Discussion in 'Labor & Employment' started by kazenatsu, Feb 24, 2018.
It needs more than that; e.g. a switch to worker ownership and cooperatives
i agree to disagree. i believe we need better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia.
That won't create the needed pre welfare income distribution. It will merely stabilise aspects of the economy (e.g. using investments to reduce issues of localised overheating)
Regulating well the unorganized militia must have some effect.
Nope, that's what we'd call "talking bobbins"
I agree to disagree. it should be a simple ratio; besides, in California, the militia should be firebreak qualified, as well.
Another nonsensical comment.
Not at all; Why do you believe it is not a simple ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia that is the security problem in any free State?
And, California militia should be, firebreak qualified, as well.
Fires in California cost billions.
I've got a question...
#1: What made this apartment complex, for example, appealing to you enough to seek an apartment there?
#2: If you are living among others in the complex, how are the other single or non single tenants making their ends meet?
#3: Is this apartment complex a long term complex or short term? In other words, are you the only one there seeking to enter into the job force and move upwards?
#4: If it can be more like a dormitory, a work dormitory to work out from, would it be easier to grasp as far as living arrangements are concerned? Or are you seeking to make that apartment complex your permanent 'home' address?
Rambling on about a militia when the issue is about inequalities created through market power is randomness, nothing more.
Wellness of regulation, reduces market randomness, that is the whole and entire Point; Order versus Chaos. We have a Second Amendment and should have, No Security Problems, if we simply and merely, "bear True Witness to our own, Second Amendment".
Still no economics mind you.
You didn't even want to "hear my story", before. Hypotheticals, can be fun as well.
Let's simply "practice with California". We have a State Militia under the sole authority of the Governor as commander in chief.
State Capitalism is Good for applying "capital concentration (of force)", when Necessary.
Better aqueducts, and better roads, and more well regulated militia should be able to ameliorate this cost.
California State militia should be firebreak qualified and potentially, jump and wingsuit qualified.
This is only one example. There are others in this same category, if you want to explore or justify my use of economics.
No I don't.
I merely want to refer to economics on an economics sub-forum. Rambling on about State Militia is not economics. Its just rambling.
I agree to disagree. I thought you were paying attention. You must have missed this:
Here, let me make it simpler and easier to understand, for you,
Wellness of regulation, reduces market randomness (uncertainty), that is the whole and entire Point; Order versus Chaos. We have a Second Amendment and should have, No Security Problems, if we simply and merely, "bear True Witness to our own, Second Amendment".
If you think the US has high poverty because of security issues then you need to have a rethink!
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.
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.
Mish mash of concepts, ensuring zero meaning. NRU is supply side economics; minimum wage macro effects should not be exaggerated
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.
Separate names with a comma.