Current welfare system ruining our economy

I do not.

 

Why not? Why else call it Capitalism instead of Laborism?

 

That makes zero (0) sense. Look at a country like Japan or Singapore, which have lots of people and low unemployment, vs Mongolia or Sudan, with few people and high unemployment. I remember seeing a recent research paper showing that workers in cities become more productive as the city's population grows. The problem is, as population grows, land rents rise even faster than productivity, so those more-productive workers just end up paying more land rent to landowners in return for nothing. The landowners get rich for doing nothing, the workers produce more and more, but get poorer and poorer.

HELLO?!?!?!???

 

Its simple math.

 

Sure. It's just not economics. I just got through informing you that labor productivity RISES when there are more people in a given area. So society is richer with more people. We see that in places like Singapore, HK, etc. But notice what distinguishes Singapore and HK from equally populous but dirt-poor places with high unemployment, like Calcutta, Dhaka, Karachi, etc.: in HK all the land is publicly owned. In Singapore, it's 70%, and the great majority of people live in publicly owned housing on public land. The difference is that the high unemployment places give private landowners a legal entitlement to take everything from everyone else.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible... but no simpler." -- Albert Einstein

 

All we need do is solve for simple poverty and the capital effects of capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. It can be accomplished in a market friendly manner, at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage, and on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Something as simple as unemployment compensation is much less expensive than any form of means tested welfare. We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.

 

very stupid of course since too many would want to become nonproductive employees

 

So non-productive consumers are preferable to non-productive employees? 1-1=0

 

Seems to me the real issue is aptitude over attitude. Let me explain say your an average person with an IQ of 100, no special talents to fall back on like being a fine mus withouician or being very socially talented (physical and other traits) so your well good at certain kinds of work you are trainable for say working on an assembly line or working in retail both of which used to be career paths but now aren't (in most cases) right out of High School. You would leave High School and put on the work clothes and work on an assembly lime say assembling tractors. Or you would leave, go work in a department store say Sears and after they trained you then you could work there until you retired likely higher up in that kind of work from practical experience. Now what do we do with these people when the simple jobs as in the ones not requiring more school which is expensive are gone?

Even the armed forces if one goes career is very likely to favor those with special technical talents, or are above average or have college educations at some point my father was bright with a higher than average IQ and could pick up languages like a sponge learning a dozen just from military language schools or being around a culture and picked it up (for the Middle Eastern languages including local nuances of many regions the "slang") so he was fast tracked into a career. He also could have left and made a lot of money as a very multilingual translator both spoken and written. But I'm due to physical and mental disabilities although as intelligent in raw IQ am below average when trying to work. So if you join the Army and want to try to do your thirty years you need to have something more to give than just doing your job well and sit on being a Private until you retire.

 

Why not simply reserve them at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that competes favorably with the cost of social services.

In that manner, labor that wants to work, will be able to find work sooner rather than later.

- - - Updated - - -

not if we provide recourse to unemployment compensation that does feel qualified to work at prevailing, market based wages. Unemployment compensation should work for them.

 

"Undeserved"??? Heck, I don't even believe welfare ranks very high in our debt problems in the first place. And since you posted no links to back up your claims, I have to assume you don't trust what you're saying either.

But since this is from February and the tread has moved on to other issues, I don't expect much interest in this.

 

How about doing what some European countries are doing?.... require the solution be a proportional reduction in work hours so that everyone remains employed, and pay the same wage as was paid at full time?

But see, this can't happen under this kind of capitalism.

 

You have a very negative view of people. Europeans don't suffer that flaw and they are eating our lunch!

 

What is the dollar value created by the passage of one hours time?
An employer has 12 employees paying them $10/hour with an 8 hour work day, a wage cost of $960 per day.
Cutting the work day to 6 hours, adding 4 new employees would maintain 96 hours of productive labour each day, and maintaining the $10/hour wage would still increase the costs to the employer as many additional employee related expenses such as paid vacation, health care, sick pay, etc. need be factored in.
While the employees would see a 25% loss of income, I have to admit that could be advantageous as they could easily then find a second 6 hour work day job resulting in a 50% increase of income. And having 2 jobs instead of one might make it easier for couples with children to both work and assure a more constant source of income even when one job is lost.

I would fully support any government action which resulted in each able bodied individual acquiring their needs/wants as a result of participatory labour.

 

then you want capitalism wherein supply equals demand, in the this case the supply of jobs would equal the number of jobs in demand. Do you understand?

 

a liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so will propose 1001 interventions (in this case reduced work week) which in effect amounts to communism because the interventions don't work and then must be followed by further and further interventions. Do you understand now?

 

I have a stubborn hard line stance on welfare and unemployment. The first 30-45 days no changes but starting day 46 and every week after it gets harder and harder to receive, no direct deposits, stand in line for hours or days if necessary to receive your check, by the time you hit the 3rd month I want receiving welfare or other benefits to be worse than work, it should really really suck it should suck to bad that one day you will finally wake up and decide that maybe getting a job isn't so bad after all.

The wife and I have to buy clothes, transportation, groom ourselves and remain drug free, commute a long distance to work, chug along doing our job for 8 hours then commute back home, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year so we can keep the checks coming in.

I figure anybody who is not in a hospital bed can put forth at least half that effort to get a dam check.

If the line is too short that day then i'll hand you a dam vest and a stick and you can go pick up trash on the road side, bring your kids if you have no choice, they can clean up too.

What can I say, i'm a cold fish.

 

The problem is we do not have enough jobs for the 205 million people in the age bracket of 19-64 years of age.

 

Of course labor productivity rises when population increases since they are all consumers. However, when the population rises to a point when there is simply not enough jobs for them to be self-supportive, it creates a problem.

 

Non sequitur.

Huh? Weren't you the one who just said they are all consumers? What are they going to consume but the products of each other's labor? All those consumers are job opportunities. The real question is: How do you stop people from working? And the answer is: make them pay more than they can afford, just for PERMISSION to work. That is what private landowning does:

“Wherever, in any country, there are idle lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.” — Thomas Jefferson

 

There is lots of work to do. What is stopping them from doing it?

You don't know, do you?

Well, I do:

THEY HAVE TO PAY LANDOWNERS FOR PERMISSION TO DO IT, and they can't afford the fee.

 

From what I've found, there are about 4,000,000 births each year, 2,400,000 deaths, and about 1,000,000 legal immigrants yet the census bureau decennial census shows the population to be increasing by about 3,300,000 per year. In any event, the result is 3,300,000 new consumers each year. The problem is that modern societies do not exist in a 'one new consumer equals one new producer' environment any longer.
Per the census bureau there were 129,721,512 persons employed full time in 2000 with a total population of 281,421,906 consumers.
The BLS reports that as of Dec. 2016 there are 123,570,000 persons employed full time with a total population of 324,304,407 consumers as estimated by the Census Bureau.
1990 2.149959273 consumers per full time employee
2000 2.169431281 consumers per full time employee
2010 2.624459068 consumers per full time employee
Productivity today can easily increase to meet the demands of consumption, without much, if any, increase of human labour. As such, does increasing human population to consume what can be produced make any rational sense?

 

If the population was only increasing by 3.3 million per year we would not have over 20 million in each five year age bracket that are under 65. Anyway by adding your numbers, 4 million births plus 1 million immigrants is 5 million added per year that are under 65. The total would be 325 million under 65 if no one died.

The 4 million births per year is what marked the baby boomer years so we did not have 4 million native born births per year until recently. The death rate is up to 2.6 million deaths per year with 500,000 of deaths are under 65 per year.

The census for health coverage also determined the number of full time employees at 105 million and 40 million working part time. Full time employment is now 30 hours.

 

"Current welfare system ruining our economy"



We have been hearing that for 80 years and the system still works just fine.

 

Agreed. Start with corporations that receive federal subsidies and don't pay taxes. That would cover the cost of the SNAP and TANF programs up front. Any business that makes even a penny of profit should receive no federal subsidies at all.