Full employment of resources simply "adjusts" our current market equilibrium, to a new equilibrium that addresses Any poverty of Money issues in our Institution of money based markets and form of Capitalism.
Only because the Minimum Wage is so ridiculously low in the US. Were it double the present amount, the Poverty Threshold would be reduced to 5% of the population from its present level of 14%!
Pray tell me some "other form of capitalism". Capitalism is typical of a market-economy based upon ... uh, capital. Instead of barter. It is a medium of exchange, that's all. What happens in terms of Income Disparity is not due to "capitalism" (which is just a mechanism) but the political intention of a given nation as regards taxation and subsequently national expenditures. It is thus the key-reason that America's Income Disparity is the worst of any modern nation today. Try this factual information on for size (from here): Tell me how it aint necessarily so ...
That's right. Just not exclusively, unless government provides the service of securing exclusive tenure for the user. The government is the one that secures the user's exclusive tenure, and that provides the desirable services and infrastructure that make the land valuable to him. The private landowner, by contrast, provides absolutely nothing but gaping pockets demanding to be filled in return for nothing. Yet somehow, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," this makes the private landowner a productive contributor to society deserving of the full publicly created rent of the land, and the government a "parasite" if it dares to charge the market rate for the subsidies it provides to the landholder at taxpayer expense. No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again. No one can profitably charge above the market rate for land because the supply is fixed. It would just mean foregoing revenue. That is why you are always wrong about it. How would you know?
That's just you makin' $#!+ up again. I have said repeatedly that land cannot rightly be owned, but that government administers its possession and use -- ideally in trust for the people -- because that is what government IS: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. The only question is whether it will discharge that function justly, in the interest of the people, and to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor, or unjustly, in the narrow financial interest of a rich, idle, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning elite. GET IT NOW????
You mean how is it measured, or what causes it to be the amount that it is? People in advanced, industrialized, capitalist countries seem to be most comfortable paying their bills monthly, through automatic bank transfers. Of course it depends on societal context. Evidence of what? The relevant facts are self-evident and indisputable. Might as well ask for a case study of a person in perfect health.
I'm not interested in dodge. Come on, what determines market value? Fill in all the details. Let's see if you can blag practicality...
My question was genuine. Answer it if you want an answer. My question remains: do you mean how is market value measured, or what makes it the amount that it is?
I am also advocating for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. Higher paid labor consumes more, and pays more in taxes and can help pay for infrastructure.
Seems like right wing propaganda, bro. Congress is responsible for fiscal policy in our Republic. Providing for the common defense and general welfare are expressly enumerated powers.
A higher minimum wage simply "adjusts" our current market equilibrium, to a new equilibrium that addresses Any cost of living issues in our Institution of money based markets and form of Capitalism.
You notion above is without the slighest economic substantiation. A higher minimum-wage does increase the cost of products/services produced. Which is compensated by the fact that money-in-the-pocket where it is needed most augments Consumption, which in turn enhances the need for workers to meet the new Demand. Consumption-induced-Supply and Consumer Demand are the two main pillars of any economy. What makes economies unfair is the distribution of Income - meaning too much to one select group at the upper end and too little at the opposite lower end. The upper-crust of a population thus takes money out of the Demand-cycle and stashes it away in "investment products". (Which go seeking for returns where? Bank loans to consumers who need credit to consume.) But their money does not go back into the Demand-cycle promoting employment to supply whatever goods/services are "demanded". It is in a separate financial-cycle breeding upon itself. That is, a cycle promotes Demand only when borrowed-money is spent to purchase other goods/services the financial return of which goes only to that select group that lent the money. (Thus enhancing their fortunes.) You may wish to think that is a "normal cycle". Others think it is predatory - one group that benefits from high-income and low-taxation to create fortunes for more-and-more billionaire-families. Who simply employ their "savings-fortunes" to obtain more income that they certainly don't need; but after-all "ya gotta do sumthin' with da muney"! Once upon a time, back in the 18th century, we fought a war to become independent of that class of wealthy English families that had owned land (the primary source of revenues at the time) over in the "colonies" to which the English King was allowing his British countrymen in prison (and thus costly) released to meet the colonial demand for labor* ... *Whilst in the southern colonies' families were buying far less expensive African slaves in order to maintain the production of cotton, their main source of wealth. My Point? When a nation forgets wherever it came from historically it loses its perspective of to where it should be heading ...
You've been asked, several times now, to provide practical detail. Can I conclude that you can't? Last chance!
I think your assertion that the money does not go back into the demand-cycle is incorrect. Let's say I want to "stash away" some money into an "investment product". I go to my Vanguard website and place a buy order for a share of X. Now, somewhere else, some other person, let's call him Joe, has placed a sell order for a share of X, because he would like some cash. Our orders are matched up and the sale executes. $Y are removed from my bank account and are transferred to Joe's bank account. My money hasn't been "stashed away", any more than my money might be "stashed away" in a new car or a new television. My money has simply moved from my account to Joe's account, where he can use it to demand goods and services. It remains in the demand-cycle.
Only Congress can write laws on formerly blank pieces of paper and have enacted as law in our Republic.
I agree to disagree. You only seem to have a fallacy of false Cause. Higher paid labor consumes more, creates more demand as a result, and can enable Labor to help pay for infrastructure.
Higher than what? That is your fallacy. National or international labor costs? The far east will ALWAYS be the cheapest producer as regards labor. But, they do not produce everything. No country produces everything, because there are inherent barriers. Be they knowledge, natural resources, funds, etc. You seem fixated upon just one input. The cost of labor. It is not the only ingredient to the production of goods and services. Not by a long-shot. What frequently needed service will be sourced out of the far-east? Already, barely 12% of the American economy is based upon Manufacturing. It's no longer THAT IMPORTANT! And for the services industry, aside from picking up your garbage, the better paying jobs require some skills. THAT is where we should be making skills-access to our youth available at the lowest possible cost ... !!!
More one-liner rubbish that passes as rebuttal. Where do you (plural) get them from? Of the backs of breakfast cereal packages ... ?
The amount of money in question has simply shifted address. It is what is done with the money and the consequence that matters. Meaning this: *Investments are made to produce profits by enabling a service or product to be provided. *Those investments will be returned to the investor with a profit. *The value of the investment certainly does become income to someone - for instance, the people who build a factory, or a shopping-center, or a hotel, or an appartment building. *But the total value of the investment must return to the primary investor. It builds his/her Wealth, which is already vastly larger than anybody's need be to live well. If, instead, that original money that became Wealth had be taxed, it never would have been accumulated for reinvestment that furnished further Wealth. It would have been taxed and distributed to a much larger community of people. It would have served far more of the population than had it come back to its original owner. Beyond a certain level of personal wealth, the wealth "play games" with their money. They don't need to, and those that do not let others do it for them. But some just must keep the excitement going so they remain personally involved in the investment-and-return process. Which, I suggest, is really not the best value for the use of money. People deserve high-incomes that are derived from a profitable venture, or an invention. But nobody needs billions of dollars with which to fulfill their lives. So, it's better to tax those billions away. And that would be easy, with 100% tax rates on all incomes above, say, 2 megabucks a year. Should that ever become a reality, the super-rich may have a conniption, but that's about all. The money will be returned to from where it came - the common trust of market-economy where it circulates to provide income for all. Not at the same remuneration for everybody, but still for the better good of larger population of a nation. And the select minority now earning it can go ... waste their time playing golf. Who cares ... ?
"The amount of money in question has simply shifted address." Yes, that was my point. The money isn't stashed anywhere. It goes from being owned by one consumer to being owned by another consumer.
I thought you were paying attention. I am advocating for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. Where is the fallacy.
lol. It is legal fact in our Republic. And, it is why, Nobody on the left should ever take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise, or economics.
