A solution for unemployment and under-employment

Full employment of resources in a given market and that form of the general welfare and general prosperity can be considered a necessary and proper use of public sector intervention in the market for labor.

 

What objection can there be to ensuring full employment of resources in the market for labor to the extent it can be under any mixed-market political-economy?

 

You might as well be in your bikini, playing a song with the recorder called 'we want world peace'. Its policy that matters. Whilst the OP was composed of lunacy, you come out with just the vacuous

 

You make it seem like ensuring full employment (of resources) in a given market is not one function of government.

In any case, promoting the general welfare could mean ensuring full employment (of resources) in the market for labor to better provide for the general welfare and the general prosperity in our republic.

 

want to create jobs? strengthen the dollar and get gas prices in a range where people can afford them..the jobs will come back fast..people are spending less on other goods because it is going to higher gas cost..

 

Are you being serious? Even the apparent supply side oil shocks were really more about the negative consequences of market concentration

 

And you are assuming productivity will not be affected. It certainly will be affected since many people spend half their workday screwing around anyway. People screw around half the day because they have nothing productive to do. Productivity has increased significantly in some areas since the end of WW2, but we have just been shifting those people to unproductive work instead of rewarding people with fewer hours. Productivity per hour of work will go up significantly when you cut the amount of hours.

 

Ensuring full employment (of resources) is one function of our government. Why not solve poverty on an at-will basis though at-will employment laws concerning unemployment compensation?

We could be actually solving poverty and ending our War on Poverty through Commerce that is well regulated among the several States of our Union.

The infrastructure already exists in every State and the federal districts.

 

If the average unemployment payout might be $300 per week, if we divide this by 40 hours, we get $7.50/hour. I'm thinking the current federal minimum wage guideline is $7.25/hour. So basically unemployment payouts are paying minimum wages.

If we repealed the minimum wage guidelines, how might we determine the unemployment payout?

In order to allow minimum wage jobs below the current government support programs, you will need to terminate the government support programs to remove the wage competition.

What is the reason for unemployment payouts? Probably to help pay the bills for some short period of time while the worker finds new employment. If this can possibly be true, and believing the monthly bills of someone earning $60K are different than someone earning $30K, why aren't unemployment payouts based on a ratio of the workers gross pay? And to pay the monthly bills of most workers that ratio will need to be about 1:1.

Someone here will know the data but isn't it true that employers only pay $42 per year per employee for unemployment insurance? For a full-time worker this comes out to $.02, yes...2 cents per hour. If this was increased to $.10, or 10 cents per hour, does this mean the worker can receive 5 (*) $300 or $1500 per week? Why not? In this scenario the payout can be 100% for 13 weeks, then 80% for 13 weeks, then 60% for extended 26 weeks when necessary?

Unemployment payouts of $300 per week, or $7.50 per hour, is only a form of welfare...not assistance to pay the monthly bills.

Only a few people will take below minimum wage jobs so this will not solve unemployment...

 

Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion. I am merely bearing true witness to our US supreme law of the land and federal Constitution since I subscribe to the federal doctrine of securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, with our republican form of Government; in Order to become better Angels on Earth who have little or no need for the expense of Government on Earth.

 

Then why wouldn't businesses pay above minimum wage already without any minimum wage laws? Why would business owners who know more about efficiency than you pay their employees less than minimum wage?

Note: I've been having technical issues so I haven't been able to get on PF for a number of days, so sorry my response is late.

 

That's why part of my plan was to subsidize them to make them reasonably wanted.

 

Can't we get along without intellectually slapping one another over opinions?

 

I dislike your approach. Do not allow government to meddle in the private sector. Do not try to control or manipulate the private sector.

If government has a problem with unemployment or any other issue regarding citizens, then provide solutions outside of the private economy. Let government hire people at whatever wage they wish to perform whatever tasks they wish as long as the citizenry will fund the actions. Let government do a better job at educating and training people.

BUT...do not allow government to meddle with the private sector...

 

Why not? How does this plan fail?

 

Minimum wages tend to clear our poverty guidelines so that people will not have to work, merely to stay in official poverty.

In the scenario I present, UI would pay the minimum for those who haven't worked, and the rest according to a sliding scale as it is now, but with the private sector being able to provide complimentary products and services on a for profit basis (potentially creating a demand for labor as a result).

 

Some businesses already do pay an efficiency wage instead of a minimum wage.

 

Easily, it is just that Reiver likes to resort to special pleading and other forms of obstructionism, while not contributing to the discovery of sublime Truth (value), discoverable through argumentation.

 

How do you solve for a "natural" rate of unemployment under any form of Capitalism? If you aren't solving for that, then you also aren't solving for poverty in our republic.

 

While I am not saying your plan will fail, it does create more government bureaucracy that must also be paid for, somewhat akin to means tested welfare. In my opinion, your plan does not take advantage of existing resources and existing laws in every State of the Union and the federal districts.

Why not let individuals manage their own affairs with less government intervention in the market for labor?

Persons could simply apply for unemployment compensation whenever they are unemployed and pursue opportunity costs other than directly competing in a saturated market for labor.

We could be improving the efficiency of our economy and solving for official poverty at the same time, merely by providing recourse to our own laws regarding the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will.

It could be as easy to administer as our current regime of minimum wage laws is now. Do we really need our elected representatives micromanaging something more complicated than that?

 

I explained as clearly as I can; do not have government try to control and/or manipulate the private economy...

 

Unemployment payouts have become mostly political. I'd rather see a 'government' job bank, providing government jobs in all locations, in which people who find themselves unemployed, let's say after six weeks of unemployment payouts, must take one of the government jobs which pay equal or greater than unemployment. If the private sector cannot provide enough jobs then let the government create millions of jobs to keep unemployed people productive instead of simple welfare...

 

Hmm... where does this new ideal come from?

 

This is not new to me? I have always preferred to minimize government and maximize the economy. Let government govern and let the economy produce and profit...

 

What logic does this Ideal have behind it?