BF2S Forums Hi, I'm a representative of liberals everywhere and I hate America

lowing wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope all I know is that when I APPLY for a job, I get one, and when I got laid off it was never because the govt. had decided their was just too many people working.

So the interest rate has absolutely zero effect on employers. It has no impact upon businesses at all. It can never make the difference between whether or not a company can or can't employ more people?

I am saying that people with skills that are marketable get employed, and people that are uneducated, unmarketable, un-motivated, are NOT out of work because the govt. KEPT them from being employed.

Last edited by SEREMAKER (2008-09-09 10:54:04)

Pug wrote:

Varegg wrote:

wiki wrote:

Alternatives to minimum wage

Negative income tax
Some critics of the minimum wage argue that a negative income tax or earned income tax credit would work better than a minimum wage, as it would benefit a broader population of low wage earners, not cause any unemployment, and distribute the cost widely rather than concentrating it on employers of low wage workers. A negative income tax or earned income tax credit based on a broad tax base would also be more economically efficient, as the minimum wage imposes a high marginal tax on employers, causing high deadweight loss. The ability of the earned income tax credit to deliver a larger monetary benefit to poor workers at a lower cost to society was recently documented in a report by the Congressional Budget Office

Either way the clue is to get the poorest workers up a notch, make them feel they are part of a sucessful America, a sucessful Norway, whatever country doesn't matter it is the principles that apply ... that will increase spending and as mentioned help boost the economy back on track ...

Interesting.

I'm biased on minimum wage though...it's 4 hours to the border, so keep that in mind

Pug wrote:

Varegg wrote:

wiki wrote:

Alternatives to minimum wage

Negative income tax
Some critics of the minimum wage argue that a negative income tax or earned income tax credit would work better than a minimum wage, as it would benefit a broader population of low wage earners, not cause any unemployment, and distribute the cost widely rather than concentrating it on employers of low wage workers. A negative income tax or earned income tax credit based on a broad tax base would also be more economically efficient, as the minimum wage imposes a high marginal tax on employers, causing high deadweight loss. The ability of the earned income tax credit to deliver a larger monetary benefit to poor workers at a lower cost to society was recently documented in a report by the Congressional Budget Office

Either way the clue is to get the poorest workers up a notch, make them feel they are part of a sucessful America, a sucessful Norway, whatever country doesn't matter it is the principles that apply ... that will increase spending and as mentioned help boost the economy back on track ...

Interesting.

I'm biased on minimum wage though...it's 4 hours to the border, so keep that in mind

Varegg wrote:

Pug wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The poorest workers are fired. You can't force charity.

That is true...if I'm going to pay them more, I'm going to want them to be more qualified.

Just working makes you more qualified day by day in whatever line of work ...

Varegg wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Just working makes you more qualified day by day in whatever line of work ...

And this is why we should elect Obama for president. To hell with qualifications, trial by fire learning.. . The irony is that when business is forced to raise wages they are also forced to cut back in other areas... like paying for training.

I need you to write my resume. I can just imagine the look on the interviewers face when they read "just working here will make me qualified". Gold.

Misquoting ftw tbh ...

I said more qualified day by day, how does a carpenter learn his business ... does he go to school for 5 years learning about building a house behind a desk ?

You know what i mean Kerry, don't try to score cheap points on me

Last edited by Pug (2008-09-09 11:37:36)

lowing wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope all I know is that when I APPLY for a job, I get one, and when I got laid off it was never because the govt. had decided their was just too many people working.

So the interest rate has absolutely zero effect on employers. It has no impact upon businesses at all. It can never make the difference between whether or not a company can or can't employ more people?

I am saying that people with skills that are marketable get employed, and people that are uneducated, unmarketable, un-motivated, are NOT out of work because the govt. KEPT them from being employed.

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

So the interest rate has absolutely zero effect on employers. It has no impact upon businesses at all. It can never make the difference between whether or not a company can or can't employ more people?

I am saying that people with skills that are marketable get employed, and people that are uneducated, unmarketable, un-motivated, are NOT out of work because the govt. KEPT them from being employed.

So the FED, Fortune magazine, all those economists are either wrong or making it all up? Raising interest rates doesn't increase unemployment, even though it actually does?

Raising interest rates can make it unprofitable to hire new people or keep the staff that a company has, regrdless of how motivated or educated anyone happens to be.

Or you can just ignore reality and keep going with your false pre-conceptions.

lowing wrote:

I am saying that people with skills that are marketable get employed, and people that are uneducated, unmarketable, un-motivated, are NOT out of work because the govt. KEPT them from being employed.

nothing more, nothing less

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

So the FED, Fortune magazine, all those economists are either wrong or making it all up? Raising interest rates doesn't increase unemployment, even though it actually does?

Raising interest rates can make it unprofitable to hire new people or keep the staff that a company has, regrdless of how motivated or educated anyone happens to be.

Or you can just ignore reality and keep going with your false pre-conceptions.

I am saying that people with skills that are marketable get employed, and people that are uneducated, unmarketable, un-motivated, are NOT out of work because the govt. KEPT them from being employed.

nothing more, nothing less

We read that the first time, and very few people are actually unmotivated. Yes, they are uneducated. Yes, they look like they could use a good wash but that doesn't meant they LIKE it that way.

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

oug wrote:

You know lowing, relying on yourself to do what's right for you is admirable and all that, and you shouldn't expect favors from anyone etc etc. But that doesn't mean that you can ignore - in any way - what the government or any other organization may be doing to the workforce and to the economy as a whole. Motivated and qualified people get fired too.

Also there's a great difference between being motivated and being a slave. Because if you ask any employer, I bet they'd choose the latter to work for them.

I am sure they would, free labor would be great from the eyes of an employer, it is a good thing most workers have skilled themselves and made themselves marketable and desirable in their craft or knowledge that makes their skills WORTH paying for to an employer. Ya see, that is pretty much the way it is supposed to work. YOU also have something to bring to the table of an employer because an employer NEEDS you to sit down and eat with him so HE can make money. It is a win win for both parties

But noooooooo, you all EXPECT, DEMAND that ALL people should be carried by an employer ( the rich) even though they might not have ANYTHING an employer is interested in or anything to bring to the table ( contribute). You seem to think a job and money is a RIGHT in this country, I say they are things YOU earn.

The universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote:

Article 23.
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

If anyone in the US thinks that they have that right to work and protection in case of unemployment then, as the US is a signatory of the declaration, they're correct, they do.