Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I owned my business long before I got my degree. Getting that degree solidified my belief that I was right all along. Keep raising the cost of doing business and you lose that business. That would be because the business would then not be able to produce at a price to sell.
Glad to see a post without fighting over fire hydrants.
What if I told you I wanted to lower the cost of doing business? Would you say that in that goal we agree?
An economic rule that says that production is the source of demand. According to Say's Law, when an individual produces a product or service, he or she gets paid for that work, and is then able to use that pay to demand other goods and services.
This assumption is often used to claim that money will conform to this will. That is to say when you print more money, the money merely adjusts to Says law since the money merely represents the trade behind it.
Which side of that would you be on? True or untrue?
I just love it when shills like you talk....you always step on it sooner or later.
Mircea,
Why would you do such a thing and step on one yourself? I assume you must know better? Yes the nominal wage index has risen, meaning the dollar amount. Yes, also, that so called real wages are merely a comparison to other numerators which also stain for objectivity. Were I to chose gold, people are being paid much less convertible to gold lately. Choosing food, real estate, silver , etc I can surely show wages are falling against them. My biggest complaint of course it the fall of wages relative to ground rents.
So there you have it: wages are falling against real estate and I find this to be as you say here:
In the hands of the Nobility.....or the Church.
Or more rightly, briefly in their hands since these things are quickly shackled with debt and converted into interest payments.
An economic rule that says that production is the source of demand. According to Say's Law, when an individual produces a product or service, he or she gets paid for that work, and is then able to use that pay to demand other goods and services.
This assumption is often used to claim that money will conform to this will. That is to say when you print more money, the money merely adjusts to Says law since the money merely represents the trade behind it.
Which side of that would you be on? True or untrue?
On face value my knee jerk reaction is that you would then cause hyperinflation. I am still not settled with that. I would prefer a steady slow income growth of 1 to 2% maximum. Even lower is preferable as I am resistent to change. It is what would happen and is happening in this country when we got off the gold standard we began the path we are on now. The trouble I see is we have no it all wanna be economists that think they can tinker with something like intrest rates or money supply and it will have their desired effect when they haven't seen the Einstein effect where for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Yes much of it is due to people like me who are resistent to change.
On face value my knee jerk reaction is that you would then cause hyperinflation.
In this case I agree with Friedman :
"inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.
So that is to say minimum wage shifts the existing money supply. So it cannot cause run away inflation on its own. Higher wages certainly could spark inflation with the kind of monetary policies we have seen lately.
Quote:
I am still not settled with that. I would prefer a steady slow income growth of 1 to 2% maximum. Even lower is preferable as I am resistent to change. It is what would happen and is happening in this country when we got off the gold standard we began the path we are on now. The trouble I see is we have no it all wanna be economists that think they can tinker with something like intrest rates or money supply and it will have their desired effect when they haven't seen the Einstein effect where for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The real problem to me is simple. One can create as much money as they like with no ill effects at all so long as that money creation adds to supply. You are not wrong to suspect that economists are hucksters. I believe they are too. That is why many with whom I agree called it political economy in the 19th century The political economists of the 19th century focused on a class of value called economic rents which have value in exchange but no aggregate values. For example a good plot of land rises in price by 100k , a bank lend against it, and suddenly we have 100k more money but no product. Printing money and inflation at best or stagflation at worst. ...
Quote:
Yes much of it is due to people like me who are resistent to change.
I am far more resistant to change than you since it was said over a hundred years ago.
Objections aside, Henry George may have been arguing for what is really the least offensive tax. As Milton Friedman said almost a century after George’s death: “In my opinion, the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago”
Almost all our ills can be traced to absentee land ownership and bank usury. No money printing to buy the ground . .
I was talking about Real Wages as opposed to Nominal Wages.
You failed to specify, not that it matters....Real Wages are irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Why would you do such a thing and step on one yourself? I assume you must know better? Yes the nominal wage index has risen, meaning the dollar amount. Yes, also, that so called real wages are merely a comparison to other numerators which also stain for objectivity.
BOOOOOOOMMMM!!!!
Real Wages are rising in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Statistical Area.....one of the 1,000+ Economies in the US (that Liberals pretend don't exist).
That debunks your claim, but then even the most simple simpleton would have known that Inflation rates in the US as reported by the pseudo-federal government are nothing more than the aggregated 1,000+ Economies in the US (that Liberals pretend don't exist). Since the US is neither Norway nor Iceland, the Cost-of-Living varies tremendously throughout the US (something Liberals ignore), and that Inflation may or may not mpact the Cost-of-Living in certain areas of the US.
And since it is nothing more than the average, you both should have realized that all it takes is for a couple of very large MSAs (like Chicago, San Francisco, Miami, New York, Boston, Arlington/Fairfax, DC) to drag down the whole US.
You guys need to step up your game.
Not impressed....
Long
term trends in real earnings per worker leave little doubt about the high
elasticity of labor supply in the Los Angles area. In particular, real wages in all sectors, but
FIRE, registered very
modest growth (Services, Government, TCU, Manufacturing, and
Wholesale Trade) or even declined (Retail Trade and Construction) over the 30 year period
examined. Overall, this historical analysis verifies that the prevalent growth pattern in
almost all se
ctors of the Los Angeles economy over the last three decades was that of
demand
-
induced growth within an environment of a fairly elastic labor supply.
Quote:
Quote:
That debunks your claim,
Debunks ? From your own document, and in case there is an ESL problem, modest means crap. You humiliated yourself in a total catastrophic, Apocalypse . Do you even read stuff you post?
Except for, wait for it, FIRE sector which is fed by....wait for it.....:
My biggest complaint of course it the fall of wages relative to ground rents.
Quote:
but then even the most simple simpleton would have known that Inflation rates in the US as reported by the pseudo-federal government are nothing more than the aggregated 1,000+ Economies in the US (that Liberals pretend don't exist). Since the US is neither Norway nor Iceland, the Cost-of-Living varies tremendously throughout the US (something Liberals ignore), and that Inflation may or may not mpact the Cost-of-Living in certain areas of the US.
You'd have to ask the liberals. I believe I said real estate ground rent to wage ratio.
Have some more of your own dirty slop.
Real wages in the FIRE sector rose at a slower rate than employment did during the
1970s and the 1980s. In particular, during
the 1970s, wages registered minimal real growth,
while fluctuating moderately. During the 1980s, however, they rose rather rapidly
registering an over
-
40% cumulative increase by 1987, when they reached their peak. After a
small drop during the period 198
8
-
1990, they continued rising, while FIRE employment was
primarily declining. By 1998, the wage index rose to 187. The relatively strong real wage
growth in the 1980s and 1990s could be due to scarcity of high
-
skill labor and/or
restructuring of the indu
stry.
Quote:
And since it is nothing more than the average, you both should have realized that all it takes is for a couple of very large MSAs (like Chicago, San Francisco, Miami, New York, Boston, Arlington/Fairfax, DC) to drag down the whole US.
You guys need to step up your game.
For what? Where is the competition? You threw another brick and by now for a good deal of privacy.
Forecast:
Real earnings per worker are expected to be rising the fastest in the FIRE sector,
mostly at rates ranging between 1.4% and 1.5%. In the Manufacturing and Service sectors
earnings per w
orker are expected to be growing at decent rates, ranging between 1% and
1.2%. Real wages in the Government, TCU, Construction, Retail Trade, and Wholesale
Trade sectors are expected to be growing quite slowly at rates well below 1%.
Quote:
Not impressed....
Mircea
Then stop looking at your social networking profile.
Micrea is absolutely laugable. The actual amount of money is not significant except in terms of it's relationship to the price of goods.
I don't get Micrea. Some of his posts are magnificent, and then he just loses it badly. I post that my problem is with ground rents aka, real estate to wage ratios, and then he posts a document about the California economy? Talk about cooking up a pork roast in Mecca. In his own document it shows a run away FIRE sector which is driving real wages for them, exactly what I am complaining about.
Actually, he is not. He and gwynedd1 are among the most intelligent, well informed posters who visit here, even though they are occasionally wrong . But something is indeed laughable. To paraphrase Henry Kissinger: "The reason that internet arguments are so bitter is that so little is at stake."
"inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.
So that is to say minimum wage shifts the existing money supply. So it cannot cause run away inflation on its own. Higher wages certainly could spark inflation with the kind of monetary policies we have seen lately.
The real problem to me is simple. One can create as much money as they like with no ill effects at all so long as that money creation adds to supply.You are not wrong to suspect that economists are hucksters. I believe they are too.That is why many with whom I agree called it political economy in the 19th century The political economists of the 19th century focused on a class of value called economic rents which have value in exchange but no aggregate values. For example a good plot of land rises in price by 100k , a bank lend against it, and suddenly we have 100k more money but no product. Printing money and inflation at best or stagflation at worst. ...
I am far more resistant to change than you since it was said over a hundred years ago.
Objections aside, Henry George may have been arguing for what is really the least offensive tax. As Milton Friedman said almost a century after George’s death: “In my opinion, the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago”
Almost all our ills can be traced to absentee land ownership and bank usury. No money printing to buy the ground . .
First higher wages will cause inflation as does higher gas prices or higher raw material costs. There is no could. It is proven. Just look around. Second those economists from the 19th century had a completly different economy to study. The are just too many differences to even compare and use those premises and hypothysis. It is like comparing bananas and snails. They just don't compute.
Your resistence to change is not proven just because you want to believe in the economists of the 19th century.
You agree that those economists are hucksters. They are even worse today. I will tell you where I got my business degree. I got it at a business school in Massachusetts named Nicholls College in Dudley. It is a highly regarded college in business and have sent out many graduates that have made a difference. Did I agree with all my professors, hardly. But they did agree that I knew enough to graduate magna *** laude. So I believe I do know what I am talking about.
To say that printing money will not harm the economy if it is supply sided is off as well. Look printing money only devalues the existing money. Even GDP cannot make up the difference we are printing money today. That is why we are trillions in debt. I do not believe that we need to be debt free but I do believe we cannot continue to spend like drunken sailors and I say we cannot raise wages.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. But something is indeed laughable. To paraphrase Henry Kissinger: "The reason that internet arguments are so bitter is that so little is at stake."
