Does anyone have a plan for long term employment recovery?

[Wyatt earp]

Revive small business and self employment.

http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/Kane--TheCollapseofStartupsinJobCreation0912web.pdf

The state of entrepreneurship in the United States is, sadly, weaker than ever. There are fewer new firms being formed today than two years ago when the recession ended. As the BLS described quarterly entrepreneurship figures, “New establishments are not being formed at the same levels seen before the economic downturn began, and the number is much lower than it was during the 2001 recession.” The peak number of new establishments was 667,000 in 2006, which dropped every year until it hit 548,000 in 2009. Then in 2010 it fell to 505,000

AS business models have changed (think WALMART but that is not the only example) devising SMALL BUSINESSES that are economically viable becomes more difficult.

Now that is an organic problem, not a conspiracy.

Business models are ALSO a kind of changing technology. Only not a nuts and bolts technology more of a social system techology.

The effect however, is much the same as any other LABOR SAVING techology.

Fewer workers are needed.

Who here remembers when there were NO malls, no superstores, no massive discounted hardware stores etc?

Most the former REATAIL workers who used to man the retailing on MAIN Street USA, are gone.

The BIG BOX stores are more efficient ergo they hire less workers do do the same (or more) retailing.

Your post didnt make a hill of beans sense, the former workers who used to earn a "living wage" now work for low pay at Box stores, so you can buy cheap stuff made in china. They didnt go anywhere, and box stores dont hire less people that I can tell.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Nothing that will permanently alter the problems, no.

EVen if we erected tariffs that completely eliminated all trade ( something I do not support) we would STILL have the problems stemming from TECHNOLOGY making workers redundant and economically UNVIABLE.

The only real solution is a change in the SOCIAL CONTRACT.

Naturally that will not happen non-violently, it never does.

Those what have, those who most benefit from the changing conditions are not willingly going to share the wealth.

They will fight a change in social contract tooth and nail.

Exactly as we saw happen during the last time we changed the SOCIAL CONTRACT via unioniSM.

It is going to be a very turbulent century, citizens.

We as yet have not even admitted that we have a problem.

We are still bullshitting outsevles that more educated workers are the answer.

That is simply NOT true for the vast majority of the labor problems facing us.

This I am curious in, What type of new Social contract do you propose to combat technology and reduce man power? I know alot of companys that run "lights out" at night and on weekends (no workers just machines running production)

 

[itfitzme]

A simple plan for reducing long term employment is to put everyone that is unemplyed in prison. This reduces the civilian non-institutionalized population and thus the unemployment rate.

We can change the mental health criteria to include a diagnosis of "socially disfunctional and incapable of obtaining gainful employment" and "socially dysfunctional and unable to accept minimum market labor rates". This would allow them to be institutionalized and thereby reduce the unployment rate.

We could kill everyone that is unemployed. There are three ways to accomplish this.

We can start a war or expand an existing conflict, drafting the unemployed and letting them get killed in service to their country.

We can simply round them all up into concentration camps and gass them (it was working for Hitler, for a while.)

Similarly, we can have a civil war. It worked here when we abolished slavery, killed a huge amount of the population, and opened up alot of employment for our new citizenry. It also worked in Darfur and seems to be workimg in Syria.

We could also simply neglect the unemployed and let them die of natural causes like starvation.

We could go the old Egyptian route and start a massive public works program to build huge stone pyramids.

We could add to the current farm and other industry subsidy programs with the additional requirement that they must employ one extra person for every $50k in subsidies.

We could implement a negative business tax rate, giving companies $.25 for every $1 in net sales. (There is empirical evidence to support this.)

I like the idea of expanding the BEA to a massive collection and analysis of economic data with the goal of solidifying economic theory.

We can expand the goals, role and level of employment in the EDD. I think that this should be combined with BEA.

As a rule, employment undee the BEA/EDD program shouldn't be counted as employed for the purposes of the unemployment rate. It defeats the purpose.

Another would be to ban the BEA, EDD or whatever agencies from doing unemployment data collection. If you don't count it, it doesn't count.

There are a few, of the top of my head.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We could kill everyone that is unemployed.

or, we could try capitalism!! Under capitalism supply equals demand such that the supply of jobs equals the demand for jobs!!

Ever wonder why Ford, for example, only supplies the number of cars that people demand??? To make money they must obey the law of supply and demand!!

 

[Polk]

Nothing that will permanently alter the problems, no.

EVen if we erected tariffs that completely eliminated all trade ( something I do not support) we would STILL have the problems stemming from TECHNOLOGY making workers redundant and economically UNVIABLE.

The only real solution is a change in the SOCIAL CONTRACT.

Naturally that will not happen non-violently, it never does.

Those what have, those who most benefit from the changing conditions are not willingly going to share the wealth.

They will fight a change in social contract tooth and nail.

Exactly as we saw happen during the last time we changed the SOCIAL CONTRACT via unioniSM.

It is going to be a very turbulent century, citizens.

We as yet have not even admitted that we have a problem.

We are still bullshitting outsevles that more educated workers are the answer.

That is simply NOT true for the vast majority of the labor problems facing us.

This I am curious in, What type of new Social contract do you propose to combat technology and reduce man power? I know alot of companys that run "lights out" at night and on weekends (no workers just machines running production)

I don't know if that's a question one can really give a good answer to.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

we would STILL have the problems stemming from TECHNOLOGY making workers redundant and economically UNVIABLE.

The USA has 140 million jobs and China has 600 million jobs after 300 years of advancing technology. The law of supply and demand dictates that in a free market the supply of jobs equals the demand for jobs.

Did you ever hear of the law of supply and demand??

 

[Polk]

If it were true, unemployment would literally be impossible.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Nothing that will permanently alter the problems, no.

EVen if we erected tariffs that completely eliminated all trade ( something I do not support) we would STILL have the problems stemming from TECHNOLOGY making workers redundant and economically UNVIABLE.

The only real solution is a change in the SOCIAL CONTRACT.

Naturally that will not happen non-violently, it never does.

Those what have, those who most benefit from the changing conditions are not willingly going to share the wealth.

They will fight a change in social contract tooth and nail.

Exactly as we saw happen during the last time we changed the SOCIAL CONTRACT via unioniSM.

It is going to be a very turbulent century, citizens.

We as yet have not even admitted that we have a problem.

We are still bullshitting outsevles that more educated workers are the answer.

That is simply NOT true for the vast majority of the labor problems facing us.

This I am curious in, What type of new Social contract do you propose to combat technology and reduce man power? I know alot of companys that run "lights out" at night and on weekends (no workers just machines running production)

I don't know if that's a question one can really give a good answer to.

Try to give me an honest answer. ( and note I am not trying to set you up) but this kind of interest's me, what it could be? because I dont have a clue.

 

[Polk]

This I am curious in, What type of new Social contract do you propose to combat technology and reduce man power? I know alot of companys that run "lights out" at night and on weekends (no workers just machines running production)

I don't know if that's a question one can really give a good answer to.

Try to give me an honest answer. ( and note I am not trying to set you up) but this kind of interest's me, what it could be? because I dont have a clue.

Another way to look at less manpower needed to make less goods is that it's much closer to reaching the end of scarcity. This would probably provide a strong footing for Marxist-ish arguments, since it removes of the significant constraints on idea. One could envision an economic system similar to the one of the Star Trek series.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If it were true, unemployment would literally be impossible.

dear, how can the law of supply and demand be stupid?? Do you have any idea what it is and why it dictates that unemployment is literally impossible in a free society????

Do I have to teach you Econ 101 class one day one minute one????

 

[itfitzme]

Centuries? *Really?

Obviously not. It's a mis-type.

And how do you know any inflation data is distorted? *What magic measurement do you use? *Or do you use a feeling in your loins?

I simply like at the percentage at which prices are increasing, pile them into a basket of goods and then compare them to how fast the CPI is increasing. The BLS has all of that data so its not hard for anyone who really wants to do the research to do it. Also you can compare the Big Mac Index percentage increase to that of the official CPI.

**

The only explanation I can come with are the migrating factors from buying things online. For one, you are not paying taxes (not yet, anyway) and you and majority of the time you are purchasing items from wholesalers. Although there are services for this, I don't know too many people who really buy their necessities online.

*

These changes don't accurately reflect what the prices are in the real economy. Certain consumer goods can be increasing steadily, but because the methodology has changed the CPI will show that these items are decreasing. Regardless of whether or not the price has increased within the past 10 years.



The alternative would be to go back to the way the CPI was computed in the 1970/1980's. The government would have to be more honest about how it devalues it's currency.*

Substitutions gives the false premise that prices aren't increasing, because consumers are choosing a substitute over their favorite items. If consumers are able to go with a cheaper substitute as oppose to their original brand, then according to the methodology this proves that prices aren't rising. The only problem with this rationale is that people are going with cheaper substitutes simply because prices are rising.

Hedonic Adjustments makes items appear to be decreasing, despite the nominal price is of an item is rising. Lets say that you have a basic tool such as a hammer, and the nominal price of the hammer has increased 20% within the last 5 years. Hedonic Adjustments will determine the price fluctuations according to the 'quality' of the item compared to a different time period, instead of looking at price increases overtime. So if the quality of the hammer has increased by 15%, this means that according to the CPI the price of the hammer has only increased by 5%, instead of the 20% nominally.

This is done with a lot of electronics, cars, and other things. Although some of these items have not gone down, these items have price decreases in CPI reports.



You're kidding, right? The CPI hasn't had a negative year since the 1950's. There hasn't been any deflation in the economy. Falling prices use to be a good thing. It still is a good thing for most people. People like it when the things that they enjoy buying becomes less expensive. That's what creates demand.*







I don't have a desired inflation rate. I'm just saying that the similarities with what is going on between the 1970's and 2000 are too parallel for inflation to only be 2 - 3% a year. The printing of money is not only the cause of inflation. The printing of money is inflation.*

We have been kicking around how to measure capital stock for growth theory purposes for at least fifty years. *How much of America's capital stock is human capital, and how much is social overhead capital? *How do YOU measure them? *Or do you just ignore 80% of the capital stock? *

I don't see what measuring the development for books, YouTube videos and iTunes music has to do with this, but you generally cannot. There are a lot of things you cannot measure in the GDP, but some measurements make more sense than others. The final output of an item is what is measured in GDP. Although the research done to create the item is not added into GDP, R&D is still a business expense and it is still added in GDP already.

You think national income accounts are uniform now? *And you don't believe that other advanced economies are working to incorporate especially human capital into their growth models?

GDP is not totally uniform everywhere. There are certain goods and services available in one part of the world, which may be banned in another. Other than Personal Consumption Expenditures, measuring and calculating GDP is pretty much the same everywhere. And no I don't believe advance economies are trying to incorporation human capital into their models. Because it doesn't make sense.

You make a number of good point regarding the limitations to the CPI. *Everyone who has taken an into to maco economics course, and many that haven't, are well aware of what you have pointed out. *Thank you for the nice synopsis. *It's always great to review them.

Your frustration seems to stem from your expectation of what the CPI is meant to do. *

First off, it is a relative measure of the wholenof the U.S. economy. *The U.S. economy consists of more than 12.7 million companies, 160 mil employees, averaging 12.5 per company. *Many are independent contractors with a single employee. There are far more than 160 mill consumers buying those goods and services. *This is all spread out across four time zones and 3000 miles, east to west, for the contiguous United States. Multiply that by the north-south distance and you get a square miles of magnetude in the millions of square mile range.

There is temendous variability in the day to day and monthe to month time scale of the CPI that far exceeds the yearly average. It typically swings greatly negative. And it varies greatly between regions. *

One of the CPI measures is for clerical workers. And, historically, we know who employs a lot of clerical workers. The government, going back to the time of King Soloman or the Egyptians. *That is a big part of why the CPI exists.

Personally, I object to the current CPI that is used for COLA for SSI. The basket of goods typically consumed by a senior on SSI or SSDI is different than a clerical worker.

There is, you know, more than one measure of CPI that is maintained by the BEA. *The FED has it's own. They have difcerent purposes.

Never the less, over the long run, they all tend towards being the same. *None are an absolute measure. *They are relative measures. *And, there is a tremendous amount of academic, theoretical, and empirical study that goes into them before they are accepted as practice. *A person could make a career out of just the cpi measures alone.

What you can do is to do your own personal cpi. Come up with your personal standard basket of goods and track the pricing from month to month. *I beleive that you will find that your's is pretty much in line with the published BEA given the significant differences unique to you buying habits and location.

You might also be interested in digging into the tables of data thqt comprise the CPI. The data, down to the size of egg and type of gasoline is available. It' s real groaner of a study but if you are to have opinions about such things, you should be willing to do the detailed work. We should all know far more about our subject than just the reach of our opinion.

 

[AmyNation]

This is the CDZ, there is no flaming, no name calling, no neg repping, and no put downs.

 

[itfitzme]

We could kill everyone that is unemployed.

or, we could try capitalism!! Under capitalism supply equals demand such that the supply of jobs equals the demand for jobs!!

Ever wonder why Ford, for example, only supplies the number of cars that people demand??? To make money they must obey the law of supply and demand!!

Come back when you've completed an ECON 100 course. If you can't find one at your local community college, you can use the book I linked to. When you get stuck on the math, just ask. I'll be glad to help.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We could kill everyone that is unemployed.

or, we could try capitalism!! Under capitalism supply equals demand such that the supply of jobs equals the demand for jobs!!

Ever wonder why Ford, for example, only supplies the number of cars that people demand??? To make money they must obey the law of supply and demand!!

Come back when you've completed an ECON 100 course. If you can't find one at your local community college, you can use the book I linked to. When you get stuck on the math, just ask. I'll be glad to help.

can you say why the law of supply and demand does not work?? Please try. Thank you.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I don't know if that's a question one can really give a good answer to.

Try to give me an honest answer. ( and note I am not trying to set you up) but this kind of interest's me, what it could be? because I dont have a clue.

Another way to look at less manpower needed to make less goods is that it's much closer to reaching the end of scarcity. This would probably provide a strong footing for Marxist-ish arguments, since it removes of the significant constraints on idea. One could envision an economic system similar to the one of the Star Trek series.

WOW now you got me thinking of how the star wars or star trek economic system works. In the t.v. series you only seen a few people aboard that ship of 428.... what did they do? and it is funny that captain pikes crew was only 203.... so was it technology in the future that will still dimish labor? lol. interesting glad you brought it up

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Try to give me an honest answer. ( and note I am not trying to set you up) but this kind of interest's me, what it could be? because I dont have a clue.

Another way to look at less manpower needed to make less goods is that it's much closer to reaching the end of scarcity. This would probably provide a strong footing for Marxist-ish arguments, since it removes of the significant constraints on idea. One could envision an economic system similar to the one of the Star Trek series.

WOW now you got me thinking of how the star wars or star trek economic system works. In the t.v. series you only seen a few people aboard that ship of 428.... what did they do? and it is funny that captain pikes crew was only 203.... so was it technology in the future that will still dimish labor? lol. interesting glad you brought it up

if technology eliminated jobs the Fed would not be waiting for unemployment to go back down to 6% and unemployment would have reached 90% after 2000 years of technological growth. I suppose Bernanke may know about the law of supply and demand.

 

[itfitzme]

This I am curious in, What type of new Social contract do you propose to combat technology and reduce man power? I know alot of companys that run "lights out" at night and on weekends (no workers just machines running production)

I don't know if that's a question one can really give a good answer to.

Try to give me an honest answer. ( and note I am not trying to set you up) but this kind of interest's me, what it could be? because I dont have a clue.

That is the million dollar question.

I believe that growth is dependent upon the existence of a level of existing inefficiency in the production system. That is that resources are under utilized. When there is a level of under utilization across all of the factors of production and demand then there is some wiggle room for growth. That is, though, kinda an obvious "duh". But then, we have to start with a clear understanding of all the "duh"s to get to an "ah-ha".

It may be that under utilization in required in only a subset of all of the factors, with growth following a path of trading under utilization (inefficiency) between substitute factors.

What I'm saying is that what Editec is noting is that more efficiency in capital utilization is traded off for inefficiency in labor force utilization (now at .925).

This is the unemployment increasing mode. The money supply was also being used inefficiently and when the credit markets tightened, both money and capital efficiency increased, along with employeed labor efficiency, but at the expense of the efficiency of the full lqbor market. A ompany has ten people working at 90% full output. The money supply tightens, demand falls, one guy gets laid off and everyone else increases output to 100%. Somewhere else, 10 people are at 100% (competitive market), demand falls and one guy gets laid off. Now, unemployment is up to 2/20 or 10%. The employed labor efficiency is up. Total workable labor efficiency is down. Monetary efficiency is up. Capitol utilization is down, theer are two empty desks and computers.

Now, reverse that process.

 

[Polk]

If it were true, unemployment would literally be impossible.

dear, how can the law of supply and demand be stupid?? Do you have any idea what it is and why it dictates that unemployment is literally impossible in a free society????

Do I have to teach you Econ 101 class one day one minute one????

The problem is that first minute is the only one you heard. The words "supply" and "demand" came out and you fell asleep.

 

[Polk]

Try to give me an honest answer. ( and note I am not trying to set you up) but this kind of interest's me, what it could be? because I dont have a clue.

Another way to look at less manpower needed to make less goods is that it's much closer to reaching the end of scarcity. This would probably provide a strong footing for Marxist-ish arguments, since it removes of the significant constraints on idea. One could envision an economic system similar to the one of the Star Trek series.

WOW now you got me thinking of how the star wars or star trek economic system works. In the t.v. series you only seen a few people aboard that ship of 428.... what did they do? and it is funny that captain pikes crew was only 203.... so was it technology in the future that will still dimish labor? lol. interesting glad you brought it up

The economy in Star Wars seems to function a lot like our own (though, admittedly, I don't have much knowledge of the expanded universe of the novels, etc.). As for Star Trek, the people who served on starships were largely there because they wanted to be there.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What type of new Social contract do you propose to combat technology

This is a joke right? Actually we could simply make technology illegal to combat it but then we'd all be dead- right?? Or, we could slow it down by law and then only half of us would be dead.