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

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

dear, they don't have to be infinitely flexible thats why we have just 5.5% unemployment despite liberal offshoring of 30 million and 20 million liberal illegals.

Are you starting to catch on??

 

[Pksimon2007]

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.

- Now you're trying to change definitions

He is still a seller, he is just not successful.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

.

thats good dear, and do you have a significant point that you're aware of ????

 

[Pksimon2007]

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

.

thats good dear, and do you have a significant point that you're aware of ????

I made it a long time ago, but you've been posting autonomically, like a twitching body which does not yet know it's dead.

The point is that unemployment can exist in a free market. It is not, as you claimed, only a product of government.

 

[Pksimon2007]

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

.

thats good dear, and do you have a significant point that you're aware of ????

This brings us back to another way of stating the OP: changes in productivity and international trade may lower the price for labor which employers are willing to pay to the point that workers can no longer afford to take those jobs.

At wages which workers can accepy, it makes more sense for employers to automate those jobs.

 

[bripat9643]

- Economics 101 includes supply and demand. As the supply of labor increases relative to the demand for it, wages fall, and underemployment increases (exactly as we have been seeing).
.

dear, unemployment is 5.5% after 50 years of the computer/tech revolution and after idiotic liberal policies that drove 40 million jobs offshore and gave 20 million jobs to illegals.

This proves that people have adapted easily and quickly to the technological changes. Do you understand now??

Right. Adapted, meaning wages went down, people work more at oart time jobs, and some got discouraged and left the workforce.

The miracle of the free markets!

No, that's the miracle of open borders and a flood of low-skill, low wage illegal immigrants.

 

[beagle9]

- Economics 101 includes supply and demand. As the supply of labor increases relative to the demand for it, wages fall, and underemployment increases (exactly as we have been seeing).
.

dear, unemployment is 5.5% after 50 years of the computer/tech revolution and after idiotic liberal policies that drove 40 million jobs offshore and gave 20 million jobs to illegals.

This proves that people have adapted easily and quickly to the technological changes. Do you understand now??

Right. Adapted, meaning wages went down, people work more at oart time jobs, and some got discouraged and left the workforce.

The miracle of the free markets!

The free market is great, but it's just when the markets became full of selfish, self righteous crooks is when it got bad. Let's fix it and keep it, just like we would do if an invading force tried to take our country from us.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Economics 101 includes supply and demand. As the supply of labor increases relative to the demand for it, wages fall, and underemployment increases (exactly as we have been seeing).
.

dear, unemployment is 5.5% after 50 years of the computer/tech revolution and after idiotic liberal policies that drove 40 million jobs offshore and gave 20 million jobs to illegals.

This proves that people have adapted easily and quickly to the technological changes. Do you understand now??

Right. Adapted, meaning wages went down, people work more at oart time jobs, and some got discouraged and left the workforce.

The miracle of the free markets!

No, that's the miracle of open borders and a flood of low-skill, low wage illegal immigrants.

- But you guys are the ones who wanted free markets, right?

Well, you've got one, and all you do is snivel incessantly about it. "We wan gubmint to build a fence and shoot people. We want gubmint to stop people on the street and check their citizenship. And gubmint - we need to get rid of it".

Y'all are precious. Like Jerry's Kids, only logically impaired.

 

[bripat9643]

- Economics 101 includes supply and demand. As the supply of labor increases relative to the demand for it, wages fall, and underemployment increases (exactly as we have been seeing).
.

dear, unemployment is 5.5% after 50 years of the computer/tech revolution and after idiotic liberal policies that drove 40 million jobs offshore and gave 20 million jobs to illegals.

This proves that people have adapted easily and quickly to the technological changes. Do you understand now??

Right. Adapted, meaning wages went down, people work more at oart time jobs, and some got discouraged and left the workforce.

The miracle of the free markets!

No, that's the miracle of open borders and a flood of low-skill, low wage illegal immigrants.

- But you guys are the ones who wanted free markets, right?

Well, you've got one, and all you do is snivel incessantly about it. "We wan gubmint to build a fence and shoot people. We want gubmint to stop people on the street and check their citizenship. And gubmint - we need to get rid of it".

Y'all are precious. Like Jerry's Kids, only logically impaired.

Failing to seal the border has no connection with free markets. That's simply a cynical political ploy to improve the Democrat's chances of winning even if it means destroying the country in the process.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Economics 101 includes supply and demand. As the supply of labor increases relative to the demand for it, wages fall, and underemployment increases (exactly as we have been seeing).
.

dear, unemployment is 5.5% after 50 years of the computer/tech revolution and after idiotic liberal policies that drove 40 million jobs offshore and gave 20 million jobs to illegals.

This proves that people have adapted easily and quickly to the technological changes. Do you understand now??

Right. Adapted, meaning wages went down, people work more at oart time jobs, and some got discouraged and left the workforce.

The miracle of the free markets!

No, that's the miracle of open borders and a flood of low-skill, low wage illegal immigrants.

- But you guys are the ones who wanted free markets, right?

Well, you've got one, and all you do is snivel incessantly about it. "We wan gubmint to build a fence and shoot people. We want gubmint to stop people on the street and check their citizenship. And gubmint - we need to get rid of it".

Y'all are precious. Like Jerry's Kids, only logically impaired.

Failing to seal the border has no connection with free markets. That's simply a cynical political ploy to improve the Democrat's chances of winning even if it means destroying the country in the process.

- It has everything to do with free markets.

If you argue that markets should be nationally constrained, then you are admitting that government has a critical role to play in regulating markets.

 

[bripat9643]

dear, unemployment is 5.5% after 50 years of the computer/tech revolution and after idiotic liberal policies that drove 40 million jobs offshore and gave 20 million jobs to illegals.

This proves that people have adapted easily and quickly to the technological changes. Do you understand now??

Right. Adapted, meaning wages went down, people work more at oart time jobs, and some got discouraged and left the workforce.

The miracle of the free markets!

No, that's the miracle of open borders and a flood of low-skill, low wage illegal immigrants.

- But you guys are the ones who wanted free markets, right?

Well, you've got one, and all you do is snivel incessantly about it. "We wan gubmint to build a fence and shoot people. We want gubmint to stop people on the street and check their citizenship. And gubmint - we need to get rid of it".

Y'all are precious. Like Jerry's Kids, only logically impaired.

Failing to seal the border has no connection with free markets. That's simply a cynical political ploy to improve the Democrat's chances of winning even if it means destroying the country in the process.

- It has everything to do with free markets.

If you argue that markets should be nationally constrained, then you are admitting that government has a critical role to play in regulating markets.

Sorry, but the free market doesn't require us to open the flood gates to foreign immigrants. Furthermore, we don't have a free market in this country. We have a heavily regulated welfare state. If they got rid of all the social programs, then I might not have so much of an objection to open borders. However, I also want all government sold land to be sold off, including city streets, parks, schools etc. Then no foreigners could be here unless they were specifically invited.

 

[beagle9]

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???

Is it that the seller should be able to raise that price out of greed based upon that demand, or should there be price controls that protect the consumers from the possibility of greed driven market places or bubbles created out of greed when people position themselves for the next big thing ? Do you think people should be vulnerable due to the greedy controlling the markets or do you believe in there being equalizing powers that can curb the appetites of the greedy from being able to gouge us to death, and then shaking the nation to it's core? I mean as big as these corporations have become, if they decide to do wrong, then they can shake or rattle this nation badly. I don't agree with ignoring this these days, because we see what happens when we do. Now with that said I don't agree either with crooked government seizing on opportunities to somehow make slaves out of us all neither.

I don't like the mess that is made when greed driven corruption goes out of control or when government uses it as an excuse to fundamentally change this nation into something worse either.

 

[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???

Is it that the seller should be able to raise that price out of greed based upon that demand, or should there be price controls that protect the consumers from the possibility of greed driven market places or bubbles created out of greed when people position themselves for the next big thing ? Do you think people should be vulnerable due to the greedy controlling the markets or do you believe in there being equalizing powers that can curb the appetites of the greedy from being able to gouge us to death, and then shaking the nation to it's core? I mean as big as these corporations have become, if they decide to do wrong, then they can shake or rattle this nation badly. I don't agree with ignoring this these days, because we see what happens when we do. Now with that said I don't agree either with crooked government seizing on opportunities to somehow make slaves out of us all neither.

I don't like the mess that is made when greed driven corruption goes out of control or when government uses it as an excuse to fundamentally change this nation into something worse either.

I know that this isn't asked if me, but I want to say something about it.

I disagree that prices are set by supply and demand, generally. Most prices are administered, that is they are set based in a manufacturer's costs plus a desired markup, which will always be above the price that would be set by supply and demand under perfect competition.

The supply-demand pricing model is actually a model of perfect competition, which is an idealized model which is impossible. It's theoretically only used to teach market principles, but most people walk away with the idea that markets really work this way.

In the model of perfect competition, an infinite number of buyers and an infinite number of sellers negotiate sales in an unrestricted market over goods and buyers which are homogeneous, so that a buyer who does not get the price he wants can go to another seller without losing any utility or incurring any additional costs, and sellers can always find another buyer at the market equilibrium price. Since all of these conditions hold, the price will always adjust to a point where the supply and demand curves meet, which happens to be where the seller's marginal costs equal his marginal revenue. Marginal costs are assumed to be u-shaped, that is, after falling as fixed costs become spread over more goods, they then begin to rise as variable costs rise. This assumption is necessary because it limits the size that a firm can become, preventing monopoly (it has no basis in fact, but if you want to claim that a free market prevents monopolies, you have to make this assumption). Marginal revenues are always equal to the demand curve because there are an infinite number of market participants - no matter how many goods are flooded into the market by any seller, it does not affect the total quantity of goods for sale (because they are one of an infinite number of sellers).

This highly stylized model, with all of its ridiculous assumptions, is absolutely necessary if prices are to be flexible enough to create prices based on supply and demand.

In the real world, we firms are not one of an infinite number of firms, and we produce brands - goods that people prefer over other brands. Customers cannot simply find a Big Mac with any supplier other than McDonald's so McD's can charge more for a Big Mac than it would be able to if people could get them from any of an infinite number of suppliers.

McDonalds has a monopoly on its brand, though not a monopoly on hamburgers. When goods are branded, but there are many sellers of different brands of the same thing, we call that monopolistic competition.

Under monopolistic competition, it always makes sense for firms to produce less than they possibly could, in order to protect their price point.

McDonalds could open more stores than it does, but it is more profitable not to. By opening fewer stores they prevent their stores from competing with themselves, allowing them to charge higher prices.

It turns out this strategy is always profit-maximizing. If you manufacture a product, it will *always* be more profitable to manufacture a little less than you possibly could, and by restricting quantity, force customers to pay a little higher price.

If a grocery store is not selling as much of an item as it orders, it does not reduce the price of the item, but orders less of it, so that it gets the markup it needs, and devotes the newly empty shelf space to another product.

So the intuition that we do not get the best prices possible is correct. 70-80% of business administer prices: they endeavor to sell a little less than they possibly could, and sell it at a higher price.

In this sense, the free market does not achieve the efficiencies and benefits that free marketeers claim.

On the other hand, the question of price gouging becomes very problematic. The ability of firms to screw us a little on price also makes them more motivated to compete for market share, which encourages them to innovate and to offer us better products.

Would your life be better if you had a generic phone rather than the Apple or Android which you prefer? Because Apple and Android would not produce the phones they do if they couldn't gouge you a little on price.

All I wanted to say is that it's fairly complex, and the answers are probably more grey than black and white.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Is it that the seller should be able to raise that price out of greed based upon that demand, or should there be price controls that protect the consumers from the possibility of greed driven market places .

100% stupid libcommie fool wants mammoth wage and price control bureaucracy for each of 878,000 items for sale in American. USSR tried it. Nobody had any incentive to make anything and everyone stood in line for days to buy things that nobody wanted to make. In they end they had 20% of our standard of living.

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance? Is any other conclusion possible.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I disagree that prices are set by supply and demand, generally. .

100% stupid of course. Why does a candy bar cost a dollar and Rolls Royce $500,000?? What not price the Rolls at $1.00???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Most prices are administered, that is they are set based in a manufacturer's costs plus a desired markup, which will always be above the price that would be set by supply and demand under perfect competition.

100% stupid liberal gibberish of course. The desired markup might always be 10,000%. If the price is set that high demand would be 0. Do you understand??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

- But you guys are the ones who wanted free markets, right?

Well, you've got one, and all you do is snivel incessantly about it. "We wan gubmint to build a fence and shoot people. We want gubmint to stop people on the street and check their citizenship. And gubmint - we need to get rid of it".

Y'all are precious. Like Jerry's Kids, only logically impaired.

100% stupid liberal gibberish. Yes we want free libertarian markets but that is not the same as wanting open borders. Who in God's name ever said it was. That's an idiotic strawman if ever there was one. We believe in countries and borders. Are you really too slow to know that. OMG!!!

 

[initforme]

Well I do not believe any American citizen should be in a field picking veggies for $10 an hour. So how do we solve that issue?

 

[bripat9643]

Well I do not believe any American citizen should be in a field picking veggies for $10 an hour. So how do we solve that issue?

Why don't you let Americans decide for themselves what they're willing to do?

 

[bripat9643]

Most prices are administered, that is they are set based in a manufacturer's costs plus a desired markup, which will always be above the price that would be set by supply and demand under perfect competition.

100% stupid liberal gibberish of course. The desired markup might always be 10,000%. If the price is set that high demand would be 0. Do you understand??

This guy claims to be an economics guru, but he doesn't believe in the laws of supply and demand? That's like a mathematician not believing in addition and subtraction.