Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 05, 2016, 07:31:46 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94335 Posts in 2307 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Political Economics
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] Print
Author Topic: Political Economics  (Read 309270 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13468


« Reply #1600 on: December 26, 2015, 05:58:57 PM »

It is not accidental.

It may be his intent - to trap millions in dependency - and there may be a Stockholm Syndrome effect of hostages supporting their captors, but for the most part being trapped in poverty is not the intent of the victims.  We need to at least try to reach them.

This government has decided to dissolve the American people and create a population more to their liking.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7810


« Reply #1601 on: December 27, 2015, 12:18:58 PM »

Cronyism Causes the Worst Kind of Inequality

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-24/cronyism-causes-the-worst-kind-of-inequality

Higher inequality has been associated with lower growth.

Economists Sutirtha Bagchi of the University of Michigan and Jan Svejnar of Columbia recently set out to test the cronyism hypothesis.

only one kind of inequality was associated with low growth -- the kind that came from cronyism

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-24/cronyism-causes-the-worst-kind-of-inequality
http://ftp.iza.org/dp7733.pdf
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7810


« Reply #1602 on: January 05, 2016, 09:04:13 AM »

First a quick reaction from the left:  Who cares, the issue still gets us votes!

Once again, evidence that a free, private market for labor would out-perform socialism and big government tampering.  

Who knew?

43% of the sustaining problem in the group we are trying to help most comes from this wrong-headed, counter-productive policy.

No worries, we can just support them for the rest of their lives if they don't successfully join the workforce when they are young.

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21830.pdf

... baseline estimate is that this period’s full set of minimum wage increases reduced employment among individuals ages 16 to 30 with less than a high school education by 5.6 percentage points. This estimate accounts for 43 percent of the sustained, 13 percentage point decline in this skill group’s employment rate and a 0.49 percentage point decline in employment across the full population ages 16 to 64.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7810


« Reply #1603 on: January 18, 2016, 09:42:40 AM »

Anything factual and economic posted here could also go under Cognitive Dissonance of the Left.  Did Bernie ever mention this, that the income of the top 1% goes down every year if you hold the members in that group constant and study them.  Try this study for an example:

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

The income of the top 1% in 1996 fell 25% within 10 years.  50% of the lower quintile earners moved up out of that category in 10 years and 75% of the top 1% moved down from that designation in just one decade.  Who knew?  Not one person attending a Dem debate.

For political expedience the Left likes to ignore income mobility>  They point to a different group each tax year and calling them the top 1 %, inferring it is the same group as a year ago or a decade ago but it isn't.

In a global economy, the new rich can make more money than the successful people who preceded them because they are able to sell their inventions and innovations into a larger global market.  The way to stop that is to ban commerce or to lead the global market into stagnation and decline, both leading ideas of the current administration and the left.

What this country needs is more people getting rich, not fewer.  Not for what we see as the outward signs of prosperity, jetting around or spending wildly, but for the economically essential core activities that consistently produce wealth under the conducive conditions, investment, innovation, wise risk taking, profit seeking, addressing market needs with vision, hard work, persistence, adaptability, etc.

In political micro-economics, each voter needs to compare their income this regime and these policies with their own past and their own potential income under better policies, not look to what someone else is making with different talents, different backgrounds and different energy levels.  Stopping or limiting the success of others limits your own income, even if you can't or won't see the connection.

Where is the JFK in today's Democratic primary and debate touting that a rising tide lifts all boats.  They have recently shifted focus to stopping anyone (except from core left constituencies) from rising, especially the tide that affects all boats.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13468


« Reply #1604 on: January 18, 2016, 11:56:28 AM »

Today, JFK's economic ideas would have home condemned as TEAquaeda by huffpo.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36626


« Reply #1605 on: January 28, 2016, 03:43:39 PM »


Jan. 26, 2016 7:40 p.m. ET
352 COMMENTS

Here we go again. A major U.S. company merges with a foreign firm in part to avoid America’s punishing corporate tax code, and the politicians who refuse to reform the code denounce the company for trying to stay competitive. The gullible in the media then dutifully play along. Sigh.

Let’s try to explain one more time why it makes perfect business—and moral—sense for Johnson Controls to merge with Tyco, as it announced Monday it would do. Tyco has a U.S. headquarters in New Jersey but is legally domiciled in Cork, Ireland. Johnson Controls will own roughly 56% of the combined company and its legal headquarters will move to Cork from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where it has been based for more than a century.

To simplify for Democratic presidential candidates: The U.S. federal corporate income tax rate is 35%. The Irish rate is 12.5%. Johnson Controls says the tax savings from its move to Cork will be roughly $150 million a year.

A CEO obliged to act in the best interests of shareholders cannot ignore this competitive reality. The merger means that Johnson Controls will have more money to invest back in the U.S. because the income it earns overseas would not be subject to the U.S. tax rate. Only if Johnson kept its headquarters in the U.S. would its foreign earnings be double-taxed upon repatriation. If Johnson Controls refuses to do such a deal now, a foreign competitor might end up buying Johnson Controls anyway to achieve the same savings.

As with other such tax “inversions,” there are also non-tax strategic reasons for the merger. The new company will have under one roof much of the equipment and services desired by the owners of large commercial buildings, from air conditioning to fire suppression.

But none of this business logic impresses Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, who helped to write the U.S. tax code as Senators but are now competing as presidential candidates to see who can demagogue more ferociously against American employers. Mrs. Clinton called the merger “outrageous” and Mr. Sanders is calling the executives “corporate deserters.”

Neither one wants to reform the tax code to make U.S. tax rates more competitive with the rest of the world. Instead they want to raise the costs of doing business even further. Mrs. Clinton’s solution is to raise taxes on investors with higher capital-gains taxes, block inversion deals, and apply an “exit tax” to businesses that manage to escape.

Mr. Sanders would go further and perform an immediate $620 billion cashectomy on U.S. companies. The Vermonter would tax the money U.S. firms have earned overseas, even though that income has already been taxed in foreign jurisdictions and even if the companies aren’t bringing it into the U.S.

Mr. Sanders’s campaign website says that after the big revenue grab in year one, his change would increase federal revenue by perhaps $90 billion a year thereafter. And he would limit future corporate inversions by taxing many inverting companies as if they never left. His revenue goal is a fantasy, because the practical effect would be to encourage many more companies to flee American shores.

Never mind the lost tax revenue, this kind of punishing tax policy is immoral. Multinational corporations with global customers can always relocate to wherever it makes the most business sense. Their American employees aren’t so lucky because their livelihoods depend on thriving and competitive U.S. companies. If the employees can’t move, or their companies can’t compete, they’re the ones who lose their jobs or don’t get raises. Has the Democratic Party moved so far left that it doesn’t understand even this most basic of business realities?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7810


« Reply #1606 on: February 03, 2016, 09:15:31 AM »

Obama's policies are now fully in place and anemic economic growth has slowed to 0.7%.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/29/u-s-to-release-figures-expecting-to-show-fourth-quarter-growth/  Even Wesbury is bummed.  It has been TEN YEARS since the United States of America has seen 3% growth for a year.  Coincidentally, it has been 10 years since Nov 2006 when leftists took over Washington.   Most odd in all this is that in the pursuit of equality over growth, income inequality have gotten much 'worse'.

Economic growth in 1984 during the Reagan recovery was 6.8%.  
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/#7d5435c23a1d  
"Breakeven growth" is considered to be between about 3.1 and 3.2%.  

George Will correctly points out that the difference between 2% growth and 3% growth is not 1%; it is a 50% improvement.  This ship is getting harder and harder to turn around because the changes for the worse have been structural, not incidental.  Leaving the workforce is not like driving to the store or being between jobs; it is a mostly permanent change / end of productive activity, and 100 million adults are no longer in the workforce, out of 242 million adults.  The needing of government assistance is no longer defined as the poverty line; you need healthcare assistance up to incomes 4 times the poverty line.

From our discussion about tax rates, one tweak to Rubio's tax plan I would propose is to make the child tax benefit a deduction, not a credit.  In the eyes of some he is engaging in his own social engineering by rewarding one activity, having children, rather than put all the money toward marginal rate reductions.  In another sense, median income of 50k is simply less income for a family of 4 than it is for a single or a couple.

I would favor a constitutional amendment capping federal tax rates at about 25%.  No one should pay more than a quarter of their income to the Feds.  If we had a balanced budget requirement and didn't have the rich to keep raising on, a voter would have to pay more themselves in order to demand more services or goodies from the government.  Imagine imposing common sense on public sector choices!  The middle class shouldn't pay more than a quarter in Fed, state, local combined, but part of that is out of the Fed's hands and it would only works if/when we define the role of government downward.  In the meantime we have greatly defined the role of government upward and that will take some hard work and smart planning to even begin to reverse.

The highest marginal tax rates in fact are faced by people on the edge of losing their program benefits.  I made roughly one more dollar of income one year and lost thousands in FAFSA (federal college money).  Working welfare folks face that on everything, especially free and subsidized health care that no one on a lower income can afford anymore.

In the 90's when we "ended welfare as we know it" (so much Clintonspeak in that), we saw the double benefit of people moving from programs to work.  People not only start to pay in (pull the wagon) and are phased out of receiving some benefits (riding on the wagon).  Social security seems to be the most vivid example for people to understand, but all programs work this way, how may workers can support how many beneficiaries?  If you have made near the median income, you aren't in need of monetary help, maybe just budget counseling.  What part of how expensive our lives have become is the fault of excess government, healthcare being the most recent and prominent example?

Oddly, HRC the felon is running to continue the Obama economy, not to return us to the Clinton-Gingrich years.

Missing in this rambling so far is the number one cause or symptom of our current economic problems, real business startups are happening at the lowest rate ever.  That problem is tied more to excess regulations than to excess taxation, as taxation is tied to profits which is the least of your problems if you are contemplating a startup in Obama's America today.

All of these problems are solvable, not easily, not quickly and are barely being discussed in the current debate.  Sanders for example wants to come down harder on Wall Street banks, but Wall Street banks are rich because of the government squeezing the business out of all banks that can't afford to have teams of Wall Street lawyers on staff.  On the other side of it, Rubio correctly points out how a business started in a spare bedroom can't comply with all these over-regulations while the biggest of businesses can.  If you really wanted to squeeze big businesses, make it legal for new businesses and small businesses to compete with them.  Instead the main result of these policies has been for the top 30 companies (Dow), the top 500 companies (S&P) and the top 3100 companies (NASDAQ) to prosper while the rest of us suffer.

One more central leftist tenet is for government to raise the private sector wage.  While we debate a federal minimum wage increase, many cities and states have been raising theirs.  Government wants Walmart in particular to pay its people more.  In the meantime, Walmart closed 154 stores and laid off 10,000 employees.  Question:  Who is helped by that?  Certainly not Walmart employees or shoppers considered the heart of the lower middle class that we care the most about.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 09:37:48 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5335


« Reply #1607 on: February 03, 2016, 11:51:09 AM »

"One more central leftist tenet is for government to raise the private sector wage.  While we debate a federal minimum wage increase, many cities and states have been raising theirs.  Government wants Walmart in particular to pay its people more.  In the meantime, Walmart closed 154 stores and laid off 10,000 employees.  Question:  Who is helped by that?  Certainly not Walmart employees or shoppers considered the heart of the lower middle class that we care the most about."

Well wages are like everything else supply and demand.  We keep flooding the market form immigrants endlessly wages will never go up because they don't have to.

Great for Zuckerberg.  Bad for workers.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7810


« Reply #1608 on: February 03, 2016, 02:30:24 PM »

Minimum wage is the opposite of letting supply and demand work.  Too many low wage immigrants is another problem.  I believe all R candidates are now committed to ending new illegal immigration so the next step is to WIN THIS ELECTION!   )
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36626


« Reply #1609 on: February 04, 2016, 10:17:46 AM »

http://www.disclose.tv/news/iceland_forgives_entire_population_its_debt_total_us_media_blackout/127307
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5335


« Reply #1610 on: February 04, 2016, 10:43:29 AM »

"The US Rothschild Controlled Media (RCM) has completely BLACKED OUT/CENSORED any news about Iceland’s DEBT FORGIVENESS."

ie: the Jews

"We are allowed to see a tortured, bleeding, dying Gaddafi anywhere, but we are not allowed to know about Debt Forgiveness."

ie: written by Jew hating and likely American hating Muslims most likely Arab Muslims.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7810


« Reply #1611 on: March 08, 2016, 11:29:11 AM »

Here is a trick question: What percentage of American households have incomes in the top 10 percent? Answer: 51 percent of American households are in the top 10 percent in income at some point in the course of a lifetime — usually in their older years. Those who want us to envy and resent the top 10 percent are urging half of us to envy and resent ourselves.

https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/03/16/random-thoughts-b2798
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13468


« Reply #1612 on: March 18, 2016, 10:12:46 AM »

http://kfor.com/2016/03/17/carls-jr-ceo-wants-to-try-automated-restaurant-where-customers-never-see-a-person/

Fight for 15=Fail.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7810


« Reply #1613 on: March 21, 2016, 01:37:00 PM »

Important work, I think, studying inequality over lifetime instead annually and looking more to spending rather than income wealth.  Realistic conclusions, policies must take disincentives to work at both ends of the spectrum into account.

https://newrepublic.com/article/131517/weve-measuring-inequality-wrong

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7810


« Reply #1614 on: March 28, 2016, 10:28:32 AM »

Important work, I think, studying inequality over lifetime instead annually and looking more to spending rather than income wealth.  Realistic conclusions, policies must take disincentives to work at both ends of the spectrum into account.

https://newrepublic.com/article/131517/weve-measuring-inequality-wrong

Another look at that:
http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/income-inequality-doesnt-matter-study-finds-heres-what-does/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7810


« Reply #1615 on: March 28, 2016, 10:59:28 AM »

Over on the US Economy thread we keep hearing about how great a limited number of large, global companies are doing, as if that is a measure of how the economy is doing.  The economy is underperforming - to make a 'Captain F'ing Obvious' Understatement!

Under Obama's Accomplishments, did I already mention the worst startup rate of real businesses in US history?  (Filing an LLC to limit liability exposure on an existing building or asset that will employ no one ever is not a business startup.)  Others are starting to pay attention to warning signs that are already blindingly obvious to anyone on the forum.

Dearth of Startups:  http://www.inc.com/magazine/201505/leigh-buchanan/the-vanishing-startups-in-decline.html
Among other things, "Onerous Regulations"

http://www.stltoday.com/business/columns/david-nicklaus/bullard-concerned-about-dearth-of-startups/article_b9a30d80-6980-581b-a52b-6bc53e861e33.html
Bullard concerned about dearth of startupsBullard concerned about dearth of startups
A long-term decline in U.S. startup activity should be of concern to national policymakers, St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank President James Bullard

Now this:  (The Economist actually gets something right!)

Big firms never had it so good, competition persistently lacking.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21695392-big-firms-united-states-have-never-had-it-so-good-time-more-competition-problem?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits

The Economist, What's wrong with the highest sustained profits by the biggest companies in US history?  Lack of competition.  Why the lack of competition?  New regulations... keep rivals out.

"Getting bigger is not the only way to squish competitors. As the mesh of regulation has got denser since the 2007-08 financial crisis, the task of navigating bureaucratic waters has become more central to firms’ success. Lobbying spending has risen by a third in the past decade, to $3 billion. A mastery of patent rules has become essential in health care and technology, America’s two most profitable industries. And new regulations do not just fence big banks in: they keep rivals out."

"2/3rds of Americans think the economy is rigged [against them]." 

 (  - How come we're on the side of making that true, instead of making that false? )

The two choices that remain coming out of these primaries are to choose between a crony government felon and a private takings advocating, crony government beneficiary.  That's great (with sarcasm), and when do we start to address what's gone wrong in this country?
-------------------------------------------------------
From The Economist:   ...
Most of the remedies dangled by politicians to solve America’s economic woes would make things worse. Higher taxes would deter investment. Jumps in minimum wages would discourage hiring. Protectionism would give yet more shelter to dominant firms. Better to unleash a wave of competition.

The first step is to take aim at cosseted incumbents. Modernising the antitrust apparatus would help. Mergers that lead to high market share and too much pricing power still need to be policed. But firms can extract rents in many ways. Copyright and patent laws should be loosened to prevent incumbents milking old discoveries. Big tech platforms such as Google and Facebook need to be watched closely: they might not be rent-extracting monopolies yet, but investors value them as if they will be one day. The role of giant fund managers with crossholdings in rival firms needs careful examination, too.

Set them free
The second step is to make life easier for startups and small firms. [Is this rocket science?]  Concerns about the expansion of red tape and of the regulatory state must be recognised as a problem, not dismissed as the mad rambling of anti-government Tea Partiers. The burden placed on small firms by laws like Obamacare has been material. The rules shackling banks have led them to cut back on serving less profitable smaller customers. The pernicious spread of occupational licensing has stifled startups. Some 29% of professions, including hairstylists and most medical workers, require permits, up from 5% in the 1950s.

A blast of competition would mean more disruption for some: firms in the S&P 500 employ about one in ten Americans. But it would create new jobs, encourage more investment and help lower prices. Above all, it would bring about a fairer kind of capitalism. That would lift Americans’ spirits as well as their economy.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21695392-big-firms-united-states-have-never-had-it-so-good-time-more-competition-problem?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36626


« Reply #1616 on: March 28, 2016, 01:30:04 PM »

 cool
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5335


« Reply #1617 on: March 30, 2016, 09:35:24 AM »

Speaking of state taxes Jindal is getting creamed in the news for leaving a budget deficit 3 x bigger then when he came into office.  His 60%+ approval rating plummets to under 30%.

He was leading as a supply sider.  The real question is supply side economics a bust.  Or "voodoo economics".   Are our problems we cannot grow our way out of this?

George Will on the subject:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will032716.php3   shocked
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36626


« Reply #1618 on: March 31, 2016, 01:20:12 AM »

http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2016/03/chinas-gift-to-us-cheap-goods.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FtMBeq+%28Calafia+Beach+Pundit%29
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7810


« Reply #1619 on: March 31, 2016, 10:03:02 AM »


Grannis is right on this.  Except for criminal activity, stealing patents, etc., each transaction of trade is good.  It doesn't need to be "balanced" like a fiscal budget (we don't balance anymore either).  Imports are good, exports are good, and having both is doubly good.  Unlike a leftist world with compulsory purchases and regulated prices, every transaction of free trade is consensual and mutually beneficial.  The American consumer is reaping a huge benefit from global sourcing and American companies and producers likewise receive a huge benefit from having a global market in which to sell.

I listened to Trump on the Wisc. talk show.  He admits he doesn't want to raise tariffs, he won't raise tariffs, that would cripple our consumers (his voters), he admits.  He just wants to threaten to do that.  How do you threaten to do what everyone knows you are not willing to do?  He had no answer for that - another major issue he hasn't fully thought through.  Imagine next year's headline, prices for durable goods up 45% due to President Trump's trade policy.  He is too into his own popularity to ever do that even if it was good for us and it isn't.  It would be instant global recession with an easily traceable cause.

The WSJ used to say that global trade is beneficial and inevitable.  If you don't buy into the former, see the latter.  You can't have economic freedom in a global economy while being banned or punished economically for making your best purchases (and sales) around the world.  [The exception is when national security interests are at stake.]  And when people do have economic freedom, everyone benefits.

As the Chinese economy and consumer prospers, they will grow their demand for what we produce (if we produce what they demand) in a dynamic economy.

Trade protectionism is based on static, rear view mirror thinking.  We used to make  x , (steel, garments, or whatever), therefore we need to get back to where we made  x .  But comparative advantage moved on.  Now we need to produce  y and  z  to meet new market demand and stay ahead of our competition.  And what that our national product mix needs to be is not determined in the White House or a Congressional committee.

Freedom to trade requires the confidence that, given a  somewhat level playing field, we can compete with anyone.  The government's role in it is to remove the government imposed barriers that keep up from being competitive, not to micro-manage production, consumption or trade.

[We have a trade thread.]
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7810


« Reply #1620 on: April 01, 2016, 10:52:36 PM »

A few interesting facts in this piece, link below:

90% of new jobs / job growth are part time.

Growth rate since the recession is a dismal 2%.

Hillary promises to punish inversions with a new tax instead of reform the highest business taxes in the world.

US businesses are holding $2 trillion in foreign earnings outside the US, double Obama's stimulus package.

Hillary proposes to raise minimum wage 66% from 7.25 to $12.

1% of US workers make minimum wage.

0.4% of workers 25 or older make federal minimum wage.

More taxes and more regulations hurt economic growth.

Economic growth would help low income people more than more taxes and regulations.

Hillary and the left choose greater government power over increasing economic growth.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/what-hillary-gets-wrong-on-wages-commentary.html

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36626


« Reply #1621 on: April 06, 2016, 07:08:27 PM »

Democrats are routinely accused of taking black support for granted. They push policies without much concern for the potential negative impact on their black constituents, whom liberals reason will either vote Democratic or stay home.

To understand the basis of this criticism, look no further than the current debate over minimum-wage increases. For decades, the political left has argued that higher minimum wages would reduce poverty and income inequality. In reality, wage floors are nothing more than sops to organized labor. Most of the U.S. labor force isn’t organized, so labor unions use minimum-wage laws to limit the job competition from nonunionized workers. And Democrats support Big Labor’s agenda to keep the party’s campaign coffers filled.

This week California and New York, two states run by Democratic governors, announced plans to gradually increase the base wage to $15 per hour. California Gov. Jerry Brown acknowledged that there was no economic rationale for the increase, and the state finance department issued a report last year that said increasing the minimum wage would lead “to slower employment growth.” In the end, however, the progressive Democrat decided, much as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo must have, that other factors were more important. “Economically, minimum wages may not make sense,” Mr. Brown said recently. “But morally and socially and politically they make every sense.” The governor appears to have struggled with his conscience—and won.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. jobless rate in the fourth quarter of last year was 5%, but it was 9.1% for blacks and 10.9% for black residents of California—or more than double the 4.4% for whites in the Golden State. Black job seekers in New York fared better with a 7.7% unemployment rate at the end of last year, but it was still twice as high as the 3.8% rate for white New Yorkers and well above the state’s 4.8% average. A minimum-wage increase does nothing for people out of work other than make it more difficult for them to find a job.

Some workers may be better off under a higher minimum, but not everyone. Younger and less-experienced workers, who are disproportionately black, are especially vulnerable to mandatory wage increases, since their employers are more willing and able to reduce hours, cut benefits or mechanize a task in an effort to save money. The government can mandate that an unskilled worker be paid more money, but that won’t make the worker more productive or ensure that he keeps his job.

These so-called disemployment effects are played down by liberals, but they get to the crux of the problem with the policy. Most minimum-wage workers are neither poor nor the sole breadwinner of the family. Statistically, they are much more likely to be seniors staying busy in retirement, teenagers gaining work experience, or someone with young children working part-time until school lets out. What characterizes most poor households in the U.S. is a lack of workers—any workers—not people already in the labor force who earn too little. Any policy that reduces job prospects for the less-skilled is not reducing poverty and may well be exacerbating it.

Mr. Brown says higher minimum wages are about “economic justice” for the disadvantaged, and politicians going back many decades have similarly claimed to be looking out for the little guy. “The minimum wage laws were passed to help especially the unskilled, the teenagers, and the blacks,” wrote economic journalist Henry Hazlitt in 1979, four decades after the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act established the first federal minimum wage. “Is this helping the poor? Is it helping the unskilled worker? The results show that it is doing exactly the opposite.” Unfortunately, it still is.

An academic paper on the 2007 federal minimum-wage hike by William Even of Miami University in Ohio and David Macpherson of Trinity University in Texas detailed the effects on young blacks, who were by far hit hardest. The “employment losses for 16-to-24-year-old black males between 2007 and 2010 could have been nearly 50% lower had the federal and state minimum wages remained at the January 2007 level,” wrote the economists, adding that the “consequence of the minimum wage for this subgroup were more harmful than the consequences of the recession.”

None of this history would stop President Obama from praising the actions of New York and California this week and calling for Congress to legislate an even higher federal wage floor. Hillary Clinton, for her part, joined Mr. Cuomo at a rally in Manhattan on Monday to celebrate the new law. The sad irony is that black voters have been Mrs. Clinton’s firewall against an unexpectedly resilient Bernie Sanders. Blacks are looking out for Hillary, while she’s looking out for Big Labor. Mrs. Clinton and her fellow Democrats aren’t just taking black supporters for granted. They’re also taking them for a ride.

Mr. Riley, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor, is the author of “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed” (Encounter Books, 2014).
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7810


« Reply #1622 on: April 08, 2016, 12:55:14 PM »

Here is the graphic Chris Wallace needs to put up as he asks question number one to the President:



Reagan recovery above.  Obama recovery below.

Besides George Bush's fault (refuted in question number two), how do you explain your PATHETIC economic record, post recession?

Graph source:  Stanford Economics Professor John Taylor's blog, http://economicsone.com/

Prof. Taylor uses the terms: "7 years of so-called expansion", "Slow Crawl", "anemic productivity growth, anemic employment growth, anemic income growth",  not 'plowhorse' economy.  He has been "blaming government economic policy all the way".   "People’s exasperation and anger about the economy and Washington policy revealed in this presidential election proves the point better than any abstract statistic ever could. "
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5335


« Reply #1623 on: April 08, 2016, 05:25:40 PM »

What???  I thought Clinton was always taking credit for reducing welfare rolls (after Republicans started it and the polls were strongly in favor of it) and now they say he should be blamed for it !!

So now it is bad the welfare rolls are down 70%   And some, not all of course, who accept welfare are lazy.  Like it or not that is FACT.  We see it all the time. 

But in any case this IS news to me:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-clinton-welfare-reform_us_5707cbf4e4b0c4e26a227a34
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13468


« Reply #1624 on: April 08, 2016, 10:09:02 PM »

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/08/first-quarter-economy-looks-bleaker-by-the-day.html

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5335


« Reply #1625 on: April 16, 2016, 11:21:53 AM »

I cannot speak to the veracity of this site:

Debt clock:

http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

Republicans starting with Reagan partially to blame:

http://zfacts.com/p/gross-national-debt.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7810


« Reply #1626 on: April 17, 2016, 10:23:51 AM »

Debt clock:
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

Republicans starting with Reagan partially to blame:

http://zfacts.com/p/gross-national-debt.html

Reagan presided over big deficits but not for the reasons normally cited.

1. Did tax rates cuts cause debt?  Cutting the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%, fully in place in 1/1/83, ended a painful, otherwise endless period of stagnation.  It caused enormous economic growth.  Revenues to the Treasury doubled in the decade of the 1980.  Reagan tax rate cuts did not cause one dollar of deficit or debt.

2. Defense spending?  Reagan's defense rebuild was expensive.  Not addressing that threat would have been more costly.  The result of the real commitment he made to peace through strength directly resulted in the fall of the Soviet Union.  The cost of defeating that threat needs to be spread over the 4 decades that threat grew, not over Reagan's 8 years.  Call it an unfunded liability.  On June 12, 1987, Reagan called out the head of the Soviet Union to tear down this wall after showing 7 years of unflinching resolve.  On November 9, 1989, the wall came down.  That didn't happen because of detente, parity, or unilateral disarmament.  No one honestly believes it could have been done faster or for less.

3.  Domestic spending?  Reagan allowed domestic spending to increase as his compromise with Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill in order to accomplish the two points above.  Democrats controlled the House during Reagan's entire term.  Accomplishing the above required making this compromise.  By their own admission, it was the cost of having a Democrat controlled House, not the cost of having Reagan in the White House.

Does anyone believe the Soviet union would have collapsed without a U.S. defense buildup or that America would have ever snapped out of stagflation under the previous policies of economic asphyxiation? I don't.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5335


« Reply #1627 on: April 17, 2016, 11:58:23 AM »

Doug I agree with you about Reagan.  I am not sure about the motives of the authors of the above post I made.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7810


« Reply #1628 on: April 17, 2016, 12:36:47 PM »

Doug I agree with you about Reagan.  I am not sure about the motives of the authors of the above post I made.

They like to score economic results by whether the President at the time has an R or a D by their name, if it makes the Dems look same or better.  I like to score economic results by the policies that caused those results.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36626


« Reply #1629 on: April 17, 2016, 12:44:37 PM »

Also, and this I think to be very important, is the matter of baseline budgeting.

BB uses nominal dollars i.e. includes projected inflation.  For simplistic illustration $100 in year one with 10% inflation is $110 in year two and this is calculated as neutral in constant dollars.

Thus the nominal dollar increases of the 5 and 10 year plans (remember when we used to laugh at the Soviet Empire for its central planning with 5 and 10 year plans?) in place when Reagan took office became REAL increases as Volcker's policies aided and abetted by the increase in supply due to the tax rate cuts decreased inflation far more rapidly than anyone except the supply-siders and the monetarists  predicted.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7810


« Reply #1630 on: April 17, 2016, 05:16:40 PM »

Also, and this I think to be very important, is the matter of baseline budgeting.

BB uses nominal dollars i.e. includes projected inflation.  For simplistic illustration $100 in year one with 10% inflation is $110 in year two and this is calculated as neutral in constant dollars.

Thus the nominal dollar increases of the 5 and 10 year plans (remember when we used to laugh at the Soviet Empire for its central planning with 5 and 10 year plans?) in place when Reagan took office became REAL increases as Volcker's policies aided and abetted by the increase in supply due to the tax rate cuts decreased inflation far more rapidly than anyone except the supply-siders and the monetarists  predicted.

That's right.  They must factor inflation into the budget for every domestic dollar spent on their side but don't account for any inflation when taxing every dollar invested by the people, resulting in real capital gains tax rates of 100%, 1000% and higher.  Ironically this over-taxation in the marginal rates leads to asset paralysis where properties and assets cannot be sold because for tax reasons and thus no revenues come in, adding further to the deficit, debt and stagnation.  This is even worse at the state level where an inflationary-only gain is taxed at the highest rate of ordinary income, again preventing sales and causing lost revenue.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36626


« Reply #1631 on: April 18, 2016, 09:07:23 AM »

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/04/17/minimum-wage-california-american-apparel/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7810


« Reply #1632 on: April 18, 2016, 11:48:05 AM »

(March 28, Dallas Morning News, this story went by without fanfare)

Dumb and Dumber.  In the land of the free and the home of the brave, and in the face of all this talk about trade deficits and also global warming, it has been illegal until now to sell abroad the largest growth product of our time, the product that played the biggest role in curbing our CO2 emissions nationwide in the United States of Ameria, natural gas.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20160325-daniel-gross-the-u.s.-can-finally-sell-natural-gas-abroad-and-that-could-change-everything.ece

The U.S. can finally sell natural gas abroad, and that could change everything.  28 March 2016

(Makes you wonder, where else are we still shooting ourselves in the foot, maybe by having the highest business tax rates in the world?)
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36626


« Reply #1633 on: April 19, 2016, 09:41:53 PM »

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1621575756/?tag=denprager-20
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7810


« Reply #1634 on: April 20, 2016, 11:03:48 AM »


It will be interesting to learn the details his assessment.  I assume it is the Federal Reserve and expansionary money.

"The Scandal of Money: Why Wall Street Recovers but the Economy Never Does"

We are so far removed from addressing the things that are wrong I don't see how anyone can feel optimistic.

I see Scott Grannis has another post on what is going right in a no growth economy.  What a dismal science.  It's like having a fascination with baseball batting statistics when the hitters are striking out half the time, no extra base hits and no one is hitting over .200.

No growth over 2% in the entire Obama era, going back to when Dems took congress in 2006.  Compare that with quarterly GDP growth rates during the early part of the Reagan recovery after tax rate cuts were fully enacted:  1983 Q2 3.35%, Q3 5.75%, Q4 7.83%, 1984 Q1 8.55% Q2 7.99%, Q3 6.96%, Q4 5.63%. Imagine today's economy with that kind of growth!

A commenter on Grannis' post:  "Ted Cruz, was on CNBC live this morning. He ranted that the Fed has been "printing money" and "artificially propping up the stock market for rich people". Ted said its all a bubble that's getting ready for an enormous crash. Nobody running for President has a clue how the Fed works."

That sounds closer to the truth in layman's terms than the twisted explanation of how QE didn't create money.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36626


« Reply #1635 on: April 20, 2016, 03:01:49 PM »

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1621575756/?tag=denprager-20
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5335


« Reply #1636 on: April 20, 2016, 03:24:07 PM »

I think Grannis' comparison of National debt to personal or family debt is rather dubious.  He says the because our national debt is less then family debt we are in ok shape???
What???   What was the number of households living from paycheck to paycheck?  What is he nuts?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36626


« Reply #1637 on: April 20, 2016, 09:20:45 PM »

If you answer him in my thread for him instead of here maybe I can get him to respond.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7810


« Reply #1638 on: April 22, 2016, 08:51:49 AM »

Even the San Francisco Fed knows this policy costs jobs!

It wasn't very long ago, 2007, that the federal minimum wage was raised to $7.25.  Funny, isn't that the year we elected Pelosi-Reid-Obama-Clinton, ended economic growth and we headed into collapse.  Not all because of minimum wage but because of the bankrupt thinking that took control of Washington.  Now we are talking about doubling that (while we deny any inflation exists when we tax capital gains, the long term investments that support those jobs.

Elastic Demand.  Every economist will tell you that when you raise the price of something, you will get less of it, even labor, all other factors held constant.

But minimum wage is different.  It sounds good and polls well for Democrats, so they keep bringing it up, and because not all other factors are ever held perfectly constant and most min wage increases are small, they can keep producing flawed studies to show no real damage is done even when it is.

When the government mandated minimum wage is below the prevailing wage, no one notices the effect.  When you raise it a quarter once in a while, no one notices a reduced employment effect.  But when you raise it boldly, bold effects will result.  Ask proponents this question, if $15 is good for us, why isn't $20 or $25 better?  We all know why.  Jobs disappear.  But which jobs affecting which people?  Always hurt most are the least skilled and most vulnerable among us.  The leftist answer:  we have programsfor that, pay without work and job training for no jobs available.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The Effects of Minimum Wages on Employment
State minimum wage hikes may have killed 200,000 jobs

(More delicately put,) "the evidence suggests that it is appropriate to weigh the cost of potential job losses from a higher minimum wage against the benefits of wage increases for other workers."

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fed-state-minimum-wage-hikes-may-have-killed-200000-jobs/article/2578868
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bump up the pay for those on the second rung of the economic ladder while completely removing the lowest rung so that MANY will NEVER be able to climb up the ladder at all.  No worries.  Those left behind will still vote Democrat for life while those who had to automate and eliminate low end jobs to keep their businesses make more and pay more taxes to cover it.

What a strange political-economic world we live in.  We know better but keep doing worse.

Aside from the job losses and economic costs of this bad policy, there is a moral cost.  Is it right or wrong for consenting adults to be BANNED from being able to freely make contracts with each other in any area as basic as labor and making a living, or even PART of a living?  What has government done well or done right, healthcare?, that makes us think they are more competent than the people to make our most important decisions for us?

One Size Fits All?  Why would the right wage in NYC be right for Topeka or Peoria?  Why would the right wage for Palo Alto be right for Selma or Fresno?  Why would the wage for manufacturing be right for retail?  Why would the base wage for a tipped employee be right for one who gets no tips?  It doesn't, it isn't, it isn't, it isn't and it isn't.

One of my earlier proposals applies here.  Lawmakers should have to submit and approve an 'Unintended Consequences" statement with new laws and programs like these in the same way that developers are required to have environmental impact studies approved to build new projects.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36626


« Reply #1639 on: April 28, 2016, 03:54:53 PM »

Its Robert Reich, so there is plenty of drivel in here, but I do like the idea of allowing more savings.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/28/robert_reich_wealth_inequality_is_even_more_devastating_than_income_inequality_partner/
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!