Economist Deirdre (formerly Donald) McCloskey:

quote:

"Jobs" are deals between workers and employers, and so "creating" them out of unwilling parties is impossible. The state, though, can outlaw deals, and has. So: eliminate the minimum wage for people younger than 25. The resulting boom in jobs for young people will amaze. Maybe it will inspire voters to get the state out of the job-outlawing business. Probably not, so sure are we that the state "protects" by stopping deals between willing parties.

One might, with reason, also argue that subsidizing joblessness stands in the way of such deals by making its recipients unwilling to make them.

A transsexual libertarian economist?

Yup. Father of two kids.

Now that's out of the way, wuddya think of the proposition that a whole lot of jobs would suddenly appear if there were no minimum wage?

How many people on the dole do you think would be willing to work if they knew their unemployment ticket was only good for a month or two?

In a nutshell, where willing sellers and buyers get together, what usually happens? Deal, that's what.

quote:

Originally posted by AMProf:
Yup. Father of two kids.

Now that's out of the way, wuddya think of the proposition that a whole lot of jobs would suddenly appear if there were no minimum wage?

How many people on the dole do you think would be willing to work if they knew their unemployment ticket was only good for a month or two?

In a nutshell, where willing sellers and buyers get together, what usually happens? Deal, that's what.

And end the economic misery than Libs think will help them implement more socialism? Perish the thought!

 
Oh goodie... no minimum wage... amen and all that!

Just what this country needs... a slave class so our lower class can... what? Feel superior?

So what's next on the conservative agenda... abolishing those pesky child labor laws? Well... why not? Those kids are wasting way too much time on going to school and sleeping... just think how much earning power they're not realizing... selfish lil' buggers.

Oh, hey... while ya'll are at it... how about tossing all those 'heavy machinery' regulations down the toilet, hmmmm? Followed by countless number of fingers, toes, hands, arms, etc., eh? I mean what's a lost finger or hand, right? Isn't that why God gave us more than one? Especially when the lost limb is in return for a job below minimum wage, below minimum age and a paycheck that equates to pennies on the dollar.

You people are un-frickin'-believeable... ya'll want us ALL ('cept for you and yours, of course) to live like we're a third world country, don'cha'?

*CJ

quote:

Now that's out of the way, wuddya think of the proposition that a whole lot of jobs would suddenly appear if there were no minimum wage?

Not much. I think it's pretty well established that it's demand for whatever service or product a business provides or makes that drives hiring -- not the wage the business has to pay. So, if there was a sudden uptick in the hiring of low-wage young folk, it would almost certainly be matched by the "laying off" of the better paid employees (read: those older than 25) that the younger hires were replacing. The net result would be less disposable income for families, which in turn would drive demand DOWN.

How's that an improvement to ANYTHING??

lol .. draper .. it looks like a "no sale" here on the bb .. damn ..what are all you libertinos gonna do with all those "breadline futures" and "low wage LLC IPO's" you were expecting to cash in on now ??

for my part.. i'm going to call the UN and see if they'll start a fund to ensure all you libertinos have an adequate supply of condoms ..that way when y'all are in the process of [continuing to]fluck[ing] everyone else ..at least y'all won't be spreading AIDS...

quote:

One might, with reason, also argue that subsidizing joblessness stands in the way of such deals by making its recipients unwilling to make them.

Why do you suppose corporate America just isn't hiring people? I know people that have been offered part time work, but they don't take cause they make more on unemployment.

quote:

Why do you suppose corporate America just isn't hiring people? I know people that have been offered part time work, but they don't take cause they make more on unemployment.

Two points: (1) why do you think corporate America isn't hiring? In fact, the private sector is adding jobs at a respectable rate. It's the public sector that's stalled -- and you can thank the conservocrud in Congress for that. (2) As I noted above, it's demand that drives hiring. Demand is more stagnant than it would otherwise be in significant part because of the stalled public sector. You can again thank the conservocrud in Congress.

quote:

Two points: (1) why do you think corporate America isn't hiring? In fact, the private sector is adding jobs at a respectable rate. It's the public sector that's stalled -- and you can thank the conservocrud in Congress for that. (2) As I noted above, it's demand that drives hiring. Demand is more stagnant than it would otherwise be in significant part because of the stalled public sector. You can again thank the conservocrud in Congress.

If I wanted a biased answer I would have asked you, Lynn. Wall St doesn't seem to think jobs are as rosy as you do.

quote:

Originally posted by Lynn Dee:

quote:

Why do you suppose corporate America just isn't hiring people? I know people that have been offered part time work, but they don't take cause they make more on unemployment.

Two points: (1) why do you think corporate America isn't hiring? In fact, the private sector is adding jobs at a respectable rate. It's the public sector that's stalled -- and you can thank the conservocrud in Congress for that. (2) As I noted above, it's demand that drives hiring. Demand is more stagnant than it would otherwise be in significant part because of the stalled public sector. You can again thank the conservocrud in Congress.

Public sector workers are net consumers of tax dollars. Private workers in the aggregate support not only themselves but every one of those government workers. And you want more public sector hiring?

http://www.bartcop.com/cantor-bible.jpg

quote:

Public sector workers are net consumers of tax dollars. Private workers in the aggregate support not only themselves but every one of those government workers.

What kind of twisted thinking is this? Public sector workers pay taxes too. They're also supporting other public sector workers. And aren't the police, firefighters, IRS agents, teachers, sanitation workers, military enlistees supposed to be paid from public funds, to name just a few? Is there anything disreputable or dishonest about working for a city, state, or federal government? Could our society survive without such workers? Do you really want to eliminate all teachers, police, and firefighters? Are the highways going to repair themselves?

That's one of the craziest points of view I've heard.

Jeff

Jeff, the employment-related income of public sector employees is 100% tax money. What public sector employees keep and spend or save or invest are dollars taken directly from the government's cash flow. The taxes paid by public sector employees are simply tax dollars passed through their pay stub and tax return. The former is a greater number than the latter. That means they are net consumers of tax dollars.

The point of view is 100% sane. A simple, irrefutable truth. That some public employees are indispensable is not to say they all are. But they're all net consumers of tax dollars.

What do you think of the folks who process tens of billions of dollars of subsidy checks to agribusiness? (Cargill, anyone?) To selected preferred corporations (Solyndra, anyone?)

And just think. If we did without them, those billions wouldn't even have to enter the government's cash flow, would they?

 
The original supposition was we should get rid of minimum wage for those under the age of 25.

Big deal... the number of "minimum wage" jobs out there is few to none these days. And it's not because the youth of America are working... believe me, they aren't.

These minimum wage jobs are being held by the wives of the unemployed middle-class, or the single grandparent trying to supplement his SS check 'cause the market crashed and took his 20-45-years of investment with it, or the retiree who can't get back into Corporate America and needs to work because her pension went way south on her.

Drive through any fast food restaurant ($8/hr) in my area and you'll find 30+-yos and silver-haired gents with prominent veins on their hands behind the counter... walk into Wal-Mart at 2:30 in the morning and look around at who is doing the overnight stocking ($9/hr)... 40-yo previously mid-Corporate America guys working so they can keep making their (very reasonable, btw) mortgage note who're putting in eight hours of back breaking work and then have to go home and be the full-time daycare provider for their kids while their wives go to work all the while they're PRAYING they won't lose their job to the next strapping 22-yo who walks through the door... walks into Target, or IHOP or your local supermarket and see who's behind the register... it's not the youth of America, folks.

Get rid of the minimum wage for those under the age of 25? Riiiiiiiight.

The we can all sit back and watch many MORE homes, families and elderly become "lost" to us.

Pffffft.

*CJ

quote:

Originally posted by AMProf:
Jeff, the employment-related income of public sector employees is 100% tax money. What public sector employees keep and spend or save or invest are dollars taken directly from the government's cash flow. The taxes paid by public sector employees are simply tax dollars passed through their pay stub and tax return. The former is a greater number than the latter. That means they are net consumers of tax dollars.

The point of view is 100% sane. A simple, irrefutable truth. That some public employees are indispensable is not to say they all are. But they're all net consumers of tax dollars.

What do you think of the folks who process tens of billions of dollars of subsidy checks to agribusiness? (Cargill, anyone?) To selected preferred corporations (Solyndra, anyone?)

And just think. If we did without them, those billions wouldn't even have to enter the government's cash flow, would they?

So -which- public sector employees do you propose we do without?

The police? Then some of those "billions" wouldn't be realized as some folks wouldn't be able to go to work 'cause their "job" would be staying home to protect their kids and homes.

The school teachers? Always a favorite of those who've perfected the public sector whine. So we layoff... what? 50% of the teachers in this country? And what does that do to our future as a nation? And how many working moms will have to stop working in order to supplement their child's (horrendous) public school education... how many students in your grandchild's third-grade class of 50 or 60 students do YOU think will make it to, or through, college?

Of course, we could always go straight to the source and layoff our firemen, our public health nurses, and do away with funding to hospitals... that'll get rid of a LOT of Americans, very quickly.

Hmmm... a slow death by undercutting ourselves at every turn, or a quick death? Decisions, decisions...

*CJ

quote:

But they're all net consumers of tax dollars.

I didn't deny the truth of that--only that it's a perfect example of twisted thinking. Sure, public employees are paid by tax dollars. So what? That's part of what tax dollars are for. It's irrelevant to whatever point you're trying to make here.

It's silly to concentrate on the salaries paid to those who process subsidy checks to agribusiness. Get rid of the subsidies--that's where the money goes, not the employees involved in clerical tasks to fulfill the Congress-voted subsidy distributions. Stop spending trillions of dollars on military equipment that the Pentagon doesn't need and won't use. Get rid of the hundreds of military bases we have to act as the world's policemen against attacks that will not occur. We still have 55000 soldiers in Germany and 34000 in Japan, doing a fine job against Hitler and Hirohito. We have 25000 in South Korea as a "police action" left over from the Korean war in 1954. We have a half million soldiers abroad in 150 countries. Ridiculous.
Source:
http://www.nolanchart.com/arti...military-empire.html

There are plenty of places to save huge amounts of money without having to get rid of essential public servants doing the teaching in public schools and protecting us against fire and crime--as well as fixing our roads, maintaining our electrical grid, assuring us of clean water and air, etc. etc. etc.

Jeff

No where and in no way did I ever propose or suggest getting rid of essential public servants.

I was responding specifically to Lynn's observation that hiring in the public sector employment is stalled, that it is lagging private sector employment. That's net good news. We don't need more public sector employees, and could make do quite nicely with fewer of them in nonessential and unproductive positions.

It's very sad to see demonstrably intelligent people routinely ignore what is written in plain English a few inches in front of their face, then make something up, write it down, pretend it was there all the time, and then proceed to babble about what they've fabricated.

Very sad.

quote:

But they're all net consumers of tax dollars.

But the money they spend -- like the money any consumer spends -- ripples through the economy and supports others, thereby increasing demand, expanding the economy, etc. And it's not as if, by laying off public sector employees, that money is somehow freed up to go forth and do good more directly. To the extent it remains unspent or simply "doesn't increase the deficit," it does very little immediate good. I don't even know how much (net) long-term good it does when you consider that maintaining demand and keeping the economy from contracting (which is what laying people off does) will itself have a a salutary effect on the deficit.

BTW:

quote:

We don't need more public sector employees, and could make do quite nicely with fewer of them in nonessential and unproductive positions.

It's not a matter of "needing more" -- it's a matter of not laying off employees, such as police, firefighters, teachers, etc., who are hardly non-essential or unproductive.

Exactly right, Lynn.

quote:

That's net good news. We don't need more public sector employees, and could make do quite nicely with fewer of them in nonessential and unproductive positions.

That's not good news. (phrasing intentional).

Again, it's not a question of whether we need more "public sector employees"--it's a question of what employees we do need and what we don't need.

We know that essential workers are being laid off as the cost cutting on federal, state, and local levels hits--cost cutting in part necessitated by reduced revenues, and in part by crazy actions by the federal, state, and local governments. We know that public employment is down and private employment up. But the jobs being cut are the wrong jobs. The government jobs cut are teachers, police, firefighters, sanitation, jobs essential for maintaining our infrastructure. The statistics show that.

quote:

But what happens when you shed public sector jobs amidst an already weak economic climate is the sharply reduced incomes of the former teachers and whatnot lead to them spending less in their local communities. In total, we have about 500,000 fewer people working for the government since Obama’s inauguration even though the national population is larger than it used to be.

Source:
http://thinkprogress.org/ygles...ecovery-continues-2/

Most of the jobs lost aren't federal jobs--they're on the state and local level. And they're hurting not just those who are now unemployed (through no fault of their own) but the economies in which those people live.

Jeff

Excellent post, Jeff. The point about the lost jobs being state and local is especially well taken.

quote:

No where and in no way did I ever propose or suggest getting rid of essential public servants.

Always thought you might be a socialist, Amprof. I'll admit I also enjoy having public roads, cops, parks, schools and such.

quote:

Wall St doesn't seem to think jobs are as rosy as you do.

When did Wall Street start caring about job creation?

quote:

When did Wall Street start caring about job creation?

You have to be pretty naive to think it doesn't!

THIS IS FASCINATING! ON THE ONE HAND, WE HAVE CONSERVATIVES WHO COMPLAIN THAT OBAMA IS DOING NOTHING TO CREAT JOBS FOR THE PEOPLE AT THE SAME TIME THEY COMPLAIN THAT IT IS NOT THE "JOB" OF GOVERNMENT TO CREATE JOBS! WHICH IS IT: SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT CREATE JOBS OR NOT?

YOU CAN TAKE AWAY ALL REGULATIONS AND YOU MOST LIKELY WILL NOT FIND THE PRIVATE SECTOR BEATING THE BUSHES FOR NEW EMPLOYEES. MY EMPLOYER WILL NEVER HIRE MORE PEOPLE THAN IT NEEDS TO WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER ENTITY FORCES OR ENTICES THEM TO DO SO!

BTW, THE LACK OF REGULATIONS IN THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY HAS BROUGHT US TO THIS "RECESSION," SO REMOVING ALL REGULATIONS ARE OUT OF THE QUESTION!