dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:So, uh, people were starving, and the government was destroying food. And building dams. But at least they strengthened the unions, to protect the wages of the people with the jobs (at the expense of the unemployed)!

Sefer?

Well I wouldn't let her die.

(contemplates hitting submit)


Edit: I have no idea what that word means. I think it may have something to do with Jews.

Guy from the old board of whom this excerpt, in its barbed tone, reminded me.

Do you actually believe this, or were you just drawing an extreme for the sake of argument?

Um, I believe it. What's extreme about?

I suspect you're hung up on me saying that unions were protecting the jobs of people, at the expense of the unemployed. I was lazy, and I was actually referring to the National Labor Relations Act in general (which strengthened unions, and made it more expensive to fire people).

Think of it this way. Some people support raising the minimum wage, because it will mean that people earning $5.50 an hour will get paid more. Well, raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour will benefit those that manage to keep their job, at the expense of those that lose it. Firms would likely employ fewer minimum wage earners at this higher price, as some of these workers are worth between $5.50 and $10 an hour for the work they produce. So, when a union fights for higher wages, and makes it harder to fire people, it's a better situation for those that have those jobs. But for the people that are no longer hired for $5.50, and are now unemployed, they are not better off. Their work is worth less than $10, but they are not allowed to contract it for less. Additionally, if the firm has a number of penalties to pay to fire people, they may be hesitant to hire new workers that ARE worth 10 an hour, since the cost of dismissal is so high. So they may wait until they find a worker worth $12 an hour, so that $2 goes to the expected long-term cost of firing these workers. So more people remain unemployed because it's harder to get hired, or they try to move to another industry (like dam building), or they go on unemployment/welfare. And less productive work is being done.

Edit: When a union negotiates above-market wages, the companies hire fewer workers where possible. When a government makes firing workers expensive, companies are very cautious about hiring new workers.

Werthless wrote:
So, uh, people were starving, and the government was destroying food. And building dams. But at least they strengthened the unions, to protect the wages of the people with the jobs (at the expense of the unemployed)!

there's a term for this sort of revisionist-compounded-by-reductionist imitation of reasoning, and it isn't lying, but I can't think of it just now.

did as many people have jobs with ND policies in place as there may have been (at what wages, & under what unilaterally determined conditions we apparently needn't concern ourselves about here) without?

I sure don't know. My guess is that fewer people had non-public works-generated jobs.

But again, I am not really sure I can reduce my assessment of the consequences to a jobs count.

I'm not for central planning. I'm not for decentralized con games. So where do I fit in your categorization scheme?

That UChicago Hayek edition is something else. Really well done. If it were a DVD, you'd consider buying for the extras alone.

dajafi wrote:Really interested to hear what our right-leaning folks (Vox, jh, etc) think of this Nate Silver post. My sense is he's onto something--probably because I well remember that same John McEnroe-esque "HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY DISAGREE WITH ME ABOUT THIS?" tic from arguing with people to my left (hell, PtK often does it) in the days when Democrats were regularly blasted the way the Republicans have been the last two cycles.

There's also a somewhat obvious implication in there for why Air America hasn't really worked.

A long time ago, I was in an e-mail exchange (it might have been a list-serv exchange, so it was a long time ago) with (famous poli sci name drop here) Jennifer Hochschild about what I call "true believers" in politics, and their characteristics. They can be found at all point on the political spectrum, left, right, and moderate. They are unified by an inability to conceive of a rational view that differs from their own.

The danger is that these people, like religious fundamentalists, have trouble coping with a pluralistic democratic society. It's why there's a possibility that fundies are going to start withdrawing from the wider society. Not moving to Canada, exactly, but essentially retreating from the public sphere altogether.

What does it tell us about Sports Talk Radio? Pretty much the same thing, right?

Going further, as I was telling my class (and Critchlow's book on conservatism is instructive on this) that if conservatism is going to survive as a political force, conservatives, especially young conservatives need to re-discover its intellectual roots. Hence, it's good that Jerseyhoya and others are reading Schumpeter. Hayek, of course, never considered himself a conservative.

I hope in the near future to write a book on conservative political thought from 1940-1960. Though I will not do much, if anything with Strauss.

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:
So, uh, people were starving, and the government was destroying food. And building dams. But at least they strengthened the unions, to protect the wages of the people with the jobs (at the expense of the unemployed)!

there's a term for this sort of revisionist-compounded-by-reductionist imitation of reasoning, and it isn't lying, but I can't think of it just now.

How exactly is it revisionist? Because the policy operators at the time did not have the benefit of modern economics, quick empirical testing with computers, or the benefit of the lessons of history? I don't hold that against them personally, but I don't just give them a pass for not knowing any better. They obviously weren't aware of the perverse incentivesthey were creating in the labor market.

did as many people have jobs with ND policies in place as there may have been (at what wages, & under what unilaterally determined conditions we apparently needn't concern ourselves about here) without?

I sure don't know. My guess is that fewer people had non-public works-generated jobs.

But again, I am not really sure I can reduce my assessment of the consequences to a jobs count.

Well, I've described the mechanisms by which the New Deal could have stunted job creation in the private sector. And since there wasn't any controlled testing done at the time (that I'm aware of), I guess we won't know for sure the exact magnitude of the effects. Perhaps you can describe the mechanism for how government spending is a net benefit? And while you're at it, perhaps you can tell me why, since government is a net creator of real wealth, we don't have the government do everything?

I'm interested in answers, because I have not come across a convincing argument in favor of government as a creator of wealth.

I'm not for central planning. I'm not for decentralized con games. So where do I fit in your categorization scheme?

I don't know what you mean by decentralized con game, nor do I make it a habit to categorize people. But if you want, I can come up with something after some more thought.

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:I'm not for central planning. I'm not for decentralized con games. So where do I fit in your categorization scheme?

I don't know what you mean by decentralized con game, nor do I make it a habit to categorize people. But if you want, I can come up with something after some more thought.

well, I don't know precisely what I mean either, so you just go ahead & insert "credit default swap kiters" for the time being.

Those books you've ordered can't arrive too soon. My fear is you'll try reading them through that economics monocle of yours, & find them dismayingly unfocused.

I'll put on my policy hat, and try to think like a pragmatist trying to "get things done." But I'm afraid I won't be able to discard my economics background completely, my kite-flying friend.

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:So, uh, people were starving, and the government was destroying food. And building dams. But at least they strengthened the unions, to protect the wages of the people with the jobs (at the expense of the unemployed)!

Sefer?

Well I wouldn't let her die.

(contemplates hitting submit)


Edit: I have no idea what that word means. I think it may have something to do with Jews.

Guy from the old board of whom this excerpt, in its barbed tone, reminded me.

Do you actually believe this, or were you just drawing an extreme for the sake of argument?

Um, I believe it. What's extreme about?

I suspect you're hung up on me saying that unions were protecting the jobs of people, at the expense of the unemployed. I was lazy, and I was actually referring to the National Labor Relations Act in general (which strengthened unions, and made it more expensive to fire people).

Think of it this way. Some people support raising the minimum wage, because it will mean that people earning $5.50 an hour will get paid more. Well, raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour will benefit those that manage to keep their job, at the expense of those that lose it. Firms would likely employ fewer minimum wage earners at this higher price, as some of these workers are worth between $5.50 and $10 an hour for the work they produce. So, when a union fights for higher wages, and makes it harder to fire people, it's a better situation for those that have those jobs. But for the people that are no longer hired for $5.50, and are now unemployed, they are not better off. Their work is worth less than $10, but they are not allowed to contract it for less. Additionally, if the firm has a number of penalties to pay to fire people, they may be hesitant to hire new workers that ARE worth 10 an hour, since the cost of dismissal is so high. So they may wait until they find a worker worth $12 an hour, so that $2 goes to the expected long-term cost of firing these workers. So more people remain unemployed because it's harder to get hired, or they try to move to another industry (like dam building), or they go on unemployment/welfare. And less productive work is being done.

Edit: When a union negotiates above-market wages, the companies hire fewer workers where possible. When a government makes firing workers expensive, companies are very cautious about hiring new workers.

From the work I do, I understand perfectly well how the minimum wage works, arguments for and against it. I also know that the arguments against raising the MW at the state level have proven almost totally invalid in the current decade. In New York, for instance, the same industries that supposedly were going to be "crippled" by raising it from $5.15 to $7.25 in increments over a three year span actually added workers at a faster rate than the overall labor force.

Those arguments, like yours, strike me as fancy-sounding justifications for wanting more pie and keeping the hoi polloi on the other side usefully hungry.

What I think you're assuming here, and what I guess sets me off, is that, one, labor has an inherent "value" other than what power dictates its value to be, and two, that the always-virtuous and perfectly honest and trustworthy "firm" invariably will pay that fair value, absent somehow being forced to do so.

History suggests these aren't very solid assumptions outside the economics classroom.

edit: Just out of curiosity, would you concur that under certain situations, it might be socially valuable for legislators and administrators to "make it more expensive to fire people"? Anti-discrimination laws seem like one such example, though I could see you arguing against those--in a purely disinterested way--based on your main thrust here.

dajafi wrote:From the work I do, I understand perfectly well how the minimum wage works, arguments for and against it. I also know that the arguments against raising the MW at the state level have proven almost totally invalid in the current decade.

What I think you're assuming here, and what I guess sets me off, is that, one, labor has an inherent "value" other than what power dictates its value to be, and two, that the always-virtuous and perfectly honest and trustworthy "firm" invariably will pay that fair value, absent somehow being forced to do so.

History suggests these aren't very solid assumptions outside the economics classroom.

I understand what you mean here, as I've heard about these studies at the state level. If a state wants to enact a minimum wage, I won't stomp around much. But the thing is, California's non-distortionary minimum wage level will likely be different from Alabama's. I think we can agree with that. California changing their minimum wage to something close to $10 may very well have little effect on unemployment, but that change can really hurt Alabamans, who have a lower cost of living, housing, etc.

Another point is that raising the minimum will not improve unemployment rates. Do you agree with that? If you don't please tell me how it will help unemployment, so that we can quickly raise MW to >$20. So from that, it follows that the New Deal policies, if they sought to minimize unemployment (which I understand the goal to be), should refrain from minimum wage hikes. Does this follow?

And lastly, labor does have value, and it can be quantifiable to a certain degree. It's absurd to claim otherwise, and that you claim I'm making an assumption about it is odd to me. The distinction is that firms don't pay wages=value. They ALWAYS aim to pay wages that are less than the value that the hired worker produces. They are willing to hire up to where value added=wage. You know this. Otherwise, they would not hire the worker. A worker producing value of $5/hour will not be hired for $10/hr. If a firm did this repeatedly, it would eventually go out of business. By increasing the real (wage changes) and perceived (legislation making it tough to fire people) costs of labor, firms will NOT hire more. They will either hire the same amount that they would have, or they will hire less.

In the cases of small changes in the minimum wage, there is negligible changes in unemployment. But if there were LARGE changes in the minimum wage or other similar labor changes, firms will make changes. They may raise prices. They may hire fewer workers. They may have lower profit margins. My guess is that all 3 occur. The resulting change is that the worker gets paid more, there are more unemployed, the owner has less money to invest, and the consumer pays higher prices.

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:From the work I do, I understand perfectly well how the minimum wage works, arguments for and against it. I also know that the arguments against raising the MW at the state level have proven almost totally invalid in the current decade.

What I think you're assuming here, and what I guess sets me off, is that, one, labor has an inherent "value" other than what power dictates its value to be, and two, that the always-virtuous and perfectly honest and trustworthy "firm" invariably will pay that fair value, absent somehow being forced to do so.

History suggests these aren't very solid assumptions outside the economics classroom.

I understand what you mean here, as I've heard about these studies at the state level. If a state wants to enact a minimum wage, I won't stomp around much. But the thing is, California's non-distortionary minimum wage level will likely be different from Alabama's. I think we can agree with that. California changing their minimum wage to something close to $10 may very well have little effect on unemployment, but that change can really hurt Alabamans, who have a lower cost of living, housing, etc.

Another point is that raising the minimum will not improve unemployment rates. Do you agree with that? If you don't please tell me how it will help unemployment, so that we can quickly raise MW to >$20. So from that, it follows that the New Deal policies, if they sought to minimize unemployment (which I understand the goal to be), should refrain from minimum wage hikes. Does this follow?

And lastly, labor does have value, and it can be quantifiable to a certain degree. It's absurd to claim otherwise, and that you claim I'm making an assumption about it is odd to me. The distinction is that firms don't pay wages=value. They ALWAYS aim to pay wages that are less than the value that the hired worker produces. They are willing to hire up to where value added=wage. You know this. Otherwise, they would not hire the worker. A worker producing value of $5/hour will not be hired for $10/hr. If a firm did this repeatedly, it would eventually go out of business. By increasing the real (wage changes) and perceived (legislation making it tough to fire people) costs of labor, firms will NOT hire more. They will either hire the same amount that they would have, or they will hire less.

In the cases of small changes in the minimum wage, there is negligible changes in unemployment. But if there were LARGE changes in the minimum wage or other similar labor changes, firms will make changes. They may raise prices. They may hire fewer workers. They may have lower profit margins. My guess is that all 3 occur. The resulting change is that the worker gets paid more, there are more unemployed, the owner has less money to invest, and the consumer pays higher prices.

The problem with a purely market based analysis of labor markets is that they do not account for the relative difference in power between the employer and the employee. This isn't constant--if the employee is Manny Ramirez, then the power largely resides with him.

But for most workers, the power resides in the hands of the employer. You either work under the terms set by the employer, or you starve.

Where I live, from time to time, one hears opposition to new business coming to town, since that would give employers a little less power. The last think the local chicken plant wants is to lose workers to a plant that will pay them more. So, they use their power to keep those employers out.

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:From the work I do, I understand perfectly well how the minimum wage works, arguments for and against it. I also know that the arguments against raising the MW at the state level have proven almost totally invalid in the current decade.

What I think you're assuming here, and what I guess sets me off, is that, one, labor has an inherent "value" other than what power dictates its value to be, and two, that the always-virtuous and perfectly honest and trustworthy "firm" invariably will pay that fair value, absent somehow being forced to do so.

History suggests these aren't very solid assumptions outside the economics classroom.

I understand what you mean here, as I've heard about these studies at the state level. If a state wants to enact a minimum wage, I won't stomp around much. But the thing is, California's non-distortionary minimum wage level will likely be different from Alabama's. I think we can agree with that. California changing their minimum wage to something close to $10 may very well have little effect on unemployment, but that change can really hurt Alabamans, who have a lower cost of living, housing, etc.

True, no argument here. This is why the federal MW, like the federal poverty line, isn't very relevant to a place like New York. That doesn't stop employers from raising holy hell at any effort to increase it, though.

Werthless wrote:Another point is that raising the minimum will not improve unemployment rates. Do you agree with that? If you don't please tell me how it will help unemployment, so that we can quickly raise MW to >$20. So from that, it follows that the New Deal policies, if they sought to minimize unemployment (which I understand the goal to be), should refrain from minimum wage hikes. Does this follow?

I don't think I suggested that raising the MW would improve unemployment rates. As for how this played out in the New Deal, I get your thrust in the abstract but I don't know enough about wage scales in the early 1930s to agree or disagree with it in this instance.

More broadly, if you're asserting that FDR and his team used the circumstance of the crisis to fundamentally change some rules of the game, I can go along with that. Whether this was or wasn't a good idea in the larger sense is another argument.

Werthless wrote:And lastly, labor does have value, and it can be quantifiable to a certain degree. It's absurd to claim otherwise, and that you claim I'm making an assumption about it is odd to me. The distinction is that firms don't pay wages=value. They ALWAYS aim to pay wages that are less than the value that the hired worker produces. They are willing to hire up to where value added=wage. You know this. Otherwise, they would not hire the worker. A worker producing value of $5/hour will not be hired for $10/hr. If a firm did this repeatedly, it would eventually go out of business. By increasing the real (wage changes) and perceived (legislation making it tough to fire people) costs of labor, firms will NOT hire more. They will either hire the same amount that they would have, or they will hire less.

Okay. I understand your position better now, but I still disagree with the argument against "building dams"--and, by implication, whatever investment in infrastructure, transitional jobs, et al Obama and the Congress might make come January. I come back to this:

The general policy of the New Deal "We will take your money and spend it for you on public works projects" does not create free economic activity. It comes at a cost. Deficit spending was probably the right idea to prevent a short-term contraction in GDP, but it was harmful in the long-term by displacing private investment into building dams.

and it still feels like you're making assumptions--in this case, that, one, "private investment" will always (eventually) pay for anything that's worthwhile, and that, two, in the meantime, all those starving folks should just, I dunno, take up juggling.

I'm trying not to be angry or confrontational about this, in part because you clearly know more than I do here and I just want to understand the position. So the question is: Does government spending for stimulus purposes have any role in your view?

The WPA did some great things. All my K-12 schooling was in buildings where the core building was a WPA project, and then there were periodic additions. The WPA parts were always in great shape, while the newer sections had leaky roofs and all kinds of problems. Those WPA buildings were well built--they would serve as fallout shelters in many cases, and almost 80 years after their construction, are still very useful. Meanwhile, down in Arkansas, they're talking about how buildings built in the 70s and 80s are inadequate, and they are--poor design, poor construction.

The point is, if the money is spent well, communities can continue to reap the benefits for decades to come.

I work with a lot of people making minimum wage and we didn't lose any jobs (excuse the anecdotal evidence). It did, however, allow these people to afford the company offered healthcare, work less hours (so they could actually spend some time with their families instead of working 2 or 3 jobs, which makes it less likely their kids will end up in trouble and a drain on the system), eat more healthy food, allow for some occassional recreation time (also healthy), etc, etc. My point being that whatever is lost is gained back in societal terms because these people are less of a drain on everyone else. The result is less people using state paid healthcare, foodstamps, daycare, etc, not to mention all the increased feelings of self worth for being able to take care of yourself, which I think is sometimes underestimated.

Again, this is anecdotal, of course, but I think the bigger point stands.

also excuse my simplistic take on this.

Michael Mukasey collapsed during his speech at the Federalist Society a little while ago. He didn't regain consciousness on stage, but no word yet about his condition. He started shaking and slurring his words before collapsing..... sounds like maybe a stroke.

Statement about the AG...

"The Attorney General is conscious, conversant and alert. His vital statistics are strong and he is in good spirits. He is receiving excellent care and appreciates all of the good wishes and prayers he has received. The doctors will keep him overnight for further observations.

Good news. maybe it wasn't a stoke.

dajafi wrote:Okay. I understand your position better now, but I still disagree with the argument against "building dams"--and, by implication, whatever investment in infrastructure, transitional jobs, et al Obama and the Congress might make come January. I come back to this:

The general policy of the New Deal "We will take your money and spend it for you on public works projects" does not create free economic activity. It comes at a cost. Deficit spending was probably the right idea to prevent a short-term contraction in GDP, but it was harmful in the long-term by displacing private investment into building dams.

and it still feels like you're making assumptions--in this case, that, one, "private investment" will always (eventually) pay for anything that's worthwhile, and that, two, in the meantime, all those starving folks should just, I dunno, take up juggling.

I'm trying not to be angry or confrontational about this, in part because you clearly know more than I do here and I just want to understand the position. So the question is: Does government spending for stimulus purposes have any role in your view?

Well, it now looks like we're basically on the same page, at least in terms of what effect policies like MW and strengthening unions can do. Now, going back to government's role in recession. Well, it's a long-term vs. short-term tradeoff, in my opinion. In the long-term, the profit incentive (ie. market) is a better "decider" of capital investment than a government bureaucracy is. This is what pretty much all modern economists will concede, and it's basically just a restatement of the empirically guided finding that there is a long-term superiority of market based economies over centrally planned economies. Market economies allocate capital better, and innovate more widely (ie productivity gains), allowing them to grow faster. So, what's the problem?

Well, the problem occurs in a recession. A recession is a fall in GDP, or a fall in economic activity. This tends to be felt by people in higher unemployment, lower wages, and lower standards of living. In my opinion, the changes that this causes in this country sometimes go beyond this. The change is in public perception: people demand that action be taken. These demands are usually informed by fear, and a seeking of authority in time of trouble. People want to be told how to "fix" things, by financial "experts." An unsatisfactory answer is "the market will sort itself out, inefficient companies will fail, and less capital will be wasted." This will just cause the masses to look elsewhere for their expert advice, because it's not comforting at all, and leaves an impression of hopelessness. So experts that say these things at conferences don't get invited back, because they're boring, don't have great ideas, and seem powerless. So, the experts, with all the eyes on them, will think "maybe I can do something to fix this. I'm pretty smart." So they will often switch to say it needs to be fixed, regulated, and I know how to do it.

This demand for action by the masses will be met. Most politicians cannot stand up to this kind of clamoring, because they feel the demand, "What the heck am I supposed to do here... If I don't do something, they'll vote me out." He knows he's not an expert, so he brings in someone smarter than him (Greenspan, Volcker, etc) to tell the whole Senate what they should do.

Wow, I got sidetracked there a bit. Ok, a recession. Well, GDP is simply a measure of economic activity, and it can be calculated by adding Consumption, Government spending, Investment, (Exports - Imports). So, in a recession marked by deflation (ie 1930s), one option is to try to eliminate deflation. Eliminating deflation is important because it hurts the incentive to consume. If you can save $100 and have it be worth MORE just by sticking it under your mattress, you can imagine how this could spiral into a self-enforcing fall in consumption. And since something like 70% of our GDP is consumption based, you can see how deflation could be really bad. On the bright side, fighting deflation is fairly trivial with an aggressive central bank, because all you do is get more money in circulation. But if you are the government, in charge of spending, isn't the obvious answer just to spend more? Well, raising G is not without cost. The cost is opportunity cost. In order for the government to spend, it needs to raise money, either through 1) Tax the people now 2) Tax the people later 3) Print money and spend it (Inflate the currency). All 3 instances take money and purchasing power from the people. Option 1 makes little sense. You hurt consumption and investment by raising taxes, so doing it in a recession is self-defeating, especially if you think (as I do) that government will have less efficient uses of the money than Microsoft does, or Google does, or I do. Option 3 is dangerous, because it can set off high inflation, and high inflationary expectations, which hurt the incentive to invest in long-term projects. This can kill economic growth. Option 2 is the least bad, if you are choosing to spend government money in a recession. Run a deficit, and tax the people during the better times once we get out of the recession.

[Aside]Some Austrians will argue that even in the short-term, government can do no good. Government, in order to raise the money to spend, will have to tax slightly more than dollar for dollar from private hands, and then someone has to decide how to allocate it, to AIG/GM/Lehman. The big 3 has wasted $200B of capital in the last 20 years... and we're supposed to give them more of our money? Notice how the allocations come from taxing the successful companies, and they go toward the failing companies. How does this improve the country in the long term, if it's always the worst run companies in the worst industries receiving our tax dollars? How on earth is this fair, or even a good long-term investment?!?[/Aside]

Now, you've decided you need to do something, and you decide on option 2. How is it advantageous? Well, the US govt can borrow more cheaply than private industry, so it may make sense for the US govt to undertake this borrowing. T-Bills have lower interest rates than corporate bonds because they are considered "risk-free." The US govt will not go bankrupt. How can it hurt long-term growth? Well, for one, you commit to raising taxes in the future. And since taxes are levied on successful productive businesses and people, and given to less successful businesses and people, it is a poor allocation of capital, fairness aside. So it's taking capital from the Microsofts of the country and giving it to the GMs. It's just one big, poor investment.


Concerning Obama. If the government is EVER going to spend a shitload of money on infrastructure, now is the time. There is cheap labor available (due to rising unemployment), there are crumbling bridges (the public need may be there), and there is political support. I've said in a previous post that we should take the money we're going to shovel into the Big3 moneypit, let them fail instead, and hire a bunch of people to fix some roads. However, this could be counter-productive if all of this were paid for by raising taxes on the most productive companies and people. Because the last thing this country needs is to punish the companies that are actually able to make money in this environment. Concerning the dams, and public works projects in general, they are a bad investment. If you want to debate this, then fine, but I don't think it's too interesting. There's a reason we don't see dams everywhere being built. And if the government wants to keep it's monopoly on road building, then they should fix them during recessions, and pay for them during the boom times. Otherwise, just sell them all to private companies to run, and use this money to give it back to the people.

I welcome comments on any part, since I jumped around a lot. A lot of the theories on government spending and opportunity cost, if you don't get what I'm saying, can be found in the first couple pages of Economics in One Lesson.

Monkeyboy wrote:Michael Mukasey collapsed during his speech at the Federalist Society a little while ago. He didn't regain consciousness on stage, but no word yet about his condition. He started shaking and slurring his words before collapsing..... sounds like maybe a stroke.

He probably realized he was talking to the Federalists and feigned illness to GTFO of there. Even if you generally buy into their worldview, the Federalists are just skeezy, in my opinion.

Clean bill of health, I just read, so I can make these jokes now.

Monkeyboy wrote:I work with a lot of people making minimum wage and we didn't lose any jobs (excuse the anecdotal evidence). It did, however, allow these people to afford the company offered healthcare, work less hours (so they could actually spend some time with their families instead of working 2 or 3 jobs, which makes it less likely their kids will end up in trouble and a drain on the system), eat more healthy food, allow for some occassional recreation time (also healthy), etc, etc. My point being that whatever is lost is gained back in societal terms because these people are less of a drain on everyone else. The result is less people using state paid healthcare, foodstamps, daycare, etc, not to mention all the increased feelings of self worth for being able to take care of yourself, which I think is sometimes underestimated.

Again, this is anecdotal, of course, but I think the bigger point stands.

also excuse my simplistic take on this.

That makes sense. Sometimes when you raise the minimum wage, no one is put out of work. But some new jobs may not be created. These phantom jobs are usually hard to visualize, precisely because they don't exist. Small changes in the MW don't have much of an effect on most businesses. If a company is very profitable, it may decide not to make any short-term changes to the business plan. But what if a company is just treading water? Well, they'll likely lay off people, raise the prices of their goods if they can, or go out of business and lay all the workers off. Now imagine how the country would change if MW was raised to $20/hour? How about $200/hr? There would be some layoffs, new jobs would be hard to find, prices of goods would go up, etc. When MW goes up less than this, these changes happen on a smaller scale. You can't even perceive the effects on most companies.

People are obviously better off being paid more. But if you make a law saying everyone has to get paid a lot, then there will be unintended consequences. (The people who retain jobs will be decidedly better off, which is what you're seeing)

The Red Tornado wrote:Play the who gets the vote game!!

If common sense were a commodity, this nation would be experiencing a shortage.