McDonalds: "What, my peon, you don't work two full time jobs?"

[Berkut]

What I am vastly more concerned about in the meta economy that we are experiencing is this:

The basis of the welfrare state is increased productivity. This is clear from history - as we produce more, we allocate some of that additional production to social services.

200 years ago nobody ever considered that perhaps old people should get a stipend from the government, now it is standard. 100 years ago nobody would contemplate the idea that health care is anything other than something that people who can afford it are entitled to, and the poor had poor healthcare. Etc., etc. I think this is a pretty fundamental truth, and is the primary reason why I am no longer much of a economic conservative, much less a libertarian. Not because I believe that socialism is the best way to go, but rather I believe that human society has made it clear that it is the way we have decided to go, and hence arguments about how we ought to do otherwise are not that interesting to me anymore.

But the problem I see right now is that the system to distribute increased productivity has broken down for some reason.

Using simply numbers, in the last couple decades if we increased the amount we produce per capita from a base level of 100 to, say, 150, it seems like all of that extra 50 "stuff" ought to be distributed throughout society, and some portion of it would (just like as has always happened) go towards expanding the scope of the welfare state in some fashion.

But instead, 49 our of the 50 appears to have gone towards making the very richest a lot richer, and there is nothing left for anyone not in the 1% of the wealthiest, much less any to allocate to increase social scope.

Ideally, one would think that out of our 50 units of increased productivity, we would be spread (say) 35 of it across all income levels, and we would "agree" that 15 would go towards expanding social services into areas that were previously not considered, like healthcare or education or even just straight out welfare payments to the poor.

THAT is the problem, the fundamental problem. Raising the minimum wage does absolutely NOTHING to address it, and in fact would likely make the entire mess worse, not better.

It is treating the symptom of a symptom of a symptom.

[Berkut]

The funny thing about where I've ended up politically, is that I think I am pretty much a socialist.

I support the basic idea that humans have, and will continue, to allocate resources towards the social assistance of humans as a group, rather than the individual concept that people ought to just get what they can out of the system.

The difference I have with what I see out of most of the left though is that I think we should base what level of social spending we want to engage in on the principles of what we can actually afford, what actually works, and what reasoned and careful *economic* evaluation of the factors involved will allow.

Whereas most of the left seems to want to base what we should do on purely emotive rationalization. People should be able to make a living wage, therefore lets just raise the minimum wage! Wallah! People should get healthcare, therefore we should provide it to them, and who cares if we can actually afford to do so. People should be able to go to college, so lets just dump billions into the system so they can, and then act SHOCKED! SHOCKED I SAY when the entire thing backfires and college costs simply increase to absorb that money, as an competent economist would tell you is going to happen.

I guess it isn't really a solvable problem though, it is just how the human system works.

[merithyn]

What I am vastly more concerned about in the meta economy that we are experiencing is this:

The basis of the welfrare state is increased productivity. This is clear from history - as we produce more, we allocate some of that additional production to social services.

200 years ago nobody ever considered that perhaps old people should get a stipend from the government, now it is standard. 100 years ago nobody would contemplate the idea that health care is anything other than something that people who can afford it are entitled to, and the poor had poor healthcare. Etc., etc. I think this is a pretty fundamental truth, and is the primary reason why I am no longer much of a economic conservative, much less a libertarian. Not because I believe that socialism is the best way to go, but rather I believe that human society has made it clear that it is the way we have decided to go, and hence arguments about how we ought to do otherwise are not that interesting to me anymore.

But the problem I see right now is that the system to distribute increased productivity has broken down for some reason.

Using simply numbers, in the last couple decades if we increased the amount we produce per capita from a base level of 100 to, say, 150, it seems like all of that extra 50 "stuff" ought to be distributed throughout society, and some portion of it would (just like as has always happened) go towards expanding the scope of the welfare state in some fashion.

But instead, 49 our of the 50 appears to have gone towards making the very richest a lot richer, and there is nothing left for anyone not in the 1% of the wealthiest, much less any to allocate to increase social scope.

Ideally, one would think that out of our 50 units of increased productivity, we would be spread (say) 35 of it across all income levels, and we would "agree" that 15 would go towards expanding social services into areas that were previously not considered, like healthcare or education or even just straight out welfare payments to the poor.

THAT is the problem, the fundamental problem. Raising the minimum wage does absolutely NOTHING to address it, and in fact would likely make the entire mess worse, not better.

It is treating the symptom of a symptom of a symptom.

What would, in your opinion, address it?

[Berkut]

I don't know.

[Grey Fox]

What I am vastly more concerned about in the meta economy that we are experiencing is this:

The basis of the welfrare state is increased productivity. This is clear from history - as we produce more, we allocate some of that additional production to social services.

200 years ago nobody ever considered that perhaps old people should get a stipend from the government, now it is standard. 100 years ago nobody would contemplate the idea that health care is anything other than something that people who can afford it are entitled to, and the poor had poor healthcare. Etc., etc. I think this is a pretty fundamental truth, and is the primary reason why I am no longer much of a economic conservative, much less a libertarian. Not because I believe that socialism is the best way to go, but rather I believe that human society has made it clear that it is the way we have decided to go, and hence arguments about how we ought to do otherwise are not that interesting to me anymore.

But the problem I see right now is that the system to distribute increased productivity has broken down for some reason.

Using simply numbers, in the last couple decades if we increased the amount we produce per capita from a base level of 100 to, say, 150, it seems like all of that extra 50 "stuff" ought to be distributed throughout society, and some portion of it would (just like as has always happened) go towards expanding the scope of the welfare state in some fashion.

But instead, 49 our of the 50 appears to have gone towards making the very richest a lot richer, and there is nothing left for anyone not in the 1% of the wealthiest, much less any to allocate to increase social scope.

Ideally, one would think that out of our 50 units of increased productivity, we would be spread (say) 35 of it across all income levels, and we would "agree" that 15 would go towards expanding social services into areas that were previously not considered, like healthcare or education or even just straight out welfare payments to the poor.

THAT is the problem, the fundamental problem. Raising the minimum wage does absolutely NOTHING to address it, and in fact would likely make the entire mess worse, not better.

It is treating the symptom of a symptom of a symptom.

I think raising the minimum wage is a way to address that disparity by making them reduce their profits margins to raise workers wages.

But you know, shareholder value above all else.

[lustindarkness]

But you know, shareholder value above all else.

No, cheap McD breakfast for me above all else. And fries.

[Neil]

I think Berkut has a point here.  The solution isn't an increase in minimum wage.  It's a confiscatory taxation scheme to allow the government to create more middle income jobs.

[Malthus]

The funny thing about where I've ended up politically, is that I think I am pretty much a socialist.

I support the basic idea that humans have, and will continue, to allocate resources towards the social assistance of humans as a group, rather than the individual concept that people ought to just get what they can out of the system.

The difference I have with what I see out of most of the left though is that I think we should base what level of social spending we want to engage in on the principles of what we can actually afford, what actually works, and what reasoned and careful *economic* evaluation of the factors involved will allow.

Whereas most of the left seems to want to base what we should do on purely emotive rationalization. People should be able to make a living wage, therefore lets just raise the minimum wage! Wallah! People should get healthcare, therefore we should provide it to them, and who cares if we can actually afford to do so. People should be able to go to college, so lets just dump billions into the system so they can, and then act SHOCKED! SHOCKED I SAY when the entire thing backfires and college costs simply increase to absorb that money, as an competent economist would tell you is going to happen.

I guess it isn't really a solvable problem though, it is just how the human system works.

Most people are not economists. They know something is wrong when weathly corporations earn a tiny percentage of the wealthy vast profits while paying their employees a wage not sufficient to actually live on - particularly when such jobs are the only ones available to an increasing percentage of people - but they have no real clue what is best to be done about it.

Unfortunately, from what I've seen, the economists aren't too clear on what the solution is, either. In that situation, it isn't surprising that people reach for simple solutions to complex problems - as offering no solution is essentially agreeing to continue the present trajectory.

[Berkut]

What I am vastly more concerned about in the meta economy that we are experiencing is this:

The basis of the welfrare state is increased productivity. This is clear from history - as we produce more, we allocate some of that additional production to social services.

200 years ago nobody ever considered that perhaps old people should get a stipend from the government, now it is standard. 100 years ago nobody would contemplate the idea that health care is anything other than something that people who can afford it are entitled to, and the poor had poor healthcare. Etc., etc. I think this is a pretty fundamental truth, and is the primary reason why I am no longer much of a economic conservative, much less a libertarian. Not because I believe that socialism is the best way to go, but rather I believe that human society has made it clear that it is the way we have decided to go, and hence arguments about how we ought to do otherwise are not that interesting to me anymore.

But the problem I see right now is that the system to distribute increased productivity has broken down for some reason.

Using simply numbers, in the last couple decades if we increased the amount we produce per capita from a base level of 100 to, say, 150, it seems like all of that extra 50 "stuff" ought to be distributed throughout society, and some portion of it would (just like as has always happened) go towards expanding the scope of the welfare state in some fashion.

But instead, 49 our of the 50 appears to have gone towards making the very richest a lot richer, and there is nothing left for anyone not in the 1% of the wealthiest, much less any to allocate to increase social scope.

Ideally, one would think that out of our 50 units of increased productivity, we would be spread (say) 35 of it across all income levels, and we would "agree" that 15 would go towards expanding social services into areas that were previously not considered, like healthcare or education or even just straight out welfare payments to the poor.

THAT is the problem, the fundamental problem. Raising the minimum wage does absolutely NOTHING to address it, and in fact would likely make the entire mess worse, not better.

It is treating the symptom of a symptom of a symptom.

I think raising the minimum wage is a way to address that disparity by making them reduce their profits margins to raise workers wages.

But you know, shareholder value above all else.

It only addresses it for those who happen to own businesses that employ people who make minimum wage though. I don't think the 1% are going to be impacted one bit, and this doesn't address the core problem at all.


The uber rich are not getting more uber rich because they don't pay the lowest level wage earners more - that has been true all along, and if anything minimum wages have been steadily increasing while the uber rich get uber richer.

And my objections to raising minimum wage have zero to do with concern about shareholder value. I could not care less about that.

[Neil]

I think raising the minimum wage is a way to address that disparity by making them reduce their profits margins to raise workers wages.

And it does do that to some degree.  Higher minimum wages do seem to improve quality of life for the working poor, but after a point it becomes counterproductive.

[merithyn]

I'd be all for capping maximum wage. Is that an option?

[Malthus]

I'd be all for capping maximum wage. Is that an option?

The people at the high end don't earn a "wage", or if they do, it's a small part of their compensation ... 

[derspiess]

I'd be all for capping maximum wage. Is that an option?

[garbon]

I'd be all for capping maximum wage. Is that an option?

Not simplistic.

[Berkut]

I'd be all for capping maximum wage. Is that an option?

We've ahd something pretty close to that in the past, haven't we?

Didn't the US at one point have a 90% marginal tax rate at the upper end or something like that?