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

[danielpalos]

It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed makes that a moot, right wing point.

 

[danielpalos]

That has not been the case with QE.

No inflation under QE? DURR.

Show us the link, don't merely imply you must be Right merely because you are on the right wing.

 

[hadit]

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.

That is a FALLACY. The program works the way it does because it is limited to only a subset of people with a specific set of circumstances. Opening it up to everybody would introduce means testing and make it another welfare program. You don't like means testing, but that's what would happen. You would fundamentally change the nature of the program and it wouldn't work the way it does now. You can't avoid that, and STOP calling it "unequal protection of the laws", because it is NOT.

 

[hadit]

It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed makes that a moot, right wing point.

At the same time you have fewer jobs you want the government to spend more. Who else sees the BIG problem with that?

 

[hadit]

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.

The Point is, employment is at the will of either party, regardless. States have no authority to enact laws that have the effect of unequal protection. And, our alleged and endless War on Poverty would not be necessary if that were the case. Unemployment compensation is a known automatic stabilizer to our economy.

Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.

That meant nothing at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It would be analogous to improving the efficiency of a governor on an engine.

Yes, paying more and more people to produce less and less is very efficient.

Moron.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why should a salary be based on anything but the value of the labor to the employer or to the market in general?

As a person asking another for employment your labor is your product and you are asking an employer to buy that product at either and hourly wage or a salary.

What the person who is selling his labor pays for rent is not part of the equation nor should it be.

Because employers don't operate in a vacuum of special pleading, but in our first world market economy.

How to Establish Salary Ranges

1. Step 1: Determine the Organization's Compensation Philosophy. ...
2. Step 2: Conduct a Job Analysis. ...
3. Step 3: Group into Job Families. ...
4. Step 4: Rank Positions Using a Job Evaluation Method. ...
5. Step 5: Conduct Market Research. ...
6. Step 6: Create Job Grades. ...
7. Step 7: Create a Salary Range Based on Research.

How to Establish Salary Ranges

Follow these simple steps to create pay grades and salary ranges.

www.shrm.org

where in there does it say the employee's rent is part of the salary equation?

Market research that is influenced by market based arbitrage. Not everyone in a low skilled job is as ignorant as the right wing would prefer.

No one said everyone in a low skill job is ignorant. But if they managed to get to adulthood with no skills, you are not worth as much to a business.

Then, why require them to work instead of obtain unemployment compensation so they can learn new skills and become worth more to an employer?

Why completely revamp a program that works, when there is already one that provides what you say will cure simple poverty? Welfare already provides money to live on and job training.

 

[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.

You mean like taxes for our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror?

According to some studies, general welfare spending along with defense spending generates a multiplier of point .8. That means that for each dollar spent only point eight dollars worth of economic activity is generated. UC has a multiplier of two. That means that for each dollar spent on UC, two dollars of economic activity are generated. It is simply more cost effective to simply pay surplus labor to not work than to rely on ineffective social services.

And again you fail to acknowledge the truth that you will be incentivizing people to not work, even when they have jobs they can do. That means more people taking and fewer producing. Does anyone else see the BIG problem with that? Now, we've explained to you that you can't apply UC to everyone who doesn't work. You would have to change it so much that it would become yet another massive welfare program. You can't escape that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That has not been the case with QE.

No inflation under QE? DURR.

Show us the link, don't merely imply you must be Right merely because you are on the right wing.

I await the proof of your claim.

 

[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?

You miss the whole point about equal protection of the law. I guess you would have had no problem with the Dred Scott decision.

You continue to whine about equal protection.

What protection does the employer get that the employee does not get?

 

[emilynghiem]

I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.

Dear danielpalos
1. As even Sanders lobbies for worker owned cooperatives, the cooperative system of economic empowerment and equality is superior in allowing all persons equal access, training and ownership by free enterprise. This is superior to state mandated changes because people can make the same beneficial decisions directly WITHOUT relying on politics. Your statement also blamed the malware on politics, so this would be removed.

2. As Obama advocates for Microlending and training to replace welfare handouts, again the longterm solution to poverty is teaching self reliance and management of ownership. Not depending on outside help.

We can still have govt assist with the process of ensuring all districts have proportional access to financing and cooperative jobs and sites to set up sustainable education, health care and other services. It has to be set up to invest in local ownership, NOT reliance on govt and handouts, for people to be empowered equally and communities and economy to be self sustainable.

But there is no substitute for teaching people to build this themselves, to own and manage their own businesses, schools and community run cooperative government administrations.

The govt can help set up sites and paid mentorships and internships so everyone can have equal access to develop their own self governing democratic cooperatives.

But for people to be equal financially and legally, the ownership and control of resources are best managed locally not dictated or controlled by top down govt.
As long as central govt is put in charge, some people will have more power or access than others and continue politics to be abused to favor one group over others.

But everyone running their own cooperative health care and business networks by party or by district, then people can have all the same benefits you argue for but managed directly for themselves without relying on outside govt that just provides external facilities and maybe federal grants to support research and development jobs and training that can be used to replicate programs for sustainable self government to stop financial dependence on govt, political oppression and corporate abuses.

 

[hadit]

They would already pay general taxes like sales taxes.

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

General taxes are much better than direct taxes. What if it lowered your direct taxes since even the unemployed would be paying general taxes?

So you want to give those who refuse to work a LOT of money so you can take back a LITTLE money. Do you realize what you've just done? You've taken a LOT of money away from people who earned it, taken some of it to pay government workers, given the rest of it to the non-working, all in the hope that you will be able to collect a LITTLE of it back again. What a load.

 

[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.

The program itself would not change. We would be using the same legal and physical infrastructure, only the returns to scale would be improved. It would be analogous to improving the efficiency of a governor on an engine. The engine is not changed only the output is improved.

To use your engine analogy, you want to change the fuel, change the output, change the use of the engine, change who uses the engine, and basically create an engine that duplicates what an existing engine does.

UC is not meant to be long term income. You will never change it into welfare.

 

[hadit]

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?

You miss the whole point about equal protection of the law. I guess you would have had no problem with the Dred Scott decision.

You continue to whine about equal protection.

What protection does the employer get that the employee does not get?

This is possibly the most famous danielpalos word redefinition. He literally thinks he's facing unequal protection under the law because he has to have been laid off from a job in order to collect UC. Literally.

 

[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.

Only due to unequal protection of the law. And, why do we have a homeless problem if even a War on Poverty has no simple solution only an expensive and ineffective non-solution?

It has been shown to you, over & over, that recreating the UC will not solve homelessness. Why do you persist in your fantasy?

 

[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.

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.

And, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue. A (positive) multiplier effect.

And increases the cost of what is produced. So fewer people can afford it.

 

[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.

I did answer your economic question. The Poor simply tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later and that is what generates a (positive) multiplier effect.

So it is a matter of how soon the money is spent? That is absolute hogwash.

 

[hadit]

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.

The program itself would not change. We would be using the same legal and physical infrastructure, only the returns to scale would be improved. It would be analogous to improving the efficiency of a governor on an engine. The engine is not changed only the output is improved.

To use your engine analogy, you want to change the fuel, change the output, change the use of the engine, change who uses the engine, and basically create an engine that duplicates what an existing engine does.

UC is not meant to be long term income. You will never change it into welfare.

Basically, he's complaining that a Ferrari engine uses too much gas, so he wants to take a Honda engine and soup it up so it has the same power as the Ferrari engine but a different label, then thinks he'll still get the same gas mileage the old Honda engine did.

 

[hadit]

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.

Only due to unequal protection of the law. And, why do we have a homeless problem if even a War on Poverty has no simple solution only an expensive and ineffective non-solution?

It has been shown to you, over & over, that recreating the UC will not solve homelessness. Why do you persist in your fantasy?

That is the one thing that he continues to do above all. No matter what he's shown, no matter how compelling the evidence, he still comes back spouting the same old garbage and insisting he's won all the arguments.

 

[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?

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.

The Point is, employment is at the will of either party, regardless. States have no authority to enact laws that have the effect of unequal protection. And, our alleged and endless War on Poverty would not be necessary if that were the case. Unemployment compensation is a known automatic stabilizer to our economy.

Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.

What law have the states enacted that have the effect of unequal portection?