Occupy Wall Street Movement

[leo9]

There are jobs. Just not the high-paying jobs that they want. Nobody wants to start at the bottom and work their way up.

Thorne, you got to stop taking those curmudgeon pills. Being a grumpy old man may seem like fun, but if you carry on like this you'll get religion, and then you'll be sorry.

The bottom level jobs - shelf stacking, burger flipping etc - are already full of college graduates and people who used to have executive jobs till their firm got outsourced or downsized. They're not working their way up, they're treading water desperately. When the simplest job is offered there's a line for it. I don't know enough about the US to say, but in this country the growing problem is not the newly unemployed, it's the people who've never had a job in their lives and know there is no realistic prospect of their ever getting one, because no matter what qualifications they work for, there will be people with the same pieces of paper plus work experience in the line ahead of them.

Even our conservatives have stopped repeating the old line about how there are jobs if people look for them, because they have been hit over the head often enough with government figures showing that there aren't.

But that's the point of running a business. Maximize profits and minimize costs.

And that's why business can't be the only thing that matters. Because there are lots of important things that can't be done efficiently on a profit-making basis. For example, it's why no civilised country relies on profit making systems to provide basic healthcare: that has to be done by a system where the point is keeping people healthy, and the profit and loss account is just part of the administrative background, not the basis of policy making.

If that's too contentious, how about considering why the Department of Defence isn't run as a profit making business? After all, that's supposed to be the way to make any operation efficient, right?

Are we supposed to mandate how many employees a business must hire? Even if they don't need them?

It's been done, but the record shows it's not an efficient solution. Subsidising employment (either directly, or indirectly by pumping government money into a business so it won't lay off staff) also has a poor record, usually because the bosses pocket the money and then fold the business. But in this country we have what's called tax credits for people in work but not earning enough to live off, and it's been pointed out that this amounts to subsidising employment: if it wasn't there, businesses at the bottom end would have to pay more. (Not - before you say it - because people won't take low paid jobs, but because there comes a point of low pay when you're financially worse off working.)

Again, what's the point in starting a business, then?

There are always costs and problems with being in business, and one of the tasks of government is to make business carry all the load it can but not more than it can. A mandated payroll, if there was one, would be effectively another tax, and would have to be figured in along with the rest of the tax load.

I agree completely. The businesses SHOULD be weeded out if they cannot compete. NO business is too big to fail.

The Great Depression happened because the banks were left to fail. Would you let the only hospital in town close because it couldn't pay its bills? When the private company running our railways was failing, they didn't pour money into it with no oversight, they nationalised it.

The mistake wasn't rescuing the banks, it was rescuing them with public money without getting any public control, so they just went right on doing the same things wrong that got us into this mess.

No, not at all. But you would have a lot of small businesses, individuals or families running their own businesses, which wouldn't help the job situation either.

You mean, if it's not being done by corporations, it doesn't exist economically. If people are working for themselves, not making profits for shareholders, they might as well be unemployed for all the good they're doing.

UK governments, right and left, make a priority of supporting small businesses with tax breaks and legal help. Not just because every big business was a small business once, but because small businesses soak up unemployment faster than big ones. They keep their staff longer when times get hard, because they work as a team, and they hire sooner when the economy picks up, because they're more flexible.

I think there are a LOT of people who would be satisfied with nothing more, at least on the books. Sure, they'll work off the records to get some luxuries, but if they didn't have to work for the basics, too many would be satisfied with what they have.

I take it you're not a Star Trek fan
You don't believe people will ever work for nothing? Right now, all over the developed world, a large percentage of the population are working full time cooking and cleaning and tending children without a cent of pay, and nobody (except for some feminists) thinks that odd because it's what women are supposed to do. And yet according to conventional economic rules, it shouldn't happen.

And looking at it from the other end, the people at the top of the economy have more money than they can find ways to spend even though there are whole industries devoted to wasting their money for them. By textbook economics, they should have stopped working long ago, they have no economic incentive. But some of them work harder than the guy on an hourly rate.

But there ARE always jobs. They may not be GOOD jobs. May not be high paying jobs, but there is work out there. You just have to be willing to do it.

I grant you that the government and the private agencies whose statistics say otherwise might all be lying. What I want to know is, where do you get the facts that contradict them all? Or is it just a gut feeling?

And we have federally mandated education through high school in the US. There are teachers out there who want to teach. There are students who want to learn. Perhaps the biggest challenge this country faces, though, is fixing the education system. Which takes money. TAX money.

There, every liberal in the country will agree with you. My oldest son is working as a teacher in New Jersey, because any school that can afford it hires from outside the US. Because in order to make "No Child Left Behind" work without actually spending any money, US teacher training was cut down to "this is a blackboard, this is chalk, but you won't every use them because all you have to do is stand in front of a class and try to shout down the riot."

Doing "stuff" doesn't necessarily imply doing constructive labor. In this day and age people are quite happy riding around on their four-wheelers, or their jet-skis, or going to parties. They just don't want to actually have to earn the money it takes to do those things.

See, this is the kind of thing that makes debate so dificult. thir talked about giving people the basics of life, you jump to giving them jet-skis and parties.

There's a textbook to write on this, but I'm on my lunch hour and already half an hour over, and my boss knows about it because I'm self employed. More later.

[Thorne]

Thorne, you got to stop taking those curmudgeon pills. Being a grumpy old man may seem like fun, but if you carry on like this you'll get religion, and then you'll be sorry.

I never used to take the pills, but my granddaughters corrupted me, and if I forget to take them now I'm sometimes accused of being almost tolerable! [shudder]

The mistake wasn't rescuing the banks, it was rescuing them with public money without getting any public control, so they just went right on doing the same things wrong that got us into this mess.

Here in the US most banks are members of the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.) which insures the deposits of their clients (up to a certain maximum.) During the Great Depression there was no such safeguard, and depositors lost everything when the banks failed. Now those depositors are protected, at least to a degree. But I agree, letting the banks carry on with business as usual after failing so spectacularly is a fools game.

You mean, if it's not being done by corporations, it doesn't exist economically. If people are working for themselves, not making profits for shareholders, they might as well be unemployed for all the good they're doing.

No, not at all. It's just that, with small businesses, people tend to work longer hours and wear far more hats than if they were working for someone else. You mentioned that you are self-employed. Do you hire an accountant to keep your books? Do you hire someone to sweep your floors? What about a purchasing agent? Chances are, even without knowing just what kind of work you do, there are many things which a manager in a large business would hire someone to do, that you do for yourself, even during lunches and after business hours. That does nothing to help the job market, of course.

I take it you're not a Star Trek fan You don't believe people will ever work for nothing?

Actually, I AM a fan, I just don't mistake the Star Trek Universe with current reality. Sure, people work for nothing. Charitable organizations depend upon it. But most of those who do aren't dependent on working for a living. They do it for amusement, to have something to do, maybe to increase their social status, or even maybe because they think it's the right thing to do. Regardless, it's because they have the TIME to do it, and enjoy it to some degree. But those same charitable organizations will tell you that those kinds of people are rare indeed.

Right now, all over the developed world, a large percentage of the population are working full time cooking and cleaning and tending children without a cent of pay

No MONETARY pay, I agree. But they have clothing, a roof over their heads, three meals a day. SOMEONE is paying for that, probably by working. These caregivers are (generally) getting some form of compensation (though probably not nearly enough for what they do!)

and nobody (except for some feminists) thinks that odd because it's what women are supposed to do.

Well, let's not forget that there are some men out there who do such things, too. Traditionally women have taken on that role, but that is changing. Most US households depend upon two incomes anyway, so the kids are being sent to daycare and school.

And looking at it from the other end, the people at the top of the economy have more money than they can find ways to spend even though there are whole industries devoted to wasting their money for them.

And those industries hire workers to help the rich waste their money. Nothing wrong with that!

By textbook economics, they should have stopped working long ago, they have no economic incentive. But some of them work harder than the guy on an hourly rate.

I remember when my grandmother wouldn't call our house because it was a toll call, and she lived through the Great Depression, learning that you pinched every cent until it screamed. Spending ten cents on a phone call was scandalous to her, even though she could afford it. It's the same with those who have worked hard all their lives to get ahead. It becomes a habit, one that can be hard to break. Plus they feel they have to keep making money to support their kids, who are spending it almost as fast as the parents make it.

I grant you that the government and the private agencies whose statistics say otherwise might all be lying. What I want to know is, where do you get the facts that contradict them all? Or is it just a gut feeling?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, my data comes from the local newspaper, the local unemployment service and the internet services that help people find jobs. I have no formal training in economics, nor any real interest other than what I need to know to keep my own finances in order. I will grant that there aren't always new jobs posted every day, but there are several posted each week, and this is a relatively small community.

US teacher training was cut down to "this is a blackboard, this is chalk, but you won't every use them because all you have to do is stand in front of a class and try to shout down the riot."

Just my point. Schools have become little more than babysitting services, with each teacher passing on the problem students to the next teacher in line. THIS is what needs fixing, and it will take money, but it will also take dedication and determination. Stop worrying about little Billie's feelings being hurt because he isn't learning as fast as Suzie. Stop slowing the pace of teaching to the lowest common denominator. Stop sending disruptive students home (which is what they want anyway) and start teaching kids that there are consequences for bad behavior, and that they are responsible for their own actions. I know it's a radical concept, but it worked for my kids.

thir talked about giving people the basics of life, you jump to giving them jet-skis and parties.

No, I'm saying that those who can afford jet-skis and parties don't NEED to be given the basics. It's those who are getting free housing, free food and free healthcare from the government, then going out and buying luxuries with the money that they do have that annoy me.