Why the world should adopt a basic income

There is no monopsony, so your conclusion is incorrect.

 

That monopsonistic power cannot be disputed. We know job search frictions are the norm. We know that ensures wage making power. We know it is confirmed by the empirical evidence.

You keep dodging. Is a demand that will harm exchange consistent with libertarian ideology?

 

Based on your expert analysis? Your opinion? People who... ya know, do this for a living seem to disagree.

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/how-widespread-labor-monopsony-some-new-results-suggest-its-pervasive/

 

Then which firm is the monopsonist?

Here is the answer to your question: No.

 

Okay, maybe YOU can tell me which firm is the monopsonist.

 

You continue to ask for repetition. Given monopsonistic power refers to the consequences of job search, all firms have wage making power. Indeed, job search analysis shows that underpayment is actually higher in apparently competitive industries.

So, given the elimination of the minimum wage harms exchange, you admit the hypocrisy of your original position?

 

In this post, a guy who wanted to make a snarky comment but didn't read any of the source material.

I suppose if you avoid any contrary evidence you can hold whatever opinion you want, since you're utterly unwilling to read and digest anything to the contrary.

 

Do you know the definition of monopsony? Hint: It contains the word 'mono'.

Elimination of minimum wage laws will not harm exchange, so no.

 

I saw no evidence of any firm having a monopsony. If there is such a firm, perhaps you can give me its name.

 

This is rich. Totally rich.

So once upon a time you reject commonly agreed upon definitions, then you want to parse out prefixes and attempt to misuse them to mean they apply to single entity. If you're not interested in the field and the terminology, got to wonder why you waste time here?

 

You never see anything you don't look at....

 

I'll repeat (and I've repeated this numerous times to you know). This isn't about traditional monopsony (i.e. the company town), such that market supply and firm supply coincide. This is about wage making power created through job search frictions. ALL firms have monopsonistic power, by definition. The analysis explains phenomena such as the positive relationship between wage and firm size, describing how underpayment is actually predicted to rise as an industry apparently becomes more competitive.

 

To say that all firms have monosonistic power is contrary to the definition of monopsony.

 

No it isn't. It is contrary to the traditional 'company town' definition. It is not contrary to the dynamic monopsony models used in modern labour economics. Such models are merely a realistic understanding of supply and demand. Whilst the analysis uses game theory methods to model the impact of asymmetric information, they are still deriving the standard outcome: firms do face an upward sloping labour supply and they therefore have wage making power.

Remember my question: So, given the elimination of the minimum wage harms exchange, you admit the hypocrisy of your original position?

 

It is contrary to the definition of monopsony.

Your question contains a false premise. I highlighted it for you.

 

Steinbaum is a noted economist with a progressive agenda often criticizing "the right". Like Krugman (who is appallingly a Nobel Prize winner) his "economics" is agenda driven.

This is the issue with many modern day economists. Like science, the state is a main influencer of the results.

Unfortunately, it's trash.

 

Say something worth following.

Time charts are of little consequence unless you link the periods to actual economic parameters - and then make a cogent argument regarding what happened and why.

I'm still waiting for you to do that. For the moment, you are all blah-blah-blah ...

PS: Sarcasm becomes you so.

 

More piffle 'n drivel.

Mental masturbation in economics forum ...

 

Economic forecasting and explaining isn't worth a pot-to-piss-in. It's all mathematical conjecture. (Mathematical Economics is dreadfully dull.)

Krugman is no longer an economic theorist. Thankfully, he analyzes the reality of the economy and draws conclusions that matter to people.

But Americans seem mesmerized by only one economic attribute. And that's MONEY. Whose got what, how they got it and how much. And how do I get MY share!

Whereas others are only concerned with the comportment of economic parameters and what they may predict in human terms. Because prediction is like telling the future and that does have its financial benefits. Or not, if you were born too low on the income Totem Pole.

Once again, it's all about the money. We are mesmerized by accruing huge amounts - as if that were True Happiness.

What Krugman (and others like him) does is far more important than economic analysis. Economics is the only pertinent science of human behaviour that makes sense. And good-sense is what good-living is all about.

There are only three or four renowned economists who try to make SENSE of what is going on. And that sense is not in the numbers. Playing with the numbers is beneficial ONLY when they show trends amongst pertinent variables from which one can understand the reality of what is happening around us - errors and all.

Human failure is the inability (or lack of courage) to ACT to correct the demonstrable errors. Because people are more comfortable with the status-quo (however unequal it is) rather than trying to correct the inequality.

And the US is a massively unequal, unfair and unjust country - as shown here ...

 

Libertarianism: the delusion that individual liberty, not counterbalanced by rule of law, is compatible with community well-being.

Hence the "taxation is theft" argument from Libertarians, who overemphasize personal liberty at the expense of well-ordered community development.

Indeed, while taxation is a form of involuntary 'charity' collected by government to facilitate community development, claims of "coercion", and "force" from Libertarians amount to a new tyranny of the individual, failing to recognise not all individuals can successfully compete in neoliberal 'free' markets, though all individuals have the right to above poverty level participation in the economy (as proposed in Article 25 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

 

I think you missed the point. @Anikdote was arguing that hiring someone to do a job for you is coercing them. Yet he didn't explain how this is coercion when the person is free to decline the job offer.

 

OK, but as a self-stated Libertarian you need to confront the implications of the "taxation is theft" dogma.

Meanwhile, the extent to which "a person is free to decline a job offer" depends on the person's circumstances, obviously.

 

I prefer the idea of universal above poverty level participation in the economy, consistent with individual ability.

But in any case, sufficient government intervention in neoliberal markets is required to eradicate poverty, whatever policy is adopted.

And as for 'inflation' and devaluing money: a world bank could create the same relative amount of money in each nation's currency, to enable national governments to fund non resource consuming, but socially valuable activity (eg education itself) without causing 'inflation', since all currencies would be equally 'devalued'.

Note: money is not the same as real physical resources. The question is how to manage the world's vast resources for the benefit of all.

With the advance of AI and IT, endless new opportunities for new policy directions are presented.

 

There is no extent. They are always 100% capable of declining a job offer. The employer is not coercing the worker.

 

Sorry, but I'm never going to force someone to give my their property against their will. Personally, I just don't feel I have the right to be the master of my peaceful neighbor.