For Those Who Want to REDUCE Unemployment, not win arguments

[shintao]

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/

A capitalist society doesn't need a President addressing unemployment, that is an individual decision between worker & business. Unfortunately it takes years to adjust.

 

[Spoonman]

"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

obama uses a lot of words, bu he never delivers on them.

 

[shintao]

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.

Are you admitting free market capitalism has flaws? After all, it's the way this country has conducted business since its inception. The problem is it DOES have flaws, and unless corrected, all hell can break loose.

Greenspan Concedes to `Flaw' in His Market Ideology (Update2) - Bloomberg

Of course capitalism has flaws. But it is still better than anything else out there.

I prefer a limited government with as much power in the hands of the individual as possible. The idea that some bureaucrat in DC can "create" jobs is absurd. Government needs to get the hell out of the way.

Nah, Socialism is better, and your Trillions of deficit and borrowing from socialists proves me right.

How is gov. in the way of creating jobs or hiring workers?

 

[shintao]

"The first step to winning the future is encouraging American innovation."

obama uses a lot of words, bu he never delivers on them.

He didn't say anything there to deliver on, and you sound like a whiner?

 

[Flopper]

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.

if true then everyone would now be paying the minimum wage, but on average they are paying 3 times the minimum wage. The perfect beauty of capitalism is that you must pay the highest wage possible or lose your best workers to those who pay more. Its a concept almost impossible for the liberal mind to comprehend.

No, You're not going to pay the highest wage possible to keep your best workers. Your're going to pay the lowest wages possible, if you hope to keep your're job as CEO. That's how you maximize profits.

 

[Flopper]

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

I agree. Also, something we haven't seen before is that many employers are only considering candidates that have jobs which of course makes it even harder for the unemployed.

 

[Flopper]

There are real benefits to a slow recovery, although the administration and the unemployed are not likely to agree. In a slow recovery business expands slowly and carefully. Business tends to only consider the most potentially profitable projects. Employers hire carefully and slowly filling only the positions that are really needed with the best talent. Consumers are slow to commit themselves to luxuries they can’t afford. They are more likely to save than spend. As one economist describes the slow recovery, “it builds a lean and mean economy where businesses are more competitive and employees are more willing to work harder.” This provides a foundation for a period of extended growth in which the economy is more likely to respond to government stimulus.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Gov't got out of the way of Enron. What say you about that?

Actually not WryCatcher.. I was in California when it was raped by Enron.. And believe me, the girl was asking for it.. Enron couldn't have done that much damage without the stupidity of the Calif assembly and Governor. They KILLED all long-term contracts for power (walking right into the hands of Enron), demanded PGE sell-off all it's generators, and decided that the whole state was gonna wake up every morning with NO IDEA of where it's power was gonna come from today...

Whatever lack of Fed oversight might have a played a part is secondary to ENRON just NAILING bad legislation for all it was worth...

With regulations enforced Enron and other energy traders would not have been able to create the artifical shortage which caused rates to go up in 2000 and rolling blackouts which adversely affected many businesses dependent upon a reliable supply of electricity, and inconvenienced a large number of retail consumers, my family included.

Of course Gov. Pete Wilson and the Democrats in the Legislature where responsible for the partial deregulation of the industry which allowed Enron, et al to manipulate the market. My point was deregulation ain't always in the best interest of consumers.

 

[Brutus]

There is only one choice and that’s to massively shrink Government or I guess end the country

correct and profane you are. What you failed to do was point out that Republicans have introduced 40 Balanced Budget amendments to the Constitution since Jefferson. Liberals have killed them all and are working hard to kill the current one.

100% of the small government wisdom resides in the Republican Party and has since Jefferson founded the Party in 1792 and, in effect, the country in 1800. When they have drifted to the center it is only because thats where the people are. If they insisted 100% on philosophy, in a country where elections are decided by retarded independents, they would merely be impotent Libertarians.

I hope you're catching on now??

 

[Brutus]

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.

Gov't got out of the way of Enron. What say you about that?

In response to Enron, statist libtard Democrats passed Sarbanes Oxley which was designed to insure that business financial statements were accurate statements of operations and earnings.

Then, the entire financial industry collapsed( causing the current great recession) before anyone knew their financial statements were totally inaccurate. THe USSR had liberal regulation too.

Warren Buffett: "There are significant limits to what regulation can accomplish. As a dramatic illustration, take two of the biggest accounting disasters in the past ten years: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We're talking billions and billions of dollars of misstatements at both places".

Now, these are two incredibly important institutions. I mean, they accounted for over 40% of the mortgage flow a few years back. Right now I think they're up to 70%. They're quasi-governmental in nature. So the government set up an organization called OFHEO. I'm not sure what all the letters stand for. [Note to Warren: They stand for Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.] But if you go to OFHEO's website, you'll find that its purpose was to just watch over these two companies. OFHEO had 200 employees. Their job was simply to look at two companies and say, "Are these guys behaving like they're supposed to?" And of course what happened were two of the greatest accounting misstatements in history while these 200 people had their jobs. It's incredible. I mean, two for two!

“Whatever regulatory changes are made, they will pale in comparison to the change already evident in today’s markets,” he said. “Those markets for an indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime.”-Alan Greenspan

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sarbanes Oxley was a bi-partisan bill, a response to Enron, Tyco, WorldCom and other scandals.

 

[Brutus]

Sarbanes Oxley was a bi-partisan bill, a response to Enron, Tyco, WorldCom and other scandals.

and the great recession shows how stupid it was

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sarbanes Oxley was a bi-partisan bill, a response to Enron, Tyco, WorldCom and other scandals.

and the great recession shows how stupid it was

So you suggest government must not attempt to regulate, and make the argument that the failure to do so in re the Housing collapse justifies a return to the circumstances which existed pre 2002? Or is there another idea, 'cause what went on before and after is not acceptable.

 

[Brutus]

So you suggest government must not attempt to regulate, and make the argument that the failure to do so in re the Housing collapse justifies a return to the circumstances which existed pre 2002? Or is there another idea, 'cause what went on before and after is not acceptable.

I don't think you understand at all. THe Soviets tried regulation and so did Red China. We tried Sarbanes and had full time regulator folks at Fanny Freddie?? What more do you want???

Dodd Frank was passed 3 years after no one in his right mind was buying toxic mortgage backed securities . It was the perfect example of liberal regulation. It was 3 years after the fact and won't work any more than soviet regulation worked

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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

How do we know that?

Raising taxes in the current economic conditions? Are you serious?

 

[Brutus]

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.

if true then everyone would now be paying the minimum wage, but on average they are paying 3 times the minimum wage. The perfect beauty of capitalism is that you must pay the highest wage possible or lose your best workers to those who pay more. Its a concept almost impossible for the liberal mind to comprehend.

No, You're not going to pay the highest wage possible to keep your best workers. Your're going to pay the lowest wages possible, if you hope to keep your're job as CEO. That's how you maximize profits.

why act stupid??? you have to have the higest wage possible or lose your best workers to those who pay more; then you go bankrupt. American workers are the richest in human history because capitalism causes huge upward pressure on wages. Did you think our high wages were caused by the Girl Scouts???

 

[Brutus]

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

How do we know that?

Raising taxes in the current economic conditions? Are you serious?

raising taxes in a recession is like bleeding a sick man. Its impossible for a liberal to understand. IF you tax capital gains then there is less capital for new ventures and fewer new Googles Intels etc etc.

 

[flacaltenn]

Gov't got out of the way of Enron. What say you about that?

Actually not WryCatcher.. I was in California when it was raped by Enron.. And believe me, the girl was asking for it.. Enron couldn't have done that much damage without the stupidity of the Calif assembly and Governor. They KILLED all long-term contracts for power (walking right into the hands of Enron), demanded PGE sell-off all it's generators, and decided that the whole state was gonna wake up every morning with NO IDEA of where it's power was gonna come from today...

Whatever lack of Fed oversight might have a played a part is secondary to ENRON just NAILING bad legislation for all it was worth...

With regulations enforced Enron and other energy traders would not have been able to create the artifical shortage which caused rates to go up in 2000 and rolling blackouts which adversely affected many businesses dependent upon a reliable supply of electricity, and inconvenienced a large number of retail consumers, my family included.

Of course Gov. Pete Wilson and the Democrats in the Legislature where responsible for the partial deregulation of the industry which allowed Enron, et al to manipulate the market. My point was deregulation ain't always in the best interest of consumers.

Sorry W-Catcher:

When you BAN long-term contracts and DEMAND that the power monopoly sell off all it's generators and CREATE a centralized daily cabal of govt power-buyers -- that's by NO definition --- DE-regulation.. Might be STUPID regulation -- just not DE-regulation..

Enron didn't CREATE the shortages -- it took advantage of the opportunity to charge Calif "last minute prices" when they showed up every morning as the LAST customer in line.

 

[Brutus]

What did GDP do the quarters before and after his 2003 tax cuts?
You might be surprised.

actually nothing can be said about the 2003 tax cuts because we now
know that was a period hugely distorted by an about to burst housing bubble that would sink much of the worlds economy

 

[Brutus]

The problem is it DOES have flaws, and unless corrected, all hell can break loose.

1) conservatives believe it has far fewer flaws than liberalism

2) conservative intellectuals believe that guessing at what they are and trying to correct them will make them worse, not better.


if you know the main flaw and how to correct it why be so perfectly afriad to share it with us. You seem like a child wishing for magical government