On Sep 9, 2010, at 3:25 PM, Michael Luscombe wrote: > Thanks Francis, I'd almost forgotten why I don't debate with you.
Because you can't back up your arguments with basic, well-founded and time-tested economic principles? That's what a supply-demand curve is, and it applies to those seeking employment as well as goods and services. $Price | | | D S S | D S S | D S S | D S S | D S S | D S S | -------------------------X S | S |S X D | S S | | D | S S | | D | S S | | D | S S | | | | | | | | |__________________________|__|________________________ Quantity Say the above curve applies to labor. Reducing the price of labor has the effect of shifting the supply curve down, where it will intersect the demand curve at a higher quantity. What we should really be talking about is how to increase the demand for labor. That has the effect of shifting the demand curve to the right, which moves the supply-demand intersection point to a higher quantity (and a higher cost). Whether you like it or not, the effect of increased unemployment (which is an increase in the labor supply) is to reduce all wages. There are only two ways to reverse that -- reduce the supply of those seeking employment or increase the demand for labor. At best, the "elasticity" you refer to is simply the lag associated with the time it takes for the market to "feel" the results of changes in supply or demand. FWIW, just about everyone agrees that reducing unemployment (increasing the demand for labor) is desperately needed. > Michael > > > On 2010-09-09, at 6:15 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > >> Your ignorance of basic economic principles is absolutely stunning. >> >> But you're in good company. There are many in Sacrament, CA and Washington, >> D.C. that think just like you, which is why our economy isn't improving. >> They have no idea how to meet a payroll let alone what drives businesses to >> hire. >> >> None of them will take any responsibility for the policies they enacted. >> They blame Bush. Well why is it that Obama took the worst of the Bush >> economic policies and amplified them? From TARP to stimulus to >> cash-for-clunkers (not to mention Obamacare), Obama/Pelosi/Reid are out of >> control on spending. None of benefits of they've harped about have >> materialized. >> >> Not to worry, though. Americans showed we're not racist in 2008. An in 2010, >> despite 26-percenters like you and Bruce, we're going to show we're not >> socialist either. >> >> Time to drastically reduce the size of federal government. >> >> >> On Sep 9, 2010, at 1:59 PM, Michael Luscombe wrote: >> >>> On 2010-09-09, at 4:44 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote: >>> >>>>> Everything has an elasticity. >>>>> >>>>> McDonalds is not going to hire 10x more employees because they cost one >>>>> tenth as much. >>>> >>>> Nor would anyone familiar with them infer that from a Supply Demand Curve. >>>> >>>> But the basic observation holds -- if you reduce the cost of something, >>>> demand for it will increase. >>> -- >>> >>> No, it doesn't hold. That's what elasticity means. Demand for milk will not >>> skyrocket if you reduce the price significantly. It has everything to do >>> with where the product sits on the "need vs. want" spectrum. >>> >>> If the business is operating right now, then it has enough staff to do so. >>> The market has been flooded with potential minimum-wage employees for some >>> time. >>> >>> >>>>> They need a range of employees to operate. If the hourly rate goes down, >>>>> it's more likely that businesses will hire more employees on a part-time >>>>> basis, to reduce the number of benefits they'll be required to provide, >>>>> while spending far less in wages overall. >>>> >>>> Wage rates aren't what's keeping employment down in this economy. Rather, >>>> it's the uncertainty promulgated by our current administration as well as >>>> its outright hostility towards businesses in general. >>> -- >>> >>> Reducing the minimum wage will only reduce discretionary spending and >>> further erode consumer confidence. >>> >>> The economy sucks because of the last decade of focus on tax breaks for the >>> wealthy and pro-business regulation/de-regulation. Easy credit in the >>> 90's-00's means that the economy was artificially robust, and lower wages >>> and high debt load now means that the economy is artificially low. >>> >>> Tightening wages will only reduce spending. Business expenses will always >>> be too high when nobody is buying. No one would be talking about expenses >>> if revenues are up. >>> >>> Too many years of idiotic Republican spending and economic practices. >>> >>> Nothing trickled down. No surprise there. >>> >>> >>>>> Being underemployed without benefits is worse than unemployment for many, >>>>> despite being off welfare. >>>> >>>> How so? What are the benefits of unemployment for those that aren't on >>>> welfare? Isn't some income better than none at all? >>> -- >>> >>> An amount of income that makes you ineligible for welfare, but not enough >>> to cover your bills simply eats up your time to look for a new job, while >>> stressing you the fuck out because you still can't pay the bills. >>> >>> Have you never been underemployed? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "StrataList-OT" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en.
