|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 2, 2007 14:29:53 GMT -6
This isn't the very best survey I've ever seen, as it completely omits any direct question about globalization or free trade. But it does cover illegal immigration, Iraq, global warming, terrorist suspect detention, farm subsidies, universal health care, and gay marriage ban, among others. It does give respondents an idea of which Presidential candidate supports their views, based on the 12 questions asked. It gives an estimate of which candidate respondents should vote for, based on respondents answers to questions. (My own top match was overwhelmingly for Ron Paul. My number 2 match was Dennis Kucinich. My worst match was John McCain, at -14.) Presidential Survey
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 2, 2007 16:10:46 GMT -6
It went1,2,3 Kucinich, Edwards, Paul for me, and dead last McCain with Romney and Ghouliani tied with next to last.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 2, 2007 20:14:39 GMT -6
I had to do a "recount" on my votes. Upon recount, I had Ron Paul #1, and Kucinich & Edwards tied for #2. I had Clinton, Richardson, & Obama tied after that. McCain again scraped the bottom of the barrel.
Question #12 leaves entirely too much latitude, and should be re-worded and revised. All of the candidates (except Kucinich) claimed we should "take stronger and more consistent measures" against illegal immigration. But candidates like McCain favor Amnesty for illegal immigrants & their employers, as do Obama & Clinton. In contrast, Ron Paul opposes such amnesty. Worse still, Obama, Clinton, & McCain backed up their pro-Amnesty positions by voting for it. Richardson clearly favors the Comprehensive Amnesty Bill, and Edwards has implied he also favors amnesty.
Regarding trade, Kucinich should be given extra points as he vigorously opposes unrestricted free trade, stating we need to cancel NAFTA & the WTO. Clinton, Obama, & Edwards were on stage at the same time Kucinich made his statement, and none of them backed Dennis up. (In fact, Kucinich made his statement in 2 different debates, and none of the other Democrats backed him up.)
Due to Kucinich's anti-WTO/anti-NAFTA statement, I would break my Edwards-Kucinich tie, and put Kucinich ahead of Edwards.
It was also interesting to note that both Clinton and Obama believed that "civil law should be reformed so that lawsuits are less common and damage suits against individuals and business are lower." I guess Clinton & Obama's Corporate campaign contributors really love their position on that one. (Again, Paul was against such reform, as was John Edwards.)
The poll again verified my own candidate preferences 1)Paul, 2)Kucinich, 3)Edwards. (and #10: McCain)
|
|
|
Post by psychecc on Jul 2, 2007 20:54:09 GMT -6
I had Kucinich, Edwards, and Paul tied for first, with McCain, Romney, and Giulianni bringing up the rear. Interesting site. Thanks for the link.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 2, 2007 20:59:11 GMT -6
My do-over, switching a couple I was on the fence, still showed Kucinich, Edwards, Paul. I would give Kucinich and Paul both extra points for their trade stances which might put Paul ahead of Edwards. Two issues I do not agree with Paul's position are on taxes ( the wealthy should pay more by virtue of benefiting more), and on gun control - its much too easy for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns in this country and the second amendment has been too loosely interpreted, otherwise Paul is a very compelling choice. Clearly I most identify with Kucinich - but does he have any realistic chance? Paul and Edwards maybe do.
Also in my do over all the other candidates Obama, Hillary, Romney, Huckabee etc. were all tied in the middle - showing that the differences between the mainstream dems and the second tier republicrits are very very minor.
Ghouliani switched spots as the worst by one point with McCain at second to the last.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 2, 2007 21:06:55 GMT -6
Blueneck,
I agree with you about Paul's tax positions. I also think the wealthy should pay more.
I'm in the middle on gun control. I favor the right to bear arms, but I also favor strict registration and control. I don't think there should unrestricted and nearly un-controlled sales of guns at gun shows.
It's also interesting that Paul comes out on top in the poll at approximately 4.0, while the next closest candidate comes in at only 2.45 (I came in at 3.27). This is even more interesting, considering Paul has been so completely discounted by the mainstream media.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 3, 2007 3:43:33 GMT -6
Regarding trade, Kucinich should be given extra points as he vigorously opposes unrestricted free trade, stating we need to cancel NAFTA & the WTO. Due to Kucinich's anti-WTO/anti-NAFTA statement, I would break my Edwards-Kucinich tie, and put Kucinich ahead of Edwards. Kucinich doesn't have a chance in hell. I just hope his followers endorse Paul, who is by far the closest to Kucinich in a few key issues... such as the WTO, and NAFTA.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 5, 2007 6:51:42 GMT -6
I would support Kucinich as the 3rd Party / Indie, but would find it difficult to support Paul. While he is correct on the Macro issues (NAFTA, WTO) he is very anti-labor on the micro issues.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 5, 2007 14:02:36 GMT -6
Proletariat,
Thanks for the link. I see your point on some issues, such as his vote against the minimum wage. However, I still think his anti-free trade votes more than make up for that. Paul has consistently voted against the interests of the "cheap labor lobby" (i.e., the pro-globalist, pro-amnesty/pro-open borders advocates).
Though the AFL-CIO gave him only a 47% rating, that was done in 2003. I suspect his rating might be higher today, given his vocal opposition to the North American Union and opposition to allowing Mexican truckers to enter the U.S.
The site gave a neat paragraph description of his trade views.
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005) Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004) Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003) Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003) Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000) Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
I think Paul's vote to withdraw from the WTO, and even his sponsorship of a WTO withdrawal measure, is more important than a vote against a minimum wage increase. The WTO prevents Congress or the Federal government from controlling our own trade policy, and gives that power to an international body that is not concerned about the wellbeing of the American people. Rather, the WTO's true concern is that of the wellbeing of rich multinational Corporations and investors.
With the exception of Kucinich, none of the Democrats would have us withdraw from the WTO or NAFTA.
These free trade pacts are the worst thing any politician could do to American workers. They simply open up the labor market available to American multinationals to the poorest workers in the world, and put American workers in direct wage competition with workers making 1/50th as much as Americans.
Paul is the only candidate who simply doesn't believe that an International organization's rules should trump those of the American government. And he believes rules and regulations on international trade should be determined by the United States Congress, not the President, and not a world governing body like the WTO.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 5, 2007 16:55:47 GMT -6
Buchanan from a strictly nationalistic perspective comes to many of those same positions. Point being we can come to similar positions on some issues from very different ideological standpoints.
For me in the end Paul, while refreshing, is still a right wing Republican. He would be as disastrous to American workers as the Neo Democrats or Neo Conservatives although for different reasons.
He may be an enemy of my enemy but in the end still my enemy.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 5, 2007 17:53:43 GMT -6
I like much of what Paul stands for, and some of the results may be the same but for different reasons, I do not agree with him on taxes or guns - two pretty major issues that would give me pause. If he were the best choice in a two way or three way that didn't include Kucinich I would probably go that way.
But every way i have worked the scenarios Kucinich has always topped my list on this survey, Paul and edwards trade the second spot back and forth depending on how I go on some fence issues.
Being from the industrial midwest and watching our jobs, technology and infrastructure erode away - Kucinich speaks the language of the labor democrat, and has felt the pain of the effects of globalization in Ohio, a state particularly savaged by manufacturing job loss.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 5, 2007 18:47:59 GMT -6
I certainly like Kucinich's explanation for his anti-free trade positions better than Paul's. However, the ultimate actions they propose on trade come out about the same.
With the exception of his tolerance of illegal immigration, Kucinich sounds better for workers than Paul. The illegal immigration issue, however, is also a major drag on American wages. As a result, it needs to be factored in as well.
For me it's almost a toss-up between Kucinich and Paul (I slightly prefer Kucinich.) But I think Paul has a better chance of winning. (It's really hard to dismiss Paul as a candidate, when so many "unscientific" polls put him ahead of all other the candidates. In some Republican polls, he gets more votes than all the others combined.)
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 5, 2007 18:57:24 GMT -6
Its tough to dispute Paul's appeal on the net and in polling - and I agree he has a better chance of winning than Kucinich
From what I understand he takes a more humanitarian view on immigration than Paul, not so much in favor of open borders though and I am sure he would side first with US workers over illegals
|
|
Morty
Contributor
No replastering, the structure is rotten.
Posts: 26
|
Post by Morty on Jul 7, 2007 7:57:55 GMT -6
I, far and away, had Paul as my number one choice. Though I don't think the rest of my choices accurately reflect much (many of the issues I feel very strongly about were not even represented and the questions were simple and vague), I have known for a while that Paul is by far the best choice out there.
As for his "anti-labor" tendencies, I can only see pro-labor votes. And, even if they were "anti-labor," he is right to make those votes because the Constitution does not provide for the federal government doing these things. Take it to your state or local government. Voting against giving unions carte blanch seems pretty pro-labor to me, at least pro-non-union labor. If you want to further aid the creation of a monopoly in the labor market by the unions, then go right ahead. But I think basic economics shows that competition makes things better for everyone, and workers will get paid their fair market value. Voting against the minimum wage, once again, helps low-skilled, non-union labor and is an attempt to stop the unions from monopolizing the labor market. Voting against farm price supports seems pretty positive to me, being as subsidation only helps continue inefficiency. The people who benefit from these price supports are not the little farmers, it is the huge, corporate farms that benefit from basically destroying price competition in agriculture.
Essentially what I'm getting at is that Ron Paul is pro-everyone labor, whereas your idea of "pro-labor" is actually just pro-union labor.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 7, 2007 11:25:47 GMT -6
I am afraid I can't agree with you on these points Morty. What you are saying is the basic "open market" ideology. First of all the so called "competition" is unfairly slanted towards third world labor and wages due the failed supply side economics and unfair "free" trade. As a result of the pressures of overseas competition, H1B visas and illegal immigrants US workers wages have stagnated or even declined in most brackets.
Like it or not union labor helped raise standards of living and improved working conditions for millions of Americans, it should be no surprise that wages have stagnated and declined in correlation to the decline in union power and membership.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that holding the minimum wage steady or doing away with it helps workers. In fact there is plenty of evidence to suggest that raising the minimum wage is good for business - as it helps them attract and retain better help and increases the buying power of working class people - or in other words "demand side" economics.
12 years of this bizarre economic experiment based more on ideology than sound economics under Reagan and Bush I and another 7 years of it currently should be proof enough that supply side does not work, especially for working and middle class.
|
|
Morty
Contributor
No replastering, the structure is rotten.
Posts: 26
|
Post by Morty on Jul 7, 2007 12:35:16 GMT -6
I'm not saying competition with the rest of the world. I mean competition in the domestic labor market sans massive immigration (which needs to be halted). However, otherwise, the market will give workers wages based on how well they produce. I'll set up the situation for you: Let's say we have a factory worker. He is able to produce the equivalent of $10 of work every hour. Now, he needs to be hired. So the first capitalist pig comes in. Like any good capitalist pig, he is greedy and likes to exploit workers. So, he'll pay 1 cent an hour. No need to give the workers money and make them uppity. However, then another capitalist pig comes along. He loves exploiting workers just as much as the next guy, but he'll pay 2 cents an hour so he can exploit the worker instead of someone else. And then another comes along, he hates giving wage increases, but it is better that he exploits the worker than someone else, so 3 cents an hour. And so on, until we get to the value of the worker's production minus the cost of finding him. The market sorts that kind of thing out.
Certainly there is. Both empirical and theoretical evidence shows that minimum wage regulation hurts low-productivity workers. Empirically, we can witness that minimum wage laws have pushed out those who do produce at as high of a rate. There was a study done by a member of the National Recovery Administration that showed over half a million African-Americans lost their jobs due to the 1933 minimum wage increase. The first federal minimum wage law, passed in 1931, was intended not to prevent the exploitation of workers, but to prevent low-skilled workers from taking the jobs of higher paid, skilled workers! This pattern has not shifted. Minimum wage laws benefit skilled, high-productivity workers at the expense of unskilled, low-productivity workers. Theoretically, it is very obvious. Low-skilled workers cannot offer the same kind of productivity that high-skilled workers can, yet they could compete for jobs if they could work for less. But when you raise minimum wages, you price them out of the market. They can't compete. This is like putting price floors on cars and expecting people to buy a Chevy when they could buy a Mercedes for the same price [just assume for a moment that Mercedes is superior to Chevy, even if you don't think so]. A Chevy might have been fine if it was a few thousand dollars less expensive, but obviously one would prefer the Mercedes if you get them at the same price (or the differential is minimal).
I dispute that. If they wanted to attract and retain "better help" then they could raise the wages on their own. In fact, that's what companies do. You ever wonder why CEOs get paid absurd sums of money? Because you can get a better CEO if you are willing to pay more. When Ben and Jerry's tried to shackle their CEO's pay to a 7:1 ratio of average full-time worker's pay, they couldn't find any good CEOs. If you want the best, you have to pay the best wages. Companies know that (Ben and Jerry's didn't because their owners are utopians) and if they need high-skilled workers, they will pay more. Again, workers in a free market get paid what their value is in production.
As for "demand side economics" - that is silly because if costs could be reduced (via wages which reflected the worker's production), then prices of goods would fall, and we'd have the same amount of potential demand. That's not to say "supply side" works particularly well, but I think in you are looking at this wrong. This isn't just "demand side" or "supply side." There are other options. One that I propose is a truly free market, instead of the falsehood of regulatory corporatism we currently suffer under.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 7, 2007 15:49:54 GMT -6
The empirical evidence that I've seen indicates increasing the minimum wage increases both employment and GDP. Though the increased employment may seem illogical at the micro level (as increasing price/wage decreases the quantity purchased/hired), it is the macro level effect that predominates. Increasing the minimum wage increases aggregate labor/consumer income, resulting in increased consumer buying power, resulting in increased aggregate consumer demand. This wage-financed increase in production demand then increases labor demand. (Increased production demand causes an increased demand for workers to provide production.) This increased labor demand tends to increase both the number of workers employed AND the wages workers.
In other words, if the effect of the increased aggregate labor demand (from increased production demand) is greater than the effect of reduced labor demand (from labor price increase), then overall employment and aggregate wages increase. The historical evidence I've seen, from Ravi Batra's book Greenspan's Fraud, indicates minimum wage increases have paralleled increases in GDP.
Increasing the wages of the lowest-paid workers has a tremendous multiplier effect on spending and GDP. Low-paid workers have a very high marginal propensity to consume, thus pumping almost all of their increased wages into the economy. In contrast, the reduced profits and salaries of the most affluent, who might lose from a minimum wage increase, have a much smaller multiplier effect on GDP, since a smaller fraction of their income is pumped back into the economy.
And the effect of decreasing available capital from the resultant profit decline would have little effect at present. The markets are "awash in cash" as the Wall Street Journal puts it. Others state the markets are "flooded with liquidity." The point being there is no shortage of capital at present. In fact, there is a gross excess. It is not the availability of capital that limits true capital investment at present. It is the lack of true capital investment opportunities. And those opportunities are created by consumer demand for goods and services. And that demand is limited by spendable consumer wealth. Though wage-imposed limits on consumer spending have been greatly extended with easy credit, wages still place the ultimate limit on aggregate consumer demand.
The major limitation on capital investment at present is from the limits of consumer production demand. Without an increase in consumer production demand, there is no increase in demand for investment to facilitate that production. Increasing consumer demand, through increasing the minimum wage, will increase production demand, thus increasing demand for investment to facilitate that production.
If we want to increase capital investment, we need to increase the demand for that investment. There is plenty of investment capital available at present. But there is not plenty of demand for investment of that capital.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 7, 2007 17:46:29 GMT -6
The is a bid difference between the fair market value and a fair labor value. We could define the fair labor value as that amount in which the worker is free from government services. Any wage in which on does not receive at minimum 30,000 is not a fair labor value. The business large and small is subsidized by local, state, and federal government services. The fair market value is meaningless unless government spending as a result of that value is included.
BTW you articulated beautifully why Paul while being the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy.
|
|
Morty
Contributor
No replastering, the structure is rotten.
Posts: 26
|
Post by Morty on Jul 7, 2007 19:37:18 GMT -6
UC, how do you explain the employment sector not taking on a racial aspect until minimum wages were imposed then? You can't possibly claim racism, because there was far more racism in the 1920s than in 2007. The only logical explanation is the less-productive minorities have been forced out of the market by minimum wage restrictions. Again, the consumer buying power argument is illogical, because all extra costs in paying employees will be passed on to consumers, thus reducing their buying power by the same amount that it was increased by the minimum wage laws. The difference is, there are less consumers because the minimum wage has pushed out the low-productivity workers.
As for the very idea that minimum wage laws do not cause unemployment, that is refuted by empirical analysis. Let's look at some statistics from the US Census. Unemployment was 3.3% in 1927, 1.8% in 1926, 3.2% in 1925, 2.4% in 1923, 1.4% in 1919 and 1918, 2.8% in 1907, 1.7% in 1906, and 3.7% in 1902. When is the last time you remember the national unemployment figures falling far below 4.5%? Normally it is over 5%. Minimum wage laws arguably keep the national unemployment rate at 2-3 percentage points above what it could be. And, as I said, ethnic minorities and teens are most adversely affected by this. In 2005, national unemployment was 5.6% for everyone 16 years or over. Yet for teens, 16-19 years old, it was 17.3%. But it is even worse if you are a minority teen. White teenagers 16-17 had unemployment of 17.3%, whereas black teenagers had unemployment of 40.9%. It gets a bit better with age for minorities, but not greatly. Blacks 18-19 had unemployment of 25.7%, 20-24 had 19.9%. Even at ages of the highest employment, blacks still have larger amounts of unemployment than the overall average. 11.2% are unemployed in the 25-34 catergory, compared to 4.4% for whites. In the 35-44 range, blacks and whites still show substantial differences, 7.2% and 4.4%, respectively. These statistics underscore the unfair burden the minimum wage has on low-productivity and low-skilled workers.
Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that, even if there was infinite demand for labor, an employer could never knowingly hire a worker for a higher wage than what they produce. That would be simply a loss. Thus, the only thing that can possibly be accomplished by minimum wage laws is outlawing jobs. You have priced the low-productivity workers out of the market. They cannot possibly enter it sans illegal activity or some great training program that increases their productivity. Look over at Europe. France - has been plagued by unemployment since the 70s, currently at 8.7%. Their minimum wage is considerably higher than ours (8.27 €). UK - unemployment is 5.4%. Their minimum wage? 7.14 € Germany - no comprehensive statutory minimum wage, but hulking unions with essential monopoly power over the labor market have forced "collective wage agreements" - which are essentially minimum wages as they are supported by government interventionism - for all workers not covered in the statutory agreements, has an unemployment of 9.2%. That seems to be some evidence of a connection, though there are surely other factors which work into these numbers.
As for markets that are "awash in cash" - that is an effect of inflationary money policy, which we both seem to oppose, and which in the end makes these wages fall. In fact, one of the few reasons that minimum wage laws have not been even more devestating is that inflation often times negates some of their effect.
proletariat, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you are a Marxist, no? You certainly sound like one. All labor contracts are neccessarily exploitation of the worker, eh? "Fair labor value" is the same as "fair market value" - the wages of workers in a free market will be the marginal production minus the costs associated with finding the worker. It is not fair for workers to be paid more than they produce, nor is it economically sound. A business which employs workers at a higher cost than their production will fail, plain and simple. Which is why minimum wage laws cause unemployment amongst low-productivity workers. Ron Paul is your enemy if you are an skilled, established union member who wants to price out lower cost workers. Otherwise, he is a friend of labor.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 7, 2007 21:21:44 GMT -6
So, what do we say to those businesses whose cost of production are kept low by social welfare programs. Since you are pushing a right wing libertarian line, would not those subsidies go against the logic of a free market.
I think we both know your so called fair labor value will continue to decrease until there is some force that stops it. It could be rightly argued that the modern welfare state above all else keeps wages low. If they paid their fair labor value (believe that's Ricardo) defined as subsistence (livable wage) with welfare state supports the wage would be much higher.
I only argue businesses pay their full labor costs so welfare state supports can be eliminated. Sounds to me that would something a libertarian would support.
|
|
Morty
Contributor
No replastering, the structure is rotten.
Posts: 26
|
Post by Morty on Jul 8, 2007 19:46:10 GMT -6
Proletariat, libertarians don't advocate government interventionism to destroy the effect of government interventionism. That is just piling harmful bureaucracy on top of itself. I would instead argue that we should get rid of both the welfare state and the minimum wage. Both of which are detrimental to everyone except the bureaucrats.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 9, 2007 5:39:10 GMT -6
Well its easier said than done. One would not need a welfare state if employers were paying their fair labor value would you?. My point is if it be pollution, fair labor value, or a host of over subsidies, that businesses do not pay the full cost of doing business.
It is when business pays below the fair labor value (living wage) that by necessity government must act to buffer the ill effects of what you call a fair market value (lowest subsistence wage possible). We should see social welfare spending for what it is, the transferring of businesses' labor costs to local, state, and federal governments.
|
|
Morty
Contributor
No replastering, the structure is rotten.
Posts: 26
|
Post by Morty on Jul 9, 2007 15:41:03 GMT -6
"Fair labor value" is an artificial construct of what sounds like neo-Marxism. It is not the government's job to make up for the descrepancy between what you consider "fair labor value" and what the market considers "fair labor value." Again, in a free market people are paid based on how much they produce. If you don't think that is "fair" then you have a fundamental issue with the free enterprise system. If you want to transfer wealth from the more productive members of society to less productive members of society, via coerced labor contracts which have no connection to the value of the labor or by government transfer programs, then you have the right to hold that view but do not misrepresent it. That's socialism, plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 9, 2007 18:27:44 GMT -6
Nothing to misrepresent. Businesses should be responsible and accountable for a 'Fair labor value'. Certainly when businesses are paying sub standard wages in which employees must go on state health care plans, federal housing, and other programs they are not paying their full labor costs. In fact they are barely paying half in many situations. You may call that a free market, I call it a government subsidized market. It will not be a true free market until businesses pay the full cost of their labor.
For the record I do take issue with the free enterprise system, along with free trade, and free labor. I take issue with the free part and ask free for whom. Certainly not for the workers, they pay a heavy price.
Yes, I am probably best categorized as a socialist - socialist libertarian to be exact. The original libertarians mind you, the right wing variety is a rather recent phenomenon. I am a socialist as in more democracy - economic democracy to be specific - not necessarily more state. A standpoint that's not too far from the economic populist movements throughout our history.
I am sure you can understand now why Paul is not an acceptable substitute. With all that said I might vote for him as an independent given the current stock of potential candidates. This is because at this point in history I believe its more important to have a strong third party assault than what that particular third party stands for. The only way we will get true electoral reform is if the Dems and Rep are scared, real scared.
|
|
Morty
Contributor
No replastering, the structure is rotten.
Posts: 26
|
Post by Morty on Jul 9, 2007 19:11:42 GMT -6
Okay, if you are a socialist, then stop pretending you are advocating something to better the free market. You can have your central planning pipe dreams, just don't try to attach them to the effort for free markets.
Ahem, what now? Socialism does not outdate classical liberalism, it doesn't even come close.
How you expect to have socialism sans a coercive state is beyond me. I suppose it is possible, but then you'd have to allow capitalistic practices too, otherwise you'd become a state. So, if a new Socialist Man evolves who loves socialism and always puts the group ahead of himself, you should have no trouble setting up this stateless socialism.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 9, 2007 19:32:47 GMT -6
The empirical evidence that I've seen indicates increasing the minimum wage increases both employment and GDP. Though the increased employment may seem illogical at the micro level (as increasing price/wage decreases the quantity purchased/hired), it is the macro level effect that predominates. Increasing the minimum wage increases aggregate labor/consumer income, resulting in increased consumer buying power, resulting in increased aggregate consumer demand. This wage-financed increase in production demand then increases labor demand. (Increased production demand causes an increased demand for workers to provide production.) This increased labor demand tends to increase both the number of workers employed AND the wages workers. In other words, if the effect of the increased aggregate labor demand (from increased production demand) is greater than the effect of reduced labor demand (from labor price increase), then overall employment and aggregate wages increase. The historical evidence I've seen, from Ravi Batra's book Greenspan's Fraud, indicates minimum wage increases have paralleled increases in GDP. Increasing the wages of the lowest-paid workers has a tremendous multiplier effect on spending and GDP. Low-paid workers have a very high marginal propensity to consume, thus pumping almost all of their increased wages into the economy. In contrast, the reduced profits and salaries of the most affluent, who might lose from a minimum wage increase, have a much smaller multiplier effect on GDP, since a smaller fraction of their income is pumped back into the economy. And the effect of decreasing available capital from the resultant profit decline would have little effect at present. The markets are "awash in cash" as the Wall Street Journal puts it. Others state the markets are "flooded with liquidity." The point being there is no shortage of capital at present. In fact, there is a gross excess. It is not the availability of capital that limits true capital investment at present. It is the lack of true capital investment opportunities. And those opportunities are created by consumer demand for goods and services. And that demand is limited by spendable consumer wealth. Though wage-imposed limits on consumer spending have been greatly extended with easy credit, wages still place the ultimate limit on aggregate consumer demand. The major limitation on capital investment at present is from the limits of consumer production demand. Without an increase in consumer production demand, there is no increase in demand for investment to facilitate that production. Increasing consumer demand, through increasing the minimum wage, will increase production demand, thus increasing demand for investment to facilitate that production. If we want to increase capital investment, we need to increase the demand for that investment. There is plenty of investment capital available at present. But there is not plenty of demand for investment of that capital. Vey well put UC. A great description of how demand side economics work I might also add that a while back using data from the New York Times and production rates i could remeber from my stint at McD's years ago, I did a cost analysis on this board that showed that at most the cost of your Big Mac at McDonalds would go up pennies - and for fairness sake I rounded up to a nickel. An extra nickel for my hamburger would be worth it to me to make sure someone is earning a fairer wage and that the resturant was now able to attract and keep a better quality worker. In fact the effect of fuel costs on the production and transport of beef have a much greater impact on the cost of food than labor does. I would contend that if there are businesses out there that are that marginal that a raise in minimum wage would put them out of business they have greater structural problems than labor costs, if it wasn't a raise in wage that did them it it would most certainly be something else, something with greater impact such as higher utilities or local taxes, or raised rent etc. There was a Frontline program on PBS not too long ago that contrasted two states that bordered each other - I want to say Montana and Idaho, but don't hold me to that, one had raised its wages the other did not - and low and behold the one that did was more prosperous as a result - teen unemployment went down, employers were able to attract and keep a higher quality worker and business in the service industry boomed, contrasted with the state that didn't - the service economy was clearly suffering and employers struggled to fill positions, turnover was terrible.
|
|
Morty
Contributor
No replastering, the structure is rotten.
Posts: 26
|
Post by Morty on Jul 9, 2007 20:04:55 GMT -6
Again, if higher wages were so beneficial to business, then businesses would give higher wages on their own. Why do you assume the government can better decide the proper allocation of resources than the market? If the government can so accurately decide what wages should be, why not have them set all prices? Central planning is a failed economic theory and it stuns me how many people still hold the notion that bureaucrats can somehow do a better job than the market at resource allocation. They are externalized from all things which decide allocation, yet somehow their God-like wisdom can guide us.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 9, 2007 21:25:27 GMT -6
Is godlike wisdom sort of like an invisible hand or is it simply magic. I am not advocating government setting the price just businesses paying the full cost. If I remembered correctly the Libertarian candidate in 04 argued along a similar line for pollution.
So, what happens when your market value does not pay the full labor costs. Is not that a form of corporate / business welfare. Not only is that market not free is certainly is not fair either. I would argue it ceases to be a free market when its wage ceases to pay the full labor costs.
As they say you don't go in with the market you want, but the market you got. We have decided on a somewhat free market, and with that comes obligation. An obligation, if it is truly free, to not depend on the government to pay large portions of their labor costs.
|
|
Morty
Contributor
No replastering, the structure is rotten.
Posts: 26
|
Post by Morty on Jul 9, 2007 22:46:53 GMT -6
The "full cost of pollution" likely dealt with the property rights solution to pollution. Essentially, the Libertarian Party was most likely arguing for a return to property rights which existed in the United States prior to the latter half of the 19th century. In this time, many environmental issues were dealt with as property rights issues. For example, a railroad would be giving off sparks. One day, these sparks ignited a haystack that belonged to a farmer whose farm was near the tracks. He would go to court and get damages for the lost property and get an injunction against the railroad so that this did not happen again. Thus, railroads innovated new spark-prevention technology so that they wouldn't have to constantly pay damages and deal with injunctions. Coal-run factories is another example. They would throw out smoke and some lady who hung her clothes on a line would come to find out that the clothes were covered in debris from the factory. She would go to court and get damages and an injunction. So, factories were forced to adopt filters and other such things to prevent these problems. They even had environmental forensics, where if someone found debris on their property, they would be able to find out what created it, so they could prevent it in the future. That was considered trespassing. Companies could not trespass their pollution onto others. Walter Block's speech, "Free Market Environmentalism Is Not an Oxymoron" WMPYour "full cost of labor" is still either the free market cost or some Marxist idea. Again, are all [voluntary] labor contracts neccessarily exploitation of the worker? A free market is very simply defined - An economy unhampered by government intervention, where people can freely exchange property of their own volition and rise or fall on their own merits. All exchanges, contracts, and workings are voluntary. You can do anything besides violate property rights. Your property resonates from your person, which is the most basic piece of property you own. Your person performs labor, which means that you own your labor. If that labor results then in tangible items, you own those as well. You can see where the government has no part in this. Businesses do not externalize their costs forcefully, if a worker chooses to accept a labor contract based on the idea that they have means outside of the wages to acquire the goods and services which the worker desires, then that is still a legitmate labor contract. Think of it like a teenager accepting employment at the local grocery store for an extremely low wage. The teenager is not expecting this source of income to be the only thing which he can use to purchase the goods and services of his life, but rather is counting on his parents to provide many things for him. This does not make the labor contract illegitmate. In the end, the solution to the problem of government interventionism is not to further shackle the free market with regulation, but to destroy the root cause of the problem - which is government involvement in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 10, 2007 2:48:53 GMT -6
Again, if higher wages were so beneficial to business, then businesses would give higher wages on their own.No, they would not. And I think you know why. What's beneficial to one individual business is not necessarily good for all businesses as a whole. It may help one business to cut its labor costs, but not if every other business does the same thing. Yes, it may hurt one individual business if labor costs increase (through wage increases). But the same is not necessarily true if all businesses increased wages. The instantaneous effect of wage increases would be a reduction in profit margins. But the longer term effect would be to increase sales due to the increased aggregate spending power of consumers. Ultimately, the onward and upward increase in consumer spending increases sale of production enough to create a longer-term increase in profits.
|
|