Originally Posted by WillyBubba

Well, I don't think this really belongs anywhere else but it almost makes me wish their were a sub-forum for economics specifically.
This is the best paraphrase I can muster from the following page: Friesian School: Say's Law

In ancient Egypt over 90% of the population was required to produce the food necessary to live. Even then famine was a constant threat. In modern America less than 2% of our population produces more than enough food for us, supposedly enough for the entire world. Essentially, technology and knowledge have eliminated the jobs of 88% of the population. Furthermore, this is one of the greatest things that could have happened.

Over the years more and more people found themselves without jobs on farms and suddenly, not only did they have the free time to do other things, they had to find something to do to make a living. This directly leads to the production of new goods and services, technological advances, and other modern conveniences that ancient civilizations simply didn't have the luxury to produce as most of their workers needed to produce food.

Now, this comes to modern day layoffs. Though unfortunate for those laid off, when this occurs by a company that is profitable, it is a sign that technology is advancing and they can maintain productivity with fewer workers, thereby producing more profits, which are then usually reinvested. Those workers now without jobs are then forced to find new ones, develop new products and services, or work for those who are. Society as a whole benefits from these layoffs as they are actually signs of technological and productivity advances. Well today they're being laid off due to the american corporations moving their facilities to countries where labor is cheaper. Nike moving from the US to South Korea because they can pay then 50 cents an hour would definitely increase profits and lower the prices in the U.S.

On the flip side, the layoffs we often hear of in today's society are actually signs of a broken system. We have somehow developed this misconception that profits are equivalent to greed, exploitation and waste. In turn, we tax profitable companies while handing out subsidies to those that threaten bankruptcy which would in turn lead to layoffs. What occurs is profitable companies are no longer capable of investing nearly as much in new production and if they lay off unnecessary workers they are berated by society. Furthermore, profits overall are further decreased as unprofitable companies are kept alive by the government, further dragging down the economy and decreasing overall productivity.

Examples?
On a related note, our monetary policy directly relates to the general poverty of the lower classes. Money, like any other commodity, is worth more when there is less of it and worth less when there is more of it. Furthermore, by mandating necessary minimum wages, we artificially inflate the necessary amount of money required by the system to function. In turn, the Federal Reserve prints more money to keep up with this artifical demand for it. This leads to there being far more money in the system than there actually should be, thereby decreasing the value and buying power of our dollars. While we may make more money, it will buy less and less.
Our monetary system directly relates to the Federal Reserve altering interest's rates and true it does alter the system a little bit to have a minimum wage. But would you rather the french revolution"s" all over again or would you rather have a slight alteration of the economy by putting a floor on the minimum wage? Remember what it was originally put in place for, to keep people from working for food or a place to stay and to allow people enough money to be able to eat.

Furthermore, a government elected by the people will not be able to mandate morality to those people. Taking our money in order to help the unfortunate is not charity, it is thievery. Charity is the donations of hard working men and women, by individual choice (not societal domination), to sponsor, donate to, operate and otherwise assist humanitarian programs such as soup kitchens, free clinics and so on. In this manner society will remain productive thereby increasing true economic wealth (not this false notion that trillions artificially inflated dollars are wealth) without supporting what it cannot.

But if you do not lessen the gap between the richest and the poorest, the poor will take from the rich by force. Because of our economic system the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. At a certain point your going to have the classic Karl Marx proletarian revolution. So it is best to have wealth distribution and to make sure the poor are fed and have some where to stay (or at least most of them anyway).

Realistically speaking, with less than 2% of our population producing all of our food, there is no reason that the charity of free men even just the charity of some 50%, 25% or even just 10% of this nation (not governmental sanctions) cannot feed the 5% of our impoverished and unemployed, our hungry, no reason they can't clothe the huddled masses, and house the homeless. It doesn't require welfare or Medicare. Quite the opposite, this simply takes money from the free men and throws it into the sea of Federal bureaucratic waste and corruption. As long as money is sent to D.C. it will be wasted by the politicians there. What guarantee is there that my tax dollars will come back to Ohio when there are 98 Senators with other plans for it and only 2 fighting for me (and that is arguable)?

Layoffs in an increasingly productive economy are like vitamins or medicine unpleasant though necessary and ultimately good for us. On the contrary, layoffs due to the bankruptcy of an inefficient system, lessened and prolonged by government subsidies to both companies and, in the form of the minimum wage, workers are festering wounds, a threatening disease to our economy, our nation and our prosperity.