Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[JonKoch]

Providing for the general welfare, means taxing the rich to not have to cut foodstamps for the poor.

If the poor were paid more money, they would qualify for fewer welfare benefits. It's really that simple.

wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off. There is no free lunch

Sure Cupcake, sure

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off.

WRONG! Seattle raised its MW and didn't see the corresponding increase in pricing you all predicted.

So we have a real-world, empirical evidence showing your prediction about rising prices is wrong. So we're back to the ongoing debate of Conservative fantasy vs. Reality. The fantasy is that raising wages leads to increased prices. The reality is that it doesn't. We know because we have empirical evidence from just one year ago.

Intelligent people don't need studies to show that a Rolls-Royce costs more than an appleApple because of higher production costs

There are also many studies that prove a rising minimum wage reduces low-skilled employment. This isn't a US phenomenon either. Across Europe, there are higher unemployment rates in countries that have minimum wages.

Higher labor costs render low-skilled workers unemployable as it removes their key competitive advantage-cost. As a result, they are being replaced by machines. This is part of the wider issue of automation.

A 2013 study from the University of Oxford concluded that 47% of jobs in the US will likely be automated over the next two decades.

A 2017 report by McKinsey that looked at the ability of machines to replace human labor drew the same conclusion. The report found that 59% of all manufacturing tasks could be automated using current technology. The most exposed sector is food service, where 73% of tasks could be automated.

The inflation-adjusted minimum wage peaked back in 1968. However, it seems to be doing more harm than ever today. This is partly because of technological advancement, which has accounted for 88% of the 5 million manufacturing jobs lost since 2000.

Unless we stop seeing "political-sense" attempts to raise minimum wages, we are likely to see a lot more Flippy's very soon.

 

[danielpalos]

wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off.

WRONG! Seattle raised its MW and didn't see the corresponding increase in pricing you all predicted.

So we have a real-world, empirical evidence showing your prediction about rising prices is wrong. So we're back to the ongoing debate of Conservative fantasy vs. Reality. The fantasy is that raising wages leads to increased prices. The reality is that it doesn't. We know because we have empirical evidence from just one year ago.

Intelligent people don't need studies to show that a Rolls-Royce costs more than an appleApple because of higher production costs

There are also many studies that prove a rising minimum wage reduces low-skilled employment. This isn't a US phenomenon either. Across Europe, there are higher unemployment rates in countries that have minimum wages.

Higher labor costs render low-skilled workers unemployable as it removes their key competitive advantage-cost. As a result, they are being replaced by machines. This is part of the wider issue of automation.

A 2013 study from the University of Oxford concluded that 47% of jobs in the US will likely be automated over the next two decades.

A 2017 report by McKinsey that looked at the ability of machines to replace human labor drew the same conclusion. The report found that 59% of all manufacturing tasks could be automated using current technology. The most exposed sector is food service, where 73% of tasks could be automated.

The inflation-adjusted minimum wage peaked back in 1968. However, it seems to be doing more harm than ever today. This is partly because of technological advancement, which has accounted for 88% of the 5 million manufacturing jobs lost since 2000.

Unless we stop seeing "political-sense" attempts to raise minimum wages, we are likely to see a lot more Flippy's very soon.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway, dear.

and,

America has near record 5.8 million job openings

 

[The Derp]

Intelligent people don't need studies to show that a Rolls-Royce costs more than an apple because of higher production costs

Not what we're talking about. We are talking about minimum wage earners. Your theory is that raising their wages will result in price increases, and the empirical evidence from Seattle's MW hike proves that theory is crap.

 

[danielpalos]

The right wing doesn't even believe in being legal to the laws of demand and supply.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The right wing doesn't even believe in being legal to the laws of demand and supply.

 

[danielpalos]

wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off.

WRONG! Seattle raised its MW and didn't see the corresponding increase in pricing you all predicted.

So we have a real-world, empirical evidence showing your prediction about rising prices is wrong. So we're back to the ongoing debate of Conservative fantasy vs. Reality. The fantasy is that raising wages leads to increased prices. The reality is that it doesn't. We know because we have empirical evidence from just one year ago.

Intelligent people don't need studies to show that a Rolls-Royce costs more than an appleApple because of higher production costs

There are also many studies that prove a rising minimum wage reduces low-skilled employment. This isn't a US phenomenon either. Across Europe, there are higher unemployment rates in countries that have minimum wages.

Higher labor costs render low-skilled workers unemployable as it removes their key competitive advantage-cost. As a result, they are being replaced by machines. This is part of the wider issue of automation.

A 2013 study from the University of Oxford concluded that 47% of jobs in the US will likely be automated over the next two decades.

A 2017 report by McKinsey that looked at the ability of machines to replace human labor drew the same conclusion. The report found that 59% of all manufacturing tasks could be automated using current technology. The most exposed sector is food service, where 73% of tasks could be automated.

The inflation-adjusted minimum wage peaked back in 1968. However, it seems to be doing more harm than ever today. This is partly because of technological advancement, which has accounted for 88% of the 5 million manufacturing jobs lost since 2000.

Unless we stop seeing "political-sense" attempts to raise minimum wages, we are likely to see a lot more Flippy's very soon.

More expensive labor means Capital has to seek gains from efficiency.

simply because, Say, says so.

 

[danielpalos]

It must be nice, to be able to establish a petty cash fund, for political purposes.

The disclosure does not reveal when the investments were sold. However, a spokesman said in December that Trump had liquidated his entire stock portfolio in June 2016, around the time he began pouring millions into his presidential campaign.

Trump retains assets worth at least $1.4 billion, new disclosure shows

Why does Mr. Trump need a tax break for the rich and reduce social benefits for the poor, via public policy?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Intelligent people don't need studies to show that a Rolls-Royce costs more than an apple because of higher production costs

Not what we're talking about. We are talking about minimum wage earners. Your theory is that raising their wages will result in price increases, and the empirical evidence from Seattle's MW hike proves that theory is crap.

No it doesn't I already explained that both sides find the numbers they want from your unscientific experiment. Science tells you an apple costs less than a Rolls Royce.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance.
Of course it was. Originally the GSEs only bought conforming loans.

Even the loans GSE's bought during the bubble performed exponentially better than those from private labels. The chart shows that the private labels were the ones that went bad first, and the ripple effect downstream caused all mortgages to increase in delinquency rates, not just GSE-backed mortgages. Cause and effect. The cause was the defaulting of the private label mortgages starting in 2006, and the effect was the bubble pop which had the ripple effect of causing mortgages from all entities to increase their delinquency rates. Had there not been a pop of the private label subprimes, there would not have been an economic collapse.

You're trying to shift the argument to after the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over what caused the bubble to burst
They ran out of crappy risks to lend to.

No, because they could just fabricate subprime loans with no documentation. Which is exactly what they did. The bubble burst because those garbage loans they made started entering delinquency as early as mid-2006. That's what the chart shows.

The Fed raised rates from 1% in June 2004 to 5.25% in July 2006.

And housing continued to grow. Raising the Fed interest rates wasn't what caused the garbage subprime mortgages to start defaulting in late 2006, the adjustable rates on those mortgages were the cause. Again, they cover this in The Big Short, the movie you say you saw but clearly didn't.

Crappy risks couldn't keep up their adjustable payments.

Adjustable payments that were so, independent of what the Fed rate was. It's these details you leave out because you do a lot of sloppy work. Whether that is intentional or not, I'm not sure.

Raising the Fed interest rates wasn't what caused the garbage subprime mortgages to start defaulting in late 2006, the adjustable rates on those mortgages were the cause.

Ummm...when the Fed raised rates, the index adjustable mortgages were based upon rose.
Moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Forcing banks to make crappy loans is not UNREGULATED FREE MARKET.
Forcing the GSEs to buy crappy loans is not UNREGULATED FREE MARKET.
Dems supported both.

Banks were not forced to make loans. There is no line you can point to in the CRA or the revision to the CRA in the 90's that "forced banks to give loans". You will not be able to find one line of text from either of those legislation that forced banks to do anything. Now, banks got incentives for handing out affordable housing loans, but those loans were strictly regulated which is why their delinquency rates for loans subject to CRA rules were so much lower than that of private labels who were not subject to CRA rules. Of the top 25 lenders during the subprime mortgage bubble, only 1 was subject to CRA rules.

Banks were not forced to make loans.

They were forced to make crappy loans...or buy crappy loans made by others.
GSEs were forced to buy crappy loans too.

Of the top 25 lenders during the subprime mortgage bubble, only 1 was subject to CRA rules

During a bubble, everyone gets into the action.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bubbles happen whether the government makes them worse or not.

Bubbles don't happen "just because". Every bubble has a reason behind why it appeared. The dotcom bubble was caused by the Capital Gains Tax Cut. The housing bubble was caused by the deliberate actions Bush took in 2003-4 to deregulate the mortgage industry to inflate a bubble to cover for the failure of his tax cuts to deliver on any of the promises made of them. Leaving the responsibility for bubbles to invisible forces is akin to magical thinking and why your economic policy cannot be taken seriously. Everything in our economy, just like our climate, happens for a reason. Nothing happens by chance, coincidence, or just because. That's lazy thinking.

Bush thought it would be a great idea to use government coercion to push more people into homes.

Bush wasn't inflating a bubble to put people in homes...Bush was inflating a bubble to make the economy look like it was growing when it wasn't. 841,000 private sector jobs were lost in his first four years. Economic growth was the worst in 80 years. The surplus was erased and turned into record deficits. Bush needed the bubble because without it, the economic malaise as a result of his failed tax policy would have continued.

Bubbles don't happen "just because".

They do. Human nature....positive feedbacks....look at history.

Bush wasn't inflating a bubble to put people in homes

But putting all those people into homes inflated the bubble.

The surplus was erased

Yeah, I miss the Internet Bubble too.

and turned into record deficits.

Until Obama. His record deficits made Bush look like a skinflint.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Totally illiterate of course perfectly typical of a liberal. Higher wages mean higher consumption by the people who get the higher wages and lower consumption by people who pay for the higher wages so no net benefit is possible No free lunch is possiblesee why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance

Talk about illiterate! Wage raises are not a zero-sum game, and any economist will tell you that. There are more people at the low end of the income ladder than those at the top. And because there are more at the bottom, if you increase the amount those people have to spend by raising their wages, then they increase consumption, which increases demand, which increases jobs and increases wages.

You keep harping out "free lunch", but it doesn't sound like you know what that phrase actually means in this context.

Paying people more means they will spend more. Seattle's MW increase is proof. You all said that if Seattle raised their MW, there would be job loss and price increases. You were wrong on both counts. So does that mean Seattle is an exception to your theory, or does it mean your theory is complete bullshit?

Paying people more means they will spend more. Seattle's MW increase is proof. You all said that if Seattle raised their MW, there would be job loss

Seattle's 2.9% Unemployment Rate Tells Us Nothing About The Effects Of Seattle's Minimum Wage Rise

LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The right wing doesn't even believe in being legal to the laws of demand and supply.

View attachment 132872 View attachment 132873

When did corporations get a trillion tax cut?

 

[danielpalos]

The right wing doesn't even believe in being legal to the laws of demand and supply.

View attachment 132872 View attachment 132873

When did corporations get a trillion tax cut?

Why have a capital gains preference that doesn't work to create jobs booms.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The right wing doesn't even believe in being legal to the laws of demand and supply.

View attachment 132872 View attachment 132873

When did corporations get a trillion tax cut?

Why have a capital gains preference that doesn't work to create jobs booms.

So no trillion dollar tax cut? Thanks.

 

[The Derp]

Ummm...when the Fed raised rates, the index adjustable mortgages were based upon rose.
Moron.

No, the adjustable rates rose in addition to the Fed rates rising. The fed didn't raise interest rates to 20%.

 

[danielpalos]

The right wing doesn't even believe in being legal to the laws of demand and supply.

View attachment 132872 View attachment 132873

When did corporations get a trillion tax cut?

Why have a capital gains preference that doesn't work to create jobs booms.

So no trillion dollar tax cut? Thanks.

No capital gains preference for firms that don't hire any labor that asks, in right to work States.

 

[The Derp]

They were forced to make crappy loans...or buy crappy loans made by others.

No they weren't! There is no line from any legislation that forces banks to make loans at all. Now, they got incentives for making loans, but it was wholly voluntary. Furthermore, the loans made that were backed by GSE's had delinquency rates no better or worse during the bubble as before it. And those delinquency rates were very low...particularly when compared to non-GSE backed loans that had deqlinquency rates much higher. Once again, here's the chart that you cannot debate or deny:

No banks were forced to make the Subprime ARMs or Subprime Loans. They chose to make those loans and as you can see in the above chart, those private label loans defaulted en masse first beginning in 2006. all other loans didn't start entering delinquency until after the private-label loans. Which means the private-label loans drove the mortgage bubble and caused it to pop.

GSEs were forced to buy crappy loans too.

GSE loans performed the same and/or better during the bubble than prior to the bubble, as the above chart shows. So the loans GSE's backed weren't crappy because what makes a crappy loan? The borrowers inability to repay it. The chart above indicates that it wasn't GSE's that made crappy loans.

Of the top 25 lenders during the subprime mortgage bubble, only 1 was subject to CRA rules
During a bubble, everyone gets into the action.

Nope! Magical thinking alert! Lazy man's thinking alert! It is wholly lazy and ignorant to throw your hands up in the air, make a generalized claim, and hope it sticks. That's what you're doing here. There was plenty of GSE-backed subprime lending prior to the bubble, and that lending was steady, consistent, and dependable. It wasn't until Conservatives took over that things went to shit. They went to shit because Conservative economic trickle-down policy didn't work, and Bush and the Conservatives had to make the economy look like it was growing when it wasn't, otherwise they would get hammered in the 2004 election. So they inflated a housing bubble, plunged the middle class into debt, and eventually collapsed the economy. All because their tax policy didn't deliver on any of the promises made of it.

 

[The Derp]

Bubbles don't happen "just because".
They do. Human nature....positive feedbacks....look at history.

Yes, look at history. The dotcom bubble, for example, was caused by the cut to Capital Gains Taxes in 1997.

The mortgage bubble was caused by the tax cuts, and deregulation of the mortgage lending industry.

Bush wasn't inflating a bubble to put people in homes
But putting all those people into homes inflated the bubble.

No! Again, if you had watched The Big Short, you would have known that wasn't the case at all! It wasn't putting people into homes, it was about getting people to buy as many homes as they could, sometimes multiple homes. Loan performance for GSE-backed loans (aka "poor people loans") was the same and/or better than loan performance prior to the bubble as the below chart shows:

The surplus was erased
Yeah, I miss the Internet Bubble too.

Surplus wasn't caused by the Internet Bubble, it was caused by increased taxation and an economy that had been growing throughout the 90's.

Until Obama. His record deficits made Bush look like a skinflint.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It was Bush who set a record of four all-time-high deficits in his 8 years. None of Obama's deficits were larger than Bush's last deficit. Bush also set four record deficits during his term; 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009. The deficits for each of those years was an all-time high. So just like what happened in Kansas, Conservatives cut taxes, erased a surplus, produced record deficits, and didn't result in growth.