Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Toddsterpatriot]

And apparently it's not feasible to pay them $15/hr either.

According to whom?

Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru.
Based on supply and demand, it does seem feasible.

No it doesn't because taxpayers have to pick up the slack by providing welfare benefits to compensate for the low wage. Basically, for every worker who gets welfare benefits, we are partially subsidizing that cost, which means we are partially subsidizing their profits.

Walmart, for example, pays its workers so little that taxpayers have to fork out about $5B in benefits and entitlements. Walmart's profits last year were about $14B. So US taxpayers subsidize more than 1/3 of Walmart's profits. Talk about the government picking winners and losers!

Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get.
Any business that did that would have a difficult time hiring and retaining skilled workers.

Nonsense. Businesses already do that right now. How many OSHA complaints are there a month to the Department of Labor?

According to whom?

According to the market.

No it doesn't because taxpayers have to pick up the slack by providing welfare benefits to compensate for the low wage.

For every one of the million MW workers?

Basically, for every worker who gets welfare benefits, we are partially subsidizing that cost,

I agree, WalMart is partially subsidizing that welfare cost.


Walmart, for example, pays its workers so little that taxpayers have to fork out about $5B in benefits

HAVE to fork out?
You're right, WalMart should fire every employee on welfare.
How much will the government save in benefits then?

Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages (as)....... those in Third World

Any business that did that would have a difficult time hiring and retaining skilled workers

Businesses already do that right now.

DURR.......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They'd cost less if slackers were removed from the rolls.

Who are the slackers?

danielpalos.......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me know when you pay any tax.

We know that you don't pay any taxes because you don't have a job. And we know that because you project that shit out on everyone else.

danielpalos whines that he should receive unemployment benefits to sit in the basement......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So raising the wages for all minimum wage workers (state and federal minimum wage) will certainly increase wages for everyone else. Because, math.
Cool. Let's make it $100/hr, because math.

Stop trolling and flaming. You and I both know what I'm talking about here. So all you're doing by exercising these kinds of hysterics is to prevent any serious debate from moving forward. I'll just take your flaming as a concession on your part. Wouldn't want your ego to get too bruised, right?

There's that phrase again, "I think..." You're basing that thought on what, exactly?
On the fact that making it illegal for someone to work for less than MW harms unskilled workers who are disproportionally minorities.

But that's not a fact. That is what you "think", which would make it your opinion that isn't informed by any actual evidence. There's nothing that shows raising the MW hurts low-skill workers. In fact, from 2014 we know that raising wages results in faster job growth than not raising wages. That's something you have been unable to reconcile in this thread. So you just do what you always do; substitute your precious feelings in place of actual facts.

Why would businesses raise wages if there was no minimum wage?
Considering that fewer than 1 million workers make the Federal minimum wage, your question is fucking stupid.

I'm not talking about just the federal minimum wage, and I notice how you cut that part out of my post from before in your response. You did that because you are exercising sophistry. You are trying to make this about the federal minimum wage, but I'm talking about the minimum wage. So why are you doing that, knowing that many states have minimum wages above the federal one, yet still below the $14/hr it costs to provide basic assistance and benefits?

Conservatives say time after time that businesses look forward at upcoming tax rates and base their hiring on those.
Oh, they ignore tax rates. DERP!

So which is it, do they or don't they? Or is this just another instance of Conservative goalpost shifting? I think that's the likely answer here.

Well, they didn't expand after Bush cut taxes.
Well, they did. You claimed they didn't. You were wrong. Again.

LOL! The Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001. They were passed in 2001. Businesses forecast based on those tax cuts beginning in 2001, because that's what Conservatives always say they do! Bush lost net 841,000 private sector jobs in his first four years. He would go on to lose net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts. The Bush Tax Cuts did not spur hiring, the Bush Mortgage Bubble did. But you are the one now tying the Bush Tax Cuts to the Bush Mortgage Bubble by misrepresenting the job growth. Was that your intent?

Setting aside that ridiculously ludicrous premise, you are making a correlation-is-causation argument
Like you when you point out that Reagan's tax cuts occurred the month after the 1981 recession began, and blame the former for the latter.

I never blamed the Reagan Tax Cuts for the 1981 recession. I blamed the Reagan Tax Cuts for the job loss that would occur throughout 1982.

Again, why are you saying something that is demonstrably untrue?
Pointing out your correlation=causation fallacy is demonstrably untrue? LOL!

Follow the thread closer. What you tried to say was that raising the minimum wage kills jobs. However, the empirical evidence from 2014 shows the opposite. So either 2014 is a freak outlier, or you're full of shit. Which is it?

No, a higher MW would increase revenues.
And after you subtract wage expenses, profits would be lower.

Not if your revenues are higher. What you have failed to prove is that consumption doesn't increase if wages increase. When a low-wage worker gets paid more money, they spend that money. So you are ignoring the growth in revenues that come from increase consumption which comes from increased wages. So why are you doing that? Why are you ignoring the YUGE piece of the equation? You are assuming revenues stay the same after a wage increase, and that's just not true. So let's figure out why you think that? Why do you personally think raising wages does not translate to increased consumption, yet cutting taxes does???

o explain to me how raising someone's wage won't result in more spending,
When you force an employer to pay a worker worth $7.25/hr,$10/hr, or more, that newly unemployed worker will spend less.

So again, you start off your argument with a flawed premise that has no base of support. Your claim that jobs are lost when the minimum wage is raised is not supported by any empirical evidence, is it? Your personal feelings are not empirical. Job numbers are. And we saw in 2014 that the states that raised their minimum wage had faster job growth than the states that didn't. You also completely avoided the inherent contradiction within your own argument; that somehow reducing taxes increases consumption, yet increases wages doesn't. That's a self-contradiction that pretty much spikes your entire argument from the get-go. So you are arguing a flawed position from a flawed premise that has no actual evidence to support it other than your personal feelings. Such a snowflake!

This is why everything you believe in is a crock of shit...
Liberals who don't understand economics and can't do math often feel that way when reality is explained to them.

You're the one whose governing economic ideology is based on a Hollywood movie about ghostly ballplayers.

There exists a middle ground that makes economic sense between $15/hr and $100/hr.
The correct minimum wage is $0.

Idiot.

I am not an economist.
No fucking kidding.

I don't pretend to be one either, unlike you who does and then just ignores the inherent contradictions in your own argument. So why do you play pretend? Is your ego that fragile that you must posture on internet message boards to feel better about yourself? What a baby!

LOL! The Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001. They were passed in 2001.

And they were fully implemented in 2003

What you tried to say was that raising the minimum wage kills jobs.

Clearly.

Not if your revenues are higher.

A business owner who sees his employee costs rise from $7.25 to $10.00, is going to see a revenue increase that offsets the 38% increase in wage expenses? Show me.

When a low-wage worker gets paid more money, they spend that money.

Are they going to spend any of it at work?

So you are ignoring the growth in revenues that come from increase consumption which comes from increased wages.

No, I'm simply aware that the higher expense is much, much larger than the higher revenues.
Resulting in lower profits.

that somehow reducing taxes increases consumption, yet increases wages doesn't.

The MW workers that don't lose their jobs will definitely increase their consumption.
The ones who lose their jobs and the ones who never get hired will consume less.
The businesses that now have less money will also reduce their consumption in other areas.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So raising the wages for all minimum wage workers (state and federal minimum wage) will certainly increase wages for everyone else. Because, math.
Cool. Let's make it $100/hr, because math.

Stop trolling and flaming. You and I both know what I'm talking about here. So all you're doing by exercising these kinds of hysterics is to prevent any serious debate from moving forward. I'll just take your flaming as a concession on your part. Wouldn't want your ego to get too bruised, right?

There's that phrase again, "I think..." You're basing that thought on what, exactly?
On the fact that making it illegal for someone to work for less than MW harms unskilled workers who are disproportionally minorities.

But that's not a fact. That is what you "think", which would make it your opinion that isn't informed by any actual evidence. There's nothing that shows raising the MW hurts low-skill workers. In fact, from 2014 we know that raising wages results in faster job growth than not raising wages. That's something you have been unable to reconcile in this thread. So you just do what you always do; substitute your precious feelings in place of actual facts.

Why would businesses raise wages if there was no minimum wage?
Considering that fewer than 1 million workers make the Federal minimum wage, your question is fucking stupid.

I'm not talking about just the federal minimum wage, and I notice how you cut that part out of my post from before in your response. You did that because you are exercising sophistry. You are trying to make this about the federal minimum wage, but I'm talking about the minimum wage. So why are you doing that, knowing that many states have minimum wages above the federal one, yet still below the $14/hr it costs to provide basic assistance and benefits?

Conservatives say time after time that businesses look forward at upcoming tax rates and base their hiring on those.
Oh, they ignore tax rates. DERP!

So which is it, do they or don't they? Or is this just another instance of Conservative goalpost shifting? I think that's the likely answer here.

Well, they didn't expand after Bush cut taxes.
Well, they did. You claimed they didn't. You were wrong. Again.

LOL! The Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001. They were passed in 2001. Businesses forecast based on those tax cuts beginning in 2001, because that's what Conservatives always say they do! Bush lost net 841,000 private sector jobs in his first four years. He would go on to lose net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts. The Bush Tax Cuts did not spur hiring, the Bush Mortgage Bubble did. But you are the one now tying the Bush Tax Cuts to the Bush Mortgage Bubble by misrepresenting the job growth. Was that your intent?

Setting aside that ridiculously ludicrous premise, you are making a correlation-is-causation argument
Like you when you point out that Reagan's tax cuts occurred the month after the 1981 recession began, and blame the former for the latter.

I never blamed the Reagan Tax Cuts for the 1981 recession. I blamed the Reagan Tax Cuts for the job loss that would occur throughout 1982.

Again, why are you saying something that is demonstrably untrue?
Pointing out your correlation=causation fallacy is demonstrably untrue? LOL!

Follow the thread closer. What you tried to say was that raising the minimum wage kills jobs. However, the empirical evidence from 2014 shows the opposite. So either 2014 is a freak outlier, or you're full of shit. Which is it?

No, a higher MW would increase revenues.
And after you subtract wage expenses, profits would be lower.

Not if your revenues are higher. What you have failed to prove is that consumption doesn't increase if wages increase. When a low-wage worker gets paid more money, they spend that money. So you are ignoring the growth in revenues that come from increase consumption which comes from increased wages. So why are you doing that? Why are you ignoring the YUGE piece of the equation? You are assuming revenues stay the same after a wage increase, and that's just not true. So let's figure out why you think that? Why do you personally think raising wages does not translate to increased consumption, yet cutting taxes does???

o explain to me how raising someone's wage won't result in more spending,
When you force an employer to pay a worker worth $7.25/hr,$10/hr, or more, that newly unemployed worker will spend less.

So again, you start off your argument with a flawed premise that has no base of support. Your claim that jobs are lost when the minimum wage is raised is not supported by any empirical evidence, is it? Your personal feelings are not empirical. Job numbers are. And we saw in 2014 that the states that raised their minimum wage had faster job growth than the states that didn't. You also completely avoided the inherent contradiction within your own argument; that somehow reducing taxes increases consumption, yet increases wages doesn't. That's a self-contradiction that pretty much spikes your entire argument from the get-go. So you are arguing a flawed position from a flawed premise that has no actual evidence to support it other than your personal feelings. Such a snowflake!

This is why everything you believe in is a crock of shit...
Liberals who don't understand economics and can't do math often feel that way when reality is explained to them.

You're the one whose governing economic ideology is based on a Hollywood movie about ghostly ballplayers.

There exists a middle ground that makes economic sense between $15/hr and $100/hr.
The correct minimum wage is $0.

Idiot.

I am not an economist.
No fucking kidding.

I don't pretend to be one either, unlike you who does and then just ignores the inherent contradictions in your own argument. So why do you play pretend? Is your ego that fragile that you must posture on internet message boards to feel better about yourself? What a baby!

But that's not a fact.

It is a fact, the government has made it illegal for an unskilled worker to sell his labor for $5/hr.

 

[The Derp]

When it comes to economics, I respect a total of two people on this board, Toro and Toddsterpatriot . To call Todd a troll is patently absurd.I grew bored with you long ago, he is more patient than I.

Wondering why you felt the need to respond to a post of which you weren't a part? Seems like you only did so in order to preserve the fragile ego you have here. That you simply cannot stand someone showing you up and making your argument fall apart on its face. The debate was with regard to the minimum wage. You all claim, with no evidence to support your position, that raising the minimum wage somehow hurts low wage workers. No data to support that. No evidence to back that claim up. Nothing other than the flawed theory on which that claim is based. There does exist plenty of evidence, however, showing that when the minimum wage is raised, job growth speeds up. We know this because we saw it happen just three years ago when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages and saw job growth outpace the states that didn't.

So either 2014 is an outlier (and a pretty massive one at that since the sample size was 13 states + DC that amount to 30% of the total US population), or you guys are full of shit.

So which is it?

 

[The Derp]

But that's not a fact.
It is a fact, the government has made it illegal for an unskilled worker to sell his labor for $5/hr.

No, it's not a fact. You keep representing what you say is fact, but it's not at all. You claimed that it was a fact that raising wages kills jobs. That claim is demonstrably false, as evidenced in the jobs numbers from 2014 showing the 13 states that raised their MW had faster job growth than the 37 that didn't. Now you're trying to redefine the parameters of what you were talking about, and I'm not going to let you.

Your claim: "On the fact that making it illegal for someone to work for less than MW harms unskilled workers who are disproportionally minorities."

You have no evidence to support that. However, there is plenty of evidence showing that when the minimum wage is raised, job growth speeds up. And we know this because 13 states did that in 2014. You all said, at the time, that it would do exactly what you said above. It didn't. So either 2014 was an outlier of extreme proportions, or you're full of shit.

Which is it?

 

[The Derp]

LOL! The Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001. They were passed in 2001.
And they were fully implemented in 2003

But you all say that businesses determine their expansions based on forward-looking at the tax rates. Now you're saying that isn't the case, which pretty much undermines your entire taxation argument. And further to that, 2003 was when Bush started deregulating the mortgage industry, and you yourself even said the growth was people fixing up their homes, or buying new ones with their tax cut money. Of course, we know that's bullshit since household debt doubled during Bush the Dumber. And furthermore, if you are trying to credit the tax cuts to employment growth -employment growth a result of the housing market- then you are tying tax cuts to the mortgage bubble. Sooooo....that leaves you with a big, fat economic collapse to reconcile. You can't claim the tax cuts created jobs (they didn't, Bush lost 841,000 private sector jobs in his first four years), unless you credit the housing market to the tax cuts. Since that's what spurred job growth beginning in late 2003. So is that what you're now saying? That the Bush Tax Cuts caused the housing bubble? You wouldn't be the first to tie the two together. Bush did so himself while campaigning in 2004.

What you tried to say was that raising the minimum wage kills jobs.
Clearly.

Of which there is no evidence to support you, whereas there exists empirical evidence that contradicts you (the 2014 job growth in the states that raised their MW). So all you did was spread bullshit on the boards.

Not if your revenues are higher.
A business owner who sees his employee costs rise from $7.25 to $10.00, is going to see a revenue increase that offsets the 38% increase in wage expenses? Show me.

Sure! If they run an effective business and can satisfy the demand in the consumer market. If not, then they're probably not very good at running a business and shouldn't anyway. If people have more money to spend because they are paid more, then what does that mean for revenues?

When a low-wage worker gets paid more money, they spend that money.
Are they going to spend any of it at work?

Depends where they work. So now you're at least conceding the point that if people are paid more, they spend more. Putting more in the hands of consumers most likely to spend that which they get increases consumer demand, which increases revenues. Anyone who has ever run a business knows this. So what's your excuse?

So you are ignoring the growth in revenues that come from increase consumption which comes from increased wages.
No, I'm simply aware that the higher expense is much, much larger than the higher revenues.

But you cannot make that claim because you, yourself admit you don't know. So why are you making a claim you know you cannot support? Raising the minimum wage resulted in faster job growth (indicating more consumer demand) just three years ago. So if you were wrong then, why would you be right now?

that somehow reducing taxes increases consumption, yet increases wages doesn't.
The MW workers that don't lose their jobs will definitely increase their consumption.

Why would anyone lose their job? They didn't when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages 3 years ago. So was 2014 an outlier, or are you just full of shit? The empirical evidence from 2014 would indicate that you're full of shit. 13 states that represented about 30% of the total population. So you can't even argue the sample size was too small to draw a conclusion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

When it comes to economics, I respect a total of two people on this board, Toro and Toddsterpatriot . To call Todd a troll is patently absurd.I grew bored with you long ago, he is more patient than I.

Wondering why you felt the need to respond to a post of which you weren't a part? Seems like you only did so in order to preserve the fragile ego you have here. That you simply cannot stand someone showing you up and making your argument fall apart on its face. The debate was with regard to the minimum wage. You all claim, with no evidence to support your position, that raising the minimum wage somehow hurts low wage workers. No data to support that. No evidence to back that claim up. Nothing other than the flawed theory on which that claim is based. There does exist plenty of evidence, however, showing that when the minimum wage is raised, job growth speeds up. We know this because we saw it happen just three years ago when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages and saw job growth outpace the states that didn't.

So either 2014 is an outlier (and a pretty massive one at that since the sample size was 13 states + DC that amount to 30% of the total US population), or you guys are full of shit.

So which is it?

I responded due to your absurd attack on someone clearly your superior in knowledge..

I've not seen you show anyone up.

2014 is neither an outlier nor an indication to raising the wage of a minuscule percent of the population has a positive impact on employment. Employment improved in 2014 simply because we were finally emerging from the 2007 recession.

If you are claiming that 30% of the population earns minimum wage, you are mistaken.

 

[The Derp]

According to whom?
According to the market.

But it's not according to the market because the taxpayers are subsidizing part of those low wages through welfare and entitlement programs. Walmart, for example, costs taxpayers about $5B a year to provide benefits to their workers because Walmart doesn't pay them enough. Last year, Walmart made about $14B in profit. So the taxpayers subsidized more than 1/3 of Walmart's profits in order to make sure their workers receive a living wage by combining the wage they get from Walmart with the benefits they get from the government. If Walmart raised its worker pay by $5B collectively, US taxpayers would be spending $5B less on welfare benefits.

So wages are being kept artificially low by subsidizing corporate profits...as much as 33% in some cases (Walmart). The question is; why do you think the market has set the true value of wages as low as it is? Because the market knows that the taxpayers will be there to pick up the slack. So there are only two solutions to this problem; do away with all welfare benefits (but the consequence of that is increased poverty and starvation) or raise wages. You don't seem to know what you want...preferring instead to just perpetuate the current problem in order to complain about it. Which would make your posts masturbatory.

ANo it doesn't because taxpayers have to pick up the slack by providing welfare benefits to compensate for the low wage.
For every one of the million MW workers?

So I am wondering why you keep staying with the federal minimum wage and not all minimum wages. You know, of course, that the minimum wage varies by state. So why are you trying to misrepresent minimum wage workers by excluding all those who have higher state minimum wages than the federal one? I'll save you the time; you do that because it's the only way your stupid argument makes sense...by omitting and ignoring all the facts that undermine it. Which would technically make you an ignoramus.

Basically, for every worker who gets welfare benefits, we are partially subsidizing that cost,
I agree, WalMart is partially subsidizing that welfare cost.

No, no...we are subsidizing Walmart's profits. Walmart isn't paying shit.

Walmart, for example, pays its workers so little that taxpayers have to fork out about $5B in benefits
HAVE to fork out?
You're right, WalMart should fire every employee on welfare.
How much will the government save in benefits then?

So this is how you justify subsidizing more than 1/3 of Walmart's profits? It's clear you have no thoughtful argument to make based on that pathetic response above.

Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages (as)....... those in Third World
Any business that did that would have a difficult time hiring and retaining skilled workers

Except that they don't because the current labor market favors employers, not workers.

 

[The Derp]

I responded due to your absurd attack on someone clearly your superior in knowledge..

13 states + DC raised their minimum wage in 2014, and those states saw faster job growth than the states that didn't. So either that means 2014 is a pretty big exception to your rule, or your rule is full of shit.

So which is it?

2014 is neither an outlier nor an indication to raising the wage of a minuscule percent of the population has a positive impact on employment.

The 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014 represent about 30% of the total US population. So no, you're wrong as usual. It's not a minuscule percentage. Since when is 30% minuscule?????? Oh right, since you say so. LOL. What a tool.

 

[The Derp]

If you are claiming that 30% of the population earns minimum wage, you are mistaken.

I didn't say that...what I said was that those 13 states represent 30% of the total US population. So the minimum wage raises in those states greatly impacted job growth.

The flipside is that you all claim raising the MW kills jobs. The empirical data from 2014 shows that's not the case. Which means your claim is bullshit.

 

[The Derp]

View attachment 130148

So, as usual, you fail to provide context for those numbers. It's obvious why; placing those wages within the context of inflation would show that they haven't grown. So why do you do things like that? What's with that pathology and sophistry?

 

[The Derp]

Employment improved in 2014 simply because we were finally emerging from the 2007 recession.

So it's just a coincidence that the 13 states that raised their MW in 2014 just happened to have faster job growth than the 37 who didn't? You expect me to accept that conclusion? That it was just a coincidence? Get outta here, loser.

 

[The Derp]

2014 is neither an outlier nor an indication to raising the wage of a minuscule percent of the population has a positive impact on employment.

Then let's raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hr and see what happens. Since raising wages in 2014 didn't lead to the job loss you all predicted, why would raising it to $15/hr nationally be any different?

Basically, since you were wrong in 2014, why would you be right today? I don't feel like that's an unfair question to ask.

 

[danielpalos]

[
Supply side economics, is about, "overwhelming supply". There is simply, not enough demand.

Solving simple poverty, would ensure capital circulates in our Republic and engender positive multiplier effects.

For some on the left, it seems, "the poor only get around three fifths", "open interest" on "demand" options.

Again stoner boi, you have not a hint of a clue as to how supply side economics works, nor indeed how Keynesian theory works. You have a sum total of zero knowledge on the subject under discussion.

Supply side economics as proposed by the brilliant economist Dr. Arthur Laffer holds quite simply that production is the single most important factor in economics. (Hence why I earned a Ph.D. in Supply Chain Management to augment my credentials rather than pursuing traditional economics.) The key to macroeconomics is equilibrium. This is the point that demand and supply intersect, which by necessity is the most efficient use of resources.

Now you have never had an economics course, nor did you finish high school, but a universal truth is that scarcity drives all economic systems. To put it in a way you can understand, you as a dope dealer have had times where you couldn't get any pot to sell, supplies were short. What did that do to you dope dealing business? Did demand create a new supply of dope? On the other hand, if you get a shipment of 30 pounds in and can only sell a few ounces a week, you have a lot of capital tied up in weed that isn't moving - which you will end up smoking rather than selling.

So the goal in macroeconomics is to match the supply of goods with the demand.

Now when demand increases, two things can happen, either prices increase to contain the scarcity of the goods, or supply increases to meet the demand. Supply side economics recognizes the fact that only an increase in production can result in an increase in supply. Demand will never, and cannot increase the supply of anything, only production can do this. Hence supply side theory is axiomatically true. No amount of Keynesian stimulus to the public will alter supply in any way. Demand does not increase supply, only production increases supply. In a capitalist society, industrialists will generally monitor demand and increase production if possible, but it is not demand that creates supply, demand only creates opportunity for production. Production alone creates supply. Only the pot growers planting more Marijuana increase the amount of dope you can sell. Your stoner buddies cannot change the amount of weed on the market.

China, though a socialist country is a great example of supply side theory in action. During the heyday of Mao, about a third of the population was technically starving, lacking the food needed to maintain normal health. Mao as you know, ran a purely demand driven economy. The state accounted for demand and allocated production to what they viewed as goods needing supply. 90% of China was in abject poverty

After Nixon opened China, American companies began engaging in production in China. This production transformed the dictatorship to the point that starvation has been entirely eradicated and poverty is under 20%. It was production that changed the dynamic, Demand was irrelevant, the goods produced were not even offered to Chinese consumers. Production created jobs, jobs provided income.

Supply side is about the role of production, not about "trickle down."

The left has dishonestly used the term trickle down due to the supply side remedy to the business cycle. Under Keynesian economics, the response of monetary policy during economic down turns is to create fiat currency and large deficits to pump cash into the economy as a means of "priming the pump." Under the General Theory, Keynes advocated for this stimulus to go directly to individuals, the Roosevelt WPA is prime example, people were employed and paid by the government to build roads and bridges, money went directly to citizens.

Now the Porkulus of Obama is quite different, the trillions of dollars he spent went to public employee unions, auto manufacturers, and other well connected looters, so his fiasco cannot be viewed as a Keynesian stimulus.

Supply side holds that the most effective way to end a recession is to stimulate production, since it is not demand that falters, but supply in a recession. (The poor still want a loaf of bread, they simply cannot afford it due rising prices). To stimulate production, the most direct route is to reduce the amount of capital that the government confiscates from business. This is accomplished by lowering taxes.

One of the lies of the left is that lowering taxes has a unique impact on the public treasury; both a stimulus AND tax breaks have an impact. To claim that only lowering taxes has such and impact is highly dishonest.

Anyway, I doubt you've read this much, I doubt you have the intellect or education requisite to grasp what I have written, but this is supply side economics.

A god supplies morals; where is the demand for more laws that primarily affect the poor.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014 represent about 30% of the total US population.

So you are claiming every person in those 13 states and DC works for minimum wage?

So no, you're wrong as usual. It's not a minuscule percentage. Since when is 30% minuscule?????? Oh right, since you say so. LOL. What a tool.

First off, you are dishonest, California did not raise the MW in 2014, they raised in in 2006, with graduated bumps one of which took effect in 2014.

Secondly, the percentage of men making minimum wage who are 25 or older is 0.7%, for women it is 1.1%

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/mi...racteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf

The population affected by changes is less than 2%, in fact using your 30% total population yields .018*.3 or 0.54% of the national population. Yet you claim this is significant.

I stopped conversing with you because you are a hack with an agenda who has no particular respect for facts.

Here is information you will ignore, since you are an ideologue who seeks only to promote the leftist agenda, regardless of facts.

{The minimum wage is not a “protection,” as progressives often style it. It doesn’t confer a “right” to be paid any amount of money, because nobody has an obligation to hire you. The minimum wage only says that it’s illegal to work for less than x, no matter how badly you need that job. To the extent the minimum wage is set above where the market clears on a given wage category, businesses will typically respond with some combination of raising wages, cutting hours, and laying people off. And, to the extent they respond by raising wages, the higher labor costs are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Many of the affected labor categories are in industries — such as supermarkets and food service — that provide necessaries to poor and rich alike, so the social costs are grossly regressive. If you want to see just how unfair the minimum wage is to poor people, consider the fact that those born into privilege enjoy a huge exemption from it — they can be interns in the profession of their choice. Recent college graduates can walk into the job of their dreams with no experience by offering their services for free as interns. This allows them to “get their foot in the door,” acquire valuable skills, and prove to their hoped-for employer that they’re worth hiring. Now imagine a recent immigrant asking for an “internship” at the local supermarket. Even if the supermarket is willing to open that door, the federal government slams it shut.

Read more at: How the Minimum Wage Hurts Poor People}

 

[Uncensored2008]

Employment improved in 2014 simply because we were finally emerging from the 2007 recession.

So it's just a coincidence that the 13 states that raised their MW in 2014 just happened to have faster job growth than the 37 who didn't? You expect me to accept that conclusion? That it was just a coincidence? Get outta here, loser.

Your claim (or rather the claim of the Soros hate sites that do your thinking for you) is false. Most of these states had raised their MW ages before 2014. I assure you that ThinkProgress (or whatever) included California in their 13 states, yet California passed their MW bill all the way back in 2006, with graduated increases phased in through 2016.

http://www.csgwest.org/annualmeeting/documents/MinimumWage-MarkMcKenzie.pdf

So again I point out you are being patently dishonest.

Further, despite the claims of the Soros hate sites you echo, the Seattle mess had a devastating effect on those who did earn the minimum.

Seattle's $15 Minimum Wage: Jobs Down, Unemployment Up. This Isn't Working, Is It?

Todd is far more patient than I. Once the opposition starts in with the usual lies, I generally pay little attention.

 

[Uncensored2008]

2014 is neither an outlier nor an indication to raising the wage of a minuscule percent of the population has a positive impact on employment.

Then let's raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hr and see what happens. Since raising wages in 2014 didn't lead to the job loss you all predicted, why would raising it to $15/hr nationally be any different?

Basically, since you were wrong in 2014, why would you be right today? I don't feel like that's an unfair question to ask.

Let's raise it to $500 an hour and make everyone rich.

You progressives have it all figured out.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Supply side economics, is about, "overwhelming supply". There is simply, not enough demand.

Solving simple poverty, would ensure capital circulates in our Republic and engender positive multiplier effects.

For some on the left, it seems, "the poor only get around three fifths", "open interest" on "demand" options.

Again stoner boi, you have not a hint of a clue as to how supply side economics works, nor indeed how Keynesian theory works. You have a sum total of zero knowledge on the subject under discussion.

Supply side economics as proposed by the brilliant economist Dr. Arthur Laffer holds quite simply that production is the single most important factor in economics. (Hence why I earned a Ph.D. in Supply Chain Management to augment my credentials rather than pursuing traditional economics.) The key to macroeconomics is equilibrium. This is the point that demand and supply intersect, which by necessity is the most efficient use of resources.

Now you have never had an economics course, nor did you finish high school, but a universal truth is that scarcity drives all economic systems. To put it in a way you can understand, you as a dope dealer have had times where you couldn't get any pot to sell, supplies were short. What did that do to you dope dealing business? Did demand create a new supply of dope? On the other hand, if you get a shipment of 30 pounds in and can only sell a few ounces a week, you have a lot of capital tied up in weed that isn't moving - which you will end up smoking rather than selling.

So the goal in macroeconomics is to match the supply of goods with the demand.

Now when demand increases, two things can happen, either prices increase to contain the scarcity of the goods, or supply increases to meet the demand. Supply side economics recognizes the fact that only an increase in production can result in an increase in supply. Demand will never, and cannot increase the supply of anything, only production can do this. Hence supply side theory is axiomatically true. No amount of Keynesian stimulus to the public will alter supply in any way. Demand does not increase supply, only production increases supply. In a capitalist society, industrialists will generally monitor demand and increase production if possible, but it is not demand that creates supply, demand only creates opportunity for production. Production alone creates supply. Only the pot growers planting more Marijuana increase the amount of dope you can sell. Your stoner buddies cannot change the amount of weed on the market.

China, though a socialist country is a great example of supply side theory in action. During the heyday of Mao, about a third of the population was technically starving, lacking the food needed to maintain normal health. Mao as you know, ran a purely demand driven economy. The state accounted for demand and allocated production to what they viewed as goods needing supply. 90% of China was in abject poverty

After Nixon opened China, American companies began engaging in production in China. This production transformed the dictatorship to the point that starvation has been entirely eradicated and poverty is under 20%. It was production that changed the dynamic, Demand was irrelevant, the goods produced were not even offered to Chinese consumers. Production created jobs, jobs provided income.

Supply side is about the role of production, not about "trickle down."

The left has dishonestly used the term trickle down due to the supply side remedy to the business cycle. Under Keynesian economics, the response of monetary policy during economic down turns is to create fiat currency and large deficits to pump cash into the economy as a means of "priming the pump." Under the General Theory, Keynes advocated for this stimulus to go directly to individuals, the Roosevelt WPA is prime example, people were employed and paid by the government to build roads and bridges, money went directly to citizens.

Now the Porkulus of Obama is quite different, the trillions of dollars he spent went to public employee unions, auto manufacturers, and other well connected looters, so his fiasco cannot be viewed as a Keynesian stimulus.

Supply side holds that the most effective way to end a recession is to stimulate production, since it is not demand that falters, but supply in a recession. (The poor still want a loaf of bread, they simply cannot afford it due rising prices). To stimulate production, the most direct route is to reduce the amount of capital that the government confiscates from business. This is accomplished by lowering taxes.

One of the lies of the left is that lowering taxes has a unique impact on the public treasury; both a stimulus AND tax breaks have an impact. To claim that only lowering taxes has such and impact is highly dishonest.

Anyway, I doubt you've read this much, I doubt you have the intellect or education requisite to grasp what I have written, but this is supply side economics.

A god supplies morals; where is the demand for more laws that primarily affect the poor.

As I said.

I doubt you've read this much, I doubt you have the intellect or education requisite to grasp what I have written, but this is supply side economics.