Bunning

Anybody want to guess what happens to wages when demand for a position is artificially increased?

Let's weave a world around Koggit's idea:

Everybody who is unemployed or underemployed is spending 40 hours a week submitting applications. Right now, that's about 20% of workers out there.

How time should be spent reviewing applications? A second per application? A minute? 5 minutes? 30 minutes?

Let's say five minutes. That means for every 12 people applying, there is a person fully employed reviewing applications. Considering that applicant might be filling out 40 applications per week, that applicant is wasting the reviewer's time 97.5% of the time. So, there is a huge heap of waste right there.

Remember that 20% early? Yeah, they're effectively being forced to take a job they have no interest in. http://gmj.gallup.com/content/14545/gallup-study-unhappy-workers-unhealthy-too.aspx
These people forced into an unpleasant position definitely will not be "engaged". So, your quality per worker drops.

http://www.rtoonline.com/content/article/oct06/EmployeeSatisfactionSurvey102506.asp

"New research shows that 66 percent of employees go to work wishing they were in a different job."

With 20 additional percent of people applying and, presumably, getting hired, I'm betting that percentage goes up. It may not be 86 percent, but it won't be lower than 66 percent.

Let's go back to the opening line: When happens to wages when more people are forced to apply for a job?

380px-Wage_labour.svg.png


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/07/Wage_labour.svg/380px-Wage_labour.svg.png

If the point on the supply of labor is fixed and the point on the demand of labor goes further to the right, wages decrease.

If you're a business, lower wages are great. If you're a worker, not so much.

But this only matters if you're looking for work, right?

I don't believe so. If a business is awash in applicants, what is to stop said business from reevaluating how much it pays a current worker?

If a current worker costs twice as much as a new worker, the only thing stopping the business is the cost of training a new worker. Unless training takes 6 months of pay in resources, the business is ahead in under a year. Of course, the business could just force the current worker to take a pay cut or be laid off.

To combat this, the working population has be trying to improve their current situation. To keep up with the efforts of the unemployed, the working population will have to spend 40 hours applying for jobs. Now, you have a person spending 40 hours working, 40 hours applying for job because his or her employer can easily find a replacement from the forced labor pool.

Let's review: Koggit's opinion involves creating a bunch of waste, more pissed off workers, another weapon in the businesses' arsenal for screwing over their workers and an environment where there is no job security.

How is this an improvement?
 
kogg, do you have any idea how much it would cost to do all this reviewing?

Shit we hire a million people to monitor the other unemployed and we solve half the recession right there.

/Seriously if Bob is agreeing with you and saying you remind him of himself you know it is time to give the fuck up.
 
nothing you said is applicable long-term, except worker happiness which is so damn relative i bet the numbers are similar in every country despite drastically different working conditions, people want more than they have that's how it's always been and that's how it's always gonna be. i'm not willing to dig for numbers so feel free to dismiss that, or find numbers to refute me, whatever i really dont care

before this thread i didn't know much about the economic effect of unemployment, but a few pages ago i decided to read the wiki on it and a few related pages and the only accepted long-term negative from putting the unemployed to work is the risk of inflation but there's a lot of uncertainty in if high employment would even cause inflation and, even if so, there's further debate about whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs

and all of this is quite beside the point of "bunning isn't screwing over 400,000 people"
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I'm no mykevermin, but do you see any crippling flaw?[/QUOTE]

thinking that lower wages is a bad thing. that's a crippling flaw that exposes your socialist weakness.

(no, really, you did a good job - thanks for bringing genuine thought and theory into the thread, and not Reagan-esque "wefare queen" demonizing that lacks substance.)
 
[quote name='Koggit']nothing you said is applicable long-term, except worker happiness... [/QUOTE]

Don't bother refuting any of the macroeconomics. That's first semester coursework for a economics major.

You'd completely fail that entry level course, but at least you're in the top ten percent of your class and a senior to boot.
 
[quote name='Koggit']oh, okay[/QUOTE]

Hold the phone! I think we've found NephewRobert.

Since you're not working today, go ask some second year psychology majors about the long term effects of being unhappy and go ask some second year economics majors about the long term effects of lower wages.

Then, try to figure out if a society with the vast majority of people are pissed off and broke is the direction you want society to go in.

The last part will be your opinion, but maybe you'll be able to find some examples in history or sociology where angry, poor people create an enviable society.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The last part will be your opinion, but maybe you'll be able to find some examples in history or sociology where angry, poor people create an enviable society.[/QUOTE]

The Sandinistas didn't come from Palm Beach, foc.
 
Lets see what Tom Delay thinks about this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100307/cm_huffpost/489050
"You know," Delay said, "there is an argument to be made that these extensions, the unemployment benefits keeps people from going and finding jobs. In fact there are some studies that have been done that show people stay on unemployment compensation and they don't look for a job until two or three weeks before they know the benefits are going to run out.
Click to expand...

Studies also show that some people are lazy assholes even when they are employed.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Lets see what Tom Delay thinks about this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100307/cm_huffpost/489050


Studies also show that some people are lazy assholes even when they are employed.[/QUOTE]

Tom Delay called himself a hero for quitting a dance contest because his team of doctors informed him that he had stress fractures in his feet.

Ask the average American part-time worker about their work injuries, health coverage, and option to quit.
 
All i can say to anecdotal examples is "well duh." I said before i have family cheating on their taxes to get food stamps and state health insurance, i know people take advantage of programs, i would never believe it if i was told otherwise. To me it doesn't prove that the programs are bad, just that people are assholes.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Quitting a dance contest is sensible, but hardly heroic.

Did he truly use the word "hero"?[/QUOTE]

I remember seeing the clips. I don't know of an instance where Tom himself said hero, but he invited the compliment. Here's some context:

"My father drove into me, 'Never give up,'" Tom, who now has a stress fracture in both of his feet, told the audience. "The producers and my doctor have told me to withdraw from the competition, but I want to dance no matter what. What's a little pain when you can party?"
When asked by "DWTS" host, Tom Bergeron what he was thinking, Tom joked, "I am insane or stupid. I love the challenge."
...
[Head judge] Len praised, "Tom, I think you are a hero. If I had a stress fracture in both feet, I wouldn't be judging, much less dancing."
Click to expand...

http://www.etonline.com/news/2009/10/79409/index.html

Subsequently he had to quit.

I understand TV drama and all, but a former US Senator coming to the point of tears because he can't continue on a dance contest is quite ridiculous.
 
camoor he was House Majority Leader, never a Senator.

That said, the guys nickname was 'The Hammer' because he would come down hard on Repubs that didn't support Bush's legislative agenda. He's an asshole who blasted people for having independent thought. He allowed lobbyists to write some bills.

Again, why do we care what this guy thinks?
 
I wondering if Myke can help us out with some statistics on how many people are cheating the welfare system?

Is it possible to calculate how many people are trading their foodstamps for cash? Can we figure out how many people are doing jobs for cash while still collecting their unemployment? In fact, there MUST be a way to figure out how many dollars are being spent on the underground labor economies, right? I know there must be some figures on the number of people who've paid into the unemployment insurance fund and demand to get back at least some of what they paid in, right? Let's get a full accounting of the number of people who are LYING to the government ATM. If anyone were qualified to prove a negative, myke would be the one.

C'mon, myke throw us some stats on how many people are legitimate welfare recipients. Let's back up the argument that the VAST majority of handouts are going to the people who are most in need, or deemed most worthy. Then maybe you could give us a percentage of people actually being helped by the system instead of screwed. Or are they already screwed because they're in the system? And then, maybe we could calculate what dollar amount would actually help people? What would the upper limit on free money be for those who didn't have enough? Tell us, myke, how much is enough for a human being to live a decent life?
 
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1927231
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2781681
http://www.urban.org/publications/309065.html
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5000322497

You can have an opinion, you can read about it. I wish you the best of luck, since I know that having brazen opinions is something you excel at, yet literacy is not among your strengths.

Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, young lad, and have a read. I'm not doing the work for free, oh no. That's just slavery, or whatever blathering metaphor that suggests we're all slaves to the socialist system blah de blah blah blah Marx and Engels and Komrades and Turtles.
 
You forgot to mention something about a gun pointed at your head.

EDIT: Which just got a lot funnier to me now that my avatar is pointing a gun at your avatar.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.jstor.org/pss/1927231
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2781681
http://www.urban.org/publications/309065.html
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5000322497

You can have an opinion, you can read about it. I wish you the best of luck, since I know that having brazen opinions is something you excel at, yet literacy is not among your strengths.

Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, young lad, and have a read. I'm not doing the work for free, oh no. That's just slavery, or whatever blathering metaphor that suggests we're all slaves to the socialist system blah de blah blah blah Marx and Engels and Komrades and Turtles.[/QUOTE]

That's a cop-out, myke. Perhaps I am your exact opposite. A completely uneducated baffoon, unable to comprehend your existence in the academic reality. I'm really just a caveman with my only experience being real-world application and politics. We do things here like practicing, hiring, firing, budgeting, payrolling, borrowing, depreciating, and ...wait for it....dealing and trading with other, actual people, not numbers and statistics. I am completely bootstrapped by my own hand - your exact opposite.

For someone who displays an expertise in human nature, I'm baffled as to why you choose to deny it every time it shows itself in everyday application. You consistently point out negative human tendencies. People, notably capitalists, are notoriously apt to lie, cheat, and steal for their own gain. So much so, that government must be the arbiter of all aspects of civilization to equalize gain and curtail humanity's evil nature. Yet, somehow, people who are recipients of aid would forgo this natural trait and act in perfect nobility with charitable receipts. It's very convenient the least among us seem to be free from the spell of selfishness. It's a perfect, platonic picture you've painted, myke. So let's now put your artistic talents to work.

Communal planning is an primary skill set of your philosophy, so your input is greatly needed. Money seems to be the primary operative here, in almost all instances (Your people like to refer to it as "aid", or a "helping hand") So let's really help these people, myke. I'd like you to help me come up with a plan to eliminate disenfranchisement forever, Myke. Instead of dolling out a pittance to these underachievers, let's come up with a dollar amount that will take care of them for their natural lives in one lump sum payout.

Since you have genuine sympathy for the underprivileged, you would want to take care of their needs completely, right? Or would you rather keep them strung along month to month as government dependents? What's the dollar amount that will satisfy our altruistic goal for every man, woman, and child in America ? Help us, myke, we need to take care of these people.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']For someone who displays an expertise in human nature, I'm baffled as to why you choose to deny it every time it shows itself in everyday application. You consistently point out negative human tendencies. People, notably capitalists, are notoriously apt to lie, cheat, and steal for their own gain. So much so, that government must be the arbiter of all aspects of civilization to equalize gain and curtail humanity's evil nature. Yet, somehow, people who are recipients of aid would forgo this natural trait and act in perfect nobility with charitable receipts.[/QUOTE]

Duh, that's why they're called the EVIL rich. Poor people aren't evil - if they were, they wouldn't be poor. Or something.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']That's a cop-out, myke. Perhaps I am your exact opposite. A completely uneducated baffoon, unable to comprehend your existence in the academic reality. I'm really just a caveman with my only experience being real-world application and politics. We do things here like practicing, hiring, firing, budgeting, payrolling, borrowing, depreciating, and ...wait for it....dealing and trading with other, actual people, not numbers and statistics. I am completely bootstrapped by my own hand - your exact opposite. [/QUOTE]

http://s117.photobucket.com/albums/o79/Hannah_Pittman/?action=view&current=CavemanLawyer.flv
 
[quote name='SpazX']So what you're saying is that you don't intend to read any data?[/QUOTE]

Sorry, spaz, there was very little data there. It was mostly bureaucratic self-justification by stating the poverty problem is just getting worse. These are studies and interpretation of welfare recipients' well-being; there was certainly no self analysis of effectiveness or any inkling of fraud estimation. Obviously, you didn't bother to read any of it.
 
Lesson learned: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't stop him from being a stubborn ass who blithely ignores anything that rattles his worldview.
 
get over yourself, myke. You post puff pieces on how we need more caseworkers to funnel money to the poor to be more effective and pretend it's data? What the hell do they feed you at that university besides leftist indoctrination?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top