Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=Blogstar][quote=SK in CV]He didn’t have a screwed up value system. He had a screwed up brain. Perfect parenting wouldn’t have fixed that.[/quote]
Having to have the hottest girls or hate them is a value system. Something I have already taught my boys not to embrace. My boys may be crazy as hell when they grow up but the normal thing won’t be to go kill girls they can’t have .[/quote]
But your boys probably aren’t anywhere near as crazy as this kid was. That’s the point. He was broken. Possibly beyond repair. It wasn’t bad parenting. He didn’t need better parenting. He had a brain that did not function correctly. That may very well have been well beyond the fixes that current mental health care has available.
ParticipantHe didn’t have a screwed up value system. He had a screwed up brain. Perfect parenting wouldn’t have fixed that.
Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]
The sheer wrongness of your position makes my ovipositor quiver.
Tempo required active x controls and was so antiquated it might as well have asked for an AOL login.
Q to the E to the mutherfuckin D.
Stop.
Hammertime.[/quote]Best. Response. Ever.
Participantby way of comparison, the S&P 500 is up about 2.8%. NQ and Dow 30 are pretty much flat.
Participant[quote=EconProf]SK and CAR:
If you really, truely want to help the poor, let’s raise the minimum wage to $15. What would be the various results, short term and long term? This is a serious question.
Please be detailed and specific.[/quote]Walmart’s profit would skyrocket.
Participant[quote=EconProf]Thank you SK and CAR. You are both revealing two common mistakes about the economy that cloud your thinking. One is that the economy’s output is a fixed amount to be divided up, like a pie. That’s true in the short run, but in the long run, which is what really counts, it is dynamic and grows. So increased productivity tends to benefit all groups, albeit disproportionately. Your comment about wages being flat or declining for three decades shows this mindset. Total compensation, including health and other fringe benefits are clearly up, and actual living standards, which include technological changes in goods and services we buy push up living standards further. Secondly, you are ignoring incentives, for both workers and employers. Supply-side advocates, like myself, stress incentives and expanding the overall economy, while your demand-side approach only divides what exists in the short run.[/quote]
Where has the benefit of increased productivity over the last 35 years gone? Not to employees. Total compensation has barely budged. The only thing that has increased is profits enuring to equity holders. The fallacy of supply side theory is that increased productivity will be shared. It hasn’t been shared. Living standards have not increased. Total compensation has not even kept pace with inflation.
Beyond that, I’m a bit flabbergasted by your description of demand-side economics. You should be embarrassed if you actually teach your students that garbage.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Sure, CAR.
I have found a lot of facts and figures, pro and con, at Forbes.com. Search under “James Dorn” for several articles showing data.
Warning: Forbes is a pro business magazine. You will get the viewpoint of actual employers.[/quote]Okay, I just googled “James Dorn minimum wage increase” and the first article I got stated this:
“When President Obama advocates a higher minimum wage in his State of the Union Address, he will no doubt argue that by increasing the minimum to $10.10, workers will have fatter pay checks and spend more, thus stimulating the economy and creating more jobs. In fact, economic logic tells a different story.”
“…Proponents of the minimum wage argue that those workers who do retain their jobs will consume more, which will increase aggregate demand and increase GDP. But that line of argument is a case of upside-down economics. Consumption is not a determinant of economic growth; it is the result of a prior increase in production. Workers cannot be paid what they haven’t first produced.”
http://www.cato.org/blog/mr-president-increasing-minimum-wage-wrong-medicine-ailing-economy
————–
In other words, it’s exactly what I said you would try to put forward in order to back up your views: right-wing talking points based on already disproved right-wing economic theories.
The supply-side, trickle-down dogma has been debunked. Witness no less than the past ~30 years of our grossly deteriorating economy and middle class as proof. Reagan and was an idiot and a tool for powerful interests whose sole desire was, and is, to funnel more and more of our world’s wealth and resources into the hands of these already very wealthy and powerful interests. He led us down a path that we may never be able to recover from.
Again, I’m asking for some kinds of evidence based on historical FACTS, not talking points.[/quote]
You picked a great paragraph to quote there CAR. Your analysis is spot on. That last sentence is absolutely hysterical.
Consumption is not a determinant of economic growth; it is the result of a prior increase in production. Workers cannot be paid what they haven’t first produced.
it is pure gibberish. A lot of fancy sounding words strung together that mean at best absolutely nothing and at worst, an absolute falsity. Consumption IS a determinant of economic growth. It has absolutely nothing to do with an increase in production. If it did, then wages would have risen much much faster than they actually have over the last 3 decades. Productivity has more than doubled since 1975. Wages, after adjusting for inflation, have been flat or down.
Participant[quote=EconProf][quote=SK in CV][quote=EconProf]We economists are largely in agreement about raising the minimum wage: it will kill jobs.
[/quote]No, we economists are NOT largely in agreement that it will kill jobs. There is little evidence that it ever has before. At very best, economists have no f’ing clue whether it will kill jobs. At worst, they know exactly what will happen.
A plurality of economists think that the costs of raising the minimum wage are outweighed by the benefits.
At least 600 phd economists think that increases in the minimum wage “have had little or no negative impact on employment of minimum-wage workers:
In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.
http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/%5B/quote%5D
Economists range from far right to far left, so the fact that the Economic Policy Institute could find 600 economists, out of tens of thousands, to support a minimum wage increase does not say a lot.
I noticed that those 600 included some distinguished notables as well as junior college instructors.
Please remember that I said economists are “largely in agreement” about the harmful effects of a minimum wage hike–meaning a majority. SK carefully says a “plurality” of economists favor a hike–meaning a minority. Glad we agree on that.
And let’s take a closer look at that neutral-sounding Economics Policy Institute. Turns out it is headed up by Richard Trumpka, head of the AFL-CIO. And ten of the Board of Directors are union heads. Nothing suspicious there.[/quote]We don’t agree. “largely in agreement” would imply a majority. There is no majority. There is no agreement.
Participant[quote=EconProf]We economists are largely in agreement about raising the minimum wage: it will kill jobs.
[/quote]No, we economists are NOT largely in agreement that it will kill jobs. There is little evidence that it ever has before. At very best, economists have no f’ing clue whether it will kill jobs. At worst, they know exactly what will happen.
A plurality of economists think that the costs of raising the minimum wage are outweighed by the benefits.
At least 600 phd economists think that increases in the minimum wage “have had little or no negative impact on employment of minimum-wage workers:
In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.
Participant[quote=Hobie]Don’t be too sure their insurance is in force. Many will buy a month policy to obtain the card then let it lapse.[/quote]
Unless things have changed recently, I’m pretty sure no insurance is required to get a drivers license. Drivers don’t have to be insured, cars do.
ParticipantI’m reasonably sure that “housing activity” that Yellen was talking about is not resales or housing prices. Absent a bubble (and there’s no evidence there is a widespread bubble in US housing prices), resale prices and inventory doesn’t mean shit. She’s concerned with new home construction. That’s the “housing activity” that affects the economy as a whole.
Participant[quote=rcfe]actually not. we have heard different theories of 529. main disadvantage is limited portfolio choice, poor performance and decreased chance of getting financial aid. We are not qualified for any aid anyway based on family income.[/quote]
529’s have pretty much the same portfolio choices as self-directed IRAs.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Why pick on Yellen? The old cow actually seems to be more conservative than people assumed. Tapering despite zero GDP growth last quarter. Blurting out a six month timetable for tightening also speaks something to her personal views.[/quote]
“old cow”? Is that really necessary?She is, by the way, doing exactly what Bernanke said would be done before he left.
And the “six months” is not 6 months from now. It’s more likely to mean around mid-2015. Which is also pretty much the same schedule that her predecessor described.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]
Just make sure everyone who needs to be on the mortgage is on it. That seems to be the biggest issue that comes up.[/quote]What do you mean by this?
-
AuthorPosts
