Hope he does it. Can't wait for Alberta (and especially Jason Kenney) to explode over this.
Yes, you did miss something! ... oh yes and the past is not 'another country, as Joe will no doubt find out
Ooh Ouch!!..... do I come here often?
Correct, but there will always be something there to remind him... social media.... 'fake news' of course, it never happened folks!!!
Do you mean 'the past is a foreign country?'
No, I meant 'another' country.... could be 'foreign', (but that would not make sense in this context) or, that in the past the present country could have been seen as being a different/another country, in terms of outlook, economy, etc. as indeed you referred to ...make some vague point about possible things maybe said 40 years ago about different times and economic realities that maybe Biden doesn't think apply presently?
All good I hope?... but probably not... No offence intended
Have you had a fall and hit your head?
He’s already moaning even before Biden is President.Hope he does it. Can't wait for Alberta (and especially Jason Kenney) to explode over this.
This might actually hurt the Canadian economy, but it might also put an end to the waffling about changing economic focus in Alberta and Saskatchewan and help the country get out of the neverending oil and pipelines discussions. Let's head for the future instead.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Probably... long term memory is fine, except (it appears) when quoting Joe Biden ( that is hazy!) just an harmless old man
Probably... long term memory is fine, except (it appears) when quoting Joe Biden ( that is hazy!) just an harmless old man
That Econ 101 thing is (I'm sure you know this) with a simple supply and demand model with perfect competition: a minimum wage set above market wage puts the market out of equilibrium, resulting in deadweight loss. Employers will be strict losers, while some employees will gain and other lose (increased unemployment). Net effect will be negative, net effect for employees can be positive but unemployemt will increase outside of some crazy elastisities. It's a useful framework, but applying that to the job market specifically is ... optimistic, for several reasons.
Like clockwork. They come out like that every time there is any mention of ending the Keystone XL project. Great bit of cherry-picking in that letter. (E.g., "First Nations who have signed partnership agreements" is a great way of implying that all FNs support the pipeline. That wouldn't be true, but don't actually say that either.)
Out of curiosity: how does this Dube does his modelling? Do you have a link? I have read before about economists often doing their modelling/predictions based on the assumption of the 'perfect' free-market economy, which is of course flawed as that doesn't exist in practice and people also don't behave fully rationally as expected; but I'd be curious about more reality-based modelling.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
You still can’t turn on any local radio station and listen to more than 5 songs without this being one of them.
Ok, so, this isn't a straight forward question. Models like the very general supply and demand model, or a Solowian growth model, or a Heckscher-Ohlin model trade model etc. etc. are big M models which aim to explain how/why something happens or maybe even will happen. The actual effect of minium wage policies is an empirical question, but empirics is difficult because you're trying to measure the real world which is influenced by a ton of different things, so you need empirical models to do this. You can't just observe that a minimum wage policy happened and then unemployment changed by X some time later and that's that.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Very interesting! Thanks for taking the time to share all that.Ok, so, this isn't a straight forward question. Models like the very general supply and demand model, or a Solowian growth model, or a Heckscher-Ohlin model trade model etc. etc. are big M models which aim to explain how/why something happens or maybe even will happen. The actual effect of minium wage policies is an empirical question, but empirics is difficult because you're trying to measure the real world which is influenced by a ton of different things, so you need empirical models to do this. You can't just observe that a minimum wage policy happened and then unemployment changed by X some time later and that's that.
In this (pdf file) relatively new working paper Dube et.al. use an empirical model to analyze the effect to 138 minimum wage changes over a 35 year period, where they use bunching (they look at changes in employment directly below and above the minimum wage treshold). This isn't really what most people have in mind when talking about models, though.
There are several different models looking at the labor market specifically, but the easiest is to just think of it in the same supply and demand framework I described above but where employers have some degree of market power. So instead of that graph with two lines you see when you google "supply and demand" you get something like this:
With perfect competition the market clears where supply intersect with demand, so at E1 employment at a wage of W1. If employers have market power then you get that third line (because employers can lower the market wage by restricting how many they employ, with full competition they can't), so market wage will be the lower W3 at the lower employment level E2. If a minimum wage is set at a level higher than W3 but not exceeding W1 then wages will rise and employment increase. Above W1 you'll start getting the same effects you see if you google "supply and demand price floor". This is basically what Dube et.al. talks about here (a monopsony is the same thing as a monopoly, but from the demand side instead of the supply side).
So this basically non-answer is that Dube is looking at the labor market using the classic supply and demand model/framework described in Econ 101, but where employers have some degree of market power. He's using a wide variety of empirical models to isolate the effect of the minimum wage policies on wages and employment, and he's then using those empirical findings to predict the effect of future minimum wage policies.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
As with all things it's difficult, but generally you wouldn't expect a significant impact on spending when you don't see large employment effects, rather we're talking about redistribution from employers to employees. So employers spend less while employees spend more. It would certainly impact what people spend on, and that will have some effects, but probably not on total output. That sort of general equilibrium approach you mentioned is used to explain how you can have an increase in labor supply due to immigration without depressing wages (the Mariel boatlift is a famous example of this), but it's probably not very relevant here.
Thanks! Right, yes, that's the other thing I had thought of earlier but forgot to mention in my post: employee productivity and retention rising due to the wage increase. Although I suppose that's not as pronounced as in the classic Costco vs. Wal-mart dichotomy (insofar as that's real; it is what I have read about anyway), as employee motivation is not just a function of wage but also various secondary conditions and the company culture more generally.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It's a growing economy if it increases productivity or employment, not by redistribution. That's just a reallocation of existing resources, so every extra dollar in the hands of an emplyee is a dollar less in the hands of employers. Employee spending will go up, employer spending will go down (employers are people too, even though they don't always act that way perhaps). There are no easy answers here, though, at least I don't know them. Consumption will probably go up because people at or around the minimum wage tend to consume a higher share of their income, so that'll change some things, but of course that means saving will go down and that'll change things too. Traditionally investment has been seen as the big driver of growth, though things have become a bit more murky lately. It's also made even more unclear by the fact that savings and investments are so decoupled in the US specifically, I'm not sure how that plays in (without international trade saving = investment).
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
And thanks again.
I know income/wealth inequity mostly from its health and social effects, such as on very aspects of well-being, education, criminality, and so on. From what I read, countries with higher inequity tend to do worse across all income levels (including the highest incomes) on all of those. I.e., even rich people do worse on various quality-of-life indicators in high-inequity countries than rich people in low-inequity countries. There should thus be significant economic advantage to reducing the inequity, as it should lower crime rates, mental health issues, increasing education levels (which can also improve personal-life decision-making), and so on. Not sure how much a minimum wage increase does there though, and I suppose in any case that the exact impact on all relevant indicators would be hard to quantify.Another aspect, which I tend to forget about.
UK time: Sky are starting coverage at 2
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Sorry, what's that in UTC?
Not surprising. Can't see any other president having the clout to move it.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What the hell is this? If the famine was so critical to Biden wouldn’t it cause him to feel the opposite?
Well, exactly.
Really can't see how any brain can establish such a causality. In fact this clip should be more indicative of what he thinks:
These are really good, but I am really interested to see what he is gonna do for the climate (in addition to the symbolism of Paris agreement). Put a trillion or two in green energy and we'll be friends forever.
I’m interested in how the cause of the famine is taught in English schools. Here in the states the role of English policies is completely whitewashed (at least it was 20+ years ago).
