Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
12956 Followers
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
12956 Followers
Eric Sornoso
149 Followers
Muhammad Ihsan
541 Followers
Muhammad Ihsan
541 Followers
An Active Digger
1806 Followers
An Active Digger
1806 Followers
diggtwoface
1245 Followers
diggtwoface
1245 Followers
the Grey Ghost of 2010
990 Followers
Closed AccountAug 12, 2010
It's called funemployment get it right!
beratebirthersAug 13, 2010
No, it's called age discrimination.
propethicAug 13, 2010
No it's called
1.) Companies during a recession who are not affected, will drastically cut their workforce using it as an excuse
2.) Many young people jobs are being done by illegals. The U.S. govt. is not interested in locking up or punishing employers using illegal aliens as labor. So nothing is going to change unless we do something about that, once they grow their 1st testicle
soc7Aug 13, 2010
Stop it with the facts already. Conservative heads everywhere are exploding. We can hire these kids to mop up the mess I guess.
dpknc84Aug 13, 2010
Bringing this to the top. "bettverboten" is a "digg patriot" so please bury this story and any other story they submit as spam.
arfikeAug 13, 2010
Yeah, just look at the diggs. There's an unusual amount of dug-up Tea Party comments.
hyperianAug 13, 2010
It's called lower taxes on the wealthy so they can trickle down more money to the poor people.
TRICKLE IT DOWN BABY
gtharaldsonSep 9, 2010
Fun only lasts so long!!! Dude, my girlfriend was unemployed for 14 months...and just got a job in August of 2010~! A great job too. I think she got some help on her resume and that made all the difference...no kidding... I think the site was http://www.FreeResumeReview.net
Closed AccountAug 12, 2010
http://twitpic.com/13pwe3
eastwood24Aug 12, 2010
That needs to be updated it lack 8 months of data points.
http://calculatedriskimages.blogspot.com/2010/08/employment-population-ratio-july-2010.html
beratebirthersAug 13, 2010
And that was just $800 billion of stimulus! Imagine what another trillion could do!
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Why not just make it $273 gazillion next time?
/s
dahatecatalystAug 13, 2010
a gazillion seems to be the plan.
!/s
infestusAug 12, 2010
I hear that :( I've been unemployed my entire life :/
dahatecatalystAug 13, 2010
I hope your 12.
maxvetteAug 13, 2010
you're
Closed AccountAug 12, 2010
Hope and Change! Oh boy!
lamberticusAug 13, 2010
What can't we blame him for!
I'm constipated.
enderwigginAug 13, 2010
You're constipated because Obama is a Muslim socialist Kenyan.
/s
bobviolenceAug 14, 2010
We need a socialist laxative.
jammiesAug 12, 2010
Well, if the private sector didn't have many, many "entry level" jobs being filled by low-skilled illegal aliens, then perhaps American teenagers might be able to get some of those jobs -- but if they did, who would will the ranks of the "obama youth".....and you KNOW that's coming!!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spacem00seAug 12, 2010
Blame the companies for not checking their legal status, not the people they hire.
Closed AccountAug 12, 2010
There might just be blame enough to go around for both.
propethicAug 13, 2010
Sure, but jammies didn't put forth that argument. Instead opting to use some s**t like obama youth, which means he's a conservative troll or DP member.
fedreformAug 13, 2010
That's PROVABLY wrong: go to the white suburbs and there's still about 90%+ youth unemployment.
WHY? Their PARENTS are working all the 'entry-level' jobs. (Often while chatting with their tea-party buddies about how lazy their kids are..)
The parents STEAL THE JOBS from the next generation while supporting the tea-party idiocy. f**k THE BABY BOOMER / IDIOT GENERATION.
stavrogin2Aug 13, 2010
4average, if you could work in Canada illegal and earn 10-20 times what you make right now, wouldn't you go?
doctechnicalAug 13, 2010
"Blame the companies for not checking their legal status"
You want them to check papers?!?! RACIST!!!
/s, obviously
tomasiiAug 13, 2010
Yeah, don't blame the criminals.
devnulldoodAug 13, 2010
Most employers do check. I work at a company where we have almost 150 Hispanic workers. We are required to use E-Verify, Copy their SS Card and check it for signs of tampering etc. But their is no fool proof way to check there status. I bet that at least 20 percent of our workers are illegal. We cannot and will not discriminate, so what the hell else are we supposed to do?
doctechnicalAug 12, 2010
If the minimum wage weren't so high perhaps those "entry level" jobs wouldn't be priced out of the legal market.
beratebirthersAug 13, 2010
Sure, let's go back to pennies a day in salary and children getting their hands chopped off on printing presses. The selfishness of the Republicans never ceases to amaze me.
mgraves81Aug 13, 2010
^^^^^
Yep that's exactly what he was advocating. The cruel and unusualy punishment of small children.
In the mean time low wage jobs get shipped overseas to countries that don't have child labor laws, countries where factory workers put in 14-16 hour days in windowless rooms and they have to ask permission to use the bathroom.
Its a very sound and educated argument you make. I certainly see your logic, lower minimum wage in the states and suddenly child labor is ushered in.
Don't want a job that pays pennies a day? Don't take it! You are an idiot. Berate yourself you goon.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
trexorAug 13, 2010
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!
propethicAug 13, 2010
Sure, let's just not punish employers for using illegal labor, instead we'll ensure our kids get pennies a day for their work.
doctechnicalAug 13, 2010
"LOL, you can't even live on minimum wage as it is now."
So what? What logic leads you to believe that every single job has to provide a living wage?
I don't think you grasp the concept of "entry level job". But don't feel bad, there are a hell of a lot of people who don't. And that's why there *aren't* very many.
summerofgeorgeAug 13, 2010
go back under your bridge, troll
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
LLLLLIIIIIIBBBBBBBEEEERRRRRAAAAAAALLLLLLSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
stavrogin2Aug 13, 2010
Lettuce picker is an entry level job? Where do you get promoted? Head lettuce picker?
6502samAug 13, 2010
"Head lettuce picker?"
Badda-bum -chsssh
Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen. The was the comic stylings of stavrogin2! He'll be here all week!
There's a special on the veal and be sure to tip your waitress.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Correction: most "entry-level" jobs (by which people generally mean administrative, secretarial, and other similar positions) are being filled by unpaid interns. You want to see more teenagers get paid for what they do, you get rid of the internship culture.
mweatherAug 13, 2010
If those illegals had all gotten papers, those jobs would still be taken. I think your problem is with immigrants, not illegals.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
No one seems to be troubled by the (legal) influx of educated scientists, doctors, and computer programmers from Europe and Asia, but you're absolutely right - they're the ones who are competing for the high-end jobs. And it's a good thing, too, because they're often way more qualified than their American-educated colleagues.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
meatball402Aug 13, 2010
Or you know, they can be filled by college graduates who can't get a job elsewhere.
erkokiteAug 13, 2010
Well, it is more complex than that.
This generation has a large number of college graduates in comparison to other generations. For those with new college degrees, you either cannot get a job in a professional or career environment because you are competing against those who have 20 years of experience and have been laid off, or you cannot find a menial job because you are over qualified.
While illegal immigration may be a problem, I hardly think it is the driving force behind youth unemployment. The fact is right now, with the job market overcrowded with job seekers, companies can choose to hire someone with many years of experience for the same price as a new graduate or inexperienced worker.
redemily25Aug 13, 2010
I know plenty of teenagers who, even if they get a job, complain about how much they have to work and put in the minimum effort to get by. Not saying all of them are that way because they aren't. But if you aren't willing to flip burgers or work on an assembly line, well, there's your first problem. Take the crap jobs first, learn some work ethic, get educated, and have a resume before you even leave high school to show to future employers. Doesn't guarantee you'll get a job but sure can put you ahead the teens who sit on their asses and whine about Mom and Dad not buying them enough stuff.
dahatecatalystAug 13, 2010
heh try to find work as a kid 18 or younger in texas withint he past 5 years. it's impossible - and thats with the #1 growth in the country. I still remember in 96 i made money mowing lawns as a teen. All the sudden some illegals were doing it for a quarter of the price.
dennycraineAug 14, 2010
The problem is far more complicated than illegal immigrants ya mook. It has a lot more to do with the fact that because of the recession people aren't retiring or trying to move up the ladder, and because unemployment is so high a lot of elderly and middle aged workers are taking jobs more traditionally given to fresh out of college 20 somethings, so those workers are taking jobs more traditionally given to teens (service industries like waiting tables and grocery store jobs like cashiers and so on) this is a problem because low skilled work and long periods of unemployment hurt your earning power decades down the road.
I'm 19 and I can't find a job anywhere, I live in rural northern Illinois, not too many illegal mexicans around here.
slowpitchAug 12, 2010
Thats what you get when you give up on all those jobs Americans won't do(and import the illegals to take your place)
treehugger87Aug 12, 2010
I thought bettverboten had been banned.
To add my ideological $.02, if the corporations would stop hoarding cash and start hiring, we would be well on our way out of this employment crisis by now
http://digg.com/politics/Corporations_Sit_On_1_8_Trillion_Until_They_Get_Their_Way
Why do we tolerate the actions of corporations who refuse to participate in the recovery?
bettverbotenAug 12, 2010Submitter
You don't get banned because other people tell lies about you and have a vendetta, you actually have to do something that Digg determines to be wrong to be banned.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aidenagAug 12, 2010
Bettverboten, you can't deny what you did. Your old account was Lizbett before digg BANNED You...Your twitter account proved that much for anyone looking into it. Hell just look at your handles, from "LizBETT" to "BETTverboten" it was pretty obvious.
2nd.. you got banned at propeller.com along with your cronies in 2009 for gaming that site the same way you got caught doing it at digg now. I know this because i worked at the site, and am the one who caught you...
Like i keep saying, no amount of spin you put on this is going to make you look like any less of a total partisan POS...
Closed AccountAug 12, 2010
I think you didn't get banned because Digg wouldn't turn down the opportunity to see what a 10k+ story about you had on your Digg activity & profile.
If you owned Digg, would you have banned you?
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
bettverboten (formerly banned as Lizbett, sleeper accounts loquaciouslola, MsBoop)
captainnopantsAug 13, 2010
Lizbett/Betterverboten, you are a liar and a coward.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
unpopular :))
arfikeAug 13, 2010
Ze Passion auf der Verbotten
identity4Aug 13, 2010
http://about.digg.com/tou
Section 5: Rule #9
anomaly100Aug 13, 2010
@Aindenag:
Will you marry me?
brookedunneAug 13, 2010
Great interview with Jordan117 about this whole stinky affair
http://digg.com/d31ZVy6
cosmicsurferAug 14, 2010
The faux con Tanya Harding of Digg has come out to play, I see
woodsjransomAug 14, 2010
As I said before. *taking my fan closing it and bang the chair in front of me with the fan* BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 15, 2010
Bett, getting banned from a website is far better than you deserve. It amazes me and disgusts me that you're able to sleep at night.
dreadpirateAug 12, 2010
@TreeHugger87 - Reposted from another thread on the same topic, since you seem to be a slow learner...
Coped from http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=28656
" The flat truth is no one is going to hire new employees unless there is some reasonable promise that the additional cost of the employee will be recovered through increased profits resulting from the new employee’s work. That’s not “greed”, it is bare survival in tough economic times. And all the recent additions to per-employee costs aren’t alone. There is a seemingly endless well of new possible costs coming, including new environmental regulations, the possibility of a massive new “carbon tax”, and “card check” that promises to raise labor costs even further with exactly zero (at best) increase in productivity. Vague gestures towards a few thousand dollars of tax credits to stimulate job growth don’t even begin to cover the risks.
On top of it all, if you happen to be an oil worker on the Gulf Coast, your job is politically verboten. Sorry about that. Or not.
Only a crazy person would be eager to start large-scale hiring in this political environment. Yet many anti-corporation zealots profess themselves outraged that the Evil, Greedy Corporations won’t get with the business of economic recovery."
beratebirthersAug 13, 2010
If they don't want to help America, I'd call that treason and it's time for Obama to do what Truman tried to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_&_Tube_Co._v._SawyerComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
methdwman3Aug 13, 2010
Companies hire based on long term outlook. Would you hire right now, not knowing if taxes are going up Jan 1, the full effect of the financial reform and health care reform, etc???
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
its called capitalism... its worked for centuries. are you suggesting we now should tell companies how to use their money, in a free market? i personally don't like the actions of companies but you can't just force them to do whatever you want, that my friend is pushing the sweet line between liberalism and socialism.
arfikeAug 13, 2010
What I don't get is how it's patriotic to stand in the way of economic recovery. I would say it's quite patriotic to employ workers right now, instead of making excuses.
Money isn't everything. The CEO's aren't the only ones who have to eat and the argument often comes down to the extent of profits rather than the extent of sustainability. For those who don't own and run corporations, sustainability is on the line right now.
unexplodedAug 13, 2010
"Why do we tolerate the actions of corporations who refuse to participate in the recovery?"
Suspect it's something to do with them making the rules via an army of purchased politicians, perhaps?
bille3Aug 13, 2010
I just love the mentality of wanting to tell private enterprise how to conduct business. It shows such insight, intelligence, experience and skill.
treehugger87Aug 13, 2010
I don't want to tell publicly traded corporations (what you call "private enterprise") what to do. I *do* want consumers to know about their bad behavior. Why should anyone want to do business with a bank that is hoarding cash and paying their executives instead of spending money and innovating?
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Gov't can't tell private corporations what to do. Plain and simple.
treehugger87Aug 13, 2010
You are correct, that is how it should be. Government *can* make sure that corporations do not have monopoly power. That, combined with *consumers* ability to punish corporations for their bad behavior, should lead to superior products, and moreover honest behavior.
bille3Aug 13, 2010
Better take a closer look at GM and Chrysler.
The CEO was fired and replaced with an Obama appointee. Federal government seized 51% of stock and gave it to the UAW. 51% is a controlling interest.
acknotswAug 13, 2010
I think we may get stuck here for awhile until consumers feel like they really have more disposable income.
The last 30 years, even though wages haven't gone up much, housing prices have gone up as has the availability of easy credit so it at least felt like people had more money to spend. Now people are feeling the pinch and everyone I know is obsessed with paying off as much debt as they can and saving rather than spending. In some cases they are obsessed with paying off as much debt as possible while they still have a job. Companies are not going to hire and increase wages until people start spending and I don't think people are going to start spending until they pay down a significant percent of their current debt; given that it took 20 to 30 years to accumulate it, that could take awhile.
treehugger87Aug 13, 2010
This is what Henry Ford knew. If you pay your people a generous wage and give them good benefits they will purchase your products. Their spending (and savings) will also enable others to have enough money to purchase your products.
I agree that a lack of disposable income is the problem, I just think that the solution is for companies to become innovate and take risks, which will lead to more hiring.
acknotswAug 13, 2010
I agree treehugger, but I'm not holding my breath.
brookedunneAug 14, 2010
> "This is what Henry Ford knew. If you pay your people a generous wage and give them good benefits they will purchase your products."
Right. The same Henry Ford who sent his goons to beat the s**t out of Walter Reuther and the other troublemakers at River Rouge.
tenarethAug 13, 2010
What if they just don't need any more employees? Companies don't have an obligation to just give jobs to anyone, they hire people to fulfill a need.
bille3Aug 13, 2010
We have some citizens that believe it is the job of congress, and the executive branch, to force privately held companies to provide jobs at a predetermined and mandated salary regardless of need or qualifications.
avengingturnipAug 13, 2010
If companies are "hoarding cash" perhaps it is because they believe they need cash reserves to get through the bad economic times. Don't think that the tax code does not punish companies that have cash reserves.
spacem00seAug 12, 2010
In other news, a surge in human sexual slavery was reported.
derangedpenguinAug 12, 2010
Age 10 - 14 delivered news papers from my bicycle made about $100.00 per month had to pay for tires, brakes, couple of inner tubes a year.
Age 14 - 16 cleaned floors, desks, windows, bathrooms at the childcare center where my mother worked.
Age 17 got my first real job as an electronics bench tech, thanks to two years of high school electronics shop. I made something like $8.00 per hour when the minimum wage was $1.65 per hour.
Looking minimum wages across the country in 2010
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm
Minimum is now $8.00 per hour in California. The minimum wage sets the foundation for expenses if it goes up so does the cost for a hamburger or a bag of groceries, the price for a movie ticket or the cost of doing your laundry at the laundry mat.
Expecting to make a comfortable living at minimum wage is complete bull s**t, yet people want a "living wage"
An over whelming number of 18 - 28 year olds voted Democrat in the last election. So I can comfortably say, too bad you got what you wanted and will continue to get what you wanted as long as it is big government and unemployment.
juankovoAug 13, 2010
Minimum wage laws = permanent unemployment for those worth less than minimum wage (teenagers especially) and higher prices.
gsydiggerAug 13, 2010
If you're worth less than minimum wage you deserve to be unemployed
juankovoAug 13, 2010
No you don't "deserve" to be unemployed. It just means that the price your labor can command is less than the government mandated minimum. When the government sets a price floor on labor, people worth less than that are permanently unemployed, even if they would LOVE to be able to earn some income. As wages fell to their market-corrected levels, prices would fall in sync as business would reduce their overhead. In short order, wages less than our current minimum wage would be "livable" wages, or at least a good supplementary job. Instead, we have a large number of perfectly capable younger workers who sit around playing Wii all day because they can't find work that will pay them what they're worth.
howitzer86Aug 13, 2010
I guess the idea is to compete with China right? I mean, politics and unemployment aside, that would make us more competitive with them.
bipolarruledoutAug 14, 2010
Minimum wage exists so that capital holders can't enslave a populous. This is based on the idea that ALL labor should have a MINIMUM value. For some reason people who are against minimum wage never support a "MAXIMUM wage" believing that there can in fact be mortals who are "god like" while also believing that some should be next to worthless. This is not equality, far from it.
mikedothAug 13, 2010
My first job was cutting lawns, then worked for several restaurants making very little money. Worked full time and went to college at the same time. As far as I can tell, kids today only see the green and it shows when I go out to eat or go to stores mostly manned by kids. I'm sorry but "most" kids today are basically couch warmers with phones. I'm sure i'll get dugg down but I don't care.
aubieguy333Aug 13, 2010
Why is most in quotes? Are you implying that it isn't actually most? Because if that's the case, then I agree with you.
mikedothAug 13, 2010
Just emphasizing the point.
imanalogAug 13, 2010
That is "not" how quotation marks work.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Emphasis_.28incorrect_usage.29
Maybe you should have spent less time working in college and actually paid a little attention in your writing class.
propethicAug 13, 2010
BREAKING: The U.S. is not exactly the f**king same country that you grew up in.
bipolarruledoutAug 14, 2010
Most baby boomers are astounded when I adjust the "low wages" that they made in their 20's and 30's with inflation and compare it to the wages for similar tasks today.
meatball402Aug 13, 2010
Ahh, so the republicans have no responsibility in fighting tooth and nail against any action to help them?
derangedpenguinAug 13, 2010
Republicans do have a responsibility in fighting tooth and nail. They need to be up before the cameras stating their cause, not hiding in the shadows and complaining about the Democrats. Hiding and mumbling in the dark is the easy way out, but it accomplishes nothing. The Democrats have been much better at getting their message out however much I disagree with the message.
howitzer86Aug 13, 2010
Educate yourself fellow conservative
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/issuebrief201/
Trust me, we can find ways of saving money without being a dick about it. There's a ton of things the government is wasting money on that have zero benefits to anyone that isn't a congressman. How about we start from the top instead of the bottom eh?
negative4Aug 14, 2010
Artificially raising the price of labor is retarded. Why is it retarded? Because a) jobs under the minimum wage are eliminated and b) it raises the cost of living for everyone, including minimum wage earners.
If you want to help the poor, start or give to a charity, don't make stupid hare-brained laws.
howitzer86Aug 14, 2010
The jobs aren't eliminated. Decreasing wages isn't the only metric a business owner has to reduce costs you know. They can (and do) reduce hours instead. Minimum wage hasn't hurt the fast food business that's for sure, and if you ask any employee there, he'll tell you he doesn't get enough hours.
I don't know about you, but if I had to work a job like that, I'd rather have fewer hours, than a smaller wage. If the wage was really low - like $2 an hour, the owner would benefit for sure, as he would keep you working all day, but you'd be unable to move beyond that. You would have a harder time looking for a better job or attending school, and you'd probably be depressed about it - feeling like an utter slave.
Also, the minimum wage is driven by inflation, not the other way around. It helps the bottom teir keep up, and, I don't think we can afford to put an end to it. All the people laid off who had to work these jobs, they're going to get hit hard when the day comes that they have to work double shifts just to earn the same money. I bet a good percentage of them would turn to crime or go homeless as a result. Surely we can't afford that.
howitzer86Aug 15, 2010
Oy, I read this and I feel like a fool now. It turns out minimum wage earners are an even bigger burden on the economy than the welfare queens. My empathy taken aside, I'm forced to agree that people who are next to worthless should be paid next to nothing in a free unregulated economy. If they have kids they should give them up, and if they want to earn more they should develop higher skills.
More information is available here:
http://www.illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=297
airchomperAug 13, 2010
youth labor laws and the low price of used cars means that older people now deliver the few newspapers that still get delivered.
many cleaning jobs at many places are now done by contractors who are here on questionable terms, but really, those people work a heck of a lot harder than many teens at the same job.
and there's hardly any semi-skilled labor jobs like being a bench tech anymore. It's too expensive to do that sort of stuff with American labor because all the people who can do it work for above minimum wage and people in other countries can do it for far less. and REPUBLICAN cuts to schools have eliminated many vocational training things. For example, my high school school shut down the metal shop the year I entered it. Which is a bummer because older kids got summer jobs as welders and made like $12 bucks an hour, but that's no longer an opportunity because the influx of government financed construction in my state means that union welders generally get employed and no high school in the state has a metal shop.
That said, many teenagers I know don't take their jobs seriously. On the other hand, companies don't seem to offer good training and most managers that kids work under are simply promoted by virtue of age, rather than as a measure of competence.
derangedpenguinAug 13, 2010
How very true. I have to say jdames1980 perhaps missed economics 101 in the 7th grade. He replies bull*&^t to that statement that minimum wages determines the cost of food.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
So you're saying that food costs more in states with higher minimum wages? I call bulls**t.
iceman0113Aug 14, 2010
At a $1.65, so that would have been 1968 when California had it that level while the rest of the country was at $1.60. In 1974, it was at $2.00 both California and Federal. Note that you cannot go below the Federal level. If you take inflation into consideration, then $1.65 in 1968 is equivalent to $10.06 in 2009 (2010 isn't over yet so we don't have enough info on impacts). $8 now is $1.31 back then and to buy the same amount of goods for $8 in 1968 would be the equivalent of $51.04 now. There are other factors involved.
dennycraineAug 14, 2010
oh snap yo, have an upvote
bipolarruledoutAug 14, 2010
Dugg for understanding how inflation works. Also known as "No, your life really wasn't as bad as you think it was."
griberalAug 12, 2010
This economy has gone to hell since the Democrats took over both houses of Congress. If this is what going forward is like, throw this thing in reverse.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
summerofgeorgeAug 13, 2010
try climbing out of the hole your predecessor dug with both hands tied up by the party of "no"
mgraves81Aug 13, 2010
Sigh. Must I remind you that it was Democrats that said NO to the reform of Freddie and Fannie 17 different times during the Bush administration? Must I remind you that the collapse of housing/mortgages was one of the main if not primary driving forces behind the recession?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nickymouseAug 13, 2010
Didn't they have veto proof Congress?
stavrogin2Aug 13, 2010
The recession started under Bush.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Anything bad that happened during the Bush administration is Clinton's fault. Anything bad that happened after the Bush administration is Obama's fault. Didn't you get the memo?
cosmicsurferAug 14, 2010
MIGHT want to try reality for a change. Might be an exciting new world..........
mikefromamericaAug 12, 2010
We must act now to abolish these archaic child labor laws!
juankovoAug 13, 2010
I know you're being sarcastic, but you're actually right: http://mises.org/daily/2858
stavrogin2Aug 13, 2010
You might be serious, but you're actually wrong.
juankovoAug 13, 2010
Thanks for your careful and reasoned response to why arguments made in the linked article are incorrect, stav!
erkokiteAug 13, 2010
Abolition of child labor laws would encourage companies to hire children, as they can be paid less, which would lead to underemployment among teenagers and adults. Underemployment is quite an issue in developing countries which lack these laws. Unemployment leads to crime, poverty, and discontent. This also causes the poor to become dependent on their children for income, leading to overly high fertility rates among the lower class, thus enlarging the lower class and further contributing to economic inequality and social troubles, such as the abandonment of children, burglary/muggings, prostitution, and drug trade and abuse.
protodonAug 13, 2010
Seriously, look at India, China and the Amish. They're getting all the work and money!
mikeyh0Aug 13, 2010
Read a short book entitled "We The Living" by Ayn Rand. Educate yourself before you declare that a job is a right. Find out what it will mean to everyone if government takes over everything. Or just look at what has happened so far since the government has messed with the private sector to get a taste of the future. Ask yourself if it would be easier for companies to hire if they had less taxes to pay. You know, more money to invest in more production. Some still think it is a good idea to have the government control all businesses. Those folks are mentally deficient. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
6502samAug 13, 2010
Speaking as an ex-Randian myself - drank the Kool-Aid and went for seconds.
Read 19th Century US economic history to see what unbridled Laissez-Faire capitalism and free markets get you.
Neither extreme 100% Socialism or 100% free market capitalism are good for people. Keep in mind, many of our Government regulations were actually promoted by business because they didn't like volatility and capriciousness of 100% free markets.
meatball402Aug 13, 2010
Of course the only two options are open to us are laissez fair capitalism and command economy communism. I don't think that anyone here has advocated a full government takeover of business.
But isn't there a middle ground? Making sure that some companies are doing honest work, and not making rules that f**k the end user (like now), while letting the companies set their own day to day policies?
The government maintaining that health care companies spend x% of their income on healthcare so they don't increase rates to increase CEO salaries, that's bad?? The government making sure that banking companies aren't creating new and exotic products so the market can fail and take us all with it, that's wrong?
And you told us to read 'we are the living' by ayn rand? Go read 'the jungle' by Upton Sinclair. That's what it would look like if you had a fully laissez-faire economy like we did before the great depression. Read up.
And to be quite fair, telling us to read fiction to educate ourselves isn't the best idea....
And when you say 'a job isn't a right', I'm not sure if i agree with that. What should we do with the 10% unemployed? Let them starve?
erkokiteAug 13, 2010
Ayn Rand was not a respectable writer or thinker in her days, and she shouldn't be now.
13point1Aug 13, 2010
Ayn Rand was a bitter, drug-addled old lady whose entire philosophy was predicated on being the exact opposite of the Bolsheviks. She showed neither innovation nor creativity in her crappy novels, which hardly pass as novels, let alone as economics manuals. Bitch has zero authority.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
The solution is simple folks and I mean REAL simple. The government should just give everyone a job and 4 trillion dollars. There. Done. I should be president.
If you vote for me I will give you a job and 4 trillion dollars. What else will you need? You will be able to buy a 58,000 sqft home and all the health insurance you want. Hell, with that kind of money, you wont even need the job I give you.
This idea is air tight and totally infallable. Prove it wont work. See, you cant!? Its f**king GENIUS level economics here. I should get a goddamn noble prize for this kind of ground breaking work.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bluto36Aug 13, 2010
super stimulus! perfect and you only have to do it one time!
just think of all the money you will save after it is all over!
aegiscAug 13, 2010
You've got my vote! Waterfront property is a basic human right that all Americans deserve. ;)
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
It's Obama's fault why the world youth are unemployed. Damn them socialist Nazis. Now where is my unemployment, welfare check, and Medicare.
brumbarAug 13, 2010
1. The very bored young woman holding the "work is a right" sign in the article photo was working. Possibly paid by SEIU or ACORN.
2. Can't speak for developing countries, but in the U.S., a preponderance of entry level work is being held by foreign nationals, with a huge number of them being illegal entrants to his country.
3. A large number of youth today , yet not all, have been infused with this notion of leisure. Mom and Dad are well off making big bucks at work, and the young one has no tender except perhaps an electronic babysitter, leaving the offspring little guidance or direction.
4. If you doubt the veracity, there seems to be very little unemployment in communities like amongst the Amish, though granted they do raise their children a bit differently, chores, work, family, responsibility, School, and Church. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kolop1Aug 13, 2010
The Amish also abuse their women and children, but that never gets reported.
hipmanAug 13, 2010
Yeah, that is such an Amish thing.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Right off the bat you go into ACORN conspiracies.
Buried as right wing nutcase.
brumbarAug 14, 2010
The sign was professionally printed Binkley, unlike the scrawled plea on a torn cardboard box lid held by a miserable wretch at an intersection or exit ramp. Bury that.
dennycraineAug 14, 2010
ok i will
brumbarAug 14, 2010
That was funny.
erkokiteAug 13, 2010
I don't think the Amish have a comparable culture or economic system to the US as a whole. It's a really stupid comparison.
brumbarAug 14, 2010
Work ethic and responsibility transcends culture or economic system. They are disparate topics from culture and economic system, unlike a stupid comparison as you state. Your blatant condemnation of the argument is a fails in reasoned logic. No mention of Amish culture or economic system was stated till you cited it to attempt to channelize the argument.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Should be from 18-24, not 15-24. What the f**k do 15-17 have to work for? They live with their parents unless they have been emancipated.
ricker2005Aug 13, 2010
In my case, I worked during the summer when I was in high school because my parents told me to get a f**king job.
hipmanAug 13, 2010
So you think they don't want money?.What a stupid question.
ricker2005Aug 13, 2010
If the guy is questioning why 17 year olds should get a job, I'm guessing he was given a large enough allowance that they didn't have to worry about having his own money.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
There are any number of reasons why a 17-yr-old might *want* a job, but most 17-yr-olds in non-impoverished households don't *need* a job. I was a lifeguard at the local pool when I was 17 and it was fine; I had friends who worked in the local libraries and summer day camps that was fine too. But we spent our cash on clothes, CDs, movies, restaurants, and other non-essential, recreational junk. So we didn't *have* to work; we *chose* to.
mgraves81Aug 13, 2010
"What the f**k do 15-17 have to work for? "
Saving for college perhaps? Moron.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
You're gonna save up for college doing minimum wage jobs, part-time, for three years? Mmmmyeah, luck with that.
mgraves81Aug 13, 2010
Yes, because saving absolutely NO money is much more productive in reaching the achievement of higher education.
udjetAug 13, 2010
Umm, that's exactly what a few of my friends did. It's called community college, because not everyone can afford to do all their general classes at a university.
bigdorkaramaAug 13, 2010
Saving up for college to supplement loans, grants, and whatever their parents can give them.
acknotswAug 13, 2010
When I turned 14 I received a card, $50, and a filled out ready to sign and deliver application to the McDonalds at the end of the street.
tenarethAug 13, 2010
I started working at age 14. Mom and Dad didn't give me random money to do whatever I wanted, I had to earn it one way or another if I wanted to do anything.
meatball402Aug 13, 2010
That's the best time to have a s**t minimum wage job. No bills so they money is all fun money. Gives the kid a lesson in money budgeting, because school won't teach it.
theword12Aug 13, 2010
Really? 7 out of 7 people don't understand what he was saying? If a 15 year old is unemployed, who gives a s**t. He won't be able to spring for the large popcorn when he goes to the movies. But if a 24 year old is unemployed, he isn't able to pay rent.
treehugger87Aug 13, 2010
Successful troll is succesful
bdbrAug 13, 2010
Plus the work that 15-17 year olds are doing usually isn't career-related. The 20-24 youth would include tech school and college graduates.
daysleeperchukAug 13, 2010
"Youths; unemployed, get record high"
juankovoAug 13, 2010
The Trouble with Child Labor Laws: http://mises.org/daily/2858
treehugger87Aug 13, 2010
That is an overly simple and very one-sided article. Child labor laws were put in place in the early 20th century because of child labor abuses. Children getting injured in the workplace and not compensated, children being forced to work for less than a living wage instead of going to school, children being forced to do dangerous jobs that adults wouldn't.
Child labor in early 20th century in America was cruel, heartless and savage. What kind of people do you think we are that you would want us to go back there?
bluto36Aug 13, 2010
who wants to go back to that?
who is advocating putting 8 year old's to work at GM?
well besides the children building all your crap this very instant in china i mean... but beside that?
nice strawman or are you really going to say you are worried that big business will hire all children in today's society?
one NBC expose would ruin them... well or send them to china where it would be safe
5sistersAug 13, 2010
There's always iraq/sorry work!
If you're willing to fight/sorry work!
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
gay children are like purple flowers.. when you
meatmountainAug 13, 2010
WHEN YOU WHAT???????
awtrippAug 13, 2010
Youth unemployment or youth laziness hit an all time high?
bbtwebAug 13, 2010
1) the job market as a whole is not good right now, so employers who may ordinarily give young graduates a chance can choose someone with the same qualifications that also has experience from a job they were laid off from.
2) it's most likely not the same everywhere, but at least in my area you can always get a job working fast food, cashier, retail, amusement park seasonally. It's not full-time work but in that age range, part-time work certainly is available, they probably just don't want to do it.
mullinatorAug 13, 2010
Wow, so many old people in here with the whole "KIDS THESE DAYS ARE LAZY" attitude. Where have I heard that before? Oh ya, from every generation in the past 200 years.
bigdorkaramaAug 13, 2010
What? I haven't seen one comment like that, and I read them all.
cosmicsurferAug 14, 2010
Then you haven't really read them
bigdorkaramaAug 14, 2010
Great. So you won't mind posting any comment that says anything remotely close to "kids these days are lazy."
I'll be waiting.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
200? Try 2000 or more - Plato and Socrates both lamented about the deterioration of youth. To hear people talk, the world has been steadily going to hell in a handbasket since before we crawled down from the trees.
udjetAug 13, 2010
To this, "kids have been having it easier and easier every generation". I'd ask, isn't that kinda the point of technology? To make everyone's life easier?
bluto36Aug 13, 2010
well Obama has been working very hard to make sure the next few generations will not have it as easy as their predecessors
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Good lord the whack-a-doodles are out of their meds today! It's not illegal immigrants taking over the jobs at the McDonald's, and other restaurant services just walk in there and take a look at the age group that is working there. The 18-24yr olds who are short on skills and experience are being displaced by older workers (25-40) who are out of their old jobs and have bills that need to be paid and are taking up any job that they can get their hands on to survive. They're being squeezed out of jobs in favor of older, more experienced workers, including those 55 and older. The number of workers 55yrs and older has increased by 9 percent since the recession began.
www.reuters.com, www.cleveland.com, www.mcclatchydc.com, washingtonindependent.com, www.courier-journal.com, and www.vancouversun.com for the few that I reviewed
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Didn't you know that between the two of them, McDonald's and WalMart are going to be able to hire EVERY teenager and EVERY lazy-ass, welfare-draining out-of-work adult out there? I'm surprised you haven't heard of it; conservatives have been blathering for years about how there's enough work for EVERYONE at McD's; they just have to be willing to do it!!
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Digg Patriots fling s**t and hope some sticks. Film at eleven.
gbudavidAug 13, 2010
Popular:)))
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Two in a row by bettverboten on the front page. Impressive. Well done, digg patriots. Your a dedicated little group of haters.
bluto36Aug 13, 2010
aw you mad?
you should get some extra strength tissue.
cosmicsurferAug 14, 2010
@4321234-hive-mind...swarms of little faux-cons
skywiseAug 14, 2010
@gbudavid- hive-mind...swarms of little marxist-drones
blitz9200Aug 13, 2010
They aren't even trying to hide it anymore. Digg isn't going to ban them since it gets them a ton of traffic (Check out the number of comments in any DP sponsored article). They're just going to get worst towards November, then I bet they'll lighten up for about half a year to a year once campaigning starts heating up again.
DP is more then likely a branch of the Republican party or Fox; their accusations and hateful comments are always laser guided to Obama, rarely congress, and never Republicans. A very convenient scenario.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
"a branch of the Republican party"
Hahahahahaha.....you have read very many coments have you. That wasn't a question.
captainnopantsAug 13, 2010
Buried for gaming the site
jeemboAug 13, 2010
Buried for bettverboten and the "digg patriots".
bille3Aug 13, 2010
No small wonder why we have such a gang problem nation wide. The progressives thought it was cruel to have kids working, occupied and earning money. It is so much better to give the kids free time to join gangs and get the money through crime.
treehugger87Aug 13, 2010
It's true. The progressives thought it was cruel to have children as young as 4 work 12 hour days in a coal mine, cruel to have just anyone stop by the orphanage and pick up a gang of children to work as chimney sweeps for the day, and cruel to have children work 7 day shifts in a factory because they would do it cheaper. God damned smug progressives think they're so much better than everyone else.
joehammerAug 13, 2010
What wrong with that? Every movie I've seen shows kids having fun and singing songs while chimney sweeping!
juslenAug 13, 2010
Nope, they have to work for their cellphones which mom and dad payed for since they turned 10. Now they have drivers licenses which means they need insurance and they need money for gas. Since their parents have spoiled them for most of their life, the bills keep piling up. Mom and dad are probably seeing a dent in their pocket book, yet their children still demand all of the luxuries provided to them such as their PS3 and that HDTV their parents bought them so they could hide in their rooms for days.
But oh, children have to have a social life. So they have to go out and hang out with friends. Now that they have the ability to drive, they have expanded their ability to find things to do, which will amount to MORE money. So these spoiled kids who most likely go to public schools which never teach them a damn thing about money, savings or basic economics etc.. now feel entitled to more of someone elses money. (aka their parents)
So their parents, having accumulated at least a small portion of wisdom decide that enough is enough and day "you want these things, you pay for them yourself" And little Johny or Sarah gets off their lazy ass and starts looking for a job.
Teenagers need jobs because their parents can't support them anymore.
But do to minimum wage laws, teenagers are unable to enter the job market to utilize their limited skills. Many are barely worth the current minimum wage, thus.. employers do not hire them.
Minimum wage laws discriminate against low skilled workers. Minimum wage laws slow job creation. Minimum wage laws defy basic economic sense yet they are politically expedient. In the end, both the teenager and the parents lose. But most importantly, people who create jobs lose. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
....And get off my goddamn lawn while you're at it!!
Minimum wage jobs are one of the things which differentiate our era from Victorian wage slavery. Awww, poor employers, being forced to pay their workers enough to survive!!
(Sort of survive, I mean.)
(Not luxuriously.)
(Not even comfortably.)
(And not even that, in some parts of the country.)
(But still - poor, poor employers. My heart weeps.)
stanleyfordAug 13, 2010
"poor employers, being forced to pay their workers enough to survive!!" -- Minimum wage laws increase unemployment and increase the cost of living for everyone (which hurts the poor the most). If you really cared about poor people, you would be against minimum wage laws.
juslenAug 13, 2010
I'm 28 years old, so your analogy doesn't work.
LOL.. "forced to pay their workers enough to survive"
They are only forced to downsize, fire our hire fewer workers. So for every minimum wage worker you have 1 other person who has 0 wages because you can't afford to hire them.
Minimum wage jobs are for unskilled workers. Not to mention employers.. pass down the costs of these minimum wages to the consumers. Which means not only do you deny poor people jobs and the skills and experience they can obtain by working but you also increase the costs of the goods and services they purchase.
Minimum wage laws hurt employers, they hurt consumers, they even hurt those who have the minimum wage. Because now that they are forced to pay them more than they are worth, how do you expect them to EVER get past that minimum wage?
Lets say the job is worth 5 dollars an hour yet the government forces them to pay out 7.50 and hour. This person will work at that job at 7.50 and hour for longer, and have fewer chances to move up or get promoted or get a raise because minimum wage laws limit the number of NEW employees entering the job market for that specific job.
You should be weeping for yourself because you have no clue what you are talking about. Every single reputable economist over the last 60 years has supported my claims that minimum wage laws are counter productive.
Seriously.. learn basic economics, lol.
inajeepAug 13, 2010
Minimum wage means that if they could pay you less, they would.
juslenAug 13, 2010
Would you pay more for something just because someone told you it was illegal to pay less?
Maybe, but chances are, you wouldn't pay it at all. The price wouldn't be worth it to you.
So why would an employer pay more for something just because a minimum wage law said it was illegal to pay less?
Maybe they would, but chances are, they wouldn't pay it at all. The employer is given the option not to pay just like the consumer is given the option not to pay. In the case of the employer, they simply don't hire someone for that wage. For the consumer, they simply don't purchase something for that price.
But people still need to buy food and employers still need to hire workers correct?
So people will buy less food under price controls, and employers will hire fewer people under price controls.
If I make, 14 dollars an hour, its because my employer feels that my skills and ability are worth 14 dollars an hour. If I feel I am worth more due to my skills and ability, I find another job. My skills are my bargaining chip, they give me value in a job market.
Now imagine you have no job skills or minimal job skills. Telling you that you can only find a job if someone feels you are worth a minimum wage is immoral. It means that you cannot be hired for any less than the minimum wage. If an employer deems that you are not worth that minimum wage, you will not get the job.
But imagine you had little or no skills. What if minimum wage was 7.50 and you were wort less than that. You don't get the job.
Now imagine there is no minimum wage. You are worth 7 dollars an hour. You get the job because they are willing to take a risk and hire you with little or no skills at 7.. but they would not do so at 7.50 or higher. You now have a job, and from that day forward, you are gaining skills and experience in that job field.
You could be flipping burgers or washing dishes. The second you feel you are worth more than your wage, you now have the ability to seek higher wages. If you are worth more, and they are unwilling to pay more, you take your skills and experience elsewhere. Their competitors would be foolish to pass you up if they had a job opening. And perhaps their competitors could teach you new skills.
You are now making 8 dollars an hour. You now have more skills, you went from washing dishes to flipping burgers and now you are managing the store for much more than 8 dollars an hour.
With management experience you can now enter job fields outside of the food industry. You made it this far because nobody could tell you how little or how much you were worth unless you agreed to it.
Minimum wage laws discriminate against unskilled workers who will most likely be minorities, women or teenagers. Minimum wage laws are immoral and those who appose them due so for immoral purposes or they are simply ignorant.
dennycraineAug 14, 2010
that argument is so f**king rich when it comes from baby boomers, you grew up in a period of economic boom unparalleled in all of US history, jobs were LITERALLY handed out, markets popped up every f**king day and you were (are) the recipients of more societal benefits than any other generation. Then when the recession caused by YOUR generation's greed causes MY generation (which by the way is the most highly education generation in US history) not to be able to find work, you actually have the f**king arrogance and nerve to say that my generation is LAZY? You come from the greediest and laziest generation our country has every seen!
f**k you.
juslenAug 15, 2010
The greediest and laziest generation was born in the 90's. I was born in the early 80's during a recession. My grandfather was born during the Great Depression, he warned my father that another depression could come at any time. So my father saved his money. You are 24 years old, your generation lived in luxury, you grew up in some of the greatest economic times of the 90's. So quit you bitching and complaining about how the baby boom generation was somehow greedy and lazy. They were raised by the generation that lived through some of the worst economic and political times in United States history, through wars, depressions, recessions, oil shortages, double digit interest rates and the civil rights movement. What the f**k did you grow up with? MTV, PC's, Cellphones, Video games and the internet? You arrogant little prick.
dennycraineAug 15, 2010
oh you were born in the early 80's? So that means you came of age in a f**king economic boom you stupid piece of s**t. You've never had to struggle to find work or pay of student loans, the 80's recession lasted all of 3 years you can't even f**king remember it. If you can't recognize that the baby boomer's greed was what caused this mess not only are you a self-entitled little **** you're also a naive fool.
frostbytAug 13, 2010
It's cause all the old fart won't retire cause they spent too much!
nickymouseAug 13, 2010
I wish I was a cop in California and retire after 20 years in the police force.
udjetAug 13, 2010
Amen!
If you are 65 or older and you are handing on to your job because you can "get an extra 100 a month in your retirement check" if you work another 5 years, you are an assh**e. Because of you, less work gets done (very seldom see a senior in my field do much more than make phone calls), and they can't afford to hire 2 new trainees (your check is too fat). You people know who you are. I hope one of the young guys finds some dirt on you and gets your ass fired...
/end rantComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
alterliteAug 13, 2010
It's funny because it was the young people who were most excited about Obama...
absurdparadoxAug 13, 2010
The value of labor has dropped, world wide, or more accurately, it is possible to get a higher quality worker for a lower amount. However, minimum wages have not dropped. Thus, teenagers and even college-age people with little experience can't get hired anywhere.
It is pretty simple, really. But, suggest that the minimum wage is hurting people, and you are the DEVIL!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
meatball402Aug 13, 2010
That's because you are not thinking it through.
Capital has a financial incentive to pay labor as little as possible. High unemployment means that companies can dictate to the worker how much they are making - if that worker doesn't like the low wage, the next guy in line sure would, because he's been out of work for months, and has kids to feed.
Eventually, after a few years of 'I can work cheaper', now everyone is working for just a few bucks a day. Go find another job? There's 10% unemployment and at least 5 people applying for every job. Good luck.
Plus, if you're thinking that "lower wage floors let them hire more people" it's not true. Hiring depends on how much demand is on your business - if there's no min wage, I'm not going to hire someone to stand around (ditto on low taxes), only when there's demand on my business. No demand, no hiring.
Plus, if someone was going to hire one person at 10 an hour, now he hires two at 5 an hour, makes twice the money (because there's two producers instead of one) and only pays half the cost for the work. Now there's two people who can't pay any bills, instead of one who is barely making it.
absurdparadoxAug 13, 2010
Your logic is absurd in a few places, and you seem to be working from many false premises.
Yes, market competition will bring the value of labor down, but unions with legitimate power (i.e. not unions we have today, with illegitimate power through government action) will balance that out. A government setting the minimum value of labor highly distorts the entire market, and is a violation of freedom on the two parties agreeing on a wage.
Also, yes, lowering wage floors does allow a business to hire more people, but so does increased demand. Your argument is a non-sequitur.
Your argument about hiring one at $10 and 2 at $5 is also ridiculous. What about that second person who was not hired?
The problem with the minimum wage is that it prices many people out of the market, and makes it very hard for smaller businesses to get started. It is this and other artificial things that are going on with the economy that have brought it to the point it is today. Just doing a few things, such as allowing for very easy, virtually free immigration and completely dumping the minimum wage, and allowing unions and the market to set the value of labor, would go a LONG way to returning many jobs to the US and returning the US itself to the economic powerhouse it once was.
Of course, you'd have to do something about the welfare state and the fact that unions seize far too much government power... its problems on top of problems, but all people want to see is the surface -- minimum wage is too low! Give the youth more money! What? They're not being hired? Well, free college for everyone? What? Quality of education has vastly dropped and the economy is coming to a halt? Bail outs!
It never ends. It is this government wack-a-mole that is the real problem, and minimum wage is just an example of one mole.
samweAug 13, 2010
I think AbsurdParadox is closer and meatball402 is way off, but you are both wrong. Please read Book 1, Chapters 8 and 9 of the wealth of nations to learn how labor pricing is set. There is no value in discussing such subjects with out some learning beyond the rhetoric you hear from your preferred politician.
The value of labor is no different than the value of any other commodity. Supply and demand curves apply just the same.
If there was a minimum price set on candy bars at 2x the current price will people consume more or less candy? Less of course. Is it not sensible to see that increasing the labor cost will also reduce the consumption of labor?
The value of labor can not exceed the value it provides to the business. If I have two workers, and one does much more work, or more valuable work I will be pay him more. This means there is competition among suppliers of labor, just as there is between suppliers of candy bars.
People continue to by plenty of candy bars so they must not deem the price to be too high. Lots of companies continue to make lots of candy bars so they must deem the price sufficient to provide an adequate level of profit.
If you would like to make a logical argument about how my statements are completely wrong I am very willing to listen.
13point1Aug 13, 2010
Yes, we'd all be MUCH better off if McDonald's could get away with paying its employees $2 an hour.
pinguinxxxAug 13, 2010
Which is why we are still fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...
acknotswAug 13, 2010
I wouldn't be surprised to find out we are staying there to avoid a jump in the unemployment numbers, it makes more sense than any of the other reasons given.
lamberticusAug 13, 2010
All the youth today don't understand the old fashioned values of working in a textile mill for pennies and reaching their nimble little fingers into the machinery.
gfoderaAug 13, 2010
………………….._,,-~’’’¯¯¯’’~-,,
………………..,-‘’ ; ; ;_,,---,,_ ; ;’’-,…………………………….._,,,---,,_
……………….,’ ; ; ;,-‘ , , , , , ‘-, ; ;’-,,,,---~~’’’’’’~--,,,_…..,,-~’’ ; ; ; ;__;’-,
……………….| ; ; ;,’ , , , _,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯’’~’-,,_ ,,-~’’ , , ‘, ;’,
……………….’, ; ; ‘-, ,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-, , , , , ,’ ; |
…………………’, ; ;,’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-, , ,-‘ ;,-‘
………………….,’-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-‘ ;,,-‘
………………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;__ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,’
………………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’¯: : ’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _ ; ; ; ; ;’,
……………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| : : : : : :| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’¯: ¯’’-, ; ; ;’,
…………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,_: : _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | : : : : : :| ; ; ; |
……………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,,_ : :,-‘ ; ; ; ;|
…………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-~’’ , , , , ,,,-~~-, , , , _ ; ; ;¯¯ ; ; ; ; ;|
..…………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ , , , , , , ,( : : : : , , , ,’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|
……….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’, , , , , , , , ,’~---~’’ , , , , , ,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
…….,-‘’ ; _, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’~-,,,,--~~’’’¯’’’~-,,_ , ,_,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
….,-‘’-~’’,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; | . . . . . . ,’; ,’’¯ i've got plenty of work for them
……….,’ ; ;,-, ; ;, ; ; ;, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ;’, . . . . .,’ ;,’ ; ; ; ;, ; ; ;,’-, ; ;,’ ‘’~--‘’’
………,’-~’ ,-‘-~’’ ‘, ,-‘ ‘, ,,- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ‘~-,,,-‘’ ; ,’ ; ; ; ; ‘, ;,-‘’ ; ‘, ,-‘,
……….,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ‘’ ; ; ;’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’-,,_ ; ; ; _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ;’-‘’ ; ; ; ‘’ ; ;’-,
……..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯¯’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bipolarruledoutAug 14, 2010
That's actually not very funny because in many parts of the world it's true.
gfoderaAug 14, 2010
………………….._,,-~’’’¯¯¯’’~-,,
………………..,-‘’ ; ; ;_,,---,,_ ; ;’’-,…………………………….._,,,---,,_
……………….,’ ; ; ;,-‘ , , , , , ‘-, ; ;’-,,,,---~~’’’’’’~--,,,_…..,,-~’’ ; ; ; ;__;’-,
……………….| ; ; ;,’ , , , _,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯’’~’-,,_ ,,-~’’ , , ‘, ;’,
……………….’, ; ; ‘-, ,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-, , , , , ,’ ; |
…………………’, ; ;,’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-, , ,-‘ ;,-‘
………………….,’-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-‘ ;,,-‘
………………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;__ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,’
………………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’¯: : ’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _ ; ; ; ; ;’,
……………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| : : : : : :| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’¯: ¯’’-, ; ; ;’,
…………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,_: : _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | : : : : : :| ; ; ; |
……………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,,_ : :,-‘ ; ; ; ;|
…………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-~’’ , , , , ,,,-~~-, , , , _ ; ; ;¯¯ ; ; ; ; ;|
..…………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ , , , , , , ,( : : : : , , , ,’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|
……….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’, , , , , , , , ,’~---~’’ , , , , , ,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
…….,-‘’ ; _, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’~-,,,,--~~’’’¯’’’~-,,_ , ,_,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
….,-‘’-~’’,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; | . . . . . . ,’; ,’’¯congrats on being a retard
……….,’ ; ;,-, ; ;, ; ; ;, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ;’, . . . . .,’ ;,’ ; ; ; ;, ; ; ;,’-, ; ;,’ ‘’~--‘’’
………,’-~’ ,-‘-~’’ ‘, ,-‘ ‘, ,,- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ‘~-,,,-‘’ ; ,’ ; ; ; ; ‘, ;,-‘’ ; ‘, ,-‘,
……….,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ‘’ ; ; ;’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’-,,_ ; ; ; _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ;’-‘’ ; ; ; ‘’ ; ;’-,
……..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯¯’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-
codenamepenrynAug 13, 2010
Fun fact: verboten means banned in German, as in bettverboten (Bett means bed).
thecoolestguyAug 13, 2010
They can thank the minimum wage which effectively makes them to expensive to contract.
youknowmeAug 13, 2010
Unemployed and thousands of dollars in debt. woot.
socialstacyAug 13, 2010
I have a lot of friends who graduated from college in 2009 and still not have found a job - most of them are bartending or waiting tables because its so hard to find a job right now. I hope things get better.
tomasiiAug 13, 2010
Bar tending and waiting tables is a job. But you have identified a fundamental problem. People believe some types of work are beneath them, therefore they would rather be unemployed than suffer the negative feelings that go with being under employed. I have a friend (49 years old) who expressed that exact sentiment to me. He has not held a steady job for more than a couple of years his whole life and still lives with handouts from his parents.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aubieguy333Aug 13, 2010
While I agree that is a problem, I think the SocialStacy's point is that you don't pay thousands of dollars in tuition and study your ass off for 4+ years so you can wait tables. At least that's the impression you're under while you're in school, then you get out in this job market and realize (in most cases) your degree doesn't mean s**t right now.
I graduated in 2009, and it took me six months to find work, and even that was through a recommendation from a friend. I'm also making significantly less money than my friends who started working right out of high school before the recession. I (currently) feel like a tool for doing the whole college thing. I'll reevaluate that when I see where my degree has or hasn't gotten me in 5 to 10 years.
tomasiiAug 13, 2010
Yeah, I happen to work at a college so I see people who I really believe are wasting their money. That is why research on trending jobs is important before enrolling. But, statistics still say that the college grad will make much more money over a lifetime than someone without a degree.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isenborgAug 13, 2010
The final chapters of "Atlas Shrugged"
polartxAug 13, 2010
"but it would be MUCH WORSE if I hadn't spent those trillions of dollars on big bailouts"
-barack hussein obama
mikeyh0Aug 13, 2010
Digg has been compromised. Head for the door - I'll cover you.
brandozillaAug 13, 2010
gobama.
nojob12Aug 13, 2010
When I was teenage (13-15) before finding study employment I worked doing odd jobs and I was always busy. I wasn’t a lone wolf either; many of my friends did the same. In the autumn season I was raking leaves and doing yard work after school. At Christmas time, I’d put up peoples trees and lights. In January and February I shoveled snow and chipped ice. As the weather warmed I went into my busy spring and summer season…yard work, cleaning out garages, painting and just about anything that people wanted done. When I turned 16 and got my “working papers” as it was called, I was more desirable to local businesses. This was too long ago either, mid 80s.
Until recently I use to hire some young teens in my neighborhood to do the same for me. Circumstances have changed for me and I’m no longer able to hire them anymore. I have plenty for them to do but not the resources to compensate them.
One of the teens, a hard working 15 year old, recently put flyers in everyone’s mailbox offering to do “any odd jobs for a very reasonable rate”. He is having a hard time just getting one or two odd jobs a week now. Four years ago, his older brother, who is 18 now, use to be out almost 4 or 5 hours a day, 6 days a week during the summer doing work in the neighborhood.
BTW, that 18 year older, got a job this summer working with a landscaping crew. He started in mid-May with the owner of the biz telling him he would have enough work for the full season (till Halloween). The kid was told two weeks ago that business was down substantially and that he was let go. The biz had 2 four man crews (down from 4 five man crews three years ago). Now it’s two thee men crew plus the owner jumping between the two on “bigger” jobs.
A comment was made further up that the decline of vocational schools was the result to a decrease in school funding. I disagree, my local school district had an annual budget of $69 million in 2002, the 2010 budget is for $122 million!!!! My property taxes have almost tripled in that time frame. The decline of traditional vocational classes (wood, auto, metal, cooking and dare I say homemaking) was not caused by a lack of funding but the replacement of those classes with what was perceived to be more practical 21st century “vocational” classes like computer, basic book keeping, music, art etc. Our educational systems used to provide a diverse environment for a variety of post high school paths like…college, a trade, a manufacturing plant or even the military. Beginning the 80s a change occurred where there was and continues to be a belief that everyone should go to college and therefore high schools should all be about college prep. When this belief gets corrected, we’ll get back some of the more “traditional” vocational classes. Also, in some situations, vocational classes were sponsored and funded partially by a local factory, since their future employees were more or likely going to come from the local population. It was in the interest of the factory to help get the local kids more vocationally trained. With the demise of manufacturing in the US there was one less voice speaking for the benefits of traditional vocational classes.
hdrkidAug 13, 2010
They won't hire you if you don't have experience. Well, how are you suppose to get experience if no one will hire you?
juslenAug 14, 2010
get rid of the minimum wage.
bustaballsAug 13, 2010
I see Keynesian, fascist, and socialistic policies are are still working great for America. Wake me up when we a real free market.
relengaAug 13, 2010
It is ok, we can just tax 'the rich'. Nothing a little wealth distribution cant help. Bigger government can fix it too.
juslenAug 14, 2010
I'm just going to assume you are being sarcastic. +1 digg
crystalagehaAug 14, 2010
It's very simple: Younger people are having harder times getting jobs because older, more experienced people are losing their jobs and having to take over McDonald's, Wal-Mart, etc (and those are the only types of jobs younger people can start out with). It's total bulls**t for the teenagers and such, but then again, it's not much easier for those who had "real" jobs and now have to flip burgers. Nobody is happy, and it all sucks. Not much we can do about it right now, though. It will take a lot of time, mostly. The economy, and the jobs, can't magically be fixed overnight like some people think - Obama can't do it, the government in general can't do it, we can't do it... We just have to be patient and focus on long-term plans for everything.
Closed AccountAug 14, 2010
It is a bit stressful watching the end of the world as I have known it.
kiadragonAug 14, 2010
I thought you said they were all leeches? Apparently the young and unemployed are NOT leeches. Just the professionals who are laid off and having to wait almost 40 weeks to find another gig.
So you are both a hypocrite AND a lair.