Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Econ AMA

ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 12:50:19 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Re-posting this thread, because evidently the last one is too old to get stickied.

Ask away.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Rosalie
Posts: 4,605
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 1:37:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Do you support a living wage? Lets say, $14.00 and hour for every working American.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump

Officially Mrs. 16Kadams 8-30-16
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 1:47:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/11/2016 1:37:46 PM, Rosalie wrote:
Do you support a living wage? Lets say, $14.00 and hour for every working American.

Do I support the concept of people earning a living wage? Sure.

Do I support mandating one? No, at least on a national level -- $14 or $15 an hour would be unprecedented, and far in excess of the median-to-minimum ratio explored in the literature as inducing little, if any, significant disemployment effects. Some localities could probably handle it, and surely the national standard should rise, but $15 is probably too high.

I'd like to note the hedges in my answers, though: I used "probably" twice, said that a 50% medium-to-minimum ratio would lead to "little, *If any*" disemployment effects, and called the policy unprecedented. It could work, and it very well might work. Maybe Larry Summers is on-point, and the efficiency gains from a higher MW will more than offset the cost increases. The problem is that we don't have yet any data to actually back that up, in which case this outcome is necessarily uncertain.

People really need to be more deliberate -- and, for that matter, humble -- when discussing things that no one really understands, so much so that Alan Krueger, who knows far more on this issue that anyone on DDO (i.e., he's someone who actually has the standing to pontificate on this issue), opposed $15 because it would be "unprecedented" and lacking any international standard of comparison. There are a lot of people in the minimum-wage thread, for instance, asserting that which isn't so, and there are a few on both sides of the issue. It's far more complex than they're letting on, and I assure you that they don't know more on this than I do -- so the typical "it's about fairness!" or "poor people spend more of their income!" arguments are just so unbelievably tired and won't work.

My bottom line: I don't know, but it could work. In the interim, I'd opt for a somewhat lower national standard.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 9:28:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/11/2016 1:47:36 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/11/2016 1:37:46 PM, Rosalie wrote:
Do you support a living wage? Lets say, $14.00 and hour for every working American.

Do I support the concept of people earning a living wage? Sure.

Do I support mandating one? No, at least on a national level -- $14 or $15 an hour would be unprecedented, and far in excess of the median-to-minimum ratio explored in the literature as inducing little, if any, significant disemployment effects. Some localities could probably handle it, and surely the national standard should rise, but $15 is probably too high.

I'd like to note the hedges in my answers, though: I used "probably" twice, said that a 50% medium-to-minimum ratio would lead to "little, *If any*" disemployment effects, and called the policy unprecedented. It could work, and it very well might work. Maybe Larry Summers is on-point, and the efficiency gains from a higher MW will more than offset the cost increases. The problem is that we don't have yet any data to actually back that up, in which case this outcome is necessarily uncertain.

People really need to be more deliberate -- and, for that matter, humble -- when discussing things that no one really understands, so much so that Alan Krueger, who knows far more on this issue that anyone on DDO (i.e., he's someone who actually has the standing to pontificate on this issue), opposed $15 because it would be "unprecedented" and lacking any international standard of comparison. There are a lot of people in the minimum-wage thread, for instance, asserting that which isn't so, and there are a few on both sides of the issue. It's far more complex than they're letting on, and I assure you that they don't know more on this than I do -- so the typical "it's about fairness!" or "poor people spend more of their income!" arguments are just so unbelievably tired and won't work.

My bottom line: I don't know, but it could work. In the interim, I'd opt for a somewhat lower national standard.

Where did they even come up with 15 dollars? For a full-time worker that's like 30k a year, which is a lot. They're probably just picking a very high number so they have room to negotiate, but I'm not sure everyone on the left realizes that.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 12:30:56 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/11/2016 9:28:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Where did they even come up with 15 dollars? For a full-time worker that's like 30k a year, which is a lot. They're probably just picking a very high number so they have room to negotiate, but I'm not sure everyone on the left realizes that.

I think they're looking at the MIT wage calculator, or similar research, suggesting that a so-called "living wage" is around $15 an hour.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 1:00:26 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 12:30:56 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/11/2016 9:28:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Where did they even come up with 15 dollars? For a full-time worker that's like 30k a year, which is a lot. They're probably just picking a very high number so they have room to negotiate, but I'm not sure everyone on the left realizes that.

I think they're looking at the MIT wage calculator, or similar research, suggesting that a so-called "living wage" is around $15 an hour.

The problem is that's not accurate for some areas -- in fact, that's inaccurate for *most* areas. It's silly to think you can federally mandate wages effectively.
"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
2/12/2016 1:44:49 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 1:00:26 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/12/2016 12:30:56 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/11/2016 9:28:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Where did they even come up with 15 dollars? For a full-time worker that's like 30k a year, which is a lot. They're probably just picking a very high number so they have room to negotiate, but I'm not sure everyone on the left realizes that.

I think they're looking at the MIT wage calculator, or similar research, suggesting that a so-called "living wage" is around $15 an hour.

The problem is that's not accurate for some areas -- in fact, that's inaccurate for *most* areas. It's silly to think you can federally mandate wages effectively.

To my knowledge, it's a rough average, though sure it probably varies by state and/or locality.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 1:48:01 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 1:44:49 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:00:26 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/12/2016 12:30:56 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/11/2016 9:28:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Where did they even come up with 15 dollars? For a full-time worker that's like 30k a year, which is a lot. They're probably just picking a very high number so they have room to negotiate, but I'm not sure everyone on the left realizes that.

I think they're looking at the MIT wage calculator, or similar research, suggesting that a so-called "living wage" is around $15 an hour.

The problem is that's not accurate for some areas -- in fact, that's inaccurate for *most* areas. It's silly to think you can federally mandate wages effectively.

To my knowledge, it's a rough average, though sure it probably varies by state and/or locality.

My understanding is that it's a federal average (so it wouldn't change by locality, unless the policy was drafted differently). It's rough, for sure.

At least, this is Sanders' proposal. ;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
2/12/2016 3:04:58 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 1:48:01 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
My understanding is that it's a federal average (so it wouldn't change by locality, unless the policy was drafted differently). It's rough, for sure.

I meant, if you were to average the so-called "living wages" for every state -- and perhaps weigh it by population or percent of work force in MW jobs, or something -- I think it comes out somewhere around $15.

At least, this is Sanders' proposal. ;P

True, and it's not a good idea. I think $12 is sufficient and reasonable.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 3:16:43 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/11/2016 12:50:19 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Re-posting this thread, because evidently the last one is too old to get stickied.

Ask away.

What the fvck is a widget?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 3:17:34 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 3:16:43 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/11/2016 12:50:19 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Re-posting this thread, because evidently the last one is too old to get stickied.

Ask away.

What the fvck is a widget?

A government conspiracy to serve as a constant reminder to white people that they're privileged.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 2:44:14 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 3:04:58 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/12/2016 1:48:01 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
My understanding is that it's a federal average (so it wouldn't change by locality, unless the policy was drafted differently). It's rough, for sure.

I meant, if you were to average the so-called "living wages" for every state -- and perhaps weigh it by population or percent of work force in MW jobs, or something -- I think it comes out somewhere around $15.

I see. I understand the methodology coming to $15 dollars, but it's still unreasonable for some (if not most) areas. You have outliers in huge cities that spike the average.

At least, this is Sanders' proposal. ;P

True, and it's not a good idea. I think $12 is sufficient and reasonable.

Agreed, it's not reasonable. I'm not sure about $12 either. The only MW proposal I might support is one that varies by locality and (*maybe*) state. Federal mandation is too overreaching.
"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
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 4:48:35 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 12:30:56 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/11/2016 9:28:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Where did they even come up with 15 dollars? For a full-time worker that's like 30k a year, which is a lot. They're probably just picking a very high number so they have room to negotiate, but I'm not sure everyone on the left realizes that.

I think they're looking at the MIT wage calculator, or similar research, suggesting that a so-called "living wage" is around $15 an hour.

Are welfare benefits just not taken into account?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 4:50:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 4:48:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/12/2016 12:30:56 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/11/2016 9:28:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Where did they even come up with 15 dollars? For a full-time worker that's like 30k a year, which is a lot. They're probably just picking a very high number so they have room to negotiate, but I'm not sure everyone on the left realizes that.

I think they're looking at the MIT wage calculator, or similar research, suggesting that a so-called "living wage" is around $15 an hour.

Are welfare benefits just not taken into account?

I wouldn't think that they are: the argument -- which I think is a reasonable one -- is that it's preferable that their employers, not the taxpayers, provide them a livable wage for full-time work.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 8:51:03 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 2:44:14 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
I see. I understand the methodology coming to $15 dollars, but it's still unreasonable for some (if not most) areas. You have outliers in huge cities that spike the average.

I agree with this.

At least, this is Sanders' proposal. ;P

True, and it's not a good idea. I think $12 is sufficient and reasonable.

Agreed, it's not reasonable. I'm not sure about $12 either. The only MW proposal I might support is one that varies by locality and (*maybe*) state. Federal mandation is too overreaching.

It would nevertheless vary by state and locality, but in this case I do subscribe to some sort of national standard.

I mean, if Texas decided tomorrow, "Hey, screw it, let's just scrap the damned thing and let children work for pennies on the hour--because, like, screw child labor laws, too."

It sounds like a reductio ad absurdum, and in some sense it is, but it nevertheless illustrates two points:

(a) It isn't a question of whether or not labor laws themselves are feasible -- or, even, whether there's merit in localizing them entirely. There are actually some hick states that would completely undo them, and I think virtually no one would be amenable to completely unregulated labor markets.

(b) Imposing costs on businesses isn't a deal breaker, either, because not allowing them to employ child labor for pennies an hour imposes an implicit cost. It's a question of relative trade-offs.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:08:54 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 6:43:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
When are you going to stop being scared of me and debate me on your poisonous world views?

lol.

We both know this is complete fcking bullsh1t. Every time we have a debate in the forums, you end up running away. We can easily change that.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 4:21:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Should developing countries prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 4:34:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 4:21:25 PM, tejretics wrote:
Should developing countries prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict?

This is rather though, but to be honest I probably side with Larry Summers on this. He argued that African countries are vastly "underpolluted." I think there's merit in actually reserving environmental protection policies until you have the requisite growth able to sustain them.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 5:01:26 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 7:08:54 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:43:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
When are you going to stop being scared of me and debate me on your poisonous world views?

lol.

We both know this is complete fcking bullsh1t. Every time we have a debate in the forums, you end up running away. We can easily change that.

I get tired of your stupidity. Once I win I want you to walk away from your incorrect an poisonous philosophy that the evil Fabian Society brainwashed into you.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 5:08:20 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Yes or no question. Was Keybes correct about the gold standard or incorrect. Just for referance I'll provide the quote and citation acter you give a simple yes or no, and only a yes or no.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 5:25:39 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 5:01:26 PM, Wylted wrote:
I get tired of your stupidity.

LMFAO.

Wylted, you know I'm not buying this. There are some incredibly stupid members on this website, but I'm clearly not among them.

Once I win I want you to walk away from your incorrect an poisonous philosophy that the evil Fabian Society brainwashed into you.

k, cool.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 5:26:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 5:08:20 PM, Wylted wrote:
Yes or no question. Was Keybes correct about the gold standard or incorrect.

Absolutely correct.

Just for referance I'll provide the quote and citation acter you give a simple yes or no, and only a yes or no.

Yes; he was absolutely right. The euro is the best evidence of that -- it's a de-facto gold standard, and look how well it's done. Milton Friedman was on the exact same page as Keynes in this regard.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 6:44:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/11/2016 12:50:19 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Re-posting this thread, because evidently the last one is too old to get stickied.

Ask away.

What di you mean by stickied?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 6:52:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 6:44:28 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/11/2016 12:50:19 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Re-posting this thread, because evidently the last one is too old to get stickied.

Ask away.

What di you mean by stickied?

Max marked the thread so it would automatically appear at the top of the page.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:19:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 6:52:47 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:44:28 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/11/2016 12:50:19 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Re-posting this thread, because evidently the last one is too old to get stickied.

Ask away.

What di you mean by stickied?

Max marked the thread so it would automatically appear at the top of the page.

I see, so it would be over crowded and hard to keep up with. Very well.
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:05:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/11/2016 1:37:46 PM, Rosalie wrote:
Do you support a living wage? Lets say, $14.00 and hour for every working American.

DO you support the 14.00 rate? if so why?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 9:13:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 7:19:44 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:52:47 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:44:28 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/11/2016 12:50:19 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Re-posting this thread, because evidently the last one is too old to get stickied.

Ask away.

What di you mean by stickied?

Max marked the thread so it would automatically appear at the top of the page.

I see, so it would be over crowded and hard to keep up with. Very well.

I don't think that's the case: it elevates the best threads -- yes, that is totally a shameless plug on my end, but it's true -- to the top of the forum to ensure they get more attention than stupid threads.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 11:25:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 9:13:47 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:19:44 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:52:47 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:44:28 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/11/2016 12:50:19 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Re-posting this thread, because evidently the last one is too old to get stickied.

Ask away.

What di you mean by stickied?

Max marked the thread so it would automatically appear at the top of the page.

I see, so it would be over crowded and hard to keep up with. Very well.

I don't think that's the case: it elevates the best threads -- yes, that is totally a shameless plug on my end, but it's true -- to the top of the forum to ensure they get more attention than stupid threads.

What do you mean by a shameless plug?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 11:31:15 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 11:25:22 PM, liltankjj wrote:
What do you mean by a shameless plug?

I'm intentionally elevating the importance of my own thread, lol -- probably far in excess of what it deserves given the quality of its content, at least thus far.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah