Wage Strikes Planned at Fast-Food Outlets

[Kimura]

...My two cents, now I'm burned out.

Understood; I got halfway thru and reply last nite addressing your points but it can wait. This debate is important (10 million jobless increase since '07) and it's passionate (re- all the name-calling it brings out) but the debate's still useful --I'm learning a lot working with you.

There really is a lot to it on both sides, and there are many arguments you haven't offered here yet --like (the past decade record not withstanding) there have been times when income and employment soared after min-wage increases, and the fact that a federal law gives individual employees more bargaining power for negotiating raises. These arguments don't convince me but they're still worth looking at.

Please ping me when you get back into it.

I agree, people do get passionate, but ideology always tends to cloud any economic debate. We see it ALL the time whenever some douche bag politician, liberal or conservative, cites some economic stat or study I know for SURE he/she doesn't understand, but it fits his/her word view.

As your numbers and history demonstrate, capitalist economies are simply not structured to handle full employment. We abandoned full employment as a national policy after WWII.

We should no longer use unemployment as a mechanism to control inflation. NAIRU should be abandoned for a national employment buffer stock. We get rid of the trickle down BS, and hire people from the bottom up, which would get rid of any potential inflationary pressures. We can control total unemployment with a changing national employment buffer stock.

We could specifically target the output gap and fill any and all demand for labor. You can directly tie deficit spending to employment numbers, and thanks to the automatic stabilizers, we’d know how much $$$$ we would need to spend. If we, as a country, need to employ X amount of individuals, for example, we know we’d need to spend X amount of $$$$.

The private sector would be a huge winner in a Job Guarantee. They’d have a ready pool of trained labor, as opposed to unskilled labor, which is would decrease their costs.

Most importantly, we’d have significant macroeconomic improvements, such as inflation control. The federal budget would decrease in a counter-cyclical way when the private sector hires workers out of the national buffer stock into the private sector. And, as we’ve being going back and forth in the op about, we keep the supply of labor at a minimum wage. This isn’t a magic pill, and it won’t fix structural issues in the labor market, but it’s way BETTER than NAIRU and the status quo we have now.

 

[Rshermr]

Your assumption he was right in my not understanding stock versus options makes you in the same league as he is. Try educating yourself as well.

You are WAY out of your league. You have NO idea what he said. Really. It is just that you are stupid. Probably not your fault at all.
By the way, do you want to define the new word you used, me boy??? amybe??? Most people stick to english here. Looks like some african dialect.

General Motors to offer stock options to employees | HULIQ
so, who is stupid here?

Dipshit, they had to buy the stock options. The ceo and his boys got them FREE as compensation. See the diff???

The other thing that would be obvious to a 7th grader would be something called scope. The worker gets to buy a few thousand bucks at ipo price, while the ceo gets millions free.
SEE THE DIFFERENCE???

You.

 

[Ame®icano]

Right. Then you would agree that we need to stimulate the job market. Create more meaningful jobs so that people are not forced to take these poor paying jobs.

And, of course, let the management of these fast food companies continue to pay minimum wage. For reasons known only to you. Got it.

And who suppose to create those meaningful jobs? Government?

Some gov, some private. In the fairly short term, almost all will be private. You see, if you spend tax dollars on building a bridge, the gov will not do the work. Private contractors will do the work.

Is this too complex???

Government "job creation" is plain political gimmick. That is not government purpose, and what it is you can find in the constitution.

 

[The Rabbi]

And who suppose to create those meaningful jobs? Government?

Some gov, some private. In the fairly short term, almost all will be private. You see, if you spend tax dollars on building a bridge, the gov will not do the work. Private contractors will do the work.

Is this too complex???

Government "job creation" is plain political gimmick. That is not government purpose, and what it is you can find in the constitution.

So who administers the bid process and writes the requirements? The tooth fairy?
There is no government job creation. Government does not create sustainable jobs. All gov't jobs rely on taxation, which is taking money from people actually doing something productive. Sure, you need some of that. But we're way over the limit on what we need to make society function.

 

[Kimura]

Some gov, some private. In the fairly short term, almost all will be private. You see, if you spend tax dollars on building a bridge, the gov will not do the work. Private contractors will do the work.

Is this too complex???

Government "job creation" is plain political gimmick. That is not government purpose, and what it is you can find in the constitution.

So who administers the bid process and writes the requirements? The tooth fairy?
There is no government job creation. Government does not create sustainable jobs. All gov't jobs rely on taxation, which is taking money from people actually doing something productive. Sure, you need some of that. But we're way over the limit on what we need to make society function.

The federal government doesn't require taxes to fund expenditures. The whole federal government as robber meme has no basis in reality, in terms of actual monetary operations. All taxing and borrowing is done with $$$$ that is already spent.

By the way, one of the best job creators is the DOD. The US military is one the best job training programs on the planet. Period. Cash registers don't care if $$$$ comes from the government sector or private sector.

 

[expat_panama]

...capitalist economies are simply not structured to handle full employment...

When people are allowed to decide for themselves what to do with the wealth they've created we end up seeing some people choosing to rent out their labor in the labor markets, some people renting their capital in the capital markets, and most people doing both.

State run economies can boast full employment because they simply declare that everyone's an employee of the state. It works poorly and is unsustainable for a couple reasons. One is because when the state confiscates the wealth people have created then people stop creating wealth. Another reason state allocation of wealth is bad is because it's hard for central planners to know everyone's resources and impossible know everyone's needs. The best that could be done with 'full employment' was as described as "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us".

 

[The Rabbi]

Government "job creation" is plain political gimmick. That is not government purpose, and what it is you can find in the constitution.

So who administers the bid process and writes the requirements? The tooth fairy?
There is no government job creation. Government does not create sustainable jobs. All gov't jobs rely on taxation, which is taking money from people actually doing something productive. Sure, you need some of that. But we're way over the limit on what we need to make society function.

The federal government doesn't require taxes to fund expenditures. The whole federal government as robber meme has no basis in reality, in terms of actual monetary operations. All taxing and borrowing is done with $$$$ that is already spent.

By the way, one of the best job creators is the DOD. The US military is one the best job training programs on the planet. Period. Cash registers don't care if $$$$ comes from the government sector or private sector.

So how does the federal gov't get revenue to fund expenditures if not from taxes? They have money farms?

 

[Ame®icano]

So who administers the bid process and writes the requirements? The tooth fairy?
There is no government job creation. Government does not create sustainable jobs. All gov't jobs rely on taxation, which is taking money from people actually doing something productive. Sure, you need some of that. But we're way over the limit on what we need to make society function.

The federal government doesn't require taxes to fund expenditures. The whole federal government as robber meme has no basis in reality, in terms of actual monetary operations. All taxing and borrowing is done with $$$$ that is already spent.

By the way, one of the best job creators is the DOD. The US military is one the best job training programs on the planet. Period. Cash registers don't care if $$$$ comes from the government sector or private sector.

So how does the federal gov't get revenue to fund expenditures if not from taxes? They have money farms?

They have China and Federal reserve a.k.a. printing press.

 

[The Rabbi]

The federal government doesn't require taxes to fund expenditures. The whole federal government as robber meme has no basis in reality, in terms of actual monetary operations. All taxing and borrowing is done with $$$$ that is already spent.

By the way, one of the best job creators is the DOD. The US military is one the best job training programs on the planet. Period. Cash registers don't care if $$$$ comes from the government sector or private sector.

So how does the federal gov't get revenue to fund expenditures if not from taxes? They have money farms?

They have China and Federal reserve a.k.a. printing press.

True. But that money has to be paid back sometime. So it still coems from taxpayers.

 

[expat_panama]

...one of the best job creators is the DOD....

Depends on what you mean by 'best'.

The DOD's got not quite 2M uniformed employees out of the total 22M total gov't employees --Fed, State, & local. Contrast that to the 122M working in the private sector that's paying all the salaries for the gov't employees. Don't get me wrong, we need gov't employees to maintain the safe orderly environment that the private sector has to have so it can function. Here's the thing, when a private sector firm does well, its success is seen by more and more customers buying the product. However we know the military does well when the war ends and most of its workforce is laid off.

It's an entirely different kind of mission.

 

[Kimura]

...capitalist economies are simply not structured to handle full employment...

When people are allowed to decide for themselves what to do with the wealth they've created we end up seeing some people choosing to rent out their labor in the labor markets, some people renting their capital in the capital markets, and most people doing both.

State run economies can boast full employment because they simply declare that everyone's an employee of the state. It works poorly and is unsustainable for a couple reasons. One is because when the state confiscates the wealth people have created then people stop creating wealth. Another reason state allocation of wealth is bad is because it's hard for central planners to know everyone's resources and impossible know everyone's needs. The best that could be done with 'full employment' was as described as "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us".

I'm not taking about a state run economy. I never once advocated for the state to control the means of production. I'm talking about a Job Guarantee and the public sector as the employer of last resort. The government is the only entity which can separate the labor from profits. In other words, the government sector can create an indefinite elastic demand for labor without having to be concerned with costs or profitability.

 

[Kimura]

The federal government doesn't require taxes to fund expenditures. The whole federal government as robber meme has no basis in reality, in terms of actual monetary operations. All taxing and borrowing is done with $$$$ that is already spent.

By the way, one of the best job creators is the DOD. The US military is one the best job training programs on the planet. Period. Cash registers don't care if $$$$ comes from the government sector or private sector.

So how does the federal gov't get revenue to fund expenditures if not from taxes? They have money farms?

They have China and Federal reserve a.k.a. printing press.

China doesn't create dollars, they simply desire to save in US financial assets. In order for US to obtain dollars, the government must spend money into existence. How do you think we get the $$$$ to purchase bonds or pay our taxes? We can't get our hands on the $$$$ until the federal government spends it. Government spending, under a fiat system, precedes any taxes or "borrowing". In point of fact, operationally, the federal government only taxes what it has spent, and also "borrows" back money it has also spent.

 

[Kimura]

So how does the federal gov't get revenue to fund expenditures if not from taxes? They have money farms?

They have China and Federal reserve a.k.a. printing press.

True. But that money has to be paid back sometime. So it still coems from taxpayers.

It doesn't have to be paid back, nor are the taxpayers on the hook. This simply isn't the case now that's we're no longer on a gold standard/convertible currency. Soft currency is a different operational ball game.

 

[jasonnfree]

So how does the federal gov't get revenue to fund expenditures if not from taxes? They have money farms?

They have China and Federal reserve a.k.a. printing press.

China doesn't create dollars, they simply desire to save in US financial assets. In order for US to obtain dollars, the government must spend money into existence. How do you think we get the $$$$ to purchase bonds or pay our taxes? We can't get our hands on the $$$$ until the federal government spends it. Government spending, under a fiat system, precedes any taxes or "borrowing". In point of fact, operationally, the federal government only taxes what it has spent, and also "borrows" back money it has also spent.

How does the government go about spending the money into existence?

 

[The Rabbi]

They have China and Federal reserve a.k.a. printing press.

True. But that money has to be paid back sometime. So it still coems from taxpayers.

It doesn't have to be paid back, nor are the taxpayers on the hook. This simply isn't the case now that's we're no longer on a gold standard/convertible currency. Soft currency is a different operational ball game.

Wow, so we could just spend into oblivion with no repercussions at all! Darn, million-dollar checks for everyone else.
Sorry, pal. You've blown your credibility with this one.

 

[Kimura]

They have China and Federal reserve a.k.a. printing press.

China doesn't create dollars, they simply desire to save in US financial assets. In order for US to obtain dollars, the government must spend money into existence. How do you think we get the $$$$ to purchase bonds or pay our taxes? We can't get our hands on the $$$$ until the federal government spends it. Government spending, under a fiat system, precedes any taxes or "borrowing". In point of fact, operationally, the federal government only taxes what it has spent, and also "borrows" back money it has also spent.

How does the government go about spending the money into existence?

I'd like to preface this by pointing out that the Treasury doesn't borrow from the Federal Reserve in any meaningful sense of the word. The FED provides the monetary basis for the Treasury's fiscal policy.

Here's the short version: the federal government spends through the FED crediting commercial banks accounts. It can spend this $$$$ on entitlements, drones, missiles, submarines, or whatever it so chooses.

When the FED credits accounts, that's the process of money creation, which is effectively ex-nihilo. This $$$$ ends up as reserves in the banking system. The process of issuing US bonds then will drain these excess reserves from the banking system since they're swapped out for Treasuries. We then utilize this net reserve drain to create a positive interest rate to hit the targeted FED funds rate.

 

[Rshermr]

True. But that money has to be paid back sometime. So it still coems from taxpayers.

It doesn't have to be paid back, nor are the taxpayers on the hook. This simply isn't the case now that's we're no longer on a gold standard/convertible currency. Soft currency is a different operational ball game.

Wow, so we could just spend into oblivion with no repercussions at all! Darn, million-dollar checks for everyone else.
Sorry, pal. You've blown your credibility with this one.

Or, in other words, rabbi does not understand. Which, of course, is normal. So, rabbi, when is it going to be paid back by taxpayers. And why do they need to do so?? Or are you simply confused.

It must have happened before, rabbi. You surely have an example. You know, when taxpayers were forced to pay "it" back. Cmon, me boy, you must have an example.

 

[Kimura]

True. But that money has to be paid back sometime. So it still coems from taxpayers.

It doesn't have to be paid back, nor are the taxpayers on the hook. This simply isn't the case now that's we're no longer on a gold standard/convertible currency. Soft currency is a different operational ball game.

Wow, so we could just spend into oblivion with no repercussions at all! Darn, million-dollar checks for everyone else.
Sorry, pal. You've blown your credibility with this one.

The only constraint would be inflation, but given all of our excess capacity, that shouldn't even be on the radar for the foreseeable future. However, I'd like to point our that inflation is an inherent risk for any type of overspending, whether it's consumption, export, investment, or government sector spending. Any part of aggregate demand could tip the economy towards inflation.

Obviously, deficits can be excessive or deficient, but they goal should be for the government to utilize any and all productive capacity, which means getting it just right. It's REALLY hard to generate a sustainable inflation, just take a look at Japan.

 

[expat_panama]

I'm not taking about a state run economy. I never once advocated for the state to control the means of production. I'm talking about a Job Guarantee and the public sector as the employer of last resort. The government is the only entity which can separate the labor from profits. In other words, the government sector can create an indefinite elastic demand for labor without having to be concerned with costs or profitability.

Words have to mean things and if we want to change definitions we need to be clear about it. Meanwhile, when we say the State assumes responsibility and control over all labor and compensation, then we say it's controlling the economy. The state has neither the need nor the ability to guarantee jobs for all. It's up to individuals to take it upon themselves to get out of bed, clean up, look to see what needs doing and then offer to help. Here's stuff from a related forum:

Devlin Warren: I don’t know what to say. Never begged before. Turned my stomach. I suppose I should have been grateful that you gave me the job.

George Washington McLintock: Gave? Boy, you’ve got it all wrong. I don’t give jobs I hire men.

Drago: You intend to give this man a full day’s work, don’tcha boy?

Devlin Warren: You mean you’re still hirin’ me? Well, yes, sir, I certainly deliver a fair day’s work.

George Washington McLintock: And for that I’ll pay you a fair day’s wage. You won’t give me anything and I won’t give you anything. We both hold up our heads.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

...capitalist economies are simply not structured to handle full employment...

When people are allowed to decide for themselves what to do with the wealth they've created we end up seeing some people choosing to rent out their labor in the labor markets, some people renting their capital in the capital markets, and most people doing both.

State run economies can boast full employment because they simply declare that everyone's an employee of the state. It works poorly and is unsustainable for a couple reasons. One is because when the state confiscates the wealth people have created then people stop creating wealth. Another reason state allocation of wealth is bad is because it's hard for central planners to know everyone's resources and impossible know everyone's needs. The best that could be done with 'full employment' was as described as "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us".

I'm not taking about a state run economy. I never once advocated for the state to control the means of production. I'm talking about a Job Guarantee and the public sector as the employer of last resort. The government is the only entity which can separate the labor from profits. In other words, the government sector can create an indefinite elastic demand for labor without having to be concerned with costs or profitability.

Government is a jobs program for otherwise unemployable individuals. The govt. cn only separate labor from profits because it doesn't own anything of what it has. Right they can run around without having to worry about profit or cost because they simply pass these off to the private sector in the form of theft, or better known today as taxation. We call it welfare.