campfireweekend
Member
Yeah, PhDs at the Congressional budget office! How many business have you run?
Checkmate eCONomists.
Wait, anecdotes don't matter? Data does? Nvm then.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, PhDs at the Congressional budget office! How many business have you run?
Checkmate eCONomists.
Wait, anecdotes don't matter? Data does? Nvm then.
disastermouse
Banned
The conclusions I draw are that many a priori assumptions do not equal data. In practice, profit taking is as likely to occur as is decreasing prices, and demand for certain items is unlikely to increase in saturated markets in an economy where wages are weak and incurring debt is no longer considered safe. Way, WAY too many assumptions in what you cited.
As an example, I drink a certain amount of soda and milk every week. This is irrespective of prices within certain very wide constraints. I am also unlikely to replace consumer durables that are functioning quite well despite lower prices without significant increases in quality or emerging technology that renders my durables obsolete.
Reducing prices doesn't automagically increase demand in saturated markets.
disastermouse
Banned
That wasn't data, that was ideologically-based assumption wrapped up to look like data.
Condescension is unnecessary if the facts are truly on your side. Appeals to authority are also specious, and you would not be able to refer to them if economics was actually science and not politics in drag.
As for not making sense based on economics, not much of what constitutes economics traffics in common sense.
And it also doesn't take into consideration drastic outsourcing of manufacturing, so even if hiring increases, domestic hiring is unaffected.
Hiring comes down to profit generation full-stop. If a new hire increases net profit, hiring ensues. Nothing increases wages except for decreased supply of labor.
campfireweekend
Member
That is literally the opposite of what the appeal to authority fallacy is.
It only applies to appealing to experts that are not authorities on the topic at hand.
To your last sentence, yeah, this'll be the last argument I have with you. Economics is not a science? When did Marxists become Austrians in drag? There is no point in ever debating with you if any citation I can show is just called a lie.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Wow, I was looking at the sample Democrat primary ballot for Texas, and there's a lot more things to vote for in the primaries than I thought.
Looks like I have a lot of research to do! What's the best way to research local candidates?
For local issues you basically have to find a news source that you can trust. If your home has an alternative newspaper they probably put out a voter guide before the election.
Yeah, sure. Throwing enough money at any problem can usually have at least some small effect. But everyone here, seemingly including the author of your paper, seems to understand that option three
is the most common outcome of the policy.
Option two is actually rather specious, they fail to elucidate any economic motivation for a company passing along the tax savings to their employees, especially in a time of extremely high unemployment.
disastermouse
Banned
I'm not saying all citations are lies, I'm saying that those assumptions are political in nature and not data driven, nor are causes and effects adequately linked. If the economists buy zebras and consumption goes up, that's not causal.
And appeal to authority does exactly refer to...wait for it, appealing to authorities on the topic at hand. Not the data or the study, but the authority behind the study.
Lastly, when Marx was doing economics, it was baldly called 'Political Economy'. The politics was admitted up front.
When you derided LTV, I didn't say 'well it's true because Marx (and political economists before him) posited it as true', I wanted to know specifically what the problem was with the labor theory of value, because we could refute the legitimacy of competing authorities all damned day, but I certainly wouldn't learn anything from it.
disastermouse
Banned
See, this is what I see as brain-dead simple and I didn't see anything in the citation that speaks to the logic of it. Did I miss it? Is some part of what he posted assuming that I know some part of economic theory that invalidates the logic of this? If so, can someone point me in the right direction regarding what it is that renders this stupefyingly obvious conclusion suspect?
I've learned that not everything that appears obvious is true, but I at least want to see the reasoning for the argument that it isn't true.
Coriolanus
Banned
He was arguing the bit about it changing employment, not the bit about it being sound policy, fwiw
I like seeing these scenarios where i have to struggle with the backfire effect in order to accept data.
Impact seems kinda shite, but yeah.
I like seeing these scenarios where i have to struggle with the backfire effect in order to accept data.
Impact seems kinda shite, but yeah.
campfireweekend
Member
Okay, I'm gonna walk you through this. You can call it lies that reject common sense from a field desperately masquerading as a science. But maybe some people don't believe that, so they'll learn something today.
A firm is making the decision to hire a worker, of course factoring in how much that employee will cost the firm, and generate for it.
We're gonna assume (read: lies ahead) a somewhat competitive market. This means market wage is basically MPL. MPL is the marginal product of labor. It decreases with each worker, because efficiency gains start to be less and less.
Ex.) Hiring the first worker increases production by a ton. Hiring the second provides benefit, but not as much as that first one, so her MPL would be less. The MPL of the nth worker is say a cool $100k
Now the firm needs to decide whether to hire the nth worker, who I will term the marginal hire, due to the fact that at this point we are totally indifferent between hiring and not hiring this worker, as it has no effects on profitability.
So we know the firm is willing to spend $100k on this employee, until oh shit, the payroll tax has been raised.
Now its no longer profitable to hire that employee. This means that the n-1 worker has become the marginal hire, at say an MPL of $110k. So now we do some induction. Ignore the previous payroll tax raise. Assume instead the government lowered the payroll tax. So we've hired that nth worker, and now we're looking at the n+1 worker, one who's MPL is say $90k, as that's the benefit they bring to the firm. Remember, MPL is declining.
The firm will now hire the n+1 worker that the previous payroll tax rate would have made unprofitable.
Of course, a somewhat competitive firm cannot wage discriminate in such a way as outlined, thus they would hire all employees above the MPL of the last employee hired at the MPL of the last employee hired. $100k when the payroll rate is flat, and $90k when it has been lowered.
Why does this happen? Because of tax incidence. The amount paid towards the payroll tax on both the employer and employee side will be factored in to the wage the n+1 worker gets. This means included in all of those previous MPLs was the payroll tax. This means they all got paid less than that, by whatever amount the payroll tax was. On the employer side this occurs because it affects marginal costs and the cost of inputs, labor chief among them. On the employee side this occurs because it affects that wage a worker is willing to accept.
I've addressed the increasing employment part. Now I'll address the increasing wages part.
Most prevailing literature places the tax incidence of both the employer and employee payroll tax on the wages of the employees. Links here, here, and here.
There's something special about that last one. (well special for disastermouse and tmarg) No assumptions! it actually happened. Chile lowered their payroll taxes on employers, and wages went up. Crazy, I know.
campfireweekend
Member
Nowhere does the author say that is the most likely outcome. That's you projecting, especially about the everyone here bit. Because it makes me think that you think I'm some kind of outsider. When I'm a liberal. A liberal that doesn't want to see other liberals lie, knowingly or unknowingly, about things and then say its econ 101. Because republicans do that all the time, and I'd like to think we're a bit better than that.
Look at the post I just made for a response to the second point. And then stop trying to paint me as arguing for this policy as in any way sound when LITERALLY all I said in the post I made that you responded to was that reducing the payroll tax could increase employment and wages.
Black Republican
Member
Damn more debates already this week?
Feb 11th in Wisconsin for Dems, Feb 13th in South Carolina for Gop
everything is flying by!
Feb 11th in Wisconsin for Dems, Feb 13th in South Carolina for Gop
everything is flying by!
Rubio had a terrible night. However, let's not write him off just yet. I don't think one bad debate performance is going to shed his "mainstream" appeal. Americans have short memories.
Also, he would still crush Bernie.
If he falls to third place or lower on Tuesday then there's some evidence for him starting to be in trouble. He's always going to have FL though.
Also, why did Trump stand with Carson like that? Are they trying to foreshadow a what the GOP ticket will be if Trump wins the nomination? What the hell is wrong with Carson, anyway? Was he high?
Also, he would still crush Bernie.
If he falls to third place or lower on Tuesday then there's some evidence for him starting to be in trouble. He's always going to have FL though.
Also, why did Trump stand with Carson like that? Are they trying to foreshadow a what the GOP ticket will be if Trump wins the nomination? What the hell is wrong with Carson, anyway? Was he high?
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I honestly think Trump felt bad for him. He stopped, whispered something to him, and stood by him like a friend.
If Rubio underperforms in NH now then he's probably done. It's going to be a one-two punch, even if he comes back with a good debate performance the ship will have sailed I think.
The point is that this is the guy who was supposed to be the kid, he was riding some pretty huge momentum and this was supposed to be his leadership moment and not even 20 minutes into the thing he tanks himself on a scale we haven't seen since "oops." It was more awkward than Carson playing hide and seek on live TV.
Republican donors aren't stupid, these are people with money who like sure things and last night pretty much showed them that he isn't ready. He can't hold up to scrutiny and if Christie can make him look bad, if he can look that bad in a field of people who while competing against each other, are often pulling punches for the sake of the party then there's no way he's going to stand up to Hillary.
Remember Paul Ryan vs Joe Biden? I mean, Joe Biden was not that stellar in the democratic debates in 2008, and he dismantled one of the Republican's top guys in a vice presidential debate. Can you imagine Hillary taking apart Rubio? I mean look at his stances. If they even mention abortion or gay marriage dude is going to have a meltdown worse than anything we've seen. He's just lucky he doesn't have to defend himself against his bigoted positions right now.
That said, it's tough. If Christie wasn't about to be dragged into a big legal battle over bridge-gate, I would be looking at him. But as of now, there are no real clear strong candidates any more. Robio was the best last hope.
Jeb is almost defacto at this point if you're a Republican donor, but unfortunately what you're paying for is more like how little can we lose in the general more than "how can we win." It's a shame because if you separate him from the baggage of the Bush years, and his extremely unlikable personality, he could be pretty formidable.
Anything can happen though so who knows. People could just not show up to vote in November and we'll all be moaning about President Trump in January.
The point is that this is the guy who was supposed to be the kid, he was riding some pretty huge momentum and this was supposed to be his leadership moment and not even 20 minutes into the thing he tanks himself on a scale we haven't seen since "oops." It was more awkward than Carson playing hide and seek on live TV.
Republican donors aren't stupid, these are people with money who like sure things and last night pretty much showed them that he isn't ready. He can't hold up to scrutiny and if Christie can make him look bad, if he can look that bad in a field of people who while competing against each other, are often pulling punches for the sake of the party then there's no way he's going to stand up to Hillary.
Remember Paul Ryan vs Joe Biden? I mean, Joe Biden was not that stellar in the democratic debates in 2008, and he dismantled one of the Republican's top guys in a vice presidential debate. Can you imagine Hillary taking apart Rubio? I mean look at his stances. If they even mention abortion or gay marriage dude is going to have a meltdown worse than anything we've seen. He's just lucky he doesn't have to defend himself against his bigoted positions right now.
That said, it's tough. If Christie wasn't about to be dragged into a big legal battle over bridge-gate, I would be looking at him. But as of now, there are no real clear strong candidates any more. Robio was the best last hope.
Jeb is almost defacto at this point if you're a Republican donor, but unfortunately what you're paying for is more like how little can we lose in the general more than "how can we win." It's a shame because if you separate him from the baggage of the Bush years, and his extremely unlikable personality, he could be pretty formidable.
Anything can happen though so who knows. People could just not show up to vote in November and we'll all be moaning about President Trump in January.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
honest LOL at 'I've taken two courses in Labor Economics!' while trying to defend tax cuts as a way to spur hiring while also demanding CITATIONS when we have literally 100 years of evidence.
good on you, young republican. you'll make your party proud.
good on you, young republican. you'll make your party proud.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
That really was worse than Perry's "oops" moment, though. I mean, the guy was literally told he repeats the same talking points and then responds with those exact same talking points. It was bizarre, and will be the subject of ads for the coming weeks.
Then, later in the debate when he brought up Obama again, the crowd laughed and booed. The donors absolutely see it is happening.
Coriolanus
Banned
That is not what he did. If you've 100 years of evidence that payroll tax cuts do nothing for employment, then it should not be hard to provide a source for your claim, yes?
theres more of ya, but the kween has a bad case of loving to get shot in the face and b-dubs seems to greatly enjoy hospital beds.
other concerns: daniel hasn't been shot at once in the whole game, and manky is very fond of missing the broad side of a barn.
cartoon_soldier
Member
How none of Rubio's opponents don't have the ad up yet is baffling. I would be switching by Superbowl spots to show how much Rubio loves Obama.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Probably won't matter much in NH.
They'll be in full force all week in SC, I bet.
Who's Mouse
Your dudes fare better than me. My friend who named one of his units after me got me killed almost right away.
RustyNails
Member
Are you saying they don't know what they're doing?
I want to dispel this notion
He's a disaster, don't worry.
Coriolanus
Banned
Disastermouse. Red and all. I should probably rename his gun to something tacky like The Proletariat.
Will have to create some psi ops once i get the lab running, then we'll see how dramatis fares.
Sc0la ended up being a butch greek heavy lady. Tore some mutons apart before eating so much lead she developed some sort of trauma. Not changing appearance outside of props and skin color because the game seems to skew white a tad too much. Still better representation than nearly every other game ever.
Republic of Ezo
Member
I do. The payroll tax is incredibly regressive. Anyone making over $106k pays a lower percentage of payroll tax from their salaries and flat taxes are generally stupid overall. Get rid of it and increase the current graduated income tax in a sufficient way to make up for those lost returns.
Macho Madness
Member
NH CNN/WMUR
Sanders 58% (-3)
Clinton 35% (+4)
Sanders 58% (-3)
Clinton 35% (+4)
he bombed but i'm not really convinced he "bombed" in the eyes of your average primary voter. all he has to do in NH is come in second, which he's still poised to do.
SC is going to be his make or break moment. if he doesn't come in first or a very strong second then he's done. ... i'm still bullish on his chances personally
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Bush looked pretty good last night, pretty "presidential". It's astonishing to me that he spent months trying to out-Trump Trump and making limp-dick attacks on Marco Rubio when his appeal is pretty clearly "I have a conservative record and a shit-ton of experience".
probably, i don't think i'm a good judge of voters, they might like this.
Please clap. You sheep.
Damage control.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
I disagree Diablos, republican donors are quite stupid. It amazes me that great businessmen would fall for what was essentially a Ponzi scheme in 2012 with Karl Rove and then repeat the mistake again this year with Bush. It's very easy to lie to rich people, as a politician or aide. Show them some poll numbers, maybe claim some other donor is thinking about donating a large amount, and watch the money pile in.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/marco-rubio-responds-to-repetition-criticism-by-repeating-himself-3-more-times/
I wish Christie were there to interject.
I wish Christie were there to interject.
ugaboga232
Member
Gilmentum >>> (c)hillarymentum
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Let's not generalize Mice here.
What was Rubio's line?
What was Rubio's line?
Obama was a first year senator. I am a first year senator. Obama knows exactly what he's doing. Therefore, I know exactly what I'm doing
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Rubio is screwing up big time. He looks like a petulant child refusing to admit he did something wrong.
A lighthearted joke about the situation would get rid of a lot of the criticism. Instad, he triples down and keeps repeating the same things, giving his opponents more ammunition. Foolish at best, campaign-killing at worst.
If the other candidates were smart, next debate they need to bring up how Rubio is stuck in the past and doesn't even realize Obama isn't running this time.
A lighthearted joke about the situation would get rid of a lot of the criticism. Instad, he triples down and keeps repeating the same things, giving his opponents more ammunition. Foolish at best, campaign-killing at worst.
If the other candidates were smart, next debate they need to bring up how Rubio is stuck in the past and doesn't even realize Obama isn't running this time.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Somebody just linked me to the Christie/Rubio part. My god.
Perhaps. But Rubio looks like more of a winner that McCain or Romney even to a foolish donor.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I think it doesn't matter one way or the other.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked