Ninja Economics

[flood]

what do people think about a guaranteed minimum income?

[test_recordings]

All the research I've read says it's worth it, haven't seen a negative piece yet (to be scientific, I'm looking for it as well)

[OGLemon]

I think there was a thread on it about a year ago.

[Phigure]

This is why Austrians don't believe empiricism lends itself to economics the way it does to physics.

this austrian disagrees

i really hate the term "austrian school of economics" cause no one in austria today actually associates with it

[ehbes]

And I don't believe in the American dream, doesn't mean it's not a thing

[Phigure]

Laborers made relatively more money 110 years ago because their money was worth more at the time, which has to do with the state's monetary policy.

despite the federal reserve being introduced in 1913, real wages kept increasing with productivity because there was a labor shortage in the US until the 70s (globalization/outsourcing and digital technology ended this labor shortage)

You're reducing economics to kindergarten levels by saying 'why can't they just pay a living wage?' because economic decisions aren't just that simple and 'a living wage' doesn't just depend on how much the capitalist pays in wages, but also how affordable products/services in the economy are or how much your money is worth (the value of which is decreased by monetary policy), which are all beyond the control of the capitalist.

perhaps i am oversimplifying a bit, but you're doing the opposite: needlessly abstracting something and making it seem much more complicated than it really is. raising wages isn't going to make the prices of goods rise 1 to 1. in fact it's much, much less. there's research on this. minimum wage increases of 10% resulted in only only a .1% increase in the price! (here and here).

i mean at the end of the day you can talk about economic theory as much as you want, be it austrian or marxist or whatever, but evidence trumps all

[DrGatineau]

raising wages has a fixed impact on the economy in the long term, no matter what, in theory. if it's not prices, then it's jobs, or profits, or in actuality, a combination of the three. obviously there will be outliers but raising wages will have a definite proportional impact on the economy.

however, secondary effects of raising the minimum wage, mainly the boost to aggregate demand, could ameliorate some if not all of the negative impacts (in the long run), which accounts for that evidence you cited. i'm just pointing out that your evidence does not contradict economic theory.

[Phigure]

i'm just pointing out that your evidence does not contradict economic theory.

wasnt what i was trying to get at but thanks anyways

[Muncey]

Minimum wage really depends on what your social security system is like.. if raising it means higher paid but less workers you'll end up seeing an increased gov. expenditure on social security. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it depends on what your view of the national debt is like and what country you live in. I saw an advert on youtube by some libertarian channel with an "economics professor" labeling future american debt on a graph as "OUR CHILDRENS DEBT". Borderline propaganda imo, that or you aren't qualified to be an economics student let alone a professor.

Anyway, if a country has no intention of giving social security then raising the minimum wage could be counter productive, people lose their jobs.. less people are spending money because those out of a job now have no safety net and means to spend, those with increased wages may end up saving instead of consuming due to economic decline/seeing their friends lose their jobs ect ect.

If a country decides to bring up the minimum wage so wages rise to a respectable level and are willing to, in the short term, help those that lose jobs with social security then many will see their wages increase, some will lose jobs but will continue to afford to consume & get help finding a new job, hopefully consumption & demand on aggregate will increase and those out of a job will inevitably get another once the economy grows.

You could probably argue also that if companies are being forced to spend more on wages they have less to spend on investment, which is typically seen to fuel new job creation.

As with most issues I think it really needs to be argued on a individual basis, not a one size fits all theory.

[Genevieve]

Btw, will be back after Dekmantel. I'm going back to college soon and I wanted to get as much done for that before Dekmantel so I won't put things off. So I couldn't devote the time I'd like to my replies. If I somehow forget, by all means bump. Tho it was good to have a break from the debate. I like debating, but it's also draining.

[Muncey]

Although you've got a lot of replying to do I have a question.. I mentioned above about the """"""""economics professor""""""""" labeling the future national debt as 'OUR CHILDRENS DEBT' and I've just seen another video where a libertarian (I assume not educated in economics, but I could be entirely wrong) saying that free roads aren't free because they'll be paid for by future generations. Is this just a misunderstanding by a few people or is it a popular belief within liberarianism and/or Austrian school of economics?

Whats called national debt has never and will never be fully paid off and certainly is funded by taxes - so how is it the debt of future generations?

[DrGatineau]

Whats called national debt will never be fully paid off

Never?

[Phigure]

Btw, will be back after Dekmantel. I'm going back to college soon and I wanted to get as much done for that before Dekmantel so I won't put things off. So I couldn't devote the time I'd like to my replies. If I somehow forget, by all means bump. Tho it was good to have a break from the debate. I like debating, but it's also draining.

ahhhh have fun man, big lineup

[NinjaEdit]

The collective behaves irrationally.

[Muncey]

Whats called national debt will never be fully paid off

Never?

Never, its a clear feature of why it isn't the same as personal debt or the debt of a company but the vast majority of people treat the national debt like its personal or business debt. Hopefully most personal debt or business debt will be paid off at some point, the aim is to pay it off over time. The aim has never and will never be to pay off national debt. You can aim to pay it down over a long period of time but no Government, as far as I'm aware, has ever planned to pay off the national debt fully because you just don't need to.

Even when the budget is balanced there'll still be trillions of treasuries outstanding. Treasuries/Government bonds are just a financial instrument, paying them off would simply be changing them from one instrument (treasuries/Gov bonds) to another (bank deposits). Bank deposits are far more risky, theres never any need to pay off the national debt. Most treasuries are never paid off and are recycled into new treasuries.

[SCope13]

oh wow this is a thread now oh lawds

i'll read this tomorrow while im at work

[DrGatineau]

Yo genevieve, when you're back from that festival I'd like to hear your opinion on these two posts:

[+] Spoiler

Whats called national debt will never be fully paid off

Never?

Never, its a clear feature of why it isn't the same as personal debt or the debt of a company but the vast majority of people treat the national debt like its personal or business debt. Hopefully most personal debt or business debt will be paid off at some point, the aim is to pay it off over time. The aim has never and will never be to pay off national debt. You can aim to pay it down over a long period of time but no Government, as far as I'm aware, has ever planned to pay off the national debt fully because you just don't need to.

Even when the budget is balanced there'll still be trillions of treasuries outstanding. Treasuries/Government bonds are just a financial instrument, paying them off would simply be changing them from one instrument (treasuries/Gov bonds) to another (bank deposits). Bank deposits are far more risky, theres never any need to pay off the national debt. Most treasuries are never paid off and are recycled into new treasuries.

[+] Spoiler

I typed out a whole post but then accidentally went back and lost it all

Here's what I remember of it:

Genevieve, in response to the talk about the minimum wage, I agree that simply indexing minimum wage to inflation would just result in a net-zero gain in purchasing power for workers (in the long term), but what we've done over the past several decades in america is leave the minimum wage at an embarrassingly low level despite increases in inflation, GDP, worker productivity, and corporate profits.

If the minimum wage were indexed to productivity, it would have been $16.54 in 2012, and even higher today. Surely the workers should see some of that increase in their pocket instead of their employer's, no? I'd be willing to even meet half way (compared to today's minimum wage of $7.25) and make the minimum wage $11.90. Surely the increases in corporate profits could cover that. I doubt most employers, the big ones especially, would even notice.

There was a study a few months back that found that increasing the minimum wage to a modest $10.10 would lift 5 million people out of poverty and would result in the immediate loss of like 500,000 jobs (assuming that employers bore zero brunt of the increase - it would in reality be less jobs if they bore some of the brunt, and of course it would be zero jobs if they bore all of it). I cba to find the study but I think those are approximately the right numbers. That's a deal I'm willing to make. It's all about weighing the pros and cons. The minimum wage is going to have to go up at some point or else people will be living like animals. Maybe it would be a good idea to index it to inflation or productivity but only by like 50% or something, so that it doesn't stagnate like it is doing now, but workers still see an increase in the value of their paycheck.

Not to mention the stimulatory effects an increase in the minimum wage would have on the economy. That study also found that it would create approximately 100,000 jobs in the short-term, so the net job loss is really more like 400k, and that it would increase GDP by like $25 billion.

Here's an article about the study actually: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/0 ... 32723.html


Do you believe in the multiplier Genevieve? If more people have jobs, and more people can pay for more expensive goods, then capitalists will make more money, and will invest more of that money, and will then sell more goods, and make more profits, and be able to pay for more employees and higher wages, which will cause more people to be able to pay for more expensive goods, and capitalists to make more money, and to invest more money, and to........

This is why left-leaning people always say that when the middle and lower class does better, the upper class will do better as well. Economics is not a zero-sum game (in my opinion). The 1% doesn't seem to understand that they will actually make MORE MONEY if there is less inequality. Think of it as an "investment in aggregate demand."

[rickyarbino]

I'm not debating shit until people provide evidence that we live in (mostly) unfettered capitalism. The term is thrown around so much, without any evidence for it or defining the term adequately. Until someone supplies concrete, direct, undebatable evidence that we live in a fundamentally free market or in unfettered capitalism this won't go anywhere.

I'm waiting. Tick.. tock...

Can't tell if you're trolling or not tbh.

That's impossible.

[ultraspatial]

I'm not debating shit until people provide evidence that we live in (mostly) unfettered capitalism. The term is thrown around so much, without any evidence for it or defining the term adequately. Until someone supplies concrete, direct, undebatable evidence that we live in a fundamentally free market or in unfettered capitalism this won't go anywhere.

I'm waiting. Tick.. tock...

lol who genuinely believes that

[ehbes]

We also never lived under true feudalism. Only crony feudalism right gene?