Possible Reasons for the Difference in Job Quality Today

Hello, everyone! First of all, I just want to thank everyone for their great support from my district, as I began the path toward becoming an elected leader in the House of Representatives. There was a tremendous outpouring of support, which reinforced my belief in humanity and all American citizens: that they are good people that want to help everyone, all poor people included.

New evidence from my statistical research has shown a possible reason for the difference in job quality. An earlier article mentioned the overall problem that has been created from the shortage of money supply in the American economy. I showed how there isn't even enough money to support all of the people's savings for life operations, as well as business savings for operation costs.

I showed how the rate of hiring between companies is actually relatively similar. Interestingly enough, I was able to calculate the average hiring rate from a random sample of companies, and extrapolating it gave me an accurate estimation of the total jobs in America. By cross-checking this number with the current figures stated for the amount of total jobs in America today, I was able to find that the ratio of hiring to operational savings costs remains fairly consistent across the entire market. The extrapolation was almost exactly equal to the current figures.


This provides interesting information in relation to the number of jobs that a company creates, but leaves out the idea of job quality completely. For example, some jobs come with perks, vacations, and a high salary. Others come with minimum wage and that is all.

Many people often think that this has to do with some kind of lack of appreciation of certain workers in certain jobs. I have even thought that myself in the past. However, after several years of research into the matter, it appears that there may be some kind of statistical explanation for this. The reason once again seems to lie in operation costs of a business.

For example, Walmart may only make a small profit off of each item sold, but they also have to keep an incredibly high number of stores running. When you factor in that they also have built many of these stores from scratch, it becomes very clear that the cost of the utilities and construction of all of these stores is probably pretty high. Combine that with a low profit off of each item sold, and you only are able to hire the majority of employees at minimum wage to be safe.

A company in Silicon Valley; however, may be able to hire a large number of employees with only one office needed, because they have a product that is a website or some kind of product that they can sell in stores. They only need research laboratories, office equipment and computers, and to pay for manufacturing costs, perhaps. Companies can either manufacture themselves, or they probably often times export the manufacturing to competing manufacturing businesses. These manufacturing businesses are competing with each other to offer the best price to buyers in the industry. They know that the person buying wants to make a profit, so they try to offer a per unit cost that is low. They can also get a substantially higher amount of business with lower pricing.

Meanwhile, manufacturing facilities use a lot of energy, and they have to invest a substantial amount in equipment and raw materials. This is while they are trying to keep the price low. Once again, this produces low-income jobs.


Microsoft and Facebook probably give people great jobs, but then their products probably have lower operational costs, considering that the magic of their products is mostly made of a vast number of lines of code. With storage capabilities becoming cheaper and more efficient by the day, it is possible that they can run with relatively low operational costs compared to Walmart or a manufacturing facility (that has to buy large amounts of raw materials and keep the price low at the same time).


The only way for companies with higher production costs to increase the quality of their jobs for all workers would be to increase the price of the product, and then to use the extra profits to supplement the income for the workers. Then, hopefully a situation arises where the buyers would be willing to pay a higher price for the sake of the workers, while the difference in lost profit did not matter as much as supporting the lives of the workers; or the other companies also kept their prices at the same high level to prevent the loss of business to the others.

Increased stress on businesses to garner more purchases in an economy that is strained for the low money supply in the system would cause more businesses to try to lower their price further than the others, at the cost of the employees, in order to gain more business from the buyers or consumers. There is a limit to the demand, but no limit on the needs of people to make income. They can end up trying to compete for the demand by taking it away from the other businesses. This could be good, everyone believes, because it can drive them to try to make a better product or at a lower price. I don't know if that is true or not, because it seems like people would want to make a high quality product anyway. It is definitely true, though, that the effort to produce cheaply is very competitive and a necessity for many businesses to get business. This would make sense in a economic system that is strained for the low money supply, where cheap costs would be the highest necessity. Unfortunately, this would come down on the heads of the very workers who work so hard to provide these goods and services.

There is no way for companies such as manufacturing facilities and Walmart to increase their prices at the moment, without potentially losing their entire profitability through the loss of buyers of their product. Much of their ability to gain business comes from the needs and wants of people to buy things cheaply. It would also be possible to be mad at the buyers for wanting to buy things as cheap as possible, but keep in mind that this is just how they are able to stay in operation. The amount of hiring is consistent across companies, compared with how much money they save to stay in operation.


It may be possible one day, if I succeed in taking the strain off of the monetary shortage in society, that maybe they will be able to charge higher prices without it mattering as much to consumers. In doing so, they would be able to take better care of their employees. They could even use that as part of their pitch, that they actually do take really good care of their employees that make this high quality product. Many people would be willing to support a company like that; however, with the shortage of money supply so dramatic and enormous consequences for those who run out of money, that day is no doubt a long ways away as cheap prices continue to be one of the most important factors of a purchase, if not the most important factor.

New Evidence Suggests Contradictions to Theories About Destruction of the Economy From Increased Money Supply

Everyone has said it at some point. If you increase the total amount of money in circulation, it will probably bring everything down. People will stop operating the grocery stores and trucks, and everyone will turn apocalyptic, breaking windows and looting.

New evidence contradicts this theory greatly. Counting all of the current debt that both Americans and the government holds, the amount of money in circulation has increased by 1,638%. To date, nothing has "come down" or "been brought down". On the other hand, the number of jobs has increased. It is estimated that it would only take a 9.18% increase from the total amount in circulation today to employ the remaining 13,448,000 people in the population that don't fit in any place of society today. Our final conclusion is that there is no evidence or reason to believe that this small increase would topple the economy, especially when there are no indicators that anything has become a problem after a 1,638% increase.

This means that we may be able to allow the remaining 13,448,000 people in America to participate in the free market, if they want. It would just take the small increase mentioned before, as well as some kind of method of making the increase permanent, instead of relying on accumulated debt.

New Evidence Suggests More Problems in US Economic Woes

With the amount of money per capita in America still decreasing, due to a long-term growing population, it seems that poverty in America is still inevitable due to operating costs of doing business, the necessity of savings for personal things like college and retirement, the pursuit of wealth to increase quality of life, and the loss of some of that money in taxes every time it changes hands (when the government is not in debt).

For those who find themselves unable to get an income at all due to this shortage, the military is their only option, to which Congress said they may cut funding in the past. Ironically, it was this same "expense cutting" that was taking place in Germany right before Hitler came into power with promises of fixing the struggling economy in the country.


The Problem That Has Never Been Solved

For some reason, this problem of having a shortage of money in the economy has never been solved. It was the reason for the French Revolution, and it is the reason for widespread racism and hatred. It could be considered to be one factor of the real reason behind WWII and the holocaust.

Less quantity of money in a society has always been believed to create a stronger currency that is worth more, making people literally too scared to increase the quantity. The costs of operation of business, as well as the numerous reasons that money has to change hands in daily life including high cost of housing, result in people needing to save more money to be able to live with the basic necessities.


Why Can't We See This Phenomenon Taking Place

The issue of how much money any given person has in their bank account has always been a personal topic never discussed by anyone. Everyone knows some people who have a decent amount of money, and they can see past that idea that they should be angry at someone simply because they have more pieces of paper. However, the problems that can be created by the shortage of money per person resulting in some people having so little are drastic. Identically, the problems of what someone stands to lose by having less than the $4,000 per person is detrimental to the life of that generous person who is doing the right thing, especially with inflation having raised prices so high now that that amount per person wouldn't be enough to live with the basic necessities.

Just as very few people even know that the total amount of American currency in circulation is $1.4 trillion, even fewer are able to shuffle that money around to reach every citizen. As the population continues to grow, as housing prices rise, as the country becomes more debt ridden trying to provide enough for everyone, it becomes embroiled in controversy over a variety of things as they try to discriminate on who will get the money that's left to go around. This struggle translates to frustration and anger in the lives of innocent citizens every day.

Sure, we see the guy living on the street at the old age of 68, but we don't see this phenomenon taking place. That money is hidden in the bank accounts of wealthy people saving money in their IRA's and 401k's, and trust funds for the kids and kids college. The government encourages everyone to spend little and save more and more, but there are no discouragements or penalties for saving vast amounts of money for a long time. This makes the loss of wealth, for those who aren't included in the circulation, long-term. Unfortunately, this is an enormous amount of people.