A solution for unemployment and under-employment

You must realize the foreigners we are shipping jobs to can work for so cheap because their entire existence is subsidized. Those people working in America have to pay their own rent, ever rising. Their own utilities, ever rising. Their own food, ever rising. Their own clothes, ever rising. The cost of living is outrageous, to the point half our nation could riot if it keeps on going with this current trend of stagnant wages at the bottom. And people actually have the nerve to argue wages should go backwards? Keep a shotgun by the dinner table, friends.

 

There are specific deficiencies in your argumnent. First, all markets will exhibit dynamic monopsony. All markets have job search frictions. The only issue is the extent that other forms of monopsony are relevant. For example, I mentioned earlier the monopsonistic power generated through heterogeneity in worker preferences. That essentially predicts overall employment effects will tend to zero. This reflects possible firm exit effects.

Your rersponse also suggested this is somehow theoretical. It isn't! Whilst there is no consensus in the empirical evidence (and we wouldn't expect one because of the wide range of empirical methodologies adopted), a review of the recent analysis will confirm that insiginificant or positive employment effects occur.

You're also wrong with your 'help lower income' comment. The minimum wage, as a povety alleviation device, is neither efficient or effective. This reflects the tendency of minimum wage workers to often be part of non-poor households. The analysis is very much focused on efficiency. From reducing inefficient wage differentias to assisting other policies such as equal pay legislation (e.g. Without positive discrimination policies a minimum wage can narrow gender differences)

 

Why should potential labor market participants be "penalized" for adhering to the letter and rule of law as enumerated in a federal doctrine regarding employment at will?

Providing an incentive for the least efficient labor market participants to not provide labor input to the economy and instead pursue some other opportunity costs could improve the efficiency of our private sector.

 

So let me understand this. Your argument is that some of those on unemployment are "securing the details" of their next business venture? My observations are quite different. Most that I have known on unemployment wouldn't even help me cut down a tree or mow a lawn "under the table" for fear of losing unemployment benefits (i.e. Big Brother watching you and looking for any reason to cut you off). They became distorted versions of their former selves and lost confidence. Unfortunately, they were all white so they had a long road of recovery ahead of them. You should consider that the concept of a potential entrepreneur actually even considering collecting a charity as suspect in their character.

 

I agree with you that our current regime is not very user friendly. What you have experienced would not be the case if persons could apply for unemployment compensation, merely for being unemployed.

But, labor may still not be as available to the extent some individuals go to school or pursue more marketable vocations.

 

Naive idea.

Who decides what a living wage is? How high are taxes going to have to be to balance this equation? What jobs are these newly employed people going to do, and why does what they are doing need to be done? What are the responsibilities of the employers? Who will be in charge of this redistribution?

Way too much upfront work for this to ever be applicable.

It would end up being welfare by another name, and would have the same pitfalls and the same critics as the current system.

Sorry.

 

Calculating the living wage(s) isn't a problem. The 'idea' is demolished for one reason: it would encourage low skilled employment. Given the living wage analysis is necessarily focused on removing the abundance of low paid labour, that's terribly uncunning

 

I've got a better idea. We should reduce the work week to 30-35 hours. Then, we should get rid of worthless jobs that provide no benefit to society. People would get paid the same as they currently do, and work less. Since you get rid of jobs that weren't productive in the first place, the overall productivity in the economy would actually go up.

 

Not a fan of imposing hours constraints. Survey data already shows that most workers are happy with their hours. The work week decision should be left to employer-union bargaining. Also note that restricting hours (particularly full time to part time) is a classic aspect on a low skilled equilibrium. For 'good jobs' both sides have an inteest in finding their specific expect hours as they attempt to maximise productivity and therefore increase both profits and compensation

 

More of "what decides how much we will subsidize". What decides how much we will subsidize is how much we save by converting people on unemployment benefits to a subsidized job. As in we will only subsidize enough to match the savings.

My answer is a negative increase to no tax increases. Read here:

I don't know, the jobs haven't been created yet. probably something like manufacturing, burger flipping, or cleaning.

Why does any job need to be done? Because there is market demand for it and it produces income for people.

To give accurate reports on their employees wages

The same people who are redistributing now, the IRS

If you're against welfare, than you should look at this as a stepping stone towards less welfare.

This plan is in a raw form, I'm not saying implement it without some professional work on it.

Lets not end it here, why don't we have a reasonable discussion on this plan?

 

That shows you how stupid people are that they are happy with the hours they are working. People shouldn't be happy working any amount of hours. You work to live. If you can live comfortably without working, why would you work? Hours worked have increased since the 70's and real wages haven't gone up.

 

if we reduce the hours people worked people would have less money to sustain themselves and it would increase the complexity of running a business. Reducing hours would hit low income families especially hard since they need all the money they can get from their job. Although yes it would reduce unemployment but it creates serious problems.

 

You should have more faith in your fellow man. If anything, we have evidence of the simplistic nature of the orthodox view of labour supply. It suggests its purely neutral, providing a means to exchange leisure for consumption. In reality we can gain substantial utility or disutility from work. Its something acknowledged in the heterodox schools; e.g. Green economics and its focus on how 'big business' increases alienation and destroys positive work relationships

 

7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8%

 

A good percentage of the earnings go to things where it may not make sense say your a married couple and the family has children child-care is rarely free if it costs $400 a month just for that not to mention other things and the wife is working for $600 a month at Walmart maybe her staying home would be better. Toss out something like a fancy like an iPhone for a cheaper alternative and trim here and there one could do that. And the wife could do self-employment such as babysitting a third child to make money maybe making this income neutral.

I never got the need for work as a single man when I do work as much as I want to I can earn $8500 a year and usually get a place to live a room or something and get by on most things I need. In my area. That is working maybe 45 hours a month with some longer days (Buskers aka sidewalk performers do not miss days where lots of people with cash are milling around say on my area Free Museum Day is big). I just do without some things like a car, cell phone and keep things I want like my laptop and internet service a very broad use technology. Now if you have a family of course you may need more money but a lot of people seem to mix up needs with wants IMHO, its the wants that can add up to money over your income (trips, electronics, eating out, a bad habit like smoking, buying movies when you can get them from the library or get netflix or go to Redbox and spend $1.30 for a day of viewing). There are ways to save money its just what people are willing to give up over working less or saving more money. Choices plain and simple.

Do you live in an area with buses and light rail do you NEED a car then? Likely not even if its more convenient but if you are a medical doctor or a nurse who visits people then you do, then work on making it a business expense and use it just for work.

Do you want cable fine are there alternatives RedBox with the cheapest local service for basic stations and using the library and finding movies online like YouTube? It can work and save ample money that is what I do but have Netflix since I can afford that.

People don't seem to care they see something and want it and wonder why they have issues with money.

 

You have no accurate data or research that shows low income families waste their money on unnecessary products, so the logical assumption is that low income families need money for necessities since they have a poor income. Please site accurate research into the spending habits of low-income families or don't bother making the that argument.

 

We could be solving poverty merely by being moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws regarding employment at will.

 

You would still receive the same amount of money as if you had worked more hours.

 

If everything that is needed can be produced by machines, what use is there for human labor?

 

The notion that everything can be produced machines is relevant only to a spod alternative dimension

 

Then the cost to produce products/services goes up for businesses and industries raise their market prices and the cost of living goes up for everyone without raising people's income.

Although I got to admit it is a smart idea even if it's a bad one (I've come up with bad ones before too , like a way to inflate the currency by 2x or more without printing a dollar). Can you give me feedback on my idea?

 

Is this really that hard to understand? That is why you get rid of businesses and service industries that produce nothing to benefit society (examples are lawyers, financial companies, and many other white collar workers). The businesses will have the same costs as they currently do unless they are unproductive in which case they will be shut down. Then, if you have people working only in productive jobs, you can pay them the same amount as they currently make while working half the hours.

 

Businesses cost per product will go up, for example if a company runs a factory in which 9 workers working 45 hours a week each who produce 500 products a week, and they all get paid 3600$ a week total (400$ each), and then you reduce working hours to 40 hours. What would happen is the company would have to hire another worker to maintain production, then their cost per product goes up from 7.20$ per product, to 8$ a product (total amount paid to workers each week divided by products produced). Thus the cost of the product to the consumer goes up and it is equivalent to slashing their income.

 

Which is why businesses will need to cut back on the financial operations part of their business, and other parts that aren't going into producing products.

 

Look, businesses need to reduce all costs regardless of whether or not your plan is passed. Anything that doesn't aid production, sales, or the business's survival is already cut. Making things harder on businesses solves nothing.