Political Cartoons

That's assuming CEO pay is around 40M/year, @40 hours/week

I mean, I definitely agree, but just curious where CEO guy gets pay scale from

From:

What the bloody hell? The math is also off on the time. Given 20,160/hour, that's 336/minute, or 5.6 dollars per second.

So closer to half a second than one-hundredth of a second.

I am ALL FOR raising the min wage and pointing out absurdly high pay for CEO's, but sloppy is sloppy, and I tisk-tisk at whoever made that graphic.

From:

khemlab.livejournal.com

The price of milk is also wrong, though not far off. It's shocking to look at the BLS statistics from 10 years ago:

2003 June - $2.676 for a gallon of milk
2013 June - $3.458 for a gallon of milk

Source (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ap)

What in the hell has made the price of milk increase by nearly 30% in 10 years? Equally (perhaps more) shocking is that the price of milk was sitting at $3.574 in June of 2004...and going back to 1995, it doesn't look like 2003 was an anomaly on the low end.

From:

telemann.livejournal.com

I think drought in the Midwest has a big impact on feed and cattle.

From:

dwer.livejournal.com

Also the increase in gas prices makes everything more expensive to transport.

From:

anfalicious.livejournal.com

That's below inflation, milk has gotten cheaper.

From:

khemlab.livejournal.com

Actually, I think it's right about on the nose for inflation, at least according to this site: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ If you have a better source for calculating inflation rates, I would be interested in seeing it.

That's helpful, though, thank you. The oddity I think was between 2003 and 2004, when the milk should only have increased in price by less than 2%, if inflation is all that was factored in.

ETA: In 2003, the federal minimum wage was $5.15, so if that website is accurate, at $7.25 it's actually outpaced inflation (41% increase versus 27% inflation). On the other hand, it was sitting at $5.15 since 1997.

Edited Date: 2013-08-14 02:05 pm (UTC)

From:

anfalicious.livejournal.com

Yeah, my quick maths was an average inflation rate of about 2.5%, which would come out a bit over 30%. Forgot about the GFC. I'd stick with that calculator you found, it's better than my head maths :P

The other thing to keep in mind (IMO) about wages is increases in productivity. Whilst wages *may* have kept up with inflation (they haven't), they haven't kept up with productivity. What this means is that the average worker is producing more, making more money for their employer, but that is all going in to the pockets of the guys at the top (which is why we're seeing such a drastic increase in inequity)

From:

the longest time between min wage raises was 1997-2006
before that it was whatever year-1997

the gaps in when the MW go up has been going up too... :(

From:

khemlab.livejournal.com

I'm not a huge fan of the minimum wage, but I think if we're going to have it, it should keep up with inflation or it's meaningless.

From:

spamwarrior.livejournal.com

I appreciate that they use "median" rather than "average" - it makes it actually relevant info.

From:

But can you TRUST the info? (see my comment to OP if you haven't yet)

From:

spamwarrior.livejournal.com

Hm. I don't know that it's reasonable to break the CEO's pay down into 40 hours a week for 50 or 52 weeks or whatever; there definitely needs to be a citation or some work shown to get full credit.

From:

also the math for the milk/time spent

:(

From:

tcpip.livejournal.com

What? Nobody has turned up to say wage rises cause unemployment?

From:

Surprise! Surprise! The value of what you produce in the economy is not at all related to how much energy you exert to produce it. It's related to how much other people value what you produce. Nothing more, nothing less.

Earnings are based on production, not labor. Marxist/Socialist economic theory tries to tie labor to value by ignoring or obfuscating the reality that value is not some objective measurement that can be quantified by labor. Value is subjective and arbitrary.

For example, if you exert yourself tremendously to dig a hole and fill it back up, why should anyone value that? Just because you worked your ass off doesn't mean you're providing value to anyone.

On the other hand, a man that finds a gold nugget on the beach has discovered something of value, through little-to no physical exertion, and by finding it and bringing it to the marketplace, he has added value to the economy.

There is no law of economics that necessitates any correlation between labor and value. Work smarter, not harder.

From:

The problem with what you said isn't what you said, but the people behind it. The value a boss puts on a worker shouldn't be less than the value that worker adds to the company. If a worker adds minimal value to the company, then I can see paying them a minimal amount (which is why minimum wage is important in the first place). But if that worker is essential to the functioning of the company, and isn't making their worth, what is that worker to do?

From:

Well, we would have to isolate why that is.

A lot of people simply write this question off as, "Oh, it's greed," which is a non-answer.

Essentially, what you're pointing out here is that there is a violation of the principle of equal consideration. So, now we have to find out why that's occurring.

There is a mechanism in play in the market that is causing this occurrence. So, if any of your answers are (i) human nature; (ii) capitalism; or, (iii) greed, then I would say you have not isolated the problem, i.e. the mechanism causing this effect.

From:

Essentially, what you're pointing out here is that there is a violation of the principle of equal consideration. So, now we have to find out why that's occurring.

The reason this is occurring is because of corporate greed and government corruption.

There is a mechanism in play in the market that is causing this occurrence. So, if any of your answers are (i) human nature; (ii) capitalism; or, (iii) greed, then I would say you have not isolated the problem, i.e. the mechanism causing this effect.

If someone can successfully identify what is causing the effect, then procedures can be put into place to alter the effect. This hasn't been done because the people in power are controlled by the money they get from corporations.

From:

The effect is known as the Cantillon Effect.

And it won't be dealt with so long as we engage in imperialism. You can't fund imperialism if you first have to actually collect the revenue before carrying out a war campaign. So, the natural check on the Cantillon Effect, i.e. commodity money, has been subverted with fiat money.

So, you would need a policy that curbs this effect since the natural element that provided it has been subverted with legal tender laws and a fiat monetary system. All the socialist policies that are put on the table are attempts to reverse this effect, but re-distribution of wealth isn't exactly a constraint. It's simply a measure to live with the issue.

You haven't solved the problem -- the problem being poverty -- instead, you've found a way to live with it. Thus, putting the burden of the system on those with static income.

From:

I did a lot of google-ing and re-reading and I still don't understand what you're trying to say here.

From:

telemann.livejournal.com

It's gibberish.

From:

True that

From:

ignorance is bliss

From:

telemann.livejournal.com

Another blissful comment!

From:

The greed you pointed out is an observation describing the behavior going on. It is not the source, but rather a symptom brought about by legal tender laws and a fiat monetary system. Saying the issue is greed is like saying, "That guy over there is stuffing his face like a pig because he's fat."

No, there is an issuer of currency that a select few have access to. As a result, they can introduce new money into the system, thus gaining a market advantage.

There is a finite amount of resources/goods in play at any given time in an economy. When you have a fiat monetary system in place like we do now, then you have an infinite amount of substitute money that can be introduced into the economy. However, the price of the goods will reflect this introduction of new money -- i.e. as the money supply increases, then the prices will rise over time because the currency is being debased. But, these price corrections are not immediate, they happen subsequently. Thus, those who receive the new money first have all the market advantages, and as a result are essentially purchasing things at a discounted rate. If you buy at the discounted rate, and then sell at the higher rate once the market corrected due to this influx of demand, you make a "profit." Though, it's illusory because it's just money manipulations.

The end result is that wealth gets consolidated into the hands of a select few, into the hands of those who get the new money first.

So, while one group has this line of credit, there is another group that is engaging the market and working for the money. The latter is operating within the money already in play rather than having access to the line of credit. And if their income is not increasing, then the value of their earnings is being debased.

Minimum wage policies, for example, are an attempt to rectify this side effect of the current monetary system. However, when you create a price change like this, regardless of it being wages or whatever, you essentially impose the neutrality of money theory on the market at that very instance. It's an immediate shock to the entire economy. It would be analogous to an electrical surge -- not one that everyone can withstand. Those that can have gained a market advantage.

So, at the top, the people getting the line of credit are violating the principle of equal consideration bu essentially getting something for nothing. At first, this is re-balanced at the bottom with those receiving a static income, e.g. a wage. When the government steps in to increase wages to rectify this issue, then that imbalance is passed onto the middle class, especially small businesses, but even large ones that a gargantuan amount of employees. So, an alternative to this is provide social benefits, e.g. food stamps.

All of this is occurring because there is no natural check and balance to the Cantillon Effect. If gold for example was money, then people would have to go mine and mint coins which requires real effort rather than just entering virtual numbers in a computer like we do in the current monetary system. I hope that clears it up somewhat.

From:

That was very explanatory, thank you.

So, at the top, the people getting the line of credit are violating the principle of equal consideration bu essentially getting something for nothing. At first, this is re-balanced at the bottom with those receiving a static income, e.g. a wage. When the government steps in to increase wages to rectify this issue, then that imbalance is passed onto the middle class, especially small businesses, but even large ones that a gargantuan amount of employees. So, an alternative to this is provide social benefits, e.g. food stamps.

If social benefits are making a difference in the Cantillon Effect, as you called it, then there would things like Obama's stimulus idea work? Rather than giving money to the select few at the top, you give it to the people at the bottom.

From:

That was kinda my earlier point when I said a redistribution isn't providing an actual check on this effect. You're creating the illusion of one. It's like if you go to a doctor with pain and he gives you pain medication. Sure, it's making a difference to the pain, but it's not actually solving the issue. It's only allowing you to live with it.

I'll agree that it's better than nothing. But, if we leave it at that, then it's still a non-answer to the problem. We're essentially numbing ourselves. To continue with the analogy, our body (i.e. system) is overextended and the piece left holding the burden is eventually going to give out as this posture is unsustainable. When it does, that's when the whole system goes into shock and collapses. Could be a stroke, broken leg, heart attack, whatever. What exactly is the equivalent of each of those occurrences, I don't know, but Detroit is one of those.

And, this is not an argument to stop providing relief. The point is that providing aid isn't improving the situation. It's only allowing us to live with it. It's not bad to provide aid, but it's not a solution to the problem of poverty either.

From:

You're not suggesting a solution, though. You're just complaining about everything that exists saying, "But this isn't working, either." What do you suggest be done?

From:

That's not true. The suggestion is implied. If the natural checks and balances that govern the Cantillon Effect from running amok have been subverted by the implementation of legal tender laws and a fiat monetary system, then the natural solution is to abolish this form of government intervention in the market place, thus reverting back to commodity money, i.e. real money as opposed to this substitute money we have now.

There is no reason for us to utilize government to simulate what is already a natural occurrence -- which we have yet to do by the way. This ineptitude has caused the wealth to become consolidated into the hands of a select few.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."

We cannot use government to solve this problem when it is government that has created this problem.

From:

That is the logical implication of what he is saying. Funny to see an Austrian is making a pro-government argument.

From:

The whole premise that this is based on is incorrect. You are conflating fiscal and monetary issues.

From:

How so?

From:

"Earnings are based on production, not labor.
"
That hasn't been the case.

Marxist/Socialist economic theory tries to tie labor to value by ignoring or obfuscating the reality that value is not some objective measurement that can be quantified by labor. Value is subjective and arbitrary.
So did Lockean libertarianism... Also didn't you just say that earnings are based on production? Are they wholly subjective or not. If so what objective reason can you bring to the table to not raise the minimum wage?
For example, if you exert yourself tremendously to dig a hole and fill it back up, why should anyone value that? Just because you worked your ass off doesn't mean you're providing value to anyone.

Who are these people digging worthless holes in the ground and why aren't they maximizing their labor productivity? I've never seen such a thing.

On the other hand, a man that finds a gold nugget on the beach has discovered something of value, through little-to no physical exertion, and by finding it and bringing it to the marketplace, he has added value to the economy.

What?? No. This makes no sense. You haven't added any value to the economy unless you make the assumption that gold is a priori valuable, which it isn't.
To quote Warren Buffet,
"Gold, however, has two significant shortcomings, being neither of much use nor procreative. True, gold has some industrial and decorative utility, but the demand for these purposes is both limited and incapable of soaking up new production. Meanwhile, if you own one ounce of gold for an eternity, you will still own one ounce at its end."
Also, again what happened to your subjective theory of value?

"There is no law of economics that necessitates any correlation between labor and value. Work smarter, not harder.
" is directly contradicted by
"Work smarter, not harder." if one holds that labor and work as commonly understood are fucking synonymous.
How long did you think on this?

From:

pacotelic.livejournal.com

Have you seen how quickly the 1% drink milk, though?

From: