Tax the Rich!!! - Wait, Tax the Elderly!!!

[ubernerd]

Time for someone to step in and simple down the unemployment vs wage issue. If you can't do something that is worth more than what you ask for in wages, guess what - no job for you! This applies even if gummint "asks" on your behalf. In this respect, labor is no different from any other input. Marginal productivity > marginal cost. Note the strict inequality. This is one of the differences between Austrian and mainstream econ.

[Rickson]

Originally Posted by ubernerd

Time for someone to step in and simple down the unemployment vs wage issue. If you can't do something that is worth more than what you ask for in wages, guess what - no job for you! This applies even if gummint "asks" on your behalf. In this respect, labor is no different from any other input. Marginal productivity > marginal cost. Note the strict inequality. This is one of the differences between Austrian and mainstream econ.

I know right.

I can't believe the econ 'tards on here...

[ubernerd]

Originally Posted by Uncle Ted

Uhhh...no. Unemployement = (#ppl who want a job - #ppl have a job) / # ppl who want a job.

You do not replace # ppl who have a job with ppl who are offered a job or could get a job...

I assure you that government unemployment statistics do not include people who are chronically unable to work in the base. They don't even include people who have been on unemployment for longer than some threshhold. I think it's 6 months.

It seems reasonable to exclude people who are so handicapped that they will never be able to support themselves. In any case, this is not what economists talk about when they refer to structural unemployment.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/...#axzz1xWtgO0nP

[jas66Kent]

Structural, frictional, seasonal.....

[Rickson]

Originally Posted by jas66Kent

Structural, frictional, seasonal.....

All made up wonkish terms for not being able to find a use for your labor at the DMVP.

[Uncle Ted]

Originally Posted by ubernerd

I assure you that government unemployment statistics do not include people who are chronically unable to work in the base. They don't even include people who have been on unemployment for longer than some threshhold. I think it's 6 months.

It seems reasonable to exclude people who are so handicapped that they will never be able to support themselves. In any case, this is not what economists talk about when they refer to structural unemployment.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/...#axzz1xWtgO0nP

You've changed your position. Dixieflyer stated that you could drop unemployment to zero. Trolltard asked if he'd heard of the natural rate of enumployment. You said yes and you'd also heard of the tooth fairy.

Reducing minimum wage could reduce some (or in theory all, if EI and other transfer programs/charities/support systems are eliminated) structural unemployment, but it won't do anything for frictional unemployment. Hence trolltard wins and you and dixieflyer lose. If you think lowering minimum wage will eliminate the existing unemployment for tradespeople, professionals etc....you need to get out more. Talk to some real people. Or ask yourself if you'd take the first job for $5 an hour you came across if you lost your job tomorrow.

[Rickson]

Originally Posted by Uncle Ted

You've changed your position. Dixieflyer stated that you could drop unemployment to zero. Trolltard asked if he'd heard of the natural rate of enumployment. You said yes and you'd also heard of the tooth fairy.

Reducing minimum wage could reduce some (or in theory all, if EI and other transfer programs/charities/support systems are eliminated) structural unemployment, but it won't do anything for frictional unemployment. Hence trolltard wins and you and dixieflyer lose. If you think lowering minimum wage will eliminate the existing unemployment for tradespeople, professionals etc....you need to get out more. Talk to some real people. Or ask yourself if you'd take the first job for $5 an hour you came across if you lost your job tomorrow.

By definition those people can't provide labor so they wouldn't be unemployed so no he hasn't changed his definition....

If I only had the skills to work for $3 an hour then that's what I'd do....and I think I did at one time walking beans.

[Uncle Ted]

Originally Posted by Rickson

By definition those people can't provide labor so they wouldn't be unemployed so no he hasn't changed his definition....

If I only had the skills to work for $3 an hour then that's what I'd do....and I think I did at one time walking beans.

An accountant who got laid off and takes 4 weeks to find another accounting job can't provide labour? He counts as being unemployed during that 4 week period. How does the removal of minimum wage laws reduce his unemployment?

Edit: I said structural unemplyment when I meant to say cyclical/classical unemployment. If that clears anything up.

[twig93]

Originally Posted by jas66Kent

Honestly, what you just stated makes no sense to me. Inventory of labor? wtf is that

Wait a second, you have taken an economics class and don't understand inventory of labor?

I thought this guy might actually be serious about his degrees and other credentials, but now I think we've been trolled even worse than we realized. He's probably really a high school freshman.

[FashionableFedora]

Originally Posted by twig93

Wait a second, you have taken an economics class and don't understand inventory of labor?

I thought this guy might actually be serious about his degrees and other credentials, but now I think we've been trolled even worse than we realized. He's probably really a high school freshman.

He certainly behaves like one.