Scrolls of Lore Forums  

Go Back   Scrolls of Lore Forums > Scrolls of Lore > Halls of Lordaeron

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-23-2017, 10:29 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Loot Bag The Economics Thread

This is where we can talk about taxes, government spending, and other economic topics!

I want to start off with marginal tax rates being inefficient at collecting revenue and having a negative impact on the economy.

In the US if you look at our income tax receipts as a percentage of GDP it has never exceeded 10%.



It doesn't matter how high it is or how progressive it is it seems to cap out around 10% of our GDP. Even in inflation adjusted dollars it steadily increases year after year even after taxes are cut. Never seeing a decline of more than 5% from the previous year.



The argument that increasing the income tax beyond what it currently is will increase revenue seems really weak. No one seems to be able to squeeze that much more revenue out of their GDP.

Name:  image.jpg
Views: 154
Size:  46.2 KB

OECD doesn't really let you display income tax revenue per capita but it lets you display all tax revenue per capita.

Name:  image2.png
Views: 155
Size:  32.9 KB

Even here though the US generates just as much tax revenue as other even higher tax nations sometimes more. They have larger statutory income tax rates, VATs, and other miscellaneous taxes that the US doesn't have.

I could continue about how the income tax negatively impacts productivity, especially high progress and marginal rates but lets start here first. Do the numbers lie or is there really no compelling reason to have a progressive or high income tax?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-24-2017, 04:34 AM
C9H20 C9H20 is offline

Elune
C9H20's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,936

Default

Might do a big post repudiating capitalism later.

Capitalism without ameliorating social elements that is.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-24-2017, 08:46 AM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C9H20 View Post
Might do a big post repudiating capitalism later.

Capitalism without ameliorating social elements that is.
I am just really amazed with how well OECD lets you sort and display data. There is just so much of it and you can make graphs from the browser. I am more curious though if anyone can justify an increase in the income tax when it doesn't seem to generate any revenue. It is a very popular proposal but they seem to avoid the concept when it is displayed like this.

You can even look at France who generated 3.4% of their GDP in income tax revenue which is half the size of the US tax revenue from the income tax when compared to GDP. This is even made worse when you remember that US GDP per capita is higher than any of these nations.

The US isn't going to generate anymore revenue by increasing the rates. They can simply cut back on deductions and breaks and broaden it to maximize the revenue gained. Excepting that the US should adopt a federal sales tax if they want more tax revenue but I would rather they simply cut spending of waste and giving state governments room to pick up some federal responsibilities. The later can figure out the best way to raise revenue and spend the money in the most optimal way.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-24-2017, 08:48 AM
Mutterscrawl Mutterscrawl is offline

World Builder
Mutterscrawl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 32,101

Default

I am sad that pay for upper management and CEOs has increased over the last few years but pay for lower level employees has mostly stagnated, how do companies plan to sell people things if they have no money to buy them?
__________________
Brought to you by Sanguine Enterprises.

My Worldbuilding:
http://bloodinkworlds.tumblr.com/
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-24-2017, 09:10 AM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl View Post
I am sad that pay for upper management and CEOs has increased over the last few years but pay for lower level employees has mostly stagnated, how do companies plan to sell people things if they have no money to buy them?
Do you have a source that their incomes have stagnated?

US median incomes are really high compared to most other nations, especially when you factor in cost of living.

This blog breaks down a lot of the numbers:

https://mises.org/blog/if-sweden-and...poorest-states



It is median income compared to cost of living as the cost of living is generally lower in the US. If Germany was a US state Germany would have a lower median income than every single US state.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-24-2017, 09:27 AM
Mutterscrawl Mutterscrawl is offline

World Builder
Mutterscrawl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 32,101

Default

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...d-for-decades/

Quote:
But after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/an-end-t...p-5-2-percent/

Quote:

Median household income jumped 5.2 percent last year, reaching $56,500, marking the first annual increase in median household income since 2007, before the recession started, the U.S. Census Bureau said Tuesday.

--------

Still, Danziger noted that incomes haven’t yet returned to their peaks at the end of the Bill Clinton administration. While the poverty rate has improved, it’s still higher than it was in 2000. While there’s still ground to regain, the improvements are a “vindication of the policies of the Obama administration,” he said, adding that the lower poverty rate points to the success of government programs such as Social Security and food stamps.

“It’s a rejection of the mantra first pushed 30 years ago about by Robert Rector at The Heritage Foundation and mimicked by Paul Ryan that we spent money on reducing poverty and poverty won,” he added.

Other economists heralded the income growth and poverty reduction, with the Economic Policy Institute’s Lawrence Mishel describing the report as “superb in almost every dimension.”
__________________
Brought to you by Sanguine Enterprises.

My Worldbuilding:
http://bloodinkworlds.tumblr.com/

Last edited by Mutterscrawl; 02-24-2017 at 09:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-24-2017, 02:50 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl View Post
Why only factor for inflation though? What about cost of living? People 50 years ago didn't have smart phones or flat screen TVs. They didn't have internet. None of that seems to be factored in this article. It doesn't have much beyond the aforementioned starting point either. Average wage could have always stagnated alongside inflation. I am not really sure what they are sampling either. It was non-farm non-supervisory private jobs. Are they talking about only hourly workers?

Even in the link it talks about wages only going to the top but even then the change seems fairly minor. People at the top getting richer doesn't necessarily* mean people on the bottom are getting poorer.
This one seems to be using an entirely different metric than the one you linked above. Wages do tend to reach pre-recession levels eventually.
Poverty is a relative metric though. Here is how the Census defines poverty.

Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).

So benefits and taxes are not taken into account when calculating poverty and neither is cost of living. Emphasis is mine.

You can find those income thresholds here.

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/t...hresholds.html

So it changes every year based off of inflation. It seems to be based off of three times what ever was the minimum diet for food was defined as in 1963.

I don't think it is as bleak as those articles suggest. I think the best way to help the impoverished is to lower their cost of living and increase their K-12 opportunities. Make sure college isn't the only way to succeed in life by encouraging entry level jobs and vocational schools. An efficiently run government and economy just means things will be cheaper and wages will be higher. Every process or technological advance will make even the poorest richer than the generations of the past.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-24-2017, 03:21 PM
Cantus Cantus is offline

Ethermancer - Admin
Cantus's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: DC, U.S.
Posts: 11,078
BattleTag: Cantus#1700

Default

Your comments actually make the Pew research even more deleterious to your argument. Cost of living and inflation has gone up while wages have remained relatively stagnant.

The OMB has also criticized its own methodology on this, specifically that they know that benefits have become even less functional (e.g. cost of healthcare and move to 401k's so that companies don't have to support new employees the way they did old ones) and costs aren't being properly calculated (e.g. it's become mandatory to have reasonable internet if you want to succeed, and the cost of good internet access is unreasonably high due to ISP price gouging).

This also doesn't account for reduced social safety nets, as opposed to the 1950's, 60's, and 70's (pre-Reagan and deregulation).

The acceleration of technology has exacerbated this issue as technological obsolescence (both actual and planned) has made maintaining access more difficult. A mobile phone purchased five years ago is now actually less functional than one purchased 15 years ago because the former requires consistent hardware-software parity while the latter is only necessary for the act of telephony and text.
__________________

Rationalizing the irrational since 2005.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-24-2017, 03:37 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantus View Post
Your comments actually make the Pew research even more deleterious to your argument. Cost of living and inflation has gone up while wages have remained relatively stagnant.
Source on cost of living going up faster than inflation?
Quote:
The OMB has also criticized its own methodology on this, specifically that they know that benefits have become even less functional (e.g. cost of healthcare and move to 401k's so that companies don't have to support new employees the way they did old ones) and costs aren't being properly calculated (e.g. it's become mandatory to have reasonable internet if you want to succeed, and the cost of good internet access is unreasonably high due to ISP price gouging).

This also doesn't account for reduced social safety nets, as opposed to the 1950's, 60's, and 70's (pre-Reagan and deregulation).

The acceleration of technology has exacerbated this issue as technological obsolescence (both actual and planned) has made maintaining access more difficult. A mobile phone purchased five years ago is now actually less functional than one purchased 15 years ago because the former requires consistent hardware-software parity while the latter is only necessary for the act of telephony and text.
The social safety net wasn't reduced. We spend more money on welfare now than we have ever done so. Reagan couldn't really cut spending because he had a Democratic congress. He cut taxes which didn't really have any impact on revenue if you look at my initial chart. His deficits were caused by his defense spending increases and the natural growth of our non-discretionary entitlements which grew faster than inflation.



You can even look at this one.




The reason it grows so fast is because government spending drives up demand which increases cost so the government has to spend more money the next year in order to save the same affect as the previous year. It also doesn't do the best job at getting people out of poverty because of that cost increase and the way a lot of them are designed they act more like a trap than a hand up. There are a also a lot of demographic issues that make things like Social Security more expensive. The federal government doesn't have an interest in creating a poverty program that works.

You can survive off of a cheap phone that can only text and calls. Poor people have smart phones because they want them.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-24-2017, 03:55 PM
Cantus Cantus is offline

Ethermancer - Admin
Cantus's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: DC, U.S.
Posts: 11,078
BattleTag: Cantus#1700

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
Source on cost of living going up faster than inflation?
I said both cost of living and inflation went up, not that it's one versus the other.

Here's one link (albeit not hard data).
https://reason.com/archives/2016/01/...gnation-in-the
Quote:
The social safety net wasn't reduced. We spend more money on welfare now than we have ever done so. Reagan couldn't really cut spending because he had a Democratic congress. He cut taxes which didn't really have any impact on revenue if you look at my initial chart. His deficits were caused by his defense spending increases and the natural growth of our non-discretionary entitlements which grew faster than inflation.

You can even look at this one.

The reason it grows so fast is because government spending drives up demand which increases cost so the government has to spend more money the next year in order to save the same affect as the previous year. It also doesn't do the best job at getting people out of poverty because of that cost increase and the way a lot of them are designed they act more like a trap than a hand up. There are a also a lot of demographic issues that make things like Social Security more expensive. The federal government doesn't have an interest in creating a poverty program that works.

You can survive off of a cheap phone that can only text and calls. Poor people have smart phones because they want them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-0e2f3744689c/

Even by just the end of Reagan's term, it was obvious that his proposals had done more to gut than help reforms. This doesn't even get into the specifics that have been hot topics for conservatives (e.g. heating oil subsidies for impoverished house holds).

Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are not the sum total of the social safety net, they're just the big talking points.

Now, I will agree, the way they're designed doesn't help people in the dead zone between poverty wage and living wage. That's something that does need work, but the fact is, fiscal conservatives have done more to harm this process than help it. The utterly retarded "no new taxes" pledge combined with a refusal for any new regulations creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of an incomplete system.
__________________

Rationalizing the irrational since 2005.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-24-2017, 04:21 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantus View Post
I said both cost of living and inflation went up, not that it's one versus the other.

Here's one link (albeit not hard data).
https://reason.com/archives/2016/01/...gnation-in-the
Well if inflation rose faster than cost of living people would be better off today than they were in the past.

The cost of healthcare and education has a lot to do with government intervention. We have a bad assorted patchwork of government initiatives that drive up costs. I don't think healthcare should be completely free market but it isn't right now. I would rather see federal programs canned and turned into block grants for states to develop their own systems just like how Canada does but maybe less ambitious. Just to provide a way for low income people to get healthcare. By federal programs I mean things like litigation for malpractice, putting the burden of ER care on hospitals instead of the government, medicare/medicaid underpaying doctors, the government mandating elective care, and allow corporations to write off health insurance benefits on their taxes just links healthcare with employment instead of having it be this personalized thing.
Quote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-0e2f3744689c/

Even by just the end of Reagan's term, it was obvious that his proposals had done more to gut than help reforms. This doesn't even get into the specifics that have been hot topics for conservatives (e.g. heating oil subsidies for impoverished house holds).

Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are not the sum total of the social safety net, they're just the big talking points.

Now, I will agree, the way they're designed doesn't help people in the dead zone between poverty wage and living wage. That's something that does need work, but the fact is, fiscal conservatives have done more to harm this process than help it. The utterly retarded "no new taxes" pledge combined with a refusal for any new regulations creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of an incomplete system.
Reagan helped boost an economy that was marked by high inflation and low GDP growth. People were actually getting poorer instead of staying the same. Removing some price controls and lowering the marginal tax rate along with the stable dollar helped turn this around and since then we have had unprecedented economic growth. There is a reason why when he ran in 1984 he won every state except one and his vice president won again in 1988 cementing 3 consecutive Republican presidents. The Democrats had controlled congress like 40 years in a row prior to the 1990s but this strategy allowed the Republicans to become the dominant congressional party. What program exactly was cut under Reagan's term? How would he get something like that through with the congress he had?

My second graph included more social welfare.

Making taxes any higher or burdening the private sector from growing will only make poverty worse. These services need to be redesigned so people can get off of them instead of being dependent on them forever. This doesn't mean I hate poor people or am looking down on people by telling them to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Just that there are many government initiatives that make people more dependent on these services.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-01-2017, 11:09 PM
Kakwakas Kakwakas is offline

Elune
Kakwakas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 8,046

Darkmoon Card: Elementals

Why do people mistakenly believe that a corporations gaining more profit makes them pay higher wages?

__________________
Member #14
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-02-2017, 08:58 AM
Mutterscrawl Mutterscrawl is offline

World Builder
Mutterscrawl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 32,101

Default

Here is a tumblr post (GASP SHOCK) http://inkytomes.tumblr.com/post/157...-wage-increase


Here are SOME of the articles it refers to in its analysis of the minimum wage and how it's a myth that $15 minimum wage will destroy small businesses. (Hint, it won't because it's done in increments of a few cents every few months/years)

Look at how it has worked in Vancouver and Seattle and other places!

http://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/b-...mber-1.3303369

https://www.businessforafairminimumw...cause-job-loss


Quote:
Extensive research refutes the claim that increasing the minimum wage causes increased unemployment and business closures. (See list below.)

The buying power of the minimum wage reached its peak in 1968 at $10.97, adjusting for inflation in 2015 dollars. The unemployment rate went from 3.8% in 1967 to 3.6% in 1968 to 3.5% in 1969. The next time the unemployment rate came close to those levels was after the minimum wage raises of 1996 and 1997. Business Week observed in 2001, “Many economists have backed away from the argument that minimum wage [laws] lead to fewer jobs.”

Numerous states raised their minimum wages higher than the federal level during the 1997-2007 period the federal minimum wage remained stuck at $5.15. Research by the Fiscal Policy Institute and others showed that states that raised their minimum wages above the federal level experienced better employment and small business trends than states that did not.

A series of rigorous studies by the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at the University of California, Berkeley, significantly advanced the research on minimum wage employment effects. Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders compared all neighboring counties in the U.S. located on different sides of a state border with different minimum wage levels between 1990 and 2006 and found no adverse employment effects from higher minimum wages.

The Institute for Research on Labor and Employment’s Spacial Heterogeneity and Minimum Wages: Employment Estimates for Teens Using Cross-State Commuting Zones found “no discernable disemployment effect, even when minimum wage increases lead to relatively large wage changes.” Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment? analyzed the 1990-2009 period (an earlier version analyzed 1990-2007). Carefully controlling for more factors than previous minimum wage studies, the researchers found the answer is no.

In a 2013 report, Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?, the Center for Economic and Policy Research spotlighted two recent meta-studies analyzing the extensive research conducted since the early 1990s; they conclude that "the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers. The most likely reason for this outcome is that the cost shock of the minimum wage is small relative to most firms' overall costs and only modest relative to the wages paid to low-wage workers." The Center report explores varied means of adjustment by employers such as increased worker productivity and diminished wage gap between lower and higher paid employees, noting, "But, probably the most important channel of adjustment is through reductions in labor turnover, which yield significant cost savings to employers."
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/p...ever-came.html

So in short, stop letting wages stagnate because Businesses will literally never raise wages so long as there are starving and desperate people willing to work for low pay.
__________________
Brought to you by Sanguine Enterprises.

My Worldbuilding:
http://bloodinkworlds.tumblr.com/
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-02-2017, 09:07 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakwakas View Post
Why do people mistakenly believe that a corporations gaining more profit makes them pay higher wages?

You need to link the sources from your charts of the methodology or something so I can look at what information I am looking at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl View Post
Here is a tumblr post (GASP SHOCK) http://inkytomes.tumblr.com/post/157...-wage-increase


Here are SOME of the articles it refers to in its analysis of the minimum wage and how it's a myth that $15 minimum wage will destroy small businesses. (Hint, it won't because it's done in increments of a few cents every few months/years)

Look at how it has worked in Vancouver and Seattle and other places!

http://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/b-...mber-1.3303369

https://www.businessforafairminimumw...cause-job-loss

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/p...ever-came.html

So in short, stop letting wages stagnate because Businesses will literally never raise wages so long as there are starving and desperate people willing to work for low pay.
When I took my economics classes at Purdue our textbook told us most economists oppose the minimum wage.

Majority of Labor Economists Believe Minimum Wage Hikes Cause Unemployment

https://www.epionline.org/minimum-wa...-unemployment/

This is going to really depend though. The minimum wage will cause jobs loss if the mandated wage is above the supply and demand equilibrium. That equilibrium will be impacted by cost of living so the lower the cost of living in an area the more likely the mandated minimum wage will be above that equilibrium. This generally means high cost of living places like Seattle and Vancouver will see less of a negative impact.

For the retail and food industry labor is actually a pretty significant cost and the profit margins are very thin. Something a lot of people seem to be forgetting is that your labor has a value. If that value is below minimum wage than there is no reason to hire you. Not everyone goes to college or vocational school after high school. On the job training is a viable path for them so they can invest in that labor capital to justify higher pay but if you raise the barrier of entry you deny them that opportunity because they will never get hired in the first place.

Minimum wage will also have an impact on the cost of living. You will never be able to maintain a livable wage at minimum wage because you just inflated the cost of living and increased youth unemployment. Cost of living is a factor in how much money you need to survive but it isn't generally counted in poverty ratings. A more productive economy will lower the cost of living by pushing the supply curve up. If a policy increases wages by 20% but cost of living by 30% everyone is actually poorer. The US, especially the Midwest and the South, has a lot lower cost of living than Europe/Canada or the Coastal States.

If you factor in cost of living California actually has the highest rate of poverty in the nation.

Why Does California Have The Nation's Highest Poverty Rate?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-02-2017, 09:36 PM
Kakwakas Kakwakas is offline

Elune
Kakwakas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 8,046

Darkmoon Card: Elementals

Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
You need to link the sources from your charts of the methodology or something so I can look at what information I am looking at.
It's in the image.
__________________
Member #14
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-02-2017, 09:41 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakwakas View Post
It's in the image.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/

Doesn't give me your graph.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-02-2017, 10:15 PM
Mutterscrawl Mutterscrawl is offline

World Builder
Mutterscrawl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 32,101

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
When I took my economics classes at Purdue our textbook told us most economists oppose the minimum wage.

Majority of Labor Economists Believe Minimum Wage Hikes Cause Unemployment

https://www.epionline.org/minimum-wa...-unemployment/
Those are from 2007, you should look at the current articles.

http://www.epi.org/research/minimum-wage/

http://www.epi.org/publication/emplo...ntional-tests/


Quote:
Beginning in 2007, there were two major developments in the U.S. economy. The federal minimum wage rose in steps from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, and overall employment growth slowed significantly as the country began its descent into the Great Recession. A recent paper by Jeffrey Clemens and Michael Wither argues that the national minimum wage increase from 2007 to 2009 was responsible for a substantial portion of the employment decline (Clemens and Wither 2016). Their conclusions are mistaken because the authors fail to adequately control for the effects of the Great Recession. A number of robustness tests make this clear.

States with large increases in the minimum wage had relatively more jobs in industries hardest hit by the Great Recession, such as construction. Controlling for a state’s industrial structure substantially reduces the magnitude of Clemens and Wither’s estimates, rendering them statistically insignificant.

States with large increases in the minimum wage were in regions of the country that were hardest hit by the Great Recession. Regional controls accounting for the geographic concentration of minimum wage–raising states also substantially reduce the magnitude of Clemens and Wither’s findings.
A simple “placebo” test shows that Clemens and Wither’s findings are statistically biased because they failed to account for regional differences in the effects of the Great Recession.
__________________
Brought to you by Sanguine Enterprises.

My Worldbuilding:
http://bloodinkworlds.tumblr.com/
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-02-2017, 10:50 PM
Kakwakas Kakwakas is offline

Elune
Kakwakas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 8,046

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/

Doesn't give me your graph.
It has a search function.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=2Xa
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Pik
__________________
Member #14
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-03-2017, 07:52 AM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl View Post
Those are from 2007, you should look at the current articles.

http://www.epi.org/research/minimum-wage/

http://www.epi.org/publication/emplo...ntional-tests/
It looks like it is trying to refute it but it is inconclusive because saying that those jobs were lost because of the recession and not minimum wage increases is conjecture. The minimum wage hasn't even been realized completely yet and the places where it went up already have a higher cost of living than the rest of the country. Job losses there wouldn't be the same as a place with a lower cost of living.


The minimum wage will only have an impact on jobs if it is set above the equilibrium. Right now those wages haven't reached their maximum number and they are being tested in places were that equilibrium would be much higher. This study doesn't contradict that assumption.

If you work retail and made $10 and the minimum wage is $7.25 and the government raises it to $10 you just lost purchasing power because the goods in your local area are going to become more expensive. You were made to start out at the bottom again. People can not forget that money and supply are not the same thing. You are actually providing a service that has a value on it when you work. You aren't going to get paid higher than that value because your contribution to the company would be negative in that case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakwakas View Post
It is based off of a percentage of GDP it looks like which doesn't necessarily mean that wages have been dropping. Just that relative to GDP they have. It is measuring income inequality which would mean that the gap between the rich and the poor can go up but in absolute terms the poor can still be richer. You could actually make this measure go up by simply taxing all money made over $100,000 and getting rid of all the rich people but everyone would then be poorer as a result.

The corporate tax is a problem because our tax structure is convoluted. The statutory rate is 35% but the average rate is around 25%. This is because the tax code is so complicated that companies that can take advantage of as many deductions and breaks as they can can pay a lower rate. It sets up incentives that rely more on accounting gimmicks than business practices that boost the economy. It also means that different industries and companies aren't playing on an even playing field and since the government writes the code they are picking the winners and losers. The best solution to this would be to cap all those deductions and lower the statutory rate. It would broaden and streamline the tax base so more corporations would be behaving more economically and paying more taxes. This would be a bigger boon to smaller companies that do not take advantage of all the special breaks that larger ones can.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-03-2017, 11:25 AM
Kakwakas Kakwakas is offline

Elune
Kakwakas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 8,046

Darkmoon Card: Elementals

Might wanna look at those graphs again. Y axes are $bn. Corp profits are after taxes.
__________________
Member #14
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-03-2017, 03:53 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakwakas View Post
Might wanna look at those graphs again. Y axes are $bn. Corp profits are after taxes.
Yeah but it is divided by GDP which gives you a decimal which is why the values are so low. I am not sure why it says billions of dollars but corporate profits would be a lot higher than 0.12 billion dollars.

The after tax is beside the point. When taxes aren't evenly distributed it becomes anti-competitive because a corporation that pays 35% corporate tax can't compete against one that pays 15%.

Corporate profits aren't a bad thing though. They are going to reinvest it in the company for expansion or innovation. I don't know why profits became a dirty word. It is only bad when corporations are only generating profit because they don't have any competition because the government gave them an unfair advantage over other businesses.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-03-2017, 05:34 PM
Kakwakas Kakwakas is offline

Elune
Kakwakas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 8,046

Darkmoon Card: Elementals

Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
Corporate profits aren't a bad thing though. They are going to reinvest it in the company for expansion or innovation. I don't know why profits became a dirty word. It is only bad when corporations are only generating profit because they don't have any competition because the government gave them an unfair advantage over other businesses.
I'm not saying they're a bad thing. I'm saying they apparently have either no or a negative effect on wages.
__________________
Member #14
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-03-2017, 09:26 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakwakas View Post
I'm not saying they're a bad thing. I'm saying they apparently have either no or a negative effect on wages.
Well don't we have incomplete information from the two graphs since it is taken over GDP? If corporate profits went up 200% and wages 100% your metric would register that as a decrease in wages when it wouldn't be.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-03-2017, 09:38 PM
Kakwakas Kakwakas is offline

Elune
Kakwakas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 8,046

Darkmoon Card: Elementals

Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
Well don't we have incomplete information from the two graphs since it is taken over GDP? If corporate profits went up 200% and wages 100% your metric would register that as a decrease in wages when it wouldn't be.
An increase is an increase even if it's a logarithmic scale. That's just not what we're seeing here.
__________________
Member #14
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-05-2017, 07:24 AM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakwakas View Post
An increase is an increase even if it's a logarithmic scale. That's just not what we're seeing here.
But it is a ratio so it isn't going to show absolute terms.

Competition should increase wages though in addition to growth in GDP.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
realspace, serious business

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.