Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Bill Dog's Journal: circular economics, or sound 23

I haven't been regularly visiting /. these last several months. I got a dog, a 2 year old Golden Retriever, and have been breaking him in to life with me. That and I have to get up at a time in the morning that begins with a "4" lately, AKA "oh-dark-thirty", so I hardly ever even turn my computer on during the week. Pre-pooch, I must've just been doing it cuz I was bored. Okay, that didn't sound right. But then again, Slashdot really is mostly just people making faux-intellectual love to themselves.

Anyways, for some real intellectual stimulation, ponder the interesting notion ole Bernie (half-heartedly) offered in the last Dem debate: He was asked that wouldn't raising the minimum wage put some workers out of work. The interesting idea was, that the workers who got to keep their jobs would now have more disposable income, and buy goods and services that they are not now, that would then mean new jobs for those who lost them in the minimum wage hike.

I have absolutely no head/intuition for economics, and as such can't figure out for myself if there could be anything to that or if it's obvious (except to me) utter poop.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

circular economics, or sound

Comments Filter:
  • If you read Sowell's "Basic Economics", he makes the point that having government tamper with the market always leads to perverse outcomes, always.
    • by chill ( 34294 )

      Good. We absolutely do not want many of the natural outcomes, such as company towns, 18-hour work days and enslaving wage levels.

      The natural, unregulated market leads to a power imbalance that only grows greater as the company increases in size.

      By "we", I mean society. Government regulation is almost reactionary. That is they react after the system gets too far outside acceptable bounds. We started this country with minimal government intervention in the markets and have steadily increased as the shit hits

      • The natural, unregulated market leads to a power imbalance

        That's the thing, there is no "natural unregulated" market. The institutions that give us our company towns, 18-hour work days and enslaving wage levels are heavily protected by the government. Without that protection, no monopoly can survive, and none can survive without physical violence. How many times was the Guard called in to put down a strike? And how often do we see arbitration favor the workers? Very rarely.

        However, everything we do is alway

      • As long as there is good information feedback into the market, the need for government regulation is far less than statists advertise.
    • That sounds like a religious statement.

  • There are too many variables to predict one way or another.

    People making minimum wage who get raises usually don't spend the extra money on more stuff. They try to pay their bills on time. Or purchase the same essential items, but at a slightly higher quality.

    That is, steak one day a week instead of hamburger. That doesn't necessarily increase any jobs anywhere at all.

    It is also possible they buy more stuff, but where are the extra (if any) jobs created? If they're buying cheap crap imported from China, are

  • It is what has been happening in Oregon. Having said that, they then turned around and raised taxes, which kills more jobs than minimum wage ever could.

    • In Oregon a rising minimum wage has increased consumption to the point of offsetting the job losses from a rising minimum wage?

      And note that fewer jobs is the price of fairness; it's not fair that some have more than others, so more must be taken from them, with whatever downsides that result.

      • And note that fewer jobs is the price of fairness

        That of course, is a lie.... Pure right wing drivel...

      • In Oregon, the reason voters set yearly minimum wage increases into law was precisely to increase the buying power of the poor and increase the local food movement economy, thus revitalizing an agricultural sector that was dying due to Chilean imports.

        The down side- it makes our workforce less elastic. We continually trail unemployment nationally by two points, and we're the first to suffer from a recession and the last to recover from it.

  • Here, we created a ton of heavily subsidized child-care jobs that pay 50% more than the minimum wage, and it turned out to be revenue-positive for the government, increasing GDP by 1.7%.
    • But I wasn't asking if it was good for government; I was asking if it was good for (all) workers.

      • Dumb question. Why would higher wages ever be bad for workers? More business means more employment. Put your Ronnie Reagan statue away and find yourself another god...

You will have a head crash on your private pack.

Working...