NO, Unemployment is NOT DOWN

[pinqy]

Assumptions? I went straight off what you said your plan would be and I know what it would take to accomplish that.

No you did not go straight off what I said. You went the opposite of what I said.

You did not say the following?

For example, in a logical society anyone not currently employed in a job of their choice could be assigned a lower tier job that would be managed by some government and/or private organization.

In order for that to happen, you have to know who is not employed, and have someone doing the assigning, and the government, and/or private company contracted by the government would have to find or create those jobs. True or False?

Anyone that has willing guardian or sufficient assets so as not to need a job would be exempted from said requirements of course.

In order to be exempted then, a person would have to provide the government with documentation. True or False?

The alternative would be being placed on a chain gang or death if you so choose..

again, the government would have to know who those people are and put them on the chain gang or execute them. True or False?

If you like you could try again by citing what I said. Then asking questions and explaining how you took what I said and changed it into what you said.

I never changed anything you said.

Hint: I talked about availability of low tier jobs managed by government and private organizations,

"Managed by government." That's a bureauocracy.

where folks would have access to said low tier jobs as an option to the current system where folks have access to money for not working. I'm not sure what word confused you .. whether it was "access" or some other word that turned my brief proposal into some forced system of labor with a huge government bureaucracy.

. You never used the word access.
You clearly stated that anyone not employed could be assigned a job or the alternative would be chain gang or death, unless they could show sufficient assets or a guardian.You were quite clear.You later disallowed any period of job search while not working.

assigned a job or the alternative was a chain gang or death. I never claimed you said anything different.

How many effing times and in how many different ways do I have to say that my plan would not require a huge bureaucracy?

show me once where I said you thought it would.I never claimed you believed that it would. Doesn't matter that you deny it, especially since you haven't even tried to say how it would not.

You said "Not my fault you can't imagine how work can be done without bureaucracy"

Yes, I did. And from your statement about my plan requiring a huge bureaucracy, that statement is either correct or you were lying.

That makes no sense. Of course I can imagine work without a huge bureauocracy.I can't imagine a government requiring people to work (or have sufficient assets or a guardian) or face chain gang or death without a huge bureauocracy to administer this system. Because it's not possible.

Of course now you're falsely claiming you said "access". But even if you had said that there would still have to be monitoring.

 

[danielpalos]

Sure; it should be done on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States than it is currently being done under our current regime.

Again, that's not an answer. Specifics: What data? Who will collect it? How? How often? What are the current methods and what makes your version more efficient?
You have a habit of giving answers that are so vague as to be useless.

Ok, since you asked, here is the paradigm: A social safety net should only end when it is no longer necessary or it merely sacrifices the end to the means.

And, since supply side economics is supposed to be supplying us with better governance at lower cost, public policies (which constitute public Use), should correct for market inefficiencies whenever possible in order to achieve those gains from productivity.

The market for labor is one example. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our republic. We could be solving simple poverty in our republic on an at-will basis at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that corrects for both, a natural rate of unemployment and simple poverty when due merely to a lack income usually associated with employment.

I didn't ask for the paradigm or your philosophy. You made a specific claim. I'd forgotten this is all you do: You claim something is possible without ever giving details on how it would be possible. Never any specifics or mechanisms...just empty assertions.

Sorry; i didn't realize you didn't have a clue or a Cause.

The concept involved is employment at will and unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis.

I have no Cause, but I have many clues and many years professional experience analyzing labor markets. What you do not have, and have never shown, is concrete practical mechanisms or proceedures. Anytime you're asked specifics and exactly how something could be accomplished, you only reply "the concept is...." without giving any practical mechanism.

Like I said, it merely requires a clue and a Cause. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our republic. Unemployment compensation is simply that; correcting for a lack of employment in our Institution of money markets.

How difficult is the concept of employment at will, to understand?

 

[danielpalos]

Correcting for laissez-fare capitalism's laziness regarding its Natural Rate of Unemployment is what socialism can usually bailout capitalism for.

total liberal illiteracy!! Under capitalism there is the law of supply and demand so that the number of jobs equals the number of workers.

Is supply and demand over your head too??

Total alleged conservative, appeals to the ignorance of special pleading--that Only works with full employment of resources in any given market. In any Case, how does the right account for capitalism's laziness regarding full employment resources in the market for labor and the inefficiency of Capitalism's, Natural Rate of Unemployment?

 

[danielpalos]

Correcting for laissez-fare capitalism's laziness regarding its Natural Rate of Unemployment is what socialism can usually bailout capitalism for.

total liberal illiteracy!! Under capitalism there is the law of supply and demand so that the number of jobs equals the number of workers.

Is supply and demand over your head too??

It's kind of fun watching you say some of the dumbest shit with the strongest conviction ... and then insult your betters.

dude, you don't have a clue or a Cause if you think I am the one resorting to the most fallacies.

 

[Synthaholic]

NO, Unemployment is NOT DOWN

*bump*

He and you both wouldn't post such sillieness, if you had read (and understood) the OP.
Don't you read the thread ? In the future, please don't come in here unprepared. Until then, this is for you >>>

Then why would applications for unemployment be down by 43,000, to their lowest level since April, 2000?

 

[Faun]

Correcting for laissez-fare capitalism's laziness regarding its Natural Rate of Unemployment is what socialism can usually bailout capitalism for.

total liberal illiteracy!! Under capitalism there is the law of supply and demand so that the number of jobs equals the number of workers.

Is supply and demand over your head too??

It's kind of fun watching you say some of the dumbest shit with the strongest conviction ... and then insult your betters.

dude, you don't have a clue or a Cause if you think I am the one resorting to the most fallacies.

If I'm not mistaken ... THIS is the first time I've ever responded to one of your posts. So who knows WTF you're rambling about?

 

[RKMBrown]

Assumptions? I went straight off what you said your plan would be and I know what it would take to accomplish that.

No you did not go straight off what I said. You went the opposite of what I said.

You did not say the following?

For example, in a logical society anyone not currently employed in a job of their choice could be assigned a lower tier job that would be managed by some government and/or private organization.

In order for that to happen, you have to know who is not employed, and have someone doing the assigning, and the government, and/or private company contracted by the government would have to find or create those jobs. True or False? False on a number of levels.

With my plan one would not have to know who is not employed. Collecting that sort of information would be fluff with my system and not relevant. No particular government nor any particular company would be charged with the task of creating jobs. My system would rely on computing technology, hand-up funds from the existing unemployment system, ratings from employers for work done by employees and such. Let's call it an employment board, if you will. This board would give prospective employees who need a job and employers a place to go to match up. Governments and employers would have the option of placing said minimum type jobs up on the board, and people who need work who have qualifications and meet some minimum requirements of the employers would just "pick" a few jobs. Like pulling tickets a deli. Employers verify ticket requests from the people and send you the details for what time you are to show up. The key to making the system work would be proper seeding of the board. The way to seed the board is to have government agencies (and certain private employers who are working on pre-approved government projects) use the unemployment money as hand-up money. IOW these jobs are fully funded using tax dollars. However, there is a way to progress to non-hand up jobs of higher tiers using the same board.

Anyone that has willing guardian or sufficient assets so as not to need a job would be exempted from said requirements of course.

In order to be exempted then, a person would have to provide the government with documentation. True or False? Yeah the point here was that we still need welfare for people, but need to stop handing out welfare to people who should be working at least via the employment board I mentioned above. We already have a bureaucracy for welfare, and I'm not replacing that, I'm just making it smaller by removing people from the welfare pool.

The alternative would be being placed on a chain gang or death if you so choose..

again, the government would have to know who those people are and put them on the chain gang or execute them. True or False?
True, they would have to "know" but they don't have to go looking via some new government agency. I'm talking about people having the option to walk up to a government agency and ask to be placed on a chain gang or to be put to death, if that's what they want to do as opposed to getting a job or finding a relative, friend, church, neighbor, yada yada that will take care of them.

If you like you could try again by citing what I said. Then asking questions and explaining how you took what I said and changed it into what you said.

I never changed anything you said.

Hint: I talked about availability of low tier jobs managed by government and private organizations,

"Managed by government." That's a bureauocracy.
See above I skipped most the bureaucracy that such a system would use by using a technical solution to the problem. My system would be smaller and more productive than the bureaucracy we currently have.

where folks would have access to said low tier jobs as an option to the current system where folks have access to money for not working. I'm not sure what word confused you .. whether it was "access" or some other word that turned my brief proposal into some forced system of labor with a huge government bureaucracy.

. You never used the word access. I didn't? I thought I did, but I won't look for it.
You clearly stated that anyone not employed could be assigned a job or the alternative would be chain gang or death, unless they could show sufficient assets or a guardian.You were quite clear.You later disallowed any period of job search while not working.

Thanks... access a job by accessing my proposed employment board that matches jobs to job seekers, where a portion of the jobs are tax payer funded hand-ups.

assigned a job or the alternative was a chain gang or death. I never claimed you said anything different.

I think I was being a bit dramatic when I said the alternative was a chain gang or death. I was trying to come up with something for drug addicts and others who can't be productive, can't do a job, can't find a guardian, can't qualify for disability, etc... I clearly see that some people would not use an employment board and the question would then remain... what the hell do we do with people that refuse to work for any reason.

How many effing times and in how many different ways do I have to say that my plan would not require a huge bureaucracy?

show me once where I said you thought it would.I never claimed you believed that it would. Doesn't matter that you deny it, especially since you haven't even tried to say how it would not.

You said "Not my fault you can't imagine how work can be done without bureaucracy"

Yes, I did. And from your statement about my plan requiring a huge bureaucracy, that statement is either correct or you were lying.

That makes no sense. Of course I can imagine work without a huge bureauocracy.I can't imagine a government requiring people to work (or have sufficient assets or a guardian) or face chain gang or death without a huge bureauocracy to administer this system. Because it's not possible.

Of course now you're falsely claiming you said "access". But even if you had said that there would still have to be monitoring.

Yeah some monitoring to make sure the money is being properly utilized. Some monitoring of the employment board

Thx for being cordial. Comments in blue.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Correcting for laissez-fare capitalism's laziness regarding its Natural Rate of Unemployment is what socialism can usually bailout capitalism for.

total liberal illiteracy!! Under capitalism there is the law of supply and demand so that the number of jobs equals the number of workers.

Is supply and demand over your head too??

It's kind of fun watching you say some of the dumbest shit with the strongest conviction ... and then insult your betters.

dude, you don't have a clue or a Cause if you think I am the one resorting to the most fallacies.

total liberal illiteracy!! Under capitalism there is the law of supply and demand so that the number of jobs equals the number of workers.

Is supply and demand over your head too??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Unemployment compensation is simply that; correcting for a lack of employment in our Institution of money markets.

dear, it corrects for shipping jobs overseas thanks to liberal unions, deficits, and the highest liberal corporate taxes in the world. Plus it corrects for the liberal attack on the family and schools.

Still over your head?

 

[Mr Natural]

Correcting for laissez-fare capitalism's laziness regarding its Natural Rate of Unemployment is what socialism can usually bailout capitalism for.

total liberal illiteracy!! Under capitalism there is the law of supply and demand so that the number of jobs equals the number of workers.

Is supply and demand over your head too??

It's kind of fun watching you say some of the dumbest shit with the strongest conviction ... and then insult your betters.

dude, you don't have a clue or a Cause if you think I am the one resorting to the most fallacies.

total liberal illiteracy!! Under capitalism there is the law of supply and demand so that the number of jobs equals the number of workers.

Is supply and demand over your head too??

Fool.

If the number of number of jobs equaled the number of workers, there would be no unemployment.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If the number of number of jobs equaled the number of workers, there would be no unemployment.

this would be true in a capitalist economy
where the law of supply and demand is allowed to operate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it would not, Edward.

 

[pinqy]

If the number of number of jobs equaled the number of workers, there would be no unemployment.

this would be true in a capitalist economy
where the law of supply and demand is allowed to operate.

You are using the Econ 101 version used to introduce the principles. The assumptions are free entry/exit to jobs, perfect information for workers and employers, and all jobs are interchangeable. The real world is more complicated, and you can never eliminate frictional unemployment.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If the number of number of jobs equaled the number of workers, there would be no unemployment.

this would be true in a capitalist economy
where the law of supply and demand is allowed to operate.

You are using the Econ 101 version used to introduce the principles. The assumptions are free entry/exit to jobs, perfect information for workers and employers, and all jobs are interchangeable. The real world is more complicated, and you can never eliminate frictional unemployment.

dear, the assumption is that without liberal taxes, unions and deficits driving 40 million jobs off shore unemployment would be 2% and incomes would be way up rather than way down.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the number of number of jobs equaled the number of workers, there would be no unemployment.

this would be true in a capitalist economy
where the law of supply and demand is allowed to operate.

You are using the Econ 101 version used to introduce the principles. The assumptions are free entry/exit to jobs, perfect information for workers and employers, and all jobs are interchangeable. The real world is more complicated, and you can never eliminate frictional unemployment.

dear, the assumption is that without liberal taxes, unions and deficits driving 40 million jobs off shore unemployment would be 2% and incomes would be way up rather than way down.

Dear, your assumption is wrong, and you cannot support it with facts and calculations.

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment compensation is simply that; correcting for a lack of employment in our Institution of money markets.

dear, it corrects for shipping jobs overseas thanks to liberal unions, deficits, and the highest liberal corporate taxes in the world. Plus it corrects for the liberal attack on the family and schools.

Still over your head?

dude, it should correct for a natural rate of unemployment and simple poverty when due to a lack of income usually associated with employment, but for laissez-fair capitalism's laziness.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dude, it should correct for a natural rate of unemployment and simple poverty.

dear, eliminate liberal corporate taxes, deficits, and unions and there would be 40 million new jobs, no unemployment, and huge upward pressure on wages.

Is this really over your head??

 

[danielpalos]

dude, it should correct for a natural rate of unemployment and simple poverty.

dear, eliminate liberal corporate taxes, deficits, and unions and there would be 40 million new jobs, no unemployment, and huge upward pressure on wages.

Is this really over your head??

Yes, simply because it does not factor for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency in regards to labor and employment. Why do you believe we even have social safety nets in modern times, when there was much less socialism in less modern, modernity. Even the ancient Romans believed in the socialism of a dole system. Is that historical fact, over your head?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why do you believe we even have social safety nets in modern times,

it's a way for liberals to buy votes. Get it? You vote for them, they keep up the welfare checks. Times are modern in China. They spend only 5% on safety net while a huge middle class is growing and growing. We spend 35% while a huge middle class is shrinking and shrinking.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?[/QUOTE]

 

[danielpalos]

Why do you believe we even have social safety nets in modern times,

it's a way for liberals to buy votes. Get it? You vote for them, they keep up the welfare checks. Times are modern in China. They spend only 5% on safety net while a huge middle class is growing and growing. We spend 35% while a huge middle class is shrinking and shrinking.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

[/QUOTE]
The only ignorance is via public policies. We should have solved simple poverty in the US during the Great Depression and never had the experience in our historical record, but for a sad lack of a moral of "goodwill toward men".