For Those Who Want to REDUCE Unemployment, not win arguments

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Misaki, Jul 9, 2011.

?

Which approach is more likely to win broad support?

  1. Marginal wages at full-time work should be reduced to encourage new hiring.

    2 vote(s)
    50.0%
  2. Wages at lower levels of work should be increased to encourage new hiring.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Average wage rate should be higher for part-time, but lower than current for full-time work.

    2 vote(s)
    50.0%
  1. Misaki
    Offline

    Misaki Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    87
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +7
    This is not a thread for arguing which political party is correct, or for pointing out mistakes that any political commentator has made.

    This is for serious discussion on reducing unemployment, for which progress has stagnated in the latest jobs report.


    A previous thread suggested that companies pay people at a higher wage rate for working less, so they can hire more people to pick up the slack and reduce unemployment. This was criticized as being stupid because companies would not want to reduce their profits, despite having profits that are trillions of dollars higher than before the financial crisis: http:/krugman.blogs.nytimes。com/2011/07/02/net-lending-by-domestic-business/

    Well, that's fine; if companies don't want to have an immediate drop in profits, the same thing can be done by giving full-time, permanent employees the option of working less at the same average wage they are now, and allowing companies to deduct part of the wage if they decide to continue working full time. The result is the same, people working less means more people with jobs, and wages will eventually rise back to where they were (and even higher) when companies have to raise wages to keep people from quitting for better jobs once the unemployment problem has been fixed.

    Or full-time employees get a wage increase if they work less, but a wage decrease if they work full-time. If employees would prefer the first solution, and companies would prefer the second solution, this is the compromise that no one should be able to argue with.

    So just an example:

    Company A has three employees: Sara, Victor, and Khalifa, all of whom make $80,000 per year working 40 hours per week.

    Inès is surviving on $12,000 per year from unemployment benefits.

    Total work done: 120 hours per week. Cost to company: $240,000 per year. Cost to government: $12,000 per year.


    **The law goes into effect**


    Sara decides to continue working 40 hours per week, and her income goes down to $70,000 per year.

    Victor and Khalifa decide to work just 30 hours per week, and their income goes down to $60,000 per year.

    Inès is hired as a permanent employee but only for 20 hours per week, and makes $50,000 per year.

    Total work done: 120 hours per week (no change). Cost to company: $240,000 per year (no change). Cost to government: $0 per year.


    There is a more detailed explanation of why this works available at http:/pastebin。com/Q86Zhgs9 but if you have any comments, please post them here! If you want the President to address the unemployment problem now, instead of waiting years and years for new products to be developed that companies need to hire for, contact the White House to tell them your concerns here: http:/www。whitehouse。gov/contact/
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2011
  2. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,262
    Thanks Received:
    14,919
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,059
    Repeal ALL Federal Labor laws
     
  3. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    "The first step to winning the future is encouraging American innovation." That was Barack Obama in his State of the Union address last January, when he hit the theme repeatedly, using the word innovation or innovate 11 times. And on this issue, at least, Republicans seem in sync with Obama. Listen to Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or Mitch Daniels and the word innovation pops up again and again. Everyone wants innovation and agrees that it is the key to America's future.

    Innovation is as American as apple pie. It seems to accord with so many elements of our national character — ingenuity, freedom, flexibility, the willingness to question conventional wisdom and defy authority. But politicians are pinning their hopes on innovation for more urgent reasons. America's future growth will have to come from new industries that create new products and processes. Older industries are under tremendous pressure. Technological change is making factories and offices far more efficient. The rise of low-wage manufacturing in China and low-wage services in India is moving jobs overseas. The only durable strength we have — the only one that can withstand these gale winds — is innovation.

    The Future of U.S. Innovation: Can Americans Keep Pace? - TIME
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Google
    Offline

    Google Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,779
    Thanks Received:
    458
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +808
    YES!!! Right on!!!!!!!

    I was talking to someone recently about illegal immigration, I live in GA, and he was bemoaning the fact that since GA passed legislation aimed at curtailing the flow of illegal immigration the agriculture sector of GA is suffering. It has been proposed that prisoners and probationers work the fields instead of letting the free market do its job and the wages increase.

    The argument against this is always that prices will increase, while simply ignoring the fact that wages will increase.

    All we need is a government that will ensure that laws are followed so that the market sets the price of goods and the wages of workers.

    Importing cheap exploitable workers is the opposite side of the same coin as over-reaching unions: one artificially deflates wages while the other inflates wages. Both are wrong.

    It isn't the government's job to set wages.
     
  5. Defiant1
    Online

    Defiant1 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    3,213
    Thanks Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +987
    If Ines really wants to work as Sara does then I would give Ines and Sara salary exempt positions at $90K and lay off Victor and Khalifa since they don't want to work.

    120 hours of work at $180K
     
  6. DontBeStupid
    Offline

    DontBeStupid Look it up!

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,463
    Thanks Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Ratings:
    +422
    Yes, because the key to long-term economic growth is 14-year olds working 70-hour work weeks for $10 a day.

    :cuckoo:
     
  7. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,446
    Thanks Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,476
    Yea...put your kids to work
     
  8. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,262
    Thanks Received:
    14,919
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,059
    There are State laws against that sort of thing, Dear.
     
  9. LordBrownTrout
    Online

    LordBrownTrout Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    15,508
    Thanks Received:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    South Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,380

    Apparently, we're innovating backwards as unemployment just jumped up.
     
  10. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    :clap2:

    I think that really is the Republican ideal.

    Dickinsean England.
     

Share This Page