Tavish wrote:No one is ignoring the fact that people are stupid or will let their greed overcome their intelligence. This isn't some hidden fact that we need some sort of unbiased vision to point out. People have always been like this and will always be like this. I'm not sure if your solution to the problem is either A) people stop being that way in which case you live in even a bigger fantasy land than those who think a full blown socialistic economy is the answer everyone is looking for or that a true free market system is the only way capitalism can prosper OR B) some distorted version of Economic Darwinism where the stupid poor people simple fade away and give way to a higher educated and more wealthy populace that can battle for the markets without having to worry about about those who can't keep up.
I've said it before in this thread, consumers absolutely share some of the blame in the current crisis. They hold some blame in every other major economic crisis the country has faced. I'm pretty confident they will hold some blame in every future economic crisis. It just isn't a fixable problem. There are more viable solutions that will protect the stupid from themselves. Although they will almost certainly hurt those who profit off them the most, it would just as certainly help long term those caught in the middle.
My solution to the problem is to point out to the idiots not only that they caused this problem, but also to educate them in hopes that we can reduce the percentage of idiots out there that will sink the entire country in the future. Normally the percentage of idiots is small enough that there's no real threat to the nation. In this case, the percentage of idiots was simply too large. I don't see how letting them think they did nothing wrong and had no fault in the problem does anything to prevent future problems. We'll never educate 100% of the idiots, but the percentage must come down. Letting them off 100% scott free will only lead to disaster.
Neato Torpedo wrote:I get what you're saying, for sure. But if unemployment is purely a product of inefficiency, then doesn't free market capitalism screw us over even harder? Between outsourcing and automation, it's going to continue to get less efficient to hire American employees instead of using Indians or machines. And even if we offset that with public works jobs through government funds (construction and such), it would only be a temporary solution as outsourcing and automation continue to increase (no reason they shouldn't). Technology and globalization are changing the rules of the game, and clearly we don't yet know exactly how the rules have been changed. What happens far in the future when most things are automated? What happens to the 100 million Americans that can't find work? It's a question that's going to continue to gain more relevance as society keeps going down this road.
But I digress. People keep saying that unemployment will decrease if we decrease taxes on the "job creators". But the fact that they keep making money means that it's more that they don't need to create jobs (inefficiency argument) or they don't want to create jobs (greed argument), rather than not being able to. But here's the big question: if the job creators are not guilty of being greedy, how can government create jobs any other way besides directly, through public works projects?
The other poster did a good job answering your previous question. Not much for me to add there, so let's see what I can add here.
I agree, the rules of the game have changed. But they are and have always evolved over time, so it isn't new or anything, it was just a little more rapid than most are used to. Anyway, the people have to change with it. Job no longer exists due to the factors you mentioned (outsourcing, machines)? Time to learn a new job or put your skills to use in a different way/job. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to that are upset they can't land a job they used to do for the pay they used to make. Those people simply are not living in the real world. It's gone, over, yet they can't move on. I personally don't understand the mentality there. This has also been a country of excess for too long. Too many people got used to it. Now that things are more frugal, the people have to adjust accordingly. You can take someone making and surviving on $25K per year and give them $35K per year and they'll have money left over and tucked away in a security net the end of each month. Take someone making $35K per year and drop them to $25K and they will freak out and have no idea how to survive. Humans grow accustomed to things quite easily, but that doesn't make it right or ok. People have to change. And anything done in excess isn't healthy, be it personally or as a country. The country's excess in this case has caught up to the country. And it has now rapidly slowed down. So we're dealing with the side effects. Some are coping better than others, but everyone has to learn to cope with it.
The tone of your post suggests that you think the government should be responsible for creating jobs. Am I understanding that correctly? If so, I have a question. I agree it is in the government's and the nation's best interests for the government to create jobs, but when/where/how did they become "required" to do so? And where/when/how did we get a "right" to a job? Ok, that was two questions, sorry. Just curious as to the line of thinking if I'm reading you correctly since I've never heard of either one of those things. In fact, on the job front, I was raised with just the opposite. I was taught you had to fight for a job. You had to earn a job. You had to prove yourself for a job. You had to have intelligence, be a hard worker, be punctual, etc, in order to even qualify for most jobs. Otherwise, enjoy camping out under a bridge somewhere. Definitely the opposite of being "given" a job. So I'm curious. If I'm reading that correctly.
Something that hasn't been mentioned yet is that Obamacare (just using that word to make clear what I mean) has cost jobs. I bet Obama is loving the fact he's getting so little mainstream press over it, but I know quite a few people who simply cannot hire new people specifically because of Obamacare. One guy I know has 8 contractors making $30K a year that he wants to directly employ full time. However, thanks to Obamacare, he would have to pay right at $1,500 per month per employee for their health insurance if he directly hired them, so that $30K salary just ballooned to $48K per employee. Or from $240K per year for the team to $384K. He simply can't do that, so he isn't and they will remain contractors. In his case, we're talking about people that already have jobs, but how many employers are in that boat as far as hiring someone who currently doesn't have a job? That's also part (notice I said "part") of why salaries are lower. Health insurance rates have exploded because of Obamacare. Removing the lifetime payout caps and requiring all insurance carriers to accept anyone who applies has caused insurance carriers to jack rates through the roof. While employees might hate the rise in their payments, it stings employers even more. While we're on the subject, ever really thought what it costs to hire someone? It isn't just salary. It's also health insurance, social security payments (6.25% of salary - last I looked anyway), general insurance on the property where they work, rent, utilities, etc. (for what it is worth, I expect to see a big spike in working from home via the internet - saves employers boatloads - we'll see if/when it happens). Also, as to figuring out the value of an employee (salary), you also have to deduct income taxes. Sounds weird, but here's what I mean. If an employee generates $100K per year, the company has to pay income taxes on the $100K. They can't hire that person at $100K and break even. They have to hire them at less for it to be profitable for them. So you take the revenue generated, subtract everything I've mentioned (income tax, health insurance, social security, etc) and then you'll come to a number. And then of course, something has to be subtracted for the profit, otherwise hiring the person wasn't smart to begin with. So sure, the corporations out there could hire more people, but why would they? If a new hire results in a net loss for the year, why would they do it? I mean sure, they could choose to throw away that money, but it goes against the whole purpose of opening a business to begin with. It isn't that they don't want, need, or can't hire, it just simply isn't profitable to do so right now. 2 things need to happen for jobs to start being created. #1 is that Obamacare has to be figured out. Repeal, adjust, whatever. Because it is shooting insurance rates through the roof and employers are scared it will continue to rise with no ceiling in sight. #2 is that consumer spending has to start again. I know, tough to do with an unemployment rate of 9.1%, but companies don't expand, open more stores and things, unless they are selling more product than they can currently supply.
Thanks for clearing up the Bigfoot comment. I forgot all about my comment. Yeah, it was a pretty dumb one to make, but it was the point that mattered. Regardless, I get it now, thanks!
I want to play a game. The rules are simple. All you have to do is sit here and talk to me. Listen to me. We haven't been properly introduced. My name is John.
Live or die. Make your choice.