Originally posted by @shavixmir The rich need the poor to be scared of losing their jobs; to keep wages down.
If people wanted more money and could quit whenever they liked and easily find a new job, the boss will have to increase wages.
Ergo: unemployment is a tool to control the masses.
Typical rubbish from the philosophy of envy. Everyone, including rich folk are better off when everyone is wealthy. You sound just like the god bothers and voodoo worshipers conjuring up devils and bogeymen to be afraid of.
Originally posted by @metal-brain Some unemployment is good? Good for who[sic]?
Good for the economic well-being of society.
Not my thoughts, just what I have read.
It does seem logical though.
And a caring society should take care of that 4% it deliberately keeps unemployed.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59 Good for the economic well-being of society.
Not my thoughts, just what I have read.
It does seem logical though.
And a caring society should take care of that 4% it deliberately keeps unemployed.
Who, precisely, is keeping the 4% unemployed?
Do you think society is keeping the unemployed unemployed. Are the unemployed part of society, so the unemployed are keeping the unemployed unemployed.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59 Good for the economic well-being of society.
Not my thoughts, just what I have read.
It does seem logical though.
And a caring society should take care of that 4% it deliberately keeps unemployed.
Economists talk about a natural rate of unemployment. It's the combination of frictional and structural unemployment that persists in an efficient, expanding economy when labor and resource markets are in equilibrium.
What the level of this unemployment is are up to debate. When I studied economics we we taught it should be around ~2% but I'm 'hearing' ~4% at the moment.
Originally posted by @wajoma Who, precisely, is keeping the 4% unemployed?
Do you think society is keeping the unemployed unemployed. Are the unemployed part of society, so the unemployed are keeping the unemployed unemployed.
Originally posted by @wajoma Who, precisely, is keeping the 4% unemployed?
Do you think society is keeping the unemployed unemployed. Are the unemployed part of society, so the unemployed are keeping the unemployed unemployed.
When your classmates laughed at you at school and
you were part of that class, were you laughing at yourself?
Originally posted by @wolfgang59 When your classmates laughed at you at school and
you were part of that class, were you laughing at yourself?
No it would be specific people, that's why I asked the question.
A popular collectivist ploy i.e. society does this that or the other. Well no. It's individuals doing this that or the other. So society doesn't need to look after the people society is keeping unemployed. including (by your theory) the unemployed keeping the unemployed unemployed because society isn't keeping the unemployed unemployed.
Originally posted by @wajoma No it would be specific people, that's why I asked the question.
A popular collectivist ploy i.e. society does this that or the other. Well no. It's individuals doing this that or the other. So society doesn't need to look after the people society is keeping unemployed. including (by your theory) the unemployed keeping the unemployed unemployed.
What?
We can try again:
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/050115/what-difference-between-frictional-unemployment-and-structural-unemployment.asp
Originally posted by @wajoma Typical rubbish from the philosophy of envy. Everyone, including rich folk are better off when everyone is wealthy. You sound just like the god bothers and voodoo worshipers conjuring up devils and bogeymen to be afraid of.
Ah, so you are claiming that share-holders and CEO’s don’t want higher profits?
Or are you claiming that there are other ways of increasing profits without lowering costs or increasing prices?
There’s no envy here. Just looking at what companies do.
Just looking at which political parties are financed by these companies.
Just looking at the policies these political parties execute.
Yeah... pretty much sounds and looks like you are wrong.
Originally posted by @shavixmir Ah, so you are claiming that share-holders and CEO’s don’t want higher profits?
Or are you claiming that there are other ways of increasing profits without lowering costs or increasing prices?
There’s no envy here. Just looking at what companies do.
Just looking at which political parties are financed by these companies.
Just looking at the polici ...[text shortened]... pretty much sounds and looks like you are wrong.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59 Good for the economic well-being of society.
Not my thoughts, just what I have read.
It does seem logical though.
And a caring society should take care of that 4% it deliberately keeps unemployed.
That isn't good for the well being of society. How are wages going to rise? That would make the working class dependent on minimum wage increases to avoid economic slavery. Since wages have fallen after being adjusted for inflation that is what it is, right? I don't know what you read, but it is likely elitist economic propaganda to excuse exploitation of the working class.
Subsidizing the unemployed costs money and requires more redistribution of wealth. It is more efficient to employ those that can and want to work. I suppose that might be cheaper than paying a fair wage to the underclass if exploiting them is your goal though. Apparently that is what is going on. Social programs and the earned income credit are probably the only reasons they don't revolt.
Originally posted by @wajoma wait what? wolfgang is saying 'society', not I.
Society is aggregated individuals (and companies). It makes no sense in analytical terms in looking at individual cases in a 300M+ society when determining policy as most individual cases are pooled into bigger boxes.
Neither Individuals or society is trying to keep people unemployed. However, society have a better possibility of looking after people that are unemployed (for different reasons) since most individuals neither have the knowledge, time or inclination to do this.
So a social planner does actually do something from a society perspective (and not as an individual). There is no ploy in it, though.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59 Good for the economic well-being of society.
Not my thoughts, just what I have read.
It does seem logical though.
And a caring society should take care of that 4% it deliberately keeps unemployed.
I think deliberately is the wrong word. It's just the way it is.
Otherwise I agree. Society should help people who are unemployed for various reasons.
Originally posted by @lundos Society is aggregated individuals (and companies). It makes no sense in analytical terms in looking at individual cases in a 300M+ society when determining policy as most individual cases are pooled into bigger boxes.
Neither Individuals or society is trying to keep people unemployed. However, society have a better possibility of looking after people tha ...[text shortened]... something from a society perspective (and not as an individual). There is no ploy in it, though.
wait what, it's wolfgang saying society is keeping people unemployed, and since the unemployed are part of society, they are keeping themselves unemployed and they need to look after the unemployed (themselves).
Low unemployment rate causes recessions?
14 Sep '18 07:04
Back to Top