it's not just about wages, it's about hours & job security too

Discussion in 'Labor & Employment' started by kazenatsu, Feb 24, 2018.

  1. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you think the US has high poverty because of security issues then you need to have a rethink!
     
  2. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Income security is an issue, in any at-will employment State. Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, solves that. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage would increase tax revenue.
     
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's true, but insecurity rises exponentially with an increase in unemployment (or underemployment).

    One of the hardest things for people to deal with is unpredictability. Am I still going to have that job six months from now? When you don't have predictability, it's hard to make commitments and purchases. You have to plan for the future as if you might not have that job, even though you probably will.

    Of course there is never total predictability, but in strained economic times the unpredictability multiplies.

    Many people might not feel it is worth the cost of an apartment and would rather be homeless, even though they theoretically have the income to afford it. Their reasoning might go somewhere along the lines of this: If I sign a 12-month lease, what's going to happen if I lose my job? Because obviously they're not going to want to, and can't really afford to have that lease if they don't still have their job the whole time, even if that's only a 20% chance. They don't have the certainty so they can't afford it.
    And it's very often the people in lower paying jobs who have less job security. You can read all sorts of stories of people getting fired through no fault of their own by their employer, fired for reasons that may seem relatively trivial, or minor health problems that are really just a natural part of life. The employer doesn't owe them any job security and will fire them whenever it's convenient for them to do so, or whenever there may be any indication the employee may have done something wrong. It's almost like the employees in some of these jobs can't expect job security. This would be a lot easier for them to plan ahead for a possible period of unemployment if they weren't earning minimum wage. It's very different earning $70,000 a year and not being sure you'll still have that income 3 months from now than it is earning $20,000 and not being sure.
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mish mash of concepts, ensuring zero meaning. NRU is supply side economics; minimum wage macro effects should not be exaggerated
     
  5. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Unemployment compensation for Capitalism's, Natural Rate of Unemployment, solves for that.

    Labor should not have to bear that non-tax burden, when Capitalists are getting tax breaks, not more social requirements regarding a work ethic or hiring ethic, especially, in alleged, Right to Work States.

    Labor should have recourse to market based forms of income stability; that Actually conform to our own and already existing laws.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2018
  6. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It is a current metric and is currently used for political purposes that benefit Capitalists, not Labor, the most.
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it's a right wing concept that shifts the emphasis to supply side economics
     
  8. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unemployment compensation brings along problems of its own, and also can be inherently unfair.

    In general, the lower the level of unemployment, the higher the level of unemployment compensation that it is practical to offer. As one more extreme example, in Denmark at one time the unemployment rate dropped down to 2.4% and they were able to offer 90% unemployment insurance. The good job opportunity was so plentiful that, contrary to what one might expect, there were relatively to few people who took the unemployment insurance for long.

    On the other hand, when there are high unemployment rates (and this is the situation where unemployment compensation would be most needed) it is very problematic to institute unemployment insurance into an economy. The quality of job opportunities available at that point is such that there are many people would rather take the free money. It's also a lot more expensive and harder to finance unemployment insurance in an economy with high unemployment.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2018
  9. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    supply side economics is about supplying capitalists with better services for a reasonable cost.

    regardless, it can be used as a market based metric for demand side economics, where Labor is adequately compensated.

    Higher paid Labor would simply consume more and pay more in taxes more, than our current regime.
     
  10. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree to disagree. Unemployment compensation should be compensating Labor for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment; there is no down side, to ensuring a form of full employment of resources in markets for human capital.

    An upward pressure on wages is what Labor needs, to happen automatically.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2018
  11. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    for political purposes, not economic purposes. everybody knows, ensuring full employment of resources in any given market but especially markets in human capital; must be Good and not Bad since it provides for the general welfare and therefore, the general prosperity.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2018
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another nothing comment! You've already been informed of the reality: referring to fully employment of resources makes no sense with right wing guff like the NRU. It says that the market is self-correcting. It also says that you need to eliminate any extra-market interference (including generous welfare payments and minimum wages).
     
  13. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree to disagree, to the extent it can be measured, accurately. zero point nine is less than one percent.

    Periodic, market failures that have to be corrected for, gainsay your contention. However, I do agree that, ceteris paribus, markets would experience, corrections, as a normal part of the business cycle.

    And, we should distinguish between necessary and proper, and what the right wing alludes to, regarding government spending.

    Furthermore, solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner with recourse to an (basic) income on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, simply makes it more easy and more convenient, for any given market segment to "autocorrect, in a more capital fine manner."

    Employment or unemployment compensation is a quite liberal scope for the exercise of the power to provide for the general welfare. Why be more conservative, or nationalistic and socialistic.
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's no debate so it doesn't matter if you agreee or disagree. You've chosen a right wing concept which is alien to your overall recommendation.

    Completely misses the point. The NRU is about automatic correction such that any policy should be about removing supply side problems (including minimum wages)

    Also completely alien to the NRU approach. A basic income, if you buy the NRU, will simply generate higher unemployment and therefore greater tax burden.

    Meaningless comment.
     
  15. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    lol. it is an economic term, nothing more.

    The NRU is a simple metric, nothing more.

    Nothing can be alien to simple metrics; only lousy public policy.

    The NRU is a simple legal concept that merely favors Capitalists over Labor; capital coincidence under Any form of Capitalism?

    I may not have been clear, I hope to abolish "wage slavery" under our Capital regime.

    I subscribe to the federal doctrine; thus, words must mean something.
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope. Its an economic approach derived to portray supply side economics as the answer.

    Nope. It is an indicator ultimately of perceived structural flaw in the economy (with those flaws focused on aspects which you supposedly champion, such as the negative effects of minimum wages)

    Your effort to embed economic vocab willy-nilly merely led you to destroy your own argument.
     
  17. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    links? in any case, i don't subscribe to the dogma, only the full faith and credit of official public acts regarding any form of metrics.

    Somebody has to, "pioneer the trail".
     
  18. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pick up any Econ 101 text. The NRU is derived from an attack on the relevance of the Phillips Curve. At the extreme, it suggests that any fiscal policy stimulus will be automatically ineffective.

    You applied an ideological term inconsistent with your argument. You have only two choices. Choice 1: admit that your argument is wrong and embrace the NRU. Choice 2: stop throwing in a term alien to your argument.
     
  19. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    from my perspective, an alleged, natural rate of unemployment is simply a legal mechanism that favors capitalists of wealth in regard to official metrics and public policy decisions. And, it suggests no such thing; lowering that rate can only mean, more market participation by Labor, ceteris paribus.

    Increasing market participation under capitalism is analogous to this social concept:

    If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost. --Aristotle
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2018
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    i.e. you've misinterpreted a right wing term and, thinking it made your comment look more intelligent, you accidently destroyed it.
     
  21. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    unfortunately for you, it applies to political-economics in the manner described by, myself.
     
  22. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    i understand the term; i find it useful for any discussion providing for solutions instead of merely excuses.
     
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you understood the term, you'd know it makes a mockery of your whole approach. Self-destruction isn't a positive trait!
     
  24. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    That is Your story bro. It is not my story. You are welcome to provide valid arguments for rebuttals to any concepts You think may break.
     
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing to do with me. Its historical fact. If I had my way I would have stoped the stupidity of NRU analysis, itself created through stupidity over the Phillips Curve.
     

Share This Page