Funny, the article didn't mention the minimum wage, which was raised 20% by Nancy Pelosi in 2007, the start of our unemployment woes.
The law of supply and demand states that if you raise the cost of something, you will get less of it. Raise the minimum wage 20%, and you will get less jobs. Elementary.
Sometimes people take half of Econ 101 and really run wild with it.
Labor markets are notoriously not ones that can be explained by simple application of the "law" of supply and demand. There are massive uncertainties in knowledge on both sides, power dynamics, high transaction costs, and substantial difficulties in knowing how much and of what type of value the employee will offer to the organization and the organization to the employee.
And even theoretically there are plenty of models where you're totally out there. Google monopsony and labor markets for just one situation where raising a minimum wage should increase employment.
Empirically, "it depends" seems to be the right answer, but even the most negative studies on minimum wages don't claim that minimum wages are in effect within an order of magnitude or two of what the financial crisis did to employment rates.
Things aren't that simple. Raises in minimum wage in a modern economy rarely have much effect on employment numbers. The vast majority of those at minimum wage are employed in the service economy, so they compete locally, not globally. Therefore a minimum wage increase affects a business and its competitors relatively evenly. The business may be forced to raise its prices, but since its competitors are forced to do the same no competitive positioning is lost.
If you're competing against China, it's a different story. But if your company is that sensitive to the price of labour and competing against China it probably went offshore years ago. You compete against China with robots and high-skilled labour, not minimum wage labour.
The nice thing about giving money to people making minimum wage is that they spend it immediately, putting it back into the economy right away.
Oh please Nancy Pelosi didn't raise the minimum wage. It was the Fair Mimimum Wage act and passed with Bi-Partisan (80 Republican's in the house voted in its favor) support and include a tax break for small businesses in order to offset the costs.
The ACA/Obamacare also added new expected costs to hiring... further aggravated by uncertainties over how completely it will be implemented in the face of political opposition.
Every new bit of cost/uncertainty around hiring makes it relatively more attractive for those who could be hiring to instead (1) automate or otherwise replace workers with capital investments; (2) outsource or offshore; (3) take the afternoon off instead of struggling with hiring-led growth.
This common argument is a good illustration that econ is a soft social science with low standards. For one thing, it ignores that people aren't just producers but also consumers. And those with lower salaries unfortunately need to spend a larger percent of their incomes on necessities.
It all depends. For instance, corporations may be able to punish populaces who successfully campaign for a better minimum wage, with attacks like capital flight. If successful, the unemployment rate may indeed increase. In other situations, it may decrease.
The law of supply and demand states that if you raise the cost of something, you will get less of it.
Say you can produce a certain amount of widgets out of a given resource, but with research you can produce more widgets, and that you can reduce the time needed to do that research by hiring more people and equipment. Now you are in a situation where raising the cost to your customers can result in a larger availability of widgets.
And that's just with widgets. If you look at wages, raising the minimum wage has lots of possible effects, many of which can actually serve to reduce the unemployment rate over time. One of them is that if the minimum wage is a reasonable margin above subsistence, then people in employment find it easier to start small businesses, leaving a job vacant when they venture out on their own and then even employ people themselves.
Damning people who are willing to work, to subsistence level incomes, is not how you grow an economy.
Perhaps they didn't mention it because a lot of jobs lost in the great crash paid more than the paltry minimum wage, making that old commie's attempts to raise it a moot point.
Energy is close to free. Peta-Watt-hours per day come into the earth from the sun.
The problem, in the US, is that the median income in real dollars has actually declined in the last decade/s. This means the mass market has lower purchasing power. For a while, debt was masking that effect, but that band-aid was ripped off.
The fix is to increase median real income. This is mechanically simple, and politically next to impossible.
Oh that old saw... we get so much energy from the sun it's all hunky dory. The challenge of converting that energy to a usable form at the kind of scale needed to power a civilization is not mechanically simple. The supply chain and energy inputs (including fossil fuels) required for photo-voltaic are non-trivial. Conc-solar is still not proven at scale and again requires natural resource and energy inputs to build and maintain the systems. Energy return on energy investment is the key metric here and one that is not well understood by many, nor favourable for a lot of the proposed solutions.
Peta-watt hours of energy came in from the sun for all of human history. Most of it is used by the ecosystem.
In any case we didn't use it then. We aren't going to magically use it now.
The fact that we're drilling for fossil energy in increasingly hard to reach places is strong evidence that using more solar energy is non-trivial. You can't just hand wave away the energy issue.
I'm not sure how much I buy this. With no discussion of the model it's hard to say what assumptions he did or did not make in terms of how all these factors respond to each other.
I really have no clue how the economy works, but right now there is only one guy I trust,
Ray Dalio
Self made macro hedge fund manager with a rags to riches story. He's pretty strange and employs an army of financial engineers in some forest in Connecticut to model this stuff (and make billions of dollars in the process).
Oh, and forgot to mention, it's now the largest hedgefund in the world.
Tax simplification doesn't win votes. A complicated tax system does win votes. Is your campaign weak with car wash owners? Add 2k lines to the tax code and make washing your car at a car wash tax deductible. Can't seem to get over the hump with the dog walker demographic? Another 1200 lines to the tax code will ensure their votes when you give them tax deductions on dog doo bags.
Many tax code simplifications amount to tax increases, and some of the best of those are hard to sell to the middle class, e.g. eliminating home mortgage deduction. And taxes on capital gains should be higher.
Doesn't work: see Britain's current recession. Cutting government spending when the economy is depressed will cause the economy to become more depressed, at which point tax revenues will go down, causing you to wish for more spending cuts... economic death spiral (think runaway inflation in reverse).
GDP relies on energy. Energy is getting scarcer and more expensive. GDP stalls and won't recover. This is somewhat oversimplified but resumes what's happening.
The right answer. Economic growth maps almost exactly to the expansion of available energy inputs. As fossil fuel flow rates peak and growth in energy availability falters, so wil GDP growth. We have an economic system designed to function in a world of perpetual growth and perpetual growth in energy / natural resource availability. Our system and its underlying economic theories are not designed nor tested for environments of perpetual contraction of either.
Baloney, there's tons of work that is in desperate need to get done in this country. Give me access to the US mint and I'll get unemployment down to 0% in a few months.
All those college kids without job? Boom! School class sizes across the country down to 5. Too much crime? Ten times more cops! Potholes in your city? Gone! Want your city covered in solar panels? Done! Street litter? Gone! Dirty public facilities and public transportation? Spik and span! Decrepit bridges, roads, water infrastructure, electrical lines? They're new now!
Keep bringing me people and I'll keep coming up with stuff for them to do.
Why not try something that the economists with the most credibility on depressed economies recommend: fiscal stimulus? I'd love to see what Zandi's model would come up with for that.
Steve Keen has some non-traditional economic ideas that seem to make a lot of sense (although I'm not sure I buy his Jubilee Shares proposal). His economic model seems much more matched to reality than most I have seen.
[+] [-] joshuaheard|13 years ago|reply
The law of supply and demand states that if you raise the cost of something, you will get less of it. Raise the minimum wage 20%, and you will get less jobs. Elementary.
[+] [-] scarmig|13 years ago|reply
Labor markets are notoriously not ones that can be explained by simple application of the "law" of supply and demand. There are massive uncertainties in knowledge on both sides, power dynamics, high transaction costs, and substantial difficulties in knowing how much and of what type of value the employee will offer to the organization and the organization to the employee.
And even theoretically there are plenty of models where you're totally out there. Google monopsony and labor markets for just one situation where raising a minimum wage should increase employment.
Empirically, "it depends" seems to be the right answer, but even the most negative studies on minimum wages don't claim that minimum wages are in effect within an order of magnitude or two of what the financial crisis did to employment rates.
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|13 years ago|reply
If you're competing against China, it's a different story. But if your company is that sensitive to the price of labour and competing against China it probably went offshore years ago. You compete against China with robots and high-skilled labour, not minimum wage labour.
The nice thing about giving money to people making minimum wage is that they spend it immediately, putting it back into the economy right away.
[+] [-] Permit|13 years ago|reply
By your logic, Canada should be seeing massive unemployment as our minimum wage is 20%-30% higher in most provinces than most states.
The reality is that Canada's unemployment rate sits at about 7.3% in August compared to the 8.1% rate in the United States.
[+] [-] mikeryan|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Minimum_Wage_Act_of_2007
[+] [-] gojomo|13 years ago|reply
Every new bit of cost/uncertainty around hiring makes it relatively more attractive for those who could be hiring to instead (1) automate or otherwise replace workers with capital investments; (2) outsource or offshore; (3) take the afternoon off instead of struggling with hiring-led growth.
[+] [-] calibraxis|13 years ago|reply
I'm reminded of this political cartoon... (http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0508toon.html)
It all depends. For instance, corporations may be able to punish populaces who successfully campaign for a better minimum wage, with attacks like capital flight. If successful, the unemployment rate may indeed increase. In other situations, it may decrease.
[+] [-] ktizo|13 years ago|reply
Say you can produce a certain amount of widgets out of a given resource, but with research you can produce more widgets, and that you can reduce the time needed to do that research by hiring more people and equipment. Now you are in a situation where raising the cost to your customers can result in a larger availability of widgets.
And that's just with widgets. If you look at wages, raising the minimum wage has lots of possible effects, many of which can actually serve to reduce the unemployment rate over time. One of them is that if the minimum wage is a reasonable margin above subsistence, then people in employment find it easier to start small businesses, leaving a job vacant when they venture out on their own and then even employ people themselves.
Damning people who are willing to work, to subsistence level incomes, is not how you grow an economy.
And when you get past elementary, let us know.
[+] [-] sampsonjs|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jwatte|13 years ago|reply
The problem, in the US, is that the median income in real dollars has actually declined in the last decade/s. This means the mass market has lower purchasing power. For a while, debt was masking that effect, but that band-aid was ripped off. The fix is to increase median real income. This is mechanically simple, and politically next to impossible.
[+] [-] richardjordan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] graeme|13 years ago|reply
In any case we didn't use it then. We aren't going to magically use it now.
The fact that we're drilling for fossil energy in increasingly hard to reach places is strong evidence that using more solar energy is non-trivial. You can't just hand wave away the energy issue.
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mistercow|13 years ago|reply
Also known as 41.66 terawatts.
[+] [-] mbellotti|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitwize|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] The8thDwarf|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Avshalom|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dpcx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m0th87|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wamatt|13 years ago|reply
Ray Dalio
Self made macro hedge fund manager with a rags to riches story. He's pretty strange and employs an army of financial engineers in some forest in Connecticut to model this stuff (and make billions of dollars in the process).
Oh, and forgot to mention, it's now the largest hedgefund in the world.
[+] [-] protomyth|13 years ago|reply
Skip the tax increases and do the spending cuts.
We do need some serious tax simplification, but Congress is way too fond of using what should be a simple revenue raiser for social engineering.
[+] [-] padobson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jberryman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MaysonL|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wazoox|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] richardjordan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guelo|13 years ago|reply
All those college kids without job? Boom! School class sizes across the country down to 5. Too much crime? Ten times more cops! Potholes in your city? Gone! Want your city covered in solar panels? Done! Street litter? Gone! Dirty public facilities and public transportation? Spik and span! Decrepit bridges, roads, water infrastructure, electrical lines? They're new now!
Keep bringing me people and I'll keep coming up with stuff for them to do.
[+] [-] mikeryan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dllthomas|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MaysonL|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josephlord|13 years ago|reply
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/manifesto/