For Those Who Want to REDUCE Unemployment, not win arguments

[Flopper]

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/

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.

Surely, you jest.

 

[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.

 

[Annie]

"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

So what is the reason this administration has killed innovation for the past 2.5 years? The only emphasis on job creation from these ijits has been on 'green jobs' of which none have been created, though thousands of oil, gas, natural gas, and nuclear jobs have been lost.

Thank god for Walmart, McD's, and Walgreens I guess.

 

[Moonglow]

The mjority of employers is small business,since the welthy and mighty corporations and peoples in the upper crusts of society will not help with their windfall profits, I suggest that they have they're tax cuts repealed and small business recieve those tax breaks and easier access to loans to start a business. The top teir knows that by making it very difficult to get small business loans that they are encouraging recession and deflation of real wages.

 

[midcan5]

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.

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.

Offshoring - outsourcing to extreme

TRADE: Outsourcing Jobs - Council on Foreign Relations

Study: 76% Of Major North American Companies Outsource One Or More HR Functions

 

[American Legacy]

Jobs are created when employers decide to pay someone to do work. It's that simple. No company is in the business of providing employment. Companies are in the business of making profits. A company will raise or lower wages consistent with the laws of supply and demand as they apply to filling the jobs the company needs done.

If government wants to encourage job growth in this country, it can do so by spending within its means, reducing its debt, ensuring sound money and providing a tax and regulatory environment that invites business creation in and relocation to the United States.

 

[Moonglow]

 

[Annie]

Is Today The One That Changes The Political Landscape?

Will people actually realize that Obama has made things much worse?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...r-in-chief.php

Our Excuser-In-Chief

We haven’t yet said anything about today’s disastrous employment news. What is to be said? Unemployment is up to 9.2%, with underemployment much higher. A mere 18,000 jobs were added in June, less than one-fifth of what economists expected. Job growth in April and May was revised downward by 44,000. Another 272,000 Americans gave up and dropped out of the labor force. The news was unrelentingly bad.

One wonders whether, when the history of this era is written, today might go down as a turning point. Americans have been steadily giving up on the Obama administration, as evidence accumulates that its policies have failed and it has no solutions to the nation’s economic problems. Not only that, its purported solutions–most of which are really just pretenses for government takeovers–have made the situation worse rather than better.

If today was a turning point, it isn’t only because of the dismal news. Equally important was President Obama’s response to the awful numbers. Once again, after two and a half years in office, he can do nothing except make excuses, deflect blame, and try to turn bad news into political opportunity:


Beset by a weak jobs report, President Barack Obama on Friday called for swift action by Congress to raise the nation’s borrowing limit, saying the uncertainty over the debt ceiling has hindered hiring in the private sector.

This is a ridiculous claim. Many factors deter private hiring, some of them needlessly imposed by the administration–excessive regulation, Obamacare, harassment of businesses like Boeing on behalf of unions, and so on. The only issue with respect to the debt ceiling is whether the Democrats’ wild spending spree will be reined in. If so, that will, indeed, spur growth in the private sector...

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Pass a GD jobs bill or two, and get Pubs to stfu, stop scaring people, and stop holding the country hostage for their stupid ideology, and stop cutting teachers, police, and firemen...and raise taxes on the over $500k- they're bloated do nothings
Something like 65% of the USA are more worried about jobs than the deficit (including all non bought off economists), but god pubs suq- what loudmouth tools...

 

[AVG-JOE]

Fair taxes, appropriate regulation, then let the market decide what various skills are worth.

Any tweaking by the government should be limited to giving businesses one and only one tax deduction: non-executive payroll.

 

[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?

 

[Brutus]

That is why Keynesian economics worked for FDR

that is an absolutely perfect example of the liberal IQ. He has no idea that FDR presided over the Great Depression.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pass a GD jobs bill or two, and get Pubs to stfu, stop scaring people, and stop holding the country hostage for their stupid ideology, and stop cutting teachers, police, and firemen...and raise taxes on the over $500k- they're bloated do nothings
Something like 65% of the USA are more worried about jobs than the deficit (including all non bought off economists), but god pubs suq- what loudmouth tools...

Because we know how well Obama's jobs bills have worked to date. LOL!

 

[Misaki]

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.

No widespread support for any of these things.

From yesterday on a widely read economics blog (http:/www。calculatedriskblog.com/2011/07/more-employment-return-of-teen-and.html) with lots of charts on unemployment:

"That is why so many companies identify their number one problem as "lack of customers"."

Many of the things you suggest would create more jobs, and more customers. But they would also cause the deficit to increase. That is why it is important that the method of creating jobs is one that people will agree to.

Also for anyone interested, the above link shows the differences in unemployment based on level of education. Bachelor's degree went from 2% in 2007 to 4.5% now; less than high school diploma went from 7% in 2007 to 14% now.

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.

Surely, you jest.

Most major companies are. Keep in mind whom they are selling their products to. Rich people are still rich, but poor people are even poorer, so companies that sell to rich people have high profits now, while companies that sell to poor people may be struggling.

And by allowing people to work less at the same wage rate, those people who work for major companies have more reason to buy from companies that sell more affordable products instead of continuing to buy luxuries, while at the same giving other people jobs so they can also make more purchases.

The mjority of employers is small business,since the welthy and mighty corporations and peoples in the upper crusts of society will not help with their windfall profits, I suggest that they have they're tax cuts repealed and small business recieve those tax breaks and easier access to loans to start a business. The top teir knows that by making it very difficult to get small business loans that they are encouraging recession and deflation of real wages.

Businesses might be struggling to obtain loans in some regions, but overall credit is not the issue for most businesses: http:/macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/2011/06/stimulating-small-business-activity.html

In that small business finance poll, 66% of firms said they didn't borrow because they didn't need credit, while only 18% said they didn't borrow because they didn't think they'd be able to get credit.

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.

If only wage earners were the ones benefiting from profits! But that isn't really the case. For one thing the latest job report showed that wages actually fell, even while profits rose; but even for the last 30 years, productivity rose 80% but median family income only rose 11%: http:/jaredbernsteinblog.com/slack-attack/

You can call it "silly" all you want but the reality is that there are people without jobs, in economic hardship, right now. And the first step to making sure that profits go to people who do the work is to make sure that everyone has work to do. Saying "buy American" is all very well... except that there are people who can't afford to buy anything other than the cheapest available, which is not American or else they would already be buying it. Sharing the jobs that are available is a clear direction of progress to boost income for needy families with few or no sources of income. It isn't as complicated as you make it out to be.

Jobs are created when employers decide to pay someone to do work. It's that simple. No company is in the business of providing employment. Companies are in the business of making profits. A company will raise or lower wages consistent with the laws of supply and demand as they apply to filling the jobs the company needs done.

Jobs are also created when people work less, which is what this thread is about.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Well the last TEN have been blocked, even the ype of bills Pubs LOVE. People have noticed...

 

[Brutus]

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.

 

[Brutus]

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

No widespread report for any of these things.

so???? there is by definition only wide spread support for what currently exists????????????

"That is why so many companies identify their number one problem as "lack of customers".

of course that is utterly and 100% meaningless and stupid.
It is like sayng the number one problem of cancer researchers is they have not found the cure. It is a given that no business has too many customers and no researchers have too many cures for cancer. OMG!!!!

Many of the things you suggest would create more jobs, and more customers. But they would also cause the deficit to increase.

if so you would not be so afraid say why you think the deficit would increase[/quote]

That is why it is important to find a way to create jobs that people will support.

dear it is a given that in a democracy people must support things, but to support reasonable they must be presented the rationale. You are pretending to yourself that there are secret things that when found everyone will support.

No widespread report for any of these things.

so???? no wide spread support for freedom in China until conservatives made the case and China switched direction 100%!! Got it now?????????????? Did you think widespread support came from the Girl Scouts????????

 

[Misaki]

1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

If unions are making businesses unprofitable, competing companies would be introducing new products to undercut the companies with unions. Eliminating unions would equalize the job market, but would not create more jobs.

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

What would those people do in their new jobs? What would people with money (rich people) buy from them? There are plenty of people offering to work for less than current median wages, removing the minimum wage would remove a small amount of market distortion but would not significantly increase jobs.

3) end business taxation ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

As linked in the first post (http:/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/net-lending-by-domestic-business/), businesses have plenty of cash and the people with money can afford to buy the existing products despite taxation driving up the cost of goods.

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Woul not increase jobs.

5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Would not increase jobs.

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Companies would just relocate to cheaper areas, losing jobs.

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Would lead to job loss.

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Would lead to job loss from lower consumer spending.

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Would lead to job loss from existing, inefficient insurance providers.

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Would lead to job loss of lawyers.

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Would lead to job loss due to lower consumption by those supported by welfare.

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Would lead to job loss.

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Job loss.

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Job loss.

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Republicans oppose too, and so does the rest of the nation who are trying to have a balanced federal budget.

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

No widespread report for any of these things.

so???? there is by definition only wide spread support for what currently exists???????????? [/quote]
Well I might be wrong, people might be supporting those things! Discussing is how we find out after all.

of course that is utterly and 100% meaningless and stupid.
It is like sayng the number one problem of cancer researchers is they have not found the cure. It is a given that no business has too many customers and no researchers have too many cures for cancer. OMG!!!!

So you agree, good.

if so you would not be so afraid say why you think the deficit would increase

Lower taxes (such as your last suggestion) means the deficit increases. Reducing the deficit is important, but you must understand it also leads to job loss. This is why it's useful to create jobs without additional government spending, as described in the first post of this thread.

dear it is a given that in a democracy people must support things, but to support reasonable they must be presented the rationale. You are pretending to yourself that there are secret things that when found everyone will support.

When I say no one supports them that was based off what I have previously seen. While both reducing the deficit and creating jobs are seen as important goals, this does not mean that every action taken will further both of these goals. Actions that reduce the deficit will generally lead to job loss, but I have not proposed increasing the deficit or federal spending to fix unemployment.

so???? no wide spread support for freedom in China until conservatives made the case and China switched direction 100%!! Got it now?????????????? Did you think widespread support came from the Girl Scouts????????

Well basically... the reason for reducing the size of government is not that the government is unable to create jobs with spending, but because it's inefficient compared to IF the market was able to create those jobs itself. The government has too many rules that exclude the wrong people or include the wrong people, and too much paperwork or people getting paid for something that does seem socially useful.

So while the nation COULD give everyone a job, it would make it difficult to tell where the inefficiency is coming from, so there has to be unemployment as an incentive for government and private industry to improve with the current system.

So saying that reducing government will create jobs is the wrong argument, because eventually whoever you tried to convince will realize that it isn't true (http:/orwell.ru/library/articles/nose/english/e_nose). Reducing government will always lead to a reduction in the amount of work done by society; this may mean either higher unemployment or it could mean more free time as described in the first post.

(i will have to try to explain this distinction to people more often, it seems useful thank you)

 

[Misaki]

Oh on this again

of course that is utterly and 100% meaningless and stupid.
It is like sayng the number one problem of cancer researchers is they have not found the cure. It is a given that no business has too many customers and no researchers have too many cures for cancer. OMG!!!!

So you agree, good.

More specifically, this means businesses would not increase profits by lowering their prices, because the slight increase in sales would not make up for the loss in per-unit profit, even if their product is significantly cheaper than others on the market.

Decreasing the cost of a car from $35k to $25k will not make a rich person buy it instead of a $200k luxury car, because they don't care about saving $10k. In other words, companies that are NOT profitable enough are the ones who feel like they have problems from lack of customers.

Companies that are profitable don't feel like they have a lack of customers because they are profitable, even if they could make more profit for every customer.

This lack of competition is the same as described in the link in the first post: http:/pastebin.com/Q86Zhgs9 and derives from the very slightly higher amounts of utility of the more expensive goods, even if the utility is only "having a brand that people will recognize". This is what lack of customers really means, that the low-end companies have problems not the high-end ones, and is exactly what changing the wage system would fix by lowering profits for the high-end companies and increasing demand for products of the low-end ones.

 

[Chris]

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?