Since the thread title is "Trump Administration", I thought this needed to be presented to show the damage Trump is doing to America.

The Horrors!!
The damage!!

From about two months ago:

Quote:Apple today announced a major expansion of its operations in Austin, including an investment of $1 billion to build a new campus in North Austin.

'b' as in 'b'illion.

Quote:The 133-acre campus will initially accommodate 5,000 additional employees, with the capacity to grow to 15,000, and is expected to make Apple the largest private employer in Austin.

Billionaires should be abolished: *Amazingly* an editorial in the NY Times

I guess them thar collectivistas and socieeleestas are a gatherin' in the lower 8 for a rarer than a blue jackrabbit moon appearance. (A bad reference to the NY Times street address)

Amazingly this guy also believes that some *well intentioned* billionaires should be exempt. I find this to be a very timely editorial given the current discussion here on the ideal world for collectivists.

(02-07-2019 04:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:   Billionaires should be abolished: *Amazingly* an editorial in the NY Times

I guess them thar collectivistas and socieeleestas are a gatherin' in the lower 8 for a rarer than a blue jackrabbit moon appearance. (A bad reference to the NY Times street address)

Amazingly this guy also believes that some *well intentioned* billionaires should be exempt. I find this to be a very timely editorial given the current discussion here on the ideal world for collectivists.

Note that the article is entirely about the need to take from some. The taking is touted in itself as necessary and glorious.

THAT is today's left: earnest, extreme, and stupid.

Speaking of earnest, extreme, and stupid, here is the latest from a leading socialist:

Green new deal

"To that end, it calls for a massive 10-year infrastructure plan that the resolution likens to spending during World War II. It does not address how it would be paid for and Ocasio-Cortez, who has promoted an economic theory that downplays deficit concerns, has argued that offsetting the cost may be unnecessary."

So no paygo.

"It includes a call for the government to guarantee jobs for everyone, support labor unions, and enact universal health care and housing."

Good thing she's not worried about paying for it.

(02-07-2019 05:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Speaking of earnest, extreme, and stupid, here is the latest from a leading socialist:

Green new deal

"To that end, it calls for a massive 10-year infrastructure plan that the resolution likens to spending during World War II. It does not address how it would be paid for and Ocasio-Cortez, who has promoted an economic theory that downplays deficit concerns, has argued that offsetting the cost may be unnecessary."

So no paygo.

"It includes a call for the government to guarantee jobs for everyone, support labor unions, and enact universal health care and housing."

Come to think of it, a world war just might accomplish those goals...

(02-07-2019 05:13 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 05:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Speaking of earnest, extreme, and stupid, here is the latest from a leading socialist:

Green new deal

"To that end, it calls for a massive 10-year infrastructure plan that the resolution likens to spending during World War II. It does not address how it would be paid for and Ocasio-Cortez, who has promoted an economic theory that downplays deficit concerns, has argued that offsetting the cost may be unnecessary."

So no paygo.

"It includes a call for the government to guarantee jobs for everyone, support labor unions, and enact universal health care and housing."

Come to think of it, a world war just might accomplish those goals...

Quiet. She might hear you.

(02-07-2019 04:22 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 04:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:   Billionaires should be abolished: *Amazingly* an editorial in the NY Times
I guess them thar collectivistas and socieeleestas are a gatherin' in the lower 8 for a rarer than a blue jackrabbit moon appearance. (A bad reference to the NY Times street address)
Amazingly this guy also believes that some *well intentioned* billionaires should be exempt. I find this to be a very timely editorial given the current discussion here on the ideal world for collectivists.

Note that the article is entirely about the need to take from some. The taking is touted in itself as necessary and glorious.
THAT is today's left: earnest, extreme, and stupid.

The disconnect that I see is justifying taking from the nasty "rich" or those evil corporations on the grounds that we need to take care of those "less fortunate" than us. For one thing, a lot of them (not all, so nobody go putting those words in my mouth) are "less fortunate" because they never bothered getting off their asses to do anything. But never mind that. My major point is a different one.

Why do we equate making rich people poorer with making poor people richer? Much of Europe has an extensive welfare safety net that makes the poor richer while taxing the "rich" and corporations less than we do. Theirs is a safety net philosophy, not a massive redistribution strategy. I find it interesting that many European countries can simultaneously offer both a more comprehensive safety net for the poor and a more tax-efficient means of earning a return on investment for the rich investment class. It's kind of the best of both worlds. One key is deriving about 20-30% of total tax revenues from a consumption tax, which is of course "regressive," to go along with less "progressive" income tax structures, for both corporations and individuals. Basically they make poor people richer without making rich people poorer. And they end up with far more equality in income and wealth dispersion, because statistically, putting a comprehensive safety net under the more numerous poor and middles classes does far more for equality than imposing confiscatory taxes on the "rich." Additionally, confiscatory taxes on the "rich" will drive capital flight--we've seen that already--whereas attracting capital investment creates the jobs upon which to build a middle class.

I'm fine with making poor people richer. I support a universal basic income, based upon either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, plus universal private health care/insurance based upon the Bismarck model. But this can be funded without confiscatory taxes on the "rich" and corporations. Europe proves that, and it is even easier here because of our natural economic advantages.

Democrats are clearly the party of making the rich poorer. That would seem to leave a huge space for republicans to become the contrasting party of making the poor richer. Free market with a safety net--so why don't republicans go there?

(02-07-2019 05:13 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 05:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Speaking of earnest, extreme, and stupid, here is the latest from a leading socialist:

Green new deal

"To that end, it calls for a massive 10-year infrastructure plan that the resolution likens to spending during World War II. It does not address how it would be paid for and Ocasio-Cortez, who has promoted an economic theory that downplays deficit concerns, has argued that offsetting the cost may be unnecessary."

So no paygo.

"It includes a call for the government to guarantee jobs for everyone, support labor unions, and enact universal health care and housing."

Come to think of it, a world war just might accomplish those goals...

Except the plan wants to make air travel obsolete, and it will be very hard (really impossible) to conduct a world war without air travel.

(02-07-2019 06:57 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 05:13 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 05:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Speaking of earnest, extreme, and stupid, here is the latest from a leading socialist:

Green new deal

"To that end, it calls for a massive 10-year infrastructure plan that the resolution likens to spending during World War II. It does not address how it would be paid for and Ocasio-Cortez, who has promoted an economic theory that downplays deficit concerns, has argued that offsetting the cost may be unnecessary."

So no paygo.

"It includes a call for the government to guarantee jobs for everyone, support labor unions, and enact universal health care and housing."

Come to think of it, a world war just might accomplish those goals...

Except the plan wants to make air travel obsolete, and it will be very hard (really impossible) to conduct a world war without air travel.

D'ohh!

The plan also calls for taking care of those unable or unwilling to work.

(02-07-2019 10:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The plan also calls for taking care of those unable or unwilling to work.

I'm not opposed to taking some care of those unable or unwilling to work. A subsistence level guaranteed basic income does that. You just won't live very well on that. People who work should live better than people who don't work. They'll get the message.

(02-07-2019 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 10:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The plan also calls for taking care of those unable or unwilling to work.

I'm not opposed to taking some care of those unable or unwilling to work. A subsistence level guaranteed basic income does that. You just won't live very well on that. People who work should live better than people who don't work. They'll get the message.

I can't remember what your opinion is on increasing minimum wage - it helps achieve that goal by increasing the standard of living of those willing to get a job (any job). Is that too much market intrusion and your preference would be UBI instead?

I fall in line with your point of view - taking care of our fellow citizens such that they do not go hungry or without the most basic necessities, is something we should strive for as a society.

(02-07-2019 06:57 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 05:13 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 05:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Speaking of earnest, extreme, and stupid, here is the latest from a leading socialist:

Green new deal

"To that end, it calls for a massive 10-year infrastructure plan that the resolution likens to spending during World War II. It does not address how it would be paid for and Ocasio-Cortez, who has promoted an economic theory that downplays deficit concerns, has argued that offsetting the cost may be unnecessary."

So no paygo.

"It includes a call for the government to guarantee jobs for everyone, support labor unions, and enact universal health care and housing."

Come to think of it, a world war just might accomplish those goals...

Except the plan wants to make air travel obsolete, and it will be very hard (really impossible) to conduct a world war without air travel.

Having looked at the broad goals very cursorily, a lot of the fundamental goals are good - retrofitting existing structures, net 0 carbon emissions, reduction in air travel, etc. These goals will help reduce environmental impacts and are forward thinking and high reaching.

But this thing starts shooting itself in the foot with messaging by reaching so far over the boundary of reality, and the air travel thing is a perfect example. You could have the goal of significantly reducing REGIONAL air travel through a high speed train network (perfect example is all of the travel between Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio), but no way in heck are we going to stop air travel over long distances, like LA to NYC.

(02-08-2019 09:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 10:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The plan also calls for taking care of those unable or unwilling to work.

I'm not opposed to taking some care of those unable or unwilling to work. A subsistence level guaranteed basic income does that. You just won't live very well on that. People who work should live better than people who don't work. They'll get the message.

I can't remember what your opinion is on increasing minimum wage - it helps achieve that goal by increasing the standard of living of those willing to get a job (any job).

No, it increases the standard of living only for those who are lucky enough to land one of the reduced number of jobs. It decreases the standard of living of everyone else. Put another way: it hurts the poorest people the most.

(02-08-2019 09:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 10:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The plan also calls for taking care of those unable or unwilling to work.

I'm not opposed to taking some care of those unable or unwilling to work. A subsistence level guaranteed basic income does that. You just won't live very well on that. People who work should live better than people who don't work. They'll get the message.

I can't remember what your opinion is on increasing minimum wage - it helps achieve that goal by increasing the standard of living of those willing to get a job (any job). Is that too much market intrusion and your preference would be UBI instead?

I fall in line with your point of view - taking care of our fellow citizens such that they do not go hungry or without the most basic necessities, is something we should strive for as a society.

As for the minimum wage, in the short term, when you have a spike in price, what does that tell you will happen with the demand curve for that particular good or service?

As an ancillary question, have more jobs been created or destroyed at that minimum wage level, say, in the Bay Area, or Seattle when the advent of the $15 dollar minimum wage?

As a second ancillary question, how many restaurants have been forced out of business overall in the Seattle metro area since the advent of the $15 mini8mum wage there?

These are easy questions to answer. Look forward to your responses.

(02-08-2019 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 06:57 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 05:13 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 05:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Speaking of earnest, extreme, and stupid, here is the latest from a leading socialist:
Green new deal
"To that end, it calls for a massive 10-year infrastructure plan that the resolution likens to spending during World War II. It does not address how it would be paid for and Ocasio-Cortez, who has promoted an economic theory that downplays deficit concerns, has argued that offsetting the cost may be unnecessary."
So no paygo.
"It includes a call for the government to guarantee jobs for everyone, support labor unions, and enact universal health care and housing."

Come to think of it, a world war just might accomplish those goals...

Except the plan wants to make air travel obsolete, and it will be very hard (really impossible) to conduct a world war without air travel.

Having looked at the broad goals very cursorily, a lot of the fundamental goals are good - retrofitting existing structures, net 0 carbon emissions, reduction in air travel, etc. These goals will help reduce environmental impacts and are forward thinking and high reaching.
But this thing starts shooting itself in the foot with messaging by reaching so far over the boundary of reality, and the air travel thing is a perfect example. You could have the goal of significantly reducing REGIONAL air travel through a high speed train network (perfect example is all of the travel between Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio), but no way in heck are we going to stop air travel over long distances, like LA to NYC.

I just want to see that high speed train from NYC to London.

(02-08-2019 09:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 10:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The plan also calls for taking care of those unable or unwilling to work.

I'm not opposed to taking some care of those unable or unwilling to work. A subsistence level guaranteed basic income does that. You just won't live very well on that. People who work should live better than people who don't work. They'll get the message.

I can't remember what your opinion is on increasing minimum wage - it helps achieve that goal by increasing the standard of living of those willing to get a job (any job). Is that too much market intrusion and your preference would be UBI instead?
I fall in line with your point of view - taking care of our fellow citizens such that they do not go hungry or without the most basic necessities, is something we should strive for as a society.

If you have negative income tax or prebate/prefund plus Bismarck health care, then a full-time job at the current minimum wage puts you at around that $15/hour level that is above the current poverty boundary. I think that is the right idea. Employers pay employees based on the economic value of their production, and the safety net bumps them up to the "living wage."

The problems with increasing the minimum wage are:
1) Once the effects work their way through the system, then that $15/hour wage will be just as far behind the power curve as the current minimum wage is now. I know there was this study that said the price of a Big Mac would only go up by something like 4-5% if McDonald's had to pay a $15 minimum wage. But that is the effect only on the cooks and counter personnel. That Big Mac is made of bread that comes from a baker who also has to pay a higher minimum wage, and meat that comes from a butcher who also has to pay a higher minimum wage, an so on. You get the picture. In reality, every cost is a cost of labor. So an increase in the minimum wage raises the cost of everything, and that "living wage" just moves further out of sight.
2) When an employer has to pay more than the economic value of production, he immediately starts looking at cheaper alternatives. Let's say robots and automated kiosks are available for the equivalent of $10/hour. At a $7 and change minimum wage, I hire people. At a $5 minimum wage I fire them and replace them with robots. The people who still have jobs will be better off. The ones who don't, won't.

(02-08-2019 09:33 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 09:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 10:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The plan also calls for taking care of those unable or unwilling to work.

I'm not opposed to taking some care of those unable or unwilling to work. A subsistence level guaranteed basic income does that. You just won't live very well on that. People who work should live better than people who don't work. They'll get the message.

I can't remember what your opinion is on increasing minimum wage - it helps achieve that goal by increasing the standard of living of those willing to get a job (any job).

No, it increases the standard of living only for those who are lucky enough to land one of the reduced number of jobs. It decreases the standard of living of everyone else. Put another way: it hurts the poorest people the most.

I need to find the study, but I’ve feel like I’ve seen evidence based studies that suggest that increasing minimum wages does not actually lead to a net decrease in jobs.

(02-08-2019 09:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In reality, every cost is a cost of labor.

Bingo.

In the 60's I worked a minimum wage job. It paid $1.25/hour. Today that job would pay $10-12/hour, but the relative lifestyle of those working it is pretty much unchanged. When you raise the bottom of the pyramid, you raise the whole pyramid, and the bottom remains the bottom.

If we raised the minimum wage to $100/hr, MW workers would be making $200K, but after the reverberation passed through the economy, they would be living in the same places and facing the same struggles as now. Worse, actually, since their income tax bite would go from zero to "tax the rich". The cost of everything would be higher. Rent, food, transportation, taxes. Everything, because labor is the base cost of everything.