For Those Who Want to REDUCE Unemployment, not win arguments

[Chris]

Jobs are created when employers decide to pay someone to do work.

Thats not very helpful it seems to me. It might be better to say we got from the stone age to here because people invented things that workers were given jobs to make.

So, the secret is to get liberals out of the way of invention: Give Green Cards to anyone who graduates with science or engineering degrees, eliminate capital gains taxes so there are more Googles, eetc, eliminate all business taxes so business has lower prices and less time wasted dodging taxes, eliminate unions and minimum wages, illegal workers.

It sounds like you are in favor of slavery.

That really is the Republican ideal.

 

[jillian]

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.

corporations are making record profits and executive wages have gone up ridiculously while workers salaries have stagnated.

why on earth would you end minimum wage? so we compete with mexicans and the chinese in terms of wages?

isn't that absurd?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

These debates and suggestions are downright silly. They assume that businesses operates in some simplistic manner in which if only you did this one thing all would be better for the business and the world. Pure nonsense. The thing that creates jobs is work and the thing that creates work is something to do and the thing that creates something to do is something to do, a robust economy is these same workers spending their wages where they help the other wage earners. That is why Keynesian economics worked for FDR and even for Reagan. It is why reduced taxes don't work, reduced taxes remove money from the fed and from the infrastructure, this leaves less capital for the country to work and build.

OMG! That's funny. The only good capital is government capital?

There was a time when most corporations hired people for life in the US of A. Those times are gone and it may be given the global economic situation they will never return. Add automation and outsourcing of all types of work and you are faced with a modern dilemma, how to create work when there is none. Blaming Obama is kinda stupid as Reagan/Ford eventually failed and Bush Jr was the worst in modern history in terms of job creation. Part of the solution is for Americans to support American products made here, another part is raise taxes as FDR, Reagan and Clinton did, and rebuild America and rekindle its manufacturing and development sectors.

Except for Obama, right?

We have had 16 straight months of job growth.

Don't you read?

16 straight months? That's awesome!
So what's Obama's total so far?

 

[KissMy]

another part is raise taxes as FDR, Reagan and Clinton did, and rebuild America and rekindle its manufacturing and development sectors.

You are ate up with stupid!

Deficit spending should have created all the positive stimulus that spending increased taxes would have without the negative job killing effect of higher taxes.

Guess what? - It did not work either. Government malinvested the money again. Paying political cronies does not help the economy, it hurts it!!!

The best thing to do to create jobs is to get rid of the corrupt Obamacrats. Once fairness is restored to the business community & economy, jobs will flourish.

 

[Avorysuds]

I'm pretty sure as a nation we're fucked.

Just look at threads like this and many others... We have had 1 style of Government for so many years people don't know anything different. It’s just bitching about the “other side” and then people vote for “their side” who just happen to do exactly what the other side did… Yet people fight and defend.

A liberal can sit here and tell us why Reagan sucked. They will tell you how much he spent and how he raised taxes and added to the deficit... Then that same mother fucker will sit here and tell you that the only way to save the country is to spend more than we have, raise taxes and add to the deficit... JAW FUCKING DROPPING… Then, just to sound the stupidest mother fucker ever born they claim Reagan is YOUR messiah. WHHOoooOoooSH over their heads as they don’t see the blatant irony.

We are at a point beyond Republican Bullshit and Democrat Bullshit. It's Big Government doing what Big Government was predicted to do, fail... You are here now watching it before your very eyes. Even if we manage to squeeze past this "Great Recession" do you have any idea how long it will be until we are doing well again? Now apply that length of time compared to how often our country goes through recessions... Before we fully "recover" we'll be in another recession, and that's if we can manage to get out of this one.

So here we are, big Government Reps and Big Government Dems have failed. There is only one choice and that’s to massively shrink Government or I guess end the country… There literally is no other choice. We can’t borrow indefinitely while all our jobs leave the country, we simply can’t compete with third world countries unless we become one, and guess what, Government doesn’t pay for their HC in third world countries, nor welfare or SS.

But no, instead of realizing that raising taxes on the rich will not even cover SHIT of the problem that’s what we get to hear… How about protests in the streets to end the wars you war loving Democrat fucks, huh? Of course 100% taxes on the rich AND ending all the war tomorrow STILL won’t cover the deficit but HEY, YOU NEVER FUCKING CARED ANYWAYS.

So, we’re fucked. There are simple to many stupid fucking people out there that think claiming they care about children and old people more than you is more important than actually doing something to help these people in the long term. It’s a big ugly game and we all get to lose in the end.

Republicans had their turn in office and OHHHH boy did they fuck it up… This post might seem oddly 1 sided considering I’ bitching about people being partisan yet there is one reality you would have to miss… DEMOCRATS HAVE TWO THIRDS OF THE FUCKING POWER, and up until 5 months ago they had 100 fucking % power. Bush and the Rep have been beatin to a pulp for what they did and rightfully so, yet here these fuck wads are defending the ZERO repeals of Bush era policy Democrats (and Obama) just like the crazy ass shit for brains Bush-bots did.

 

[KissMy]

We have had 16 straight months of job growth.

Don't you read?

There has been no jobs growth since the Democrats took control in 2007 or since Obama took office in 2009. None!!! Most positive numbers have been revised out of existence. Try reading something truthful once in a while idiot instead of propaganda.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

another part is raise taxes as FDR, Reagan and Clinton did, and rebuild America and rekindle its manufacturing and development sectors.

You are ate up with stupid!

Deficit spending should have created all the positive stimulus that spending increased taxes would have without the negative job killing effect of higher taxes.

Guess what? - It did not work either. Government malinvested the money again. Paying political cronies does not help the economy, it hurts it!!!

The best thing to do to create jobs is to get rid of the corrupt Obamacrats. Once fairness is restored to the business community & economy, jobs will flourish.

When Reagan was elected, the top rate was 70%.
Before he left, the top rate was 28%.
I guess to a liberal, such a huge drop means he raised taxes.
No wonder why we're losing ground, our math education is terrible, at least among the libs.

 

[Sactowndog]

"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.

I agree but unless you have a mechanism to keep the jobs in the US it won't work.

Case in point. A UC California Professor theorized and developed models for the next generation building block of Electrical machines... the Memrister. The Memrister is the follow-on to the transister which spawned Silicon Valley.

Hewlett-Packard Labs engineers took his work and helped move it from Research to Development. Instead of building the Memristers in the US. HP put the development of the Memristers in Korea.

So we paid the Professors salary do generate all the IP and the jobs ended up in Korea.

 

[auditor0007]

"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

Innovation means developing brand new that is not yet in use. Most likely any new innovation will come along in the field of energy. However, we have many interests that are against any innovation when it comes to energy because so much money is at stake.

 

[Sactowndog]

I'm pretty sure as a nation we're fucked.

DEMOCRATS HAVE TWO THIRDS OF THE FUCKING POWER, and up until 5 months ago they had 100 fucking % power. Bush and the Rep have been beatin to a pulp for what they did and rightfully so, yet here these fuck wads are defending the ZERO repeals of Bush era policy Democrats (and Obama) just like the crazy ass shit for brains Bush-bots did.

You do know that just 40% of the Senate can stop any bill from happening right? It used to be the power was only used sparingly and in times of great conscience. Now it is used regularly to bottle up whatever the minority doesn't like.

That is why the Bush tax cuts we never rescinded even though Democrats had 100% of the power. They really only had 2/3rd. Now they have are basically split. House (Rep), Pres. Dems, Senate split since neither side is over 60.

 

[Zander]

Here's an idea- let's have the morons who ruined our government stay the hell out of business. Let's give free market capitalism a chance to work. Government is not the answer, government is the problem.

 

[MaggieMae]

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/

I think it's up to the company to decide how they'll pay salaries and wages. Whatever works for them. But to make something that convoluted as part of a solution to the immediate unemployment problem won't help. The jobs have to open up, first.

 

[MaggieMae]

"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

Unfortunately, those on the extreme right see that as mere liberal jibberjabber. They're not forward thinking people at all.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

How do we know that?

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Your first scenario couldn't be more accurate. Too many people see just the unemployment "number" and if it's low, as it was during the Bush Administration, they believe that must be a good thing, when in fact just because someone is "employed" at even minimum wage doesn't mean s/he has the spending power that's enough to boost the profits of companies that make stuff they want those people to buy.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

Whenever it's posed, this question is never answered: If what you say is true, then why were the 90's considered the boom years (an employEE's job market, not an employER's job market), when tax rates were 5% higher?

 

[MaggieMae]

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/

That would be DOA, even by Democrats, especially when the mood is to cut all subsidies, including subsidies given to farmers NOT to raise certain crops. That kind of subsidy is too close to the core, and it's also opens the door wide to abuse.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

People ARE willing to work for less, and those who have been long-term unemployed are also coming to the scary realization that they longer they are out of the job force, the more training or retraining they will need, which even further negates the possibility of finding a job worth what they once had.

Most workers willing to take a pay cut: poll - Business - Personal finance - Careers - msnbc.com

 

[Wry Catcher]

Cities, counties, states and special districts are cash poor and it seems that business and industry are sitting on trillions of dollars (so I read and hear); it is therefore necessary for the government to create (yes CREATE) jobs.

How.

Simple, Feds issue RFP's for shovel ready projects which can be on line quickly; any city, county/parish, state or special district can obtain funds to hire and train the unemployed and never employed (newly graduated from school) and can collaborate in a public private application.

The Congress can offer a bill to sell bonds to fund a huge national project such as building high speed rail, replace the electric grid or build canals able to draw off flood waters safely in areas prone to disasterous floods.

Putting people to work creates the market necessary to assure business and industry to hire and produce the goods needed to complete across the nation - needed project which increase our productivity and reduce waste and damage.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Well instituting all of those would guarantee at least one job discipline that wouldn't go belly up and that would be the garbage collectors sweeping dead bodies off the streets. People like you never THINK beyond one-sentence soundbites.