On Bernie Sanders

[Chou Toshio]

There's a lot that I like about Bernie's campaign, but to me the central piece is getting money and lobbying out of politics (as much as possible). It's critical to a free society.

I believe in a free market and competition's importance in growing wealth and efficiently using resources-- but lobbying is the greatest force that constantly drives policy to the detriment of the common good. Governors should be accountable to voters, not doners and big spending fear mongers.

 

[Joim]

Colleges and loans have the exact same problem in the US as health-care and insurances. The prices are basically artificially inflated for the benefits of a few. There is no actual free market in the US and there is no actual freedom either.

 

[mfhoundoom]

What are you talking about? The free market is what allows artificial inflation and it wouldn't be a free market economy for colleges were they provided by the government which is the whole point of this conversation. The situation you're describing are rich people abusing a free market. Or did i just misread sarcasm?

 

[phantom]

I don't really expect much from Bernie Sanders to be quite frank. He just seems like he's good at telling people what they want to hear. If anything, he just comes across as a significantly less charismatic Obama that's making more promises he won't be able to fulfill.

 

[verbatim]

tl;dr rage

I've spent all my life up to this point trying to enforce that there really isn't a wrong or a right party (and I still hold true to that, you should identify yourself based on your opinions about subjects that are important to you, just because you vote Republican or Democrat doesn't make you one of the two, especially if your opinions on different issues cross party lines), but I'm at a loss as to how intelligently daesh have managed to trick the Western world into demonizing any Muslims in the Western world and honestly to make it look like the West is the real villain (it isn't, but if your only knowledge of America was cnn.com, you'd probably think it was).

Ignoring not believing in cigarettes causing can-climate change, the Republican party throughout, Governors, Congressional representatives, Supreme Court majority Justices (lol Scalia) and presidential candidates have truly put our concept of liberty back to pre 1980 levels. Levels of segregation are higher now than then, the Voting Rights Act literally got repealed and more than 30 states implemented measures to prevent Hispanic Americans and African Americans from voting, and the Republican frontrunner literally advocates marking American Muslims with a Star of Davi-putting them on a list and tearing down their churches to cheers from multiple congressional and regional representatives of the same party.

If you identify as Republican now I don't specifically take issue with that, but if you identify with Trump/Huckabee/Carson/Cruz as a candidate or claim that any of them are better than Sanders or Clinton know this.

Not mentioned in the article
- Mexican American citizens by birthright, kind of like every other American that didn't immigrate.
- Women
- African Americans
- Anyone that isn't white, straight, male, blue eyes, blond hair, arya- wrong regime... I think.

The world peace and cooperation, the last person to take control of the presidency of a major western country by providing an upset population with a scapegoat ran on the basis of offering a solution to "The Jewish Problem".


Something something those who do not learn from history.

 

[Joim]

What are you talking about? The free market is what allows artificial inflation and it wouldn't be a free market economy for colleges were they provided by the government which is the whole point of this conversation. The situation you're describing are rich people abusing a free market. Or did i just misread sarcasm?

Read a bit more of Hans-Hoppe and Rothbard.

 

[vonFiedler]

Read a bit more of Hans-Hoppe and Rothbard.

Could you give at least a brief explanation of what they cover as it relates to the conversation? The Free Market and loans are pretty integral to Sander's campaign, so I don't think this would qualify as derailment.

 

[Joim]

It's not really related to Sanders, I think what he does is right, however, what I've read and believe about the free market is diametrically opposed to what Sanders want. It is still far away from the current state, in which the state, lobbies, and other agents can manipulate the market, thus making it actually non-free and weak to speculation, manipulation, fraud, embezzlement, and general debauchery.

My personal opinion is that the market should be 100% free, but the fundamentals of a society should be out of the market: education, health, and justice.

 

[DM]

A 100% free market means monopolies and incredible pollution and no minimum wages. A free market is what we had before unions. While unions have become bloated carcasses of their once useful selves, they serve an important purpose. A "free" market helps only the wealthy get wealthier.

 

[mfhoundoom]

My personal opinion is that the market should be 100% free, but the fundamentals of a society should be out of the market: education, health, and justice.

Then why are you complaining about the exploitation of the poor? Do you not get who the benefactor of a free market is?

vF edit:
Could we not do the whole "generalization" is "insult" thing in a political thread? I admit it was also a dick move to be like "you disagree with me, so you just haven't read enough" but I'd rather people were just civil from here on out.

 

[tehy]

My view on capitalism is that it is like any other ism (or even ideology): in its purest form, insanity. See: communism, socialism, totalitarianism, etc.

That said, the free market is an incredibly powerful tool; the closer you can get to harnessing its power, the better. Of course, this comes with its downsides as well. Personally I'd prefer a lot more free market in our current society

 

[Chou Toshio]

I think we're all just bickering over different conceptions of the word "free".

This is gonna be an annoyingly elementary post but--

Some are using it to mean "without rules or regulations".

Some are using it to mean "Free from various corruptive forces that prevent a fair market."

Some are probably using it to mean "the ideal market that delivers freedom to those who participate in it"

When I said I believe in a free market, I meant "I see value in many free market forces that exist in a market where prices are not set, and buying and selling set prices and ultimately determine the types and supply of goods." Generally, this means that most markets have some organic movement that brings them close to "economic equilibrium", where demand = supply.

As some posters have said, in a lawless market, such guiding market forces cease to exist because collusion, monopolization, lobbying, and other practices result in markets where a select few are left making an inadequate supply, and "economic profit" (profits excessive of those that would be made in equilibrium), with most of the market (consumers and potential suppliers) being inadequately served.

So, to get the "valuable free market forces", you need regulation to force buyers and sellers to obey certain rules. It has been proven repeatedly that the market doesn't efficiently punish individuals and organizations that break said rules, so we absolutely need regulation to realize the benefits of capitalism.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

Re. Free markets: I like free markets but let's all just agree that unfettered free markets are bad because unfettered anything is bad. Of course, we need regulation and labor unions to keep employers from exploiting underpaid employees and just going overboard with pollution. This would normally be where I'd say total government control of the economy would also be a bad thing (because it is) but nobody's suggesting that anyway.

Re. Thread: Speaking as someone registered under the Libertarian party, Bernie Sanders honestly seems to be the most appealing candidate overall. I personally believe that while some of his policies would be economically disastrous ($15 minimum wage, see: effects of price floor set above equilibrium) he seems to be the only candidate actually willing to fix many of this country's problems (healthcare, education, etc.) and isn't a complete warhawk like Hillary Clinton is (please don't vote for Hillary Clinton, I have nothing against a woman in the White House - just NOT HILLARY CLINTON, not that Fiorina would be any better.) On the other hand, most of the GOP candidates are insane (or, in the case of Trump, batshit insane) and this is coming from someone whose parents are both registered Republicans.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Re. Free markets: I like free markets but let's all just agree that unfettered free markets are bad because unfettered anything is bad. Of course, we need regulation and labor unions to keep employers from exploiting underpaid employees and just going overboard with pollution. This would normally be where I'd say total government control of the economy would also be a bad thing (because it is) but nobody's suggesting that anyway.

Re. Thread: Speaking as someone registered under the Libertarian party, Bernie Sanders honestly seems to be the most appealing candidate overall. I personally believe that while some of his policies would be economically disastrous ($15 minimum wage, see: effects of price floor set above equilibrium) he seems to be the only candidate actually willing to fix many of this country's problems (healthcare, education, etc.) and isn't a complete warhawk like Hillary Clinton is (please don't vote for Hillary Clinton, I have nothing against a woman in the White House - just NOT HILLARY CLINTON, not that Fiorina would be any better.) On the other hand, most of the GOP candidates are insane (or, in the case of Trump, batshit insane) and this is coming from someone whose parents are both registered Republicans.

Adamant Zoroark pretty much summed up my view and feeling in the whole field.

@15 dollar min wage-- I agree here too; this would be one of the contentious points for me around Bernie. I agree with taxing the top 1% and corporations, and I also agree with a degree of wealth re-distribution through government policy-- but a straight minimum wage increase is not a policy you can expect to best benefit the low wage work base, because of its very real potential to impact the job market. It's not policy you can expect to help vulnerable groups with poor education/employment backgrounds. There are other methods you can explore, such as tax breaks to those earning less than 15/hour, and/or tax penalties/incentives to corporations in response to low wages. The idea being that policies that keep movement in the market cause less harm than straight price settings/ceilings/floors. High public investment in development programs and education play roles as well.

That said, I perceive the movement behind the minimum wage increase as a political tool--it's a cause that the grass roots can get behind and lift banners around. As something visible, easy to understand, and easy to mobilize around, it is a proposal that has a lot better chance of gaining momentum and actually getting passed than some obscure changes to the tax code; and an immediate impact something like education and support programs might not. So while not "economically ideal", I would call it "politically feasible", and possibly a step in the right direction despite the likely negative impacts it would make.

 

[Joim]

Chou Toshio and Adamant Zoroark have summed it up pretty well.

The paradox that for the market to be actually free we need regulations does exist, as we need to avoid the system cheating that goes on. The main problem with the implementation of a free market is that we have history, we haven't reached this point on a clean slate, we still have people that are powerful by sheer inheritance, people whose family were able to bend the rules to their will, companies that grew big with corruption, state regulations, etc. A 100% free market can only exist and work properly if it's been free since its inception. By the way, I recommend reading because I find it much better than me explaining economics, since I'm neither a teacher nor an economist. It's always better to go to the source and form an opinion of your own.

 

[mfhoundoom]

yeah I read into the people you posted. Got as far as "an ideal society free of drug users, homosexuals, Jews, and Muslims." I'm go ahead and guess if you're still blaming the economy on the Jews you're probably not the most best example to inspire others

 

[JermemGoffdoff]

I would rather not debate the merits of Libertarianism, as whenever it's discussed, the conclusion is always 'free markets are possible - just not for us'. It's really a pointless. The world isn't as tidy as Libertarians would like.


As for the minimum wage, nobody here knows enough about economics to use it to make their arguments against the minimum wage credible. There is a huge library of published evidence that supports the minimum wage, just as there is a library against it. The growing consensus is that the minimum wage is necessary to reduce economic inequality. The absence of a minimum wage may help raise GDP, but this is not correlated to the well-being of the labor force as a whole. The maldistribution of produced goods is inconsequential to economic growth, so long as the labor force can achieve the minimum allowed to sustain itself. Thus, the economy is generally disinterested in quality of life.

The fact is: People are working extremely hard, but they still struggle to make a living. People can work two jobs, and still barely pay rent. This is not how a meritocracy is supposed to work - it is not how I believe the country should be, personally. Pay should increase when productivity increases - what you produce should be what you are paid. Isn't that basic common sense? It's what people tend to espouse as a main argument against the minimum wage, after all: "People get paid less because they're lazy." But the truth is, although productivity and hourly compensation have been intertwined, historically - namely in the years 1948-1973 - that relationship has since markedly diverged.

I agree with the Democratic Party's decision to try and increase the minimum wage for these reasons, among others.



Although I'm still not going to vote for Bernie Sanders...

 

[Joim]

There are some merits to higher minimum wage. Happier worker, produces more. Wealthier worker, buys more and thus the welfare state can keep on going. That's pretty good.

 

[JermemGoffdoff]

There are some merits to higher minimum wage. Happier worker, produces more. Wealthier worker, buys more and thus the welfare state can keep on going. That's pretty good.

Not only that, but a higher wage reduces the pressure on children of poor families in providing income for the household (which could reduce population stresses in low-income areas), it would force the median wage to rise in order to compensate for accelerating rent hikes (and keep poorer residents from being shoved out of their homes), and it would increase the bargaining power of poorer workers in demanding higher wages.

Why is the ultimate goal to have a productive economy? Does it benefit you personally, or does it merely appeal to your own economic nationalism? I would suggest that increased production is useless, in the absence of perceivable benefits - worse, it could be perceived as contemporary feudalism.

 

[Chou Toshio]

There are some merits to higher minimum wage. Happier worker, produces more. Wealthier worker, buys more and thus the welfare state can keep on going. That's pretty good.

I'm sure you're aware of this but--those are the merits for households that retain jobs; the concerns around minimum wage tend to have to do with those that LOSE jobs. When you set a price floor, you remove any economic incentive to retain workers whose production is worth less than the hourly wage. A price floor will inevitably cut jobs and leave more people looking for work (a result at odds with Bernie's goal of decreasing the real unemployment rate).

The question is how much of an impact will you get? The price floor most negatively impacts the poorest and least educated working class.

So when it comes to judging the merits of a minimum wage, what you need to look at is not economic theory, but data. What are the major types of below-$15/hour jobs in the market, and how elastic is the demand for that labor? Also, how expensive is it to export those jobs? (And how feasible are more rigid trade sanctions)

Elasticity-- If demand is in elastic, a change in price has little impact. If the profits from a mcdonalds and cost to close the location merit the employment even at increased wages, a few to no workers will be laid off. Inversely, if profit margins and costs to close are low, the demand for labor in the market is more elastic-- a higher minimum wage will lead to significant layoffs.

Global market-- you can't export Starbucks' barista work, but you can export Apple's screen manufacturers. How much labor is the price change likely to send overseas? What trade barriers could you consider to keep jobs domestically? What is political loss/economic loss you could suffer from counter-sanctions other countries? Obviously, Bernie's opposition to trade agreements and promise to tax foreign profits goes hand-in-hand with his min wage policy.


SO-- if your low wage market jobs have a very inelastic demand and are costly to export (or you can MAKE them costly to export), then a min wage increase makes a lot of sense. We just got to hope Bernie's done his homework there.


JermemGoffdoff -- said none of us knows enough about economics, but I'd say it's more accurate to say none of us likely know enough about the market-- break down of low wage labor, elasticity and export cost in those labor markets-- to say how the minimum wage will work. Ideally you want to not only consider current jobs, but future jobs, how the market is likely to evolve, with and without the min wage.


The reason why I said a system that punishes/incentivizes to get higher wages has less impact than a price floor is that you can pull the average low income upward while still keeping many 9, 10, and 11 dollar per hour jobs for the least qualified individuals that would otherwise be lost.

 

[Chou Toshio]

@ ability of unregulated markets to manage themselves--

 

[JermemGoffdoff]

Chou Toshio
The problem, I feel, with incentives and taxation as a mechanism, is that they would have to be proportionate to company income for them to have any significant impact, which would mean they could end up being severe or unpredictable, and they would also be difficult to enforce.

Although it is tempting to try and predict the effects of a minimum wage hike, it is important to consider that data is prone to framing biases that could result in erroneous conclusions that serve particular interests. For instance, Alan Greenspan, chairman of the largest compendium of financial data in the entire country, was still unaware of the economic implications of his own policies even as their consequences were unfolding before his eyes in 2007.

The minimum wage isn't the only threat to low-wage workers. If the minimum wage doesn't cause poor people to lose jobs, automation will. Redbox, for instance, replaced Blockbuster as the main distributer of DVD rentals in the country. Target is opening a concept store next year that will replace nearly all of its workers with robots.

This might seem like an argument against minimum wage, but I would argue that the threat of labor competition makes it even more important to protect workers' bargaining capacities by instituting a wage floor. It is, after all, the threat of competition that causes workers to tolerate substandard conditions in the first place. Without a wage floor, forces depressing labor prices will only become stronger in the face of the growing threat of automation, causing intense stress among our most vulnerable populations.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Chou Toshio
The problem, I feel, with incentives and taxation as a mechanism, is that they would have to be proportionate to company income for them to have any significant impact, which would mean they could end up being severe or unpredictable, and they would also be difficult to enforce.

Although it is tempting to try and predict the effects of a minimum wage hike, it is important to consider that data is prone to framing biases that could result in erroneous conclusions that serve particular interests. For instance, Alan Greenspan, chairman of the largest compendium of financial data in the entire country, was still unaware of the economic implications of his own policies even as their consequences were unfolding before his eyes in 2007.

The minimum wage isn't the only threat to low-wage workers. If the minimum wage doesn't cause poor people to lose jobs, automation will. Redbox, for instance, replaced Blockbuster as the main distributer of DVD rentals in the country. Target is opening a concept store next year that will replace nearly all of its workers with robots.

This might seem like an argument against minimum wage, but I would argue that the threat of labor competition makes it even more important to protect workers' bargaining capacities by instituting a wage floor. It is, after all, the threat of competition that causes workers to tolerate substandard conditions in the first place. Without a wage floor, forces depressing labor prices will only become stronger in the face of the growing threat of automation, causing intense stress among our most vulnerable populations.

I would say that the system (the market) is too complex to truly predict the outcome of a $15 min wage. I also agree that (depending on the actual market forces), it's more than possible that the net effect could be good.

I also share your concerns on automation/technology's impact on labor. In fact, there's a whole thread I started about it here: http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/automation-mechanization-efficiency-and-people.3543284/

That said, what you're saying there makes no sense. If cheaper labor unregulated by the price floor (robots have no minimum wage) is readily available, a price floor on human labor will do nothing but to strengthen the incentive to drop as many low skill jobs as possible.

Ie. AI, robotics, cloud, etc. will decrease demand for human labor, and that is a social concern-- but a price floor is a policy that will only worsen that problem, not alleviate it.

(Price floors and automation are both job cutters)

 

[JermemGoffdoff]

That said, what you're saying there makes no sense. If cheaper labor unregulated by the price floor (robots have no minimum wage) is readily available, a price floor on human labor will do nothing but to strengthen the incentive to drop as many low skill jobs as possible.

Ie. AI, robotics, cloud, etc. will decrease demand for human labor, and that is a social concern-- but a price floor is a policy that will only worsen that problem, not alleviate it.

(Price floors and automation are both job cutters)

The Federal Minimum Wage should be seen mainly as a tool for the labor force. It prevents companies from playing games with their employees, threatening to lower their wages to unfair lows in return for higher productivity. As such, the main reason for its existence is for negotiation.

The reason why I believe the threat of automation makes the min. wage necessary is that I honestly believe that human labor is ultimately the preferred alternative to most corporations. Humans are easy to program, they maintain themselves, and they can adapt to changing conditions readily. They are also a pleasure to work with, and in cases like Starbucks, are vital for maintaining their customer base. Capital, on the other hand, require extensive maintenance at the cost of the company, and requires expensive labor to readjust. The threat of automation is not mainly a reduction of demand for labor, rather the threat, in itself, is a problem to be concerned with. It engenders fear among the labor force, leading it to accept lower wages in exchange for higher productivity. The minimum wage provides security against this threat. It is no coincidence that since 2005, the real value of the minimum wage has reached the price-floor for the first time since its inception. This effect can be explained as a decoupling of prices with wages. Workers are no longer concerned with what their work gets them, rather they are simply happy to have a job. Thus, markets have shifted, raising prices to cater to populations that control capital, and therefore the wealth of the nation.

 

[tehy]

robots are incredibly cheap and don't sue for sexual harassment

the minimum wage does provide security against that threat insofar as it also gets rid of some workers. it is what it is.