Unemployment falls below 9%

[leftysergeant]

So saith Pope Sergeant I.This is obviously false. Some people's labor has negative value (thieves, etc.). Some have zero value (layabouts).

None of whom you hire if you have the IQ of a turnip.

Some have positive but small value (trainees).

So? You want them available to you so that you can train them. Fine. Pay them a day's provisions. If they are not worth that to ytou, do the work yourself and stop kvetching.

In any case, in a free society, where people engage in uncoerced exchange, no authority enforces rules such as those that "lefty" propounds here. The rules in a free society give to individuals title to their own labor and give to individuals the power to exchange on any mutually agreeable terms assets to which they have title (including their labor).

More mushroom food. If we let people like you get away with it, you might conspire to steal labor by all agreeing to pay less than a day's provisions for a day's labor.

That means that the working man is not free to refuse to work for less than the value of his labor.

NO! You do NOT get to say that his labor is worth less than a day's provisions. We outlawed slavery here about a hundred forty years ago.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You seriously believe that malarky?!

Care to make a real argument? Social Security was (is) a ponzi scheme. It was represented as "insurance" at the time (originally, it was "Old Age and Survivors' Insurance" (OASI), because the public did not approve of the dole. That benefits did not follow contributions is obvious: people who turned 65 the day after the act passed received benefits even though they put nothing into it.

 

[BenBurch]

No, you fail to even understand the very basics of how SS is structured. I mean total fail.

Go do some reading and come back when you have a glimmering of a beginning of a clue.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

None of whom you hire if you have the IQ of a turnip.

What pre-employment stigmata distinguish layabouts and thieves from the population at large?

So? You want them available to you so that you can train them. Fine. Pay them a day's provisions. If they are not worth that to you, do the work yourself and stop kvetching.

Those imperatives indicate something.

If we let people like you get away with it, you might conspire to steal labor by all agreeing to pay less than a day's provisions for a day's labor.

Informed, mutual exchange is not theft.

That means that the working man is not free to refuse to work for less than the value of his labor.

a) What is "that"?
b) Is "the working man is not free to refuse to work for less than the value of his labor" a statement of legal fact or some sort of moral imperative? Remove the double negatives "not" and "refuse" and I get "the working man is free to work for less than the value of his labor". Since I want a legal regime where I can sell my labor for whatever price I choose (given a buyer), I support that.

NO! You do NOT get to say that his labor is worth less than a day's provisions. We outlawed slavery here about a hundred forty years ago.

Except for people age 6-18, who work, unpaid, as windowdressing in the massive make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel that we in the US call "the public school system".
Hong Kong, Sweden, and Switzerland do not have minimum wage laws, btw.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

No, you fail to even understand the very basics of how SS is structured. I mean total fail.

Go do some reading and come back when you have a glimmering of a beginning of a clue.

No, you fail to even understand the very basics of how SS is structured. I mean total fail.

Go do some reading and come back when you have a glimmering of a beginning of a clue.
Too easy. Where do you disagree? People who turned 65 the day after passage were eligible for benefits. Fact.

 

[Random]

Care to make a real argument? Social Security was (is) a ponzi scheme. It was represented as "insurance" at the time (originally, it was "Old Age and Survivors' Insurance" (OASI), because the public did not approve of the dole.

No matter how many times people say this, it is not true. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, it is a multi-tier, mandatory participation tontine. It’s basically a lottery where people are rewarded or not based on how long they live before they die. As long as people keep dying, Social Security can run forever. Heck, if demographics didn’t change over time, we wouldn’t even need to make adjustments to the program.

That benefits did not follow contributions is obvious: people who turned 65 the day after the act passed received benefits even though they put nothing into it.

We can talk about the fairness of those individuals getting such bonuses until the cows come home, but it seems rather pointless. Social Security has been around for almost 75 years, those people are dead. Heck, assuming a child started working for a paycheck at 15 before he had to pay Social Security taxes, he would be over 90 by now. There are very few people alive today who have not been paying into Social Security or some other form of government-run pension program for their entire working lives. Very soon there will be none.

 

[BenBurch]

MK, gainsaying when you are corrected is a hallmark of stubborn ignorance. If you cant do better I wont take your verbal vomitus seriously.

 

[Kestrel]

No, you fail to even understand the very basics of how SS is structured. I mean total fail.

Go do some reading and come back when you have a glimmering of a beginning of a clue.
Too easy. Where do you disagree? People who turned 65 the day after passage were eligible for benefits. Fact.

Quoting from the text of the Social Security Act of 1935 that was signed into law on August 14, 1935:

SEC. 202. (a) Every qualified individual (as defined in section 210) shall be entitled to receive, with respect to the period beginning on the date he attains the age of sixty-five, or on January 1, 1942, whichever is the later, and ending on the date of his death, an old-age benefit (payable as nearly as practicable in equal monthly installments) as follows:

Qualified individual is defined in section 210 (c) of the bill:

The term "qualified individual" means any individual with respect to whom it appears to the satisfaction of the Board that- (1) He is at least sixty-five years of age; and (2) The total amount of wages paid to him, with respect to employment after December 31, 1936, and before he attained the age of sixty-five, was not less than $2,000; and (3) Wages were paid to him, with respect to employment on some five days after December 31, 1936, and before he attained the age of sixty-five, each day being in a different calendar year.

SEC. 204. (a) does provide payments for workers who are not "qualified individuals", but note that it only applies to those who turn 65 after Dec. 31, 1936.

There shall be paid in a lump sum to any individual who, upon attaining the age of sixty-five, is not a qualified individual, an amount equal to 3 1/2 per centum of the total wages determined by the Board to have been paid to him, with respect to employment after December 31, 1936, and before he attained the age of sixty-five.

Someone who turned 65 on August 15, 1935, the day after SS was passed does not receive benefits under either clause. Your statement is false.

 

[leftysergeant]

What pre-employment stigmata distinguish layabouts and thieves from the population at large?

You interview and check referrences. It is begining to look as though you woulld suck as an entrepreneur, if you can't grasp this simple concept.

Those imperatives indicate something. Informed, mutual exchange is not theft.a) What is "that"?

If one sweatshop owner or a gang of thjem colluding to pay sub-standard wages own all the works in town, how can any agreement be called totally voluntary. You trust too much in the decency of a class of people who have repeatedly shown themselves untrustworthy.

b) Is "the working man is not free to refuse to work for less than the value of his labor" a statement of legal fact or some sort of moral imperative?

If the thugs get control of all the works, the working man can work for less than the value of his labor or starve. How the hell is he "free" IF THE CHOICE IS BETWEEN SERFDOM AND STARVATION?

Since I want a legal regime where I can sell my labor for whatever price I choose (given a buyer), I support that.

Too bad. Letting you do that harms the rest of society without advancing you a bit. Sometimes the dim-witted must be compelled not to aid and abet the shifty.

Except for people age 6-18, who work, unpaid, as windowdressing in the massive make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel that we in the US call "the public school system".

That is the most bizzare thing anybody has posted outside of the 9/11 forum in WEEKS. Education is actually a preparation to deal with the challenges of modern life, like putting down morons who think it is cool to steal labor. (Admit that this is why you do not like public schools. We have your range and azimuth anyway.)

Hong Kong, Sweden, and Switzerland do not have minimum wage laws, btw.

So, freaking WHAT?

 

[BenBurch]

It's also not so hard to hire somebody on a probationary basis and let them prove themselves.

 

[lomiller]

(Malcolm): "If this is "the Bush recession", what Bush administration policies does "...elvis" suggest brought this on?

Failure to regulate derivatives (Mortgage backed securities)
Failure to enforce existing regulations on lending
Failure to properly deal with the crisis at Lehman Bro’s
Created bubbles by applying stimulus to consumer spending in 2001-2003 when consumer confidence was already near record highs.

1. War

Created lots of debt, but probably didn’t directly contribute although it’s possible the spending did contribute to asset bubbles.

2. Mortgage subsidies and the housing bubble

Housing bubble certainly contributes but claims of mortgage subsidies even existed let alone contributed to the bubbles are unsupported. One could argue insufficient regulation are effectively comparable to a subsidy in that they allow costs to be externalized.

3. The prescription drug benefit

Same as for the Iraq war. Created lots of debt, but probably didn’t directly contribute although it’s possible the spending did contribute to asset bubbles.

4. Crippling regulation of commerce [/I]"

There is no evidence of this.

What would regulation (laws) have accomplished if lobbyists and their kept Congressmen held regulators at bay (Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac)?

Fannie/Freddy were engaged in industry standard practices that were never regulated to begin with and there is no evidence their mortgage bundles were any worse than those generates by investment banks.

Please explain. Minimum wage laws reduce labor-force participation by low-skilled workers. How does this help any employers? 1. Is this a depression?
2. Nobody with any sense thinks an increase in the mandated minimum wage generates an increase in real income or aggregate employment..

While there is economic theory that minimum wages laws can increase unemployment at the low end of the scale there is little real world data to support this prediction.

Who is "you" in this application? The US will default, and that it will disguise this default with inflation.

The bond market says otherwise. In fact the bond market is betting on abnormally low inflation for the next decade and little or no risk of default. Given that you have tried to imply you favour free markets, I’d think you would want government to sit back and let them work rather than insisting government regulate your particular set of beliefs onto the market.

. Social Security was a dishonest ponzi scheme from the start.

Blatantly false, as others have pointed out already.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

MK, gainsaying when you are corrected is a hallmark of stubborn ignorance. If you cant do better I wont take your verbal vomitus seriously.

"You're wrong" does not qualify as a correction in my vocabulary. I want to see an argument.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You interview and check referrences. It is begining to look as though you woulld suck as an entrepreneur, if you can't grasp this simple concept.

People lie in interviews. Friends lie for friends. Former employers will pawn off onto competition employees who impose costs. You woulld suck as an entrepreneur, if you can't grasp this simple concept.

If one sweatshop owner or a gang of thjem colluding to pay sub-standard wages own all the works in town, how can any agreement be called totally voluntary. You trust too much in the decency of a class of people who have repeatedly shown themselves untrustworthy.

The collusion was nationwide, between unionized white employees, Northern employers, and politicians. Minimum wage laws reduced employment options for low skilled black employees. Black labor force participation fell sharply after the recent, sharp increase in the Federal minimum wage.

If the thugs get control of all the works, the working man can work for less than the value of his labor or starve. How the hell is he "free" IF THE CHOICE IS BETWEEN SERFDOM AND STARVATION?

The solution to that is anti-trust laws. Or public policy which promotes competitive bidding for the provision of public works. It's a measure of the strength (zero) of the case for minimum wage laws that advocates have to construct such far-fetched scenarios. The choice in the US has never been "between serfdom and starvation". If "the thugs get control of all the works" in town, buy a Greyhound ticket and move.

(Lefty)"the working man is not free to refuse to work for less than the value of his labor."
(Malcolm): "...Remove the double negatives "not" and "refuse" and I get "the working man is free to work for less than the value of his labor". Since I want a legal regime where I can sell my labor for whatever price I choose (given a buyer), I support that."

Too bad. Letting you do that harms the rest of society without advancing you a bit. Sometimes the dim-witted must be compelled not to aid and abet the shifty.

It's easy to construct plausible scenarios in which a rational and not desperate worker would prefer a $5.00/hr. job to a $7.00 job. Laws which put the $5.00 job out of bounds reduce workers' options.

(Malcolm): "Hong Kong, Sweden, and Switzerland do not have minimum wage laws, btw."

So, freaking WHAT?

It's a measure of the "harm" that (absence of) minimum wage laws inflict.
(Lefty): "We outlawed slavery here about a hundred forty years ago."
(Malcolm): " Except for people age 6-18, who work, unpaid, as windowdressing in the massive make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel that we in the US call 'the public school system'."

That is the most bizzare thing anybody has posted outside of the 9/11 forum in WEEKS. Education is actually a preparation to deal with the challenges of modern life, like putting down morons who think it is cool to steal labor. (Admit that this is why you do not like public schools. We have your range and azimuth anyway.)

Long discussion. For another time.

 

[Border Reiver]

Just to be clear, you are advocating child-labour?

Return to the days when men's wages were depressed because various "entrepeneurs" went "I can get 2 10 year olds to do the same work as a grown man for about half the cost? Cool, why should I hire the grown man again?"

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Just to be clear, you are advocating child-labour?

Is this to me? Children labor today; they just don't get paid for it. Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery. Why not consider on-the-job training "education"?

Return to the days when men's wages were depressed because various "entrepeneurs" went "I can get 2 10 year olds to do the same work as a grown man for about half the cost? Cool, why should I hire the grown man again?"

Hire children for children's work, and adults for adults' work.

 

[leftysergeant]

Is this to me? Children labor today; they just don't get paid for it. Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery. Why not consider on-the-job training "education"?

Bizzare ideation. Children in school are not producing wealth for another to sell. They are gaining skills to help them fit into society ina way that opens up opportunities for them.

By your absurd scheme, poor children could be locked into menial labor because they would be denied the opportunity to take the kinds of courses that they choose because they would not have time away from work to do so,

Face it, you are advocating for cheap labor for ther worthless class at the expense of the people who actually create the wealth that the drongos in the investor class shuffle around the world. Didn't buy it from Newt the King Grinch, not going to buy it from you.

Hire children for children's work, and adults for adults' work.

Better yet, let kids find their own groove and goals to shoot for and pay their parents a decent day's provisions and everyone but a few sociopathic ecconomic elitists will be much happier.

 

[Border Reiver]

Is this to me? Children labor today; they just don't get paid for it. Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery. Why not consider on-the-job training "education"?

And, given the level of knowledge needed for many jobs where are they going to start their training? Age 5, age 10?

Hire children for children's work, and adults for adults' work.

Isn't that going to require a legislated work place? Remember that 100 years ago children working in the coal mines weren't uncommon (they're smaller and can get in tighter spaces) and even today are exploited in many countries where they can learn valuable skills making our shoes and clothes...

 

[TimCallahan]

Care to make a real argument? Social Security was (is) a ponzi scheme. It was represented as "insurance" at the time (originally, it was "Old Age and Survivors' Insurance" (OASI), because the public did not approve of the dole. That benefits did not follow contributions is obvious: people who turned 65 the day after the act passed received benefits even though they put nothing into it.

Well, I paid into this so-called Ponzi scheme while I was working, as did my wife. Now that my wife and I are retired, a sizable amount of our sustenance comes from our Social Security checks. How is that a Ponzi scheme?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Quoting from the text of the Social Security Act of 1935 that was signed into law on August 14, 1935:

Thanks for the correction. The larger point remains: people who paid almost nothing into the system collected benefits for the rest of their lives. SS was never based on individual contributions. It's a tax. Like any other ponzi scheme, continued benefits will require an ever expanding pool of contributors. With people living longer and reproductive rates falling, the system requires immigrants. At some point, those brown people will realize that they have children and parents of their own to support and they never made those promises to those old white people. It cannot last.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And, given the level of knowledge needed for many jobs where are they going to start their training? Age 5, age 10?

Why should "early education" apply only to academic subjects?

Isn't that going to require a legislated work place? Remember that 100 years ago children working in the coal mines weren't uncommon (they're smaller and can get in tighter spaces) and even today are exploited in many countries where they can learn valuable skills making our shoes and clothes...

Also, their hands are smaller, so maybe better suited to certain kinds of veterinary work. They're lighter, so better suited to work aloft. Robert Fitzroy went to sea at 14. David Farragut joined the US Navy at 9, went to sea at 11, and commanded his first ship at 15.