Political Roundtable Part XXII

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[verbal8]

Maybe Eric is the smarter of the 2?

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[TGW]

Show productivity of the lowest quintile and wages please...

[I_Like_Dirt]

Show productivity of the lowest quintile and wages please...

Ah, I see where you're going. Now let's think what incentive there is for those in power to actually structure things in a way where it is actually possible for equal productivity? Is it even possible with advancing technology? The more this power imbalance tips, the more impossible it gets to prevent a technology-backed aristocracy. It's very clear at this point that the incentive is to focus efficiency amongst the few at this point. That isn't something that's going to change for the better, left to its own devices.

[dckingsfan]

I look at bills and think about the unintended consequences.

This is fair, and honestly a pretty sound way of looking at things: what will the outcomes actually be an why?

I do think you need to apply that to your assertion that increasing productivity will increase wages, though. Increasing productivity increases potential employer revenues. Employers are going to try to leverage that increased leverage into greater and/or more secure market share. They don't actually achieve that by paying more unless they're in an industry where there is an overheating labor shortage and massive revenues that project to be sustainable long term. Employers have seen the Walmarts and Amazons and any other number of large scale companies, though. The main vulnerability to be exploited is by driving down consumer costs by keeping wages down while productivity increases. Increase productivity means increasing potential revenues which means, if a company actually taps into those revenue streams, an increasingly strong position with which to hold the line on wages.

One of the goals is to have full employment, no? We know that when you put taxes on corporations directly on hiring - they reduce their hiring, which increases the costs of government services - it is exactly what you don't want to do.

Increasing productivity does lead to increased hiring (conversely, reduced productivity puts you at a disadvantage to other countries, pushes up costs for goods and services, etc., etc..). We haven't seem productivity growth in the bottom quintile compared to their wage growth.

There are many other ways to accomplish this goal without the unintended consequence of driving up unemployment. And remember, many times first jobs don't pay as well. You still want that ability to have entry level jobs.

[dckingsfan]

Show productivity of the lowest quintile and wages please...

Ah, I see where you're going. Now let's think what incentive there is for those in power to actually structure things in a way where it is actually possible for equal productivity? Is it even possible with advancing technology? The more this power imbalance tips, the more impossible it gets to prevent a technology-backed aristocracy. It's very clear at this point that the incentive is to focus efficiency amongst the few at this point. That isn't something that's going to change for the better, left to its own devices.

Exactly! It will just drive the productivity of the lowest quintile down and make them more unemployable.

And the federal minimum wage law is very flawed. $15 an hour in some parts of the country is too low and others too high - that is why red state Ds get in such a tizzy when progressives push this - it works well where progressives are elected - not so much in the rest of the country.

[Jamaaliver]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

This is easily the most irresponsible thing he's done as President.

He's endangering allies and intelligence sources for personal gain.

It's officially time to end this farce. It stopped being funny.

[I_Like_Dirt]

One of the goals is to have full employment, no? We know that when you put taxes on corporations directly on hiring - they reduce their hiring, which increases the costs of government services - it is exactly what you don't want to do.

Increasing productivity does lead to increased hiring (conversely, reduced productivity puts you at a disadvantage to other countries, pushes up costs for goods and services, etc., etc..). We haven't seem productivity growth in the bottom quintile compared to their wage growth.

There are many other ways to accomplish this goal without the unintended consequence of driving up unemployment. And remember, many times first jobs don't pay as well. You still want that ability to have entry level jobs.

Wait, you're moving the goalposts here from increasing wages to increased hiring.

As for productivity leading to increased hiring, this isn't actually true, either. It does sometimes, but it will only do so if increased hiring is projected to lead to an even larger productivity increase than has already been realized that will exceed the costs of the increased hiring. Otherwise productivity increases result in pretty much nothing for the worker. Whether they help the worker or not, they DO strengthen corporate positions with which to both further imbalance the relationship with labour and "negotiate" with governments to even further increase their potential revenues. That particular consequence isn't necessarily bad, but it IS bad if it isn't accompanied with appropriate strengthening of new or existing checks to that power. Power imbalances don't naturally correct themselves without rather serious interventions for the most part.

As for many other ways to accomplish this goal, yes, there are, but they're all going to involve legislation of some sort. In many cases that means simplifying legislation (particularly given how complicated a lot of that legislation has become) but leaving things untouched is a recipe for an escalation of what we've been witnessing for decades.

As for entry level jobs, yeah, absolutely. In fact, those are hilarious examples. The existence of unpaid internships is hilarious. And frankly, I'm not even convinced we actually do want entry level jobs in the same way we used to see. Employers want those jobs, but want them taken by experienced people, so they don't have to train and can pay them less. And that's not a shock - employers want what's best for them. Given the changing nature of job duties with changing technology, I think we actually need a pretty significant rethink of what entry level jobs actually entail - and that's even more complicated given the amount of actual training required for most of the jobs.

Mostly, our traditional concept of economics is going to be turned on its head in the relatively near future. Heck, it's already happening which is why a lot of traditional ideas simply aren't working the same way they used to. That doesn't mean I love the idea of some tried and failed models, either. But we're going to need to be quite a bit more open minded about stuff overall.

[dckingsfan]

One of the goals is to have full employment, no? We know that when you put taxes on corporations directly on hiring - they reduce their hiring, which increases the costs of government services - it is exactly what you don't want to do.

Increasing productivity does lead to increased hiring (conversely, reduced productivity puts you at a disadvantage to other countries, pushes up costs for goods and services, etc., etc..). We haven't seem productivity growth in the bottom quintile compared to their wage growth.

There are many other ways to accomplish this goal without the unintended consequence of driving up unemployment. And remember, many times first jobs don't pay as well. You still want that ability to have entry level jobs.

Wait, you're moving the goalposts here from increasing wages to increased hiring.

As for productivity leading to increased hiring, this isn't actually true, either. It does sometimes, but it will only do so if increased hiring is projected to lead to an even larger productivity increase than has already been realized that will exceed the costs of the increased hiring. Otherwise productivity increases result in pretty much nothing for the worker. Whether they help the worker or not, they DO strengthen corporate positions with which to both further imbalance the relationship with labour and "negotiate" with governments to even further increase their potential revenues. That particular consequence isn't necessarily bad, but it IS bad if it isn't accompanied with appropriate strengthening of new or existing checks to that power. Power imbalances don't naturally correct themselves without rather serious interventions for the most part.

As for many other ways to accomplish this goal, yes, there are, but they're all going to involve legislation of some sort. In many cases that means simplifying legislation (particularly given how complicated a lot of that legislation has become) but leaving things untouched is a recipe for an escalation of what we've been witnessing for decades.

As for entry level jobs, yeah, absolutely. In fact, those are hilarious examples. The existence of unpaid internships is hilarious. And frankly, I'm not even convinced we actually do want entry level jobs in the same way we used to see. Employers want those jobs, but want them taken by experienced people, so they don't have to train and can pay them less. And that's not a shock - employers want what's best for them. Given the changing nature of job duties with changing technology, I think we actually need a pretty significant rethink of what entry level jobs actually entail - and that's even more complicated given the amount of actual training required for most of the jobs.

Mostly, our traditional concept of economics is going to be turned on its head in the relatively near future. Heck, it's already happening which is why a lot of traditional ideas simply aren't working the same way they used to. That doesn't mean I love the idea of some tried and failed models, either. But we're going to need to be quite a bit more open minded about stuff overall.

Hiring and wages go hand in hand. You can hire when you can produce the work (goods or services) at a competitive level. Bernie wants to increase the minimum wage arbitrarily (not location based or indexed for costs) and tax large employers for each employee they hire. Those two things are linked and will drive down employment.

And yes, productivity does lead to improved employment over time. Or look at in another way - where productivity has dropped so has employment and real wage growth. If you look at wage growth against productivity for the top 3 quintiles - there isn't an argument at all. It is only for the bottom two quintiles (the ones that haven't had productivity gains) that this is a problem.

And simple legislation will yield the unintended consequence of pushing more people onto government services. And yes - now more than ever we need intelligent legislation - not the type that Bernie is throwing against the wall.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

This is easily the most irresponsible thing he's done as President.

He's endangering allies and intelligence sources for personal gain.

It's officially time to end this farce. It stopped being funny.

Yep.


Time for him to go.

[Jamaaliver]

Hiring and wages go hand in hand. You can hire when you can produce the work (goods or services) at a competitive level. Bernie wants to increase the minimum wage arbitrarily (not location based or indexed for costs) and tax large employers for each employee they hire. Those two things are linked and will drive down employment.

And yes, productivity does lead to improved employment over time. Or look at in another way - where productivity has dropped so has employment and real wage growth. If you look at wage growth against productivity for the top 3 quintiles - there isn't an argument at all. It is only for the bottom two quintiles (the ones that haven't had productivity gains) that this is a problem.

And simple legislation will yield the unintended consequence of pushing more people onto government services. And yes - now more than ever we need intelligent legislation - not the type that Bernie is throwing against the wall.

I don't know who you are. But this is sound economic principle.

Raising wages for unskilled labor will simply lead to fewer openings by employers.

Increased automation and fewer hours for what unskilled laborers they do use.



Now, healthcare for all...there's a socialist principle that would benefit employers (who'd no longer be burdened with providing this cumbersome benefit.) And it would also drive down healthcare costs.

[Jamaaliver]

...certain House Republicans have called for the public release of specific pages, even though they have acknowledged they are not sure whether the documents will help or hurt their arguments about alleged improper conduct in the probe.

Their latest effort could backfire and upend the narrative House Republicans have spent months crafting, should the declassified documents confirm the FBI had more than the dossier to justify the surveillance of Carter Page.
The redacted versions of the FISA warrant applications showed that the agency did raise concerns that Page was a target of Russian recruitment and might have been working with the Kremlin.

CNN

[dckingsfan]

Hiring and wages go hand in hand. You can hire when you can produce the work (goods or services) at a competitive level. Bernie wants to increase the minimum wage arbitrarily (not location based or indexed for costs) and tax large employers for each employee they hire. Those two things are linked and will drive down employment.

And yes, productivity does lead to improved employment over time. Or look at in another way - where productivity has dropped so has employment and real wage growth. If you look at wage growth against productivity for the top 3 quintiles - there isn't an argument at all. It is only for the bottom two quintiles (the ones that haven't had productivity gains) that this is a problem.

And simple legislation will yield the unintended consequence of pushing more people onto government services. And yes - now more than ever we need intelligent legislation - not the type that Bernie is throwing against the wall.

I don't know who you are. But this is sound economic principle.

Raising wages for unskilled labor will simply lead to fewer openings by employers.

Increased automation and fewer hours for what unskilled laborers they do use.

Now, healthcare for all...there's a socialist principle that would benefit employers (who'd no longer be burdened with providing this cumbersome benefit.) And it would also drive down healthcare costs.

Single payer is definitely the way to go... but the bill will need to take on the cost drivers in order to not bankrupt states (see North Carolina and Vermont). Medicare for all without taking on the cost drivers is just rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic - they system would still go down under its own weight.

And there are models (like Germany's) where they constantly work on productivity gains through training. So it is doable.

And I agree with Dirt - this needs to be done with legislation - but intelligent legislation.

[stilldropin20]

If you want to increase wages - increase productivity.

There is absolutely no correlation between productivity and wages anymore. You're just spewing libertarian nonsense talking points.



https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-americas-pay/

^^^the real problem that began in the 1970's was globalism as an ideology...born of the elites (bankers) who began investing in china and taiwon, eventually india and other asian markets to produce goods.

Combine that global distribution of american manufacturing with an immigration policy that was out of control and you had an american government that was not in good favor (with the bankers) because they were initially fighting globalism.

1. The bankers fought back and raised interest rates. which created massive inflation.
2. To combat the raised interest rates and massive inflation, our government allowed massive immigration both legal and illegal so american companies could pay lower wages to keep manufacturing here in the US.
3. Eventually, in 1979, Jimmy Carter caved in to the bankers and signed the "help china" policy. Which eased interest rates and inflation on the american people. Good became cheaper as well. But land values skyrocketed. Education costs began to sky rocket. Food and gas remained relatively low costs. It all balanced out economically for the typical american except in one way:

Wages remained stagnant!!!!! And thats what your graph shows. nothing more than the globization of manufacturing combined with bad immigration policy which created an abundance of unskilled labor relative to jobs available for those workers. The pay reflects that. It has nothing to do with productivity in a vaccuum!!
. This graph is about jobs available vs the supply of unskilled labor. Jobs are nothing more than a market. Labor is nothing more than a market. The laws of supply and demand apply to all markets and costs(wages) will go up or down depending on the supply and demand.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

This is easily the most irresponsible thing he's done as President.

He's endangering allies and intelligence sources for personal gain.

It's officially time to end this farce. It stopped being funny.

Yep.


Time for him to go.

What? afraid of transparency???

[Jamaaliver]

What? afraid of transparency???

Take it from a veteran with an active security clearance for years...

You can't have transparency in intelligence sources.

It's a huge, unnecessary security violation.



Just ask Reality Winner. Releasing classified material to the media is a no-no.

NSA leaker Reality Winner sentenced to more than 5 years in prison



A former government contractor accused of leaking confidential information to the media has been sentenced to more than five years in prison.
Reality Winner, 26, was accused of taking a report about a 2016 Russian military intelligence cyberattack from the NSA facility where she worked and sending it to an online news outlet.
Winner initially faced 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, but accepted a plea deal. A federal judge sentenced her to 63 months in prison with three years of supervised release.

NPR

[verbal8]

What? afraid of transparency???

No emoticons

[stilldropin20]

What? afraid of transparency???

Take it from a veteran with an active security clearance for years...

You can't have transparency in intelligence sources.

It's a huge, unnecessary security violation.



Just ask Reality Winner. Releasing classified material to the media is a no-no.

NSA leaker Reality Winner sentenced to more than 5 years in prison





A former government contractor accused of leaking confidential information to the media has been sentenced to more than five years in prison.
Reality Winner, 26, was accused of taking a report about a 2016 Russian military intelligence cyberattack from the NSA facility where she worked and sending it to an online news outlet.
Winner initially faced 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, but accepted a plea deal. A federal judge sentenced her to 63 months in prison with three years of supervised release.

NPR

^^^^^^ thats the whole point!! The Obama era FBI was leaking against trump!!!!!!!!!!!!!

leaking!! Unmasking!!! Schiff was leaking based on these illegal leaks!!

And it was all lies!!!! Trump DID NOT COLLUDE!!!! its been 2 effing years!!!!!!!!!!! No evidence!!!!!<--and they are desperate to find it!!!! Desperate!!!!!!!!! They banked their careers on the fact that they thought Trump colluded!!!!! They beleived the dossier!!!! Which was nothing more than Oppo research bought and paid for by HRC and the DNC!!!


nate and I have chronicled this for 2 years!!!!!!!!!!!! Itr was a big phuckking lie!!!!!!!! The biggest lie ever told to the american people i modern times!!!!!!!! You still belicve it. Jwiz still believes it! Monte still believe it!!! POint god and GTN know its a lie but still push it anyway!!!! Just to get rid of Trump!!! because, you know, the economy doing well is a BAD THING FOR DEMOCRZATS who need victims! And pain and suffering and fear mongering for their ideaolgy to make sense at all!!!!!!! Thats why anderson cooper is standing is a phucking ditch!!!!!!!! And the guy on the (banker created) weather channel is bouncing around in the gentle breeze!!!! They need the fear!!!! They need the pain so as to over exaggerate the pain!!! The entire democratic platform does NOT work without victims!!!!!!! You MUST be a victim!!!

[Jamaaliver]

^^^^^^ thats the whole point!! The Obama era FBI was leaking against trump!!!!!!!!!!!!!

leaking!! Unmasking!!! Schiff was leaking based on these illegal leaks!!

And it was all lies!!!! Trump DID NOT COLLUDE!!!! its been 2 effing years!!!!!!!!!!! No evidence!!!!!<

the entire democratic platform does NOT work without victims!!!!!!! You MUST be a victim!!!

WOW...


I can't tell if you're lying to me or to yourself.


STD, are you willing to guarantee this new round of released documents proves wrong doing?


Will you state unequivocally that this newest disclosure fully exonerates every person in the Trump Campaign....including those who have already been found guilty?

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter