Tax the 1%...

Yawn. The US's social immobility, as it replicates the class ridden Limeys, is just a statement of fact. You essentially have to argue that Americans are feckless. Good luck!

 

Then stop only looking at 50% of the trade. Your tracking money only. What about all the goods and services that were exchanged in trade for that money?

 

Sorry you are so angry, about what I do not know, but Any American can accomplish anything they wish, if they are willing to put in the effort. We are the most socially mobile country on the planet. But feel free to stew in your anger for some unknown reason. It's common for the thankless to do so, especially when considering their betters.

 

If someone doesn't make enough money to cover his/her cost of living then we should have a social safety net to help him/her: does that sum up your position?

Not to be obtuse or boring, as much as it has become an occupational habit of mine, but I am curious how many square feet or cubic feet of space is enough to live in? Those folks in that HK video do not seem to have enough by what I've grown used to. Obviously folks there have adapted to those conditions, somehow, to some extent. In Honk Kong, apparently the answer is 35 sqft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Hong_Kong

Not everyone can move is somewhat debatable, certainly here in the US, but as we get older I suppose that moving for a lot of us hasn't much appeal. I would however assert that young people starting out on their own without significant family financial support might in many circumstances almost have to move.

I've moved for socio-economic opportunities several times. I live in Houston mainly because it is a location that is highly favorable to my profession and the cost of living isn't bad either. Houston is now home to a lot of types like me.

Houston has a homeless problem that is nothing compared to LA, because among many reasons, our weather is pretty much unbearable without AC for about half the year. "What a great day, it feels like California!" I said once to one of my co-workers. His classic response was, "Yeah, Good thing we don't have too many of them, otherwise we couldn't afford to live here." Sympathy for expensive prime real estate in Cali will not be prevalent among, ah, many folks on PF I reckon.

You can buy two 3000 sqft McMansions in Katy for the price of a 400 sqft loft in LA. No income tax either. And our gangster Astros as a bonus, Ah, those ****ers, Altuve - Say It Isn't so Bro! All of this, but it ain't LA and I'll give you that. LA is amazing, but it is unaffordable, even with rent controls and Prop 13. The elimination of the property tax deduction is one of the very few changes to the federal income tax code code led by Paul 'Eddie Munster' Ryan that I can at least kinda see as leveling the playing field

I notice that you haven't mentioned anything about the homeless in Cali - are they not also of concern to you? According to the Hong Kong Wiki page I linked above, about half the population of Honk Kong would be homeless if not for their public housing program. Abhorrent to think that such density in a high rise is better than living on the street in a sweet REI tent with no place to shower or poo?

The military budget is beyond egregious and of all people it was Ike that spelled it out over 70 years ago. This Karl Marx thread is quaint, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Capitalism does not account for all things under the sun, and in particular it doesn't account for population density and those that would trade a more robust economic location for climate and culture and other such considerations.

I just took a little quiz over on FB and that quiz resulted in a position that was Left vs Right and Authoritarian vs Libertarian. I was disappointed to see that I scored not in the perfect center. I see lots of folks here that for whatever reason want to stick to the talking points of their tribe. Anyway, I reject the notion that there are two forces on the political spectrum: that in my opinion is a false choice foisted upon US by our two party winner take all political dystopian nightmare.

Regarding your 3 options for affordable housing, and in particular option 3, I have to stop you at "commensurate with one's station (no subsidies for a guy who works for MacDonalds, but wants to rent a house in Beverly Hills, for example)."

Someone or several someones, in government, would have to be the judge of a person's station, and of what is commensurate with it. So you are full well into Orwell territory with just that piece of the puzzle, from my point of view anyway. Alternatively we could just do the Andrew Yang give everyone a $1000/mo and then, if our Mickey D's employee can get an entourage together then they are perfectly free to score a crib in the Hills.

By the way, the Swamp is currently giving everyone* $2400 a month for the Rona Party at Home.....

*Certain exclusions may apply.... hahaha.....

 

You didn't really respond. As you want to maintain inefficient distributions, what do you have against trade?

 

Yawn. This is just repeating that, given the US has low social mobility, you think Americans are feckless. Tut tut, such anti-Americanism.

 

I did really respond. You can't measure a distribution if you're only looking at 50% of the trade. The money you're tracking represents a value. Where's the other half of the value and how do you measure it?

 

You must be French..

 

No you didn't. We know that, with greater social mobility, the US would have even greater levels of trade. You're really anti-trade. Why?

 

Yawn. I'm just not anti-American. American social immobility does not reflect the feckless nature of Americans. Indeed, I find your anti-American attitudes insulting to my American relatives.

 

what do you mean by social mobility?

 

I had to reread my post, because I didn't recall making any reference to unemployment. I didn't, so I'm trying to understand why you fixated on that.

Are you aware what percentage of the US population, and the demographics of that population, actually make minimum wage? What is the rising impact of increasing MW without offsetting production?

 

and i find you insulting and incomprehensible

 

Completely missing the point. You're defining social mobility as "access to cash" with no regard to "access to goods and services" You're following money, not following the products being traded. Imagine a balance scale with money on one side of the balance. What goes on the other side is the goods and services that money was traded for. Of course the scale is always going to be tipped in one direction if you never actually weigh that money against the goods.

 

I am well aware of what 'rebalancing' is in the way of investments, not in liquidation of physical assets.

Since assets, the physical assets you describe as being taxable, are not the same as stocks and other investment vehicles.

Again, the ability to liquidate the physical asset, to pay the tax on them is a semantics game only someone who is not of the party to be taxes, would come up with.

 

You didn't specifically mention it, but your questioning thus

Belies a similar criticism from many on the right and including libertarians who posit that a minimum wage affects unemployment, a sentiment, I would assume, gives rise to your posing the question. If that wasn't your actual sentiment, it is the sentiment by many on the right.

My response is always that an unreasonable minimum wage will affect unemployment, but a reasonable one will not. As to what is reasonable, and what is not, that is where the debate lies. The Seattle experiment of $15 an hour didn't shout one way or the other. However, that doesn't mean it would work the same way for, say, Biloxi.

 

Many Americans are feckless - the welfare donkey state has created a huge class of citizens who think they are owed a nice living simply because they were born. The evidence is right here in this thread and splashed all over the pages of PF. The entitlement mentality is completely out of hand, brought on by politicians who are buying votes with taxpayer money and fostered by citizens who don't even realize that they themselves are communists. Your posts seem to also support this fecklessness.

Fortunately, there are still plenty of Americans who are self-responsible and they are the ones that keep the country up and running. Unfortunately, the de facto communists have their claws in us pretty deeply. Of course, I do understand that in your opinion, my thoughts are unlearned, and that instead of talking, I should be bowing to the self-proclaimed wizard of economics and society.

 

Yawn. You don't have to take my advice, but I recommend that you drop the anti-Americanism.

 

No I'm not. I'm recognising an economic fact: social mobility, by reducing inequalities, increases trade. It seems that you're only a fan of trade when it suits you. Bit of a shame really.

 

Being that I am independent with no allegiance to any political party, there are other aspects that are affected long term by increasing 'minimum wage' without increasing the production.

Care to posit?

 

For some reason the left cannot grasp the fact that the evil rich do not have an infinite supply of money. They also have the means to take their money and leave. Free healthcare for everyone? No problem, tax the rich. Free college for everyone? Tax the rich. Student debt forgiveness? Tax the rich. Green new deal? Tax the rich. The evil rich's "fair share" will end up being the lion's share.

 

Minimum wage increases are found to also increase production. Productivity is endogenous.

 

I have no anti Americanism.. we are the best place to live on the planet.

 

He means giving people even more incentive not to mobilise.

 

Wage increases will not alter social mobility. Social mobility is not a function of money in a Western Democracy.