08 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't know how big the hidden unemployment is in the Scandinavian countries either, but I know that there are about 3,5 millions workers in Denmark. Of those about 1 mill. works in/for the government. That explains the low unemployment rate.
Of course you can receive benefits without being unemployed. People who retire before 65, people who cannot work, lazy housewives, students etc. are not counted as unemployed because they are not looking for work. I don't know if the hidden unemployment is higher in Scandinavian countries than elsewhere, perhaps it's better to look at the percentage of the total population 20-60 who are working but I don't have those figures at hand.
Positional goods give no utility, therefore their production causes waste of money. Increasing taxation reduces this waste.
I expect it gives some utility to the people buying it, but not to the society as a whole. However, that can be said about a lot of goods, and then you get into a definition arguement about what constitutes a positional good - if a Ferrari is, then why isn't the newest BMW?
EDIT: You might also argue that the positional goods gives incentives to certain companies to advance their production technology level.
No, but it's still a pretty large portion of it. And of course there is plenty of room to improve the efficiency of government expenses.
On that we agree too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_employment_rate
Here it is, seems the Scandinavians are doing pretty well except for Finland.
Due to different methods for calculating the unemployment rate, the employment rate can be used as a supplemental method of comparison.
08 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by LundosOf those about 1 mill. works in/for the government. That explains the low unemployment rate.
I don't know how big the hidden unemployment is in the Scandinavian countries either, but I know that there are about 3,5 millions workers in Denmark. Of those about 1 mill. works in/for the government. That explains the low unemployment rate.
Positional goods give no utility, therefore their production causes waste of money. Increasing taxation reduce he unemployment rate, the employment rate can be used as a supplemental method of comparison.
Hardly seems like a problem to me, unless they are not doing anything useful for society. Is a job in the public sector less important or valuable than one in the private sector?
However, that can be said about a lot of goods, and then you get into a definition arguement about what constitutes a positional good - if a Ferrari is, then why isn't the newest BMW?
I briefly adressed this point, it's important to realize that there are not 100% or 0% positional goods, but they have a certain degree of "positional-ness". That degree is higher for a Ferrari than for a BMW 7-series, which is more positional than a BMW 5-series, etc. In this case, you could regard the difference in price between a reasonably comfortable car (say a $20.000 car) and the price of the car itself as the degree of positionality, so that would make a $200.000 Ferrari 90% positional.
EDIT: You might also argue that the positional goods gives incentives to certain companies to advance their production technology level.
Look up on Wiki: broken window fallacy.
Due to different methods for calculating the unemployment rate, the employment rate can be used as a supplemental method of comparison.
It says: different methods for calculating unemployment rate! There will still be differences in employment rate, of course, though I expect they will not be as prone to politically motivated tricks to increase the figure.
08 Mar 09
We need to increase the tax rate 10 percent across the board. We must do this to continue to develop new weapons and ways to kill each other. Defense spending, people. We also need to spend at least 1/4 of our GDP on rebuilding Iraq and providing Iraqis with everything they need. It doesn't natter that Americans are losing their jobs, homes. and standard of living.....suck it up!
08 Mar 09
3 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo, of course it's no less important per se, but there is a problem concerning a big public sector workforce in Scandinavian society, namelig that most of these people are in a service function, which isn't cost effective.
Hardly seems like a problem to me, unless they are not doing anything useful for society. Is a job in the public sector less important or valuable than one in the private sector?
[b]However, that can be said about a lot of goods, and then you get into a definition arguement about what constitutes a positional good - if a Ferrari is, then why isn't th h I expect they will not be as prone to politically motivated tricks to increase the figure.
I briefly adressed this point, it's important to realize that there are not 100% or 0% positional goods, but they have a certain degree of "positional-ness". That degree is higher for a Ferrari than for a BMW 7-series, which is more positional than a BMW 5-series, etc. In this case, you could regard the difference in price between a reasonably comfortable car (say a $20.000 car) and the price of the car itself as the degree of positionality, so that would make a $200.000 Ferrari 90% positional.
So where do you draw the line from a positional good to a normal good? And who decides when the good is good enough for society that further advenacement on it is a waste?
Look up on Wiki: broken window fallacy.
Hehe, that old threadmill. I was taught the neoclassical way, so I guess we wont be seeing eye to eye on that one.
I read the wiki page, and found this little example of an broken window fallacy: Arguments for increasing the number of government employees, in order to provide employment
It says: different methods for calculating unemployment rate! There will still be differences in employment rate, of course, though I expect they will not be as prone to politically motivated tricks to increase the figure.
Hehe, I would guess not. Still it's about the size of the public sector, and not as much the different ways to calculate employment and unemployment rates.
EDITs: For some reason it's all bold. Don't know why.
08 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Lundosthere is a problem concerning a big public sector workforce in Scandinavian society, namelig that most of these people are in a service function, which isn't cost effective.
No, of course it's no less important per se, but there is a problem concerning a big public sector workforce in Scandinavian society, namelig that most of these people are in a service function, which isn't cost effective.
I briefly adressed this point, it's important to realize that there are not 100% or 0% positional goods, but they have a certain de loyment and unemployment rates.
EDITs: For some reason it's all bold. Don't know why.
Why isn't it cost effective? Danes are happier on average than Americans, this suggests to me it's very cost effective.
So where do you draw the line from a positional good to a normal good? And who decides when the good is good enough for society that further advenacement on it is a waste?
There is no line, there is a gradual transition. There is a subjective element, of course, since the actual amount of utility is not easily determined. But it doesn't really matter, since it's obvious that the average degree of positionality of consumer goods will decrease upon increasing the taxation of the rich.
I read the wiki page, and found this little example of an broken window fallacy: Arguments for increasing the number of government employees, in order to provide employment
I fully agree. Useless administrative jobs at the government should be removed. Employment alone is never a sound argument, be it in the private sector ("but a lot of people work at Rolex!" ) or the public sector. Tackling bureaucracy is not easy however, not for governments and not for large corporations (in 2007 Toyota made 50 billion USD more profit than GM, mostly due to lower bureaucracy at Toyota).
Still it's about the size of the public sector, and not as much the different ways to calculate employment and unemployment rates.
Not really, as long as government workers are doing something meaningful.
08 Mar 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraTo fall in a tax bracket that taxes them less. It all depends on how much the tax increase is and what your income level is. Some people make so little they will avoid making more to avoid paying any income tax.
Why would anyone deliberately earn less? Everyone always wants more money. The existence of positional goods implies that material wealth is largely determined by relative income differences, not by the absolute income differences. Even the lower middle class in the US have access to luxury unimaginable by the upper class in 1800, yet they do not feel r ...[text shortened]... lderly and the untalented are being taken care of." (he had lived in the US for a few years)
I have never liked the income tax anyway. The only reason we need it is to pay for debt.
08 Mar 09
Originally posted by steve645Good point.
We need to increase the tax rate 10 percent across the board. We must do this to continue to develop new weapons and ways to kill each other. Defense spending, people. We also need to spend at least 1/4 of our GDP on rebuilding Iraq and providing Iraqis with everything they need. It doesn't natter that Americans are losing their jobs, homes. and standard of living.....suck it up!
If only everybody could see that.
08 Mar 09
Originally posted by Metal BrainWell, if you can earn less net money by having more gross income, the tax system is flawed. That doesn't have anything to do with the level of nominal taxation though, unless it's over 100%.
To fall in a tax bracket that taxes them less. It all depends on how much the tax increase is and what your income level is. Some people make so little they will avoid making more to avoid paying any income tax.
I have never liked the income tax anyway. The only reason we need it is to pay for debt.
08 Mar 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI've been saying our tax system is flawed for many years. There is little incentive to try and earn more if your income is low enough. All your efforts will be taxed away.
Well, if you can earn less net money by having more gross income, the tax system is flawed. That doesn't have anything to do with the level of nominal taxation though, unless it's over 100%.
08 Mar 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraCost effectiveness and happiness have almost nothing to do with each other. Danes might happier because they only work for 37 hours a week and have a lot of free time.
[b] Why isn't it cost effective? Danes are happier on average than Americans, this suggests to me it's very cost effective.
There is no line, there is a gradual transition. There is a subjective element, of course, since the actual amount of utility is not easily determined.
A gradual transition with a subjective element. Who decides then?
But it doesn't really matter, since it's obvious that the average degree of positionality of consumer goods will decrease upon increasing the taxation of the rich.
And then were're back to the beginning. We agree that to rich should pay more in taxes, but there has to be an incentive to work more, and there wont be with a marginal income tax of 75%
I fully agree. Useless administrative jobs at the government should be removed. Employment alone is never a sound argument, be it in the private sector ("but a lot of people work at Rolex!" ) or the public sector. Tackling bureaucracy is not easy however, not for governments and not for large corporations (in 2007 Toyota made 50 billion USD more profit than GM, mostly due to lower bureaucracy at Toyota).
The problem with keeping a low bureaucracy level and a low employment rate is whole issue here. Of course I agree that useless administrative jobs at the government should be removed, but that's not exactly what we're discussing.
Not really, as long as government workers are doing something meaningful.
The whole point of effective workers is that they're employed by the private sector and not the public sector. It saves the state money and gives them taxes. There are meaningful and neccesary work in the public sector, just not for almost 1/3 of the working force.
08 Mar 09
Originally posted by LundosCost effectiveness and happiness have almost nothing to do with each other. Danes might happier because they only work for 37 hours a week and have a lot of free time.
Cost effectiveness and happiness have almost nothing to do with each other. Danes might happier because they only work for 37 hours a week and have a lot of free time.
There is no line, there is a gradual transition. There is a subjective element, of course, since the actual amount of utility is not easily determined.
A gradual transition with a sub ...[text shortened]... l and neccesary work in the public sector, just not for almost 1/3 of the working force.[/b]
They have everything to do with each other. At the end of the day, economic production serves to increase the happiness of mankind, or perhaps more accurately, the welfare of mankind.
A gradual transition with a subjective element. Who decides then?
No one decides. You can only measure. But as I already pointed out, the utility of individual products is of little importance.
And then were're back to the beginning. We agree that to rich should pay more in taxes, but there has to be an incentive to work more, and there wont be with a marginal income tax of 75%
Why not? You can get a lot of status out of being amongst the richest 1%, whether that means making $500k or $1000k. But in the former case, $500k can be used for the good of society.
The problem with keeping a low bureaucracy level and a low employment rate is whole issue here.
Government jobs are not necessarily more bureaucratic than corporate ones, as long as there is a democracy to keep an incentive to reduce government expenses. As a result, dictatorships tend to have very bureaucratic governments, while countries with effective democracy have low government bureaucracy.
The whole point of effective workers is that they're employed by the private sector and not the public sector.
Why do you think this is the case? Workers employed by Rolex or Ferrari are essentially producing (almost) nothing, while doctors, teachers etc. are very productive. Of course there are useful jobs in the private sector as well (steel workers etc.) and useless jobs in government, but it's inaccurate to say privately employed workers are more effective.
08 Mar 09
4 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOriginally posted by KazetNagorra
They have everything to do with each other. At the end of the day, economic production serves to increase the happiness of mankind, or perhaps more accurately, the welfare of mankind.
They have everything to do with each other. At the end of the day, economic production serves to increase the happiness of mankind, or perhaps more accurately, the welfare of mankind.
No, utility is measured in economic terms. Happiness depends on a whole lot of different things and not only economic terms. You can be perfectly happy without a job or giving anything to the welfare of mankind.
No one decides. You can only measure. But as I already pointed out, the utility of individual products is of little importance.
But that's where I disagree. Without the utility of individual products, only one car (the most cost effective one) would be made, only one type of houses etc. As long as there is a market for Rolex' they will be made. Even if it's not the most efficient production for watches. That's market forces for you.
Why not? You can get a lot of status out of being amongst the richest 1%, whether that means making $500k or $1000k. But in the former case, $500k can be used for the good of society.
It's not about status. It's about work incentives. Why strive to be the CEO of GM earning $1000k if you only get paid $500k? You might as well just keep your midlevel position earning $700k and being paid $450.
Government jobs are not necessarily more bureaucratic than corporate ones, as long as there is a democracy to keep an incentive to reduce government expenses. As a result, dictatorships tend to have very bureaucratic governments, while countries with effective democracy have low government bureaucracy.
No, I agree they're not. Dictatorships tend to be very expensive for the people since the dictator steals everything. Never mind the bureaucracy.
Why do you think this is the case? Workers employed by Rolex or Ferrari are essentially producing (almost) nothing, while doctors, teachers etc. are very productive. Of course there are useful jobs in the private sector as well (steel workers etc.) and useless jobs in government, but it's inaccurate to say privately employed workers are more effective.
They are not more effective as in they produce one more car pr. hour. They are more effective for the state since they generate more wealth for the state than workers paid by the state.
08 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by LundosNo kidding!! I hear that only about 9 cents on the dollar that goes to welfare programs in the US actually goes to those on welfare. Of course, all I hear from liberals is the need for more tax revenue and NEVER the need for reform. You also see the pork being thrown around disguised as a stimulus package via the tax payers. Until these guys get their acts together they can all go jump off a bridge as far as I'm concerned.
Of course the problem is that a lot of the taxmoney isn't spent on that.[/b]
Of course, the way things are going the only rich people left will be in government. Then who will the left have to go after? They certainly won't go after themselves. I guess at that point we will all have to grab a pitch fork and storm the castle.
08 Mar 09
Originally posted by CombatKarambitThe US offords people the freedom to act crappy. Of course, as you restrict "crappy behavoir" so do you restrict the freedoms therin. So I guess you are in favor of more restriction than freedom?
the 35 million hungry american's go without a stable source of food, year after year
what we need to do is tax the rich.
I'm talking 65-80%
people making $1 million or more a year (less than 1% of americans)
to pay for the poor.
this country is so crappy.
how can the rich just go on like that?
knowing their $400,000 bently could feed a whole town for a year?
greed.
08 Mar 09
Originally posted by CombatKarambitWell said!😏
the 35 million hungry american's go without a stable source of food, year after year
what we need to do is tax the rich.
I'm talking 65-80%
people making $1 million or more a year (less than 1% of americans)
to pay for the poor.
this country is so crappy.
how can the rich just go on like that?
knowing their $400,000 bently could feed a whole town for a year?
greed.