fred wrote:

Big business pays people exactly what they are worth. If you force them to pay the worthless a lot of money, they will just have to charge the consumer more. My idea is to not give them "their check" which will require them to work but only allow them make what they are worth. Then they can stay at that wage or do something to make themselves worth more. Work harder than the next guy or learn something that the average person doesn't know. I truely believe most people will work if it's the only way they get to eat.

make up your mind, fred, and decide which one of your lies you want to go with. does your town have 8500 unemployed people with 400 available jobs or is your town at "full employment" with everyone who should be working working.
as far as the gibberish in your post, we already know that gov't is subsidizing big business. we can stop that when big business assumes the costs of the workforce maintenence themselves.

Don't keep acting retarded. the "full Employment" refers to all the people that want a job have one.

jc wrote:

5forfighting wrote: jc wrote: 5forfighting wrote: jc wrote: you lie. you said it yourself. bottom line: there are 8500 unemployed people in your community and WAY fewer available jobs than that. But there are jobs. Until there are unemployed people and zero jobs available, then it stands to reason that someone who wants a job has options. this is settled. fred says his town is at full employment and everyone who should have a job has one. according to fred (and "bartleby") those 8500 unemployed people should not be working. Holy shit... You really can't fucking read, can you? He said that anyone who wants a job can get one. If that weren't the case, there would be no open jobs. You're really making yourself look awfully stupid... Again! another of your lies, 5. i said fred's town has WAY more unemployed people than they do jobs for those people. fred was going to count the number of available jobs, but instead lied about that and then came up with this "full employment" theory. just stay on fred's bandwagon where you belong and you won't have to make up lies of your own like this.

That's not a lie... I'm not disagreeing that there are more unemployed people than there are jobs... However, if there are people who are unemployed and wanting a job, there are jobs available... Just check the classifieds. You're the one talking in circles and intentionally ignoring the word want. You aren't fooling anyone. I'm just curious to know if it's worth looking so stupid, just so you can annoy people.

I want to move into our new home, but first I need to sale 100 acrea woods!!

5forfighting wrote:

jc wrote: 5forfighting wrote: jc wrote: 5forfighting wrote: jc wrote: you lie. you said it yourself. bottom line: there are 8500 unemployed people in your community and WAY fewer available jobs than that. But there are jobs. Until there are unemployed people and zero jobs available, then it stands to reason that someone who wants a job has options. this is settled. fred says his town is at full employment and everyone who should have a job has one. according to fred (and "bartleby") those 8500 unemployed people should not be working. Holy shit... You really can't fucking read, can you? He said that anyone who wants a job can get one. If that weren't the case, there would be no open jobs. You're really making yourself look awfully stupid... Again! another of your lies, 5. i said fred's town has WAY more unemployed people than they do jobs for those people. fred was going to count the number of available jobs, but instead lied about that and then came up with this "full employment" theory. just stay on fred's bandwagon where you belong and you won't have to make up lies of your own like this. That's not a lie... I'm not disagreeing that there are more unemployed people than there are jobs... However, if there are people who are unemployed and wanting a job, there are jobs available... Just check the classifieds. You're the one talking in circles and intentionally ignoring the word want. You aren't fooling anyone. I'm just curious to know if it's worth looking so stupid, just so you can annoy people.

"people dont want a job" and "look at the newspaper ads" are well known racist, redneck propoganda.
since you are so big on "proof", how about you PROVE how many unemployed people don't "want" a job ("proof" should be in the form of a valid, reliable scientific study that has been published in a legitimate journal).
let me know when you have that "proof". until then, i will consider all this as more of your's and fred's racism.

http://www.bartleby.com/59/18/fullemployme.html

fred wrote:

Don't keep acting retarded. the "full Employment" refers to all the people that want a job have one.

you need to go find the full definiton of the "full employment" theory, fred. the "bartleby" definition is not correct.

Last edited by jc on Wed Sep 03, 2008 11:29 am; edited 1 time in total

That is what is accepted by any thinking person. Now if you want to talk about the effects of full employment that's a different thing.

fred wrote:

That is what is accepted by any thinking person. Now if you want to talk about the effects of full employment that's a different thing.

that is another lie, fred. there as many versions of "full employment" as there are schools of economics. you post all of theories of "full employment" and then we can discuss them. in the meantime, this is just more of your racist bullshit.

I'm not doing your homework for you. Find something that says different.

Between 2-7% 4 is in the middle of that right?


http://www.answers.com/topic/full-employment

http://www.sces.org/lmi/Data/trends/economist/quest22.asp

4.5% - 5.5%

Heck I've been trying to do your homework and can't find anything less than the 2-7%

fred wrote:

I'm not doing your homework for you. Find something that says different.

i hope this will suffice

"Jobs for all that want them. This does not mean zero unemployment because at any point in time some people do not want to work. Also, because some people are always between jobs, there will usually be some frictional unemployment. Full employment means that everyone who wants work and is willing to work at the market wage is in work. Most governments aim to achieve full employment, although nowadays they rarely try to lower unemployment below the nairu*: the lowest jobless rate consistent with stable, low inflation.

*Natural rate of unemployment
A controversial phrase, which actually means little more than the lowest rate of UNEMPLOYMENT at which the jobs market can be in stable EQUILIBRIUM. Keynesians, encouraged by the PHILLIPS CURVE, assumed that a GOVERNMENT could lower the rate of unemployment if it was willing to accept a little more INFLATION. However, economists such as MILTON FRIEDMAN argued that this supposed inflation-for-jobs trade-off was in fact a trap. Governments that tolerated higher inflation in the hope of lowering unemployment would find that joblessness dipped only briefly before returning to its previous level, while inflation would rise and stay high. Instead, they argued, unemployment has an equilibrium or natural rate, determined not by the amount of DEMAND in an economy but by the structure of the LABOUR market. This is the lowest level of unemployment at which inflation will remain stable. When unemployment is above the natural rate demand can potentially be increased to bring it to the natural rate, but attempting to lower it even further will only cause inflation to accelerate. Hence the natural rate is also known as the non-accelerating-inflation rate of unemployment, or NAIRU.

At first, the NAIRU became synonymous with the view that MACROECONOMIC POLICY could not conquer unemployment. It was often used to justify policy inaction even when unemployment rose to more than 10% of workers in industrialised countries during the 1980s and 1990s, even though economists? estimates of the NAIRU differed hugely. More recently, economists looking for ways to reduce unemployment have started to ask whether, and under what circumstances, the natural rate might change. Most solutions have stressed the need to make more people employable at the prevailing level of WAGES, in particular by increasing LABOUR MARKET FLEXIBILITY. Econ­omists still disagree over what jobless rate at any particular point in time is the NAIRU, but nobody any longer thinks that the natural rate is fixed. Indeed, some think the concept has no meaning at all

"Full employment means that everyone who wants work and is willing to work at the market wage is in work"

"Jobs for all that want them"


They seem to be what I have been saying all along.

fred wrote:

"Full employment means that everyone who wants work and is willing to work at the market wage is in work" "Jobs for all that want them" They seem to be what I have been saying all along.

you (conveniently) forgot to quote the part about how gov't wants to have some unemployment. that level is the level at which there are sufficient unemployed people to meet the at-will, on-demand cheap labor needs of big business.

Now you're talking about something else. I already said the effects of full employment could be debated. But the definition of full employment is accepted as definately different than zero unemployment.

Now that we have that cleared up we can debate the effects of full employment. The government doesn't want unemployment. They want low inflation and a growing economy. See if they keep rates low the unemployment rate will go down a little. But if they are low for too long there will be inflation. Inflation hurts the lower income people far more than the upper. Or even the middle class.

fred wrote:

Now you're talking about something else. I already said the effects of full employment could be debated. But the definition of full employment is accepted as definately different than zero unemployment.

you also forgot to mention that there is absolutely no generally accepted % of unemployment that is used for the mytical "full employment".

I gave you a bunch for full employment. The one there is now accepted number for is that natural rate of unemployment.