Balance of trade, globalization, and unemployment

How would the healthcare sector be worse off, if Labor has recourse to a basic income, guaranteed?

 

The mythical 'some'? Let's have an example! The idea that left wingers adopt right wing concepts, designed only to hinder optimal interventionism, is not credible.

 

lol. Pareto Optimal public sector sector intervention is a "holy Grail", for some on the left.

 

Standard pareto optimality doesn't make sense in public sector interventionism. Such interventionism refers, after all, to public good provision (and how non-excludability and non-rivalry can generate gains for all, changing our understanding of efficiency).

Try again!

 

i thought we were discussing how the best way for socialism to merely use capitalism for all of its capital worth, in modern capital times.


Isn't this, anarcho-Capitalism?

Opportunity costs.

The public sector sector is merely more efficient at scale economy, not economies of scale; while the reverse is true, of the private sector.

 

We're not discussing anything. You're just misapplying Econ 101 terms

 

that is Your story, bro. my story is, you are simply misunderstanding those terms.

 

Liberal Danny delights in gibberish sentences while Reiver delights in using his own word definitions. The 2 of you could not communicate in 1000 years! You deserve each other! Have at it boys!

 

I'm happy for you to try counter argument. So far...

You've used right wing concept to try and support left wing argument. You've misapplied pareto optimality.

When are you going to come out with something that makes sense?

 

how will the healthcare sector be worse off; by solving for a simple poverty of money on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

you have to explain the process, not merely claim, "nothing but repeal, works for the right wing".

 

You haven't solved poverty, so your question is moot.

 

we are discussing the concept, not reality. The right wing refuses to go along with the left wing, whenever the poor may benefit.

How will the healthcare sector be worse off; by solving for a simple poverty of money on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

you have to explain the process, not merely claim, "nothing but repeal, works for the right wing".

In this scenario, Labor is either employed or unemployed with recourse to unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed.

Let's fix fifteen dollars an hour as a minimum wage and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour equivalent, simply for being unemployed.

Capital circulates! That is the only Capital requirement.

 

I'm not interested in make believe.

 

Seattle has a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage; and we could have solved simple poverty Yesterday, but for right wing, "hate on the poor".

 

Wrong again! The minimum wage is crucial for reducing the market failure associated with monopsonistic power. However, the evidence shows it is an ineffective poverty alleviation device. You can refer to living wage analysis, but that's more to do with structural change of the economy.

 

In our US case, it should be cost competitive with the opportunity cost of social services; currently around fourteen dollars an hour.

And, you still haven't explained how our form of Capitalism would be worse off, if everyone has recourse to an (basic) income, guaranteed.

 

This is a nonsense reply. The minimum wage evidence is focused on the US. That the minimum wage is an ineffective poverty alleviation device is accepted. Why don't you try and respond to that?

 

That is the whole and entire point to the difference, between left wing policies and right wing policies.

The right complains we even have a minimum wage.

The left wing is figuring out how to pay more people more, to cover the cost of government.

 

The left and right agree that the minimum wage cannot solve poverty. Let's not pretend otherwise! There is the living wage movement, but that ultimately is about changing the very nature of the economy.

 

No one is claiming the minimum wage can solve simple poverty on its own. Capitalism is worthless, without a profit motive.

If, you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that I included unemployment compensation, to help ensure Adam Smith's version of full employment, not Capitalist's version of full employment, for the Capital Cause.

 

You've said nothing again. You haven't referred to Adam Smith at all. His analysis into the ethics of capitalism was a lot more involved. All you've done is repeat what we know can't solve poverty: i.e. minimum wage and basic income guarantee. At least you avoided referring to the right wing NRU limitation this time....

 

Barely 12% of American labor finds itself in Manufacturing today. Where do the other 88% find jobs?

One guess. Services Industries!

What are those? See here: INDUSTRY CATEGORY CODES LIST. All those listed from Industry Category Code 2211 downward can be considered "Services Industries".

Plenty of jobs there - which is why unemployment is down below 5% in the US ...

PS: The robots aren't going away. They're here to stay and do jobs in the Information Age that is upon us. The Industrial Age is over and done with for America and Manufacturing industries though they remain in existence will continue to hire a minimum quantity of human workers.
PPS: That's progress, whether you like it or not. Go with the flow or sink.

 

And we also know that the service sector will also be greatly affected by AI and robotics, eventually leading to only a small part of any workforce will be needed. Unless you can imagine a sector where robotics and AI will never move into, in the service sector. So if you are hoping for a service sector large enough to employ all of the people displaced by AI and robotics, tell us what that is.

Your plenty of jobs is meaningless when they don't pay enough to get out of poverty and to be caught in the class of the working poor. But you are of course correct in that progress, even if it implodes capitalism will not stop. But what it creates will be the kind of social instability that turns a nation inside out, with lots of horrible consequences. One has to try to see the big picture of what so called progress will create. Some people are doing that and they are quite alarmed. You on the other hand are afflicted with some vision problem, in not taking this to its logical conclusion.

You must be fine with seeing a middle class shrink, which continues, as that is the trend. This is what progress has yielded. And fine with the disparity in income that slave labor, open borders, AI and robotics will continue to grow. At what level of this disparity will we see a repeat of what FDR faced, a threat to capitalism? Threatened by what? Socialism, communism and perhaps a new "ism" in our future.

I think your lack of foresight is blocking the big picture view of where these irreversible trends are taking us. And you will not see it destructiveness until it has alreary eaten your lunch and everyone elses.

And tell us exactly how that 4 percent unemployment is figured? It it really an accurate reflection of reality? Shadow stats which figures the jobless rate in a more honest and accurate manner has unemployment at 21.5 percent for april 2018. So, that claim of 4 percent is actually a lie. And I am sure it helps your position, the fake stats, but your position just suffered a fatal blow to its validity. Figures don't lie, but liars can figure and that 4 percent you mentioned is just another LIE. But lies are needed when you are devastating your own working people, and you refuse to admit it, because you can pull out a 4 percent figure. lol We call that pissing on a fellow leg while telling him it is just rain. So put your pecker back in your britches. I know what you are trying to do.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

 

lol. Thanks for confirming my hypothesis.

Employment, unemployment compensation, or means tested welfare, should be all the social services that should be required.

How much more cost effective could that be?

 

There us no solution to poverty through welfare policy; there is only stabilisation of income. Any solution will be pre-welfare.