16
17

Why does /badeconomics hate Bernie Sanders? (self.badeconomics)

jlew24asu が 投稿

He seems to be gaining in the polls and Hilary is tanking. The rest of reddit seems to love him. what is wrong with his potential economic policies? what would a Bernie Sanders economy look like?

全 171 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]PonderayFollows an AR(1) process 52ポイント53ポイント  (110子コメント)

  1. A 15 dollar minimum wage is probably too high. It's hard to say at what point a minimum wage becomes harmful but the majority of economists tend to think that $15 is too high.

  2. He tends to be anti trade. Economists tend to like trade because when countries specialize it results in more output.

  3. He's anti immigration. More immigration can both improve the livelihoods of individual immigrants as well increase world gdp. This sub tends to be particularly pro immigration too.

Also this should be posted in the sticky. See RIV on the sidebar.

[–]gorbachevI am the representative shill, AMA. 28ポイント29ポイント  (17子コメント)

Bonus: We also don't like corporate income taxes. Bernie likes them more than average.

[–]wumbotarianI want to be the Walrasian Auctioneer when I grow up 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

I don't know tax economics. Though I don't like taxes. Anyway what's a corporate income tax, why isn't optimal?

[–]gorbachevI am the representative shill, AMA. 10ポイント11ポイント  (5子コメント)

It's literally just that - a tax on corporate profits levied at the level of the corporation itself. We don't like it for a bunch of reasons, but the tl;dr on why it bugs me especially is that it's sort of a regressive tax through the backdoor. Since the tax rate is determined by the corporation's profit level, not by the income level of the dividend's recipient, Johnny School Teacher's pension fund has its growth rate slowed by just as much as Warren Buffet's. There are other complaints to be had as well. Arguably, enforcement costs for corporate income taxes are higher and it's also arguably easier to shift a corporation abroad than it is for a person. You get some other weird distortions too, like encouraging bonds over equity. Anyway, the alternative of eliminating the corp income tax and regaining the funds via individual level taxes is generally preferred on economic grounds, for whatever that's worth. The main point of corp income taxes is political anyway.

[–]justforsaving 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Not saying you're wrong, but just wondering, wouldn't it still be a progressive tax because Warren has much more money in the firm?

[–]gorbachevI am the representative shill, AMA. 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

By that logic, a uniform tax of 10% would be progressive because rich people have more overall income.

The main point is that, compared to levying the same income via a progressive tax on individuals, corporate taxes seem to yield an unnecessarily large kick to growth rates of firms themselves and your investment portfolio.

[–]MaharajaRanjitI can be resident tax expert. 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

My time to shine!

The nature of the tax (i.e. progressive or regressive) is defined by the percentage of income paid as tax, not the amount. Buffett will pay the higher amount, just like a person with higher income will pay the higher amount even if tax rate is flat 25%.

[–]wumbotarianI want to be the Walrasian Auctioneer when I grow up 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Cool, thanks.

[–]gorbachevI am the representative shill, AMA. 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, there's a whole ton of writing on this in pub finance, eg this Hamilton Project paper or, even better, this Hamilton paper.

I think most economists aren't even bothering to keep writing about how it should be slashed anymore, given the infeasibility of it all. No politician wants to run on "cut corporate taxes; raise them on people - don't worry, it works out revenue neutral and more progressive than the current system" since nothing after the hyphen would be remembered after a speech. That's probably why you see lots of proposals like "can we at least make investment immediately deductible?"

[–]bdubs91 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wouldn't a corporate tax have the same problems as a regular income tax in the sense is wouldn't be temporal neutral? It would distort the economy towards consumption instead of savings?

[–]urnbabyurnNeoPanglossian 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

A compromise is possible, whereby effective rates are increased while statutory rates are lowered.

[–]gorbachevI am the representative shill, AMA. 9ポイント10ポイント  (6子コメント)

I mean, whatever may be politically feasible, that really hasn't got any bearing on what policy is optimal.

[–]_Rory_T.K. Whitaker's Ghost 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

When talking about "we hate corporate taxes/taxes on capital" is that referring to capital gains, or corporation tax (on profits?)

[–]WeaselsWithEasels 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Under the typical models of taxes and investment behavior (eg, Jorgenson and Hall 1967 or similar), you want something like this:

Corporate income taxes can be okay provided that they allow the full, immediate deduction of capital outlays. Otherwise they suck, big time.

In practice, corporate taxes don't do this in most countries, but they could - and they would - if this were changed. Marco Rubio is one of the presidential candidates proposing this fix in the U.S., though there's no guarantee that goes anywhere.

The brilliance of structuring corporate income taxes this way is that the tax only falls on what people sometimes call "supernormal" returns and rents. There are lots of ways this can go wrong in practice - base erosion, defining the base wrong, etc - but it's super-awesome in theory.

Taxes on capital income at the individual level can also be done, but they should be done in the style that a lot of "savings account" provisions do it - that is, tax both the principle and the returns at ordinary rates only once, when they are withdrawn. (Similar to the U.S. 401k.)

[–]gorbachevI am the representative shill, AMA. 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Can you link me to some literature on why that would be desirable? I haven't heard of that supernormal rents argument before.

[–]WeaselsWithEasels 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

I assume you're talking about the corporate tax idea here.

Here's a paper discussing an example of it in practice. (They're discussing section 179, which allows some small businesses to deduct capital outlays immediately. Section 179 doesn't apply broadly across the entire U.S. tax code.)

Here's the key insight:

Using standard techniques for evaluating investments, it is easily shown that with expensing, the asset has an after-tax return of 5.5 percent, the same as the before-tax return. In this case, the marginal effective tax rate on the investment is zero.

This occurs because expensing reduces after-tax returns and costs by the same proportion, determined by the tax rate. If the tax rate is 50 percent, the result under expensing is financially equivalent to one in which the government becomes a 50 percent partner in the investment. Through the tax system, the government shares 50 percent of the initial costs of the investment by allowing a deduction to be taken immediately, and then shares in 50 percent of the investment’s proceeds. In other words, through the tax system, the investor keeps only 50 percent of the investment’s returns, but also bears only 50 percent of the costs. As a result, per dollar invested, the investor earns the same return from the investment after taxes as before taxes.

Also:

Because expensing exempts the normal or competitive return on capital assets from taxation, the method of capital cost recovery is appropriate if the objective is to tax consumption instead of income.

Another way to think about it is that for a marginal investment - say, a random store in Dubuque or whatever - the value of the deduction is equal to the value of all the expected future taxes on it. However, for an inframarginal investment - like a factory creating Frozen merchandise or something - the tax generates revenue in present value, but the investment happens anyway because it's so profitable.

The intellectual lineage of this traces back to the work of Dale Jorgenson at Harvard, starting in the 1960s and continuing to today. He's been around forever and published a lot, but essentially he's all about translating all of the costs of an investment (including taxes) into a per-period rental price in order to evaluate investment returns.

His equations usually look something like equation (1) in this paper from Jane Gravelle, the tax lady at the CRS. Note that as z approaches 1, you can factor out the entire term of (1-u) and the statutory tax rate drops out of the equation entirely.

It's kind of a wtf result, but I think the part I bolded above from the first paper explains it well in plain English. Of course you can add bells and whistles to the model that make the corporate income tax more of a good or bad thing, but under a basic discounted cash flow analysis, the timing of the tax deductions for investment is a huge deal, and 179-style treatment would take away most of the basic neoclassical case against the corporate income tax.

[–]gorbachevI am the representative shill, AMA. 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Interesting, thanks for the information and links. I can see how this would be an improvement over our current system.

[–]gorbachevI am the representative shill, AMA. 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The latter.

[–]duggabboo -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Average compared to...?

[–]cosimothecatBasel III for the Iron Bank 12ポイント13ポイント  (29子コメント)

As someone who's personal politics (on economics matters and social matters) tend to straddle the two parties, Bernie Sanders is really the crystalization of all the badeconomics from both parties.

[–]duggabboo 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

...care to explain?

[–]jlew24asu[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (27子コメント)

just curious, who do you support for president?

[–]cosimothecatBasel III for the Iron Bank 5ポイント6ポイント  (26子コメント)

I don't know. I can see myself voting for either Clinton or Bush (.... odd saying that...) - both have policies I like and both have polices I detest. But fundamentally, I think they are centralist candidates, which I think is good for the country.

I do know who I will not vote for. That's easier. I will not vote for Donald. I will not vote for Bernie. So I guess if it's Trump vs Clinton, there's no doubt I'll vote for Clinton. Likewise, if it's Bernie vs Bush (or even Cruz), I'll vote republican.

[–]KEM10le STEM (up until it breaks my bias) 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Besides refusing the continental railroad and some education policies, John Kasich is looking pretty good. Mostly because he's probably the only R gov to take the medicare money and use that as an investment instead of turning it into a partisan battle.

[–]jlew24asu[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (24子コメント)

you would take Cruz over Bernie? oh man, say it aint so. really sucks that we are talking about Clinton vs Bush yet again. I think this is why trump is leading. people are sick of political dynasties.

[–]cosimothecatBasel III for the Iron Bank 5ポイント6ポイント  (23子コメント)

you would take Cruz over Bernie

Them are the breaks. I find Cruz' stance on social issues to be horrible. I find Bernie's stance on economic issues also to be horrible. But if I have to choose between setting social progressiveness back or setting economic growth back, I'll choose the former. If anything, the former can be fixed much much more easily than the latter;

I fully appreciate that this is entirely a result of my own utility function. I'm fully aware that I make such a choice because the social issues only affect me in abstraction while the economic issues affect me in a very real sense. And that others will feel the opposite. And that's great.

[–]jlew24asu[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (14子コメント)

I hear ya. I almost feel the opposite. I feel going backwards on social issues hurts in many ways, including economically, over the long run. Clowns like cruz would bring us back to 1950s and require morning bible sessions for every america or risk jail time. of course thats exaggerating, but that seems to be the mindset. makes my skin crawl.

[–]cosimothecatBasel III for the Iron Bank 6ポイント7ポイント  (13子コメント)

Clowns like cruz would bring us back to 1950s and require morning bible sessions for every america or risk jail time.

I don't think that's possible. The president is not a dictator. To stop social progressiveness is one thing, but to revert would require more than just the president. It would require the full support of the legislature and probably a very sympathic judicary. Not to mention the states. Not likely to happen. While Obama has helped, I think the move to gay marriage and pot legalization is much much broader than the presidential agenda.

On the other hand, to implement hamfisted economic policies and fudge up trade relationships is a lot more easy for a President as a chief executor.

So in short, to sum up my view: it's much easier to fudge up the economy as the president than to plunge us back to the 50s. So that's my preference for voting for someone I agree with economically than socially.

[–]unkorruptedpolicy? gtfo -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I think we need to retire the idea that republicans are good for the economy. The claim needs proof, not something praxxed out of the fact that people don't enjoy paying taxes.

[–]cosimothecatBasel III for the Iron Bank 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Absolutely! Not what I'm arguing at all, just to be sure. I think bernie is bad at economics. Doesn't mean I think cruz is good at economics, for example.

[–]unkorruptedpolicy? gtfo 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Wait, you just said you'd vote for Cruz over Bernie for economic reasons. Cruz is just as wrong on immigration, but he's also calling for flat taxes and "abolishing the irs." It's actually beyond bad economics and in to the territory of insanity.

Meanwhile, Bernie is calling for a minimum wage that is a bit too high? That's called leaving room for negotiation and it is very good politics.

[–]cosimothecatBasel III for the Iron Bank 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wait, you just said you'd vote for Cruz over Bernie for economic reasons. Cruz is just as wrong on immigration, but he's also calling for flat taxes and "abolishing the irs." It's actually beyond bad economics and in to the territory of insanity. Meanwhile, Bernie is calling for a minimum wage that is a bit too high? That's called leaving room for negotiation and it is very good politics.

To be clear, I think cruz's immigration policy to be wrong (just like Bernie's). I also think the flat tax/abolish IRS bit is stupid - and nearly impossible (though I don't see why some form of tax reform that includes a flat income tax is necessarily bad economics, just like some form of min wage isn't).

On the other than, a $15 min wage is politically far more likely to happen. Bernie's inclination for bad trade policy is more likely to happen.

It's a sad day if I have to pick between the two, just to be sure.

[–]Logseman -4ポイント-3ポイント  (2子コメント)

The economic cycle is a cycle, it ebbs and flows. Anti-social legislation which discriminates against people, reduces welfare, etc. Is much longer lasting.

[–]cosimothecatBasel III for the Iron Bank 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's ridiculous. The economic cycle is a cycle. Anti-social legislation which discriminates against people, reduces welfare, etc. Is much longer lasting.

Hang on - are you arguing that the president cannot affect the long run economy but only the cylical components? Because that's nonsense.

Further, how does one account for the welfare loss due to a ban on gay marriages (let's pick an example)? And is that really worse than, say, a $15 federal min wage? And while we can be uncertain about the exact cost of both, it's certain that the effects of both are very long run.

"That's ridiculous" is ridiculous.

[–]Logseman -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

A president by himself cannot affect much, no. An administration can, and any administration from any of the viable candidates in the race will have economists who have all been taught the same things in mostly the same universities. They're the ones who matter in the long run economy, and they exercise their influence regardless of the president who has been chosen. If Jeb Bush is chosen it doesn't mean Krugman, Delong and the democrat-leaning economics won't have any influence in economic policy. It may be that a democrat candidate could pick them for the Economic Office of the President or something, but they will be hugely influential regardless.

The fact that you can't measure the welfare loss generated by the criminalization of homosexuality across the eras should say something to you. Keeping a sizable chunk of the population discriminated leads to a loss of welfare of that part of the population, but also to large opportunity costs for society at large. Oscar Wilde v was one of the great writers of the English language: his career was cut short with 40 with his sodomy trial. We, the human race, lost a lot of Wilde's best work.

Obviously in a less grand scale it also leads to other problems: suboptimal family choices leading to bad marriages, stifled education and work opportunities leading to misallocation of human capital, entire punitive/"reformative" structures being maintained and used even though the economic value they offer is negative...

The economic consequences of anti-social policies are much larger, and much harder to revert, than a min wage hike.

[–]besttrousers"Then again, I have pegged you for a Neoclassical/Austrian." 4ポイント5ポイント  (26子コメント)

He's anti immigration.

Is this actually true?

I mean, I know Sanders is against open borders, but so is Michael Clemens (not to mention every other candidate). My understanding is that he has a good voting record on this issue.

[–]strayadvice 20ポイント21ポイント  (9子コメント)

He thinks H1-B expansion is a corporate ploy to attract cheap labor and cites wage stagnation as an indication that demand for labor isn't going up.

[–]errordrivenlearning 5ポイント6ポイント  (7子コメント)

Honest question - can you provide me with some good citations that argue/prove that h1bs aren't a ploy for cheap labor and the stagnant wages aren't a sign of low demand for labor?

[–]urnbabyurnNeoPanglossian 9ポイント10ポイント  (6子コメント)

The against:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20668

The for:

http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/seminars/public_finance_labor_economics/papers/PeriJan31.pdf

[–]gorbachevI am the representative shill, AMA. 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'd just like to pop in and note that there are a ton of papers on high-skill immigration and that those 2 by no means represent the whole literature. I link a few surveys below. My interpretation of the literature is that it leans toward saying high-skill immigration has short-run positive effects on most measures of innovation and domestic worker labor market outcomes, with little conclusive empirical-micro style evidence on long-run effects due to that entering general equilibrium territory (I hate to ask, but if Macro people could help pitch in a survey on that....). The caveat is that credibly identified studies on high-skill immigration have hit on an unusually large number of semi-contradictory results -- presumably, leaving space for a good dissertation.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp7653.pdf http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/7356.html (link to full version at bottom) https://www.nber.org/papers/w16736

[–]NORTHAMERICAN_SCUMprofessional layperson 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

My interpretation of the literature is that it leans toward saying high-skill immigration

H-1B is not "immigration." The program is explicitly referred to as a "Non-immigrant Visa."

That's half the problem with the analysis I've seen on this topic; it is incorrect to conflate temporary worker visas that are tied to a single company to actual "immigration." A lot of folks (like myself) would like to eliminate the H-1B and simultaneously increase high-skilled immigration.

[–]gorbachevI am the representative shill, AMA. 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's certainly true that H-1B and high-skill immigration are not identical in the long run, but looking at the effect of H-1B workers seems like a reasonable way to assess the short-ish run effects of high-skill immigration.

That said, I agree that H-1B << opening the border to high skill immigrants.

[–]strayadvice 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Wasn't there a recent discussion on this sub with a bipartisan conclusion that the problem was hence about H1-B policy and not of immigration itself, that immigration should return to conventional forms rather than the H1-B kind?

[–]irondeepbicycleI got 99 problems but technological unemployment ain't one 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

My understanding is that essentially h1bs tie an immigrant to a company, allowing the company to pay them a lower wage since the immigrant can't shop around for higher paying work. They'll still take a job below their MPL if it's better than the wage they could make in their home country, so companies can cut costs that way. You could resolve the issue by giving them a green card rather than a conditional visa.

[–]NORTHAMERICAN_SCUMprofessional layperson 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

He thinks H1-B expansion is a corporate ploy to attract cheap labor

Below-market-cost labor, yes. I wouldn't call it "Cheap," as they do tend to be fairly high-skilled. But the terms of the program are inherently wage-suppressing.

[–]duggabboo 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Not really.

When people say open borders, they're not saying "Let's get everybody legalized and give them visas and get some new citizens to embrace the American Dream!" they mean open borders.

They mean no borders.

[–]irondeepbicycleI got 99 problems but technological unemployment ain't one 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

What do you mean? Based on reading your comment I can't tell if you think people who advocate for open borders mean open borders or no borders.

[–]IntegraldsI am the rep agent AMA 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

You've gotta admit, borders are weird.

[–]alexhoyerhoard plywood now for our ANCAP overlords 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I understand the point the comic is making totally missed it and am dumb, but can't things like higher air quality, better water filtration, and increased access to healthcare precipitate that exact result? Related, couldn't the institutions and structure of one economy affect the mpl of workers in a way that you could see a discrete jump or fall? Or am I just reading too much into this...

[–]somegurkWhy doesn't modern medicine use more leaches? 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

No that's the point.

[–]alexhoyerhoard plywood now for our ANCAP overlords 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

ooh woosh then

[–]somegurkWhy doesn't modern medicine use more leaches? 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

well I dunno we could both be wrong :)

[–]wumbotarianI want to be the Walrasian Auctioneer when I grow up -1ポイント0ポイント  (8子コメント)

So open borders will obviously drastically increase immigration, however, I don't see how limited immigration will change immigrants coming in and working for "2 or 3 dollars an hour" as Bernie states.

If he was principled (I don't think he is), then any low-skill immigration whatsoever is a race to the bottom as they are willing to take lower than federal minimum wage.

[–]besttrousers"Then again, I have pegged you for a Neoclassical/Austrian." 5ポイント6ポイント  (7子コメント)

Do you have sources for this?

Here's the (old) on the issues: http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Bernie_Sanders_Immigration.htm

Voting record seems generally pro-immigration.

[–]gorbachevI am the representative shill, AMA. 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Bernie claims to be against expansion of hNb visas: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/25/this-is-a-massive-effort-to-attract-cheap-labor-why-sen-bernie-sanders-is-skeptical-of-guest-workers/

[–]wumbotarianI want to be the Walrasian Auctioneer when I grow up 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

If he is pro-immigrantion why was he so anti open borders?

He could've said "open borders are a bit extreme but drastically increasing immigration is a good way to make everyone, including the poor, better off."

Instead he went full left-communitarian and pulled the "race to the bottom" card.

[–]besttrousers"Then again, I have pegged you for a Neoclassical/Austrian." 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

If he is pro-immigrantion why was he so anti open borders?

Because those aren't necessarily incompatible?

Has anyone else come out for open borders?

[–]wumbotarianI want to be the Walrasian Auctioneer when I grow up 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think they are. And no one else has - to quote gorbachev, economists should still care about optimal policy even if political feasibility is an issue.

[–]besttrousers"Then again, I have pegged you for a Neoclassical/Austrian." 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think they are.

Well, you're incorrect :-)

I mean, as I pointed out above, Michael Clemens is against open borders. Is he then necessarily anti immigration? Then why did he write his JEP paper?

And no one else has - to quote gorbachev, economists should still care about optimal policy even if political feasibility is an issue.

Sure. The point I am making is AFAIK everyone has shitty immigration policy proposals. Sanders isn't uniquely bad here.

[–]wumbotarianI want to be the Walrasian Auctioneer when I grow up -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean, as I pointed out above, Michael Clemens is against open borders. Is he then necessarily anti immigration? Then why did he write his JEP paper?

Alright, i see your point. However, Sanders' rhetoric thus far has been anti-immigration.

Hopefully he says something more positive about immigration in the future.

Sure. The point I am making is AFAIK everyone has shitty immigration policy proposals. Sanders isn't uniquely bad here.

You're right but I won't be voting so bickering about who is second best is dumb to me.

[–]thedrunkennoob 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've seen Bernie described as Pro Immigrant but anti immigration.

[–]jlew24asu[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (13子コメント)

He tends to be anti trade.

can you expand on that? what exactly is "anti trade" and where/how have you seem him support that.

downvoted? really? are questions and discussion not allowed?

[–]NicCageKillerBees 7ポイント8ポイント  (7子コメント)

He's been very vocal against the TTP and TTIP, and is pretty critical of NAFTA. His rhetoric in talking about these things seems to imply that he thinks trade is bad and costs the US jobs.

[–]jlew24asu[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

interesting, I didnt know that. I wonder if he has some flexibility there.

[–]praxulus 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

downvoted? really? are questions and discussion not allowed?

Well, yeah. This whole post is against the subreddit rules.

[–]jlew24asu[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

its at the top with nearly 100 comments in 20 mins. go ahead as ask the mods to remove it if you are offended that I broke the rules.

[–]praxulus 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not offended, I was just answering your question.

[–]0729370220937022 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

This sub gets 1-2 posts a day. Any new post will go to the top. You really should have posted this in the sticky.

[–]jlew24asu[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

so report it and have it removed. not sure what to tell you

[–]venuswasaflytrap 2ポイント3ポイント  (12子コメント)

A 15 dollar minimum wage is probably too high. It's hard to say at what point a minimum wage becomes harmful but the majority of economists tend to think that $15 is too high.

Is there something that backs this up? I've seen a lot of people on here say that this is so, and intuitively it makes sense to me, but I've never seen anything that explicitly indicates that the majority of economists agree with this.

[–]urnbabyurnNeoPanglossian 17ポイント18ポイント  (6子コメント)

IGM had economists split over the $9 minimum wage, which makes me think there is less of a split towards being against for $15

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_br0IEq5a9E77NMV

[–]duggabboo 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's also important to make the distinction that $15 would not immediately be the minimum wage. It would be over the term.

[–]venuswasaflytrap 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Yeah I've seen that. My laymen's intuition leads me to agree that is the case, but I also could see how they might be equally split on a $15 min wage.

Mostly I'm getting a lot of min wage posts on my facebook - Both US and Canada, which generally have comments amounting to "If we pay people more money then everyone will be richer!" - which seems to me to be kinda shallow reasoning on a complex issue.

It would be nice to have some sort of accessible, easily digestible source that shows that minimum wage isn't a yes-no sort of thing, and that it's possible that raising it (or lowering it) could easily be good or bad for lots of interests.

[–]urnbabyurnNeoPanglossian 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Economists are usually smart enough not to give a boiled down yes or no answer. Extrapolating from existing natural experiments is unlikely to be fruitful, and in places where $15 has just been passed, its way too early to get any data. Not to mention that those locations have already had a higher cost of living and average wage.

We need to convince a random midwestern state to pass it as an experiment. Let Ohio do it, wait a couple years and go from there.

[–]iserane 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

semi-related Designing Thoughtful Minimum Wage Policy at the State and Local Levels

also, When the minimum wage bites

not what you're asking for, but worthwhile reads

[–]venuswasaflytrap 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No it totally helps. At the least it shows that it's more complicated than more = good.

[–]somegurkWhy doesn't modern medicine use more leaches? 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not from the U.S. but a federal minimum wage seems like a bad idea just due to the huge variation in living costs across the U.S., is this not an area where states can/should legislate for themselves?

[–]complexsystemsMWG is my homeboy 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

The issue is that an effective doubling of the minimum wage just has never happened recently, and most of modern studies can only see the relatively minor changes that happen. Even if we assume that there is some positive value that we can increase wages and not see negative employment effects (imperfect substitution between labor and capital inputs, monopsony arguments, etc), I think it might be safe to assume that as that value gets larger, the chance of hitting a negatively impactful area of firms' response is fair a fair assessment. i.e. most cases that say there is a non-harmful effect of raising the minimum wage, or even beneficial effect, still say that if you raise it too much you can see negative employment effects.

[–]venuswasaflytrap 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, I understand that there wouldn't be a case study that accurately reflects the situation, and the reasoning for why a dramatic change would likely be dangerous.

I was more wondering if there was something like an IGM panel survey that showed various economic opinions on the matter.

[–]FluffyerthanthouA little Walrascal 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not so much that we hate minimum wage increases, but most of us think the EITC is much better at pulling people out of poverty, and that the best policy is probably that and/or a negative income tax.

[–]alexhoyerhoard plywood now for our ANCAP overlords 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well there's this. If $15 is outside Dube's (UMass) recommendation, it's reasonable to assume $15 is too high.

[–]NORTHAMERICAN_SCUMprofessional layperson 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't have a source handy, but from what I have read a federally-mandated $15 minimum wage would be especially problematic for America's low-wage regions, for instance Mississippi.

[–]duggabboo 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

  1. I would say the majority would require a citation.

  2. I could find some economists that say that NATO has definitely not helped Mexico. The GOP is focusing on the illegal immigration issue when there's a lot of evidence to say that the problem behind it was a race-to-the-bottom trade policy.

  3. No he's not.

[–]gorbachevI am the representative shill, AMA. 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

I could find some economists that say that NATO has definitely not helped Mexico. The GOP is focusing on the illegal immigration issue when there's a lot of evidence to say that the problem behind it was a race-to-the-bottom trade policy.

Well, Mexico isn't a NATO member, so what were you expecting?

[–]irondeepbicycleI got 99 problems but technological unemployment ain't one 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wouldn't Mexico benefit even more then? They're free riding on our defense spending!

[–]gorbachevI am the representative shill, AMA. 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Free riding? Well, they better hope so.

[–]984519685419685321 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just you wait until Russia starts invading, then they'll come crying to us like all the others.

[–]PonderayFollows an AR(1) process 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

  1. Look at the IGM link /u/urnbabyurn posted above. 15 dollars is also outside of Dube's 50% of the median wage proposal. Dube is one of the most respected advocates of raising the minimum wage. If it's too extreme for him then it's not going to be popular elsewhere. There's also the fact that the petition for a 15 dollar minimum wage posted in /r/economics a while back was mainly populated by a bunch of schools which are thought to be somewhat on the fringes of economics. Where this petition for a 10.10 minimum wage has several major names.

  2. Economists are overwhelmingly in support of trade and seem warm to fast tracking the TPP.

  3. He supported the failed Senate bill which gave a path to citizenship. But doesn't support expanding HB1 visas. Judging from the Vox interview it seems like he thinks additional immigration will hurt American workers.

[–]Ken_M_Imposter 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The only one that I dislike is the minimum wage. It's essentially a way for the government to make unions obsolete.

[–]Lambchops_Legion -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's anti immigration. More immigration can both improve the livelihoods of individual immigrants as well increase world gdp. This sub tends to be particularly pro immigration too.

To add onto this, it appears that Immigration helps stabilize local labor demand shocks.

[–]irondeepbicycleI got 99 problems but technological unemployment ain't one 22ポイント23ポイント  (3子コメント)

Bernie is probably not much worse than most other candidates but at /be we mainly post badeconomics that we find on reddit, and Bernie's fanboys can get pretty bad. If this site were full of Hillary supporters we'd probably be just as harsh.

That said, Bernie is well known for a few positions that are certainly bad economics, such as opposition to trade, support for a 15 min wage, and opposition to increased immigration. Personally I think the only real difference between Bernie and everyone else is that Bernie is beholden to a different set of special interests than everyone else.

[–]wumbotarianI want to be the Walrasian Auctioneer when I grow up 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

Ron Paul had Paulbots, Bernie has...Berniebots?

They're basically the same.

[–]say_wot_againConfirmed for Google bigwig 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sanders colonels!

[–]wumbotarianI want to be the Walrasian Auctioneer when I grow up 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Perfect. It even goes along with le reddit army.

[–]urnbabyurnNeoPanglossian 26ポイント27ポイント  (33子コメント)

I like Bernie. Doesn't mean I need to ignore the bad economics of his campaign.

His views on immigration and jobs is antiquated at best. It's what the old unions pushed during each wave of new immigration, Chinese, Irish, etc. It's a position not even held by new labor such as the SEIU, and other major progressive unions.

Bernie makes the grossly incorrect claim that immigration is causing or will cause the depression of wages for the working class. This is simply not true. As every new wave of immigrants comes in, they also bring new businesses and boost demand. They do have some impact for wages of low paid, unskilled native workers. But given the benefits broadly, and the humanity of allowing immigrants come here to build a better life, it certainly should be and largely is a liberal position to have more generous immigration.

If Bernie is so concerned about the low paid, unskilled and rather small group of native workers, he should be promoting ways to give them skills or assistance in other ways.

I'm not against raising the minimum wage. I also don't think it's highly effective one way or the other. And a $15 minimum wage is, in my opinion, just his way of staking a position to pull it up by a more reasonable amount, say to 10 to 11.

I really wish he pushed for more market based welfare alternatives, like a more generous NIT. I'm all for a public jobs program to tighten the labor market. I'm all for public higher education funding increases. I generally like Bernie, despite being more centrist than his positions.

Well, that's until it's crunch time and I vote for Clinton.

[–]besttrousers"Then again, I have pegged you for a Neoclassical/Austrian." 24ポイント25ポイント  (20子コメント)

/sign

The immigration stuff is a HUGE deal. This is the biggest low-hanging policy fruit right now.

I'll also note that Sanders probably has the best environmental policies (since he's pushed for a carbon tax).

[–]urnbabyurnNeoPanglossian 11ポイント12ポイント  (18子コメント)

carbon tax

Wow, that's a conservative policy. 1980 Ted Kennedy would never support allowing "companies to buy the right to pollute". Mark based solutions are now liberal in this country :)

[–]besttrousers"Then again, I have pegged you for a Neoclassical/Austrian." 14ポイント15ポイント  (6子コメント)

Economists have done a good job of capturing Democratic elites. Unfortunately, we lost Republican elites in the process....

[–]IntegraldsI am the rep agent AMA 18ポイント19ポイント  (4子コメント)

Republican economic policy is an answer in search of a problem. Compare 1975 to 2015:

  • 90% MTRs? Gone!
  • Flexible exchange rates? Implemented!
  • Unions? Busted!
  • Airlines? Deregulated!
  • Poverty reform? They got Clinton on board!
  • Free trade? CAFTA, NAFTA, KORUS, all passed!
  • Stabilization policy? Fiscal policy is relegated to the playpen while the Fed makes the real decisions.
  • Central banks? Inflation targeters that peek at unemployment occasionally, as God Friedman intended.

Before the ACA was passed, the Republicans had basically gotten everything they wanted on the economic policy front. There just wasn't much left to do.

Nowadays the big tinkering is on health/education/poverty/welfare, which (I think?) naturally draws more Democratic-leaning economists.

[–]say_wot_againConfirmed for Google bigwig 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

The ACA was also a Republican idea. Came out of the Heritage Foundation in the 1980s, passed by Romney, and was the conservative answer to single payer that wasn't "Stick head in sand and stay with status quo." The fact that both parties did a 180 on the idea once Obama proposed it doesn't mean it wasn't originally a Republican idea.

[–]besttrousers"Then again, I have pegged you for a Neoclassical/Austrian." 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Who was it that made the "pro-market" vs "pro-business" dichotomy?

I think in the 70s and 80s the Republicans were both the "pro-market" and "pro-business" parties. At some point the Clinton counter-reformation (post Reagan revolution) grabbed the "pro-market" piece to an extent. ACA and Carbon taxes are pro-market policies (though arguably anti-business ones).

[–]IntegraldsI am the rep agent AMA 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Absolutely, that's fair.

(Carbon taxes were also a conservative idea that the party has done a 180 on. Pity.)

[–]SubotanEcon-senpai~~ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Airlines aren't deregulated on an international level tho

[–]urnbabyurnNeoPanglossian 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks, Clinton...

[–]0729370220937022 3ポイント4ポイント  (8子コメント)

The Conservative party of Canada is against a carbon tax because they are against taxes in general. I don't know much about US politics but I assume it's the same over there.

[–]urnbabyurnNeoPanglossian 8ポイント9ポイント  (5子コメント)

The carbon tax was sold as a way to offset income taxes. It had support among conservatives through most of the 90s in the U.S. and now is vehemently opposed. For some reason, they think taxing carbon is more economically disruptive than taking labor and capital.

I wonder if the Canadian conservatives had a similar change of heart in the 90s as they did in the U.S.

[–]0729370220937022 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I looked it up and the conservatives actually supported a cap-and-trade program up until 2008.

[–]NewmanTheScofflawRA for Ethan Hunt 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm pretty sure they did, since the Canadian Conservative party supports cap and trade. They want carbon tax to be revenue neutral.

[–]ocamlmycamli <3 central planning 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Canadian right-wing transformed dramatically in the 90s (imagine the Tea Party as its own party and the Republican party reduced to a rump), so I wouldn't be surprised if this was one plank that was affect.

[–]MajromaxPolitics. Mathematics. Tea 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wonder if the Canadian conservatives had a similar change of heart in the 90s as they did in the U.S.

It's more that much of the base of the Canadian Conservative party lies in the oil-extracting sector of Western Canada, who of course would be hit hardest by carbon pricing. (Especially so because bitumen extraction is energy-intensive.)

Adding fuel to the fire is that this makes an effective "wedge issue", where "Carbon taxes kill jobs and are bad for the economy" is a more straightforward point to make than "a price on carbon is necessary to confront global climate change."

[–]TheHonStephenHarper 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This ended up being way longer than I planned. Most of it is about Canadian political history. The TL;DR is that a merger among the two Conservative parties in 2003 lead to a shift in priorities. The PC Party had a strong environmental focus under Mulroney, one that has yet to be matched by any federal party, Conservative or not, that has held power since.

Kinda. Canadian conservatives had a major overhaul in general during the 90s. Back in the late 80s/early 90s we had the Progressive Conservative Party, with Brian Mulroney as their leader. He introduced a sales tax in Canada, signed NAFTA, and the current leader of the Green Party of Canada was a Senior Policy Advisor for his Minister of Environment. Mulroney has since received awards for being the "Greenest Canadian Prime Minister".

In 1986, May became Senior Policy Advisor to then federal Environment Minister, Tom McMillan. She was instrumental in the creation of several national parks, including South Moresby. She was involved in negotiating the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, new legislation and pollution control measures. In 1988, she resigned on principle when the Minister granted permits for the Rafferty-Alameda Dams in Saskatchewan because of no environmental assessment. The permits were later quashed by a Federal Court decision that the permits were granted illegally.

From her Wikipedia page

Unfortunately, Mulroney had a lot of unpopular policies (GST, he opened up the Constitution in a failed attempt to get Quebec to sign on, some scandals) which lead to him retiring before the next election. He was replaced by Kim Campbell, sat as Prime Minister for about 4 months. In the election, they went from a 151 seat majority to 2 seats.

This allowed the Reform Party of Canada to gain ground. They were formed in 1987 as a protest party, complaining that western Canada was being ignored in favour of Quebec and Ontario. While the PC's were socially moderate, the Reform Party could be considered Canada's equivalence to the Tea Party.

After the Campbell election, the right in Canada suffered a string of losses in elections (in the this election the Bloq Quebecois, a separatist party that only ran candidates in Quebec, ended up with the 2nd most seats in Parliament and formed the Official Opposition), with the PC's losing never recovering and Reform gaining ground.

In 2000, the Reform Party "rebranded" as the Canadian Alliance in an attempt to gain broader appeal across the country, rather than continue being a western protest party (this was after they gained Official Opposition status in 1997). The purpose of the Canadian Alliance was to "unite the right", arguing that the parties had more in common than not, and should merge so they would no longer split the "right wing" vote which was allowing the Liberals to win successive majorities. Their leader was Stockwell Day. I can't find much on his environmental policy other than mentions of his blog making fun of Al Gore for causing such a fuss about global warming

The two parties finally merged in 2003 to form the Conservative Party of Canada with Stephen Harper, our current Prime Minister, as the Leader. Harper has been unequivocally opposed to a carbon tax, calling it a "job-killing carbon tax" every time an opposition member dares mention the words "carbon tax".

Amusingly enough, Preston Manning (one of Harper's mentors and the founder of the Reform Party) has now publicly stated that he is in support of a carbon tax. While I'm not sure of his policies while he was leader of the Reform Party, since leaving federal politics he's been a big advocate of tying conservatism and conservation of the environment through market mechanisms.

So, it's not so much that all Canadian Conservatives had a similar change of heart, it's more that the party that put less emphasis on the environment (the Canadian Alliance) retained more influence when merging with the Progressive Conservative Party, leading to environmental concerns remaining unaddressed for the most part.

Even among Conservative voters, only 29% believe that "the climate is not changing" while 64% "believe the climate is changing" according to a 2014 poll from Forum Research (hyperlinking isn't working so I'll link the poll at the end of my post). 33% of Conservatives believe it's a natural phenomenon, while 38% believe it's caused by humans and 29% believe it's both. The lack of action among Conservative policy makers would likely be due to the fact that 46% of them believe the effects are not reversible, compared to 34% who believe it is. That combined with the chart on page 9 show that climate change isn't very high on the list of Conservative voters' priorities, even if they realize it is a real issue, and a large portion of the Conservative base may even view the government as wasting time that could be better spent were they to take action on climate change.

Amusingly enough about my last point, the current government's stance on GHG emissions is to regulate emissions on a sector-by-sector basis, probably wasting a lot more time and energy than if they were to just implement a carbon tax across all industries. If you're interested, this article does a pretty good job at detailing environmental policy of the Harper government since he was elected in 2006.

http://poll.forumresearch.com/data/National%20Climate%20Change%20News%20Release%20(2014.07.17)%20Forum%20Research.pdf

[–]Beatsters 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

They're against it because it was a central plank in the Liberal platform in 2008. They want it to be perceived as a bad Liberal idea.

[–]lanquidityRA 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Harper said something to the effect of carbon taxes essentially being a "tax grab to fund provincial deficits" or whatever. You know who he's referring to and to whom he's appealing. Funny, though, I thought BC's carbon tax was revenue neutral and that it was actually working..

[–]duggabboo 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've never seen how adding a carbon tax, ceteris paribus, makes it so companies can now pay their way out of polluting. It's like somebody saying "I can just pay my way out of speeding".

[–]MajromaxPolitics. Mathematics. Tea 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've never seen how adding a carbon tax, ceteris paribus, makes it so companies can now pay their way out of polluting. It's like somebody saying "I can just pay my way out of speeding".

The argument carries weight because pollution is considered a moral issue in a way that speeding by itself is not. Consider the difference between speeding and drunk driving, which is considered to be a moral issue and carries far stiffer non-financial penalties.

Joseph Heath wrote about this moral argument in the context of one of Naomi Klein's books:

Despite her endorsement of the “polluter pays” principle, she actually rejects one of the logical implications of it, which is that if you’re willing to pay, then you should be able to pollute. The moral intuition that conflicts with it is that if a particular action is immoral, that in itself gives you reason enough not to do it. You cannot therefore demand that others give you an incentive to stop. On the contrary, if you fail to stop, others are entitled to punish you. For example, Klein points out that we did not get rid of slavery by pricing it out of the market (462-463), or by taxing it, but by abolishing the practice. She sees environmental regulation in the same way.

[–]irondeepbicycleI got 99 problems but technological unemployment ain't one 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Or O'Malley. He has a long record as a green governor. I've seen him support cap and trade, which is at least adequate.

And I probably should reconsider Sanders and O'Malley. I was really disappointed in Hillary's environmental plan.

[–]duggabboo 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

If Bernie is so concerned about the low paid, unskilled and rather small group of native workers, he should be promoting ways to give them skills or assistance in other ways.

Like education? The education he is pushing to be tuition free?

[–]wumbotarianI want to be the Walrasian Auctioneer when I grow up 4ポイント5ポイント  (10子コメント)

I don't see how you "like" Bernie. Anyone who hasn't updated his beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence in like 50 years is someone I cannot like, will not like and no one should respect him for being so stubborn.

[–]urnbabyurnNeoPanglossian 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

The immigrant labor issue is one strike against, but there are other parts I like. Primarily, it's his stance on campaign finance and elections. Regardless of his specific economic policies, campaign reform could have far longer lasting implications than the rest.

[–]wumbotarianI want to be the Walrasian Auctioneer when I grow up -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think you and I disagre on campaign finance. I think Citizens United is a win for free speech. Bernie has said he will appoint justices to overturn it or a constitutional amendment.

I could see reasonable caps on spending, but not over turning it.

[–]besttrousers"Then again, I have pegged you for a Neoclassical/Austrian." 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I could see reasonable caps on spending, but not over turning it.

And who decides what is reasonable? The badeconomics mods?

Have you ever considered that maybe ALL speech should be free, and not just speech that you find appropriate??!?!?

[–]xorchidsExpert at economics I know what bitcoins are 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

I knew you were going to come out of hiding for a thread about Bernie. You just couldn't resist!

[–]wumbotarianI want to be the Walrasian Auctioneer when I grow up 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

I'm currently walking around the city looking for dank apartments to move into. I don't have anything with me besides my phone, so I'm doing a lot of redditing today.

[–]xorchidsExpert at economics I know what bitcoins are 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

dank apartments to move into.

Make sure the drug dealer neighbors are at least friendly drug dealers

[–]wumbotarianI want to be the Walrasian Auctioneer when I grow up 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

I always do. Thankfully I can afford to not live in those neighborhoods.

[–]xorchidsExpert at economics I know what bitcoins are 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I know. Being a reddit moderator pays well from what I've heard

[–]wumbotarianI want to be the Walrasian Auctioneer when I grow up 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I know, I get paid in reddit gold (which I then exchange for trident layers)

[–]grevemoeskrHumans are horses! 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You get paid reddit gold for being a mod? I get bitcoins for shilling

[–]devinejohSecretary of the Bitcoin Treasury 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because he is a godless communist after our precious bodily fluids. /s

Really though, I'm canadian, so I don't really have a horse in this race. But as the son of two immigrants, as well as for economic reasons, his anti immigration rhetoric does not sit well with me. Neither does his anti free trade bent.

[–]Aransentin 8ポイント9ポイント  (7子コメント)

/u/HealthcareEconomist3 wrote a long effortpost about Sanders here.

He's also a proponent of a fringe economical theory - MMT - which was discussed here.

[–]laboreconomist3Camp Counselor for a Gulag 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

lol at the attempt to debunk MMT with a link from Mises.org.

[–]commentsrusBring maymayday back! 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, using sources and evidence isn't very praxxy

[–]laboreconomist3Camp Counselor for a Gulag 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly! Glad you and I think so much alike.

[–]wumbotarianI want to be the Walrasian Auctioneer when I grow up 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

He actually isn't an MMT supporter. MMTers just tend to be very left-wing and fit into Sanders political views very well.

[–]usrname42There is no God but Keynes, and Krugman is his prophet 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

He chose Stephanie Kelton as his chief economist.

[–]wumbotarianI want to be the Walrasian Auctioneer when I grow up 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I know, i tackled this awhile ago.

He has kelton with him but he's so pro tax for revenue's sake. That's anti-MMT.

[–]NORTHAMERICAN_SCUMprofessional layperson 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That post you link to does not accurately describe the arguments made by MMT proponents.

It does not argue that "there are no negative consequences for just printing more and more money." That is a ridiculous interpretation.

[–]1994bmw 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Going to go out on a limb here and say it's his being bad at economics.

[–]geerussell 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

Why does /badeconomics hate Bernie Sanders?

Most of it seems to center around Sanders support for policies that favor maintaining or increasing wage share. Ranging from things like unionization and raising the minimum wage over a period of years to prioritizing wage effects when considering trade and immigration.

what would a Bernie Sanders economy look like?

A hellscape of shirking and productivity collapse with output and innovation slowly grinding to a halt in a death rattle of bread and circuses as workers strip the carcass of a once-proud market economy for their own craven low-MPL benefit. Obvs.

[–]somegurkWhy doesn't modern medicine use more leaches? 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

in a death rattle of bread and circuses as workers strip the carcass of a once-proud market economy for their own craven low-MPL benefit

that's pretty great.

[–]Ken_M_Imposter -3ポイント-2ポイント  (7子コメント)

It's almost as if he believes that free trade with nations who employ slave labor is unfair and immoral. He needs to grow up and realize that a conscience just gets in the way!

[–]Rekksuneo-libeler 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Who's employing slave labor? You realize free trade agreements explicitly set up mechanisms for punishing unfair behavior, right?

Sanders' position on this is indefensible, IMO.

[–]JPelter 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Uhm. Do you actually believe that a significant number of countries employ "slave labor"?

[–]irondeepbicycleI got 99 problems but technological unemployment ain't one -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Free trade is what ends unfair labor practices. It is illogical to oppose free trade on these moral grounds because you do far more damage to the people you're trying to protect.

[–]Betrix5068 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Mind explaining? I can't imagine that nations like China are going to cease the practices that make their labour so cheap because they can do an even better job of outcompeting domestic sources of production.

[–]irondeepbicycleI got 99 problems but technological unemployment ain't one 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's really as simple as free trade raising income. The prevailing view in political science is that economic development leads to democracy, and free trade allows better safer jobs for people in third world countries.

What we call a sweatshop is typically a highly valued, in demand job for much of the third world, especially when the alternatives are so horrifying. It's not an exaggeration to say that closing sweatshops leads to child prostitution.