A solution for unemployment and under-employment

Even a Constitutional branch of government such as the judicature of the United States is not immune to political passions of the moment. Our several governments however, do have the delegated or inherent power to fix Standards for their jurisdictions, including from any Weights and Measures duly obtained by a department of a government of our Union that provide some rational basis for those Standard for the People of that jurisdiction.

To the extent a Standard is fixed as a public act it is no longer political but a part of our regime of, rule of law; until the next political passion of the moment and process.

In my opinion, it is one reason why I believe our elected representatives should not have to feel guilty about a cushy, part time job. I believe it may be worse, to establish a work ethic where they feel they need to create more new laws without solving the problems of previous laws, for a potential bonus.

 

This is not about logic?? This is my opinion. You can feel the opposite if you like. If you wish to maximize government and minimize the private economy...good luck...


Originally Posted by OldManOnFire
This is not new to me? I have always preferred to minimize government and maximize the economy. Let government govern and let the economy produce and profit...

 

Government must do both; create new laws and enforce/modify current laws. I don't care about political passions or whatever excuses; manage the nation and do so without politics and special interests and righteousness...

 

How strong is this Ideal? Does it bend? Does it break?

 

Supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance, at lower cost.

 

I usually defer to Revier when it comes to simple English, but not when it comes to simple American English.

 

The only theory that matters is the theory of supply and demand (economics) and the assumption of perfectly competitive markets, for comparison and contrast.

 

Did that study also compare and contrast the effects of an efficiency wage versus a minimum wage and its effect on firm productivity and efficiency?

 

Are you flip flopping on your position regarding reducing government intervention in private sector markets? While I am sure such a model will work, since it is a model that could be based on that required by communist regimes which require a work ethic. In the US, however, we already established the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will, which most States of our Union already recognize and have existing infrastructure in place.

It seems to me, that our republican form of Government is also supposed to side with the Cause of Individual Liberty through the rule of law, under our common law system of justice.

In my opinion, eliminating the scourge of poverty in our republic is a form of securing the Blessings of that form of Liberty.

UI could let those who may be in poverty due to a simple lack of income that would normally be supplied by a more efficient market for labor, have recourse to an income that could better ensure full employment of those (monetary) resources in our economy.

Along more esoteric lines of reasoning, public goods and public services could be less congested with fewer people using them at the same, such as commuting, since they would not be burdened with a work ethic and could go to school or learn new and more marketable vocations through independent studies or engage in entrepreneurship with an income at their disposal.

 

This is not intervening in the private sector. The private sector can post open jobs and the government can create it's own jobs all posted on one sight and used to supplement unemployment cash handouts. Minimize government and maximize the private economy...

 

Do you believe that would be more complicated or less complicated than letting labor achieve their own equilibrium in the market for labor through recourse to our own laws?

In my opinion, our elected representatives should not be burdened by anything more complicated than our current regime of minimum wage laws is now.

 

I don't have a problem with the private economy today, during a recession, or during a boom...the economy will rise and fall according to myriad stuff most of which IS NOT the government. The private sector does not have a big issue with unemployment...the government, especially a social-leaning government, has all the issues trying to support and protect a citizenry that never prepares for a down economy or unemployment.

I'm just saying if the government, or politics, are so worried about creating more employed citizens, then do something about it but outside of the private economy. Create a kick-ass job bank site, spend more taxpayer cash in the private economy, hire more government employees...whatever government wishes to do that the taxpayers will fund...

 

Would you work for $2.50 per hour? I know I wouldn't.

 

Maybe there are lots of jobs which are primarily part-time, which require no skills, and people in certain situations might enjoy working a few hours for a few bucks...cash only?

If a person goes through life earning close to minimum wage, how much do they contribute in federal income taxes? If the answer is about $0, then perhaps all work performed below the minimum wage is paid excluding FICA and federal income tax liabilities. The pay is still reported but no withholding.

This will not solve even 5% of the unemployment issue but it's interesting dialogue...

 

I agree with you that under AnCap "theory", private sector markets have no basis to care about externalities to those specific and money based markets. Government, is instituted among men to secure the Blessings of Liberty to our selves and our posterity.

Do you disagree that one function of government even under our current regime, is to better ensure full employment of resources under our form of political-economy?

In my opinion, supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance, at lower cost.

Merely increasing the circulation of money in our institution of money based markets could provide for the general welfare by engendering a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

Why should we burden our elected representatives with something more complicated than our current regime of minimum wage laws? In my opinion, I don't believe our elected representatives should feel guilty for their cushy, part time jobs.

 

Your missing the subsidization part, the employer would pay $2.50 an hour and the government would also pay the worker something like $5.50 to the employee.

 

I don't care what the government does as long as the voters/taxpayers support it. But again I don't want government meddling in the private sector. If government wants to ensure full employment then do this off-grid from the private economy...

 

We already have something like this with the Earned Income credit. In my opinion, simply playing shell games with Statism is not an effective solution to lowering our tax burden. What objection would you have if persons could merely apply for unemployment compensation, whenever they are unemployed?

If a new regime of unemployment compensation clears our poverty guidelines, it would also have the effect of solving official poverty in our republic, without adding new bureaucracy.

What objection can there be to being moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws regarding employment at will.

 

I am not sure what you mean by off-grid for the private sector; are you sure you would prefer to limit the market based metrics established in our mixed market economy.

What if the employee and the employer pay half of any unemployment taxes, merely to establish that basis in equity and obtain those metrics in our market based economy?

Unemployment compensation could be mostly self-funding with the public sector making up the difference for those who have not provided enough labor input to the economy to establish an unemployment account carried by most employers. There is also no reason why the private sector could not provide complementary products and services for those who wish to purchase them to receive better benefits than the standard benefits, as an additional form of market based metric. Currently, only some several and individual firms provide such products and services to only some of their employees.

We could be eliminating the politics involved in unemployment and solving for official poverty at the same time, while improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden through a positive multiplier effect. It is what supply side economics should have always been about.

 

On average, I think unemployment insurance only costs $42 per year and for this the unemployment payout is what $300-$350 per week. It's just insurance so if you want $600-$700 per week in payouts, then charge the employee and employer $84 per year. But I think the caveat must be that this payout is temporary, lasting maybe only three months, then dropping 50% for another three months, then nothing.

Why not create termination insurance? If a person loses their job (not for cause) a termination insurance policy can payout weekly amounts or a lump sum.

I don't want government meddling in the private sector! This means don't force the private sector to pay for unemployment insurance when this does not benefit the employer in any way and does not add any value to the product and services...all it does is inflate prices. If PEOPLE want all of this social programming, then let PEOPLE pay for it...

 

What if an employer chooses not to provide that benefit on an at-will basis in order to lower costs and increase profits for the shareholders?

From my perspective, there is nothing wrong with negotiating or merely purchasing, "after market" products and services from the private sector to complement that Standard, fixed by a public sector?

 

An employer has no choice...FICA withholding's are mandatory. Government forces this expense, or at least 1/2 of it onto business, which is really stupid. If PEOPLE require unemployment or termination pay then let PEOPLE buy their own insurance...or let government provide it if the taxpayers will fund it.

Lowering costs does not always mean higher profits. Lower costs allow more competition which is typically lower consumer prices which means profit margins are not necessarily increased.

No matter the reason, when government mandates a program which costs $X per year, those $X must come from people and business and misc. excise taxes. The only question is how to apply the taxes to the different groups...

 

While i don't disagree with you entirely, i do believe that markets will find new equilibriums with or without public sector intervention; so why not merely establish Standards and let the private sector meet them? full employment can be one goal and end to this form of public sector intervention which can be considered a truer form of investment in the general welfare due to any positive multiplier effect that can be engendered.

i also believe our Tax monies should be used to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

I also don't believe our elected representatives should have to feel guilty about their cushy, part time jobs; nor should they be burdened with the effort of micromanaging our Tax codes through that form of central planning, on a national basis if Commerce, well Regulated will better provide for the general prosperity and therefore, the general welfare.

There is no reason why only artificial persons could not be burdened with a tax that effectively eliminates simple poverty in our republic for real persons. In my opinion, it is one thing States and Statism should always be good for in the United States.

 

this was done back in the late 70s and it didnt work out too well then ..it was called ceta program

 

and it done the late nineties it was tried again with the russian immigrants and that didnt do much either..