Unemployment

[LAM]

The consequences of the clueless implementation of attempts to muscle the economy (minimum wage edition). Very sad.

Out of 196 countries in the world do you know how many have a sustainable economic growth model with a large middle class that is a natural function of any economic system or the markets? zero...

A large middle class is created via policy and part of that policy is setting a wage floor. Countries that do not have a minimum wage AND have sustainable wage lead economic growth are covered by national collective bargaining agreements.

If you ever bothered to read any of the works of Adam Smith you would understand how the majority of labor does not naturally share in the prosperity that accompanies economic developments over time.

 

[Swiper]

lam, if u understood how the minimum wage destroys jobs and has nothing to do in building a middle class you'd get a gold star in economics 101.

 

[LAM]

lam, if u understood how the minimum wage destroys jobs and has nothing to do in building a middle class you'd get a gold star in economics 101.

my god your daft, labor market equilibrium in an industrialized economy is fantasy it does not occur in reality. The deadweight loss attributed to the effects of a mandated wage floor are unavoidable as with all economic policy there is either a negative effect on the supply or demand side of the equation. In the presence of decreasing returns to labor, price setting implies an increase in the price given the wage as employment increases. Put another way, it implies a negative relation between employment and the real wage|just like labor demand. Given the price level, wage setting implies higher nominal wages if unemployment is low|equivalently if employment is high. In another way, it implies a positive relation between the real wage and employment, just like labor supply. Adam Smith stated that the "invisible hand" would guide markets to equilibrium. That does not only not hold true in the face of globalization and in the shift from a manufacturing based to service based economy in a country with a very large labor force but it also doesn't account for the fact that the equilibrium wage is not naturally a living wage. Low wages cause not only weak employment but they are insufficient to contribute to any measurable amount of economic activity.

The belief that the removal of the wage floor would lead to "full employment" is pure delusion and is not backed by empirical data or any real world case scenario.

 

[Swiper]

lam it's simple economics. when something cost more you'll have less of it. when labor cost more you'll have less labor. companies buy your labor, when your labor costs more they buy less of it. then you also have supply and demand. the more unemployed the more labor available the less it costs to buy.

 

[LAM]

lam it's simple economics. when something cost more you'll have less of it. when labor cost more you'll have less labor. companies buy your labor, when your labor costs more they buy less of it. then you also have supply and demand. the more unemployed the more labor available the less it costs to buy.

Actually there's nothing simple about it your trying to apply neo-classical theory and it's preoccupation with perfect competition in labor markets. Labor markets are naturally imperfect and the assumption that labor markets function exactly the same as commodity markets is erroneous at best. Neo-classical theory neglects to take into account business fluctuations, inflation, deflation or the effects of rapidly raising prices (such as health care costs increasing at double the rate of the CPI, etc.). It also neglects to factor in the effects of profit maximization or the effects of technology.

 

[Zaphod]

lam it's simple economics. when something cost more you'll have less of it. when labor cost more you'll have less labor. companies buy your labor, when your labor costs more they buy less of it. then you also have supply and demand. the more unemployed the more labor available the less it costs to buy.

If only economics was indeed simple. If it were economic theory would be cut and dried, it would no longer be theory but fact. You put ten economists into a room and they'll talk about ten different economic theories and how ten of them are right and nine are wrong.

 

[SeattlesBest]

Shit the way I see it is. At least you know the guy.. Think of it this way. Your taxes are going to get stolen from you anyway. At least it's your Buddy's having a good time on your dime. Not some crack head.

 

[Swiper]

Only 44% Of U.S. Adults Are Employed For 30-Or-More Hours Per Week

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-06/only-44-us-adults-are-employed-30-or-more-hours-week

 

[Swiper]

Out of 196 countries in the world do you know how many have a sustainable economic growth model with a large middle class that is a natural function of any economic system or the markets? zero...

A large middle class is created via policy and part of that policy is setting a wage floor. Countries that do not have a minimum wage AND have sustainable wage lead economic growth are covered by national collective bargaining agreements.

If you ever bothered to read any of the works of Adam Smith you would understand how the majority of labor does not naturally share in the prosperity that accompanies economic developments over time.

tell that to all the people that are losing their jobs because of the minimum wage increase.

 

[Swiper]

When Obama Wasn't in Office, Krugman Slammed the Minimum Wage



In 1998, Krugman reviewed a book that supported the living wage, titled ?The Living Wage: Building a Fair Economy.? But Krugman slammed the idea: ?The living wage movement is simply a move to raise minimum wages through local action. So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment.?
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/02/when-obama-wasnt-in-office-krugman.html

 

[Bowden]

Only 44% Of U.S. Adults Are Employed For 30-Or-More Hours Per Week

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-06/only-44-us-adults-are-employed-30-or-more-hours-week

Have you ever noticed, that there something ignored by most conservative writers and media like CNBC related to employment issues, worker hours and the increasing use of part time labor working under thirty a hours a week, with low or no benefits?

WalMart, allocates 15 billion dollars of cash for buying back stock.
That cash allocation stock buyback level is only possible if they arbitrage labor and intentionally impoverish employees by paying them a low wage and restricting their hours to under 30 a week.

This is trickle up economics in play and is a form of corporate welfare.

You, I and every other taxpayer is subsidizing this low wage arbitrage model that trickles up capital to the corporate investor and owner economic classes through corporate stock buybacks and dividend payouts to investors by our payroll taxes that fund big government socialist welfare programs used by lthe ow wage employees that qualify for welfare due to low compensations.

The billionaire Waltons that own Walmart and own the majority of WalMart shares are the biggest beneficiaries of this type of corporate welfare.

 

[Bowden]

Even if the ACA 30 hour a week mandate for health care insurance provision was removed, large businesses like WalMart are probably not going to hire more employees at over 30 hours a week if that reduces their operating margin spreads and free cash after operating expenses to the point that they do not have as much free cash available to allocate to buying back stock and paying out dividends.

As the company owners that own the majority of stock shares benefit the most from stock buybacks and dividend payouts.

 

[LAM]

tell that to all the people that are losing their jobs because of the minimum wage increase.

How does removing the wage floor increase labors share of the national income?

Your belief in removing the wage floor and having a 100% labor participation rate is pure delusion. As wages were pushed down just as many people would leave the workforce as would join.

 

[Swiper]

How does removing the wage floor increase labors share of the national income?

Your belief in removing the wage floor and having a 100% labor participation rate is pure delusion. As wages were pushed down just as many people would leave the workforce as would join.

wtf? what post are you reading? when did I ever say we'd have 100% labor participation rate?

removing the minimum wage will make it legal for unskilled people to start at an entry level job. companies will hire more people and not close their businesses making them unemployed like in my previous post about the bookstore.

 

[LAM]

By saying there should be no minimum your further devaluing abstract labor which already occurs via changes in technology and financialization, essentially giving more power to capital which is pretty stupid for someone that derives 100% of their income from labor. Abstract labor value is a social phenomenon which is why we see things like sports athletes making millions of dollars a year but people rationalize this by saying well the owners make so much they are paying the players "what they deserve" and the players have agents that negotiate contracts for them to get them what they think the are "worth". Following this logic then do the people that work at the Genius Bar at the Apple Store not also deserve to be making much higher wages because of the annual profits made by Apple, but they make crappy wages and yet nobody bitches about that.

You right wingers bitch and complain about people in poverty then want to pay people at the bottom even less wages that's freaking brilliant.

 

[LAM]

wtf? what post are you reading? when did I ever say we'd have 100% labor participation rate?

removing the minimum wage will make it legal for unskilled people to start at an entry level job. companies will hire more people and not close their businesses making them unemployed like in my previous post about the bookstore.

Full employment is the typically argument for people that wrongly apply the neo-classical approach to labor value as being the same as commodity value which they are not. Find a country with no minimum wage and no national collective bargaining agreement and you find that a large population of the workforce receives low wages. Currently the U.S already has the largest percentage of low paid workers in the OECD.

OECD employment outlook 2014 page 287
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fglobal.fki.or.kr%2FCommon%2FDownload.aspx%3Fid%3Daaf15374-dffa-4f5b-a54c-000bf7e9b67b&ei=F8TWVPKaG4aggwT55oPIDA&usg=AFQjCNFw0GVdIp9VzSNDOit0Us6nqyZb9Q&sig2=m5YscfGyq88QwKvxdrIEjQ&bvm=bv.85464276,d.eXY&cad=rja

 

[Bowden]

By saying there should be no minimum your further devaluing abstract labor which already occurs via changes in technology and financialization, essentially giving more power to capital which is pretty stupid for someone that derives 100% of their income from labor. Abstract labor value is a social phenomenon which is why we see things like sports athletes making millions of dollars a year but people rationalize this by saying well the owners make so much they are paying the players "what they deserve" and the players have agents that negotiate contracts for them to get them what they think the are "worth". Following this logic then do the people that work at the Genius Bar at the Apple Store not also deserve to be making much higher wages because of the annual profits made by Apple, but they make crappy wages and yet nobody bitches about that.

You right wingers bitch and complain about people in poverty then want to pay people at the bottom even less wages that's freaking brilliant.

The only time that many people who are in upper economic classes that gain wealth from capital gains and dividends as passive income and demand lower costs for goods and services really care about people in poverty, is when they cost them something.

If anyone ever attributes the problem of people in poverty being due to low wage arbitrage and suggests that in example WalMart should apply some of the 15 billion in cash they allocate for stock buybacks to paying their employees enough to disqualify them from welfare, the right wingers and others who are in upper economic classes that reap capital gains and dividends as passive income and benefit from low cost goods and services start raising hell that their wealth creation and benefits from the low wage arbitrage that places workers in the working poor impoverished economic class may be reduced.

The upper economic classes require a impoverished working poor in poverty to maintain their standard of living,their wealth creation from passive income and lower product and services costs made possible from low wage arbitraged workers.
Be it Walmart workers, grocery store clerks, convenience store clerks or any other working poor impoverished service industry worker that serves them.

 

[Bowden]

wtf? what post are you reading? when did I ever say we'd have 100% labor participation rate?

removing the minimum wage will make it legal for unskilled people to start at an entry level job. companies will hire more people and not close their businesses making them unemployed like in my previous post about the bookstore.

It does someone no good to be employed, if the compensation from their employment does not adequately compensate for the labor effort the job requires and the compensation is not adequate to keep an employee out of poverty.
There is no financial incentive for someone to work for pay less than the transportation costs for them to go to a job everyday, pay rent, buy groceries, pay utilities bills ect.

Companies being allowed to reduce someones pay to a level that places them in abject poverty, in-order to achieve maximum profit and increase the trickle up of capital to the upper economic classes, is not the solution.

 

[Swiper]

It does someone no good to be employed, if the compensation from their employment does not adequately compensate for the labor effort the job requires and the compensation is not adequate to keep an employee out of poverty.
There is no financial incentive for someone to work for pay less than the transportation costs for them to go to a job everyday, pay rent, buy groceries, pay utilities bills ect.

Companies being allowed to reduce someones pay to a level that places them in abject poverty, in-order to achieve maximum profit and increase the trickle up of capital to the upper economic classes, is not the solution.

it's impossible to hire someone who's pay exceeds his or hers productivity. that's the reason why the SF bookstore closed. I guess in the liberals mind no job is better that a job that pays what their productivity is worth.

 

[LAM]

it's impossible to hire someone who's pay exceeds his or hers productivity. that's the reason why the SF bookstore closed. I guess in the liberals mind no job is better that a job that pays what their productivity is worth.

How do you measure labor productivity in a non-production economy? We have a post-industrial economy where very little is actually made in the U.S.

You need to stop living in the past.

 

[Swiper]

How do you measure labor productivity in a non-production economy? We have a post-industrial economy where very little is actually made in the U.S.

You need to stop living in the past.

LOL for real?

Ever hear of flipping burgers & cooking french fries? how many burgers do you have to flip and sell to make your wage plus all the other costs it take to have an employee, ie workers compensation, taxes ect...

 

[Zaphod]

removing the minimum wage will make it legal for unskilled people to start at an entry level job.

Please explain this claim. It is already legal for unskilled people to start at an entry level job.

 

[LAM]

LOL for real?

Ever hear of flipping burgers & cooking french fries? how many burgers do you have to flip and sell to make your wage plus all the other costs it take to have an employee, ie workers compensation, taxes ect...

They could reduce their profit margins as is done in many other countries in the OECD but "society" in the U.S does not view that as a viable option so the state then has to compensate the worker for his low wages because our "society" as whole is extremely fragmented there is no solidarity. Neo-liberalism has also increased the number of low wage jobs while simultaneously diminishing collective bargaining.

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/fas...t-of-low-wage-jobs-in-the-fast-food-industry/


You guys are the ones with kids not me, so in the long run none of this effects my life one bit but you might want to think about what kind of wages your children will be earning 30 years from now.

 

[Swiper]

Please explain this claim. It is already legal for unskilled people to start at an entry level job.

not if the libtards get their way with the minimum wage. the higher the wages go the more employers are gonna look for experienced workers putting the younger first time workers out of a job

 

[Zaphod]

not if the libtards get their way with the minimum wage. the higher the wages go the more employers are gonna look for experienced workers putting the younger first time workers out of a job

But it isn't illegal to hire them, nor will it be illegal to hire them. It's just illegal to pay them below a certain wage. Entertainers and athletes have agents, executives have attorneys, friends in the right places, and connections to get them their astronomical pay yet the average Joe is supposed to take whatever pittance he can get?

 

[Swiper]

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2015

The Numbers Behind the San Francisco Bookstore that Will Close Because of a Climbing Minimum Wage



In a new essay, The New Yorker, in Hamlet-like fashion, can't quite make up its mind as to whether the minimum wage is good or bad, despite the essay being about the San Francisco bookstore that is closing because of the upcoming minimum wage hikes.

Nevertheless, the piece does provide some solid background on the financial situation of Borderlands, the San Francisco bookstore that is closing:

[Alan Beatts owner of Borderlands] employs five people beside himself, only one of whom works full time, and they all get paid minimum wage, or a couple of cents more; last year, that amounted to less than eleven dollars an hour. His own wages are slightly higher?he made twenty-eight thousand dollars last year, which, accounting for a forty-hour work week and no vacation time, comes to about thirteen dollars an hour. (?If people think I?m lighting hundred-dollar cigars with hundred-dollar bills back in the office, it?s like, that?s not happening,? he said, noting that he usually works fifty or sixty hours a week.) Overall, raising wages to fifteen dollars an hour would increase the store?s operating expenses by nearly twenty per cent. In 2013, Borderlands turned a profit of about three thousand dollars; the higher expenses would mean a loss of about twenty-five thousand dollars.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/02/the-numbers-behind-san-francisco.html​

 

[LAM]

not if the libtards get their way with the minimum wage. the higher the wages go the more employers are gonna look for experienced workers putting the younger first time workers out of a job

Seriously your about a stupid fuck, with no wage floor all labor wages that have already been de-valued by technology and financialization will be pushed further downward as the labor force participation rate falls. At no point in U.S history has there been a full rate of employment for young and first time workers.

Removing the wage floor might increase the employment rate but it pushes wages down which means labors share of the national income would decrease ever more which has a long run negative effect on wealth creation and the ability for the working class to consume which further decreases aggregate demand and increases unemployment.

The percentage of eligible young workers in the U.S is historically high right now due to a 2nd baby boom that occurred in the late 1970's.

This fantasy world that you believe in where all young first time workers can be employed has never existed especially not in a country with an extremely large population.

 

[Swiper]

Seriously your about a stupid fuck, with no wage floor all labor wages that have already been de-valued by technology and financialization will be pushed further downward as the labor force participation rate falls. At no point in U.S history has there been a full rate of employment for young and first time workers.

Removing the wage floor might increase the employment rate but it pushes wages down which means labors share of the national income would decrease ever more which has a long run negative effect on wealth creation and the ability for the working class to consume which further decreases aggregate demand and increases unemployment.

The percentage of eligible young workers in the U.S is historically high right now due to a 2nd baby boom that occurred in the late 1970's.

This fantasy world that you believe in where all young first time workers can be employed has never existed especially not in a country with an extremely large population.

hey! why don''t you grow the fuck up and stop the person attacks? wtf is your problem? apologize or i'm putting you on ignore and i'll never respond to you.

 

[LAM]

hey! why don''t you grow the fuck up and stop the person attacks? wtf is your problem? apologize or i'm putting you on ignore and i'll never respond to you.

Using the word libtard is not a personal attack on those of us that are far to intelligent to vote for republicans?

 

[Swiper]

Singapore, 1.9% unemployment with NO min wage.

Singapore, One of the highest incomes per capita in the world