New Study Finds a High Minimum Wage Creates Jobs
nymag.com
nymag.com
No more 1031 exchanges, less depreciation allowed or depreciation over some longer period, etc.
However, investment in new projects, new businesses, new building, etc is very stimulating. This is what the tax code should heavily incentivize.
The people who have inherited and done nothing to get the money they have and are able to passively invest and still pay low taxes. Let’s reduce the incentive to be passive with taxation changes.
While its not complete, you are somewhat limited in what you can do with the tax code incentives, and generational wealth or concentration into a Bourgeois caste is one of many issues that affect socialism more dramatically than our mixed system (though there still is an effect).
The inheritance tax is nonexistent. They kept it in entity vehicles until a law was passed excluding it then they dissolved the entities in a year where there were no tax implications (the entire amount was untaxed).
Fiat and debt have their own implications when the money printer runs above capacity. Have you seen the derivative exposure for banks listed at the FDIC website?
Yup. Keep the money moving.
So weird that corporate media (the plantation class) emphasizes wealth accumulation while ignoring most other metrics like velocity of money and gini coefficient.
More astrology than chemistry.
Eventually propagandists got elected and fired them.
And yes broadly defined 'ruling classes' will use everything and anything to keep their position and privilege. Including popular misconceptions of science of all kinds.
That's an honest opinion of mine.
I guess one might be able to call a few exception, but its a definition so broad its utterly useless.
I mean if you want to define the word that way, feel free, its just not how almost anybody else defines it. Not even Marx.
Rentier capitalists are parasites. Unlike say industrial capitalists they don't work.
You actually need to actively and effectively manage factories or you go out of business very quickly. For the last 50 years rentiers with enough capital basically can't not come out ahead.
What is the motivation to pursue additional training, education, or to work challenging/unappealing jobs?
We also do this in the US to some extent with overpaid government workers. Until recently, there were relatively few of these jobs. But now state and federal agencies have become bloated with BS “do nothing” jobs.
You can just say 'everybody gets a billion $ an hour' by law and have a great economy.
(Answer: Switzerland does not have a statutory minimum wage.)
Namely, supply/demand, and the effect of price controls.
When you find perpetual motion, the question isn't whether it's wrong, but how it is wrong.
For example, areas with auto emissions tests tend to have worse air quality. Emissions tests don't cause worse quality, but air quality concerns beget emissions testing.
Similarly, perhaps the areas that raised statutory minimum wage were areas had inherently rising wages/cost of living due to existing economic growth.
I'm making a joke about the fact that it's starting to feel like neoliberalism is just a hand wavy way for rich people to continue to get rich at the expense of everyone else.
I have no issue with the article, just the opposite. Studies like these are demonstrating how we shouldn't assume popular economic theories are immune to scrutiny.
That is the current mainstream of economics but you are right. People who benefit from the status quo need a theory that justifies the status quo.
If you model the economy in more detail (with stocks and flows of money, and where money in different places has different propensity to be spent and so on) then you can start to talk about second or third order effects which may result in an increase in demand for labour if minimum wages rise.
I think ideologically the problem is that simpler models align with "classical / neoclassical" thinking, while more detailed models - even though they may be better (of course this is not a given) - tend to be less convincing firstly because they're harder to explain, and secondly because they tend to incorporate more parameters (so you run the risk of "fitting an elephant").
Personally I have my doubts that complex economies are actually amenable to simple explanations that fit human intuition at all - perhaps we'd be better off treating the whole field more like the weather, fewer elegant theories / word explanations and a lot more computational brute force and observation.
I guess a big problem with that is that economics is inherently political, and politics demands narrative.
Literally all economics practices, with the exception of a few hard core marxists, and a few others is Neoclassical. The people who wrote study are also neoclassical.
Its seems you have a ridiculously oversimplified view of economics and the field.
https://irle.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/High-Mi...
There’s both theory and evidence. The theory is that labor market monopsony (few employers dominating the market and having the market power to drive down wages) makes it so that minimum wage laws push wages closer to what they would be in a competitive market. This doesn’t reduce employment. Instead, it increases it.
The puzzle that they talk about is that previous research has found zero employment effect instead of a positive effect. The paper explains why they think this is.
In reality the economy is alive and dynamic and imperfect.
At least wait for some corroborating evidence to come in before you start writing policy, because you'll hurt people if you get it wrong.
Ask an economist about WHY economy exists in the first place and you can put a bet on the fact that many of them get it wrong. How can anything building on that be right then? Exactly.
And then he goes on to totally mischaracterize the field, he also doesn't seem to actually know what 'neoclassical' actual means in the history of economics thought.
This actually hurts to watch. Specially when he starts making a bunch of arguments that have been debated within 'neoclassical economics' for a long time. So instead of asking for a 'new economic field' he maybe should have actually read beyond Econ101.
I'm not saying any of his actual recommendation are right or wrong, but his engagement with the field of economics is embarrassing and seems to mostly serve as a crowed pleaser. The old tactic of uniting to fight a common enemy, the evil 'neoclassical' economists.
To be frank, in most of the sciences, left wing views are overwhelmingly dominant because they are objectively correct (global warming is real, the earth is not 6000 years old, evolution is real, etc). Economics is an outlier, and that is mostly because of its usefulness as a political tool of the powerful. To the extent that it’s right wing, its conclusions are extremely suspect.
More than that, they believe in maintaining the social order. That’s what they value. The reason they are so upset about trans people, for instance, is that they threaten the male/female gender based social order. They believe in a universe built on simple rules that apply all the time. Don’t kid yourselves, that’s exactly how they think.
And, they believe that having power is its own evidence that you deserve that power, because otherwise why did God give it to you? Therefore powerful people are virtuous and obedience makes you also a good person. And in a certain sense violence is virtue since it cleanses the earth of wickedness.
Again, I grew up among these people and this is absolutely what they believe.
And as a corollary, scientists or activists (largely the same, in their view) are by definition evil because they are in opposition to the social order, or in the case of science they are agnostic to the social order, which is even worse because science treats the social order as irrelevant.
Maybe it’s only in your country where these are “left-leaning” views…and I even doubt that.
Example; I agree with these statements but I’m not “left leaning” by any shot.
You're right that these positions are not left leaning worldwide. Unfortunately, they are very much left-leaning viewpoints in the US. There are still more than enough voters on the right who genuinely believe the converse that they need to be catered to by right wing politics. And, on the other hand, left wing politics needs to put significant effort into fighting and refuting objections. Arguably, this puts more strain on the left, which might be another factor perpetuating all this.
Economics isn’t science, it’s politics hiding behind math.
That's the kind of thing people say when math tells them what they want is not feasible. Surely the math must be wrong!
Political ideology is always in the service of constructing a logic to sustain itself, consciously or not, someone constructing a set of axioms that just so happen to lead to the political conclusion they find most favorable, and then they call those axioms true. Whatever truth value someone ascribes to mathematical axioms, whether they be "right" or "wrong," is far less important than for what purpose they are employed.
Like with anything, there is the objective reality that none of us can see, and then there is the constructed reality placed on top of it.
Sure some macro economics that try to abstract over a huge amount of things, by necessary (its literally called 'macro') but even then they are aware that high level decisions have political implications.
These anti economics hate mostly generated by people who don't actually follow the discussion within the economic field rather believe in some leftist fantasy buggy man version of the economic field.