minimum wage is that it imposes the double-whammy of job losses and increased labor costs. Even Warren Buffet has argued that a better way to help the working poor is through the Earned Income Tax Credit, and I agree with him. Using the EITC spreads the cost of higher income for the poor much more broadly so that its impact on labor costs is greatly reduced.

Protective tariffs give you a net job growth for a minimal cost or no cost, as we've seen over and over again in economic history.

One of the good things Obama did was to impose stiff tariffs on Chinese tires, which had the effect of revitalizing the U.S. tire industry.
MikeGriffith1, the same political factions that are opposed to the minimum wage are also opposed to the earned income tax credit.
I'm a proponent of:
Annually monitoring and updating the Federal Minimum wage to stay abreast with the changing Cost-Price index number as is done for Social Security retirement benefits.
Increasing the federal minimum wage rate by 15% annually until its purchasing power exceeds 125% of what it had attained in 1968.


USA adopting the trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. The concept of Import Certificates is substantially more market and less government driven than tariffs and is superior to both tariffs and pure free trade.

Broadening and expanding the earned income tax credit concept of negative income tax for the working poor.

Eliminating the preferential tax treatment of dividend income and reducing enterprise's taxable incomes by their distributed dividend payments. Dividend payments are subject to 25% passed on to the IRS as tax paid by the dividends' recipients. (Recipients filing annual or quarterly income tax returns can request refunds for any excess tax paid).
.
Replacing the tax rate reductions for long-term capital gains with restored and expanded IRS's “income Averaging” provision for reducing taxes of individual's that have experienced any type of financial windfall.
Refer to http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/capital-gains-income-averaging.205471/ .

Respectfully, Supposn
 

Forum List

Back
Top