• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Switzerland will vote on $25 min wage on May 18th

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dmcowen674 said:
That's too bad. I thought this would be the place you guys would get me a one way ticket to.
Click to expand...

Unlike you we don't want people out of the country just because they have different political views than us or want to forcibly take all their shit because they were more successful than us.
 
realibrad said:
That is the idea I worry about. Taking from the rich to give to everyone else. In capitalism, the poor are not poor because of the rich. The poor are poor because they dont bring enough value to be rich. Redistributing wealth is not about improving the economy, but morality. People will try and say there is a net benefit to the economy, but all the empirical data shows otherwise. At best, there is a small negative impact, but its hard to measure.
Click to expand...

BS.... i want to see those "empirical data"

lack of wealth redistribution is the major cause of implosion on most empires to date
 
Olikan said:
BS.... i want to see those "empirical data"

lack of wealth redistribution is the major cause of implosion on most empires to date
Click to expand...

Really?

British Empire
German Empire
Japanese Empire

Pretty sure these empires weren't taken down by lack of wealth redistribution.

Which empires do you think collapsed due to lack of wealth redistribution?
 
Olikan said:
BS.... i want to see those "empirical data"

lack of wealth redistribution is the major cause of implosion on most empires to date
Click to expand...

I can provide, but you will need to clear on what you are asking for.

I think you are asking for me to prove that redistribution of wealth does not have a net benefit for the economy, but might have a benefit through morality.

So I think you are asking me to prove that giving money to less productive people is not an economic negative.

Are you asking for a study on the effects of redistribution?

http://dcpis.upf.edu/~gosta-esping-andersen/materials/welfare_state.pdf

I will now counter with asking you to prove your stance. Show me where redistribution has helped reduce poverty and not hurt the economy.
 
nehalem256 said:
Really?

British Empire
German Empire
Japanese Empire

Pretty sure these empires weren't taken down by lack of wealth redistribution.

Which empires do you think collapsed due to lack of wealth redistribution?
Click to expand...


Certainly you could put down the French and Russian revolutions down to wealth inequality.
 
Olikan said:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf
Click to expand...

LOL

"We need to be mindful about over-interpreting these results, especially for policy purposes. It is hard to go from these sorts of correlations to firm statements about causality. We have not accounted for the possible effects that redistribution may have on market inequality. We have emphasized the uncertainty caused by the scarcity of reliable data, particularly about redistribution. Our measure of redistribution captures only direct taxes and subsidies, for example, so we shed no direct light on the redistributive effects of in-kind government provision of health and education which a prior would seem, if anything, to be more growth-friendly than the measures we account for. Finally, we know from history and first principles that after some point redistribution will be destructive to growth, and that beyond some point extreme equality also cannot be conductive to growth."

Let me break that down for you. We did not measure many things, but we felt that we could draw a conclusion because of the correlation of our limited data. We do know that too much redistribution can harm the economy, but if you do it at the right amount it should be good. Oh, yeah we dont know the right amount, but we feel like there is a "right amount"

Perfect think to support your argument.
 
fleshconsumed said:
Pity it's gotten voted down. I would have liked to see what would have happened, either way.
Click to expand...

From the folks I speak to in Switzerland the nearly unanimous rational I heard was, "It will cause people to lose their jobs".

I'm a bit stunned at this and the magnitude with which the measure was voted down. The rational for voting it down followed nearly lock step with what the right in the States use to push back against min wage increases here.

Though 90% of workers in Switzerland make over 22francs an hour before this measure went up, so it's not quite as important as what's going on in the states with large %'s of people making near or below poverty level wages.

Beyond that, i'm not trying to conflate anything here regarding economies in Switzerland and USA, I've got a distant view of Switzerland, though it's clear to me in the USA that there is no free market determining wages and it's a particularly non free market at the lower end of wage earners and wealth distribution.

Wonder if the Swiss vote will get mentioned during continued min wage debates here though. I think Obama and Dems will be able to push through a federal min wage of 9+ per hour (hopefully $10) but i've got poor track records picking future policy results. This policy like nearly every other will be decided by an select few, rather than by the people. Though the Swiss put it down, at least they had a national vote on it.
 
Last edited:
Olikan said:
fell free to pick one than...

http://scholar.google.com.br/scholar?q=wealth+redistribution+improves+economy&hl=pt-BR&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=AKF8U4jQCOjKsATnjoGICg&ved=0CC0QgQMwAA
Click to expand...

Wait. You ask me to back up my claim, and I do. Then I ask you to back up yours, and you give me something that back up my claim. I ask you for better proof, and you tell me to go look for it?

Don't call me out, then tell me to prove myself wrong. Thats weak...

Look, transfer payments are not free. The cost of doing them tends to pay those running the system more than what is offset going to the poor. If transfer payments worked, then things should be getting better, but they are not.

The reason most economist think that growth should be the focus, is because its been shown to have worked, vs transfer payments that show at best a zero sum.

Do your own research, and don't just have an opinion.
 
Attic said:
From the folks I speak to in Switzerland the nearly unanimous rational I heard was, "It will cause people to lose their jobs". I'm a bit stunned at this and the magnitude with which the measure was voted down. The rational for voting it down followed nearly lock step with what the right in the States use to push back against min wage increases here. Though 90% of workers in Switzerland make over 22francs an hour before this measure went up, so it's not quite as important as what's going on in the states with large %'s of people making near or below poverty level wages. Beyond that, i'm not trying to conflate anything here regarding economies in Switzerland and USA, I've got a distant view of Switzerland, though it's clear to me in the USA that there is no free market determining wages and it's a particularly non free market at the lower end of wage earners and wealth distribution. Wonder if the Swiss vote will get mentioned during continued min wage debates here though. I think Obama and Dems will be able to push through a federal min wage of 9+ per hour (hopefully $10) but i've got poor track records picking future policy results. This policy like nearly every other will be decided by an select few, rather than by the people. Though the Swiss put it down, at least they had a national vote on it.
Click to expand...

the same swiss who voted to ban any stupa?
 
Olikan said:
i just pointed that there is tons of reserach that back my opinions, but you can call me lazy if you want... that i accept

want more?
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf

pretty much the same article, with more hard data

ehh... don't get me wrong, i am not a communits, wealth inequality should exist, the point is how much?
Click to expand...

I don't think you are reading what you are posting. Read page 17.

You are talking from ignorance on this topic, and its really starting to show.

Don't look at this issue as pro helping the poor vs anti helping the poor. Redistribution of wealth throughout history has done very little to help the poor vs pro growth. It seems counterintuitive because one targets the poor to help, and the other does not.

If you want to argue that there are policies and social structures that giver a greater advantage to the rich, then we agree there. But if you think redistribution is good, then we don't. It would be a far better policy to not have to redistribute in the first place. But come on man, don't call me out and then post BS that you don't read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top