Help Answer a Nagging Question About Jobs and Economics

[bountyhunter]

Something nobody has mentioned yet that is somewhat related to the issue of job losses, though not necessarily related to outsourcing and free trade is the upcoming retirement, in large numbers, of the baby boom generations.

No offense, but your math is in error. There is a steady flow of retiring workers, but the new workers entering the market always outruns it. I believe the current number is that about 100,000 new jobs must be created each year to keep the unemployment rate FROM RISING, in other words: break even. That situation gets worse as the governement allows companies to abuse the Visa system and flood the market with aliens. It also gets worse as illegal immigrants are encouraged to enter either by lax enforcement of existing laws or absurd new ones that allow anybody a green card if they have worked here "X" number of years.

I think that when the baby boomer generation starts to retire there will be millions of old (not new) jobs available for younger workers. What do ya'll think?

Those jobs will be slurped up like a thirsty sponge sucking water.

 

[Gordon Fink]

The so-called boom/bust cycle is caused by government meddling—not cured by it.

The idea that capitalism causes these cycles is commie propaganda. They are caused by federal reserve counterfeiting and interest rate manipulation.

I’m sorry, mercedes, but history tells us something else. Government meddling can and does ameliorate the boom/bust cycle, but too much or the wrong kinds can and will restrain economic growth. Finding the right kinds of “meddling†or, better yet, non-coercive means to encourage a healthy (not equal) distribution of wealth is what I’m talking about.

You will also find the problem of capitalism’s boom/bust cycle discussed in conservative economic texts. “Commie†propaganda tracts usually focus on class warfare and the “evils†of the bourgeois.

~G. Fink

Talk about dogma!

 

[mercedesrules]

...conservative economic texts....

I suscribe to Austrian Economic Theory.

"Furthermore, boom-bust cycles are not part and parcel of a free market economy, but on the contrary are the outcome of the existence of the central monetary authority."

MR

 

[Gordon Fink]

Glock Glockler’s Economic Challenge

Here’s a quick plan to make the USA more business friendly

- eliminate affirmative action. That would be a nice little boost if companies could hire whomever is best suited for the job instead of govt quotas.

Agreed. Whatever benefits derived from the original affirmative-action programs have surely run their course. On the other hand, I think affirmative action has very little economic effect.

- eliminate healthcare and workmen’s comp. requirements on businesses. Companies used to give bennies like healthcare to attract and keep talent, they did so because it was beneficial to them, but requireing it from them on all employees is financially crushing.…

Agreed. Non-coercive public alternatives can be established. These would use market forces to make the best services available at the best prices for employers and employees without mandating participation or restricting competition. In fact, fair competition is the key to making insurance affordable and widely available.

- eliminate the matching Social Security requirement for employers. This would provide an immediate 7.65% boost to companies that employ people in the USA.

Social Security must be phased out but gradually. We have raised too many generations to depend on it, so we must wean our workers carefully. Proper financial education should probably be a part of this process.

- lower corporate taxes. The USA, land of the free, has one of the highest corporate tax rates in any industrialized country, lower these rates and companies will be more likely to stay here.

Taxes should be assessed only once. Eliminating corporate income taxes is one possible way to avoid double taxation. See also my proposal for voluntary taxation.

- streamline and ease up on govt regulation. I’m not saying that companies should have free reign to pollute, but only that most regulations are not only harmful but they also dont do a damn thing to make anyone safer.…

Agreed. In the cases where regulations have been adopted for safety purposes, criminal liability should be assessed in the event of damages. For example, if a company knowingly pollutes thd ground water, leading to illness and death in the surrounding community, the company’s owners, managers, and/or workers should be prosecuted for murder and other applicable crimes. Prior restraint is wrong.

~G. Fink

 

[bountyhunter]

.

I suscribe to Austrian Economic Theory.

From the article:

"This increase in the purchasing power of the early recipients of money however, is at the expense of the late receivers or non-receivers."


This guy took about 40 paragraphs of text to describe a simple "pyramid" scheme..... must have been writing his master's thesis. Amazing how complicated some people can make things sound if they work at it.

 

[Jeff White]

The collapse of social security will be the defining political event of our time. I don't have to depend on social security, but the confiscatory taxes I have paid all of my life for it had better pay the full benefit or heads will roll in Washington.

It's going to be a very divisive debate. I have people tell me that since I have a military retirement I have no need for my social security and I should just accept a program that opts people who made other arrangements for their retirement out. I even heard that from my mother.

Well my family would have lived much better if I hadn't had to pay into social security and I would have a more comfortable retirement if I would have had that money to invest.

They've only got a couple years to fix things and the issue is too sensitive to touch...the next decade is going to be very interesting and may end up changing a lot in our society.

Jeff

 

[moa]

I think about 2014 it is projected that SSI will take in less revenue then it distributes.

 

[bountyhunter]

The collapse of social security will be the defining political event of our time. I don't have to depend on social security, but the confiscatory taxes I have paid all of my life for it had better pay the full benefit or heads will roll in Washington.

It's not a "pay into investment program", it's a tax. Plain and simple. The government takes money from you to pay the people collecting. Period. There is no box with your name on it containing the money you paid in.

BTW: it's a pyramid scheme founded on the totally false assumption that the RATIO of people collecting to those paying would remain constant. It has not. Declining birth rates and longer lives mean all of the people collecting now receive far more money than they paid in. They also impose a far greater burden onto the backs of the workers funding them than was in place when they were working.

We would all be happier if we just admitted: SS is a broken wheel. It's a pyramid scheme that can NEVER work long term and that is why it is going broke. The way it will be balanced will be by raising the age of eligibility higher and higher and reducing the benefits paid out until the payouts are in line with the amount collected. When that day comes, you will probably have to be 85 to collect, and you'll probably get about $250/month. The truth is ugly sometimes, but that's about the size of it.

The collapse of social security will be the defining political event of our time.

IMO, the defining political even will happen when the government admits the budget can never again be balanced and stops even suggesting that they will ever try again. One repub economic expert recently said that the Reagan years proved that "deficits don't matter" (seriously). When they admit that, we will be in a very different world.

Well my family would have lived much better if I hadn't had to pay into social security and I would have a more comfortable retirement if I would have had that money to invest.

Yeah, but that's true of everybody. BTW, if you think you are getting screwed: my wife works for the county in kali, and they are forced to pay into the state retirement fund called CALPERS as well as Social Security even though the SS will be deducted from the CALPERS retirement (so it is lost). She is also a veteren of the Navy with 30 years and that retirement has an offset against both SS and CALPERS. She got reamed three different ways.

 

[Jeff White]

Bountyhunter,
I'm well aware that social security is a ponzi scheme. That doesn't matter, they taxed me with the promise of paying future benefits. There are millions of people who will look at it like I do. That's why it's going to be a defining momemnt in politics.

BTW if Navy finance is still figuring in social security offset they are wrong. There is no longer a social security offset to military retirement, just the survivor benefit program.

Jeff

 

[bountyhunter]

BTW if Navy finance is still figuring in social security offset they are wrong. There is no longer a social security offset to military retirement, just the survivor benefit program.

I hope you're right about that. I know that the CALPERS offset is dollar for dollar, so she loses all of the SS benefit if she collects the CALPERS she paid into (which is a higher amount).

 

[Glock Glockler]

But how are more goods and services (i.e., new wealth) created? In a shrinking economy, there is not always incentive to increase production. Dismissing employees is often a more attractive option.

Yes, a company will often tighten their belt and cut the fat from their organizaton. They will try to do more with less.

When they lay off excess employees they've just freed up resources that can then be applied in the economy in another manner. I wonder how it is that an economy can ever improve given your economic theory.

 

[mountainclmbr]

When lawsuits, taxes and labor unions drive down the efficiency, and drive up the cost here...where else does a CEO go? The government does not create any productive jobs, only regulates, restricts and impedes them.

If the government here becomes socialist, it may create jobs after it has stolen all business and property from its citizens. But, it is a system that has historically proven to be both inefficient and bloody.

People who think that the government should "create jobs" raise your right hand and say Heil!

 

[mercedesrules]

(bountyhunter) It's not a "pay into investment program", it's a tax. Plain and simple. The government takes money from you to pay the people collecting. Period. There is no box with your name on it containing the money you paid in.

Right! And, the payout part is welfare, plain and simple. Either one can be changed by a simple act of congress. Powder dry, everyone?

MR

 

[Gordon Fink]

… given your economic theory.

It’s called “capitalism,†Glockler.

~G. Fink

 

[Glock Glockler]

Gordon,

You basically projected a downward spiral in which the rich get richer at the expense of the poor and that does not correspond with reality. Many of our "poor" today lived better than many elites in centuries past. I'm wondering how things can ever get better when the economy contracts, as companies will lay people off, followed by more people who cannot spend money, ect.

Forgive me but I think your missing an element of the equation, especially as it applies to the govt helping things improve when things are bad. Govt does much to cause the extreme boom/bust cycle that exists, having them help out is like someone giving you a great deal on some tires after they slash yours which work fine.