Trump MAGAthread VI

[Hittanryan]

Funny things about economics - radical changes and moderate changes can have very different effects for lots of reasons.

However, to be very specific, 300,000 jobs (taking it at face value), is less than 0.1% of Americans, and less than 0.2% of the labor force (for unemployment calculations). Meanwhile, it would remove tens of millions of Americans from welfare rolls.

It's a sacrifice - but an acceptable one. However, you go to a more reasonable adjustment of minimum wage - say $10 or $12, and you get very different results.

Abolishing welfare would also remove tens of millions of Americans from welfare rolls.

Wage slavery is great. Ayn Rand told me so.

What's that? Wage slaves have no disposable income with which to drive a capitalist economy? Nah, the market will correct for that someday.

[Northern Davincia]

Abolishing welfare would also remove tens of millions of Americans from welfare rolls.

Yeah, but we decided letting people starve to death or die from lack of medical care or exposure was bad.

Mostly.

Don't you think that the hundreds of billions of dollars put into welfare would be better spent on job investment or public infrastructure?

[Galloism]

Yeah, but we decided letting people starve to death or die from lack of medical care or exposure was bad.

Mostly.

Don't you think that the hundreds of billions of dollars put into welfare would be better spent on job investment or public infrastructure?

Hmm.

That's a tough one. The answer is probably "not totally" but "more" might be appropriate. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

[Patridam]

What's that? Wage slaves have no disposable income with which to drive a capitalist economy? Nah, the market will correct for that someday.

Except for the whole thing about "nondisposable" income going to "necessities" that drive the economy just as much as discretionary purchases.... and the slow creep upwards of what is considered a necessity (telephones... refrigerators.... automobiles....computers...) until the standard of living of a "wage slave" is exceptional compared to that of the poor or even middle class in non-capitalist societies.

[Northern Davincia]

Abolishing welfare would also remove tens of millions of Americans from welfare rolls.

Wage slavery is great. Ayn Rand told me so.

What's that? Wage slaves have no disposable income with which to drive a capitalist economy? Nah, the market will correct for that someday.

Strawman.

Don't you think that the hundreds of billions of dollars put into welfare would be better spent on job investment or public infrastructure?

Hmm.

That's a tough one. The answer is probably "not totally" but "more" might be appropriate. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

We need something more specific than welfare, though. Job investment is a permanent solution and turns out more productive individuals.

[Izandai]

Don't you think that the hundreds of billions of dollars put into welfare would be better spent on job investment or public infrastructure?

Hmm.

That's a tough one. The answer is probably "not totally" but "more" might be appropriate. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

There's nothing saying we have to pull money from welfare to fund job investment or infrastructure either. There are other, much larger sources of money that could be tapped.

[Galloism]

We need something more specific than welfare, though. Job investment is a permanent solution and turns out more productive individuals.

To an extent - but keep in mind there's also disabled people who cannot work. We have people between jobs. We can't just leave them twisting in the wind either.

[Corrian]

Oh yeah, Trump isn't on vacation, is he? He's speaking at Liberty College.

[Patridam]

Yeah, but we decided letting people starve to death or die from lack of medical care or exposure was bad.

Mostly.

Don't you think that the hundreds of billions of dollars put into welfare would be better spent on job investment or public infrastructure?

It depends on what kind of welfare you're speaking of. Welfare that aids the elderly, like Social Security and Medicare, yes, it would be spent better almost anywhere else. Welfare that aids the poor? Depends.

[Hittanryan]

Hmm.

That's a tough one. The answer is probably "not totally" but "more" might be appropriate. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

There's nothing saying we have to pull money from welfare to fund job investment or infrastructure either. There are other, much larger sources of money that could be tapped.

Repealing the Bush tax cuts, for instance. Ending subsidies to fantastically wealthy oil companies, for instance. Order less military equipment when the military tells Congress that they don't need more equipment, for instance...

[The East Marches II]

There's nothing saying we have to pull money from welfare to fund job investment or infrastructure either. There are other, much larger sources of money that could be tapped.

Repealing the Bush tax cuts, for instance. Ending subsidies to fantastically wealthy oil companies, for instance. Order less military equipment when the military tells Congress that they don't need more equipment, for instance...

The ordering less equipment means we lose active production lines and we end up with a gutted military industrial base. Until our allies pull their collective heads of their asses and start being useful, those sorts of measures are necessary.

[Northern Davincia]

There's nothing saying we have to pull money from welfare to fund job investment or infrastructure either. There are other, much larger sources of money that could be tapped.

Repealing the Bush tax cuts, for instance. Ending subsidies to fantastically wealthy oil companies, for instance. Order less military equipment when the military tells Congress that they don't need more equipment, for instance...

Raise a finger against the tax cuts and the full fury of America's private sector comes crashing down.

[Geilinor]

Repealing the Bush tax cuts, for instance. Ending subsidies to fantastically wealthy oil companies, for instance. Order less military equipment when the military tells Congress that they don't need more equipment, for instance...

Raise a finger against the tax cuts and the full fury of America's private sector comes crashing down.

How? The tax rate on the highest earners was raised and nothing happened.

[Northern Davincia]

Raise a finger against the tax cuts and the full fury of America's private sector comes crashing down.

How? The tax rate on the highest earners was raised and nothing happened.

Mostly from the smaller business owners, presumably, who also drive most of America's private sector to begin with.

[Geilinor]

How? The tax rate on the highest earners was raised and nothing happened.

Mostly from the smaller business owners, presumably, who also drive most of America's private sector to begin with.

Small businesses were operating before the Bush tax cuts.

[Izandai]

Do you know what consumer spending is? It's the exact opposite of saving. If you do know that (as I would guess you probably do) I apologise for sounding condescending, but I can't figure out how your last point makes any sense unless you think "consumer spending" is synonymous for "saving". I must be misunderstanding something, so please, tell me what.

You were assuming that an increase in wages automatically translates into an increase in consumer spending. It doesn't. You are trying to spin this as if it will be so some sort of positive for business.

Ah, I think I found the source of the disagreement. With my initial statement, I was assuming a functional economy, like the one we live in now, where an increase in disposable income generally does lead to an increase in consumer spending. Apologies for not making that clear.

[The East Marches II]

You were assuming that an increase in wages automatically translates into an increase in consumer spending. It doesn't. You are trying to spin this as if it will be so some sort of positive for business.

Ah, I think I found the source of the disagreement. With my initial statement, I was assuming a functional economy, like the one we live in now, where an increase in disposable income generally does lead to an increase in consumer spending. Apologies for not making that clear.

Yes and that assumption is wrong because it assumes that we do have a functioning economy or that consumers are 1 dimensional and will react in a singular manner. We still haven't properly recovered from 2007/2008. It is very likely that they spend it on reducing debt burden or saving for a rainy day. That is why the overwhelming majority of studies on this subject comes up with a result of either a slight negative or no change at all.

Edit: and yet I do support increasing it for the proper reasons mentioned before

[Northern Davincia]

Mostly from the smaller business owners, presumably, who also drive most of America's private sector to begin with.

Small businesses were operating before the Bush tax cuts.

Operating, yes. Naturally I believe that small businesses are entitled to all the profit they generate.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo ... businesses

[Ism]

Ah, I think I found the source of the disagreement. With my initial statement, I was assuming a functional economy, like the one we live in now, where an increase in disposable income generally does lead to an increase in consumer spending. Apologies for not making that clear.

Yes and that assumption is wrong because it assumes that we do have a functioning economy or that consumers are 1 dimensional and will react in a singular manner. We still haven't properly recovered from 2007/2008. It is very likely that they spend it on reducing debt burden or saving for a rainy day. That is why the overwhelming majority of studies on this subject comes up with a result of either a slight negative or no change at all.

Saving obviously does not go back into the economy, and in the short term debt payment doesn't help much either. But, in the long term, the debt has to be paid, and if a wage increase speeds that up, then wouldn't it lead, eventually, to more money going back into the economy? I suppose the issue of saving comes up again, but still, it's no better to assume everyone will save than it is everyone will spend.

[The East Marches II]

Yes and that assumption is wrong because it assumes that we do have a functioning economy or that consumers are 1 dimensional and will react in a singular manner. We still haven't properly recovered from 2007/2008. It is very likely that they spend it on reducing debt burden or saving for a rainy day. That is why the overwhelming majority of studies on this subject comes up with a result of either a slight negative or no change at all.

Saving obviously does not go back into the economy, and in the short term debt payment doesn't help much either. But, in the long term, the debt has to be paid, and if a wage increase speeds that up, then wouldn't lead, eventually, to more money going back into the economy? I suppose the issue of saving comes up again, but still, it's no better to assume everyone will save than it is everyone will spend.

If its not actually going to get the debt off their backs properly, or just goes to paying down interest, the money sits in the bank. You can argue that money gets loaned out again but then you are getting into the realm of very very airy arguments which are difficult to measure and quantify. That issue of how it will spent or whether it will be immediately spent in the economy is why so many studies end up the way they do. As Gallo's source showed and my readings/experience having studied the topic in uni, it is either slightly negative or no effect at all. I think it is worthwhile to do it anyway inspite of that. The point of minimum wage is to set a baseline level of wages for survival and (this is the key) a little bit extra money to do with as they see fit. It never had to goal of increasing spending for business benefits, if that were the goal, the way it would be done would be totally different.

[Ism]

Saving obviously does not go back into the economy, and in the short term debt payment doesn't help much either. But, in the long term, the debt has to be paid, and if a wage increase speeds that up, then wouldn't lead, eventually, to more money going back into the economy? I suppose the issue of saving comes up again, but still, it's no better to assume everyone will save than it is everyone will spend.

If its not actually going to get the debt off their backs properly, or just goes to paying down interest, the money sits in the bank. You can argue that money gets loaned out again but then you are getting into the realm of very very airy arguments which are difficult to measure and quantify. That issue of how it will spent or whether it will be immediately spent in the economy is why so many studies end up the way they do. As Gallo's source showed and my readings/experience having studied the topic in uni, it is either slightly negative or no effect at all. I think it is worthwhile to do it anyway inspite of that. The point of minimum wage is to set a baseline level of wages for survival and (this is the key) a little bit extra money to do with as they see fit. It never had to goal of increasing spending for business benefits, if that were the goal, the way it would be done would be totally different.

Fair point. And I did consider making the argument that money in the bank could be loaned out, but thought better of it. Saying its a weak argument is probably being generous.

[Izandai]

Saving obviously does not go back into the economy, and in the short term debt payment doesn't help much either. But, in the long term, the debt has to be paid, and if a wage increase speeds that up, then wouldn't lead, eventually, to more money going back into the economy? I suppose the issue of saving comes up again, but still, it's no better to assume everyone will save than it is everyone will spend.

If its not actually going to get the debt off their backs properly, or just goes to paying down interest, the money sits in the bank. You can argue that money gets loaned out again but then you are getting into the realm of very very airy arguments which are difficult to measure and quantify. That issue of how it will spent or whether it will be immediately spent in the economy is why so many studies end up the way they do. As Gallo's source showed and my readings/experience having studied the topic in uni, it is either slightly negative or no effect at all. I think it is worthwhile to do it anyway inspite of that. The point of minimum wage is to set a baseline level of wages for survival and (this is the key) a little bit extra money to do with as they see fit. It never had to goal of increasing spending for business benefits, if that were the goal, the way it would be done would be totally different.

I don't think anyone was arguing that increasing the minimum wage is done to increase business profits. I was arguing that it wouldn't result in a significant decrease in business profits.

[The East Marches II]

If its not actually going to get the debt off their backs properly, or just goes to paying down interest, the money sits in the bank. You can argue that money gets loaned out again but then you are getting into the realm of very very airy arguments which are difficult to measure and quantify. That issue of how it will spent or whether it will be immediately spent in the economy is why so many studies end up the way they do. As Gallo's source showed and my readings/experience having studied the topic in uni, it is either slightly negative or no effect at all. I think it is worthwhile to do it anyway inspite of that. The point of minimum wage is to set a baseline level of wages for survival and (this is the key) a little bit extra money to do with as they see fit. It never had to goal of increasing spending for business benefits, if that were the goal, the way it would be done would be totally different.

I don't think anyone was arguing that increasing the minimum wage is done to increase business profits. I was arguing that it wouldn't result in a significant decrease in business profits.

I thought you were arguing that it was good because it would benefit business by increasing spending.

[Izandai]

I don't think anyone was arguing that increasing the minimum wage is done to increase business profits. I was arguing that it wouldn't result in a significant decrease in business profits.

I thought you were arguing that it was good because it would benefit business by increasing spending.

That wasn't my intention. Apologies for not being more clear.

[The East Marches II]

I thought you were arguing that it was good because it would benefit business by increasing spending.

That wasn't my intention. Apologies for not being more clear.

No problem, glad it was cleared up.