Get rid of social security?

No, you're abusing the whole term to come out with a nonsensical comment

This is meaningless. A median wage is just a mathematical term. A maximum wage doesn't exist.

I'm claiming you have no argument. Bit obvious really

 

So, are you claiming there is a difference or that there is no difference, according to you?

 

A minimum wage exists. A median wage is but a mathematical curiosity (only used in very specific analysis into low wage definitions). A maximum wage doesn't exist.

But one thing we do know with certainty. You don't have a coherent argument

 

Therefore, in the case of a minimum wage, are you also willing to acknowledge it could not be confused with any form of efficiency wage that is substantially above that wage, especially in the case of labor that can command an efficiency wage instead of a minimum wage?

 

This doesn't say anything. The link between minimum wages and efficiency wages is indirect, with some reference to productivity enhancement effects that may mitigate the overall increase in unit labour costs. Its weak stuff though, being a mixture of the analysis from 'voice effects' and the sub-hypothesis spawned by sociological analysis into fairness. None of which presents any 'market friendly poverty solution' which you've plucked out of thin air as part of your 'bung it together randomly' tactic

 

I do not really see how some old fart who is making efficiency wages is going to contract to do away with Social Security, for simply having unemployment insurance that is based upon a minumum wage for kids.

The efficiency wage thinky is probably just as easily skewed by employers knowing that they might get increased labor productivity, but if people are happy they will not vote for an Obamanation. So the employer figures that efficiency wages really gets them their return in lower taxes instead of increased labor productivity; kind of like employer Obama is going to give us efficiency wages, vote for him. As a result when the employers get an Obamanation anyway they remove the efficiency wages, and will hire "A" for four hours who passes his replacement "B" on the way to the other job, so "A" sits in hot seat of "B" and "B" in the hot seat of "A" and both lose benefits of efficiency, so they vote for Romney to get more efficiency.

I think I am confused.

 

I'm one of those "old farts" and I'm stuck with Social Security the way it is but that doesn't imply that an "old fart" wouldn't endorse a change to Social Security which would "improve" it. As I've noted in numerous posts we can't "get rid of Social Security" but we can, over time, change it from a welfare program that mitigates a symptom of a problem (the lack of income in old age due to a lack of personal wealth accumulation) to addressing the problem (a program that generates personal wealth to provide income so that the welfare program becomes unnecessary).

 

Not pareto improving though! Just 'improve' in terms of a result that fits better with your dogma

 

They would have lost money in both the 1929 stock market crash and the 2008 crash (the 1991 one too possibly) and there is always the possibility that anything can happen. As is with most people, I'll stick with the sure buck from government Social Security. BTW, privitization of Social Security is the best way for a politician to lose an election.

 

Personal wealth is a pareto improvement over welfare.

 

False on both counts related to long term (45 yr) diversified investment accounts that are age-adjusted and both of these situations were previously addressed in this thread. A quick summary related to both as they are similiar.

A person within 10 years of retirement would not have any significant assets invested in stocks. Their assests would be overwhelmingly diversified into guarenteed investments such as government bonds and "species money assets" such as gold and silver. These investments were not adversely effected in either 1929 or 2008 and, in fact, in both cases they would have actually profited from the stock market contractions.

For a young investor in either 1929 or 2008 that would typically be highly invested in stocks they would have suffered a "paper" lose but no actual loss in either case. The diversification of their stock portfolio would have mitigated any individual corporate failures and, as we can see in both cases, the contraction was over in less than four years leaving them at least 30 years to continue building their asset portfolio. The 1929 stock market crash only lasted until 1933 and the 2008 "semi-crash" was over by the end of 2009. Short term fluctionations in the stock market do not adversely affect long term diversified investment accounts.

 

You sure you understand what pareto improving means? Wealth compared to welfare would be more focused on equity issues. Here, you've demanded a policy change that eliminates a pareto improving policy. It continues to be an example of how you're prepared to allow dogma to harm exchange

 

The so-called "pareto improving policy" remains "green cheese" as it has not been defined.

Not a single example of how a Social Security welfare program that "robs Peter to Pay Paul" and merely mitigates a lack of income is superior in any manner to a Social Security investment program where "Paul funds Paul's investments" creating personal wealth which provides income. The same amount of "dollars" are used for both so the costs are the same but the benefits of personal wealth accumulation which results in higher income is a pareto improvement.

 

False! Definition provided (it isn't difficult after all) and justification for the paper's conclusion also provided. You just don't like it because it doesn't fit with your ideology. Essentially you're demanding greater economic inefficiency because of your dogma. Unfortunately that's quite common amongst right wing "libertarianism"

 

Unless I missed it all that was presented from the "paper" was an unsupported statement. It did not explain how the conclusion was reached or even what form or privatization was being addressed. Simple allowing people to keep their money and invest as little or as much as they choose in whatever hair-balled investments they might think of and to withdraw money whenever they want would certainly be stupid.

Diversified and age-adjusted investment portfolios over a 45 year working life span have an untarnished record of success and obviously the "paper" was not referring to this type of investment.

 

It only doesn't make sense to you, because you keep resorting to fallacy (of special pleading) for your Cause; thank you for being so cooperative and ceding any necessity for any confidence in your sincerity regarding our attempt at discovering sublime Truth value through argumentation and discourse.

From a philosophical point of view, a truer form of social safety net should only end when it is no longer needed, and not by more arbitrary central planning for political purposes as in the case of our current and less moral and less ethical regime.

What I am referring to when I claim the terms minimum wage for use in this scenario, is a wage that meets the benchmark Standard established for a minimum wage which can be applied for on an at-will basis by individual labor market participants who may not be well equipped to compete in the market for labor at any given point in time.

In this case, the public sector would be keeping its minimum wage to itself and letting the private sector compete for labor from that Standard established by the public sector for that purpose; since it would be rational to assume that potential labor market participants may reserve their labor input from the market for labor if there are other opportunity costs that may be preferred in other markets besides the market for labor.

In practice, it could be as simple as a person applying for unemployment compensation that is the minimum amount (or wage) that can be offered to potential labor market participants willing to reserve their labor input from the market for labor in exchange for such a minimum wage.

 

No, I resort to economic sense. Your idea is neither feasible or desirable.

Meaningless twaddle!

You're saying nothing again! A minimum wage cannot solve poverty, nor can it be deemed to be market friendly (except in the case of removing monopsony underpayment). Your idea is ridiculous and that's being polite

 

Because, actual policy only got us to where we are now; it has not provided any solutions to our modern social dilemmas and only engendered the hellish conditions on Earth that can be so detrimental to the greater glory of our immortal souls by not being moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws.

 

Only to someone who resorts to special pleading to try to make a point they don't have.

As I have explained several times, in the scenario presented, that minimum wage clears our poverty guidelines and can be applied for as an opportunity to forgo labor input to the economy and instead pursue other opportunities and their costs.

Why do you believe any private sector would be worse off though any increase in the circulation of money in any given money based market?

 

The point is that a person could either work or apply for unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and ends official poverty in that manner for those individuals.

 

You're basically saying "As I had a poor bacon sandwich, I'll now have flying pigs". A minimum wage cannot solve poverty. Your minimum wage would not be market friendly. Minimum wage analysis is quite distinct from efficiency wages (with the latter mainly motivated by showing how mass unemployment is the norm and we can't just blame the likes of minimum wages and trade unions for its existence)

 

From a philosophical point of view, a truer form of social safety net should only end when it is no longer needed, and not by more arbitrary central planning for political purposes.

What objection can there be to such a philosophy that promotes the general welfare in that manner?

 

You have yet to refute the logic and reason of my argument without resorting to fallacy (of special pleading) for your Cause. You are welcome to present a valid argument for your Cause, whenever you may be capable of it.

 

Why do you believe that a minimum wage paid to not provide labor input to the market for labor labor and instead pursue other opportunity costs in our economy would not end forms of poverty that are due to a simple lack of income that would otherwise be obtained in a more efficient market for labor?

 

Again you say nothing! Achieve one of the following:

(1) Show one study that argues that a minimum wage can solve poverty
(2) Demonstrate that the minimum wage required is below marginal productivity levels (and therefore cannot cause disemployment)
(3) Redefine the efficiency wage hypothesis such that it no longer disputes your "reasoning" (being way too kind again)