• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Seattle's Wage Hike Not Working

Gaea said:
Well, I was responding to your post when you said "You fight to give the poor more money to spend so they can spend it all." I was providing the economic rationale behind doing so.
Click to expand...

That economic rationale doesn't lead to permanent improvement of the condition of the poor. If the poor are used as pawns to increase consumption and credit in pursuit of certain macroeconomic outcomes, that's macroeconomic argument is not necessarily in the best interests of the poor in the long run. Which I have always felt was important because so many people pretend these demand-side policies are in the heartfelt desires for the poor to become permanently better off. Note my signature line.
 
Neomalthusian said:
That economic rationale doesn't lead to permanent improvement of the condition of the poor. If the poor are used as pawns to increase consumption and credit in pursuit of certain macroeconomic outcomes, that's macroeconomic argument is not necessarily in the best interests of the poor in the long run.
Click to expand...
I disabled signatures but to address your point...

It isn't as though poor people's money just goes into an abyss when they spend it. They trade it for goods and services, which improve their standard of living (unless they're throwing away their money via lottery, Trump University, etc - in which case the money does not drive economic activity).
 
Gaea said:
I disabled signatures but to address your point...

It isn't as though poor people's money just goes into an abyss when they spend it. They trade it for goods and services, which improve their standard of living (unless they're throwing away their money via lottery, Trump University, etc - in which case the money does not drive economic activity).
Click to expand...

Sure the lottery and even Trump university drives the economy. More to the point though, just giving the poor more money does not educate them on how to get ahead in life so, therefore, they will continue on never knowing how to improve their overall lives.
 
Last edited:
Gaea said:
I disabled signatures but to address your point...

It isn't as though poor people's money just goes into an abyss when they spend it. They trade it for goods and services, which improve their standard of living (unless they're throwing away their money via lottery, Trump University, etc - in which case the money does not drive economic activity).
Click to expand...

There are at least a few potential pitfalls to this. One is when the consumption is based in debt (as was the case in the expansion of subprime credit in the 2000s), the increase to living standards is temporary and comes with a long and painful hangover. Another is when the consumption is maintenance-level and leads to a complacent expectation of permanent assistance. A third is when most of the consumption is from very large corporations, in which case that tends not to drive healthy economic activity. It very briefly gets the poor through the day and ends up right back in the hands of the people that minimum wage advocates would rather not get all the money.
 
Critter7r said:
The economy isn't a zero-sum game OVER TIME.

AT ANY GIVEN MOENT, it IS.

The only reason it isn't is because the gov't deficit spends. Without deficit spending, the number of dollars doesn't increase, because even loans made out of thin air by banks has to be repaid by someone taking in dollars from the economy.
Click to expand...

You obviously do not understand how fractional reserve banking works.

Under FRB, the amount of money in an economy just keeps growing - whether the loan is paid back or not.

Canada ran budget surpluses for 13 straight years (if memory serves) and they had an increase in their total money supply during that time.

The notion that you have to run deficits to increase the money supply is a myth.
 
DA60 said:
You obviously do not understand how fractional reserve banking works.

Under FRB, the amount of money in an economy just keeps growing - whether the loan is paid back or not.

Canada ran budget surpluses for 13 straight years (if memory serves) and they had an increase in their total money supply during that time.

The notion that you have to run deficits to increase the money supply is a myth.
Click to expand...

Proof of what I said here:

canada-government-budget.png


canada-money-supply-m2.png


TRADING ECONOMICS | 300.000 INDICATORS FROM 196 COUNTRIES


Once again, the notion that you have to run fiscal deficits to increase the money supply is a myth.
 
Critter7r said:
Right, of course ... because everyone that's overqualified for a MW job has the knowledge, resources and cash available to just start their own business.
Click to expand...

Then we agree.
 
I am still waiting for follow-up studies that are more, long term.

The researchers cautioned, however, that their findings are statistical averages that could mask distinctions among different types of workers. The findings address only the short-run impact of Seattle’s wage hike to $11 an hour and don’t reflect the full range of experiences for thousands of individual workers in the Seattle economy.

Source: Minimum Wage Study: Effects of Seattle wage hike modest, may be overshadowed by strong economy | UW Today
Click to expand...

We know there will be consolidation in the short run; it is the long run increase in the demand that will generate a positive multiplier effect.
 
Moderate Right said:
Funny how the left lauds the Canadian Health Care system but conveniently doesn't talk about the Canadian economic system.
Click to expand...

because, some on the left like to ask why we even have a Capital gains tax preference for the wealthiest, if they don't feel any obligation to provide a Jobs Boom for the rest of us?

why not tax that income at the ordinary rate used for Labor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom