Neo

Im willing to consider checks and regulations. I'm also likely to feel comfort at a point short of yours. I know no other way.

Advances in technology do make people less relevant. True. I book airplane flights with an iPhone app. I pump and pay for gas with a debit card reader. I used to call a travel agent or hand cash to an attendant. Two realities I recognize.

To: LGR The economy you describe would be easier, happier, and healthier for labor. I just don't know how it works and sustains itself. My kids are starting careers. I hope they find what I have not. Edit: Nerd alert. One of the coolest fictional yet informative musings on this topic I've found is Levin's rumination on capital and labor in Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. Whole sections leave the main plot while the character muses. Frustrates the hell out of some readers. Made me tingle.

Agree - additional anything is a last resort ... unless it brings ... cue the chorus .... profit, er value. I'm human and I like and respect you. Here's where I want to see eye to eye. I want jobs for everyone. Calling people tools to value isn't something I rejoice over. It's a reality I recognize.

I dig it. Nuanced and sophisticated. You are exactly right. It's always value, and that is often, but not always, accounting profit.

Moving from role to incentive ... A company's incentive is to generate profit, period. It hires people, to generate profit. It fires or squeezes people, to generate profit. It buys machinery, or paints the reception area, to generate profit. Profit is the only incentive. Job creation is tangential and comes, if it comes at all, with the growth in companies. Business are not created by people looking to unprofitably employ people The incentive doesn't exist. Thank heavens .. what a weird world that would be. Fortunately for me, and for most of you, businesses exist in order to earn a profit. It results in them having an appetite for our skill, labor, time and effort. That insatiable appetite creates jobs. Your restaurant person likely determined, in his or her view, that there'd be more profit with 4 than 6. Thank heavens! What kind of an economy has six under employed people when it can have four fully employed people? That efficient economy will generate more jobs for the other two than the underemployed economy will sustain the six. More good news. Nothing creates jobs better than businesses with their insatiable appetite for profit. Oh, it's going to destroy a few along the way. It's going to squeeze a few. More good news ... that profit, that wealth, that dough and filthy lucre .... can only be saved, spent or invested by business owners. If it's any one of the three, it becomes deployed capital available to the same or other business owners for deployment in that insatiable pursuit of .... profit. Lather, rinse, repeat. Now, some may point out that there are socially responsible companies with other incentives (clean water, etc.) ... i got it ... and there's a hockey team whose "sole purpose is to win a .... ". Allow me "profit" as the sole purpose as a simplifying device and I'll allow the infinite other interests companies can have. Interesting aside for you .. share if you can: Would you prefer 6 being paid at the expense of the extra hours to the 4? Interesting question for your friends ..."would you go to 40 hours and take a 33% pay cut in order to add two"? They'll have a view. I have no suggestion for them. Their choice. Their boss's choice. So, as a non economist, I summarize: Role, deploying capital efficiently among material and labor and generating profit, which is then re-deployed. Incentive, profit. Result? Human activity, growth and net jobs. Sample period? Since the beginning of recorded history. Hiccups, discomfort and pain? Yes. We are working on outlawing the business cycle, obsolescence, and dumb luck. Is there a better job creator than the profit motive and human activity? None that I'm aware of. Well, not forced. I'm not sure what that means. But, to your second statement ... true ... an absurd boundary tester, but true. I like absurd boundary testers, btw. There's no job fairy looking out for us all. And, if there were, there'd be fewer jobs, not more.

Did I do my math right? Four at 60 = 240 hours of payroll. Let's say $10 an hour, or $2400 Six at 40 = 240 hours of payroll ..... etc. I think this was LGR's original thought starter ... You can take four to six and therefore create two. Hope I got much of your point ... because I agree ... in my 'absurdly simple two" .... Overtime, benefits, lots o' stuff ... that in reality make 4 cheaper than 6. That's the squeeze, the "right size", the "down size", the efficiency .... and it's designed to maximize profit, not a particular increase or decrease in jobs.

Joe, I used to think this was too nuts for that. I think, though, that you're on to something. I loved the ol' Law and Order ... SVU, i'm less familiar with.

"Euannou being reckless, but sincere."

Undue wariness .... on me. Here goes, my best efforts, only ... The six versus four decision is one of capital creation (profit) and allocation (spend, save, invest). Base Case, absurdly simple: Four working 60 or six working 40 results in the same cost to the employer (salary), the same wages paid in to the economy (salaries) and the same profit to the owner (revenue less salaries paid). It's net neutral. The company chose to pay four people more money (good for them) at the expense of paying six people less (bad for two? bad for four?). At the end of the day, two jobs could have been created, but they would have been created at cost to two other jobs. Base Case plus, more complete, but still absurdly simple: Let me call asking labor to work more, without hiring new labor, "squeezing". It's efficiency, right sizing, down sizing. We've heard the phrases. Picking up where Base Case One left off, we're net neutral with regard to overall profit, wage, capital, labor, etc. Squeezing, though, does produce more profit. We're not really neutral. There's more than salary involved when talking number of hours and number of workers. There's infrastructure, HR departments, benefits. Generally, firms go with four, when they're sufficient, instead of six. Workers are more efficient, less costly, and profits increase. Ah, profit .... and job creation. Profit, in the hand of an owner, can be consumed (new vacation home), saved (money market account and IRA), or invested (back in to their business, or someone else's with a stock). I'd guess, not knowing more, that this is what is going on at your restaurant. It's going on everywhere else. Creation of jobs comes from the consumption, saving or investing of profit. Labor is compensated at a rate each side agrees to. Capital is compensated at a greater rate, or not at all. Salaries are commitments, investment is a risk. Leaving out ... a gazillion things, like taxes, for instance. And skills, training, work ethics, dumb luck .... So, to your question ... how does business create jobs ... It takes all available resources, labor included, and squeezes the most it can out of the resources. With the profit earned, money is spent buying goods from other firms, who employ, or it's saved in banks who loan it to others to spend or invest, or it's invested in other companies that in turn, squeeze all of their resources ... and ... lather rinse repeat. Governments re-allocate the profits of others. Businesses create profits .... I don't think profit is a dirty word. Interesting to think about .... it is not the objective or goal of capital / ownership / business to "create jobs". It is the goal to "generate profit". Job creation is a method, not a goal. The same business that hires would gladly replace you with a machine if it were more efficient. In several years, we'll all be entering our orders at McDonald's into touch screens and paying with debit cards and iPhones.

You'll have to do this one without my help. If you're sincere in asking, I can't help you. If you're insincere in asking, I won't help you. I truly don't know which is the case. Infrastructure .... I'm in. I'll go this far. In times of recession or slowness, the government can deficit spend, or stimulate. Of course, if it deficit spends as a matter of course, or if it deficit spends inefficiently .... or if it doesn't address the deficits when the economy grows ... other matters. But, to Dark's original question, it can deficit spend to stimulate ...

What is the role of government in job creation?

To Drunkard: I feel your passion around the minimum wage. I'm writing this out of respect for your view and the time you took responding to me, above. Out of respect for server space, I'll not respond because I posted extensively on the topic a few weeks back. It's the best I have. To K-9: I looked at your link, but only in earnest at the visuals. I think I get it. Any response I have would acknowledge the gap, its troubling nature, and go on to encourage policies that grow the bottom while not diminishing the top. Grateful ...

Sorry, worked late. Full disclosure: I was the not rich guy at a table of rich guys. 1). I'm not sure when benevolent became a dirty word. Assuming it isn't, my benevolence extends, in the context of my few posts today, to the poor. I spoke of the poor in an earlier post, inspired by LGR. My cell phone thumbs, combined with working a cell phone in my lap at a dinner table, resulted in a benevolent tone while addressing half the tax base when it should have addressed the poor. I guess I feel benevolence to anyone disadvantaged, regardless of where they fall in the income tax continuum. If that tone upsets you, I'm sincerely sorry. I do, however, not understand why it does. Did it sound condescending when I used it more broadly than in the context of the poor? I'm guessing. 2). I'm happy you do well. I, too, do well and I, too, am not well to do. I'm grateful. You may very well be grateful, also. I hope you are. It's an awesome feeling and it inspires empathy and benevolence in me. 3). The numbers I throw around aren't mine. They're not Mitt Romney's, either, to the best of my knowledge I'm not sure why Mitt's important in the context of my posts. Instead, the numbers are ours. They come from the IRS. I found them in a link provided by the Heritage Foundation. If you have different numbers, better numbers, let me know. 4). Income taxes are one layer of tax. There are many others. I did not aggregate them. Adding layers would adjust the curve. I didn't do that work. You didn't, either. I prefer progressive taxes and acknowledge both progressive and regressive exist. I've cautioned against the unintended consequences to the poor of regressive wealth taxes and transfers in this thread. See my minimum wage comments. I don't recall if I've posted on the regressive nature of payroll taxes, mentioned by Drunkard. If not, I will now. They're regressive, too. Extend them to all income and use the proceeds efficiently. 5). "Carry the freight" was a phrase I used. As I read back over my posts, I acknowledge that a less inflammatory phrase would have been better. However, my point remains correct in my mind when addressing fair share, in-artfulness notwithstanding. That is, when 50% of a population is paying 97% of the income taxes, arguing that they're not paying their fair share is wrong. If my conclusion's wrong, it can be no more wrong than 3%. At a minimum, they're paying 97% of anyone's definition of fair share unless you're talking total taxes and not share of taxes. I'd not increase tax revenue in total unless it increased as a result of more economic activity at constant or lower rates. Controversy alert: I suspect I'd argue for lower rates if activity increased, keeping revenue neutral. 6). I agree with you on at least one point. See if I get it right. The 50% paying 3% would disagree that they're not carrying the freight. Did I understand you while agreeing? I would add this. The other 50% believe they're paying their fair share. Do you agree with that? Assuming yes, but allowing for no, I'll move to what interests me hoping you don't think there's anything controversial in this point six. 7). I'll go out on my limb and offer my view. Having to choose between the group at 3% asking for the group at 97% to pay more because it's fair, and the group at 97% asking for the group at 3% to pay more because it's fair, I'll side with the 97% payers. That's my opinion. You can assail or affirm it. This post is clearer than my thumbed post. Have at it. My conviction will be increased or diminished, and I'll be happier either way. 8). As to "mischaracterize", I can only offer the following. Lumping my comment on tax burdens with gay marriage, women's rights and immigration is a mischaracterization. Here's what I'll own: my words and views on tax burdens and a feeling that the poor are trapped. Here's what I won't own: Romney's words on anything or words I never spoke on other issues.

I'll never convince. I lack the talent. I will, though, push back at mischaracterization. they're not freeloading. they're not lazy. they're trapped.

.... and why do you think that is? .... I'll not be popular, but ... the gap grows because the bottom's not participating enough ... that's where growth comes from. for your consideration ... "the gap's too big because the rich are earning too much" vs " the gap's too big because the poor aren't earning enough". you want to tax the gap closed. I want to earn it closed doesn't work? I give you America, for 250 years cell phone fingers!

The top 10% of earners paid 68% income taxes in 2014. The top 50% of earners paid 97%. The bottom 50% paid 3%. This is probably our biggest disagreement. I think "fair share" has been reached, and is now a slogan to gather more. Half the country pays 3% of the freight. And, for your consideration .... perhaps the lower earning Republicans haven't been duped to protect the rich, but instead think those policies are the best way for everyone to become more rich. I'm not going to, or trying to, convince you, but some of us not so stupid don't think we're duped and carrying water. I saw the Joe the Plumber exchange, too. I remember thinking "idiot" just like you did. I believe, though, that we were referring to different people. Carry on! I'm eating column inches.

You are, once again, WAY more colorful than me! For the record, I'm one of the stupid ones who's never going to pay an estate tax who opposes it. You left out "principle"!

For your active mind and caustic fingers, both of which I love, to consider --- I've met people in my life who use phrases like "lazy poor". They're real and they exist. Curiously, some of them are rich and others not so rich, but that's another matter. While you didn't come out and say this, I'm hoping your remark doesn't refer to a rich/conservative approach compared to a middle class/progressive approach. Now, to the consideration I referred to. My experience, and it's considerable, is that the wealthy/conservative share the same ideal ends that those in other categories do. The debate is around efficacy and mathematics. It's gotta work and it's gotta add up. Those aren't choices, in conservative minds, they're truisms. Further for your consideration. There are great numbers of people who see programs as enslaving traps that produce more and more trapped human beings. The programs and the trapped grow at similar rates. One group calls that evidence of failure and the other evidence of the need for more resources. Choose your ground. Neither group has the moral high ground with regard to concern, compassion or empathy. Marie Antoinette said "let them eat cake". No meaningful group says that anymore. Esteemed political philosopher Rob Lowe once said "Democrats think Republicans are mean and Republicans think Democrats are stupid". Funny and a bit insightful. I love his observation as a categorization of accusations. I don't think the adjectives are correct in either case.

Well, I'd not boo him. I might ask him how he's going to pay for it, but I'd not boo him. That's me. I LOVE your ideas .... how you gonna do it? I dig Jesus as a socialist metaphors and similes, by the way. It's sorta how I see him, and I dig it ... there's room for all views. Opposites challenge, and make better, one another. Some others have posted .... I'm not excited by a Pontiff as statesmen, nor by statesmen as religious leaders. I'd not ban or condemn it, but I think they've all got more important core things to attend to, today .... .... by convincing you and me to re-elect them ....

I resemble that remark.

Detestable it is. I like ol' Joe. You're on to something with Colbert and heart. I didn't see it live, and haven't seen it in its entirety. It's a grind. You've got to be all in. In my speculative scenario, that's good news for HRC. She becomes President Obama's only chip in the game. The DOJ belongs to him. I can't help but think that if the Clintons view their fortunes in any way tied to the President's discretion, they must be outta their skulls crazy freaked. Strange bedfellows, politics and dynasties. Interesting report I cannot reference off the top of my head - not only did Obama beat Hillary, but he's created a DNC with his people, too, over eight years. The Clintons owned the DNC, of course, through her primary loss. The DNC staff is a little, shall we say, ambivalent with regard to organizing around her. It's a different leadership team. Of this issue, I know little -ftr.

I have no Benghazi conclusion. I wish they'd hurry. I agree the Republicans take joy in dragging it out. I also didn't say you respond militarily. First, you learn what happened. That's all I want. Your point about not necessarily responding with war to an act of war is wise. I agree. What happened? Hurry, please. The delay, though, is on both sides. Now, for fun .... Pure Neoville speculation. The DOJ/FBI is going to find stuff. It'll be enough to discredit her story, but open to judgment with regard to statutes and crimes. The Presdident (any President) will want a Democrat to follow him and protect and continue his legacy. Joe will announce and I believe he's President Obama's first choice, if he can win. IF Biden's doing well in polling against Republicans, DOJ calls HRC and indicates charges may be coming. If Biden doesn't poll well against Republicans, DOJ announces its findings and calls for a best practices change in policy going forward to prevent future lapses in judgment with no charges. Red, red wine ... whaddya think, whaddya think?

In order: 1). I've not decided, nor have I posted, that I would punish her. I'm deciding if she's fit to lead with regard to duty, honor, and integrity on one hand and contempt for those she serves on the other. I'm pretty far along in this process, admittedly. She's dumb or dishonest and contemptuous. I don't think she's dumb. I'll vote on punishment when the facts come forward relative to statutes. Before you and I can discuss lapses in judgment, we have to agree there was a lapse in judgment. "You know, I'd like my own server" is a lapse in judgment. Setting up your own server because "____ ( fill in your own blank; HRC said two devices were inconvenient ) _____ " goes beyond a lapse in judgment. It's demonstrably bad judgment. Lapses are transitory. Bad lingers while you plan, hire, locate, use, delete and wipe. Watergate was not a lapse in judgment. 2). She may or may not pay a price. I agree with you that voters will decide. I actually hope you're right and that I'm merely cynical. Here's the irony in our conversation. YOU are making the point about the voters but it's YOUR willingness to call this a lapse in judgment that leaves me disheartened that anyone will hold her accountable at the voting booth. The best defense of HRC came from another poster. I paraphrase "You may be right, Neo, but I'm voting for her anyway". I'll repeat, I hope you're right. 3). Congress doesn't have anything I'm aware of relative to the server. They asked for her testimony (Benghazi, not servers) and subsequently learned of the servers. To my knowledge, they aren't convened around the emails except to the extent that they illuminate Benghazi. The state department IT head who plead the fifth before congress did so in connection to Benghazi. If you'd like them to look into the server, call your congressman. Candidly, I'm grateful they're not. Few things disturb me more than grandstanding Congress Weinies hauling people before their committees. That said, they've done some real duty. Watergate and House Judiciary, for instance. Benghazi, to me, is legit. Slaying armed services members, embassy staffers, and an Ambassador is an act of war. We were told it was the result of spontaneous outrage over a video. Horsecrap. That investigation is the direct result of saying foolish things in front of political foes. You've mentioned partisan politics several times. I can't say this enough. "Of course"! That's a truism, but it doesn't matter with regard to evaluating her. Partisans got Nixon, not because they're partisan, but because he did wrong. News Flash: Bloomberg - FBI recreating email and they include Sec State material, not solely yoga and wedding plans, despite HRC's assurances. A thousand cuts, self inflicted, no plausible explanation that isn't self serving. She sat on the judiciary committee that got Nixon. She knows foes better than me. How could she be so ..... and, how will the White House weigh in on the process? Their general support of ol' Joe as his potential candidacy became a briefing room topic has to be concerning in the HRC camp. Paging Joe Biden, paging Joe Biden .... Mr. Biden, please call the DNC.

Thank you. That's quite a lapse in judgment, but that's me! I am more libertarian, but a true libertarian would be horrified to hear me say that. I'm a "Republican" because that party comes closest to my thinking. It sure doesn't overlap. I'd be an independent but I love the process so much, I choose a party in order to vote in primaries as well as general elections. Cheers back.