Just thinking: If jobs paid better so that fewer people needed to work more than one job...

[MrScorpio]

Wouldn't that mean that there would be more job openings available and unemployment would drop? Plus if you have more people out there with more disposable income, wouldn't that mean that the economy would pick up all the way around?

And isn't giving fewer and fewer people way more money than they could ever spend, in the name of helping the economy, ultimately a self-defeating exercise... Simply because there's no way that they could spend on goods and services at the same level as everyone else?

Isn't it that plainly obvious what needs to be done?

Hey, I'm no economist, but I'm wondering why I haven't yet heard it framed in that way. Who knows? Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong. But, is the danger of run away inflation that real a deal to prevent paying working people better wages and benefits, or is it something else that's the problem?

Am I wrong?

[ck4829]

1. Yes, and there would be less welfare going out and more tax revenue

There are about a dozen "If we do..." statements you could say, and they would ALL improve the economy.

Problem is, we have a media and politicians who justify the system as is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification

We need to cut out the people who say everything is A-OK.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. You may not be an economist ...

but you have demonstrated more mastery of basic economics than the entire gop.

[kairos12]

6. GOP mastery of economics runs from exploitation to exploitation. That about covers it.

[seveneyes]

3. Employers don't seem to be in a hurry to pay their employees more

It makes one wonder how they might react to a law requiring it.

[econoclast]

4. Where does the money come from?

Nothing wrong with your analysis if the money for the better pay comes from out of thin air. But it won't. It would have to come from somewhere. Higher prices? Fewer employees? Less profit? Think through what happens in each scenario.

[CJCRANE]

5. Maybe we can ask for that $3 trillion back from the bailouts

that the taxpayer shelled out to keep the corporations sweet.

[MrScorpio]

9. That's right

The banks wasted much of that money on bonuses and more wasteful spending.

Hell, why aren't we asking for the money back? Why weren't they loans, instead of giveaways, where we charged the banks interest?

[Phlem]

8. How's about no more golden parachutes for CEO's

and, or maybe fix our imbecile trade policies. CEO's are leaches on our society. I've been through a company who made a huge move to make this person the CEO even his failures were out in display all over the media. But noooo, he's connections don't cha see, he's big player on the inside.

I left that company for another one 1 month before Christmas. Then during the company Christmas dinner the manager for the office announced "That" company was closing and let everyone go that night.



-p

[hunter]

10. Gee, I dunno... Where does money come from?

I think it grows on trees. Crisp new $100 bills.

These are harvested by illiterate immigrant farm workers who are paid a Susan B. Anthony or Sacagawea dollar coin for every basket full of money they collect.

These bills are then issued by the Federal Reserve...




Seriously?

Yes, money is created "out of thin air," hopefully based on some sort of "good" debt.

To prevent inflation, a government taxes those who have money.

To prevent recession, a government creates more money and distributes it among those who don't have it, not necessarily in return for work but it's human nature that everyone will be much happier working for fair, livable wages, creating useful things and providing useful services, rather than sitting at home watching reality television.

What's broken about our economic system NOW is that the very very wealthy are hoarding money. In short they are neither paying their workers fair wages, nor are they paying enough taxes. Thus we have a stagnant, corrupt economy where the scum have floated to the top.

[kcr]

11. From the people who now have jobs who can spend money n/t

[Major Nikon]

13. Your neighbor's spending is your income

That's how the economy works. Unions created a prosperous middle class through higher wages for workers and the entire economy benefited at all levels. Money trickles up, not down.

[Coyotl]

19. Profits of course.

[Incitatus]

7. Yes

The problem seems to be convincing enough of the working class how bad they are being screwed and getting them to work together.

[Orsino]

12. If most jobs came with weeks of vacation attached, that too would mean more employed. n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

14. Replace the minimum wage with a minimum standard of living requirement. Reduce the number of hours

that constitutes full-time. As long as we're stuck with it, drop all exemptions for the ACA and extend subsidies to very small businesses, require that every employee has a paid vacation every year and establish the length of time to correlate to the EU (4 or 5 weeks).

This is a good short-term solution to most of the most immediate issues. Long-term, we are going to have to make fundamental changes to our economic system, but that a much longer discussion.

[madokie]

15. Yes sir you are right

[cthulu2016]

16. Correct, and the resulting inflation would be a positive, not a negative

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. Makes a LOT of sense to me

Republicans say that they hate people not working and collecting unemployment benefits and they also say that they people sucking at the government teat for welfare benefits but the "solutions" they propose- mostly giving more freedoms to "job creators" (whom don't really create that many jobs to begin with) make it MORE likely that MORE people will not be working and need unemployment and welfare to survive. Ironically, their policies do nothing but "box" people in to untenable "no-win" situations that Republicans profess to hate but continue to perpetuate with their policies.

[reusrename]

18. I can see you're no economist.

Basic rules:

To motivate the rich, pay them more.

To motivate the poor, pay them less.