More free publicity for a shitty band with a shitty band name.
The photo accompanying this article is priceless. It could just be a trick of perception, but it appears that the photographer was probably only about 4-5 rows back from the stage, yet you can count 6 cell phones blocking the view to the stage. One of these days venues are going to start outlawing this.
Bob, thanks for the reply. In regards to the figures I quoted, I pulled my rough figures from the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics release in January, which cites approximately 147,442,000 Americans are employed. As you mentioned though, some of those workers will be part time or (realistically) marginally attached. The figures aren't really all that important though, because we both arrived in the same vicinity: The government would print hundreds of billions of dollars (in addition to what we're already printing annually) to pay for this.
My only strong criticism of your response is that I disagree with your inflation expectations. I do not understand how you arrive at the idea that the $400 Million subsidy would cause 2x to 3x the amount of GDP growth as it would a growth in inflation. I'd love to hear your reasoning beyond that. But for now, I'll just assume you've got hard support for your estimate so I can continue on with my critique. Another strong point is that GDP and inflation don't move in lockstep or develop over the same time periods. GDP is affected much more quickly, but inflation is typically a slow mover. A subsidy may boost GDP now, but the inflation IS going to come afterwards. My last point is on your economic flow: "More Demand --> More Supply = Little or No Inflation. " That only holds true in a world with no scarcity. We certainly do not live in that world. Every product is scarce in economic terms, with some being much scarcer than others (as reflected by the price of the asset). More demand would likely cause more supply to be produced, that's correct. But more supply means more resources needed, which means less resources are available. Prices of resources will not remain stagnant in that situation, they will rise. Those costs will flow all the way down to the consumer over time. I have no way to quantify the net effect, but I surmise that the end outcome would be that consumers would feel a temporary boost in spending power until costs rose and the effect becomes a wash.
What you're actually proposing is for the Federal Government to print an additional $613 Billion dollars each year. That's approximately 3.4% of the total national debt. Every year.
I admire your attempt to try to offer a simple solution, but economics isn't as simple as "let's just give people money and see how that goes". You're not even bothering to think of the effects this would have on inflation. What will your plan be when inflation starts creeping into the 4-5% range, or worse, the double digit range? You also say "The plan isn't a subsidy for health-care providers or education or any product or service, because the money goes to workers, not to pay workers' bills. So it shouldn't drive up prices." That's a pretty broad statement to make, and it's flat out wrong. Prices are driven by supply and demand. If you think people are going to take that $80 per week and not pay bills with it, you're crazy. Additional demand = lower supply = higher prices. That's basic economics, which your plan seems to eschew completely.
I'm all for a higher minimum wage here in NC (and federally as well), but $15 an hour to work in fast food? Are these people serious? That's close to $32,000 a year for a 40 hour work week. I know people with college degrees who don't make that much in their current (professional) jobs.
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation