How come under capitalism . . .

[AthenaAwakened]

Is the argument that poor people will respond to the incentive of being paid to not work they won't work?

No, but maybe, JUST MAYBE MIND YOU, the argument could be that if you paid the poor more, treated them with courtesy and respect on the job, took better safety measures to ensure they went home unharmed; they too would work harder and better.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

No, the argument is that paying the working poor a living wage is bad for them. And if they get food stamps to eke out a living, that's bad too, so cut out food stamps and the safety net. This will encourage them to get off their butts and get a real job. Of course if unemployment, say under GOP president like Bush reaches 10% plus due to financial mismanagement, well its their fault anyway. The way to fix it all is more big tax cuts to the rich and big business. Again, the wisdom of the ages from Arthur Laffer, Grover Norquist, Sam Brownback, Bobby Jindal et al.

Its so obvious once you lay it all out.

You have several items there.

The argument against the living wage is the impact of the people getting it, some people help, some people are hurt by it. The economists who focus against it focus on the people hurt by it

Food stamps: People have different arguments against food stamps. Some based on mooching, some just have a problem on how they spend.

If you are talking unemployment insurance extension, it's the argument about encouraging people not to work

And we've talked about tax cuts encouraging businesses. Your argument against the tax cuts has been against the deficits it creates, not necessarily the job creation/investment.

Again, we now have 7 Nobel laureate economists and several hundred well respected economist telling us studies show that decent minimum wages are not as harmful as many foolish economists seem to think. And in many locations, people working 40 hours at low minimum wages need SNAP benefits to survive. Slashing benefits as recommended by a number of foolish, snarling right winged politicians is under the circumstances, grotesque. Playing to the politics of resentment.

Again, looking at the attitudes of youngest cohorts of Americans, that sort of attitude to the working poor demonstrated by today's crop of ultra-conservatives is going to eventually die a well deserved death. Many of these are telling us, if that is capitalism, to hell with capitalism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

the typical conservative will argue that the poors require disincentives, which usually means less money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder and the rich require incentives, which usually means more money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder?

The problem is you are looking at two very different situations as if they are the same.

The basic choice for the poor is work or leech. The basic choice for the rich is work or leisure.

The "disincentives" are applied to leeching in order to make work a more attractive option. Personally I think a greatly expanded EITC would be a far better approach.

 

[bilby]

the typical conservative will argue that the poors require disincentives, which usually means less money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder and the rich require incentives, which usually means more money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder?

The problem is you are looking at two very different situations as if they are the same.

The basic choice for the poor is work or leech. The basic choice for the rich is work or leisure.

The "disincentives" are applied to leeching in order to make work a more attractive option. Personally I think a greatly expanded EITC would be a far better approach.

I love the way you think that the rich are somehow not leeching if they choose to do fuck all with their worthless lives.

I have no clue WHY you would think such an insane thing; but I love it. It's just so Loren.

It's OK folks; as long as you are in the lucky sperm club, you can call yourself a 'leisure on the rump of society'

 

[AthenaAwakened]

the typical conservative will argue that the poors require disincentives, which usually means less money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder and the rich require incentives, which usually means more money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder?

The problem is you are looking at two very different situations as if they are the same.

The basic choice for the poor is work or leech. The basic choice for the rich is work or leisure.

The "disincentives" are applied to leeching in order to make work a more attractive option.

Why not use incentives for the poor to make work more attractive?

Personally I think a greatly expanded EITC would be a far better approach.

 

[Bomb#20]

No. The argument is that rich people only want things they way they used to be. Back in the day people enjoyed the fact that they could see the shit being piled up on the street from every source. Now they have to create it so other people can appreciate it.

Sorry that makes no sense

You were looking for sense in yet another ksen "Me hate rich people" thread?

(Although as ksen threads go, at least in this one he was unusually forthright as to precisely how interested he is in having his religious bigotry subjected to reasoned analysis.

http: //talkfreethought.org/login.php?do=logout&logouthash=1458064396-df4c339b12b7c5cb389ce2f9b2d9b6ceb1633fd0)

 

[Bomb#20]

the typical conservative will argue that the poors require disincentives, which usually means less money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder and the rich require incentives, which usually means more money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder?

This has no necessary relationship to capitalism at all.

I think you need to get better at recognizing your boogeymen.

Looks to me like he recognizes his boogeymen just fine. He can't tell the truth about them, because he doesn't give a rat's ass whether the things he says about them are true; he only cares whether they're disparaging. So there's no way for him to motivate himself to put in the three seconds of critical thought it would take a person of normal intelligence to understand his boogeymen's arguments well enough to recognize that his caricatures of their arguments aren't what the boogeymen said. But as to recognizing the boogeymen themselves, he has no problem with that -- all he has to do is check whether someone is a fellow member of his religion.

 

[Axulus]

The problem is you are looking at two very different situations as if they are the same.

The basic choice for the poor is work or leech. The basic choice for the rich is work or leisure.

The "disincentives" are applied to leeching in order to make work a more attractive option. Personally I think a greatly expanded EITC would be a far better approach.

I love the way you think that the rich are somehow not leeching if they choose to do fuck all with their worthless lives.

I have no clue WHY you would think such an insane thing; but I love it. It's just so Loren.

It's OK folks; as long as you are in the lucky sperm club, you can call yourself a 'leisure on the rump of society'

Who said anything about the wealthy not working _at all_? You are proposing a false dichotomy of 0 hours vs. 60+ hours of work/week, when the reality is that there are many options between those two extremes as well.

My own situation is a perfect example. I have enough free time to do a side job preparing tax returns and financial statements as a CPA during this tax season. I have an offer to work as a contractor for a local CPA part-time on select projects that I worked on in the prior year, offer good for a project by project basis (he gave me the option to pick which projects I would take on and which ones I didn't want to from a selection of about a dozen projects). Given that any compensation I receive as a contractor will be taxed at almost 55% (for self-employment and income taxes, and then again with state and local sales taxes on any purchases I make), given the amount of income I receive from my other business, you can bet I took this into account in deciding how many hours a week I would accept to work this tax season. I accepted to do more like 5-10 hours/week vs. an offer of up to ~20 hours/week. Had the after-tax compensation been higher (either from an offer to be compensated more per hour or if the taxes were lower), I would've been much more willing to take on additional projects and hours.

Additionally, you really see no difference from a societal and public finances standpoint of someone spending their own earnings or savings vs. someone using public resources for consumption? That's pretty bizarre. That seems to be a case of political bias clouding your mind.

By the way, the kind of decision I faced (the benefits of working more vs. having more free time, if given such an opportunity) would apply under any system: capitalism, communism, socialism, totalitarianism, etc. Basic reality doesn't go away just become the economic system of society is different.

 

[thebeave]

Sorry that makes no sense

You were looking for sense in yet another ksen "Me hate rich and white people" thread?

(Although as ksen threads go, at least in this one he was unusually forthright as to precisely how interested he is in having his religious bigotry subjected to reasoned analysis.

http: //talkfreethought.org/login.php?do=logout&logouthash=1458064396-df4c339b12b7c5cb389ce2f9b2d9b6ceb1633fd0)

FIFY. Remember the classic "White People are Kind of Assholes" thread?

 

[Canard DuJour]

the typical conservative will argue that the poors require disincentives, which usually means less money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder and the rich require incentives, which usually means more money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder?

Coz neoclassical economics :

Take, for example, the economic theory of employment and wage determination. The theory asserts that the real wage is equivalent to the marginal product of labour. The argument goes that each employer takes the wage level as given since with competitive markets no employer can affect the price of his inputs. An employer will employ an additional worker if the amount the worker adds to output - the worker's marginal product - exceeds the real wage. The employer stops employing once the marginal product of the last one has fallen to the same level as the real wage.

This explains the predilection for blaming everything on wages being too high (neoclassical economics can be summed up, as Galbraith once remarked, in the twin propositions that the poor don't work hard enough because they're paid too much, and the rich don't work hard enough because they're not paid enough). The output of the firm is subject to diminishing marginal returns, and thus marginal product falls as output increases. The wage is unaffected by the output level of the firm. The firm will keep on hiring workers until the marginal product of the last worker equals the the real wage.

Since the rational employer stops at that point, the real wage - which the employer takes as given - determines how many workers this firm employs. If society desires a higher level of employment and output, then the way to get it is to reduce the real wage.


- from Steve Keen's Debunking Economics (highly recommended reading)

 

[coloradoatheist]

Coz neoclassical economics :

Take, for example, the economic theory of employment and wage determination. The theory asserts that the real wage is equivalent to the marginal product of labour. The argument goes that each employer takes the wage level as given since with competitive markets no employer can affect the price of his inputs. An employer will employ an additional worker if the amount the worker adds to output - the worker's marginal product - exceeds the real wage. The employer stops employing once the marginal product of the last one has fallen to the same level as the real wage.

This explains the predilection for blaming everything on wages being too high (neoclassical economics can be summed up, as Galbraith once remarked, in the twin propositions that the poor don't work hard enough because they're paid too much, and the rich don't work hard enough because they're not paid enough). The output of the firm is subject to diminishing marginal returns, and thus marginal product falls as output increases. The wage is unaffected by the output level of the firm. The firm will keep on hiring workers until the marginal product of the last worker equals the the real wage.

Since the rational employer stops at that point, the real wage - which the employer takes as given - determines how many workers this firm employs. If society desires a higher level of employment and output, then the way to get it is to reduce the real wage.


- from Steve Keen's Debunking Economics (highly recommended reading)

When discussing minimum wage/living wage do the economists who are against minimum wage use that argument?

 

[ksen]

Sorry that makes no sense

You were looking for sense in yet another ksen "Me hate rich people" thread?

(Although as ksen threads go, at least in this one he was unusually forthright as to precisely how interested he is in having his religious bigotry subjected to reasoned analysis.

http: //talkfreethought.org/login.php?do=logout&logouthash=1458064396-df4c339b12b7c5cb389ce2f9b2d9b6ceb1633fd0)

hahaha, you fell for it

 

[ksen]

the typical conservative will argue that the poors require disincentives, which usually means less money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder and the rich require incentives, which usually means more money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder?

The problem is you are looking at two very different situations as if they are the same.

The basic choice for the poor is work or leech. The basic choice for the rich is work or leisure.

The "disincentives" are applied to leeching in order to make work a more attractive option. Personally I think a greatly expanded EITC would be a far better approach.

I'd hardly classify people willing and able to work but having no jobs available for them to take as "leechers".

 

[coloradoatheist]

The problem is you are looking at two very different situations as if they are the same.

The basic choice for the poor is work or leech. The basic choice for the rich is work or leisure.

The "disincentives" are applied to leeching in order to make work a more attractive option. Personally I think a greatly expanded EITC would be a far better approach.

I'd hardly classify people willing and able to work but having no jobs available for them to take as "leechers".

The argument would be over the percentage of jobs that are that way. Are they avoiding work by not adjusting their skills?

 

[ksen]

Which part of "willing and able" didn't you understand?

 

[Bomb#20]

Coz neoclassical economics :

Take, for example, the economic theory of employment and wage determination. The theory asserts that the real wage is equivalent to the marginal product of labour. ...
This explains the predilection for blaming everything on wages being too high (neoclassical economics can be summed up, as Galbraith once remarked, in the twin propositions that the poor don't work hard enough because they're paid too much, and the rich don't work hard enough because they're not paid enough). ...

​

When discussing minimum wage/living wage do the economists who are against minimum wage use that argument?

Of course not. Just like ksen's OP, Galbraith and Keen misrepresent the arguments they disapprove of, either out of carelessness or out of a desire for rhetorical advantage or both.

 

[ksen]

Maybe conservatives should stop providing us with the rhetorical weapons to cut them with.

 

[Bomb#20]

... their worthless lives.

I have no clue WHY you would think such an insane thing; but I love it. It's just so Loren.

Additionally, you really see no difference from a societal and public finances standpoint of someone spending their own earnings or savings vs. someone using public resources for consumption? That's pretty bizarre. That seems to be a case of political bias clouding your mind.

Well, there are a couple of reasons some people see unproductive rich people as leeching. Bilby may simply define "leeching" as living off other people's stuff, full stop, without regard for whether that stuff was donated voluntarily. A rich guy who didn't do anything for his wealth and was just given it by his productive mother could be said to be leeching off his mother in the same sense that my cats are leeching off me. Personally, I wouldn't call my cats leeches. Loren obviously doesn't define "leeching" that way, but hey, people use words differently. Maybe when bilby has children he'll think of them as leeches.

Contrariwise, some people see it as leeching because they figure when a rich guy lives without working by paying people to do things for him, he's paying them with their own stuff -- they think private property is theft and everything is really owned by the collective. If that's bilby's reason, that would imply that a farmer who grows enough food in his life to retire, and subsequently eats from his stockpile instead of dropping dead behind the plow, now has a "worthless life" and is a leech sucking other people's blood, in bilby's mind.

 

[Bomb#20]

Maybe conservatives should stop providing us with the rhetorical weapons to cut them with.

cite?

Didn't think so.

 

[ksen]

Maybe conservatives should stop providing us with the rhetorical weapons to cut them with.

cite?

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/miron-nationalaffairs-1-5-11.pdf

In looking at the drawbacks of anti-poverty programs, it is important to consider both the direct costs and the less tangible, but still potentially serious, indirect costs. One of the chief direct costs is the way anti-poverty spending alters incentives: Such programs reduce the reasons for potential recipients of income transfers to work and save; the availability of aid — and particularly of aid that is available only as long as one remains below a certain level of income — can discourage people from striving to rise above that income level.

Didn't think so.

I accept your apology.