I'm only against Public Unions, because it's organized labor against the tax payer.

 

As a Libertarian I don't see any problems with private unions or individuals bargaining on a collective place, but it's when government get's involved that I object.

 

Again the relation to the amount of jobs and the wages paid is easily observable. If you look at the Median Income (that's the average) and also look at the Employment Ratio you'll see an undeniable correlation that as jobs decrease or become in demand by the worker the median income gradually decreases. As job's increase and workers become in demand by the employer median income increases.

 

 

 

It's not faith in business, it's an observation in the laws of economics. Supply and Demand, if you want to drive the price of something up (in this case wages) you need to create a demand ( in this case workers). The only way to create a demand for workers is to create more work. Regulation does not create work.

Regulation does stop a lot of bad things from happening. Saying the market will police itself is foolish. Perhaps, laws of economics that work in a vacuum and in models would work in the real world. Nobody knows because there is no true free market that I know of. What wont work is the policing of themselves the way real true regulations can. 

---

I'm only against Public Unions, because it's organized labor against the tax payer.

 

As a Libertarian I don't see any problems with private unions or individuals bargaining on a collective place, but it's when government get's involved that I object.

 

Your position here makes you what is known as a convenient stooge. Big business was able to easily break private unions with scabs and slimey management practices. It's been much more difficult with public unions due to their inability to have direct control of management. The goal of breaking public unions is to continue their quest to destroy the American middle class and turn the nation into another China.


 

Again the relation to the amount of jobs and the wages paid is easily observable. If you look at the Median Income (that's the average) and also look at the Employment Ratio you'll see an undeniable correlation that as jobs decrease or become in demand by the worker the median income gradually decreases. As job's increase and workers become in demand by the employer median income increases.

 

Actually the relation is between demand for product and the availability of jobs. No business hires people to sit around not doing anything just because they can pay them less than they used to have to pay them. All of the problems the nation currently face can be solved by returning to the policies started by FDR in the 30's and continued through the 70s. A strong nation is based on its ability to spread wealth and knowledge out as widely as possible, not its ability to make things as favorable as possible for international corporations.


 

It's not faith in business, it's an observation in the laws of economics. Supply and Demand, if you want to drive the price of something up (in this case wages) you need to create a demand ( in this case workers). The only way to create a demand for workers is to create more work. Regulation does not create work.

 

You're engaging in magical thinking here. The way to create more work is to change the regulatory environment so that work must be done in the USA instead of outsourced to third world nations.

 

Work doesn't get created by lower wages, all that does is removes the wage floor and allows for the possibility of employers abusing labor to an even greater degree than it currently does.

---

work force participation ( the amount of the population employed or seeking employment)  source http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

 



Median Income adjusted for inflation

 



 

From 1999-2009 you had a decline of median income by 5% in direct correlation with a dropping workforce population. Simply put there was MORE jobs than people qualified to WORK so it becomes an employers market.

---

work force participation ( the amount of the population employed or seeking employment)  source http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

 



Median Income adjusted for inflation

 



 

From 1999-2009 you had a decline of median income by 5% in direct correlation with a dropping workforce population. Simply put there was MORE jobs than people qualified to WORK so it becomes an employers market.

 

You seem to have your economic theories backward. Demand is what drives price increases. When there is demand for labor the price of labor increases if economic theory is to be believed. Your words: "There were MORE jobs than people qualified to work, so it becomes an employer's market" is nonsensical. When there are jobs that employers NEED to fill and not enough workers to fill them the price of labor increases.

 

Here's a thought exercise, let's say you want to sell your old truck, and you put a sign in your yard that says truck for sale. Doesn't even mention a price, just says truck for sale.

 

The next morning you open your door to leave for work and 100 people are outside saying they want to buy your truck. Do you tell them you're selling it for $2000, or do you tell them you're selling it for $10,000?

---

You seem to have your economic theories backward. Demand is what drives price increases. When there is demand for labor the price of labor increases if economic theory is to be believed. Your words: "There were MORE jobs than people qualified to work, so it becomes an employer's market" is nonsensical. When there are jobs that employers NEED to fill and not enough workers to fill them the price of labor increases.

 

Here's a thought exercise, let's say you want to sell your old truck, and you put a sign in your yard that says truck for sale. Doesn't even mention a price, just says truck for sale.

 

The next morning you open your door to leave for work and 100 people are outside saying they want to buy your truck. Do you tell them you're selling it for $2000, or do you tell them you're selling it for $10,000?

 

Commodities and wage to work force population are not equivalent comparisons. Especially when discussing entry level or low skill work, The lower the workforce population the lower the wages. There is not a limited supply of labor to complete minimum wage jobs, therefor as the workforce participation (which is a direct reflection of the available jobs in an economy) decrease so does demand for labor. As the workforce participation rate increases (more jobs are available so more people enter the work force) competition drives wages up for the most qualified employees.

---

Commodities and wage to work force population are not equivalent comparisons. Especially when discussing entry level or low skill work, The lower the workforce population the lower the wages. There is not a limited supply of labor to complete minimum wage jobs, therefor as the workforce participation (which is a direct reflection of the available jobs in an economy) decrease so does demand for labor. As the workforce participation rate increases (more jobs are available so more people enter the work force) competition drives wages up for the most qualified employees.

 

You have it quite backward. The lower the skill level of the worker the more comparable to commodity it is, that's what a commodity is, an interchangeable product with many sources.

---

You have it quite backward. The lower the skill level of the worker the more comparable to commodity it is, that's what a commodity is, an interchangeable product with many sources.

 

labor is not a commodity, it's not in limited supply especially at the lower levels. So when you're factoring supply and demand you have to look at labor different than a commodity which is ALWAYS limited.

---

work force participation ( the amount of the population employed or seeking employment)  source http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

 



Median Income adjusted for inflation

 



 

From 1999-2009 you had a decline of median income by 5% in direct correlation with a dropping workforce population. Simply put there was MORE jobs than people qualified to WORK so it becomes an employers market.

This seems like one of those charts that can mean a whole lot of things based on what you want it to say. For example it backs up what you are saying. It could also mean wages dropped because companies were laying off people at high pay due to economy issues and wanting to pad profits. Then they put the jobs back out there at much lower salaries and people that were laid off either are not going back into the job market yet or a holding out to get close to their previous salary. They was a ton of that going on around this time and seems like a plausibly reasonable way to interpret this data. 

---

 

From 1999-2009 you had a decline of median income by 5% in direct correlation with a dropping workforce population. Simply put there was MORE jobs than people qualified to WORK so it becomes an employers market.

 

Think of it as the employers are buying labor and the workforce is selling labor.  If there were more jobs than workers, then the workers could sell their labor to the employer offering the most income, making it a sellers or workers market.  

We actually do have an employers market now because the opposite is true, There are more workers than jobs. Employers have the luxury of buying the most qualified labor and/or offer less in wages to the many workers competing for the fewer available jobs.

---

Kaishakunin for hire.

* (disclaimer) If you think I'm serious, hit yourself in the face w/ a hammer.

 

Think of it as the employers are buying labor and the workforce is selling labor. If there were more jobs than workers, then the workers could sell their labor to the employer offering the most income, making it a sellers or workers market.

We actually do have an employers market now because the opposite is true, There are more workers than jobs. Employers have the luxury of buying the most qualified labor and/or offer less in wages to the many workers competing for the fewer available jobs.

The analogy of buying and selling labor only applies when labor is limited which is the case in higher demanding jobs. However when discussing low skill level jobs or entry level positions labor is essentially unlimited.


So as the workforce participation declines you have fewer jobs available for low skill workers that's the case right now. Fewer jobs is reflected by the low workforce participation rate.


Skilled labor or professional jobs remain fairly consistent it's the fluctuation in entry level and low skill work that drives the participation rate.


My previous statement made it more confusing I guess a better way to say it is like this. As the workforce participation decreases the value and wages of low skill work decrease.

---

This seems like one of those charts that can mean a whole lot of things based on what you want it to say. For example it backs up what you are saying. It could also mean wages dropped because companies were laying off people at high pay due to economy issues and wanting to pad profits. Then they put the jobs back out there at much lower salaries and people that were laid off either are not going back into the job market yet or a holding out to get close to their previous salary. They was a ton of that going on around this time and seems like a plausibly reasonable way to interpret this data.

Absolutely lots of that as going on during the recession. But that's a symptom of the problem not the cause, just like increased need for welfare programs are a symptom not the cause.

---

The analogy of buying and selling labor only applies when labor is limited which is the case in higher demanding jobs. However when discussing low skill level jobs or entry level positions labor is essentially unlimited.


So as the workforce participation declines you have fewer jobs available for low skill workers that's the case right now. Fewer jobs is reflected by the low workforce participation rate.


Skilled labor or professional jobs remain fairly consistent it's the fluctuation in entry level and low skill work that drives the participation rate.


My previous statement made it more confusing I guess a better way to say it is like this. As the workforce participation decreases the value and wages of low skill work decrease.

Under this logic, would it not make sense that for unskilled workers the wages will never increase because the workers available for those jobs are never in short supply? Therefore making it an employer's market able to pay as low as they can, including less then current minimum wage if several people here had their way?

---

Under this logic, would it not make sense that for unskilled workers the wages will never increase because the workers available for those jobs are never in short supply? Therefore making it an employer's market able to pay as low as they can, including less then current minimum wage if several people here had their way?

Correct low skill wages will always be the economic floor. The problem isn't the remedial pay for this work it's the fact that the next rung on the economic ladder is missing. The economy would be fine if cart pushers, burger flippers and cashiers only made $5 an hour if they're was more work for them to advance to. When people get stuck in low skill jobs as a means to support themselves is when the system fails.


Just look at how the wages for median income where at The highest during the greatest participation workforce rate. More people working means more commerce creating more demand for more work. The more work and demand for more services are the next steps up on the economic ladder.

---

Correct low skill wages will always be the economic floor. The problem isn't the remedial pay for this work it's the fact that the next rung on the economic ladder is missing. The economy would be fine if cart pushers, burger flippers and cashiers only made $5 an hour if they're was more work for them to advance to. When people get stuck in low skill jobs as a means to support themselves is when the system fails.


Just look at how the wages for median income where at The highest during the greatest participation workforce rate. More people working means more commerce creating more demand for more work. The more work and demand for more services are the next steps up on the economic ladder.

To me it says median income is higher because less people have no income or little income dragging down the numbers. I don't think it's clearly stating that more people working means their wages are higher. 

---

To me it says median income is higher because less people have no income or little income dragging down the numbers. I don't think it's clearly stating that more people working means their wages are higher.

The median income wouldn't calculate no income and yes by definition low wages would drag it down. And that's my point if you look at both factors the lower participation is directly related to lower median income. Also note those are two independent charts from the department of labor.

---

My graph can beat your graph!

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

The median income wouldn't calculate no income and yes by definition low wages would drag it down. And that's my point if you look at both factors the lower participation is directly related to lower median income. Also note those are two independent charts from the department of labor.

Fair enough, was not aware they don't calculate no incomes... However adding jobs back in doesn't necessarily mean the wages themselves are higher. It could indicate the more high paying jobs are being offered in the market and therefore being taken. Instead of 40k/year jobs becoming 50k/year it could just mean more 40k/year jobs are now available. Not that that's a bad thing but it doesn't mean wages have improved.

 

In addition, I know even during those times when the charts show median income dropped, Walmarts and fast food joints etc. were fully staffed. I.E. the minimum wage jobs. So their low wages were still there dragging down the median and under your idea of de-regulation their wages would drop significantly and therefore drag the median down even more. 

---

I haven't read all 32 pages of this thread but I'd like to say Labor is a commodity which follows the laws of supply and demand. When the labor pool is low, wages go up. When the labor pool is high, wages go down.

 

I live it everyday. Back in 2008 when the economy was in free fall and millions were getting laid off, I could put an ad out to fill a job which would elicit over 30 responses overnight. I put an ad out last Thursday and received 8. Now, if I want to get more responses I would need to raise the salary level.

 

Back in the 40's during the war, many companies could not fill jobs due to all the war time production with many men called into war duty, so they started offering pensions, paid vacations, health insurance, dental insurance, etc. to attract workers. In the last 20 years you rarely find companies offering such benefits packages.

 

Regards....................the Chiefjag

---

Poverty statistics for 2014.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/07/02/poverty_statistics_the_census_reports_that_one_quarter_of_americans_now.html'>http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/07/02/poverty_statistics_the_census_reports_that_one_quarter_of_americans_now.html</a>

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-insane-u-s--corporate-tax-system-145353359.html'>http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-insane-u-s--corporate-tax-system-145353359.html</a>


Really the burden is unfair.

---