Page 37 of 79 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 787

Thread: Minimum Wage Laws Boosting Wages

  1. #361
    Educator TheEconomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    965

    Re: Minimum Wage Laws Boosting Wages

    Quote Originally Posted by James972 View Post
    Bias??? you mean the Great Depression was not the Great Depression?? The economy recovered in 1930
    but they forgot to stop calling the period until 1945 the Great Depression?? Lets get this straight, the New Deal was the Great Depression!!

    *Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal stimulus: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"

    "The New Republic"( at the time a FDR greatest supporter") noted. In June 1939, the federal public works programs still supported almost 19 million people, nearly 15% of the population" [page 313]

    In fact in 1939, unemployment was at 17%, and there were 11 million additional in stimulus make work welfare jobs. Today when the population is 2.5 times greater we have only 8 million unemployed. Conclusion: legislation to make Democrats illegal
    is urgently needed
    Either you're a complete idiot or you're arguing in plain bad faith.

    First of all, do you know what is the "Great Depression"? It's not like people had a precise statistical definition that they applied and everyone involved could agree it is the period starting with the stock market crash in 1929 and ending with the war in 1945. The dates are not inferred from the data, but imposed by historians. Depending on your personal bent and the message you want to convey, you will have the Great Depression end in 1939 (the start of the war), in 1942 (when Americans enterred the war) or 1945 (when the war ended). If you think about when the GDP gets back in line with its previous peak, that would be 1939 in the United States, by the way. That's when unemployment started to plummet... It also dropped sharply, even though it was still high in the mid 1930s.

    Second of all, what do you not understand about the fact that you cannot quote figures to make a case about causality? Do you have missing brain cells? The point I made would imply that, without the New Deal, things would have been slightly worse -- and that only applies to the extent that the deficit (totaled on all government levels) increased. I just applied results from the literature. If values were close to zero or that was a surplus, put a zero or reverse the sign. If you think you can see a problem with that just by looking at the data, I don't know what to say. I cannot explain econometrics to someone who confuses "would have been" and "have been."
    All people who oppose free speech are trying to sell you snake oil. There is absolutely no exception to this rule.

  2. #362
    Educator TheEconomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    965

    Re: Minimum Wage Laws Boosting Wages

    Quote Originally Posted by James972 View Post
    (...) A graduate degree that left you befuddled somewhere between Obama and Sowell ie confused.
    James, I have only ever read you parrot partisan nonsense. You're every bit as much a perody of yourself as the complete lunatics who writes in gender studies -- and we could pull the same hoaxes on you as others have pulled on them. Nobody needs your input. We already know what you're going to say. You're going to fling crap around, pretend to know things you clearly don't understand and make some hyperbolic statement about conservativism using completely stupid expressions like "Republican capitalism."


    Many people say stupid things every now and then, but I've never seen someone so pointless, dishonest and incapable of understanding what other people write.
    All people who oppose free speech are trying to sell you snake oil. There is absolutely no exception to this rule.

  3. #363
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:06 PM
    Gender
    Posts
    1,577

    Re: Minimum Wage Laws Boosting Wages

    Quote Originally Posted by TheEconomist View Post
    Paul Krugman happens to be a human being and, like everyone else, he is susceptible to the consequences of motivated reasoning. This prediction was a patently stupid commentary, but he did have the required integrity to retract that statement and to admit having made a big mistake. Everyone says stupid things every now and then, but not everyone will admit to it.

    As for the credibility of Paul Krugman, it depends on what is concerned. I have read his column for years and I would say that his political commentaries are not peculiarly original. You don't need a genius to comment about the possibility that some self-described fiscal conservatives are spending very liberally outside of welfare programs or that some wealthy libertarians might be holding self-serving intellectual excuses for greed. It's very superficial and uninteresting. He might have changed since the time I cancelled my NY Times subscription back in 2016 or 2017, but that part of his work always felt boring. On the other hand, if you grab a column or a blog post where he's trying to explain macroeconomic theory, I can assure you that he is going a very good job. It's very hard to boil down contemporary macroeconomic theory and the related empirical research into a simple set of intuitions. Part of the difficulty lies in the general equilibrium aspect of the theories: they involve feed-backs and spill-over effects and everything happens sort of "together." That is something Paul Krugman does unusually well. It's in fact one reason why he published so many papers in top journals: he is a genius at boiling down complicated problems to their barest essence.

    Most of his papers are great reads because he's absurdly good at it. Not a lot of people are that good, but if you want a few other names, John Cochrane is also very gifted. His book on Asset Pricing and his presidential address at the AFA were exceptionally good summaries of the puzzling features of financial data. Another great writer is Bryan Kelly. He doesn't comment like Cochrane or Krugman on politics, but he always has this crazy smart way to attack problems.

    Going back to Krugman, to you, he might sound like a leftwing apologist of big government. But the truth is that all the comments he made about fiscal policy, monetary policy and unconventional tools of monetary policy in the 2008-2012 period were dumbed-down versions of key references in the macroeconomics literature. I know because I'm a PhD student in economics and read those papers . We're talking about interesting work by Eggertsson, Woodford, Christiano, Eichenbaum and himself published in the 2010-2011 window. His comments did reflect the growing concensus in the literature. Looking back,
    you might have better counterarguments today, but they involved a lot of theoretical innovations and empirical research carried years later. The issues are still contentious matters today, as far as I can tell and, frankly, the guy has been consistent: it's not like he's writting one thing in journals in saying another on his blog.



    A lot of people take way too extreme a position to make known what often are legitimate concerns. Of all the things he could say about a Nobel Prize in economics who still publishes in top journals, he took the extreme position that he is entirely unrealiable. You can have legitimate concerns about Krugman's capacity to summarize complicated issues on account that his comments on issues lying outside his expertise tend to be a lot less deeply thought out and tend to all lean in one predictable direction. But you really don't need to go as far as trying to paint him as some kind of joke to make that point. Limited usefulness in some fields is a much weaker assumption than complete uselessness everywhere.

    Always go for the least binding assumptions you need. They appeal to more people and they're likelier to be roughly true in reality.
    One thing about economics, like with the weather, you won't be held accountable especially if you have a great bust or ass. Not see sure what sustained Krugman.....whats up with this child porn thing with him. Good luck with your studies.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  4. #364
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    02-20-20 @ 02:13 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,543

    Re: Minimum Wage Laws Boosting Wages

    JPN, President Franklin Roosevelt was hated by those of the far right. To those of reduced political and social status, he was ďa traitor to our classĒ. He was hated by those of the far left. More than any other individual, he prevented the transformation of basically capitalist USA, to become a basically socialist nation.

    Yes, the National Recovery Act was pure socialistic example of government planned and micro-directed economy and the Supreme properly killed it before it could inflict serious economic harm upon us. Yes, FDR did seek to prevent the Supreme Court from finding legal faults with executive and legislative acts during his administrations. As a lawyer, FDR should have better appreciated the constitutional questions regarding the National Recovery Act and the need for independent courts. As a politician, he should have better appreciated our votersí high regard for the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Iím somewhat left of center but we apparently agree, due to FDRís more excessive acts and the consequential reductions of his political powers during off-year elections, he was unable to more fully continue and expand upon his successful policies of public improvements and support for our nationís infrastructures and for wage earners which were reflected by reductions and/or reversals of USAís then current extents of economic depression.

    This consequentially reduced his administrationsí abilities to induce congressional legislation that would have continued the pace of our nationís economic recovery. Increased war production effectively accomplished the remainder of that recovery.

    Respectfully, Supposn

  5. #365
    Eco**Social Marketeer

    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    PNW
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    3,769

    Re: Minimum Wage Laws Boosting Wages

    Quote Originally Posted by TheEconomist View Post
    I already pointed out earlier that empirical studies on the minimum wage largely comes down against the ECON101 story.

    One reason is that employment dynamics involves comparing a lot more than just wages and some measure of employment, be it the number of jobs or the number of hours worked, so employers might be spreading around their reactions. Another reason I gave is that the supply-and-demand model might not be peculiarly good at capturing important features of the labor market. It's also quite the weird conceptual framework to address the arguments of people who support minimum wage. Proponents of the minimum wage make a point about market power and bargaining capacity that the competitive framework kills by assumption and they aren't making an absurd point, so you need a more general setting to address these concerns. Another possibility is that you sometimes have a negative impact, but it's too small to be statistically significant.

    My intuition is that you might have some slack to use a minimum wage to benefit workers at the expense of businesses if you want to do it. How much slack? Well, I have no idea. The only thing I know is that businesses are started and operated to turn a profit large enough to compensate for risks and you can't stretch their operational costs ad infinitum before it becomes a problem.
    I have been away from my computer (on vacation) and broke my tablet, so I have been relegated to reading and posting with my cell phone. I would have liked to respond to a number of your detailed posts, but that and character limitations prevent lengthy quotes. I appreciate the level of discussion you provide. This particular post captures most of my views on the subject succinctly, so I wanted to endorse it. In particular, I agree with your final conclusions.

    I also wanted to make the following observations: I have often complained that the "supply and demand" model is problematic in labor discussions. Much of the MW discussion and literature is equivocal and limited. There are not really long enough or robust enough data sets to reach particular conclusions beyond the broadest-brushed suppositions. Frankly, in my view, the level of MW increase at issue here (which doesn't even reach the level in purchasing power of the 1968 standard) is generally so low, on an aggregate basis, as to be statistically insignificant, and really cannot be discerned in most data sets. The larger surveys of studies reach general conclusions based upon what I consider to be somewhat suspect use of data sets and endorsement of preconceived expectations. Finally, I think the certitude of findings is often grossly exaggerated in the popular and partisan press, usually for discernible reasons.

  6. #366
    Eco**Social Marketeer

    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    PNW
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    3,769

    Re: Minimum Wage Laws Boosting Wages

    Quote Originally Posted by TheEconomist View Post
    James, I have only ever read you parrot partisan nonsense. You're every bit as much a perody of yourself as the complete lunatics who writes in gender studies -- and we could pull the same hoaxes on you as others have pulled on them. Nobody needs your input. We already know what you're going to say. You're going to fling crap around, pretend to know things you clearly don't understand and make some hyperbolic statement about conservativism using completely stupid expressions like "Republican capitalism."


    Many people say stupid things every now and then, but I've never seen someone so pointless, dishonest and incapable of understanding what other people write.
    Welcome to the club, my friend. Our membership is growing.

  7. #367
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    18,587

    Re: Minimum Wage Laws Boosting Wages

    Quote Originally Posted by James972 View Post
    how can 16 years of Depression and world war be net beneficial???????? Do you want another depression and world war for the net benefits??
    It wasn't the sixteen years of depression and world war that was beneficial, but the policies and resources the led to upgrading our relative third world economy into a first world economy.

  8. #368
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    18,587

    Re: Minimum Wage Laws Boosting Wages

    Quote Originally Posted by James972 View Post
    ad infinitum?????????? Usually cant stretch them at all because they are fighting to have a lower price than competition just to survive. America lost 20 million jobs, and a whole lot more, to China because wages matter even when they are small fraction of final price!!
    I am not impressed with right wing economics.

    Labor shortage: The US doesn’t have enough workers to fill open jobs - Vox

  9. #369
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,174
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Minimum Wage Laws Boosting Wages

    Quote Originally Posted by James972 View Post
    China just switched to Chicago Republican capitalism and prevented another 60 million from slowly starving to death and eliminated 40% of the entire planets poverty. Now do you understand?
    Uh...Chinese companies are subsidized by the government, which manipulates their currency...

    So....not true?
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

  10. #370
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,174
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Minimum Wage Laws Boosting Wages

    Quote Originally Posted by James972 View Post
    1) If he admitted that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??

    2) so you think the less capital job creators have the more jobs they can create?? In venture capital we say, "the more shots on goal the more ventures we score" How does taxing away our capital fund new ventures like Apple and Amazon?? Bezos said the most important $50,000 in is life was the $50,000 he needed to start Amazon. Do you understand now? IF you want to give job creators money rather than tax it away that would make sense. 1+1=2
    YouTube

    Alan Greenspan: Big tax cuts a 'mistake.' Fix the debt first

    His thoughts on tax cuts...

    And then, on deregulation...

    Greenspan Concedes Error on Regulation - The New York Times

    How would you like to wire me the money?

    The second half of your post is mostly incorrect...but you don't need me to explain that, Greenspan already did.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

Page 37 of 79 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •