5/5/2014 2:39 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?
So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?
If you are sitting on your tail collecting unemployment and you refuse because the offer doesn't meet your expectation then yes you are a lazy *******.
5/5/2014 2:47 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 2:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?
So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?
You might be.  That may or may not be relevant.  There's not enough information to make that conclusion in this case.  In other words, you can try to set the price if you want to,but you can only sell if you have buyers.
And you can only buy if you have sellers.

Workers sell their labor to buyers. Good public policy prevents the labor market from completely going to **** in times of economic distress. It may be bad to have a lot of people collecting unemployment, but it's worse to allow wages to be driven down to the point that people take jobs that don't allow them to afford rent in order to avoid starvation.
One way to help prevent the labor market from doing that is to get government out of artificially deciding market value.  That would be good public policy.  You don't sell in the first place if your return on investment is not high enough.  People work like businesses do.  Price settles at value without interference.  When the government pushes, there is reaction in other areas.  There has to be.  You can try all you want to take the profit motive out of it by "forcing" business to pay a "living wage", but there is no way for government to do that without unlimited power.  Nor should they.  You may not have said as much explicitly, but that's where these policies, like artificially hiking minimum wage and perpetual unemployment "benefits", would lead.  (BTW, I am all for tying minimum wage to the CPI or other index.   That would help prevent the use of it as a political football to make the uninformed feel better about it, but as long as they can continue to play the game, they will).

The bottom line is, if a business can sell goods and services at a required rate of return, they will do whatever they can to do it, including paying the labor cost necessary for workers that possess skills they value.  If I go to market with a product (of which I take the financial risk to produce it), I have to price it so that people will buy it.  If there is enough demand for the product, the equilibrium price establishes where supply and demand meet.  At that point, I better be producing in such a manner that my price is above my cost enough to provide a return on the investment that is greater than my opportunity cost to invest in something else.  My cost is going to be determined by how much my materials cost and how much my labor costs to build.  If I need people with valuable skills they will cost more.  If I need people with no skills, they will cost less.  If government interferes too much with labor cost (or taxes or regulations with costs to comply), they can artificially price me above the market price, hence my opportunity to invest in something else.

The labor cost (or wages) will follow what we value.  If government values "high taxes on corporations", then they also, by extension, value less skilled workers working for those corporations, since those same corporations will have less incentive to invest in things with higher risk. 

Regulations (not saying all are bad), high taxes, wage and price controls; all of those things affect business' opportunity costs.
Thanks for the econ class, professor.

"People work like businesses do."

They don't and they aren't. Without things like unemployment and minimum wage, people would choose to do things like take jobs that pay $2 an hour. We know this. We can look at the past, we can look at developing countries, we can look at other circumstances with a similar power dynamic, like when companies hire "independent contractors" when those people are employees in every regard other than the label on the tax form. Oh, and the reduced employment costs.

You can stand in the center of the Ayn Rand bukakke-fest if you want. Lap it up. But it isn't good public policy.
Independent contractors are actually a good example, although, by law, they are not anything like employees.  When people are valuable as independent contractors, many times they can do far better at that than they can as an employee - if they possess a valuable enough skill set.

You act like reduced employment costs are a bad thing.  Why?

And BTW, I have never read Rand - ever.  I know she wrote Atlas Shrugged and that she believed in reason above all else, but that is about the extent of my knowledge of her.  Maybe you can enlighten me further?

And what is good public policy?  How does good public policy prevent the labor markets from tanking?
5/5/2014 2:49 PM
I would also mention that I'm not against a minimum wage as a necessary evil.  But decide on it, tie it to inflation and be done with it.  Otherwise it's just like trying to tell us that we should "tax the rich more" without ever being able to define when's enough.  We spent dozens of pages on that already.
5/5/2014 2:51 PM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/5/2014 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?
So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?
If you are sitting on your tail collecting unemployment and you refuse because the offer doesn't meet your expectation then yes you are a lazy *******.
So, say you were an IT professional with an advanced degree and a job making $90,000 a year. You get laid off and there aren't any current openings for a IT professional in your city and you can't relocate due to family issues...maybe you're a divorced parent with shared custody.

You're in Massachusetts so you collect the max, $674 a week.

You get offered a job hanging drywall for $10 an hour.

Should you take it?
Are you better off if you take it?
Is the city you live in better off if you take it?
Does anyone at all benefit from you taking that job?

I say no. I say taking that job is a net negative for everyone in this scenario (it's probably neutral at best for the contractor that hired you, since your most valuable skill isn't your back strength).

Arguing that unemployment is bad is arguing that the IT guy should take the drywall job.
5/5/2014 3:00 PM
That's slightly different than your example because you have now ventured outside of your "service being offered".  Actually by law you cannot refuse that job offer AND continue to collect unemployment. It IS a bit absurd for sure and definitely could be "fixed", but that's where we are now with most states.

Should the guy collect unemployment forever and NEVER get another job unless it meets his "stated price"?

A more apt example would be someone offering you a IT job for only 60K per year, but you think you are worth 90K. Do you take THAT offer? Should you?
5/5/2014 3:02 PM
Your assumption rests on the fact that unemployment removes the incentive to be employed.  So instead of the IT professional working for his/her own money, he/she collects money produced by the work of others until the dream job opens back up.  Again, unemployment as intended, is temporary insurance against job loss.  It's not intended to be a lifetime benefit, or even a long-term benefit.  You know what, six months, wait it out:  good on you, but it's your risk.  If there is no pressure to take that drywalling job, no one does it - and we continue to kick the can down the road.

What's stopping the IT pro from looking for the IT job while drywalling?  So he/she makes less per week, but is producing instead of taking.  Yes, that's better for the community.

If government doesn't take that money from you to give to the IT pro, you can invest that money into other things that produce value (and jobs) in the economy - maybe helping to open up the new IT position.
5/5/2014 3:08 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/30/2014 5:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/30/2014 4:28:00 PM (view original):
It's good to see you've latched onto another "LOOK AT ME!!!" social cause.  Congrats.
Is that what I did? Or did I just post something that was interesting (to me, at least)?

You're very sensitive to my activity on here, mike jr.
Now on page 8 of this thread.

Yeah, it looks like that's EXACTLY what you did.

Congrats.

5/5/2014 3:10 PM
Ayn Rand wrote a match.com ad looking for a rich husband, before there was a match.com.

That said, what padna laid out isn't Randian, it is free market economics.  It's telling that the default argument from one side always reverts to "we need welfare/unemployment/minimum wage," while no one on the other side is arguing to abolish those things.  The minimum wage is a good thing, when chained to the economy (as padna laid out).  Unemployment and welfare are good things, when they are used as a bridge between jobs (and not as a way to avoid employement/paying back into the system, as I laid out and you ignored).  Welfare cannot be given out in perpetuity - it's fiscally unsustainable.  To try to justify the ways in which it used like that is to to willfully ignore that there is a problem.  The worst part of all, though, is that the way that welfare has been bastardized over the years has created a class of poverty that is passed down through generations.  Poverty is no longer as transient an economic state as it once was, for the very reason you laid out previously.  Why take a job that pays slightly higher for a lot more work right now, even though I would be honing a skill that can be leveraged for a higher salary as my skill increases?  The welfare system, as it is applied today, encourages people to stay poor (for reasons you yourself laid out).  To say "I care about the poor, so I support a system that keeps them poor" is ridiculous.  To label others who see the gaping hole in your argument as "Randian" is as weak a counter-argument as calling you a Marxist would be.

But I don't have to call you Marxist.  I just have to wait for reason to accidentally kick in and watch you refute your own arguments.
5/5/2014 4:12 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2014 3:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/30/2014 5:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/30/2014 4:28:00 PM (view original):
It's good to see you've latched onto another "LOOK AT ME!!!" social cause.  Congrats.
Is that what I did? Or did I just post something that was interesting (to me, at least)?

You're very sensitive to my activity on here, mike jr.
Now on page 8 of this thread.

Yeah, it looks like that's EXACTLY what you did.

Congrats.

Thanks?

Good to know there's dedicated people like you and mike ready, at a moments notice, to decide what is and what isn't acceptable forum posting behavior.


5/5/2014 4:27 PM
Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 3:02:00 PM (view original):
Your assumption rests on the fact that unemployment removes the incentive to be employed.  So instead of the IT professional working for his/her own money, he/she collects money produced by the work of others until the dream job opens back up.  Again, unemployment as intended, is temporary insurance against job loss.  It's not intended to be a lifetime benefit, or even a long-term benefit.  You know what, six months, wait it out:  good on you, but it's your risk.  If there is no pressure to take that drywalling job, no one does it - and we continue to kick the can down the road.

What's stopping the IT pro from looking for the IT job while drywalling?  So he/she makes less per week, but is producing instead of taking.  Yes, that's better for the community.

If government doesn't take that money from you to give to the IT pro, you can invest that money into other things that produce value (and jobs) in the economy - maybe helping to open up the new IT position.
Of course the IT guy's unemployment benefits remove the incentive to take the drywall job. That's a good thing for everyone and my entire point.

We don't want skilled and educated workers taking $10 an hour manual labor jobs. Those jobs will get filled by unskilled and uneducated workers anyway. Why waste the human capital? A couple hundred dollars a week in unemployment is a small price to pay to allow people time to land in a job that best utilizes their skills. The alternative (eliminating the benefit or shortening the collection period to a month) just forces people to take whatever job they can get in order to survive. You may see that as the right way, I see that as a system that drives wages down and wastes human capital.
5/5/2014 4:48 PM
We should do unemployment like Australia does.  Unemployed worker applies for job.  Employer offers job. Unemployed worker loses unemployment whether they take the job or not.
5/5/2014 4:50 PM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/5/2014 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?
So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?
If you are sitting on your tail collecting unemployment and you refuse because the offer doesn't meet your expectation then yes you are a lazy *******.
Real simple.  If it doesn't meet your needs, you shouldn't be applying.
5/5/2014 5:04 PM
Most companies won't offer to overqualified people.   They know, barring a complete **** economy like we had a few years ago, that those people are looking for another job every day. 
5/5/2014 8:46 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 3:02:00 PM (view original):
Your assumption rests on the fact that unemployment removes the incentive to be employed.  So instead of the IT professional working for his/her own money, he/she collects money produced by the work of others until the dream job opens back up.  Again, unemployment as intended, is temporary insurance against job loss.  It's not intended to be a lifetime benefit, or even a long-term benefit.  You know what, six months, wait it out:  good on you, but it's your risk.  If there is no pressure to take that drywalling job, no one does it - and we continue to kick the can down the road.

What's stopping the IT pro from looking for the IT job while drywalling?  So he/she makes less per week, but is producing instead of taking.  Yes, that's better for the community.

If government doesn't take that money from you to give to the IT pro, you can invest that money into other things that produce value (and jobs) in the economy - maybe helping to open up the new IT position.
Of course the IT guy's unemployment benefits remove the incentive to take the drywall job. That's a good thing for everyone and my entire point.

We don't want skilled and educated workers taking $10 an hour manual labor jobs. Those jobs will get filled by unskilled and uneducated workers anyway. Why waste the human capital? A couple hundred dollars a week in unemployment is a small price to pay to allow people time to land in a job that best utilizes their skills. The alternative (eliminating the benefit or shortening the collection period to a month) just forces people to take whatever job they can get in order to survive. You may see that as the right way, I see that as a system that drives wages down and wastes human capital.
I love when you post stupid **** like this.

You're incapable of critical thought, aren't you?

Are you assuming that the IT guy who accepts the drywall job (should he in fact be offered one) is going to settle for that for the long term?  Assuming that the IT guy was making $90k a year, he's now content to change his lifestyle and give up the $90k a year white collar desk job for a $25k a year blue collar job?
5/5/2014 10:52 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2014 8:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 3:02:00 PM (view original):
Your assumption rests on the fact that unemployment removes the incentive to be employed.  So instead of the IT professional working for his/her own money, he/she collects money produced by the work of others until the dream job opens back up.  Again, unemployment as intended, is temporary insurance against job loss.  It's not intended to be a lifetime benefit, or even a long-term benefit.  You know what, six months, wait it out:  good on you, but it's your risk.  If there is no pressure to take that drywalling job, no one does it - and we continue to kick the can down the road.

What's stopping the IT pro from looking for the IT job while drywalling?  So he/she makes less per week, but is producing instead of taking.  Yes, that's better for the community.

If government doesn't take that money from you to give to the IT pro, you can invest that money into other things that produce value (and jobs) in the economy - maybe helping to open up the new IT position.
Of course the IT guy's unemployment benefits remove the incentive to take the drywall job. That's a good thing for everyone and my entire point.

We don't want skilled and educated workers taking $10 an hour manual labor jobs. Those jobs will get filled by unskilled and uneducated workers anyway. Why waste the human capital? A couple hundred dollars a week in unemployment is a small price to pay to allow people time to land in a job that best utilizes their skills. The alternative (eliminating the benefit or shortening the collection period to a month) just forces people to take whatever job they can get in order to survive. You may see that as the right way, I see that as a system that drives wages down and wastes human capital.
I love when you post stupid **** like this.

You're incapable of critical thought, aren't you?

Are you assuming that the IT guy who accepts the drywall job (should he in fact be offered one) is going to settle for that for the long term?  Assuming that the IT guy was making $90k a year, he's now content to change his lifestyle and give up the $90k a year white collar desk job for a $25k a year blue collar job?
What? No. I'm assuming he won't even consider the drywall job because he has unemployment benefits and isn't at risk of being homeless.
of 122

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.