Is the US economy in recession?

[Hauldren Collider]

It's the impression I've gotten from reading Dinodoc's posts. Should I lie and say I think he's super nice?

This is rich, coming from the person who basically only posts lame snarky quips.

[giblets]

This is rich, coming from the person who basically only posts lame snarky quips.

At least I don't make racist remarks about calling Palestinians goat ****ers.

[Hauldren Collider]

I believe it was sheep, not goats, and as I recall it was enormously successful in trolling MOBIUS.

[giblets]

Yeah, being a racist twit is an enormously effective way to offend people.

[Jaguar]

It's the impression I've gotten from reading Dinodoc's posts. Should I lie and say I think he's super nice?

I think there's an old maxim here that you might find relevant. A maxim that tells you what to do in the event that you can't say anything nice.

That advice is given to people for their own sake. Saying unkind things like that is unbecoming, and it harms your character more than it harms his.

[DinoDoc]

It's the impression I've gotten from reading Dinodoc's posts. Should I lie and say I think he's super nice?

I wouldn't respect you if you did.

[MRT144]

Given the decline in median income and increase in poverty over the course of his term?

Almost every president since Carter has failed on the median income front. And obviously I dont get the poverty claim since you don't care about people in poverty and likely didn't support the war on poverty, with it being a liberal pork project and all.

[Kidlicious]

Given that GDP growth was at a 1.3 percent annual rate in the second quarter of this year which was down from the 1.7 percent previously estimated, I'm curious what you base your claim that the US isn't headed in that direction on exactly?

More employment and higher wages

[DinoDoc]

More employment and higher wages

Higher wages?

[Kidlicious]

Higher wages?

Yes, higher wages in September.

btw, the gains were led by the healthcare industry.

[MrFun]

I care more about being compassionate than about looking compassionate. If Dinodoc wanted to look compassionate, he'd devise elaborate intellectual schema to deny revealed preferences. He'd cultivate a willful ignorance of capital formation. And he'd pretend that relevant economic elasticities are zero for any policy designed by well-intentioned leftists.

But he doesn't do that. He selflessly votes Republican, lets you guys slander him, and quietly helps keep the US the least poor country in the entire world. That, I think, is being compassionate.

Um, the United States has the highest poverty rate among developed countries in the world.

[MrFun]

You're just finding this out now? Wow. Mr. Fun, I hate to say it, but you've had a sheltered life.

No, it's not news to me, douchebag. It seems to be news to you though, that people on minimum wage often cannot afford necessities without welfare assistance, which is why I brought it up.

If you oppose minimum wage laws, then you will have to accept having more people on welfare.

[Ben Kenobi]

It seems to be news to you though, that people on minimum wage often cannot afford necessities

It's not a necessity to own your own apartment and live by yourself. I've been renting rooms now for close to a decade (edit, has it really been 9 years!), for precisely this reason. It's cheaper and you save money.

If you oppose minimum wage laws, then you will have to accept having more people on welfare.

There will be fewer, as there will be more people working fulltime. You can, contrary to what Mr. Fun would have you believe - live quite well off 14.5k a year. I should know as I've never earned that much in a year.

[Aeson]

Ok. Here's how it goes. We work on each of the factual statements, one at a time.

1. Is the US under full employment or 'near full employment' at present? No.
2. Overall wages have dropped since the start of the recession, while the minimum wage has risen.
3. Paying people more than their labour is worth results in an oversupply of labour.
4. An oversupply of labour results in one of two things - a drop in the price of labour or a cut in hours. Since the price cannot be dropped the hours will be cut.

1 and 2 are correct.

3 is making assumptions. The answer to how much something is worth is how much someone is willing to pay for it. You want to assume minimum wage is paying people more than their labor is worth. The fact that the minimum wage jobs we are referencing already exist disputes that assumption. More importantly, the only option that's less attractive than minimum wage (and then not always) is unemployment/welfare ... and we want people coming off welfare and working if we can motivate them to do so. This could potentially drive up the unemployment rate (as people who weren't included in those "looking" for jobs before start looking for jobs), but it would actually be a good thing as in the long run we will be able to add jobs for them to fill.

4 does not follow. Employers do not cut the overall number of hours just because they have more workers to choose from. You need to work with different reasons to get to "the hours will be cut". (There are ways to do so.)

[Ben Kenobi]

3 is making assumptions. The answer to how much something is worth is how much someone is willing to pay for it.

This is why price controls don't work. In order to determine the true value of their labour you would have to eliminate the minimum wage altogether. Only then could you determine the true price of their labor.

By definition, since one cannot work for less than the minimum wage - some of those whom work at the minimum wage are overpaid for what their job is done.

Given that people are rational actors - jobs for which are paid at the minimum wage for work that is not worth this amount will see a labor oversupply - as more people will try to get these jobs. This means that demand is greater for this job than it is for other jobs. Ergo - if the wage were cut, we would still see people applying for these jobs, as the price would reflect the true value of the work, and not the artificial price imposed by the government.

You want to assume minimum wage is paying people more than their labor is worth.

I am saying that by definition, some of those who work at minimum wage are overpaid. We can tell which positions are overpaid by those which have a labour oversupply.

The fact that the minimum wage jobs we are referencing already exist disputes that assumption.

The fact that minimum wage jobs cannot be paid less, guarantees that some who work at minimum wage are not worth the wage.

and we want people coming off welfare and working if we can motivate them to do so. This could potentially drive up the unemployment rate (as people who weren't included in those "looking" for jobs before start looking for jobs), but it would actually be a good thing as in the long run we will be able to add jobs for them to fill.

Elimination of the minimum wage would help here - which is why you see things like 'training wages' and the like. If all labor were truly worth the minimum wage, you would not see training wages.