My friend and I are currently in a debate regarding economic policies and taxes.

[iguanaman]

The theory is based on private spending/investment being better for GDP growth than public “safety net” spending. Of course, that assumes a reduction in federal taxation revenue would result in a reduction of (specific?) federal spending - which does not happen.

What it assumes is that the wealthy are not greedy assholes as a group and that people have a limit on how much wealth they want to accrue. Neither of which are true.

 

[cpwill]

I am not going to respond to all this I have responded to it before already in multiple threads dedicated to minimum wage increases.

However, if you look at the actual study from the CBO they are not including shifts from multiple job holders. Currently, 13 million people hold multiple jobs in order to make ends meet and well more than 1.4 million hold two full time jobs.

Cool. That changes the point not in the slightest.

ETA: The average McDonalds franchisee owns 6 stores. They are small business owners.

:snorts: The average McDonalds Franchisee owns six stores, meaning they were able to plunk down between 6 to 13.2 million dollars, is pulling in about $900,000 a year and are backed by a massive international corporation with a vested interest in their success.

The locally-owned ice cream joint down the road where half the town's kids get their first Real Job is not. The no-dining-room-available bar-b-que joint across the street from my neighborhood that just managed to move up from being a bar-b-que truck to having a storefront next to the Carlie C's is not. The local-business neat coffee shop further down the street where the owner decided to also sell gelato because he likes gelato is not. The local craft brewery owned by some friends of ours in the town 15 minutes down the road that has had to branch into coffee in order to try to make some - any - sales during this year of shut down and keep from collapsing is not. All of those businesses have suffered heavily over the last year. The Ice Cream shop - which has been featured on the Food Network and is ranked as the best ice cream in the state - is for sale because the owner couldn't keep it open anymore.

The businesses we will be destroying aren't McDonalds' owners. It is quality local shops like these. McDonalds will be fine. In fact, they will be better than fine - they will no longer have to compete with all the local small businesses. Hooray for using government intervention to entrench the wealth and power of already-powerful interests!

 

[cpwill]

There is nothing anarchist about my statement. Government could still exist for protection of property rights and other functions without establishing the basis for free market exchanges.

It could. However, the existence of non-rivalrous non-excludable public goods does not forestall a free market for rivalrous, excludable private goods, just as the existence of public works does not mean that private works are impossible.

 

[jaeger19]

Evidence of a coverup.

Oh yes.. thats the perfect Conspiracy theory...
If you can;t find evidence of the Conspiracy... THATS evidence of the Conspiracy being covered up...

Never fails..

FBI,Homeland security. republican election officials, the DOJ, Trump appointees.... they are all in on it... why they just HAVE to be....

 

[SimpleTom]

:snorts: The average McDonalds Franchisee owns six stores, meaning they were able to plunk down between 6 to 13.2 million dollars, is pulling in about $900,000 a year and are backed by a massive international corporation with a vested interest in their success.

The average McDonald's makes $150,000 profit per year and relies on low wage workers. The wealth that the owner obtained prior to buying a McDonalds franchise is irrelevant to the effect an increase in the minimum wage will have on the profit a McDonald's owners will make. I am not sure how the massive international company with a vested interest in their success changes the fact that those businesses are not going to fail when the wages go up.

The locally-owned ice cream joint down the road where half the town's kids get their first Real Job is not. The no-dining-room-available bar-b-que joint across the street from my neighborhood that just managed to move up from being a bar-b-que truck to having a storefront next to the Carlie C's is not. The local-business neat coffee shop further down the street where the owner decided to also sell gelato because he likes gelato is not. The local craft brewery owned by some friends of ours in the town 15 minutes down the road that has had to branch into coffee in order to try to make some - any - sales during this year of shut down and keep from collapsing is not. All of those businesses have suffered heavily over the last year. The Ice Cream shop - which has been featured on the Food Network and is ranked as the best ice cream in the state - is for sale because the owner couldn't keep it open anymore.

How would you like me to respond to this? I could mention that I haven't collected rent from two dozen tenants in 11 months and I am still doing fine so maybe the problem wasn't the business but the financial flexibility of the owners. I could also respond that if they can't even make it in business today then why are they relevant to a discussion on making it when the minimum wages are higher. I could also respond that maybe what they need is more customers and so maybe increasing minimum wages would help them by providing higher amounts of discretionary income.

In general, restaurants respond well to minimum wage increases because it increases consumption disproportionately to cost. That is it. Your entire thesis is that those businesses couldn't handle the increased cost, but they can.

I don't mind discussing this, but one thing that is discouraging about this site is that all conversations devolve into the same conversations. I spent hours discussing this recently in one of several threads that were specific to minimum wages, I created pro forma income statements, did calculations for elasticity of demand, etc. and then I go to the next thread and the exact same people are saying the exact same things in a different thread. I try there only to see the same people spouting the same crap in another thread. It largely becomes a battle of attrition. You are going to win this battle of attrition because I am not going to keep tilting at this windmill.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Evidence of a coverup.

Are you kidding me? Trying to assert that your lack of evidence is proof of some coverup is ridiculous. That venturing full speed ahead into the mysterious land of conspiracy theories.

 

[JasperL]

Given that MW increases harm the poor and small businesses alike, I admit, I don't believe this argument follows. It seems similar to the "okedoke, let's apply proper medical care, and, then there will be less need for actively damaging the patient for no medical advantage"

I guess child labor laws harmed children and small businesses that employed them as well.... We should bring back child labor, I think, to help the children and small business..

I'm being sarcastic, but raises help those getting raises. The literature on the impact of MW laws on businesses large and small is pretty mixed, but it's not just about that. If you're paying MW now, your wages are subsidized by all the rest of us with Medicaid (in expansion states, often not in the non-expansion states), EBT, and EITC at least. That's what makes paying MW possible - that you and me take up the slack. So it's not as easy as saying "MW" hurt small businesses. What we're really saying is we want government to subsidize low wage jobs, and those who employ those workers, and you pay for that. Well, is that better than the business paying those wages directly? That's not clear, actually. Maybe there are great economic reasons for you to subsidize low wages at that chicken plant or the maids at the hotel. We'll have more low wage jobs and your taxes go to subsidize the workers and employers. I guess you're on board with that, which is fine. I am if we leave MW where it is.

Which, is to say, when it does not support providing additional ladders (taken from others) for someone to climb out of a hole, and also does not support pulling away currently existing ladders.

Repealing the ACA and replacing it with ???? does what to those ladders? The repeal of Medicaid expansion would do what? What do the GOP support with regard to healthcare - more or less spending? Seems like a pretty major ladder the GOP has told us they want to pull away.

1. We have a bevy of programs already in place for such individuals. There is a world of difference between "don't add another massive program" and "end all social welfare spending".
2. We will not solve the issue of low-skill, low-education workers by trapping them in that status, nor will we do so by insisting that everyone pretend they are not.

Sure we do, because Democrats passed the ACA and Medicaid expansion with ZERO GOP support. It's nice to claim the benefit of those programs, and then support a party that opposes them. And in red states, no Medicaid expansion means there's lots of single poor workers whose healthcare option is "**** you." If we repeal ACA, same "**** you" is the option for cancer survivors, etc.

And I don't know what you mean by "trapping them."

Because economics tells us things about ourselves that we don't like....

Yes, of course. I didn't claim or imply anything like a free lunch or 'equality' etc.

Conservatives would argue precisely that - historically, free markets have created vast wealth, and incredible increases in standards of living for average citizens. Heavily controlled and inefficient markets, less so.

In our own case, and in the case of our peer countries, markets (not free - that's an ideal not reality) along with a very heavy hand of government providing all kinds of free market subsidies, etc, starting with infrastructure, education, healthcare for the poor, safety nets, have created vast wealth. It's in fact the social spending and all the rest that allow 'markets' to operate by creating the social and political stability that we take for granted.

It's not either/or - markets OR 'socialism' but both.

I think we might point out that, when government creates problems (as it has in our own healthcare industry) through heavy intervention, the best response (though it is a popular response) is probably not to double down on government intervention. Though I agree you've gotten that a lot in the past century and a half or so, I am hoping that mankind grows into the ability to recognize destructive cycles, and break them

Fine, you want a "market" based healthcare system. Maybe there are predictable reasons why the system, without government intervention, WILL fail the poor. Could be if it's treated like any other market good, the only way a 'market' operates is by rationing based on ability to pay, which means, of course, **** off and die poor losers.

 

[Mircea]

Why did you clip away the remainder of the post that i made and even eliminate the rest of the sentence you distorted by editing it?

Why do you lie by omission?

The remainder of your post was irrelevant to the point being made and there was no distortion nor did I "lie by omission."

You said...

Our economy returned to the pre-recession levels of 2007 in about 2013. This was displayed in the Stock markets, somewhat in the unemployment rate and home sales.

You said the stock markets showed the economy returned to pre-recession levels and that the unemployment rate and homes "somewhat" indicated a turn around.

I focused solely on your erroneous claim that the stock market indicated a return to pre-recession levels.

Your inability to answer the questions is noted, and probably you didn't answer them because you knew you'd be embarrassed and have to eat your words.

 

[jaeger19]

At this point we have massive amounts of objective data and still people want to use anecdotes to argue this. Small businesses are actually helped by minimum wage increases and job losses are minimal. The net effect is that the poor are helped tremendously and so are small businesses.

The biggest economic hit is going to be to businesses whose business model exists to pray on those in poverty, such as pay-day loans, title loans, and buy-here pay-here auto sales. There is simply no evidence that raising the minimum wage does any of the things that people pretend it will when it is convenient.

Here are the facts, on average a 10% minimum wage increases aggregate prices by .5%. The buying power of the poor is increased while other buying powers remain relatively constant, because the economy is not a zero sum game. Creating more consumption is good for the economy and while raising the minimum wage is not the best idea, it is certainly better than doing nothing.

I really don't want to get into the whole debate once again as there are plenty of threads that discuss minimum wage so I don't see the need to rehash the minimum wage debate here.

One of the problems with existing social safety nets is the fact that their exclusionary nature creates inefficiency. There are so many systems in place to ensure that no one gets the benefit unless they deserve it that the cost to benefit ratio is stupid. We basically spend $7 ensuring that $3 gets to the right person.

So why not raise the minimum wage to 50 dollars and hour? Should we do that?

 

[Mircea]

Repealing the ACA and replacing it with ???? does what to those ladders?

The Supreme Court has maintained for more than a century, healthcare is intra-State commerce, not Interstate Commerce.

Congress has no authority. The ACA --- which was written by the American Hospital Association and Physicians for NAZI Healthcare -- increased the cost of healthcare and did absolutely nothing to address the real causes of your nightmarish healthcare system.

Note that Senator Pocahontas Warren who introduced the ACA legislation is a member of Physicians for NAZI Healthcare.

Fine, you want a "market" based healthcare system. Maybe there are predictable reasons why the system, without government intervention, WILL fail the poor.

Your understanding of the Free Market is grotesque but that's probably because you're ignorant of other countries' universal healthcare systems.

Do other countries have an "Out-of-Network" system?

Um, no, they do not.

Within 72 hours, every State legislature in the US can pass a Bill in both houses and have the governor sign into law repealing all of the "enabling laws" enacted in the 1930s that grant hospitals the right to operate as monopolies and monopolistic cartels under false promise of providing free healthcare to low-income families to offset the negative consequences of monopolies.

That will allow State Attorneys General to pursue anti-trust actions and sue the snot out of hospital monopolies and cartels.

How ironic that so many of you have the gall to scream "Oil Monopoly, bad!" and then pee your pants and run and hide in a corner when someone mentions hospital monopolies.

That would reduce the cost of medical care by 30%-60% almost over-night and because the cost of medical care dictates the price of health plan coverage, the price of health plan coverage drops 30%-60%.

What used to cost you $12,000/year now costs you $4,800 to $8,400 per year.

Lest you doubt the harmful negative consequences of hospital monopolies, do read and weep:

Wills v Foster 229 Ill. 2d 393 (2008) Plaintiff owed $80,163 in medical bills but the hospital accepted an insurance company negotiated settlement of $19,005 in full satisfaction.

Since you seem to have great difficulty understanding Free Markets, let's make sure we're clear on the concept here:

It was the hospital that billed $80,163, not the insurance company.

The insurance company is the hero here, because they negotiated a settlement of $19,005 and saved the patient $61,158 in excessive price-gouging hospital monopoly fees.

The hospital still made a profit of $10,000 to $15,000 because Obamacare does absolutely nothing to reign in the cost of medical care and did not even demand that hospitals have price transparency. That's what hospital monopolies and cartels do: they charge whatever they want and they attempt to extract maximum profits.

B-b-b-b-b-b-but hospitals are non-profit! Um, excuse me, non-profit doesn't mean no profit. It simply means profits are not distributed to investors

You can reduce medical costs and save another 10%-30% if you become like Europe.

Yes, you might have to drive 5 hours to get the healthcare you need, but it's cheaper. See, Germany, France, et al abandoned the antiquated obsolete costly ineffective inefficient Hospital Model that Senator Pocahantas Warren and her cohorts at Physicians for NAZI Healthcare and the AHA are trying feverishly to ram down your throat in favor of the modern low-cost highly effective and efficient Clinic and Policlinic Models.

Well, hell, I'll just let the former German Minister of Health explain it to you in the hope that you might understand:

Polyclinics—clusters of general practitioners who work together to form more specialized primary care centers—were used extensively and quite successfully in the former German Democratic Republic. However, many politicians in West Germany initially disliked the idea of polyclinics because they associated them with communist ideology. It took a while for many people to understand that polyclinics offer significant advantages with regard to communication, coordination, and cooperation.

Source: How Germany is reining in health care costs: An interview with Franz Knieps pp 30-31.

Yes, there are buildings in Germany called hospitals but they're not hospitals and your first clue will be when you drive up and note that there isn't an $8 Million parking garage to park your car.

And if governors and State legislators had the guts to allow people to buy health plan coverage cafeteria-style, everyone could afford it.

The question isn't why are governors and State legislators so gutless and cowardly, the question is why aren't you standing out in front of your governor's mansion with an "All Lives Matter" demanding your governor take action?

 

[JasperL]

The Supreme Court has maintained for more than a century, healthcare is intra-State commerce, not Interstate Commerce.

Congress has no authority. The ACA --- which was written by the American Hospital Association and Physicians for NAZI Healthcare -- increased the cost of healthcare and did absolutely nothing to address the real causes of your nightmarish healthcare system.

Note that Senator Pocahontas Warren who introduced the ACA legislation is a member of Physicians for NAZI Healthcare.

I'm not going to read a wall of text by someone who starts a post out like that. There's really no need for you to ever reply to any of my posts.

 

[cpwill]

I guess child labor laws harmed children and small businesses that employed them as well.... We should bring back child labor, I think, to help the children and small business..

In some situations, it absolutely can harm children to ban them from labor. Child labor laws are a luxury that wealthy societies can afford. In many other places and for the vast majority of human history, children who didn't help out around the place were children who were more likely to starve. Parents used to pay skilled tradesmen to take on their children as indentured servants because that was best for the child. The child traded labor in return for skills, experience, and contacts that set them up for success later on.

It was such a helpful situation for so many, in fact, that wealthy parents have made sure, even in this day and age, to maintain a similar program for their children when their kids want to break into high-status professions. Only, instead of being an "apprentice", they call it "internships".

I'm being sarcastic, but raises help those getting raises.

And laws that ban people from selling low skill labor harms those who only have that kind of labor to offer.

The literature on the impact of MW laws on businesses large and small is pretty mixed, but it's not just about that. If you're paying MW now, your wages are subsidized by all the rest of us with Medicaid (in expansion states, often not in the non-expansion states), EBT, and EITC at least. That's what makes paying MW possible - that you and me take up the slack.

.....No. If we stopped or altered those programs tomorrow, there is nothing that would suddenly change the value of the labor being provided, unless we made them so incredibly generous that businesses would have to offer higher wages for the (much less) labor they still needed, leaving the rest on permanent (but well funded) unemployment.

The government does not subsidize business by providing aid to low-income workers, rather, if anything, the relationship runs in the opposite direction; by employing low-skill individuals, business reduces the degree to which they are reliant on government aid.

What we're really saying is we want government to subsidize low wage jobs, and those who employ those workers, and you pay for that.

No. What we are saying is that we wish to raise the living standard of low-income workers. Those who employ them are helping us in that endeavor, though it is an effect, not their intent, to do so.

Repealing the ACA and replacing it with ???? does what to those ladders? The repeal of Medicaid expansion would do what? What do the GOP support with regard to healthcare - more or less spending? Seems like a pretty major ladder the GOP has told us they want to pull away.

Oh man. Healthcare is a whole nother ball of wax. That, however, does not alter the point, which is that people who are opposed to raising the MW and also opposed to increasing social welfare spending are both in favor of not adding more ladders, but also not of pulling those ladders out of people's reach.

Democrats passed the ACA and Medicaid expansion with ZERO GOP support

Indeed. The only thing bipartisan about that goatrope was the opposition to it.

 

[cpwill]

I don't know what you mean by "trapping them."

Let us say that you are a high school drop out with no work experience. You have no worthwhile references, no developed skill sets - hard or soft. You can - probably - be trusted to show up on time.... most days.... and perform very, very, simple labor that will be at best of very low value to an employer.

Your labor, frankly, is barely worth the minimum wage, and the guy only hired you because he liked you in the interview.

Then, someone comes along and insists that, unless the value of your labor doubles overnight, you are no longer allowed to sell it.

Well, you didn't double your skill set or experience overnight. Your labor is worth today about what it was yesterday. You are now priced out of the market.

And, because you require the work experience you've just been banned from receiving in order to build the skill sets and experience in order to one day be able to command that higher rate of pay........

.......you can never get back in.

You have a few basic options: 1. live at someone else's expense (either the US Government or a series of friends and relatives) or 2. enter the black market, and sell your labor at illegal rates, potentially for at best semi-legal purposes, and with no protections whatsoever.

You are pretty well trapped.

Yes, of course. I didn't claim or imply anything like a free lunch or 'equality' etc.

...Eh.... when we minimize the fact that the benefits from higher MW go to those who accrue them because they are taken away from others who are less-competitive (higher value workers take wages from lower value workers. bigger businesses take market share from smaller businesses), that pretty much is what we are implying.

It's in fact the social spending and all the rest that allow 'markets' to operate by creating the social and political stability that we take for granted.

Sort of. Beyond public goods, the extent to which we disrupt market efficiency is generally the extent to which we decrease growth and, thus, future wealth. It may be true that bribing the public is necessary to keep them from getting mad enough at those who are more successful at them that they burn the place down, but, that strikes me as sort of along the lines of having the government hire prostitutes to keep incels from shooting places up. I tend to have a rather more... direct... response to protection rackets.

Fine, you want a "market" based healthcare system

I want the government to stop doubling down on the policies that are wildly screwing up our healthcare system in the first place. If the patient didn't respond well to being shot in the stomach the first time, our solution shouldn't be to shoot him twice more.

Maybe there are predictable reasons why the system, without government intervention, WILL fail the poor. Could be if it's treated like any other market good, the only way a 'market' operates is by rationing based on ability to pay, which means, of course, **** off and die poor losers.

Incorrect. You are confusing the lack of any public provision at all with allowing a market to work.

 

[jaeger19]

Let us say that you are a high school drop out with no work experience. You have no worthwhile references, no developed skill sets - hard or soft. You can - probably - be trusted to show up on time.... most days.... and perform very, very, simple labor that will be at best of very low value to an employer.

Your labor, frankly, is barely worth the minimum wage, and the guy only hired you because he liked you in the interview.

Then, someone comes along and insists that, unless the value of your labor doubles overnight, you are no longer allowed to sell it.

Well, you didn't double your skill set or experience overnight. Your labor is worth today about what it was yesterday. You are now priced out of the market.

And, because you require the work experience you've just been banned from receiving in order to build the skill sets and experience in order to one day be able to command that higher rate of pay........

.......you can never get back in.

You have a few basic options: 1. live at someone else's expense (either the US Government or a series of friends and relatives) or 2. enter the black market, and sell your labor at illegal rates, potentially for at best semi-legal purposes, and with no protections whatsoever.

You are pretty well trapped.



...Eh.... when we minimize the fact that the benefits from higher MW go to those who accrue them because they are taken away from others who are less-competitive (higher value workers take wages from lower value workers. bigger businesses take market share from smaller businesses), that pretty much is what we are implying.




Sort of. Beyond public goods, the extent to which we disrupt market efficiency is generally the extent to which we decrease growth and, thus, future wealth. It may be true that bribing the public is necessary to keep them from getting mad enough at those who are more successful at them that they burn the place down, but, that strikes me as sort of along the lines of having the government hire prostitutes to keep incels from shooting places up. I tend to have a rather more... direct... response to protection rackets.



I want the government to stop doubling down on the policies that are wildly screwing up our healthcare system in the first place. If the patient didn't respond well to being shot in the stomach the first time, our solution shouldn't be to shoot him twice more.



Incorrect. You are confusing the lack of any public provision at all with allowing a market to work.

The problem with your whole mw premise is when you started with..."the only reason he hired you is because the boss liked you in the interview"
That assumes that businesses routinely hire people for no reason other than charity. And that simply doesn't happen on a grand scale at all.
That high-school drop out is hired because he has value..because he is going to make money for the company.
So the only question is..will he still make enough money for the company at 15 an hour vs 7.50 an hour to justify the risk of investment. If he does..then the whole society benefits from a 15.00 minimum wage

 

[cpwill]

The problem with your whole mw premise is when you started with..."the only reason he hired you is because the boss liked you in the interview"
That assumes that businesses routinely hire people for no reason other than charity.

It is not. It assumes that the guy was hiring for a position, and decided to go with one particular candidate who met the minimum requirements because he liked him. I've done a little bit of hiring before, and, within those parameters, I usually prioritize things like cultural fit with the team.

That high-school drop out is hired because he has value..because he is going to make money for the company.

Hopefully. It is a risk the employer has chosen to take on. He could instead (for example) assault a customer and become a massive liability for the company.

So the only question is..will he still make enough money for the company at 15 an hour vs 7.50 an hour to justify the risk of investment.

And that is why, the higher the bottom rung of the ladder, the fewer people can reach it.

 

[jaeger19]

It is not. It assumes that the guy was hiring for a position, and decided to go with one particular candidate who met the minimum requirements because he liked him. I've done a little bit of hiring before, and, within those parameters, I usually prioritize things like cultural fit with the team.



Hopefully. It is a risk the employer has chosen to take on. He could instead (for example) assault a customer and become a massive liability for the company.



And that is why, the higher the bottom rung of the ladder, the fewer people can reach it.

1. Bingo..that employee has value. That value may still be present at 15.00 an hour.
2. Any employee can be that risk. I mean the risk of hiring another employee and not making a profit worth the risk of investmen
3. No..I'd does not illustrate the "higher the rung..the fewer people can reach it."
If the profit is at 15.00..
The rung is just as easy to reach at 15.00 as 7.00
The difference is the benefit to the economy.

 

[cpwill]

1. Bingo..that employee has value. That value may still be present at 15.00 an hour.
2. Any employee can be that risk. I mean the risk of hiring another employee and not making a profit worth the risk of investmen
3. No..I'd does not illustrate the "higher the rung..the fewer people can reach it."
If the profit is at 15.00..
The rung is just as easy to reach at 15.00 as 7.00
The difference is the benefit to the economy.

That's a neat trick. If you start by assuming away the hole, then climbing out of it is easy .

 

[jaeger19]

That's a neat trick. If you start by assuming away the hole, then climbing out of it is easy .

You assume there is a hole..
But..is it easier to get ahead in the world making 7.00 an hour or 15.00.

 

[SimpleTom]

So why not raise the minimum wage to 50 dollars and hour? Should we do that?

When it was a quarter someone probably thought they were really witty when they asked why not just make it $2 per hour? First, let's note that we could actually raise it to $50 per hour if we did so in small increments, and it would have little effect on the overall economy. However, it would also have little effect past $20 per hour and so the rest would just be inflationary increases which is bad for savings.

It is funny that you asked this question in a discussion largely about the Laffer curve and the optimal tax rate because the very same principles apply to the minimum wage. There is a point at which minimum wage increases disproportionately increase consumption. However, as you increase wages beyond that point you get inflation increases rather than consumption increases. Which would be fine for most people because you pretty much have a known inflation rate, however, for savers it would be bad and so we want to find that rate where the stimulated economy provides economies of scale benefits without creating too much inflation.

 

[jaeger19]

When it was a quarter someone probably thought they were really witty when they asked why not just make it $2 per hour? First, let's note that we could actually raise it to $50 per hour if we did so in small increments, and it would have little effect on the overall economy. However, it would also have little effect past $20 per hour and so the rest would just be inflationary increases which is bad for savings.

It is funny that you asked this question in a discussion largely about the Laffer curve and the optimal tax rate because the very same principles apply to the minimum wage. There is a point at which minimum wage increases disproportionately increase consumption. However, as you increase wages beyond that point you get inflation increases rather than consumption increases. Which would be fine for most people because you pretty much have a known inflation rate, however, for savers it would be bad and so we want to find that rate where the stimulated economy provides economies of scale benefits without creating too much inflation.

Yep..so there is a point at where the minimum wage will have a negative effect on the economy.

 

[cabse5]

Oh yes.. thats the perfect Conspiracy theory...
If you can;t find evidence of the Conspiracy... THATS evidence of the Conspiracy being covered up...

Never fails..

FBI,Homeland security. republican election officials, the DOJ, Trump appointees.... they are all in on it... why they just HAVE to be....

Oh please. Complaining about not being able to investigate a situation that may not be lawful is silly grounds for declaring a coverup?

 

[cabse5]

Oh yes.. thats the perfect Conspiracy theory...
If you can;t find evidence of the Conspiracy... THATS evidence of the Conspiracy being covered up...

Never fails..

FBI,Homeland security. republican election officials, the DOJ, Trump appointees.... they are all in on it... why they just HAVE to be....

I could easily see the FBI in on this 'conspiracy coverup' because they have a track record of instigating investigations like the Trump campaign investigation based on lies, innuendoes and gossip.
I could easily see GOP officials (like McConnell, for example) in on this 'conspiracy coverup' because they are more interested in seeing through with this election result than making sure said election was free and fair.
I could easily see election officials in on this 'conspiracy coverup' because it's supposedly their jobs to make sure elections are free and fair and, well, if elections turn out not to be free nor fair that makes them look bad.

I don't see an immediate motive for Homeland Security to prevent the investigation into the freeness and fairness of the 2020.

I easily see the hypocrisy of the courts not allowing to investigate the 2020 because there's no evidence of election tampering when judges allow non-evidence into their courtrooms to, maybe, facilitate the conviction or exoneration of a defendant.
Why have judges suddenly decided to become hypocritical in their allowing of non-evidence?

I easily see why dems want to disallow an investigation into the 2020... I find it quite hypocritical that the dems demanded to investigate the Trump campaign (ipso facto an investigation into the 2016) based on non-facts but won't allow an investigation into the 2020 based on non-facts. I easily see why a Never-Trumper wants to disallow an investigation into the 2020.

IMO, going by the advice of the FBI, certain GOP officials, election officials, the courts, dems and Never-Trumpers goes against the macro view of the importance of free and fair elections ,er, elections that represent the will of the American people.

My question to you is: Why is it so much more important to carry out an election result than ensuring said election result was free and fair?

 

[cabse5]

Are you kidding me? Trying to assert that your lack of evidence is proof of some coverup is ridiculous. That venturing full speed ahead into the mysterious land of conspiracy theories.

I posted this to another but you should look at this too, I guess.

I could easily see the FBI in on this 'conspiracy coverup' because they have a track record of instigating investigations like the Trump campaign investigation based on lies, innuendoes and gossip.
I could easily see GOP officials (like McConnell, for example) in on this 'conspiracy coverup' because they are more interested in seeing through with this election result than making sure said election was free and fair.
I could easily see election officials in on this 'conspiracy coverup' because it's supposedly their jobs to make sure elections are free and fair and, well, if elections turn out not to be free nor fair that makes them look bad.

I don't see an immediate motive for Homeland Security to prevent the investigation into the freeness and fairness of the 2020.

I easily see the hypocrisy of the courts not allowing to investigate the 2020 because there's no evidence of election tampering when judges allow non-evidence into their courtrooms to, maybe, facilitate the conviction or exoneration of a defendant.
Why have judges suddenly decided to become hypocritical in their allowing of non-evidence?

I easily see why dems want to disallow an investigation into the 2020... I find it quite hypocritical that the dems demanded to investigate the Trump campaign (ipso facto an investigation into the 2016) based on non-facts but won't allow an investigation into the 2020 based on non-facts. I easily see why a Never-Trumper wants to disallow an investigation into the 2020.

IMO, going by the advice of the FBI, certain GOP officials, election officials, the courts, dems and Never-Trumpers goes against the macro view of the importance of free and fair elections ,er, elections that represent the will of the American people.

My question to you is: Why is it so much more important to carry out an election result than ensuring said election result was free and fair?

 

[jaeger19]

Oh please. Complaining about not being able to investigate a situation that may not be lawful is silly grounds for declaring a coverup?

Complaining that there has " not been an investigation" when there has been multiple agencies on high alert for any hint of fraud before the election..during the election and after the election..not mention 60 some lawsuits in which no evidence of systemic fraud was found..?
And then thinking the reason for no evidence was a cover up or incompetence?
Yeah that's conspiracy theory territory. If you don't believe all those agencies..republican election officials and republican judges...who ARE IN THE BEST POSITION AND HAVE THE MOST EXPERTISE TO OVERSEE AND INVESTIGATE ELECTION FRAUD...
who ARE you going to believe.?
You need to come to grips with the fact you have been sold a pack of lies by a pathological liar.

 

[cabse5]

Complaining that there has " not been an investigation" when there has been multiple agencies on high alert for any hint of fraud before the election..during the election and after the election..not mention 60 some lawsuits in which no evidence of systemic fraud was found..?
And then thinking the reason for no evidence was a cover up or incompetence?
Yeah that's conspiracy theory territory. If you don't believe all those agencies..republican election officials and republican judges...who ARE IN THE BEST POSITION AND HAVE THE MOST EXPERTISE TO OVERSEE AND INVESTIGATE ELECTION FRAUD...
who ARE you going to believe.?
You need to come to grips with the fact you have been sold a pack of lies by a pathological liar.

Your answer is: (doing my best Alex Trebek impersonation) A free and fair election is ALWAYS so important that, if there's even the hint that an election may not be free nor fair, said election needs to be investigated (and there needs to be measures put into place to easily and independently audit an election result)...And I'm not solely using my opinion. I'm using the macro opinion of The Constitution that American government represents the will of the American people.