All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > What really eats me up...
11/23/2012 11:52 AM

You know the old saying about putting lipstick on a pig.

Your "plan" still has less people in the workforce.  For the betterment of the economy.

That's what you said, when you read between the lines.

 

11/23/2012 11:57 AM
As I explained, I did NOT say less people working is better for the economy.  That's a conclusion you're jumping to on your own, and it's incorrect.

The "plan" (as you call it) provides for a better economy, and there aren't necessarily less people working, and I explained that to you in as simple terms as possible. If you still don't get it, then you don't know enough about economics to attempt to debate the topic with me. Go read up on it or take a class - while you're at it, brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Then if you think you're ready we can try this again, because otherwise there is no point.
11/23/2012 1:56 PM
True or false:

1)  You believe your "plan" results in a better economy in the long run?

2)  You said that "Sure less people overall have jobs" as a result of your "plan"?
11/23/2012 2:31 PM
I have explained the meaning of what I said to you multiple times.

If you truly do not understand what I said,  you need to improve your reading comprehension skills and/or understanding of basic economics.

If you do understand what I said, then you're simply being purposefully obtuse, and I'm not going to waste my time responding to that.

11/23/2012 6:17 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 11/23/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
True or false:

1)  You believe your "plan" results in a better economy in the long run?

2)  You said that "Sure less people overall have jobs" as a result of your "plan"?
Since you refuse to answer, I'll do it for you.

1) True

2) True
11/23/2012 9:43 PM (edited)

And your dismissal of part-time jobs is not very well thought out.  Part time positions are important to employers as a way to fit needs where the workload may vary from time to time, whether it's seasonal or due to other business factors.  It's better to have flexibility with managing one or more part-time employees as opposed to trying to fit the need with a full-time employee and then possibly having to lay-them off during a "down-cycle".

Also, you're dismissing the value that the part time jobs have to the people who are working them.  While it's true that such jobs may not be enough to sustain anybody as an individual, a second family member working part-time may be bringing in income that augments the primary person's income.

Case in point: I'm the primary breadwinner in my household.  I have the job that provides the benefits.  This past spring, my wife transitioned from stay-at-home mom to working part-time at a small business in town with "mother's hours" (she gets into the office when the kids leave for school, she leaves the office to be home when they arrive home from school).  ALL of the income that she brings in is disposable income.  We have greatly enhanced our spending opportunities because of the additional money she is bringing home.

I'm sure ours is not a unique case.  Many people desire part-time jobs because of the lighter workload demands, flexibility in work schedules, and the opportunities to bring home additional disposable income.  Endorsing the reduction of the number of such jobs seems to be a bit short-sighted on your part, which really isn't that surprising considering your myopic point-of-view concerning economics.

11/26/2012 8:47 AM
Part time positions are important to employers as a way to fit needs where the workload may vary from time to time, whether it's seasonal or due to other business factors.

I never said part time jobs weren't important. I'm merely advocating less of them and more full time positions would help the economy (not to mention a host of people who would benefit by being full time as opposed to part time).

Part time jobs would still exist out of absolute necessity, but they're far too prevalent now.
Also, you're dismissing the value that the part time jobs have to the people who are working them.  While it's true that such jobs may not be enough to sustain anybody as an individual, a second family member working part-time may be bringing in income that augments the primary person's income.
I'm sure that happens, and for these types of people part time jobs may be fine or even ideal.

However, there are many people who need full time work and can't find it because too many employers are only offering part time. Think of your own circumstance. Let's say hypothetically you lost your job and somehow couldn't find anything that was full time work and not only your wife but you were part time as well with no benefits, for an extended period of time (say a year or more). Imagine how you would feel with an extremely limited income compared to now, with no benefits whatsoever, and if you can imagine that, then tell me if you were in that circumstance you wouldn't wish more employers would hire people to full time. If you can imagine it and put yourself there properly, there is no way you'd say you're fine with part time work.
 Endorsing the reduction of the number of such jobs seems to be a bit short-sighted on your part, which really isn't that surprising considering your myopic point-of-view concerning economics.
It's not short sighted or myopic in the least. It's well thought out and very logical, as are all my economic viewpoints. It only seems short sighted or myopic to you because you lack the understanding of the underlying economic concepts that make it functional, as you've demonstrated multiple times.
11/26/2012 10:42 AM
"Imagine how you would feel with an extremely limited income compared to now, with no benefits whatsoever, and if you can imagine that, then tell me if you were in that circumstance you wouldn't wish more employers would hire people to full time. If you can imagine it and put yourself there properly, there is no way you'd say you're fine with part time work."

I wouldn't be happy with part time work, but it would be better than no work at all.  I would also feel that I'm not necessarily entitled to have a full--time job, nor would I feel that any businesses had any kind of obligation to hire me (or anybody else) full-time if that did not fit their business model within the hypothetical economic environment of your example.  The onus would be on me to find an employer that would deem my skills and experience to be worthy of filling a full-time position with benefits.

"It's not short sighted or myopic in the least. It's well thought out and very logical, as are all my economic viewpoints. It only seems short sighted or myopic to you because you lack the understanding of the underlying economic concepts that make it functional, as you've demonstrated multiple times."

Your arrogance has no limits.
11/26/2012 11:24 AM
I wouldn't be happy with part time work, but it would be better than no work at all.

Sure it would be better than no work at all, and even if my "plan" (as you call it) were implemented and there were more full time jobs and less part time jobs, enough part time jobs would exist to fill the number of people who want or need them, so you'd still be able to find that kind of work if you tried.
I would also feel that I'm not necessarily entitled to have a full--time job, nor would I feel that any businesses had any kind of obligation to hire me (or anybody else) full-time if that did not fit their business model within the hypothetical economic environment of your example.
No one is entitled to a full time job, but there should be more of them available for those who seek full time work. The government needs to give employers incentives to create more full time positions rather than so many part time positions. This will benefits not only employees but the economy as a whole.
The onus would be on me to find an employer that would deem my skills and experience to be worthy of filling a full-time position with benefits.
Sure it would be on you. I'm merely saying it should be easier for you in this scenario to find full time work than it is now, and that is accomplished if the government gives incentives to employers to create full time positions.
Your arrogance has no limits.
Except I was merely explaining how your ignorance of economic concepts is the issue here. To wit: Your ignorance of basic economics is the REASON you believe my viewpoints are short sighted and myopic when in fact that isn't the case at all.

There is no arrogance on my part. I'm simply explaining to you how your own ignorance is responsible for your failure to understand these things.

11/26/2012 11:28 AM
Businesses have no obligation to hire anyone full-time.  They do so because the employee is valued and they don't want to lose the individual to someone who will give them a full-time job.

Under the current administration, only a fool would hire a non-skilled worker for anything more than 29 hours per week.   If I owned a restaurant/bar, the only full-time employees I would have would be bartenders and cooks.   Servers/waitresses would work four seven hour shifts per week.  And if it was more bar, I'd probably have part-time cooks.  Only so much skill is required for bar food.
11/26/2012 12:00 PM
Your arrogance has no limits.
Except I was merely explaining how your ignorance of economic concepts is the issue here. To wit: Your ignorance of basic economics is the REASON you believe my viewpoints are short sighted and myopic when in fact that isn't the case at all.

There is no arrogance on my part. I'm simply explaining to you how your own ignorance is responsible for your failure to understand these things.

Perhaps you're the one who has little understanding about how business works, how capitalism works, how the real world works.

Your economic theories may look good on paper, and your "plans" may be logical and near flawless in your head, but do you wonder why socialism has not quite "caught on" as a predominant economic framework in the world?


11/26/2012 12:19 PM

Could it be because, if we're both going to make $10 an hour, I'm not going to work twice as hard?

Or might it because, if we're both going to make $500 a week, I'm not going to work 60 hours while you work 40?

11/26/2012 1:21 PM
Academics and theoreticians can rarely accept the notion that their idealized concepts don't have any real world applicability.

Unfortunately, that's one thing that is universal in all fields, not just economics.
11/26/2012 1:28 PM
Businesses have no obligation to hire anyone full-time. 
You're right, they don't have an obligation. However, if the government gives them the incentive to hire people full time instead of part time, they will do it.

They do so because the employee is valued and they don't want to lose the individual to someone who will give them a full-time job.

This is true but in a more abstract way than you might realize.

The most common reason employers make a position full time is because it requires the skills or abilities of someone who will probably be seeking full time work. If they make it part time, they'll get people who will do as you suggest - they will leave for another position that is full time when one becomes available to them. So in a broad sense, they make the position full time so they don't have a merry-go-round of employees at a position where they want some stability.  In more rare instances it could have to do with the individual rather than the position itself, but that's not as common as simply wanting stability at the position itself.
Under the current administration, only a fool would hire a non-skilled worker for anything more than 29 hours per week. 
Precisely my point. The government needs to provide incentives to hire full time workers and take away incentives for hiring part time workers or making existing workers part time.
Perhaps you're the one who has little understanding about how business works, how capitalism works, how the real world works.
I have a deep understanding of business and economics and you have shown you have little knowledge of the same. The absurdity of you claiming the opposite suggests either you're more clueless on these issues than I ever imagined and/or you are simply issuing a childish retort of "no I'm not, you are". Either way it is a pointless statement on your part.
Your economic theories may look good on paper,
My theories work in actual practice as well when placed within the proper framework (and every theory only works in actual practice when it is within the proper framework).
do you wonder why socialism has not quite "caught on" as a predominant economic framework in the world?
I've gone over this before. I'm not going to waste the time trying to give you an Economics 101 course on why capitalism has taken hold in America and other countries despite it being a more flawed system than socialism. 

In a nutshell: Both systems have their flaws, but capitalism allows those with power (i.e. wealth) to keep what they have and use it to gain an even greater advantage over time, while socialism levels the playing field a bit more. Those with power (again, wealth) don't want the playing field to be more level, so they set up a system to keep themselves in power. They convince those without power (again, wealth) that this system is the best one because if the vast majority of people who don't have power (wealth) were to ever figure out they were being hosed and rise up against the wealthy, then the wealthy wouldn't be able to make their system function any longer, because it only functions so long as the common people are content doing the majority of the work while the wealthy make the majority of the money.

Again, that's a nutshell analysis only, for your education. If you want to debate the finer points, you'd need to discuss those, and I seriously doubt you can do that since you've shown you don't even know what they are to begin with.

Honestly, I don't mean to sound arrogant or put you down with any of this. It's just painfully obvious this isn't a debate worth having if you don't understand the economics behind it on at least the simplest of levels.
11/26/2012 2:42 PM

See what I mean?

of 34
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > What really eats me up...

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.