Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Social and monetary values- what say you?

TheStatelyGoose
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 8:17:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
I asked this question on the opinion poll.

-Does there exist a distinct separation between social and monetary values?-

I said no-

Social and economic values are a reflection of the opposite value- they are counter-opposed to the opposite value

Social and economic values are a reflection of the opposite value. Because they balance each-other out, they are incomparable to the opposite value.

When the Federal Reserve was established in 1913, there existed what were called "Millionaire's Row". For instance, there were housing tracts in San Francisco, California, which were composed of rows of mansions with rows of run-down uninhabitable housing for the poor. Literally, side by side.

At the same time, the wedding vows were all the same. Which were, ".....For better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do you you part?"

What say you concerning these things?
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 8:56:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/16/2016 8:17:00 PM, TheStatelyGoose wrote:
I asked this question on the opinion poll.

-Does there exist a distinct separation between social and monetary values?-

I'd say there's definitely a separation. Obviously, there are a lot of policies that are good in principle, but are not economically sound. For example, the minimum wage hike proposals are (I believe) founded on social values -- those in poverty, working low wage jobs, etc., should be able to sustain themselves by a federally mandated minimum wage. While that's a feasible solution socially (i.e. pay *most* people affected by those things a much higher wage), it is an idea that can't be federally regulated and achieve the social goal it wishes to. That's the baseline answer I would give, simply because of issues such as the minimum wage. The difference, primarily, lies in the plausibility.
"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
TheStatelyGoose
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 9:24:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/16/2016 8:56:36 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/16/2016 8:17:00 PM, TheStatelyGoose wrote:
I asked this question on the opinion poll.

-Does there exist a distinct separation between social and monetary values?-

I'd say there's definitely a separation. Obviously, there are a lot of policies that are good in principle, but are not economically sound. For example, the minimum wage hike proposals are (I believe) founded on social values -- those in poverty, working low wage jobs, etc., should be able to sustain themselves by a federally mandated minimum wage. While that's a feasible solution socially (i.e. pay *most* people affected by those things a much higher wage), it is an idea that can't be federally regulated and achieve the social goal it wishes to. That's the baseline answer I would give, simply because of issues such as the minimum wage. The difference, primarily, lies in the plausibility.

-Interesting-

This is only a thought-

Might the minimum wage serve a strictly monetary value when it comes to Macro- Economics? For instance- we see with the increase of inflation over time that there is an increasing cap on growth when it comes to wages, and that perhaps wages are not keeping up with inflation. With the changing of our economy, might the minimum wage, let's say, be used to level-out or serve as a baseline for service oriented jobs?

in other words- to balance out wages in general?
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 12:22:30 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/16/2016 9:24:38 PM, TheStatelyGoose wrote:
At 2/16/2016 8:56:36 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/16/2016 8:17:00 PM, TheStatelyGoose wrote:
I asked this question on the opinion poll.

-Does there exist a distinct separation between social and monetary values?-

I'd say there's definitely a separation. Obviously, there are a lot of policies that are good in principle, but are not economically sound. For example, the minimum wage hike proposals are (I believe) founded on social values -- those in poverty, working low wage jobs, etc., should be able to sustain themselves by a federally mandated minimum wage. While that's a feasible solution socially (i.e. pay *most* people affected by those things a much higher wage), it is an idea that can't be federally regulated and achieve the social goal it wishes to. That's the baseline answer I would give, simply because of issues such as the minimum wage. The difference, primarily, lies in the plausibility.


-Interesting-

This is only a thought-

Sure!

Might the minimum wage serve a strictly monetary value when it comes to Macro- Economics? For instance- we see with the increase of inflation over time that there is an increasing cap on growth when it comes to wages, and that perhaps wages are not keeping up with inflation. With the changing of our economy, might the minimum wage, let's say, be used to level-out or serve as a baseline for service oriented jobs?

in other words- to balance out wages in general?

Hmm. That's a common argument (though not as common as the inaccurate one I mentioned), but it still doesn't work *exactly* like that. If you have the wages, let's say, stuck where they are -- coupled with that inflation you've mentioned, wage growth (in this case a higher minimum) wouldn't really balance out. There's too many jobs already paying low-wages, so any meaningful degree of increase would be overcompensation (in most areas) to what the economic environment would be able to handle. The shock is just too much (not to mention the hike being unprecedented). In terms of actual levels, I guess the wages would be closer to the same, but as I mentioned the shock of the alteration would be unprecedented, and generally negative in terms of employment, job availability, etc.

And really, inflation is pretty low, at the moment, so a wage hike isn't necessarily needed for that reason. [http://blogs.wsj.com...] For the time being, at least, the primary and driving argument remains that a "living wage" would be used to remedy the detriments of impoverished families and solve income inequality. It would do neither effectively. In that sense, the argument remains both a social and monetary value.

I'm glad that you're thinking about things, and actually taking time to add input. It's much appreciated, thanks! :)
"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
TheStatelyGoose
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 12:43:23 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 12:22:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/16/2016 9:24:38 PM, TheStatelyGoose wrote:
At 2/16/2016 8:56:36 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/16/2016 8:17:00 PM, TheStatelyGoose wrote:
I asked this question on the opinion poll.

-Does there exist a distinct separation between social and monetary values?-

I'd say there's definitely a separation. Obviously, there are a lot of policies that are good in principle, but are not economically sound. For example, the minimum wage hike proposals are (I believe) founded on social values -- those in poverty, working low wage jobs, etc., should be able to sustain themselves by a federally mandated minimum wage. While that's a feasible solution socially (i.e. pay *most* people affected by those things a much higher wage), it is an idea that can't be federally regulated and achieve the social goal it wishes to. That's the baseline answer I would give, simply because of issues such as the minimum wage. The difference, primarily, lies in the plausibility.


-Interesting-

This is only a thought-

Sure!

Might the minimum wage serve a strictly monetary value when it comes to Macro- Economics? For instance- we see with the increase of inflation over time that there is an increasing cap on growth when it comes to wages, and that perhaps wages are not keeping up with inflation. With the changing of our economy, might the minimum wage, let's say, be used to level-out or serve as a baseline for service oriented jobs?

in other words- to balance out wages in general?

Hmm. That's a common argument (though not as common as the inaccurate one I mentioned), but it still doesn't work *exactly* like that. If you have the wages, let's say, stuck where they are -- coupled with that inflation you've mentioned, wage growth (in this case a higher minimum) wouldn't really balance out. There's too many jobs already paying low-wages, so any meaningful degree of increase would be overcompensation (in most areas) to what the economic environment would be able to handle. The shock is just too much (not to mention the hike being unprecedented). In terms of actual levels, I guess the wages would be closer to the same, but as I mentioned the shock of the alteration would be unprecedented, and generally negative in terms of employment, job availability, etc.

And really, inflation is pretty low, at the moment, so a wage hike isn't necessarily needed for that reason. [http://blogs.wsj.com...] For the time being, at least, the primary and driving argument remains that a "living wage" would be used to remedy the detriments of impoverished families and solve income inequality. It would do neither effectively. In that sense, the argument remains both a social and monetary value.

I'm glad that you're thinking about things, and actually taking time to add input. It's much appreciated, thanks! :)

I like your response-

You have actually touched upon a systemic problem with our economy. As the saying goes in economics "all things being equal" or (under the circumstances). The truth is that what you had just stated in your first paragraph is really the present status of our economy. A minimum wage hike would not be enough to keep up with inflation. It falls well behind rather. Under the circumstances what I had stated previously would be nullified then by the following of your initial response. So I see that a minimum wage increase would be a presupposition to an "allowance"- where labor cannot begin to keep up with expenses. This is why tax breaks are now considered "credits".
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 12:55:54 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 12:43:23 AM, TheStatelyGoose wrote:
You have actually touched upon a systemic problem with our economy. As the saying goes in economics "all things being equal" or (under the circumstances). The truth is that what you had just stated in your first paragraph is really the present status of our economy. A minimum wage hike would not be enough to keep up with inflation. It falls well behind rather. Under the circumstances what I had stated previously would be nullified then by the following of your initial response. So I see that a minimum wage increase would be a presupposition to an "allowance"- where labor cannot begin to keep up with expenses. This is why tax breaks are now considered "credits".

Of course. A minimum wage hike can't keep up because it's lagged for so long, and it's essentially too late now. Besides, it wouldn't have ever been plausible to pay such high wages for such simplistic jobs (particularly because prices and inflation aren't near as bad as what some people attempt to assert). It's better that we don't federally mandate wages on a baseline level, and allow states and localities to handle the jobs (while ensuring they don't abuse the privilege and set wage minimums too high). Tax "credits," such as the EITC would be vastly more beneficial and supportive of social values as well as economic values. You should check out this thread: [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
TheStatelyGoose
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 1:43:02 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 12:55:54 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/17/2016 12:43:23 AM, TheStatelyGoose wrote:
You have actually touched upon a systemic problem with our economy. As the saying goes in economics "all things being equal" or (under the circumstances). The truth is that what you had just stated in your first paragraph is really the present status of our economy. A minimum wage hike would not be enough to keep up with inflation. It falls well behind rather. Under the circumstances what I had stated previously would be nullified then by the following of your initial response. So I see that a minimum wage increase would be a presupposition to an "allowance"- where labor cannot begin to keep up with expenses. This is why tax breaks are now considered "credits".

Of course. A minimum wage hike can't keep up because it's lagged for so long, and it's essentially too late now. Besides, it wouldn't have ever been plausible to pay such high wages for such simplistic jobs (particularly because prices and inflation aren't near as bad as what some people attempt to assert). It's better that we don't federally mandate wages on a baseline level, and allow states and localities to handle the jobs (while ensuring they don't abuse the privilege and set wage minimums too high). Tax "credits," such as the EITC would be vastly more beneficial and supportive of social values as well as economic values. You should check out this thread: [http://www.debate.org...]

- What your essentially talking about is moving the debt down to the local level, where it has essentially devolved. - The "tax credit" has really found it's introduction at the local level, and is really geared towards the working/middle class. The problem is that local jobs are now being outsourced by local communities. This is where the liquid assets are, property etc.

I'm jumping the gun on these things, but I will back up and say that owning a home was the first initial response to the economic crisis of the early 20th century. The home was set up as the "trust" of the American people. But at the local level, in many places, taxes are already unable to keep up with expenses that are necessary for quality of living. Local economies are being overshadowed by private investment which is often being controlled by outsiders. Just like at the national level, the local level has lost it's local accountability.

This means that devolution is taking place at the same time that local assets are being "liquefied". Credit Unions (Community Banks) have taken over banking in the local jurisdictions because of their attachment to local bonds and savings growth funds. They offer local investment, but are more easy to collect at the local level.

I am not a professional economist.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 2:07:14 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 1:43:02 AM, TheStatelyGoose wrote:
At 2/17/2016 12:55:54 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/17/2016 12:43:23 AM, TheStatelyGoose wrote:
You have actually touched upon a systemic problem with our economy. As the saying goes in economics "all things being equal" or (under the circumstances). The truth is that what you had just stated in your first paragraph is really the present status of our economy. A minimum wage hike would not be enough to keep up with inflation. It falls well behind rather. Under the circumstances what I had stated previously would be nullified then by the following of your initial response. So I see that a minimum wage increase would be a presupposition to an "allowance"- where labor cannot begin to keep up with expenses. This is why tax breaks are now considered "credits".

Of course. A minimum wage hike can't keep up because it's lagged for so long, and it's essentially too late now. Besides, it wouldn't have ever been plausible to pay such high wages for such simplistic jobs (particularly because prices and inflation aren't near as bad as what some people attempt to assert). It's better that we don't federally mandate wages on a baseline level, and allow states and localities to handle the jobs (while ensuring they don't abuse the privilege and set wage minimums too high). Tax "credits," such as the EITC would be vastly more beneficial and supportive of social values as well as economic values. You should check out this thread: [http://www.debate.org...]


- What your essentially talking about is moving the debt down to the local level, where it has essentially devolved. - The "tax credit" has really found it's introduction at the local level, and is really geared towards the working/middle class. The problem is that local jobs are now being outsourced by local communities. This is where the liquid assets are, property etc.

Yup.

I'm jumping the gun on these things, but I will back up and say that owning a home was the first initial response to the economic crisis of the early 20th century. The home was set up as the "trust" of the American people. But at the local level, in many places, taxes are already unable to keep up with expenses that are necessary for quality of living. Local economies are being overshadowed by private investment which is often being controlled by outsiders. Just like at the national level, the local level has lost it's local accountability.

Indeed. We have to be careful.

This means that devolution is taking place at the same time that local assets are being "liquefied". Credit Unions (Community Banks) have taken over banking in the local jurisdictions because of their attachment to local bonds and savings growth funds. They offer local investment, but are more easy to collect at the local level.

Fair enough.

I am not a professional economist.

Lol, neither am I. :)
"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
TheStatelyGoose
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 3:34:26 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 2:07:14 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/17/2016 1:43:02 AM, TheStatelyGoose wrote:
At 2/17/2016 12:55:54 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/17/2016 12:43:23 AM, TheStatelyGoose wrote:
You have actually touched upon a systemic problem with our economy. As the saying goes in economics "all things being equal" or (under the circumstances). The truth is that what you had just stated in your first paragraph is really the present status of our economy. A minimum wage hike would not be enough to keep up with inflation. It falls well behind rather. Under the circumstances what I had stated previously would be nullified then by the following of your initial response. So I see that a minimum wage increase would be a presupposition to an "allowance"- where labor cannot begin to keep up with expenses. This is why tax breaks are now considered "credits".

Of course. A minimum wage hike can't keep up because it's lagged for so long, and it's essentially too late now. Besides, it wouldn't have ever been plausible to pay such high wages for such simplistic jobs (particularly because prices and inflation aren't near as bad as what some people attempt to assert). It's better that we don't federally mandate wages on a baseline level, and allow states and localities to handle the jobs (while ensuring they don't abuse the privilege and set wage minimums too high). Tax "credits," such as the EITC would be vastly more beneficial and supportive of social values as well as economic values. You should check out this thread: [http://www.debate.org...]


- What your essentially talking about is moving the debt down to the local level, where it has essentially devolved. - The "tax credit" has really found it's introduction at the local level, and is really geared towards the working/middle class. The problem is that local jobs are now being outsourced by local communities. This is where the liquid assets are, property etc.

Yup.

I'm jumping the gun on these things, but I will back up and say that owning a home was the first initial response to the economic crisis of the early 20th century. The home was set up as the "trust" of the American people. But at the local level, in many places, taxes are already unable to keep up with expenses that are necessary for quality of living. Local economies are being overshadowed by private investment which is often being controlled by outsiders. Just like at the national level, the local level has lost it's local accountability.

Indeed. We have to be careful.

This means that devolution is taking place at the same time that local assets are being "liquefied". Credit Unions (Community Banks) have taken over banking in the local jurisdictions because of their attachment to local bonds and savings growth funds. They offer local investment, but are more easy to collect at the local level.

Fair enough.

I am not a professional economist.

Lol, neither am I. :)

Thank you for the information- Matt
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 12:00:33 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 3:34:26 AM, TheStatelyGoose wrote:
Thank you for the information- Matt

Of course! My pleasure.
"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