Don't look like Uncle Ferd gonna get his job wringin' farts outta shirt-tails atta dry cleanery back anytime soon... CBO: America Will Never See Full Employment Under Obama March 26, 2013 - The Congressional Budget Office is now projecting that the U.S. economy will never achieve full employment during the eight years Barack Obama serves as president. See also: Full Employment? Actual vs. Natural Unemployment Rates March 26, 2013 - Sources: Actual average annual unemployment rates for 1998 through 2012 are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The projected average annual unemployment for 2013 through 2012 and the natural unemployment rates are from the Congressional Budget Office. Years of full employment are bolded. MORE[/quote]
As time moves on...the American worker is going to have to compete globally. Which means we're not going to have revolutions like Silicon Valley/Fairchild Semiconductor, and Intel, and AMD in the 70's...without educated people who innovate new products. It's either boom, or bust, and booms are created by ideas, that come mostly from educated people. As far as manual labor is concerned...I can't see high paying jobs in that sector coming back
[/QUOTE] As with any economic forecast, you have to take them with the recognition that they are often grossly inaccurate. Since Jan 2010, the unemployment has fallen from 9.8% to 7.7%, or an average rate of 0.0567 percentage point per month. At that rate, the unemployment level will hit 5.0% in 47 months, or just at the end of Obama's term. Who knows if it will or not. Greater automation and off-sourcing will continue to eat into job availability. But on the other hand, as the boomers retire, we will have a relatively smaller workforce. The bigger long term problem may well be not enough workers, not not enough jobs.
Natural unemployment has shot way up since the minimum wage laws. People skilled in trades have gone way down as a percentage of the workforce too. Social mobility also down since then. I guess the argument that before the minimum wage bump by LBJ Americans were able to get job skills for working for lower initial wages while they trained was right. Well, at least when the unions weren't working to block access to their labor market from new entrants.
Unermployment was no higher and wages were relatively higher when unions were stronger. Could be a coincidence.
We could be solving for the market based phenomena of a natural rate of unemployment under Capitalism, with sufficient Socialism to ensure full employment of resources in the market for labor.
What union represents the unemployed? Unions cost the consumer and taxpayer when they are strong and control the government, in these cases they do not effect employment rates they just reduce the value of everyone's labor that is forced to buy union. When they are weak, they lose their jobs to private competitors either here or somewhere else, but everyone is richer for it.
Where will the money come from? Where will it go? To the causes you want, or I want, or the causes someone whom you have never met wants? Who gets the cash, and how will they apply for it? I think the answer to all those questions is: Where will the money come from? People who work and invest. Where will it go? To whomever has the power and determination to lobby our leaders. To the causes you want, or I want, or the causes someone whom you have never met wants? Even if it is for the causes you want, everyone who wants the cash will have to engage in rent seeking to get it, which produces inefficiencies at best, and corruption wherever practiced. Who gets the cash, and how will they apply for it? Try setting up a rent seeking regime that isn't a big waste of resources and is also legitimate.
I don't know, what? While I'm certainly critical with some union actions, I disagree with your opinion. I don't think it is mere coincidence that wages have stagnated as unions declined in influence.
What union does not drive up prices, and/or seek protection for its members? That is the point. Unions definitely get more for their workers, but someone has to pay. It is usually the taxpayer, the consumer, or the company who cuts back on investment. All are bad for the country, no matter what wages they produce. "I don't know, what?" The point is the unions always protect their own, to the detriment of everyone else trying to enter that field. They keep the numbers lower then the market demands, so they can get a higher price. Prices and wages are different then value. "While I'm certainly critical with some union actions" You would be very hard pressed to find a union that does not hurt society. I can't think of any, can you?
johnmayo wrote: I guess the argument that before the minimum wage bump by LBJ Americans were able to get job skills for working for lower initial wages while they trained was right. Pre-LBJ most company owners were 'come up through the ranks' (including service during WWII) when learn-on-the-job was the accepted route. It was also during the "high school to retirement" era of working careers. But then things started changing with more college graduates getting MBA's, engineering degrees, etc. So the mantra became "get `em already trained". This started the trade school era for everything from welding to nursing to truck driving, etc. because then business didn't have to invest in training employees to do their jobs - they had to pay for their own training on their own dime. And if one couldn't afford it - tough luck. Most jobs can be 'learn on the job' type jobs, it's just that most companies are not willing to invest the time to bring someone up to speed. Productivity is higher if the employees are pre-trained on their own dime, and as we all know higher productivity leads to higher profits. So as you can see, it's all about the bottom line, the typical business or company manager doesn't give a hoot about helping others attain the American dream - only that they themselves do. And they wonder what has happened to the old virtue of 'company loyalty' when the employee leaves to take a better paying job. Great mystery ain't it?
We are not talking about college grads, we are talking about high school and high school dropout workers. The minimum wage makes it much harder for small businesses and tradesmen to invest in apprentices. They have priced apprenticeships right out of the market, and forced kids into trade schools. The unions get in on this too of course, and big business was forced pre LBJ to abandon training as you say when it had forced salaries to deal with, all higher then even the minimum wage. That didn't effect small business as much, which has always been the real driver of trades training in this country, it is still today, just hobbling along well below capacity. I agree we should remove both controls, but I as just discussing the government one. People say "But then people will make less", but that argument is flawed because it assumes that the business is paying them more then they are worth. All of a sudden these greedy businesses are being charitable? That is not the case, and belittles the worker. They earn their pay, and with time and experience they will earn more. Unemployment among the poor shot up after minimum wage laws began to climb. Early on, they were nominal and had little effect. Now they do, and at $10 an hour they will do more. The government will make that $10 pay like $12 when they are done fooling around. With a high minimum wage businesses have every incentive to only hire trained people, and hire low skilled workers only for low skilled jobs where they will likely stay unfortunately. That is the point of them after all, that is why unions want them, (for protection for their workers from new entrants to the field that will drive down the value of their labor- no union worker makes the minimum wage).
