Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I sense that we probably agree, but I am simply not comfortable, to the degree which you seem to be, with the loose ends. I expect this stems from you knowing the forum better than me, and have come to learn what's a waste of time and what isn't.
Forgive me, I'm a newb to this house of intellectual horror.
But - Government, such as you've described will only grow until its unsustainable mass causes it to implode upon itself. Or an outside force destroys it.
In the case of the US government, it seems to be a race against the clock to see which gets there first.
Well yes the government continuing to grow is bad. But it's going to continue because we are a democracy. The rich have shipped jobs overseas and cut benefits. Meanwhile the government is filling this void, just look at obamacare. I'd prefer to give the rich some incentives to create more jobs here and give better pay and benefits. Then when people can once again get decent jobs, government spending can go down. Unless that happens we just might implode.
First, the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. If you need to recognize that Constitutional Republics are designed around democratic principles, I'm fine with that. But that is one helluva long way from being a Democracy.
Second, your point: 'growth of Government is bad, because we're a Democracy' is the reason that US Governance was specifically NOT established as such.
"The Rich" are a mythical beast which exists only in the mind of children and fools.
Business 'shipped jobs overseas', because socialists established such regulatory burdens on doing business in the US, that it became A LOT cheaper to move the entire operation overseas, than to keep it here.
If you're keeping score, that is Business reacting to threats against its best interests, from people intent upon harming them. Cause and effect.
Business exist as a means to fulfill the goals of those who own it. It owes nothing to those who they hire, beyond what was agreed to exchange for their services. If a person agreed to $15/hour then they're owed $15 for every hour they produce. PERIOD.
Today, it cost a business an additional 15/hr above the agreed upon $15 to sustain someone who THEMSELVES agreed that the hourly value they presented was worth $15. You'll note that that is a loss of 100% for the business. Hard to stay in business when you're paying 100% more than someone is worth.
Again, this is the basis upon which the Framers of the US Constitution specifically considered and overtly rejected Democracy.
They recognized that the advocates of Democracy were consistently incapable of objectivity. The results being that what seemed like a good idea on the surface, quickly began to consume itself.
Which, the scoreboard shows, is where we are today, because of precisely that reason.
Read my book: "Why Socialism Fails"
It's short and concise.
Chapt. 1: Socialism rests on Relativism.
Chapt. 2:Relativism rejects objectivity.
Chapt. 3: Objectivity is essential to truth, trust, morality and justice.
Chapt. 4: Remove those elements from any culture and it is doomed to die a fiery, cruel death at the hands of its own children and the fools who mislead them.
Well yes the government continuing to grow is bad. But it's going to continue because we are a democracy. The rich have shipped jobs overseas and cut benefits. Meanwhile the government is filling this void, just look at obamacare. I'd prefer to give the rich some incentives to create more jobs here and give better pay and benefits. Then when people can once again get decent jobs, government spending can go down. Unless that happens we just might implode.
First, the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. If you need to recognize that Constitutional Republics are designed around democratic principles, I'm fine with that. But that is one helluva long way from being a Democracy.
Second, your point: 'growth of Government is bad, because we're a Democracy' is the reason that US Governance was specifically NOT established as such.
"The Rich" are a mythical beast which exists only in the mind of children and fools and turning from foolishness.
Business 'shipped jobs overseas', because socialists established such regulatory burdens on doing business in the US, that it became A LOT cheaper to move the entire operation overseas, than to keep it here.
If you're keeping score, that is Business reacting to threats against its best interests, from people intent upon harming them. Cause and effect.
Business exist as a means to fulfill the goals of those who own it. It owes nothing to those who they hire, beyond what was agreed to exchange for their services. If a person agreed to $15/hour then they're owed $15 for every hour they produce. PERIOD.
Today, it cost a business an additional 15/hr above the agreed upon $15 to sustain someone who THEMSELVES agreed that the hourly value they presented was worth $15. You'll note that that is a loss of 100% for the business. Hard to stay in business when you're paying 100% more than someone is worth.
Again, this is the basis upon which the Framers of the US Constitution specifically considered and overtly rejected Democracy.
They recognized that the advocates of Democracy were consistently incapable of objectivity. The results being that what seemed like a good idea on the surface, quickly began to consume itself.
Which, the scoreboard shows, is where we are today, because of precisely that reason.
Read my book: "Why Socialism Fails"
It's short and concise.
Chapt. 1: Socialism rests on Relativism.
Chapt. 2:Relativism rejects objectivity.
Chapt. 3: Objectivity is essential to truth, trust, morality and justice.
Chapt. 4: Remove those elements from any culture and it is doomed to die a fiery, cruel death at the hands of its own children and the fools who mislead them.
Are you responding to my comment or just trying to sell a book? Nothing in your message changes that government will keep growing. It's just another socialism is bad rant. Well no kidding. But if we continue like this we will have more of it. Do you deny that? And if so why?
Well yes the government continuing to grow is bad. But it's going to continue because we are a democracy. The rich have shipped jobs overseas and cut benefits. Meanwhile the government is filling this void, just look at obamacare. I'd prefer to give the rich some incentives to create more jobs here and give better pay and benefits. Then when people can once again get decent jobs, government spending can go down. Unless that happens we just might implode.
First, the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. If you need to recognize that Constitutional Republics are designed around democratic principles, I'm fine with that. But that is one helluva long way from being a Democracy.
Second, your point: 'growth of Government is bad, because we're a Democracy' is the reason that US Governance was specifically NOT established as such.
"The Rich" are a mythical beast which exists only in the mind of children and fools.
Business 'shipped jobs overseas', because socialists established such regulatory burdens on doing business in the US, that it became A LOT cheaper to move the entire operation overseas, than to keep it here.
If you're keeping score, that is Business reacting to threats against its best interests, from people intent upon harming them. Cause and effect.
Business exist as a means to fulfill the goals of those who own it. It owes nothing to those who they hire, beyond what was agreed to exchange for their services. If a person agreed to $15/hour then they're owed $15 for every hour they produce. PERIOD.
Today, it cost a business an additional 15/hr above the agreed upon $15 to sustain someone who THEMSELVES agreed that the hourly value they presented was worth $15. You'll note that that is a loss of 100% for the business. Hard to stay in business when you're paying 100% more than someone is worth.
Again, this is the basis upon which the Framers of the US Constitution specifically considered and overtly rejected Democracy.
They recognized that the advocates of Democracy were consistently incapable of objectivity. The results being that what seemed like a good idea on the surface, quickly began to consume itself.
Which, the scoreboard shows, is where we are today, because of precisely that reason.
Read my book: "Why Socialism Fails"
It's short and concise.
Chapt. 1: Socialism rests on Relativism.
Chapt. 2:Relativism rejects objectivity.
Chapt. 3: Objectivity is essential to truth, trust, morality and justice.
Chapt. 4: Remove those elements from any culture and it is doomed to die a fiery, cruel death at the hands of its own children and the fools who mislead them.
Are you responding to my comment or just trying to sell a book? Nothing in your message changes that government will keep growing. It's just another socialism is bad rant. Well no kidding. But if we continue like this we will have more of it. Do you deny that? And if so why?
First, the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. If you need to recognize that Constitutional Republics are designed around democratic principles, I'm fine with that. But that is one helluva long way from being a Democracy.
Second, your point: 'growth of Government is bad, because we're a Democracy' is the reason that US Governance was specifically NOT established as such.
"The Rich" are a mythical beast which exists only in the mind of children and fools and turning from foolishness.
Business 'shipped jobs overseas', because socialists established such regulatory burdens on doing business in the US, that it became A LOT cheaper to move the entire operation overseas, than to keep it here.
If you're keeping score, that is Business reacting to threats against its best interests, from people intent upon harming them. Cause and effect.
Business exist as a means to fulfill the goals of those who own it. It owes nothing to those who they hire, beyond what was agreed to exchange for their services. If a person agreed to $15/hour then they're owed $15 for every hour they produce. PERIOD.
Today, it cost a business an additional 15/hr above the agreed upon $15 to sustain someone who THEMSELVES agreed that the hourly value they presented was worth $15. You'll note that that is a loss of 100% for the business. Hard to stay in business when you're paying 100% more than someone is worth.
Again, this is the basis upon which the Framers of the US Constitution specifically considered and overtly rejected Democracy.
They recognized that the advocates of Democracy were consistently incapable of objectivity. The results being that what seemed like a good idea on the surface, quickly began to consume itself.
Which, the scoreboard shows, is where we are today, because of precisely that reason.
Read my book: "Why Socialism Fails"
It's short and concise.
Chapt. 1: Socialism rests on Relativism.
Chapt. 2:Relativism rejects objectivity.
Chapt. 3: Objectivity is essential to truth, trust, morality and justice.
Chapt. 4: Remove those elements from any culture and it is doomed to die a fiery, cruel death at the hands of its own children and the fools who mislead them.
Are you responding to my comment or just trying to sell a book? Nothing in your message changes that government will keep growing. It's just another socialism is bad rant. Well no kidding. But if we continue like this we will have more of it. Do you deny that? And if so why?
Neither... I am pointing out why government will keep growing, in hopes that sound minds will grasp the key to stopping it and use it to do so.
You seem to be of the mind that such is inevitable. It's not.
Many things could happen, but in every one of those potential scenarios, collectivism must first be shown to be FOOLISH with sufficient number of current collectivists determining that they do not want to be fools. To do this, they must find the strength within themselves to build objectivity into their own perspectives.
If that doesn't happen, then the only solution is for Americans to destroy their foolish neighbors and the government with is fooling them.
Keep a positive attitude and anything is possible.
(I know... it's hard. But that's the nature of effort... and the only means to find success, happiness and fulfillment.)
Are you responding to my comment or just trying to sell a book? Nothing in your message changes that government will keep growing. It's just another socialism is bad rant. Well no kidding. But if we continue like this we will have more of it. Do you deny that? And if so why?
Neither... I am pointing out why government will keep growing, in hopes that sound minds will grasp the key to stopping it and use it to do so.
You seem to be of the mind that such is inevitable. It's not.
Many things could happen, but in every one of those potential scenarios, collectivism must first be shown to be FOOLISH with sufficient number of current collectivists determining that they do not want to be fools. To do this, they must find the strength within themselves to build objectivity into their own perspectives.
If that doesn't happen, then the only solution is for Americans to destroy their foolish neighbors and the government with is fooling them.
Keep a positive attitude and anything is possible.
(I know... it's hard. But that's the nature of effort... and the only means to find success, happiness and fulfillment.)
Well sure anything is possible, but I certainly don't see it happening. Without incentive well just continue this same way.
So since your looking to rant about capitalism, why is it failing the working class? Well failing might be exaggerating, but in theory everyone's wages should be growing. Instead they are stagnant for the working class.
Do you think non competes are capitalism?
That's entirely wrong. When slavery was finally abolished in the US, "business" looked for cheap labor to be exploited in other countries. It wasn't because of "socialists ruining America"."The Rich" are a mythical beast which exists only in the mind of children and fools.
Business 'shipped jobs overseas', because socialists established such regulatory burdens on doing business in the US, that it became A LOT cheaper to move the entire operation overseas, than to keep it here.
If you're keeping score, that is Business reacting to threats against its best interests, from people intent upon harming them. Cause and effect.
That's entirely wrong. When slavery was finally abolished in the US, "business" looked for cheap labor to be exploited in other countries. It wasn't because of "socialists ruining America"."The Rich" are a mythical beast which exists only in the mind of children and fools.
Business 'shipped jobs overseas', because socialists established such regulatory burdens on doing business in the US, that it became A LOT cheaper to move the entire operation overseas, than to keep it here.
If you're keeping score, that is Business reacting to threats against its best interests, from people intent upon harming them. Cause and effect.
"The Rich" are real. They have more money in offshore tax shelters than the GDPs of several dozen nations combined. They are the real owners of our "Constitutional Republic" and they don't care about you, your rights, your thoughts, your ambitions, or your votes. We the People get to choose between one of two corporate puppets for President, while the super-rich control 80% of our media outlets which together promote this false reality in which we have lived for at least the past two generations.
In case you haven't noticed, the US Federal government doesn't care about the US Constitution. This is an oligarchy, owned by the super-wealthy who fuel elections with untraceable superPAC money to benefit themselves and their business. They don't care about their employees or society in general. Their only reason for living is to make more money for themselves to the detriment of the global environment and economy.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40411.pdf
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf
Inequality: Growing apart | The Economist
Obama admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1% - Sep. 15, 2013
Vote Hemp: Why Hemp?: New Billion-Dollar Crop
Are you responding to my comment or just trying to sell a book? Nothing in your message changes that government will keep growing. It's just another socialism is bad rant. Well no kidding. But if we continue like this we will have more of it. Do you deny that? And if so why?
Neither... I am pointing out why government will keep growing, in hopes that sound minds will grasp the key to stopping it and use it to do so.
You seem to be of the mind that such is inevitable. It's not.
Many things could happen, but in every one of those potential scenarios, collectivism must first be shown to be FOOLISH with sufficient number of current collectivists determining that they do not want to be fools. To do this, they must find the strength within themselves to build objectivity into their own perspectives.
If that doesn't happen, then the only solution is for Americans to destroy their foolish neighbors and the government with is fooling them.
Keep a positive attitude and anything is possible.
(I know... it's hard. But that's the nature of effort... and the only means to find success, happiness and fulfillment.)
Well sure anything is possible, but I certainly don't see it happening. Without incentive well just continue this same way.
So since your looking to rant about capitalism, why is it failing the working class? Well failing might be exaggerating, but in theory everyone's wages should be growing. Instead they are stagnant for the working class.
Do you think non competes are capitalism?
Neither... I am pointing out why government will keep growing, in hopes that sound minds will grasp the key to stopping it and use it to do so.
You seem to be of the mind that such is inevitable. It's not.
Many things could happen, but in every one of those potential scenarios, collectivism must first be shown to be FOOLISH with sufficient number of current collectivists determining that they do not want to be fools. To do this, they must find the strength within themselves to build objectivity into their own perspectives.
If that doesn't happen, then the only solution is for Americans to destroy their foolish neighbors and the government with is fooling them.
Keep a positive attitude and anything is possible.
(I know... it's hard. But that's the nature of effort... and the only means to find success, happiness and fulfillment.)
Well sure anything is possible, but I certainly don't see it happening. Without incentive well just continue this same way.
So since your looking to rant about capitalism, why is it failing the working class? Well failing might be exaggerating, but in theory everyone's wages should be growing. Instead they are stagnant for the working class.
Do you think non competes are capitalism?
What theory says wages for everyone should be growing?
If you owned a business you would be well aware that a "position" in a business has a value...and that value doesn't change....and thus why many people tend to "price themselves" out of a job.
What creates higher wages is work ethic. When you show an interest in moving forward, such as taking night classes and you couple that with work ethic' such as finding a way to get to work when there is 2 inches of snow as opposed to using the snow as an excuse to NOT go to work, you will get to the next level...and THAT level of position warrants a higher salary.
That's the problem with people. They always say "hard working Americans deserve better"
What makes one hard working?
Getting up at 7 to be at work by 9 to leave at 5 to go home to eat and watch tv....having your 2 weeks vacation, 5 sick days, 3 personal days...
That does not make you a hard working American...THAT MAKES YOU A WORKING AMERICAN.
A hard working American spends 10-12 hours a day towards his/her career...be it working 2 jobs or taking night courses...or reading about your industry of choice so you can come across as a true asset during an interview.....
Obviously you've read each of those links so here are some more:Off shore tax shelters?
Uh....Sparky....this isn't 1975.
Well sure anything is possible, but I certainly don't see it happening. Without incentive well just continue this same way.
So since your looking to rant about capitalism, why is it failing the working class? Well failing might be exaggerating, but in theory everyone's wages should be growing. Instead they are stagnant for the working class.
Do you think non competes are capitalism?
What theory says wages for everyone should be growing?
If you owned a business you would be well aware that a "position" in a business has a value...and that value doesn't change....and thus why many people tend to "price themselves" out of a job.
What creates higher wages is work ethic. When you show an interest in moving forward, such as taking night classes and you couple that with work ethic' such as finding a way to get to work when there is 2 inches of snow as opposed to using the snow as an excuse to NOT go to work, you will get to the next level...and THAT level of position warrants a higher salary.
That's the problem with people. They always say "hard working Americans deserve better"
What makes one hard working?
Getting up at 7 to be at work by 9 to leave at 5 to go home to eat and watch tv....having your 2 weeks vacation, 5 sick days, 3 personal days...
That does not make you a hard working American...THAT MAKES YOU A WORKING AMERICAN.
A hard working American spends 10-12 hours a day towards his/her career...be it working 2 jobs or taking night courses...or reading about your industry of choice so you can come across as a true asset during an interview.....
You must be living in the past. It's not about being hard working anymore. Now it's who were you parents, and how expensive was your college. Your living in some dream world. Sounds nice though. Haha
What theory says wages for everyone should be growing?
If you owned a business you would be well aware that a "position" in a business has a value...and that value doesn't change....and thus why many people tend to "price themselves" out of a job.
What creates higher wages is work ethic. When you show an interest in moving forward, such as taking night classes and you couple that with work ethic' such as finding a way to get to work when there is 2 inches of snow as opposed to using the snow as an excuse to NOT go to work, you will get to the next level...and THAT level of position warrants a higher salary.
That's the problem with people. They always say "hard working Americans deserve better"
What makes one hard working?
Getting up at 7 to be at work by 9 to leave at 5 to go home to eat and watch tv....having your 2 weeks vacation, 5 sick days, 3 personal days...
That does not make you a hard working American...THAT MAKES YOU A WORKING AMERICAN.
A hard working American spends 10-12 hours a day towards his/her career...be it working 2 jobs or taking night courses...or reading about your industry of choice so you can come across as a true asset during an interview.....
You must be living in the past. It's not about being hard working anymore. Now it's who were you parents, and how expensive was your college. Your living in some dream world. Sounds nice though. Haha
Grow up child.
That has to be the most ridiculous thing you have posted so far.
My son went to a state college. Took a job with a company he nor I knew anything about....other than the fact that they were around for 30 years and employed 250 people.
And by the time he was 27 he was earning 100K as a marketing manager.
No connections, no expensive education.
I hired a kid a while back....3 years after I started my own. I did not know him nor did I know his family. He was a graduate of Nassau Community College (2 year) and while working for me he continued his education at Post (LIU) and got his 4 year degree. He worked hard, learned the business, showed he cared.....
Several years later he branched out and started his own....and now employs over 25 people.
No connections, no expensive education.
So you continue thinking what you are thinking and be a complainer all your life.....for as long as you think it is impossible to achieve, you will never strive for it.'
People like you are what the problem is.
You are jealous of the haves yet have no idea how they became the haves.
The only ones responsible for 'fixing inequality' are those who feel that they are not getting what they want or deserve...
The government is not there to take more from one to either give to you or have you pay a reduced rate for the same services, every time you have a tear in your eye because it makes you feel bad that you are not getting as much as the next guy
Income inequality on a personal level has nothing to do with changes in income inequality at a macro economic level.
The government has the responsibility to regulate trade.
Methinks someone needs to explain the word "regulate" to you, Punkin. It doesn't mean what you apparently believe it does.
You must be living in the past. It's not about being hard working anymore. Now it's who were you parents, and how expensive was your college. Your living in some dream world. Sounds nice though. Haha
Grow up child.
That has to be the most ridiculous thing you have posted so far.
My son went to a state college. Took a job with a company he nor I knew anything about....other than the fact that they were around for 30 years and employed 250 people.
And by the time he was 27 he was earning 100K as a marketing manager.
No connections, no expensive education.
I hired a kid a while back....3 years after I started my own. I did not know him nor did I know his family. He was a graduate of Nassau Community College (2 year) and while working for me he continued his education at Post (LIU) and got his 4 year degree. He worked hard, learned the business, showed he cared.....
Several years later he branched out and started his own....and now employs over 25 people.
No connections, no expensive education.
So you continue thinking what you are thinking and be a complainer all your life.....for as long as you think it is impossible to achieve, you will never strive for it.'
People like you are what the problem is.
You are jealous of the haves yet have no idea how they became the haves.
Oh this is too much. The guy living in fairy tale land is calling me a child because I live in the real world. haha I do love the 2 examples that couldn't possibly be verified as your proof though. Kind of a small sample size don't you think? Oh and I'm not sure you really give enough info for them to be relevant either. Why don't you use some real stats? The right seems to be short on those.
If you look at real statistics we are pretty lacking in upward mobility.
So your pretty sure I'm a have not? You base that on knowing almost nothing about me? Geez who is the child now. I have more than enough. But that hasn't blinded me to our countries problems.
There was no irony.
You planning on explaining why you think income inequality is a problem that demands a gov't solution or should we just take your word?
It is inefficient and left unchecked it will undermine our Democracy. Possibly to the point of revolution.
Is that enough of a reason?
In other words, just take your word for it because you have this daydream of what "could" happen that you find fascinating.
How about instead, you actually provide us with a post longer than three sentences that actually explains what's wrong with American income inequality and why? "Because it's bad, and something bad will happen because of it, because I say it will" does not get it done.
You must be living in the past. It's not about being hard working anymore. Now it's who were you parents, and how expensive was your college. Your living in some dream world. Sounds nice though. Haha
Grow up child.
That has to be the most ridiculous thing you have posted so far.
My son went to a state college. Took a job with a company he nor I knew anything about....other than the fact that they were around for 30 years and employed 250 people.
And by the time he was 27 he was earning 100K as a marketing manager.
No connections, no expensive education.
I hired a kid a while back....3 years after I started my own. I did not know him nor did I know his family. He was a graduate of Nassau Community College (2 year) and while working for me he continued his education at Post (LIU) and got his 4 year degree. He worked hard, learned the business, showed he cared.....
Several years later he branched out and started his own....and now employs over 25 people.
No connections, no expensive education.
So you continue thinking what you are thinking and be a complainer all your life.....for as long as you think it is impossible to achieve, you will never strive for it.'
People like you are what the problem is.
You are jealous of the haves yet have no idea how they became the haves.
Oh this is too much. The guy living in fairy tale land is calling me a child because I live in the real world. haha I do love the 2 examples that couldn't possibly be verified as your proof though. Kind of a small sample size don't you think? Oh and I'm not sure you really give enough info for them to be relevant either. Why don't you use some real stats? The right seems to be short on those.
If you look at real statistics we are pretty lacking in upward mobility.
So your pretty sure I'm a have not? You base that on knowing almost nothing about me? Geez who is the child now. I have more than enough. But that hasn't blinded me to our countries problems.
Im not sure you understand your own point, much less mine.
For most of Bush's tenure undemployment was in the 5% range, which is generally considered full employment. I dont know what you would term a robust labor market if not that.
Real wage growth and jobs that have more staying power than temp construction jobs would be a good start.
During Bush's term things seemed better than they were but the writing was on the wall for a big downturn.
The current economic problems are not just about Bush or Obama or even Clinton. Our entire dialogue concerning economics is wrong.
Real wage growth? Explain that.
what do you think drives market prices Bombur....
The top 1% or the remaining 99%?
The fact that Richie Rich has billions should have absolutely no effect on your life at all...
Except maybe envy.
It is a fact that income inequality has an impact on all the things I previously listed.
Sorry.
"It is a fact. It is a fact that it's a fact. It is a fact that it's a fact that it's a fact."
This is literally all your posts have been. Why do you not understand that making an unsubstantiated assertion does not substantiate the PREVIOUS unsubstantiated assertion? Telling us that income inequality is bad, period, does not make it so, or prove that it is so. And then coming back and telling us that it's so ALSO doesn't make it so, or prove it.
Which in no way makes it not a commodity. It just makes it a very valuable one.
And those who labor decide how THEIR SHARE of the profit is distributed. Please understand that, while YOU are unequipped to perform any labor more intellectual than what could be performed by a well-trained chimp, that does not mean that that is the ONLY thing in the world that qualifies as labor. There is such a thing as a intellectual and emotional labor, consisting of the intelligence, foresight, and training to plan and guide an enterprise to profit, and the willingness to risk one's resources in putting it into action . . . and then hiring menial mouthbreathers like you to stand around the water cooler while on the clock and complain about how you're the ones who REALLY make the company work.
Labor is unique in economics for a lot of reasons. Any analogy tends to have a weakness so why not just call it what it is?
Labor is a commodity..
I own a factory that makes cardboard boxes. Everyone who ships or packages stuff needs them.
My annual gross sales are $1mil per year.
One of my sales people lands a big contract. I have a couple problems. One, with the new deal, I have to increase my production to meet the demand. But my facility does not have the equipment or manpower to accomplish the tasks to fulfill the orders.
So, I must hire more people to get the work done. I also need a new production line.....In my quest to find the machinery, A sales guy from the ABC machinery Corp shoots me an email. Tells me he wants to set up a meeting to discuss this new equipment that will cut the time of production in half. The machinery is expensive, but with the favorable terms offered by the company, I run the numbers and I can afford it. In fact, with the new contract, it's paid for in 6 months. I meet withe ABC Machinery Corp guy and sign up....The following week the people come in and install the equipment. They demonstrate how it works. I am impressed. Now I can produce twice as many cardboard boxes in half the time.
Guess what? I no longer need to hire new people. In fact this new equipment requires fewer workers on the floor. Oh but wait....Instead of laying off people, I can send to them to school and they can learn to operate the new machinery. However, I am not going to need the 6 people it takes to run my older machines. I only need 3. One for each shift.
I decide to keep 4. One is a spare for vacations, sick days etc....This person can also work varied shifts. I have to let two people go because their job no longer exists. There is nothing in the plant for them to do. Now are they qualified to go to the tech school because they simply lack the skills and education to learn the new equipment. Sorry, they have to go. They get severance pay and references. I write each person a letter of recommendation to carry with them to interviews.
See how this works? This is business. I spent money to make money. In the process I dramatically increased my production, I reduced labor costs. I also discovered not only did I not have to hire 12 more people, I needed two fewer workers.
What is the difference between a decision and a system?
I swear you're making this up as you go along.
A decision is being made by one employer. A system involves ALL employers and ALL employees and ALL Consumers and ALL government and ALL trade and ALL capital flows etc.
The material point is that from a micro economic standpoint an employer has an economic incentive to lower labor costs which would lower demand, while also wanting to see an increase in demand for their product. This contradiction doesn't impact the micro economic transaction but it does impact the macro economic one. Often times people can only think of economics in terms of the micro economic transactions.
Another example of conflict is trade. It is good for the consumer to be able to buy cheap goods made in China. That trade with China can also hurt the labor market, especially in the short term or if they are cheating. That consumer may also be able to get a lower interest rate on a house because China is investing in USD. (The consumer and the laborer are the same person/group)
In both cases making the discussion only about one side creates an incomplete picture. Economics is about the entire system. If one part of it is unhealthy then the whole thing will start showing symptoms.
Ultimately unemployment numbers don't reflect everything that is going on in an economy. In the end you have to look closer.
I appears as though you are regurgitating stuff you learned from some left leaning college professor.
Lots of vague platitudes and theories. Little of any substance.
What we learn in the classroom just allows us a better chance at passing exams to get a degree. None of that stuff applies to the real world though.
