The "Occupy" Movement

[Fishbone Jones]

Simpson is right and it would seem in agreement with you, Mr. Campbell, about the ends required. Improving things like education systems, especially in the US where they seem to be in a particularly dire state, would accomplish income redistribution by enabling a larger segment of the population to increase their earning power, rather then to find themselves left behind in an economy that will, as always, demand knowledge and innovation as the means to fueling growth.

To an extent, I have to agree with the "Occupy" set's detesting the 1% - or rather, those in that subset who seem to want to preserve their massive slice of the pie by continuing to undermine education. Who is it that the evidently self-loathing morons who support the Tea Party seem to want to pay for these policies? Public sector workers, teachers, and so on. The very people whose job it is to make the systems work - whose efforts set the stage for building the wealth that built our society. Disincentivizing becoming a teacher by underpaying them and underfunding schools is not helping anything. As Mr. Campbell correctly highlights, things like school breakfast and lunch programs have huge potential to improve academic performance for a pretty small investment, and in particular, I'd wager that the biggest bang for the buck would come in neighbourhoods which tend to have higher poverty levels, because those kids are at a great risk of being caught up in a poverty trap - lacking the education necessary to get themselves out of poverty into success.

You've been warned before, more than once.

You know, from past experience that there are Tea Party supporters and members here.

You have been told to stop vilifying and denigrating them, but you just can't seem to grow up.

Welcome to the Warning System.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[a_majoor]

Milton Friedman owns #occupy (and reaching forward in time to do so as well; ignorance of basic economics is a long standing problem):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi-D24oCa10&feature=player_embedded

 

[Redeye]

You've been warned before, more than once.

You know, from past experience that there are Tea Party supporters and members here.

You have been told to stop vilifying and denigrating them, but you just can't seem to grow up.

Welcome to the Warning System.

Milnet.ca Staff

Pardon me, and I submit this with all  due respect... but this is nonsense. I was reproved for using a particular slur against members of the Tea Party, which I stopped. Members of this board frequently make comments of this nature against political parties as they see fit. Why is one movement exempt, exactly? Because some people support it? Well, I'm pretty sure that there are people who support the Liberal Party, which your own signature for quite a while attacked. I'm pretty sure we have NDP supporters who happen to serve as well. There are members of the CF who've been quite supportive of the Occupy movement in various forms, and members of army.ca as well obviously.

My position on the Tea Party is that an organization whose membership seems to be beneficiaries of social programs like Medicare and Social Security in the United States, and is well documented to be heavily funded and astroturfed by the very "crony capitalists" that some claim they oppose, and whose policies are bent on dismantling those programs that these people so rely on are essentially self-loathing. That's my opinion. If it offends people, fine. However, last time I checked, we didn't have laws against that, nor does this board prevent people from doing so with respect to a myriad of groups. I find myself offended by many of the remarks made about members of movements to which I don't belong to, but whose rights to express themselves I support. I expect that's part and parcel of such exchanges. Why should Tea Partiers be any different, exactly?

I'll refrain from any such comments in the future, however, I don't think it's reasonable that some sort of double standard is being applied.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Redeye, What you're not getting is, just like calling the by-law offcers, once someone complains and it is brought to the staffs attention, then it becomes an issue.

A complaint was made about something that would normally slip by us as just "stuff" but then we asked you several times to knock it off, both on site and via PM's, and then you still come back and call folks "morons, etc".........

Exactly what part of those messages did you think we weren't serious about?

 

[ballz]

Milton Friedman owns #occupy (and reaching forward in time to do so as well; ignorance of basic economics is a long standing problem):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi-D24oCa10&feature=player_embedded

I could probably take my grandmother to school on economics too, it wouldn't be much of a feat.

He sounds like another Kevin O'Leary to me, applying basic supply-side theory without any reasoning skills whatsoever, to support his own agenda. His minimum wage argument is humorous in a sad way, especially considering the Occupy's complaint is already that top 1% is getting paid too much. They could make counter his argument by saying there should be a "maximum" wage, that way CEOs making 4 million a year would have to go down to 1 million a year (oh the poor CEO... ) and then the 3 million saved per year could be used to hire more people at the minimum wage.

It has little, if anything, to do with minimum (or maximum) wages since inflation would occur anyway and nullify the effect. If, in his example, McDonald's really wanted to increase the amount of business they're doing by "hiring more young people but they can't afford to," McDonald's has could just trim some of that fat from top in order to afford for hiring more workers.

His argument for lowering minimum wage basically equates to the 1% keeping all their wealth, and the 99% being the ones that redistribute to the poor. So please, explain to me why the low wages earners should all take a cut in their pay so that more people can earn low wages, and the high-wage earners shouldn't have to as well?

It's foolish, and embarrassing if you can't see through it.

 

[Redeye]

Milton Friedman was the main proponent of supply side economics, the head of the "Chicago School". I used to be quite an adherent of their ideas, until I realized that they don't really work, and the Chicago School's work, while interesting, isn't what I'd call an answer to anything.

Your assessment strikes me a generally correct, though - without addressing the increasingly larger share of the pie held by the so-called 1% while the middle class watches their lifestyle slip away we're not fixing anything. The status quo strikes me as not good, and there's no reason it cannot be addressed in some form.

What I hope, of course, comes out of the Occupy concept is an increased engagement - more people talking about more ideas and ultimately casting more votes, because voter apathy, especially among youth who see no reason to be involved, is what's enabling the problem.

I could probably take my grandmother to school on economics too, it wouldn't be much of a feat.

He sounds like another Kevin O'Leary to me, applying basic supply-side theory without any reasoning skills whatsoever, to support his own agenda. His minimum wage argument is humorous in a sad way, especially considering the Occupy's complaint is already that top 1% is getting paid too much. They could make counter his argument by saying there should be a "maximum" wage, that way CEOs making 4 million a year would have to go down to 1 million a year (oh the poor CEO... ) and then the 3 million saved per year could be used to hire more people at the minimum wage.

It has little, if anything, to do with minimum (or maximum) wages since inflation would occur anyway and nullify the effect. If, in his example, McDonald's really wanted to increase the amount of business they're doing by "hiring more young people but they can't afford to," McDonald's has could just trim some of that fat from top in order to afford for hiring more workers.

His argument for lowering minimum wage basically equates to the 1% keeping all their wealth, and the 99% being the ones that redistribute to the poor. So please, explain to me why the low wages earners should all take a cut in their pay so that more people can earn low wages, and the high-wage earners shouldn't have to as well?

It's foolish, and embarrassing if you can't see through it.

 

[a_majoor]

His argument for lowering minimum wage basically equates to the 1% keeping all their wealth, and the 99% being the ones that redistribute to the poor. So please, explain to me why the low wages earners should all take a cut in their pay so that more people can earn low wages, and the high-wage earners shouldn't have to as well?

Sigh

The minimum wage argument has nothing at all to do with the wages of the remainder of the corporation (or the economy as a whole), it is entirely predicted on the value of unskilled labour. If I try to sell you something for more than you think it is worth, you will either forgo the purchase or go to another vendor who offers the item at the price you are willing to pay. Since minimum wages are set by law, you don't have the option to find an alternative provider (hiring someone for less money), so the solution becomes forgoing the purchase of unskilled labour, which leaves a large number of young, unskilled workers without the ability to get the work experience that makes their labour more valuable (i.e. becoming able to perform higher paying jobs).

You yourself are to "blame" for CEO's making large amounts of money; you patronize their establishments and buy their goods and services because they are offered more cheaply and efficiently than anyone else can; their market worth is determined by your buying patterns. You probably applaud their efforts too every time you look at your mutual funds. As for inflation eating your and their gains, blame the politicians for devaluing money and causing inflation in the first place.

As for the efficiency of the Chicago School, the US jumped out of a deep recession and Keynesian "Stagflation" in less than two years and the economy grew by 33% in seven years (the net growth was the equivalent to the entire economic output of West Germany at the time, so unless you want to argue that West Gemany was some sort of economic basket case...), demonstrating beyand any doubt that Supply Side economics works. First checksum argument is to compare the unemployment and economic growth during the first three year of the Reagan administration with the results of the "stimulus" spending during the first three years of this administration (note: to calculate the true unemployment rate you need to add back all the millions of people who are no longer actively seeking work, the true unemployment rate is much higher than 9%). Trend analysis during these three year periods will also be instructive. Second checksum argument is the "Common Sense Revolution" in Ontario; despite rather heavy cutbacks in Federal transfers and Federal tax hikes, Ontario was netting $20 billion more in tax receipts by the end of the Harris years. If the tax cuts had been matched by corresponding spending cuts, the current financial crisis would be either moot or far milder as it is entirely caused by excessive debt and can only be resolved by deleveraging or eliminating debt. Get ready for the sort of "haircuts" that bondholders of sovereign debt have been threatened with in the Eurozone.

 

[vonGarvin]

voter apathy, especially among youth who see no reason to be involved, is what's enabling the problem.

^^^^^
This is so true (edit by me).  Voter apathy at all age groups (but yes, especially among younger Canadians of voting age) is the problem

 

[ballz]

The minimum wage argument has nothing at all to do with the wages of the remainder of the corporation (or the economy as a whole), it is entirely predicted on the value of unskilled labour.

Yes, it does. The "value" of unskilled labour is determined by your demand for it and the supply available. If you want it to expand your business, you will pay more for it. You will therefore find ways to pay for it, such as cutting your salary expenses in other places.

If I try to sell you something for more than you think it is worth, you will either forgo the purchase or go to another vendor who offers the item at the price you are willing to pay. Since minimum wages are set by law, you don't have the option to find an alternative provider (hiring someone for less money), so the solution becomes forgoing the purchase of unskilled labour, which leaves a large number of young, unskilled workers without the ability to get the work experience that makes their labour more valuable (i.e. becoming able to perform higher paying jobs).

Thanks, I got that the first time when Milton said it, I don't need you to repeat it. Like I said, it's wrong. The "solution" your coming to is a garbage and if you were working for me and came to me with that solution, I'd fire you. Any business, small or large, that is serious about growth and making a profit is not going to "forego the purchase" of unskilled labour that they need in order to expand, they're going to find a way of paying for it.

The solution for a small business-owner is to say "I'm paying myself 150k a year a turning a 50k a year profit... if I pay myself 100k a year, I can hire two workers at minimum wage and take on more business, which will give me the ability to take on more work and eventually being able to pay myself 175k and turn a 100k profit instead."

That solution for a large corporation (that is serious about expansion/profts... which the large corporations in the US are not), is no different. "We're paying the CEO and the CFO 60x what we're paying the average employee. If we just pay them each 50x what we're paying the average employer, we can hire 20 more "average" employees, take on more work, and..."

You yourself are to "blame" for CEO's making large amounts of money; you patronize their establishments and buy their goods and services because they are offered more cheaply and efficiently than anyone else can; their market worth is determined by your buying patterns.

Actually no I am not to blame, poor decision-making by Boards of Directors (not unlike the poor solution you came to) is to blame for those CEO's making more money than they should be making, and those poor decisions would have, and *should* have, led to the failure of those companies... if it weren't for taxpayer's money bailing them out. Very unfortunate that we did that.

As for inflation eating your and their gains, blame the politicians for devaluing money and causing inflation in the first place.

If you had any clue of the economics that you say are so "basic," you would release my inflation comment has absolutely nothing to do with "eating" gains. Raising a minimum wage causes inflation and putting a "max" wage would cause deflation. That is simple, first-year university level economic theory. If you raise minimum wage, companies will charge a higher price for their product in order to afford for it. That's inflation. The whole point to that comment being that his assessment that "companies can't afford to hire new workers at the minimum wage because it's too high" is complete BS, since inflation would take affect and it does not change how much a company can or cannot afford.

 

[Edward Campbell]

But, ballz inflation is a much, much worse problem than minimum wages. Inflation sucks the money away from the bottom 20% at a much more onerous rate than it does for any other group. While I am not an absolute opponent of minimum wages - they do have a role - they do, in fact, price the unskilled out of the job market.

Here, in Texas, indeed throughout the USA and even in Eastern China, too, we have a "safety valve:" illegal migrants who will do the low skill, dirty jobs for wages that are appropriate to the task at hand, which is to say 50%, 35%, even 20% of the minimum wage. In China even the governments get in on the act. The streets in Shanghai are immaculate, compared to, say, Ottawa, because there are legions of street sweepers working 24/7 - employed by the city at about 15% of the lawful minmum wage (yes, China has minimum wage laws but they apply only to people with the right visa in their internal passport). Clean streets matter when you are selling your city as the financial centre of Asia but, given the minimum wage in Shanghai (the highest in China, I think), the streets would either be less tidy or there would be more machines doing the work.

 

[ballz]

But, ballz inflation is a much, much worse problem than minimum wages.

Yes, rampant inflation is a big problem. Inflation is caused by a variety of things, minimum wage a fairly small factor (and not a factor at all if minimum wage doesn't *change*). Inflation and inflation-control and all the things that come with it is sort of a whole different discussion that i don't think relates much to Milton's suggestion that the low-wage earners should take a cut in pay so that other people can earn low-wages as well, or to Thucyclides suggestion that a CEO making gross amounts more than an average worker doesn't stop a company from being able to hire more average or low-income workers.

I simply wanted to point out that if minimum wage is "too high" that a companies will simply raise their prices, and the effect of that inflation will make neither the minimum-wage earner any better/worse off or the company any better/worse off. People would then be making more money, but paying more money for goods.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I read your earlier response as suggesting that in the face of rising minimum wages, and they have risen, steadily, over the years, in North America, in Europe and even in China, then employers could still hire more minimum wage workers and let inflation take care of the problem. The cure, inflation, is worse than the disease, chronically high unemployment amongst unskilled young people. Plus, of course, what we see in the face of higher and higher minimum wages is increased mechanization and automation - machines don't get hourly wages and a few skilled, high cost but high value workers can maintain a lot of machines.

But, I suspect that we are agreed that inflation need not result if minimum wages do not increase; it's just that I have seen static minimum wages in my 70 years on the planet.

 

[ballz]

But, I suspect that we are agreed that inflation need not result if minimum wages do not increase

We are agreed on that for sure. I don't / am not advocating raising minimum wages, but I am sure you understand that.

You read my earlier response slightly incorrectly. I didn't mean to say "let inflation sort it out," I just meant that inevitably (for better, for worse, or for net zero) the employer would raise prices in response to higher minimum wages. I am certainly experiencing that here in Newfoundland as we speak... and it's pissing me off >

 

[cupper]

But, I suspect that we are agreed that inflation need not result if minimum wages do not increase;

Please clarify, are you saying that if we don't raise minimum wages we won't have inflation?

 

[Edward Campbell]

No, But a 'static' minimum wage will not further fuel inflation. It is, as stated, the increases - which have been relentless since 1920 - that are inflationary.

 

[OldSolduer]

If these occupiers want to help, tell them to go the the Reserve that the Red Cross flew into and help them out.

And the Liberal/CBC shill on Newsworld this morning is making my BP rise.

 

[aesop081]

Occupy......who ?

 

[a_majoor]

It seems you are arguing points which are demolished in economics 101.

1. Supply and demand are the determining factors in any economic pricing decisions, including wages. I have no "demand" for unskilled labour (most business don't, they need experienced, skilled workers to function) while the supply is fairly high. The true wage set by the market is therefore low. If I want to grow and be profitable I cannot and will not hire inexperienced and unskilled workers (they cost the business money), I will look to ways to make my existing work force more productive, or find low cost labour elsewhere, like China or India. As a very small business owner to be; I have worked the business plan and cannot hire unskilled labour for any price without risking the premature failure of the business due to high training costs and the potential for shoddy products killing sales and reputation. (I'm not going to be making very much money as CEO either...)

2. Inflation is always a monetary  problem, caused by increasing the money supply relative to the size of the economy. As more money enters circulation, the prices of the available goods and services are bid upwards; THAT is the cause of inflation. (It is a sad commentary that I actually was taught this in High School; today's University educated students don't seem to learn this until late in their studies, if at all). The Spanish discovered this in the 1500's by importing tons of silver from the New World; by the time of the Battle of Lepanto (7 October 1571) inflation had risen to the point that the Spanish fleet was rowed by convicts and slaves since they could no longer afford to pay for free rowers. The Serenìsima Repùblica Vèneta could still afford to pay its rowing crews, since Venice had control of its money supply. Spain's economy was eventually ruined by inflation, starving it of resources and ending it's dominance as a global empire by the 1600's.

3. If you want CEO's to make less money, don't purchase goods and services from their companies. It was clearly explained that the supply and demand equations that determine the wages of unskilled workers also applies to the highly skilled or talented; there is a very high demand for quality goods and services that are delivered quickly, cheaply and efficiently, but a limited supply of people who are actually able to create the organizations to do so. This is totally disconnected from the supply and demand for unskilled labour. Like I said, you are the cause of CEO's receiving high wages. About the only thing you have said which was correct is if boards overpay underperforming CEO's, the business deserves to fail (true) and only crony capitalism has saved companies like GM (also true).

 

[ballz]

1. Supply and demand are the determining factors in any economic pricing decisions, including wages. I have no "demand" for unskilled labour (most business don't, they need experienced, skilled workers to function) while the supply is fairly high.

If you have no demand for unskilled labour, then that means you're able to meet the demand for your product/service. If minimum wage was cut in half, and you doubled the amount of minimum wage workers you were employing, your business would not expand since you were already meeting the demand for your customers. You'd just be increasing the supply of your product, and having to lower the price (as I said, lowering minimum wage causes deflation) in order to sell it all.

2. Inflation is always a monetary  problem, caused by increasing the money supply relative to the size of the economy. As more money enters circulation, the prices of the available goods and services are bid upwards; THAT is the cause of inflation. (It is a sad commentary that I actually was taught this in High School; today's University educated students don't seem to learn this until late in their studies, if at all).

You're actually trying to argue with me that raising minimum wages doesn't cause inflation? That's my cue to never bother getting engaged with you again.

Inflation is the devaluing of money, or in other words a general rise in prices (so that you can buy less with $1 today than you could yesterday aka "devaluing" the dollar). Anything that increases prices is a "cause" of inflation. Yes, increasing money supply will increase demand for product which will result in higher prices (and therefore inflation), thanks, I don't need you to point out the things you learned in your economics 101, I've been taught it too. Increasing minimum wage increases productions costs which must be absorbed by the economy. It's called "cost-push" inflation, and it's been proven to happen time and time again. I would expect someone who's as laissez-faire as yourself to know all about the cost-push theory since it is an important argument against increasing minimum wage.

3. If you want CEO's to make less money, don't purchase goods and services from their companies. It was clearly explained that the supply and demand equations that determine the wages of unskilled workers also applies to the highly skilled or talented; there is a very high demand for quality goods and services that are delivered quickly, cheaply and efficiently, but a limited supply of people who are actually able to create the organizations to do so. This is totally disconnected from the supply and demand for unskilled labour. Like I said, you are the cause of CEO's receiving high wages. About the only thing you have said which was correct is if boards overpay underperforming CEO's, the business deserves to fail (true) and only crony capitalism has saved companies like GM (also true).

It is not disconnected from the supply and demand for unskilled labour, and celebrity CEOs are getting paid very far above the equilibrium point of their supply and demand (this is where I have the problem... not that I care about a CEO making the most money, but they're getting overpaid what they're actually worth, and the proof is in the pudding).

And you're wrong thinking if I don't purchase goods from a company the CEO will get a wage cut.... as we have already seen, that won't happen. A bunch of people getting paid low-wages will get laid off, and the skilled workers will get a pay-cut and/or laid off. The CEO will not be affected. We just saw that happen. The fact that the governments had to bail them all out is proof of my claim that the CEOs, CFOs, etc were all being overpaid, since they weren't being paid all that money to make the company fail.

Anyway, I'm not engaging in this with you any more. I obviously gave you too much credit for far too long if you're going to argue with me that increasing minimum wages isn't a (note I said "a" not "the") cause of inflation.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

If all the people giving "the answers" to the worlds economic troubles here are that good then why aren't you running the world right now? :blah: