English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Do I have to consider the fact that the overall number of jobs wouldnt increase?Will the unemployemnt rate actually decrease considering the labour market?

2007-03-10 09:02:41 · 6 answers · asked by topofdawrld 1 in Social Science Economics

6 answers

No, it would mean people that were collecting would be poorer.

2007-03-10 09:08:35 · answer #1 · answered by Georgi Girl 4 · 1 2

Lot of ifs, but generally this should be true... frictional unemployment would decrease which would lower overall unemployment.
The number of jobs overall in the short run would not increase (sticky wages) but in the long run may be an increase in jobs as increased supply pushes wages down.
If the number of jobs stayed the same, then you would most likely get more discouraged workers who would fall off the roll of the unemployed and unemployment rates would still fall.

Peace

2007-03-10 11:26:35 · answer #2 · answered by zingis 6 · 0 1

In general, this is true. Reducing benefits will increase the incentives to find work, reducing the time spent unemployed. Assuming that the separation rate of employees stays the same, this will lower the natural rate of unemployment.

The overall number of jobs will likely increase, since the supply of workers will essentially increase. However, the increase in employment should lower the real wage of workers, assuming that there are diminishing returns to labor in the economy. That is, more workers means that average productivity is lower.

2007-03-10 09:50:05 · answer #3 · answered by Allan 6 · 2 1

i've got heard from (coverage friends) others that even after this 4-365 days (pre-pay) waiting era, latest circumstances, (you be attentive to, those they made this type of massive deal out of coverage agency denials, and stated they could no longer exist to sell this rubbish), could be denied for a added 6-months till now being dealt with. i ask your self whether you have extra effective than "one" if that runs concurrently, or ought to be separate and concurrent? (what website is that on?) Yikes. is that this authentic? Making you pre-pay for 4.5 years on a similar time as you wait to have a pre-latest situation dealt with? Did those "carnival hucksters" prepare a type sheet & a pie graph exhibiting that maximum will die till now those accumulating the money are ethical experience-ably in charge for doing no longer something? Social secure practices replaced into started by skill of Bismarck after he did a "existence-expectancy" survey of his people. He got here upon that the standard age of dying replaced into fifty 9.5 years, so he made State backed retirement (after an entire life of money) available at age sixty 5. It replaced into never meant to pay off. It replaced right into a tax. it is an identical.

2016-11-24 19:03:35 · answer #4 · answered by ussery 4 · 0 0

It's not true as you need to look at the demand side as well : if you're looking for job but no one wants to hire you, you're still unemployed. And it's very likely considering the remark of Alan Greenspan confirmed by the panic of Wall Street.

2007-03-10 09:07:45 · answer #5 · answered by Tuan 2 · 1 1

No, businesses aren't going to hire more workers because unemployed people are worse off. They will only hire more workers if the business' marginal costs will reduce with more labor. If you really want to reduce structural unemployment, reduce the minimum wage (which has it's own costs, and I don't recommend; I'm just saying that's the way to do it).

2007-03-10 09:23:40 · answer #6 · answered by ILookGuilty 3 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers