Discussion on the Job Guarantee Bill

[tessaesque]

OK, you fairly proved your point. The Australian dollar is worth less than the US dollar. In absoute terms, you are correct.

But in terms of the standard of living of those who choose to work, particularlly at the lower income levels, they can afford to purchase much more per hour of labor than we can in the US - I suspect that is what JP was getting at.

So the working poor in Australia are significantly better off than the working poor in the USA - the minimum wage worker in Australia can afford to purchase 10 snickers bars for every hour worked, but the US minimum wage worker can only afford 6 (based on the numbers that you provided). Now lets look to see if the relatively higher minimum wage is harming unemployment in Austalia (the conservative theory would be that that unemployment must be higher in Australia due to the higher minimum wage), nope, just looked it up, unemployment in Australia has not exceeded 5.4% in the past few years, yet it has averaged around 9% in the USA. I guess thats another right wing myth busted.

But high taxes lead to a bad economy right? So maybe Australias extremely low tax rates are compensating for their high minimum wage. Nope, just looked that up also, taxes as a percent of GDP are actually about 10% higher than in the US. Wow, it appears that a comparison of the economy in Australia to the economy in the US blows away almost all conservative economic talking points.

In terms of candy bars and burgers, yeah..the working poor can afford more. But in terms of housing and other necessities they're no better off than Americans. Housing is almost 60% more expensive in Australia than in the US. So that 54ish% difference in total income isn't as nifty as it seems.

 

[tessaesque]

OK, you fairly proved your point. The Australian dollar is worth less than the US dollar. In absoute terms, you are correct.

But in terms of the standard of living of those who choose to work, particularlly at the lower income levels, they can afford to purchase much more per hour of labor than we can in the US - I suspect that is what JP was getting at.

So the working poor in Australia are significantly better off than the working poor in the USA - the minimum wage worker in Australia can afford to purchase 10 snickers bars for every hour worked, but the US minimum wage worker can only afford 6 (based on the numbers that you provided). Now lets look to see if the relatively higher minimum wage is harming unemployment in Austalia (the conservative theory would be that that unemployment must be higher in Australia due to the higher minimum wage), nope, just looked it up, unemployment in Australia has not exceeded 5.4% in the past few years, yet it has averaged around 9% in the USA. I guess thats another right wing myth busted.

But high taxes lead to a bad economy right? So maybe Australias extremely low tax rates are compensating for their high minimum wage. Nope, just looked that up also, taxes as a percent of GDP are actually about 10% higher than in the US. Wow, it appears that a comparison of the economy in Australia to the economy in the US blows away almost all conservative economic talking points.

ncome Tax Rates
Australia has a tiered income tax system, where the more money you earn, the higher tax rate you pay on the extra income (as in the UK). Current (2011-2012) rates are:
Taxable Income Tax Rate Tax Amount Due
$0 - $6,000 0% $0
$6,001 - $37,000 15% 15¢ for each $1 over $6,000
$37,001 - $80,000 30% $4,650 plus 30¢ for each $1 over $37,000
$80,001 - $180,000 37% $17,550 plus 37¢ for each $1 over $80,000
$180,001 and over 45% $54,550 plus 45¢ for each $1 over $180,000

^^^ Australian tax tables

Below are the US effective rates:

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'd say you would be correct In a lot of cases for the working poor welfare and other benefits given seem to just be a form of wage subsidies so that someone can pay their workers less than it cost to live.

That is very true, as are the "we can't secure the border" and the "we can't deport illegal aliens" arguments false, but they are used to keep downward pressure on the lower wage workers. Anything that masks the fact that the bottom (those below the upper-middle class) is losing ground to inflation and are being exploited is blown off as "rich envy" or some other nonsense by the GOP and used to great political advantage by the demorats, as they can easily buy those votes using other peoples (the taxpayers) money. Yes they can!

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Your posts have been comparing Australian economics to US economics for the last several pages.

Because someone mentioned that minimum wage increases causes inflation, which is does slightly, but there are also other factors that go into price.

 

[DA60]

So you are suggesting the printing money can lead to a good economy?

I am suggesting that the US economy in the last 40 years or so has been artificially propped up with debt.

And between WW2 and about 1960-65, she had the virtual run of the economic planet while the former world powerhouses rebuilt from war or wallowed in communism.

 

[iliveonramen]

That is very true, as are the "we can't secure the border" and the "we can't deport illegal aliens" arguments false, but they are used to keep downward pressure on the lower wage workers. Anything that masks the fact that the bottom (those below the upper-middle class) is losing ground to inflation and are being exploited is blown off as "rich envy" or some other nonsense by the GOP and used to great political advantage by the demorats, as they can easily buy those votes using other peoples (the taxpayers) money. Yes they can!

I agree with this.

 

[DA60]

At least one of our recessions came with a great deal of inflation, and most occured with minimal inflation, so recessions are not always caused by deflations, althought the expectations of deflation was a significant factor in the depression of 1920. I would hesitate to make any sweeping statements about the cause of recessions, each one is unique.

True...good point.

 

[imagep]

................


Straight from the Australian bureau of labor...

When did 5.1 become half of 8.2?? It is 38% lower than ours.

Does Australia also have a large illegal population? Did it have a huge housing market bubble that burst? Did it's auto industry require massive government intervention to avoid collapse?

Or would you like to keep inaccurately comparing apples to oranges? 'Cause I can do this all day.

Obviously the economy in Australia is much better managed than in the USA. Less poverty among those that work, less unemployment amont those that who would like to work, less need for social spending, etc.

So maybe having a relatively slightly higher minimum wage (adusted for valuations in currency) isn't the economic catastrophy that some conservatives claim it is.

 

[imagep]

I'd say you would be correct In a lot of cases for the working poor welfare and other benefits given seem to just be a form of wage subsidies so that someone can pay their workers less than it cost to live.

I agree. I have been arguing that same point for a long long time. Welfare, foodstamps, etc are all subsidies for employers that pay low wages.

 

[ARealConservative]

What actions? What proof do you have of this?

This is common knowledge.

I suggest you read "A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960"

Or you can go with an abbreviated version, which references it often, and can be found here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj28n2/cj28n2-13.pdf

 

[imagep]

In terms of candy bars and burgers, yeah..the working poor can afford more. But in terms of housing and other necessities they're no better off than Americans. Housing is almost 60% more expensive in Australia than in the US. So that 54ish% difference in total income isn't as nifty as it seems.

n

But remember, the minimum wage in non-adjusted terms is more than double the min wage in the us. So lets say that decent housing in the US costs $1000 (US) it would be about $1600 (Australian) in Australia. So a minimum wage worker, ignoring taxes and time and a half would have to work 138 hours for a month of housing, the Australian minimum wage worker would only have to work 100 hours for the same housing.

You keep telling me that costs unadjusted for the value of currency are 60% higher in Australia, but you keep ignoring that minimum wage is more than 100% higher in australia. For the lower skilled individual who wishes to work and who doesn't want welfare, Australia sounds like a paradise. I wouldn't mind if if we spent less on welfare in the US.

 

[imagep]

^^^ Australian tax tables

Below are the US effective rates:

View attachment 67130559

Thanks for posting that. So Australia is not only an economic paradise with little need for social spending, it also has a more progressive income tax system. That serves as evidence to disprove the conservative theory that the progressive tax system harms our economy. The comparison between actual real life economies is batting 100% against conservative myths today.

 

[imagep]

I am suggesting that the US economy in the last 40 years or so has been artificially propped up with debt.

And between WW2 and about 1960-65, she had the virtual run of the economic planet while the former world powerhouses rebuilt from war or wallowed in communism.

If it worked, it worked, I could care less if it was "artificial". What does "artifical" mean anyway, "fake"? I wouldn't call it artificial if it worked. If it worked it worked and thus it is real.

 

[PrometheusBound]

In college, you work for nothing. After college, you do nothing but work. So what good is it to make a lot of money if you don't have the time and energy to enjoy it? Pay the unemployed and underemployed a salary to go to college or get job training. Because our present unnatural system doesn't produce enough talented people to meet our needs, those who do survive college indentured servitude have to overwork in order to make up for all the missing employees who couldn't put up with the failed method of getting those jobs. Also, the grind creates greedheads, bitter and ruthless zombies making up for lost time. They are the ones who destroyed companies and created this level of unemployment.

 

[tessaesque]

n

But remember, the minimum wage in non-adjusted terms is more than double the min wage in the us. So lets say that decent housing in the US costs $1000 (US) it would be about $1600 (Australian) in Australia. So a minimum wage worker, ignoring taxes and time and a half would have to work 138 hours for a month of housing, the Australian minimum wage worker would only have to work 100 hours for the same housing.

You keep telling me that costs unadjusted for the value of currency are 60% higher in Australia, but you keep ignoring that minimum wage is more than 100% higher in australia. For the lower skilled individual who wishes to work and who doesn't want welfare, Australia sounds like a paradise. I wouldn't mind if if we spent less on welfare in the US.

The minimum wage is significantly higher, but the median income is not. Which means that 60% higher costs are not offset by a 54% higher median wage. It isn't as rosy as it seems.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

This is common knowledge.

I suggest you read "A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960"

Or you can go with an abbreviated version, which references it often, and can be found here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj28n2/cj28n2-13.pdf

OKay the Cato link is saying that monetary contraction is what led to the 1929 crash.

"Consequently, on February 2, 1929,
the Board sent a letter, crafted mostly by Miller, to all the Fed Banks
stating that the Board had the “duty . . . to restrain the use of Federal
Reserve credit facilities in aid of the growth of speculative credit.” To
accomplish this end, the Board initiated “the policy of ‘direct pressure’
[that] restricted borrowings from the federal reserve banks by
those member banks which were increasingly disposed to lend funds
for speculative purposes” (p. 454)."

Then Cato jumps to the conclusion that under a gold standard this could not have happened. But they refuse to admit that under the gold standard we also would not have had the roaring twenties either, where people went into a credit frenzy.

Gold keeps an economy from expanding as fast. It however still has the ability to crash in economy if reserves reduce or if gold values reduce. There is nothing the government could do to control that.

Under a stronger central bank they can implement policies to make booms and busts less severe. Admittedly, the people that run it don't always do it right, but at least we still have control as opposed to leaving it up to the free market god.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

The minimum wage is significantly higher, but the median income is not. Which means that 60% higher costs are not offset by a 54% higher median wage. It isn't as rosy as it seems.

well that is the point, the minimum wage isn't supposed to be beneficial to all income levels. Although businesses will have more demand.

 

[DA60]

If it worked, it worked, I could care less if it was "artificial". What does "artifical" mean anyway, "fake"? I wouldn't call it artificial if it worked. If it worked it worked and thus it is real.

Artificial in that it required huge amounts of unsustainable debt to continue at it's then level of growth.

Would you call a company successful if the only way they can maintain the present level of growth is to go further and further into debt?

I certainly wouldn't.


Any moron can charge his/her way to (temporary) prosperity.

A TON of Americans tried that during the housing boom....it didn't work out so well.

But it probably was lots of fun for them until the bills came due.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Artificial in that it required huge amounts of unsustainable debt to continue at it's then level of growth.

Would you call a company successful if the only way they can maintain the present level of growth is to go further and further into debt?

I certainly wouldn't.


Any moron can charge his/her way to (temporary) prosperity.

Achieving it with sound economics and a balanced budget, now that is admirable - and sustainable over the long term.

We went through this before the federal government is not comparable to a business or a household. We keep getting back to this, its a damn logical loop here sometime, lol.

 

[DA60]

We went through this before the federal government is not comparable to a business or a household. We keep getting back to this, its a damn logical loop here sometime, lol.

Ahhh yeahhhh....believe whatever you wish....you obviously will no matter what anyone else says who you disagree with.


You know - you are big on matter-of-fact statements.

But not so big on providing unbiased, factual proof to back them up.

Why don't you try doing the latter a bit more and maybe I would take your matter-of-fact theories more seriously.

 

[a351]

Artificial in that it required huge amounts of unsustainable debt to continue at it's then level of growth.

Would you call a company successful if the only way they can maintain the present level of growth is to go further and further into debt?

I certainly wouldn't.


Any moron can charge his/her way to (temporary) prosperity.

A TON of Americans tried that during the housing boom....it didn't work out so well.

But it probably was lots of fun for them until the bills came due.

It clearly wasn't unsustainable. We failed to pay off the debt for WW1, 2, The 80's etc. etc. , yet even with the looming presence of previously incurred debt, economic activity continued unabided and neither growth nor incomes were worse for the wear.

History has demonstrated quite thoroughly that the household argument holds precisely zero water as a valid theory.

 

[ARealConservative]

OKay the Cato link is saying that monetary contraction is what led to the 1929 crash.

correct. the great contraction.

Then Cato jumps to the conclusion that under a gold standard this could not have happened.

This is an axiom. A system using a gold standard would not have a central bank with the authority to constrict the supply of money. No jumping to conclusions is necessary

But they refuse to admit that under the gold standard we also would not have had the roaring twenties either, where people went into a credit frenzy.

nonsense. Artificial bubbles have long been "admitted to" in Austrian Economics. The article I cited was dealing only with the cause of the contraction.

Gold keeps an economy from expanding as fast. It however still has the ability to crash in economy if reserves reduce or if gold values reduce.

sound money itself doesn't crash an economy, but a business cycle using sound money still has booms and busts.

There is nothing the government could do to control that.

Considering the Fed exists in 1913, and actually did more to increase the harm of the 1929 crash then prevent or lessen it, it stands to reason they can't control the economy as much as you would like to believe anyway.

Under a stronger central bank they can implement policies to make booms and busts less severe. Admittedly, the people that run it don't always do it right, but at least we still have control as opposed to leaving it up to the free market god.

again, my article is stating they made it more severe.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm not going to read all 15 pages of this thread, so maybe my question has been answered.

Is this an actual "bill", as the thread title states? Or is this someone's idea of a good program for the government to implement?

 

[DA60]

It clearly wasn't unsustainable. We failed to pay off the debt for WW1, 2, The 80's etc. etc. , yet even with the looming presence of previously incurred debt, economic activity continued unabided and neither growth nor incomes were worse for the wear.

History has demonstrated quite thoroughly that the household argument holds precisely zero water as a valid theory.

A) So you think the continual build up of debt, unabaited is sustainable?

Noted.


B) Perhaps you would care to provide a link to unbiased, factual data (not opinions, but data/facts) that proves your second point.

If it has been 'proven quite thoroughly' - then it should be easy for you.

 

[a351]

A) So you think the continual build up of debt, unabaited is sustainable?

Noted.


B) Perhaps you would care to provide a link to unbiased, factual data (not opinions, but data/facts) that proves your second point.

If it has been 'proven quite thoroughly' - then it should be easy for you.

It's proven to be more than manageable for the past 150 years or so.

You hardly need data to demonstrate that a Monetarily sovereign country can carry significant amounts of debt without suffering the same consequences than that of a household. A simple glance at the country you currently preside in should prove sufficient.