Do you support full employment?

[Pushed To The Left]

Maybe I'm in an alternate universe or something, because I thought the idea of all Americans being employed was a good thing. Rightwing radio has been all over college professors because a large number of professors believe that the government should ensure full employment. More right-wing phoniness, in my book! The right wing whines and complains about people on welfare or people who don't work, then they turn around and compare full employment to communism!

[A Simple Game]

1. Yes,

there is always something that could be done. Patch roads, sidewalks,
cut grass, move snow, etc.

[atommom]

2. They're just afraid that if they espouse full employment, they might

have to give up a little of their own wealth in order for it to become reality. It really is the worst kind of hypocrisy to condemn the jobless for being lazy and morally weak, and then oppose efforts to employ those people. Like most of these issues, it all comes down to greed.

[Pushed To The Left]

9. Exactly! Greed and cheap labor conservatism

They want to keep workers over a barrell! If everybody is guaranteed employment, workers won't be as desparate and will be harder to exploit.

[Just Me]

17. As in,..."full employment" requires everyone to share in the benefits,...

,...of a "free market"? :shrug:

I will always KNOW that the objection to a ceiling on wealth has to do with greed, period; not fairness or any pursuit of equality or opportunity or freedom or democracy.

There is GREAT PLENTY to go around. TAKE NOTE THAT,...only those who don't want to share, those who are greedy and covetous, ever-consuming and completely ungrateful/spiteful/empty/cynical, with no earthy sense of humanity are the ones who stringently assert that,...there are insufficient resources to provide. Meanwhile, they have thousands of times more than they could possibly ever need, ever.

*sigh*

Such sick, sick and incredibly fearful people,...and they are spreading their sickness and fear which is based upon their own self-perpetuating illusion of reality. It's just so damned sad they are tearing down human potential and so believe their perception is the only truth.

[More Than A Feeling]

3. Full employment, in the sense of every single person eligible having a job

is impossible. There are always going to be people unemployed for seasonal or economic transition reasons. If there weren't, then there would be a labor shortage, which would keep businesses from starting and expanding and restrict economic growth

[salib]

8. That is not the definition used though

What you describe is basically saying "if one defines full employment as requiring everyone to be working even if it is impossible, then full employment is impossible."

However, unemployment numbers are based upon those actively looking according to those counting, i.e., people who are collecting benefits based upon looking or are reporting themselves as looking (went in to the unemployment office, etc.). This way of counting, of course, does not include many who may be looking, passively or actively, willing but having given up, unable to because of situations that could be ameleorated if aome assistance were provided (single parents with children too young for day care, diabled in some way that requires assistance that is not available, etc.). It also does not include all those independent consultants, contractors, day laborers, home workers, etc., who are simply looking for business (work) but cannot find any. We are obviously no where near the minimum unemployment we can reach, otherwise one would not see generally consistent, trend like, numbers from month to month, but instead big relative, and random, jumps as noise takes over the stats, rather than overall supply and demand.

Where does this all go? We can certainly employ a larger percentage of the population. Is this desirable? About one in 19 of us is actively looking, able and willing, so I would say yes.

[seriousstan]

4. Yes and eternal youth and perpetual health.

[wellst0nev0ter]

5. Sorry, Full Employment = Runaway Inflation

Think about it, everyone has a job so there is no employment pool to tap, everyone is making money so prices will be necessarily raised, etc, etc.

[Pushed To The Left]

6. Lots of employed people look for

higher-paying jobs. They might also be looking to get into another field.

[rockymountaindem]

7. Exactly.

A small pool of unemployed with rapid turnover (i.e. no single individual is unemployed for very long) is preferable for an economy. Full employment, as you say, leads to high inflation, and subsequent high interest rates in an attempt to control the inflation. That is bad for everybody.

[salib]

11. Yet, historically, the opposite has been true

Almost all western economies have an inverse relationship of employment to inflation. I.e., as they approach full employment, inflation is also lower. As they go to greater unemployment they also have greater inflation. So, while the argument you make seems sensible, it is not reflected in historical fact, right?

[rockymountaindem]

15. Yes and no.

It comes down to the difference between very very high employment and full employment. During the Clinton days there was very high employment, approaching 96%. The other 4% turned over very rapidly and few people remained unemployed for long. That is the optimum. Had there been 100% employment, things could have been different. On the other hand, such as in the Weimar Republic, both unemployment and inflation were very high. There is a fine line between low unemployment and no unemployment.

Furthermore, the idea of full employment as a guarantee by the government means that nobody even has to fear losing their job. Even at the zenith of the 90's boom, there was always the chance that you could lose your job, requiring some savings and helping to keep interest rates and inflation low. If there is a policy of guaranteed employment, this is not the case and people are free to spend all of their disposible income, resulting in more inflation than would occur with a modest savings rate.

[salib]

26. We have had very high employment, strong unions

ensuring rapid wage growth, and very low inflation, perhaps the longest sustained period like that in our history, after the big labor victories of the mid to late thirties and continuing until the late sixties. There was no inflationary pressure due to wages for twenty some years! No, while what you say is again all seemingly reasonable, as always wonderful microeconomic theories, or macro-economic cliches, do not hold up under the scrutiny of fact. We have had situations, many times, where wages rise rapidly and inflation does not or goes down. We have had times when wages were stagnant and prices went up rapidly (remember stagflation)?

I.e., I do not accept your premise because it has not panned out experimentally (i.e., in history). It is much more complicated than you describe, i.e., it is different than you describe. We can have "full employment" (which is still not everyone working, as we know), low inflation, high expectations, etc. Maybe people just won't be so desperate and afraid. They might actually stop and think! Have some of those "idle hands" to make some social mischief. God forbid!

[acmejack]

10. Full employment would make for a tight labor market

It makes wages and benefits much better when the prospective employer is competing for the candidate, vice labor competing for employment.

[Pushed To The Left]

12. A cheap labor conservatve's

worst nightmare!

[salib]

13. Exactly!

That is the true historical association: high employment means high wages, low employment means low wages. If high employment and wages truly leads to inflation, then the entire industrial revolution of generation of incredible wealth and productivity would have created nothing but runaway inflation. Hey, same argument, i.e., more to spend means higher prices. But it is patently bogus historically. Higher wages are not an automatic inflation cause. Look at all of the very low inflation, stong union, rapidly increasing wages from the mid thirties to the late sixties in this country.

It is a ploy, not entirely unreasoned, but a ploy none the less to keep wages low, keep the consumer always desperate, ensure little dissent when everyone is working so hard. That is Wal-Mart logic.

[Just Me]

20. Shhhhh!!! You're gonna piss off the corporacrats with those facts!!!

Your reasoning leads to a "free market" (both product and labor) which, by nature, would place a ceiling on the corporaprofiteers!!!

You simply cannot insert such reasoning against the "free market" over which the corporacrats demand power.

Uh,...yeah,..."free market" my ass,...uh, my poop would better qualify for that. DUH!!!!

[Ladyhawk]

14. What a stupid argument from the right. Let 'em eat OxyContin. n/t

[Ken Burch]

16. Full employment yes! production for use Yes!

This has many creative possibilities...

We could bring back the Federal Theatre Project.

We could train the unemployed in inner cities in alternative energy technology and put them to work installing alternative energy systems and conservation measures in poor neighborhoods.

We could also have a program whereby all federal student loans could be repaid by using the skills people were trained in in programs benefiting the country's neediest and most forgotten regions.

We could, finally, let people move up Maslow's hirearchy of needs from food shelter and clothing to self-actualization. People could live their lives for what they wanted them to be, rather than just what had to be done to live.

[Ladyhawk]

24. Right now I'm struggling with the whole food and shelter thing.

I can't self-actualize and it's pissing me off. I know that sounds flippant, but it's true. I now have 41 cents in the bank, two weeks and a surgery before I get more money. Sigh.

[wuushew]

25. modern corporations are too efficient for their own good

pick up any paper these days and all you see is notices of jobs cuts. We are told that the economy is doing well because of gains in productivity.

I don't know the figure but is is often said that small businesses employ the vast majority of workers in this country and conversely that large corporations produce most of the wealth. Now I don't recommend going around belittling small businesses on account of its affect at the voting booth, but every time a small business is built it wastes resources be it land, paperwork, time or energy. This is especially true given the high rate at which startup businesses fail.

While large corporations come with their own set of negatives I see nothing wrong with promoting bigger more efficient sources of production as long the government can come up with solutions to offset the increased levels of unemployment. I agree with you completely that government sponsored work programs are a key ingredient to this idea. Our modern economy is built on bean counters and marketing. I believe many more people are born with ambitions to be artists or school teachers. Without government modification of what is falsely called the "free market" many people would be forced by economics into fields unsuited to their innate talents.

Some on these boards question America's spending priorities in regards to things like NASA. However NASA and similar government outlays accomplish their goals of employing people with talents in math and engineering. The only waste is in the form of the few tons of metal that leaves Earth's orbit. The salaries and material expenses generally circulate in the domestic economy. I say tax the rich and employee everbody else in the capacities at which they excel.

[EVDebs]

18. I thought the Humphrey-Hawkins full employment act was law ?

"The Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act passed in 1978 gave the US government the goal to provide full employment. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board must give testimony to Congress reporting on the state of the economy"

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey-Hawkins_Full_Employment_Act

The fact that the Dept. of Labor's ETA Form 9035 for the H1B visa is being abused, even as we speak, to fraudulently import foreigners to come to the US to work on jobs, that are specifically NOT to displace US workers (but which in fact DO displace US workers) is further evidence. Combine that with Bush's do nothing policy on the porous border and you have a recipe for lowering wages in the United States while at the same time allowing multinational corporations to collect tax breaks by outsourcing US jobs overseas.

It's all part of the race to the bottom. We're almost there....

BTW, full employment is defined here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment
and it doesn't lead to 'runaway inflation' or else it wouldn't be the policy of the Humphrey Hawkins Act as intended.

[Just Me]

22. Meanwhile, our admininstration is pulling Enron-type manipulation,...

,...to SCAM,...ALL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!

The absolute worst person/people to ever vote as a representative(s), are business/corporate profiteers. They rarely, if ever, actually offer the pursuit of anything other than money: laws, principles, values, democracy, the Constitution, equality, justice and all that definitely sits on a hind burner.

They are fascists, period. Corporateers who seek power through governance are just plain fascists. They can't get away from it, fascism, cause their whole purpose is about corporateering rather than contributing to humanity and human life (unless it advances their corporateering power).

They are fascists.

[mmmbeer]

19. Do any of the people who oppose full employment like the idea of being the

poor bastard who has to go without work? If we lefties stand for anything, it should be full employment.

[EVDebs]

21. Republicans are the embodiment of the "idle rich" LOL n/t

[New Dealer]

23. I would if we had the money

I don't want to think about it now with this deficit...

[salib]

27. What does that have to do with anything?

Is someone now associating full unemployment with high deficits? Historically, just the opposite is almost always true.

[CJCRANE]

29. More employment means more tax revenue eom

.

[rman]

28. It might be wise to keep part of the labor force as "reserve",

in case something comes up.

Radical capitalism opposes full employment because it doesn't make for a "flexible" labor market, where flexible would be when people are so desperate for a job they'll accept low wages, poor labor conditions etc, so that the big corporations can maximise profits (while claiming it's good for everyone).

[CJCRANE]

30. I thought

that was the American Dream...!

Not necessarily full employment, but at least a situation where it's easy to get a job and then work your way up.

[Nobody]

31. Why do they oppose full employment?

Or do they want to have people on welfare? I would think that the fewer people who need economic assistance would cause them much rejoicing, since they hate seeing people on food stamps and they despise section 8 housing.

[EVDebs]

32. The Repubs are illogical. They want to tax labor, not dividends

but they are pushing for 'flat-tax', 'consumption tax' measures right now. The book Perfectly Legal shows that we already have a flat tax when all taxation is considered (see chapter 7).

What puzzles me is that currently two-thirds of US GDP is from consumption. They want to tax that even more in order to, ahem, raise consumption rates ? Pretzel logic to the extreme.

I would think they would want to say, as Nixon did in the '70s, "We're all Keynesians now". They would drop this supply side B.S. and revert to priming the pump by giving tax breaks to the lower 98.5% of taxpayers instead of providing breaks for the top one and a half percent.

Consumption and full employment would take care of itself with a well regulated free market.

[dcfirefighter]

33. I think full employment should be the goal of any democratic government

I oppose GUARANTEED jobs, and prefer fiscal & monetary policy to be set to encourage full employment.

To raise employment, lower the cost of employment. To do this, without lowering wages, eliminate taxes on work, wages, & salaries.

To raise employment, eliminate taxes on products of labor: sales, dividends, interest, etc, AS LONG AS THEY ARE PRODUCTS OF LABOR.

Regarding Inflation:
Competition in manufactured goods leads to lower real prices.
Competition in non-manufactured, natural goods, leads to higher real prices. Taxing these non-manufactured goods is an economic means of encouraging conservation, and an excellent way to raise revenue. Such a tax, even if assessed at a flat rate against value, would be radically Progressive.

A money supply that expands faster than money demand is inflation.
A money supply that expands slower than money demand is deflation.
A money supply that is relatively fixed (a gold standard) is deflationary, and generally harmful.
Currenlty, new money is created by assuming a debt, either with bank loans or federal debt.
There is no reason money has to be created with debt.
The Federal Reserve should be disbanded, and the US Treasury should simply print bills at a rate to keep the dollar at a stable value versus a basket of manufactured goods.

Human desire is infinite, therefore, there is always need for more employment.

[dcfirefighter]

36. In fact, we should ignore

all other distractions and pursue non-inflationary full employment.

The rest will sort itself out, as a result of a more equitable distribution of wealth / power, and a democratic government.

[Massacure]

34. Everyone should be able to make a decent living.

Full employment does not mean anything if people make minimum wage.

[dcfirefighter]

35. If everyone's employed

hiring someone just got more expensive. So, wages go up, due to competition for labor, rather than competition for jobs.

with competition for labor, employers must pay attractive wages and have attractive working conditions, or they get no labor.

[Massacure]

37. Ideally. But it depends on the market.

If you have 100,000 trash collectors and only 100 firefighters, your in trouble.

On top of that, the price of goods that depend on cheap labor are going to increase in price. I'm not an economist, so I don't know how long the carrot on a string will last, but I do see it there.