• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How to lower unemployment

Consider the similarities between low unemployment, and a low skilled labor equilibria.
 
phattonez said:
Apparently we should go back to the policies of the 1800s.
Click to expand...

The difference between then and now was growth in commerce, new and different products, mass production, no replacement robots, no world wide free trade, 80 percent farming, and most importantly binding family ties.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
The difference between then and now was growth in commerce, new and different products, mass production, no replacement robots, no world wide free trade, 80 percent farming, and most importantly binding family ties.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

So if we got rid of robots we would have full employment, and this would be worth it?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
the demand is their, if their is enough profit in it, someone will produce it

Supply will not create demand, demand can create supply
Click to expand...

How can I demand anything if I have nothing to trade for what I want?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Producing something valuable indicates it has a demand for that item. You produce something with no demand for it, it will have no value. Demand is the important aspect, (or at least perceived demand) will drive production, production will not drive demand, it will fill demand
Click to expand...

Like I said in the other post, why would anyone give me the produce unless I trade him for it? I can't get something for nothing.
 
The best way to lower unemployment is by creating incentive that would encourage job growth.
 
Full employment is not the aim of an economy. An economy is meant to increase satisfaction. Work is dissatisfaction. Let's realize this when discussing policies to promote employment growth.
 
phattonez said:
How can I demand anything if I have nothing to trade for what I want?
Click to expand...

So if he does not have a demand for any of the goods or services you can supply (ie labour) you are out of luck.

You have a demand for his supply, he does not have a demand for yours
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
So if he does not have a demand for any of the goods or services you can supply (ie labour) you are out of luck.

You have a demand for his supply, he does not have a demand for yours
Click to expand...

That's the problem with a barter economy, hence the advent of indirect exchange.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
the demand is their, if their is enough profit in it, someone will produce it

Supply will not create demand, demand can create supply
Click to expand...

i'm sorry, but what?

what was the demand for IPODs in 1985? zilch. there was no demand until someone started making them.

earning and savings come before consumption and investment, not the other way 'round.
 
phattonez said:
Like I said in the other post, why would anyone give me the produce unless I trade him for it? I can't get something for nothing.
Click to expand...


:D deficit spend and have the central bank print you out some free dollahbillsya'll to make the transaction with.


right? Credit = Surplus, right?
 
cpwill said:
i'm sorry, but what?

what was the demand for IPODs in 1985? zilch. there was no demand until someone started making them.

earning and savings come before consumption and investment, not the other way 'round.
Click to expand...

Alternatively, if there was no potential for such a device to be useful to people, than there would have been no sales. The need or desire that it fulfilled (that people already had, I remember having to switch out CDs and how much cd changers sucked, having all my stuff on one device was a godsend and something I had imagined for myself years before the ipod or other mp3 players came on the scene) was already there because people were not fully satisfied with the older generation of technology.
 
potential; bingo. Apple took a risk with production prior to any demand actually taking place.
 
cpwill said:
potential; bingo. Apple took a risk with production prior to any demand actually taking place.
Click to expand...

Apple could have produced a crap product, messed up their marketing, distribution, or screwed it up in some other way, so yes there was risk, but the demand was still there even if it was an untapped demand.
 
phattonez said:
Full employment is not the aim of an economy. An economy is meant to increase satisfaction. Work is dissatisfaction. Let's realize this when discussing policies to promote employment growth.
Click to expand...

That is the biggest crock of **** if I ever read it. If an economy is below full employment people who want jobs are not getting them. Lets realize they actually want the job. Last I checked not getting something you want is a dissatisfaction. Would you like to be the one to tell this to the face of the unemployed person down the street, "well, remember, the economy is not for jobs its for satisfaction." I am sure they would love to slap you in the face after saying something like that.
 
cpwill said:
i'm sorry, but what?

what was the demand for IPODs in 1985? zilch. there was no demand until someone started making them.

earning and savings come before consumption and investment, not the other way 'round.
Click to expand...
Apple saw a potential demand for the Ipod, based on market research, and other music players. Based on this perceived demand Apple took the risk to meet this potential demand for the product.

Apple could have been wrong and created a few milllion Ipods that no one wanted. The demand or at least perceived demand caused Apple to supply the product. Apple would not have made the Ipod if it believed demand would not have existed for it
 
drz-400 said:
That is the biggest crock of **** if I ever read it. If an economy is below full employment people who want jobs are not getting them. Lets realize they actually want the job. Last I checked not getting something you want is a dissatisfaction. Would you like to be the one to tell this to the face of the unemployed person down the street, "well, remember, the economy is not for jobs its for satisfaction." I am sure they would love to slap you in the face after saying something like that.
Click to expand...

An economy where everyone produces war goods would be a crap economy. GDP would be great! Employment would be great! Everything would be great! Except for what really matters, and that is quality of life. THe fact is that most full employment schemes don't realize that in order to get to full employment they necessarily cut into total productivity (think of government providing jobs, how are they paid for except for by people who are actually producing wealth). Is this a good tradeoff? Obviously not if it can only be done by intimidation (aka government).
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Apple saw a potential demand for the Ipod, based on market research, and other music players. Based on this perceived demand Apple took the risk to meet this potential demand for the product.

Apple could have been wrong and created a few milllion Ipods that no one wanted. The demand or at least perceived demand caused Apple to supply the product. Apple would not have made the Ipod if it believed demand would not have existed for it
Click to expand...

Just because you make a product does not mean it has value. However, I'm not going to trade something that I produce for nothing. Production creates its own demand, and you can't demand unless you have produced something.
 
phattonez said:
Just because you make a product does not mean it has value. However, I'm not going to trade something that I produce for nothing. Production creates its own demand, and you can't demand unless you have produced something.
Click to expand...

In which way does production create its own demand?

People will not generally produce something unless the at the very least perceive a demand for the good or service. Also the greater the demand for a product, typically the supply will grow to meet that demand. An increasing supply will not create new demand unless it is produced and sold at a lower cost
 
megaprogman said:
Apple could have produced a crap product, messed up their marketing, distribution, or screwed it up in some other way, so yes there was risk, but the demand was still there even if it was an untapped demand.
Click to expand...

then demand is already infinite; which we knew.
 
cpwill said:
then demand is already infinite; which we knew.
Click to expand...

Nope. Not everything that is produced gets sold. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

Also if demand was infinite, than market share would not matter, but we know that only so much of a product gets purchased and consumed in a unit of time, at any price, even free.

A product or service has to contain value if it is ever going to be sold. What is value? It is simply an aspect of something that matches a realized or potential need or want. That need or want is the demand. There is not infinite demand or else we would all want a segway, but there are people who don't find this thing to contain value.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom