Many of today's jobs "simply won't exist in the next decade, either entirely, or at the same number"

[EdwardBaiamonte]

- Would you work for a penny an hour?

100% stupid. With new Republican inventions you have new wealth and therefore increasing wages. Now you know why we have steadily gotten richer rather than poorer.

Do you understand?

Seriously - you're a Poe experiment, right?

Like the opposite of a Turing machine?

translation: as a typical liberal I'm too stupid to debate so will try to change the subject and hope no one notices that I'm running away.!!

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Would you work for a penny an hour?

100% stupid. With new Republican inventions you have new wealth and therefore increasing wages. Now you know why we have steadily gotten richer rather than poorer.

Do you understand?

Seriously - you're a Poe experiment, right?

Like the opposite of a Turing machine?

translation: as a typical liberal I'm too stupid to debate so will try to change the subject and hope no one notices that I'm running away.!!

- No, I'm trying to get you to think about unemployment in a different way.

Your argument seems to be that employment is always available unless "gubmint interferes".

The question is, then, why is there any unemployment at all absent government interference?

So will you, looking for work, take any job at any price, or if wages reach a certain level, will you decide that it is more expensive to go to work than not to work at all?

So - would you work for a penny an hour?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your argument seems to be that employment is always available unless "gubmint interferes".

this is true. Its called the law of supply and demand.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

why is there any unemployment at all absent government interference?

there really isn't thanks to the law of supply and demand. There is frictional or temporary unemployment but that is to be expected.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So - would you work for a penny an hour?

dear, No. But its a stupid question since minimum is around $10.00/hour and Republicans are still inventing things to make it go higher still rather than down to 1 penny.

A child could understand just not an adult liberal!

 

[Pksimon2007]

Your argument seems to be that employment is always available unless "gubmint interferes".

this is true. Its called the law of supply and demand.

There is a law of supply, and a law of demand. Can you please state the law of supply and demand so we can agree on a definition?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your argument seems to be that employment is always available unless "gubmint interferes".

this is true. Its called the law of supply and demand.

There is a law of supply, and a law of demand. Can you please state the law of supply and demand so we can agree on a definition?

at a price supply and demand are equal

 

[Pksimon2007]

why is there any unemployment at all absent government interference?

there really isn't thanks to the law of supply and demand. There is frictional or temporary unemployment but that is to be expected.

So is your answer that you would work for a penny an hour?

What if it cost you $5 to drive to work every day?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So is your answer that you would work for a penny an hour?

if I said that i will pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal tail between your legs.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Your argument seems to be that employment is always available unless "gubmint interferes".

this is true. Its called the law of supply and demand.

There is a law of supply, and a law of demand. Can you please state the law of supply and demand so we can agree on a definition?

at a price supply and demand are equal

- And what do you think that means, or is it just a tautological definition?

 

[Pksimon2007]

So is your answer that you would work for a penny an hour?

if I said that i will pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal tail between your legs.

But you said that nobody would be unemployed without government interference.

In that situation, the best job you could find might be at one penny per hour.

If you would not take that job. Then your argument is wrong.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your argument seems to be that employment is always available unless "gubmint interferes".

this is true. Its called the law of supply and demand.

There is a law of supply, and a law of demand. Can you please state the law of supply and demand so we can agree on a definition?

at a price supply and demand are equal

- And what do you think that means, or is it just a tautological definition?

it means the price of labor adjusts, like the price of bananas, until supply equals demand.

Does the liberal understand now??

 

[Pksimon2007]

Your argument seems to be that employment is always available unless "gubmint interferes".

this is true. Its called the law of supply and demand.

There is a law of supply, and a law of demand. Can you please state the law of supply and demand so we can agree on a definition?

at a price supply and demand are equal

- And what do you think that means, or is it just a tautological definition?

it means the price of labor adjusts, like the price of bananas, until supply equals demand.

Does the liberal understand now??

So there's no reason for it.

It's just magic.

So is anyone happy about the price?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In that situation, the best job you could find might be at one penny per hour.

too stupid and liberal it might be one penny and it might be $2000/hr. For purposes of this discussion lets say its most likely to be an average wage. And?????????????????

You have no idea whatsoever where you're going do you???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So there's no reason for it.

yes dear there is a reason. If demand for bananas is high at a certain price seller will raise the price for the reason of making more money.

Do you understand now???

 

[Pksimon2007]

So there's no reason for it.

yes dear there is a reason. If demand for bananas is high at a price he will raise the price for the reason of making more money.

Do you understand now???

- No, and I don't think anyone can explain it. Neoclassicals have some definitions and assumptions they make to establish the logic of it tautologically.

But no, it is not self evident.

If the buyer doesn't like the seller's price, then there is no transaction.

If there's no transaction, then we have a seller who couldn't sell and a buyer who couldn't buy.

We have supply and demand, but they did not meet in their middle, and there is no price.

Now - your point is shown wrong.

We have supply, and demand, and they do not create a price.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We have supply and demand, but they did not meet in their middle, and there is no price.

too 100% stupid and liberal. If a seller does not have a price then he is not a seller and the law of supply and demand does not apply to him.

 

[Pksimon2007]

So there's no reason for it.

yes dear there is a reason. If demand for bananas is high at a certain price seller will raise the price for the reason of making more money.

Do you understand now???

- What I asked you was "what does it mean for supply and demand to meet at a price"?

You couldn't answer that, and refused to think about it, choosing to be condescending instead (I always can tell when you know you're outwitted - you call people 'dear').

I just showed you how it is possible for supply and demand not to meet.

Generally, the concept is that in a free market everyone who wants to buy and everyone who wants to sell walks away with what they want, and they get it by adjusting the price they are willing to accept.

The assumption is that people will always buy/sell at whatever price the market will bear. They will never walk away from a deal.

So if your employment argument is correct, you will work for a penny an hour if that is al that is offered.

We know that's not true. You have some price below which you will not work (a "reservation" price), which represents your "disutility" - the price below which something loses all usefulness for you, and you would rather not have it.

Prices are not, therefore, infinitely flexible, and it is very possible to have unemployment in a "free market".

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.

Generally, the concept is that in a free market everyone who wants to buy and everyone who wants to sell walks away with what they want, and they get it by adjusting the price they are willing to accept.

.

dear, now that's really stupid. Everyone wants to walk aways with a Rolls Royce but few do so your point is absurd at best. You have no idea where you're going to you?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[Pksimon2007]

.

Generally, the concept is that in a free market everyone who wants to buy and everyone who wants to sell walks away with what they want, and they get it by adjusting the price they are willing to accept.

.

dear, now that really stupid. Everyone wants to walk aways with a Rolls Royce but few do so it totally pointless. You have no idea where you're going to you?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

Everyone who is wants a car and is able to to pay the equilibrium price will walk away with one.

There should never be a shortage or surplus of cars at the equilibrium price.

I keep forgetting how precise I have to be with you.