Does anyone have a plan for long term employment recovery?

[itfitzme]

can you say why the law of supply and demand does not work?? Please try. Thank you.

Can you describe a Cournot Equinibrium of n Firms and explain how this compares to the pricing of products in a perfectly competitivd market? Bonus points if you can present the equilibrium model for a duopoly.

but why change the subject??????? For 4th time, can you say why the law of supply and demand does not work in regards to employment?? Please try. Thank you

I didn't change the subject. A Cournot Equilibrium of n Firms describes the supply curve for one type of market in the supply and demand model. It is basic Econ 101.

 

[oldfart]

For a self-proclaimed economics genius,

if I ever proclaimed that I will pay you $10,000. Please lets make a bet? Let me know or merely let your silence speak for you. Thank you for considering my proposal to set the record straight.

you sure don't know anything about it.

I wonder, would you be kind enough to point out the best example of what I don't know about. Thank you in advance.

Certainly. It's called "History of Economic Thought". You obviously have a serious problem understanding Smith, Malthus, and Ricardo. Any thinker after them, your problem just gets worse.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

For a self-proclaimed economics genius,

if I ever proclaimed that I will pay you $10,000. Please lets make a bet? Let me know or merely let your silence speak for you. Thank you for considering my proposal to set the record straight.

you sure don't know anything about it.

I wonder, would you be kind enough to point out the best example of what I don't know about. Thank you in advance.

Certainly. It's called "History of Economic Thought". You obviously have a serious problem understanding Smith, Malthus, and Ricardo. Any thinker after them, your problem just gets worse.

Please be specific or admit you are unable to be.

 

[oldfart]

if I ever proclaimed that I will pay you $10,000. Please lets make a bet? Let me know or merely let your silence speak for you. Thank you for considering my proposal to set the record straight.



I wonder, would you be kind enough to point out the best example of what I don't know about. Thank you in advance.

Certainly. It's called "History of Economic Thought". You obviously have a serious problem understanding Smith, Malthus, and Ricardo. Any thinker after them, your problem just gets worse.

Please be specific or admit you are unable to be.

OK we'll add Alfred Marshall, Wassili Liontief, and Leon Walras. Familiar with any of them?

I'll make it easy; we'll make a game of it. Match the six named economists with their distinctive work:

1. Population theory
2. Input--output analysis
3. Founder of Austrian School
4. General equilibrium theory
5. "Invisible hand"
6. American pioneer of microeconomics
7. Theory of economic development
8. Income distribution & input prices

Anyone who wants to is invited to join in, either with an answer or a new thinker!

 

[OnePercenter]

Raise the minimum wage to $23.50/hr and double Social Security payments.

Seventy percent of the GDP is middle class spending. If you raise the GDP everything else will fall in line.

Middle class folks should NEVER vote for Republicans, Libertarians, or TEA Party candidates because none have your best interest in mind.

 

[Wyatt earp]

And for my 1st time supply and demand....

thank you

is not what you think it seems. you do know there is a profession called salesmen and women dont ya?

yes

they could sell ice to an eskimo.

ok lets assume they could, and??????????????????????

wake up would you please?

????have you demonstrated that the law of supply and demand does not apply to employment??? If so could you explain it again but in an easier to understand manner. Thank you

Supply and demand is only one of the factors, I am not an economic major. But I read alot and seen the old Soviet Union pics in the 80's their was a "Demand" for products but no supply What your trying to say its an absolute and its not the only factor, What I am saying is people buy crap that they dont need or want, based on salespeople and late night shopping channels and comercials. Where are they getting the cash from? on credit of course.....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Supply and demand is only one of the factors, I am not an economic major.

dear, I agree

But I read alot and seen the old Soviet Union pics in the 80's their was a "Demand" for products but no supply

ah so you are a Republican supply-sider????Great!!!

What your [you're] trying to say its an absolute and its not the only factor,

so why not say what the other factors are ???

What I am saying

We would like to know very much what you're saying!!

is people buy crap that they dont need or want, based on salespeople and late night shopping channels and comercials.

of course thats mistaken since pet rocks and other silly things don't sell much at all, much to the chagrin of advertisers, while food clothing and shelter sell in the billions!!

Where are they getting the cash from? on credit of course.....

credit has decreased since the housing crash. Sorry


The point
was that in a free economy supply equals demand so the supply of jobs equals the demand for jobs!! Sorry but this is the unfailing law of economics. We have unemployment because liberals interfere with the free market.

 

[PaulS1950]

The best way to get long term employment recovery is to let people accept the responsibility for their own lives and give them back the freedom to better their lives in their own way. Using the government to provide for part of the population will never be a solution to any problem.

Give a man a fish and he will need more tomorrow but teach him to fish and he will not only feed himself but provide food to others who can pay for his work.

 

[editec]

Nothing that will permanently alter the problems, no.

EVen if we erected tariffs that completely eliminated all trade ( something I do not support) we would STILL have the problems stemming from TECHNOLOGY making workers redundant and economically UNVIABLE.

The only real solution is a change in the SOCIAL CONTRACT.

Naturally that will not happen non-violently, it never does.

Those what have, those who most benefit from the changing conditions are not willingly going to share the wealth.

They will fight a change in social contract tooth and nail.

Exactly as we saw happen during the last time we changed the SOCIAL CONTRACT via unioniSM.

It is going to be a very turbulent century, citizens.

We as yet have not even admitted that we have a problem.

We are still bullshitting outsevles that more educated workers are the answer.

That is simply NOT true for the vast majority of the labor problems facing us.

This I am curious in, What type of new Social contract do you propose to combat technology and reduce man power? I know alot of companys that run "lights out" at night and on weekends (no workers just machines running production)

I think there are a lot of ways to skin that cat, bear.

When the USA was facing a similar problem of advancing technology changing the way the nation produced wealth (the industrial revolution -- roughly from 1850 - 1950) the change in social contract STARTED via unionism.

You probably recall that displaced farm workers found work factories, but they used to work 60-80 hours a week, they also employed child labor, etc.

So union power (later coupled with government enforcement of unions right to collective bargaining) changed the social contract leading to 40 hour work weeks (thus creating a need for more workers) eliminating child labor (again creating a need for more adult workers).

Then along came the GREAT DEPRESSION that galvanized the government to begin changing that social contract complete with things like social security, WPA projects etc.

How we change the social contract now, I am not entirely sure. HOW I am not sure, not WHAT we need to do.

What we need to do is to reward industry that HIRES Americans and that does NOT reward industries for moving operations off shore (like we do now)

What we probably need to do is cut down on the hourly average work week, too to make room for more workers.

But how we do that, given the nature of politics today, I surely do not know.

But what I do know is that if we do not willingly change the social contract the market forces are going to change it anyway, and the market forces are not going to be kind to either the American people OR the nation, either.

America will NOT be a superpower if the majority of its people are poor, which IS where we're currently headed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

America will NOT be a superpower if the majority of its people are poor, which IS where we're currently headed.

yes, we got rich through capitalism, China and East Germany just switched from liberalism to capitalism and got rich, but now Obama is switching us to liberalism so we are obviously getting poorer and poorer. This is considered elementary common sense

 

[freedombecki]

?

Yep. Live as though your neighbor's success matters as much as your own does. All we need to know is the parable of the Good Samaritan to understand that. And it's not something you can whip into people, it has to come from their own heart.

 

[itfitzme]

"The point*was that in a free economy supply equals demand so the supply of jobs equals the demand for jobs!!.

*This is a typical mistake made by people that have never actually taken Economic 101 but, instead, have read "supply and demand", making up their own definition of the term.

The statement means nothing except the amount of goods sold is the amount purchased. *It is the same as saying that the amount of groceries puchased is the amount sold. *It is the same as saying that 1=1. *We know that 1=1. Saying so doesn't mean anything useful. *It is a tautology.

What is implied by the statement is that all need and want for the product is supplied.
**
The problem lies in the author knowing so little that they think they have said something usefull. *It is exactly like a one year old child pointing at a ball and saying "ball". *It is cute, and everyone claps, but only because for a one year old, it's a good sign. *Everyone knows it is a ball.

What authors of such statements mean to imply is quite incorrect. **

Basic micro-economic presents that the markets reach an equilibrium level that does not supply all that would be consumed. *The supply and demand equilibrium doesn't even guarantee that all that is needed will be produced. *In fact, it guarantees the opposite, that there will be potential demand which goes unsupplied.

Even if slavery were legal, and we defined it as being "employed" the markets still do not guarantee full "employment". *That should be fairly obvious.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the markets still do not guarantee full "employment".

the law of supply and demand says that supply = demand.

This is why if you go into a supermarket the apples supplied = the apples demanded.

A supermarket doesn't bring in truck loads of apples that it cant sell or only 1% of what it can sell. Supply equals demand in a free market. If they mistakenly bring in too many apples they drop the price until supply equals demand once again.

The job market is the same. Supply equal demand in the job market too. The price or wage is always adjusting until supply equals demand and unemployment is 0. Simple enough? If you get confused think of the apples example.

 

[itfitzme]

Supply and demand is only one of the factors, I am not an economic major.

dear, I agree

But I read alot and seen the old Soviet Union pics in the 80's their was a "Demand" for products but no supply

ah so you are a Republican supply-sider????Great!!!



so why not say what the other factors are ???



We would like to know very much what you're saying!!

is people buy crap that they dont need or want, based on salespeople and late night shopping channels and comercials.

of course thats mistaken since pet rocks and other silly things don't sell much at all, much to the chagrin of advertisers, while food clothing and shelter sell in the billions!!

Where are they getting the cash from? on credit of course.....

credit has decreased since the housing crash. Sorry


The point
was that in a free economy supply equals demand so the supply of jobs equals the demand for jobs!! Sorry but this is the unfailing law of economics. We have unemployment because liberals interfere with the free market.

the markets still do not guarantee full "employment".

the law of supply and demand says that supply = demand.

This is why if you go into a supermarket the apples supplied = the apples demanded.*

A supermarket doesn't bring in truck loads of apples that it cant sell or only 1% of what it can sell. Supply equals demand in a free market. If they mistakenly bring in too many apples they drop the price until supply equals demand once again. *

The job market is the same. Supply equal demand in the job market too. The price or wage is always adjusting until supply equals demand and unemployment is 0. Simple enough? If *you get confused think of the apples example.

*Yes, the number of people that go to work is exactly the same as the number of people that get paid for working. So the equilibrium point is where they are equal. It's amazing. Did you read that in a book?

A lot of words that say nothing. Your shear brilliance amazes you.

I'm still waiting for that explaination of a Cournot equilibrium of n firms.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

*Yes, the number of people that go to work is exactly the same as the number of people that get paid for working. So the equilibrium point is where they are equal. It's amazing. Did you read that in a book?

When there are too many apples the price goes down until they are all sold. When there are too many workers the price goes down until they are all employed. Is that clear enough for you or should I try for further clarification?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Nothing that will permanently alter the problems, no.

EVen if we erected tariffs that completely eliminated all trade ( something I do not support) we would STILL have the problems stemming from TECHNOLOGY making workers redundant and economically UNVIABLE.

The only real solution is a change in the SOCIAL CONTRACT.

Naturally that will not happen non-violently, it never does.

Those what have, those who most benefit from the changing conditions are not willingly going to share the wealth.

They will fight a change in social contract tooth and nail.

Exactly as we saw happen during the last time we changed the SOCIAL CONTRACT via unioniSM.

It is going to be a very turbulent century, citizens.

We as yet have not even admitted that we have a problem.

We are still bullshitting outsevles that more educated workers are the answer.

That is simply NOT true for the vast majority of the labor problems facing us.

This I am curious in, What type of new Social contract do you propose to combat technology and reduce man power? I know alot of companys that run "lights out" at night and on weekends (no workers just machines running production)

I think there are a lot of ways to skin that cat, bear.

When the USA was facing a similar problem of advancing technology changing the way the nation produced wealth (the industrial revolution -- roughly from 1850 - 1950) the change in social contract STARTED via unionism.

You probably recall that displaced farm workers found work factories, but they used to work 60-80 hours a week, they also employed child labor, etc.

So union power (later coupled with government enforcement of unions right to collective bargaining) changed the social contract leading to 40 hour work weeks (thus creating a need for more workers) eliminating child labor (again creating a need for more adult workers).

Then along came the GREAT DEPRESSION that galvanized the government to begin changing that social contract complete with things like social security, WPA projects etc.

How we change the social contract now, I am not entirely sure. HOW I am not sure, not WHAT we need to do.

What we need to do is to reward industry that HIRES Americans and that does NOT reward industries for moving operations off shore (like we do now)

What we probably need to do is cut down on the hourly average work week, too to make room for more workers.

But how we do that, given the nature of politics today, I surely do not know.

But what I do know is that if we do not willingly change the social contract the market forces are going to change it anyway, and the market forces are not going to be kind to either the American people OR the nation, either.

America will NOT be a superpower if the majority of its people are poor, which IS where we're currently headed.

interesting and your point is well recieved. but how do we do this when the small bussiness owners who pay us. care, but are over whelmed with taxes? and have to pay the local government instead of the workers? hell my boss would love to pay me more so I dont quit. but they have to pay the light bill. water and rent. its not a scam they are playing. I know if you ask for to much it could send the owner saying "fuck it" not worth it. sorry about the typos.

 

[Wyatt earp]

and see with my talent I know I could drive an hour and could get paid $5 bucks more. but my fellow workers cant. this plasce closes they would just have no job for awhile and just go on the government dole. So its my duty as an American to get low pay to see if I can help this company grow. I finnaly get what JFK was talking about and he was right.

 

[Wyatt earp]

and btw the money will come latter. its not about that. its about giving a crap about other people's lives. I figured it out.

 

[itfitzme]

*Yes, the number of people that go to work is exactly the same as the number of people that get paid for working. So the equilibrium point is where they are equal. It's amazing. Did you read that in a book?

When there are too many apples the price goes down until they are all sold. When there are too many workers the price goes down until they are all employed. Is that clear enough for you or should I try for further clarification?

Good, now you have made a specific statement that demonstrates exactly where you are wrong.

 

[itfitzme]

interesting and your point is well recieved. but how do we do this when the small bussiness owners who pay us. care, but are over whelmed with taxes? and have to pay the local government instead of the workers? hell my boss would love to pay me more so I dont quit. but they have to pay the light bill. water and rent. its not a scam they are playing. I know if you ask for to much it could send the owner saying "fuck it" not worth it. sorry about the typos.

The majority of businesse are small businesse with the average business size being about 12 employees. Smaller businesses can have tremendous difficulty in expanding because they just meet expences.

I've worked for companies with 100 employees and fewer. *They are often dependent on business credit and when the credit markets tighten up they are forced to contract production and R&D. *Very small companies often float on their business credit card at horrible rates.