Economic Recovery in America

[fhdz]

I assume most of y'all are in favor of some sort of income redistribution?

If so, what form would you prefer?  Monthly check?  Refundable tax credit?  Make-work jobs for the unemployed and/or underemployed?  Housing vouchers? 

Who should get it?  What's the income cap?  24K for a single, 48 for a family of 4?  All 99%?

I'm not a huge fan of income redistribution, but I don't intend these questions ironically.  And I think with winner take all markets a reasonable case can be made for redistribution.

I'd guess the make-work projects are the best. My old high school is still playing their football games in a stadium built by one of those things back in the 30s. It's a solid asset still providing a function decades later. Much better than just dumping cash into black holes or digging and re-filling ditches.

This.

Not to mention the possibility for monuments, murals, national park maintenance, etc etc etc which could be undertaken in addition to more functional engineering projects.

[Jacob]

Except, for instance, the New Deal.

There is a HUGE difference between 25% unemployment and 15%.

Indeed. There's also a huge difference between 15% and 5%.

I'm estimating the difference to be about 10 percentage points in both cases.

[DGuller]

Except, for instance, the New Deal.

There is a HUGE difference between 25% unemployment and 15%.

Indeed. There's also a huge difference between 15% and 5%.

I'm estimating the difference to be about 10 percentage points in both cases.

That's correct.

[fhdz]

Except, for instance, the New Deal.

There is a HUGE difference between 25% unemployment and 15%.

Indeed. There's also a huge difference between 15% and 5%.

I'm estimating the difference to be about 10 percentage points in both cases.

Looks like somebody had his coffee this morning!

[Admiral Yi]

Make work projects have a couple drawbacks.  A little tough for anyone but young, fit men (cue Meri) to perform outdoor physical labor.  Plus it wouldn't affect the incomes of those not in the program.  The prompt for this thread was declining wages, not unemployment.

[fhdz]

Raise the federal minimum wage to $10-11. That's equivalent, given inflation, to the federal minimum wage considered acceptable in 1969.

[jimmy olsen]

That would certainly help wages, but it would hurt the unemployment rate. Would the benifit of higher wages in some jobs outweigh the harm in lost employment in others?

[mongers]

Can we now bury 'trickle down' ?

[fhdz]

That would certainly help wages, but it would hurt the unemployment rate. Would the benifit of higher wages in some jobs outweigh the harm in lost employment in others?

1) It wouldn't hurt the unemployment rate as much as you think. It actually might not hurt it at all. Minimum wage jobs aren't the sort of jobs which are being outsourced or even *can* be outsourced. Call center employees, programmers, etc losing their jobs to Indian workers aren't making minimum wage; they're making at least a couple of dollars an hour more than that and in some cases substantially more than that.

2) Bottom-tier earners receiving a pay hike would almost certainly spend that extra money, boosting the market for non-luxury goods.

3) It seems to me a travesty that we are living in far more prosperous times than the quite prosperous 60s, and yet what is considered an acceptable federal minimum wage has declined in absolute terms. I'm not even talking about an increase in the absolute adjusted minimum wage; I'm talking about a wage that just keeps pace with inflation.

[Admiral Yi]

That would certainly help wages, but it would hurt the unemployment rate. Would the benifit of higher wages in some jobs outweigh the harm in lost employment in others?

It would also drive up the cost of domestically produced goods and services and would not affect fat cats very much.  Hello, UK prices.

No love for a monthly check?  It's the simplest, least-distorting way of transferring income.

The only downside is that it makes it hard to maintain the illusion that the money is being earned.

[fhdz]

It would also drive up the cost of domestically produced goods and services

How did we ever survive the 1960s, then, when the minimum wage was higher relative to inflation?

The fact of the matter is that while wages have been virtually stagnant for the bottom 90% of workers over the last 40 years, the wages of minimum wage earners have declined in absolute terms by about 1/3. Why? And what sort of economic system sees this as not just "unavoidable" but actually beneficial?

[Berkut]

Can you think of a way to change the corporate culture more toward benefitting employees than we currently see that doesn't involve government redistribution? Serious question.

I interpret "corporate culture" as incentive systems.  The only way to incentivize managers to pay more in wages than the market will bear is to nationalize everything.

I don't agree with that.

I think there is a lot of room in the theory of how to maximize long term profitability that there could be considerable room for increasing share of corporate resources given to non executive salaries while still operating under the theory of maximizing overall profitability.

You don't have to abandon the idea of making money to decide that it is in your best interests to pay your people more than you absolutely must.

[Neil]

Compte the is the verb 'to count'
Comte is the title 'Count'
Argent is both money and silver.

Comte d'Argent means Count of Money which is CountDeMoney.

[fhdz]

and would not affect fat cats very much

I wouldn't say my goal is to be punitive.

[fhdz]

Here's an off-the-cuff idea for an arts-based public works project:

Hold a contest. The goal is to design in as much detail as possible a large-scale public work of art. Artists who can apply are limited to those making, let's say, $24000/yr or less. Minority artists are especially encouraged. The theme would be "the American Dream". Crowdsource popular response to the designs. Top three projects get built, thus employing the artist but more importantly employing the work crews, engineers, etc necessary to complete the projects. Artists get feathers in their caps, too, potentially leading to more commercial work which the fatcats can pay for. And we get some cool public art/monuments/what-have-you out of the deal, too, which might result in more tourist dollars in the areas where the works would be located. Plus we'd get some good global press.