For Those Who Want to REDUCE Unemployment, not win arguments

[Misaki]

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/

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Repeal ALL Federal Labor laws

 

[Chris]

"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

 

[Google]

Repeal ALL Federal Labor laws

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.

 

[Defiant1]

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

 

[DontBeStupid]

Repeal ALL Federal Labor laws

Yes, because the key to long-term economic growth is 14-year olds working 70-hour work weeks for $10 a day.

 

[rightwinger]

Repeal ALL Federal Labor laws

Yea...put your kids to work

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Repeal ALL Federal Labor laws

Yes, because the key to long-term economic growth is 14-year olds working 70-hour work weeks for $10 a day.

There are State laws against that sort of thing, Dear.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

"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

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

 

[Chris]

Repeal ALL Federal Labor laws

Yes, because the key to long-term economic growth is 14-year olds working 70-hour work weeks for $10 a day.

I think that really is the Republican ideal.

Dickinsean England.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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 insurance.

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/

Specify what is cost to government in your example. If it's taxes, the irs isn't going to like your scenario number two.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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 insurance.

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.

On the surface of this, I would say it will hurt the economy. You went from $252,000 total being spent in the economy to $240,000 being spent. Less spending is not what we need right now from anyone.

 

[Flopper]

There are a number of ways to reduce unemployment. Do away with the minimum wage and all wage and hour laws. Companies would be hiring people at $4 an hour and unemployment would go down. The US would be able to go toe to toe with the China, India, and third world countries. But on the downside, if the low end of the wage scales go down, the middle won't be far behind it.

In some countries, employers are rewarded with tax credits for hiring more workers. The result is lower unemployment because workers are working shorter hours and drawing less pay. So we end up with more people working and earning less money.

You can give businesses a tax cut and hope they use it for expansion in the US. If they don't we have an even higher deficit.

 

[Susan45]

There are a number of ways to reduce unemployment. Do away with the minimum wage and all wage and hour laws. Companies would be hiring people at $4 an hour and unemployment would go down. The US would be able to go toe to toe with the China, India, and third world countries. But on the downside, if the low end of the wage scales go down, the middle won't be far behind it.

In some countries, employers are rewarded with tax credits for hiring more workers. The result is lower unemployment because workers are working shorter hours and drawing less pay. So we end up with more people working and earning less money.

You can give businesses a tax cut and hope they use it for expansion in the US. If they don't we have an even higher deficit.

I'm wondering if you've ever done any research on the minimum wage. It doesn't appear to be true that more jobs will open up if it is lowered.

Ending minimum wage likely wouldn't dent jobless rate
Most research points to small jobs gains, if any, despite what politicians say

Ending minimum wage won't create many jobs - Business - US business - Bloomberg Businessweek - msnbc.com

Cutting tax rates doesn't appear to create any jobs. If that were the case then the during the Bush administration there would have been tons of jobs...and there wasn't. In fact less jobs then any other administration going back to Truman. I have a link that shows this if you are interested.

At first I thought you might be joking about the $4.00 an hour, but after rereading your post I guess not. Of course it would effect the job market across all lines. Except for maybe the rich. But $4.00? Do you think it is only kids that hold minimum wage jobs? How about those folks that work for minimum wage who have children. I think most babysitters earn about that amount and I guess if they don't feed their children, living under the bridge won't be too bad. I really don't mean to be sarcastic, but I just couldn't help myself.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

We definitely know that raising taxes in todays horrible economy will make things worse.

 

[Too Tall]

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/

Interesting. How many companies have you mailed to or discussed this with? I am sure you are not suggesting that the federal government make this a law, or are you?

 

[Misaki]

Specify what is cost to government in your example. If it's taxes, the irs isn't going to like your scenario number two.

The cost is the unemployment *benefits, originally had it as insurance.

On the surface of this, I would say it will hurt the economy. You went from $252,000 total being spent in the economy to $240,000 being spent. Less spending is not what we need right now from anyone.

That's exactly why the original suggestion was to increase wages, not to decrease them... but in reality $12,000 of that $252,000 is now being spent on something else by the government, whether a current concern or to reduce the deficit so future generations don't have a crippling national debt. Getting everyone jobs is a much larger priority than a slightly higher GDP from deficit spending.

There are a number of ways to reduce unemployment. Do away with the minimum wage and all wage and hour laws. Companies would be hiring people at $4 an hour and unemployment would go down. The US would be able to go toe to toe with the China, India, and third world countries. But on the downside, if the low end of the wage scales go down, the middle won't be far behind it.

In some countries, employers are rewarded with tax credits for hiring more workers. The result is lower unemployment because workers are working shorter hours and drawing less pay. So we end up with more people working and earning less money.

You can give businesses a tax cut and hope they use it for expansion in the US. If they don't we have an even higher deficit.

If companies wanted to reduce their payroll costs, they could easily do it now by cutting wages for people above the minimum wage. There are certainly enough job applicants to make it possible. But companies have no reason to do this, since they are already awash in profits and companies are much more than just about making money, for most people, they are a social environment which heavily influences decisions not to fire people unless the company is really in trouble, which most are not.

As Susan45 said, wage cost is not the reason for unemployment for the US because of high profitability (it might be in other countries though).

Maybe the President just needs to give people a reason to work less: "National Learn Chinese year"? (or any other language, that was just an example!)

Interesting. How many companies have you mailed to or discussed this with? I am sure you are not suggesting that the federal government make this a law, or are you?

It would be nice if companies did this themselves! Making it a federal law shouldn't be required if everyone can agree that it would benefit the market; in that case it would just need discussion. (As seen in how people are opposed to it when it could only increase payroll costs to companies in the short-term, but are more open to it when it could either decrease or increase payroll costs depending on employee choices.)

I have been trying to get people who are influential in discussions to think about this, but none of them seem interested in doing so and all they do is complain about the evil government not spending trillions on "fiscal stimulus" like they want it to. The closest I have seen to anyone suggesting something similar to this is a "work share" program where the government is actually the one paying people to work less, using a portion of unemployment benefits for the time they spend not working. One place it's mentioned is here: http:/jaredbernsteinblog.com/june-jobs-part-3-somebody-do-something/

 

[Flopper]

There are a number of ways to reduce unemployment. Do away with the minimum wage and all wage and hour laws. Companies would be hiring people at $4 an hour and unemployment would go down. The US would be able to go toe to toe with the China, India, and third world countries. But on the downside, if the low end of the wage scales go down, the middle won't be far behind it.

In some countries, employers are rewarded with tax credits for hiring more workers. The result is lower unemployment because workers are working shorter hours and drawing less pay. So we end up with more people working and earning less money.

You can give businesses a tax cut and hope they use it for expansion in the US. If they don't we have an even higher deficit.

I'm wondering if you've ever done any research on the minimum wage. It doesn't appear to be true that more jobs will open up if it is lowered.

Ending minimum wage likely wouldn't dent jobless rate
Most research points to small jobs gains, if any, despite what politicians say

Ending minimum wage won't create many jobs - Business - US business - Bloomberg Businessweek - msnbc.com

Cutting tax rates doesn't appear to create any jobs. If that were the case then the during the Bush administration there would have been tons of jobs...and there wasn't. In fact less jobs then any other administration going back to Truman. I have a link that shows this if you are interested.

At first I thought you might be joking about the $4.00 an hour, but after rereading your post I guess not. Of course it would effect the job market across all lines. Except for maybe the rich. But $4.00? Do you think it is only kids that hold minimum wage jobs? How about those folks that work for minimum wage who have children. I think most babysitters earn about that amount and I guess if they don't feed their children, living under the bridge won't be too bad. I really don't mean to be sarcastic, but I just couldn't help myself.

In a more normal job market, I would agree but with over 14 million job seekers walking the streets, people are desperate to find a job. I'm sure there are a lot of people that would be willing to work for half what they were previously making just to get back in their field. Today, many employers are not even interviewing the unemployed. If you don't have a job they're not interested.

No, I don't think cutting the minimum wage nor just giving tax cuts to business is the answer to our problems.

 

[Brutus]

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

1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose
5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Yes, it is:

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937).

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish | Casebriefs

A significant number of the unemployed are those who are unskilled or semi-skilled, many with no high school or GED. These are the individuals keeping the unemployment rate high. During the boom years these deficiencies didn’t matter to employers desperate for workers; most worked on an itinerate basis cleaning construction sites and the like – work which is no longer available. Consequently, what work there is goes to more qualified job-seekers.

Regardless of one’s opinion of these people – living with the consequences of their poor decisions – understand again that this is a significant factor keeping unemployment high.