You give people a bunch of free money and they spend it on shit from China.
I KNOW, RIGHT? Raise the minimum wage, and look what happens. You give people a bunch of free money and they spend it on shit from China instead of on local craft beer or organic produce. Weird.
"...capital goods and industrial supplies..."
If there's a connection here, it's "tax reform leads to new production." Read the link.
The trade deficit exits because the goods we import can be produced more cheaply due to the lower cost of labor in the countries where it is produced. Why is that; because U. S. labor has been able, through the law to extort though their union contracts more in wages and benefits that drive up the cost of the goods being manufactured until they can no longer compete with those produced in the countries with cheaper labor. To demonstrate how ignorant the public is of this fact they have been led to believe by the very idiots they send to rule them that raising wages will create more jobs. Unfortunately, the jobs that are being created are those whose costs are subsidized by government purchases and protected government monopolies. I cite the military industrial complex as a case in point for the former and the health care industry among others of the latter. Not only are they getting the wages they are getting raises every year.
Actual demographics dispel the notion that 300,000 jobs were created last month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. There are approximately 4 million leaving the workforce for retirement each year and 4.3 million who are trying to get into it. That leaves approximately 300,000 out of work. There are no more jobs in the manufacturing sector outside of those mentioned that cannot be performed more cheaply elsewhere. Where did the people holding those jobs, for example the paper industry go? Nowhere, they now are numbered among the nearly 50 million and growing who are subsisting on EBT cards.
@mainemom: "I KNOW, RIGHT? Raise the minimum wage, and look what happens. You give people a bunch of free money and they spend it on shit from China instead of on local craft beer or organic produce. Weird."
1) I've been pretty explicit about my opposition to minimum wage increases
2) Generally speaking, proponents of minimum wage increases do not suggest that it helps the economy - if anything they suggest that it helps the poor people. Whereas tax cuts are widely touted as designed to stimulate the economy (not saying it's untrue, just that that is the argument).
@Economike: "If there's a connection here, it's "tax reform leads to new production." Read the link."
Fair point! I stand corrected.
proponents of minimum wage increases do not suggest that it helps the economy
Here are some of the lies of the lying liars:
“Our analysis found that a $12 minimum wage will increase worker earnings, boost spending in the local economy,...
"Studies show that workers who benefit from the increase will spend it in their local communities. Research by the Economic Policy Institute found that the modest 70-cent increase will generate $5.5 billion in consumer spending over the next year -- providing a boost to the economy without any increase in government spending."
"When families earn more, they spend it in their communities at local businesses. This proposal would
generate millions in new consumer spending, creating jobs and an economy that works for all of
us, not just the wealthy few."
What’s the lie? The local part? Or the spending part?
The lie is a "fallacy of composition" error. Or, as an economist would say, a confounding of macro with micro.
There is no "extra spending" created by minimum wage laws. Anyone's extra spending is equal to someone else's costs.
You should let mainemom answer, instead of mansplaining what she was thinking.
I somehow missed where you directed your question to Mainemom. To be precise, I was mansplaining for your benefit what I (not Mainemom) was thinking, and although I'm not used to that neologism, I don't think "mansplaining" quite applies here. Anyway, I hope my response was nonetheless agreeable.
Let's see what Mainemom writes.
Once again, the censors of the world attempt to insist that only answers from the same severed micro-group are valid, even when the question is a general one. This is just more nonsense, of course, insisting that only they can understand themselves while simultaneously insisting that they understand everything about everyone else even to the point of reading their minds to determine intent. It's absurd.
I don't believe in X-splaining. An answer is only invalid if it is incorrect, not because of its source. It's prejudice to suggest otherwise.
Mainemom: In order for some people to understand the lies you have to tell them why because they have been conditioned to believe them. The truth is that the extra money being provided primarily goes to buy goods produced in other countries, therefore creating no new jobs, just a bigger trade deficit. Will tariffs on Chinese produced goods, cause American investors to again start manufacturing those products in the U. S., doubtful, because the risk is too great that the government will again drop the tariffs that put the original U. S. manufacturers out of business. A Catch 22 in which the loser is again the American consumer.
If America is such a wealthy country, why is it that nearly 50 million of our citizens have to be provided money to put food in their stomachs? I answer this question and others in my books, "The Real Economy" and how your elected officials did it in "The Constitution, a Document Steeped in History and a Compromise Devoid of Promise".
Another two for one book advertisement.
BTW, Trump has stated that he believes the federal minimum wage should be raised to $10/hour. Damn liberals!
(right thread this time)
Posted three years ago:
The left's narrative that raising the minimum wage will be an economic stimulus is based on the analyses of some economists with the Chicago Fed.
They show that workers who get increased pay due to the minimum wage hike begin to spend more, largely through new borrowing, as in buying a new car.
However, the leftists neglect to tell us that the same authors go on to say the stimulative effects are fleeting. After the first few quarters (post wage hike), the burden of paying down loans turns everything around and the result is a drag on the economy.
Meanwhile, they show that marginal workers (teens, low-skilled adults) become unemployable at the new wage, and unemployed.
Blog post from a year ago: https://ordinarilyskeptical.wordpress.com/?s=minimum+wage
I don't mean to be critical, but you're cherry picking arguments.
It's not to say that you couldn't find a similar argument today by a liberal if you dug around, there are tons of idiots out there.
But the general consensus (certainly among liberals such as myself) is that a minimum wage increase is mostly just a transfer. (Sure if the increase is large enough you could argue that it pushes us towards automation but even that has no direct positive or negative economic effect, though it would transfer jobs out of the locality.)
If you looked out your window and saw a feather drifting toward the sky, would you say to yourself "I wonder if the law of gravity doesn't apply to feathers"?
Sure if the increase is large enough you could argue that it pushes us towards automation but even that has no direct positive or negative economic effect, though it would transfer jobs out of the locality.
Wow. The servers at Wendy's, McDonald's, and other places whose jobs are at this moment being replaced by automation (saw the new order kiosks at the local Wendy's yesterday) might feel a bit differently about this.
In Stoolsmith’s world, McDonalds employees would still be forming individual hamburger patties by hand and sprinkling sesame seeds on buns, just like in the good old days, if only the company hadn’t been driven to automation by wage increases.
Lol. No clue.
You guys don't even read what I post.
I have always been against increasing the minimum wage, as I think that *any* kind of work is better than none for increasing human capital (which has been proven time and again to be a better way to erase poverty than handing out cash).
That being said, you can't just let people drop into poverty working dirt wages, *especially* if they have kids, as the poverty has a multiplicative effect (if you're a kid growing up in poverty it has an adverse effect on your ability to get your way out).
So, tax the 1% (who would ultimately benefit by greater human capital in the economic system), and increase EITC to get working families out of the cycle of poverty.
You don't stifle job availability for snotty teenagers (who need the work to become actual responsible adults), you don't create a disincentive to hire working single mothers, and you don't leave those mothers in poverty.
Of course, the GOP could never go along with it because their base is too stupid to read past the value of a well designed tax increase and the Dems would never go along with it because their base is too stupid to think there's any better policy tool than increasing the minimum wage.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. Do we agree that minimum wage laws are ineffective as an anti-poverty measure? That at lower levels, they are inconsequential and, if raised, create unemployment among the least skilled?
I heartily agree with your observation that reform is politically infeasible.
Shut up, Matt.
As usual, totally clueless. Perhaps the introduction of kiosks for ordering are just a coincidence... but I doubt it, and so do many others.
Stoolsmith powers his brain with Wendy’s.
That’s about right.
Shut up. You are in no position to criticize anyone.
Keep up with the feeding, idiot. AMG's almost buried in your troll bait.
...says the troll. Cute, real cute. Accuse someone else of what you do every day. Hypocrite.
Aah, so I do bait you! Loser.
Please somone have some compassion for Toolsmith. Try to tell him the reccomended tactic to deal with Smegma I and II.
It doesn't work but at least try to get him on board away from the deep end.
There used to be a mechanism that would deal wih them but that was sold a few years ago.
Note : issuing challenges ,calling people hypocrites along with demands to shut up and telling them what place they have are not good
form in this case. They fail miserably !
Shut up, Bruce.
Oops. Thought I was stoolsmith there for a sec.
@Economike: "Perhaps I misunderstood you. Do we agree that minimum wage laws are ineffective as an anti-poverty measure? That at lower levels, they are inconsequential and, if raised, create unemployment among the least skilled?"
Yes. I guess one could make the argument that they are slightly better than doing nothing, in the sense that there is a short term boost to low income earnings, but long term I have a hard time believing an argument that it reduces poverty, particularly because of the overall loss of human capital. (Also it's worth noting that any increase reduces the pay between less and more skilled workers, reducing the incentive to move up. Conversely, EITC pays you more the more you earn, which is a full on incentive for people to move up, become managers, increase their skills, etc.)
But, if you can't have real meaningful reform, then what do you do?
I guess it's worth a gander to push for universal pre-K - which has a large body of evidence of efficacy and is essentially a transfer to working parents.
What other ideas are out there (besides cutting taxes for the rich in the hopes that it trickles down to the poor)?