Why there can't be full employment under capitalism?

Why there can't be full employment under capitalism?

Also why under socialism people where hidden unemployment? Why they didn't assigned people on shifts? (Like 4 shifts a day per 6 hours

Pic unrelated

There are 3 types of unemployment.

Structural:
A mismatch if available skills and desired skills for jobs
Example: There is only a demand for carpenters, but the only available labour is accountants

Frictional:
People moving between jobs
Example:
If somebody doesn't like their boss and they quit, the are unemployed until they find a new job

Cyclical:
Unemployment caused by the fluctuations in the economy
Example:
If there is a credit crunch like in 2008, businesses that rely on loans to expand their business and meet their payroll will have to cut workers or shut down

The only way to avoid unemployment is to force people to work

Pretty much this (nice explanation, btw).

Some level of unemployment is not only expected, but desirable. It's a sign of a healthy, mobile, growing, and evolving economy.

disagree.

Near full employment would be achieved by abolishing minimum wage. There'd be a price point available for every pairing of person willing to pay it and person willing to do the work.

There would be full employment if the government stopped subsidizing the poor; The best motivator is starvation.

But you know that there was period in history where there was no minimal wage? Also everywhere when minimal wage was established/raised it had minimal impact on employment it even rised

What? That isn't what I said and I disagree with whatever your point is supposed to be.

Why is full employment a desirable goal? Would you enjoy being forced to work on building a road rather than running a startup in the gig economy because muh feels?

>minimal impact
Not true. Ever heard of full service gas stations? They don't exist anymore. Look it up. You really think automation in fast food is
>muh greedy corporations

Uneducated people and students can do mindless jobs and happily work for $5 an hour for a side job and supplemental income but those jobs are gone

It just seems like a waste of human resources to me. I might sound strange with this line but i have a very specific mindset.

Also it is one of the major problems of our system with automatization on the rise. Also majority of jobs in developed countries are in services sector (travel agencies, restaurant etc.) which seems useless to me. I think that our system is becoming obsolete

>disagree
>with basic economic principles
Good one. Read a book

>full employment

>"I hate my job"
>lol tough luck faggot

I've published more econ titles than you've probably ever read child

Prove it

>Uneducated people and students can do mindless jobs and happily work for $5 an hour for a side job and supplemental income but those jobs are gone

they're in malaysia, and it's more like $2/day. Anyway full employment is bad because then businesses can't hire anyone

>full employment is bad because businesses can't hire anyone

What the fuck? Everyone has a job but it's bad because rich can't get richer? Holy shit Marx was right

Very funny

He's right though. Its bad when successful companies can't hire qualified workers. It stunts growth potential and retards GDP.

For the labor market to be efficient, it has to be fluid. By definition, that necessitates both structural and frictional unemployment. Neither of these are inherently bad things, and in many cases, they're a very positive sign.

>Sorry that you, yourself, are unemployed and undesireable. That's a different problem, but we really can't solve your defects here.

If you abolished the minimum wage(not arguing for or against that idea), there would probably be people unwilling to work at the price the market offers for their labour.

Also, no minimum wage does not eliminate structural unemployment. Regardless of wage, if there was a demand for plumbers and a shortage of supply there would still be a mismatch of available skills from the workers seeking jobs.

The only true answer in this thread.

Also, unemployment makes labor cheaper and more competitive. The economy runs more efficiently on a low basic level of unemployment.

Karl Marx believed capitalists create unemployment somehow to drive down the price of labor, but the truth is the complete opposite. Businesses would never sacrifice profit in favor of some principle of leaving a certain number of people unemployed. How would they make sure every business sticks to the plan?

In reality our democracy pushes minimum wage as far as it can before the negative consequences become apparent and people oppose further increases which means there has to be a certain level of unemployment before enough voters start to question it.

>there would probably be people unwilling to work for the market rate..
Agreed, that's why I snuck the word 'near' in there

>demand for plumbers / shortage of plumbers
In world with no plumbers some fuck will drink the water out of your toilet for a high price. Or a completely unskilled worker will try his best for hours at a low rate then clean up the mess when he's done. The market could come up with the right rate for that kind of plumber too

Minimum wage was literally brought into law by a couple of faggot billionaires in Massachusetts that wanted to bring up the price of labor so they could shut down their competitors in the South. It isn't a humanitarian effort. It isn't some government safety net. It's the result of some millionaires trying to have their way (which is the only way anything gets done in this country)

Today's implementation of it is simply some frankensteined version of this antiquated policy that is really only acknowledged for superfluous political discussion/drama

Unless you more precisely define what you mean by "capitalism" and "socialism", your questions are at best ambiguous.

>The only way to avoid unemployment is to force people to work
No. We can always have as much employment as businesses and governments are willing to pay for. But fear of debt, and sometimes fear of inflation, mean that having unemployment is sometimes seen as preferable.

>He's right though. Its bad when successful companies can't hire qualified workers. It stunts growth potential and retards GDP.
You're wrongly assuming the qualified workers have to be unemployed for the successful companies to be able to hire them.

But companies often do hire people who are already employed. And they can hire people straight out of uni. And they can lure retired people back into employment.

>For the labor market to be efficient, it has to be fluid. By definition, that necessitates both structural and frictional unemployment.
Frictional, possibly, but not structural.

>Minimum wage was literally brought into law by a couple of faggot billionaires in Massachusetts
Maybe in America, but in other countries it was done to protect disadvantaged workers.

>Frictional, possibly, but not structural.
Nope. Only an economy without technological advancement lacks structural unemployment. Such an economy would be horribly inefficient and ultimately doomed to collapse.

Just Google "jobs that don't exist anymore" for a litany of structurally displaced workers. I defy you to argue that our country should turn back time just to keep Rat Catchers in gainful employment in their chosen avocation.

>In world with no plumbers some fuck will drink the water out of your toilet for a high price. Or a completely unskilled worker will try his best for hours at a low rate then clean up the mess when he's done. The market could come up with the right rate for that kind of plumber too
Yes, that is all a possibility. However, it doesn't address the route of the problem. If the demand is there for a specific service with nobody able satisfy the demand, and the substitutes are too inadequate to satisfy the demand, there will still be structural unemployment because the job vacancies will not be filled.

>Near full employment would be achieved by abolishing minimum wage.
Why bother with removing the minimum wage when we can just force everyone to work for free?

Rat catchers are still around. But you miss my point. Just because they're structural displaced doesn't mean they have to be structurally unemployed.

lol

>Just because they're structural displaced doesn't mean they have to be structurally unemployed.
I don't really see the difference. Or more accurately stated, you're making the pessimistic assumption that the structurally displaced become long-term structurally unemployed. I'm making the realistic assumption that -- with assistance (private and government) and willpower -- the structurally unemployed are simply transitioning to more efficient full-time employment.

I guess it's a worldview thing. Maybe the people you know are happy sitting on the couch, while the people I know are willing to do anything (including education and vocational training) to get a good job.

You forgot the parasites.

Why work when your labour is worth less than what the government gives you

> doesnt know about downward nominal wage rigidity

IQ of 100 confirmed.

The point is that if there were jobs offering less than a neet could make by claiming benefits then those jobs would go unfilled (or filled exclusively by illegals). Hence your proposal wouldn't work.