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.
I have, and have heard all the theories that unemployment of less than 3% causes wage unflation which causes inflation in consumer goods in turn. It's never been a major problem anywhere in history b/c no nation has probably ever had less than 3% unemployment. There are always people transitioning, or people that can't work for various reasons such as illnesses. I'll have to check the stats, but I think the lowest unemployment rate in the US in recent history was around 3.8% in 1952.
Anyone that wants a job should be able to have one, and in '52 everyone pretty much did. The argument that high unemployment is a good thing is just pure propaganda brought to you by the elite. Of course they want high unemployment so they can have what amounts to being a slave labor force. Cheap labor and high unemployment cause major societal ills, and also cause us to be taxed higher to cover for people's unemployment benefits and food stamps.
Anyway, that person I was deabting with before was either a true nut, or completely brainwashed. I asked him what the ideal unemployment rate should be and he answered 50%.
how was it measured back in 1952? Just adult white males?
I can see someone saying 50% if they think life was better when women acted like caregivers and men acted like providers.
Most of the jobs in the US are worthless. No one actually produces anything anymore. The gov't likes to call us all "consumers", like we are bottom feeders who couldn't survive without their welfare teet.
Well for starters they laid off half of my extended family. Which specific corporations is none of your business.
I'm sorry to hear that.
So you don't give them any thanks for hiring HALF of your extended family to begin with? So they could earn money and provide for themselves and their family?
Was there a contract between the workers and the company saying they would never be laid off?
I don't see anything wrong with the layoff. Was the corporation actually doing anything wrong or criminal? Was the corporation not paying you according to the contract or employment agreement? Were they stealing from their employees?
Would you be as mad as if they didn't hire anyone you knew in the first place?
Why were they laid off? Did it have to do with a law that made it cheaper for them to move to india? Or a law that raised the cost of doing business, so they ended up going out of business? If you were more specific, Like I had asked, I'd think we'd all come to the realization that your anger is misplaced.
So you don't give them any thanks for hiring HALF of your extended family to begin with? So they could earn money and provide for themselves and their family?
Was there a contract between the workers and the company saying they would never be laid off?
I don't see anything wrong with the layoff. Was the corporation actually doing anything wrong or criminal? Was the corporation not paying you according to the contract or employment agreement? Were they stealing from their employees?
Would you be as mad as if they didn't hire anyone you knew in the first place?
Why were they laid off? Did it have to do with a law that made it cheaper for them to move to india? Or a law that raised the cost of doing business, so they ended up going out of business? If you were more specific, Like I had asked, I'd think we'd all come to the realization that your anger is misplaced.
I'll have to admit that I haven't read the entire thread. But your post if very well thought out and correct.
Individuals tend to feel that corporations owe them something. This is where they are wrong.
So you don't give them any thanks for hiring HALF of your extended family to begin with? So they could earn money and provide for themselves and their family?
Was there a contract between the workers and the company saying they would never be laid off?
I don't see anything wrong with the layoff. Was the corporation actually doing anything wrong or criminal? Was the corporation not paying you according to the contract or employment agreement? Were they stealing from their employees?
Would you be as mad as if they didn't hire anyone you knew in the first place?
Why were they laid off? Did it have to do with a law that made it cheaper for them to move to india? Or a law that raised the cost of doing business, so they ended up going out of business? If you were more specific, Like I had asked, I'd think we'd all come to the realization that your anger is misplaced.
I never said they owed us anything, I said they laid off employees who were otherwise doing them a service. There's a reason why corporations pay you to do a job. In a perfect world (for corporations) they wouldn't have to pay you a dime but they realize that they wouldn't exist without a monetary incentive. The corporations are making infinitely more money off of their product than they are off of paying Americans anyway.
However, they're still busily trying to pursue this corporate pipe-dream where they retain 200% of their revenue in countries like India, Taiwan and China while benefiting from the corporate infrastructure of America. They ARE screwing America over, but they're doing so legally. That's their right but it doesn't mean they'll be harboring any positive feelings from me.
how was it measured back in 1952? Just adult white males?
I can see someone saying 50% if they think life was better when women acted like caregivers and men acted like providers.
Most of the jobs in the US are worthless. No one actually produces anything anymore. The gov't likes to call us all "consumers", like we are bottom feeders who couldn't survive without their welfare teet.
I'm not sure how they measured it then, they might not have counted housewives. The unemployment rates for blacks were probably also low, it's just that they worked some of the most menial jobs around like Mexican immigrants do today.
Yeah, I don't get how anyone could say that 50% unemployment would be good in any way. Crime would be outrageous, homeless people would be all over the place in large cities, and that high of an unemployment rate might cause the country to go the same route as Egypt.
I'll also agree with a number of jobs being useless. There are a lot of "fluff" paper-pushing jobs out there and sales jobs that could be done without. We should go back to producing more tangible products. I get tired of buying Chinese made things that crap out before they should. You have to go WAY back to find U.S. made mass-produced consumer electronics/TV/stereo equipment. I own an old school Magnavox console stereo that was manufactured in the US in February 1964, and it still works. It's been passed down through the family and I kept it for the sole purpose of playing vinyl records on. I had to replace the tube amp in it in 2006, but I was able to do it myself. The hard part was finding the part itself. I like being able to fix things like that instead of throwing them away.
Corporations are only beholden to the shareholders, period. They take the risk of their capital potentially being lost. If you care to join a company via employment, then you will be compensated by a dually agreed upon amount for helping the shareholders profit. If you would also like to share in the actual profits of the corporation, become a shareholder. There is nothing sinister in that arrangement.
I never said they owed us anything, I said they laid off employees who were otherwise doing them a service. There's a reason why corporations pay you to do a job. In a perfect world (for corporations) they wouldn't have to pay you a dime but they realize that they wouldn't exist without a monetary incentive. The corporations are making infinitely more money off of their product than they are off of paying Americans anyway.
Corporations lay off employees because those employees are no longer contributing to the mission of the corporation. The employees may be doing their job correctly, but that job function is no longer required. It's justified to let these go.
Your theory of a perfect world for corporations is completely incorrect. I suggest you take a macroeconomics course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava
However, they're still busily trying to pursue this corporate pipe-dream where they retain 200% of their revenue in countries like India, Taiwan and China while benefiting from the corporate infrastructure of America. They ARE screwing America over, but they're doing so legally. That's their right but it doesn't mean they'll be harboring any positive feelings from me.
Corporations are going offshore to remain competitive. Take a look at the Rubbermaid & Walmart case study. They aren't doing it to increase margins. If one corporations decides not to offshore, they'll lose out to the others that do.
There's two types of gainful people. Those who take up jobs and those who create jobs. Those who take up jobs are in no position to complain about those who give you jobs.
Corporations are only beholden to the shareholders, period.
This is not entirely true. Look into the case studies on Johnson & Johnson, Starbucks and Fiji on social responsibility. It is not only shareholders that they answer to.
Corporations lay off employees because those employees are no longer contributing to the mission of the corporation. The employees may be doing their job correctly, but that job function is no longer required. It's justified to let these go.
Your theory of a perfect world for corporations is completely incorrect. I suggest you take a macroeconomics course.
Corporations are going offshore to remain competitive. Take a look at the Rubbermaid & Walmart case study. They aren't doing it to increase margins. If one corporations decides not to offshore, they'll lose out to the others that do.
There's two types of gainful people. Those who take up jobs and those who create jobs. Those who take up jobs are in no position to complain about those who give you jobs.
It's completely incorrect that corporations would rather hire people who they can pay less to make the same product/provide the same service?
And I never said that they don't have their reasons for going offshores, I said they're screwing over America in the process.
And those who give you jobs don't survive without the people who take up jobs. It goes both ways... too many people forget that.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Capitalism has extraordinary strengths and is far more effective at turning out products and revitalizing communities than any other system we have.
It just needs to be moderately regulated to keep it in check.
More than "moderately" regulated. But otherwise, i agree with you.
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.
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.
