How do artificially HIGHER WAGES and "JOB CREATION" benefit the economy?

[untermensche]

You need to watch the same video untermensche. A populist movement knows no race, creed or gender. I voted (as many my friends) for both Obama AND Trump. Does that sound racist to you?

What put Trump over the top was the white hateful fearful racist vote, not you.

His game plan was to specifically appeal to the racist voter.

Who do you think building a wall to keep out Mexicans appeals to?

The most common appeal is to those worried about the competition for jobs and the downward pressure on wages.

No such thing exists from Mexicans or South Americans.

Downward pressure for wages is already as high as possible. That is modern capitalism. It is not a system fit for humans.

It is pure ignorance to think a few desperate people have any effect on Americans finding work or getting paid well.

The enemy of the working man is the capitalist. Not some desperate refugee.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

No one is answering how the Trump-Sanders higher wages and "job creation" benefits the economy.

Who do you think building a wall to keep out Mexicans appeals to?

The hispanics and the blacks who now have jobs. Those working poor are the people who have directly benefited from not allowing illegal border crossing.

There's some truth to this, but far more poor people are hurt, because they will have to pay higher prices as a result. Plus, the trade policies benefit middle-class workers, not the "working poor." So the China-bashing benefits virtually no working poor, but maybe a million or so middle-class workers, at the expense of everyone, including the poor.

There are many labor shortages in industries which are dependent on migrant workers, which hurts all consumers and thus the economy. And some of the job openings have been filled by Americans, who generally have to be paid higher, so that the labor cost is now higher under Trump.


Net gain to the nation by legalizing the undocumented workers

Overall the economy is made worse by Trump's measures to drive away migrant workers who are undocumented. What would make the economy stronger would be to LEGALIZE THE UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS, so consumers could enjoy the benefits of the additional competition from the lower-cost labor -- as we still do actually and have been doing for generations, except that now this benefit is being reduced by Trump's anti-free-market crackdown on these workers.

When these jobs do not get filled, the production suffers so consumers are made worse off. When they are filled by citizens, then the work gets done, but only at higher labor cost, as employers are deprived of the less costly foreign workers, resulting in higher prices and reduced living standard overall.



Why does everyone automatically bow to

the religion of higher wages and "job creation" without ever questioning it?

No one is giving any reason why it's better to have higher-cost labor, as we do when the anti-immigrant laws are enforced. There are many cases where certain laws are not strictly enforced, and we're better off as a result. The anti-immigrant labor laws are a case in point. The U.S. has a higher standard of living because these laws have not been strictly enforced. Now that there is this crackdown, which the nativist xenophobes want, the prices will get a push upward, causing a net reduction in the American standard of living.

The topic question is: How do artificially higher wages and "job creation" benefit the economy?

Trump's higher wages and "job creation" is "artificial" in that it forces up the cost of living, by driving up labor cost without any improvement in production.

No one is answering why this is good for the economy. To just quibble over the meaning of "artificial" is a phony and dishonest response to the question.

How does the Trump-Sanders philosophy of driving up labor cost, with no improvement in the production, lead to any net benefit to all the citizens, i.e., to all the consumers who then have to pay higher prices and thus suffer a lower standard of living?

The wage increases and "job creation" are "artificial" if they result in higher cost to consumers but no improvement in the production. I.e., "bringing back the factories" and kicking out some of the immigrant labor, and other measures which make production more costly, do not do anything to improve the production.

Yes, you can name some uncompetitive native workers who benefit from this artificial job creation and higher labor cost, but there is no net benefit to the economy, because it only results in higher prices to ALL consumers, 300+ million Americans, with no improvement in performance or production, i.e., no increase in the goods/services offered. When the entire country has to pay a higher cost but gets nothing for it, that is clearly a net loss to the nation rather than a gain.

They have jobs now that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

Yes, but consumers have to pay higher prices than they would otherwise, as the lower-cost immigrant labor is replaced by higher-cost native workers. Plus also, some of the jobs done before now don't get done at all, under the higher cost to employers. Only some of the jobs abandoned by the foreigners get filled by natives. So it's a net loss to the economy, or net lower standard of living, caused by this change in the economy. Of course there are other factors which still raise the living standard, but this one change in itself -- higher cost but no improved production -- makes the economy worse.

As always, there are winners and losers. But the only winners are a few workers who find employment now at higher cost to society than before, when that same work was done at lower cost. So the whole country loses, while a small number of job-seekers gain a benefit = overall net loss.

And they will begin to vote for Trump as well.

Perhaps. Or maybe they will be hurt as consumers, having to pay higher prices than before. There are already millions now who are paying the price for Trump's trade policies.

But it's true that many uneducated voters imagine that the protectionist and anti-immigrant policies are right for the economy, just as many wrongly thought this in the 1920s and 1930s, when these same misguided policies helped make the Depression much worse than it would have been otherwise.

The corporate controlled globalist media would have you believe Trump is racist and you are sadly one of many who have fallen for the tail wagging the dog. Trump is actually only interested in the working conditions and pay of US citizens.

It's true that the Trump-Sanders economics is one of driving up labor cost, but only artificially, i.e., by forcing employers to pay higher production cost but with no benefit to the production, i.e., no improvement in what is produced and thus no benefit to the consumers who have to pay the higher prices. And about half these consumers are in a lower income category than the new workers who get hired or who get the wage increases. So it's overall a transfer of wealth away from tens of millions of poor Americans to some middle-class workers, and even some upper-class workers, who benefit from the Trump-Sanders economic demagoguery of China-bashing and trade-bashing and employer-bashing and cracking down on immigrant labor.

It was this same demagoguery promoting "working conditions and pay of US citizens" which led to the artificially higher labor costs of the 1920s and 1930s and the "job creation" during the New Deal, driving up costs to all consumers, and thus prolonging the Depression.

This being "interested in working conditions and pay of US citizens" about 90 years ago led to a worse economy for ALL citizens, as consumers, who then had to pay the cost for it. It sounds so beautiful to increase everyone's wages and "create" jobs for them, as long as you don't factor in the cost this imposes onto all consumers who then have to pay for it.

It is the media who have successfully portrayed him otherwise.

Actually, the media generally support the Trump-Sanders economic demagoguery, promoting the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" babble and the higher costs it imposes onto everyone.

Virtually no one is giving any explanation how the artificially higher wages and "job creation" benefit the economy. Everyone just accepts it as a religion which cannot be questioned, as no one posting in this message board is questioning it.

It is just accepted, religiously, dogmatically, blindly, that we need "jobs! jobs! jobs!" and higher wages, or "good-paying jobs" for everyone, like a magic formula to produce a workers' paradise miracle, with no thought to the basic facts of supply-and-demand, and competition, and profit motive, and incentives, which are the real elements which drive the decisions of what to produce, how much to produce, etc.

As we more and more disregard these realities and only pander to the mob demanding "jobs! jobs! jobs!" or "good-paying jobs" and other instant gratifications, a lower standard of living will be the result, as it was 80-90 years ago.

Again. View the video and see this explained far better than I can.

Of course it's easier to pretend the video explains this snake-oil economics you want to believe even though it makes no sense, and surrender your own thinking over to Steve Bannon and other pundits/demagogues who are bellowing the slogans you want to hear.

Obviously you cannot explain how any of this Trump-Sanders demagoguery is benefiting the economy, or the citizens generally. Nor does this video explain anything, but only gives you the orgasm your primitive instincts crave, by hammering away with the same meaningless China-bashing and petty nationalist and nativist slogans to please the mindless mob, without any explanation how the country is made better off with the Trump/Sanders artificially higher wages and job creation.

We had it all before, in the 1920s and 1930s, and the net result was to make the country worse off, not better.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

So then everyone agrees: The point of creating jobs is to provide BABYSITTING SLOTS for crybabies. No? But then . . .

. . . what are they for? The "jobs" Trump is creating (or which Bernie Sanders would create) don't add any value, except as a place into which to put a needy American job-seeker.

What other purpose than this do they serve?

Its a fact. Lower the supply of labor and the price of labor goes up. More employment.

Perhaps, but why is that good? This higher labor price and higher employment doesn't produce anything more than there was before. I.e., there's the same production as before (if not less), except that now it costs more, so 300 million consumers have to pay higher prices than before, and they get nothing in return for this higher cost they pay. That means their living standard goes down.

How is that good? Where's the gain?

The right kind of increased employment or increased cost is the kind which produces more output than before, or improved output. I.e., greater volume or higher quality than before. But when all we have is the increased cost and replacement of some workers by others who do nothing more than the ones they replaced, how is there an improvement in the economy?

You can claim some new workers are hired, but what are they hired for? The difference they make from before is a net injury to the society, not a net benefit. What good is their "work" when the net result of it is to make the society WORSE OFF, not better?

Isn't "work" supposed to produce a benefit? What is the point of "work" which is a net cost or injury to society rather than a net benefit? Why should any "work" be done which results in the society being made WORSE off than if the "work" had not been done, or in this case, if the work had been left to the earlier workers doing it but who didn't cost us as much?

And that is exactly what has happened. Black and hispanic unemployment at record lows.

Most of the new employment is not due to Trump's trade and immigration policies. Kicking undocumented workers out has not produced much new employment.

But for the jobs it did open up, which were taken by Americans because the undocumented workers left, there is no net benefit to the society, but actually a loss, because now that same work/production is more costly than before, which means higher prices, to pay the new costs.

Far less unemployed than anytime during the last 40 years.

Again, that has almost nothing to do with the undocumented workers leaving. But in the few cases where that's the reason, how is the country better off?

I.e., how are we better off than before that we are now paying the higher costs?

No supply of labor has been lowered.

But it has. Measurable so.

Perhaps, but why is that good? Why is a lower supply of labor (and higher labor cost) good? Why is it good now that 300 million U.S. consumers have to pay higher prices for this more costly labor which adds no additional value?

Illegal entry is down with Trump and that's a fact.

Legalize the entry (for those who are working), so they can work here and contribute to the economy. Legalizing it would also reduce "illegal entry."

Those would-be workers aren't here working.

Why is that good? There are shortages which are hurting consumers and driving up prices. Why is it that punishing consumers is always your (and Trump's) solution? Why is it good to punish 300+ million Americans? Why do you think making people worse off is good for the country?

Labor is in short supply now (at least comparatively).

Why do you imagine a shortage is good? Why do you celebrate conditions which are making consumers, or almost all Americans, worse off?

There are no numbers on illegal entry.

There are only numbers on people who tried and failed.

There is no evidence at all that any black person has or wanted any of these jobs that Mexicans do.

In all likelihood there are a few jobs vacated by illegals, or not taken by them, because of the changes, and some of them are now done by citizens probably at higher labor cost. If so, why is that good? It just means consumers have to pay higher prices now, for the same work which would have been done anyway at lower cost.

There's only one explanation how this can be good -- i.e., how it can be good to put people to work who are only replacing earlier workers and costing us more -- i.e., how there's any gain for society when the only difference is that citizens replace Mexicans and now the work costs us more than before.


If these "jobs" are not babysitting slots, then what are they?

And that explanation is that these citizens are a bunch of rabble we need to get off the streets, to keep them out of mischief, and so we put them into these jobs out of pity for them, because they are an eyesore we have to remove and put into job slots to keep them somewhere, like removing garbage which otherwise would smell bad.

This is the only reason which can be given why we need to "bring back the factories" and drive away the undocumented aliens to open up jobs for red-blooded Americans. These jobs are in effect babysitting slots to put those Americans into to get them off the streets. Otherwise why would we want to pay the higher cost for work already being done anyway? It's obviously not the work we're paying for.

If this is not the reason for these "jobs," then what is the reason for them? What purpose are they serving? Why is it good to "create" these jobs which don't add any additional benefit to society other than to open up slots into which to put persons we feel sorry for because they need a job?

Can't anyone see it? These "jobs" being created were already being done earlier, before we "created" them. I.e., that same work was already being done. It was being done by Chinese (or other foreigners) at lower cost, so NO NEW WORK or NEW CONTRIBUTION is being made by these Americans put to work in these "jobs" that we created. Or they were done by immigrants (maybe undocumented) who did them at low cost, but now the same work is done by citizens who have to be paid higher than the immigrants were paid.

Why won't anyone say why this is good for society? All that's happening with this "job creation" is to drive up the cost of getting the work done, while no new work is accomplished. Why won't anyone explain why this is good? How is it good to increase the cost we must pay while we don't get any benefit in return?

If no one is going to answer this, then you're tacitly agreeing that these jobs being created are essentially babysitting slots into which we need to put American crybabies, i.e., rabble, or trouble-makers, or potential trouble-makers we want to keep off the streets.

Is that the purpose of YOUR JOB? I.e., to keep you off the streets? to keep you out of mischief? Is that what "employment" really means? If it's not the purpose of your job, but it is the purpose of these "jobs" being created by Trump (or the "jobs" Sanders would create), what's the difference between you and these Americans we're creating these jobs for?

Why is it that we don't need a babysitting slot for you, but WE DO NEED babysitting slots for these others whose only contribution is to be put somewhere to keep them off the streets? and whose "job" serves no other purpose than to keep them out of mischief? whose "job" was being done just as well before, by the foreigner or the immigrant, but now is being done by the American citizen at higher cost than before and thus at a net loss for the country?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Yes, the supply-and-demand market price, driven by competition, is the best possible price, for labor or anything else.

Supply and demand means you pay the lowest possible price.

For the same product/output, including labor -- for anything being bought/sold. Yes, the lowest price is always the right price, for anything. You can't name any case where any price other than the lowest price is best. Higher price > higher pain, always. It is sadistic to inflict unnecessary pain on anyone, if less pain is possible.

No matter what you pay it is always the lowest possible price in a supply and demand dynamic.

Yes, which is what creates prosperity along with improved production. Inflicting a higher price than necessary never makes sense, and can only make the world worse than it would have been.

This is good if we are talking about wheat or copper or oil.

It's good for anything we pay for. No matter what we're buying, including labor, it's always good for the price to decrease to the lowest possible level while still getting the same output or production.

Being able to pay the lowest possible price for these inert things is good. It makes the economy move and become dynamic.

But forcing a supply and demand dynamic onto living things is immorality.

Calling it a name doesn't change anything. The lowest possible price always ends up producing the best possible outcome for everyone, the greatest benefit, the least suffering. If the price is raised above the supply-demand level, for anything, it increases total suffering in the world.

And it's not true that wheat or copper or oil production doesn't involve living things. These are brought to market one way or another using human labor, and any price for them is also the price needed to pay that human labor, or those living things doing the work to bring it to market.

It's always "living things" being paid the price for anything, to get anything produced, or any service provided.

It too means you are paying the lowest possible price for human labor, . . .

Same as with wheat or copper or oil. Lowest price for these means lowest price for the human labor to provide them to consumers.

. . . reducing humans to their smallest possible cost.

And creating more total production and satisfaction for the millions/billions of consumers, who are humans and whose welfare is increased by paying the lowest possible price to producers/sellers, and whose suffering would increase if a higher price should be imposed onto them.

Forcing humans to survive on the smallest . . .

At the lowest possible cost, yes. That's the way it should be. Every producer should operate at the lowest possible cost to society.

The producers, workers -- yes, all have to perform better, which includes keeping their cost down, to the benefit of all the millions/billions of consumers. "Forcing" workers/producers to perform better, at lower cost, raises the living standard of all, reducing total suffering.

. . . to survive on the smallest possible amounts.

Meaning lower cost and higher standard of living for all consumers. All the costs should be reduced to the smallest possible amounts, in order to produce the highest possible living standard for the billions of consumers. Increasing the price above the lowest possible reduces the total living standard of everyone by forcing them to pay higher than necessary.

Those that promote throwing human labor into a supply and demand dynamic are immoral to the point of being insane.

You mean it's immoral and insane to make everyone better off? Why do you want people to be worse off? The "supply and demand dynamic" makes all consumers, all humans, better off, by forcing the producers to perform better in their function of serving consumers, i.e., making everyone better off. Calling it "insane" doesn't change the fact that it makes everyone better off.

They serve a system and not the reason the system exists, to make the lives of humans better.

That's what producers do when they charge the lowest possible price, by competing, trying to outperform the others, which the supply-demand system incentivizes them to do and thus making all lives better.

A moral system is a system without dictators where the goal is to pay labor the highest possible price.

No, that would make everyone worse off. The goal is to pay the lowest possible price for anything, including labor. That's the system which best serves all the consumers and produces the highest possible living standard.

A moral system serves humans.

That's what supply-demand does. The lowest possible price is what best serves humans.

It does not reduce humans to begging slaves of the system.

It reduces begging, because it increases the living standard of all, giving all consumers more so that they are less desperate than they would be if they had to pay unnecessarily high prices, or pay any price higher than the competitive market price determined by supply-and-demand.

More supply-demand market = less begging, less slavery, less suffering, and everyone better off.

bottom line: There is no reason anyone can give why the price for anything, including labor, should be higher than the market-driven price determined by supply-and-demand and by competition among the producers (including wage-earners).

 

[untermensche]

For the same product/output, including labor -- for anything being bought/sold.

You've immediately drifted into immorality by treating a human the same way as a human product.

You have begun from a position of immorality.

Nothing good will come of it except for a few.

Human progress has nothing to do with capitalism.

Human comfort has nothing to do with capitalism.

Capitalism just happens to be the primitive system in place when human innovation hits some major tipping points. The industrial and technological revolutions. You could add the computer revolution.

All capitalism has done is stopped an equitable distribution of the fruits of human innovation.

That is all it does.

It is an immoral system unfit for humans.

 

[Harry Bosch]

For the same product/output, including labor -- for anything being bought/sold.

You've immediately drifted into immorality by treating a human the same way as a human product.

You have begun from a position of immorality.

Nothing good will come of it except for a few.

Human progress has nothing to do with capitalism.

Human comfort has nothing to do with capitalism.

Capitalism just happens to be the primitive system in place when human innovation hits some major tipping points. The industrial and technological revolutions. You could add the computer revolution.

All capitalism has done is stopped an equitable distribution of the fruits of human innovation.

That is all it does.

It is an immoral system unfit for humans.

I think that you add too much to the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is simply an economic system in which trade and industry are controlled by owners for profit rather than the state. Owners can be individuals, corporations, co-ops, groups, or whatever.

 

[untermensche]

I am talking about what the system called "capitalism" really is.

It is a system of power to prevent equitable distribution of wealth.

That is what capitalism as it exists is.

Human innovation and progress is something entirely different and one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The lowest possible price, including for labor, is always the best price.

No one is giving any reason why wages should be higher than the competitive free market price set by supply-and-demand.

(except that any wage increase is always cheered by the mindless mob)

untermensche: Supply and demand means you pay the lowest possible price.

For the same product/output, including labor -- for anything being bought/sold. Yes, the lowest price is always the right price, for anything. You can't name any case where any price other than the lowest price is best. Higher price > higher pain, always. It is sadistic to inflict unnecessary pain on anyone, if less pain is possible.

You've immediately drifted into immorality by treating a human the same way as a human product.

Your "immorality" word is just an emotional outburst and nothing more.

It's not immoral to make humans better off. The best price for a human to pay is always the lowest possible for the same commodity, no matter what the commodity is. Just as it's best for us to pay the lowest price for a loaf of bread or a TV or a widget, it's also best for us to pay the lowest possible price for labor, for the same work done.

You can't give any example where the buyer/employer should have to ever pay higher than the lowest possible price while also getting the same output/labor/product, as long as producers are competing freely and may refuse any price offered to them as too low.

This lowest price rule is the most humane and moral for setting the price of anything. Any other rule for determining price is worse and leads to a worse outcome than this lowest price rule, i.e., leads to more suffering and pain than this lowest price rule. If you're against the lowest price, for anything, then you're promoting more suffering and pain.

You have begun from a position of immorality.

No, unless "immorality" means making humans better off and reducing suffering to the minimum possible. Because the lowest-price rule, lowest cost, always leads to the best results, most happiness, least suffering, for the same product/output being paid for.

Nothing good will come of it except for a few.

It's best for 100% of humans. Or, you could argue, this rule is bad for a few criminals and tyrants and sadists who want to inflict suffering. But 99.9% of humans benefit from this rule for setting prices for whatever is to be sold, including labor.

When labor, or anything, is priced higher than the lowest possible price, it makes the world worse off, by increasing the total net suffering and reducing the total net happiness, to all.


Bashing "capitalism" babble

Human progress has nothing to do with capitalism.

Human comfort has nothing to do with capitalism.

Capitalism just happens to be the primitive system in place when . . . etc. etc.

None of this rhetoric gives any reason why a buyer should ever have to pay a higher price than that set by a competitive market, where all producers/workers are free to work or sell their commodity/labor at any price they will accept, and all buyers are free to buy or refuse to buy at any price they choose, and no one is prohibited from buying or selling anything at any price they choose. And this means the CLOSEST to a competitive free market as possible, if no such PERFECT market exists in the real world.

Abstract nitpicking over the meaning of "capitalism" is petty crybaby economics. In the real world, humans engage in trade and try to find the best deal, as a buyer or seller.

If anything is immoral, it is interference with the freedom of individuals to buy and sell on their terms.

 

[untermensche]

You've immediately drifted into immorality by treating a human the same way as a human product.

Your "immorality" word is just an emotional outburst and nothing more.

Your dismissal of the most essential element of any human interaction, morality, shows you are unfit to even speak on this issue.

A dictatorial power structure is immoral.

A system based on such structures is immoral to it's core.

You are a lost child.

Like all those who abandon morality in favor of something else.

You can blab on and on, but it is all hollow and meaningless and nothing is heard. It has no center. It has no human connection.

It has no morality.