Endorse a Drama-Free Solution to High Unemployment

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Misaki, Jul 17, 2012.

  1. Misaki
    Offline

    Misaki Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    87
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +7
    SIGN and SHARE!
    ___

    The United States has no skills problem, and does not lack wealth. All we need to fix unemployment is an innovative and sustainable way for people to choose to work less time.

    The U.S. has plenty of scientists, many of whom have been forced to go into finance to find jobs.

    The rich are spending all they can: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/business/sales-of-luxury-goods-are-recovering-strongly.html

    In order to fix high unemployment, wasteful government spending and inflation, we should encourage people in high-income occupations to work fewer hours while still retaining most of their responsibilities and earning a reasonable income. This will allow companies to hire more workers using the resulting payroll savings to do the remaining work.

    http://wh.gov/cVNr
     
  2. onecut39
    Offline

    onecut39 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,523
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +150
    If the rich are spending all they can, why do they keep getting richer?
     
  3. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,548
    Thanks Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,047

    Of course thats liberal and idiotic since there would be no incentive to hire more workers if the top workers were doing the same work for less pay.

    You can't mess with the free market unless you have a very low IQ and so can't understand the ramifications
     
  4. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,236
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    Not the dumbest idea I've ever heard, but close. For the love of God, stop thinking you can meddle with a free market to direct a particular outcome. Central planner wannabes...it's sickening.
     
  5. Misaki
    Offline

    Misaki Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    87
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +7
    Because when they spend money, it goes right back to corporate profits and the rich (edit: the top 10% in wealth) already own 83% of all financial assets (such as stocks which pay dividends).

    Step 1: billionaire buys $10,000 brand-name shirt.

    Step 2: store worker is paid $15/hour... maybe CEO is paid a few million over the year... the rest goes to profits, which means to this guy who already has $41 billion:

    [Wikipedia] Christian Dior, the luxury goods group, is the main holding company of LVMH, owning 42.36% of its shares, and 59.01% of its voting rights. Bernard Arnault, majority shareholder of Dior, is Chairman of both companies and CEO of LVMH.

    Ok, maybe that was a bad example. Instead of buying a $10,000 shirt, the billionaire puts their money into a hedge fund or seeks advice from an investment bank.

    Step 1: pay fees to consultant.

    Step 2: the consultant plans to suck the client dry while calling them a muppet.

    Ok maybe that was also a bad example. Many clients do benefit from the relationship... but Wall Street always sets up it up so it wins no matter what happens, and of course someone has to pay for that.

    I guess the answer is mostly easily summed up by the fact that Apple has between a 30% and 50% gross margin on the iPhone and iPad, and people are willing to pay for it because it's "cool", despite that other companies sell products which are functionally very similar at a lower price.

    Apple and Samsung Claim 99% of Profits Among Top Mobile Phone Vendors - Mac Rumors
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2012
  6. Misaki
    Offline

    Misaki Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    87
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +7
    They would be doing LESS work which is why they would also be paid slightly less. From the petition:
    while still retaining most of their responsibilities

    Germany is already using this system to keep unemployment low, except there's a government contribution too so it's a bit like welfare: Why Americans should work less
     
  7. Misaki
    Offline

    Misaki Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    87
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +7
    Overtime was enacted in ~1937 specifically to limit the amount of work people were forced to do. If that wasn't an attempt to "centrally control" the supply of labor by reducing what a business would demand from a single worker what else would you call it?

    This isn't about forcing anyone to work less though, it's about giving them the choice to by telling people that it's ok to do... nothing more.
     
  8. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,236
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    That's exactly what I'd call it: central planners screwing with a free market. Your ideas are even worse. Sorry comrade, nobody, including you, knows what's best for everyone else.
     
  9. Misaki
    Offline

    Misaki Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    87
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +7
    True, some people might be happier if the US government informed everyone it had decided to destroy the world with nuclear weapons.

    But statistically, the evidence is that this suggestion would fix unemployment, which is the top issue in the Presidential race and, coincidentally, what people say is the most important issue for the United States.
     
  10. Widdekind
    Offline

    Widdekind Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    813
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +35
    Overall, undistributed corporate profits (i.e. profits not paid right back out, to stockholders, as dividends) are about 15% of overall retail revenues (GDP). Of that amount, most is accounted as "depreciation" (of machines & factories); inexpertly, most is set aside for purchases of replacement parts & new equipment, next year. Official corporate "profits" are only a couple percent of total revenues (GDP).

    If the rich simply paid themselves their own money, they wouldn't be earning more & more money. Overall, incomes in America are increasing, for all "walks of life", because more & more products are being sold (real GDP, "Q", quantity of output), raising more & more revenues from sales (nominal GDP, "P x Q", quantities times prices). Overall, the only way to earn more money, is to sell more products (goods & services), i.e. do more, for more people (that they are both willing ["demand"] and able ["demand with money"] to pay you for).




    In the Great Depression, work hours (hours per worker) were reduced, even more than the number of workers (employment rate). Thus, employment fell by a quarter (-25%), whilst output fell by half (-50%). Many workers were retained, at part-time. The total number of labor-hours (workers times hours per worker) fell much more than the number of laborers (workers).

    You seem to be suggesting similar -- hire more workers, part-time, instead of fewer workers, full-time.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

drama solving unemployment

,

how to show unemployment by adrama