Low Wages Cause Unemployment

I'll take that as an admittance of no pertinent response

Depends on how wages and productivity are linked.

 

No Reiver it was me not derailing this thread. We could argue pointlessly (as we have before) but it is not productive. You have your view and I have mine. They differ in the nuances but the end is the same. We differ in solutions as well and they differ vastly. None of that really has much to do with the topic of this thread and I am not playing your game as I already know when you fail you ignore rather than accepting that yours is not the only view and it is not always correct no matter how many studies you throw out there. I will no play your immature games.

True wages and productivity have much to do with this and in my opinion wages have little to do with productivity but productivity can cause a fluctuation in wages. I ma saying in my view wages have little to no effect on productivity but productivity has an effect on wages.

 

No, I have valid reference to economic theory and empirical evidence. In contrast you've allowed yourself to provide myth

 

Fine; I am not playing! You win now please drop it. This is my last word on this subject as it pertains directly to you. Feel free to stroke you insignificant ego and have the last word.

 

You haven't played, preferring myth to valid economic comment. This thread is full of it!

 

LMAO. Poster #976 to make this comment. Welcome to a world where theories are more important than facts. Economics.

 

Theories allow us to test hypothesis and therefore provide understanding. Understanding is alien to nationalists

 

I see, so when arguing free trade hurts jobs, it is nationalistic rhetoric, as only the global market counts, and a net gain of jobs in China still proves you right. But when arguing free trade hurts wages, only China workers going from $12 a day to $20 a day matters to the argument, and the fact millions in America went from $20 an hour to $8 an hour is a moot point, even though it is a net loss to labor globally. Cute.

 

There is one person on this thread "understanding" is alien to, and that is the person who puts theories, the scientific word for guessing, above all else.

 

I but know what I'm talking about. An alien concept to the sub-cultists that blubber the nationalist cause. You know you have no understanding of economics. You know you have no means to support your comments with empirical evidence. You soap box though as your position is built on anti-intellectualism. No different to David Icke

 

Your theories are disproved. At one time the majority of "educated" agreed the earth was flat. Your models have been in practice for quite some time now, the global recession while the few are making massive gains is clear cut proof every thing "nationalists" say is spot on, and types like you are the enemy of all mankind.

 

Splendid! Let's get you referring to the economics. Please name the theories and please refer to the evidence that disproves them. Be exact now!

 

Should we talk about the Laffer curve, the thing used to keep taxes low nationally, while the same people who tout it don't believe in nations and argue there should be no taxes(tariffs) on global trade? Does the laffer curve exist or not? Or do "economists" cherry pick theories and their applications to keep revenue rolling in for the top at the expense of the rest? Me thinks it's the latter. We shall call it the latter curve.

Had you bothered to read the article Anders supplied, you would see it is chalk full of the original developers of theories acknowledging the flaws in their theories and where they could go disastrously wrong, yet the "economic" community refuses to acknowledge it as it would mean an end to their golden cow.

Tough to get someone to acknowledge there is no monster under the bed when they ask for proof but refuse to look themselves.

 

Something irrelevant to your argument? Golly, wouldn't that be useless? Everything you post on this topic is cretinous.

 

YOU ARE A JOKE. Something obvious to anyone whom has ever engaged you.

 

This is a juvenile response. We both know the problem here: you have comment devoid of economic rationality. Bit silly for an economics sub-forum, isn't it?

 

LOL. Right. Someone actually supplies economics and you conveniently skip that post and move on to posts like these hoping no one will notice. NEWSFLASH genius. Everyone notices. They have for years.

 

Sounds splendid! Please summarise the economic theory involved, referring where necessary to key publications

 

Can you answer this entire post? Your half ass answer earlier was simply a detraction from the focus of this post. Can you show me where I am wrong (economically) where the UNITED STATES AND the non cheap labor markets are concerned?

 

You're clueless on this issue, not even understanding the basics of comparative advantage. Why don't you educate yourself?

 

So to translate: Archer I am just too stupid to answer so I will throw insults in hopes that you do not call me on it! I call!

 

Higher wages, will lead to lower unemployment. Higher taxes on the wealthiest will offset any inflation. Taxes should be raised specifically on inheritance, capital gains, and corporate tax. Real estate taxes should increase, as well as sales tax. Publicly traded companies should have mandatory salary caps.

Ever notice? People rarely argue with facts related to the "current" situation, and just go with arguing whether or not, taxes should be 100% or 0%? LOL!!!

 

Most unskilled labor was never meant to "provide for a family". The idea that some burger flipper at BK has a human right to raise a family on the 40 hour workweek flipping burgers is ludicrous!

Burger flippers and grocery baggers/cashiers making "living wages" will do nothing but destroy the purchasing power of the dollar.

the "high paying factory jobs" of yore are gone and never coming back and that isn't a conspiracy, it's just natural workings of the market.

 

Nope! A higher wage can increase productivity. It gets even more complex when we refer to the source of that increase. Union effects, for example, have been shown to increase productivity but reduce profitability. An 'efficient bargain' typically leads to both wage and employment increases (we just need unions that do not follow the monopoly union approach where they decide wages and employment is then determined by the firm)

 

In the same post you acknowledge the factory jobs are gone, and that most will have to work in service, while at the same time claiming service shouldn't pay a living wage. Tell us genius, what the (*)(*)(*)(*) are a 100 million working Americans going to do? 50 million doctors and 50 million lawyers? Or do you want 100 million people on government assistance, while you claim we shouldn't have government assistance? This thread has got to be truly scary for someone sitting on the fence, seeing 1st hand those that support the powers that be are a couple people with tunnel vision and a blowhard.