Obamacare and Jobs

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

You can find some background discussion at Talk Politics. Essentially, there was a report that some people may work less because they would not be bound to their jobs for health insurance, leaving more people free to pursue other ends. The Republicans declared that this is an example of Obamacare costing Americans jobs. Others see it as a benefit - more freedom for workers.

ETA: Ross Douthat has a good column on the issues.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

But does 'reality' really have to go in that direction?

You can't really change it. At the end of the day, those who have more specialized skills will be more valued in a work environment. Those who are interchangeable parts are less likely to have labor value. Trying to tweak the economy in order to pretend that doesn't exist lacks a solid, positive track record historically. People are individuals, value is not objective. This shouldn't be controversial.

You seem to be pointing to a world where that 0.00001 are the only real people, having true freedom, with prosperity and choices, while the rest of us (including yourself, I suppose) are reduced for being quite value-less, having only our labor and efforts to trade with those very few people who own everything - making us the worst slaves there has ever been.

I don't agree at all. Right now, the assumption from your ideological point of view (even if it's not specifically your point of view) is that value is intrinsic, that there is some sort of random point we can hit that people's value doesn't fall below (or rise above), and that people like Steve Jobs or the Walton Family are somehow not responsible for the successes of their company and that the person who puts things on a shelf or scans them off a conveyor belt is the true value of those companies as opposed to their existence only being in place because robots can't do it efficiently yet.

No matter how high you push the minimum wage, you cannot make a job that's only worth $5/hr somehow valued at twice that. Even if you confiscate half of the next Steve Jobs's wealth, you're not diminishing his actual value in the real world and you're very likely keeping another person like him from truly reaching the pinnacle of what he's capable of. And yes, many people aren't motivated by money or even success - those people will be fine regardless of where the economic structure ends up. The question needs to be asked for the rest of us - for the teenager who cannot sell their labor at less than the arbitrary wage floor, for the middle class person who will lose their health care when the employer mandate kicks in next year because it costs too much, for the entrepreneur who you think you're helping by giving her other people's money to purchase health insurance while regulating her into oblivion with the other hand.

The dirty little secret to these plans is that, in order to combat the perceived oligarchical structure, the only people who can truly survive these situations are the same people that we'd consider oligarchs. They can cut more jobs, raise more prices, trim more benefits, purchase more robots. Tell McDonald's that they need to give the person who punches their order in $15/hr? They'll just purchase a computer for $20k that will allow the customer to do it themselves and it starts paying for itself within 9 months. Congratulations?

Perhaps this is where our economic theories and policies over the past few centuries have led us, but I don't know if we are bound to go the rest of that dark path. Cannot we reach a better understanding of value? And ownership?

I'd argue that we have reached a better understanding of value and ownership. Those continuing to push this artificially high wage, pro-union, anti-owner mindset simply haven't realized it yet. Instead of trying to raise everyone up, the mentality continues to be to bring the top down. It's never worked before, so what would make this attempt any different?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

So many silly things being said here by you. The top doesn't need any help from you, Smithers.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I don't know if it's silly as much as dark and harsh, and he is probably better describing the future, I'm afraid. My words are probably more than a little silly, not being much more of an economist than I am a scientist.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

It's silly when productivity has been increasing while real wages remain stagnant. Claims about "artificially high wages" when the reality is wealth inequity at levels never seen before.

Somehow, Australia can sell Big Macs for $.48 cents more while having double our minimum wage. Factor that with the reality that the wealthy don't put money back into the economy the way that working people do, and it's obvious that Jeff is no economist either.

Hand-waving for the 1% is tiresome. The real job creators in America are small business owners, not the maggots living easy on inheritances or ridiculously low tax rates on investment income.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's silly when productivity has been increasing while real wages remain stagnant

What is it about productivity gains being governed by technological progress that should require wages by the work displaced by said technological progress to rise in tandem?

If wages are stagnant, but those common goods we all need and use are decreasing in price, what does that tell us about purchasing power beyond what is measured by the government?

Somehow, Australia can sell Big Macs for $.48 cents more while having double our minimum wage.

Australia also has a tiered wage based on age. A teenager who wants work experience is not paid the same for the same job as an adult would be.

Factor that with the reality that the wealthy don't put money back into the economy the way that working people do, and it's obvious that Jeff is no economist either.

Sure, and I never claimed to be an economist. You do not need to be an economist, however, to note that simply putting money into the economy alone is not necessarily the only positive result. An economics blog I read posed this question (http://cafehayek.com/2014/02/a-follow-up-macroeconomic-rorschach-test.html) that I'd love your feedback on with this in mind. And the author is an economist.

Hand-waving for the 1% is tiresome. The real job creators in America are small business owners, not the maggots living easy on inheritances or ridiculously low tax rates on investment income.

Okay, so what are you willing to do to ensure that small business owners get what they need to create those jobs. Are you going to continue taxing them uncompetitively, or let them use the money to expand their business? Are you going to call for more regulations that will benefit the larger firms who can afford it, or work to lessen the impact of compliance on smaller firms that don't have the flexibility to adjust to rules that weren't designed for them to begin with?

These are all questions that should be answered before acting. I don't even see evidence that these questions rise up in the discussions.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Which inoculation scenario is better? I would think the second one. But I suppose the question was which is better for the economy, and I am guessing the answer is the first scenario, which entails creating a heavy work-intensive industry.

If it is the first scenario, maybe that gets at some of our disagreement over whether the nature of our economy is 'sane'.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So why is randomized spending better for the economy? How many resources are spent in the first scenario that don't need to be? Aren't we just adding a middleman in that is redirecting money in a way that might not be best? At least in the second scenario, we're not seeing money flow in any specific direction simply based on the say-so of one man.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

And the author is an economist.

You post a link to an economist at "Cafe Hayek" and believe this to be a moderate response?

Dude. Delusional.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I never claimed it to be a moderate response. Or inferred as much, for that matter.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

productivity gains being governed by technological progress

Where does this claim originate? I can say from my last 15 years in various businesses, that technological progress has been a virtual non-factor in the workplace. From CNC lathes to workstations, the old shit is used forever.

The common goods we need and use have been steadily increasing in price. You realize this, yes?

Australia has tiered minimum wage, here we have people like you arguing we should eliminate any minimum wage. I don't even want to bring up the rich guy who suggested that "mental retards" could be paid $2 an hour.

Most of the regulations on small businesses are city and state issues. However, federal regulation could and should be examined to see where it's not needed. Small businesses are exempt from many regulations on all levels. Taxing them uncompetitively compared to what or who?

As far as actions go, there are any number of things like farm subsidies that can be addressed but for some reason, won't.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Where does this claim originate? I can say from my last 15 years in various businesses, that technological progress has been a virtual non-factor in the workplace. From CNC lathes to workstations, the old shit is used forever.

I'm looking back further than 15 years. I mean, 15 years ago I worked at CVS as a register jockey, and they only started installing the credit card machines you swipe on your own then. Today, I don't even have to be checked out by a human being at the grocery store. We've progressed significantly.

The common goods we need and use have been steadily increasing in price. You realize this, yes?

I don't agree, no. Some things, some foods and resources, yes. Surely you've seen this going around:



This is a 1991 Radio Shack catalog. Almost everything on this page can be done with an iPhone (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-cichon/radio-shack-ad_b_4612973.html), and it would have cost over $3000 then. Today we can do all of this and more for 10% of that.

Australia has tiered minimum wage, here we have people like you arguing we should eliminate any minimum wage. I don't even want to bring up the rich guy who suggested that "mental retards" could be paid $2 an hour.

You do realize that we already exempt the disabled from the minimum wage, right?

As far as actions go, there are any number of things like farm subsidies that can be addressed but for some reason, won't.

It's like some people and railroads. Oldtimey thinking.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What parts are silly? And why are they silly? I'm happy to hear about what I've missed.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

" Tell McDonald's that they need to give the person who punches their order in $15/hr? They'll just purchase a computer for $20k that will allow the customer to do it themselves and it starts paying for itself within 9 months"

Are you fucking kidding me. You've got to be fucking kidding me.

if this was an option they would have done it already!

I repeat:

If McDonalds could replace their workers with cheaper machines *IT WOULD ALREADY HAVE HAPPENED*

If at $15/hour, it takes 9 months for the machine to pay for itself, currently it would only take 18 months for the machines to pay for themselves. Raising the minimum wage, AS HAS BEEN THE CASE FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS, does not destroy employment. It has a very, very minor impact on it.

You make up so much shit it's horrifying.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

At some point it becomes the return on investment. At $7/hr, the investment return isn't high enough to do it. Double that cost, and suddenly the economics are different. They're already doing it in Europe (http://news.cnet.com/mcdonalds-hires-7000-touch-screen-cashiers/8301-17938_105-20063732-1.html).

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Yes, I addressed your point before you made it, but you attempted to make it anyway, because you are a fucking broken record and once you've said your shtick you've got nothing left, but to repeat yourself.

I addressed that argument already, so if you want to be taken seriously, you need to listen to what the other person says.


You're using the same argument against the MW that has been used since the MW came into existence
It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now, and the same tired arguments will remain bullshit in the future.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I addressed that argument already, so if you want to be taken seriously, you need to listen to what the other person says.

You didn't. You claimed they'd do it right now if they could. I'm telling you that the economics change when the wage rises. You also said they would do it already, and in Europe, they already are.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Yup, I addressed your argument and your response is: "No you didn't"

Well guess what Jeff, this isn't a fucking monty python sketch and I will not engage in an "argument" where it's simple contradiction.

I addressed the concept of raising the wages and machine replacement. If you are unable to see how I addressed those issues, you need to return to school and gain some reading comprehension.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I addressed the concept of raising the wages and machine replacement. If you are unable to see how I addressed those issues, you need to return to school and gain some reading comprehension.

You addressed it by saying "they'd do it already." They are doing it already in places where the wages are higher. Thanks for making my point?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

there is some sort of random point we can hit that people's value doesn't fall below

There's a term for when there are no lower bounds on how people are valued, psychopathy.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's a fairly bizarre statement.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Howso?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Shows a misunderstanding of a lot of different issues.

Besides that, arguably there is no lower end that someone can lower someone else. You could enslave someone, or you could enslave someone and require them to pay you as well, for example.

Far too simplistic a response for what's a serious inquiry and comment. You, especially, I sincerely would have liked to have heard from on it in a meaningful way.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Fair dinkum. I'll re-read the thread and see if I can add anything of value.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

arguably there is no lower end that someone can lower someone else.

That may be true if we stay focused on individual-to-individual interactions. However, everyone making their deals begins to create a situation that can leave others lowered beyond what we would like to think of as an acceptable living standard. For example, globalization and the movement of capital to use the much cheaper labor pools abroad, along with the deterioration of public services, such as public education, can leave individuals effectively trapped below a point we want people to be, especially when (as you often acknowledge) the economy is becoming much more selective and demanding about what skill-sets will be rewarded. We should be sensitive to the unintended consequences of everybody's free deal-making.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

However, everyone making their deals begins to create a situation that can leave others lowered beyond what we would like to think of as an acceptable living standard.

Or, conversely, it merely shifts what an "acceptable living standard" might be. We could use that shift nationally, for instance, in where we have some segments of the population pushing for wage increases that make no sense in some geographic locales.

For example, globalization and the movement of capital to use the much cheaper labor pools abroad, along with the deterioration of public services, such as public education, can leave individuals effectively trapped below a point we want people to be, especially when (as you often acknowledge) the economy is becoming much more selective and demanding about what skill-sets will be rewarded.

It can if all those things happen and the globalization also fails to benefit those who would normally be lifted up. A job at a few dollars a day in a developing economy is not going to result in a standard of living that a few dollars a day creates in a first world nation, for example.

We should be sensitive to unintended consequences, yes. Too much of left wing economics, however, outright dismisses those consequences. Why else would we see a delay in the employer mandate except that the consequences of significant cost increases are finally becoming clear after we passed the bill, even though many were explaining how that would be the result long before?