Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply

[Mister Agenda]

Every adult could have a base income of, say, $10,000 a year tax free; and no minimum wage. Employers would provide wages based on the usual considerations, like 'will people qualified to do this job do it for this much money?' Note that with this guaranteed income, you could have an income of $20,000 a year with a job that pays less than 5.00 an hour.

no you can't.

and in your example. to make 20,000 a year in a 40/hr work week that is $9.61 and hour. That's working 52 weeks. it's impossible to pay someone $5 an hour and have them make 20k a year. They would have to work almost 80 hours a week.

If we are going to throw out scenarios lets make them realistic.

40x5x52=10,400.00. Add this to the base income of $10,000 and you have an income over $20,000 a year. If you are going to throw out criticisms of my scenario, at least be able to do simple multiplication and addition.

[surly74]

Every adult could have a base income of, say, $10,000 a year tax free; and no minimum wage. Employers would provide wages based on the usual considerations, like 'will people qualified to do this job do it for this much money?' Note that with this guaranteed income, you could have an income of $20,000 a year with a job that pays less than 5.00 an hour.

no you can't.

and in your example. to make 20,000 a year in a 40/hr work week that is $9.61 and hour. That's working 52 weeks. it's impossible to pay someone $5 an hour and have them make 20k a year. They would have to work almost 80 hours a week.

If we are going to throw out scenarios lets make them realistic.

40x5x52=10,400.00. Add this to the base income of $10,000 and you have an income over $20,000 a year. If you are going to throw out criticisms of my scenario, at least be able to do simple multiplication and addition.

i didn't think giving out 10K in cash every year to adults for doing nothing, you were actually being serious. Are there no personal exemptions in the US for wages? who would qualify for this money? Fine, my math is wrong but this whole premise is not even based in reality.

instead of 10K have the US give everyone 50K? why 10K?

it's called personal exemptions.

[Mister Agenda]

LikelyToBreak and Mister Agenda...if I was in favor of crony capitalism...then I wouldn't advocate that taxpayers be allowed to choose where their taxes go.   If pragmatarianism was truly more beneficial for the crony capitalists...then tax choice would have far more than 28 likes on facebook.  

Snip

What you two fail to grasp and understand...is the importance of being able to give others feedback on how well they are using society's limited resources.  Yet, I'm sure that you appreciate that some people really should be in jail...right? You agree that it's a more efficient allocation of resources when murderers and arsonists are in jail. Why? Because we really do not value how they used society's limited resources.

Please quote the part of my post that shows that I fail to grasp and understand the importance of being able to give others feedback on how well they are using society's limited resources.

Wages, given that they are the price of labor, are simply positive feedback.

Saying that they are 'simply' postive feedback is a claim that they aren't anything else. However, they are also what people live on.

And there should absolutely not be a ceiling or a floor when it comes to positive feedback.

Witholding food from your child when it doesn't behave is also 'postive feedback'. So it follows that you think there shouldn't be a limit on how much food a parent can withold from their child in order to secure the child's obedience.

Dictating how much positive feedback consumers should give will always reduce the amount of value that we, as a society, derive from our limited resources.

It is an observable fact that pure market efficiency isn't the only thing we, as a society, value. As a society, we have demonstrated that we are willing to sacrifice some efficiency in resource allocation to secure other goods.

Why? Because minimum wages are false values...they are lies. When you input lies into the equation which determines how society's resources are used...it's a given that the output will be garbage. Garbage in, garbage out. Pseudo-demand, pseudo-supply.

You are correct that raising wages by caveat has unintended consequences for our least qualified workers.

Mister Agenda, yes, you could certainly give each adult $10,000 a year tax free.  You could also give me $1 billion dollars.  What would happen if you gave me one billion dollars?  Well...I'd have far far far far far more influence over how society's limited resources were used.

If I gave everyone a billion dollars (which would cause dramatic inflation as it would have to be merely printed rather than paid for honestly with taxes) you'd have no more influence than anyone else.

Here in California there would be orchids on all the trees and all over the country there would be advertisements for tax choice.

What you fail to grasp and understand is the difference between shifting existing resources and 'poofing' a billion dollars for everyone out champagne wishes and caviar dreams.

Snip

Equalizing influence is arguing that we are equally effective at using society's limited resources.  This is far far far from the case.  So if you do so, it's a given that society, as whole, will be significantly worse off.

Equalizing influence is an act, not an argument. The argument would be about the consequences of doing so. You still seem to be talking from your fantasy of everyone getting a billion dollars, rather than everyone getting $10,000; which is so far from equalizing influence that it's a ludicrous comparison. A billion dollars for everyone would cause severe damage to our society due to runaway inflation. $10,000 for everyone, taxed so that most people break even on spending power, would not have such a dramatic effect. It would be a disincentive on the margin of people who aren't willing to work in order to make more than $10,000 a year, but that it would be an overall detriment to the economy is by no means a given.

[Mister Agenda]

40x5x52=10,400.00. Add this to the base income of $10,000 and you have an income over $20,000 a year. If you are going to throw out criticisms of my scenario, at least be able to do simple multiplication and addition.

i didn't think giving out 10K in cash every year to adults for doing nothing, you were actually being serious.

That would be a reasonable conclusion from the statement that I ended the post you originally quoted with: "My suggestion is off the top of my head, the point is that we're going to have to find a different way to skin this cat at some point. It could be a good thing, if we're smart enough to make it good."

Are there no personal exemptions in the US for wages? who would qualify for this money?

Yes there are. Taxable income is total income minus allowable deductions. There are many types of deductions because the tax code is complex, but they include a personal exemption, which was $3,800 last year. There's also an earned income tax credit for low wage earners. Most people don't have to file if they make less than $9,750. People who make less than $15,000 don't pay much in income tax.

Fine, my math is wrong but this whole premise is not even based in reality.

Well, if you assert that it is not based in reality, it must not be. That's just logic.  

instead of 10K have the US give everyone 50K? why 10K?

I see you're on the same page with Xenographica, although at least you didn't go all the way to la-la land with a billion dollars. 50K would be five times as expensive and would be more than most people make working, so it's an astounding disincentive to work. 10K is little enough that few people would elect to forego working in order to just live on the 10K. Thus we avoid 50 million people quitting their jobs.

What makes it unrealistic isn't the economics. Once you take into account that the stipend can be subtracted from social security and unemployment benefits, it would leave us paying taxes like the Swedes. They don't complain much because most of them think the benefits are worth it. What makes it unrealistic is that the USA doesn't have the political will to make it happen.

I'm sure there are better ways to do things. I'm only an armchair economist. The point of throwing out a proposal was to show that minimum wage is not the only way to address the needs of poor workers. I included a basic income that includes non-working citizens because I happen to think giving every citiizen at least a bare minimum to subsist on even if they can't hold down a job is a good idea. A sufficiently generous negative income tax could do the same without giving people without jobs a dime.

[Mister Agenda]

Ignore.

LOL.  I guess you could have just not replied to the thread...but then I suppose I wouldn't have known that you were ignoring it.  If you hadn't replied to the thread then my feelings wouldn't have been hurt...but now my feelings are hurt.  Your mission has been accomplished.  :)  I mean... :(

Here's a deal, rather than only replying to threads that match our preferences and ignoring the rest, we should also reply to threads that don't match our preferences and say "this topic does not match my preferences".  

Kinda like how facebook should also have a "dislike" button.  Youtube has one.  

In fact, maybe on facebook we should be able to unfriend people that we aren't even friends with!  That would show them!

Also, at bars and clubs, we should walk around rejecting people who haven't even shown the slightest interest in us!  

And employers can go around firing people who don't even work for them!  LOL...too much fun.  You should ignore me more often.  :)  I mean :(

They weren't announcing they're ignoring the thread. They're announcing that they put you on 'ignore' so they will no longer see your posts. I'm sure you'll conclude that people desiring to see nothing more of your posts has nothing to do with their quality.

[Mister Agenda]

Because, what are the chances that I'm right and most everybody else is wrong?

We've long figured out it's 0%. You don't actually have any interesting revelations, because if you did you
A) would not be posting on some backwater forum, but have an actual name in the scientific community

What's the difference between my argument and Buchanan's?  What's the difference between my argument and Le Grand's?  

You think their arguments have something to do with atheism and they don't.

[Xerographica]

there were some similiarities. you could be right on the money, or totally off the mark I have no idea. I don't think anyone here is judging your argument as a person, everyone here is here because they value evidence and challenging of assumptions. It's how it's done. A Nobel Prize winning economist telling someone they are ignorant of something is one thing, on an annoynomous message board just comes across as a weak argument. beat them with facts and reason. You may have thought you were doing that but veiled insults ruin it for me at least.

I might be wrong...but I wouldn't be surprised if you looked through the thread and couldn't find a single instance where I took the first swing.  

If you're really curious...you could read through discussions on the same exact topic that I've posted in other forums...

xkcd
NationStates
DebatePolitics
Ron Paul Forums

Having participated on numerous forums...this forum by far and large has the most insults.  Which is great.  I hate overly moderated forums.  They are a dime a dozen.  

It's an interesting converstation, i can't be part of it as much as i want, knowledge and where I live for example. For the record I'm trying my hardest to become part of the 1% but i do have a bit of socialist still in me.

I think it's interesting too.  It's so interesting that I'm willing to spend the time discussing the same thing on numerous forums.

[Xerographica]

@Xerographica - Why are you posting on these forums?  What are your intentions?  If you're trying to convince people that you have good ideas that they should consider, you're going about it all wrong.  Some of your ideas are interesting, but your approach sucks.  You come of as pretentious and condescending, which certainly isn't the way to persuade and influence others.  
Even if your ideas are the greatest thing since sliced bread, not too many will take you seriously with your present attitude.

I'm throwing the ideas and arguments out there.  That's how forums work.  People can focus on me...or they can focus on the arguments.  It's their choice.  

If you look through this thread...isn't it obvious that when people focus on me...it's because they are incapable of focusing on my arguments?  They disagree with my arguments...but are incapable of articulating their disagreements...so they go after me instead.  

It doesn't bother me though.  

I wish I was smarter so that I could present my arguments in ways that even they could understand.  But I'm not that smart.  I'm smart enough to understand the arguments of Nobel Prize winning economists...and I'm smart enough to share them with all of you...but I'm not smart enough to simplify their arguments enough for stupid people to understand them.  

But maybe there's somebody here who can?  Maybe not.  But I'm casting a wide net.  Who knows who will stumble upon this thread in the future?  Maybe somebody will find my arguments and improve on them.  I guess that's the hope.  

Until then, I try and defend/explain the arguments as best as I can.

[Plu]

isn't it obvious that when people focus on me...it's because they are incapable of focusing on my arguments?

Nah, it's because you refuse to actually reply to anyone who is responding to your arguments, except with more meaningless word-salad.

We've given you hundreds of reasons why your ideas would fail in practice, but you cling to something that can only work in theory and keep shouting that we should do it anyway.

[Colanth]

His statement.  Intelligent people don't think that most congresspeople are particularly knowledgeable.

Again, this clearly reveals your ignorance of public finance.

How has what people think of Congress to do with public finance?

Oh, that's right - they have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

Obviously you find it impossible to believe that I've seriously studied the topic.

I find it impossible to believe that you're even capable of serious study - of any topic.

The definitive, theoretical, justification/defense for the existence of the public sector

It doesn't need a defense.

If we want the optimal supply of public goods to be produced

That's not the point of Capitalism.  You're arguing for something to be done to improve the efficiency of a system we don't have.  You're doing what philosophers do, and it's not polite to do that in public.

[Colanth]

but my arguments challenge people's fundamental assumptions

You're wrong - most of us DON'T assume that you know what you're talking about.

[Colanth]

Caesar's type of Capitalism might just work, if it was modified a little.  

To quote someone we all know all too well, "as long as I'm the dictator".

[Colanth]

If you're really curious...you could read through discussions on the same exact topic that I've posted in other forums...

xkcd
NationStates
DebatePolitics
Ron Paul Forums

The response most people on THIS forum have to a statement like that ("I've said the same thing on this forum and this one and ...") is to put you on ignore without reading anything else you said, since it labels you as a troll.

You're not doing yourself any favors by not having spent a week or two reading the forum before making a serious post.

[Colanth]

I will grant you this - farm subsidies are NO LONGER needed (for the most part) - to keep farms in existence.  But if they ceased tomorrow, the cost of food would skyrocket.  And the poor would starve.

Farm subsidies exist because of cheap imports.  Why should American agribusiness try and compete with Mexican farmers?  It's far more profitable for them to spend their money on lobbying.  Get rid of the subsidies and both the poor in our country and in developing countries would benefit.  Our poor would get less expensive food and their poor would have their farm jobs.

Really?  Is THAT how government works?

If you got rid of farm subsidies you'd probably also get rid of food imports.  (Enough duty would be imposed that Mexican farmers wouldn't ship to us.)  Congresscritters aren't going to vote their contributions away.  To do what you want, we'd have to get rid of Capitalism, and that's a terrible idea.  (Decimation is only one problem.)

BTW, a LARGE reason for produce imports is that farms in the southern hemisphere can produce when ours are under 3 feet of snow.  And you can't legislate that away.

You have a very naive understanding of reality.

[Xerographica]

Please quote the part of my post that shows that I fail to grasp and understand the importance of being able to give others feedback on how well they are using society's limited resources.

Either you grasp and understand the importance of being able to give people feedback on how well they are using society's limited resources...or you support minimum wages.  It can't be both...which is it?

Saying that they are 'simply' postive feedback is a claim that they aren't anything else. However, they are also what people live on.

This is what people live on ______ how well people use society's limited resources.  

Fill in the blank using one of the following signs...>,=,<

What people actually live on is really the supply of food, shelter, clothing...and this supply depends entirely on how well people are using society's limited resources.  Therefore, it's really NOT ok to be loosey goosey with the accuracy of the positive feedback we give each other.  Doing so simply diminishes the supply that we all need to survive.

Witholding food from your child when it doesn't behave is also 'postive feedback'. So it follows that you think there shouldn't be a limit on how much food a parent can withold from their child in order to secure the child's obedience.

Withholding food is negative feedback.  Giving your child an ice cream cone is positive feedback.  Obviously though parents have an obligation to provide a bare minimum to their children.  The parents made a choice to have kids...they should be responsible for their decision.

But I do not have an obligation to provide you a bare minimum of positive feedback.  I'm pretty sure you're not my child.  So if you want my positive feedback...then you'll have to earn it.  And if you don't think I'm giving you enough positive feedback...then either you try harder/smarter or you find somebody else who is willing to give you more positive feedback than I'm giving you.
 

It is an observable fact that pure market efficiency isn't the only thing we, as a society, value. As a society, we have demonstrated that we are willing to sacrifice some efficiency in resource allocation to secure other goods.

No, all we've "demonstrated" is that we want a free lunch.  And politicians take advantage of this fact to get into office.  Everybody, not just voters, want a free lunch.  

The only way to know what society truly values...is to prevent them from spending other people's money.  The challenge is showing people that more value is created when they can only spend their own resources.  This isn't an easy challenge, and I doubt I'm up for it....but it's fundamentally important.  

The problem with a free lunch is that it is a fiscal illusion.  The lunch appears magically like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.  But you know that the magician didn't create the rabbit...the rabbit had to come from somewhere.  

With free lunches...voters don't know or care where the value was taken from.  They are just happy that it didn't come from them.  But how could they possibly know that when they have no idea where exactly the value was taken from?  Sure, somebody who doesn't have to pay federal income tax won't have to pay for more welfare benefits...but those resources have to come from somewhere.  Chances are good that it will be manifested in the form of more expensive commodities that they need to survive.  So in essence they are in fact worse off for voting for a free lunch.  

The only way we can ensure that voters are not actually made worse off...is to ensure that they can see the price tags.  Then, and only then, can they decide whether the benefit is worth the opportunity cost.    

If I gave everyone a billion dollars (which would cause dramatic inflation as it would have to be merely printed rather than paid for honestly with taxes) you'd have no more influence than anyone else.

That wasn't the point.  The point was to try understand the problem of influence exceeding benefit.  

What you fail to grasp and understand is the difference between shifting existing resources and 'poofing' a billion dollars for everyone out champagne wishes and caviar dreams.

If shifts do not reflect the true preferences of consumers...then value is destroyed (resources are inefficiently allocated).

Equalizing influence is an act, not an argument. The argument would be about the consequences of doing so. You still seem to be talking from your fantasy of everyone getting a billion dollars, rather than everyone getting $10,000; which is so far from equalizing influence that it's a ludicrous comparison. A billion dollars for everyone would cause severe damage to our society due to runaway inflation. $10,000 for everyone, taxed so that most people break even on spending power, would not have such a dramatic effect. It would be a disincentive on the margin of people who aren't willing to work in order to make more than $10,000 a year, but that it would be an overall detriment to the economy is by no means a given.

Listen, you don't evenly distribute your money for a reason.  You know what that reason is?  It's because you're not crazy.  Except, here you are thinking there's value in minimum wages.  A minimum wage is the same thing as you distributing your money more evenly.  

When you go shopping...your goal is not to evenly distribute your money.  Your goal is to maximize the amount of value you get for your money.  You want the most bang for your buck.  Therefore, you give your bucks to the people who give you the most bang.  Decrease the bucks you give them...transfer it to their employees...and you'll end up with less bang.  We all will.