3 ms·

I’m glad. I want services to cost more, I want restaurants to cost the dollar more a plate it takes to pay a living wage, I want for my purchases to stop being

I’m glad. I want services to cost more, I want restaurants to cost the dollar more a plate it takes to pay a living wage, I want for my purchases to stop being subsidized by people on food stamps working two jobs. Happy Labor Day.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
TBF - your federal income tax is subsidizing it. So, you are paying for it, just indirectly, and probably disproportionately (either over or under paying).
- octokatt 5y ago
  Which is the problem. Food stamps are seen as a moral failing, and the richer you get the easier dodging taxes becomes. I’d rather money flow more directly into pockets (higher wages) than indirectly (food stamps, Medicaid) so the market can be more efficient.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
    We are on the same page - just pointing out how the system works. It is important to point out that the current system is designed to maximize employment. It's easy to have a bunch of services that are subsidized by the top 10% paying >50% of >25% of low-paid service workers' wages (through income tax that pays for SNAP, HUD, etc). Since people are dependent on income for a living - if demand for services drops because the average person is unwilling to pay an extra 25% for services - then these service workers need to be employed elsewhere. Would there be jobs for them? Your other option is to just give them money to do nothing - and the average person gets less services. This doesn't seem ideal for anyone beside the people getting paid to do nothing - who would maybe be 2-3% of the population. And it seems especially unfair for the people who would keep their job - and instead of getting paid to not provide services - they have to actually provide the services!
fasteddie31003 5y ago
You are missing the other half of the equation. If all services just cost more that will just result in inflation. I think you want the cost ratio of services jobs to other jobs to increase. That would mean you would want non-service income to be able to buy less services.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  Not all non-service income, just the income of the standard boogey-men, those very loosely defined as the 1%. Basically those whose income is primarily from capital rather than from labour, and other classes of rentiers.
  - codyswann 5y ago
    What do you figure those 1% have as actual income?
- orwin 5y ago
  And a 10% inflation rate would be great. Piketty was wrong you know, in his book, he argues that the capital income increase (compared to labor income) mean that all productivity gains since the 70s were captured by the capital. But he argue that taking the GDP numbers (inflation-adjusted). Because production is hard to mesure with other tools than GDP/GNI. But other economists argues that GDP - especially since QE, but truthfully since the 90s - do not mesure productivity increase, but a mix of productivity and asset inflation (and GDP is only corrected with "regular" inflation). So Piketty was wrong. Capital income not only captured all productivity increases since the 70s, it even ate through labor income in proportion. The only marker that can equalize thing in our capitalist, market-oriented economies is a higher rate of inflation. We should aim for that. We need regular inflation superior than asset inflation.
- octokatt 5y ago
  Usually you can get the cost ratio of services jobs to other jobs to adjust by increasing the lowest wage, i.e. minimum wage. But… yes. I would like for non-service income (like mine) to be able to buy less services. I grew up poor and made it to the top quintile, and yes, I would like for the gap between where I came from and where I got to slim down more. It would be great if more pressure could hit the top 1%, but if to get there I’m paying, I’m ok with that.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

TBF - your federal income tax is subsidizing it. So, you are paying for it, just indirectly, and probably disproportionately (either over or under paying).

octokatt 5y ago
Which is the problem. Food stamps are seen as a moral failing, and the richer you get the easier dodging taxes becomes. I’d rather money flow more directly into pockets (higher wages) than indirectly (food stamps, Medicaid) so the market can be more efficient.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  We are on the same page - just pointing out how the system works. It is important to point out that the current system is designed to maximize employment. It's easy to have a bunch of services that are subsidized by the top 10% paying >50% of >25% of low-paid service workers' wages (through income tax that pays for SNAP, HUD, etc). Since people are dependent on income for a living - if demand for services drops because the average person is unwilling to pay an extra 25% for services - then these service workers need to be employed elsewhere. Would there be jobs for them? Your other option is to just give them money to do nothing - and the average person gets less services. This doesn't seem ideal for anyone beside the people getting paid to do nothing - who would maybe be 2-3% of the population. And it seems especially unfair for the people who would keep their job - and instead of getting paid to not provide services - they have to actually provide the services!

fasteddie31003 5y ago

You are missing the other half of the equation. If all services just cost more that will just result in inflation. I think you want the cost ratio of services jobs to other jobs to increase. That would mean you would want non-service income to be able to buy less services.

bryanlarsen 5y ago
Not all non-service income, just the income of the standard boogey-men, those very loosely defined as the 1%. Basically those whose income is primarily from capital rather than from labour, and other classes of rentiers.
- codyswann 5y ago
  What do you figure those 1% have as actual income?
orwin 5y ago
And a 10% inflation rate would be great. Piketty was wrong you know, in his book, he argues that the capital income increase (compared to labor income) mean that all productivity gains since the 70s were captured by the capital. But he argue that taking the GDP numbers (inflation-adjusted). Because production is hard to mesure with other tools than GDP/GNI. But other economists argues that GDP - especially since QE, but truthfully since the 90s - do not mesure productivity increase, but a mix of productivity and asset inflation (and GDP is only corrected with "regular" inflation). So Piketty was wrong. Capital income not only captured all productivity increases since the 70s, it even ate through labor income in proportion. The only marker that can equalize thing in our capitalist, market-oriented economies is a higher rate of inflation. We should aim for that. We need regular inflation superior than asset inflation.
octokatt 5y ago
Usually you can get the cost ratio of services jobs to other jobs to adjust by increasing the lowest wage, i.e. minimum wage. But… yes. I would like for non-service income (like mine) to be able to buy less services. I grew up poor and made it to the top quintile, and yes, I would like for the gap between where I came from and where I got to slim down more. It would be great if more pressure could hit the top 1%, but if to get there I’m paying, I’m ok with that.