The REAL Job Creators -

[Veovis]

The catch with paying employees more is that most employees are terrible with math and have no true idea of what a 50 cent an hour raise can cost. Then you get employees thinking that their boss is some money grubbing jerk when in reality he may be losong money if he gave that raise.

And even if he does, he likely gets called cheap as we know that 50 cents an hour after tac cpp ei union dues pension costs etc can actually convert to very little take home.

That and keep in mind that many people version of "cost of living increase" is more a"cost of lifestyle" not living costs.


I like also that a solution for reducing taxes is that the employer simply shouldn\t make as much. It amazing in it's absurdity. they could also save money on taxes by closing shop and not doing anymore business and laying everyone off. You know, to save taxes.

[flamingfingers]

Veovis:

I guess you missed my :127:

[Punchy MacEconomics]

This is a great debate but both sides are far too entrenched in their beliefs. First lets get some points right before preceding.

1) Money: Money is issued by the government to banks. The banks then leverage those funds (reserves) to lend out more money. Currently reserve ratios are close to 1% or $100 loaned for $1 on hand. Money comes from the government.

2) Supply-side Economics (Austrian School): A theory that believes that by making the production of goods,and services, as cheap as possible will stimulate the economy. In practice can lead to large short growth spurts but in long run leads to recessions due to over supply.

3) Demand-side Economics (Keynesian): A theory that believes that increasing the wealth of 90+% of population will stimulate the economy. In practice, lead to the longest recession free period in modern history but in long run leads to stagflation, inflation greater then GDP growth.

4) Reality: A strong economy needs both a strong consumer base and individuals willing to produce and sell products/services.

5) Consumer spending is responsible for more then 2/3 of BC's GDP.

6) All money, minus annual government issue to Charter Banks, is created from the borrowing of funds or the selling of assets-liabilities.

These are very simple outlines of these concepts, as many have sub-schools etc. For the purposes of discussion on this forum, I hope that all participants can come to an agreement on these "definitions".

Agreement on these concepts will then lead to a more constructive discussion on, How best to improve BC's economy. That is what everyone is really talking about right?

[Punchy MacEconomics]

I gather that we have agreement on the above "definitions".

[grammafreddy]

Hope you are not holding your breath.

[Punchy MacEconomics]

Hope you are not holding your breath.

Is there anything you would like to see edited? I am always open to a discussion on these base principles.

[grammafreddy]

Nope, not today. I haven't time to spend thinking about your post yet.

What are your credentials?

[Punchy MacEconomics]

Nope, not today. I haven't time to spend thinking about your post yet.

What are your credentials?

I read alot of books and wrote alot of research papers and tests. How about you?

[Punchy MacEconomics]

Now that we have no objections to these "definitions", lets proceed with the discussion on which is better for an economy?
Is it stimulating supply or demand?

[grammafreddy]

Nope, not today. I haven't time to spend thinking about your post yet.

What are your credentials?

I read alot of books and wrote alot of research papers and tests. How about you?

I'm old. I paid a lot of taxes in my years. I know how to read, too. Bet you really enjoyed reading "Atlas Shrugged", eh?

[Punchy MacEconomics]

I'm old. I paid a lot of taxes in my years. I know how to read, too. Bet you really enjoyed reading "Atlas Shrugged", eh?

If you like self absorbed novels by meth addicts.

[Punchy MacEconomics]

IMO the pendulum has swung so far to the supply side that we need to readjust it and start focusing some resources on the demand side. The downturns are getting more often and worse. This will continue unabated unless some changes are made in the tax structure. There is a theory in economics called Say's Law. It states that there is an equilibrium where taxes will produce the best effect for revenue and economically. We need to find this equilibrium by removing some burden from consumers and low and middle income individuals and shifting it to corporations and high incomes. By giving 90%+ of the population extra money, we will growth in the economy that will easily replace any lost profit. The margins may be lower but more product out the door gets a business person more bang for their buck. It would also increase competition and make quality competitive with cheap.

More $ for consumers=more spending=more jobs=more $ for consumers etc.