u/Medium_Owl_4119

And no, for those claiming this is an argument that immigrants are leeches, I am well aware of the fact the overwhelming majority of immigrants pay taxes and are net contributors.

This is far more fundamental than that. It goes to human nature. We see this pattern again and again, from the American right’s flip to being anti-welfare as soon as civil rights were expanded, to the far right surge in Europe in response to surging immigration, to the American right’s second apparent u-turn on social spending as Trump came on stage and they adopt hawkishness on immigration.

This to me is, unfortunately, just human nature. When a society becomes increasingly diverse, it loses social glue that once bound it together. It atomizes. And that’s a fine and acceptable price to pay for increasing multiculturalism and plurality. But it is a cost, and I believe many on the left refuse to acknowledge it. As societies become more diverse, people‘s appetite for higher taxes declines. They generally want less welfare state, more individualism, and more decentralization of state power and authority. It seems Milton Friedman was proven right again, but for the wrong reasons. It’s not immigrants aren’t a fiscal drain because they simply aren’t. It’s a society‘s capacity for maintaining social democracy decreases as it increasingly becomes more diverse and individualist.

And we come to find that a lot of Americans being polled were shy again to truly share how they would vote but, when push comes to shove, they vote down-ballot GOP as they did in 24? If this comes to pass, what do you expect it to mean for the future and for the nation?

And, if so, is this one of those things that appears do anecdotally convincing but is not backed by the data? For example, I am sure you’ve all heard the countless anecdotes from workers who will tell you that their managers spend their days forwarding emails all day and not adding real value, or the workers who are nepo hires to placate a director but ultimately a drag on the firm’s competitiveness, etc etc.

Do economists generally agree, as seen in the data, that firms are operating at maximum efficiency and these anecdotes are wildly overstated? If not, and there is a great deal of inefficiency in modern firms, are there economic policies that can be deployed to make our firms more efficient that ultimately will cause our economies to grows more and make us all better off in the long run?

Like on the tariffs, keeping the border closed, no regulations on AI, and so on?

But he doesn’t institute new tariffs (just keeps all the ones Trump puts in now), slows down the ICE raids and installs a responsible DHS secretary who champions “firm but compassionate enforcement” that is quiet and not making constant headlines, ends the Iran war, ends all of the naked corruption and self-dealing, and focuses the 4 years of his presidency on purely rebuilding the civil service and passing infrastructure bills? The goal, he would say, is “turning down the temperature” and not leaning into any wedge issues that can galvanize voters as happened in 24. Basically, make the GOP look silly and fringe by having them claim infrastructure bills are “an existential threat America and the American way of life”.

And not provoking the large subset of the country that voted out the democrats in droves? Perhaps the only popular policy he achieved that has bipartisan support is immediately ending the war and all hostilities with Iran. But, otherwise? As a centrist reasonable Democrat, his goal would be to quietly build up the civil service, pass infrastructure bills, and make the GOP look like shrill fanatics to the low-information public where they make a massive scandal over infrastructure bills.

Considering we get all of the disincentivizing and distortionary effects that all wealth taxes, like the estate tax, produces? But the stated goal of the estate tax, reducing the concentrations of dynastic wealth and reducing inequality, are not borne out by the facts? Facts such as the widely cited studies showing almost no creation of dynastic wealth over the past several decades and that great wealth that has been created continues to dwindle over the generations?

Given all of this, isn’t the most optimal policy to completely remove estate taxes as they aren’t even facilitating the stated goal while harming economic growth?

When I read the works of public-facing economists in the media, and the works of academic economists regarding the economy and its robustness, its as if I’m reading two completely descriptions of the world? And it’s not cranks or nobodies in the former camp. In some cases, we’re talking major textbook authors.

The current system of our economy seems to be working incredibly well (the current administration not withstanding). The incentives vs disincentives, the rates of redistribution, tax rates, and regulations all appeared to be the most optimal sets of policies given political constraints. the labor market has continued to shown remarkable resilience despite the fed’s deep hikes over the past couple of years, real wages have continued to outpace inflation, we achieved the vaunted soft landing, and the median person is better off now than they have ever been. There is no need for any structural reforms or any changes to policy, maybe with the exception of tweaks and “nudges” responding to small changes as necessary.

Is this assessment wrong? Is there actual credible disagreement within mainstream economics about the so-called affordability crisis?

Is that because most of the economists who come here are of this persuasion, or is that increasingly where the empirical evidence is most strongest? I see an almost hostility to other schools of economics here that I believed were at least respected. It appears that skepticism of deficits and debt, redistribution, labor regulations, and state programs are not viewed as a respectable but minority view in the profession any longer but increasingly fringe and “unserious”? Is that a fair characterization?

And there are no transfers or subsidies to low-wage workers? Put all normative arguments aside. Is there empirical evidence that having people live only on their income from work harms long-run economic growth? And, if so, why isn’t the better economic policy to have these jobs automated and subsidize the automation of these jobs rather than the workers? So those workers could better be allocated to labor-intensive jobs that aren’t as easily automated and can command a premium in the labor market?

Many mainstream economists argue against this. They insist that automation has always grown the economy, leads to productivity growth, and we’re all richer and better off for it. It will lead to better new jobs than the jobs AI replaces.

Can we rely on the market to allocate all of that displaced labor successfully to better jobs as generative AI automates existing jobs? And, as a follow-up to a previous question, why is it we can reliably expect if we were to remove subsidies for low-wage workers in the form if Medicaid and other assistance won’t result in the market allocating them to better opportunities in the labor market as those wages fall below the subsistence wage, but we do expect workers whose skills have been rendered obsolete by AI will eventually be reallocated to the better jobs that will be created?

A follow-up to a previous question. Why do we take it as a given of our system instead of trying to empower poor people to have their needs met purely from a well functioning market economy that allows them to be upwardly mobile rather than stagnant and reliant on transfers for their consumption? Why can’t the combination of strong supply-side polices (removing zoning restrictions, healthcare bottlenecks, etc) and robust anti-trust to tackle monopsony power give these workers adequate wages to cover their living expenses? I’m not expecting it to be a comfortable life. But it will be enough for them to sustain themselves. Where is this wrong and not the case at all and this transfers are always required in a modern economy?

Putting normative arguments pointing out how regressive it would be, we know they are the least distortive. Under such a tax system, wouldn’t the economy grow more and we will all be better off than the current complex tax system we have?

New grad just got a position that’s hybrid 2 days work from home, 3 days in office. A big part of the draw of the position was that it’s hybrid. Are these going away in the city and I should expect to be in office 5 days a week in the coming years? What do you all see happening in the coming years?

And as this trend continues to grow, could the economy remain chugging along as more and more consumption concentrates among the top 10% and the bottom 50% increasingly are spending exclusively on staples and essentials?

Economists generally agree that excessive taxation can disincentivize growth, employment, and labor participation.

What about progressive taxation? If we instead moved towards a flat tax system that wasn’t so punishing on high income and very high income workers, while also getting rid of some of the loopholes they use to shelter income, wouldn’t this be the more optimal tax policy as opposed to the status-quo?

Anyone else noticed this? As a student, I’ve interned at 3 different multi-nationals and just started working at another. And consistently I would say the average age of the staff is around late 40s. The interesting thing is this was not the case with the different departments like accounting, legal, marketing, IT, compliance, production, etc.

If you’ve observed this at your firm or past firms you’ve worked at, what could be causing this?

And do you feel this will be the accepted norm by then among millennials and Gen Z?