Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How Keynesians Lose Credibility on the MW

ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 4:44:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Disclaimer: I identify as a New Keynesian. I have argued extensively that price and wage rigidity explains *most* short-run output fluctuations. I'm obviously not excoriating *all* Keynesians. John Maynard Keynes himself would oppose minimum-wage legislation in favor of low-wage subsidies, such as the EITC. I'm targeting people who fundamentally misunderstood and actively contradict their own narrative.

Another Disclaimer: I know how to source spam. I can spam the hell out of this thread and explain to you in great depth how and why the minimum wage is destructive and why, empirically, the push for $15 an hour is ridiculous. But I'm not going to do that: this is all theory, and I would love to see someone justify the MW on New Keynesian grounds.

The New Keynesian story on unemployment is pretty simple: when total-dollar spending (NGDP) lags in the short run, unemployment rises because prices and wages are sticky downward. That's why papers on this, like Greg Mankiw's seminal research from the 1990s, suggests that monetary policy ought to commit to targeting the "stickiest price," which in most cases is the price of labor (i.e., targeting some measure of wage inflation).

Now, if wage stickiness begets unemployment, you'd think the narrative, ideally, would be to reduce wage stickiness--said otherwise, improve labor-market flexibility--and *not* to actively increase it, and significantly so via a whopping doubling of the minimum wage, the stickiest wage of all. There's a reason we see that stupid EPI graph--no, not the "wage stagnation" graph, though that's bullsh1t, too--showing that the "real value" of the MW has declined since its 1968 peak: the bloody wage is sticky. Indeed, most people make more than the MW, and the law now applies to a wider variety of industries than it once did, so cool the social-justice arguments for just a moment (and, of course, the graph probably normalizes by the faulty CPI, mismeasures productivity, doesn't account for compensation, ignores the EITC, etc.).

But the point stands: the MW is very, very, very sticky. It's designed to be sticky because the intention is to arbitrarily set a floor for wages. Irrespective of whether this argument is well-intentioned, it has one crucial flaw: markets cannot clear. In other words, the inherent self-correcting mechanism--which, I acknowledge, takes a long bloody time to work its way through the economy (because of wage stickiness, if I haven't hammered that enough)--dissipates. That's why the Fed has to go gangbusters with QE et al.: because Congress fcked up and made wages stickier.

Granted, there will always be demand shocks and a need to respond aggressively to keep total-dollar spending on track. But more flexible labor markets mollify that need and lessen the pain. Policies to ameliorate demand shocks take a long time--about 1-2 years for monetary policy, and 6 months for fiscal policy--to impact employment: people are going to suffer. On the flip side, if labor markets were more flexible, wages could adjust downward (because note: if inflation slows, real wages *rise*, making real wages during normal times countercyclical) and serve as a buffer for the blow to employment. Low-wage subsidies -- and, eventually, wage increases, because productivity would tend to rise as well without a MW to price people out of the job market -- would shield the blow to "inequality," though that's often an overblown and poorly measured issue in itself.

So, wages and prices are sticky; demand shocks matter. The MW only undermines the case for activist fiscal and monetary policy.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 6:46:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 4:44:39 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Disclaimer: I identify as a New Keynesian. I have argued extensively that price and wage rigidity explains *most* short-run output fluctuations. I'm obviously not excoriating *all* Keynesians. John Maynard Keynes himself would oppose minimum-wage legislation in favor of low-wage subsidies, such as the EITC. I'm targeting people who fundamentally misunderstood and actively contradict their own narrative.

Another Disclaimer: I know how to source spam. I can spam the hell out of this thread and explain to you in great depth how and why the minimum wage is destructive and why, empirically, the push for $15 an hour is ridiculous. But I'm not going to do that: this is all theory, and I would love to see someone justify the MW on New Keynesian grounds.

The New Keynesian story on unemployment is pretty simple: when total-dollar spending (NGDP) lags in the short run, unemployment rises because prices and wages are sticky downward. That's why papers on this, like Greg Mankiw's seminal research from the 1990s, suggests that monetary policy ought to commit to targeting the "stickiest price," which in most cases is the price of labor (i.e., targeting some measure of wage inflation).

Now, if wage stickiness begets unemployment, you'd think the narrative, ideally, would be to reduce wage stickiness--said otherwise, improve labor-market flexibility--and *not* to actively increase it, and significantly so via a whopping doubling of the minimum wage, the stickiest wage of all. There's a reason we see that stupid EPI graph--no, not the "wage stagnation" graph, though that's bullsh1t, too--showing that the "real value" of the MW has declined since its 1968 peak: the bloody wage is sticky. Indeed, most people make more than the MW, and the law now applies to a wider variety of industries than it once did, so cool the social-justice arguments for just a moment (and, of course, the graph probably normalizes by the faulty CPI, mismeasures productivity, doesn't account for compensation, ignores the EITC, etc.).


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

But the point stands: the MW is very, very, very sticky. It's designed to be sticky because the intention is to arbitrarily set a floor for wages. Irrespective of whether this argument is well-intentioned, it has one crucial flaw: markets cannot clear. In other words, the inherent self-correcting mechanism--which, I acknowledge, takes a long bloody time to work its way through the economy (because of wage stickiness, if I haven't hammered that enough)--dissipates. That's why the Fed has to go gangbusters with QE et al.: because Congress fcked up and made wages stickier.

Granted, there will always be demand shocks and a need to respond aggressively to keep total-dollar spending on track. But more flexible labor markets mollify that need and lessen the pain. Policies to ameliorate demand shocks take a long time--about 1-2 years for monetary policy, and 6 months for fiscal policy--to impact employment: people are going to suffer. On the flip side, if labor markets were more flexible, wages could adjust downward (because note: if inflation slows, real wages *rise*, making real wages during normal times countercyclical) and serve as a buffer for the blow to employment. Low-wage subsidies -- and, eventually, wage increases, because productivity would tend to rise as well without a MW to price people out of the job market -- would shield the blow to "inequality," though that's often an overblown and poorly measured issue in itself.

So, wages and prices are sticky; demand shocks matter. The MW only undermines the case for activist fiscal and monetary policy.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 6:49:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 6:46:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

I'm going to have to tl;dr it at the moment, though it looks to be making a lot of the same arguments I have -- e.g., income + EITC is the only real way to measure income -- and it's from David Neumark. Last I checked, he's on my side :P.

Now, if you found a piece from David Card or Alan Krueger -- or, worse, Paul Krugman or Michael Reich (because I refuse to acknowledge the unrelated "Robert" as an economist, because he isn't) -- I'd take pride in ripping it to pieces. I'd have an exceptional impetus to go after Krueger after his silly work on long-term unemployment.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 6:53:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 6:49:21 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:46:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

I'm going to have to tl;dr it at the moment, though it looks to be making a lot of the same arguments I have -- e.g., income + EITC is the only real way to measure income -- and it's from David Neumark. Last I checked, he's on my side :P.

Just look at the graphs :P


Now, if you found a piece from David Card or Alan Krueger -- or, worse, Paul Krugman or Michael Reich (because I refuse to acknowledge the unrelated "Robert" as an economist, because he isn't) -- I'd take pride in ripping it to pieces. I'd have an exceptional impetus to go after Krueger after his silly work on long-term unemployment.

lololol. MW extremist!
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 6:58:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 6:53:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:49:21 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:46:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

I'm going to have to tl;dr it at the moment, though it looks to be making a lot of the same arguments I have -- e.g., income + EITC is the only real way to measure income -- and it's from David Neumark. Last I checked, he's on my side :P.

Just look at the graphs :P

As soon as I get through Stanley Fischer's speech on inflation, lollol. I've been binge-reading this crap all morning, and I even had to correct this horrid WSJ article that misstated these inflation numbers .


Now, if you found a piece from David Card or Alan Krueger -- or, worse, Paul Krugman or Michael Reich (because I refuse to acknowledge the unrelated "Robert" as an economist, because he isn't) -- I'd take pride in ripping it to pieces. I'd have an exceptional impetus to go after Krueger after his silly work on long-term unemployment.

lololol. MW extremist!

Oh, but of course!
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 7:42:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 6:58:10 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:53:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:49:21 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:46:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

I'm going to have to tl;dr it at the moment, though it looks to be making a lot of the same arguments I have -- e.g., income + EITC is the only real way to measure income -- and it's from David Neumark. Last I checked, he's on my side :P.

Just look at the graphs :P

As soon as I get through Stanley Fischer's speech on inflation, lollol. I've been binge-reading this crap all morning, and I even had to correct this horrid WSJ article that misstated these inflation numbers .

addict



Now, if you found a piece from David Card or Alan Krueger -- or, worse, Paul Krugman or Michael Reich (because I refuse to acknowledge the unrelated "Robert" as an economist, because he isn't) -- I'd take pride in ripping it to pieces. I'd have an exceptional impetus to go after Krueger after his silly work on long-term unemployment.

lololol. MW extremist!

Oh, but of course!

Aren't we all?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 7:47:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 7:42:07 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:58:10 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:53:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:49:21 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:46:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

I'm going to have to tl;dr it at the moment, though it looks to be making a lot of the same arguments I have -- e.g., income + EITC is the only real way to measure income -- and it's from David Neumark. Last I checked, he's on my side :P.

Just look at the graphs :P

As soon as I get through Stanley Fischer's speech on inflation, lollol. I've been binge-reading this crap all morning, and I even had to correct this horrid WSJ article that misstated these inflation numbers .

addict

Totally.



Now, if you found a piece from David Card or Alan Krueger -- or, worse, Paul Krugman or Michael Reich (because I refuse to acknowledge the unrelated "Robert" as an economist, because he isn't) -- I'd take pride in ripping it to pieces. I'd have an exceptional impetus to go after Krueger after his silly work on long-term unemployment.

lololol. MW extremist!

Oh, but of course!

Aren't we all?

Naw. I had a discussion with someone yesterday who's philosophy was "ban, ban, ban" everything, because corporations are inherently devious.

Hell, even during my cancerous lib days, I was't that cycnical, lol.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 7:49:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 7:47:25 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 7:42:07 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:58:10 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:53:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:49:21 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:46:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

I'm going to have to tl;dr it at the moment, though it looks to be making a lot of the same arguments I have -- e.g., income + EITC is the only real way to measure income -- and it's from David Neumark. Last I checked, he's on my side :P.

Just look at the graphs :P

As soon as I get through Stanley Fischer's speech on inflation, lollol. I've been binge-reading this crap all morning, and I even had to correct this horrid WSJ article that misstated these inflation numbers .

addict

Totally.



Now, if you found a piece from David Card or Alan Krueger -- or, worse, Paul Krugman or Michael Reich (because I refuse to acknowledge the unrelated "Robert" as an economist, because he isn't) -- I'd take pride in ripping it to pieces. I'd have an exceptional impetus to go after Krueger after his silly work on long-term unemployment.

lololol. MW extremist!

Oh, but of course!

Aren't we all?

Naw. I had a discussion with someone yesterday who's philosophy was "ban, ban, ban" everything, because corporations are inherently devious.

Hell, even during my cancerous lib days, I was't that cycnical, lol.

You may have not been cynical, but the economy was sure cyclical :D
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 7:50:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 7:49:06 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/29/2015 7:47:25 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 7:42:07 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:58:10 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:53:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:49:21 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:46:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

I'm going to have to tl;dr it at the moment, though it looks to be making a lot of the same arguments I have -- e.g., income + EITC is the only real way to measure income -- and it's from David Neumark. Last I checked, he's on my side :P.

Just look at the graphs :P

As soon as I get through Stanley Fischer's speech on inflation, lollol. I've been binge-reading this crap all morning, and I even had to correct this horrid WSJ article that misstated these inflation numbers .

addict

Totally.



Now, if you found a piece from David Card or Alan Krueger -- or, worse, Paul Krugman or Michael Reich (because I refuse to acknowledge the unrelated "Robert" as an economist, because he isn't) -- I'd take pride in ripping it to pieces. I'd have an exceptional impetus to go after Krueger after his silly work on long-term unemployment.

lololol. MW extremist!

Oh, but of course!

Aren't we all?

Naw. I had a discussion with someone yesterday who's philosophy was "ban, ban, ban" everything, because corporations are inherently devious.

Hell, even during my cancerous lib days, I was't that cycnical, lol.

You may have not been cynical, but the economy was sure cyclical :D

Lol.

Clever, clever....

What's funny is, I'm probably a lot more "unemployment is structural, labor slack is dissipating" than I was a while ago. People who argue the "real" unemployment rate are upwards of 10 percent -- or, worse, 40 percent if you're Trump -- are unbelievably misinformed and naive.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Varrack
Posts: 2,411
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 8:34:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 6:46:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

What do you think of this graph? http://www.cepr.net... according to this, the MW should be way higher in order to match productivity.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 9:53:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 8:34:51 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 8/29/2015 6:46:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

What do you think of this graph? http://www.cepr.net... according to this, the MW should be way higher in order to match productivity.

Well, JMK has already shown why this is bad, but here is more.

(1) Productivity increases in many industries have been in the tech industries where the computer and Internet were invented. Those industries do not hire minimum wage workers too often, so indexing the MW to productivity gains largely from their gains would make zero sense.

(2) Productivity for food industries, where a lot of MW workers are hired, has increased at a much more modest pace, and essentially stagnated (http://www.heritage.org...).

(3) This assumes that workers didn't get a raise. Indeed, if a worker's labor productivity increased, the employer will pay him more. The reason for this is that, in a competitive labor market, other employers would want employees that can turn a profit. So if that worker is not being paid "his worth," business competitors would offer that worker a better offer. This actually happens: 2/3 of those who are on MW receive a raise within 1-12 months (https://www.epionline.org...).

You don't need to raise the MW in order to have wages that increase with productivity--the study above shows that. Productivity growth hasn't been high in industries that hire MW workers, but it has been high in industries that don't really use them. It would make no sense to link MW to productivity because of that.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ErenBalkir
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 12:02:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 4:44:39 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Disclaimer: I identify as a New Keynesian. I have argued extensively that price and wage rigidity explains *most* short-run output fluctuations. I'm obviously not excoriating *all* Keynesians. John Maynard Keynes himself would oppose minimum-wage legislation in favor of low-wage subsidies, such as the EITC. I'm targeting people who fundamentally misunderstood and actively contradict their own narrative.

Another Disclaimer: I know how to source spam. I can spam the hell out of this thread and explain to you in great depth how and why the minimum wage is destructive and why, empirically, the push for $15 an hour is ridiculous. But I'm not going to do that: this is all theory, and I would love to see someone justify the MW on New Keynesian grounds.

The New Keynesian story on unemployment is pretty simple: when total-dollar spending (NGDP) lags in the short run, unemployment rises because prices and wages are sticky downward. That's why papers on this, like Greg Mankiw's seminal research from the 1990s, suggests that monetary policy ought to commit to targeting the "stickiest price," which in most cases is the price of labor (i.e., targeting some measure of wage inflation).

Now, if wage stickiness begets unemployment, you'd think the narrative, ideally, would be to reduce wage stickiness--said otherwise, improve labor-market flexibility--and *not* to actively increase it, and significantly so via a whopping doubling of the minimum wage, the stickiest wage of all. There's a reason we see that stupid EPI graph--no, not the "wage stagnation" graph, though that's bullsh1t, too--showing that the "real value" of the MW has declined since its 1968 peak: the bloody wage is sticky. Indeed, most people make more than the MW, and the law now applies to a wider variety of industries than it once did, so cool the social-justice arguments for just a moment (and, of course, the graph probably normalizes by the faulty CPI, mismeasures productivity, doesn't account for compensation, ignores the EITC, etc.).

But the point stands: the MW is very, very, very sticky. It's designed to be sticky because the intention is to arbitrarily set a floor for wages. Irrespective of whether this argument is well-intentioned, it has one crucial flaw: markets cannot clear. In other words, the inherent self-correcting mechanism--which, I acknowledge, takes a long bloody time to work its way through the economy (because of wage stickiness, if I haven't hammered that enough)--dissipates. That's why the Fed has to go gangbusters with QE et al.: because Congress fcked up and made wages stickier.

Granted, there will always be demand shocks and a need to respond aggressively to keep total-dollar spending on track. But more flexible labor markets mollify that need and lessen the pain. Policies to ameliorate demand shocks take a long time--about 1-2 years for monetary policy, and 6 months for fiscal policy--to impact employment: people are going to suffer. On the flip side, if labor markets were more flexible, wages could adjust downward (because note: if inflation slows, real wages *rise*, making real wages during normal times countercyclical) and serve as a buffer for the blow to employment. Low-wage subsidies -- and, eventually, wage increases, because productivity would tend to rise as well without a MW to price people out of the job market -- would shield the blow to "inequality," though that's often an overblown and poorly measured issue in itself.

So, wages and prices are sticky; demand shocks matter. The MW only undermines the case for activist fiscal and monetary policy.

I completely agree with you. I am very progressive, Keynesian, want greater equality and don't want the minimum wage
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 12:13:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 12:02:06 AM, ErenBalkir wrote:
I completely agree with you. I am very progressive, Keynesian, want greater equality and don't want the minimum wage

I'm not particularly progressive, but it's good that you're at least ideologically consistent.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 12:27:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
One problem that I have with the minimum wage is that more money would be transferred from the "elites" to the workers which, though it may sound good in theory, means that many people would work less because, you know, now they're making more money so they can cut 2 hours off work each day (this is, of course, assuming that prices everywhere wouldn't just go up).
A populace which worked less would result in a weaker economy.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 12:29:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 12:27:34 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
One problem that I have with the minimum wage is that more money would be transferred from the "elites" to the workers which, though it may sound good in theory, means that many people would work less because, you know, now they're making more money so they can cut 2 hours off work each day (this is, of course, assuming that prices everywhere wouldn't just go up).
A populace which worked less would result in a weaker economy.

Sure, this is the "income" effect. We could physically plot the point at which higher incomes would cause workers to become complacent and choose leisure over labor, but that could be said about *any* wage increase. The point of the MW is that the trade-off is on balance negative, though the positive end is *some* workers getting a raise.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 12:26:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"explain to you in great depth how and why the minimum wage is destructive and why, empirically, the push for $15 an hour is ridiculous."

http://www.debate.org...
???
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 12:28:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 12:26:48 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
"explain to you in great depth how and why the minimum wage is destructive and why, empirically, the push for $15 an hour is ridiculous."

http://www.debate.org...
???

Ever heard of 'Devil's Advocate'? Lol.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 12:31:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 12:28:52 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/2/2015 12:26:48 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
"explain to you in great depth how and why the minimum wage is destructive and why, empirically, the push for $15 an hour is ridiculous."

http://www.debate.org...
???

Ever heard of 'Devil's Advocate'? Lol.

Yeah. I was kinda confused. :P
But, I'm glad to learn that you're not from the dark side. But, I'd appreciate if you'd stat spam on how the MW raise is bad, so I can use some of the stats later.. :P
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 12:32:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 12:31:25 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/2/2015 12:28:52 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/2/2015 12:26:48 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
"explain to you in great depth how and why the minimum wage is destructive and why, empirically, the push for $15 an hour is ridiculous."

http://www.debate.org...
???

Ever heard of 'Devil's Advocate'? Lol.

Yeah. I was kinda confused. :P
But, I'm glad to learn that you're not from the dark side. But, I'd appreciate if you'd stat spam on how the MW raise is bad, so I can use some of the stats later.. :P

Lol, I'll get around to it at some point.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 12:35:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 12:32:29 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/2/2015 12:31:25 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/2/2015 12:28:52 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/2/2015 12:26:48 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
"explain to you in great depth how and why the minimum wage is destructive and why, empirically, the push for $15 an hour is ridiculous."

http://www.debate.org...
???

Ever heard of 'Devil's Advocate'? Lol.

Yeah. I was kinda confused. :P
But, I'm glad to learn that you're not from the dark side. But, I'd appreciate if you'd stat spam on how the MW raise is bad, so I can use some of the stats later.. :P

Lol, I'll get around to it at some point.

Great. I'm ready. ;)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 1:04:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 12:32:29 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/2/2015 12:31:25 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/2/2015 12:28:52 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/2/2015 12:26:48 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
"explain to you in great depth how and why the minimum wage is destructive and why, empirically, the push for $15 an hour is ridiculous."

http://www.debate.org...
???

Ever heard of 'Devil's Advocate'? Lol.

Yeah. I was kinda confused. :P
But, I'm glad to learn that you're not from the dark side. But, I'd appreciate if you'd stat spam on how the MW raise is bad, so I can use some of the stats later.. :P

Lol, I'll get around to it at some point.

Besides, economic theory shows that raising the mw isn't going to be beneficial.
The money HAS to come from somewhere, and while large corporations could potentially absorb the loss, small businesses couldn't and would thereby be detrimentally affected.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 1:04:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 1:04:10 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Besides, economic theory shows that raising the mw isn't going to be beneficial.

Indeed.

The money HAS to come from somewhere, and while large corporations could potentially absorb the loss, small businesses couldn't and would thereby be detrimentally affected.

This is very true.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 1:06:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 1:04:41 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/2/2015 1:04:10 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Besides, economic theory shows that raising the mw isn't going to be beneficial.

Indeed.

The money HAS to come from somewhere, and while large corporations could potentially absorb the loss, small businesses couldn't and would thereby be detrimentally affected.

This is very true.

I'm glad you agree. I just don't understand how SO many people can't grasp the concept. It's basic, at best.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 1:08:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 1:04:41 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/2/2015 1:04:10 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Besides, economic theory shows that raising the mw isn't going to be beneficial.

Indeed.

The money HAS to come from somewhere, and while large corporations could potentially absorb the loss, small businesses couldn't and would thereby be detrimentally affected.

This is very true.

In fact, I was in LD last year and was debating at a tournament. The resolution was the living wage one. During cross-x (I was con/neg) I asked her where the money would come from to raise the wages.
Her answer: "from the higher profits"
Me: "Higher profits come from where?"
Her: "The people with higher wages and spent more"

Needless to say, it was circular reasoning for a good 2 minutes... Had the judges laughing, they could see her argument was going nowhere.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 1:11:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 1:06:24 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/2/2015 1:04:41 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/2/2015 1:04:10 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Besides, economic theory shows that raising the mw isn't going to be beneficial.

Indeed.

The money HAS to come from somewhere, and while large corporations could potentially absorb the loss, small businesses couldn't and would thereby be detrimentally affected.

This is very true.

I'm glad you agree. I just don't understand how SO many people can't grasp the concept. It's basic, at best.

There are a few reasons:

(a) It makes them feel good to say that we can reconcile employment and 'inequality,' such that giving back to the workers -- or spreading the wealth -- actually *benefits* the broader economy.

(b) It's a highly politically charged argument, and most people who opine regularly on the MW are either politicians or political types (e.g., Poli Sci majors). Their go-to source is either what sounds good (and it turns out most Americans want a free lunch, lol), what they feel to be right, or what their liberal think tank, armed with confirmation bias and phony assumptions, tells them.

(c) They're not thinking like economists. Paul Krugman recently said there is *no* evidence of disemployment effects of the MW. That's just bologne. Even the CBO found that there would be considerable job losses. I can respect people on the left who argue that a modest increase might be necessary because the trade-off, in spite of the job losses, is on balance beneficial. But when the discussion devolves in finger pointing, name-calling, and fact-dodging, I make posts like these, lol.

/end rant
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 1:12:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 1:08:51 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/2/2015 1:04:41 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/2/2015 1:04:10 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Besides, economic theory shows that raising the mw isn't going to be beneficial.

Indeed.

The money HAS to come from somewhere, and while large corporations could potentially absorb the loss, small businesses couldn't and would thereby be detrimentally affected.

This is very true.

In fact, I was in LD last year and was debating at a tournament. The resolution was the living wage one. During cross-x (I was con/neg) I asked her where the money would come from to raise the wages.
Her answer: "from the higher profits"
Me: "Higher profits come from where?"
Her: "The people with higher wages and spent more"

Needless to say, it was circular reasoning for a good 2 minutes... Had the judges laughing, they could see her argument was going nowhere.

Lmfao, completely unsurprising.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 1:15:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm glad you agree. I just don't understand how SO many people can't grasp the concept. It's basic, at best.

There are a few reasons:

(a) It makes them feel good to say that we can reconcile employment and 'inequality,' such that giving back to the workers -- or spreading the wealth -- actually *benefits* the broader economy.

Sounds good. But too bad it's empirically false.

(b) It's a highly politically charged argument, and most people who opine regularly on the MW are either politicians or political types (e.g., Poli Sci majors). Their go-to source is either what sounds good (and it turns out most Americans want a free lunch, lol), what they feel to be right, or what their liberal think tank, armed with confirmation bias and phony assumptions, tells them.

Couldn't be more spot on. Too bad so many phony policy proposals get all the funding.

(c) They're not thinking like economists. Paul Krugman recently said there is *no* evidence of disemployment effects of the MW. That's just bologne. Even the CBO found that there would be considerable job losses. I can respect people on the left who argue that a modest increase might be necessary because the trade-off, in spite of the job losses, is on balance beneficial. But when the discussion devolves in finger pointing, name-calling, and fact-dodging, I make posts like these, lol.


Is it bad that the thing that stood out the most is that you spelled bologna wrong?

/end rant

That was good. No need to stop now. ;)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 1:18:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
In fact, I was in LD last year and was debating at a tournament. The resolution was the living wage one. During cross-x (I was con/neg) I asked her where the money would come from to raise the wages.
Her answer: "from the higher profits"
Me: "Higher profits come from where?"
Her: "The people with higher wages and spent more"

Needless to say, it was circular reasoning for a good 2 minutes... Had the judges laughing, they could see her argument was going nowhere.

completely unsurprising.

Yeah. Sad thing is, I don't think she EVER understood that her argument was completely false. The entire debate went on like that.
(I did win the debate and ended up placing first at the tourney)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 1:21:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 1:15:52 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm glad you agree. I just don't understand how SO many people can't grasp the concept. It's basic, at best.

There are a few reasons:

(a) It makes them feel good to say that we can reconcile employment and 'inequality,' such that giving back to the workers -- or spreading the wealth -- actually *benefits* the broader economy.

Sounds good. But too bad it's empirically false.

(b) It's a highly politically charged argument, and most people who opine regularly on the MW are either politicians or political types (e.g., Poli Sci majors). Their go-to source is either what sounds good (and it turns out most Americans want a free lunch, lol), what they feel to be right, or what their liberal think tank, armed with confirmation bias and phony assumptions, tells them.

Couldn't be more spot on. Too bad so many phony policy proposals get all the funding.

(c) They're not thinking like economists. Paul Krugman recently said there is *no* evidence of disemployment effects of the MW. That's just bologne. Even the CBO found that there would be considerable job losses. I can respect people on the left who argue that a modest increase might be necessary because the trade-off, in spite of the job losses, is on balance beneficial. But when the discussion devolves in finger pointing, name-calling, and fact-dodging, I make posts like these, lol.


Is it bad that the thing that stood out the most is that you spelled bologna wrong?

But you're right. CBO was nonpartisan and he still ignored it. I've told my friends this way: "7.35 might be too low, but 10.10 and 15 are WAY too high." change is necessary, but the liberal proposals are appalling. I support the EITC as well, it'd be a much better alternative to raising wages, and is more direct in its benefits.

/end rant

That was good. No need to stop now. ;)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW