Obama's Jobs Bill would be GOOD for the Economy - Which is Why the GOP Objects to it

I'm not talking about exploitation in the context of your example, but more or less economic mobility. Eliminating the minimum wage eliminates the ability of most people to improve economically, with exception to one escape, self-employment. Our economy has declined over recent years in the area of GDP per capita, and it is due to the lack of economic mobility as well as a lack of full employment. I have no problem with an employer asking its workers to take a pay cut, but eliminating the minimum wage will have an even greater effect on limiting economic mobility and in the long-term, economic growth, than the short-term benefits, which would merely be full employment.

When I look a consumer spending, I see that in July, consumer spending increased, however, unemployment remained stagnant. In terms of opportunity costs, this indicates to me that capital influx into the economy is not adequate enough at this point to increase employment. As a result, it may be necessary to institute tax cuts for businesses, corporations, households, and individuals to increase consumer spending, but to increase production.

 

I guess you ignored my statement in the aggregate.

 

Denmark, Switzerland and Bahrain are considered one of the most prosperous countries in the world and the most economically free (Top 10). They have good economic mobility and they don't have a minimum wage. I'm on vacation to Hong Kong right now and it's pretty much the most economically free country and the most prosperous in the world. Their minimum wage is $28 HK which is equal to that of $3.60 USD.

When are we going to learn from good examples instead of examples like France?

Again, our minimum wage was a dollar back then and it was worth a lot more than our minimum wage today. You can keep increasing wages if you want. All it'll do is increase the cost of living while decreasing employment and the dollar purchasing power.

 

I never stated I was for increasing the minimum wage, because I'm not. I'm just not for decreasing or eliminating it either. I would much rather see an increase in investment capital (money) to increase consumer spending via household and individual tax cuts, as well as an increase in production through the closing of tax loopholes, decrease in corporate and business tax rates, and a reasonable 2%-5% tax cut for corporations and businesses after real tax rates are in line with effective tax rates, and there is a clear indication that federal revenue will increase in terms of percentage of GDP.

 

The United States economy is different than any other economy in the world. First off, on a macro-economic level, we have always been a mixed market economy, even when we it has seemed that we are a free market economy. The government has always been a driving force through policy, and that's not going to change. Furthermore, we have one of the largest and most diverse mixed market economy in the world, with hundreds of moving parts, but everything boils down to opportunity costs and the various PPC's we utilize to make economic decisions. Recently, we have adopted the attitude of doing it all when it comes to our economy. This is not the case, and therefore, we must reexamine our PPC's, and determine our opportunity costs. However, this must be done through positive economic analysis, not normative statements.

 

Where are the investments going to come from? It's not going to come from spending. You have to consume less. You have to save more. We have to have some sort of savings. Then and only then can we can actually have investment. Right now, all we have is printing money from thin air.

Sure you may not be for increasing minimum wage or decreasing it but that's what has to happen. Either that or you lower the cost of hiring workers. This means freeing them of their regulations. This means freeing them of their labor cost. All these mandated benefits aren't helping employers hire people. All they're doing with their tax breaks are using their free resources to comply with Government regulations. Sure it would be nice to be like France and have all the workers rights & benefits in the world. They have tons of those, but very few jobs as a result.

 

Actually, they are also sitting on much of their investment capital, or putting it into securities and liquid investments on the stock market. One reason why is that there is still a lack of adequate consumer spending. I would love to know what positive economic analysis you are utilizing to come to the conclusion that we need less consumer spending, and more production-based policy. From my perspective, we need an increase in consumer spending and production. However, consumer spending must be dealt with first, then increasing production should be dealt with.

 

The only difference between our economy and the others are that other economies are production based and we are consumption based.

Of course it can change. Countries have been changing economy policies by loosening their government control and they have been better off. The Ivory Coast surpassed Ghana in economic growth by 1982, by loosening Government control. Eventually they reversed rolls and Ghana ended up surpassing the Ivory Coast. The further they went left, the further they wanted Government control, the less economic growth they obtained.

America just has a problem with learning from mistakes.

In a society of millions of producers and consumers, no given individual or set government decision makers sitting around the table can possibly know just what these millions of consumers want. Government is too involved because everyone expects everything to have government influence. There is nothing wrong with letting markets work. They haven't been working for a very long time.

 

Putting on my neutral hat:

The jobs bill will fail and was designed by conservatives/or investment bankers with tax cuts, and spending to enhance the debts of State governments.

The tax-breaks will cause more debt because of less government revnue.

The money for education will cause school districts to hire a larger workforce for State governments to deal with after 2012 when the fed funds are gone, Hence more debt.

The highway infrastructure money will just start new projects, and will shift the cost to the State governments after 2012. And the State governments will be stuck with un-finished road projects, and raise taxes and fees, and licensing to fund the projects.

America looses in 2012. more debt, and higher cost, and more crap for taxpayers to fund.

With my conservative hat on:
Any bill that the president proposes will be opposed, even if the conservatives write up the bill. Any thing the presiden Obama does or wants, will be rejected. Because the republicans, t-baggers and the independent joe liberman, will make the president fail, even if it cost the life of the USA. that is how powerfull we conservatives are.

With my liberal hat on:
This bill will be great for sucking up to the government education unions and government labor unions for votes in 2012. just enough money to get some of them working again. We don't care about how this will cause States to go bankrupt after 2012, we just want our jobs and will suck up to the largest government funded unions to make it back in the congress and senate.

So there you have it: my neutral view, my conservative view, and my liberal view. In the end, this bill will fail, and so will the USA, when the federal government shifts all the cost and debt to the individual States. But then againg, some political parties want it this way.

And the winner is: THE INVESTMENT BANKERS AND INVESTMENT CORPORATIONS.

 

There's nothing wrong with letting the market produce and consume with less governmental influence. However, since the creation of the United States of America, we have had a mixed market economy, but varying degrees of it. Furthermore, if you eliminated your alternative economic theory persona, and examined the United Sates economy through the most basic approach, which is classical positive macro-economic analysis, which is done through examining economic models, graphs, and production possibility curves, you can weigh opportunity costs, and make more educated and intelligent decisions on how the economy should run based upon how it actually runs. My previous statements were completely normative, but so were yours.

 

Savings creates capital which allows for the expansion of production. Nothing can be consumed until it has been produced. The only way to encourage savings are higher interests rates. This would encourage people to save more. This would discourage government to borrow less and spend less. The interests made back on the principal more than helps towards any capital investment or production.

We also need to produce things which people want and at an affordable price. Building solar panels are nice but we shouldn't waste our time building something which can be made cheaper somewhere else. If Americans can make a profit building solar panels, great. Not point in wasting resources which can be re allocated elsewhere.

 

At least you indicated that you have some basic understanding of macro-economics. However, I think you still don't realize that this nation has a fundamental misunderstanding of proper economic analysis. We tend to be more normative in make decisions instead of positive, and that has to change. I have concluded that nobody knows exactly how the economy actually functions, and therefore nobody knows how the economy should function. If we are devoid of positive economic analysis, there's no chance that we can make educated normative economic decisions.

 

Well that's not my fault and it's not yours either. We don't elect economist. We elect politicians. We simply have to elect people who understand economics. Planned economies didn't have economist either. There were no economist under the Soviet Union. Under Stalin, a number of economist were shot simply for saying things he didn't want to hear.

 

This shows just how ignorant you are and a victim of propaganda, objective study of the facts shows that in fact, the recession is over and consumer spending is now HIGHER than before the recession.

There IS NO LACK OF CONSUMER DEMAND THAT IS A LIE, as I just proved above.

 

It's merely the fault of an uneducated populace and an ignorant group of politicians.

However, just to reiterate something I need you to understand, the United States will never become a free market economy as long as the Federal Reserve and Treasury exist. Furthermore, as long as we institute policy beyond tax collection, we will be considered a mixed market economy.

 

These are all great ideas. We need more State debt and more States to be like California going broke. that way the investment market and investment bank corporations chan make more money off the debt of the broke States. There is only one way the economy will go, with these jobs bills, and that is down, but on the bright side the investment market will go up. Capitalization is on the taxpayer direct, no need to profit off buisness, labor, service, and manufacturing.

 

Consumer spending has increased, but not enough by itself to convince producers that they can spend the money to increase production that they are saving in the stock market. As I stated, we need an increase in consumer spending and production. I made a normative statement on what I prefer as a policy-based approach. It may not be conducive to positive economic analysis on how the economy currently works.

Therefore, it may be necessary to institute production-based policy if we can gather enough positive economic proof that an increase in production will substantially lead to an increase in consumer demand.

 

LOL Oh wow. The little girl that can recite the bumper-sticker rhetoric from her little Tea Party pamphlets! awwww, isn't that cute!
Yeah, that's our problem. Inflation! LOL!
So people living on $1000 a month net are just so danm overpaid, we need to lower that to $670 a month! Seriously, it is just so darn cute watching you try to sound smart and recite the Tea Party bullsh1t that your thoughtmasters have fed in the that little brain of yours, at the same time.

Funny, in another thread you seemed to indicate taxes had something to do with hiring. But now that Obama has proposed lowering taxes, your' thoght-masters have told you that's no longer acceptable! THAT was unpredictible...

 

Yes.

What makes you think anyone's wages are going to get lowered simply because the minimum wage is lowered? Only 4 percent of American actually earn the minimum wage or lower.

If so many employers can simply lower their wages right now without having a lower national minimum wage why aren't they doing it?

What is stopping anyone from decreasing wages if barely anyone actually makes minimum wage?

You've confused me with someone else. I said there is no correlation between taxes and economic growth. I did however implied that if they were allowed to keep more of their money it would be better in the long run.

 

Okay maybe I'm wrong. I thought you had stated that if taxes were lowered, that would help. If you say that wasn't you, then fine.

 

It would help, regardless of whether or not you choose to spend it or save it. Don't you think it's better in your hands than the Governments?

 

well OF COURSE HE DOES.

It's OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY he thinks is in better hands with the Government, never his own.

 

Ah. So you're a whackjob. My apologies, I should have recognized the symptoms earlier.

So the evidence that what you stated is not complete bullsh1t you just pulled out of your ass is....?

Yeah. Thought so. Whackjob. Okay, you may now continue with your whackjobbery!

 

Ah. So you're against cutting payroll taxes. Hmmm. See as a business owner, this is one of the first things I've heard from Obama that makes sense.
But of course I get it. Obama said cut taxes, now you're against cutting taxes. That wasn't hard to predict...

 

Isn't it possible that those things were good from the economy, but that the economy was so screwed up that a ridiculously enormous disaster was mitigated to a smaller, more manageable disaster?

I'm not saying that is the case. I'm honestly not sure how to tell. I'm just asking if that's possible.