Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 02:26pm PT
|
Statistically there is zero correlation between minimum wage changes and employment rates.
Care to cite some support for that novel proposition, HT? There is very strong evidence that raising the minimum wage decreases minimum wage employment. Even Krugman admits that -- at least in his writing for economists, rather than in his propaganda for the general public.
The only issue is the terms of trade. Raising the minimum wage also raises incomes for those employed at minimum wage work. Some argue the increased incomes more than offset the lost jobs. Most do not.
John
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 02:27pm PT
|
I am ALL FOR regulation, and I wish the government would DO one of the main things it exists to do: regulate and use its anti-trust teeth!
Only the big corporations wanted the FTAs, so the Rebumblecons gave them what they wanted... to devastating effect on the economy and working class.
And these mergers between, for example, big telcom companies should be rejected out of hand and immediately. ONLY they benefit from grinding ever-increasingly large swaths of this country under their monopolistic RULE!
I have no problem with corporations. I don't even have a problem with "big" corporations. What I have a problem with is "growth" that become monopolistic and abusive to the public trust. And we are AWASH in such corporations now!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 02:28pm PT
|
She made me kinda ill. Self-centered to the core.
She was a pretty sick puppy in real life, too. Case study in her own ethical perspectives!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 02:37pm PT
|
The biggest problem on this thread is that the majority favor liberal "fixes" of the symptoms of the core problems rather than to fix the core problems. This is one of the major issues I have with liberalism: it REACTS to symptoms rather than to systematically address causes.
"Tax the wealthy more," they say. They say this without providing a shred of a principled reason WHY the rate should be 50% or 63.2% or 75% or 90%. The ONLY question they ask is: "Where is that exact sweet spot where we can extract the most real dollars?"
The notion of PRIVATE property is right out the window in such thinking.
Sure, you want the "wealthy" to "contribute their fair share," but in this ENTIRE thread I have yet to see anybody even START to give a rigorous account of what "fair" means or what the "fair share" would be based upon.
Knee-jerk reactionism, all.
Look, if government did the MINIMUM it is ACTUALLY supposed to do under the interstate commerce clause, we would not have giant corporations running rampant and serving their OWN self-interests. Actual ENFORCEMENT of anti-trust would get us FAR down the road to real reform, as it would even address the mass-quantities of money that flow from these corporations into the pockets of politicians.
And I've said it before to the response of crickets: The politicians (virtually all of them) that fairly recently voted to overturn campaign finance reform should be BOOTED out of office in the next relevant election cycle, to be replaced by politicians that would enact REAL campaign finance reform. ALL contributions, be it from individuals or "entities," should have a LOW cap. Then each of US can throw as much weight as a giant corporation. THAT is what got overturned recently, and it must be replaced.
You can HAVE corporations, but limit their power and regulate them to be sure that their policies serve the public benefit.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 02:51pm PT
|
One more thing, then I'm done for awhile again (gotta work)....
My company currently competes with two multi-billion-dollar, publicly-traded corporations. We are TINY by comparison!
Both of these companies compete in our market BY absorbing other companies and thereby getting their products. Often the products are then abandoned, so that the customer base can be forced onto another offering provided by the big company.
There is a linear and inverse correlation between the quality of customer support and the "layers" of absorption. As the layers of bureaucracy in the companies increase, the customer service gets correspondingly bad to terrible. Same with the quality of the products themselves. And there is a linear correlation between "layers" of absorption and increasing prices. After all, the layers of bureaucracy have to paid SOMEHOW!
WE are gaining market share by effectively making this case to potential customers: We serve YOU, and we don't answer to shareholders and suits in big corner offices. WE price according to real costs, and we move Heaven and Earth to keep those costs as low as possible. That is why we can offer a FAR better product, supported FAR better, at 1/10 to 1/40 the price of the "big box" offerings.
Small companies almost invariably serve customers better than do giant companies in the same market. The more "overhead" you have, and the more you answer to "market forces" that are not in any way related to customer SERVICE, the more unlikely it is that your company CAN provide actual customer support and a superior product.
So, the feds should be perpetually training a skeptical eye over these big companies to be sure that they actually ARE serving the public interest rather than just absorbing and absorbing, while they then USE each level of absorption to abandon products, raise prices, and reduce customer service. These giant telcoms are a perfect example of absorption that reduces options, raises prices, even engages in price-fixing, and provides terrible customer support. HOW is the public good served by yet another level of mergers???
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 02:54pm PT
|
the flat tax is a regressive tax..
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 02:56pm PT
|
the flat tax is a regressive tax..
LOL... you read that somewhere. What exactly do you mean, and why is it BAD?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 02:59pm PT
|
HDDJ:
I may have been painting with a rather broad brush, but the real issues in policy usually are in the details. Unfortunately, the nature of our debate is losing that nuance:
For example, you posted:
The politics of every dime of productivity increase by working Americans in the last 15+ years going to the top 1%? That's really your definition of "envy?" It's actually worse than that seeing as wages relative to inflation have actually decreased in that amount of time for middle class Americans so the 1%ers are taking all the productivity gains PLUS the inflationary gains.
I'm not sure what "the politics of every dime of productivity increase by working Americans in the last 15+ years going to the top 1%" means. You mean the politics of an untruth? How do you determine where the productivity increases came from, or who obtained the benefits, without purporting to know who owns every share of every stock of every profitable corporation? How much of that productivity gain went, for instance, to pension funds? Are they in "the 1%?"
I've maintained that the major productivity increases in the last several decades result from capital expenditures, not increases in human capital, but that's only half of the issue. The owners of the capital form a much larger group than "the one percent."
In contrast, I appreciate your response to my comment on marginal tax rates:
That's true. People used to figure out ways to get out of paying 70% or 90% income tax rates. Now they do the exact same thing to get out of paying 36% income tax rates. In a world where 10% is considered an excellent investment, they will do it at basically any income tax rate.
While I agree that everyone looks to lower their tax rates, they don't look to minimize them; rather they seek to optimize them. During the Reagan tax cuts, I was a partner in a law firm that had five certified specialists in taxation. That practice virtually disappeared because it was cheaper for our clients to pay the tax on their business activities than it was to rearrange those activities to avoid taxation. That was exactly what Congress and the President intended with, for example,the passage of TEFRA.
I'm glad you concede that the share of income tax revenue paid by the highest income taxpayers rose after the tax cuts, yet you argue that the tax cuts resulted in lost revenue. If the share of the highest quintile rose, but total tax revenue did not, how did a lower marginal rate result in fewer taxes collected from that group? That conclusion is mathematically impossible unless the reduced taxes for the lower quintiles dropped even more. In fact, taxation revenue has stayed relatively constant as a percentage of GDP. Spending has not.
On the spending issue, I blame both parties. The Republicans tried to fund two wars with borrowed funds, without reducing any expenditures elsewhere. The Democrats tried to fund what were essentially payments for consumption in the same way. The problem isn't falling revenue, its rising expenditures.
Your final comment, however, reverted to a distortion of my arguments:
Of course to someone who believes in the Just World Fallacy it's a lot easier to write that all off to "envy" instead of identifying a structural flaw in our economic and social models. The Greatest Generation's success was in no small way grounded in robust government programs, a high minimum wage and strong union participation...all things which are completely ignored in the current debate.
I believe in conclusions borne out by sound economic research. There is no evidence that a high minimum wage increased the "Greatest Generation's" success. Strong government programs -- designed to reward initiative -- (e.g. the G.I. bill, the S.B.A.) certainly helped. When have I argued against programs like that? I certainly have -- and will continue to -- argue against governmental programs that encourage poor conduct, such as the original formulation of AFDC, or that carry marginal costs exceeding marginal benefits, such as much of the Obama Administration's regulatory actions, or that cause dangerous market distortions such as overstimulation of the housing market, or the moral hazard that results from governmental propping up of private institutions that are "too big to fail."
My issue isn't that all private action is good, and all government action is bad. My issue is over specific governmental actions that I find harmful rather than hurtful.
I find it particularly ironic that you mention the Greatest Generation's "success," when the essentially negative interest rates -- needed to prop up the tremendous level of governmental borrowing to fund consumption -- rob the members of that generation of a fair return on their savings.
Still, I appreciate that you take the time to respond to what I say, so I hope you don't take this as an indication of disrespect. I intend it as the opposite. I take you sufficiently seriously to be worth a detailed response.
John
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 12, 2014 - 03:06pm PT
|
The flat tax makes no sense to me. It will only keep the poor...poor.
John M is right.
"re·gres·sive
riˈgresiv/
adjective
adjective: regressive
1.
becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.
"the regressive, infantile wish for the perfect parent of early childhood"
of, relating to, or marked by psychological regression.
2.
(of a tax) taking a proportionally greater amount from those on lower incomes.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 03:08pm PT
|
The flat tax makes no sense to me. It will only keep the poor...poor.
Please explain how.
Edit: Also, in that context, please explain what "fair share" means, as in "the wealthy should pay their fair share."
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 12, 2014 - 03:10pm PT
|
Mad....
(of a tax) taking a proportionally greater amount from those on lower incomes.
Do you really need any more?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 03:11pm PT
|
(of a tax) taking a proportionally greater amount from those on lower incomes.
Ohhhh.... Then, by definition, a flat tax is NOT regressive.
It most certainly does NOT take "a proportionally greater amount from those on lower incomes."
By DEFINITION a flat tax does no such thing. It takes EXACTLY the SAME proportion from ALL income levels. Nothing gets "disproportional" under a flat tax!
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 12, 2014 - 03:12pm PT
|
I think a rate of 39 percent is fair for the wealthy...of course they will never pay that amount as most if not all have never paid the percentage linked to their income.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 12, 2014 - 03:14pm PT
|
Mad wrote: Ohhhh.... Then, by definition, a flat tax is NOT regressive.
Really...who lifestyle is gonna take the biggest hit?
Fifteen percentage of $20,000 or 15 percent of $500,000.
Regressive to the poor.
Of course Mitt Romney took a huge hit on his lifestyle paying 13 percent.
My heart goes out to him and his family.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 03:14pm PT
|
I think a rate of 39 percent is fair for the wealthy.
You THINK?
Why not 40%?
Why not 32%?
WHAT metrics or principles are you employing to "think" ANY particular rate is "fair?"
You "think" that just some gut-feeling you happen to have is a "fair" basis upon which to extract private property from people?
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 03:16pm PT
|
One more thing, then I'm done for awhile again (gotta work).... ditto
I'll get back with the 0 statistical correlation between minimum wage and employment rates
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 12, 2014 - 03:18pm PT
|
Mad...go here. http://www.lp.org/
Have fun.
Mad wrote: You "think" that just some gut-feeling you happen to have is a "fair" basis upon which to extract private property from people?
I rest my case.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 03:23pm PT
|
one more
flat tax is regressive because it takes a higher proportion of income compared to cost of living for lower incomes.
Said a little more plainly: If A makes a lot less income than B, A requires a much larger share (as much as 100%) of his income just to stay alive
You can tax Romulus at 50% and he'll still have plenty of money left over for a decent lifestyle.
Tax me at 50% and I'll have to sell my house, one car, my motorcycle and defer the visits to the vet for my dog. Might even end up in a trailer in Bunkerville without the money to buy the mandatory AR-15 and ammo.
That's what a regressive tax is.
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 03:23pm PT
|
Most of them aren't even white,
Chaz, please tell me that you are not a bigot.
What does the color of our skin has/have to do with anything.
We know that Bluering is a bigot. He has expressed it many times.
But Chaz, I more or less always found you to be level-headed in your posts.
EDIT
Bluey, you are a bigot, admit it. Don't hide behind some false façade. You hate humans because of their color, or religion, or because they do not think the same as you do. You are a fascist.
And behind that, you are probably a decent guy. But hateful. That is not good.
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 03:44pm PT
|
What is a FACT, Jammer? A word easily spread around.
Show me the facts, or else shut up. I can use the word FACT, FACT, FACT. But what does it mean?
I was taught as a journalist to substantiate, substantiate, substantiate. If "in doubt, leave it out".
But that is the "old way" of thinking isnt' it? Now we quote "FACTS". Faux News Facts. Or something we pick up off the internet. Or believe the lies of a politician.
Get your FACTS "right", Jammer, then come back to me. I know bullsh#t, I have interviewed prime ministers and presidents. Captains of industry (most of them liars), celebs (most of them liars, kidding themselves).
Jammer, when you use the word FACT, make sure you can back it up.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!