Reasons for Jobless Recoveries (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 12:09:56 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  Reasons for Jobless Recoveries (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Reasons for Jobless Recoveries  (Read 4286 times)
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« on: December 21, 2009, 04:06:44 PM »

Yes, the jobs are elsewhere, and they pay $6/day.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2009, 12:41:23 PM »
« Edited: December 23, 2009, 12:43:53 PM by opebo »

The real reason is related to productivity, but not in the ways that posters above have said.  It is this - due to productivity increases since the 30s, we should now have about a 20 hour work week.  Instead, due the political power of the owners, even the 40 hour work week has been lost for most.   

We simply need state imposed redistribution.  The idea that any of this is 'economic' rather the political is the canard we need to reject.

If we lived in a society where working was simply one of many options available to the non-owning class - alongside living on a comfortable dole, attending university in adulthood, etc. - and jobs payed a handsome living for working 20 hours a week, we would have no economic problems.  Instead, we have concentration of power, enslavement of the many, and the instability which results.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2009, 05:55:30 AM »


The real teaparty should be taking place when the shipment of Chinese made products arrive to our ports.

But please remember that the enemy responsible for this is not the China-man, but our own owners.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2009, 05:25:45 AM »

Even more...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

More stuff made by fewer people.

And even even those fewer people are more underpaid.  $234,000??  And we can't pay people $35/hour??
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2010, 02:45:17 PM »

Contrary to popular dogma, there is no reason whatsoever to think that higher levels of employment are per se more desirable.

They are so in your right-wing paradise, as, lacking a comfortable dole (or any dole at all), the lower classes experience unemployment as a dire and desperate descent into despair and death.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2010, 01:03:09 AM »

Our point is Philip that people work only for money.  If they have no job they immediately begin to starve.  Obviously people who have money available such as retired, rich, etc., do not work in the normal sense - in any case whatever work they do may be thought of as a hobby, not the ordinary forced toil that almost everyone must do or die.

You're completely missing the obvious fact that the ONLY bad thing about unemployment is lack of money.  You pretend that we are disliking the perennial situation of high unemployment for some arbitrary or knee-jerk reason.  We are not.  We deplore it only because we deplore the thought of dying in abject want. 
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2010, 12:19:10 PM »

Tone notwithstanding, your post is not a rebuttal to mine. Indeed, you have actually conceded my point—that joblessness is not per se bad. Why, then, are we to fear marginally lower rates of employment? (It must be stressed that "unemployment"—as opposed to "non-employment"—is not implicated here. Ninety percent of the population could be jobless without there being any unemployment.)

An amusing side-effect of your doctrine is that it would denounce the abolition of child labor. Think of the effect on the job creation figures!

Too often we conflate employment with material well-being and joblessness with misery. In fact, one can be jobless and wealthy; and one can be employed and miserable (even materially).

All correct sir - I did intend to concede your point, but only to ridicule its obviousness and obtuseness.  You speak of something which is almost entirely beside the point.  The key is - working class people have nothing.  No wealth, no means of survival, other than that job.  So, you can understand why, for the 90+% of the population who are powerless in this way, the job becomes a desperate priority, even though for most of them, it merely means survival-in-poverty, not any kind of 'well being'.

The issue in our economy is not tone or misapprehension regarding toils, but simply inequality.  However I do agree with you that it would be preferable that we make being non-employed a comfortable and tenable position for the working class - namely through a reliable and adequate dole.  Regarding child toils - my 'doctrine' does not denounce the abolition of such, but merely suggests that we should replace their earnings with redistributions from their former exploiters.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2010, 04:09:03 PM »

All correct sir - I did intend to concede your point, but only to ridicule its obviousness and obtuseness.

We are discussing "job creation" numbers. Once you have conceded that non-employment is not per se bad, "more employment" is not automatically to be preferred to "less employment."

It is your commentary that is beside the point. I do not deny that there are a vast number of people for whom employment is absolutely imperative.

You're not making sense here Philip.  If there are a vast number of people for whom employment is an absolute imperative then, yes, more employment is automatically to be preferred. 

Just because there are a few rich people and olds and little children who may be able to do without a job, that does not obviate the need for 'more employment' (which is quite enormous).
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2010, 04:17:24 PM »

Low, and even negative, "job creation" numbers are consistent with each and every one of those people having work.

Interesting.  So, if we reduce the number of jobs, this will eliminate the 10% unemployment rate?
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2010, 04:33:47 PM »

What is the point of your question? Nothing I have said suggests anything of the sort.

Of course, if 50% of the employed segment of the labor forced retired tomorrow, unemployment would probably all but disappear while the number of jobs (and level of output) diminished astronomically.

Between the prospect of 50% of the serfs gaining a sufficient stipend to retire upon, and the prospect of the exploitation machine creating a few more positions at the yoke, I'll say the latter is more likely.   One might even say realistic. 

 
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 12 queries.