Minimum income - good thing or bad?

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

And should they have bailed them out? No. It's not as though those evil corporations were forcing you poor Americans to buy those garbage products. No. Don't sell yourselves short - it was your greed, plain and simple. You wanted more. Faster. So you bought figuring you could make a quick buck, or you took the loan because you wanted a bigger house that you realistically couldn't afford if the market moved up.

No, I have no sympathy in this scenario - you all should have suffered the consequences of your actions - it would have done wonders to correct the self entitlement I see now. It would have corrected the spending behaviours as well. But no, the government intervened and what did people learn? Not much. Just that their actions have little consequence. Wonderful.

...they all did suffer the consequences of their actions.

The TARP funds didn't help the individuals who got those stupid loans and mortgages, they were an attempt to give banks a pool of money to stay afloat, didn't work out too well since the money came with so many strings attached most banks said "fuck it" and gave the money back anyway. Pretty good gig for the Treasury dept, IIRC, they made about $15bn from that.

Individuals were left in foreclosures, ruined credit, and upside down homes which I'm fine with since I agree, they should've felt the consequences of their actions.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I'm starting to side with economics being shit if this comes from an econ major.

As if all companies can be automated and no private companies care about their employees or customers for that matter. Or that a company able to survive only on the merit of the goods or services they provide only benefits themselves? What kind of circular reference is this? The fact that they exist means they benefit others. If their product or service wasn't needed or wanted by others, they wouldn't exist.

No, you're not getting it right. It completely depends on what the company does.

If today you went to buy computer. They sell for $100. Most of that cost, besides materials is in labor. A company that wants to sell more computers know people will buy more if it was cheaper. To increase their sales, they would need to cut costs. So they find cheaper labor, or remove human labor entirely when possible - automating the production. They invest in machines to make it, lay off a bunch of people. Then they have higher margins on each sale and they can sell the same product for $50 now - resulting in more sales. They're making more money but the social impact is less employment overall. Also, in the search for cheap components, they may decide to forgo environmental protections. You may end up with polluted water let out into rivers for water used to wash chip wafers resulting in birth defects, strange cancers and other things.

China is an example of uncontrolled capitalism. Companies don't give a crap about anything. The government doesn't regulate anything - companies pay off the govt in bribes and get away with murder. Everything is polluted, people die on the job from overwork, corruption is rampant, people step over and backstab each other to make more money. China is capitalism taken to the extreme level - everyone is out for their own interests.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

You obviously can't automate everything. Private companies do "care" about their employees, they have to in order to keep them motivated, on board, and working. However, if you think a company will keep you on board out of the kindness of their hearts, then you'd be mistaken. If, suddenly, your job can be done cheaper and just as effective (or perhaps even more effective), they'd be stupid to not go that route. A for profit business's main directive is to increase shareholder value for it's shareholders.

20-30 years from now if self driving technology becomes viable and widespread, you think trucking companies will keep paying truck drivers because they'd feel bad if they let them go?

You think Uber and Lyft would continue to pay drivers?

In general, you are correct, especially when it comes to major corporations. My new is different for a reason i guess.

I do a lot of things for my employees out of the kindness of my heart. That includes keeping an employee on payroll for more than a year after her son was diagnosed with cancer and couldn't make it in to the office anymore. And she wasn't the only one. You wanna know what swayed me to do that, other than the desire to help a fellow human? The fact that I know other business owners who have done the same and had previously admired them for it.

It's all about perspective. I know full and well that even though my some of my actions may be out of kindness, the entitlement mentality causes some employees to take it for granted. Some of you can even become callous about it.

You're talking about major corporations and i'd argue that the world revolves around small businesses. Typically, the smaller the business, the more difficult to automate.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

In general, you are correct, especially when it comes to major corporations. My new is different for a reason i guess.

I do a lot of things for my employees out of the kindness of my heart. That includes keeping an employee on payroll for more than a year after her son was diagnosed with cancer and couldn't make it in to the office anymore. And she wasn't the only one. You wanna know what swayed me to do that, other than the desire to help a fellow human? The fact that I know other business owners who have done the same and had previously admired them for it.

It's all about perspective. I know full and well that even though my some of my actions may be out of kindness, the entitlement mentality causes some employees to take it for granted. Some of you can even become callous about it.

You're talking about major corporations and i'd argue that the world revolves around small businesses. Typically, the smaller the business, the more difficult to automate.

Oh yeah it's much different if you're a very small business where you're basically self funded or have few hands in the cookie jar so to speak.

Large corporations can and do do nice things for their employees, could be for good PR or it's that the overall expense to the company is negligible.

I've seen large corporations pay for funeral expenses for employees who've unexpectedly passed away, match gofundme donations to benefit employee's who've suffered a loss, etc. The stuff I'm talking about impact more so the company's long term shareholder value.

But as an aside, that's really incredibly that you've done things like that for your employees, hopefully they realize how fortunate they are to work for an individual such as yourself.

[Maynard]

Seems this has devolved into an economics debate - related to the 'science or not' I think it has a lot of overlap with behavioral sciences (psychology) - not 'hard' like physics, but definitely a science, and definitely able to scientifically examine and predict behavior (not perfectly, but when you get into it, the 'hard' sciences aren't perfectly or comprehensive either). That idea of whether people act in the individual or common interest has been one of our bigger go-rounds, with the answer generally being that it depends a lot on the setting and how aware they are of the competing interests. To me, this is a good argument for some form of social engineering as an effective tactic (has to be well planned to be beneficial, but it is definitely possible to direct and shape population behaviors).

Personally I like the idea of a universal income, more for the social effects - I anticipate it will lower the instrumental crime rate and make society safer - also fits pretty well with that Judeo-Christian thing that gets so much lip service (for all our anti-Muslim bluster, we don't act very Christian out in the world these days).

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

So because you disagree with one theory of economics, the entire study is a joke? Lol that's probably the dumbest line of thinking I've ever read.

But that's not what I said, or even implied.

[QUOTE=fecurtis;21431224
Well shit, there's a theory that states that staring at dark energy harms the universe. I guess astronomy is a joke now too.[/QUOTE]
What is it based on?
[QUOTE=fecurtis;21431224
At one point in time, there was a theory that mercury was an effective way to treat all sorts of ailments. Medicine is a joke as well.[/QUOTE]

See above.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

You're talking about major corporations and i'd argue that the world revolves around small businesses. Typically, the smaller the business, the more difficult to automate.

You're in a totally different thing...

My father used to have a restaurant. Every employee was a more than an employee, they were a friend. When hard times happened, they all shared in it. When business was booming - they all shared in that as well.

A small business may be a big in a local setting but the world doesn't revolve around small businesses as you say. The amount of money and influence of small businesses is tiny. Large companies employ more people than anything else.

And as for automation in small business, that is not really true as well. In Japan, there is often no need for a host or waiter in most small restaurants. Customers buy meal tickets from a vending machine. The cook gets the order on a screen from the vending machine and prepares the food. You sit down and punch in your seat number with your meal ticket number. The food comes to you on a conveyer belt. When you finish, you put the tray and dishes in individual bins that drop into a washing machine. Only a few people are needed to run the entire restaurant. Food is not expensive, its fresh, tasty and customers can finish eating in less than 20 minutes from start of ordering. And they can serve hundreds of people every day efficiently.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

But that's not what I said, or even implied.


What is it based on?


See above.

Your quote:

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

Hey, when start taking 'theories' off a napkin as a rule - yeah, it's a joke.

Aside from being unequivocally wrong, the Laffer Curve, which is the napkin thing you're referring to, wasn't created by some guy drawing a curve on a napkin to show people. It was a quick way to illustrate, at a very high level, the concept of the Laffer Curve (whether you think the theory itself is BS or.........Laffable...........is up to you).

I could show you, at a very high level, the concept of a normal probability distribution on a napkin, I suppose that would make statistics a joke.

I guess I don't get why you would consider an entire study a joke based on the one example you gave. I get not considering it a science, but the joke bit I don't understand.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Your quote:


Aside from being unequivocally wrong, the Laffer Curve, which is the napkin thing you're referring to, wasn't created by some guy drawing a curve on a napkin to show people. It was a quick way to illustrate, at a very high level, the concept of the Laffer Curve (whether you think the theory itself is BS or.........Laffable...........is up to you).

Of course facts aren't up for debate, so it's unequivocally fiction.

Originally Posted by fecurtis

I could show you, at a very high level, the concept of a normal probability distribution on a napkin, I suppose that would make statistics a joke.

I guess I don't get why you would consider an entire study a joke based on the one example you gave. I get not considering it a science, but the joke bit I don't understand.

It's not one example - I've harped on economics this whole time, and brought up various points on why I believe it to be the pseudo 'science' it is, you just decided to fixate on one of my examples, which is fine. It doesn't change what we all know - it's fucking bullshit.

[amw896]

Man, I miss Harper. These Liberal turds will destroy the country over the next few years, just wait. Ontario is already a joke.

Here's some fun facts:
Ontario has less than 1/3 the population of California and over double the municipal debt!

Also, almost a third of the provinces population is struggling to pay Hydro bills. But dont worry, if you buy a Tesla, you can get like a 20k rebate. Bunch of jokers.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by amw896

Man, I miss Harper. These Liberal turds will destroy the country over the next few years, just wait. Ontario is already a joke.

Here's some fun facts:
Ontario has less than 1/3 the population of California and over double the municipal debt!

Also, almost a third of the provinces population is struggling to pay Hydro bills. But dont worry, if you buy a Tesla, you can get like a 20k rebate. Bunch of jokers.

I know. He didn't have a personality, but at least he ran a reasonably tight ship and didn't throw the economy into the toilet every chance he got so that he could get another like on social media.

Whereabouts in Ontario are you?

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

Well, economics is not even a true science, it's a subset of sociology tbat people put way too much emphasis on...ie it's largely bullshit. I just look for general trends and try not to pretend there are hard rules.

This comment shows just how very little you understand about economics.

There are no "hard rules" in economics. That'd be pretty stupid for an area of study that's 99% theory. You just think it's all bullshit because you are unwilling to attempt to understand it.

As for your ask for proof as to whether or not basic universal income would cause inflation, an increase in money supply, all else equal, would result in an increase in prices since it would increase aggregate demand for goods and services.

That said, inflation has a negative connotation to it but in reality, inflation is normal and, in moderation, a good thing.

EDIT: I read most of your "points", which was simply, universal basic income is going to happen, economics is bullshit. Not sure how you reached the conclusion that economics is bullshit from UBI, I guess because in general economists don't think the notion of UBI is the best way to tackle wealth inequality (it isn't).

So I guess you think it's bullshit because you don't agree with it? That's sound logic for someone who's maybe 12 years old. I mean you basically asked earlier in this thread how would a large increase in the supply of money would cause inflation. That's probably the dumbest question I've ever read in quite a long time. Maybe next time you can ask for proof as to why boiling water burns when you touch it.

[amw896]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

I know. He didn't have a personality, but at least he ran a reasonably tight ship and didn't throw the economy into the toilet every chance he got so that he could get another like on social media.

Whereabouts in Ontario are you?

agreed, 100%! Good ol' Windsor!

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

This comment shows just how very little you understand about economics.

Ahh, my favorite argument. How much can you say you know about economics - honestly? At what point does that conceptual 'knowledge' (LOL) become actually applicable to real world scenarios?

Originally Posted by fecurtis

There are no "hard rules" in economics. That'd be pretty stupid for an area of study that's 99% theory. You just think it's all bullshit because you are unwilling to attempt to understand it.

Of course not, because it's 100% theory and there are multiple for any given scenario.

No attempt to understand it? Hilarious. Again, what is it that you understand? That you'll often refer to studies that cherry pick specific data points, outside influences, no control variable and results that can't be repeated. It's why conversations like this topic exist, it's why we are having arguments about the minimum wage.

Originally Posted by fecurtis

As for your ask for proof as to whether or not basic universal income would cause inflation, an increase in money supply, all else equal, would result in an increase in prices since it would increase aggregate demand for goods and services.

BASED ON WHAT?! WHERE IS THE PROOF?! Wasn't the historically low interest rates supposed to spur investment and spending, but also inflation? Doesn't changes in pay for workers cause prices to outpace the wage increase? Oh wait....

100% theory with nearly no basis in fact.

Originally Posted by fecurtis

That said, inflation has a negative connotation to it but in reality, inflation is normal and, in moderation, a good thing.

I agree, it increases the money in supply and can reduce the burden of debt.

Originally Posted by fecurtis

EDIT: I read most of your "points", which was simply, universal basic income is going to happen, economics is bullshit. Not sure how you reached the conclusion that economics is bullshit from UBI, I guess because in general economists don't think the notion of UBI is the best way to tackle wealth inequality (it isn't).

And this is based on what prior examples?

Originally Posted by fecurtis

So I guess you think it's bullshit because you don't agree with it? That's sound logic for someone who's maybe 12 years old. I mean you basically asked earlier in this thread how would a large increase in the supply of money would cause inflation.

Oh, so we are anticipating hyper inflation, ok.

Originally Posted by fecurtis

That's probably the dumbest question I've ever read in quite a long time. Maybe next time you can ask for proof as to why boiling water burns when you touch it.

Yeah, silly comparison and you know it. You're arguing on theory and stating as if it hold some basis in fact, if it did, we wouldn't be having these conversations.

[Taskmaster]

Economics is a cheesy wanna-be science pushed self important people who believe they are somehow able to define/understand/predict what otherwise amounts to normal irrational human behavior. The whole existence of the field is hinged on pushing a laissez -faire economic model above all else, which of course only serve the interest of a few.

It's shit.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

Ahh, my favorite argument. How much can you say you know about economics - honestly? At what point does that conceptual 'knowledge' (LOL) become actually applicable to real world scenarios?

Working in corporate finance? Quite a bit. From developing economic models to predict revenue to weighing in and factoring in opportunity cost to help drive decisions. The latter helps me in my personal life as well.

No attempt to understand it? Hilarious. Again, what is it that you understand? That you'll often refer to studies that cherry pick specific data points, outside influences, no control variable and results that can't be repeated. It's why conversations like this topic exist, it's why we are having arguments about the minimum wage.

We're having a discussion on universal basic income, not minimum wage, the two differ substantially. As for my knowledge, I've studied economics for over 4 years and have read several books from varying views of economics from liberal to conservative to libertarian.

BASED ON WHAT?! WHERE IS THE PROOF?! Wasn't the historically low interest rates supposed to spur investment and spending, but also inflation? Doesn't changes in pay for workers cause prices to outpace the wage increase? Oh wait....

100% theory with nearly no basis in fact.

Common sense, if you have a steady stream of substantial money, you're going to consume more things. It's why people who make more money tend to spend more than those who do not. Lol shit isn't rocket science yet here you are. With a universal basic income, everyone would get a preset amount of money every year (for the sake of example, let's say $10k) that would reflect a livable wage. An extra $10k/year is a lot of money to a lot of people.

As for your quip about rates yeah it does, unless you hit something called the lower zero bound. That's when short term interest rates near zero doesn't spur investment and growth (usually due to lack of consumer confidence) therefore you hit a liquidity trap thus making monetary policy ineffective. You as a consumer won't buy a home if you don't know if you'll have a job next month no matter how low the rates are. Theoretically you'd have to have a negative interest rate to spur growth at that point.

So there you go Mr. Know It All about Economics, the theory does explain it. This wasn't some theory that was made up after the fact either...it's something I've read about, studied on, and did all sorts of exciting mathematical proofs on many years ago in college.

And this is based on what prior examples?

Your ranting.

Oh, so we are anticipating hyper inflation, ok.

Never recall saying that, but ok.

Yeah, silly comparison and you know it. You're arguing on theory and stating as if it hold some basis in fact, if it did, we wouldn't be having these conversations.

Because it does have basis in fact.

It'd be more accurate to say if you actually understood macroeconomics, we wouldn't be having these conversations.

If we're talking minimum wage, increasing that would have hardly no impact at all on inflation, unless you wanted to bump it up to something absurdly high. I also don't think it's an effective way to fight wealth inequality, expanding the EITC would be significantly more efficient at addressing that. But what do I know, the basis in which I form that opinion is "bullshit".

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

Economics is a cheesy wanna-be science pushed self important people who believe they are somehow able to define/understand/predict what otherwise amounts to normal irrational human behavior. The whole existence of the field is hinged on pushing a laissez -faire economic model above all else, which of course only serve the interest of a few.

It's shit.

More evidence you're absolutely clueless on the study of economics. Classical economics is but one train of thought amongst many. Quite a few thoughts of economics do not take so much of a laissez-faire approach, but continue to spout off ignorance as if you're the arbiter of all that is macroeconomics.

Best to let the adults talk about it, you seriously sound like a child whining.

Economics doesn't even attempt to understand, predict, or define irrational human behavior.

I guess in your worldview, you're rational and most everyone else is irrational? An absurdly arrogant way to view yourself don't you think? Given how you carry yourself on this forum, it's not really surprising.

At least now I understand why you think it's shit. Because you've convinced yourself that the entire field of economics is some right wing driven field of thought, which again, shows how clueless you are on the subject.

[Lups]

Joekerr I'll answer your bloody questions if you take me off the op!! Deal?

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Lups

Joekerr I'll answer your bloody questions if you take me off the op!! Deal?

You know, it never occurred to me, but were you getting reminders for every reply in this thread just because I tagged you?

Ooops...was not my intent. Have deleted you from op. No need to reply - might get into a firestorm here lol.

It's entertaining though. No melding of minds.

[other_evolved]

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Because it does have basis in fact.

Eh.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Because it does have basis in fact.

It's fiction.