Unemployment or understaffing?

I was once told by my father that it's desirable to have a little unemployment to help keep competition for the jobs up. I was looking at it from the other side, and I see merits in it as well. Between:

Ideally, there would be a minimal amount of unemployment with a reasonable amount of welfare and a healthy informal market.

That's a toughie...

I'd say Unemployment. Sure, some people are a little sour about trying to find a job, but the company/business/etc... is more PRODUCTIVE and EFFICIENT.

As far as I'm concerned, in my industry anyways: If an employee isn't making 40 bucks an hour for the company they're working for on top of their wages (i.e. 10 dollars an hour employee is making 50 for the company) then why the fuck should that employee be kept around?

"Yes."

"That's a toughie...

I'd say Unemployment. Sure, some people are a little sour about trying to find a job, but the company/business/etc... is more PRODUCTIVE and EFFICIENT. "

as long as the government has control over free people in the economy, well be talking about unemployment for a long time. The more the government gets involved the worse things get. They should have learned their lesson with the abuse of the banking system that caused the great depression.

Too bad were headed down the same path again

"as long as the government has control over free people in the economy, well be talking about unemployment for a long time. The more the government gets involved the worse things get. They should have learned their lesson with the abuse of the banking system that caused the great depression.

Too bad were headed down the same path again"

No.

"Yes."

Probably not.

OH NO!

I suppose it depends on if you are an employer or an employee. From an employeer's standpoint unemployment is better because it will drive wages down, while the opposite is true for employees. No matter what there will be some unemployment (I suppose not if there is some sort of state sponsered employment for those who are unemployed) even in a really robust economy. Understaffing could also retard growth, depending on the situation and industry. 

"I suppose it depends on if you are an employer or an employee. From an employeer's standpoint unemployment is better because it will drive wages down, while the opposite is true for employees. No matter what there will be some unemployment (I suppose not if there is some sort of state sponsered employment for those who are unemployed) even in a really robust economy. Understaffing could also retard growth, depending on the situation and industry. "

I prefer maximum production, so I prefer unemployment over under-staffing.

Also, I just don't understand how you can keep companies under-staffed unless you were telling them to do so.

A minimal amount of unemployment is extremely healthy for an economy.

"A minimal amount of unemployment is extremely healthy for an economy."

I like it when there is low unemployment, but a skill shortage.

So there is no competition, with all the other perks of low unemployment.

As is the case here in Western Australia. Althout the financial crisis is having a small effect.

"h8smikemoore said:

"as long as the government has control over free people in the economy, well be talking about unemployment for a long time. The more the government gets involved the worse things get. They should have learned their lesson with the abuse of the banking system that caused the great depression.

Too bad were headed down the same path again"

Look, I know you wear your politics on your sleeve, but that doesn't AT ALL answer the question I asked."

LOL I havent had a job senice 2006.....lottery thank u very much for supporting me laziness