It was you, not I who brought up both terms, 'employment ethic' and 'work ethic', so don't ask me to explain the meaning you wish to convey. Please define their meaning in clear and concise words as YOU meant them to be understood.
it is an ethic, appropriate to the specified Cause. Why do you believe Labor should have a work ethic?
Obviously, a work ethic and an employment ethic are both ethics. And since you introduced the terms, and now have related them as being appropriate to the 'specified Cause' please elaborate how you wish your words to be interpreted as you put them to use! Why do you continue to question something I haven't said? Are you claiming that labour should not have a work ethic looking for me to disagree and further detract from the threads topic "Reality of Inflation"?
Labor should have a legal right to work, in Right to Work States, or simply be eligible for unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. Unemployment compensation should also be an hourly equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour since a minimum wage will be fifteen dollars an hour.
they don't because a guaranteed job is one you don't have to work hard at. 1+1=2 To a Republican conservative libertarian this is kindergarten level libsocialist stuff that a liberal can never understand simply because he will lack the IQ to understand it. Sad.
not enough attention span to go around? or simply be eligible for unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. Unemployment compensation should also be an hourly equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour since a minimum wage will be fifteen dollars an hour.
"Labor should have a right to work" They should not because a guaranteed job is one you don't have to work hard at. 1+1=2 To a Republican conservative libertarian this is kindergarten level stuff that a liberal can never understand simply because he will lack the IQ to understand it. Sad.
I know about capitalism's natural rate of unemployment; it is why i am advocating sufficient socialism to solve for that market failure and natural rate of inefficiency. Why should Labor care, if they can opt for unemployment compensation or welfare, if it is that serious. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage merely "exports" our "sweatshop labor" jobs anyway.
1) subject is guaranteed work, not minimum wages. How can you learn if you cant determine what subject is??. 2) under capitalism supply equals demand so there is no unemployment. you're even wrong about another subject and incapable of learning.
The problem is capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. Why not solve for that at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage, minus one dollar?
Or you can use NAIRU to reduce inflation. NAIRU has the additional benefits of deflating wages and creating a pool of idle, unemployed labour resources which stops demands for higher wages. Unfortunately it also stops demand and deflates the economy over time, but you can't have everything!
I agree with you except for 2 and 4. Free movement of labour is only allowed if it serves capital. Likewise Right to Work laws are only allowed in forms that serve capital- their current form bears little resemblance to the intention of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I think a hell of a lot of young Australians locked out of the housing market would disagree with you there, Ted.
QUOTE=Ted;1066321539]Obviously socialism does not work and neither does public sector investment in research since it is far easier for govt to waste the taxpayers money than for a private company to waste hard earned private money. 1+1=2[/QUOTE] ROFL! Oh Ted! I adore your "obviously's"! I define socialism in a mixed capitalist /nationalist democratic economy as democratic socialism and it works pretty well in Scandinavia! And public sector investment in research works so poorly I'm not using on the internet via a wifi connection replying to you from the other side of the world!
1. Actually the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees both(*)Article 23. (*) (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. (*). Article 25. (*) (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. (*). Article 22. (*) Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.: 2. Yet unemployment, underemployment and individuals of working age have given up trying to participate in the workforce. Supply ISN'T equaling demand, Ted. Your wonderful free market is failing.
A rather simple term, "reality of inflation", which I would think all could agree on what it is becomes engulfed in responses relative to the causes and effects of inflation. A question that I feel needs answered is, "Does inflation really help or make it easier to produce more equality where none exists?" If there are items worth $0, $10, and $100 and our currency is devalued to half its value doubling the cost of each item would the following NOT be true? Initial value of item A $0, new value of item A = $0 x 2 = $0 Initial value of item B $10, new value of item B = $0 x 2 = $20 Initial value of item C $100, new value of item C = $0 x 2 = $200 The reality of inflation is that it can, and does, effect us quite differently. As noted in the OP, if the price of beer increases it has no effect on those of us who don't drink beer, or find something else to drink instead and if enough products consumption is decreased it may effect the tax revenue received from them by the government requiring the loss to made up elsewhere creating an effect on those who would otherwise not have been impacted.
actually we don't have a free market!!! Liberals have interfered with it 1001 different ways. 1+1=2 Hard to imagine you didn't know that. But that's the nature of liberalism. It is based in pure ignorance.
NAIRU stands for Non Accelerating Inflationary Rate of Unemployment. I was actually having a shot at those who believe unemployment is a supply issue of low quality/under trained applicants. This guy explains it better than I ever could: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=26163 From your posts we're both progressives, Daniel.
