Can someone enlighten me?

These libcucks constantly protesting for a hike in minimum wage, why?
Im studying economics but still in my first semester and based on what I've learned, a hike in wages will equal an increase in inflation due to the fact that cost are increased and the general increase in the price of consumer goods= inflation. Also due to the fact that if ceteris paribus, an increase in the money supply in the economy directly equates to inflation.
Why is this still even debated, what the fuck?

they should be protesting to lower the cost of housing desu

> baby's first econ class

Call me in 10 years when you've seen some shit.

Just asking a question, not saying Im right.

more wages = more taxes

ur in idiot

...

1 ) The core desire of increased wages is to correct what's wrong with this image.

The reality is that this image is the reality in the USA, therefore yes we can expect inflation.

If you study countries that aren't the USA, you'll find that despite considerably higher wages and even socialized healthcare, costs aren't proportionally inflated. They actually have, even after adjusting for taxes and costs of living, a higher comparative minimum wage than we do in terms of cash-in-pocket spending power.

The real core problem is the corporate culture that evolved from public shareholders and schools of business centered about quarterly profits. Now more than ever you can expect companies to offload the increased costs.

The assumed benefit to companies is that their workers would actually give a fuck. But there's this cycle of workers not caring because wages are shit, therefore companies don't care because workers are shit and fuck that we'll just min-max short term profits for the shareholders.

Hypothetically under an ideal marxist state, the "company" is merely an AI serving as the ATM interface between workers providing goods/services and the people who buy it. Realistically, the company is an animal who must put it's own survival first, and this has gotten pretty fucking bad in the USA.

Ideally wages increase, and the inflation is less than 1:1 proportional, which would correct the flatline wages in the image.

Though yes, I am pessimistic about markets becoming more humanitarian rather than less.

2) Wages must be increased regardless at some point eventually. Inflation continues regardless of a frozen minimum wage, which fucks over minimum wage workers. At some point you've got to bump it up to keep with baseline inflation, otherwise the bottom class will drown and then take the entire economy with them when all foundational jobs stop functioning.

Minimum wage when created was 25 cents an hour. Obviously it could not stay that until today.

This guy knows what's up.

Good to know there are people on this board besides conservative NEETs.

No. They should be protesting that the government is allowing everyone and their fucking mother to come here, which means a population explosion, which means more demand for housing. We need to get rid of 1/3 of the population and things will be more commensurate with wages.

Thanks for the response, I'll go over it and see where I was mistaken.

>This guy knows what's up.
Well,
The key thing is:
>inflation continues regardless is the real problem
>The bottom class will drown and then take the entire economy with them when all foundational jobs stop functioning.
>You can't have a 25-cent minimum wage today
>Or a 5$ minimum wage.
>Why would a 9$ minimum wage in later 20XX to still be OK?

The rest is my own ranting agenda.

!!! Nobody is going to bump the minimum wage to 15$ overnight though. Any large bumps proposed are done in increments over years. This offsets the economic shock.

>Housing

I've actually done some reading into this.

1) Banks intentionally are holding a SIGNIFICANT percentage of foreclosed homes off the market to help the housing bubble "recover". There's artificial scarcity at play by people with policy making power to benefit only themselves.

2) Rental companies are becoming powerhouses. Not Ma-n-Pa rental, I mean corporate investment run by shareholder rental property companies. Renting bubbles follow housing bubbles, and housing bubbles follow renting bubbles. They profit off each other.

The conclusion I draw is that, those with the power to do so are intentionally creating bubbles.
Same thing that's going on with inflating education costs.

>an increase in the money supply in the economy directly equates to inflation

Like I said if I'm mistaken help me find out where I am wrong. But I doubt your gender studies degree will add anything to the thread.

Decided to check if I was wrong based on what I said, and technically I'm not. CETERIS PARIBUS is the key word here.

still wrong. The circumstances might be, as they are, enough to avoid any rise in inflation

I will give you a tip that you have to remember forever: economics isn't a hard science, it is a social science

>Blackboard
>Trifold presentation board
.... this wouldn't happen to be relevant to a class discussion, paper, or presentation or something?

It's not certain to result in inflation. And even if it does, the rise in prices will be less than the rise in wages, for three related reasons:

Firstly, higher wages encourages more investment in equipment to make the workers more productive.

Secondly, a rise in costs doesn't necessarily mean a rise in prices. It could be counteracted by a fall in other costs, or a fall in profits. The last outcome is most likely, particularly considering the competition from overseas.

Thirdly, there's always a deflationary deflationary effect of technological development, so across the economy you can expect wages to rise faster than inflation.

Don't worry to much about the money supply; those ceteris are never paribus!

not to mention the tab "honor code" lmfao

>It's not certain to result in inflation.
To play devils advocate, because you are saying the outcome is indeed uncertain

> more investment in equipment to make the workers more productive
We're on the tipping point of the 2nd industrial revolution. Automation is going to be a bitch.

I expect full-time employment will continue to drop.

It still hasn't recovered from the 2009 crash. Part-time inflates the employment stats.

The alternative worst-case outcome other than inflation is harming employment figures, which are going to already be under attack by industrial revolution 2: robotic automation boogaloo.

Haha I make some cash on the side doing other peoples hw.

People where asking me to make a brouchure about the most important things in College which is why the honor code google images search was there.

The outcome is indeed uncertain.

Automation is going to be great if the government responds in appropriate manner (running much bigger deficits and spreading the benefits around rather than letting them fall disproportionately to the rich). Unfortunately most governments wrongly consider that to be bad for the economy.

brochure*

It's a lose-lose.

We want the companies operating in the USA to pay USA taxes for USA citizens.
The companies want to minimize losses and maximize profits.
If we lower taxes, it can encourage more local USA based business.

Automation fucks this up.

It will REQUIRE basic income / negative income tax to replace the equivalent jobs lost for it's productivity
BUT
It won't stay based in the USA if it's taxed significantly

Lose-lose:
If we don't lower taxes, they'll go elsewhere to automate.
If we do lower taxes, even if they stay in USA there's less tax revenue for negative/basic income

65% of the entire US population is crammed in to 146 cities across the united states. too little land, too many people.

You're talking about cost-of-living inflation in cities becoming notably unsustainable lately. Most people who work in major cities can no longer afford to live within reasonably driving distance of it, and on top of that public transit options are all shit in this country.

Yes, I know specifically what you're talking about now. I thought you were talking about housing bubble in general.

>Immigration
Specifically, the real problem are immigrants who can afford to displace city-dwellers and inflate property values. Rich Chinese are a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM all up and down the Western USA and even into fucking Canada. Like we needing more fuckery after the country-wide housing bubble.

Vancouver had it so bad they passed a property tax law that's really steep to penalize people who don't even live in the houses they're buying up.

Most immigrants aren't buying million dollar condos in trendy Los Angeles though.

>too little land
There's plenty of land in the USA. Any major manufacturer can drop a new plant on a tiny town to make a decent city decades later, and they often do because the land is cheap further out. We're a far cry from running out of space compared to damn near any older/smaller country on the planet. We're the size of some Continents.

Nobody will build a factory in a city. There's no new products, only new services in expensive cities.

But I don't think land-space is the issue at all.

I might want to blame lack of growth of industries that start new cities. These have mostly left the USA for cheaper nations.

Inflation is exactly the reason for it, $7.50 doesn't buy what it used to, even though wages were fixed in many states and even entire regions of the US.

>Firstly, higher wages encourages more investment in equipment to make the workers more productive.
I hope so, it'd be nice having a dustpan that's not full of caked-on shit and a mop bucket that doesn't look like it's from Baghdad.

Our economy is currently in deflation though; a hike in wages would be good.

Lets fix inflation with more inflation: the post

>I don't understand economics
>The post

Minimum wage was 25 cents when introduced.
The burden of proof you have is why it still isn't.

I never said anything about fixing inflation, just treating a symptom of it.

It won't require basic income or negative income tax. But it will require the government to spend more than the revenue it gets. Just shuffling money around isn't enough - it needs to actually put some into the economy.

And cutting taxes is a very inefficient way to encourage more businesses.

The situation's only lose-lose if decisions are based on economic myths.