Mr. Scorpio tries something very difficult for him (thinking)

[Ralph Wiggum]

MrScorpio (58,496 posts)

Just thinking: If jobs paid better so that fewer people needed to work more than one job...


Wouldn't that mean that there would be more job openings available and unemployment would drop? Plus if you have more people out there with more disposable income, wouldn't that mean that the economy would pick up all the way around?

And isn't giving fewer and fewer people way more money than they could ever spend, in the name of helping the economy, ultimately a self-defeating exercise... Simply because there's no way that they could spend on goods and services at the same level as everyone else?

Isn't it that plainly obvious what needs to be done?

Hey, I'm no economist, but I'm wondering why I haven't yet heard it framed in that way. Who knows? Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong. But, is the danger of run away inflation that real a deal to prevent paying working people better wages and benefits, or is it something else that's the problem?

Am I wrong?

 

1StrongBlackMan (8,560 posts)
2. You may not be an economist ...

but you have demonstrated more mastery of basic economics than the entire gop.

 

econoclast (415 posts)
4. Where does the money come from?

Nothing wrong with your analysis if the money for the better pay comes from out of thin air. But it won't. It would have to come from somewhere. Higher prices? Fewer employees? Less profit? Think through what happens in each scenario.

Uh oh, independent thought alert!!!

 

hunter (18,375 posts)
10. Gee, I dunno... Where does money come from?

I think it grows on trees. Crisp new $100 bills.

These are harvested by illiterate immigrant farm workers who are paid a Susan B. Anthony or Sacagawea dollar coin for every basket full of money they collect.

These bills are then issued by the Federal Reserve...



Seriously?

Yes, money is created "out of thin air," hopefully based on some sort of "good" debt.

To prevent inflation, a government taxes those who have money.

To prevent recession, a government creates more money and distributes it among those who don't have it, not necessarily in return for work but it's human nature that everyone will be much happier working for fair, livable wages, creating useful things and providing useful services, rather than sitting at home watching reality television.

What's broken about our economic system NOW is that the very very wealthy are hoarding money. In short they are neither paying their workers fair wages, nor are they paying enough taxes. Thus we have a stagnant, corrupt economy where the scum have floated to the top.

 

Orsino (26,903 posts)
12. If most jobs came with weeks of vacation attached, that too would mean more employed. n/t

Egalitarian Thug (11,927 posts)
14. Replace the minimum wage with a minimum standard of living requirement. Reduce the number of hours

that constitutes full-time. As long as we're stuck with it, drop all exemptions for the ACA and extend subsidies to very small businesses, require that every employee has a paid vacation every year and establish the length of time to correlate to the EU (4 or 5 weeks).

This is a good short-term solution to most of the most immediate issues. Long-term, we are going to have to make fundamental changes to our economic system, but that a much longer discussion.

Other than for comedy, please stop typing about economics, DUmmies.  You just make less and less sense than normal when you attempt such an endeavor.

[Chris_]

Reduce the number of hours that constitutes full-time.

Haven't you been paying attention?

[Ralph Wiggum]

Yet another insane response to the OP:

cthulu2016 (10,072 posts)
16. Correct, and the resulting inflation would be a positive, not a negative

[Freeper]

Every idea they have somehow involves more pay for less work. Bunch of lazy bastards.

[Carl]

To witness such utter and willful ignorance,stupidity and lunacy all for the sake of getting something for nothing makes me wish the civil war was starting tomorrow.

[Carl]

Hey DUmbasses,had to wander over and was what I figured.
Why is it every time you pudding heads get out the Christmas Wish Book of all the goodies you think should be bestowed on you there is not one mention of what you provide in the supposed equation?

[DumbAss Tanker]

MrScorpio (58,496 posts)

Just thinking: If jobs paid better so that fewer people needed to work more than one job...

If jobs paid better, fewer people would work at all, because it would cost a lot more to make anything and sell it (Other things being equal; if all the other variables are allowed to float, then it just means the value of the currency goes down and you end up in exactly the same place as when you started, just with money that doesn't buy as much as it used to).  Dorkio's understanding of the whole "Cause and effect" thing is as screwed up as it's possible to be. 

[thundley4]

Every idea they have somehow involves more pay for less work. Bunch of lazy bastards.

Sounds like most unions.

To prevent inflation, a government taxes those who have money.

No. God , they are stupid.

[dutch508]

Wait wait wait wait...

Let's see here...

If I work currently 40 hours a week at 11 dollars and hour I make $440 a week before taxes. In a year I make $22,880.00. My income tax is estimated at $1,455.00 using the IRS page. 6.3% I 'clear' $21,425.
(state taxes for me are 5.1% taking another $1,166.88 leaving $20,258.12)

So... If I suddenly work 30 hours at $12 an hour I make $360 a week, $18,720 a week with $1179.00 in taxes.

25 hours a week at $15.00 an hour is $600 a week! WOO HOO!!!!, $31,200 a year!!! 1,965 in taxes. :-(

BUT- the business owner now needs 1.6 workers per week and is now paying out $160 more a week in pay (times 1.6 workers= $256.00 more in pay per week for the owner), a loss of profits of $13,312.00 per year. How will he maintan his profit margin?

Raising the prices of the product. So... the $1.00 loaf of bread is now $1.60. The $400.00 Playstation 4 (whatever) is now $640.00. You increase in pay is ate up in inflation of the market because all the employers have to pay more to do the same job.

Is that so hard to understand?


Ironically, the only ones who make money doing this is the Government. In taxes.

[dutch508]

BUT, given the above scenario the owner will hire two workers at 20 hours a week at $15.00 an hour. Each makes $300.00 a week, or $15,600 a year.

It still costs the owner $13,372.00 more a year than one worker full time at $11.00 an hour.

[FlaGator]

Every idea they have somehow involves more pay for less work. Bunch of lazy bastards.

I noticed that too. Less work means more money. Using their logic if everyone quit work then we'd all be rich because the government's job is (apparently) to print up enough to keep every one comfortable.

[USA4ME]

MrScorpio (58,496 posts)

Just thinking...

The next time you have a thought- let it go.

- Ron White

.

[Purple Sage]

I'd like to bring some of them here to my business to show them how it works.  Make them "owners" for a day with the stipulation they have to hire like dumpmonkies to do the work AND if the balance sheet goes negative, they have to make up the difference.  They reap the "rewards". 

Show them the books and they see they get paid $3 for each product that comes off the line.  Three processes are done on each product.  If worker A at $10 an hour expends more energy trying to look busy than doing what he should be doing and gets paid $50 for five hours, but only puts out 15 pieces, the "owners" are already $5 in hole.  The piece still needs to go through two more employee processes to be completed.  If either of those employees are dawdlers, the above repeats itself.  By the end of the day, the "owners" will have to bust their asses all night to pay the employee's wages, much less overhead.  Having to work to pay slow, worthless people's wages sucks.  Now think about paying $15 an hour.  Impossible. 

Raise prices?  The economy won't bear it.  What's left?  Outsource the work to China.

[JohnnyReb]

They want a share of the profits......well, make them also libel for any loses. Hey, it's what the owner is facing.....fair is fair.

[Gern]

Why is it every time you pudding heads get out the Christmas Wish Book of all the goodies you think should be bestowed on you there is not one mention of what you provide in the supposed equation?

^^^^This^^^^

[Gina]

Orsino (26,903 posts)
12. If most jobs came with weeks of vacation attached, that too would mean more employed. n/t

 

[DumbAss Tanker]

Don't stress a neuron on it, Gina, it really IS just as stupid as it sounds like on a first pass.

[Freeper]

I think the DUmmy believes that someone would have to fill in for all the vacationing people.

[JohnnyReb]

Doesn't all of France take the whole month of August off......I guess Germans fill in for them while they're gone ...... well, they have in the past.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Doesn't all of France take the whole month of August off......I guess Germans fill in for them while they're gone ...... well, they have in the past.

Most of the Germans do something similar, but it doesn't shut the entire country down like it does in France...and being Germans, they do as much in the other 11 months as the French would if they worked the whole 12.  Probably more, come to think of it.