For Those Who Want to REDUCE Unemployment, not win arguments

[Brutus]

'
So here we are, big Government Reps and Big Government Dems have failed.

you've got yourself confused. Republicans have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson founded the party in 1792. Democrats have killed every one of them because they know they would, in effect, make them and big government illegal. In fact, they are hard at work killing the current Republican BBA. Got it??

 

[Misaki]

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.

What problem? Corporate per-quarter profits have increased by $464 billion since the recovery began (up 40% from what they were before).　http:/www。nytimes.com/interactive/2011/06/30/business/20110630poll-full-results.html

Capitalism is working just fine. But capitalism has nothing to do with giving people jobs, only with making profits. The society as a whole is responsible for giving people jobs, unless we like riots and chaos as people do what's necessary to keep from starving. It's not like people don't want to work; over 1 million applied on national hiring day for McDonald's for 50,000 job openings. http:/www。bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-28/mcdonald-s-hires-62-000-during-national-event-24-more-than-planned.html

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.

True, some companies might feel they would benefit by reducing wages while others might have the profits to increase them to retain workers. With something as unusual as this, though (directly the opposite of overtime pay) a national endorsement would greatly improve the short-term improvement in employment rate.

 

[Brutus]

But capitalism has nothing to do with giving people jobs,

actually with capitalism we could instantly end the great liberal recession and be at full employment:

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.

 

[Misaki]

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.

Exactly what I said about that proposal. The issue here is, as you say, whether the government can support it, and only 42% of Americans say the government should spend money to create jobs while 52% say it should not and should reduce the national debt. http:/www。nytimes.com/interactive/2011/06/30/business/20110630poll-full-results.html

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.

This is part of the reason to switch from proposing an increase in average wages to a decrease. The original scenario in the first post should be revised to reflect the reduced payroll costs from expanding the number of employees doing the same amount of work, given the current job market. (Cannot edit the first post anymore)

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.

The only problem is that the majority of the general populace is opposed to government spending to create more jobs, as linked above (NYT poll).

Unemployment must be fixed by encouraging a change in consumer spending patterns, away from corporations with high profits (that don't spend the money they make) and toward small businesses with lower profits (that pay much more of their total revenues to their employees):
http:/pastebin.com/QrmDEymL

That was because MOST of Warren's massive yearly income is in CAPITAL GAINS!! By raising his BRACKET --- you get ZILCH more out of him!!!!

All it will do is drive money from those brackets into investments like BerkShire Hathaway. Now do you understand why he's in FAVOR of higher tax brackets?????

You realize that he's giving away 95% of his wealth, right..? http:/givingpledge.org/#warren_buffett

Which has nothing to do with whether the nation should increase taxes. People have said that the government should not spend more money to create jobs (NYT poll above), regardless of whether tax rates go up.

 

[Susan45]

'
So here we are, big Government Reps and Big Government Dems have failed.

you've got yourself confused. Republicans have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson founded the party in 1792. Democrats have killed every one of them because they know they would, in effect, make them and big government illegal. In fact, they are hard at work killing the current Republican BBA. Got it??

Link please.

 

[Brutus]

You realize that he's giving away 95% of his wealth, right..?

more importantly, he's giving it to Bill Gates because he knows the liberals in government would only waste it.

 

[Susan45]

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.

Exactly what I said about that proposal. The issue here is, as you say, whether the government can support it, and only 42% of Americans say the government should spend money to create jobs while 52% say it should not and should reduce the national debt. http:/www。nytimes.com/interactive/2011/06/30/business/20110630poll-full-results.html


This is part of the reason to switch from proposing an increase in average wages to a decrease. The original scenario in the first post should be revised to reflect the reduced payroll costs from expanding the number of employees doing the same amount of work, given the current job market. (Cannot edit the first post anymore)

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.

The only problem is that the majority of the general populace is opposed to government spending to create more jobs, as linked above (NYT poll).

Unemployment must be fixed by encouraging a change in consumer spending patterns, away from corporations with high profits (that don't spend the money they make) and toward small businesses with lower profits (that pay much more of their total revenues to their employees):
http:/pastebin.com/QrmDEymL

That was because MOST of Warren's massive yearly income is in CAPITAL GAINS!! By raising his BRACKET --- you get ZILCH more out of him!!!!

All it will do is drive money from those brackets into investments like BerkShire Hathaway. Now do you understand why he's in FAVOR of higher tax brackets?????

You realize that he's giving away 95% of his wealth, right..? http:/givingpledge.org/#warren_buffett

Which has nothing to do with whether the nation should increase taxes. People have said that the government should not spend more money to create jobs (NYT poll above), regardless of whether tax rates go up.

Buffet gave an interview the other day on Bloomberg TV. I missed some of it but thought it was very interesting. And so is this...

Warren Buffett eyes big bets on big government

Billionaire super-rich Barack Obama fundraiser Warren Buffett went on Bloomberg TV today and named three companies he's thinking of buying: Archer Daniels Midland, Exelon, and General Dynamics.

All three are companies that depend on Big Government for their profits.

General Dynamics is the No. four government contractor for FY 2011.

Exelon counts top Obama aides Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod as consultants, two top Exelon advisors are Obama fundraisers, and the company -- the country's No. 2 nuclear company -- lobbies aggressively for greenhouse gas restraints that will drive more generation to their nuclear plants.
Buffett Placing Big Bets on Big Government - Warren Buffett - Fox Nation

Buffet seemed very positive about raising the debt ceiling. I sure hope he's right.

 

[Misaki]

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.

In that case the recovery has already left the correct course, because profits for corporations have not gradually increased but rather went up 40% from the start of the recovery compared to 18 months later:
http:/www。nytimes.com/interactive/2011/06/30/business/20110630poll-full-results.html

This is not symptomatic of consumers who are "slow to commit themselves to luxuries", and is clearly not an economy which is "more likely to respond to government stimulus" when almost none of the growth since the recovery started has gone to wages and salaries, but instead has gone to corporate profits where that money is held instead of spent: http:/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/net-lending-by-domestic-business/

Recognizing that the spending patterns in the nation are already ones that do not support economic growth without government stimulus, the only way to reduce unemployment without further government spending is by encouraging people to change their spending patterns: http:/pastebin.com/QrmDEymL

All three options in the poll suck. It views the dynamic as the glass is half empty. When there are trillions sitting on the sidelines due to fear of confiscation regulatory and tax policies, joblessness will stay static.


Enough of people sufferring while eggheads pull their class-warfare act.

The trillions are not just sitting on the sidelines, they are being actively spent to purchase iPods and only then do those trillions sit on the sidelines. Corporate profits rose by 40% to ~$1.67 trillion in 2011 Q1:
http:/www。nytimes.com/interactive/2011/06/30/business/20110630poll-full-results.html

Selectively lowering wages, which 76% of employees would agree to according to MaggieMae's link (http:/www。msnbc.msn.com/id/36141641/) is how to get people to stop buying from the corporations making large profits selling iPods and instead spend their money on products from smaller companies without the advantage of an attractive brand name:
http:/pastebin.com/QrmDEymL

 

[Brutus]

Unemployment must be fixed by encouraging a change in consumer spending patterns,.

why not add 10 million jobs by making unions illegal or by shipping 10 million illegals home, or by making deficits illegal so the Chinese will have to buy our products with their Wal Mart dollars??

Liberalism causes unemployment as it interferes with the free market! Who could deny it with a straight face?

 

[Misaki]

Wages don't have an impact on unemployment statistics.

So what's this "outsourcing" thing I hear about!

Corporations simply do not trust the Obamanites and democrats and they will not expand while a socialist is in the white house.

And the wealthy just like collecting money. Got it.

Small businesses are paralyzed with federal regulations and the dreaded health care law that might cause them to fold.

http:/www。calculatedriskblog.com/2011/07/more-employment-return-of-teen-and.html
'That is why so many companies identify their number one problem as "lack of customers".'

Federal regulations have nothing to do with it. People are buying luxury products from large corporations, instead of smaller businesses that are selling cheaper products.

The economy is stagnant while Obama refered to the US Chamber of Commerce as a sinister tool of the GOP. Americans saw the president hire a communist who once led an arson and looting rampage to be on his green jobs board and guess what? There ain't no green jobs or any other jobs for that matter.

Good to see everyone agrees that jobs need to be created. Solution: http:/pastebin.com/QrmDEymL

according to IRS top 1% pay 40% of all Federal taxes but only earn 18% of all income. More importantly they are our most productive citizens, stealing from them is suicidal. Only a liberal would think stealing capital from those who know how to employ it makes sense.

They don't spend their money. If they did, the US would not be in a recession; and by "productive" you must mean "own corporations with high profits". Unfortunately, that productivity has done nothing to increase average wages or salaries since the start of the recovery, nor has it done anything to reduce unemployment.

 

[Misaki]

Hiring incentives should be given to private sector businesses (with emphasis on small businesses). Something along the lines of tax breaks.

The problem is, this administration and the previous congress gave small incentives to businesses, however those incentives were offset by new taxes, or regulations and not every business qualified for those incentives... Not to mention the majority of those businesses that did receive those incentives labor was unionized.

http:/www。calculatedriskblog.com/2011/07/more-employment-return-of-teen-and.html
'That is why so many companies identify their number one problem as "lack of customers".'

Only 42% of the general public support government spending to create jobs (and a tax break is also known as a tax expenditure), while 52% oppose spending for that purpose and want to focus on reducing the debt.
http:/www。nytimes.com/interactive/2011/06/30/business/20110630poll-full-results.html

The existing regulations might be good or bad, it is impossible to tell without examining them. But encouraging businesses to reduce wages in a way that both allows them to hire more employees (reducing unemployment) AND encourages employees to not to spend their money on products from corporations which have captured 88% of growth since the start of the recovery in profits (http:/economix。blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/the-wageless-profitable-recovery/), will lead to the customers that small businesses feel they are lacking in.

The only way you're going to create jobs is to allow the free market to dictate labor costs and especially limit government intervention (regulations).

Free markets work correctly if people spend their money, instead of collecting more than they could ever use simply for the sake of collecting money. The right policies will allow free markets to function correctly with wage levels set by employers and negotiated by employees, as described here: http:/pastebin.com/QrmDEymL

This isn't a dictated economy, yet the progressives treat capitalism as a dictated economy... In reality its the government thats holding this economy back with their intervention.

Nonsense, the economy has not been held back by government since corporate profits have increased 40% since the start of the recovery.

 

[Misaki]

But capitalism has nothing to do with giving people jobs,

actually with capitalism we could instantly end the great liberal recession and be at full employment:

There is no reason to think that doing any of that would cause rich people to hire anyone to do anything. A few of them involve the government creating jobs by spending money (or reducing taxes), but only 42% of the population support such a policy, while 52% oppose.

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

NYT/CBS opinion poll (http:/www。nytimes.com/interactive/2011/06/30/business/20110630poll-full-results.html)
[Q. 23] Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican party or the Democratic party is more likely to ensure a strong economy?
Republican: 35%
Democratic: 39%
Both: 3%
Neither: 12%
Don't know/not applicable: 11%

[Q. 24] Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican party or the Democratic party is more likely to create new jobs?
Republican: 36%
Democratic: 43%
Both: 2%
Neither: 8%
Don't know/not applicable: 11%

 

[Misaki]

You realize that he's giving away 95% of his wealth, right..?

more importantly, he's giving it to Bill Gates because he knows the liberals in government would only waste it.

Bill and Melinda Gates are also giving away the majority of their wealth, as you should be aware.

Unemployment must be fixed by encouraging a change in consumer spending patterns,.

why not add 10 million jobs by making unions illegal or by shipping 10 million illegals home, or by making deficits illegal so the Chinese will have to buy our products with their Wal Mart dollars??

Liberalism causes unemployment as it interferes with the free market! Who could deny it with a straight face?

If you make unions illegal, the owners of those companies will simply buy more luxury products from corporations, increasing corporate profits. The money from those purchases will then just be saved like 88% of the rest of the growth since the start of the recovery, and money that is not spent cannot create jobs.

It's true that people in unions are already buying iPods etc. which contributes to some of current corporate profits, but the only way to change these spending patterns is to increase the number of employees for those companies by encouraging people to work less; simply changing who gets the profits (employer or a static number of employees) will not lead to an overall increase in employment.

If you make deficits illegal you must come up with an alternative way for people to support themselves, which does NOT occur when 88% of growth goes to corporate profits. Reducing work done, as explained again at http:/pastebin.com/QrmDEymL, is a prerequisite to eliminating the deficit.

 

[MaggieMae]

I see. So all you do is repeat your talking points,

if they are merely talking points, and not a rational political philosophy that started with Aristotle, then why not pick a substantive talking point and and show us exactly where it is mistaken.

What does your inability to do so tell you about liberalism???

Remember, liberalism is not a philosophy, it is merely a bigoted feeling of moral superiority based on your support for welfare and an IQ level that prevents you from understanding how capitalism and freedom work.

Wow. Aristotle said all that? Amazing. Now why don't YOU tell the group YOUR "understanding" of how capitalism and freedom work since you mistakenly believe it has somehow disappeared when it hasn't.

 

[MaggieMae]

Unemployment must be fixed by encouraging a change in consumer spending patterns,.

why not add 10 million jobs by making unions illegal or by shipping 10 million illegals home, or by making deficits illegal so the Chinese will have to buy our products with their Wal Mart dollars??

Liberalism causes unemployment as it interferes with the free market! Who could deny it with a straight face?

Unions only account for 11.9% of the workforce.

Illegals ARE going home in droves, but does that mean employers who usually hire them are actively hiring legal Americans? Nope.

Immigrant exodus: Lack of jobs has Mexicans headed home

The Mexican departures may be subtly reshaping the demographics of Hoke County and other North Carolina communities where, until recently, Hispanic immigrants were recruited for demanding but low-wage jobs in farm fields and meat-packing plants - jobs that Americans have shunned.

Business owners who cater to Hispanics bemoan the slumping sales that have followed the sad farewells of customers.
...
In addition to fickle employers and a wobbly economy, immigrant laborers such as Garcia and Herrara say controversial deportation efforts, including the 287(g) program, are prompting them to leave North Carolina. The 287(g) program is named after a section of the federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.

Supporters of a crackdown on illegal immigration hope 287(g) and other U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement initiatives will create jobs for unemployed Americans.

In response, however, employers have chosen other ways to find cheap foreign labor.

Mountaire Farms, which runs a large poultry-processing plant in Lumber Bridge, is said to have hired a contractor to supply immigrant workers from Burma and Thailand.

The contractor provides transportation to the plant, meals and living quarters for the workers, according to an official at the plant.

Another one of your "solutions" in the toilet. Next?

 

[Brutus]

according to IRS top 1% pay 40% of all Federal taxes but only earn 18% of all income. More importantly they are our most productive citizens, stealing from them is suicidal. Only a liberal would think stealing capital from those who know how to employ it makes sense.

They don't spend their money. If they did, the US would not be in a recession;

actually the recession was caused by a liberal housing crisis. Its been in all the papers.

What economy there is and what economy we will have in the future will depend on how far the liberals get out of the way so the rich can do their jobs. If the liberals create another housing crisis and continue exporting jobs to China we are doomed.

and by "productive" you must mean "own corporations with high profits". Unfortunately, that productivity has done nothing to increase average wages or salaries since the start of the recovery, nor has it done anything to reduce unemployment.

if the liberals keep exporting jobs to China with their budget deficits, miminum wages, unions, etc even the rich will not be able to overcome the obvious liberal lunacy

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Don't be stupid!

 

[oldsalt]

according to IRS top 1% pay 40% of all Federal taxes but only earn 18% of all income. More importantly they are our most productive citizens, stealing from them is suicidal. Only a liberal would think stealing capital from those who know how to employ it makes sense.

They don't spend their money. If they did, the US would not be in a recession;

actually the recession was caused by a liberal housing crisis. Its been in all the papers.

What economy there is and what economy we will have in the future will depend on how far the liberals get out of the way so the rich can do their jobs. If the liberals create another housing crisis and continue exporting jobs to China we are doomed.

and by "productive" you must mean "own corporations with high profits". Unfortunately, that productivity has done nothing to increase average wages or salaries since the start of the recovery, nor has it done anything to reduce unemployment.

if the liberals keep exporting jobs to China with their budget deficits, miminum wages, unions, etc even the rich will not be able to overcome the obvious liberal lunacy

Liberal housing crisis, that's a good one!

 

[Brutus]

Liberal housing crisis, that's a good one!

It seems the greatest economists and greatest newspapers on the left and right agree that liberal interference caused the crisis. Sorry



"First consider the once controversial view that the crisis was largely caused by the Fed's holding interest rates too low for too long after the 2001 recession. This view is now so widely held that the editorial pages of both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal agree on its validity!"...John B. Taylor( arch conservative, author of the Taylor Rule)


" The Federal reserve having done so much to create the problems in which the economy is now mired, having mistakenly thought that even after the housing bubble burst the problems were contained, and having underestimated the severity of the crisis, now wants to make a contribution to preventing the economy from sinking into a Japanese Style malaise....... - "Joseph Stiglitz"


If you still can't grasp what happened why not read "Reckless Endangerment" by NY Times person and see if you can say with a straight face that the crisis was not caused by liberal interference wit the free market.

 

[Brutus]

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.

a perfect example of the liberal IQ. In fact a business has to pay the highest amount possible or lose its best workers to a competitor. That is why wages go up, it is not becuase of liberal laws. As soon as China switched to free markets away from liberal laws they instantly got rich, not poor!! Its been in all the papers. They were starving to death by the millions 30 years ago, now they buy more cars than we do. A liberal lacks the IQ to understand economics.