How many of you believe in the Economic Bill of Rights?

[drebo]

The funny thing is how few people understand the basics of these economics, like the poster above doesn't.

When the poor are paid more, they spend more, and others who are not poor get more too.

This not being understood is a basic fallacy that makes right-wing economic policies harmful.

Of course that's 'to a point' - but we're way to the low pay side of that point.

When we talk about the poor making more people think that's in a vacuum and predict disaster - not realizing the effects that it'll help them too.

Did our economy do better during the Hoover 'don't spend' years, or the FDR 'pay the poor with jobs programs' years?

Do economies where the masses do better like the US, with 2/3 of the economy made of consumer spending, or nations with the masses paid low?

When the poor, unskilled workers are paid more, costs go up, and thus they really have no more buying power than they had before.

If a burger-flipper makes $30/hr as opposed to $7.50/hr, the burgers he's flipping are going to be 4x the cost. At that point, one of two things will happen: 1) no one buys the burgers and the franchise folds, at which point the burger-flipper now makes $0/hr; or, 2) prices go up system-wide due to increased consumer demand, coupled with static supply, causing a net zero increase in purchasing power.

You claim that "trickle-down" doesn't work. Yet, what you propose here is a "trickle-up" effect that doesn't work either. "Trickle-up" has only two outcomes: bankruptcy or inflation. Simply putting more money into consumers' hands doesn't do anything but cause an increase in prices system-wide. That's why Bush's $600 "stimulus" didn't do shit, except to temporarily increase prices on staple goods.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

You may say you don't believe in those rights, but like it or not some segments of the population DO have those rights, farmers and the elderly, and the rest of us are paying for them to have those rights. The same people who vote against any government program that helps people other than themselves and shout about socialism and marxist takeovers.

I say pull the plug. If we don't have those rights, neither should they. If you right-wing farmers and old people like the free market so much, ride it to the poor house and the grave and stop taking my [BOLD]money[/BOLD].

The last word of your statement is the problem.

All the "articles" i nthe Economic Bill of Rights" sound good, BUT how do you pay for all of it??? where does the money come from?

 

[CycloWizard]

The last word of your statement is the problem.

All the "articles" i nthe Economic Bill of Rights" sound good, BUT how do you pay for all of it??? where does the money come from?

I don't even think they sound good. If the laziest bastard in the universe comes to the US, he would have a right to earn a good living, have a house, healthcare, and all of these other niceties whether or not he lifted a finger to earn them. That's communism.

 

[Craig234]

When the poor, unskilled workers are paid more, costs go up, and thus they really have no more buying power than they had before.

Wrong.

Let's say we give every wage earner a 5% raise. Even that will have some benefit to workers, as they have more money compare to those who aren't wage earners.

That even includes those who make capital gains, fixed income etc.

And that's a very 'inflationary' act.

But now pretend that we only give people whose first names start with 'C' a 5% raise.

The people who get it actually have more, because others didn't get it. There is some inflationary effect, but it's only a small part of the 5%. They get a well over 4% net raise.

Now replace the C's with the poor. They are only a small part of the economy, and so their raise is 'real', not the universal inflation you allege.

I could make an example, you you already did:

If a burger-flipper makes $30/hr as opposed to $7.50/hr, the burgers he's flipping are going to be 4x the cost. At that point, one of two things will happen: 1) no one buys the burgers and the franchise folds, at which point the burger-flipper now makes $0/hr; or, 2) prices go up system-wide due to increased consumer demand, coupled with static supply, causing a net zero increase in purchasing power.

Wrong.

The cost of the burger isn't based entirely on the worker. There's the owner's profits, the cost of materials, the cost of rent, the cost of marketing, and so on.

Now, no one's talking about $7.50 to $ 30, but let's be aggressive and even say $7.50 to $15.

Maybe the burger goes up 20% in cost. But those workers are out spending all that new income, and buying more burgers. You weigh the reduction in the 20% increase versus the 100% income among those workers in income - which is actually a fare more than 100% increase in disposable income, since their rent, gas, phone, etc. are their earlier salary leaving only a little disposable income while the raise is all windfall.

My point is you have no idea, IMO, the effects of the increase. Your attempt to say what they are is patently wrong, and I suspect more wrong than I mentioned.

While I said the people tend to be simplistic on this, you were even more simplistic.

You claim that "trickle-down" doesn't work. Yet, what you propose here is a "trickle-up" effect that doesn't work either. "Trickle-up" has only two outcomes: bankruptcy or inflation. Simply putting more money into consumers' hands doesn't do anything but cause an increase in prices system-wide. That's why Bush's $600 "stimulus" didn't do shit, except to temporarily increase prices on staple goods.

You're just proving my point that many people don't understand the economics. You regurgitating the misunderstanding again re-proves that, rather than disproving it.

The workers getting a bigger share is not, as you argue, the same as the entire economy or currency getting the same increase.

I gave you two examples to compare - the still stronger US consumer economy versus the worse oligarchy/plutocracy where a few own all the wealth and you have poor masses.

You could learn a bit by comparing them, looking at what happens when in the plutocracy the wealth is more evenly spread with the workers getting a bigger share.

 

[QuantumPion]

The problem is that the things listed in this "Bill of Rights" aren't rights at all - they are guarantees. I can never have a right to something as completely arbitrary as a, "useful and remunerative job," or, "a decent home." To even suggest that these can be rights is to misunderstand what a right is. These things are all claims of an individual or family on society as a whole, not protections of the individual or family from society.

From the same article as my sig:

"For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.

To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true."

 

[CycloWizard]

From the same article as my sig:

"For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.

To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true."

:thumbsup:

Mind posting a link to that article? Maybe even start a thread with it.

 

[MotF Bane]

:thumbsup:

Mind posting a link to that article? Maybe even start a thread with it.

This. Sounds like a good read.

 

[daishi5]

Wrong.

Let's say we give every wage earner a 5% raise. Even that will have some benefit to workers, as they have more money compare to those who aren't wage earners.

That even includes those who make capital gains, fixed income etc.

And that's a very 'inflationary' act.

But now pretend that we only give people whose first names start with 'C' a 5% raise.

The people who get it actually have more, because others didn't get it. There is some inflationary effect, but it's only a small part of the 5%. They get a well over 4% net raise.

Now replace the C's with the poor. They are only a small part of the economy, and so their raise is 'real', not the universal inflation you allege.

I could make an example, you you already did:



Wrong.

The cost of the burger isn't based entirely on the worker. There's the owner's profits, the cost of materials, the cost of rent, the cost of marketing, and so on.

Now, no one's talking about $7.50 to $ 30, but let's be aggressive and even say $7.50 to $15.

Maybe the burger goes up 20% in cost. But those workers are out spending all that new income, and buying more burgers. You weigh the reduction in the 20% increase versus the 100% income among those workers in income - which is actually a fare more than 100% increase in disposable income, since their rent, gas, phone, etc. are their earlier salary leaving only a little disposable income while the raise is all windfall.

My point is you have no idea, IMO, the effects of the increase. Your attempt to say what they are is patently wrong, and I suspect more wrong than I mentioned.

While I said the people tend to be simplistic on this, you were even more simplistic.



You're just proving my point that many people don't understand the economics. You regurgitating the misunderstanding again re-proves that, rather than disproving it.

The workers getting a bigger share is not, as you argue, the same as the entire economy or currency getting the same increase.

I gave you two examples to compare - the still stronger US consumer economy versus the worse oligarchy/plutocracy where a few own all the wealth and you have poor masses.

You could learn a bit by comparing them, looking at what happens when in the plutocracy the wealth is more evenly spread with the workers getting a bigger share.

A quick question, are you arguing that increasing the poor's wages would increase their standard of living at no cost to everyone, or even with benefits to everyone else, or are you arguing that the inflationary effects of their rise in income is going to be minor?

 

[Darwin333]

Wrong.

Wrong.

The cost of the burger isn't based entirely on the worker. There's the owner's profits, the cost of materials, the cost of rent, the cost of marketing, and so on.

Now, no one's talking about $7.50 to $ 30, but let's be aggressive and even say $7.50 to $15.

Maybe the burger goes up 20% in cost. But those workers are out spending all that new income, and buying more burgers. You weigh the reduction in the 20% increase versus the 100% income among those workers in income - which is actually a fare more than 100% increase in disposable income, since their rent, gas, phone, etc. are their earlier salary leaving only a little disposable income while the raise is all windfall.

My point is you have no idea, IMO, the effects of the increase. Your attempt to say what they are is patently wrong, and I suspect more wrong than I mentioned.

While I said the people tend to be simplistic on this, you were even more simplistic.

I really don't think you understand business Craig, its not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. It isn't as simple as "For every dollar more company X pays an employee it costs company X $1". Labor is almost always the single largest cost in a good or service (at least for the scope of this discussion) but there are a ton of costs that are paid by the employer that the employee never sees. I will use construction as an example, for ever single dollar I pay a man my actual costs are over three dollars. There are multiple things that go into that cost besides raw pay such as taxes, workers comp, other insurances, bonds (in my case), etc...

If you can show me how to increase my workers pay by 50% while increasing costs by 20% or even 30% and not impacting raw profit (this isn't the way it works either, with increased cost comes increased risk, thats why we use profit margins, but I will humor you) I will pay you a million dollars right now.

In the real world everything goes up. The cost of the bun goes up because the guy making it is making close to what the burger flipper does, cost of ketchup goes up, transportation, cost of building the actual restaurant, and much to your dismay, profits go up as well due to the increased risk. No one is going to put an additional 50% on the line to make the exact same amount of money. Then you have the issue that the working guy doesn't really get a whole dollar to spend. Lets call it $.70 due to various taxes (and thats being generous in most areas), so you are spending $3-$4 on the conservative side to give someone an additional $.70 and you argue this is good for the economy?

Then we get into the entire issue of skilled labor and people with actual responsibilities. You can't just raise the pay of the lowest common denominator by 50% and not raise everyone elses pay as well. You might not have to raise it exactly proportional but I guarantee you I couldn't pay a man $20 an hour to do a difficult job in the La sun when they could make just a few bucks asking "do you want fries with that".

 

[Craig234]

:thumbsup:

Mind posting a link to that article? Maybe even start a thread with it.

First glance says Right-wing ideology from a crappy rigt-wing site, but here you go:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62638

 

[CycloWizard]

First glance says Right-wing ideology from a crappy rigt-wing site, but here you go:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62638

Everything you disagree with is crappy right wing - not sure if you noticed the trend yet. Thanks.

 

[Craig234]

A quick question, are you arguing that increasing the poor's wages would increase their standard of living at no cost to everyone, or even with benefits to everyone else, or are you arguing that the inflationary effects of their rise in income is going to be minor?

I find the right-wing ideology doesn't do well with specific smaller topics, so we can try a larger one.

Imagine you have a group of people in a primitive plutocracy. There's the leader who has all the wealth and people who farm and work for him and he pays them sustinence.

Think poorer nations where a few families own all the land and the people live in shanties and work for pittances.

Now consider what happens when that group moves towards the US - more organization, more industry - they get resources, they make things.

Now if the people are only paid enough to eat some beans and water daily and stayin their shanty, the economy doesn't take off all that much.

But consider when they're paid more and you start to get museums and an auto industry and an electronics industry and a strong middle class in houses.

That happens by the wealh being circulated more and used for increasing the economc activity.

It's a big topic to try to explain, but should be a bit clear from that, while when you just say 'in our society give one group more' the issue is less clear and ideology is rampant.

I'd say consider the differences between the distribution of income and wealth in the US in the 50's and 60's, and compare it to the last 20 years.

The US changed from a poor rural society to one with a lot more prosperity for more people.

The things you argue against happened and helped people.

When you ask about "increasing the poor's wages would increase their standard of living at no cost to everyone", remember the pie is not fixed, it grows more or less.

Sometimes giving a bigger share to the workers can grow the pie enough to make up for it.

When you ask if I'm "arguing that the inflationary effects of their rise in income is going to be minor?", yes that was part of my answer to explain that paying workers more isn't a 100% inflationary effect. There are, for example, a tiny sliver of people who own most financial assets in the country who own a bigger or smaller share of all wealth based on the amount the rest of society has, who are not part of the inflation by workers getting more.

When Wall Street gets $20 billion in bonuses, for example, that's more or less depending whether another group of workers makes $5 billion or $50 billion.

You can have a situation in a company where the CEO makes $400, the manager $350 and the worker $300, or you can have the CEO make $1000, the manager 10 and the worker $1.

The hierarchy is the same, but the results are pretty difference for the economy.

The point was not to say increasing wages a dollar is like any equally distributed inflation. Wages are one part of the economy and increasing one part of the economy isn't equally spread inflation. I won't call what I'm talking about minor - the differences between the 50's and 60's and now are not minor - but the differences in pay ratios and tax ratios had the workers getting a bigger share but weren't just 'inflationary'.

 

[werepossum]

From the same article as my sig:

"For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.

To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true."

You and your sig article are wise. Anything that creates no new wealth for society, but only moves it around, creates a net reduction in societal wealth, first because the act of redistribution itself consumes wealth (government workers are well paid) and secondly because the person whose wealth is taken is therefore less motivated to create more. Just as a person will do a particular job or take a particular risk for $100,000 but not for $50,000, so too that person will not do that job or take that risk if he earns $100,000 but the government takes half. A person's labor is worth what the market is willing to pay. Artificially increasing pay can help the lowest of us at the expense of those more successful, but lowers our collective wealth.

In my opinion a right is strictly something granted by G-d. Government might have to expend resources to protect that right, but not for you to have it. Things like "free health care" cannot be rights because they require taking someone else's wages or labor to grant you that right. They may be something for which we collectively agree to pay, but they cannot be rights.

 

[daishi5]

I find the right-wing ideology doesn't do well with specific smaller topics, so we can try a larger one.

Imagine you have a group of people in a primitive plutocracy. There's the leader who has all the wealth and people who farm and work for him and he pays them sustinence.

Think poorer nations where a few families own all the land and the people live in shanties and work for pittances.

Now consider what happens when that group moves towards the US - more organization, more industry - they get resources, they make things.

Now if the people are only paid enough to eat some beans and water daily and stayin their shanty, the economy doesn't take off all that much.

But consider when they're paid more and you start to get museums and an auto industry and an electronics industry and a strong middle class in houses.

That happens by the wealh being circulated more and used for increasing the economc activity.

It's a big topic to try to explain, but should be a bit clear from that, while when you just say 'in our society give one group more' the issue is less clear and ideology is rampant.

I'd say consider the differences between the distribution of income and wealth in the US in the 50's and 60's, and compare it to the last 20 years.

The US changed from a poor rural society to one with a lot more prosperity for more people.

The things you argue against happened and helped people.

When you ask about "increasing the poor's wages would increase their standard of living at no cost to everyone", remember the pie is not fixed, it grows more or less.

Sometimes giving a bigger share to the workers can grow the pie enough to make up for it.

When you ask if I'm "arguing that the inflationary effects of their rise in income is going to be minor?", yes that was part of my answer to explain that paying workers more isn't a 100% inflationary effect. There are, for example, a tiny sliver of people who own most financial assets in the country who own a bigger or smaller share of all wealth based on the amount the rest of society has, who are not part of the inflation by workers getting more.

When Wall Street gets $20 billion in bonuses, for example, that's more or less depending whether another group of workers makes $5 billion or $50 billion.

You can have a situation in a company where the CEO makes $400, the manager $350 and the worker $300, or you can have the CEO make $1000, the manager 10 and the worker $1.

The hierarchy is the same, but the results are pretty difference for the economy.

The point was not to say increasing wages a dollar is like any equally distributed inflation. Wages are one part of the economy and increasing one part of the economy isn't equally spread inflation. I won't call what I'm talking about minor - the differences between the 50's and 60's and now are not minor - but the differences in pay ratios and tax ratios had the workers getting a bigger share but weren't just 'inflationary'.

Ok, so you do seem to understand that what you are talking about when you raise the wages of a certain class of workers is wealth redistribution. Raising the wages of workers will not, in and of itself, create new wealth. You cannot raise someone's real wage without lowering someone else's real wage, unless you increase the amount of total wealth being generated Even if you just print more money to pay them with, other people pay for the increased real wage of the burger flipper through a reduction in their purchasing power.

Honestly, I think you are barking up the wrong tree for a reason behind the change in wealth distribution in this country. I think a lot of it is due to China's currency manipulation. If the conversion rate were allowed to float, it would increase the cost of chinese labor, and as a consequence, increase the pay of American labor.

Also, if you support this "economic bill of rights" as being rights that every american should have a claim to, I would be interested to see what your responses are to the comments I made earlier in the thread.