A solution for unemployment and under-employment

Again, I do not agree with government intervention in the private sector regarding creating jobs or your 'full employment'. Minimize government!

You can NEVER eliminate poverty! This is a hopeless political sound bite which cannot be achieved! You cannot make special arrangements using taxpayer money to artificially inflate the income of those who are in the lower rungs of the economy. And even if you did something so stupid, if you provide the lower rungs with more of anything, it's just a matter of time before the upper rungs are back to the same economic gaps. This is as silly as those who believe we can 'arbitrarily' increase the minimum wages to something well above so-called poverty...like to $20/hour. First, the government has no right intervening in the private sector to this degree, and second, it's just a matter of time before everyone above the poverty level also increases their income meaning those who were on the bottom and in so-called poverty will still be on the bottom and in so-called poverty. The only gain will be the horrific negative effect this will have on the global competitiveness of American manufacturers...

 

Instead of the government handing out more and more and more money for nothing in return...how about government creating jobs so when the wages are paid at least we get some productivity out of the spending. Today we get nothing...zero! Why are there pot holes in the road when along every road in the USA there are people receiving government welfare for doing absolutely nothing? Why do teachers complain about not having parental help in the school rooms when around every school in the USA there are people receiving government welfare? Why can't the government facilitate these people to get off their asses and do something in return for the government welfare they demand?

The USA is becoming a nation of DO-NOTHINGS!!!

 

Why do you believe what you do? From my perspective, our public sector must interfere in the private sector to the extent it must be (well) regulated, as specifically enumerated in the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. Therefore, from that line of reasoning to start with, why not reduce the need for public sector intervention in private sector markets, by drawing the least efficient labor market participants to unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and our existing laws regarding employment at will.

By harnessing natural public sector monopolies to provide for the general welfare and fixing Standards for the Union as public sector means of production our elected representatives can solve simple poverty in our republic and end our expensive, generation long War on Poverty.

An income can be considered a required resource under any form of Capitalism with an institution of money based markets, (but not necessarily Socialism with any institution of (religious) poverty).

Consider a hypothetical scenario that claims there would be less need for public sector intervention in private sector markets, if the least efficient supernumerary labor could opt for a form of minimum wage to not provide labor input to the economy. By providing recourse to an income, such a public policy choice would have a positive multiplier effect by ensuring the circulation of money that is so necessary to the institution of money based markets and that form of Capitalism. In my opinion, no private sector could be worse off, with less poverty of money in any given money based market.

One result could be a reduction of regulations regarding minimum wages for the private sector, since working for poverty level wages could, ostensibly, only be accomplished on an at-will basis if unemployment compensation clears our poverty guidelines; there would be no need for public sector intervention in the private sector regarding minimum wage laws.

We may need less regulation if mostly more efficient labor were attempting to command an efficiency wage -- instead of our current regime where warm bodies merely needing an income are required to have a work ethic, regardless of ability or desire.

I can claim, that under rational choice theory, no private sector can be worse off with a higher ratio of more motivated and efficient employees in their labor pool.

Is that a worse form of income transfer than merely micromanaging our tax codes, without necessarily getting any tangible results, but which do seem to more often result in capital gains for those already wealthy enough to make more money, under most forms of Capitalism. Is it any wonder why even artificial persons are not required to have an employment ethic to complement any work ethic, even in Right to Work States, under our our republican form of Government with its emphasis on Equality before the law regarding our privileges and immunities.

What excuse could any persons in our republic have for staying poor if they could no longer claim to be in official poverty. We could be also be lowering our tax burden by drawing participants from more expensive, means tested welfare. I subscribe to the concept that supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.

What objection can there be to securing that form of Individual Liberty merely by respecting a tradition of the rule of law regarding a federal doctrine concerning employment at will; at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage - that can be as easy to administer - and where the infrastructure already exists in every State of the Union and the federal districts?

 

I don't think there is a solution for unemployment and I don't think we'll see unemployment below 6% ever again. We're in a death spiral of capital flight and little or no demand for either products OR employees. In another year of two, even the outsourcers will understand that they can't count on America as a market in which to peddle their wares. I wish 'em luck trying to dump their products in the 3rd World.

 

repealing min wage would be crazy, were not trying to compete with foreign outsourcing by making this country a 3rd world country too

the real solution to unemployment is to make it cost American corporations as much to out-source as it does to in-source via tariffs on imported goods and labor


.

 

Government forces regulations on people and business and this is fine as long as those people and business can tolerate the regulations.

Government is a consumer in the private economy.

Government should never try to manipulate the private economy.

Forcing minimum wages is manipulation. IMO the only reason this is 'tolerated' is because most minimum wages are below most private compensation typically paid.

If you force minimum wage higher, by a large percentage like 25-50-100% higher, this will ripple through the entire economy, causing layoffs, business closings, inflation, and eventual higher wages for all other workers above the minimum wage.

Those who currently perform in the unskilled and lower-skilled jobs, and are paid lower wages, no matter the wage scales, will always be paid lower wages relative to the entire pay scale. They will forever and always feel like they are in poverty. They will forever and always be political pawns...

 

I am not sure what you mean; ensuring full employment (of resources) in the market for labor can be considered one function of government.

I am advocating lowering our tax burden by solving simple poverty through existing laws and existing infrastructure, in a manner that is friendly to the markets of Commerce.

Your argument would no longer apply since unemployment would no longer be an issue.

 

What objection can there be to securing that form of Individual Liberty merely by respecting a tradition of the rule of law regarding a federal doctrine concerning employment at will; at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage - that can be as easy to administer - and where the infrastructure already exists in every State of the Union and the federal districts?

What excuse could any persons in our republic have for staying poor if they could no longer claim to be in official poverty. We could be also be lowering our tax burden by drawing participants from more expensive, means tested welfare.

As a federalist, I subscribe to the concept that supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.

 

I do not consider this as a government function.

If the government and it's citizenry wishes to nationalize the private economy then government can do whatever they wish. Meanwhile keep government out of the private economy except as a consumer...

 

Our federal Congress is delegated the socialized Power to Tax, to Provide for our socialized common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

In my opinion, providing for the general welfare should include ensuring full employment (of resources) in human capital markets, but especially, the market for labor. It should be considered a virtue under our republican form of government with an emphasis on the social concept of equality instead of the capital concept of profit.

Supply side economics can supply us with better governance at lower cost, but only by achieving efficiency gains for our economy by ensuring better employment of resources. We already know merely micromanaging our tax codes for political fun and political profit is not a very good solution.

We already know that public policy choices should always be an investment in the general welfare and generate a positive multiplier effect on our economy--it is implied in the specifically enumerated terms general welfare versus, for example, the (specifically non-enumerated) general badfare or the general warfare or even the common offense.

How would you accomplish what you suggest, under our republican form of Government?

 

A few things here. First off, it really is a competition in unskilled labor with the third world. If we raise wages here, you may as well call it the Robotic and Chinese Full Employment Act, because one of two things will happen: Either we replace even more jobs with robots and computers, or we ship the factory to China. If you want to see the end of paid cashiers, very simply raise the wages of cashiers so as to make the self-checking computers cheap in comparison. If you want even more factories in China, raise wages in the West -- because it's no longer a huge burden to have the goods shipped from China or India. Tariffs sound good, except that they'll have the effect of creating trade wars -- so sure we have all the manufacturing of iPads or whatever in the US, but our soybeans rot in the fields because China won't buy our exports. So it's essentially killing off one industry (farm exports) to save another, which aside from being a political nonstarter, doesn't result in a net gain in jobs or wages. So what we can do is essentially beat the Chinese at the cheap labor game or essentially re-imagine the American economy in which no American can be employed in unskilled labor because those jobs will be done in China.

It isn't the 1950's when America was the world's workshop. You can't act like it is.

 

I am glad you agree that our politicians should not feel any sense of entitlement to micromanage our tax codes for political fun and political profit, instead of private fun and private profit.

Yet, how often and how sincerely do you advocate for abolishing our wasteful and useless, War on Drugs, as a form of public sector intervention in private sector markets that had no profit motive for the private sector, until relatively recently. In my opinion, it should be considered a form of sloth to not have a FDA label on any drug in US markets.

 

I do not believe we would have the same inefficient public policies we currently have, if the wealthiest had to pay wartime Tax rates, even for a War on Drugs.

 

Why is it so difficult to convince those of the opposing view to be moral enough to bear true witness to our laws regarding a federal doctrine concerning employment at will?

We could be solving for a "natural" rate of unemployment generated as a "waste" product of capitalism and simple poverty due to a lack of an income, that should normally be obtained in a more efficient market for labor. A new equilibrium of unemployment below one percent should be a realistic goal for our economy, especially with the statism of our current regime.

The infrastructure and supporting laws already exist. We could be lowering our Tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy at the same time, such that supply side economics can function in a manner analogous to a rising tide lifting all boats to a new "equilibrium".

 

It is mostly propaganda and rhetoric at this point.

 

We could be lowering our Tax burden by drawing participants from more expensive, means tested welfare to simpler, unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines. It should engender a more efficient market for labor, especially for the employment sector and potentially reduce costs as a result.

Since we could be solving for a simple poverty of money that would normally be obtained from employment in a more efficient market for labor, any private sector in our republic should benefit from a more consistent circulation of money in our money based markets.

Ending this dilemma as a political passion of the moment should enable our elected representatives to better enjoy their cushy, part time jobs.

 

What does the Insurance sector consider an optimum rate for unemployment compensation regarding poverty guidelines? Market based metrics are always welcome under any form of Capitalism.

 

Why Americans cannot understand the obvious you state above befuddles me? None of this is about politics except when politicians and their sheep are involved in the discussion. It is the simple economics of competitive trade, and today, trade is just about anywhere in the world. It is stupid of Americans to believe we are going to compete our domestic unskilled and lower skilled labor against off-shore labor, and this is especially exacerbated as Americans demand more and more compensation for less and less productivity. Sure there will always be some quantity of unskilled and lower skilled jobs in the USA but never enough to keep up with population growth. Today we have about 23 million unemployed and/or underemployed and this number will increase; IMO by 2020 it will be close to 30 million. The question is how to provide these and others with a paying job? Well, if the private sector cannot do it, then it must be done by government with taxpayer funds...which on top of all the other budget crap we have taxes MUST increase...on ALL Americans! Instead of government just handing out welfare cash, IMO they really need to get some productivity in return. Government needs to build stuff like infrastructure and other service type jobs. Bottom line is this issue is not just about people needing employment; it is also about the USA going broke, more deficits, more debt, less tax revenues, more government demands...all of which IS NOT sustainable! Obama and our representatives just chase their tails with smoke & mirrors politics while the sheep maintain their hope that Uncle Sam or Uncle Obama will solve all of their problems...

 

Government must collect taxes but government cannot suck the life out of Americans with continuous fiscal mismanagement of the nation.

I never talk about the so-called war on drugs??

 

The best thing to do is raise wages significantly, subsidize automation, and shorten the workweek. Solves unemployment, improves efficiency, and incomes increase. We don't need or want jobs if they're low income.

 

Why do you object to solving simple poverty on an at-will basis through unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines?

 

Unemployment compensation can be mostly self-funding; unlike means tested welfare should ever be. Jobs may be created in the private sector the extent there is any demand for complementary products and services in the private sector for those who wish to purchase them.

In any case, since it could solve simple poverty, such a simple social safety net could lower our Tax burden while improving the efficiency of our (global) economy, to a new and more developed, equilibrium; ostensibly, as a form of human capital, infrastructure development that promotes the general welfare.

 

Ensuring full employment of monetary resources in our money based markets can do more for our Standard of living, than teaching everyone how to fish; merely increasing the circulation of money in our money based markets can be a simple solution for simple poverty.

What excuse could any person have for staying poor, if they have enough money to get out of it on their own, eventually?

 

What percentage of people who are unemployed do you think actually receive unemployment checks?

I bet the answer surprises you.

 

What objection is there to merely subsidizing the least efficient, to pursue opportunity costs, other than directly competing in a saturated market for labor?

Unemployment compensation already exists in every at-will employment State in the Union. It would be a simple matter to regulate unemployment compensation such that it clears our poverty guidelines, fixed by the general government and the several and sovereign States.