Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

Why do only fools and horses work?

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Reiver, Mar 13, 2012.

Page 8 of 9
  1. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not limiting my argument to any special pleading since that can usually be associated with demand side economics in modern times.

    I subscribe to this usage of the term, subsidy: "A subsidy is an assistance paid to a business or economic sector."

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy

    In this case, potential labor being potentially subsidized can be considered a sector of our economy. Potential labor could be subsidized in a manner analgous to agricultural subsidies in the US, that pay a producer to not provide some specific "produce" or product; in this case labor, and instead pursue some other opportunity cost.

    Simply solving for a poverty of money in money based markets also requires changes to the socioeconomic determinants, such that it may only require better money managements skills to rise above being poor, regardless of many other factors.

    In our US case, a simpler social safety net would draw persons from more expensive means tested welfare and result in a cost savings and improvement to our economy and its efficiency in the process.

    Are you claiming a shirker would rather have to lie to be hired than simply pursuing Happiness while increasing the circulation of money in money based markets, as an opportunity cost?
     
    danielpalos, Mar 18, 2012
    #176
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Meaningless!

    A labour subsidy is well understood, referring to a means to supplement wages (typically to increase employment rates such that human capital is protected)

    That isn't a subsidy. That's a social insurance used to ensure 'potential' labour is maintained.

    Meaningless!

    Meaningless!

    Again you haven't got an argument. You're merely cobbling together economic terms incoherently
     
    Reiver, Mar 18, 2012
    #177
  3. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    From my understanding, human capital only needs more protection (from exploitation) whenever there is any official poverty, otherwise, labor would be busier attempting to command an efficiency wage in a more efficient market for labor.

    The point about paying people not to be exploited is that it could lower our tax burden by reducing the need for more regulations and litigiousness.
     
    danielpalos, Mar 18, 2012
    #178
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More nonsense! Labour doesn't pursue an efficiency wage. That is purely about the profit motive for the employer
     
    Reiver, Mar 18, 2012
    #179
  5. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    In the US, unemployment compensation is mostly self-funding with the public sector making up for any shortfalls.

    I only quibble because some potential labor market participants may not have actually worked but still need unemployment compensation under this model.
     
    danielpalos, Mar 18, 2012
    #180
  6. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean in comparison to Africa?
     
    Hoosier8, Mar 18, 2012
    #181
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More noise! You've merely hiding from another of your errors: it isn't a labour subsidy
     
    Reiver, Mar 18, 2012
    #182
  8. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Simply solving for a poverty of money in money based markets also requires changes to the socioeconomic determinants, such that it may only require better money managements skills to rise above being poor, regardless of many other factors.

    Are you claiming that someone who has enough money to no longer be considered in official poverty would have the same determinants to consider as someone who doesn't?
     
    danielpalos, Mar 18, 2012
    #183
  9. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you believe a shirker would shirk more, if a shirker doesn't even need to show up to work?
     
    danielpalos, Mar 18, 2012
    #184
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Copying and pasting stuff which has already been described as nonsense won't help you much!

    Again you don't make any sense
     
    Reiver, Mar 18, 2012
    #185
  11. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Considering a wage rate must be a factor or college education would be of no use.
     
    danielpalos, Mar 18, 2012
    #186
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing about my beliefs, its about understanding efficiency wages (which you clearly don't). As the 'external wage' (here unemployment benefit) increases, the perceived risk from being caught shirking and sacked falls.
     
    Reiver, Mar 18, 2012
    #187
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again you make no sense
     
    Reiver, Mar 18, 2012
    #188
  14. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It could be termed a subsidy according to the citation I provided.
     
    danielpalos, Mar 18, 2012
    #189
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it couldn't. Its a transfer payment, nothing more.
     
    Reiver, Mar 18, 2012
    #190
  16. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you claiming determinants don't change according to wealth in any political economy where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable?
     
    danielpalos, Mar 18, 2012
    #191
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is drivel. Try to make sense
     
    Reiver, Mar 18, 2012
    #192
  18. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't subscribe to your line of reasoning because simply improving our human capital infrastructure should engender an improvement to our "morals".
     
    danielpalos, Mar 18, 2012
    #193
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again utterly meaningless!
     
    Reiver, Mar 18, 2012
    #194
  20. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    A transfer payment is a form of subsidy.
     
    danielpalos, Mar 18, 2012
    #195
  21. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it isn't. Here, its an automatic stabiliser that merely ensures workers are not forced out of the labour force
     
    Reiver, Mar 18, 2012
    #196
  22. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you claiming a person with a wealth of money in money based markets has the same determinants as someone who has a poverty of money in money based markets? If not, then my line of reasoning must be more consistent.
     
    danielpalos, Mar 18, 2012
    #197
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No I'm claiming that none of your comments make any sense. I'm guilty of only one thing: stating the obvious
     
    Reiver, Mar 18, 2012
    #198
  24. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Why would a shirker need to shirk, if a shirker doesn't even need to go to work to shirk?
     
    danielpalos, Mar 18, 2012
    #199
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A shirker is employed. Bit obvious really as we're referring to the firm's wage decision
     
    Reiver, Mar 18, 2012
    #200
Page 8 of 9

Share This Page