What creates jobs?

[code1211]

Increased productivity with the same proportional returns to capital = increased wages.

Then how do you account for the fact that the introduction of a union into a corporate enviroment generally leads to higher wages with less productivity?

Immie

Actually the opposite is true.
www.askneca.com/unionadvantage/Electrical - Biz Plan (2).pdf
^Unionized construction business are 17% more efficient.

http://www.oliverwyman.com/content_images/OW_EN_Automotive_Press_2008_HarbourMedia08.pdf
Union Car plants had:
1) 70% of the most efficient assembly plants.
2) All 10 of the most productive plants are union plants.
3) 70% of the most efficient engine plants
4) 80% of the most efficient transmission plants.
5) Union plants assembled their vehicles in fewer hours in 11 of the 12 product categories. Union plants productivity:
1) Small cars was 32% higher.
2) Mid-sized cars was 13% higher.
3) Pickups were 40% higher.

In business, efficiency is not measured in widgets per hour, but in widgets per dollar.

 

[code1211]

www.askneca.com/unionadvantage/Electrical - Biz Plan (2).pdf
^Unionized construction business are 17% more efficient.

that article attributes Union advantages to superior training -- if Unions, like ancient guilds, train workers; then Union skilled-labor would warrant wages higher than non-Union unskilled-labor.

what about "certified", but non-Union, workers ? do Unions monopolize "certifications" ?

union programs have enrolled 72 percent of construction apprentices since 1989 [~3:1]

that article conflates "training" with "Union", lauding the latter, for the former, which may be misleading

Union-signatory electrical contractors can provide the GREATEST PRODUCTIVITY because they employ skilled union electricians

According to the BLS, Union labor costs nearly 30% more, than non-Union labor; but:

Union construction work sites are 17% more productive [per hour] than non-union sites

thus, Union labor Productivity-per-Dollar is only ~90% that of non-Union labor. Cp. Japanese Labor-Cost-per-Vehicle is ~$100 less than American competitors.

Like anything else, there is more than one type of union.

Construction unions are generally organizations that function more like the old guilds. they are a group of tradesmen who are expert in their field and hire out to those with cash to pay to accomplish jobs.

These folks are like pipe fitters, Boilermakers and so on.

Other unions, like Teamsters and Retail Clerks, are groups of people that were hired and very likely trained in their work by their employers, who have banded together in semi-unskilled jobs to get better pay.

The former group establishes standards and enhances the value of the labor while the latter establishes a slower pace of production and enhances the cost of labor.

 

[code1211]

Spending creates jobs. And it doesn't matter whether the spending is from a public dollar or a private dollar, all that matters is that spending occurs. Because that creates demand. And when you have demand, you have investment. And when you have investment, you have jobs.

When the spending comes from the collected tax dollar, that reduces the freedom of the taxed individual to choose what that dollar will buy.

It also increases the cost of the taxed commodity or product and thereby reduces the value of that same thing.

When the spending comes from the private sector dollar, it produces tax revenue while it creates the created thing.

There is a vast difference between the tax dollar spent and the private dollar spent.

It's the difference between urine and water.

 

[code1211]

Spending creates jobs. And it doesn't matter whether the spending is from a public dollar or a private dollar, all that matters is that spending occurs. Because that creates demand. And when you have demand...you have jobs.

Public Spending (of Taxes) occurs only at the expense of the Private Spending, which would have occurred, had that money remained in Private hands. I.e. Public Spending has an "Opportunity Cost" (foregone Private Spending), whereas Private Spending does not. Threatening "Government Guns", to take money, from economic actors, does not make their economy stronger; does make their economy weaker.

That's a right-wing myth. People need jobs. If the private sector won't provide it, then government must step in and do it for them. Once people are back to work, they get paychecks. When they get paychecks, they spend money. 70% of our economy is from consumer spending and small businesses.

Corporations are enjoying record profits and are sitting on trillions of dollars that are not being invested back into the economy because there is no demand.

Like everyone else, people in business make financial decision based on what will likely enhance the value of their finances.

Right now, the government is letting everyone know that investing money must be approved by the government and if you invest incorrectly, they will shut you down or sue you. Ask Boeing or Gibson what happens when you expand a non-union shop in this business climate.

The current government has turned the most entrepreneurial society in the history of the world into a cash-hoarding group paralyzed with fear.

Want proof? Your already presented it. The American Business community is sitting on more that three trillion dollars in cash because they don't want to risk it under the Big 0's fascism.

 

[8537]

Okay, if you are going to deny supporting the union piece, I'm sure not going to argue with you and try to tell you what you were thinking as you tried to tell me what I was thinking.

Immie

I mean this sincerely: That post pretty much sums up what people do on this board all the time. And quite succinctly! And I'm not claiming to do differently sometimes.

 

[8537]

Spending creates jobs. And it doesn't matter whether the spending is from a public dollar or a private dollar, all that matters is that spending occurs. Because that creates demand. And when you have demand...you have jobs.

Public Spending (of Taxes) occurs only at the expense of the Private Spending, which would have occurred, had that money remained in Private hands. I.e. Public Spending has an "Opportunity Cost" (foregone Private Spending), whereas Private Spending does not. Threatening "Government Guns", to take money, from economic actors, does not make their economy stronger; does make their economy weaker.

Huh? The opportunity cost of private spending is (1) public spending and (2) other options for public spending. And the opportunity cost of private consumption spending is private investment.

Some level of public spending is required to ensure that private spending happens.

 

[Dragon]

In business, efficiency is not measured in widgets per hour, but in widgets per dollar.

To use that measure is to improperly assume what you are trying to prove.

 

[Billo_Really]

Public Spending (of Taxes) occurs only at the expense of the Private Spending, which would have occurred, had that money remained in Private hands. I.e. Public Spending has an "Opportunity Cost" (foregone Private Spending), whereas Private Spending does not. Threatening "Government Guns", to take money, from economic actors, does not make their economy stronger; does make their economy weaker.

That's a right-wing myth. People need jobs. If the private sector won't provide it, then government must step in and do it for them. Once people are back to work, they get paychecks. When they get paychecks, they spend money. 70% of our economy is from consumer spending and small businesses.

Corporations are enjoying record profits and are sitting on trillions of dollars that are not being invested back into the economy because there is no demand.

Like everyone else, people in business make financial decision based on what will likely enhance the value of their finances.

Right now, the government is letting everyone know that investing money must be approved by the government and if you invest incorrectly, they will shut you down or sue you. Ask Boeing or Gibson what happens when you expand a non-union shop in this business climate.

The current government has turned the most entrepreneurial society in the history of the world into a cash-hoarding group paralyzed with fear.

Want proof? Your already presented it. The American Business community is sitting on more that three trillion dollars in cash because they don't want to risk it under the Big 0's fascism.

It's not risk, it's demand. Business will always invest where there is a demand for a particular good or service. No one sits back and does nothing when there is a buck to be made out there.

But there is one thing we need to realize, business isn't taking the orders from government, they're the ones giving the orders to government. Government is doing exactly what it is told to do by industry. As an example, the military industrial complex makes money off war, so we've been at war for the last 10 years, even though 70% of the population wants the wars to end. We spent a trillion dollars in someone else's country, while ours went through an economic meltdown. If government was calling the shots, our tax dollars would be spent in this country.

Just look at it this way, how could industry possibly be "paralyzed with fear", when they've made $6 trillion in profits over the last 10 years? If you want to put fear in business, force corporations to pay 25% tax rates for capitol gains and dividends. Right now, they only pay 15%.

 

[code1211]

In business, efficiency is not measured in widgets per hour, but in widgets per dollar.

To use that measure is to improperly assume what you are trying to prove.

What am I trying to prove?

 

[Zander]

The OP is essentially saying: if only we paid the unskilled and stupid more money, then we'd have more jobs....It perfectly illustrates the stupidity of progressives.

 

[code1211]

That's a right-wing myth. People need jobs. If the private sector won't provide it, then government must step in and do it for them. Once people are back to work, they get paychecks. When they get paychecks, they spend money. 70% of our economy is from consumer spending and small businesses.

Corporations are enjoying record profits and are sitting on trillions of dollars that are not being invested back into the economy because there is no demand.

Like everyone else, people in business make financial decision based on what will likely enhance the value of their finances.

Right now, the government is letting everyone know that investing money must be approved by the government and if you invest incorrectly, they will shut you down or sue you. Ask Boeing or Gibson what happens when you expand a non-union shop in this business climate.

The current government has turned the most entrepreneurial society in the history of the world into a cash-hoarding group paralyzed with fear.

Want proof? Your already presented it. The American Business community is sitting on more that three trillion dollars in cash because they don't want to risk it under the Big 0's fascism.

It's not risk, it's demand. Business will always invest where there is a demand for a particular good or service. No one sits back and does nothing when there is a buck to be made out there.

But there is one thing we need to realize, business isn't taking the orders from government, they're the ones giving the orders to government. Government is doing exactly what it is told to do by industry. As an example, the military industrial complex makes money off war, so we've been at war for the last 10 years, even though 70% of the population wants the wars to end. We spent a trillion dollars in someone else's country, while ours went through an economic meltdown. If government was calling the shots, our tax dollars would be spent in this country.

Just look at it this way, how could industry possibly be "paralyzed with fear", when they've made $6 trillion in profits over the last 10 years? If you want to put fear in business, force corporations to pay 25% tax rates for capitol gains and dividends. Right now, they only pay 15%.

People who own businesses own them because they enjoy running things.

When Liberals decide that the critical decisions of business need to be made by the government, business owners chafe.

If there is a good reason to invest, investments will occur. If there is a good reason to not invest, not investing will be the rule of the day.

By the activity of the business community, we know that they have almost universally come to the same conclusion and that is that this is not the time to invest. The result is the worst economy since the Great Depression and the slowest recovery since the Great Depression.

Ain't it funny that the same policies were in force then as now?

 

[Widdekind]

People need jobs. If the private sector won't provide it, then government must step in and do it for them. Once people are back to work, they get paychecks. When they get paychecks, they spend money. 70% of our economy is from consumer spending and small businesses.

Corporations are enjoying record profits and are sitting on trillions of dollars that are not being invested back into the economy because there is no demand.

Government embodies Force -- ergo, you advocate Force, to take money (from those who happen to have, e.g. American businesses), i.e. "mugging money".

non-violent assertion of "needing money" is begging; non-violent long-term economic "remedy" for unemployment is "entrepreneurial spirit" (cp. if more Americans had been more entrepreneurial before now; then more Americans would be employed now)

American businesses may yield more money to "mugging", than "begging"; "incentives matter"

 

[Widdekind]

how could industry possibly be "paralyzed with fear", when they've made $6 trillion in profits over the last 10 years?

businesses are not fearful, to "keep doing what they've been doing", i.e. "pursuing the tried-and-true" ($6T profits over last decade, from business); businesses are fearful, to "invest in something new" ($3T cash-on-hand, un-invested)

By the activity of the business community, we know that they have almost universally come to the same conclusion and that is that this is not the time to invest.

the economy has been "burned by Bernard [Madoff]", i.e. "once bitten twice shy" ? $1T of Manganese nodules sit on the surface of the sea-floor silt, waiting somebody to "reach down & pick them up"; Great Plains topsoil could be recovered, from the Mississippi delta (amidst rising world populations & crop demand)...

 

[sealybobo]

People need jobs. If the private sector won't provide it, then government must step in and do it for them. Once people are back to work, they get paychecks. When they get paychecks, they spend money. 70% of our economy is from consumer spending and small businesses.

Corporations are enjoying record profits and are sitting on trillions of dollars that are not being invested back into the economy because there is no demand.

Government embodies Force -- ergo, you advocate Force, to take money (from those who happen to have, e.g. American businesses), i.e. "mugging money".

non-violent assertion of "needing money" is begging; non-violent long-term economic "remedy" for unemployment is "entrepreneurial spirit" (cp. if more Americans had been more entrepreneurial before now; then more Americans would be employed now)

American businesses may yield more money to "mugging", than "begging"; "incentives matter"

Demand fixes everything. Put money back in peoples pockets and they spend it. So we shouldn't have sent all those jobs overseas.

And 10 million plus illegal immigrants are now doing jobs Americans were doing. Its an illegal employer problem. The border has two signs. A small one that says stay out and a big one that says HELP WANTED.

And today those manufacturing jobs that are coming back home are coming back at $10 hr. That's not going to cut it. But you guys cried that they were making too much money at $35 hr. Well $10 hr isnt cutting it. No wonder the economy is only slowly improving.

Back when people were making good money, they were spending.

With the cost of healthcare and gas and everything else going up, we Americans are basically making less than we were 30 years ago. But corporate profits and ceo pay has never been higher. It isn't a coincidence that in those 30 years, the rich have all but destroyed unions. They only account for 12% of our workforce when they use to be 35%. No conincidence that our wages haven't gone up because unions are what bring wages up. Without them, all the profits go to the top. We need more not less unions. Thank God the GOP have attacked police, nurses, firefighters and teachers unions because now they know it wasn't just the fat lazy auto union worker that they thought makes too much. They think we all make too much.

 

[Widdekind]

When the spending comes from the collected tax dollar, that reduces the freedom of the taxed individual to choose what that dollar will buy. It also increases the cost of the taxed commodity or product...

When the spending comes from the private sector dollar, it produces tax revenue while it creates the created thing.

Taxes "burden" and "distort" economies; ergo, Tax Dollars are spent, only after "doing damage" to the economy, and "muddling market signals", when "majorities mug minorities" (supposedly sacro-sanct, since the 'Civil Rights Movement' in American).

economies dominated by "Redistribution of wealth" are predicted to reflect (and flow from) the psychology, of "muggers" ("take it"), over "laborers" ("make it"); offense-defense theory of war predicts when the former (or the latter) Dominate (or not):

Offense-defense theory argues that the relative ease of offense ["vote for a populist Law", de facto recruiting Government Force, i.e. Military-Police, as a "national posse of bandits"] and defense [self-defense] varies in international politics. When the offense has the advantage ["majority Rule"], military conquest becomes easier and war is more likely ["Progressive Taxes"]; the opposite is true when the defense has the advantage [? [honor culture, compelling odds-evening mono-et-mono ?]]. The balance between offense and defense depends on geography, technology, and other factors.

 

[Widdekind]

we shouldn't have sent all those jobs overseas.

And 10 million plus illegal immigrants are now doing jobs Americans were doing.

Domestic labor has demanded "astronomical wages"; Domestic business has fled for Foreign labor, who is "more down-to-earth" in their demands (e.g. if you don't want immigrants doing your job, do it better, for less)

 

[Billo_Really]

we shouldn't have sent all those jobs overseas.

And 10 million plus illegal immigrants are now doing jobs Americans were doing.

Domestic labor has demanded "astronomical wages"; Domestic business has fled for Foreign labor, who is "more down-to-earth" in their demands (e.g. if you don't want immigrants doing your job, do it better, for less)

First off, there is no such thing as an "illegal person". Second, how many "un-documented workers" are hedge fund managers?

Here's something to think about, even though someone is in the country illegally and working at a minimum wage job, at least they are contributing to our economy by paying taxes and spending the cash they earn in this country. Which is more than I can say about all these war-mongers who got no problem spending $1 trillion US tax dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where there is absolutely NO BENEFIT for average American workers.

 

[Billo_Really]

People who own businesses own them because they enjoy running things.

They're not just running their own businesses, they're running our government as well, to the detriment of American citizens.

When Liberals decide that the critical decisions of business need to be made by the government, business owners chafe.

WTF are you talking about? Your use of the term "Liberals", is as if we all were one entity, with one mind set and spoke in one collective voice. And if you believe that, your either ******* nuts, or are just to afraid to deal with reality. And that reality is that we have over 29,000 lobbiests in Washington setting the government agenda and writing our laws. Big business, big government and the mainstream media have all sync'd into this weird entity that has resulted in us no longer having a representative government.

If there is a good reason to invest, investments will occur. If there is a good reason to not invest, not investing will be the rule of the day.

By the activity of the business community, we know that they have almost universally come to the same conclusion and that is that this is not the time to invest. The result is the worst economy since the Great Depression and the slowest recovery since the Great Depression.

Ain't it funny that the same policies were in force then as now?

If they didn't invest, then how is it possible for them to be enjoying record profits?

 

[Billo_Really]

When the spending comes from the collected tax dollar, that reduces the freedom of the taxed individual to choose what that dollar will buy. It also increases the cost of the taxed commodity or product...

When the spending comes from the private sector dollar, it produces tax revenue while it creates the created thing.

Taxes "burden" and "distort" economies; ergo, Tax Dollars are spent, only after "doing damage" to the economy, and "muddling market signals", when "majorities mug minorities" (supposedly sacro-sanct, since the 'Civil Rights Movement' in American).

economies dominated by "Redistribution of wealth" are predicted to reflect (and flow from) the psychology, of "muggers" ("take it"), over "laborers" ("make it"); offense-defense theory of war predicts when the former (or the latter) Dominate (or not):

Offense-defense theory argues that the relative ease of offense ["vote for a populist Law", de facto recruiting Government Force, i.e. Military-Police, as a "national posse of bandits"] and defense [self-defense] varies in international politics. When the offense has the advantage ["majority Rule"], military conquest becomes easier and war is more likely ["Progressive Taxes"]; the opposite is true when the defense has the advantage [? [honor culture, compelling odds-evening mono-et-mono ?]]. The balance between offense and defense depends on geography, technology, and other factors.

Re-distribution of wealth is occuring, but it's going UP, not DOWN.

 

[editec]

American working classes have been losing purchaing power for the last 40 years.

This economy is the outcome of the stupid policies that cause that decline.