no topic

[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by Phillyfanfrombirth

Ahhhh.... very nice. You get it.

Thanks, although, as I made clear, economics is not my forte. However, some aspects of economics are simply common sense. As 'labor' (wages and benefits) are usually the largest part of any businesses operating expenses, it's not hard to understand that, while some 'entry-level' jobs pay the federal (or state) minimum wage, those workers that only qualify to be paid the lowest amount possible, by law (the 'minimum wage') will be cut from the payroll if their mandated hourly wage exceeds their productivity and subsequent value to the business. This should be evident to the politicians who propose and vote for these minimum wage raises almost every year, but grandstanding and 'buying' votes from the uninformed is too great a temptation, I guess.

Although it's been a part of American economic life for almost 70 years now (since 1938), I never really liked the concept of a federally-mandated 'minimum wage'. We don't live in some Dickensonian version of 1840's London whwre 'Scrooge' is the average employer. To me, a job is worth what it's worth. I guess I'm just a 'free-market' guy. I do not believe that government bureaucrats and politicians, few of whom 'live' in the 'real' world , where we all have to compete for jobs and/or business, should be allowed to set wages for private employers, minimum or otherwise. These folks, well-meaning or not, haven't a clue as to what a mandated 'minimum wage' does to the working poor, and they apparently don't care, much, either. A mandated minimum wage doesn't make the poor more affluent or better able to 'keep up with inflation', as some like to claim. It takes away their jobs, in some cases and also insures they can't get a raise because the 'government' already gave them one, thus, stifling incentive, in some cases. I know, in the past, some of the more hardcore left-wing politicians have talked about capping maximum income, but those communist/socialist types have no real constituency, thank goodness.

More for less... you produce more goods with less man hours. Productivity gains are often at their best as the economy takes a downturn and through its early recovery, and layoffs and low capacity utilization allow for investments in efficiency to take hold and newly found synergies as a result of acquisitions and mergers and other consolidations cut through the bureaucratic redundancies, which allow for better margins and better return on capital.

I believe that's been happening for some time, now, as businesses have been investing heavily in high-tech equipment and in the process, shedding some unnecessary workers. Mergers and acquisitions - which always cost (redundant) jobs - have also been quite noticable. Outsourcing , once a 'hot-button issue', is a very minor part of the workforce. I think it's around 2%. However, with high-tech and (as you mentioned) an expanding, global economy, come more new jobs. 128,000 new jobs in August '06, according to the U.S. Commerce department. Not too shabby.

Despite the doom-and-gloom we always hear from some anti-Bush (and likely anti-capitalist) voices in the media, the nation's ridiculously but wonderfully low 4.7% unemployment rate for August, 2006 - compared to twice that in most of socialist europe - and the average U.S. worker's pay now over $16. per-hour, demonstrate that it's hardly been a 'jobless recovery', as a few leftist politicians have tried to claim. The bulk of the newly created jobs are not burger-flipper positions for low pay but interesting jobs that pay quite well. Of course, if you are a high-school drop-out you may not get those kinds of jobs, but most people realize that and half the population goes to college today, although not as many actually earn a degree. That is a very foolish choice. However, even an Associates degree beats none at all. Technology skills are also a big asset in today's job market, often exceeding that of simply having a four-year college degree in say, Fine Art Appreciation or, a heavy favorite: 'Communications'.

It frustrates me that, probably because of high gas prices (now dropping), a lot of Americans tell pollsters that they think the U.S. economy is 'bad'. That is just nuts. Apparently, the negative stories and some economist's 'warnings' that the economy could 'crash' any day now have done their job of confusing if not fooling the average person who doesn't look past the headlines for economic news. Well, guess what? Saying that a robust economy like ours 'could' crash 'in the future' is like telling an 80 year old man that he 'could' die soon and pretending that is somehow prescient. Hardly. While it's inevitable that our economy may have some dips and slowdowns at some point in the future, that has little bearing on what it is, today....which is strong and expanding. Home prices got a bit out of hand for awhile but the market is correcting and the downward adjustment was expected and does not indicate an economic 'crash', as some predict.

I think inflation is a bogyman that is over-rated and will occur to some extent no matter what the Federal Reserve Bank does. However, as I made clear, I'm not an expert on economics so, of course, I could be wrong.

Nah!

[mustangII460]

I need a vacation. Be back nxt saturday. Feel free to discuss me

[stanger66]

Originally Posted by mustangII460

I need a vacation. Be back nxt saturday. Feel free to discuss me

I would love to be in the state of mind that the dog is in. I could you that vacation.

By the way great pictures 460.

[bmxmon]

I think this thread should be only about pictures, they are alot funnier than economics. (The pink flamingo picture is awesome!)

[mustangII460]

Ok Im back,

So im at Animal Kingdom Disney wed, when I notice my Jack Russell is part Lion or sumtin. ? WTF!!?

[bmxmon]

A great site for some funny stuff is break.com, great site to waste a bunch of time.