An Experiment with Guaranteed Income

[ludin]

When a minimum wage is installed, all lower wages adjust accordingly. That's just common sense.

You might call that "scaling". And those companies - big or small - who do not abide by the rules pay a humongous fine. (Duhhhhh!)

It's no big deal - YOU ARE MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLEHILL.

IE you cannot address the argument so I will give you another chance.

You have a manager that is making 15 an hour. your lowest paid worker makes 10 an hour.
that lowest paid worker now makes 15. the manager comes and says "hey I need a raise to
I am making the same thing as lowest paid guy. I need an equal raise in pay".

are you going to tell him sorry but you now make minimum wage as well?

that is what we call scaling. all wages move upward in order to compensate skilled labor.

 

[ludin]

PLUTOCRACY IN AMERICA



Yet another infographic proves you wrong, wrong, wrong:

At the upper-incomes the Sickeningly Rich (10Percenters) never pay more than a 30% income-tax!

This is what we call moving the goal posts. you changed the topic from top marginal rates to effective tax rates.
this is an inconsistency in your argument that shows you are on shaky ground with what you are saying.

so that graph doesn't prove me wrong since we were not talking about that to begin with. please be consistent in your ranting or at
least try.

Moreover: With the "Panama Papers" uncover, we shall see where most of the taxable income has taken cover. And then, of course, there is the American Way of hiding from taxation, see here from Fortune Magazine: How to avoid taxes the American way. In Wyoming!

This is just pulling crap out of thin air. I never said anything about this. each one of those people on that paper should be convicted of tax evasion in my view.
that is a crime.

And, finally, from the Huffington Post: Plutocracy In America - an excerpt:

a crap article from the rag of the huffpo is meaningless.

MY POINT?
One must be THICK not to see the finagling going on to maintain the over-sized Wealth of America's Plutocrat Rich ...

then you changed your point, however this has nothing to do with the fact that people in the US really don't know what real income
inequality is. I have seen real income inequality. it isn't pretty. I thank God that I live in America where I have the opportunities that I
do. in many countries people don't come close.

In America I have the opportunity to make a million dollars or more. in other countries I don't.

 

[Mycroft]

"Income equality" is something that individuals must earn if it is what they desire. Earning something requires motivation, determination and hard work.

Income equality is not something that can be mandated by government edict. The rise and fall of the Soviet Union and the evolution away from Mao's vision for China have proven that fact.

 

[Lafayette]

IE you cannot address the argument so I will give you another chance.

Keep it to yourself.

As I said, there will be some "scaling up" at the lower end but rise of the current minimum wage (8 to 10 dollars an hour) to $15 will cause only a ripple further upward. Which is also beneficial

Moreover, get here (WikiPedia artlcle on Minimum Wage:

A 2013 Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) review of multiple studies since 2000 indicated that there was "little or no employment response to modest increases in the minimum wage." The study indicated 11 reasons for this finding, the most important including: "reductions in labor turnover; improvements in organizational efficiency; reductions in wages of higher earners ('wage compression'); and small price increases."

Another CEPR study in 2014 found that job creation within the United States is faster within states that raised their minimum wage. In 2014, the state with the highest minimum wage in the nation, Washington, exceeded the national average for job growth in the United States.

Whether growth (GDP, a measure of both income and production) increases or decreases depends significantly on whether the income shifted from owners to workers results in an overall higher level of spending. The tendency of a consumer to spend their next dollar is referred to as the marginal propensity to consume or MPC. The transfer of income from higher income owners (who tend to save more, meaning a lower MPC) to lower income workers (who tend to save less, with a higher MPC) can actually lead to an increase in total consumption and higher demand for goods, leading to increased employment

One is blind not to see the benefits engendered by raising the minimum wage ...

 

[Lafayette]

You are h-o-p-e-l--e-s-s.

Moving right along ...

 

[Mycroft]

Keep it to yourself.

As I said, there will be some "scaling up" at the lower end but rise of the current minimum wage (8 to 10 dollars an hour) to $15 will cause only a ripple further upward. Which is also beneficial

Moreover, get here (WikiPedia artlcle on Minimum Wage:

One is blind not to see the benefits engendered by raising the minimum wage ...

I wouldn't call a $5 - $7 increase in the minimum wage a "modest increase" and I would wager such an increase will cause significantly more than a "ripple".

One is blind not to see the downsides engendered by raising the minimum wage.

Moving right along...

 

[ludin]

Keep it to yourself.

As I said, there will be some "scaling up" at the lower end but rise of the current minimum wage (8 to 10 dollars an hour) to $15 will cause only a ripple further upward. Which is also beneficial

Moreover, get here (WikiPedia artlcle on Minimum Wage:

One is blind not to see the benefits engendered by raising the minimum wage ...

so you can't actually address the argument why?

the fact is that people currently making 15 an hour will want to be compensated equally.
they will want to make more than the bag boy at the grocery store making 15 an hour.

this will happen across all work environments.
nothing will change. prices will rise to match the new salaries and pretty much all expenses will go up.

all you set is a new floor for poverty.

one if blind to see that paying people a higher salary without the corresponding skills and other increased pay factors
is disaster in the making.

you can't give 100% pay increase to low skill workers without giving skilled workers a pay increase as well.
that leads to higher costs for everyone everywhere.

it also equals job losses for no skill or low skill workers as they are replaced with machines since the cost of having them
on is to much.

what you also forget is that you are not only raising the pay roll but taxes, insurance and other things companies have to pay.

at 10 dollars an hour it cost a company 13 dollars or so an hour. at 15 it will probably cost a company 18.
which means that person has to be able to produce 20 an hour to be profitable.

a person can only grill so many burgers in an hour.

 

[ludin]

You are h-o-p-e-l--e-s-s.

Moving right along ...

this coming from a person that can't actually address the argument.

 

[Lafayette]

I wouldn't call a $5 - $7 increase in the minimum wage a "modest increase" and I would wager such an increase will cause significantly more than a "ripple".

One is blind not to see the downsides engendered by raising the minimum wage.

Wager as you like, the economic evidence (as determined by researchers) shows no real impact. Read particularly the Commentary part of the article that I previously cited.

Excerpt:

In 2014, over 600 economists signed a letter in support of a $10.10 minimum wage increase with research suggesting that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth. Also, seven recipients of the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences were among 75 economists endorsing an increase in the minimum wage for U.S. workers and said "the weight" of economic research shows higher pay doesn’t lead to fewer jobs.

According to a February 2013 survey of the University of Chicago IGM Forum, which includes approximately 40 economists:
-34% agreed with the statement that "Raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour would make it noticeably harder for low-skilled workers to find employment", with 24% uncertain and 32% disagreeing.
-42% agreed with the statement that "...raising the minimum wage to $9 per hour and indexing it to inflation...would be a desirable policy", with 32% uncertain and 11% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing.[60]

Economist Paul Krugman advocated raising the minimum wage moderately in 2013, citing several reasons, including:
The minimum wage was below its 1960s purchasing power, despite a near doubling of productivity;
The great preponderance of the evidence indicates there is no negative impact on employment from moderate increases.

I will even suggest that we put a clause in any such eventual law authorizing a national minimum wage stipulating that should any deleterious effects be "demonstrated and proven" that a National Referendum be undertaken to destitute the law. (I like referendums because they stimulate debate, and once voted they dictate the law as desired by the American electorate - which could not be more democratic. Rather than blaming a political party, we can all blame one another!)

 

[Mycroft]

Wager as you like, the economic evidence (as determined by researchers) shows no real impact. Read particularly the Commentary part of the article that I previously cited.

Excerpt:

I will even suggest that we put a clause in any such eventual law authorizing a national minimum wage stipulating that should any deleterious effects be "demonstrated and proven" that a National Referendum be undertaken to destitute the law. (I like referendums because they stimulate debate, and once voted they dictate the law as desired by the American electorate - which could not be more democratic. Rather than blaming a political party, we can all blame one another!)

So...now you are moving your goalposts from "modest increase" to "moderate increase", when the fact is 33% to 50% increase in the minimum wage is neither modest nor moderate.


btw, considering some of the idiotic left-wing claptrap I've seen from Krugman, I suggest you don't try to make a case that he is being even slightly objective.

 

[Lafayette]

So...now you are moving your goalposts from "modest increase" to "moderate increase", when the fact is 33% to 50% increase in the minimum wage is neither modest nor moderate.

You're playing with words, because you have no argument.

I showed you the research into the matter by economists. There is no catastrophic economic consequence if the minimum wage is raised to about $15 per hour gradually over five years.

Do the numbers. The Poverty Threshold for a family of four is presently $24K per year. Which, if we take a 40 hour week turns out to be $11.50 an hour. So the difference between that wage and the $15 per hour being proposed is $3.50 an hour. (Here is how the Census Bureau defines poverty threshold.)

The poverty threshold of $11.50/hour is above most of the present "minimum wages" levels in the US. For that, see here: STATE MINIMUM WAGE LEGISLATION. (Scroll down to the list.)

Not one state today, not even California, has a minimum wage that equals the Threshold of Poverty level of $11.50 an hour. And, 15% of the American population are below the Poverty Threshold.

The Census Bureau 2014 Poverty Highlights:

In 2014, the official poverty rate was 14.8 percent. There were 46.7 million people in poverty. Neither the poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty were statistically different from the 2013 estimates.

For the fourth consecutive year, the number of people in poverty at the national level was not statistically different from the previous year’s estimates.

The 2014 poverty rate was 2.3 percentage points higher than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession.

The 2014 poverty rates for most demographic groups examined were not statistically different from the 2013 rates. Poverty rates went up between 2013 and 2014 for only two groups: people with a bachelor’s degree or more, and married-couple families.
For most groups, the number of people in poverty either decreased or did not show a statistically significant change. The number of people in poverty increased for unrelated individuals, people aged 18 to 64 with a disability, people with at least a bachelor’s degree and married-couple families.

The poverty rate in 2014 for children under age 18 was 21.1 percent. The poverty rate for people aged 18 to 64 was 13.5 percent, while the rate for people aged 65 and older was 10.0 percent. None of these poverty rates were statistically different from the 2013 estimates.

btw, considering some of the idiotic left-wing claptrap I've seen from Krugman, I suggest you don't try to make a case that he is being even slightly objective.

Sez you ... and you have won a Nobel Prize in Economics, right?

 

[Mycroft]

You're playing with words, because you have no argument.

LOL!!

There's that typical dodge again.

I showed you the research into the matter by economists. There is no catastrophic economic consequence if the minimum wage is raised to about $15 per hour gradually over five years.

Oh...now you are, once again, moving the goal posts. Now it's not just increasing the minimum wage, it's increasing it "gradually over five years".

The quote you provided makes no mention of any such gradual increase.

Do the numbers. The Poverty Threshold for a family of four is presently $24K per year. Which, if we take a 40 hour week turns out to be $11.50 an hour. So the difference between that wage and the $15 per hour being proposed is $3.50 an hour. (Here is how the Census Bureau defines poverty threshold.)

The poverty threshold of $11.50/hour is above most of the present "minimum wages" levels in the US. For that, see here: STATE MINIMUM WAGE LEGISLATION. (Scroll down to the list.)

Not one state today, not even California, has a minimum wage that equals the Threshold of Poverty level of $11.50 an hour. And, 15% of the American population are below the Poverty Threshold.

The Census Bureau 2014 Poverty Highlights:





Sez you ... and you have won a Nobel Prize in Economics, right?

Has it occurred to you that there is a reason current minimum wages do not equal the poverty level?

Myth # 5 A higher minimum wage is the best way to address poverty

Fact: A 2007 study by the University of New Hampshire found that seven out of 10 economists agree that the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is the best antipoverty program available to us, while only one out of 10 said the same thing about minimum wage hikes. Economists Joseph Sabia at San Diego State University and Robert Nielsen at the University of Georgia found a 1% drop in state poverty rates associated with each 1% increase in a state’s EITC. (The same study found no relationship between minimum wage hikes and poverty rates.)

https://www.minimumwage.com/myths/

Today, the Employment Policies Institute (EPI) released a new study by economists Joseph J. Sabia (San Diego State University) and Robert Nielsen (University of Georgia) that finds raising the minimum wage has had no impact on reducing economic hardship, e.g., helping more families pay rent or meet monthly expenses.

https://www.epionline.org/release/o340/

In any event, busting that myth is a no-brainer when you consider our country has been involved in a "War On Poverty" for more than 50 years and...guess what...we haven't won it. That's because a democratic republic cannot end poverty...they can only make it worse or leave people alone to deal with it themselves. All this minimum wage blather is nothing but feel-good liberal big-government claptrap.

 

[Lafayette]

Now it's not just increasing the minimum wage, it's increasing it "gradually over five years".

BFD.

The only two voted changes, NYC and California, are increasing the wage gradually to $15/hour over a five year period.

Duhhhhhhh ...

 

[Lafayette]

IOne is blind not to see the downsides engendered by raising the minimum wage.

And about 50 million American men, women and children presently incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold will see definitely the upside.

That is, btw, the total population of California and Illinois combined ...

 

[Mycroft]

And about 50 million American men, women and children presently incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold will see definitely the upside.

That is, btw, the total population of California and Illinois combined ...

LOL!!

"incarcerated"!!

When you are reduced to hyperbole, your argument is lost.

Nobody is "incarcerated" below the poverty threshold.

 

[imagep]

It's still robbing the treasury to provide for peoples individual needs.

Yes it is.


So?

 

[imagep]

With all due respect, if you can't pay for it then it doesn't work.

Why couldn't a government that issues money pay for it?

 

[Lafayette]

Nobody is "incarcerated" below the poverty threshold.

How the hell would you know because you've never been there?

Your heartless disregard for the down-and-out is appalling ...

 

[Mycroft]

How the hell would you know because you've never been there?

Your heartless disregard for the down-and-out is appalling ...

LOL!!

Dude...you probably should stop right here...right now...before you make yourself look like even more of a fool than you already have.

Tell me...how do YOU know I've never been there?

 

[Lafayette]

Dude...you probably should stop right here...right now...before you make yourself look like even more of a fool than you already have.

Blah, blah, blah - more "ad hominems".

Stick to debate-argumentation, will you? If you have one left ...

 

[Mycroft]

blah, blah, blah - more "ad hominems".

Stick to debate-argumentation, will you? If you have one left ...

lol!!!

 

[Lafayette]

View attachment 67200474

More puerile derision.

Moving right along ...

 

[Lafayette]

It's still robbing the treasury to provide for peoples individual needs.

And robbing the Treasury for the "supposed necessity of defending the nation" is not an individual need?

Pray tell me the difference - because the "enemy within" (income disparity) is doing more individual harm* than the "enemy without" (ISIS) ...

*Abject poverty, ill health, racial persecution, lack of education, alienation, drunkenness, drug abuse, murder - etc., etc., etc. How Income Inequality affects Crime Rates.**
**Excerpt:

In a 2002 study by World Bank economists Pablo Fajnzylber, Daniel Lederman, and Norman Loayza, it was found out that crime rates and inequality are positively correlated within countries and also between countries. The correlation is a causation – inequality induces crime rates.

 

[Lafayette]

With all due respect, if you can't pay for it then it doesn't work.

Of course we "can pay for it". Any budget-policy is a matter of choice amongst priorities.The problem is that a dominant political party - that controls the public-purse in the HofR - does not want to pay for "it" because it does not see poverty as a national-priority.

The DoD budget remains at whopping 20% of total, because America likes to police the world. When there is a greater need for it to look at its internal needs.

E V E R Y B I T of expenditure has a national "purpose" that is negotiated between the PotUS and Congress. At present, all spending bills (not by law but by custom) initiate from the HofR. So, the PotUS negotiates with that body as regards annual budgets. The HofR, run by the Replicants, has steadfastly refused any additional funding because the "National Debt" is (supposedly) too high.

The National Debt is high, but Stimulus Spending IS a means of getting people back to work, prompting consumers to consume, which has two effects:
*Strengthens state budgets by means of sales-tax revenues, and
*Spurs the economy by creating jobs that generate income-tax revenues. Thus, the stimulus pays for itself.

So, Uncle Sam has taken (since 2010) an extra 2/3 years to exit the Great Recession*, with unemployment only recently having been reduced to just below 5%. The lowest it has ever been is 4% since 1990:

The reduction in the Unemployment Rate has done very little to effect those incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold, which still constitutes 15% of the American population ...

*Which was initiated by the fact that Bankters on Wall Street securitized loans that had become Toxic Waste because the underlying capacity of mortgagors to assume loan-repayments had been falsified (by Main Street mortgagees), which was a criminal offence for which no one was punished.

 

[Mycroft]

More puerile derision.

Moving right along ...

Yes...it IS best for you to move right along, isn't it?