Even if we accept that every one of these able bodied men were to suddenly watch Fox News and become a vigorous, hard working Conservative and join the labor force...there is no demand for their labor.

Perhaps there would be more demand for labor if we simply lowered the corporate tax rate to 0% and got rid of the 1000's of regulations that small businesses have to follow because some government bureaucrat with a marketing degree from Phoenix University thought it was a good idea. Small business in this country would take off and create the jobs necessary for America to produce at its maximum output.

Instead, because poor stupid people complain all the time, we have a broken economy that the boneheads in the government think they can fix by doing more government. WRONG.

WebFire;1587246 wrote:How do you achieve 100% employment?

You're never going to achieve 100% employment in the private economy. Even in the golden age of capitalism with few distortions from regulations and taxes etc. that Libertarians think was this Nirvana there were still periods of mass unemployment. And, this was when we were still migrating from the farms where people employed themselves to working for Capitalists in cities.

The simple answer is we decide as a society what size government we want and then in reaction to whatever level of unemployment results, the Federal, Currency-Issuing Government purchases the labor of the unemployed to provide a buffer stock of employed people at a wage floor in public works that rises and falls across the business cycle and stop providing income support and welfare in its entirety.

Basically the same thing we did during World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam except, instead of killing people, these young men and women will engage in productive activity instead of the unproductive killing of Asians.

And, no draft. Simply an offer to work for those who are unemployed.

It's a buffer stock for our labor force as a whole just like we have buffer stocks of food in our agricultural policy, buffer stocks of gasoline in our industrial policy and buffer stocks of soldiers in the form of the National Guard and Reserve Components in our Military Policy.

We as a capitalist economy use buffer stocks all the time. No reason why we couldn't have a buffer stock of employed public workers vs. our ineffective buffer stock of unemployed masses + Welfare recipients that we currently have.

sleeper;1587253 wrote:Perhaps there would be more demand for labor if we simply lowered the corporate tax rate to 0% and got rid of the 1000's of regulations that small businesses have to follow because some government bureaucrat with a marketing degree from Phoenix University thought it was a good idea. Small business in this country would take off and create the jobs necessary for America to produce at its maximum output.

Instead, because poor stupid people complain all the time, we have a broken economy that the boneheads in the government think they can fix by doing more government. WRONG.

I agree, let's eliminate the corporate tax and the employer-side payroll taxes and all kinds of regulations and even the minimum wage. The labor market will still not reach an equilibrium price. And, even if it does, it will not be sustained for a long period of time. You will stiff have mass suffering of millions of talented, non-mooching Americans who vote libertarian and don't believe in God.

Unemployment reached above 25% during the industrial revolution numerous times when we had none of these awful liberal regulations, rules, taxes, the Federal Reserve and blah blah blah.

sleeper;1587248 wrote:They are welcome to move where their inputs will be rewarded with the outputs that are necessary to feed themselves. It's a global economy. If they choose to stay in this country and commit crimes, we do have a system already in place to punish the rule violators. Perhaps, with enough surging demand for prisons due to the crimes being committed, the free market will create jobs in the justice arena.

The free market solves everything; those who cry deserve what they get.

Markets are great but they don't not solve everything. There is nothing that solves everything. It is this kind of uncompromising, fundamentalist derp that will ensure libertarians and their lack of pragmatism are perpetually ostracized. In fact, such a statement is ironic coming from you because you sound just like a Christian Fundamentalist.

But, yes, you're right a good idea is for our labor force to emigrate to other countries! You know, because it is a good thing in the long run for countries to lose all of their future labor force!!! LOL

sleeper;1587250 wrote:I said "get rid" of the minimum wage. I think you are trying to agree with me.

Yes sir

WebFire;1587244 wrote:Oh, I'm sorry. But I don't believe I have any less proof that you do that the 24 million do want to work. Or 12 million. Right?

My proof is the data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In case you didn't know, they also keep track of people who are not in the labor force and actually assert that they do not want to work. They keep track of people who say they want a job now, people who searched for work but don't really want a job now, people who are uninterested in getting work (i.e. stay at home moms), people who are fine with their part time work as opposed to people who say they want full time work etc.

BoatShoes;1587257 wrote:You're never going to achieve 100% employment in the private economy. Even in the golden age of capitalism with few distortions from regulations and taxes etc. that Libertarians think was this Nirvana there were still periods of mass unemployment. And, this was when we were still migrating from the farms where people employed themselves to working for Capitalists in cities.

The simple answer is we decide as a society what size government we want and then in reaction to whatever level of unemployment results, the Federal, Currency-Issuing Government purchases the labor of the unemployed to provide a buffer stock of employed people at a wage floor in public works that rises and falls across the business cycle and stop providing income support and welfare in its entirety.

Basically the same thing we did during World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam except, instead of killing people, these young men and women will engage in productive activity instead of the unproductive killing of Asians.

And, no draft. Simply an offer to work for those who are unemployed.

It's a buffer stock for our labor force as a whole just like we have buffer stocks of food in our agricultural policy, buffer stocks of gasoline in our industrial policy and buffer stocks of soldiers in the form of the National Guard and Reserve Components in our Military Policy.

We as a capitalist economy use buffer stocks all the time. No reason why we couldn't have a buffer stock of employed public workers vs. our ineffective buffer stock of unemployed masses + Welfare recipients that we currently have.

So in other words, work for your welfare. I think that's a great plan, and it's been mentioned here before.

WebFire;1587275 wrote:So in other words, work for your welfare. I think that's a great plan, and it's been mentioned here before.

Ha we should take on a Spartan like mindset and make them become soldiers

BoatShoes;1587262 wrote:I agree, let's eliminate the corporate tax and the employer-side payroll taxes and all kinds of regulations and even the minimum wage. The labor market will still not reach an equilibrium price. And, even if it does, it will not be sustained for a long period of time. You will stiff have mass suffering of millions of talented, non-mooching Americans who vote libertarian and don't believe in God.

Unemployment reached above 25% during the industrial revolution numerous times when we had none of these awful liberal regulations, rules, taxes, the Federal Reserve and blah blah blah.

I agree that we can never have 100% employment but we can have 100% unemployment minus frictional unemployment. Also who cares about the long run?

"In the long run we are all dead" - Boatshoes

BoatShoes;1587268 wrote:Markets are great but they don't not solve everything. There is nothing that solves everything. It is this kind of uncompromising, fundamentalist derp that will ensure libertarians and their lack of pragmatism are perpetually ostracized. In fact, such a statement is ironic coming from you because you sound just like a Christian Fundamentalist.

But, yes, you're right a good idea is for our labor force to emigrate to other countries! You know, because it is a good thing in the long run for countries to lose all of their future labor force!!! LOL

Why does it matter whether a country loses its labor force? If the US has a shortage of labor, we will have to raise wages in order to attract the talent needed to sustain the labor demanded.

One doesn't need a PhD in economics to understand people respond to incentives. I personally would love to see all of our poor, stupid people move out of the country regardless of what it does to our labor force.

WebFire;1587275 wrote:So in other words, work for your welfare. I think that's a great plan, and it's been mentioned here before.

No it is not "working for welfare". Nobody considers an E-1 Boatswain's Mate to be "working for his welfare". They are providing a valuable public service. This compensation is earned and no different than any other remuneration.

sleeper;1587285 wrote:Why does it matter whether a country loses its labor force? If the US has a shortage of labor, we will have to raise wages in order to attract the talent needed to sustain the labor demanded.

One doesn't need a PhD in economics to understand people respond to incentives. I personally would love to see all of our poor, stupid people move out of the country regardless of what it does to our labor force.

Indeed let's just offer an all expenses paid trip for unemployed people to India. I'm sure they will take them with open arms!

sleeper;1587282 wrote:I agree that we can never have 100% employment but we can have 100% unemployment minus frictional unemployment. Also who cares about the long run?

"In the long run we are all dead" - Boatshoes

Actually we very rarely have 100% employment minus frictional employment. When I say we should not have "unemployment" I am excluding frictional unemployment.

Classyposter58;1587280 wrote:Ha we should take on a Spartan like mindset and make them become soldiers

I wouldn't "make" "them" do anything. But, an offer out to the unemployed to become a reserve soldier of some sort is a good idea. Indeed ancient democratic Greek city states like Sparta or Greece did not have problems of mass unemployment.

BoatShoes;1587290 wrote:Indeed let's just offer an all expenses paid trip for unemployed people to India. I'm sure they will take them with open arms!

We don't need to offer anything; just cut the welfare net to zero and let them figure it out.

BoatShoes;1587291 wrote:Actually we very rarely have 100% employment minus frictional employment. When I say we should not have "unemployment" I am excluding frictional unemployment.

I blame that entirely on our regulatory and high tax environment designed by our incompetent government.

sleeper;1587297 wrote:We don't need to offer anything; just cut the welfare net to zero and let them figure it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tompkins_Square_Riot_(1874)

Assuming you would be employed despite your failure to learn anything besides derp from the great socialist Ohio State University education you received I suppose it would be fun to see the Sleeper/Isadore's of the world cowering in fear of a bunch of communists rioting in the streets. Which personality would you resort to???

sleeper;1587299 wrote:I blame that entirely on our regulatory and high tax environment designed by our incompetent government.

Well that would be ignorant derp that you believe because you want to believe it without evidence....not unlike the Christians you hate so much. Even in low tax, non-regulatory environments with limited government, Capitalist economies still suffer from frequent periods of mass unemployment well above and beyond frictional unemployment.

BoatShoes;1587306 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tompkins_Square_Riot_(1874)

Assuming you would be employed despite your failure to learn anything besides derp from the great socialist Ohio State University education you received I suppose it would be fun to see the Sleeper/Isadore's of the world cowering in fear of a bunch of communists rioting in the streets. Which personality would you resort to???

The world has plenty of pitbulls to handle rioting crowds. I share no concern for those who steal from us for decades and then commit even more crimes when we tell them it's not okay. Poor people in this country don't deserve anything.

BoatShoes;1587307 wrote:Well that would be ignorant derp that you believe because you want to believe it without evidence....not unlike the Christians you hate so much. Even in low tax, non-regulatory environments with limited government, Capitalist economies still suffer from frequent periods of mass unemployment well above and beyond frictional unemployment.

Right because giving business more money to grow doesn't create new jobs. Instead businesses have to spend money making sure they are hiring enough black people to not appear racist.

Lower taxes and lower regulations = more jobs. Not rocket science.

WebFire;1587204 wrote:Oh, you mean she had to work had for what she has? What a concept!

she was not born into poverty, her mother was able to pay a large part of the cost of her college education. And with that education BA, MBA, bank training she was able to become wealthy.

BoatShoes;1587289 wrote:No it is not "working for welfare". Nobody considers an E-1 Boatswain's Mate to be "working for his welfare". They are providing a valuable public service. This compensation is earned and no different than any other remuneration.

You are artificially creating jobs to give to people who can't find work. That is working for welfare. Sure they earned it, only in the sense they were made to in order to receive what would otherwise be welfare.

isadore;1587370 wrote:she was not born into poverty, her mother was able to pay a large part of the cost of her college education. And with that education BA, MBA, bank training she was able to become wealthy.

And that's bad?

isadore;1587370 wrote:she was not born into poverty, her mother was able to pay a large part of the cost of her college education. And with that education BA, MBA, bank training she was able to become wealthy.

And she still had to work for it. Having money doesn't buy you diplomas and job experience.

WebFire;1587382 wrote:And she still had to work for it. Having money doesn't buy you diplomas and job experience.

gosh you folks love to beat the poor over the head with examples like this. Examples that are not analogous to the situation of the large majority of the poor in this country.