Worker Rights: The Cause To Unite All Americans

[T. A. Gardner]

The multiplier effect for Unemployment Insurance is at least 1.7, meaning that a $100 increase in government spending leads to $70 additional GDP in the private sector.6 This 1.7 multiplier effect is based on the effect of fiscal stimulus during the Great Recession of 2007–2009. The expansion of Unemployment Insurance during the Great Recession had an even greater impact—about 1.9, which means that every $100 spent on Unemployment Insurance led to $90 additional GDP value.7

And how much would that $100 increase if spent directly in the private sector?

The other problem with the above is obvious. If the government were the only source of spending, and government relies on gaining wealth through taxation where does the money come from for government spending? What you propose above is in essence an economic perpetual motion machine.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

And how much would that $100 increase if spent directly in the private sector?

The other problem with the above is obvious. If the government were the only source of spending, and government relies on gaining wealth through taxation where does the money come from for government spending? What you propose above is in essence an economic perpetual motion machine.

yes. the system is quite insane.

 

[danielpalos]

And how much would that $100 increase if spent directly in the private sector?

The other problem with the above is obvious. If the government were the only source of spending, and government relies on gaining wealth through taxation where does the money come from for government spending? What you propose above is in essence an economic perpetual motion machine.

You may be missing the point. I am only referring to that one public policy for that one thing. Besides, we know stopping government spending can cause a recession.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You may be missing the point. I am only referring to that one public policy for that one thing. Besides, we know stopping government spending can cause a recession.

Even in terms of public policy, what's claimed is wrong. Unemployment and welfare are a net drain on the economy.

 

[danielpalos]

Even in terms of public policy, what's claimed is wrong. Unemployment and welfare are a net drain on the economy.

You need to cite a source. You are confusing means tested welfare with compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. One has a fiscal multiplier of around 0.8, the other has a fiscal multiplier of around 2.0.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You need to cite a source. You are confusing means tested welfare with compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. One has a fiscal multiplier of around 0.8, the other has a fiscal multiplier of around 2.0.

No I don't. Einstein published his theory of relativity without a single end note or source, as but one example. You need to prove me wrong.

It's actually quite simple. The government pulls $100 from the productive economy. They spend some portion of that on acquiring it and then redistributing it. The redistributed money doesn't produce anything. It is wealth consumed.
It's no different than any other discretionary spending other than that a middleman consumes some of it without benefit. Welfare is a net drag on the economy.

 

[danielpalos]

No I don't. Einstein published his theory of relativity without a single end note or source, as but one example. You need to prove me wrong.

It's actually quite simple. The government pulls $100 from the productive economy. They spend some portion of that on acquiring it and then redistributing it. The redistributed money doesn't produce anything. It is wealth consumed.
It's no different than any other discretionary spending other than that a middleman consumes some of it without benefit. Welfare is a net drag on the economy.

The multiplier effect for Unemployment Insurance is at least 1.7, meaning that a $100 increase in government spending leads to $70 additional GDP in the private sector.6 This 1.7 multiplier effect is based on the effect of fiscal stimulus during the Great Recession of 2007–2009. The expansion of Unemployment Insurance during the Great Recession had an even greater impact—about 1.9, which means that every $100 spent on Unemployment Insurance led to $90 additional GDP value.7

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The multiplier effect for Unemployment Insurance is at least 1.7, meaning that a $100 increase in government spending leads to $70 additional GDP in the private sector.6 This 1.7 multiplier effect is based on the effect of fiscal stimulus during the Great Recession of 2007–2009. The expansion of Unemployment Insurance during the Great Recession had an even greater impact—about 1.9, which means that every $100 spent on Unemployment Insurance led to $90 additional GDP value.7

So, even by your numbers the GDP is losing out. You put $100 in and get $70 to $90 out, losing 10 to 30 dollars in the process. Not a very good ROI on that.

 

[danielpalos]

So, even by your numbers the GDP is losing out. You put $100 in and get $70 to $90 out, losing 10 to 30 dollars in the process. Not a very good ROI on that.

I am not sure how you reached that conclusion. The multiplier is additional market based activity generated by the initial investment.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I am not sure how you reached that conclusion. The multiplier is additional market based activity generated by the initial investment.

Because there is no "initial investment." Think about this. The government didn't generate the wealth involved. They confiscated it in the form of taxes from a productive entity. They spent some of that moving the money through an unproductive bureaucracy middle manning it to give it to someone unemployed and unproductive. That money was then (ostensibly) used by the recipient to purchase legal goods and services.
Thus, $100 was taken out of productive circulation and then spent where it didn't generate any new wealth, but instead just changed hands several times. Had that $100 not been taken by the government and redistributed, it would have had equal or more productive power than it did being redistributed.

The proof of this is if you put everyone on welfare (100% of the population) and give them each $100 to spend but not to make any goods or services, what happens?

This is opposed to a group of people producing goods or services that others want and as a result generating wealth that can then be traded for other goods and services.

Welfare does not generate additional wealth. It is spending wealth for no ROI.

 

[danielpalos]

Because there is no "initial investment." Think about this. The government didn't generate the wealth involved. They confiscated it in the form of taxes from a productive entity. They spent some of that moving the money through an unproductive bureaucracy middle manning it to give it to someone unemployed and unproductive. That money was then (ostensibly) used by the recipient to purchase legal goods and services.
Thus, $100 was taken out of productive circulation and then spent where it didn't generate any new wealth, but instead just changed hands several times. Had that $100 not been taken by the government and redistributed, it would have had equal or more productive power than it did being redistributed.

The proof of this is if you put everyone on welfare (100% of the population) and give them each $100 to spend but not to make any goods or services, what happens?

This is opposed to a group of people producing goods or services that others want and as a result generating wealth that can then be traded for other goods and services.

Welfare does not generate additional wealth. It is spending wealth for no ROI.

Not sure why you believe that.

The other important aspect of the multiplier is that to the extent that government spending generates new consumption, it also generates "new" tax revenues. For example, when money is spent in a shop, purchases taxes such as VAT are paid on the expenditure, and the shopkeeper earns a higher income, and thus pays more income taxes. Therefore, although the government spends $1, it is likely that it receives back some proportion of the $1 in due course, making the net expenditure less than $1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Not sure why you believe that.

This is more idiocy too. What you are claiming is that if the government takes $100 from some productive entity in taxes then taxes that money again to the tune of say $10, the government somehow ends up with $110. That is absurd. Tax revenues do not generate wealth.

 

[danielpalos]

This is more idiocy too. What you are claiming is that if the government takes $100 from some productive entity in taxes then taxes that money again to the tune of say $10, the government somehow ends up with $110. That is absurd. Tax revenues do not generate wealth.

lol. Are you on the right-wing? Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about economics; thus, capitalism. Tax cut economics only results in banana republics with reality tv guys trying to take over.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

lol. Are you on the right-wing? Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about economics; thus, capitalism. Tax cut economics only results in banana republics with reality tv guys trying to take over.

So, now you trot out insults and ad hominem? Yea, like that'll work...

 

[danielpalos]

So, now you trot out insults and ad hominem? Yea, like that'll work...

I am not the one trying to pass off ignorance as the "gospel Truth".

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Even in terms of public policy, what's claimed is wrong. Unemployment and welfare are a net drain on the economy.

ROFLMAO. Sure.

You forgot to mention that building roads is also a net drain on the economy.

Here is a little math exercise for you. If 10 million people each spend $100 dollars a month and you then prevent them from spending that money by taking it away from them. What is the effect on the economy?

I can only say, it seems you have no idea how an economy works or how GDP is measured.

 

[Taichiliberal]

It's telling that both left-wing and right-wing media are attacking the nascent worker reformation movement in the United States. CBS, CNN, and Fox have all done hit-pieces on the movement. The people who make $700/hour have convinced those who make $25/hr that the people making $7.25/hr are the problem, when the real problem is that the working class is being exploited and oppressed to make the rich richer.

It's not that people "don't want to work." It's that people can no longer afford to work shit-paying jobs. People are sick of being treated like a cheap resource and are finally standing up for their worth. The capitalists preach that value is determined by supply and demand, but they seem to think that this doesn't apply to labor, so rather than offer competitive salaries and benefits to attract labor, they whine and post passive aggressive signs on their business doors about how "nobody wants to work," when the fact is people do want to work, just not for peanuts.

The working class in the United States is tired of class oppression. We want what workers in other developed nations have, including:

- Paid maternity/paternity leave
- living wages
- termination with cause and with notice
- the right to not be called into work on one's day off under threat of termination
- guaranteed PTO/vacation time
- guaranteed sick pay

Is it too much to ask to not be treated like expendable cattle? If Jeff Bezos can take leisure voyages into space, is it too much to ask that his largest wealth-building resource--his employees--be able to afford a roof and groceries, or even, god forbid, the luxury of spare cash to put into a retirement account?

Or maybe you think I'm a crazed lunatic, and that the "solution" to the current labor shortage is to do what Wisconsin legislators are proposing by having kids work until 11pm (because apparently it's better to bring back child labor than to distribute some of the wealth from the wealthy class so that adult workers can have a living wage and exist with dignity).

BRAVO!

 

[Taichiliberal]

This country allowed a trust fund con man into the White House....a man who in his private life practiced racism via his apartment occupancy, out sourced labor for his hotels....then tried to stiff those workers paychecks! Used foreign instead of domestic steel in his buildings, and then sneered "so pass a law that prevents me from doing that". And then said that not paying his equivalent fair share of revenue taxes "makes him smart". And his primary real estate ventures are well above the affordability of the vast majority of his political "base".

These are just some examples as to why this country desperately needs to heed the OP....because only fools voted (and still support) an orange pated oaf who essentially wipes his feet on them.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

ROFLMAO. Sure.

You forgot to mention that building roads is also a net drain on the economy.

Here is a little math exercise for you. If 10 million people each spend $100 dollars a month and you then prevent them from spending that money by taking it away from them. What is the effect on the economy?

I can only say, it seems you have no idea how an economy works or how GDP is measured.

Without knowing where that money came from, there's no knowing what effect it will have on the economy. What you are doing above is using "magical thinking." The money in your example appears out of thin air and is then spent. So, the question you need to answer is where does the money come from?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I am not the one trying to pass off ignorance as the "gospel Truth".

You are the one that is making sweeping generalities that when questioned turns to insult and ad hominem rather than detailed explanations. Money doesn't grow on trees, nor does it appear out of thin air. The current concept of how much wealth is available in an economy is based on GDP and calculated from the total of goods and services produced.
Taxation does not produce a good or a service directly. It pulls money derived from production of goods and services for use by the government.