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

[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.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Does that mean that we both agree in thinking that the second scenario is better?

Is that also the answer that Mr. Boudreaux gives?

I was thinking his and your answer would be the first scenario, and that this is why we need this kind of top-heavy hierarchical economy.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Does that mean that we both agree in thinking that the second scenario is better?

We do, and Boudreaux does as well. It's always better to not be spending where you don't need to, instead directing resources in necessary endeavors.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how this illumines what we are talking about. The hypothetical sounds more like a refutation of the make-work programs of the Great Depression, but not really countering, because in that situation, resources just weren't moving, and so government was left to try to get things happening.

[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.