Economics Thread

I work with a ton of people in the restaurant business.

So far in the last year one employer has had employees do the following :

Physically destroyed her POS system

Started an online Go Fund Me saying she’s a racist

Have pulled no call no shows after being in debt to the owner for vet bills (trying to get fired on purpose so they didn’t have to pay her back)

Fabricated documents for a WC claim against the business

She’s probably the most philanthropic person in the city when it comes
To helping her fellow man. People know it but trash still tries to take advantage when they can. It has completely jaded her view on the workforce and people in general.

It ain’t just putting up with the public goldy.
 
Yeah, there’s pos scammy people in every line of work

That’s nothing new


I thought we were talking about retaining and getting good employees

Which usually comes down to being paid well and not having to put up with unnecessary bull**** usually. It’s a pretty simple formula
 
The national debt surpassed $30T today.

I remember ten years ago when I was in college doing a project on it, after just passing $14T

Took ten years to more than double.
 
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0262578

Introduction

Taxes are increasingly used as a policy tool aimed at reducing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), given their association with adverse health outcomes including type 2 diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease. However, a potential unintended consequence of such a policy could be that the tax induces substitution to alcoholic beverages. The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of the $0.0175 per ounce Seattle, Washington, Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) on volume sold of alcoholic beverages.

Methods

A difference-in-differences estimation approach was used drawing on universal product code-level food store scanner data on beer (N = 1059) and wine (N = 2655) products one-year pre-tax (February-November, 2017) and one and two-years post-tax (February-November, 2018 and 2019) with Portland, Oregon, as the comparison site.

Results

At two-years post-tax implementation, volume sold of beer in Seattle relative to Portland increased by 7% (ratio of incidence rate ratios [RIRR] = 1.07, 95% CI:1.00,1.15), whereas volume sold of wine decreased by 3% (RIRR = 0.97, 95% CI:0.95,1.00). Overall alcohol (both beer and wine) volume sold increased in Seattle compared to Portland by 4% (RIRR = 1.04, 95% CI:1.01,1.07) at one-year post-tax and by 5% (RIRR = 1.05, 95% CI:1.00,1.10) at two-years post-tax. The implied SSB cross-price elasticities of demand for beer and wine, respectively, were calculated to be 0.35 and -0.15.

Conclusions

There was evidence of substitution to beer following the implementation of the Seattle SSB tax. Continued monitoring of potential unintended outcomes related to the implementation of SSB taxes is needed in future tax evaluations.


———————

I guess that soda tax didn’t quite go as planned, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
acesfull86 said:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0262578

Introduction

Taxes are increasingly used as a policy tool aimed at reducing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), given their association with adverse health outcomes including type 2 diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease. However, a potential unintended consequence of such a policy could be that the tax induces substitution to alcoholic beverages. The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of the $0.0175 per ounce Seattle, Washington, Sweetened Beverage Tax (SBT) on volume sold of alcoholic beverages.

Methods

A difference-in-differences estimation approach was used drawing on universal product code-level food store scanner data on beer (N = 1059) and wine (N = 2655) products one-year pre-tax (February-November, 2017) and one and two-years post-tax (February-November, 2018 and 2019) with Portland, Oregon, as the comparison site.

Results

At two-years post-tax implementation, volume sold of beer in Seattle relative to Portland increased by 7% (ratio of incidence rate ratios [RIRR] = 1.07, 95% CI:1.00,1.15), whereas volume sold of wine decreased by 3% (RIRR = 0.97, 95% CI:0.95,1.00). Overall alcohol (both beer and wine) volume sold increased in Seattle compared to Portland by 4% (RIRR = 1.04, 95% CI:1.01,1.07) at one-year post-tax and by 5% (RIRR = 1.05, 95% CI:1.00,1.10) at two-years post-tax. The implied SSB cross-price elasticities of demand for beer and wine, respectively, were calculated to be 0.35 and -0.15.

Conclusions

There was evidence of substitution to beer following the implementation of the Seattle SSB tax. Continued monitoring of potential unintended outcomes related to the implementation of SSB taxes is needed in future tax evaluations.


———————

I guess that soda tax didn’t quite go as planned, lol.
Click to expand...

Can confirm. Every time my wife starts hounding me about drinking too much diet dew, I crack open an IPA.
 
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-prices-inflation-brian-deese-0da8721f67eb720e0d37daaf62128469

Biden is now trying to remedy the situation with 72 distinct initiatives — everything from new rules for cell phone repairs to regulations on meatpacking to more merger reviews.

“The dynamics of the modern American economy — the increased consolidation and lack of competition — has distorted market incentives in important ways,” said Brian Deese, director of the White House National Economic Council. “The president gave us the direction that he wanted us to come back and say what could we do to address this issue of consolidation across industries in a way that would be durable.”

But even administration officials acknowledge that the initiatives outlined by the president’s seven-month-old competition council aren’t designed to quickly stop the 7.5% inflation that’s frustrating Americans and damaging Biden’s popularity. Furthermore, business groups dispute the fundamental premise that competition has faded within the U.S. economy and they are prepared to challenge the administration’s new initiatives in court.


——————

This administration, FFS. It’s like they’re intentionally sabotaging themselves at this point.

“We heard from Americans loud and clear that they want us to tackle inflation. Here’s our plan, loaded with 72 initiatives!”

“72? Wow, great. So this plan will actually address the problem, right?”

“Well…”
 
https://reason.com/2022/03/02/bidens-protectionist-trade-agenda-will-increase-prices-in-fact-it-already-has/

In Biden’s telling, rising prices are the result of monopolies and near-monopolies in the economy taking advantage of consumers by jacking up prices. “Capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism. It’s exploitation—and it drives up prices,” he said during Tuesday’s address. Later, he promised a “crackdown on these companies overcharging American businesses and consumers.”

There’s not a lot of evidence to support that diagnosis, but let’s just go with it for a moment. If concentration in the marketplace was somehow to blame for rising prices, then it would make sense to attack that problem by expanding competition. Give consumers more choices and they will naturally flock to lower-priced alternatives, putting pressure on other sellers to keep prices down.

The problem, for Biden, is that so much of his economic agenda is pointed in exactly the opposite direction. In one breath, he complains about the lack of consumer choice driving up prices. With the next, he proposes to further restrict consumer choice.

“We will buy American to make sure everything from the deck of an aircraft carrier to the steel on highway guardrails are made in America,” Biden said, before promising that his administration would make some of the “biggest investments in manufacturing in American history” to bring about “the revitalization of American manufacturing.”

So much for his supposed “top priority.”
 
acesfull86 said:
https://reason.com/2022/03/02/bidens-protectionist-trade-agenda-will-increase-prices-in-fact-it-already-has/

In Biden’s telling, rising prices are the result of monopolies and near-monopolies in the economy taking advantage of consumers by jacking up prices. “Capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism. It’s exploitation—and it drives up prices,” he said during Tuesday’s address. Later, he promised a “crackdown on these companies overcharging American businesses and consumers.”

There’s not a lot of evidence to support that diagnosis, but let’s just go with it for a moment. If concentration in the marketplace was somehow to blame for rising prices, then it would make sense to attack that problem by expanding competition. Give consumers more choices and they will naturally flock to lower-priced alternatives, putting pressure on other sellers to keep prices down.

The problem, for Biden, is that so much of his economic agenda is pointed in exactly the opposite direction. In one breath, he complains about the lack of consumer choice driving up prices. With the next, he proposes to further restrict consumer choice.

“We will buy American to make sure everything from the deck of an aircraft carrier to the steel on highway guardrails are made in America,” Biden said, before promising that his administration would make some of the “biggest investments in manufacturing in American history” to bring about “the revitalization of American manufacturing.”

So much for his supposed “top priority.”
Click to expand...

Wonder if seeming small businesses non essential and shutting them had anything to do with reducing competition
 
The economic illiteracy of so many leading politicians is just astounding. Or is it intentional? Maybe that’s more generous.
 
If my doctor told me my biggest problem was high cholesterol, but instead of prescribing a statin, he told me to eat a wheel of cheese, I’d probably get a new doctor.
 
I'd like to cancel my mortgage payments. Who's ready to cancel that for me?

But how do the people who claim we have an amazing economy reconcile how people cant restart $150 monthly payments after a two year pause?

And if they can't re start after two years, when can they?

[Tw]1499028253541117964[/tw]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top