Originally posted by sh76The business cycle is an inherent part of the capitalist economic system.
That's because of either poor economic policy, natural down cycles in the economy or some combination thereof. 6 or 7 years ago we were virtually at full employment. Unemployment is not a function of there being too many people seeking work. There is nothing inherent that requires unemployment.
All those unemployment rates occurred with the present retirement age. The idea that increasing the number of those actively seeking employment by millions will have no effect on the labor market seems highly unrealistic. Supply and demand would suggest at the very least it would put downward pressure on wages for those currently working.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe business cycle is an inherent part of human nature. Since all societies bar small isolated hunter-gatherer tribes will involve trade of some kind, you can't avoid it, although government policy does affect it of course.
The business cycle is an inherent part of the capitalist economic system.
All those unemployment rates occurred with the present retirement age. The idea that increasing the number of those actively seeking employment by millions will have no effect on the labor market seems highly unrealistic. Supply and demand would suggest at the very least it would put downward pressure on wages for those currently working.
Originally posted by TeinosukeYeah... that's exactly what I want. To spend even more years getting up in the morning, slaving my arse off to come home and watch TV, to get up in the morning to slave my arse off to pay for that lovely little circle of joy.
We are frequently told that we need to raise the retirement age from its current level (between 60 and 65 in Europe) to ensure that the working-age population will be able to support its dependents.
But if older people stay in work longer, will this not simply lead to mass unemployment among the young? Where are the jobs to come from to support a larger working-age population?
Originally posted by no1marauderYeah, I agree (in this thread) with no1. It is possible that the long-term effect might be to generate wealth and eventual new jobs, but the immediate effect would surely necessarily be to increase competition for the jobs that existed. Also, couldn't it be argued that a lot of jobs in the service sector are supported precisely by the fact that other people are not working (eg, waiters staffing restaurants serving long lunches to pensioners, etc)?
All those unemployment rates occurred with the present retirement age. The idea that increasing the number of those actively seeking employment by millions will have no effect on the labor market seems highly unrealistic. Supply and demand would suggest at the very least it would put downward pressure on wages for those currently working.
Originally posted by no1marauderI never said it would have no effect. Of course it would have an effect. In the long term, however, it is not clear whether than would be a net negative or net positive effect.
The business cycle is an inherent part of the capitalist economic system.
All those unemployment rates occurred with the present retirement age. The idea that increasing the number of those actively seeking employment by millions will have no effect on the labor market seems highly unrealistic. Supply and demand would suggest at the very least it would put downward pressure on wages for those currently working.
In any case, my (and KN's) basic point is that it does not necessarily have to have a negative effect, especially in the long term.
Originally posted by sh76That was my point, it's been around so long we've become used to the idea but guvamint bureaurats fart ing out a number and applying that to citizens across the board is utterly wrong. Each of us is different and we should each of us plan and prepare for our own retirement age in our own way. Some might like to retire at 45, hey good luck to them.
It's the business of guvamint insofar as it sets the age at which state retirement benefits will be commenced.
I agree with your angle on the limitations of employment or lack of, the only limit is a persons imagination and drive, no one owes you a job, sometimes you have to make your own work. Of course mounting regulation can make being self employed difficult and expensive to set up, but that's going to fly right by the state worshippers on thois board.
Originally posted by uzlessToo bad if paying into that retirement fund is the straw that breaks the camels back and the employers business goes under or the employee loses their house turning them all into state dependents.
BS.
The employee and employer pay into the retirement fund. When the person retires, the person receives money from the FUND. Not the employer.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaSo in practice, so no person has unlimited imagination and drive, then there is a limit to employment.
I agree with your angle on the limitations of employment or lack of, the only limit is a persons imagination and drive, no one owes you a job, sometimes you have to make your own work.
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePigeon Feeder Consultant
Why not create arbitary job titles -- parkbench operators, sidewalk consultants, soup analysts -- remunerated at some nominal rate (let's say i euro an hour) until they are 75. It would be much cheaper than paying pensions, and those who survive will really deserve their packages!
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat seems to be kind of what happens in Japan. You regularly see elderly men shepherding children across roads so tiny, narrow and empty of traffic that it's inconceivably that anyone could get run over. These jobs clearly don't need doing, and they exist, I think, only to provide a small income for the retired. On the other hand, these people almost certainly have pensions too, and earn rather more than one euro an hour... but it seems you were being satirical anyway.
Why not create arbitary job titles -- parkbench operators, sidewalk consultants, soup analysts -- remunerated at some nominal rate (let's say i euro an hour) until they are 75. It would be much cheaper than paying pensions, and those who survive will really deserve their packages!
Originally posted by uzlessIn addition the State, where I work, matches my investment into the fund and adds interest. The matching begins after the fifth year of employment.
BS.
The employee and employer pay into the retirement fund. When the person retires, the person receives money from the FUND. Not the employer.
Here I am being critical of the very program that I'll be depending on. This and I'm defnding Sarah Palin this week, Did someone drop acid into my coffee?
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagenot forgetting our blunt smoking atmospheric technicians, who light up our way with interesting esoteric meanderings and insightful social introspections
Also, Culture Technicians would perform the valuable service of maintaining cultural heritage activities such as playing dominoes in cafes.