What is the real unemployment rate?

The entire world operates with a monetary system based mostly in capitalism. People and businesses have been trading since the beginning and I don't see this changing.

So here we are in reality in which each person is striving for themselves; whether it be luck or hard work will determine how each person fares in society and the economy. It is not necessary for everyone to earn $60K/year but for those who earn $15K/year they need to make wise decisions how to live within their means. Is this easy...hell no! But it is reality. Society and the economy are not in sync meaning for those who desire something from the economy they will need to compete for it. If people are not smart enough to understand this then government needs to assist with public education and sadly in the US our public education system is a dropout factory! And even if schools were more effective how can we expect kids to learn when they live in crime war zones with bullets flying everywhere?

I have written here many times that IMO we are suffering from the Peter Principle. We simply are not smart enough to make better decisions. As population growth continues the issues become more exacerbated but we still are incapable of finding solutions to create a better path for society. Politics and religion make it virtually impossible to find consensus on anything! And the leaders of our nation are worthless!

This is what we have to deal with...this is our reality...

 

Makes no difference how it is done...the data is bogus and grossly inaccurate which is why it is ALWAYS adjusted up and down at later dates.

Fact remains we can never know the 'real unemployment rate' until we can have consensus on how to define unemployment?

 

Guy, the numbers aren't bogus.

And if you don't know how they are measured then you are just ranting about something for the sake of it.

 

Actually, I believe it is fair to assert that most do...

These benefits came into being as a result of the wage and price controls enacted during WWII: They were a way to circumvent that rule.

As a result, most Americans, post-WWII, (understandaly) desire a good benefits package...

Every company has only so much that it can spend, and still turn a profit; so you can bet that the costs associated with these benefits packages are factored in, when determining the appropriate wage or salary.

Note: Given the bargaining power of large corporations, these folks can probably get a better deal on health insurance than the individual could--in fact, group policies (even counting the employer contribution) typically cost much less than individual policies do--so the employee would probably do less well, on balance, if he or she were simply paid the extra money (with some of that going to taxes, anyway), than if it were simply included as part of a benefits package.

Employees nowadays must still pay for their own vacations. (Certainly, my employer--during my working life, prior to my retirement--never offered to pay for mine.)

Agreed.

 

The most common benefits for part-time workers include 401K savings plans, basic health insurance, prorated sick and vacation pay, bonuses, so although benefits might be abbreviated for part-timers, there's not that big a difference. Each company can decide how they define 'part-time' and which benefits are appropriate, and even though we have millions of part-timers today, they are just as valuable as full time employees, working less hours, but still receiving benefits. If we're talking about mom & pop businesses then benefits are probably lacking for both part time and full time workers.

Benefits have been a supplement to wages and another option for companies to compete for labor...I understand this. My philosophical and rhetorical question was basically why we 'expect' companies to incur the costs of benefits when we're only owed a fair wage? If we eliminated FICA and all other employee benefits beyond the wage, how much money are we talking about? Companies would be better off if they just paid each worker more money and treated them like private contractors letting the employee deal with taxes and administrating all the benefit packages/programs.

Wages are determined by supply and demand. If a company cannot obtain quality employees then they must increase their wages until they fill and sustain the job positions. Then they can figure out if they can afford some or no benefits for employees. If the wage and benefit package can't compete with other employers then something must change or automate or go off-shore or close the doors.

Walmart seems to be the political punching bag in these discussions but Walmart employment benefits span the entire perk range workers expect. From entry-level benefits, including schedule flexibility and compensated job training, to more extensive perks, such as health insurance and 401(k) retirement plans. I wonder how many mom & pop companies provide equal benefits and opportunities? I'm guessing not many but Walmart is always the evil poster-child for exploiting employees.

 

I deeply wish that this were true.

Under ObamaCare, however, a "full-time" employee is anyone who works at least 30 hours per week; and the company, sadly (unless it is very small) has no option but to supply government-approved healthcare insurance, or incur a fine.

There may, indeed, be some companies that supply part-time workers with "401K savings plans, basic health insurance, prorated sick and vacation pay, [and] bonuses"; but I would imagine that they are few are far between...

I am not entirely sanguine about the thought of our eliminating FICA (i.e. Social Security tax), since my wife and I both receive Social Security; and neither of us would wish for that to cease.

I am not at all certain that the employees, themselves, would be better off, since their healthcare insurance would cost much more (for individuals) than it would cost under a group plan; and that is not even taking into account (1) the employer subsidy; and (2) the fact that the employee would have to pay taxes on the increased amount of wages or salary.

 

Self interest does not automatically mean strife. For example, I work with my co-workers in peace, even though I can't stand some of them. Why? Because we both have the self-interested goal of having a job we both earn money from.

And preaching the mantra of sacrifice for collectivism, has always resulted in poverty. It's a nice thought in theory only. In practice, its a nightmare.

 

Everyone "sacrifices for the collective", even you. This does not preclude people, even you, from following their self interest. In fact it is the defining characteristic of this thing, often called society that creates the venue for people to follow their own personal interests in a safe environment filled with resources that enable them in their quest. Thomas Edison would not have been able to develop the light bulb without ready access to the thousands of materials he tested before finding the right one for a proper filament. Access that was enabled by a vast network of people operating in their own interests within the peace of a collective society.

People who live among others are living in a collective whether they are willing to admit it or not. They make adjustments and sacrifices in their personal behaviour interests and desires every day in order to maintain the collective and their position in it. Most people do not even realize they are doing it because their social behaviour is mostly unconscious reaction.

I am not against self interest per se, only your idiotic notion that collectivism somehow automatically means that no self interest is allowed when it is collectivism that allows people to pursue their self interest and without it there would be no society and no collective and everyone would be far too preoccupied with day to day survival to think about anything else. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, you cannot use the fruits of society to pursue interests that are harmful and then blame society for limiting your endeavours as some sort of assault on your personal freedoms and liberties, freedoms and liberties that cannot exist outside the social context.

 

You are referring to my own point. People co-operate collectively by motivation in self interest. The people who provided Thomas Edison did not "sacrifice" for the collective good. They had no intention of providing society with anything sacrificially. Only a moron would claim otherwise.

They provided things because they could make a profit from doing so.

I have not sacrificed for the collective, so I don't know what you are talking about.

 

Obamacare is a government mandate. But I am unaware of government mandates defining part-time workers, especially in terms of benefits received?

I dislike Obamacare because of the way it was processed in Congress, how it has been processed to date in the public, how no one in Congress including the president read the entire bill, and the fact that there is so much confusion, but the court is out until it is fully implemented.

Each company determines their definition of part and full time regarding benefits. Part timers might get nothing, some things, or prorated all things...each company will be different.

I didn't imply FICA should be eliminated? I was talking about forcing FICA and other 'people' costs on employers, how big this number is?

I understand your last statement but we force lots of expense on business all of which effects the cost of doing business and ultimately whether we can compete in the global marketplace. If you think about it, all of those 'benefit' expenses plus FICA do nothing for business...only for people; therefore I think people should contribute to cover all of those benefits. For those items which government mandates, then let government fund them...

 

I think you are right, healthcare should be included in FICA taxes so then everyone is covered that is working. Unfortunately, that won't happen as long as insurance companies are paying lobbyist to prevent it.

 

Why would taxing every worker help the situation? As a % or a block amount? Part time people and full time? Would both get the same benefit?

 

Because employers also pay a percentage of your FICA taxes and if healthcare could be figured in to this as well as the employee FICA taxes, healthcare is now covered and paid for through your entire working lives until you retire.

 

If self interest is a conscious consideration then every social interaction should require conscious attention but that does not hold up to even the most casual observation.

You are completely oblivious to the things you do every day to maintain the collective.
You do not just take anything you want and threaten people with violence unless they give it to you.
You do not get into violent life and death struggles every day over parking spaces and your place in the line at the grocery store.
You do not shoot everyone who invades your personal space.
You do not think about these things but accommodate them unconsciously.
If you are acting unconsciously in so much of your social interaction how can that be motivated by self interest?

If self interest is the explanation for all human behaviour then at least some part of it must be driven by the unconscious. This leads to the disturbing conclusion that self interest is not under the control of the conscious mind. If any part of self interest is not conscious thought the society that people live in exerts control over their behaviour because human interaction has heavy influence on the unconscious.

In other words, people really do not know why they do most of what they do in their every day lives.
Thinking that you are not sacrificing anything just shows how unconscious you are to your life in a complex society.

 

ObamaCare (regrettably) defines full-time workers as those who work at least 30 hours per week; these must be offered ObamaCare, under the current law. (For this, Chief Justice John Roberts may be blamed, for voting to uphold the law in June 2012.)

Or, as then-Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi famously (or infamously) put it: Congress had to pass the bill, before we could know what was in it...

The employer does pay half of the FICA tax, directly. However, if the entire amount were taken from the employee himself (or herself), and the employer paid that employee the amount that he (or she) had been previously paying to the government for FICA, the employer's competitive situation would not be improved. But the employee's situation would be slightly diminished, since he (or she) would pay more in federal taxes. And if the employer were to keep some (or all) of this sudden windfall, the employee's situation would be worse still.

To assert that benefits packages "do nothing for business," but are helpful only to "people," sounds almost sardonic...

 

But if it's unconscious, how is that "sacrifice"?

Sacrifice from any understanding I have of the word, implies a conscious choice to give something up. If I have not chosen to give something up, that's not really a sacrifice, is it?

And I would equally agree that unconscious choice wouldn't be motivated by self-interest either. I would consider following basic social norms to be neutral, neither self interested, or sacrificial.

- - - Updated - - -

That would be horrible. We end up with the same absolutely horrible health care that other countries have. Why would you want that?

 

I agree with you but what other choice do we have? I prefer a non governmental agency that is non profit with no CEO's where our dollars are actually used for healthcare. I find it sick that so many profit off of healthcare while giving less and less medical services. What kind of society do we live in where only the wealthy can afford all of the new medical advances while we get the basic care?

 

Consider what you are saying. I would rather have more deaths, bad service, more pain and suffering in life.... as long as there are no CEOs, and the dollars are used for health care.....

And by the way, there still would be CEOs. They would be the political appointees and friends or relatives of those in government. Every country that has government run health care, still has to have a guy at the top that makes the choices. And no one worth anything, is going to make those choices unless there is a payoff.

Take for example, the Chief of the NHS in the UK government run health care service. David Nicholson collects $200,000 as a base salary. Plus $50,000 in additional expenses charged to the government, PLUS an additional $37,000 in 'benefits'.

Now you might say that other CEOs get multiple millions, but that's not exactly true. CEOs often get stock options as supplement to their pay. Obviously the NHS has no stocks, and thus Nicholson can't get those. But as far as raw cash, Warren Buffets actual cash yearly wage, is actually just $100,000 a year. Nicholson is getting paid two and half times as much in raw cash, as Warren Buffet.

Yet, for the much higher paid government CEO of NHS, the NHS is one of the worst performing health care services in modern countries, and certainly far worse than the US.

A highly paid CEO that provide superior health care, is far better than an even higher paid government politician, providing much worse service.

 

Not all private healthcare insurance is run by for-profit organizations--which, admittedly, may influenced as to the degree of care that they will pay toward, given the effect upon the bottom line. Many Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans, for example, remain nonprofits. Ours is.

 

Obamacare does not dictate to the employer how the employer defines part-time. It only dictates who must receive Obamacare. The employer still decides their definition of part-time and how it relates to their benefit policies.

Government will never remove FICA from business because people in general are too careless to sustain these same benefits through their own administrative efforts...give people more cash and they will spend it on other stuff. This is why personal savings accounts won't work for retirement...most people won't save.

It's not sardonic...it's reality. All of those benefits paid for by employers do nothing for the employer. The employer only cares that the employee show up for work and work for the pay they receive. Vacation pay, sick pay, health insurance, 401K contributions, etc. only burden the employer...

 

ObamaCare declares that anyone who works at least 30 hours per week must be considered a full-time employee, and therefore covered by ObamaCare; or else the employer must pay a fine.

There is an exception for very small businesses.

Were you not aware of this?

I have already detailed how it would actually harm the employees, even if the full amount of FICA taxes that the employer currently pays were passed along to his or her employees.

It sounds to me as if you are perfectly willing to burden the employees just as long as the employer is not discomfited...

 

You contradict yourself. You said: The employer still decides their definition of part-time, and how it relates to their benefit policies........ but in the sentence just before you said Obamacare dictates who must receive Obamacare. Sentence 1 contradicts sentence 2.

Because if your company says that those who work less than 35 hours are part time, and part time employees do not get benefits, and yet the government says that those who work over 30 hours are required by law to get benefits..........

Well then obviously the employer does NOT still decided their definition of part time and how it relates to benefits.

Well most people won't save, because they know government will take care of them. If we had no Social Security, more people would be responsible for their own retirement. It is specifically because we have all these social safety nets, that people are lazy and blow every penny they have. I for one, and in favor of "you reap what you sow". We should we punish responsible people with high taxes, to pay for the irresponsible people?

 

This makes no logical sense. If my pay was increased by $1,000, and my taxes were increased by $1,000.... how would I be 'worse' off?

You do understand that every dollar that a business pays in Social Security taxes, is taken in lower wages, right? I hope you grasp this concept. There is no "Free Lunch" from business in FICA taxes.

If the company has to pay out $1 more in taxes for every hour a employee works, they simply pay the employee $1 less an hour.

 

I thought I explained this adequately in post #29 in this thread:

And again, in post #31 in this thread:

Does that not make sense to you?

Your phraseology is a bit too condescending for my taste.

Nonetheless, you might want to refer to my previous posts in this thread, as I noted, above...

 

Obamacare ONLY dictates how Obamacare must be administered. Obamacare DOES NOT dictate how to define part-time employees regarding wages and all other company benefits.

If something like vacation or sick leave or medical insurance or retirement benefits SOLELY the employee...then what logic are you using to believe the employer should fund benefits? In reality the employer is not required to provide anything except a wage and pay FICA and withhold applicable taxes. All other employee benefits are voluntarily provided by employers in order to compete for manpower. My problem are those who believe employers are obligated to pay these employee perks.

Here's the stupidity; the nation has 7.5% unemployment with millions more unemployed workers unaccounted for and everyone wants higher wages and more benefits and the creation of middle-class paying jobs...so you want to force all of these employee costs on industry yet in parallel (*)(*)(*)(*) and moan about industry not providing more jobs and higher pay?