At 5/6/2012 12:59:17 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:46:33 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:26:31 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:22:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/5/2012 11:59:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What is the objection to the minimum wage if it is coupled with a full-employment program?
Probably because a full-employment program cannot exist.
#1) A lot of unemployment is "voluntary". What I mean by that is that is while people can indeed be looking for jobs and not finding them, it's because he/she is looking for jobs with high paying salaries. This is basic search theory.
Once I graduate with a degree in chemical engineering, I'm not going to be looking for a Mcdonald's job. I'll keep job hunting until I find a job with a satisfactory salary. Since my parents have enough wealth, I can afford this unemployment.
That's alright. It's only seeking to provide a job for those who want it. And, preferably, it would provide a living wage.
A "living wage" is relative. What is considered a "living wage"? In theory I could survive on nothing but ramen.
I also forgot to mention that not everybody would necessarily know about the employment program.
#2) It will take time for one to organize the labor force and restructure it due to changes in unemployment rate. For example If the unemployment rate is 10%, the employment program might only have enough job slots for 5%. If it wants to increase the slots from 5% to 10%, then it needs to hire accountants, supervisory, etc. and get them orientated before it can do any hiring decisions.
It would have to be mostly labor jobs. Infrastructure projects would be created to account for all the people who get on board.
You do realize that there is no such thing as a "shovel-ready" project. If your doing infrastructure project that requires in addition to the administrative overhead engineers, environmental management, and city planners.
You still need to have administrative costs and overhead when its just "labor jobs".
#3) If your creating an employment program, then this mean that the cost of labor must necessarily rise. Basic supply and demand. Employers have to increase wages in order to attract new workers. However at the same time, this means employers have to hire few workers. Basically the employment program will "crowd out" private sector employment.
Not everyone is going to want the jobs that the program provides. All the higher-paying and more skilled jobs would be left to the private sector.
That doesn't answer my crowding out problem. I'm saying this programs will cause labor costs to increase which will make the program unable to achieve it's desired intention 100% of the time. Economist Stigler in his efficiency wages shows that in order to have full employment, real wages would have to go to infinity:http://upload.wikimedia.org...
#4) The program will not just hire the unemployed, but those not considered part of the labor force who are attracted to the employment program and people from other business sectors.
As I said for point 3.
The point is that its inefficient and crowds out the business sector.
And, lastly, I think you've made some good and fair points about how it might not work as efficiently as a like or might create more problems than it solves, but you haven't addressed your original comment that I inquired about which was that it could not be accomplished.
I gave you the answer right there.
Oh yea, and one important fact that I also forgot to mention was that how do you expect to finance this? If you use taxpayer money to finance it, then you do realize that means less spending in the private sector, which means the private sector would have to lay off people. This is kind of huge
Also, remember how government workers have a tendency to unionize.
Is there discrimination against women in the workforce?:
At 12/28/2012 2:54:39 PM DetectableNinja wrote:
DanT (Dan - tee), v: to excessively define every word, usually to semantical disprove an argument.