Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Causes of poverty

feverish
Posts: 2,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 6:11:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.google.co.uk...

Could have gone in Society, but I've put it here.

I have my own views on what causes poverty, which I intend to outline in this thread. However, it would be great to first hear the opinions of others, particularly economists and right-wingers (same thing lol) on what they believe causes poverty.

Thanks.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 6:35:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You correctly identify that anyone who understands economics will appear "right-wing" to you.

Ben Powell has an excellent lecture on poverty in Africa. http://www.watchonscreen.com...

His argument is essentially that the WB's model discourage internal development and promote rent-seeking behavior of political powers. USAID and the IMF have more sinister motives... http://en.wikipedia.org...

On a more local level, I would argue that special privileges granted by political powers make class mobility significantly more difficult than it would be otherwise. See federal reserve, the military industrial complex, the telecom cartel, the AMA licensing monopoly, etc.

But what leads and individual to prosperity? Saving. Only through saving can a sound future of consumption be built upon. Without intervention, saving lowers interest rates, resulting in more long term investment projects, which build the capital stock, raising productivity and output. The more you can produce, the more you can consume.

You may disagree, but the status quo is one of socialized costs and private benefits. I view the free market as the opposite. Private costs and socialized benefits. A few motivated actors defer present consumption to invest in capital that will raise worker productivity and output. Common laborers never invented cars or computers. Their wages would be crap if they had to farm with their own two hands. Their wages are higher because they can produce more, thanks largely to private innovation.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
feverish
Posts: 2,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 6:51:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thanks for responding Sieben, you raise some interesting points, but I guess that I should have been a little clearer about what I was asking.

I was referring less to things like class mobility, and how individuals can become wealthy, more just asking why people think poverty itself exists. As in, why can't some people afford the basic necessities of life? Is it inevitable? Is it a good thing that exists for good reasons? Is there an overall shortage of resources?

As far as all economists being right-wing, I was thinking of making a thread at some point about certain "social sciences" being politically biased.

Will try and take a look at your links when I have time.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 8:02:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was referring less to things like class mobility, and how individuals can become wealthy, more just asking why people think poverty itself exists. As in, why can't some people afford the basic necessities of life? Is it inevitable? Is it a good thing that exists for good reasons? Is there an overall shortage of resources?

I know I'm not right wing or in any other way what your asking for, but I have to point out that it is not inevetable.
Sweden for example has no huge difference between poor and rich, everyone gets what they need etc.
The problem is people started paying some people more and some less and now they can't even get food without money.
So you have people with plenty to eat, [Hell people that pay hundreds of dollars to starve themselves and eat without any of the gain that food is supposed to give.] while there are others that can't affrd to eat anything and starve [and not to look skinny or "be healthy" or any other bs]
Really if we shared all our resources worldwide there wouldn't be hunger, homelessness, there wouldn't really be any lines seperating countries, because there wouldn't be much of a point <immigration> people would be happier, and there would be much less conflict.

Course thats never going to happen, but it is possible.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 9:29:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2010 8:02:38 AM, lovelife wrote:

Sweden for example has no huge difference between poor and rich, everyone gets what they need etc.

Rich people have no huge difference between their poor and rich, everyone gets what they need.

(See if you draw an arbitrary line like a class or national border around a group of people, you can make them look really good)

The problem is people started paying some people more and some less and now they can't even get food without money.

So there was a time when everyone was paid the same and now we don't have that anymore? Real wages are falling?

So you have people with plenty to eat, [Hell people that pay hundreds of dollars to starve themselves and eat without any of the gain that food is supposed to give.] while there are others that can't affrd to eat anything and starve [and not to look skinny or "be healthy" or any other bs]

You can help poor people by raising their productivity. By investing in capital that allows them to produce more. I don't think we have a shortage of capital investment...

Really if we shared all our resources worldwide there wouldn't be hunger, homelessness, there wouldn't really be any lines seperating countries, because there wouldn't be much of a point <immigration> people would be happier, and there would be much less conflict.

Course thats never going to happen, but it is possible.

So, you can end world hunger by being egalitarian and redistributing a fixed basket of goods, or you can just increase the size of the basket in a way that allows impoverished people to take a cut of growth.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 10:03:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
poverty, in a society like ours where there are more than enough resources for to sustaine the population, is only caused by income distribution, which is in turn caused by the ability to save money.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 11:00:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Poverty is perpetuated by bad economics, such as the minimum wage, which reduce employment, stifle growth and increase poverty.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 11:01:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
As for poverty itself, I think it's inevitable that some people will better off than others sunless we enter into an unrealistic idealistic utopia.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 11:02:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2010 11:01:05 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
As for poverty itself, I think it's inevitable that some people will better off than others sunless we enter into an unrealistic idealistic utopia.

Destroying the world also works.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,027
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 11:15:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2010 11:02:15 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/20/2010 11:01:05 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
As for poverty itself, I think it's inevitable that some people will better off than others sunless we enter into an unrealistic idealistic utopia.

Destroying the world also works.

They often go together.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 11:26:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2010 11:15:09 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/20/2010 11:02:15 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/20/2010 11:01:05 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
As for poverty itself, I think it's inevitable that some people will better off than others sunless we enter into an unrealistic idealistic utopia.

Destroying the world also works.

They often go together.

Double Zing.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 12:36:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
we must promote poverty and oppression OR ELSE WE WILL DESTROY THE WORLD. Thank for the intellectual discussion guys, it was fun.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 12:46:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2010 12:36:45 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
we must promote poverty and oppression OR ELSE WE WILL DESTROY THE WORLD. Thank for the intellectual discussion guys, it was fun.

Where was that claimed? Ragnar said destroying the world would destroy poverty
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 1:28:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The question isn't "what causes poverty?" it's "what causes wealth?".
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 1:48:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have my own views on what causes poverty, which I intend to outline in this thread. However, it would be great to first hear the opinions of others, particularly economists and right-wingers (same thing lol) on what they believe causes poverty.:

There is no single cause to poverty, just like there is no single cause to wealth. There are multiple factors at play, and really it needs to be viewed on a case-by-case basis.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 2:02:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2010 12:46:05 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/20/2010 12:36:45 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
we must promote poverty and oppression OR ELSE WE WILL DESTROY THE WORLD. Thank for the intellectual discussion guys, it was fun.

Where was that claimed? Ragnar said destroying the world would destroy poverty

No, it would destroy inequality. Poverty would be absolute. No one would be left to give a **** though
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
jharry
Posts: 4,690
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 6:54:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2010 6:11:20 AM, feverish wrote:
http://www.google.co.uk...

Could have gone in Society, but I've put it here.

I have my own views on what causes poverty, which I intend to outline in this thread. However, it would be great to first hear the opinions of others, particularly economists and right-wingers (same thing lol) on what they believe causes poverty.

Thanks.

People cause their own poverty most of the time. My in-laws are a prime example. They choice certain things that are distributive to their wealth. In stead of saving up to by things they borrow. Instead of teaching their children they just spend money on them. And this can go for many others as well. People buying houses they simply can't afford. Throw the government in there to help them and then there goes the economy with so many jobs.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 2:12:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2010 6:54:51 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/20/2010 6:11:20 AM, feverish wrote:
http://www.google.co.uk...

Could have gone in Society, but I've put it here.

I have my own views on what causes poverty, which I intend to outline in this thread. However, it would be great to first hear the opinions of others, particularly economists and right-wingers (same thing lol) on what they believe causes poverty.

Thanks.

People cause their own poverty most of the time. My in-laws are a prime example. They choice certain things that are distributive to their wealth. In stead of saving up to by things they borrow. Instead of teaching their children they just spend money on them. And this can go for many others as well. People buying houses they simply can't afford. Throw the government in there to help them and then there goes the economy with so many jobs.

60 years ago the most common way of buying a house was with cash. Now we have people taking out loans to buy literally everything, down to groceries and candy bars (i.e., pay-day loans and credit cards). You're attributing this solely to bad savings decisions? Me and my girlfriend wouldn't have a house if that were the case and it would be about 20 years before we finally saved up for one! No, my friend, this is just capitalism taking us down the drain. Progress is great, isn't it?
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
TPF
Posts: 98
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 4:16:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2010 2:12:06 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
At 9/20/2010 6:54:51 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/20/2010 6:11:20 AM, feverish wrote:
http://www.google.co.uk...

Could have gone in Society, but I've put it here.

I have my own views on what causes poverty, which I intend to outline in this thread. However, it would be great to first hear the opinions of others, particularly economists and right-wingers (same thing lol) on what they believe causes poverty.

Thanks.

People cause their own poverty most of the time. My in-laws are a prime example. They choice certain things that are distributive to their wealth. In stead of saving up to by things they borrow. Instead of teaching their children they just spend money on them. And this can go for many others as well. People buying houses they simply can't afford. Throw the government in there to help them and then there goes the economy with so many jobs.

60 years ago the most common way of buying a house was with cash. Now we have people taking out loans to buy literally everything, down to groceries and candy bars (i.e., pay-day loans and credit cards). You're attributing this solely to bad savings decisions? Me and my girlfriend wouldn't have a house if that were the case and it would be about 20 years before we finally saved up for one! No, my friend, this is just capitalism taking us down the drain. Progress is great, isn't it?

Blame the Fed, not "capitalism".
feverish
Posts: 2,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 5:20:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2010 11:00:25 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Poverty is perpetuated by bad economics, such as the minimum wage, which reduce employment, stifle growth and increase poverty.

The minimum wage, whether effective or not, is clearly a response to levels of poverty that already exists. If people were earning enough to live on in the first place, no-one would be campaigning for a minimum wage.

Any other examples of "bad" economics that you think cause poverty?

At 9/20/2010 11:01:05 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
As for poverty itself, I think it's inevitable that some people will better off than others sunless we enter into an unrealistic idealistic utopia.

People can be better off than others without poverty existing.

Perhaps I should have been clearer with the definition, instead of just linking a page full of definitions. Poverty generally refers to people being too poor to afford the basic necessities of life.

At 9/20/2010 1:28:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
The question isn't "what causes poverty?" it's "what causes wealth?".

No.

If you look again, you will see that the question is in fact, "what causes poverty?"

The causes of wealth are quite a lot easier to pin down. They would include inheritance, theft, betrayal, corruption, greed, ruthlessness, and in a few rare cases, determination, hard work, talent and innovation.

You may find, Reasoning, that when I come to outline what I believe are some of the causes, you will agree with about half of it. I've seen you write (or quote lol) some similar stuff, but I really don't understand your ideology enough to predict your opinions on things.

At 9/20/2010 6:54:51 PM, jharry wrote:

People cause their own poverty most of the time. My in-laws are a prime example. They choice certain things that are distributive to their wealth. In stead of saving up to by things they borrow. Instead of teaching their children they just spend money on them. And this can go for many others as well. People buying houses they simply can't afford. Throw the government in there to help them and then there goes the economy with so many jobs.

I see, so you think that most people are poor because they've wasted what little money they had on frivolous things like a home and children?

And you think that it's the governments fault for helping people, because then the poor corporations pay a little more tax and can't afford to bank the same obscene profits without sacking people?

I do agree that bad debts can certainly contribute to poverty, but the fact that people need to get excessive credit to afford a decent home is clearly more of an underlying cause of the debt, as Rob pointed out.

At 9/21/2010 4:22:59 AM, minervx wrote:
Here are some of the causes of poverty:
neglect to education, aversion to work, bad investments, too many liabilities

Poverty exists because people are lazy, stupid and generally inferior?

Well, it's great to have old school conservatives like you and jharry around to say what the libertarians are all probably thinking anyway, but are mostly too sneaky to admit to. Thanks.

Thing is, a lot of people have limited access to a high standard of education, a lot of people don't have families to support them through college/university, and student loans are actually a very real cause of poverty for some graduates.

Plenty of people work hard all their lives to the best of their ability and still struggle to provide their families with the basics.

As for bad investments and liabilities, are you talking about homes and having kids, like jharry was? Getting ill?

Those lowlife scum, they deserve everything they get.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 11:39:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
if i do nothing at all from the day i am born, what do i have? nothing... if everyone does the same, what do we have? mass poverty. poverty is the default state of humanity, the state we are all in if no one puts forth any effort. if you want to ask why some people are much richer than others, then ask that question. but its a separate issue. (and plz don't construe this to mean that i am saying anyone who is relatively poor is poor b/c they are lazy cause thats not what i am saying... though its probably a factor in some cases)
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 12:04:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2010 5:20:09 AM, feverish wrote:
At 9/20/2010 11:00:25 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Poverty is perpetuated by bad economics, such as the minimum wage, which reduce employment, stifle growth and increase poverty.

The minimum wage, whether effective or not, is clearly a response to levels of poverty that already exists. If people were earning enough to live on in the first place, no-one would be campaigning for a minimum wage.

The minimum wage occurred ebcause of the fact the wage wasn't high enough for employees for whatever reason. When the minimum wage rises, people are happy because they can suddenly buy more.

The minimum wage however causes both inflation and unemployment, so, now there's more unemployed and an even higher standard of living. And if you're lucky to still have you job, you're now demanding a bigger wage because your previous demands rose the standard of living again.

It's a stupid cycle. It being a resposne to poverty is like killing people in a response to an increase in murders.


Any other examples of "bad" economics that you think cause poverty?

None I can think of straight off the bat, but taxation which would otherwise be spent by consumers is often wasted.


At 9/20/2010 11:01:05 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
As for poverty itself, I think it's inevitable that some people will better off than others sunless we enter into an unrealistic idealistic utopia.

People can be better off than others without poverty existing.

That's still an idealistic utopia.


Perhaps I should have been clearer with the definition, instead of just linking a page full of definitions. Poverty generally refers to people being too poor to afford the basic necessities of life.

People who can't afford their needs? People are constantly being unemployed. And most programs set up to help use financing which causes unemployment, so over time it's a viscous cycle. The only real way to tackle poverty is basically a 0% unemployment rate. Pretty idealistic.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 12:44:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Panda:
Wouldn't it be nice if we could pinpoint the cause of something like inflation down to a single cause? Unfortunately, we cannot. This is why your argument against the minimum wage fails. The minimum wage is not the only, or even the primary cause of inflation. Certainly it is a contributing factor - but not the only one, and not the largest one. Inflation would and did occur when there was no minimum wage.

However, when there is no minimum wage the workers become poorer and poorer. Inflation continues, causing the standard of living to increase. What does NOT happen, unfortunately, is that the wages of the working class and (especially) unskilled labor do not keep up with inflation.

In the end, the little bit of harm caused by the minimum wage is more than made up by its benefits.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 12:51:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2010 12:44:35 PM, JBlake wrote:
Panda:
Wouldn't it be nice if we could pinpoint the cause of something like inflation down to a single cause? Unfortunately, we cannot. This is why your argument against the minimum wage fails. The minimum wage is not the only, or even the primary cause of inflation. Certainly it is a contributing factor - but not the only one, and not the largest one. Inflation would and did occur when there was no minimum wage.

Au contraire? http://en.wikipedia.org...

Not that aroudn when the minimum wage came in, around mid-early 1900's, deflation stopped.


However, when there is no minimum wage the workers become poorer and poorer. Inflation continues, causing the standard of living to increase. What does NOT happen, unfortunately, is that the wages of the working class and (especially) unskilled labor do not keep up with inflation.

O rly? Companies don't benefit when workers can't buy their goods.


In the end, the little bit of harm caused by the minimum wage is more than made up by its benefits.

More than a "little" bit of harm.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 12:55:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I noticed how some people in this thread stated that poverty is caused by laziness. This isn't always the case. There are many hardworking people who are poor. However, there are some who refuse to work because they're just pure lazy and those people deserve to be poor imo if they're not going to take any effort to try to better themselves. These people, of course, live off state funds. If such programs were non-existent then there would be incentive for these kinds of people to actually go out and work. So in some ways, social programs can actually encourage poverty.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 1:09:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2010 12:51:23 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Au contraire? http://en.wikipedia.org...

Not that aroudn when the minimum wage came in, around mid-early 1900's, deflation stopped.

LOL
Correlation does not necessarily prove causation. Nazism was defeated in the 1940s, ergo the defeat of Nazism was the cause of this decrease in deflation. You see?

At the same time that a national minimum wage began (1938), was the same time when Keynesian economics rose. Subsequently, a number of economic policies were changed. Keynesians actively address deflation by attempting to boost demand by lowering interest rates, &ct., rather than assuming that the market was self-correcting (which was the view prior to the great depression).

The point is, there are SO many more factors to consider in looking at the graph you provided. There are much better explanations for the overall decrease in deflation and inflation after the 1930s than to point at the minimum wage as the sole cause.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,016
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 1:09:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2010 12:44:35 PM, JBlake wrote:
Panda:
Wouldn't it be nice if we could pinpoint the cause of something like inflation down to a single cause? Unfortunately, we cannot. This is why your argument against the minimum wage fails. The minimum wage is not the only, or even the primary cause of inflation. Certainly it is a contributing factor - but not the only one, and not the largest one. Inflation would and did occur when there was no minimum wage.

Another interesting theory that comes to mind: expansion of the money supply --> cheap money --> money has less value --> prices rise --> we need more money to buy sh*t --> OH F*CK WE GOTSTA RAISE DA MINIMUM WAYGE

However, when there is no minimum wage the workers become poorer and poorer.

And this is always evil? Keep in mind that money didn't always matter to employees. Bosses used to be able to provide all sorts of benefits to employees, like housing and good insurance. The minimum wage, by virtue of requiring employers to give their employees gradually larger cuts, cut down on those benefits, and thereby increased the amount that employees would have to pay. Problem is, the extra money given to employees didn't match the value of the benefits they were receiving from their employers. That is, they lose the perks, and get an amount added to their check which, when considered as a whole, is a hell of a lot less valuable, utility-wise, than the perks.

Inflation continues, causing the standard of living to increase. What does NOT happen, unfortunately, is that the wages of the working class and (especially) unskilled labor do not keep up with inflation.

Its not as if unskilled labor is worth much anyway. It's not a specialized, high-value type of employment, and it certainly isn't in short supply. Additionally, however, if the business doesn't provide wages roughly equivalent to the market value of that labor, the laborers are likely to leave, and the business will probably suffer financially.
"Method is detour." -- Walter Benjamin
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 1:11:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2010 1:09:43 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 9/21/2010 12:51:23 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Au contraire? http://en.wikipedia.org...

Not that aroudn when the minimum wage came in, around mid-early 1900's, deflation stopped.

LOL
Correlation does not necessarily prove causation. Nazism was defeated in the 1940s, ergo the defeat of Nazism was the cause of this decrease in deflation. You see?

LOL, that has nothing to do with economics.


At the same time that a national minimum wage began (1938), was the same time when Keynesian economics rose. Subsequently, a number of economic policies were changed. Keynesians actively address deflation by attempting to boost demand by lowering interest rates, &ct., rather than assuming that the market was self-correcting (which was the view prior to the great depression).

The point is, there are SO many more factors to consider in looking at the graph you provided. There are much better explanations for the overall decrease in deflation and inflation after the 1930s than to point at the minimum wage as the sole cause.

Talk to Cody about this, not me. He's an economic expert, of sorts.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.