Do We Really Need To Do Income Redistribution To Fix Income Inequality?

[mmi]

a business friendly environment

Ya have to wonder what that means. Sounds like vague rhetoric t' me. My guess is cutting taxes and regulations. That leads to falling revenues and a continuation of the problems that the regulations are designed to preclude, things like pollution that seriously degrades environmental quality and public health, high levels of industrial concentration, a lack of adequate consumer protection, and business practices in the financial sector that place investors and taxpayers at unjustified levels of risk.

 

[pdog]

Institute a business friendly environment which will grow the economy and add jobs. Being anti-business is nothing more than being anti-job. The solution to the problem is not stifling business but encouraging business.

Please explain what "instituting a business friendly environment" is. Please explain how doing so will grow the economy. Please explain how the need for domestic jobs will outpace globalization and automation.

 

[Moderate Right]

Please explain what "instituting a business friendly environment" is. Please explain how doing so will grow the economy. Please explain how the need for domestic jobs will outpace globalization and automation.

It doesn't take brain surgery to figure out if you let businesses expand, they will hire more workers. If you treat business as the enemy and put up a bunch of roadblocks, regulations, and increased expenses their growth will slow and jobs will be lost.

 

[Critter7r]

It doesn't take brain surgery to figure out if you let businesses expand, they will hire more workers. If you treat business as the enemy and put up a bunch of roadblocks, regulations, and increased expenses their growth will slow and jobs will be lost.

If there is no increased demand, a business will not expand no matter how much regulation you remove from its path. They will not hire more people in the face of no increased demand. Why would they? As we've seen them do with the increased profits due to increased productivity and a weak labor bargaining position, they will pocket any increased profits realized by decreased regulation and the public will pay for it in the way of increased pollution, or decreased consumer protections, etc.

You don't expect a business to pay more than necessary to their work force, why would you expect them to pay to produce more than they could sell?

 

[pdog]

It doesn't take brain surgery to figure out if you let businesses expand, they will hire more workers. If you treat business as the enemy and put up a bunch of roadblocks, regulations, and increased expenses their growth will slow and jobs will be lost.

you have two problems there - one it DOES "take brain surgery" - you have no guarantee that they will hire domestic workers over outsourcing or automation. But even if we assume that they will, you said "IF" businesses expand. How is removing regulations going to allow businesses to expand - in what way will it affect their bottom line where they will hire more people?

 

[mmi]

if you let businesses expand, they will hire more workers.

Yes. And they are not being prevented for expanding in any reasonable way.

>>If you treat business as the enemy and put up a bunch of roadblocks, regulations, and increased expenses their growth will slow and jobs will be lost.

True. But you fail to indicate how it is that these unspecified "roadblocks, regulations, and increased expenses" are unwarranted. Should we place a business in yer community in a better position to expand by allowing them to dump tons of hazardous waste material in yer front yard?

 

[Moderate Right]

If there is no increased demand, a business will not expand no matter how much regulation you remove from its path. They will not hire more people in the face of no increased demand. Why would they? As we've seen them do with the increased profits due to increased productivity and a weak labor bargaining position, they will pocket any increased profits realized by decreased regulation and the public will pay for it in the way of increased pollution, or decreased consumer protections, etc.

You don't expect a business to pay more than necessary to their work force, why would you expect them to pay to produce more than they could sell?

You allow businesses to hire more workers instead of putting constraints on them and then more people have more jobs and have more money to spend, which increases demand. It's the domino effect. Take away the dominoes and you have little demand. How does demand increase if you just give the workers you have more money? How is that any different than having more workers to spend more money?

 

[Moderate Right]

you have two problems there - one it DOES "take brain surgery" - you have no guarantee that they will hire domestic workers over outsourcing or automation. But even if we assume that they will, you said "IF" businesses expand. How is removing regulations going to allow businesses to expand - in what way will it affect their bottom line where they will hire more people?

Are you blind? Did you ever hear of Walmart? Did you ever hear of McDonalds? They are not one store operations. They started out as one store, did well enough they could expand and have more stores with more workers and look where they are today! They didn't just keep their one store and pocket all the money and become billionaires. When businesses do better it allows them to expand and hire more workers.

 

[Critter7r]

You allow businesses to hire more workers instead of putting constraints on them and then more people have more jobs and have more money to spend, which increases demand. It's the domino effect. Take away the dominoes and you have little demand. How does demand increase if you just give the workers you have more money? How is that any different than having more workers to spend more money?

You are putting the cart before the horse.

Business hires more workers AFTER there is more demand.

think about it, if you own a bakery and you are throwing away 3 loaves of bread nearly every day, you aren't going to bake more bread tomorrow in the hopes that you'll sell more. But if you're selling out every day, you make more bread.

 

[Moderate Right]

You are putting the cart before the horse.

Business hires more workers AFTER there is more demand.

think about it, if you own a bakery and you are throwing away 3 loaves of bread nearly every day, you aren't going to bake more bread tomorrow in the hopes that you'll sell more. But if you're selling out every day, you make more bread.

That was kind of my point. What good does paying workers more do (like $15 per hour) if there isn't demand first? According to your logic, we need to pay workers more so they have more money to spend but if the demand isn't there first then what good does it do to pay workers more money? Unless you are willing to admit the demand is already there, in which case there really wouldn't be much difference between either paying the workers more money or being more business friendly, causing businesses to hire more workers. One way fewer workers make more money. The other way more workers make less money. What's better, more workers being employed or less workers making more money? What happened to the MMT'rs that strive for full employment?

 

[Critter7r]

That was kind of my point. What good does paying workers more do (like $15 per hour) if there isn't demand first?

Wat? They're already working. If they make more money for the same amount of work, guess what? They're going to spend more money. Voila! Increased wages = increased demand.

According to your logic, we need to pay workers more so they have more money to spend ...

Correct

... but if the demand isn't there first ...

WAT?? They don't have enough money to create the demand!! If they have more money, they'll spend more money.

... then what good does it do to pay workers more money?

You can't be that thick. You're just trying to sound profound. It isn't working.

Unless you are willing to admit the demand is already there ...

You have to learn the difference between demand in a regular context and demand in a financial context. In a financial context, demand requires dollars (or some form of currency to exchange or barter, don't derail me, Jaeger!! ). People can't effect "demand" in an economical sense unless they have money to buy stuff with.

... in which case there really wouldn't be much difference between either paying the workers more money or being more business friendly, causing businesses to hire more workers.

yes. there would.

One way fewer workers make more money. The other way more workers make less money. What's better, more workers being employed or less workers making more money? What happened to the MMT'rs that strive for full employment?

And ... off the rails.

 

[jaeger19]

Please explain what "instituting a business friendly environment" is. Please explain how doing so will grow the economy. Please explain how the need for domestic jobs will outpace globalization and automation.

I'll give you an example.

Obamacare states that if you have over 50 employees.. you have to pay for healthcare for all your employees. Which means when you hire that "fifty first" person.. they not only cost you that salary.. but they cost you healthcare for everyone..

If you are an employer.. you will be really careful of hiring that 51st person.. because the cost could be way more than the revenue they generate.

 

[jaeger19]

That was kind of my point. What good does paying workers more do (like $15 per hour) if there isn't demand first? According to your logic, we need to pay workers more so they have more money to spend but if the demand isn't there first then what good does it do to pay workers more money? Unless you are willing to admit the demand is already there, in which case there really wouldn't be much difference between either paying the workers more money or being more business friendly, causing businesses to hire more workers. One way fewer workers make more money. The other way more workers make less money. What's better, more workers being employed or less workers making more money? What happened to the MMT'rs that strive for full employment?

yeah.. you aren't making sense there. If workers have more money.. they can buy more stuff and that creates demand.

Paying workers more money does not necessarily mean there will be fewer workers.

 

[Moderate Right]

Wat? They're already working. If they make more money for the same amount of work, guess what? They're going to spend more money. Voila! Increased wages = increased demand.



Correct



WAT?? They don't have enough money to create the demand!! If they have more money, they'll spend more money.



You can't be that thick. You're just trying to sound profound. It isn't working.



You have to learn the difference between demand in a regular context and demand in a financial context. In a financial context, demand requires dollars (or some form of currency to exchange or barter, don't derail me, Jaeger!! ). People can't effect "demand" in an economical sense unless they have money to buy stuff with.



yes. there would.



And ... off the rails.

That just proves my point. There is just as much demand in paying workers more money than not paying workers more money and being more business friendly, which causes there to be more workers making money which also increases demand. Let's say demand is worth a total of one trillion dollars. There isn't any difference in dividing that one trillion dollars by fewer workers making more money or more workers making less money. One trillion dollars is still one trillion dollars but one way more people are employed spending less money and the other way less people are employed spending more money. What happened to the MMT'rs goal of full employment?

 

[jaeger19]

That just proves my point. There is just as much demand in paying workers more money than not paying workers more money and being more business friendly, which causes there to be more workers making money which also increases demand. Let's say demand is worth a total of one trillion dollars. There isn't any difference in dividing that one trillion dollars by fewer workers making more money or more workers making less money. One trillion dollars is still one trillion dollars but one way more people are employed spending less money and the other way less people are employed spending more money. What happened to the MMT'rs goal of full employment?

Yeah no.


You can be more "business friendly".. and demand not increase one bit. Particularly when we already have low unemployment.

 

[Moderate Right]

yeah.. you aren't making sense there. If workers have more money.. they can buy more stuff and that creates demand.

Paying workers more money does not necessarily mean there will be fewer workers.

It's pretty much accepted knowledge that even regular raises to the minimum wage cost at least some jobs. There is some debate as to actually how many jobs but most people accept that as fact. Most people also accept the fact that doubling the minimum wage would cost a lot more jobs than what the smaller increases have done. In being more business friendly more jobs would be created, which one could argue would create just as much demand as raising the minimum wage would. Of course it would be impossible to calculate exact figures but one could argue that there would be the same amount of demand from more workers with no minimum wage increases or less workers with a doubling of the minimum wage.

 

[Critter7r]

That just proves my point. There is just as much demand in paying workers more money than not paying workers more money and being more business friendly, which causes there to be more workers making money which also increases demand. Let's say demand is worth a total of one trillion dollars. There isn't any difference in dividing that one trillion dollars by fewer workers making more money or more workers making less money. One trillion dollars is still one trillion dollars but one way more people are employed spending less money and the other way less people are employed spending more money. What happened to the MMT'rs goal of full employment?

You dont even lnow what your point is. Your point was that hiring more workers at the same pay would increase demand. Now you're talking about demand being the same with more workers making *less* per worker. You're making a different point now which doesn't increase demand.

:smh

But none of that matters, because there won't be any hiring *before* demand (the amount of spending) goes up. So the current workers need to earn more to get the ball rolling.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[Moderate Right]

Yeah no.


You can be more "business friendly".. and demand not increase one bit. Particularly when we already have low unemployment.

I guess my context in all this is in debating that the minimum wage is doubling. If we double it, it will lead to a big loss in jobs. If we are more "business friendly" and don't double the minimum wage we will have more earners making less money instead of less earners making more money. In other words, a theoretical wash.

 

[Moderate Right]

You dont even lnow what your point is. Your point was that hiring more workers at the same pay would increase demand. Now you're talking about demand being the same with more workers making *less* per worker. You're making a different point now which doesn't increase demand.

:smh

But none of that matters, because there won't be any hiring *before* demand (the amount of spending) goes up. So the current workers need to earn more to get the ball rolling.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

I don't believe I said that. I was saying that, theoretically, there would be approximately the same demand with less workers making more money as there would be with more workers making less money.

 

[jaeger19]

It's pretty much accepted knowledge that even regular raises to the minimum wage cost at least some jobs. There is some debate as to actually how many jobs but most people accept that as fact. Most people also accept the fact that doubling the minimum wage would cost a lot more jobs than what the smaller increases have done. In being more business friendly more jobs would be created, which one could argue would create just as much demand as raising the minimum wage would. Of course it would be impossible to calculate exact figures but one could argue that there would be the same amount of demand from more workers with no minimum wage increases or less workers with a doubling of the minimum wage.

Yeah.. I don't think thats accepted as fact. If that were true.. we should be running at high unemployment considering the number of times we have raised the minimum wage... but unemployment has not increased despite the number of times that the minimum wage has increased.

 

[jaeger19]

I guess my context in all this is in debating that the minimum wage is doubling. If we double it, it will lead to a big loss in jobs. If we are more "business friendly" and don't double the minimum wage we will have more earners making less money instead of less earners making more money. In other words, a theoretical wash.

Oh.. in the context of doubling the minimum wage.. I would agree.. thats a huge increase with little thought of its effects.

I think however, that the "business friendly" approach has its issues as well, since being business friendly certainly doesn''t translate into "more workers making less money"...

We are already had pretty low unemployment. Unemployment is not the issue... wages are.

by the way... thats one of the problems with the MMT.."but we need full employment"..schtick.

 

[Celebrity]

I guess my context in all this is in debating that the minimum wage is doubling. If we double it, it will lead to a big loss in jobs. If we are more "business friendly" and don't double the minimum wage we will have more earners making less money instead of less earners making more money. In other words, a theoretical wash.

Doubling the minimum wage sounds like a lot.

California reaches deal on $15 minimum wage

We're talking about dollar increments over a period of 6 years. Yeah, it's steep because people want a wage that's worth working for.

If you can't tax the wealthy, then increase the liquidity.

 

[mmi]

If you are an employer.. you will be really careful of hiring that 51st person.. because the cost could be way more than the revenue they generate.

Ninety-seven percent of US businesses have fewer than fifty full-time employees. More than 96% of those firms that do have fifty or more employees already offer health insurance to their employees. So only one percent of all firms are affected by this requirement.

 

[Moderate Right]

Doubling the minimum wage sounds like a lot.

California reaches deal on $15 minimum wage

We're talking about dollar increments over a period of 6 years. Yeah, it's steep because people want a wage that's worth working for.

If you can't tax the wealthy, then increase the liquidity.

Funny thing is the left views doubling the minimum wage as a form of wealth redistribution. They couldn't be more wrong. In response to doubling the minimum wage the "rich" will increase their prices for their goods and services so that they still make what they were making before. So where does the money come from to pay for the MW increase - from the people who buy the goods and services, who the left already admits to being the ones who disproportionally buy those goods and services.

 

[mmi]

In response to doubling the minimum wage the "rich" will increase their prices for their goods and services so that they still make what they were making before.

If they could react that way and maintain their profit margin, why would they not simply raise their prices now and increase their profits? You don't need to even be able to spell economics to see that, and yet it escapes you.