• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The truth about Sweden's short working hours

The idea is that it should also benefit the employer. That for example a hair salon in Sweden tried and increase their profits even if hair dressers got the same pay because increase sales of hair products. That the hair dressers became more customer oriented and could sell more products.

Sure, increasing sales would increase profit but hair salons offer both services and products. Most employers offer only one.

If an employee was a waiter and he made $10 an hour plus tips, not only would he lose $20 in wages if he went from 8 hours to 6 hours, he would also lose whatever tips he might have made during that time. His employer is going to have to hire another waiter for those two hours so the employer cannot afford to pay the first waiter and the second waiter. The employer could raise his prices, I suppose, but then he might lose customers who think he's charging too much.

If the first waiter really wants to earn more money, he should look for a better job, improve his knowledge or skill set, or start a business of his own.
 
I dont disagree. It is a massive problem.. but hardly the present governments fault. It was the same under Bush, with the exception then that you could re-mortgage your home to have an extra income.. which many did.

Bush spent too much also, but this government has done even more. The sad thing is, there was a template that could have been followed. We had a worse recession in the '70s and into the '80s, but that was turned around into a long lasting, booming economy. For some reason, this government decided to do the exact opposite. Can only guess why.


Here I disagree. The economy is doing okay relative to what the present government was left with, but for some reasons the GOP and right think that it can do consistently better with 5+ growth a year like it did in the past... except it did not do that in the past. Plus any reforms that have been attempted have been blocked by the party of NO!

Not really. It was back in 2008, it's 2015 now. The economy should be doing much better, and much sooner. No excuse for that, as I said, it was turned around in the '80s. I fully support blocking anything that takes us in the direction that has been proven to not work.

The problem is that American wages have at best been stagnant for the last 20+ years and in reality they have been declining in some areas. Who controls over all wages? Companies.... who not only export jobs, but demand people work more hours for less pay, and all in the while the shareholders and owners of said companies get richer and richer....

Companies don't control wages, the market does. The more the government intervenes, the more unintended consequences you get. Strike another one up for big government!

That is why the lower and middle classes are struggling and the upper/rich classes are richer than ever before. It is the failure of trickle down economics. But no worries this is the part where you accuse me of being a liberal and all that instead of accepting the realities of the world.

We are being flooded with people taking jobs and just taking handouts. More of a drag on the economy. Used to be being a liberal didn't mean that you ignored the reality of how the economy works. Seems like that is required these days, lest you be tarred and feathered by the rest of the left.
 
Bush spent too much also, but this government has done even more. The sad thing is, there was a template that could have been followed. We had a worse recession in the '70s and into the '80s, but that was turned around into a long lasting, booming economy. For some reason, this government decided to do the exact opposite. Can only guess why.

It was turned around because Reagan started spending like no tomorrow. He grew the debt by 300% and most of that was ploughed into the military. He was deficit spending and it made Bush and Obama look good. His actions that you so praise, are the root cause to the economic problems of today. He started the whole trickle down economics and it has utterly failed. The rich have gotten much much much richer, but nothing has really trickled down.

Not really. It was back in 2008, it's 2015 now. The economy should be doing much better, and much sooner. No excuse for that, as I said, it was turned around in the '80s. I fully support blocking anything that takes us in the direction that has been proven to not work.

On what basis should the economy be doing much better and sooner at that? Just because Reagan managed to get out of a minor recession (relatively speaking) does not mean that would work again. Different tax rates, different type of economy.. and certainly no justification to grow the military as much as he did.

The crash of 2007-8 was catastrophic for the American middle class. They have still not gotten out of that hole that was dug during mostly the Bush administration (but not exclusively). No wage growth is a problem now, and then.

Now we can argue who did what and so on, but the reality is that the politicians in the US dont have a solution because any solution that would work, would mean turning on the very people who fund their political aspirations. This is regardless of political lean.

You hate Obamacare I bet.. and frankly I dont like it either, but it is better than what was before. But even Obamacare is idiotic because it relies on an industry that is utterly corrupt and basically being run by a cartel with next to no oversight. It is issues like this, that is holding back the US economy.. not lack of tax cuts or too much government spending bla bla... it is the fact that Americans think they have a "free market", but when in fact at best they have duopoly or even worse a defacto monopoly in many industries.

Companies don't control wages, the market does. The more the government intervenes, the more unintended consequences you get. Strike another one up for big government!

Horse****. There is no market forces on wages. Unions are far too weak in the US to set up and resistance against corporations dictating wages. The wage pressure is simple.. either you work for next to nothing or we ship your job overseas. This has absolutely nothing to do with the market. Most companies could easily pay their workers more, but it would mean less profits for their shareholders and owners.. and we cant have that can we now. Do you really think a company like Walmart needs to pay their employees so little that they still need food stamps and other government assistance? Of course not, but if they do pay them more.. like a living wage.. that would mean less money for their owners.. and we cant have that!

We are being flooded with people taking jobs and just taking handouts. More of a drag on the economy. Used to be being a liberal didn't mean that you ignored the reality of how the economy works. Seems like that is required these days, lest you be tarred and feathered by the rest of the left.

You are being flooded by people taking jobs because the US right is protecting the companies that cater to them. And dont even try to deny this. The more illegal workers, the bigger the wage pressure on ordinary Americans. Not fining or winding up companies that consistently use illegal workers... is just mind boggling.

But keep blaming the left, so called liberals and Obama .... it is that attitude that makes it impossible to fix the US economy... everyone is to blame, and especially special interest groups that prevent competition.
 
Could you put that in other words? I cannot see, what you are trying to get at.

Could you put that in other words? I cannot see, what you are trying to get at.

For multiplier effect to work workers need decent jobs and pay. But if workers have decent jobs and pay it is much more difficult to exploit them and take advantage of them. It may be good for the real economy for workers to have decent jobs/pay but it is bad for capitalists because they have less power over people.

The multiplier effect refers to the increase in final income arising from any new injection of spending. The size of the multiplier depends upon household's marginal decisions to spend, called the marginal propensity to consume (mpc), or to save, called the marginal propensity to save (mps).
The multiplier effect

You may have heard Mitt Romney talk about how fantastic he thinks it is to see desperate poor Chinese line up for factory work. Mitt would have also noticed that wealthy Chinese all have at least three wives. For capitalists to have great power over the masses they must keep the masses in a state of insecurity. The multiplier effect is bad for western capitalists because if people have decent jobs and decent lives they will be far less likely to sign up for sugardaddy.com. And less likely to become an uber driver. Less likely to consider work as a body slave or shoe shiner. So the plan is to make poor westerners as poor as poor and desperate as poor Chinese - not for things to get better. The worse things are for the masses the better for surplus capitalists and their chances of finding some poor girl to work as their sugarbaby.

edit- Notice that western capitalists do not want us to have things better than China - they want us to compete with it. The idea is to make things as bad as possible for the masses - not better. Capitalists want poor and middleclass peoples daughters for sugarbabies. And they want to treat them like a piece of meat. See how hard they promote 50 Shades of Grey. A heck of a lot of money was spent to get your poor or middleclass daughter to watch that capitalist propaganda. And why? Because these people want to do terrible things to your daughters. Thats what its all about.

edit- With the cost of living in USA a citizen must earn $75000 to be happy. Surplus capitalists want as many of the masses under that as possible. And the further under the better. The happier people are - the less sugarbabies for them.

edit- The last thing that capitalists want is for the masses to be able to afford to get married.
 
Last edited:
It was turned around because Reagan started spending like no tomorrow. He grew the debt by 300% and most of that was ploughed into the military. He was deficit spending and it made Bush and Obama look good. His actions that you so praise, are the root cause to the economic problems of today. He started the whole trickle down economics and it has utterly failed. The rich have gotten much much much richer, but nothing has really trickled down.

No, it was turned around because the government took less of everyone's paycheck and we had more dollars to invest in the economy. This also has the effect of giving investors confidence that they have a President that is on their side. The problem with Obama, besides the spending, is that investors have no confidence in him. They know that he is anti business and pro government. They are afraid to expand and hire people because they know his policies stifle the economy, and it is not worth the risk.

On what basis should the economy be doing much better and sooner at that? Just because Reagan managed to get out of a minor recession (relatively speaking) does not mean that would work again. Different tax rates, different type of economy.. and certainly no justification to grow the military as much as he did.

On what basis? Are you kidding? It's been almost 8 years of malaise under Obama, that is horrible. I judge him by his actions. And his actions show that the economy and national security came way after social programs, government control, and actions that are basically buying votes for democrats. That is pretty clear. The economy has been in the dumps because it's just not a priority for him.

And please, Reagan dealt with an as bad or worse situation than Obama did. A minor recession? LOL! I guess you don't remember the "Misery index"?

Now we can argue who did what and so on, but the reality is that the politicians in the US dont have a solution because any solution that would work, would mean turning on the very people who fund their political aspirations. This is regardless of political lean.

There are career politicians on both sides. Job #1 to them is not to make things better for us, it's for them to get reelected. We badly need term limits. There is absolutely no reason these people should be in office so long. The longer they are in, the worse they get.

You hate Obamacare I bet.. and frankly I dont like it either, but it is better than what was before. But even Obamacare is idiotic because it relies on an industry that is utterly corrupt and basically being run by a cartel with next to no oversight. It is issues like this, that is holding back the US economy.. not lack of tax cuts or too much government spending bla bla... it is the fact that Americans think they have a "free market", but when in fact at best they have duopoly or even worse a defacto monopoly in many industries.

Firstly, it is not Constitutional. Government forcing an individual to enter into a contract and purchase something goes against everything this country was founded on. Secondly, other than the military, there are few things government can do better than the private sector. They clearly suck at healthcare, look at the VA.

Horse****. There is no market forces on wages...
Sorry, this is fundamentally incorrect, so there is no point in posting how it works again.
 
For multiplier effect to work workers need decent jobs and pay. But if workers have decent jobs and pay it is much more difficult to exploit them and take advantage of them. It may be good for the real economy for workers to have decent jobs/pay but it is bad for capitalists because they have less power over people.


The multiplier effect

You may have heard Mitt Romney talk about how fantastic he thinks it is to see desperate poor Chinese line up for factory work. Mitt would have also noticed that wealthy Chinese all have at least three wives. For capitalists to have great power over the masses they must keep the masses in a state of insecurity. The multiplier effect is bad for western capitalists because if people have decent jobs and decent lives they will be far less likely to sign up for sugardaddy.com. And less likely to become an uber driver. Less likely to consider work as a body slave or shoe shiner. So the plan is to make poor westerners as poor as poor and desperate as poor Chinese - not for things to get better. The worse things are for the masses the better for surplus capitalists and their chances of finding some poor girl to work as their sugarbaby.

edit- Notice that western capitalists do not want us to have things better than China - they want us to compete with it. The idea is to make things as bad as possible for the masses - not better. Capitalists want poor and middleclass peoples daughters for sugarbabies. And they want to treat them like a piece of meat. See how hard they promote 50 Shades of Grey. A heck of a lot of money was spent to get your poor or middleclass daughter to watch that capitalist propaganda. And why? Because these people want to do terrible things to your daughters. Thats what its all about.

edit- With the cost of living in USA a citizen must earn $75000 to be happy. Surplus capitalists want as many of the masses under that as possible. And the further under the better. The happier people are - the less sugarbabies for them.

edit- The last thing that capitalists want is for the masses to be able to afford to get married.

I hadn't looked recently. How large is the multiplier for various types of spending on p1 and pn with n set at say 5 years?
 
I hadn't looked recently. How large is the multiplier for various types of spending on p1 and pn with n set at say 5 years?

What? And its not that complicated. If people have decent jobs that give them disposable income - they spend it and this creates more work - production - growth - surplus - etc in the real economy. QE was the exact opposite of that.

And what are you checking?
 
What? And its not that complicated. If people have decent jobs that give them disposable income - they spend it and this creates more work - production - growth - surplus - etc in the real economy. QE was the exact opposite of that.

And what are you checking?

I had looked at the multipliers for various variables from different tax and spending changes by government.
 
It's been almost 8 years of malaise under Obama, that is horrible. I judge him by his actions.

And I'm sure the 2008 recession had nothing to do with that. :roll:
 
Firstly, it is not Constitutional. Government forcing an individual to enter into a contract and purchase something goes against everything this country was founded on. Secondly, other than the military, there are few things government can do better than the private sector. They clearly suck at healthcare, look at the VA.

Some examples of what the government can force an individual to enter:

1) Car insurance
2) Home owner's insurance
3) Commercial property insurance

Shall I go on?
 
And I'm sure the 2008 recession had nothing to do with that. :roll:

That was due to more government sticking their noses where they don't belong. There's a reason banks don't make loans to people that can't make the payments. We found out why.
 
That was due to more government sticking their noses where they don't belong. There's a reason banks don't make loans to people that can't make the payments. We found out why.

IBs made plenty of money on this on the side, without any government interference. :)
 
Some examples of what the government can force an individual to enter:

1) Car insurance
2) Home owner's insurance
3) Commercial property insurance

Shall I go on?

Many, many people don't have any or all of those. Shall I go on? Or do you get why that is not a valid comparison?
 
Many, many people don't have any or all of those. Shall I go on? Or do you get why that is not a valid comparison?

You never said anything about "many people don't" have any or all of those. You said:

Firstly, it is not Constitutional. Government forcing an individual to enter into a contract and purchase something goes against everything this country was founded on. Secondly, other than the military, there are few things government can do better than the private sector. They clearly suck at healthcare, look at the VA.

You questioned if government can force an individual to enter into a contract or purchase something at goes against everything this country was founded on. The answer is yes, it can. Whether people use cars to get car insurance, own a business to have commercial property insurance or own a house and have home owner's insurance is another matter.
 
We are being flooded with people taking jobs and just taking handouts. More of a drag on the economy. Used to be being a liberal didn't mean that you ignored the reality of how the economy works. Seems like that is required these days, lest you be tarred and feathered by the rest of the left.

Flooded, eh?

In a free market system, there are no controls over migration. I find it ironic how you have a nativist stance in economics when it comes to immigration. Mercantilism didn't work. :)
 
You never said anything about "many people don't" have any or all of those. You said:



You questioned if government can force an individual to enter into a contract or purchase something at goes against everything this country was founded on. The answer is yes, it can. Whether people use cars to get car insurance, own a business to have commercial property insurance or own a house and have home owner's insurance is another matter.

You don't have to own a car, you don't have to have car insurance. Show me where I can not buy healthcare.
 
You don't have to own a car, you don't have to have car insurance. Show me where I can not buy healthcare.

To quote my previous post, which you conveniently ignored:

You questioned if government can force an individual to enter into a contract or purchase something at goes against everything this country was founded on. The answer is yes, it can. Whether people use cars to get car insurance, own a business to have commercial property insurance or own a house and have home owner's insurance is another matter.
 
As long as mandated health care benefits are tied to employment, this would be economic suicide.
 
As long as mandated health care benefits are tied to employment, this would be economic suicide.

It should be done via single payer system, to take this burden away from businesses.
 
Flooded, eh?

In a free market system, there are no controls over migration. I find it ironic how you have a nativist stance in economics when it comes to immigration. Mercantilism didn't work. :)

is that what you think, we should just have open boarders? Couple that with all the welfare we give illegals, and you have the makings of a disaster.
 
is that what you think, we should just have open boarders? Couple that with all the welfare we give illegals, and you have the makings of a disaster.

According to free market capitalists, yes.

I'm following your logic here, as Adam Smith never advocated against nativist tactics, borders, restricted trade, etc.
 
According to free market capitalists, yes.

I'm following your logic here, as Adam Smith never advocated against nativist tactics, borders, restricted trade, etc.

And where did I say we should have open borders? But let me make it clear to you, any country needs to control it's borders. I never mentioned Adam Smith, btw. It seems like you are just talking about a theoretical situation, while I am addressing the real world.

There are no pure monopolies, free market economies, socialist economies, or pure anything.
 
As long as mandated health care benefits are tied to employment, this would be economic suicide.

That is a good point, since adding a worker may require spending an average of $12K/year to provide them "mandated" medical care insurance benefits. Changing from three 8 hour shifts to four 6 hour shifts adds $12K/year in overhead costs for each additional employee.
 
Back
Top Bottom