Recession to Depression: how close are we?

[U-84]

from what i have been hearing and reading, if we are still in a recession by june or july, we are officially in a depression, but you know the government won't confirm this until several months into it.

[Aramike]

This is getting a quote-fest....

Yeah, that's kind of my trademark.

I love "quote-fests" though - takes the context argument right out of it.

I am enjoying this discussion, however. You are quite civil in your viewpoints.

Only true for people who are gifted enough to study. If you are not that smart you have hardly a way to really distinguish yourself from the other hard working people around you. And since you are easily replaceable (there are times were everyone is eager to have a job) you accept to work for less than the others who in return are accepting lower offers again to be not fired themselves and so on.

This is untrue. First off, I believe that everyone is "gifted" enough to study. Perhaps everyone is not disciplined enough, but again you run into personal responsibility.

That being said, "study" isn't the only recourse. There's also "practice" and "hard work". "Committment" also comes to mind.

If you're "unfortunate" enough to be able to display ANY of those marketable strengths (most people possess the ABILITY to show multiple traits), then Darwin seems to come into play. But, alas, we have social welfare to take care of those people.

The question is: how many are capable but unwilling?

In some countries they are always quite high so this generalization doesn't work, especially in times of globalization were lot's of jobs in labor intensive branches are transferred away.

You're right about this. In this case, you have to look at the reason that the idea of a cyclical econonmy isn't true. I bet you government policies have a lot to do with it.

In any case, keeping with our debate, please tell me which nation has a free-market capitalist (FMC) economy where the "generalization" doesn't work.

I think that you're falling in the trap of describing NON-FMC economies as an argument against PRO-FMC economies.

The premise just doesn't work. Apples and oranges...

It would be best for his success if you were working for free.

No it wouldn't ... because you wouldn't be working. That's FMC. Capitalism is not slavery.

Again, if you are highly specialized, good for you. If you are not (and not everyone is able to do that) you are at his mercy because you can be replaced easily.

Again, untrue. Being educated and specialized is only one trait of a workforce. Employers also look for other traits.

He is expected to pay a decent wage not more but also not less. What good is a job if you can't make a living of it?

SOMEONE is making a living off of it ... else they wouldn't be working.

The question is, what do you consider a "living"? Seems to be extremely subjective to me...

If no one could make a "living" off of the job, no one would be able to AFFORD to work it. Ergo, the employer would have to pay more to attract employees.

The problem comes in when one person doesn't find that the wages are what THEY CONSIDER to be a "living", while another person does. So, what defines a "living"? The government? Yeah, right. I prefer FMC's economics, as numbers can't be corrupted.

But isn't that part of this hated socialism? To me it always sounded like this was contrary to the American Idea of free capitalism (if I have gotten that wrong all the better).

I think you've gotten it wrong. Free Market Capitalism doesn't discount the need for a nation's welfare. It wouldn't do well for a capitalist society to have people dying in the streets, right?

We can be free, and capitalist all the while helping out our weakest. The problem arises when trying to separate the "weak" from the unwilling. What people like me wish to avoid is deciding that well, making the distinction is too hard so let's just give them all a means.

It is not just about working hard and being a dedicated worker. If you are replaceable, and I think most people who are doing manual labor are, then your only argument for you is a low wage. Lower than that what the others take because they are hard working dedicated workers too.
It seems you assume that everyone is able to be best of the class if he only tries hard enough.

I'm not making any assumptions ... you are.

If someone can take the job, and survive, than they are making a living. If they can't survive, then they are not working and therefore cannot take the job.

Sure, maybe a laborer is replaceable. But his replacement is either: (a) more skilled/dedicated/hard-working/efficient than he is; or, (b) makes less money than he does.

In the case if (b), that person who is making less money is obviously finding a way to make it into a "living", thereby invalidating the argument that one cannot make an argument at such a low wage.

Again, we run into "what is a living?".

China is communistic on paper only. They have the most brutal capitalism you can find on this planet.

I would research this a lot further, if I were you. The PRC economy is still heavily regulated, especially regarding international trade.

But, even more so, the poverty rate in the nation has declined 43% in 20 years due to their moving towards FMC economics. The Chinese are hardly an argument against FMC - rather, they are an example of what trending towards FMC can do for a nation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy...ublic_of_China

If he can't even pay the minimum wages then the job was not be worth to be called a job anyway. Again minimum wages aren't meant to allow everyone to buy a Mercedes S-Class. They only guarantee that you have the minimum to sustain your life and not less.

If he can't pay "livable" wage, he won't have an employee...

That's why FMC works.

I have the feeling I'm repeating myself but: The boss is not supposed to pay stellar incomes. It should only be enough to make a humble living with it and not less. So there is usually still a lot of profit to be made.
My main concern is about managers and bosses with pockets full of money who employ people who can't afford something proper to eat.

What are the numbers you're basing this off of, because this seems like leftist talking-point rhetoric...

This does only work if there are many more jobs than potential workers. I think the situation has never been like that for the last decades.

This is true, in a global sense. Certainly not in the USA, as there have been MANY periods of more jobs than workers. The problem has been there were more jobs than QUALIFIED workers. But, referring to the global situation, there isn't a global FMC economy so the global circumstances are not an argument against FMC.

Again, we fall back on what qualifies as a "living" (hint: color TV does not).

Yes, but you need the job now. So you take what you can get and since a few thousand of your former colleagues are looking for a job too you better have something unique to offer or you will be forced to accept very low income, lower than what your competitors can stomach.

So you take the job now, and look for something better, later.

Again, we come back to what is a "living"? Is it what you make in a week? Six months? Ten years?

Sure, sometimes some people need a job right the hell now. But what good does it do to regulate those jobs when doing so brings the rest of the economy down in order to pay for them? For the people who can't make it under those rules, we have social wefare programs.

I'm going to put the following in bold, underlined, and in Italics because it is an urgent point: social welfare is NOT for those people who don't want to flip burgers at McDonalds ... it IS for those people who CAN'T!

Yes, but they must also sustain the worker.

Again, what do you consider "sustain"?

This is in fact a problem. But give people proper wages and they will be more willing to take a job than if being unable to make a living even though working 8+ hours a day.

This is, again, very broad ... what is "proper"?

Moreso, how do you determine what proper is? FMC does that automatically...

That's what we are here for, aren't we.

Good night to you, I wanted to go to bed about an hour ago.

You too, bro...

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I am enjoying this discussion, however.

So do I, broadens the horizon to see the other point of view.

This is untrue. First off, I believe that everyone is "gifted" enough to study. Perhaps everyone is not disciplined enough, but again you run into personal responsibility.

I think you are wrong here. I'm studying together with a girl who is not that fast in learning although she is trying really hard. She spends hour after hour trying to learn the stuff that has been taught but simply can't do it right without help from others. She is way more disciplined than I am yet she is making slower progress and I fear she would not be at that university of applied sciences (wow, what a name in English) without a lot of help from others anymore. So it is not always only a question of commitment.

That being said, "study" isn't the only recourse. There's also "practice" and "hard work". "Commitment" also comes to mind.

Right, but in bad times with few jobs a lot of people will work hard and with lots of commitment so your only advantage might come from accepting income below what we call poverty border (The German definition of poverty is, that you can't buy vitally necessary goods... whatever that means exactely).

If you're "unfortunate" enough to be able to display ANY of those marketable strengths (most people possess the ABILITY to show multiple traits), then Darwin seems to come into play. But, alas, we have social welfare to take care of those people.

I guess you meant "unfortunate enough NOT to...."?
For the rest: same here.

In any case, keeping with our debate, please tell me which nation has a free-market capitalist (FMC) economy where the "generalization" doesn't work.

Point.

The question is, what do you consider a "living"? Seems to be extremely subjective to me...

That is a good question.
I myself think that someone who is working hard for 8h / day should be able to pay a rent for a normal sized flat, buy healthy food and being able to buy decent clothes (I know, now we could start discussing what is a normal sized flat, healthy and decent clothing...).

If no one could make a "living" off of the job, no one would be able to AFFORD to work it. Ergo, the employer would have to pay more to attract employees.

Well, we have it here that the income of some people isn't enough to feed them and they have to get wellfare money from the state in addition to their income to get to the level of someone who only gets wellfare money. I think it can't be that you work for 8h and can't even afford to pay your rent with your income. At such cases the minimum wages are supposed to take effect. We don't have minimum wages here for every branch so some companies are paying dumping wages.

I think you've gotten it wrong. Free Market Capitalism doesn't discount the need for a nation's welfare. It wouldn't do well for a capitalist society to have people dying in the streets, right?

It seems this is the main misunderstanding. I always thought that the American version of capitalism considered wellfare as sort of socialism that has to be avoided at all cost (a bit exaggerated, yes).

We can be free, and capitalist all the while helping out our weakest. The problem arises when trying to separate the "weak" from the unwilling.

Sounds pretty much like what we have here.

I'm not making any assumptions ... you are.

Let me answer that with a quote from yours from your last post.

First off, I believe that everyone is "gifted" enough to study

Sure, maybe a laborer is replaceable. But his replacement is either: (a) more skilled/dedicated/hard-working/efficient than he is; or, (b) makes less money than he does.

In the case if (b), that person who is making less money is obviously finding a way to make it into a "living", thereby invalidating the argument that one cannot make an argument at such a low wage.
-----
I would research this a lot further, if I were you. The PRC economy is still heavily regulated, especially regarding international trade.

Yes, but there are also a lot of private enterprises, for example in the house building industry, that are pretty much abusing their workers. The can pick from a lot of people who come from the villages to the cities. Those people haven't had the chance to educate themselves or to develop unique abilities.

But, even more so, the poverty rate in the nation has declined 43% in 20 years due to their moving towards FMC economics. The Chinese are hardly an argument against FMC - rather, they are an example of what trending towards FMC can do for a nation.

I don't say that FMC is bad altogether, nor that any other form is perfect (the socialism of the Soviet Union or the German "Democratic" Republic was definitely FUBAR). It is just about fairness. IF the boss is making a hell of a profit then those who are the basis of that profit should be rewarded fairly (now we can discuss again what fairly is).

If he can't pay "livable" wage, he won't have an employee...

If the employee is forced to work for almost nothing he will have one. But that is only the case if there are a lot of unemployed people.

That's why FMC works.

So does our system... but they aren't that far from each other anyway....

What are the numbers you're basing this off of, because this seems like leftist talking-point rhetoric...

I gave an example of that above (that were people had to get additional money to their income just to have the same as someone who is getting wellfare money only).

This is true, in a global sense. Certainly not in the USA, as there have been MANY periods of more jobs than workers. The problem has been there were more jobs than QUALIFIED workers.

We have the same problem here too. Not enough people with academic degrees.
A lot of other jobs were destroyed by automatization. So people without a degree are getting more and more desperate. This putts more pressure on them to accept pretty much every job no matter what the wages are.

Sure, sometimes some people need a job right the hell now. But what good does it do to regulate those jobs when doing so brings the rest of the economy down in order to pay for them? For the people who can't make it under those rules, we have social wellfare programs.

The minimum wages are to be set so low that they won't destroy the economy (and I think there are even exceptions for companies which really can't afford to pay so much).

I'm going to put the following in bold, underlined, and in Italics because it is an urgent point: social welfare is NOT for those people who don't want to flip burgers at McDonalds ... it IS for those people who CAN'T!

I fully agree.


I think we aren't that far apart from each other. What I want is social capitalism (free capitalism with a few more rules to protect employees from being abused). My main concerns with FMC are based on those horror scenarios we had here in Europe back in the time of the industrialization, where the bosses were swimming in money while the people almost starved.