Free Marketers Explain: How is "I can't find anyone to do X job!" solved?

[TheBlackRabbit]

1. For highly technical IT, engineering, etc jobs there is indeed an actual shortage of qualified US workers in this nation and this shortage cannot be alleviated by simply raising wages because the issue does not originate from US employers not paying enough.

So

1. Skills sets in the tech industry are wide and always changing. Some fields do get paid far more than others. The big problem here is wanting a perfect fit and not willing to let someone get some ojt so allow them to cross into a new skillset.

So which is it? Ok, so I'll bite, Ducati. Got any job postings, Monster or whatever, that has a job fresh out of college paying 100k for a Master's degree in Engineering or IT?

My story: Got my GED and took the SAT at 17 after I was taken out of school in 7th grade and "homeschooled" (actually playing Ultima Online) for 4+ years. Went to a tech college hearing about all the great networking jobs that would pay 60-100k. Got my A+ certification hoping to get a job to pay the bills while in school. Then DOT COM BOOM happened, all the jobs dissapeared. I dicked around for a few years...

Then I picked my current profession by looking at the Bureau of Labor Statistics Manual.

The reason I asked for a job paying at least 75-100k with a Master's is anything less isn't trying very hard if the employer is so "desperate" for workers. A psychiatric nurse practitioner can make 80k with a Master's immediately. I am considering this after I finish my Master's in Nursing Leadership and Management. A nurse with an associate degree can start at 55k, work a little overtime and make more like 65k easy. Float pool starting pay at a rural hospital over here is $26 for 1 year exp + $3+ on weekends + $3+ for nights all stacked (hourly). Keep in mind this starts with 23 days paid vacation immediately, 5% 401k match, 3000 per year tuition reimbursement, and awesome medical coverage.

What I am saying is, the bar is pretty high to compete with that, but if you have the examples I'd be happy to look at them and maybe sell myself to the highest bidder!

 

[DucatiMonster696]

So

So which is it? Ok, so I'll bite, Ducati. Got any job postings, Monster or whatever, that has a job fresh out of college paying 100k for a Master's degree in Engineering or IT?

My story: Got my GED and took the SAT at 17 after I was taken out of school in 7th grade and "homeschooled" (actually playing Ultima Online) for 4+ years. Went to a tech college hearing about all the great networking jobs that would pay 60-100k. Got my A+ certification hoping to get a job to pay the bills while in school. Then DOT COM BOOM happened, all the jobs dissapeared. I dicked around for a few years...

Then I picked my current profession by looking at the Bureau of Labor Statistics Manual.

The reason I asked for a job paying at least 75-100k with a Master's is anything less isn't trying very hard if the employer is so "desperate" for workers. A psychiatric nurse practitioner can make 80k with a Master's immediately. I am considering this after I finish my Master's in Nursing Leadership and Management. A nurse with an associate degree can start at 55k, work a little overtime and make more like 65k easy. Float pool starting pay at a rural hospital over here is $26 for 1 year exp + $3+ on weekends + $3+ for nights all stacked (hourly). Keep in mind this starts with 23 days paid vacation immediately, 5% 401k match, 3000 per year tuition reimbursement, and awesome medical coverage.

What I am saying is, the bar is pretty high to compete with that, but if you have the examples I'd be happy to look at them and maybe sell myself to the highest bidder!

Your problem has been put in bold.

You wasted those years if you were not building up work/personal experience on your own time in the IT field after you completed your tech schooling. IT is first and foremost a field that places more emphasis on high levels of experience versus high levels of education. This experience should of been gain by interning or temp work at a agency.

Furthermore you also seem unwilling to sacrifice to get your foot in the door with any organization to gain a position. Sacrifice being sometimes willing to work for less and then using your education and experience to move up or out to a higher wage position along with being willing to move out of your area to other parts of the nation in order to pursue opportunities.

Moreover you need to realize that no organization (be it a tech company or hospital) is going take the gamble and pay you top dollar out the door and place you in a mission critical spot unless you are a stellar student with a at least some experience via internships (or temp work) under your belt which you should of gained after you graduated from your tech school instead of "dicking around" for a few years.

As for nursing good luck on that route. In California demand for nurses is high but the reality is this demand is for experienced nurses first and foremost. So 80k for a nurse practitioner is for someone who has more then a few years of experience under their belt and the school that allows them to be trusted to work with critically ill patients in a hospital. In addition the hiring of new nurses fresh out of school, has from what I've heard in the rumor mill in the Bay Area, slowed to a crawl. Never-mind that nursing programs in CA community colleges or state colleges are pretty damn difficult to get into and have huge waiting lines. So the ability to gain a job as a new nurse is also primarily dependent on your willingness to sacrifice to gain experience if you are located in a major metropolitan area such as the Bay Area in California.

 

[sandorski]

If your Supply of Labour does not equal your Demand for Labour, raise Wages or Benefits to increase the Supply.

 

[dank69]

Government needs to step in and start forcing people to work for less, otherwise job creators will just leave for greener pastures.

 

[Cerb]

Government needs to step in and start forcing people to work for less, otherwise job creators will just leave for greener pastures.

Why must the government do what the markets already are doing? Unless the government provides everyone with free housing, there will be a substantial floor for what certain people are willing to be paid, but wages have already been creeping down, searching for that floor, over decades.

Where did the training go, anyway? It seems like right through the .com boom, employers had no problems training employees. Now, we just hear how there aren't skilled people to fill niche positions. Especially in technology jobs, a good fit for the job will likely not have all the required skills at the time of the interview, as the needed skills tend to be too specific and varied.

 

[dank69]

Why must the government do what the markets already are doing? Unless the government provides everyone with free housing, there will be a substantial floor for what certain people are willing to be paid, but wages have already been creeping down, searching for that floor, over decades.

...

That's just it. If people workers aren't willing to live in poverty the government needs to force them to. Think of the corporations people!

 

[Cerb]

That's just it. If people workers aren't willing to live in poverty the government needs to force them to. Think of the corporations people!

Discounting humanitarian issues, the greatest problem I see with that is that we simply are not set up to support such poverty, and everyone wants to push it under the rug.

Governments want to tear down slums, tax wealth (property taxes), and generally maintain or improve their image. Then, we have regulations and distribution costs for basic necessities that make them fairly expensive (the lower your wages, the more transportation, food, and water costs matter). On top of that, we are stuck with transportation infrastructure that largely necessitates personal vehicles (you city folk can sit this one out ), and employers that expect them (being able to come in at a moment's notice, or sub-contracting, where the 'employee' must provide their won work truck, are both pervasive). Finally, with the last point in place, housing nearby commercial areas tends to be sparse in the 'burbs, leading to higher house/apt costs to be close enough to work to be able to ditch a vehicle.

Forcing people to work for ever-lower wages, without other systemic changes, will result in a slow economic collapse, as the workers run out of cake in the land of no bread.

 

[TheBlackRabbit]

You misunderstand, maybe I wasn't clear. I decided to drop out of tech school once the jobs started drying up. I was hired immediately as an RN after I finished my associates degree. I started at nearly $24 an hour base + differentials and overtime. It wasn't easy to get the first job, but I had two job offers in my first 4 months out of school.

When I went back to college for my nursing degree, I would have looked into IT, but basically, their "Bid" wasn't competitive with nursing. If I wanted to, I could have made 70k working 4 days a week my first year.

I decided bedside nursing isn't for me long term, so I am going to either get a Ph. D in nursing education or become a family or psychiatric nurse practitioner.

But no, you are wrong about how quickly someone can make money in nursing. An 18 year old can get a 2 year degree and make 60k immediately, then get their master's and 3 years later be making 80k day 1. Then 5 years later as a NP they could be closing in on 90-100k depending on location. Sounds like IT just doesn't want to play ball. If they are demanding all that experience BEFORE offering these kinds of salary, then sorry, it is not competitive with entering the medical field.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I don't buy this "H1B and foreign workers are taking our jobs" BS. Companies almost always want to hire US citizens or permanent residents for their positions in my field. A lot of foreign students in grad school need to find a job or have to move back to their country of origin, and when the economy is down it's difficult for some of them to find jobs.

The 200000+ Indian engineers imported into the SF Bay Area disagree with you.

Now lets start counting the Chinese, and then we can move onto the Eastern Europeans/Russians.

Meanwhile the older engineers cant get jobs because Oracle goes and complains to Congress it wants more cheap and easy hires from abroad instead of investing in the folks already here.

Train someone? Thats heresy in Sillicon Valley.

 

[Ozoned]

I keep hearing these examples:

1. Can't find workers in highly technical IT fields.

2. Can't find workers to pick various crops.

Then when it comes to raising the minimum wage every Republican/Free Marketer says it will kill jobs and it is not government's role to force employers to pay people more than they are worth.

How is it free market to hire foreigners, illegal immigrants, and petition the government for more H1B visa workers when EXACT same argument would result in this:

The employer would have to keep increasing the salary until someone accepts the job, or the supply evens out. Free market solutions to these problems:

1. Salary might have to increase to $150,000-$250,000 for day 1, entry level work.

2. An American would be happy to pick these crops for $15 an hour. If not, then they would be happy to pick them for $50 an hour. For $50 an hour, when I was 18 you could call me Sexy Gay Pablo Cruz and make me run around the fields in a pink fairy costume. And I promise I would be happy to out-pick any fresh across the border illegal. AND I would move my family to bumble-screw Egypt.

There is your free market solution. Now what was that about not being able to find workers?

Why would I pay you 50.00 per hour when I could move my entire operation overseas? There are folks not as greedy as you willing to outpick you for a mere bowl of rice per day. That is how the free market works. Kind of like how slavery does.

 

[werepossum]

So

So which is it? Ok, so I'll bite, Ducati. Got any job postings, Monster or whatever, that has a job fresh out of college paying 100k for a Master's degree in Engineering or IT?

My story: Got my GED and took the SAT at 17 after I was taken out of school in 7th grade and "homeschooled" (actually playing Ultima Online) for 4+ years. Went to a tech college hearing about all the great networking jobs that would pay 60-100k. Got my A+ certification hoping to get a job to pay the bills while in school. Then DOT COM BOOM happened, all the jobs dissapeared. I dicked around for a few years...

Then I picked my current profession by looking at the Bureau of Labor Statistics Manual.

The reason I asked for a job paying at least 75-100k with a Master's is anything less isn't trying very hard if the employer is so "desperate" for workers. A psychiatric nurse practitioner can make 80k with a Master's immediately. I am considering this after I finish my Master's in Nursing Leadership and Management. A nurse with an associate degree can start at 55k, work a little overtime and make more like 65k easy. Float pool starting pay at a rural hospital over here is $26 for 1 year exp + $3+ on weekends + $3+ for nights all stacked (hourly). Keep in mind this starts with 23 days paid vacation immediately, 5% 401k match, 3000 per year tuition reimbursement, and awesome medical coverage.

What I am saying is, the bar is pretty high to compete with that, but if you have the examples I'd be happy to look at them and maybe sell myself to the highest bidder!

I think nursing is pretty regional in outlook. A former coworker got his RN degree a couple years back. He got a lot of job offers, but everyone offered only part time, no benefits. He was told several times that a starting nurse should expect to work two part time jobs for a few years to gain experience. As he has a family and health insurance was eating him alive, he eventually went back into engineering because while the money isn't quite as good, he got benefits.

You detail a very smart way to select a career though, as well as what can happen when the market changes. (Which is really what happened to my friend; had he graduated five years earlier he'd probably have landed a well-paying full time job immediately.)

 

[TheBlackRabbit]

Why would I pay you 50.00 per hour when I could move my entire operation overseas? There are folks not as greedy as you willing to outpick you for a mere bowl of rice per day. That is how the free market works. Kind of like how slavery does.

My point exactly. Then don't say the skilled labor isn't here because we ALL KNOW IT IS. Just say I don't want to play by free market rules, so I will use lobbyists and bribery to change the rules (free trade agreements) so I can make decisions like the one you just stated.

There has never been an entirely free market; the free market is defined by whatever the current rules and regulations are. Lately they have favored taking everything and moving in overseas. It hasn't always been that way. There is also nothing stopping the government from changing the rules, taxes, and regulations to tilt the playing field back to bringing jobs back to America. They simply have chosen to do nothing major about it. Not every job would come back, but that's fine. They can use the taxes on the outsourcing companies pay down the debt or start stimulus plans, whatever the current economic climate calls for.

They also should raise the minimum wage as a huge corporate-paid stimulus plan. Anyone saying it would cost a lot of jobs....PLEASE, they have already cut all the jobs they can during the recession. A minimum raise of $10 an hour would cause minuscule inflation, huge stimulus, and almost no job losses.

My story was an example. I have always been great at math and science, and scored in the 99th percentile from 1st grade on. I could have been persuaded to go that way if the pay and benefits were there. There may also need to be some recruitment going on in high schools across the country, but my point is the brain power is here. People are choosing not to enter the professions for various reasons. IT doesn't seem to be competitive with going into pharmacy, nursing, or medical school.

 

[TheBlackRabbit]

I think nursing is pretty regional in outlook. A former coworker got his RN degree a couple years back. He got a lot of job offers, but everyone offered only part time, no benefits. He was told several times that a starting nurse should expect to work two part time jobs for a few years to gain experience. As he has a family and health insurance was eating him alive, he eventually went back into engineering because while the money isn't quite as good, he got benefits.

You detail a very smart way to select a career though, as well as what can happen when the market changes. (Which is really what happened to my friend; had he graduated five years earlier he'd probably have landed a well-paying full time job immediately.)

And if he stuck with it he would probably be making more than ever today. 2009-2011 was the worse time to graduate, and I graduated in May 2010. Nothing wrong with taking two part time jobs for a year then getting into a full time position 1 year later. Everything changes in nursing once you get that "magical year" of experience.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

You misunderstand, maybe I wasn't clear. I decided to drop out of tech school once the jobs started drying up. I was hired immediately as an RN after I finished my associates degree. I started at nearly $24 an hour base + differentials and overtime. It wasn't easy to get the first job, but I had two job offers in my first 4 months out of school.

When I went back to college for my nursing degree, I would have looked into IT, but basically, their "Bid" wasn't competitive with nursing. If I wanted to, I could have made 70k working 4 days a week my first year.

So basically you never had opportunity to test the employment waters in your area for IT networking positions as you moved your major over to nursing.

I decided bedside nursing isn't for me long term, so I am going to either get a Ph. D in nursing education or become a family or psychiatric nurse practitioner.

But no, you are wrong about how quickly someone can make money in nursing. An 18 year old can get a 2 year degree and make 60k immediately, then get their master's and 3 years later be making 80k day 1. Then 5 years later as a NP they could be closing in on 90-100k depending on location. Sounds like IT just doesn't want to play ball. If they are demanding all that experience BEFORE offering these kinds of salary, then sorry, it is not competitive with entering the medical field.

That is wholly dependent with the area you are in and the need for nurses in your local job market. In the Bay Area nursing jobs are in high demand to be filled but most employers look for experienced nurses first, with some even resorting to using H1B visas to import many from overseas nurses (There is glut of Filipino nurses in the Bay Area and they are the equivalent of your Indian IT guy in the US with a H1B visa).

 

[DucatiMonster696]

And if he stuck with it he would probably be making more than ever today. 2009-2011 was the worse time to graduate, and I graduated in May 2010. Nothing wrong with taking two part time jobs for a year then getting into a full time position 1 year later. Everything changes in nursing once you get that "magical year" of experience.

And the same could of been said with IT but again as Werepossum stated the offers are dependent on your locale.

Edit: To expand on this statement. In the Bay Area the bio tech jobs followed by computer tech jobs are considered to be lucrative fields of employment. However that may be different in your location and it maybe that nursing is the "Top" field of employment where you live.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Why would I pay you 50.00 per hour when I could move my entire operation overseas? There are folks not as greedy as you willing to outpick you for a mere bowl of rice per day. That is how the free market works. Kind of like how slavery does.

I find it interesting and somewhat disturbing that people with your view always attribute decisions made out of a pure economic need to reduce costs as always being decided upon due to simple and sheer greed in your opinion. Would you characterize businesses which have moved jobs back to the US as displaying selfishness?

 

[werepossum]

And if he stuck with it he would probably be making more than ever today. 2009-2011 was the worse time to graduate, and I graduated in May 2010. Nothing wrong with taking two part time jobs for a year then getting into a full time position 1 year later. Everything changes in nursing once you get that "magical year" of experience.

Could be. He did stick it out for two years and he had plenty of job offers, but all were part time. You'd think he'd be rolling in offers as he's very bright, very personable, funny as hell, a hard worker, and a big guy - no need to wait for an orderly to roll Mr. Winters, I'll just pick him up with one hand. But honestly, nursing and related fields aren't very hot in Chattanooga, TN right now. Our biggest hospital laid off a bunch of nurses, and we have a fairly large nursing school pumping more graduates into the job market. My neighbor spent the better part of a year finding a job, although from what I understand her California certification wasn't really good for anything in Tennessee. Not like being an RN or LPN.

 

[alphatarget1]

The 200000+ Indian engineers imported into the SF Bay Area disagree with you.

Now lets start counting the Chinese, and then we can move onto the Eastern Europeans/Russians.

Meanwhile the older engineers cant get jobs because Oracle goes and complains to Congress it wants more cheap and easy hires from abroad instead of investing in the folks already here.

Train someone? Thats heresy in Sillicon Valley.

How many older engineers let their skills stagnate and became uncompetitive with others? You can't be an engineer the whole life- someone else can do the technical side of things. If you worked 15 years as an engineer and didn't get in a management/business development role, you will be a liability to the company.

One of my uncles has been in IT for probably 2 decades. He did get laid off briefly at times but he has never had a problem finding a job in IT.

 

[TheBlackRabbit]

Our biggest hospital laid off a bunch of nurses, and we have a fairly large nursing school pumping more graduates into the job market.

Again, my point exactly. Why is it that we freely recognize and admit that nurses are being "pumped out", and then saying that "no way we can get that IT worker!"? Nurses are being pumped out, and a big part of the problem is what I just stated: where else are you going to go? Nursing cannot be outsourced. 5 to 1 patient patient/nurse ratios are the gold standard and evidence based to provide safer, better care. Hospitals are retaining old nurses who would have retired, but again, bad economy. In a normal economy, nursing would be a lock, and IMO it still is. I have a monster profile up that regularly gets job offers from all across the country. If I wanted to be a travel nurse I can make $40+ an hour anytime. I get about 2-3 emails a week.

I am nothing special, I just turned in my final paper to earn my BSN (MSN projected November/December, RN-MSN), so I haven't even updated my resume. So I know that even in the bad markets nursing is a hell of a lot better than the general economy. And yea, with travel nursing pay it would be worth looking into, since they pay for housing, even if you had to uproot your family, at least for a year or two.
We're still arguing, "but this experience!", or "but this, but that!" What's wrong with no "buts"? How about someone who gets an in-demand degree with a BSN or MSN should be able to find a job with benefits day one that pays 60,000 for a BSN and 75,000 for a MSN with NO EXPERIENCE and no "buts"? Is 60,000 so outrageous? I thought that was just middle-class pay. Based on the conversation and debate we're having we sound like we're arguing over a 1%er job for crying out loud.

So basically you never had opportunity to test the employment waters in your area for IT networking positions as you moved your major over to nursing.

Correct, but I would be INSANE to have tested it. You could have a point, maybe it would have worked out, but think about this: I got my GED in November of 2000. Think about the magnitude of IT job loss around that time. What would you have done? I still think it was the right move.

 

[1prophet]

Why would I pay you 50.00 per hour when I could move my entire operation overseas? There are folks not as greedy as you willing to outpick you for a mere bowl of rice per day. That is how the free market works. Kind of like how slavery does.

That's were the part of the constitution that protects the country needs to be utilized, also known as tariffs.

 

[her209]

It means Americans are spoiled entitled bitches not willing to work the long hours in the hot weather with no bennies. Employees should be lining up at such a generous offering.

 

[sandorski]

The vast Majority realizes that there are certain principles that makes sense and is useful in the Free Market view. Like religion, however, there are certain claims made by Free Marketers that are nonsensical or not useful.

There are 2 types of Free Marketers:

1) The Idealist. Those who believe that all Good comes from the Free Market. Perfect distribution of Wealth, Perfect Pricing of Goods/Services, Perfect Cost analysis of all direct and indirect consequences of economic activity, Individual and Social Freedom.

All Bad is the result of the lack of the Free Market. Environmental issues, Social issues, Economic issues, and other issues all exist because of the lack of the Free Market.

2) Those who benefit from the Idealists unquestioning faith in the Free Market. They hide behind the shield of the Idealists as they minimize their Costs by passing them off to the Public at large. Environmental consequences of their activities, Health consequences to their Workers, Wages to their Workers, and exorbitant Pricing of their Goods/Services can all be justified under the banner of the Free Market with the support of the Idealists.

Like Communism in the USSR, the "Free Market" in the US is bound for failure as it is an Ideology that simply ignores its' own faults and the faults of the People who adhere to it. Greed, for eg, may motivate someone to achieve more with the consequence of increasing Wealth and prosperity, but it often has the opposite affect and/or results in unintended consequences which Greed ignores for the sake of Profit. The Majority realizes that there needs to be a Moderating force to prevent such outcomes. This is where the Majority and the Idealist most often come into conflict.

 

[werepossum]

Again, my point exactly. Why is it that we freely recognize and admit that nurses are being "pumped out", and then saying that "no way we can get that IT worker!"? Nurses are being pumped out, and a big part of the problem is what I just stated: where else are you going to go? Nursing cannot be outsourced. 5 to 1 patient patient/nurse ratios are the gold standard and evidence based to provide safer, better care. Hospitals are retaining old nurses who would have retired, but again, bad economy. In a normal economy, nursing would be a lock, and IMO it still is. I have a monster profile up that regularly gets job offers from all across the country. If I wanted to be a travel nurse I can make $40+ an hour anytime. I get about 2-3 emails a week.

I am nothing special, I just turned in my final paper to earn my BSN (MSN projected November/December, RN-MSN), so I haven't even updated my resume. So I know that even in the bad markets nursing is a hell of a lot better than the general economy. And yea, with travel nursing pay it would be worth looking into, since they pay for housing, even if you had to uproot your family, at least for a year or two.
We're still arguing, "but this experience!", or "but this, but that!" What's wrong with no "buts"? How about someone who gets an in-demand degree with a BSN or MSN should be able to find a job with benefits day one that pays 60,000 for a BSN and 75,000 for a MSN with NO EXPERIENCE and no "buts"? Is 60,000 so outrageous? I thought that was just middle-class pay. Based on the conversation and debate we're having we sound like we're arguing over a 1%er job for crying out loud.



Correct, but I would be INSANE to have tested it. You could have a point, maybe it would have worked out, but think about this: I got my GED in November of 2000. Think about the magnitude of IT job loss around that time. What would you have done? I still think it was the right move.

I'm not really arguing with you, just pointing out that job experiences vary and while nursing is one of the hardest jobs to outsource or replace with less skilled labor, it's still no guarantee of a job. But as long as you like nursing, I think you made a smart decision. If my friend wanted to travel, I'm sure he could have landed a well paying full time job too, but he preferred going back into engineering over relocating. Having a lot of qualified nurses locally allows employers to employ them full time, but in many areas employers don't have that luxury.

One of our area hospitals eliminated its whole IT department - my neighbor was the IT Director. Having been in IT management for a couple decades his IT skills were unmarketable, there are very, very few IT management positions opening up locally, he was not extremely happy being in management anyway, and his wife (a nurse) has a good job with hospice that she loves, so he went back to school and got his journeyman electrician's licence. Now he's building custom control panels and loving it. Just can't do that kind of cutting with nursing; although employers are trying to cut nurse/patient ratios, there are potential lawsuits and trust issues which limit how many nurses can be cut.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The vast Majority realizes that there are certain principles that makes sense and is useful in the Free Market view. Like religion, however, there are certain claims made by Free Marketers that are nonsensical or not useful.

There are 2 types of Free Marketers:

1) The Idealist. Those who believe that all Good comes from the Free Market. Perfect distribution of Wealth,Perfect Pricing of Goods/Services, Perfect Cost analysis of all direct and indirect consequences of economic activity,

Free markets proponents do not and have not ever attempted to established the claim that free markets provide a "Perfect" avenue for "Perfect Wealth Distribution". In fact this is nothing more then a distorted fantasy of your own interpretation of what you believe the term "Free Markets" encompasses. Yet this claim of attempting to achieve a semblance toward the goal of "Perfect Wealth (Re-)Distribution" has been at the core of many failed left wing economic policies.

However free markets do provide the ability to allow transparent relationships between costs and prices. This is done by limiting the distorting effects of subsidies, price or wage controls, excessive taxation and tariffs, etc from the markets so that producers and consumers can each have the ability to make informed decisions on goods and services in the economy when costs are truly reflected in the prices and wages set by the marketplace. So your use of the word "Perfect" is completely disingenuous when anyone with an ounce of common sense views this claim in the light of the distortion government subsides, tariffs, taxes, price control, etc have on the actual costs of goods and services available in the marketplace.

Individual and Social Freedom.

Free Markets in a capitalist society do incentivize and help to propagate individual freedoms because this economic system would not thrive and grow in any other climate. So without individual freedom to control and make decisions in the marketplace individuals cannot attain the full and complete benefits provided via a capitalist economic system in a free society.

All Bad is the result of the lack of the Free Market. Environmental issues, Social issues, Economic issues, and other issues all exist because of the lack of the Free Market.

I find this statement laughable at best. Free markets do not claim to be perfect but in a imperfect world having an economic system in place that allows for transparencies to exist in relation to costs versus wages and prices reflected goods and services made available in the marketplace is infinitely better then living in a system where goods and services, along with prices and wages are controlled and manipulated by slow moving government fiat. Furthermore having a economic system that promotes competition and rewards success and punishes failure is significantly better then having a system where success and failure are viewed in a indifferent manner and competition is suppressed. Furthermore you seem to be making the claim that the alternative (planned economies) have not or do not have instances of environmental, social or economic issues, which is completely false when anyone takes even the slightest cursory glance through a history book.

2) Those who benefit from the Idealists unquestioning faith in the Free Market. They hide behind the shield of the Idealists as they minimize their Costs by passing them off to the Public at large. Environmental consequences of their activities, Health consequences to their Workers, Wages to their Workers, and exorbitant Pricing of their Goods/Services can all be justified under the banner of the Free Market with the support of the Idealists.

Who is the real idealist? You just made the claim that any additional costs acquired or imposed upon businesses should be ignored. All without any understanding or acknowledging that there are and will be economic repercussions for these private entities that must compete in the marketplace via the prices and wages they set based upon the ::GASP:: the costs of the goods and services they provide to their clients and for which they themselves bid on to attain resources they need to be able to produce and compete. In all honesty it appears that your claim of idealism is nothing more then a mirrored reflection of your own distorted view of the world tainted by your hatred of capitalism and free market proponents and the realistic points brought to light which throw your own fantasy land economic assumptions out the window.

Like Communism in the USSR, the "Free Market" in the US is bound for failure as it is an Ideology that simply ignores its' own faults and the faults of the People who adhere to it. Greed, for eg, may motivate someone to achieve more with the consequence of increasing Wealth and prosperity, but it often has the opposite affect and/or results in unintended consequences which Greed ignores for the sake of Profit. The Majority realizes that there needs to be a Moderating force to prevent such outcomes. This is where the Majority and the Idealist most often come into conflict.

"Greed" is such a loaded term which economically inept and ignorant individuals use to denounce incentives to promote and support ambition in society via economic rewards. These rewards being the grease which keeps the wheels of the economy moving forward. Or worse these same individuals use the term "Greed" to totally ignore the realities of costs and its effects on decisions made by private market entities in order to prop up flawed and overreaching government policies.

What incentives to ambitions are provided in a economic system that distorts the costs of goods and services? None. When costs are masked by the "Good intentions" of governmental polices that do not take into regard the potential of direct or indirect consequences of actions you eliminate all incentives toward additional ambitious production by individuals to better themselves or to provide improved goods and services and thus be able to earn tangible rewards for their sound decisions in the market places which is accurately reflected in the economy as it grows. Furthermore in distorting the costs of goods and services by manipulating prices or wages you fail to teach the vital lesson of failure to those who make costly errors in the marketplace until it all boils over in a giant economic mess.

So in the end you have proven to be the true "Idealist" if you believe that you can suppress "Greed" (code word for removing ambitions or any other incentives to succeed in society) in the hope that government can provide you with a free ride or "Perfect" ride, worse support the false belief that handing over any right and power to make a decision on your own to government is akin to having "freedom".

 

[sandorski]

Free markets proponents do not and have not ever attempted to established the claim that free markets provide a "Perfect" avenue for "Perfect Wealth Distribution". In fact this is nothing more then a distorted fantasy of your own interpretation of what you believe the term "Free Markets" encompasses. Yet this claim of attempting to achieve a semblance toward the goal of "Perfect Wealth (Re-)Distribution" has been at the core of many failed left wing economic policies.

However free markets do provide the ability to allow transparent relationships between costs and prices. This is done by limiting the distorting effects of subsidies, price controls, excessive taxation and tariffs, etc from the markets so that producers and consumers can each have the ability to make informed decisions on goods and services in the economy when costs are truly reflected in the prices set by the marketplace. So your use of the word "Perfect" is completely disingenuous when anyone with an ounce of common sense views this claim in the light of the distortion government subsides, tariffs, taxes, price control, etc have on the actual costs of goods and services available in the marketplace.




Free Markets in a capitalist society do incentivize and help to propagate individual freedoms because this economic system would not thrive and grow in any other climate. So without individual freedom to control and make decisions in the marketplace individuals cannot attain the full and complete benefits provided via a capitalist economic system in a free society.



I find this statement laughable at best. Free markets do not claim to be perfect but in a imperfect world having an economic system in place that allows for transparencies to exist in relation to costs and prices reflected in goods and services is infinitely better then living in a system where goods and services, along with prices are controlled and manipulated by government fiat. Furthermore having a economic system that promotes competition and rewards success and punishes failure is significantly better then having a system where success and failure are viewed in a indifferent manner and competition is suppressed.

Furthermore you seem to be making the claim that the alternative (planned economies) have not or do not have instances of environmental, social or economic issues, which is completely false when anyone takes a even the slightest cursory glance through a history book.




Who is the real idealist? You just made the claim that any additional costs acquired or imposed upon by businesses should be ignored. All without any understanding or acknowledgement that there are and will be economic repercussions for these private entities that must compete in the market place via the prices they set based upon the ::GASP:: the costs of the goods and services they provide to their clients. In all honesty it appears that your claim of idealism is nothing more then a mirrored reflection of your own distorted view of the world tainted by your hatred of capitalism and free market proponents and the realist that are brought to light which through your economic assumptions out the window.




"Greed" is such a loaded term which economically inept and ignorant people use to denounce incentives to promote and support ambition in society via economic rewards. These rewards being the grease which keep the wheels of the economy moving forward. Or worse these same people use the term "Greed" to totally ignore the realities of costs and its effects on decisions made by private market entities in order to prop up flawed and broad reaching government policies.

What incentives to ambitions are provided in a economic system that distorts the costs of goods and services? None. When costs are masked by "Good intentions" of governmental polices that do not take into regard the potential of direct or indirect consequences of actions you eliminate all incentives toward additional ambitious production by individuals to better themselves or to provide improved goods and services and thus be able to earn tangible rewards for their sound decisions in the market places which is accurately reflected in the economy.

Furthermore in distorting the costs of goods and services by manipulating prices you fail to teach the vital lesson of failure to those who make costly errors in the marketplace. In the end you have proven to be the true "Idealist" if you believe that you can suppress "Greed" (code word for removing ambitions or any other incentives to succeed in society) in the hope that government can provide you with a free ride, worse yet is the false belief that handing over any right and power to make a decision on your own to government is akin to having "freedom".

Perhaps you should listen to what Free Market adherents say?