Comments on: Finding new ways to make work pay Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:10:25 +0000 hourly 1 By: CRUXy Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:40:49 +0000 Grant ourselves and our posterity the LIBERTY to realize our full potential …or reserve it exclusive domain of the chattel ranching few. The choice is ours America …or is it ?

By: wildcat27 Mon, 18 Nov 2013 05:11:42 +0000 One aspect of the employment problems in America that is often unmentioned is the lack of competition abroad for the business class. You have Europe, Japan, South Korea, and a few other nations producing successful mutli-national corporations, the rest of the world is providing labor for these corporations. Too much competition on one end, and not enough on the other has disrupted the balance of power allowing businesses to make outrageous demands of their employees. The only solution is to reform the trade system, place high tariffs on countries with substandard labor, environmental, anti corruption, and rule of law practices. Then labor will have a chance and the economy will be booming again.

By: epockismet Sun, 17 Nov 2013 17:01:34 +0000 As a member of the IT community i have seen some of the worst of the decisions made by businesses that have spread far and wide including small business owners. They want to pay little to nothing for support, and they generalize the people in my field. Judgements on what my lifestyle must be aside, most jobs in my field have been regulated to contract positions. No respect is given to the amount of education required to know what we know, but since the future is to only have people with certifications, we are treated as though we are an inconvenience to endure until that utopia is reached, with out demands for a living wage, health insurance, and a retirement to look forward to. My future has been hijacked by economic snake oil salesmen, and I know it isn’t just my field, but the whole country that is getting this condescending treatment. It’s very depressing, and hard to find hope in any of it with the path we are being dragged on by so many people who really need the undercover boss treatment.

By: tmc Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:15:41 +0000 @Pete_Murphy, I don’t believe that your statement
“The companies mentioned above (agriculture and hospitality), together with all companies, favor higher rates of immigration because it stokes the economy with more consumers and because of the additional downward pressure it exerts on wages. ” is true. In part yes, some companies favor immigration to keep wages down. But not many. Most that do favor it seem to just plain need the workers. Whether they’re high-skilled, or low skilled, they just can’t get enough of them to fill their needs. Yes, that drives up wages, but that’s really not a problem.
It seems to me you’re just trying to support your findings on “inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption”. I have not read your book, but it seems that it is based entirely on this premise. What I don’t understand is why does it mater? It seems like just playing with statistics to me. I mean, what exactly are you saying? Removing people will stabilize jobs? Yeah, if there were no other factors like automation and other productivity improvements. Do you propose that as we automate things we should reduce the population according to your algorithms? So the US should start a program to deport people at the some specified rate to keep up with automation?

Please sir, you constantly post comments about this with little or no explanation. Certainly not enough to warrant buying your book to find out.

How does the population stabilizing by 2050 at 11-12 billion affect your theory?

Thanks in advance….

By: Nurgle Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:55:10 +0000 I’m on board with your assertions as well Pete – your comment snuck in there while I was awaiting Reuters review :)

By: Nurgle Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:52:27 +0000 Thank-you @Wry – Current wage levels are corporate subsidization plain and simple. If an employee is paid a wage that sill qualifies them for various “social benefit” programs, then it isn’t really “minimum” is it? It is by any definition below minimum. We transfer payments of individual taxpayers to support corporate negligence. Employers need to either pay the wage or pay the taxes necessary to make up the shortfall. A higher minimum wage may indeed slow job growth, and absolutely should come with increased expectations. So be it. It will ease a painful economic adjustment for many, and many will be left behind. Hopefully, population increases will slow accordingly.

By: Pete_Murphy Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:32:10 +0000 “That is, the problem is not that there is no wage at which employers will take on less-skilled workers. If this were the case, agriculture and hospitality companies wouldn’t be pressing lawmakers for an immigration overhaul that would allow for a large influx of less-skilled workers from abroad.”

The real problem is that labor is in a state of over-supply in the U.S. and, among many of our trading partners, it is in a state of gross over-supply. And, as the US and the rest of the world grow more densely populated, the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption makes it inescapable that the situation is going to get worse.

The companies mentioned above (agriculture and hospitality), together with all companies, favor higher rates of immigration because it stokes the economy with more consumers and because of the additional downward pressure it exerts on wages.

There is no solution to high and worsening unemployment that doesn’t begin with halting the practice of growing the economy by adding more people, which only adds to the labor force at a rate that exceeds demand.

Pete Murphy
Author, “Five Short Blasts”

By: OneOfTheSheep Fri, 15 Nov 2013 19:18:21 +0000 @JL4,

I’m heartened that we now agree on some things. I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion I have anything but respect for the honest efforts of the working poor to better their situation.

When I wrote: “Machines don’t get overtime…” it was my intention to describe all of the advantages an employer gets by automating ANY position held by a human. And of course the savings are greatest when a large number of low skill positions can be replaced, such as in the fast food industry. It’s not a new idea…ever heard of the New York City “Automat” of the ’40s??

The “working poor” that have large families should be an example to those just “starting out” aware how each new mouth materially reduces the resources available to the household for each. Those with children already on any kind of public assistance have already eliminated their personal chances to have a “better life”. By their own hand (?) they sentence themselves to a seemingly ever-ending inescapable scramble to put food on the table and get enough sleep to get up and do it all over again, day after day.

Yes, America was built on the concept of the pursuit of happiness – a concept of individualism that believed a person could start at the bottom…and move up the ladder of personal success. But such social and financial achievement requires that one plan and prioritize so as to better leverage their personal situation into a better one over time. It sounds like you fit that profile, as did I.

So I apologize for any unintended slight you felt because you are completely right “…that more people than not are raising their children without public assistance.” I admire them, and your own efforts.

I do not admire those who increase the size of their families to increase their benefits. When each new mouth is not a child to be loved and raised as a valuable and contributing citizen of these United States, but more dollars, their spawn run wild (being an inconvenience) and grow up to be endless problems or predators upon civil society. It is THIS demographic I see ever expanding and a credible threat to the American way of life.

By: tmc Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:21:20 +0000 As posted on Mr. Hadas last article:
@OOTS is right on this in many ways. I think he is reluctant to state the true answer though, and that is indeed more of those evil social programs. Not the old 20th century welfare state programs, but new 21 century social/economic programs. We must completely re-think how and who works at “jobs” and how people are provided a living wage. It must be a transitionary plan as even though the population will stabilize, automation will continue on its exponentially fast track. Just think, we now have the capability to create a “droid” that has the dexterity and intelligence of the average person (100 IQ). Soon we will be able to mass produce them. How do you think that will affect jobs?

By: Wry Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:37:35 +0000 Stop subsidizing Walmart and other “low wage leaders” with tax dollars and make them pay a living wage. If that means raising the minimum wage, maybe that’s what has to be done.

A person working a full-time job, 40 hours (or more) per week should be able to earn enough to pay their bills and put food on the table.

Far too much of “worker wages” is being siphoned off by mega-companies to give their shamelessly wealthy executives MORE.