[POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[RevPokemon]

Agree with them or not, they are the consensus among economists and aren't weak. To claim they are weak is to try a little too hard. The historical data also backs up my arguments.

Many economics professors disagree with those assertions and they key arguements of them. Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and so on (such as the ones at CATO or Mises or Reason).

They don't. I've explained numerous reasons why, and I've cited evidence.

That was BEFORE the other parts when you finally stated that you did infact not deny that they affected profits.

Are you trying to suggest that minimum wage increases caused and/or had any part to play in the Great Recession?

I could joke at you for quoting wikipedia but I am not. I did not imply anything about the recession although they did further more to hurt employment in that time.

I'm not the one denying basic economic data and concepts. If you want to continue this conversation, I suggest you get a little less personal. I don't want this thread to get shut down. Stick to the impartial facts.

You are the one who has repeatedly denied the simple basic principles regarding inflation, wage-employment relations, and so on. Do not come to me b##ching about the discussion when you are the one who has repeatedly denied the simple principles while also playing dumb.

 

[Foxi4]

I don't even know how this is a point of contention - if the costs of running a business increase, the budget of that business decreases. A smaller budget means less money for development and upkeep, this includes current wages and the prospects of future positions. You can't pour yourself a glass of milk and claim that the carton is still full, that's ridiculous - a company's budget is finite.

 

[RevPokemon]

I don't even know how this is a point of contention - if the costs of running a business increase, the budget of that business decreases. A smaller budget means less money for development and upkeep, this includes current wages and the prospects of future positions. You can't pour yourself a glass of milk and claim that the carton is still full, that's ridiculous - a company's budget is finite.

Absolutely. That is a concept that even a small child could understand.

 

[Lacius]

You mean the platform that they were more than lling to violate to do their best to rig the election for Hillary?

After they betrayed the American people by undermining our democracy like that, I would not be quick to believe any so-called "platform" that they have.

Other than some people expressing their subjective desire for Secretary Clinton to win, what tangible thing(s) did the Democratic Party do that disadvantaged Senator Sanders in the primary? The debate schedule is the only thing I can think of, and that's circumstantial. The Sanders campaign also agreed to most of it ahead of time. He mostly complained after he was the one who wanted to retroactively change the debate schedule after he realized the possible advantage of, for example, a debate in California.

"Minimum Wage" or "Living Wage" did not help the poor - it helped the ultra-rich. The government stepped in and said "this is the lowest amount of money you can legally pay an employee", and what did companies do? They paid everyone the lowest amount, wheras before the wage depended on supply, demand and negotiations between the employer and the employee. Before an employee could just say "your contract sucks, I'll go to a different company that'll value me more", there was a market for labourers. Now there isn't one because everyone's using minimum wage as a crutch. That, and it doesn't help anyways - rising the minimum wage will just inevitably rise living costs since companies will have to make up for the difference, thus you return to the point you started from. If increasing wages was the solution, why stop at all? Let's just rise the wages to $100 per hour, that'll make everyone rich as fuck, right? Wrong - companies will just move to China and India, like they have been for the past two decades because liberals crippled the market and made development unsustainable in the western hemisphere. There's a reason why the economy is stagnant in the west and booming in the east. Wages are not the issue here, the system is fundamentally flawed at the core.

Are you arguing that wages will increase if we abolish the minimum wage? History shows that the minimum wage has increased wages, not decreased them. A minimum wage also does not inflate the prices of goods and services for reasons I've explained above.

Without the minimum wage, businesses are likely to pay as little as they can get away with to their lower employees. And, before you say it, history shows the free market system is not going to allow for competition between businesses that raises their minimum wages. Businesses don't feel the need to, for example, attract the very best for menial jobs. There was (and is) a legitimate problem that led to the creation of the minimum wage in the first place. Don't get swept away with libertarian idealism.

That was BEFORE the other parts when you finally stated that you did infact not deny that they affected profits.

I don't even know how this is a point of contention - if the costs of running a business increase, the budget of that business decreases. A smaller budget means less money for development and upkeep, this includes current wages and the prospects of future positions. You can't pour yourself a glass of milk and claim that the carton is still full, that's ridiculous - a company's budget is finite.

You don't seem to understand the difference between affecting profits and affecting jobs. Affecting profits does not necessarily affect jobs as long as businesses are still in the business of being maximally profitable. A minimum wage might increase, but even so, it might still be profitable for me to have all of my employees due to the demand for my product. And, again, higher wages can equal higher demand for my product, and it can mean consumers are on average more willing spend more for my product, affecting my price vs. demand intersection.

I really do understand that what you're saying seems simple, but as I mentioned earlier, your point of view demonstrates a surface understanding of economics, when in fact there are a lot more variables to consider. It's like saying, "Of course the world's flat. A child could see that." Sometimes, reality is more complicated than what's intuitively obvious on the surface. Instead of going with your gut or what seems obvious, look at the data.

I did not imply anything about the recession although they did further more to hurt employment in that time.

Then as far as I'm aware, the history you're referring to doesn't exist.

You are the one who has repeatedly denied the simple basic principles regarding inflation, wage-employment relations, and so on. Do not come to me b##ching about the discussion when you are the one who has repeatedly denied the simple principles while also playing dumb.

Again, I'm not the one who has denied basic economic principles and data, but I'm not going to make snide remarks about it.

 

[Foxi4]

I don't really feel like arguing economics in a thread about a presidential poll, so I'll merely quote one of my favourite politicians, who admittedly might be insane, but at least he's been consistent with his stance for over two decades - "The American population of the industrial era is considered to be the most opressed and exploited, and yet it's the first that had a working class driving cars". I also sincerely doubt your statistics regarding wages, at least once you adjust them for inflation and unemployment. Just because the dollars fit the narrative doesn't mean that the value does. Your great grandparents had a household running on one wage, car included - today you need two working parents and you're still struggling to make ends meet because all that's available are minimum wage, part-time contracts. Many people are forced to work two jobs just to be able to function, and that was unheard of just a century ago. I would sooner credit the increase in overall economic activity throughout the last few decades with the emergence of new industries, just the invention and proliferation of the Internet created new, previously unheard of trades.

 

[RevPokemon]

Other than some people expressing their subjective desire for Secretary Clinton to win, what tangible thing(s) did the Democratic Party do that disadvantaged Senator Sanders in the primary? The debate schedule is the only thing I can think of, and that's circumstantial. The Sanders campaign also agreed to most of it ahead of time. He mostly complained after he was the one who wanted to retroactively change the debate schedule after he realized the possible advantage of, for example, a debate in California.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...were-Literally-bought-by-the-Clinton-Campaign

You don't seem to understand the difference between affecting profits and affecting jobs. Affecting profits does not necessarily affect jobs as long as businesses are still in the business of being maximally profitable. A minimum wage might increase, but even so, it might still be profitable for me to have all of my employees due to the demand for my product. And, again, higher wages can equal higher demand for my product, and it can mean consumers are on average more willing spend more for my product, affecting my price vs. demand intersection.

The problem again is that increasing the wages of workers (which is the largest cost of almost any business) does affects profits and in order to regain it they have to make monetary cuts and the first place they often go is towards the employees. Likewise under the supply and demand higher prices (another option due to wage hikes) leads to lower demand (as people do not view the products as worth the money).

I really do understand that what you're saying seems simple, but as I mentioned earlier, your point of view demonstrates a surface understanding of economics, when in fact there are a lot more variables to consider. It's like saying, "Of course the world's flat. A child could see that." Sometimes, reality is more complicated than what's intuitively obvious on the surface. Instead of going with your gut or what seems obvious, look at the data.

The part of that logic you have is that you yourself does not use it. It is like your argument that charging more for goods due to said wage hikes are ok since the demand is high. That logic is the logic that is surface level when it does not address the fact that even still with high demand the prices ultimately affect the demand and the higher the price the lower the demand as its beneficial-ness per dollar goes down. That is how you screw a company or any business.

as @Foxi4 said I am done with this conversation in regards to economics but I have to say that while i find your views of economics to be ultimately flawed I wish you a good day.

 

[Foxi4]

The problem again is that increasing the wages of workers (which is the largest cost of almost any business) does affects profits and in order to regain it they have to make monetary cuts and the first place they often go is towards the employees. Likewise under the supply and demand higher prices (another option due to wage hikes) leads to lower demand (as people do not view the products as worth the money).



The part of that logic you have is that you yourself does not use it. It is like your argument that charging more for goods due to said wage hikes are ok since the demand is high. That logic is the logic that is surface level when it does not address the fact that even still with high demand the prices ultimately affect the demand and the higher the price the lower the demand as its beneficial-ness per dollar goes down. That is how you screw a company or any business.

I'll just mention that this kind of legislature is specifically bad for small businesses as they don't sit on a lot of money - most of their money is in their assets. A hike in wages can mean closure to a small business, or at least scaling back. Corporations have far more money and pull to deal with such fuckery, Joe's Liquor doesn't because its budget is on the store shelves, not in a bank.

 

[RevPokemon]

I'll just mention that this kind of legislature is specifically bad for small businesses as they don't sit on a lot of money - most of their value is in goods. A hike in wages can mean closure to a small business, or at least scaling back. Corporations are far more assets and pull to deal with such fuckery, Joe's Liquor doesn't because its budget is on the store shelves, not in a bank.

Absolutely, wage increases (along with most business based legislation) is often based upon large (100+) companies not the little guys which results in a horrible mess for them.

 

[Lacius]

I also sincerely doubt your statistics regarding wages, at least once you adjust them for inflation and unemployment. Just because the dollars fit the narrative doesn't mean that the value does. Your great grandparents had a household running on one wage, car included - today you need two working parents and you're still struggling to make ends meet because all that's available are minimum wage, part-time contracts. Many people are forced to work two jobs just to be able to function, and that was unheard of just a century ago.

I agree with you that low wages and underemployment are a huge problem today. Turning the minimum wage into a living wage is one solution to the problem.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...were-Literally-bought-by-the-Clinton-Campaign

Superdelegates were not "literally bought" by the Clinton Campaign, and the votes of superdelegates were not contingent upon anything or vice versa. This is and was a non-story.

The problem again is that increasing the wages of workers (which is the largest cost of almost any business) does affects profits and in order to regain it they have to make monetary cuts and the first place they often go is towards the employees. Likewise under the supply and demand higher prices (another option due to wage hikes) leads to lower demand (as people do not view the products as worth the money).

If a business fires an employee and does not replace him or her when there's no change in demand for the product, and the product is still profitable, there will be a net loss compared to keeping that employee around.

In addition, raising the price of a good or service when nothing has changed about the price vs. demand calculation will result in a net loss compared to keeping the price of the good the same.

As I'm sure you're aware, regardless of the cost to make a product, one can only raise a price of a good so high before consumers stop buying it because it's too high. In addition, a business can get a lot of consumers to buy their products if they lower the price, but if the price is too low, the business won't make any profit. If one graphs these two factors (price vs. demand), the intersection between these two variables is the optimum price for maximum profit. Increased taxes and wages don't normally affect this calculation. It might seem common sense that a business would raise their prices when confronted with higher wages or taxes, but that would screw them even more. It's a difficult concept to grasp, and I'm not being snarky.

 

[RevPokemon]

If a business fires an employee and does not replace him or her when there's no change in demand for the product, and the product is still profitable, there will be a net loss compared to keeping that employee around.

Depends. Think of it as if employee x can help said company produce y amount dollars subrtacted by his cost of z many dollars. That will show if he is valuable to said company and the logic applies to multiple layers of the company. IF the z amount of dollars are larger then the y amount of value then he no longer beneficial and the company could replace him. The issue with higher wages (like $10.10 vs $7.25) is that it can affect workers as although they were profitable to the company at 9 or 8 dollars but are not profitable at 10 so they cause a deficet. The cure to this is to fire them as they no longer can bring in the needed value. Now when they re-hire the people whose value were at 8 or so dollars are no longer competitive as thier skills are not at $10 level so they face more employment issues even though it will provide employment for the other $10 workers.

As I'm sure you're aware, regardless of the cost to make a product, one can only raise a price of a good so high before consumers stop buying it because it's too high. In addition, a business can get a lot of consumers to buy their products if they lower the price, but if the price is too low, the business won't make any profit. If one graphs these two factors (price vs. demand), the intersection between these two variables is the optimum price for maximum profit. Increased taxes and wages don't normally affect this calculation. It might seem common sense that a business would raise their prices when confronted with higher wages or taxes, but that would screw them even more. It's a difficult concept to grasp, and I'm not being snarky.

The issue with that model (which is mostly true) is that taxes and higher wages can increase the price. Why? Because lets say that in this graph there is the graph that consists of price and demand. The business (especially small ones) will have to let the price be high enough yet also where demand will be good (i.e. that key price). The issue with the taxes and higher wages is that desired price will be affect since it now costs more to sell it for the desired profit.Since demand is still the same the price is what will have to be cut. Now this leads to multiple bad options 1. raise the cost and hope that the demand will still be there for the needed profit, 2. Fire employees who do not meet the above equation of productivity to regain money or replace them with workers who meet the $10 per hour value better then the guys who only could be valuable at $8 dollars, or 3. Take less of a profit which can work for some cmpanies but not for those with tight profit margins who dont have millions of dollars in the bank. All three are crappy options but would be forced in that scenario.

 

[Lacius]

Depends. Think of it as if employee x can help said company produce y amount dollars subrtacted by his cost of z many dollars. That will show if he is valuable to said company and the logic applies to multiple layers of the company. IF the z amount of dollars are larger then the y amount of value then he no longer beneficial and the company could replace him. The issue with higher wages (like $10.10 vs $7.25) is that it can affect workers as although they were profitable to the company at 9 or 8 dollars but are not profitable at 10 so they cause a deficet. The cure to this is to fire them as they no longer can bring in the needed value. Now when they re-hire the people whose value were at 8 or so dollars are no longer competitive as thier skills are not at $10 level so they face more employment issues even though it will provide employment for the other $10 workers.

If there's still a demand for a product, it wouldn't be profitable to fire someone because of higher wages. Otherwise, the business would have fired the person long before the wage increase. Your reasoning doesn't apply unless the minimum wage is obscenely high. Otherwise, the wage increase potentially eats into profits but not enough to offset the profit of the product and the need for the employee. And, again, this doesn't take into account the economic benefits of a higher minimum wage and an increase in demand.

The issue with that model (which is mostly true) is that taxes and higher wages can increase the price. Why? Because lets say that in this graph there is the graph that consists of price and demand. The business (especially small ones) will have to let the price be high enough yet also where demand will be good (i.e. that key price). The issue with the taxes and higher wages is that desired price will be affect since it now costs more to sell it for the desired profit.Since demand is still the same the price is what will have to be cut. Now this leads to multiple bad options 1. raise the cost and hope that the demand will still be there for the needed profit, 2. Fire employees who do not meet the above equation of productivity to regain money or replace them with workers who meet the $10 per hour value better then the guys who only could be valuable at $8 dollars, or 3. Take less of a profit which can work for some cmpanies but not for those with tight profit margins who dont have millions of dollars in the bank. All three are crappy options but would be forced in that scenario.

The key price is the same as before the wage increase and/or tax increase. If an increase in the price of a product is profitable, the business would have done it long before. The cost of doing business is irrelevant when calculating this. I also don't acknowledge the bolded part of your post as necessarily true.

However, let's say I agree with your three options. Numbers and 1 and 2 are likely to be less profitable than without them, so it's going to be #3. The business is still making a profit, and the wages are fair. The data also seems to show that even smaller businesses are fine, particular with benefits of the economic stimulus.

 

[RevPokemon]

If there's still a demand for a product, it wouldn't be profitable to fire someone because of higher wages. Otherwise, the business would have fired the person long before the wage increase. Your reasoning doesn't apply unless the minimum wage is obscenely high. Otherwise, the wage increase potentially eats into profits but not enough to offset the profit of the product and the need for the employee. And, again, this doesn't take into account the economic benefits of a higher minimum wage and an increase in demand.

It would be profitable to fire the person if it is as i stated before. The thing is the amount of value compared to the cost is something that each company decides. Before the wage hike it might would have been profitable since the margin was ideal but due to the wage hike from 7.5 to 10.10 the employee is still producing more than his cost but at a lower margin. Likewise the margn could vary for each company and can be very low or very high so even a small hike (although 7.5 to 10 is relatively large) could hurt the business . The increase of demand does not increase due to workers making more since as stated the companies will have to try to keep the margin by increasing prices which in turn offsets that.

The key price is the same as before the wage increase and/or tax increase. If an increase in the price of a product is profitable, the business would have done it long before. The cost of doing business is irrelevant when calculating this. I also don't acknowledge the bolded part of your post as necessarily true.

The thing is again each company has a key margin. One issue is that the cost of business regardless obviously affects the cost as it affects the profitability if they have to pay more so in turn the price will be affected by this. One part we disagree is that increase of wages correlates with growing demand since people can now afford those goods. The problem with that is that as I stated before the cost of higher wages will correlate with the price of the product and thus nullify the positive of the higher paod worker.

However, let's say I agree with your three options. Numbers and 1 and 2 are likely to be less profitable than without them, so it's going to be #3. The business is still making a profit, and the wages are fair. The data also seems to show that even smaller businesses are fine, particular with benefits of the economic stimulus.

Here is a problem with that interpretation. Lets assume we go with 3 as you chose. The business could still make a profit but the margin would be less then it want/needs so in turn they would be operating with less then they need/want.Since these companies would try to do things to regain that margin they would result to doing things such as cutting jobs or higher prices.

Likewise in some businesses the change would be to large and they would have to either close or find more affordable ways to do business (i.e. autonation or going overseas) which would harm the workers. Many small businesses do struggle under the wage hikes since the profit margin is smaller, they lack the reserve funds, and lack many other cost reducing options.

 

[Lacius]

It would be profitable to fire the person if it is as i stated before. The thing is the amount of value compared to the cost is something that each company decides. Before the wage hike it might would have been profitable since the margin was ideal but due to the wage hike from 7.5 to 10.10 the employee is still producing more than his cost but at a lower margin. Likewise the margn could vary for each company and can be very low or very high so even a small hike (although 7.5 to 10 is relatively large) could hurt the business . The increase of demand does not increase due to workers making more since as stated the companies will have to try to keep the margin by increasing prices which in turn offsets that.



The thing is again each company has a key margin. One issue is that the cost of business regardless obviously affects the cost as it affects the profitability if they have to pay more so in turn the price will be affected by this. One part we disagree is that increase of wages correlates with growing demand since people can now afford those goods. The problem with that is that as I stated before the cost of higher wages will correlate with the price of the product and thus nullify the positive of the higher paod worker.



Here is a problem with that interpretation. Lets assume we go with 3 as you chose. The business could still make a profit but the margin would be less then it want/needs so in turn they would be operating with less then they need/want.Since these companies would try to do things to regain that margin they would result to doing things such as cutting jobs or higher prices.

Likewise in some businesses the change would be to large and they would have to either close or find more affordable ways to do business (i.e. autonation or going overseas) which would harm the workers. Many small businesses do struggle under the wage hikes since the profit margin is smaller, they lack the reserve funds, and lack many other cost reducing options.

We're going round and round. I refer you to my previous posts. Agree to disagree.

 

[RevPokemon]

We're going round and round. I refer you to my previous posts. Agree to disagree.

Same here. Although in spite of our disagreement on these issues i must say that i enjoyed this conversation very much as i always love a good discussion over politics and economics. To that i say thank you and have a good day.

 

[Inukami]

can't tell if the poll result is a joke or not... the next 4 years sure are going to be interesting if this is anything to go by.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

can't tell if the poll result is a joke or not... the next 4 years sure are going to be interesting if this is anything to go by.

We're a community that has a majority population of straight white males, of course the poll at the top is serious

 

[RevPokemon]

We're a community that has a majority population of straight white males, of course the poll at the top is serious

Most of whom are 12-15 years old and think weiner jokes are funny still and have zits.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Most of whom are 12-15 years old and think weiner jokes are funny still and have zits.

My point still stands, there are a lot of people on this site who don't understand that the world is bigger than them

 

[RevPokemon]

My point still stands, there are a lot of people on this site who don't understand that the world is bigger than them

Absolutely and have yet to grasp basic concepts or are not aware of what is happening.

 

[Lacius]

can't tell if the poll result is a joke or not... the next 4 years sure are going to be interesting if this is anything to go by.

While the results are not representative of the United States, they're no joke. This election could be close.