12-15-2016, 06:02 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-15-2016, 06:04 PM by Eric the Green.)
(12-15-2016, 12:20 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(12-14-2016, 03:01 PM)playwrite Wrote:(12-08-2016, 11:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(12-08-2016, 02:07 PM)David Horn Wrote:(12-08-2016, 09:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The 5% <unemployment> figure is relevant to the people in the labor market - that is, looking for jobs. People who aren't looking for jobs are not part of the labor supply and bringing them back into the labor market is exactly what supply side policies are designed for.
Figures on job openings are extremely high, so the labor demand is there. It's just that the amount employers are willing to pay doesn't match the amount people are willing to work for. Supply side policies can help close that gap by removing extraneous costs that employers have to pay but employees don't consider to be worthwhile in terms of compensation. Reducing taxes would be part of that. Costs that act like taxes, such as the requirement for gold plated health care for fast food workers working more than 30 hours a week would be another part. A lot of workers would be happier working 40 hours a week, but getting the health care costs in the form of dollars of direct pay instead.
So your idea is this. The taxpayers subsidize employers and/or give them dispensation to reduce benefits in return for hiring people they wouldn't hire unless they needed them. I assume this is an end run around the ACA plus tax cuts for all. I don't see it working, and, if it does, being anywhere near as effective as direct spending.
No, it's demand side stimulus that subsidizes employers, not supply side stimulus.
Consumers create demand both directly and indirectly (business spend to better meet consumer demand).
By far, most consumers are employees, not employers.
You've really got twisted up somewhere along the way. Go back, start again, and stay as far away from the Zero Hedge types as you possible can!
By far the biggest consumer is the federal government. If you think the government is an "employee", your definitions are seriously off base.
Most government workers are employees. They are all employees of the people. Somebody even pays the president's salary. But no doubt he's an employer too, himself. He hires and fires thousands of people. I guess Trump has had some virtual practice at that job.
There's no doubt at all that when the Tea Party fired thousands of government workers in 2011, it slowed the recovery to a crawl. That gave Romney his slogan. This policy was deliberate on the part of the Republicans. Slow the recovery so that Obama would not be re-elected. McConnell made that specific promise.