Economics is astrology?

49 KB JPG
So I was perusing a TYT comment section on minimum wage in order to gauge their views on economics. Of course they argued for a higher minimum wage leading to an increase in jobs. And going im the comment section you got arguments against a minimum wage increase. But what struck me was how liberals called economic theory akin to astrology. What??

Much of it is. That's why if you get 5 different economists in a room and ask them to make a prediction about (thing) you'll get 6 different answers.

>higher minimum wage
>more jobs

any 13 year old economics student could tell you this is wrong off the bat, as could anyone with common sense

So what is it? Op two says things like minimum wage hikes decreases employment, but OP one says the predictions are impossible?

OK so the argument is that higher minimum wage decreases employment. Critics will argue that a higher minimum wage will increase spending in the economy which means that companies will have more money to hire more employees.

The other argument is that a higher minimum wage decreases employment because it becomes more expensive to have employees obviously. This is why they say economics is like astrology. A giant economy cannot be examined ceteris paribus (all other things held equal) because all other things are NEVER equal. In this way you could argue economics is closer to philosophy than actual science. I'm not sure that I agree but I understand that position.

Increasing minimum wages increases the costs of employing workers. Therefore, businesses will have less money available to hire more people. Say a company has 200k a year to blow on staff, how many people can they hire if the per-person cost is 50k? what about 25k?

Increased minimum wage will not motivate low end workers more either, because at the end of the day they will not lose money if they perform any worse (until you start talking about being made redundant/fired). Economists will argue many different outcomes of some situations but the minimum wage situation is understood pretty well by anyone with an economic background at or above college level. This is only the very basic outlook however, and there are many repercussions beyond employment rates when raising minimum wages.

This is basically the point. To me, I think it's ridiculous to think the raise will improve spending enough to have a NET positive increase in the economy, though the logic is definitely something worth considering as it means that the reduction in employment will not be as great as if you only consider the initial implications.

Economics isn't a real science, it's just politics with another name.

More like aggregated psychology imo

jobs nowadays are for the people stuck in the matrix

cryptocurrencies translated to newbies

"buy flip flops when they are off season, and sell them when it's season"

listen to me anons

you have 1 chance... and this 1 chance is crypto... buy low sell high.. just like the jew jeweller does, just like what the bank does, just like what your employer does, just like what the government does, just like what YOU are supposed to do

thank the internet & bitcoin for all this to be possible

Explain more user, im listening

According to this logic, in what way would the shop benefit from a stimulated economy to equalize their business?

I get this notion to recall the idea of quantum mechanics versus relativity. On the large scale things appear smooth and uniform, like the stars and planets moving in a clear way. When you delve into the quantum things are shaky and unpredictable. I feel that this can somewhat be applied to what you are getting at in a way. The idea of equal and never equal playing out in paradox

Depends a lot on the shop.
If the shop sells cheap ("inferior") goods which target the lower-earning portion of the population, they will see a decrease in sales as people move on to better products.

It is also important to understand that higher skilled workers also need equivalent pay rises to keep them x amount above the minimum wage.

>Chink corner store example:
Operating costs rise, Employment falls, sale price of goods rises, sales decrease

It is likely marginal revenue will drop below marginal costs (MRMid range store, service station for example
Operating costs rise, Employment falls not just in minimum wage workers but also for mechanics etc.

In this case, revenue rises with MC, potentially by a greater amount as more people can now afford to run cars that would not have beforehand, expanding their market for numerous goods they sell. In this case, MR=>MC, meaning an economic profit would form, and the market would see more producers entering until MR=MC. Likely you'd see people from the low end market entering this mid range.

So that's what liberals are aiming for, more constrained and consolidated marketplaces. Those who benefit from the minimum wage can now afford a new car they couldn't get before, so they bring profit to the gas station owner. But you will lose the small businesses, and thus those choices. Was their destruction worth it altogether, did the state ultimately bring about better standards of living and wealth?

think of it in a very numerical way... you buy your girlfriend some flowers, you get sex... you could just spend $100 on a hooker but obviously you'd rather HODL onto a sure thing, right???

cryptocurrency is not much different... crypto patterns are everywhere in life... in the gym, at workplace, at your friends house....

it's all green or red.. or consolidating...

in the end crypto is VERY volatile... pick the right cryptocurrency AKA invest in the new "girlfriend" "new watch" "new job" "new drug" "new hobby" is just another translations from the matrix to Green and reds.... it's that simple...

whales collection "bitcorn" "corn" are just people who understand the game... figure this out asap user, you have been warned. also the biz board should already show you the signs.... (((crypto)))

I'm doing your homework here aren't I

No I may be obnoxious, but that isn't the case. Just greedy for learning. Find this interesting

Economics is really hard to understand because questions depend on the assumptions you make and there is a lot going on in the real world.

Another funny thing with economics is that it has been so politicized and there's pretty much evidence for every viewpoint. If you don't have a solid foundation in economics (and I'm not talking about the so-called absolutes they feed you in textbooks, but an understanding of its history, how the field has evolved, and its literature), you will be brainwashed by the elites.

Yes, much of what is fed to you by politicians is an exploitation of psychology, economic theory, and political theory. They know how you will respond to certain things and will pull string until they get their way. You are all enslaved. The only way to free yourself is to start reading. As you read more and more you will become aware of the bullshit that is being fed to you because you understand the motives & the context surrounding it.

Ah okay. Your questions read similar to exam questions in some ways is all. If you're actually just in it for the knowledge then don't feel as though you're being obnoxious, hunger for knowledge is a great thing and you're doing great to hunt it out, especially by asking the right questions.

Whether it's worth it altogether is where economics tends to tread into political territory. Where should wealth be allocated? What is more desirable, an equal outcome or an equitable outcome? This is a political question where the answer depends on who you're talking to - I fall into the libertarian category therefore I'd argue equality isn't something that should be forced onto those that deserve it & that it's more important for businesses to have a level, fair playing field than have the profits they earned ripped from them & distributed to those who can't operate effectively on their own.

To me I'd say the destruction of small businesses is unfair and essentially a waste of time forcing them to reallocate their investments into a different market at a loss just to survive.

I've lived as a student on the bones of my ass, paying $5-10 a week for food and working a total of 65+ hours a week if you factor in study. After this, I lack sympathy for people looking to reap welfare who think they should have a minimum wage that allows them to smoke, drink every weekend, eat well and save up for a house. Even though I was broke as fuck those years have been the best years of my life, and through working hard I earnt my way into a comfortable income. Giving people a cushion of guaranteed free gibs to ride off of makes them comfortable with not pushing themselves (less incentive to work), so it becomes less of a "transitionary aid into the work force" and more of a "get out of contributing to society free card". There are demographics who need help though, and welfare should be available, but only for certain conditions for a certain period of time.

ID changed cause I'm on a public network btw, I'm