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

[Slade3200]

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've never been on unemployment so I don't know much about how it works except for what I read but it is my understanding that to receive unemployment checks a person needs to be actively looking for work. I support unemployment being used as a stop gap while people look for work so they don't get crushed by debt and/or lose their houses etc. If people don't want to work then I would not support giving them money. I would support giving them basic living essentials food and shelter and resources if they do decide to look for work, but I'd also require them to give if they are going to get.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Right wingers only complain about the Poor not the Rich or corporate welfare would not be so institutional.

A lie.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They would already pay general taxes like sales taxes.

You want sales taxes to fund your bum gravy train? DURR.

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

#1) You said you don't know anyone who is good with money that is poor
#2) We don't teach people how to budget. Parents may but teachers do not.
#3) Teach everyone how to open a bank account and manage money

Do the above and you will significantly reduce poverty. Education is the key. Fish for a man and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.

The rich look at money much differently than the poor, that is why a poor person can win the lottery and in a few years be broke.

Here's why lottery winners go broke

"If you're not disciplined, you will go broke. I don't care how much money you have."

www.cnbc.com

That is the folly of giving people money for not working. They have never learned to manage money.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7

 

[WinterBorn]

I am not a right winger. Only right wingers have nothing but fallacy and have no shame.

How old are you?

Old enough to have a sense of shame for having nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.

But not old enough to have a sense of shame for wanting others to work hard to provide for themselves AND provide money for you that you may or may not need?

 

[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.

If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7

$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.

Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.

 

[danielpalos]

no it isn't.

Market research is conducted on relevant factors that will affect costs of the production and distribution of a product or service and those factors include the cost of labor but not the expenses of an employee.

You are selling your labor and as the seller you can ask any price you want for that labor but there is no obligation for any employer to accept that offer.

You are responsible for making your labor worth enough so that an employer will pay you more for it.

Yes, it is. Labor is subject to market based arbitraje. All factors of cost (for labor) must be considered by labor and therefore must affect the arbitraje in that market. Some potential labor may not seek employment with a given employer or a given market simply due to those factors; which affects that market in general.

Do you even know the definition of arbitrage?

And your housing costs are not related to my production costs in any way.

Yes, I used it instead of market based competition. Would you prefer I use that instead?

Any costs are inputs to somebody and must be considered. Your production costs are not necessarily related to anyone's housing costs. Why should a person's wage request be "overpriced" when costs can be passed on the consumer, ceteris paribus.

 

[WinterBorn]

Only if you are special pleading and appealing to ignorance. How old are you?

Good god, you f'n idiot, I told you how old I am twice in this thread.
I guess I can add "special pleading" and "appealing to ignorance" to your list of BS dodge phrases.

I am fifty-seven. Respect your elders. Any shameless person can have nothing but fallacy.

Still telling that lie? lol

 

[danielpalos]

Part of the reason for the higher multiplier is the lack of bureaucracy for UC. By changing it to welfare, you will make it a big bureaucracy.

You are the only one claiming it would be changed to welfare. The program would not change, only unequal protection of the laws would change.

 

[danielpalos]

Again, you failed to link your evidence, you have no proof and yet you claim I have no argument, hell you have provided no facts for your argument, so show me the link. No evidence of what you are claiming, so it is FAKE NEWS!!! You would have thought you would have learned by now.

We can solve simple poverty by merely raising the minimum wage until there is no need for social services for persons willing to work and by ensuring faithful execution of our at-will employment laws for unemployment Compensation.

Go ahead, tell me how that would not work to solve simple poverty.

I need to see the link so far all I can comment is that you provided no link for proof, how can I make suggestions? So far all you have is FAKE NEWS!!! Quit trolling and send the link.

All you have is a non sequitur not any valid rebuttal.

We can solve simple poverty by merely raising the minimum wage until there is no need for social services for persons willing to work and by ensuring faithful execution of our at-will employment laws for unemployment Compensation. Meaning that anyone who is simply unemployed could obtain unemployment compensation, at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour.

Go ahead, tell me how that would not work to solve simple poverty.

 

[hadit]

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.

Except we are referring to the unemployed. There is no money being taken out of business. Jobs are lost for the profit seeking bottom line and that line of special pleading. You could say taxes take out money as well, yet even massive tax breaks did not solve simple poverty nor even balance the budget. Only the Rich got richer. And, the Richest don't tend to spend most of their income like the poor do and generate less of a multiplier as a result for our economy.

You're missing the point, which is taxes take money out of the economy, and that represents lost opportunity. Every dollar that goes to taxes is another dollar that isn't spent on the economy.

 

[danielpalos]

But they can't do that, can they?

Not right now, but what if they could through equal protection of the laws.

How would that not solve simple poverty and provide that upward pressure on wages?

 

[WinterBorn]

Part of the reason for the higher multiplier is the lack of bureaucracy for UC. By changing it to welfare, you will make it a big bureaucracy.

You are the only one claiming it would be changed to welfare. The program would not change, only unequal protection of the laws would change.

You keep saying that the UC program would not change.

But you are changing how it is funded.
You are changing who is eligible.
You are changing the qualifications for receiving checks.
You are changing the length of time you can draw a check.

Those are all big changes. And welfare already exists.

 

[WinterBorn]

But they can't do that, can they?

Not right now, but what if they could through equal protection of the laws.

How would that not solve simple poverty and provide that upward pressure on wages?

They can't do that now, via UC.

But they CAN do that now via welfare. You may not be able to study HR, per se. But you can gain valuable job skills through a variety of programs.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Except we are referring to the unemployed. There is no money being taken out of business. Jobs are lost for the profit seeking bottom line and that line of special pleading. You could say taxes take out money as well, yet even massive tax breaks did not solve simple poverty nor even balance the budget. Only the Rich got richer. And, the Richest don't tend to spend most of their income like the poor do and generate less of a multiplier as a result for our economy.

Here is where you don't understand how the economy works.

You claim the richest don't tend to spend most of their income. What do they do with the rest of it? Stuff it in a mattress?

Says you, story teller. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows better.

The authors—the first to use the PSID to estimate the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) by wealth—find that the MPC is indeed lower at higher wealth quintiles, suggesting that lower-wealth households respond more to changes in income than do higher-wealth households.

Estimating the Marginal Propensity to Consume Using the Distributions of Income, Consumption, and Wealth

www.bostonfed.org

.

The richest tend to invest (even in off-shore tax havens).

 

[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.

When do you provide the link I asked for?

What link is that?

 

[Slade3200]

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.

If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7

$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.

Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.

other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods, make their processes more efficient or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do we have inflation?

The supply of money is increasing faster than the demand for money.

That has not been the case with QE. We have a demand problem not a supply problem with "supply side" economics.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Except we are referring to the unemployed. There is no money being taken out of business. Jobs are lost for the profit seeking bottom line and that line of special pleading. You could say taxes take out money as well, yet even massive tax breaks did not solve simple poverty nor even balance the budget. Only the Rich got richer. And, the Richest don't tend to spend most of their income like the poor do and generate less of a multiplier as a result for our economy.

Here is where you don't understand how the economy works.

You claim the richest don't tend to spend most of their income. What do they do with the rest of it? Stuff it in a mattress?

Says you, story teller. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows better.

The authors—the first to use the PSID to estimate the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) by wealth—find that the MPC is indeed lower at higher wealth quintiles, suggesting that lower-wealth households respond more to changes in income than do higher-wealth households.

Estimating the Marginal Propensity to Consume Using the Distributions of Income, Consumption, and Wealth

www.bostonfed.org

.

The richest tend to invest (even in off-shore tax havens).

I see you didn't answer my question. Not a surprise.

Let me help you out. The richest do not spend most of their income. But that is their choice, and part of why the got rich.

They also do not remove their income from the economic cycle. They invest, which gives opportunities to businesses.

Even if they put their money in a savings account at a bank, it is not removed from the economy.