This was tried many years ago in New Jersey. I believe that the state absorbed one half of the hourly wage paid to the unemployable for a period of time. Employers hired these people because it was a good deal, but it didn't last because these employees had no desire to move forward and the program was terminated.
The important thing is that they work. Anyone with a a few months of work history can advance. It would be odd if they chose not to - and irrelevant. It is also important to stop any subsidy to the able idlers that could be construed as a "wage".
I think that it was for a 6 month period of time. They can advance in time, yes. But most of the time they did not advance, because they only wanted a place to hang their hat, and not learn. Also, some stole and did not show up for work at times, etc.
No work - no wages. This is not rocket science. Clearly the NJ boondoggle was not designed to help menial labor. Hardly a surprise - the political class is not inclined to encourage work. It is all about creating abject dependency.
It is extremely difficult to hire and train the unemployable, due to their upbringing, or lack thereof. This was government's attempt at helping the indigent find gainful employment. Throwing money at the problem may only exasperate it. Unfortunately, many bureaucrats have never experienced the experience themselves.
Millions of jobs for unskilled labor have been out there for decades now. Drive through any American urban center and you will find mile after mile of abandoned dwellings and businesses that need to be cleared with sledge hammers and axes for either salvage or redevelopment. Locals would pay for some of it, but they could and would not pay much to get it done. The bureaucracy needed to cut checks for low wage workers is minimal. A few clerks, a database, a printer and a mailing system.
It sounds simple, but it isn't. Insurance costs, employee costs over and above the low wage, supervision, etc. It goes on and on. There is an expense here, and it isn't small.
This way of thinking is where we have been headed. It implies there are an elite few among us that knows exactly what is good for us and what is bad. The rest must live with their decisions. It is social engineering.
Yes so tell that to the person to whom I was responding who wants government to tax businesses whose prices are too high. We are due for a recession no matter who is in charge, let's hope the Republican can get sound tax reform in place, government spending in control and Trump can inject some confidence into the markets that the government will be more pro business than under the Obama administration. Then we will get through it as we did with the 2000-2001 recession which was followed by a full recovery and long period of growth and full employment and a strong stock market.
I do support the minimum wage being at a level so the poor are able to support themselves without relying on the government.
My view is that Trump is an incompetent, immoral, non pragmatic, uninformed narcissist, giving the wealthy huge tax reductions at the expense of his working middle class base. The arbitrary elimination of many regulations can only lead to major problems. Following 2001, the housing crisis hit when lending institutions were allowed to run amuck without any oversight, the Iraq fiasco, etc. My view is that we are heading in the same direction. Yes, we will get through the next recession with the working middle class taking the biggest hit. As a lifelong Republican, I see a collapse at the hands of this so called Republican. We all hope, and there is an old saying: "He who hopes gets the booby prize."
What if the value of the job does not meet that? And do you mean a single person or a family of how many and what is considered supporting themselves?
Your analysis couldn't be further from the facts. I don't know what you mean by "be able to afford each other's goods".
I don't particularly like the guy and did not vote for him but thisnis about policy can yiu give an example of this policy you assert? I don't find anything arbitrary about regulations being eliminate especially if they do korr harm than good and the banking and lending and jnsurance institutions were/are some of the most heavily regulated already and still are. That wasn't a regulatory matter but if you want to discuss some alternative course start a thread on it. Not a Republican and never really considered Trump one. But tell me with us facing a historically over due recession what should fiscal policy be then IYO?
The true value of a job is how much revenue that job creates for the company but the market value of the job is based on this but affected by a whole host of other factors. High unemployment means a longer line waiting for jobs which means a lower market value for the jobs even they generate the same revenue. Obviously we can't have multiple minimum wages so we will have to find a happy median.
A happy median and considerably lower than the maximum "wage" or income or accumulated wealth. Prevailing local costs perhaps could and should be considered to a degree limited by the amount of added bureaucracy needed to implement and oversee such special treatment. "Multiple minimum wages" in that the minimum "wage" may vary somewhat by location. Local consideration should be rendered moot where the greater societal gain becomes questionable or threatened. Same for the maximum.
And if the pay is higher than that revenue they bring in or value they add they are a loss to the business. It can or it can still mean you are competing for the best of the available labor and usually during times of high unemployment your sales will also suffer. But right now our problem is not that jobs aren't available it is people in the workforce to fill them. This should drive the cost of the labor up but still if the labor is too much a loss for the company they will eliminate it. Well a living wage for a single person and a family of four is going to be completely different so should pay be based on how many dependents you have?
The revenue they bring in is affected by the price of the product. Businesses can just raise prices and they often do. During recessions that is definitely true. When the economy is doing badly people are getting fired and their wages are getting frozen or cut. However, in times of recovery when profits are rising again and jobs are being added we don't see much wage growth until unemployment comes down to the right level. Just look at our current recession. Revenues and the number of jobs were rising since 2010 but wages didn't start growing until around 2015 when unemployment reached normal levels. Another consideration is that despite the state of the economy there will always be a ton of demand for minimum wage jobs because they require no skills and a lot of people out there have no skills. There will always be a long line for these jobs. So a burger flipper can generate $13 per hour but only be paid $5 because there are 10 people waiting outside willing to take $5 per hour just to have that job. Ideally yes, but this heavily complicates the minimum wage and basically make it as complicated as income taxes. I am willing for a simpler framework even if it has flaws. We need simpler regulations on companies in general even if they are less perfect.
You must be one a them pinko leftists. Always making sense and stuff. Haven't you heard? The poor can't support themselves because they're too lazy to work .
No they can't "just raise prices" and again if the cost of the labor exceeds the value of that labor............... Yes slightly because the unemployment number is coming down, the problem we face now is the LFPR has hit such a low and getting those people back into the workforce to fill available jobs. Unless we reach full employment and average LFPR then there will be upward pressure but the value of the job is also a factor, if the labor becomes too expensive they other means will be sought like automation. ie that wages should be based on someone's dependents. So you believe one person should be paid more for the same job all things being equal? Like when men made more than women because they supported families? And ideally you realize people without families or dependents would be hired first.
He is eliminating good and harmful regulations at an enormous pace, which is reflected in an oversold stock market. He fights with friends and enemies alike, and all at once, and may well take us into another conflict. He is unstable, irrational, and non pragmatic, never backing off when necessary, doesn't listen to those experienced advisors advisors who make sense. He does not know what he does not know, and thinks, in his ignorant and naive way, that he "knows more than the generals". Recessions, in my view, do not historically occur every so often no matter what. They obviously occur, but after something triggers them. Clinton relaxed regulations, causing the stock market to spike, followed by a recession where young people who made lots of money were suddenly broke when the market collapsed. Bush with the subprime housing loans being a major cause of the great recession. Now it is Trump, who may be leading us into an abyss that will take years to climb out of.
Um, the price of goods and services is determined by the immutable Law of Supply & Demand, with respect to Price Elasticity. The purpose of Inflation is conserve and preserve goods and services to prevent them from being depleted. That's because more goods and services are being consumed. If you don't like the higher prices, then either stop consuming, or increase the Supply to match Demand.
