I don't think I would consider my proposal trickle down given I proposed to force increased burdens on corporations, despite the proposed lower/maintain corporate tax rates.
Never heard anyone before consider mandated increases to minimum wage, or increased employee burdens paid by the employer as a trickle down theory.
Maybe my proposal is a hybrid, but to just label it as you have is a mistake and a way for you to handwave it away.
I am proposing government mandated re-directing corporate profits to .... employees.
That is trickle down economics.
I do think if your going to take this path heavy regulation is the way to go. But it doesn't change the fact that trickle down economics has failed as an economic theory.
Here is the key paragraph that provides some support for the position to base on cost of living
Quote:
So, Dube’s literature review above suggests that in general, minimum wages aren’t harmful if they’re below about 60% of the median wage. The median weekly earnings of U.S. workers currently stands at around $994, so assuming a 40-hour workweek that’s about $24.85/hour. 60% of that is about $14.91, meaning that $15 is right around the maximum safe level. But because the economy will recover from COVID-19 and wages will rise, and because Biden’s $15 minimum wage would undoubtedly be phased in over time, $15 will probably be under the national “safe” level by the time the law goes into effect. And thanks to inflation, it will be further and further below the “safe” level every year (we really should index minimum wage to inflation, but that’s another story).
But that’s at the national level. What about at the local level? In big cities where wages (and living costs) are naturally higher, $15 won’t be any problem at all. But in small towns in Kansas, where wages (and living costs) are naturally a lot lower, a federally mandated $15 wage could be a big problem.
Fortunately, there’s reason to think that small towns won’t be so screwed by a too-high minimum wage. The reason is that these small towns also tend to have fewer employers, and therefore more monopsony power. And as we saw above, more monopsony power means that minimum wage is less dangerous, and can even raise employment sometimes.
A recent study by Azar et al. confirms this simple theoretical intuition. They find that in markets with fewer employers — where you’d expect employers’ market power to be stronger — minimum wage has a more benign or beneficial effect on jobs:
What it doesn’t discuss is the affect in cities where median wages are insufficient to support a $15 per hour minimum wage.
So a place like Mississippi where the median household (not individual) income is 45,000 per year a $15 min wage will have negative affects.
So you could simply tie the min wage to 60% of the previous years median average earnings plus inflation and do better than $15 everywhere.
I just think it should have a geographic cost of living adjustment. I feel like someone making $11/hour in some areas has a better quality of life than someone making $15 in some urban areas.
Snagged from another forum I follow, discussing the same situation:
$11 an hour is about 23K a year gross. Say 17K net.
Lets say for 1 single person who walks to work and their stores (no car)
Yearly Expenses
Rent - 500 a month (6000)
Groceries (including toiletries, housekeeping products, etc.) - 400 a month (4800)
Phone - 50 a month (600)
Gas - 35 a month (420)
Electric - 100 a month (1200)
Water/Sewage - 25 a month (300)
Health Insurance - 200 a month (2400)
TOTAL - 15,720
17,000 - 15720 = $1280 remaining
All that is assuming one doesn't have a vehicle. If you do need a vehicle you need to find a way to run one for about $100/month. Oh and you'd better REALLY hope you never have even a single emergency come up. (Some of those numbers are questionable, you can probably drop the groceries a decent amount, probably 250-300 is more accurate I would think)
Either way, even in a magical place with only $500/mo rent, you're still going to be living paycheck to paycheck with almost no possibility of saving up for emergencies/big purchases, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek Sutton
Arkansas, where the minimum wage is $11/ hour.
This information absolutely just suckerpunched me in the face.
Pennsylvania has kept the federal minimum wage of 7.25/hr. Pennsylvania's cost of living is much higher. But our awful GOP led government has been digging their heels in on this for a decade.
Wow I just made myself really, really angry.
And states like mine are why you need to force a higher minimum wage, and it needs to be tied to inflation/COL. Because states like mine will keep people in poverty for fun if you don't force their hand.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
I do think if your going to take this path heavy regulation is the way to go. But it doesn't change the fact that trickle down economics has failed as an economic theory.
Perhaps my ignorance is on full display, but I disagree.
Trickle down fails because the system assumes the money will trickle down by the laws of supply and demand and goodwill, and it actually doesn't do so. My system mandates the money to flow to employees. Its different.
If you increased business taxes by a given brackets amount and that money went directly to the same programs for the same amount I am proposing, the average net impact on the business across Canada would be the same, and the employees would feel the exact same 'help' but you wouldn't call it trickle down.
It's crazy how PA votes in the same crappy government, much to Witty's annoyance. Who would have thought that Arkansas has the more progressive Republicans? At least they put it on the ballot
All that is assuming one doesn't have a vehicle. If you do need a vehicle you need to find a way to run one for about $100/month. Oh and you'd better REALLY hope you never have even a single emergency come up. (Some of those numbers are questionable, you can probably drop the groceries a decent amount, probably 250-300 is more accurate I would think)
Either way, even in a magical place with only $500/mo rent, you're still going to be living paycheck to paycheck with almost no possibility of saving up for emergencies/big purchases, etc.
And we wonder why there's so much flight to big cities. Even if you have an extra $1300 per year, there's nothing you can spend that on in these small towns because investment is dead. So you have bored people pissing it away on booze and drugs because there's really nothing else they can do with it.
We talk about small businesses and entrepreneurs being the backbones of the country. Well how are people in small towns supposed to build up the equity needed to start a small business if they barely have enough to live on?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Perhaps my ignorance is on full display, but I disagree.
Trickle down fails because the system assumes the money will trickle down by the laws of supply and demand and goodwill, and it actually doesn't do so. My system mandates the money to flow to employees. Its different.
If you increased business taxes by a given brackets amount and that money went directly to the same programs for the same amount I am proposing, the average net impact on the business across Canada would be the same, and the employees would feel the exact same 'help' but you wouldn't call it trickle down.
Trickle down economics fails because it relies on direct participation in the primary economy, basically failing to capture aspects of the hidden economy, family care, barter trade, private contractors(like uber drivers), unemployment ... which requires large scale government intervention, but the entire theory relies on under-resourced government. So it fails to adequately reward everything that creates value for society.
That and it doesn't account for the compounding effects of excess capital.
Leaving extra value with the employer and having it flow to the employee is trickle down economics, regulating the flow probably puts a band aid on a lot of the problems trickle down seems to have, but it doesn't eliminate them.
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
A dire situation. For our municipality we have secured 300 vaccines for our first responders, which covers about a fifth of them. This is criminal. Complete mismanagement at the federal level.
So you dislike the federal minimum wage. More of a states rights kind of guy who would prefer if they made their own choices on what to pay or not pay people in their states?
yes
__________________
You lack rawness, you lack passion, you couldn't make it through war without rations.
Ooooh, swung at a really bad pitch in the dirt. No, I'm for taxing corporations out of existence. Trickle down economics has been a massive failure for decades and only contributed to the greatest economic disparity in the country's history, and that takes a lot when you consider the conditions when the robber barons were plundering the country.
Small corporations are already taxed out of existence.
__________________
You lack rawness, you lack passion, you couldn't make it through war without rations.
Just the opposite. Those who voted for a guy who thought it was a hoax need to be vaccinated first because they take no responsibility for their actions and refuse to take precautionary measures in wearing PPE and practicing distancing. These are the people that will continue to be a threat and spread the virus. Those who understand the individual responsibility of protecting one's self is also the best way to protect others are the people who are helping control the virus in the first place. I will give up my vaccination to someone who doesn't practice appropriate protective measures as it will protect my community more in the long run and then provide greater protection to myself and my family as the virus will have no where to go.
The restrictions to small business are effecting me worse then COVID-19.
__________________
You lack rawness, you lack passion, you couldn't make it through war without rations.
Small corporations are already taxed out of existence.
Yeah, that's bull####. Small corporations fail because big corporations have the rules written to benefit them and can buy up the performing smaller ones. Wake the #### up and see how the system works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedMan12
The restrictions to small business are effecting me worse then COVID-19.
What restrictions would those be?
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 01-29-2021 at 05:52 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
A new book makes shocking claims that Russia’s KGB started grooming Donald Trump 40 years ago, repeatedly saving him from financial ruin, and that when the reality-show entrepreneur became U.S. president in 2017, it was time for him to repay the favour.
Investigative reporter Craig Unger’s new book also alleges that Trump established further ties to Russia during his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, the Daily Mail reports. The deceased sex offender allegedly relied on the same Russian pimps who supplied women to oligarchs with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“Trump was a dream for KGB officers looking to develop an asset,” Yuri Shvets, a former KGB major living in the U.S., is quoted as saying in the book. “Everybody has weaknesses. But with Trump it wasn’t just weakness. Everything was excessive. His vanity, excessive. Narcissism, excessive. Greed, excessive. Ignorance, excessive.”
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Donald Trump discussed his plans to get involved in the 2022 congressional elections with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy on Thursday, an indication the former president still has a hold on the GOP weeks after his supporters led a deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol.At Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, he and McCarthy "discussed many topics, number one of which was taking back the House in 2022," said a statement from the ex-president's office. "President Trump’s popularity has never been stronger than it is today, and his endorsement means more than perhaps any endorsement at any time."
The Republican chair of Arizona's state House Ways and Means Committee introduced a bill Wednesday that would give the Legislature authority to override the secretary of state’s certification of its electoral votes.
GOP Rep. Shawnna Bolick introduced the bill, which rewrites parts of the state's election law, such as sections on election observers and securing and auditing ballots, among other measures.
One section grants the Legislature, which is currently under GOP control, the ability to revoke the secretary of state's certification "by majority vote at any time before the presidential inauguration."
^I'm not a constitutional expert, but wouldn't that law be deemed unconstitutional if challenged? Seems like a waste of time to try and push that B.S. through.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
^I'm not a constitutional expert, but wouldn't that law be deemed unconstitutional if challenged? Seems like a waste of time to try and push that B.S. through.
From what I know, states allowing citizens to got for their electoral college is not only not protected by the constitution of the US, it was never intended to be voted on.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
The Following User Says Thank You to Krovikan For This Useful Post:
^I'm not a constitutional expert, but wouldn't that law be deemed unconstitutional if challenged? Seems like a waste of time to try and push that B.S. through.
Not only that, AZ is turning Purple to Blue eventually.
^I'm not a constitutional expert, but wouldn't that law be deemed unconstitutional if challenged? Seems like a waste of time to try and push that B.S. through.
if it isn't unconstitutional, it will be the end of American democracy
"we don't like the result of the election, so it doesn't count"
