should minimum wage be mandated?

[The Rabbi]

I said extreme supply-side, free market economists. I said nothing about extreme retards.

But that's at least something you know something about from personal experience, being one yourself.
Please explain how taking money from A and giving it to B stimulates anything. I mean, it makes A look better, true. But only at the expense of B.
There is no free lunch, however much you try to spin it.

 

[manifold]

I said extreme supply-side, free market economists. I said nothing about extreme retards.

But that's at least something you know something about from personal experience, being one yourself.
Please explain how taking money from A and giving it to B stimulates anything. I mean, it makes A look better, true. But only at the expense of B.
There is no free lunch, however much you try to spin it.

Spin has nothing to do with it. Any dollar invested stimulates the economy to some degree. It's called the multiplier effect. And that piece of the econometric model does not care whether said dollar comes from a private investor or if Uncle Sam borrows it from China.

You seem to be fixated on wealth redistribution, which I agree does nothing to stimulate anything in and of itself.

 

[The Rabbi]

I said extreme supply-side, free market economists. I said nothing about extreme retards.

But that's at least something you know something about from personal experience, being one yourself.
Please explain how taking money from A and giving it to B stimulates anything. I mean, it makes A look better, true. But only at the expense of B.
There is no free lunch, however much you try to spin it.

Spin has nothing to do with it. Any dollar invested stimulates the economy to some degree. It's called the multiplier effect. And that piece of the econometric model does not care whether said dollar comes from a private investor or if Uncle Sam borrows it from China.

You seem to be fixated on wealth redistribution, which I agree does nothing to stimulate anything in and of itself.

No, not any dollar. A dollar which is taken away from someone else means it is not stimulating the economy. It is only stimulating the economy in regard to B, but it depresses the economy in regard to A.
Gov't spending IS wealth redistribution. Do you not understand this? Gov't has no money of its own. It must get it by taxing, i.e. taking, money from one party and giving it to another. That is redistribution.
The multiplyer effect has been debunked. It is less than 1, precisely for that reason.

 

[manifold]

You're ignoring the timing. If the government borrows the money it injects (hasn't yet taken anything away from A), then this most certainly has a stimulating effect on the economy. It's when they later have to go back to A to collect taxes to pay the debt that the ecomomic depression part of the equation occurs. In the long run, I agree with you. But I'm talking about the immediate impact of government stimulus.

 

[Care4all]

If they had stuck with it the first time, they would have rebounded much more quickly.

The fact that when the government "stimulates" the downturns last longer have been proven over and over. The Great Depression, Japan's "Lost Decade," and our current recession are perfect examples. It was not for a lack of spending that they lasted so long, that's ridiculous.

I love how you guys feel that if you assert things, they magically become true. The Great Depression is the strongest argument against your position. Hoover increases spending slightly, but not nearly enough, the economy continues to tailspin. FDR vastly increases spending and the economy rallies. Industrial and farm production shoot up. FDR then decides, on the advice of people like you, to cut spending. This sets off another recession.

this is very true Polk....however I honestly do not believe the Democrats or Republicans in Congress or the President and his administration for that matter, have handled the situation with stimulating the economy as best as they could, or as well as FDR.

The whole thing shows some inexperience at leading on obama's part...and this he can learn from and get better on, as I did in my own career when promoted from salesman, to being the manager of the same salesmen...it's a learning experience....obama and the senators being the comparison....

The main reason I think this is because of FDR and how FDR came out with a SOLID PLAN to put people to work and to build the infrastructure of our country that is still in use today, which has given our Nation and countrymen, great prosperity over these decades.

FDR went before the people, in his fireside addresses ...only still via radio and TOLD the people in a concise manner, WHAT he was going to make Congress do, why he was going to make them do it and the importance of such...and he told them straight face...if congress or if you do as I am stating we WILL HAVE HAPPY DAYS AGAIN....he gave REAL HOPE to the people, because he was forceful, he had a SOLID PLAN on how the money would be spent and the end result of doing such....creating work....creating jobs....and the perk of our infrastructure that these projects brought.

WHERE is the PLAN?

WHERE are the PROJECTS?

WHERE are the JOBS?

WHERE is the true HOPE?

The stimulus passed may very well have those projects, but if it does...then the Democrats FAILED MISERABLY at selling them....as FDR could and did....which gave hope and consumer optimism rose with it.

And if the stimulus is just willy dilly nilly spending and the majority of it was not used for infrastructure that is absolutely falling apart in this country...our bridges, railways, highways, water systems, sewer systems, airports, schools etc....that can be shown to the American people to give them hope or a vision that....things are going to get better...just hide and watch attitude that is missing imo, is a HUGE MISSED OPPORTUNITY on the part of this president, and this Congress....who should not be absent from coming up with a solid plan to getting us, on the right track.

AND I am a Democrat....just some things I see when developing my honest analysis of the situation.

care

 

[The Rabbi]

You're ignoring the timing. If the government borrows the money it injects (hasn't yet taken anything away from A), then this most certainly has a stimulating effect on the economy. It's when they later have to go back to A to collect taxes to pay the debt that the ecomomic depression part of the equation occurs. In the long run, I agree with you. But I'm talking about the immediate impact of government stimulus.

Huh?
Stimulus doesn't happen right away. If gov't writes a check to A, they are already taking money from B. Even if they haven't actually gotten the money, they have announced it or somehow made it known and B cannot count on having that money any more.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

hogwash...you can't take what is happening now without considering what is going on with the credit market crash and the stock market crash and the housing market crash and credit still being tight.

the only way to give accurate analysis is to exam every minimum wage hike we have had....not this one singled out instance.

Well Care, each of those problems were a direct result of Leftist influence on those markets...

Minimum wage is a function of social justice... and it suffers the same untintended consequences that such always brings... which is not to say unpredicatable consequences, as such is far closer to an absolute certainty.

 

[auditor0007]

I said extreme supply-side, free market economists. I said nothing about extreme retards.

But that's at least something you know something about from personal experience, being one yourself.
Please explain how taking money from A and giving it to B stimulates anything. I mean, it makes A look better, true. But only at the expense of B.
There is no free lunch, however much you try to spin it.

It really is quite simple actually. Now I am not claiming it is the right thing to do or that we should be doing this on a massive scale, but the fact is that our economy is a consumer based economy. The wealthier you are, the less you spend. People with more than enough money do spend more on higher ticket items, but they still put much of it away. And yes, that is good as much of that goes toward investment.

At the same time however, that money is not moving through the economy as effectively as it would if you took some of it away from the wealthy, and gave back a little to the working poor. The working poor spend everything they earn, and it goes right back into the economy, which in turn drives the economy and allows the wealthy to become even more wealthy.

In the overall picture, the stronger a societies middle class is and the more you can bring up the earnings of the lower income earners, the better the economy will be. When the middle class loses purchasing power, and lower income workers can't even afford basic living costs, then the economy crashes, and when that happens the wealthy become poorer.

Does that mean we should rape the rich? Absolutely not; doing so would do just as much harm.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are so many errors in that post it is hard to know where to begin.
Money saved is money invested. Whether the investing is done by the consumer or the bank or the company that borrows the money, it gets invested. The only time "savings" actually occur is if you stick the cash in the mattress.
Second, giving a working class person money is not the same as giving the same money to someone in the entrepreneurial middle class. The least efficient use is simply to piss the money away on some consumer good. This was the lesson of the "stimulus checks" under both Bush and Ford. The money provided a temporary boost in consumer spending but that was it. Once the money was spent there was no lasting effect.
It is different from the entrpreneur who will use the money to start a business, where he will be hiring people,buying equipment etc etc. There there is a lasting effect.

 

[auditor0007]

There are so many errors in that post it is hard to know where to begin.
Money saved is money invested. Whether the investing is done by the consumer or the bank or the company that borrows the money, it gets invested. The only time "savings" actually occur is if you stick the cash in the mattress.
Second, giving a working class person money is not the same as giving the same money to someone in the entrepreneurial middle class. The least efficient use is simply to piss the money away on some consumer good. This was the lesson of the "stimulus checks" under both Bush and Ford. The money provided a temporary boost in consumer spending but that was it. Once the money was spent there was no lasting effect.
It is different from the entrpreneur who will use the money to start a business, where he will be hiring people,buying equipment etc etc. There there is a lasting effect.

Let's keep this simple; if the majority of people in a society do not have enough money to purchase goods sold, the economy will collapse. It doesn't matter how much the wealthy invest if no one is buying the products they produce.

At the same time, if you pull too much away from the wealth, those who do invest and create new jobs, then the economy will become stagnant at best. The problem with people like you, Rabbi, is that everything is all or nothing. You can never see anything beyond your own simplistic view of everything, and our economy is anything but simplistic.

 

[Polk]

The fact that when the government "stimulates" the downturns last longer have been proven over and over. The Great Depression, Japan's "Lost Decade," and our current recession are perfect examples. It was not for a lack of spending that they lasted so long, that's ridiculous.

I love how you guys feel that if you assert things, they magically become true. The Great Depression is the strongest argument against your position. Hoover increases spending slightly, but not nearly enough, the economy continues to tailspin. FDR vastly increases spending and the economy rallies. Industrial and farm production shoot up. FDR then decides, on the advice of people like you, to cut spending. This sets off another recession.

this is very true Polk....however I honestly do not believe the Democrats or Republicans in Congress or the President and his administration for that matter, have handled the situation with stimulating the economy as best as they could, or as well as FDR.

The whole thing shows some inexperience at leading on obama's part...and this he can learn from and get better on, as I did in my own career when promoted from salesman, to being the manager of the same salesmen...it's a learning experience....obama and the senators being the comparison....

The main reason I think this is because of FDR and how FDR came out with a SOLID PLAN to put people to work and to build the infrastructure of our country that is still in use today, which has given our Nation and countrymen, great prosperity over these decades.

FDR went before the people, in his fireside addresses ...only still via radio and TOLD the people in a concise manner, WHAT he was going to make Congress do, why he was going to make them do it and the importance of such...and he told them straight face...if congress or if you do as I am stating we WILL HAVE HAPPY DAYS AGAIN....he gave REAL HOPE to the people, because he was forceful, he had a SOLID PLAN on how the money would be spent and the end result of doing such....creating work....creating jobs....and the perk of our infrastructure that these projects brought.

WHERE is the PLAN?

WHERE are the PROJECTS?

WHERE are the JOBS?

WHERE is the true HOPE?

The stimulus passed may very well have those projects, but if it does...then the Democrats FAILED MISERABLY at selling them....as FDR could and did....which gave hope and consumer optimism rose with it.

And if the stimulus is just willy dilly nilly spending and the majority of it was not used for infrastructure that is absolutely falling apart in this country...our bridges, railways, highways, water systems, sewer systems, airports, schools etc....that can be shown to the American people to give them hope or a vision that....things are going to get better...just hide and watch attitude that is missing imo, is a HUGE MISSED OPPORTUNITY on the part of this president, and this Congress....who should not be absent from coming up with a solid plan to getting us, on the right track.

AND I am a Democrat....just some things I see when developing my honest analysis of the situation.

care

I don't think it shows inexperience on Obama's part as much as it's reflective of the current political climate. FDR didn't sell a plan. In anything, he ran one of most vague campaigns in American history. What enabled FDR to be successful was the large majorities his party controlled in Congress. After the 1932 election, the Democrats had a 313-117 majority in the House and a 61-35 majority in the Senate (and even Republicans who were reelected in 1932, like Gerald Nye of North Dakota, were to the left of much of the Democratic caucus). By the time FDR was laying out a plan via the Fireside Chats, he had already taken concrete action and won public support in that manner.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are so many errors in that post it is hard to know where to begin.
Money saved is money invested. Whether the investing is done by the consumer or the bank or the company that borrows the money, it gets invested. The only time "savings" actually occur is if you stick the cash in the mattress.
Second, giving a working class person money is not the same as giving the same money to someone in the entrepreneurial middle class. The least efficient use is simply to piss the money away on some consumer good. This was the lesson of the "stimulus checks" under both Bush and Ford. The money provided a temporary boost in consumer spending but that was it. Once the money was spent there was no lasting effect.
It is different from the entrpreneur who will use the money to start a business, where he will be hiring people,buying equipment etc etc. There there is a lasting effect.

Let's keep this simple; if the majority of people in a society do not have enough money to purchase goods sold, the economy will collapse. It doesn't matter how much the wealthy invest if no one is buying the products they produce.

At the same time, if you pull too much away from the wealth, those who do invest and create new jobs, then the economy will become stagnant at best. The problem with people like you, Rabbi, is that everything is all or nothing. You can never see anything beyond your own simplistic view of everything, and our economy is anything but simplistic.

If the majority of people in society do not have enough money to purchase goods sold, there will be no goods sold. There will be no goods produced. Or did you miss that?
Wealthy (and not so wealthy) investing money means that other people will get jobs. Do you think "investing" means they flush money down a black hole?
I am simplistic? You are an absolute nincompoop. To you there are "wealthy" and "people subsisting on crusts of bread in the dumpster." The reality is pretty complicated. A reality you clearly don't grasp.

 

[Care4all]

I love how you guys feel that if you assert things, they magically become true. The Great Depression is the strongest argument against your position. Hoover increases spending slightly, but not nearly enough, the economy continues to tailspin. FDR vastly increases spending and the economy rallies. Industrial and farm production shoot up. FDR then decides, on the advice of people like you, to cut spending. This sets off another recession.

this is very true Polk....however I honestly do not believe the Democrats or Republicans in Congress or the President and his administration for that matter, have handled the situation with stimulating the economy as best as they could, or as well as FDR.

The whole thing shows some inexperience at leading on obama's part...and this he can learn from and get better on, as I did in my own career when promoted from salesman, to being the manager of the same salesmen...it's a learning experience....obama and the senators being the comparison....

The main reason I think this is because of FDR and how FDR came out with a SOLID PLAN to put people to work and to build the infrastructure of our country that is still in use today, which has given our Nation and countrymen, great prosperity over these decades.

FDR went before the people, in his fireside addresses ...only still via radio and TOLD the people in a concise manner, WHAT he was going to make Congress do, why he was going to make them do it and the importance of such...and he told them straight face...if congress or if you do as I am stating we WILL HAVE HAPPY DAYS AGAIN....he gave REAL HOPE to the people, because he was forceful, he had a SOLID PLAN on how the money would be spent and the end result of doing such....creating work....creating jobs....and the perk of our infrastructure that these projects brought.

WHERE is the PLAN?

WHERE are the PROJECTS?

WHERE are the JOBS?

WHERE is the true HOPE?

The stimulus passed may very well have those projects, but if it does...then the Democrats FAILED MISERABLY at selling them....as FDR could and did....which gave hope and consumer optimism rose with it.

And if the stimulus is just willy dilly nilly spending and the majority of it was not used for infrastructure that is absolutely falling apart in this country...our bridges, railways, highways, water systems, sewer systems, airports, schools etc....that can be shown to the American people to give them hope or a vision that....things are going to get better...just hide and watch attitude that is missing imo, is a HUGE MISSED OPPORTUNITY on the part of this president, and this Congress....who should not be absent from coming up with a solid plan to getting us, on the right track.

AND I am a Democrat....just some things I see when developing my honest analysis of the situation.

care

I don't think it shows inexperience on Obama's part as much as it's reflective of the current political climate. FDR didn't sell a plan. In anything, he ran one of most vague campaigns in American history. What enabled FDR to be successful was the large majorities his party controlled in Congress. After the 1932 election, the Democrats had a 313-117 majority in the House and a 61-35 majority in the Senate (and even Republicans who were reelected in 1932, like Gerald Nye of North Dakota, were to the left of much of the Democratic caucus). By the time FDR was laying out a plan via the Fireside Chats, he had already taken concrete action and won public support in that manner.

I think FDR was KNOWN to buck the democratic majority in congress Polk....in FACT this is what his whole career was about in the inside circle...he began these fireside chats, these radio talks to the people, because he could NOT get his congresses to do what he wanted, sooooo he brought it to ''the people'' via radio as governor of new york and as our president.

the overwhelming majority of Dems in congress, meant that FDR did not have veto power, or the congress had enough Dems to override any veto of roosevelts...his way around such blockage, was to go directly to the people.

In the old days....Congress was much more independent and less being the lapdog for an administration, like what happened under the bush presidency.... at least, this is what i remember reading on the topic in a galaxy far far away...

care

 

[Care4all]

There are so many errors in that post it is hard to know where to begin.
Money saved is money invested. Whether the investing is done by the consumer or the bank or the company that borrows the money, it gets invested. The only time "savings" actually occur is if you stick the cash in the mattress.
Second, giving a working class person money is not the same as giving the same money to someone in the entrepreneurial middle class. The least efficient use is simply to piss the money away on some consumer good. This was the lesson of the "stimulus checks" under both Bush and Ford. The money provided a temporary boost in consumer spending but that was it. Once the money was spent there was no lasting effect.
It is different from the entrpreneur who will use the money to start a business, where he will be hiring people,buying equipment etc etc. There there is a lasting effect.

Let's keep this simple; if the majority of people in a society do not have enough money to purchase goods sold, the economy will collapse. It doesn't matter how much the wealthy invest if no one is buying the products they produce.

At the same time, if you pull too much away from the wealth, those who do invest and create new jobs, then the economy will become stagnant at best. The problem with people like you, Rabbi, is that everything is all or nothing. You can never see anything beyond your own simplistic view of everything, and our economy is anything but simplistic.

If the majority of people in society do not have enough money to purchase goods sold, there will be no goods sold. There will be no goods produced. Or did you miss that?
Wealthy (and not so wealthy) investing money means that other people will get jobs. Do you think "investing" means they flush money down a black hole?
I am simplistic? You are an absolute nincompoop. To you there are "wealthy" and "people subsisting on crusts of bread in the dumpster." The reality is pretty complicated. A reality you clearly don't grasp.

ahhhhhhhhhh, you believe in supply side economics....

if we make the widgets, people will buy them. (even though they have no money to buy them... which is an absolute joke of an economic policy imo )

just look at all those over inventoried shelves in the stores when the recession set in....tons of supply, but guess what?

NO DEMAND!

I have always driven the businesses and their on hand supply of the product i was in charge of, by demand and projected demand based on solid analysis.

YOU can have the wealthy invest in businesses all you want, but if there is no consumer driven demand for the product, you just wasted a whole bunch of money....

auditor is saying it, like it is....

both the DEMAND for the product and the SUPPLY of the product, 'makes the world go round'.

this is no ''Field of Dreams''....if you make it, they will come (and buy it)

America's economic success has always relied on a strong and healthy, middle class.

 

[The Rabbi]

Geez are you stupid or what?
It has nothing to do with supply side economics. I doubt you even know what that is. It has to do with common sense: namely that in any endeavor the workers get paid long before the investors, who get paid exactly last.

 

[Care4all]

Geez are you stupid or what?
It has nothing to do with supply side economics. I doubt you even know what that is. It has to do with common sense: namely that in any endeavor the workers get paid long before the investors, who get paid exactly last.

Stupid is as stupid does.

yes, I am aware that the investor gets rewarded last...unless of course the owner pays himself a salary along with taking the profit in the end that he doesn't use to reinvest in the company? And? So?

What does getting paid last, have to do with regulating a minimum on wages or a 40 hour work week, or overtime pay, or child work laws, or equal opportunity employment or any number of regulations the government has set for the market place?

In a utopia, the government would not have to set a minimum wage...wages, including minimum wages would go up on their own with the cost of goods and improved productivity...unfortunately we don't live in Utopia...

Care

 

[The Rabbi]

Geez are you stupid or what?
It has nothing to do with supply side economics. I doubt you even know what that is. It has to do with common sense: namely that in any endeavor the workers get paid long before the investors, who get paid exactly last.

Stupid is as stupid does.

yes, I am aware that the investor gets rewarded last...unless of course the owner pays himself a salary along with taking the profit in the end that he doesn't use to reinvest in the company? And? So?

What does getting paid last, have to do with regulating a minimum on wages or a 40 hour work week, or overtime pay, or child work laws, or equal opportunity employment or any number of regulations the government has set for the market place?

In a utopia, the government would not have to set a minimum wage...wages, including minimum wages would go up on their own with the cost of goods and improved productivity...unfortunately we don't live in Utopia...

Care

Well who do you think gets paid first? Right, the workers. So logically "stimulus" at the level of investment and production will produce faster/better results than "stimulus" at the level of consumption.
You have just made a discovery, something you didnt know before.
Don't you feel better?