What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

[danielpalos]

Who determines what the value of labor is?

The buyer and the seller.

Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.

Almost...

Tell me what additional determinant I missed.

That’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”

A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.

Yes, it does. And, it is why firms pay the cost they do for labor.

 

[danielpalos]

That particular study was done with extended unemployment benefits

Link?

From Page iv:

Combining all UI components, we find that, overall, the UI program closed 0.183 of the gap in real GDP caused by the recession. There is reason to believe, however, that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly. Multiplier effects in real GDP were estimated to average 2.0 for regular UI benefits and also 2.0 for extended benefits.

https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2010-10.pdf

 

[danielpalos]

IOW, the money first has to be taken out of the economy by taxes and borrowing. Until you stop pretending there is no opportunity cost associated with taking money out of the economy, you will never grasp why grand socialist schemes like that always fail.

It doesn't matter if the multiplier effect, 2 in this case, creates more economic activity? A multiplier of two means that for every one dollar spent, two dollars of economic activity is generated. You simply ignoring economics is worse (and more annoying) and means right wingers will fall for the general malfare but complain about the general welfare.

Dude, seriously, you're ignoring the fact that you are ELIMINATING the multiplier effect of that money that WOULD HAVE happened if you had not taken it out of the economy first.

Link that what you claim is true?

A multiplier is not eliminated by the additional spending that happens.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Do you know anyone who is good with money who is also poor?

Not personally. I only know about businesses who have entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory and still have needed bailouts in the past.

So you don't know one person who is good with money but is poor? Not one?!?!?

Besides the religious under our form of Capitalism? Why is corporate welfare institutional in our republic when management has recourse to entire departments to help them with rational choice theory?

What? I asked you a question. Why didn't you answer it? You were raised very poorly.

 

[Papageorgio]

I have an idea. Why not have a min wage of $15 an hour where up to $10 an hour needs to be payable in cash and $5 an hour can be deferred and paid as stock options, or a profit share bonus... does a compromise along those lines peek the interest of any of you right wingers?

I'm all for paying people $15 an hour and if the business decides to automate the jobs to save money, than so be it. I object to give a person $15 an hour for not being employed, that is the issue of this thread. You don't work and don't want to work, why should the government for paying you? Why do businesses need to pay into unemployment if it goes to people not working by choice?

 

[Papageorgio]

IOW, the money first has to be taken out of the economy by taxes and borrowing. Until you stop pretending there is no opportunity cost associated with taking money out of the economy, you will never grasp why grand socialist schemes like that always fail.

It doesn't matter if the multiplier effect, 2 in this case, creates more economic activity? A multiplier of two means that for every one dollar spent, two dollars of economic activity is generated. You simply ignoring economics is worse (and more annoying) and means right wingers will fall for the general malfare but complain about the general welfare.

Dude, seriously, you're ignoring the fact that you are ELIMINATING the multiplier effect of that money that WOULD HAVE happened if you had not taken it out of the economy first.

Link that what you claim is true?

A multiplier is not eliminated by the additional spending that happens.

You are asking for a link? Why not go look it up yourself instead of being a lazy person with only fallacy?

 

[danielpalos]

Do you know anyone who is good with money who is also poor?

Not personally. I only know about businesses who have entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory and still have needed bailouts in the past.

So you don't know one person who is good with money but is poor? Not one?!?!?

Besides the religious under our form of Capitalism? Why is corporate welfare institutional in our republic when management has recourse to entire departments to help them with rational choice theory?

What? I asked you a question. Why didn't you answer it? You were raised very poorly.

I haven't conducted any study. Anything I may know would only be anecdotal. What is your definition of poor? Some people are good with money and not rich.

 

[danielpalos]

I have an idea. Why not have a min wage of $15 an hour where up to $10 an hour needs to be payable in cash and $5 an hour can be deferred and paid as stock options, or a profit share bonus... does a compromise along those lines peek the interest of any of you right wingers?

I'm all for paying people $15 an hour and if the business decides to automate the jobs to save money, than so be it. I object to give a person $15 an hour for not being employed, that is the issue of this thread. You don't work and don't want to work, why should the government for paying you? Why do businesses need to pay into unemployment if it goes to people not working by choice?

I have already stated that business would not be on the hook for paying the unemployed directly and that even the unemployed could be paying general taxes to help fund UC.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Do you know anyone who is good with money who is also poor?

Not personally. I only know about businesses who have entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory and still have needed bailouts in the past.

So you don't know one person who is good with money but is poor? Not one?!?!?

Besides the religious under our form of Capitalism? Why is corporate welfare institutional in our republic when management has recourse to entire departments to help them with rational choice theory?

What? I asked you a question. Why didn't you answer it? You were raised very poorly.

I haven't conducted any study. Anything I may know would only be anecdotal. What is your definition of poor? Some people are good with money and not rich.

Poor: Lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society.

Do you know any one that is poor (don't care if it is anecdotal) who is good with money.

 

[danielpalos]

IOW, the money first has to be taken out of the economy by taxes and borrowing. Until you stop pretending there is no opportunity cost associated with taking money out of the economy, you will never grasp why grand socialist schemes like that always fail.

It doesn't matter if the multiplier effect, 2 in this case, creates more economic activity? A multiplier of two means that for every one dollar spent, two dollars of economic activity is generated. You simply ignoring economics is worse (and more annoying) and means right wingers will fall for the general malfare but complain about the general welfare.

Dude, seriously, you're ignoring the fact that you are ELIMINATING the multiplier effect of that money that WOULD HAVE happened if you had not taken it out of the economy first.

Link that what you claim is true?

A multiplier is not eliminated by the additional spending that happens.

You are asking for a link? Why not go look it up yourself instead of being a lazy person with only fallacy?

Because he is claiming something that is not supported by any evidence. I have already posted a link that refutes his claim on this very thread. It is You right wingers that caused this thread to be one hundred percent divergent from the initial topic simply because y'all have nothing but fallacy instead of any valid rebuttals. I only accept the blame for responding to all of your fallacy instead of bringing it back to the topic.

 

[danielpalos]

Do you know anyone who is good with money who is also poor?

Not personally. I only know about businesses who have entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory and still have needed bailouts in the past.

So you don't know one person who is good with money but is poor? Not one?!?!?

Besides the religious under our form of Capitalism? Why is corporate welfare institutional in our republic when management has recourse to entire departments to help them with rational choice theory?

What? I asked you a question. Why didn't you answer it? You were raised very poorly.

I haven't conducted any study. Anything I may know would only be anecdotal. What is your definition of poor? Some people are good with money and not rich.

Poor: Lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society.

Do you know any one that is poor (don't care if it is anecdotal) who is good with money.

No, I don't, beyond circumstantial evidence from accidents, corporate downsizing, etc.

 

[danielpalos]

Can right wingers explain why simple poverty would not be solved with equal protection of the laws for UC at the equivalent to fourteen or fifteen dollars an hour and a minimum wage that is arbitraged based on that UC compensation wage rate?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Do you know anyone who is good with money who is also poor?

Not personally. I only know about businesses who have entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory and still have needed bailouts in the past.

So you don't know one person who is good with money but is poor? Not one?!?!?

Besides the religious under our form of Capitalism? Why is corporate welfare institutional in our republic when management has recourse to entire departments to help them with rational choice theory?

What? I asked you a question. Why didn't you answer it? You were raised very poorly.

I haven't conducted any study. Anything I may know would only be anecdotal. What is your definition of poor? Some people are good with money and not rich.

Poor: Lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society.

Do you know any one that is poor (don't care if it is anecdotal) who is good with money.

No, I don't, beyond circumstantial evidence from accidents, corporate downsizing, etc.

So then to defeat poverty, doesn't it make more sense to teach people how to manage and become "good with money" vs. corporate welfare programs?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Can right wingers explain why simple poverty would not be solved with equal protection of the laws for UC at the equivalent to fourteen or fifteen dollars an hour and a minimum wage that is arbitraged based on that UC compensation wage rate?

You aren't asking the right questions so you're getting the wrong answers. I enjoy educating people like you. Warms my heart.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Simple question. If a corporation wants to take a massive dump on your lawn, why shouldn't they be able to do that?

Because they don't own your lawn.

If a butterfly flaps its wings in Japan, why shouldn't it be paid $7?

If someone offers it $7 and it accepts, it should be paid that.

Now your turn:
If a potential employee agrees to work for $7 an hour, why shouldn't they be able to do that?

If a slave "agrees" to let you fuck him why shouldn't you be able to do that? Sorry, my brain won't slow down to entertain your vacuous, disgusting nonsense beyond that.

 

[danielpalos]

Do you know anyone who is good with money who is also poor?

Not personally. I only know about businesses who have entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory and still have needed bailouts in the past.

So you don't know one person who is good with money but is poor? Not one?!?!?

Besides the religious under our form of Capitalism? Why is corporate welfare institutional in our republic when management has recourse to entire departments to help them with rational choice theory?

What? I asked you a question. Why didn't you answer it? You were raised very poorly.

I haven't conducted any study. Anything I may know would only be anecdotal. What is your definition of poor? Some people are good with money and not rich.

Poor: Lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society.

Do you know any one that is poor (don't care if it is anecdotal) who is good with money.

No, I don't, beyond circumstantial evidence from accidents, corporate downsizing, etc.

So then to defeat poverty, doesn't it make more sense to teach people how to manage and become "good with money" vs. corporate welfare programs?

I agree to disagree that what you claim would defeat poverty. Isn't the anecdotal evidence of Institutional corporate welfare sufficient evidence to the contrary? If even firms who have recourse to entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory can't do it, why in the world would anyone believe individuals would be better at it?

 

[danielpalos]

Can right wingers explain why simple poverty would not be solved with equal protection of the laws for UC at the equivalent to fourteen or fifteen dollars an hour and a minimum wage that is arbitraged based on that UC compensation wage rate?

You aren't asking the right questions so you're getting the wrong answers. I enjoy educating people like you. Warms my heart.

All you responded with was a non sequitur while alleging you can educate me with nothing but fallacy for rebuttal.

This is the question:

Can right wingers explain why simple poverty would not be solved with equal protection of the laws for UC at the equivalent to fourteen or fifteen dollars an hour and a minimum wage that is arbitraged based on that UC compensation wage rate?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who determines what the value of labor is?

The buyer and the seller.

Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.

Almost...

Tell me what additional determinant I missed.

That’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”

A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.

Of course it does. It’s called minimum wage

Of course it doesn't.

Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.

If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.

 

[Orangecat]

If a slave "agrees" to let you fuck him why shouldn't you be able to do that?

Job seekers are now slaves to you? STFU, moron.

Sorry, my brain won't slow down to entertain your vacuous, disgusting nonsense beyond that.

Your brain can't slow down because it's obviously at a standstill. Nice virtue signaling, though, bitch.

Here's the question you can't answer, again:
If a potential employee (not slave, dufus) agrees to work for $7 an hour, why shouldn't they be able to do that?

 

[hadit]

IOW, the money first has to be taken out of the economy by taxes and borrowing. Until you stop pretending there is no opportunity cost associated with taking money out of the economy, you will never grasp why grand socialist schemes like that always fail.

It doesn't matter if the multiplier effect, 2 in this case, creates more economic activity? A multiplier of two means that for every one dollar spent, two dollars of economic activity is generated. You simply ignoring economics is worse (and more annoying) and means right wingers will fall for the general malfare but complain about the general welfare.

Dude, seriously, you're ignoring the fact that you are ELIMINATING the multiplier effect of that money that WOULD HAVE happened if you had not taken it out of the economy first.

Link that what you claim is true?

A multiplier is not eliminated by the additional spending that happens.

Actually, it is. Here's a link to employment multipliers by industry. Updated employment multipliers for the U.S. economy. In there you will find the job multiplier effect of current jobs. When you take money out of business, jobs are lost and they are not lost in a vacuum, they cause other job loss as well.
This link explains the spending multiplier and shows how, when you take money out of the economy, you cause a much greater impact than just the amount you take out. The Expenditure Multiplier Effect | Macroeconomics.