Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-19-2012, 12:57 PM
 
19 posts, read 19,734 times
Reputation: 15

Advertisements

Let's get this straight: smart people are to blame for high unemployment because they have too much confidence in the current economic system.

The weak labour markets over the past few decades have led to a decreased share of national income going to wages. If, say, the top 20% of income worked half as much, this would instantly eliminate our unemployment problems and give employees enough bargaining power to raise wages for the 150 million workers in the United States by 10%. One person doing this might not have much of an effect, but this is because they would be influencing prices for the entire nation.

If it takes 12 million new job openings to go from 8.3% unemployment to nothing, this means a single new job that is created by employees at a company working less raises everyone's wages by 10%/12,000,000, or 0.000000833%. But since it affects 150 million people, the total increase is 125% of the average wage rate, while the business that does this pays essentially the same rate for the work that is done.

Since flexible work policies attract talent, individual companies have every reason to support this too. The only question is how to get people to work less without changing payroll costs, but this has an easy solution.

Think of what happens when someone works less with the current systems of monthly salaries or hourly wages and overtime. If someone takes a day off with the salary system, they're generally expected to make up for it another time or else it forces someone else to do the extra work. With hourly wages, if someone can't work it might force the company to pay someone else overtime wages and a higher total cost of the work.

A better way is to pay a lower rate for extra amounts of work so people will agree to do it without feeling that the extra income is required, but also use the same lower rate for decreases in the amount of work done. If employee salaries accurately reflect their productivity, then these adjustments exactly balance out and someone won't feel bad if they need to, for example, leave work a few hours early to attend a parent-teacher conference or go to a doctor's appointment.

Neither should they feel bad if they delegate tasks to other people and focus on their key responsibilities, because the system would recognize that no special privilege is involved and fairly decrease their compensation to match the lower contribution to the company.

This would end up helping workers in low-wage countries around the world while harming countries that sell luxury goods to the rich, but this is a feature, not a bug. It would also mean fewer people on food stamps or other types of welfare in the United States, and therefore lower government deficits and inflation, but this is also intended even if some people think that deficits lead to higher growth.

Copy and share this message. We create the story.

___

The above was posted on OWS forums with no reply. Followup message: So no one liked it. What needs to change? Pointing out the current system isn't getting better? Linking to polls that show that most people who would vote for Romney would do so because he isn't Obama?

Maybe showing that the top 20% of income can easily afford to work less and still have a decent standard of living?

Quote:
“If a designer shoe goes up from $800 to $860, who notices?” said Arnold Aronson, managing director of retail strategies at the consulting firm Kurt Salmon, and the former chairman and chief executive of Saks.

“This group is key because the top 5 percent of income earners accounts for about one-third of spending, and **the top 20 percent accounts for close to 60 percent of spending**,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics. “That was key to why we suffered such a bad recession — their spending fell very sharply.”

Part of the demand is also driven by the snob factor: at luxury stores, higher prices are often considered a mark of quality.
Most of the 1% work; only 5% of them don't work.

Or maybe the fact that we are just getting stupider as time goes on?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-19-2012, 04:28 PM
 
3,327 posts, read 4,355,182 times
Reputation: 2892
The answer is fairly simple but it's against political and corporate interests so it doesn't even get brought up.
Other countries such as Germany, France, and the Nordic nations implement policies in order to drive down unemployment.

Things such as generous personal and vacation days, mandatory hourly compensation ( as opposed to salaried) in which overtime kicks in earlier (read <40 hours), generous maternity leave, etc.
Why do they do this? Because their politicians and governments are so caring? No! They do this because they know if they didn't then they'd have unemployment rates approaching 20%. In essence, they force their businesses to operate with more labor.
Of course, they're also technologically driven economies with large manufacturing bases. Such policies do not work in Spain or Italy or Greece. However, Spain/Italy/Greece (as a few examples) were never leading edge economies to begin with.

The truth is that as technology moves forward we cannot sustain the population growths that we had before. It's a catch 22. Technological advance can allow more people to inhabit this planet but cannot provide them all with work.

The solution is to create a framework whereby it's in the interest of US corp's to distribute their workload to more employees. There are a variety of ways to do this as we run VERY lean (employment wise) as a country. The quickest ways would be mandate OT at 35-37 hours and heavily restrict salaried work (pushing more work towards hourly pay). This WILL happen in the states sooner or later. Mark my words. Yes, existing workers will make less wages but we're on that path already. Wage deflation is here to stay so why not take advantage of labor's lower expectations while driving down unemployment in the process.

It's either the above or a sizable portion of the country on government aid.

Last edited by wawaweewa; 08-19-2012 at 05:05 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2012, 11:58 PM
 
Location: Phoenix,az
391 posts, read 840,468 times
Reputation: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by wawaweewa View Post
The answer is fairly simple but it's against political and corporate interests so it doesn't even get brought up.
Other countries such as Germany, France, and the Nordic nations implement policies in order to drive down unemployment.

Things such as generous personal and vacation days, mandatory hourly compensation ( as opposed to salaried) in which overtime kicks in earlier (read <40 hours), generous maternity leave, etc.
Why do they do this? Because their politicians and governments are so caring? No! They do this because they know if they didn't then they'd have unemployment rates approaching 20%. In essence, they force their businesses to operate with more labor.
Of course, they're also technologically driven economies with large manufacturing bases. Such policies do not work in Spain or Italy or Greece. However, Spain/Italy/Greece (as a few examples) were never leading edge economies to begin with.

The truth is that as technology moves forward we cannot sustain the population growths that we had before. It's a catch 22. Technological advance can allow more people to inhabit this planet but cannot provide them all with work.

The solution is to create a framework whereby it's in the interest of US corp's to distribute their workload to more employees. There are a variety of ways to do this as we run VERY lean (employment wise) as a country. The quickest ways would be mandate OT at 35-37 hours and heavily restrict salaried work (pushing more work towards hourly pay). This WILL happen in the states sooner or later. Mark my words. Yes, existing workers will make less wages but we're on that path already. Wage deflation is here to stay so why not take advantage of labor's lower expectations while driving down unemployment in the process.

It's either the above or a sizable portion of the country on government aid.

Based on what you said, here are some population growth rate figures

Germany:
Germany - Population growth rate - Historical Data Graphs per Year

Norway:
Norway - Population growth rate - Historical Data Graphs per Year

Finland:
Finland - Population growth rate - Historical Data Graphs per Year

USA:
United States - Population growth rate - Historical Data Graphs per Year

Canada:
Canada - Population growth rate - Historical Data Graphs per Year

Mexico:
Mexico - Population growth rate - Historical Data Graphs per Year
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2012, 05:03 PM
 
19 posts, read 19,734 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by wawaweewa View Post
The solution is to create a framework whereby it's in the interest of US corp's to distribute their workload to more employees. There are a variety of ways to do this as we run VERY lean (employment wise) as a country. The quickest ways would be mandate OT at 35-37 hours and heavily restrict salaried work (pushing more work towards hourly pay).
Doesn't work. Companies just build overtime into the expectations by offering lower base wages. I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave

Employees must want to work less. Overtime doesn't do this, and making it begin with a smaller number of hours (the way France did) doesn't either. The system described in the OP does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 04:51 PM
 
48,502 posts, read 96,810,437 times
Reputation: 18304
Wgaes is just oen measure of income. More and more pople are makig income on investments that cover the world economy.especailly has boomers retire.Alos inflation plays a big part on just now valuable those eranig s are in buying goods. Comparing middle icome lifestyle tot eh past is useless really .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 06:08 PM
 
1,960 posts, read 4,661,656 times
Reputation: 5416
But if you look at it from a socio-economic perspective, the question arises about why exactly should we aim for a high labor participation rate in the first place. Part of the reason the labor shortage that carried this country's economic success for 150 years ended was the advent of computers in the 70s and the de facto doubling of the labor pool due to female's aggressive entrance into the labor market, which further propelled the emergence of the end of American prosperity for the middle a.k.a. dual income households and compensation in the form of credit instead of wages. Now, I'm not advocating that women subjugate themselves to a life of lack of vocational ambition, but the bottom line is that SOMEONE's gonna have to start doing things for the fun of it and no money, if this metastasizing labor surplus is ever going to reverse itself.

Too many indians on this boat and the computers eliminated half the jobs. We can't all be individual islands of self-interest. Why should my wife or husband care if they make little money pursuing their avocation if the household can be sustained on one income? But if every man and every woman want to make above median wages in order to sustain a household then there is simply no mathematical way that is possible for everyone. So a tragedy of the commons ensues: Since no one wants to volunteer to opt out of the paid labor market everybody suffers lower compensation and higher non-voluntary unemployment. The western expansion of the continent has already matured and the population has swelled to saturation. There's no more areas to expand.

Did women really want an economic landscape where two incomes were necessary in order to sustain a lifestyle akin to that of their parents? My cursory surveying says no; women tend to be quite passive-aggressive about their love-hate relationship with being given the opportunity of holding primary breadwinner positions. Most still privately desire the benefits of a traditional gender role, perhaps opting for their incomes to be play money. Don't shoot the messenger, I got a divorce that supports that socio-economic ugly baby. I think women simply wanted the freedom to pursue their avocations without the restraint of social conformity but I don't believe they truly internalized they were torpedoing the labor market by attempting to make a buck in the process. But that was the unintended consequence and here we are partly due to it.

Granted, the emergence of the breakdown of the traditional family unit has increased the perceived necessity for workers to be able to command living wages on their own. Again I have no dog in that fight and would never wish for someone to stay in a miserable household construct, but we pick our poison. If everyone wants to work full time then you ain't gonna make jack. too many people around. The aggressive among us will rise to the top. The majority will have their expectations crushed. I think a construct where lower labor participation rate is embraced while keeping both paid and underpaid segments of the proletariat content in their choice, would go a long way towards solidifying our middle tax base and increase the tide for the majority. As it stands it looks like more unemployment and lower quality of life for everybody except the wealth-funneling top.

Last edited by hindsight2020; 08-23-2012 at 06:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:55 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top