Why isn't the American goal 100% Employment?

[shintao]

1)It is a terrible thing in capitalism. It results in wages going up, and the business cycle having to deal with stagnating growth rates with downsizing, not to mention a rise in inflation. The only actual economic system where full employment is utilized is Marxism. I know, its horrible.

Read more: Answers.com - Why is full employment important to the economy

2)Full employment is not good for the economy as it may result in an inflationary period where workers have more disposable income and as a result would drive prices upwards. This would take a while to happen though. Also, a lot of central banks base their policies around controlling inflation (The ECB).

Read more: Answers.com - Why is full employment not a good thing for the economy

This is conventional wisdom, but it is pure unadulterated bullshit and class warfare.

So you also agree with the socialist 100% employment is a good thing scenario?

 

[Rozman]

How is that even possible?....What exactly is 100% employment.We have 99 ers sitting around now for well 99 weeks and good portion of them will not even go out and look for work.Why bother when you can still collect.

How do we make employers hire more people?....They hire based on a need...

Unless you are talking about Big Government being the main employer of this country....
I get it everyone works at something with most of the employment being done by government and who foots the bill for their paychecks.....that's right boys and girls...the taxpayer.

Nice try,come back to us again some time.

 

[skeptic]

1)It is a terrible thing in capitalism. It results in wages going up, and the business cycle having to deal with stagnating growth rates with downsizing, not to mention a rise in inflation. The only actual economic system where full employment is utilized is Marxism. I know, its horrible.

Read more: Answers.com - Why is full employment important to the economy

2)Full employment is not good for the economy as it may result in an inflationary period where workers have more disposable income and as a result would drive prices upwards. This would take a while to happen though. Also, a lot of central banks base their policies around controlling inflation (The ECB).

Read more: Answers.com - Why is full employment not a good thing for the economy

This is conventional wisdom, but it is pure unadulterated bullshit and class warfare.

So you also agree with the socialist 100% employment is a good thing scenario?

Why do you make stupid assumptions?

Here, I'll make a stupid assumption like yours: So you also agree with the fascist 100% genocide is a good thing scenario?

 

[Polk]

Sounds like "full employment" equates to "required employment" the way the snippet reads.

What countries ever had 100% employment?

I don't know. I never heard of it.

But why isn't 100% our countries goal? Never has been as far as I know. Never been questioned. It is like asking why don't we fly to the end of the Universe. LOL! Maybe freedom of choice, freedom not to hire, freedom to fire, etc. prevents us having a 100% .

100% employment would only be possible if everyone not otherwise employed, drew a check from the state.

I would think.

There's a percentage of people who simply cannot work. The premise is faulty. When unemployment was hovering around 5% awhile back, that was pretty much as 100% as you'll ever see.

From a theoretical standpoint, you could get close to zero, but it would probably ramp up inflation. You're correct in stating that 4-5% is the rate where you're at functional full employment (those out of work will basically just be those shifting between jobs).

I'd also note that we actually do have a national commitment to full employment. The Humphrey–Hawkins Full Employment Act.

 

[skeptic]

I'd also note that we actually do have a national commitment to full employment. The Humphrey–Hawkins Full Employment Act.

Which is easy to evade by simply defining "full employment" as a certain rate of unemployment:

What most neoclassical economists mean by "full" employment is a rate somewhat less than 100% employment, considering slightly lower levels desirable, others, such as James Tobin, vehemently disagree, considering full employment as 0% unemployment:[1]

“As a young professor I did a paper where I analyzed the optimal unemployment rate,” said Joseph Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University in New York, who knew Tobin at Yale. “Tobin went livid over the idea. To him the optimal unemployment rate was zero.”

Rates of unemployment substantially above 0% have also been attacked by John Maynard Keynes:

"The Conservative belief that there is some law of nature which prevents men from being employed, that it is 'rash' to employ men, and that it is financially 'sound' to maintain a tenth of the population in idleness for an indefinite period, is crazily improbable – the sort of thing which no man could believe who had not had his head fuddled with nonsense for years and years. The objections which are raised are mostly not the objections of experience or of practical men. They are based on highly abstract theories – venerable, academic inventions, half misunderstood by those who are applying them today, and based on assumptions which are contrary to the facts…Our main task, therefore, will be to confirm the reader’s instinct that what seems sensible is sensible, and what seems nonsense is nonsense."
– J.M. Keynes in a pamphlet to support Lloyd George in the 1929 election.

20th century British economist William Beveridge stated that an unemployment rate of 3% was full employment. Other economists have provided estimates between 2% and 13%, depending on the country, time period, and the various economists' political biases.

Before Friedman and Phelps, Abba Lerner (Lerner 1951, Chapter 15) developed a version of the NAIRU. Unlike the current view, he saw a range of "full employment" unemployment rates. He distinguished between "high" full employment (the lowest sustainable unemployment under incomes policies) and "low" full employment (the lowest sustainable unemployment rate without these policies).

Full employment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TheSeeker]

Under GW Bush we had 52 months of full-employment, increasing growth, and record setting revenues.

 

[Ava]

Do you really think our president and his contributors, want a stabilized economy?? lol

 

[skeptic]

The following should be understood in discussions of NAIRU: governments that follow it are attempting to keep unemployment at certain levels (usually over four percent, and as high as ten or more percent) by keeping interest rates high. As interest rates increase, more bankruptcies of individuals and businesses occur, meaning less money to hire staff or purchase goods (the making and distributing of which requires workers, which means jobs). It might also be noted that the main cause of inflation is not high employment, but rather the ability of banks to make money with little to no backing with things of value (commodities such as gold and silver are some examples), thus flooding the market with money and decreasing the value of each dollar already issued in the process, assuming the economy has not kept up to this increase in issued loans. Economists such as Milton Friedman [4] and Dr. Ravi Batra have theorized ways that a modern economy could have low inflation and near full employment (as in close to 100% of those who are not students and are healthy enough to work, and who wish to work at any given point in time), as of yet these have yet to be widely disseminated through the press or introduced by most governments. Paul Martin - former finance minister and past Prime Minister of Canada - once held that full employment could be achieved, yet let go of this idea after gaining power.

Friedman's view has prevailed so that in much of modern macroeconomics, full employment means the lowest level of unemployment that can be sustained given the structure of the economy. Using the terminology first introduced by James Tobin (following the lead of Franco Modigliani), this equals the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU) when the real gross domestic product equals potential output. This concept is identical to the "natural" rate but reflects the fact that there is nothing "natural" about an economy.

indeed.

 

[shintao]

How is that even possible?....What exactly is 100% employment.We have 99 ers sitting around now for well 99 weeks and good portion of them will not even go out and look for work.Why bother when you can still collect.

How do we make employers hire more people?....They hire based on a need...

Unless you are talking about Big Government being the main employer of this country....
I get it everyone works at something with most of the employment being done by government and who foots the bill for their paychecks.....that's right boys and girls...the taxpayer.

Nice try,come back to us again some time.

Yes indeed, what is 100% employment in a capitalist system. It doesn't exist, as is noticed by conservatives here, it is a bad thing. It is so bad they want to pay people to stay unemployed and on welfare at the taxpayers expense. Why look for work when you are not wanted to work according to the cons.

Oh, not big government, we are talking about the capitalist private sector as well, all Americans, all workers working. That is what we are talking about. And yes, you the taxpayer are paying to have workers not working.

 

[shintao]

This is conventional wisdom, but it is pure unadulterated bullshit and class warfare.

So you also agree with the socialist 100% employment is a good thing scenario?

Why do you make stupid assumptions?

Here, I'll make a stupid assumption like yours: So you also agree with the fascist 100% genocide is a good thing scenario?

Well dumbass, you either agree that a 100% employment is a good or bad thing. Can you manage to answer that on your own, or do you need me prod you ome more?? The thread isn't about class warfare dumbass. Read the OP!!

 

[shintao]

I don't know. I never heard of it.

But why isn't 100% our countries goal? Never has been as far as I know. Never been questioned. It is like asking why don't we fly to the end of the Universe. LOL! Maybe freedom of choice, freedom not to hire, freedom to fire, etc. prevents us having a 100% .

100% employment would only be possible if everyone not otherwise employed, drew a check from the state.

I would think.

There's a percentage of people who simply cannot work. The premise is faulty. When unemployment was hovering around 5% awhile back, that was pretty much as 100% as you'll ever see.

From a theoretical standpoint, you could get close to zero, but it would probably ramp up inflation. You're correct in stating that 4-5% is the rate where you're at functional full employment (those out of work will basically just be those shifting between jobs).

I'd also note that we actually do have a national commitment to full employment. The Humphrey–Hawkins Full Employment Act.

Very Good!!

The object of the Act is:

1. to provide full employment;

2. to bring growth in production;

3. to bring price stability; and

4. to bring balance of trade and stability.

The Act states that the federal government need to rely on the private enterprise to achieve the goals. The Act also states that the government should take reasonable means to balance the budget. The Act prohibits discrimination on account of gender, religion, race, age, and national origin in any program created under the Act.

 

[skeptic]

So you also agree with the socialist 100% employment is a good thing scenario?

Why do you make stupid assumptions?

Here, I'll make a stupid assumption like yours: So you also agree with the fascist 100% genocide is a good thing scenario?

Well dumbass, you either agree that a 100% employment is a good or bad thing. Can you manage to answer that on your own, or do you need me prod you ome more?? The thread isn't about class warfare dumbass. Read the OP!!

Of course I could answer that question, had you asked it.

But 100% employment is impossible regardless of whether it is good or bad.

We have a depression era bill that makes it binding law to promote full employment and we have a class of capitalist economists who skirts the law by saying full employment = 5% unemployment which in reality = a 60% employment rate of the working age group.

So 100% employment is neither good or bad, it's fantasy. Unless of course you live in North Korea.

 

[xsited1]

You mean essential stuff if you are a conservative, judging from these two conclusions. I really don't see it set in stone. I don't see it 101 either, and can be debated, so I give both sides of this argument.



1)It is a terrible thing in capitalism. It results in wages going up, and the business cycle having to deal with stagnating growth rates with downsizing, not to mention a rise in inflation. The only actual economic system where full employment is utilized is Marxism. I know, its horrible.

Read more: Answers.com - Why is full employment important to the economy

2)Full employment is not good for the economy as it may result in an inflationary period where workers have more disposable income and as a result would drive prices upwards. This would take a while to happen though. Also, a lot of central banks base their policies around controlling inflation (The ECB).

Read more: Answers.com - Why is full employment not a good thing for the economy


And to agree with cons "100% labor is bad", is for cons to admit that unemployment & welfare are good things. Are you making that admission today? That you think lazy unproductive people we are taxed for are a good thing for capitalism??

Time to eat ya cake...........

Unemployment IS good, it is a necessity.

100% employment is an impossibility. You'd be better off trying to warp time, because that is possible.

Warping time is not only possible, but it happens all the time. Nonetheless, 100% employment is a Communist's pipe dream.

 

[shintao]

You mean essential stuff if you are a conservative, judging from these two conclusions. I really don't see it set in stone. I don't see it 101 either, and can be debated, so I give both sides of this argument.



1)It is a terrible thing in capitalism. It results in wages going up, and the business cycle having to deal with stagnating growth rates with downsizing, not to mention a rise in inflation. The only actual economic system where full employment is utilized is Marxism. I know, its horrible.

Read more: Answers.com - Why is full employment important to the economy

2)Full employment is not good for the economy as it may result in an inflationary period where workers have more disposable income and as a result would drive prices upwards. This would take a while to happen though. Also, a lot of central banks base their policies around controlling inflation (The ECB).

Read more: Answers.com - Why is full employment not a good thing for the economy


And to agree with cons "100% labor is bad", is for cons to admit that unemployment & welfare are good things. Are you making that admission today? That you think lazy unproductive people we are taxed for are a good thing for capitalism??

Time to eat ya cake...........

Unemployment IS good, it is a necessity.

100% employment is an impossibility. You'd be better off trying to warp time, because that is possible.

Warping time is not only possible, but it happens all the time. Nonetheless, 100% employment is a Communist's pipe dream.

Australia was the first country in the world in which full employment in a free society was made official policy by its government. On May 30, 1945, The Australian Labor Party Prime Minister John Curtin and his Employment Minister John Dedman proposed a white paper in the Australian House of Representatives titled Full Employment In Australia, the first time any government apart from totalitarian regimes had unequivocally committed itself to providing work for any person who was willing and able to work. Conditions of full employment lasted in Australia from 1941 to 1975. This had been preceded by the Harvester Judgment (1907), establishing the basic wage (a living wage); while this earlier case was overturned, it remained influential.

 

[shintao]

Seems we are all in agreement.

1.Unemployment & welfare are necessary for a robust economy. Therefore we have no lazy unproductive people.
2.Taxes from workers must be paid to keep productive people unemployed & on welfare.
3.Incentives paid to corporations to hire workers are counter-productive to capitalism.
4.Welfare requirements to make recipients workfare is a bad thing.
5.Trying to force full employment is a socialist trait, not a capitalist trait.
6.Volunteerism is a bad thing.

 

[Mini 14]

Thank you for reminding me why we should never post in any of your threads.

AMF.

 

[skeptic]

Seems we are all in agreement.

1.Unemployment & welfare are necessary for a robust economy. Therefore we have no lazy unproductive people.
2.Taxes from workers must be paid to keep productive people unemployed & on welfare.


5.Trying to force full employment is a socialist trait, not a capitalist trait.
6.Volunteerism is a bad thing.

Nobody agrees with that except tards. Folks who haven't a clue and don't want a clue.

 

[BrianH]

This is a great read to get your wheels spinning. It points out some countires (? Where?) have achieved full employment, yet we never have. Part of the answer is we have never put in place programs to move people from unemployed to employed and up the ladder to success. And we have established social nets tht allow a person to reject personal responsibility (As Retards note: welfare, unemployment). But most importantly, there is no program or effort or plan to put all Americans to work.


==========ARTICLE

Since Barack Obama entered office in January 2009, the official unemployment rate has averaged more than 9.5 percent, representing some fifteen million people in a labor force of about 154 million. By a broader definition, including people employed for fewer hours than they would like and those discouraged from looking for work, the unemployment rate has been far higher—16.5 percent, on average. Still worse, if we count people who have dropped out of the labor force, unemployment would rise to nearly 20 percent, or 30 million people, roughly twice the combined populations of New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

The stimulus has clearly proven inadequate for fully reversing the effects of the Wall Street collapse. Combined with the huge decline in tax revenues tied to the recession, the stimulus spending has also generated federal fiscal deficits of a magnitude the United States hasn’t seen since World War II—around $1.4 trillion in 2009 and 2010, or 10 percent of GDP each year. Bringing the U.S. economy, along with most of the rest of the world, out of the deep ditch into which Wall Street has shoved it will clearly be a long, hard struggle.

Beyond the challenges in advancing such short-term programs, there is a broader and longer-term goal that is not even on the agenda: creating and sustaining a full-employment economy in the United States. Especially at this historical juncture, as we attempt to grope our way out of the Great Recession and onto some kind of new growth trajectory, we need to be clear on the centrality of full employment as a policy goal. That is, we need to think about what exactly we mean by full employment; on why, properly defined, full employment is so fundamental to building a decent society; and on what kind of longer-term policy innovations will be needed both to get the U.S. economy to full employment and, once there, to stay. Success in answering these questions will necessarily engage large numbers of people coming at the issue from a wide range of perspectives. My proposals here are aimed at energizing this broader debate in fresh and constructive directions.

An economy operating at full employment has the capacity to deliver great individual and social benefits. Why then doesn’t everybody agree that this should be a fundamental goal of public policy, with debates focused on the narrower question of the most effective means of achieving it?

Boston Review — Robert Pollin: Back to Full Employment

Can't be achieved unless you change the parameters for who is counted as "employed."

For example: Someone on who is a vegetable isn't employed. People that are elderly and can't physically or mentally work.

 

[BrianH]

Seems we are all in agreement.

1.Unemployment & welfare are necessary for a robust economy. Therefore we have no lazy unproductive people.
2.Taxes from workers must be paid to keep productive people unemployed & on welfare.


5.Trying to force full employment is a socialist trait, not a capitalist trait.
6.Volunteerism is a bad thing.

Nobody agrees with that except tards. Folks who haven't a clue and don't want a clue.

LOLOL

 

[shintao]

Seems we are all in agreement.

1.Unemployment & welfare are necessary for a robust economy. Therefore we have no lazy unproductive people.
2.Taxes from workers must be paid to keep productive people unemployed & on welfare.


5.Trying to force full employment is a socialist trait, not a capitalist trait.
6.Volunteerism is a bad thing.

Nobody agrees with that except tards. Folks who haven't a clue and don't want a clue.

Well gleem back through this thread, because cons are agreeing with it. Are you saying they haven't got a clue?