Poor America

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Reiver, Feb 13, 2012.

  1. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A natural rate is a theoretical concept used to understand the likes of the vertical phillips curve. You refer to it without thought. To suggest it can be used to show how poverty can be solved is just ridiculous!

    Again you only show that you're keen to say the same nonsense again after again. The minimum wage is not an effective or efficient anti-poverty policy. To refer to it as if it was is just ridiculous!
     
  2. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I do make an assumption based on my belief that no rational person would choose to be in official poverty on an at-will basis, without some higher calling.

    However, since official poverty can be correlated to unemployment or underemployment in any given market economy, it seems easier to simply solve for a "natural rate of unemployment" by providing recourse to unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed, and that conforms to our own State laws and a federal doctrine regarding employment at will. The infrastructure already exists in every State of the Union and the federal districts.

    My usage of a "minimum wage" in this argument is a hypothetical wage that can be used as a metric by labor market participants for rational choice theory participation, and it would only be obtainable by choosing not to attempt (or in failing) to command a prevailing, market based wage and pursue some other opportunity cost instead while still circulating money in money based markets for that multiplier effect.
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is where you're coming out with nonsense. The natural rate cannot understand concepts such as underemployment. You need to refer to microeconomic analysis into human capital.

    This is meaningless prance. The minimum wage cannot be used to eliminate poverty. Its a 'poor' poverty device. The rest of your comment was buzzwords chosen randomly!
     
  4. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    From my perspective, any "natural rate of unemployment" may be influenced by its objective and market based reality. It is not inconceivable to say that any natural rate of unemployment may not achieve some new equilibrium if market conditions engender it. That is the justification for my premise.

    Public sector intervention in private sector markets is one example of the practical means, employed historically. Our agriculture sector experienced structural forms of unemployment with gains in productivity that now allows only two percent of the population to do what was done by twenty-five percent of the population, before simply subsidizing that sector caused that change in that labor equilibrium for that market.

    Why do you believe that a minimum wage that simply subsidizes the least the efficient to not provide labor input to the economy, would not work?
     
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a meaningless sentence

    This is also meaningless.

    You could go on about unemployment to the cows come home, but you still haven't got anything capable of 'solving poverty'

    That the minimum wage isn't good at alleviating poverty is just matter of fact.
     
  6. raymondo

    raymondo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63


    Is that what we call Deja Vu ?
    Or is it , The Biter Bit ?
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You could try to be useful: help him refer to possible poverty alleviation mechanisms that will aid the poverty stricken Americans
     
  8. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you believe unemployment compensation cannot solve for any poverty when due to a simple lack of income that would otherwise be obtained from employment?

    What you claim about our minimum wage is true under our current regime; but it would not be true if we were moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws, because then there would be no rational basis to stay in official poverty if one could otherwise apply for unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed.
     
  9. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because poverty doesn't equate to unemployment. In the exact same way as many minimum wage workers aren't poor, unemployed people are often in non-poor households. Even when they are poor the likelihood that benefit is sufficient to escape poverty is ponce unless you can refer to a radical change in the welfare system. Crowing about the minimum wage, when its a shoddy poverty alleviation device, isn't going to help

    Rather than repeating the cliché, why don't you actually respond for a change? Can you refer to one economic source that pinpoints a minimum wage as an effective anti-poverty device?
     
  10. raymondo

    raymondo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Instead of poncing around matters -- as I see it --- why not consider more seriously the Elite's assumed analysis and solutions. That is , going to the heart of the problem , rather than restricting it to one country , or even one continent .
    There are too many people at this time relative to the amount of food produced and versus the shortfalls of distribution .
    There is little evidence that this will change in the short term , say, next twenty to fifty years , and the likelihood is that it will get worse .
    You therefore , either increase food availability and affordability ( wages and benefits) or you reduce population .Or a combination of both in tandem .
    We seem to have ways of hugely increasing the amounts of food that can be made available , although there are many people who hugely disagree ( may be rightly ) for moral and pragmatic reasons . Like much of it is untested for long term effects etc .
    The population side of the equation is barely ever publicly debated and for understandable reasons --- if I argued publicly that world population needs reducing by , say , 40% , I would be instantly a "dead man walking" , even though the proposition is worthy and realistic .
    I then go into fairy land , in as much as I suspect the Elite will increasingly use a variety of strategies to reduce population and/or reduce fertility , and there is evidence of the latter , particularly in Africa , imo .
    So , regardless , you require what presently are seen as extreme right wing policies to implement workable solutions .
    The Elite know that this shift will not arrive fast enough and feel obliged to force matters without approval .
    And pragmatically I find the argument cogent with no viable alternatives .
    Coming back to individual situations in the here and now , I see no solutions without shifting spending budgets and priorities hugely .
    But that won't happen , imo .
    Personal Conclusion " Hedonism plus deliberate selfishness ". Get out and get yourself currency -- the means to prevent personal poverty and then find entry into the Elite or Power Club .
    Forget about the masses . They are a huge error and need eliminating .
    Chilling stuff and amoral and immoral by today's standards . But I bet they will not be judged that way in a century . Shame , but I will be long gone .
    Not quite the response you were looking for , I suspect , but I trust not totally irrelevant
     
  11. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was Malthusian, but lacking economic content. It was also quite irrelevant to the thread.
     
  12. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are not an American and refuse to accept the American cultural trait that has existed for 223 years which is, you provide for yourself or you can (*)(*)(*)(*)ing starve to death.
     
  13. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And where is that written in the Constitution?
     
  14. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its not, it's written in our cultural DNA and is called THE PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC.

    Go look it up.
     
  15. raymondo

    raymondo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No .It was Raymondo and right over your head .

    And irrelevant in your book because it takes the ground away from your feet and underlines the broader picture ,rather than dealing with a Factory labelling exercise carried out by myopics.
     
  16. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I was being sarcastic.

    As in - 'of course that statement is not in the Constitution'.

    I don't think the government should provide a big welfare system...but i seriously hate it when people start talking for EVERYONE else like you did with that statement.

    America is about freedom of choice - not having ideas rammed down people's throats by a few.
     
  17. raymondo

    raymondo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That will soon change once the begging bowls appear late this year or next .
     
  18. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Malthusian rant has been done much better. It fair to say that Malthus has been given a bad press. His approach, for example, is still used in growth theory. However, it cannot be used to explain US high poverty and it would be nonsensical to suggest otherwise
     
  19. spt5

    spt5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What happened to the good old army, that used to round up the homeless and put them to good use?
     
  20. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    One measure of official poverty can be ameliorated with mere lucre in lucre based markets. I am not claiming that everyone can be helped via unemployment compensation, only that unemployment compensation is more cost effective than any means tested welfare and that by solving for a natural rate of unemployment by better ensuring full employment of resources in the market for labor can improve the efficiency of our economy. It can also solve official poverty to the extent it correlates to a lack of income usually associated with gainful employment in our market based economy.

    You may be mistaking me for someone who cannot derive truth value from argumentation.
     
  21. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The natural rate of unemployment doesn't have to be 'solved for'. The clue is in the name!

    You're merely abusing terms
     
  22. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you claiming that a natural rate of unemployment can never change with any change in that "equilibrium"? If not, then even a natural rate of unemployment may be solved for by changing "environmental" variables.

    One person's alleged abuse of terms is another person's special pleading.
     
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm saying the obvious: 'solving for' the NRU makes no sense at all. You can refer to measures designed to reduce it, but that leads to supply side economics and whinge about welfare benefits (generating nonsensical comment for a poverty thread

    That you are abusing terms cannot be questioned. It doesn't matter your political stance; you're just wrong
     
  24. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm saying the obvious: 'solving for' the NRU makes no sense at all. You can refer to measures designed to reduce it, but that leads to supply side economics and whinge about welfare benefits (generating nonsensical comment for a poverty thread

    That you are abusing terms cannot be questioned. It doesn't matter your political stance; you're just wrong
     
  25. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Why does solving for a natural rate of unemployment not make any sense at all, if the nature of unemployment can be changed via government fiat and result in a change to that equilibrium. Are you claiming that an NRU does not have to conform to any given equilibrium inducing metrics at any given time? If not, then my contention must be more correct.

    In my opinion, supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.

    Special pleading is usually considered a fallacy.
     

Share This Page