1727

IIRC it should be like $12.50 if it was adjusted for inflation.

Call me crazy, but min wage should be adjusted for inflation as part of the law the establishes it.

1728

Of course it should. That it isn’t is down to the fact that the people making the laws have their “minimum wage making days” (if ever they lived through them) far in the rearview mirror (and of course the philosophical position that “the market is always right” that some have with regard to wages).

1729

Tax the rich. Enough said.

1730

We’d certainly be better off if we did!

1731

Thanks for linking that article.

Emphasis added. The message never changes - nor are they actually challenged on it, it’s just accepted as a de facto truth.

Still, the pattern is so strong and long-lasting that coincidence alone is unlikely to be the only explanation. Statistical noise, as Mr. Blinder and Mr. Watson wrote in their paper exploring the pattern, does not seem to be the answer.

What, then, are the most plausible theories?

First, it’s worth rejecting a few unlikely possibilities. Congressional control is not the answer. The pattern holds regardless of which party is running Congress. Deficit spending also doesn’t explain the gap: It is not the case that Democrats juice the economy by spending money and then leave Republicans to clean up the mess. Over the last four decades, in fact, Republican presidents have run up larger deficits than Democrats.

That leaves one broad possibility with a good amount of supporting evidence: Democrats have been more willing to heed economic and historical lessons about what policies actually strengthen the economy, while Republicans have often clung to theories that they want to believe — like the supposedly magical power of tax cuts and deregulation. Democrats, in short, have been more pragmatic.

1732

I think that it’s worthwhile to point out that perhaps especially today, that the GOP is not seemingly governed by rational thought, and there does seem to be some dogmatic adherence to ideology rather than practical policy making… although I also think it’s important to note that as you go back through the last century, the economic policies put forth by the different parties may not line up with what folks here consider “conservative” or “liberal” policy plans.

Kennedy, for instance, had his economic advisers suggest that he just do big spending plans to get the economy going ( while GDP growth looks good on paper, at the time unemployment was quite high, at nearly 7%), but instead Kennedy pushed a plan that most folks here might call conservative if evaluated in a vaccum… large tax cuts on the top brackets and corporations. To some degree, this was conservative by design, as he expected to be running against Goldwater in 1964.

Likewise, Nixon implemented things like wage and price controls, which I don’t think most folks today would consider very in line with the conservative mindset. Or Reagan, often hailed as cutting all the taxes, also instituted large tax INCREASES in 82, 83, and 84.

I feel like it’s likely foolish to try and distill something as complex as macroeconomics through a purely partisan lens.

1733

Nah. The Republicans have been fucking it up for years and only cling to their values when the Democrats take control so they can block efforts while pretending to care about something they say they care about but never actually do themselves. This being partisan has nothing to do with lens but the reality of how Republicans have implemented their policies… for generations.

1734

Who could have predicted that herding cats on reddit would be so hard?!

1735

The biggest backers want to get out before everyone else since the last guy out is left holding their monetary dick in their hand.

It’s a game of collective chicken, where the first one to flinch actually wins. It’s almost guaranteed to go sideways at some point.

1736

Ooo, is the inflation bugbear back as well?

I have to agree with Mr. Bernstein and the Biden administration here:

Also, can I just remark that it’s just so fucking nice to have an actual human in the White House again?

1737

… as if this is some sort of great measure of how we are doing.

1738

These are tough times to be an inflation hawk. It’s nearly as bad as being a deficit hawk. They’ve gotta make their money somehow!

1739

Here’s an interesting take on the whole Gamestop thing:

The thesis is that the market data doesn’t support the idea that retail investors executed a short squeeze. There was too much muscle (aka tens or even hundreds of millions dollars) of buy/sell pressure on Gamestop for it to have been done only by retail investors. Hedge funds got in the game also. Which would mean that the drama that played out was actually a bloody battle between hedge funds while retail investors got all the press.

What’s unclear is if the hedge funds jumped on the bandwagon once they saw what the retail investors were trying or whether they put the redditors up to it or whether they just liked redditors as cover/scapegoat for what they were doing.

I think this kind of wild market fluctuation, and the corresponding losses that I’m sure a bunch of retail investors ate, does call for a thorough investigation by the government.

1740

It’s better to have a bit of general inflation than to have even a little bit of general deflation.

1741

That was my point.

1742

Seems like a rising tide does lift all boats, but you rise that tide not by throwing a lake of water under the biggest boats, but a bit of water under all of them (tax cuts vs. broad, intelligent spending.)

1743

Don’t forget the biggest boats!

1744

Oh, OK, I misunderstood your post.

1745

Bernie is now getting roasted by the left for saying 600+1400 is 2000.

I do believe myself that Bernie realizes the reality of the situation and is spinning it the best he can.

1746

The left failed elementary school arithmetic?

Bernie isn’t spinning, he’s just not being a fucking idiot.