Corporations have more cash than ever, yet employment is stagnant. Solution?

[Capitalocracy]

Can we solve this by lowering our wages and benefits, working more hours, or even by going to college? Will any of these things make it possible to compete with cheap foreign labor?

I don't think so. Seems to me like unless we start working for a dollar a day, businesses will outsource everything that can be outsourced. And as always, they will have as few employees as possible to put together the products and services they're able to sell.

Given these factors, that corporations HAVE THE MONEY right now, profits are at all-time highs, and yet there are no jobs, can anyone suggest a better solution to this problem than a significant increase in the minimum wage to a living wage or above, which will increase wages across the board and make it possible for people to spend more on goods, services, and recreation, and make it possible for big businesses to manufacture and sell more goods and hire more workers, and for more small businesses and local businesses, for example, restaurants, to be created and thrive?

[golddigger]

1. Another Egypt?

[Capitalocracy]

4. Unfortunately, a living wage isn't in the national dialogue

basically at all... for some reason, the idea that workers should be able to live off of their paycheck is totally fringe

[sharesunited]

2. Tax idle cash.

[Capitalocracy]

3. That would create an incentive to spend the money

Or to hand it out in bonuses.

[dkf]

5. Is it really a good idea to encourage holding no cash?

What happens if we experience a credit crunch again?

[Zoeisright]

6. Love that idea.

[dkf]

7. There kind of is a tax on idle cash aka inflation.

Cash is a negative holding nowadays and that still isn't incentive to hire. If they bought stocks or bonds wouldn't that get rid of cash too?

[DBoon]

9. yes

use it or lose it

[n2doc]

8. raise corporate taxes+eliminate loopholes, then give targeted break for US hiring of permanent

workers.

Actually, they should just tie the top income tax rate to unemployment. Every 1% decrease in unemployment = 2% drop in top rate...And vice versa.

[Dappleganger]

29. [phone]

[WinkyDink]

10. Why the "yet"? The word you need is "because."

[Capitalocracy]

11. good point.

:toast:

[vssmith]

12. Corporations will be happy when we work for Chinese wages

[Capitalocracy]

13. What I don't understand

is that they seem to want us to work for Chinese wages, but pay American prices.

How the hell is this supposed to work?

[vssmith]

14. It is not going to

[WinkyDink]

21. *Cue music* "Another day older and deeper in debt."

[katnapped]

22. Precisely!

They'll be more than happy to finance your basic living expenses (housing, food, utilities) for a low low 99.92% APR

[Marr]

27. There's no single intellect directing it, that's why. Just a collection of corporate jackals, each

one looking to boost his next quarter and avail himself of his lovely golden parachute sometime soon. Outsource the jobs, cut the company up into pieces and sell it off, whatever. Long term doesn't matter, results don't matter. Just that next quarter and the soon-to-follow permanent vacation. It's all a big fire sale.

[Capitalocracy]

28. And they don't have the sense God gave a turnip,

as my mother would say. The original populist movement was mainly farmers who were overproducing at an unsustainable flooded market value demanding that the government limit how much they could produce.

Of course, I'd rather see the government pay them to produce more and use it to feed the hungry at home and abroad, but these guys were smarter than the brilliant minds in industry today, who, if they knew what was good for them, would demand a living wage pay requirement.

[JuniperLea]

15. How about lowering profit expectations?

This whole thing would be over if TARP had been given to the people, and it was spent at the ground level. Most of it would have ended up with the banks and corporations anyway. It would have been used to pay bills and to MAKE PURCHASES!! Only consumerism can make the economy grow.

[Capitalocracy]

16. Totally agree with that

What's more, putting funding directly in the hands of citizens is important because I'm starting to think there's a very serious problem with how the money supply is distributed... especially when banks have no reason to lend. If money supply increases are done through banks, and then the banks just hijack it, won't all the wealth move upward and eventually nothing will be left to circulate?

[JuniperLea]

24. Yep... the greedy who got us into this mess...

Were handed a wad of cash (thanks, W) and they are sitting on that cash, still! The auto industry bailout was structured much differently, and they couldn't wait to get out from under.

No self-respecting business owner is going to hire on more people just because they can afford to do so. That would cut into the almighty profit! The only thing that gets them moving on hiring is a demand for goods and services. It's the only thing that is sustainable.

When prices go up because the greedy don't want to lower their profits, fewer people can afford to buy. That causes a rise in prices again so the bottom line remains steady. Then even fewer people can afford to buy, they quit buying, and so on and so forth. I'm not sure why it is we aren't talking in terms of the big picture and the basics of business and economy.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

25. But isn't the argument that lower profit expectations........

will stifle innovation and drive ideas to areas (likely outside the US) where they can get top dollar for them? Don't mistake me, I think your idea is good, but we're a profit-driven nation and I believe it would be seen as red meat for those who would label it "redistributing wealth".

[JuniperLea]

26. It's not sustainable...

The only way to drive real, sustainable profit is to actually sell goods and services. And in order to sell those, consumers need money. It all goes to the top anyway. Trickle-on economics was a lie, and the greedy are clinging to the lie.

If TARP had gone to we the people, what do you suppose most of the money would have been spent on? Mortgages, credit card bills, and other purchases. Who benefits from that? Corporations and banks... but we the people do too. It's win win.

Greed is the most sinful thing, I swear.

[eleny]

17. tariffs and taxes nt

[Rex]

18. Stop buying from the mega stores and go local.

Shun huge corporations over small business and make sure all your money goes back into the local community. The only other thing is to have huge, nationwide strikes by everyone that is considered working poor...just kidding, you would get fired and probably not be able to find another job. Corporation hold all the cards right now and rule Washington D.C. with an iron, yet invisible, hand.

We lost.

[Capitalocracy]

19. Never say never.

I don't see this as a game that has an end. We're behind, but in the longrun, we can catch up.

[dkofos]

20. $50,000 X 15,000,000 = $750,000,000,000

We could have put 15 million people to work at a decent wage
for what we spent on the banksters.

The corporopersons are sitting on TRILLIONS which they will
use for Mergers and Acquisitions which will create more mega-corps
and will put more people out of work.

This could only make sense in the business world.

[blindpig]

23. Expropriate without compensation. n/t