It's not "Jobs Jobs Jobs". It's "Wages Wages Wages".

[DefenseLawyer]

We need to change the conversation.

[Broderick]

1. Need jobs before you can even think about wages

[DefenseLawyer]

7. Full employment at subsistence wages

Isn't the formula for a strong sustainable economy. It leads to continued low demand which will continue to drag the economy down, a lower tax base and more and more consumer debt for people just to keep living. Disaster.

[Broderick]

13. I understand what you mean

But, right now, many folks are underemployed - near 20 percent and close to 10 percent are unemployed. Just from the government stats, but Gallop claims it is much higher since the government doesn't count those who drop off the unemployment benefits role. Wages, have gone backwards, on average as reported last week quite a bit in the past few years, meanwhile the prices at the grocery store continue to rise. The last raise in the minimum wage did not bring up household wage averages. That double edge sword or raising things like minimum wage can directly affect the number of people employed, and certainly can contribute to the cause of market inflation. Nevertheless, I believe it starts with more people employed. That needs to be the first goal, before tackling wages. And what would your method be to raise wages? Force employers to pay more? Raise the minimum wage (the youth unemployment is staggering already). I don't know the solutions, so I can't say one way or another. But if you have to pay more to your employees (I am an employer), either the cost of goods rises or the number of people hired suffers. I am all ears to hear people's solutions. We lost our manufacturing base in this country. States can't afford the benefits, and we are now what? 14 trillion shooting for 16 trillion in debt federally. Sigh. I don't have the solutions or answer otherwise I would be running for office. In the interim I see the suffering first hand.

[Yo_Mama]

18. well, no, but subsistence wages are better than nothing

We have over 9% unemployment and many have lost all unemployment benefits, so first jobs, then wages.

Even the 9.1% unemployment counts people who are trying to survive off less than 20 hours a week.

This is dire - 82 was bad, but jobs rebounded more quickly and people weren't thrown off extended unemployment benefits before there had been very substantial employment gains.

The situation we have now is unprecedented since the GD, and it should not be minimized. For a lot of these people there is virtually no government help at all now.

[DefenseLawyer]

21. Is it really? In the long run?

Short term corporate profits from cheap labor that is happy to get it because it is "better than nothing" isn't gong to spur demand and lead to long term growth or any accumulation of wealth for the average American. Eventually the whole thing just collapses.

[Yo_Mama]

24. Let me reiterate

THERE ARE PEOPLE WITH NO JOBS, NO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND JUST ABOUT NO ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE.

You can't solve a problem by ignoring people who are forced to crime or begging on the streets. There are areas where you have to have an "in" to get a shift in a fast food restaurant.

We're not talking about the long run. We're talking about now, this month, next month.

The problem with our government and the reason why people have lost confidence in it is that it just doesn't care. It ignores this sort of stuff.

[woo me with science]

2. This is true also.

It is pathetic when you see a few low-wage service jobs at McDonald's celebrated as part of a faux "recovery."

[xchrom]

3. Recommend

[phantom power]

4. Right now, the conversation doesn't include either.

But yes, just because you get "a job," doesn't mean it's a job that will provide a decent standard of living.

[Fleshdancer]

5. Can it be both both both?

I'm all for a good wage conversation, but the unemployment numbers are pretty important right now as well.

[The2ndWheel]

6. You're not really needed to produce or consume

[SoCalDem]

8. It's always a supply & demand vortex

laid off workers means no spending money, which leads to more layoffs and less money spent and more unemployed workers all down the line..

When there are more workers than jobs, wages are lowered and standards for hiring, increased.

People who are desperate enough will work for less

[GKirk]

9. Sad but true...

"People who are desperate enough will work for less"

[Romulox]

10. Wow. That's an "Unrec. Unrec. Unrec!" Full employment gives the power to EMPLOYEES in wage

negotiations. :hi:

[DefenseLawyer]

11. Wrong

Perhaps in low wage service jobs, but not in higher paying skilled jobs. That was true 100 years ago but using a model of supply and demand for labor under the structure we have today where jobs can be sent to the third world without penalty means the employees NEVER have the upper hand. Please, join us in the 21 century.

[Romulox]

12. LOL. Right supply and demand no longer applies to the higher paying skilled jobs of today!

" That was true 100 years ago but using a model of supply and demand for labor under the structure we have today where jobs can be sent to the third world without penalty means the employees NEVER have the upper hand. Please, join us in the 21 century."

You understand that you just described the working of supply and demand to a -t-, right? :silly:

[DefenseLawyer]

14. You folks will wake up sooner or later

Probably later. Your pro-business "lucky to have a job" mentality is driving us over a cliff.

[Romulox]

16. I'm not "pro-business" in the slightest. I'm PRO WORKER

"Your pro-business "lucky to have a job" mentality is driving us over a cliff."

What are you talking about? You're not making much sense at this point.

[Broderick]

17. The poster is correct

When unemployment in some areas was in the 3 percent rage in Minnesota, I saw creative employers going all out to try to find qualified candidates. Some had to search outside the area to find employees and the starting wages were incredible comparatively. Instead of employees competing for jobs, it was the companies competing for employees. Now, post an application and get 50 resumes in the first day if not more. Back, just 10-12 years ago you got 1 if you were lucky. There is a healthy unemployment number, and I heard that when it dips below 4.5% it really turns to the employee's favor. From an employer standpoint when it is too low, you kind of recycle the dregs to get by.

[DefenseLawyer]

19. Short term vs. long term

In the short term, sure, supply and demand will effect wages in a particular place at a particular time. But in the long run, the United States isn't going to "compete" on wages with the third world. And my point is we shouldn't try. When we talk only about "creating jobs", getting businesses to hire more people, under our current set of trade and tax policies we are talking about lowering wages enough to make it profitable to hire Americans instead of people in countries with much lower wages. If you're out of a job, you are happy to get a job. We are happy you got a job. For us as a country though, we have to change course, our continued race to the bottom on wages as a way to make companies "competitive" means, in the long run, low demand, fewer taxes collected, more debt and a permanent underclass.

[Broderick]

23. If you are a lawyer

I doubt you have problems getting a job. When or if you have ever suffered being unemployed then I think you can wretch about what things should be. The fact is many don't have a job to begin with, so what's the incentive to increase wages at this point when the employers have the upper hand? You have the chicken egg argument and you are confusing yourself methinks. Anyway, your point on global wages is precisely that. Welcome to the global economy.

[DefenseLawyer]

25. The people, like you apparently, that say we need to "compete in a global economy"

will always have one way for that to happen: lower and lower wages. It's not sustainable in the long run. Each individual company only looks, as they should really, at their bottom line. Labor is just one more cost- the lower the better. Low wages equals high profits. As a country we should be less concerned about short term corporate profits and the long term effect of a nation of people, jobs or no jobs, that have no real money.

[Broderick]

27. Now hold on

I never said any such thing, but it is a reality. You assume business profits when the economy is bad. Do you own a business? I do. Raw goods are increasing, profit margins are shrinking and your solution is to press for higher wages when there is not much left. So what do you want small business to do? Raise wages? Okay. Fine. What happens then? To be profitable, you must have profit and if you have to raise prices you will have to raise prices. The global economy exists, like it or not. I am amazed a heavy brake rotor can be forged in South America, to spec, shipped by cargo ships to America. Then it goes to a terminal, trucked into packaging facilities or distribution centers. Shipped to a store, and then ultimately to me for 5 bucks in some cases. So to compete in the marketplace, I need to sell that at roughly 10 bucks plus installation. To buy something made in the US, it is twice as much and my competitors don't do that. My customers compare jobs from shop to shop. So what is the solution? You tell me. Either I go out of business not competing at certain prices levels, or I compete. And if you raise wages, for me to be profitable, I would have to raise that price, as would others. It's a never ending cycle. Not all companies are profitable, or are barely profitable. All one has to do is look at all the empty shops in the malls and strip malls and vacant buildings to understand that, but you on the other hand think businesses rake it in. So not true. 50% or even higher of all small businesses fail to begin with. Talk to Obama's Jobs guy, the CEO of GE. They paid zero income taxes on 5 billion in profits. They are moving all their high tech x-ray jobs overseas.

And when prices go up because wages are forced to go up(since you think all business is profit monsters), what happens to the people hurt the most? The fixed income and low wage earners trying to feed their family. Then again, if you raise wages, some will scale back their employment roles to keep prices down and how does that help?

It's the jobs.

[DefenseLawyer]

29. No, I am not "pressing for higher wages"

The system is broken. Simply forcing higher wages under our current system would be a disaster. We need to radically change the system so that companies that want to do business in American can't gain a competitive advantage by employing ultra cheap labor in third world countries. We need to tax profits to a degree that companies are "money ahead" to invest in their workers and their businesses. Yeah it will be a big change. Some businesses will go under. Multinationals will lose money. In the long run, more good jobs, higher wages and lower profits, more consumer goods made in America, more people with money to spend and to save will make everyone better off. Wages have been flatlined in this country for 40 years. People have no money. People would gladly pay a dollar more for a pair of shoes made in Connecticut if they in turn had higher wages as a result. We know that to be the case, but no individual company can be expected to just take that plunge for the "good of the country". We have to fix the whole system to make high paying jobs in America profitable. Not obscenely profitable like a sweatshop in Bangladesh, but profitable. That's what has to happen.

[Broderick]

30. okay, that makes a bit more sense to me

Frankly, companies get tax breaks to take business overseas in many different forms, so from an investor sense - a company that can ship jobs overseas - make it cheaper, and avoid penalty is a no-brainer. That is the odd side of that coin for globalization, and global companies. See, investors in 401K, pension, and IRA's want return on investment so they push CEO's to improve the company's bottom line so the dividends increase and so the stock increases yet it hurts when jobs are taken overseas. There is a reason we are vastly different from a manufacturing standpoint from say 30 years ago. We are becoming a services cottage nation, rather than a producing nation on many different levels. You can only sustain that for how long? The system is broken. But, what you want I think, is more protectionism, more of retraction from the global marketplace. That pandora's box has been open too long now. I don't know the solution, but I totally agree that the system is broken.

[AdHocSolver]

26. The solution to both problems of unemployment and low wages is to remove profit from outsourcing.

The low wages are the result of too many unemployed people chasing too few U.S. jobs.

This was always the aim of the multinational corporations: to strip workers (unionized or not) of their ability to negotiate better wages and working conditions.

This was the motivation to implement so-called "free trade" agreements, which have nothing "free" about them. They are nothing but corporate cartel agreements to maximize profits.

Ideally, the government should undo these monopolistic agreements. With the propaganda spewed by the media and "corporate" economists, and our "bought and paid for" government leaders, don't hold your breath.

What we need is a grass roots movement of people who will refuse to buy junk imported from low wage countries together with a demand that retailers make available more goods made in the U.S. by American workers.

By driving small to medium size manufacturers out of business by dumping cheap imported products on the market for the past ten to fifteen years, the monopoly on goods now possessed by a few large multinational corporations has given them the ability to raise prices on those cheap imports that exceeds the price of American made goods of fifteen years ago.

The prices of mediocre quality Chinese imports is higher than the better quality American made goods of ten to fifteen years ago. I am referring to the prices of everyday goods such as clothes, shoes, tools, hardware, appliances, dental floss, grooming supplies, bedding, etc. The importing corporations do not pass the "savings" along to the American consumer.

[The2ndWheel]

15. Only if everyone is essential

Which people are increasingly not.

[fishbulb703]

20. This is a realistic perspective, honestly. Shift income distribution. +1 nt

[kentuck]

22. I think you may be on to something there Lawyer?

More jobs will put more money into the economy. But more wages will also do the same trick. Many companies are paying a lot workers less than $10 per hour. Maybe Democrats should inform the voting electorate that if they can get a majority in the House, they will pass a new minimum wage law of $10 per hour. That would help more than any of these taxcuts except the FICA taxes. But unfortunately, the FICA taxcuts are taking money out of the SS fund which will never be added back. Democrats should be wholeheartedly against these types of taxcuts.

[Broderick]

28. Explain how the last minimum wage increase

spurred something like higher wages and more employment? That would be the remedy correct? Or suggesting a law demanding that companies pay everyone the same, or another bureaucratic agency to determine what appropriate wages for every sector of the employment market? Maybe we raise the minimum wage to 20 bucks an hour and lets see what that does to the jobs market and to the price of goods on the shelf? Yeah you get more on your check, but a loaf of bread is 8 bucks. No tax cuts, I agree with that. I have no solutions, but mandating wages is not the problem. The problem is that it's an employers market at this point because so many are without a job. It's a spiral effect. When unemployment is low, the employees begin to have more control over wages and the employers need to compete for employees. And if we increase wages, and the cost of goods goes up - who gets hurt more? Those on fixed incomes.

[kentuck]

31. I don't think wages have to go up in order for prices to increase.

I think there is still some competition in the market and if there are higher wages or higher taxes, competition has a lot to do with whether or not prices go up. With oil companies, it may not work. Monopolies can control the price, more or less.

However, if the minimum wage went up, that would put more money into the economy. Whether it would create inflation (higher prices) is not known as a fact.

If people are only patient and wait awhile, we will have an employees market. Then we can expect wage increases. Unfortunately, some people cannot wait. They don't eat every year or two - they eat every day.


Personally, I do not think a $10 minimum wage is too high.

Also, I think that if the business sector cannot create enough jobs for the people that need them, then it is the responsibility of government to help create jobs for these people. That is a legitimate purpose for government, in my opinion.

[Broderick]

32. Appreciate the response

I do think there was some rumblings of forced inflation to help the deficit earlier this year. I can't recall where that came from, but I thought it was interesting to say the least. On your analogy, why not make it 20.00 dollars an hour, or even 30? Think about it. There are entry level jobs, summer jobs and various levels of education and degree of technical skills required. Put everyone on the same wage? Raising the minimum wage is a misnomer in my opinion, because most people are not near minimum wage, but well above. Nevertheless, I can't say what it will do or how it affects things beyond what I see in my own personal space. Raise wages, prices go up, and employers cut back hours and make people do more. The ones feeling the pinch are those on fixed incomes. I agree, government job programs are essential, but at what price? Patience has run out for many seeking to feed their family, or find a decent job. Basically, hundreds of thousands of jobs, manufacturing jobs have moved out of the country and the way we compete globally is bringing us to their level rather than elevating them to ours.

[kentuck]

34. Naturallly if you put too much money into the economy, you would have inflation.

Twenty dollars minimum wage an hour might do that? Might.

But there is a lack of demand in our economy. I think we could all agree upon that. People are not buying because there is not enough money in the pockets of the consuming class.

Government has a duty not to screw the American worker by letting jobs move overseas simply for more corporate profits.

Everybody says we must "sacrifice" but nobody wants to do it. Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die.

[flamingdem]

33. You are correct. Jobs are unimportant to the powers that be, there are enough

consumers to keep it going, RECORD profits in many industries, stock market up.

If they need some more - Just raise the prices.

They figure it's fine to have a million not working, they keep wages down that way.

Jobs? That's window dressing.

[StarsInHerHair]

35. Multi-National UNIONS!! to counter the Banking Cartel's IMF WTO World Bank G7 G20

[cherokeeprogressive]

36. Chicken? Or Egg?

Can't have a wage unless you have a job. Give EVERYONE a job, and the power of collective bargaining comes into play. Can't have collective bargaining without jobs.

Sorry, have to disagree.

[DefenseLawyer]

38. I think those assumptions are outdated

This isn't Flint in 1936. That would be true if the labor pool was local, hell even if it was national. Here and now, labor will never get the leverage historically gained by full employment because it is too easy to simply take the whole operation to the third world in the face of increased worker demands. As long as we are in this situation, a push for "jobs" are almost always going to be bad jobs. In the long run, bad jobs with low pay can't sustain our economy, even if they do help an individual company's bottom line right now. We've got to change the structure. This race to the bottom, where "competing" always means paying workers less is what we have to correct.

[Selatius]

47. You're entering the realm of fair trade vs. free trade.

But right now voters are worried about jobs.

I would recommend to any legislator or even president that right now a government-run jobs program is necessary to stop the free-fall. As long as it serves the purpose of putting people back to work, putting money in their pockets, and ensuring people don't starve.

On top of that, though, the president should and must re-examine our trade policies that make it more profitable to hire Asian or Latin American labor over American labor because it is more profitable. I am all for trying to achieve comparative advantage, but I am not in favor of totally moving in the opposite direction of autarky either.

[sakabatou]

37. It's both

[TorchTheWitch]

39. no we don't

It's "jobs, jobs, jobs" AND "wages, wages, wages".

A reasonable "wage, wage, wage" doesn't do diddly squat for those people that don't have and need a "job, job, job".

[DefenseLawyer]

41. Right, just be happy you have a job, take what the corporate world has to offer and be happy

it's better than nothing! We can't keep going this way. Our "shared sacrifice" in a "global economy" is going to be our permanent ruin.

[Romulox]

42. For a lawyer, you don't make very pointed arguments.

You are conflating TWO DIFFERENT THINGS-- i.e. jobs and globalism. The two words are not synonyms. :eyes:

[TorchTheWitch]

49. WHAT job???

That's the whole fucking POINT!

Wait, let me guess, you're one of those people that already HAS a "job, job, job" you're reasonably sure you aren't ever going to "lose, lose, lose"?
:eyes:

[DefenseLawyer]

50. I'm talking about where we go as a country, not about your life, or mine

Of course I'm not saying we should IGNORE unemployment. DUH. But if we do nothing else but work to get people crappy, low-wage, part-time jobs that they should feel "lucky" to get, and we do nothing else, we solve nothing. We have to radically alter our trade and tax policy to benefit workers, to foster manufacturing, to make outsourcing unprofitable, to make hoarding profits less "profitable" and to get more money into the hands of working people. If we don't we are fucked- whether we have our crappy jobs or we don't have our crappy jobs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Actually it is both.

[Romulox]

43. Indeed, the very idea that you can have one without the other is bizarre.

:shrug:

[DefenseLawyer]

48. Obviously we need jobs. It's not one instead of the other, it's about our focus long term

You can have more jobs if there are higher wages. A lot more jobs, higher wages across the board leads to more demand, more saving, more investment. My point is if all we focus on is "getting business to hire again" we are doing nothing to stem the race to the bottom that has stymied wages for 30 years. All this talk about "shared sacrifice" and new realities for workers is true under the multinational, free trade labor market that companies are now free to adopt. We shouldn't simply say that's the way it is folks, you are going to make less and less while profits go up, so we can stay "competitive". If we do we are fucked. Full employment at $7.00 an hour is profitable for business, and if we get that you can say Hurray there is no unemployment! And we will still be fucked.

[Romulox]

51. You're arguing against GLOBALISM/"Free Trade"/Neoliberalism now.

People need jobs AND "free trade" is a job obliterating transfer of wealth from working people to the wealthy. AND. Both statements on either side of 'AND' are true. Neither contradicts the other.

We shouldn't simply say that's the way it is folks, you are going to make less and less while profits go up, so we can stay "competitive".

"We" aren't saying that though. YOU are, and even then, it is presumably a rhetorical argument.

Full employment at $7.00 an hour is profitable for business, and if we get that you can say Hurray there is no unemployment!

As an attorney, aren't you familiar with the concept of "necessary but not sufficient" conditions? "Full employment" is a necessary, but not sufficient, pre-condition for workers to have maximum leverage over employers. Moreover, globalism will obliterate any wage gains you posit absent addition protections for domestic workers. Ergo, we need both full employment AND additional protections for domestic workers and industries (e.g. tariffs.) Not only are these two things not in conflict with one another, indeed they are both mutually reinforcing and complementary!

[NNN0LHI]

44. Everyone's wages and benefits were at one time patterned after union contracts

But a lot of people don't like unions so they boycott them. Unless it is their own union that is. Then everything becomes Solidarity!

Surprised that it seems like I am the only one who has noticed this.

Don

[MadHound]

45. Tell that to the tens of millions who are unemployed and underemployed

Furthermore, you can't get sustained wage growth unless you have full employment. Why do you think wages rose under Clinton? Because there was full employment and companies were forced to raise their wages in order to attract talent.

[Little Star]

46. Both!