This is it folks. The next president of the United States thinks that:
>higher wages creates demand which leads to more jobs with higher wages.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mu0IDG7DEY
>5:46
Can a Keynesian explain to me what she's trying to say?
>>78051159
>Hillary
>President
topfukinkek
sage
>>78051159
She thinks increasing wages will be 1:1 dumped back in via spending. She's wrong, you never get out of it what you want. Stimulus in 08-09 didn't work because scared consumers don't spend. It's retardation.
>>78051292
But demand creates higher wages. Not the other way around. I really hope shes playing her audience and don't actually think this. But it freaks me the fuck out.
>>78051159
multiplier aggregate stimulus inflation consumer spending
>>78051457
In theory, but higher wages result increase cost as well. How do you know which will happen?
>>78051547
Sure but you would have to artificially increase wages which would lower employment increasing the amount of people that save.
Also, business are the ones that invest in expanding and creating more jobs, and raising human capital would lower their ability to do so.
>>78051457
Probably pandering to Bernie supporters and their minimum wage bullshit. Just like she said she opposes the Trans-Atlantic deal, but I bet 9:1 odds that she'd approve it in a heartbeat as president.
>>78051739
if they're willing to pay more because labor is low then why would it increase cost? would haven't a deficit of human capital raise costs more?
this is so low energy and she sounds like a witch
buzzwords and empty sentences everywhere
>>78051221
Bump
>>78052265
Shes actually being high energy. I usually only watch her to see her squint to make out the words in the teleprompter and because i think she's going to fall asleep on stage.
>>78052235
Is labor low, do we have a deficit of human capital? If the answer is no, raising the minimum wage doesn't make sense. If the answer is yes, you still have to gamble that the business will recoup lost income to wages in the form of increased consumption by the consumer. I choose to go with the lowest common denominator in that it won't happen. Floors are inefficient in every way, I don't understand how there's anyway around that aside from a goldilocks zone of success.
>>78052748
yeah that's a pretty big gamble on a macro scale. Walmart has to close 300 stores just to increase wages to 11$ because turn over rates were costing them a lot of money.
>>78051159
>Can a Keynesian explain to me what she's trying to say?
Keynesians don't know shit
>>78053151
Holy shit I didn't know that, apparently the cali wage hikes pretty much fucked any store outside of the cities. Weird times we live in
