2 votes

Can an Economy Thrive on Part Time Fuel?

The Part-Time Economy and Part Time Recovery

The Huffington Post recently reported that one fifth of all new jobs created since the recession ended were temporary jobs.

It’s tough being under 30 today. For the baby boomers growing up in the 1950′s and ’60′s being under 30 was like getting a lottery ticket – at least until the Vietnam War draft.

Many of the people accepting part time employment out of necessity are “millennials”. Not only is the work not full time but often doesn’t require a college education. In addition, part time employees are generally not on the same career path as full time employees so while future job prospects for millennials are uncertain, significant student loan debt loads are.

Tomorrow morning millennials will wake up to more bad news – student loan rates will double. The doubling of rates will ensure that the student loan default rate will rise even higher.

Read more:


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Belief in Lies

Even before the use of petroleum based fuel began to increase productive capacity exponentially there were estimates of 4 hours of work a day required for a standard of living.

That is before The Civil War.

Standard of Living = 4 Hours per Day

Now anyone can communicate with anyone on the planet to demand and supply within 2 weeks time or less having the transfer of the supply to meet the demand finished and the producers can then move onto the next goal.

People do not understand political economy.

Here is an example of what was known in that time period back when a Standard of Living was earned with about 4 Hours per Day effective production traded equitably.


Here is a review of such information on Political Economy known at that time before The Civil War in America.


First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.

What does that mean?

Look here:


That is an official confession of a crime in progress. The economic POWER produced by those who produce economic power is stolen from the producers and then that POWER is used to steal more POWER from the producers.

That means that there is a lot of POWER produced even while that POWER produced is stolen and used to steal more POWER.

Has math stopped working since 1850 or so, or have too many people been fooled into believing in too many lies about history, and political economy?


Too many people don't understand math

indeed I read 5 out of 4 people have trouble with math

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

How well does anyone understand Political Economy?

I can offer to you, or anyone, a one sentence, competitive, explanation of Political Economy, and I challenge you to find a more accurate explanation in any form whatsoever, any book, any law, anywhere.

I call this Joe's Law, because no one else will own up to it.

Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

What that means is that living beings require production of productive power so as to survive, and if POWER is not invested into the creation of more POWER, life ends.

Power has to be consumed in the productive process of increasing the supply of power.

The opposite if power consumed in the process of increasing power is the consumption of power.

This can be illustrated on any living process down to the single living cell.

So, in context to your question, it is mathematically obvious, while knowing how political economy works, that when the criminals take over the result is no more life.

If the criminals completely take over, there is no more life, since each criminal is cutting each other criminals throat to gain access to the shrinking supply of producers who are somehow able to keep on producing despite the steady increases in costs of defense against criminals.

When the victims reach for the POWER required to defend against criminals, and instead of gaining access to the POWER of defense there is ONLY criminals at hand, ONLY criminals hiding behind false authority, available for defense, then, in the words of Thomas Paine, we are providing the means by which we suffer.

That is mathematically unsustainable as the Law of Diminishing Returns sets in.

Power consumed in the process of consuming Power increases the price of power while purchasing power decreases because the lack of power increases the cost of production.

Take away the criminals who are false authorities and what happens?

Power reaches for abundance instead of power becoming ever more scarce as all the available power flows to the few most powerful criminals.


A well documented crime in progress. The Unit of Fraud is inculpatory evidence proving the fact of the crime in progress.

Follow the money to the origin of it, and there will be the criminals.

How is that not common sense?



Nowhere in the laws of physics does it state that prosperity can only be attained with people working for 40 hours a week.

In 1855, 50 hours a week was just casual dilly-dallying. A real man worked 16 hours a day, 6 days a week. 40 is just as arbitrary as 30.

The problem isn't the hours worked. It's the suffocating regulations caused by hordes of meddling bureaucrats who only have the authority to say no.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.


Also author of Stick it to the Man!


Agree it could be if the part time jobs were ones

that were not menial-ie ones that require a lot of time on task, like shifts where people have to be on site.

In a tech based economy, it is possible that those highly paid workers could get their work done in 30 hours a week.

If low paid workers work fewer hours they make less.

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Plus that low income work is

Plus that low income work is practically slavery. You basically get enough money to pay to live, but not much else. The slaves also got housing and food for alot of work and not much else.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Crazy all this talk of recovery

they count part time and underemployed people as employed and STILL the labor participation rate is at 32 year lows

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com