Minwage

Minimum wage? Liberals support hiking the minimum wage but, according to economists, it will increase unemployment.

My advisor has a Ph.D. in Economics from Columbia, basically he's a awfully nice and smart guy. He's done research in this field since he's a Labor Economist. Today, I thought I made profound connection when the term Utilitarianism popped up into my head during class. Think about it. Many people who are the benefactors of the status quo. They don't have to pay their workers as much so they, I assume, would like to keep it that way or even pay them less.
Milton Friedman may be regarded as a genius when he said that a corporation's only responsibility is to maximize its returns to shareholders. He may be a Nobel Prize winner, but I think in this case the amount of people that make a good amount of money are a select few. The natural inclination of these few is to hoard their wealth and stick together, keeping the status quo in motion as long as is possible. Basically, by 'nickel and diming' employees they maximize their earnings. For some reason, in my head, there's this point where any person just has too much money.
For example, Goldman Sachs may have struck it big with oil futures, but do investors really need $100 million dollar bonuses? Just imagine what they would do with that money... Buy some pieces of art, cars, you know, the usual. Distributing some of that money would actually be in fact better for the economy, not just of the US, but the world. I can't help but find the venerable trickle down effect nothing more than status quo rhetoric to put on a facade, and in turn trick people to keep things the way they are. If bonuses were cut from $100 million to something more reasonable like $10 million tops. The lower people in the chain would be spending like crazy, because that's natural market behavior; I think it's the marginal propensity to consume. For every extra dollar people earn they'll spend about 70 cents of it and save 30, and for people with $100 million in their bank, there's nothing left to buy; unless of course they want to build more wealth from that. The 'normal' people in Goldman Sachs would surely spend on things like new cars, homes, electronics, help out family, and so much more. The people on top usually don't have such a wide gamut of goods and services bought.
Giving money to the guys lower on the ladder is like diversifying and strengthening economies as a whole. Provided, everything I'm saying is simply a belief or educated guess. There's no real science or numbers behind it, since I don't think it's ever been that way. Still, I have this feeling that if there were no ultra wealthy people economies of the world would be stronger.
Utilitarianism, utilitarianism, I shouldn't digress so. Perhaps, the increase in wages may be beneficial. There's no evidence that suggests an increase in wages weakens the economy, it just increases unemployment some amount, although not significantly. When people begin making more money they can spend more, right? Now, with this increase in spending it's possible for newer companies to sprout and meet demands, which may employ people who have been recently laid off due to the hike. I mean, it would probably take more work than that. If Goldman Sachs took a chill pill with the bonuses and spread them out reasonably it could do much more for an economy than people making an extra two dollars an hour. If there is a trend of less ultra-wealth, and an increase in minimum wage, that would probably be a superb combination to create an awesome economy that's truly maximizing what's important: the people's utility.

All right, maybe I'm getting ahead of myself.
I've gotta read Paradise Lost, woohoo..
g'night...