The Employment to Population Ratio

If I buy a guy a tractor, he produces more digging per hour than when I only bought him a spade.
He's not doing more work however. The tractor I bought him is. He is doing less.

So mechanisation and investment increases productivity in a big way also. And it has to be paid for too.

So per capita production may have increased, but not necessarily personal productivity.

Also that pay scale may not be inflation adjusted and so on.

Statistic helps to tell a story easily, but is proof of nothing.


Certainly I agree that employer and employee have conflicting interests in terms of wage cheque.
Employer wants more work for less money and employee wants more money for less work.
Nature of the beast.

 

What I've been saying is there are enough jobs available, some permanent some temporary, that no functional person should be totally dependent on others and/or government assistance. Getting people to take some personal responsibility is made more difficult when politicians make so great an effort to create greater equality between those who are unemployed and the median income earners. And that, in my opinion, is why we are having this discussion.

 

You can't take money away from those who have none without first giving them the money. Means testing might work if all government assistance was both funded and provided only by and at the most local level of government.

 

100% conspiracy...diatribe...

 

Don't agree at all...Unemployment has nothing to do with capitalism?? Capitalism does not guarantee employment nor does it maintain unemployment. Government takes it upon THEMSELVES to provide assistance to those who are either incapable or fail in the work place...providing government assistance is the lessor evil than letting people live and die in the streets. Industry requires labor and if they can't get it in Location A they will find it in Locations B, C, D, etc. or introduce automation. The burden is on society, national and local, to provide not only the labor but also the infrastructure to attract and maintain industry.

Regarding unemployment, a great program would be 100% unemployment benefits first 8 weeks, 90% next 4 weeks, 70% next 2 weeks, 50% next 2 weeks, 25% for 4 weeks, then 0%. This prevents long term assistance yet sends a direct message that benefits are reducing as time passes...

 

First you say there's not enough opportunity and now it's the equality of the opportunity. The opportunity exists and has been used to great success by millions of Americans from the wealthy to those living in poverty. Life is never fair and never equal. Each person's job is to reach for their brass ring and if they fail it's not a symptom of the system. Example; public education high school level in which 30% fail or drop out and another 20% learn little to nothing...the brass ring is there for the taking yet 50% fail. This same scenario will apply if we had publicly funded university studies...I'll guess a similar 50% will also fail college studies. One of my pet peeves is governments at all levels allowing a crumbling nation, ghettoes, crime gangs, lack of suitable infrastructure, etc. which are places in all areas of the US in which people and families and kids live...all of this can be fixed and none of it is about capitalism...it's about government priorities and spending...

 

Government cannot force people to move to seek employment. Government does not wish to allow it's citizens to live and die in the streets. Government has no choice but to provide varying forms of assistance. Government should not allow fraud in these programs...

 

Why do you suppose we have 65 mph speed limits but over half the drivers are doing 70+ mph? It's because we make laws and policy every day that we cannot possibly enforce! Americans are provided assistance and since there are perhaps 100+ million Americans receiving some forms of government assistance, how is it possible or affordable or even rational to worry about a few Americans who take advantage of the system? In the grand scheme of things, of $4 trillion annual federal spending, plus another $3 trillion at local government spending, what you are talking about is chump-change...

 

Evidence suggests otherwise. Historically, economists have struggled to understand the tendency towards involuntary unemployment. Even in macroeconomic boom, full employment is a relatively rare circumstance. Reference to minimum wages failed. Reference to trade unionism failed. It was efficiency wage analysis that provided the gap: that analysis, supported by empirical evidence, finds that the profit objective itself in capitalism will generate unemployment.

You have an opinion and that is clouded by ideological background. This goes beyond that. Indeed, efficiency wage analysis encompasses both orthodox and heterodox ideas.

 

We know the two are linked (essentially delivering inefficient inequalities). Even the basic human capital model demonstrates that (showing how someone from a rich background will be able to acquire funds cheaper and therefore have greater education opportunities).

You continue to have a clear flaw in you argument: the US has low social mobility and a government system corrupted by market fundamentalism.

 

I've not suggested government forcing people to do anything. Any government assistance should be both acquired and provided by the local level of government, with little involvement/interference by the State government, and NO involvement/interference by the Federal government, with the only exception being a repayable loan to the local level of government by either State or Federal government. Yes, I agree government should not allow fraud in ANY program. Perhaps we need a government to govern the government? Obviously the people are rationally incapable of controlling their governments.

 

Are over half the drivers doing 70+ mph? Perhaps we have too many laws and policies?
Yeah, lets ignore the problem until it becomes costly enough to get our attention.

 

What's to understand...it is impossible to match every person in the workforce with an appropriate job plus there is some portion who will be counted as unemployed who have no intentions of seeking employment.

The profit objective in capitalism should always be a goal of a business. How this goal is achieved has many options but no matter the options the business must continue to satisfy demand. How much labor is needed is driven more by satisfying demand than a profit objective although both are parallel goals. Labor is a variable in business, therefore, labor levels will always be a moving target. With so many options today for automation, robotics, outsourcing, or facility relocation, all options used to remain competitive and profitable, labor becomes a greater variable...

 

The People don't want that level of scrutiny...

 

I'm in CA and here it's either speed or get run over! My point is laws cannot always be enforced because of the scope and complexity and cost to enforce.

Talking about speeding, 35,000 people are killed every year in the US in traffic accidents most of which are attributed to speeding. More than half of these lost lives can be saved by simply reducing the speed limits...BUT...it's obvious in our society that it's more important to rush from Point A to Point B than it is to worry about 35,000 deaths...we ignore lots of things...

 

Of course, but for government to ignore the consequences of that objective is not rational. It's that bit which you ignore: you don't take into account the importance of supporting involuntary unemployment in capitalism.

 

Chinese govt ignored it and 700,000 million moved up into middle class eliminating 40% of the planets poverty.

 

Which people? What level of scrutiny?

 

I'm unable to see how you feel the above relates to the thread topic or the discussion in general. While I agree that laws can only be applied and enforced upon those who have been caught and found guilty of breaking them, most people are more likely to obey laws which they find the risk and/or loss greater than they are willing to bear if caught, unacceptable. But we're not talking about laws with intent to prevent acts which could result in harming others.

Yes, there's some truth to that but in what way do you wish me to relate that to this threads topic?

 

People find themselves in involuntary unemployment for lots of reasons and seldom does this have anything to do with the profit motive. Many businesses are not interested in pursuing the unemployed and instead recruit from other businesses or schools, and this is more valid the longer a person is unemployed. Every day we have more workers in the system as long as we have population growth. Most corporations have little interest in the chronically unemployed underachievers...

 

YOUR statement; Obviously the people are rationally incapable of controlling their governments.

MY statement; The People don't want that level of scrutiny...

 

Because you believe you can force people into situations and this cannot be done. Even if the US creates Gestapo policy there is no way to enforce it...

 

Laws can be enforced without catching law breakers and judging/punishing them.

Laws can and most commonly are.... self enforced.

You are always present.

All you need is a law that people agree with and it needs no external enforcement at all.

 

The empirical evidence supports the efficiency wage hypothesis, demonstrating that the profit motive is indeed a key factor in delivering involuntary unemployment.

This isn't about recruiting from the unemployed. It is about how firms, just by following the profit motive, will generate involuntary unemployment. Its essentially a macroeconomic inefficiency generated by microeconomic rationality.

 

Where have I mentioned the use of force? I have no problem with giving people a helping hand, as long as they show they are using such help to reduce/eliminate it from being a perpetual need.