Actually there is no such thing as population control unless those who are born is the same number as those who die. If a nation's birth rate is below the replenishment rate they will eventually have no people. Conversely anything above the replenishment rate increases the population. Even if the Earth has a 2% population growth, which might sound to be 'under control', it is still growth and it will eventually cause all the problems we discuss today. And yes the problems will be relative to location and resources but will still effect everyone in the long run...
First you say there is no such thing as surpluses and deficits, and then you say your point comes directly from economists speaking about surpluses and deficits. Make up your mind. Surpluses and deficits can exist until the debtor nation becomes insolvent and can no longer afford to purchase goods from the creditor nation. The reason the 50's was different had nothing to do with the gold standard, it had everything to do with the fact that the US possessed the factories to produce the goods the rest of the world needed, and the rest of the world did not.
maybe we lower the work week to 32 hours and overtime starts at 32, lower the retirement age rather then raise it .
France tried that as a way to increase labor hours available for employment. I don't believe it worked. And I'm pretty sure lowering the work week to 32 hours would throw millions into poverty.
which would of course cause deflation, businesses have to sell their product or they go bk... people said the same things about the 40 hour work week once when both parents worked, it benefited the family, now it's the norm, the market made up for the difference with inflation society would adapt, but change is often hard .
Generally what we would expect in economics to happen here is that hourly wages would go up, but it would not keep pace with total income. So for example, if the work week went from 40 hours to 30 hours (a decrease of 25%), wages might go up 20%, but total income for such an individual would still decrease by 10%. It could still be a potential strategy to address unemployment, however. But generally if the unemployment rises in full proportion to the decrease in working hours, there will be no increase in wages, so it is really either or.
All it does is create more jobs with no regard for the loss of per capita compensation. The current 40 hour/week workers would essentially be giving up some of their work hours in order to employ others...call it early partial retirement...
There is already a problem with underemployment, people not having enough hours. That's the problem when there are too many people. We might like to raise wages, but then we have unemployment to contend with.
I'm perfectly willing to run the experiment. Why don't we try it in a state, like Vermont or California, and see if society would adapt to lower incomes.
I'm not sure what mechanism of economics would provide a wage rate increase of 20%. Business would presumably have to replace the labor by hiring new employees but in so far that benefits increase labor costs, businesses will be spending more to get the exact same number of labor hours. More than likely they won't hire enough to replace all the lost hours and just tighten up on their hiring to cut costs.
You have to read closely. I said that the balance of payments eventually has to come even. No surplus or deficit can last very long at all because of this. I also explained that there really is no trade deficit, but I think this is beyond your knowledge. Regardless, having factories doesn't mean a thing. Britain had free trade with India while it was part of the empire, and yet even though Britain was highly developed and India was not, there was no huge trade surplus for Britain in selling goods to India.
Experts always say various things... In the whole article about this was only one sentence. People don't have to proof that it's false theory, because there were no arguments, but only one sentence:/ However it may be true, but this doesn't mean that 30% employees would be without a job.
Yeah...the solutions to perceived work place problems are not going to be solved with gimmicks like forcing a 32 hour work week. The root problem simply is not enough jobs for the workforce. IMO if we cannot consume ourselves into economic prosperity then we must greatly expand exports and this has problems as well. On top of this we will always have 5-10% of capable people not working which will always be a burden on society...
Business most of the time has choices regarding labor; hire direct labor, hire temp labor, hire subcontractors, outsource domestically, outsource outside of the USA, automate, robotics, etc. When any of these sources of labor become problematic, like increasing labor costs by 20% with no productivity increase, business will find alternatives. If a business runs out of alternatives, they either relocate or close the doors. While many people believe some of the labor alternatives are evil, IMO it is imperative for business to have these alternatives. At the end of the day, if business cannot satisfy demand and earn profits, the business will disappear...
I've always had a problem with government forcing business to administer taxes and FICA, etc. for employees. It makes more sense to me for business to pay the employee for their labor and the employee must then deal with personal tax withholding, FICA, health care, etc. Or, as you presume, let the temp agencies deal with this crap and all employees can work through these agencies. IMO this makes the cost structure of the business more pure...
