The solution to america's unemployment problem

That was a problem even before unemployment hit the level it's at now. Employers have always tried to minimize their employee costs by having fewer employees work more hours (or handle more responsibilities, which naturally takes more time). Think about it - it's cheaper to pay a guy to work 10 hours overtime (equal to 15 hours of normal pay) when it's needed than it is to guarantee another 40 hours to another full-time employee. Now if the amount of OT exceeds the potential payroll of a new hire, then many companies will consider hiring a new employee.

Then again, keep in mind that employees costs employers in ways other than just payroll. If the company offers benefits (which most do to exempt-level employees), that's a significant cost. Their business insurance costs (particularly workers comp) is also going to be more expensive the higher the headcount. So even if you were to eliminate exemptions and increase OT pay requirements, it will still be cheaper in many cases to go with the fewer employee/more hours approach.

What I do think would help is a stricter and more explicit definition of an exempt employee. Too many companies get away with not paying overtime to employees who by all measures should be non-exempt simply by calling them "salary." I know of very few administrative assistants and entry level accounting clerks who get paid a salary (and work OT regularly) whose job duties even remotely fall under the exempt definition. Better enforcement and clarification of the existing rules would go a long way to fixing this.

The other thing is that if an employee doesn't want to work 50-60 hour weeks, he needs to speak up. The cost of replacing an employee (in terms of hours spent retraining) in many cases is substantial so smart companies would much rather keep a good employee and allow them a reasonable schedule than just replacing them.

Of course, if you're a crappy employee and you try this, they'll probably release you. And there are also companies that are run by morons who don't understand the costs of high turnover and burnout and are happy to work their employees into the ground.

 

I was kinda thinking learning foreign languages, personal mobility and continuous education; but that's more long term.

 

I'm all for 32 hour work weeks and 3 day weekends.

 

THis is a great point. One area that I agree with conservatives on is that placing greater non-payroll burdens on employers does hamper hiring. I will admit though I am not completely sure on the best way to address this.

Ironically I think this is one area where having a greater social welfare system would help, such as a single payer health care. If paying for health care wasn't placed on employer's hands you might see more companies, especially mid sized companies hiring. Of course the tradeoff would be hire taxes to fund that but it is possible that might be a tradeoff that is worth it.

 

Optimal Efficiency is starting to backfire on people's employment. All it'll do is cannibalize workers even more. I've actually stopped giving advice to management cuz all I'm telling them do is perform nifty ways to pay everyone less, to give less hours to everyone, or cut other workers entirely, and making MYSELF obsolete in the process.

Though there's always some fat that employers will look to cut, I'm just not going to bring in the super capacity low maintenance robot that can do everyone's tasks in place of them.


Its what it looks like, lower wages each person to enable others to make wages. China will be the biggest world economy in 15 years cuz they pay people peanuts and get maximum production out of them. I suppose it'll take a lesser example of that to bring in more workers.

 

Also those that should have retired are staying on longer and longer because they need the health insurance or didn't save enough for retirement.

Automation is too blame for a lot of this as well, however it should be a good thing. Since machines can now cut our work time down, why are we working more than ever?

 

For sure, how can it not hamper hiring? California is the worst business climate in the nation cuz the cost to do business is too high, plain and simple. The the pay rates, employee benefits, workers comp obligations and tax burdens swells up the costs too much. That along with lack of construction jobs is why LA's unemployment rate is 2nd/3rd worst in the nation.

I dont see health care costs coming down much no matter who does the paying. The more new medical advancements and products that are offered, the more it will swell up the overall cost. A cure for cancer will be pricey for either the government or the individual. The research costs are incredibly high, and like they're just going to give that away after things are finalized. After you reach the point of depending on drugs and devices to keep you alive, it becomes expensive to live.

But if health care costs are taken out of the employers hands, regardless of the amount of cost, you'd have to think it'd enable employers and employees to be more flexible and mobile. Maybe have a positive effect on employment

 

Automation and information technologies are making human labor obsolete. A lot of human labor is misery anyway but there is just no need for six billion people on the planet going forward. As just a matter of supply and demand human labor will be devalued and the divide between labor and ownership will widen.



Soylent Green is people!

 

50 hours a week isn't killing people who sit in a cube and type all day, hell half their time is spent on clutchfans.net

the irony of the recession is employers are operating at maxium efficiency, and their profits are soaring, and they arent' going back to bloated payrolls.

the only answer for unemployment is that we start looking for new ideas to create new industry to hire more people

 

Or we could begin to remove some of the bloated governmental regulation, outlandish tax burden (to both people and businesses) and put a stop to deficit spending which would give much needed confidence back into the private sector....

 

LOL, people paid more taxes under clinton, businesses and individuals, what was the the economy like then

 

I do wonder which part of the gouvernment libertarians still crow about, given how the massive failings of multiple sectors of private enterprise have shed light on how "total" the government's control is.

Like

-BP getting away with shoddy construction.
-Investment banks getting away with losing billions through avaricious stupidity, rewarded with more billions (I'd like to think that in a fairer society, one where a man who is convicted of petty theft can theoretically be convicted under the "Three Strikes" law and sentenced to life, that idiots responsible for the loss of billions and of the ruination of thousands of lives would naturally be convicted to multiple life sentences or perhaps, since America is so prone to literal eye for an eye, the death penalty.)
-Private healthcare giving Americans the most expansive health care in the world, at about marginal efficiency (ranked #51 in the world by WHO iirc).

As for deficit spending, I'm right with you. The following needs to happen for that.

-Reform of the prison system.
-Legalization of mar1juana.
-Complete reform of the military-industrial complex. (no longer does it make sense for America to have x amounts of conventional force that are of little use in counter-insurgency operations. Scalebacks such as those recently undergone on F-22 projects should be merely the first step.)

and so it goes

 

The best jobs creation plan is more regulation of private industry. It creates jobs for the regulators and prevents negligence, fraud, tax evasion, and pollution as a side effect. To increase profits, corporations would have to learn how to efficiently comply.

 

For every good job lost another 10 jobs are created at Wal-Mart.

 

Why Walmart is adopting RFID
http://www.securityinfowatch.com/Executives/why-walmart-adopting-rfid

So ultimately part of giving the consumer those lower costs, is by not having to pay actual workers to give services. Then all the other companies will get on board when they see how it helps their profits. At some point in the future even Wal-Mart staff will get cut down. Thats automation for ya.

I've always been for a future world, but then come to think of it why would people willingly shrink themselves for the benefit of big institutes. Thats part of the reasons unions were created, but nothing you can do about it really...

In the meantime, companies overall have gotten back to almost 75% of their pre-recession level. Bringing back only 5-10% of pre-recession workers....Seems some of these companies have needed an excuse to reduce and lay off for a while.

Time to legalize that cash crop for real.

 

It's time to end the anachronism of large families and reduce the population.
A couple that only produces 1.5 children can invest more resources into that child to raise him to be valuable in an information economy. A bunch of children without skills will provide less security in old age than one child who is more valuable.

I'll talk to the Pope. I hear he's starting to come around on some things, like the Church's stance on Galileo.

 

Hopefully not getting too far away from the thread theme. I agree and disagree with that, or just mixed. For sure agree on better finite resource management with less people. There has to be SOME kind of guideline out there. I've thought people should GET TAXED after their 3rd kid, not claim more. 6+ kids in this day and age, c'mon. Saw a couple studies where births went down cuz of the recession. Lets keep pressing on that ignition then.

But its also wrought with dilemmas and social consequences, not that you didnt know. Its WHO has the kids, how do you discourage that darned proletariat procreation (prolecreation) and get the bourgeois to have more. Then SHOULD you discriminate like that...Will people have more stuff in life but be less loving? Does it require even more cocktails of drugs, more medical procedures to control people's urges. Will it take all the darn fun away (yes) living such a sterilized life?

I made a thread on another site about women's fertility options to have kids. How they're enabling women to have kids at a later age, that kinda thing. How women can stroll through life proclaiming "where are the good men" without really trying, not needing men and at the oh so convenient last second they can in-vitro themselves a child with NO father, etc...All unregulated. I was like why are we trying to encourage MORE births and single parents? And have women deny men in the process? Small window of child bearing is what we NEED to trim the population so shut all of that down. You can't have a kid, GOOD But then how do you police that...

--

About the "jerbs", with population mentioned what about the age old issue of illegal immigration? Are they doing the jobs "Americans dont want" ? Should we give Americans a crack at them (by yes, closing off those borders)? Is that a scapegoat or too minor in the big picture? Do we want 10 undocumented workers paying for 1 person's unemployment benefits, or would you rather a poor American get at those strawberry fields to at least have something?

 

Where do you get off telling someone how long they can work or how much they should be paid? That's a negotiation between the bargaining parties, it's none of your business.

Start your own company and be inefficient with your labor. Don't force everyone else to act that way. Conduct your own economic experiments if you want, but don't impose them on others.

Nothing is more disheartening then some schemer proclaiming "there should be a law..."

How can you not see the inherent immorality in using state compulsion to control the behavior of private parties?