Aaron Fox
Well-known member
Some of what your spouting is standard indoctrinated right talking points, even I -as a former Republican- know that those talking points are absolute bullshit.
United States Raising the minimum wage
- Thread starter Terthna
- Start date
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
This is why variations on the "Like" are a bad idea, people just lazily use them to not actually argue.
What makes them bullshit?
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
Because they run right into the wall that is reality... at 85mph. College isn't SJW indoctrination centers, it's just that the Right generally takes the anti-intellectual ball and runs with it so hard that it became the idiot ball.
Well, reducing net consumption is a good thing for individuals. Because net consumption getting higher drives down per capita production, and what is actually available for consumption. Assuming your saying net consumption to be consumption - production
If consumption goes up, without an increase in production, then surplus goes down.
Say, for example, you have a stock of 500 houses, and 600 people looking for houses. In that case, the houses go to the top 80%, and the bottom 20% aren't able to afford housing, and have to rent a room or find other opportunities.
If housing consumption rises to 700, but the housing supply stays fixed at 500, then only the top 70% of people can afford a house, which now is probably a bigger chunk of their income as the 30% who would like to have a house put upward pressure on that house.
Likewise with Healthcare, education, or a great many other things. If consumption, or consumption demand, goes up without an actual increase in production, then things get worse on average for people as the same amount of resources are divided across more consumers (or simply a higher level of demand per consumer) with out an at least proportional growth in production.
One will notice that many of the things people complain about people being priced out of and thus we need higher minimum wages are specifically things that, at least under current arrangements, are hard to boost supply of: Its hard in new York for example to boost housing supply (even ignoring various rent controls) except at high expense, that expense including making what counts as a "house" progressively smaller.
Doctors is another one where I suspect effective averages have been going down, but Its hard to say because there's been such an explosion in doctor work between the 1950s and now: the rate has nearly doubled, from 15 per 10,000 in 1950 to about 30 per 10,000, but given the huge explosion in things doctors can do, the % of the population who need more doctors time (because more and more things are more survivable, but with more doctor labor and long term care, and you have an older population), that the actual demand for doctors has way more than doubled.
For example, in raw "share of the population over 65", assuming the elderly are a big driver of medical care, the share of the population over 65 has increased from about 10% back then to around 15%. So just on how many old people there are, assuming the same labor intensity of caring for the old as it was in the 1950s, you would expect something like a 50% increase in demand for doctors proportional to the population. Considering the doctor labor necessary to tend to an old person is probably much higher now, and medicine is a much more bureaucratic exercise than back then, further driving up labor needs, I wouldn't be surprised that a conservative estimate for the increase in medical care per old person is double what it was in the 1950s which is then increased by 50% due to more old people, which would suggest meeting demand would require about 3x as many doctors as we used to have, while we have "only" increased the supply of doctors by about 2x.
And if you insist the doctors come from the top 1% of the most qualified, well, by the measure of x per 10,000, 15 per 10,000 already meant about 15% of the 1% were doctors in the 1950s. If you need something like 45 doctors per 10,000 to meet the new demand, well, 45% of your 1% being doctors is going to be crowding out an awful lot of other, potentially more valuable things, that you really would prefer your 1%, a very limited resource indeed, to be working on.
The people coming over, like, do work
Work which increases production.
The idea that less people = more prosperity is absolutely insane, especially from a mainstream economic standpoint, and it's hilarious that I need to even say that as a commie in this thread.
Please explain exactly how, lets say importing people to do agricultural work, increases the supply of Housing and doctors. Or are you one of those people who believe all that matters is the GDP number?
[Puts on my shit neolib hat]
First off, we started this off with immigration, not just agricultural work
Now, if I were a shit neolib, I'd say the invisible hand is at play. More people are working at higher value, higher paying jobs. These people now go to buy things. They need housing and healthcare. This increases demand for housing and healthcare, which means the market, perfect information processor that it is, will allocate resources to fulfill that newly created demand
See you in a bit, I gotta go wash out my mouth
LifeisTiresome
Well-known member
Colleges nowadays in the west from what I see are basically indoctrination centers. If they aren't? Why did Oberlin college mess happen at all? If the college students are so intellectual. They should be able to see the nonsense going on, no?
I do agree. I don't care if I get likes or no but variations make me want to know what the person meant using that variation.
Last edited:
So now that you've wasted a paragraph on something you don't believe in anyways, how about a real reply?
Edit: So, do we have anything to actually say about minimum wage at this point? Basically everything has been about surrounding, sometimes nearly unrelated things. I feel I should just make an automation so we can beat this dead horse over and over again.
More people less stuff is literally inane, the more people able to contribute labour to a society, assuming each individual is able to produce more than they consume, increases societies stock of consumptive goods more than is consumed.
Also, if that wasn't true, things would be getting worse economically year after year from a starting point of hunter gatherer societies, which unless you're an anprim I don't see how you could argue
So, when you take a 100 km of farmland with 100 farmers, adding an extra 100 farmers adds an extra 100 km of farmland?
So you're saying there's a finite amount of work to do in America, a limit already reached?
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
Wow, theres really no depth to this argument is there, first you argue by posting a laughing smiley, then when pressed you say "It's not reality!!! You're idiots!!!" and nothing else.
Are you saying there isn't a finite amount of land in a 100 km space?
I'm saying that generalizing the economy to farmers on a 100km strip of land is the most hilariously big brained, brainlet hypothetical I've ever seen, and the fact you're doubling down on such an obviously non-representative example isboth utterly hilarious and indicative of how deeply stupid you're willing to go in order to defend ideological positions over fact
You seem to be the one who's totally unwilling to grant that a 100 km of farmland does not turn into 200 km of farmland when you add an extra 100 people. This is very uncontroversial statements of fact, not even getting into any formal economics. There are limiting factors in the real world. Normally taken as a "given" in econ, something so simple its generally not necessary to state explicitly. Because we assume someone who has lived long enough to make it to an economics course has had many years of experience with the real world and to have had some basic education.
The Boot is annoyed. Continuous baiting and trolling raise the Boots ire, tarnish the Boots shine, and lead to the Boot wishing to step on things. For repeated 2c violations, take a vacation from the thread.
Is the economy maxed out.
Have we reached the 100km limit of the economic farmland, such that your example of maxing out natural resources no further employment is possible without reductions of employment elsewhere makes sense in the context of this thread.
Yes/No without fellating yourself
I think it was more of a representative analogy to show capacity limits. You're arguing that more people who produce more than consume can improve an economy, but with finite capacity in an economy - finite resources, finite space, etc. - this has an upper limit.
It is obviously more complex a matter than a 100km strip of land, but it wouldn't be the first analogy to simplify a complex thing in order to demonstrate a simple mechanism within said thing.
You know, you didn't need that last line to make your point. Or are you deliberately trying to provoke people with petty remarks?