Social Security Again Again???

[Mr._johngalt]

Hey, this is 3 in a row (this is called "galting" for you newbies).

Re. the EPI (from Wikipedia) and Jeff Faux, Barry Bluestone, Robert Kuttner, Ray Marshall, Robert Reich and Lester Thurow..............looks to me like
they would have invited Marx and Lenin if they were still alive.

JG

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles We can cite sources all day long, and attack each on their biases. But address the example ... it is quite logical a "minimum" wage must create challenges, since it interferes with a vibrant employment market. One can choose to ignore that reality in order to attempt to achieve some goal ... but it will always result in unintended, negative consequences.

My cousin did one of the minimum wage studies through the University of Minnesota. She is a respected Phd economist that would never cut corners. She and her team concluded a raise in the state minimum wage would have a positive economic effect.

The epi article says:

Over 650 economists, including five Nobel Prize winners and six past presidents of the American Economics Association, recently signed a statement stating that federal and state minimum wage increases “can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed”

I defer to the economists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr._johngalt See, this stuff is really not that hard. JG

Yeah, that's what Bush Jr. thought.

[greg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet 8,102,456 Forecast based on econometrics.

A couple of weeks ago as the population was passing 300,000,000 I heard someone on the radio say that in 2043, given current projections, the population would be 400,000,000. That's a healthy chunk of folks, most working. I think population increases combined with wage increases gives SS a better chance too.

[Craig]

You defer to your economists, I'll see your bet with my economists, and raise the bet, with logic.

Martha, I know we won't agree on this, and it has been debated ad nauseam over the years. The catching point is always the specific increase ... your economists will believe the latest rise (whatever it might be) is just right. Enough to help the lower paid, but not enough to cause businesses to toss them overboard. Central planning at its (intended) best. Folks like me believe that businesses don't enslave people, they employ them ... and if they need more employees, and not enough candidates apply, then the pay goes up.

I worked plenty of low paying jobs, starting at $1 per hour in 1970, flipping burgers. I seldom had the luxury of working for companies covered by minimum wage laws, and I was "forced" to put myself through three college degrees in order to advance economically. No one gave it to me. I have plenty of empathy for the lowly paid, I love to leave a big tip for good service, and I like to hire people at just a little above market and give them opportunities to advance their careers and their lives. But ... forcing businesses to pay people better is simply not viable.

[Goonie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr._johngalt I vote more fence (double strand razor wire) over a much longer area, plus more firepower (land mines are an idea). Hey, if the Dems get us out of Iraq, how about redeploying all of those troops to border patrol? See, this stuff is really not that hard. JG

I'm with you JG, come in legally or don't come in at all!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Hopefully. They should redirect it to fund "Spanish as a second language" classes in all the public schools.

Do they teach "English as a second language" in Mexico? Bet not! Teach ENGLISH as a first language to all kids, and English as the required language for all immigrants! My ancestors had to learn it that way, or they wouldn't have lasted too long in this country, seeing as there aren't to many in these parts that speak Hungarian and such.

And wouldn't it be discrimination to only teach Spanish "as a second language"? What about Chinese? Or Italian? Or Haitian? Or any other language under the sun!

Of course, that may just be my opinion.

[Patrick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goonie Do they teach "English as a second language" in Mexico? Bet not! Teach ENGLISH as a first language to all kids, and English as the required language for all immigrants! My ancestors had to learn it that way, or they wouldn't have lasted too long in this country, seeing as there aren't to many in these parts that speak Hungarian and such. And wouldn't it be discrimination to only teach Spanish "as a second language"? What about Chinese? Or Italian? Or Haitian? Or any other language under the sun! Of course, that may just be my opinion.

I was being facetious. But, since the illegals don't want to learn English, our kids will have to learn Spanish in order to communicate with them.

[Goonie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick I was being facetious. But, since the illegals don't want to learn English, our kids will have to learn Spanish in order to communicate with them.

About "I was being facetious"...sorry I didn't catch it....sometimes I'm a bit dense between the ears....esp. before lunch!

Some of the 'illegal's' kids around here already speak English better (and better English) than a lot of the other kids around here....maybe we ought to have them tutor some of our local kids!

From listening to some of our neighborhood kids, and the kids they hire as 'summer help' at work, I wonder if the schools still teach Grammar....sure doesn't seem like it! :

[greg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles You defer to your economists, I'll see your bet with my economists, and raise the bet, with logic. . . . and I was "forced" to put myself through three college degrees in order to advance economically. No one gave it to me. . . .

And as I see things so far, your logic/reasoning has blinders on. I believe the 'three colleges' already existed w/ teachers, etc., when you were ready to go to school. They were provided by mostly benevolent others for your use. In the most real sense, it was mostly given to you by other good folks and/or gov't. But yes, you paid for a small slice of that total package.

So often . . . some folks don't even see their own blinders. Ahhhh, well. Good luck with your vision and resulting logic.

[Craig]

I see. So much for getting to know each other better. I owe it all to government. Thank you for setting me straight, Greg.

[donheff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by disEntropy Greg A couple of weeks ago as the population was passing 300,000,000 I heard someone on the radio say that in 2043, given current projections, the population would be 400,000,000. That's a healthy chunk of folks, most working. I think population increases combined with wage increases gives SS a better chance too.

So do most economists which is one of the reasons most of them believe in a robust immigration program. Please don't read that comment as endorsing a robust illegal immigration program.

[greg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles I see. So much for getting to know each other better. I owe it all to government. Thank you for setting me straight, Greg.

If you reread what I said, you'll see that I didn't say "We owe it all to gov't." You're twisting what I said into something I didn't say. So much for getting to know each other better. You're welcome, Charles.

[greg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff So do most economists which is one of the reasons most of them believe in a robust immigration program. Please don't read that comment as endorsing a robust illegal immigration program.

I agree with you donheff. I think it would be a serious mistake to make immigration policy based on some extra SS benefit that would accrue to retired folks. A policy should be developed that takes into consideration the best interests of the whole nation, not some special interest group. That said, maybe now "The more, the merrier." It's now time to start considering all the facts and how we'll shape our futures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff So do most economists which is one of the reasons most of them believe in a robust immigration program. Please don't read that comment as endorsing a robust illegal immigration program.

Not only that, with the slow population growth in developed nations, a program that I was watching said that these same nations would be 'competing' for immigrants. Our whole economic system is based on growth, without a growing population you end up like Japan in the 90's.

[bpp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat Not only that, with the slow population growth in developed nations, a program that I was watching said that these same nations would be 'competing' for immigrants. Our whole economic system is based on growth, without a growing population you end up like Japan in the 90's.

Japan in the 90's was due to a deflating bubble, not population dynamics. Japan in the 2000's is doing better, with lower (actually I think negative by now) population growth. William Bernstein once noted that stock markets seem to do better in countries with higher per capita GDP, so one might imagine that increased per capita productivity might be more important than population growth.

Or not. Just a thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bpp Japan in the 90's was due to a deflating bubble, not population dynamics.

The deflating bubble was due in part to the population dynamics. Prices exceeded demand. Demand was reduced due to a population not increasing as fast!

[donheff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bpp Japan in the 90's was due to a deflating bubble, not population dynamics. Japan in the 2000's is doing better, with lower (actually I think negative by now) population growth. William Bernstein once noted that stock markets seem to do better in countries with higher per capita GDP, so one might imagine that increased per capita productivity might be more important than population growth. Or not. Just a thought.

Well, there is a reassuring thought. I will support a sensible immigration program (i.e. one that continues to encourage a substantial input of new-comers) since the economists tell me that will be good for the nation's economy long term. But if the stop-em now voices win the day, maybe I can look forward to an OK market anyway

[youbet]

Population growth has its pros and cons as it relates to the economy. But eventually, there could be a point where there is too much population for terra firma to sustain any additional growth, say two or three more doublings. I wonder what we do then? How will our children grandchildren great grandchildren cope when there just aren't resources for any additional population growth?

Since we won't be hear to worry about it, do we just leave it to future generations to figure out?

[Patrick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet Population growth has its pros and cons as it relates to the economy. But eventually, there could be a point where there is too much population for terra firma to sustain any additional growth, say two or three more doublings. I wonder what we do then? How will our children grandchildren great grandchildren cope when there just aren't resources for any additional population growth? Since we won't be hear to worry about it, do we just leave it to future generations to figure out?

Have just enough offspring to replace those who die. Otherwise some people will starve.

[donheff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet How will our children grandchildren great grandchildren cope when there just aren't resources for any additional population growth? Since we won't be hear to worry about it, do we just leave it to future generations to figure out?

Stephen Hawking says we have 1000 years to get off the planet. Tell your reps to fund NASA. :