The point I am trying to make is that the reason for unemployment is that the job market and wage structure is too inflexible.

I always found economic history to be far more interesting than economic theory. This is because it showed the effects of that economic theory and it was never right. There was always unemployment even when there was no minimum wage. Increasing supply has not resulted in increased demand etc etc.

Modern free-market economics, which is what we’ve been held in thrall of for three centuries, is wrong. The evidence is there but nobody wants to look. It’s going to take a lot to bring it down although I’m sure that the seeds of it’s destruction exists in it’s ever increasing need of growth. The world is not infinite as we are finding out with anthropogenic induced climate change.

“Although individualists envision a society based on private property, we oppose the economic relationships of capitalism, whose supporters misuse words like private enterprise and free markets to justify a system of monopoly ownership in land and the means of production which allows some to skim off part or even most of the wealth produced by the labour of others. Such a system exists only because it is protected by the armed power of government, which secures title to unjustly acquired and held land, monopolises the supply of credit and money, and criminalises attempts by workers to take full ownership of the means of production they use to create wealth. This state intervention in economic transactions makes it impossible for most workers to become truly independent of the predation of capitalists, banks, and landlords. Individualists argue that without the state to enforce the rules of the capitalist economy, workers would not allow themselves to be exploited by these thieves and capitalism would not be able to exist . . .

and Tucker:

“If the men who oppose wages — that is, the purchase and sale of labour — were capable of analysing their thought and feelings, they would see that what really excites their anger is not the fact that labour is bought and sold, but the fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon the sale of their labour, while another class of men are relieved of the necessity of labour by being legally privileged to sell something that is not labour, and that, but for the privilege, would be enjoyed by all gratuitously. And to such a state of things I am as much opposed as any one. But the minute you remove privilege, the class that now enjoy it will be forced to sell their labour, and then, when there will be nothing but labour with which to buy labour, the distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be wiped out, and every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers. Not to abolish wages, but to make every man dependent upon wages and secure to every man his whole wages is the aim of Anarchistic Socialism. What Anarchistic Socialism aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to deprive labour of its reward; it wants to deprive capital of its reward. It does not hold that labour should not be sold; it holds that capital should not be hired at usury.”

Because if they aren’t then it’s likely that people are being asked to work for less than the cost of living.

PS. Prices are still going up in this recession and wages are being cut.

I have studied economics and found most of it is delusional.

‘What I would favour is a floating minimum wage on a job category basis. This could rise and fall depending on economic conditions affecting each sector. This would allow employers scope to reduce wage costs when the general conditions become difficult.’

There’s truth here, but setting a minimum wage based on job category would be both inequitable and fiendishly difficult because it would mean sorting out which jobs were worth what. And of course the present minimum wage would be totally unacceptable. It’s a recipe for poverty. The average wage could be a realistic benchmark, with everybody taking a raw percentage cut of all their pay earned that is over the benchmark. Thus, dignity could be preserved, and equity achieved, because everybody would be contributing according to their individual ability.

TS
‘On the converse, when conditions are good, employees will be paid more. So things should even out over time.’

Presumably, employers would be required to increase wages as conditions improved. Otherwise a lot of those paycuts could well become permanent, and the more it happened, the more it would happen.

TS
‘Of course, employers would not be bound to pay the minimum, and could choose to pay more to attract staff.
This solution would be equitable and help preserve jobs.’

As long as employers’ power was constrained to make it equitable. Also, employers themselves would take paycuts, in line with those of their employees, not on a raw percentage basis, but on the same linear percentage formula as their employees were required to take.

Blaming it all on wages seems rather simplistic. I fact low wages may well have been the economic problem in the first place.

Companies that are putting through redundancies are often not losing money, merely making money at a slower rate. In such scenarios, redundancy should not be allowed to be an option. Profit margin and shareholder return should suffer first and foremost; not workers and their families.

PM’s got a responsiblity to the people of NZ to ensure the govt is enabling sustainable, high living standards. Best way to do that is high employment. Key doesn’t give a crap.

The point I am trying to make is that the reason for unemployment is that the job market and wage structure is too inflexible.

What I would favour is a floating minimum wage on a job category basis. This could rise and fall depending on economic conditions affecting each sector. This would allow employers scope to reduce wage costs when the general conditions become difficult.

On the converse, when conditions are good, employees will be paid more. So things should even out over time.

Of course, employers would not be bound to pay the minimum, and may choose to pay more to attract staff.

This solution would be equitable and help preserve jobs.

It should be possible to do this with information that currently available in both the public and private sector.