The 2016 presidential race (former: The race to the 2016 presidential race)

[Ludicus]

doubling the min wage (an action that will most likely increase unemployment, increase the rate of automization, and increase prices),

Well,even Adam Smith understood the other side of the equation. Wealth of Nations,

Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people

[Elfdude]

I would be genuinely surprised if a minimum wage increase led to job loss. In terms of consumer base it should lead to job growth and increased worker participation. But ohwell, I can say it and cite every Economist in the world on this and ya'll will still assert the same bull.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

I would be genuinely surprised if a minimum wage increase led to job loss. In terms of consumer base it should lead to job growth and increased worker participation. But ohwell, I can say it and cite every Economist in the world on this and ya'll will still assert the same bull.

Ohh and don't forget the more money those workers have, the more they will spend, which again will return a profit to any companies.
And so the circle is complete ^^

Adam smith is really awesome then you think about which era he wrote the book in.

[Ludicus]

Bernie's memorable speech at Vatican. (Btw, he writes his own speeches...)
The Urgency of a Moral Economy:Reflections on the 25th of Centesimus

[Elfdude]

WHAT?! No way, you mean velocity of money has something to do with the health of our economy? That sounds like marxism to me.

[Derpy Hooves]

Ohh and don't forget the more money those workers have, the more they will spend, which again will return a profit to any companies.
And so the circle is complete ^^

Adam smith is really awesome then you think about which era he wrote the book in.

Wait so you're saying those workers will have more money=more money to spend? Wow, guess I'll have to increase prices, since my supply hasn't changed, but my demand has increased.

EDIT: Oh and if the min wage has no negative effects on the economy, why don't we make it $1b/hr
Then everyone would be billionaires YAY

[Sphere]

Ohh and don't forget the more money those workers have, the more they will spend, which again will return a profit to any companies.
And so the circle is complete ^^

Adam smith is really awesome then you think about which era he wrote the book in.

It's self evident that, sans mega-inflation, if you set the minimum wage at $1,000,000 per hour you'd have essentially 0% employment. Nobody would run a business requiring employees. It's also self evident that if you set it at 1c per hour it would have no effect on employment.

The question is where are the inflection points inbetween. It's a hot political topic so there's research both ways, but it's generally accepted that if you keep the minimum wage as some fraction of the median wage, the effects on unemployment are small.

[Elfdude]

Given wage should track with CPI you can say the bellcurve you're talking about is somewhere between 15 and 25 dollars depending on where you're applying the math. There is certainly a point where the return from consumer base growth, worker participation, and velocity of money is balanced by cost of labor after which employment is threatened. The issue is we're on the opposite side of the growth curve where labor participation and employment is threatened because the wage is too low. If we're talking veracity of belief about two thirds of economists agree with that point and the remaining economists all universally subscribe to economics which has been refuted eons ago.

So yes, your statement is true.

[Derpy Hooves]

Once again it's "economists agree with me, therefore I am right"
Ah appeal to authority

[PointOfViewGun]

Once again it's "economists agree with me, therefore I am right"
Ah appeal to authority

That's not what appeal to authority is. The way you describe it is not a fallacious argumentation style but a proper way of arguing a position.

[Elfdude]

Once again it's "economists agree with me, therefore I am right"
Ah appeal to authority

Actually an appeal to authority can be valid depending on how it's made:

P1: Experts on a subject are usually correct.
P2: Experts on the subject have a consensus that P is correct.
C1: P is probably correct.

This is an entirely valid statement. On the other hand these arguments are fallacious:

Premise 1 - People with qualifications are usually correct.
Premise 2 - Those people say P is correct.
Conclusion - Therefore P is definitely correct.

Or

Premise 1 - People with qualifications are always correct.
Premise 2 - Those people say P is correct.
Conclusion - Therefore P is definitely correct.

Or

Premise 1 - People with qualifications are the only ones who can be correct.
Premise 2 - Those people say P is correct.
Conclusion - Therefore P is definitely correct.



Recognizing that experts have access to more knowledge and are thus more likely to be correct is not fallacious, it's only fallacious to assert that they're the only ones who can make such conclusions. Which is to say, if you're going to invoke a fallacy card to dismiss an argument understand how it's used.

[snuggans]

the biggest flaw here with elfdude and Sanders and socialists is that they want the top to work for the bottom regardless of the difference in skill and talent, regardless of GDP already being taxed for the common good, regardless of whether we have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world, regardless if wages are already increasing

"you already have some money? well i'm going to take the rest of it, nobody NEEDS millions, i'm going to decide what to do with your money ok?"

shoo, shoo! civil liberty violators

we really SHOULD have high-school dropouts being CEO's, get all of those fast-food workers into investment companies, gas station employees should be monitoring oil rigs

the top SHOULD work for the bottom, let's actually try this for once and see if we get anywhere. we really should invert the pyramid and let's have all the minimum wage slaves managing everything and the upper class should be getting coffee, we're going to have such a great utopia, i'm feeling the Bern

Once again it's "economists agree with me, therefore I am right" Ah appeal to authority

yeah and a bunch of economists have already poked holes in Sander's plans so i'm going to go with them too

[PointOfViewGun]

the biggest flaw here with elfdude and Sanders and socialists is that they want the top to work for the bottom regardless of the difference in skill and talent, regardless of GDP already being taxed for the common good, regardless of whether we have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world, regardless if wages are already increasing

"you already have some money? well i'm going to take the rest of it, nobody NEEDS millions, i'm going to decide what to do with your money ok?"

shoo, shoo! civil liberty violators

That's the sole purpose of the existence of a government. Why is it ok to give tax cuts to the wealthy but it's not ok when we do it the other way?

[snuggans]

but if you researched Hillary's tax plan you'd see that she's planning tax cuts for low earners as well, while trying to go after wealthy who do not donate like she does, but she's not planning on increasing taxes across the board like Bernie, or a 46% increased tax bite. Hillary's great because she's going to get that revenue through the GDP!!! rather than Bernie trying to get it all through increasing taxation and stealing money

[PointOfViewGun]

but if you researched Hillary's tax plan you'd see that she's planning tax cuts for low earners as well, while trying to go after wealthy who do not donate

That's a completely separate issue from the one you talked about earlier. Come on. Don't deflect.

Though it makes absolute no sense to go after the wealthy who does not donate. What does that even mean?

[snuggans]

it means that Hillary is attempting wealth redistribution the voluntary way while Bernie just steals people's money to build a welfare state whose existence depends on the next president not being a republican. our system already works in ways that persuades the rich to donate (wealth redistribution) to earn tax exemptions and other benefits, she's trying to work with those principles, which i think it's pretty genius to get people to part with their money in a completely voluntary manner

[Derpy Hooves]

That's a completely separate issue from the one you talked about earlier. Come on. Don't deflect.

Though it makes absolute no sense to go after the wealthy who does not donate. What does that even mean?

Maybe he means bigger tax cuts for those who donate? That's my guess

[Elfdude]

the biggest flaw here with elfdude and Sanders and socialists is that they want the top to work for the bottom regardless of the difference in skill and talent, regardless of GDP already being taxed for the common good, regardless of whether we have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world, regardless if wages are already increasing

None of this is accurate starting with the idea that we want the top to work for the bottom. We do however want business to work for the economy.

"you already have some money? well i'm going to take the rest of it, nobody NEEDS millions, i'm going to decide what to do with your money ok?"

Right. This was an attempt at sarcasm but it's pretty accurate.

shoo, shoo! civil liberty violators

Money is not a civil liberty.

we really SHOULD have high-school dropouts being CEO's

Random exaggeration.

get all of those fast-food workers into investment companies, gas station employees should be monitoring oil rigs

Working on an Oil rig already makes around 120,000-180,000 a year because of unions. Which you hate. $15 an hr is $31,000 before taxes.

the top SHOULD work for the bottom, let's actually try this for once and see if we get anywhere.

No one is saying this.

we really should invert the pyramid and let's have all the minimum wage slaves managing everything and the upper class should be getting coffee, we're going to have such a great utopia, i'm feeling the Bern

No one is saying this.

yeah and a bunch of economists have already poked holes in Sander's plans so i'm going to go with them too

No they haven't. You might have 5 economists you can cite on this. I have 500. Suck it.

but if you researched Hillary's tax plan you'd see that she's planning tax cuts for low earners as well

Yup, and apparently she supports 15$ minimum wage if you watched the debate last night. I'm glad Hillary wants CEO's working for minimum wage employees. Say who did you support again? Hillary? Oh... well now that she supports an option you think is abhorrent are you gona vote Cruz?

while trying to go after wealthy who do not donate like she does

You mean her clinton foundation? Her own personal tax haven? The tax haven who has millions in donations from oil and gas industries? The foundation that lets her get personal contributions but hide them from campaign finance law?

but she's not planning on increasing taxes across the board like Bernie, or a 46% increased tax bite. Hillary's great because she's going to get that revenue through the GDP!!! rather than Bernie trying to get it all through increasing taxation and stealing money

Your economic principles are so backwards it's ridiculous. Like, if you had the choice, you would literally drive yourself into poverty. I'm flabbergasted at the success of conservative propaganda. Obviously you know somewhat better given your democratic affiliation but it's got to be damn frustrating to watch Obama violate your economic theory, increase taxes and still rock the economy.

it means that Hillary is attempting wealth redistribution the voluntary way while Bernie just steals people's money to build a welfare state whose existence depends on the next president not being a republican. our system already works in ways that persuades the rich to donate (wealth redistribution) to earn tax exemptions and other benefits, she's trying to work with those principles, which i think it's pretty genius to get people to part with their money in a completely voluntary manner

Hillary is going to increase philanthropy by 6x overnight? That's would be required for people like me who make over a million a year and pay less than 18% in taxes to pay their fair share. Of course, you think I'm an earner and not a economic parasite so I suppose that 18% tax rate is totes fair. Suck it middle class, I have half your tax rate.

[PointOfViewGun]

it means that Hillary is attempting wealth redistribution the voluntary way while Bernie just steals people's money to build a welfare state whose existence depends on the next president not being a republican. our system already works in ways that persuades the rich to donate (wealth redistribution) to earn tax exemptions and other benefits, she's trying to work with those principles, which i think it's pretty genius to get people to part with their money in a completely voluntary manner

Again, why is it stealing money from the wealthy but not stealing money from the poor? Our systems with it's ways that persuade the rich to donate clearly doesn't work as the wealth gap gets bigger and bigger. It's not genius. It's outright mental. Since doing the same thing over and over again thing...

Maybe he means bigger tax cuts for those who donate? That's my guess

That already exists. It's a highly unreliable way of doing it though. Especially, if you want to fund much needed infrastructure projects all around the states and make public college affordable or free, it's not really a good way of doing it.

[snuggans]

Money is not a civil liberty.

the right to own property is a civil liberty, economic freedom help expand other political freedoms

i know socialists don't like that because they naturally dislike private property and want everything to be public and shared but that's not going to fly in USA

Again, why is it stealing money from the wealthy but not stealing money from the poor? Our systems with it's ways that persuade the rich to donate clearly doesn't work as the wealth gap gets bigger and bigger.

because the poor will get taxed minimally and the rich could have their earnings taxed up to 80% which is almost everything, (according to what Bernie feels is perfectly acceptable and his tax plan)

the wealth gap doesn't matter in the same way that the gender wage gap doesn't matter if equality of opportunity is achieved through laws. what matters is where the bottom margin is at, you can increase the bottom margin without stealing from the top margin or restricting them

socialists are literally trying to manage an economic system based on "GREED IS BAD", it's hilarious. greed made us the number one country in the world

That's would be required for people like me who make over a million a year and pay less than 18% in taxes to pay their fair share.

you're already paying your fair share if that's the case, looks like you're being guilted by Bernie