US National Debt / Deficit - How does it end?

[mmortal03]

"It is not a corporation's job to provide an unskilled worker skills to do a job they are not qualified for."

This is absolutely wrong. Corporations take these chances every day and they most often pay off.
It's not their "job" to train workers per se, but they would be stupid to neglect the ability to get quality employees for far less than they are potentially worth.

When a corporation takes a chance on a worker they are investing in the worker. Someone with zero skills is a high risk investment. If it turns out the worker is lazy or is not smart enough to grasp the concept of what is being taught him then they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment.

A corporation will likely be able to pay someone they will train a somewhat lower wage. If the employee they are training is very smart and can do what is being taught them very well then the employee can take those newly learned skills (that the corporation just paid for) and go to another company that can offer more money.

It is a lose-lose situation to hire and train a no-skilled worker for a job that requires skill

You are making a straw man argument here. No one is saying that they should hire and train people who have no skills whatsoever.

[BJay87]

it doesn't end. what is the incentive for ending it.

LOL.. Perfectly said. It doesnt end, it will grow and grow.

[Eisenhower34]

"It is not a corporation's job to provide an unskilled worker skills to do a job they are not qualified for."

This is absolutely wrong. Corporations take these chances every day and they most often pay off.
It's not their "job" to train workers per se, but they would be stupid to neglect the ability to get quality employees for far less than they are potentially worth.

When a corporation takes a chance on a worker they are investing in the worker. Someone with zero skills is a high risk investment. If it turns out the worker is lazy or is not smart enough to grasp the concept of what is being taught him then they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment.

A corporation will likely be able to pay someone they will train a somewhat lower wage. If the employee they are training is very smart and can do what is being taught them very well then the employee can take those newly learned skills (that the corporation just paid for) and go to another company that can offer more money.

It is a lose-lose situation to hire and train a no-skilled worker for a job that requires skill

Again...totally wrong. They will swing for the fence 9 times out of 10 and if they hit one home run it is all worth it.

"they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment"

Not true at all, no one guarantees you a job...if you don't make the cut you are out on your ass. It happens every day.

I'm actually a stunning example of this...but it is a long story no one cares to hear.

Companies will generally not fire you for only a few bad days or if someone does not become as productive as they should be immediately. It generally takes at least ~6 months of poor performance before someone will be let go for bad performance.

The problem is that if someone is very good and is able to be very productive after they received their company paid training, there is nothing that would prevent them from taking those skills and going to another employer who can pay a higher salary because they do not invest as much on training entry level employees. The company that takes a chance and hires someone who has no skills is essentially paying for the 2nd company's training

[Cortex7]

it doesn't end. what is the incentive for ending it.

LOL.. Perfectly said. It doesnt end, it will grow and grow.

History of all other fiat money says otherwise.

It has grown and grown for sure, but in the end the creditors will call in the debts (dump US bonds) then it's game over.

[RoadTrain]

It has grown and grown for sure, but in the end the creditors will call in the debts (dump US bonds) then it's game over.

And what happens then? You know, if someone is selling, someone is buying

[mmortal03]

"It is not a corporation's job to provide an unskilled worker skills to do a job they are not qualified for."

This is absolutely wrong. Corporations take these chances every day and they most often pay off.
It's not their "job" to train workers per se, but they would be stupid to neglect the ability to get quality employees for far less than they are potentially worth.

When a corporation takes a chance on a worker they are investing in the worker. Someone with zero skills is a high risk investment. If it turns out the worker is lazy or is not smart enough to grasp the concept of what is being taught him then they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment.

A corporation will likely be able to pay someone they will train a somewhat lower wage. If the employee they are training is very smart and can do what is being taught them very well then the employee can take those newly learned skills (that the corporation just paid for) and go to another company that can offer more money.

It is a lose-lose situation to hire and train a no-skilled worker for a job that requires skill

Again...totally wrong. They will swing for the fence 9 times out of 10 and if they hit one home run it is all worth it.

"they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment"

Not true at all, no one guarantees you a job...if you don't make the cut you are out on your ass. It happens every day.

I'm actually a stunning example of this...but it is a long story no one cares to hear.

Companies will generally not fire you for only a few bad days or if someone does not become as productive as they should be immediately. It generally takes at least ~6 months of poor performance before someone will be let go for bad performance.

The problem is that if someone is very good and is able to be very productive after they received their company paid training, there is nothing that would prevent them from taking those skills and going to another employer who can pay a higher salary because they do not invest as much on training entry level employees. The company that takes a chance and hires someone who has no skills is essentially paying for the 2nd company's training

Same with people who are already trained -- they can leave for more money, too. The difference is that workers will feel more loyalty to the companies who take the time to train them. The issue of companies not generally firing people for only a few bad days, on the other hand, is a specific issue that companies can choose to structure their evaluation process to avoid in various ways, and is not specific to new trainees.

[Cortex7]

It has grown and grown for sure, but in the end the creditors will call in the debts (dump US bonds) then it's game over.

And what happens then? You know, if someone is selling, someone is buying

Yes there will always be buyers, but for what price?

If someone places a humongous market sell order then it will rip down the bid order book to a very low price, which will (if it's low enough, i.e. china dumps) dissolve confidence in other holders causing a selloff avalanche and the order book will collapse leaving only the US to buy them back using physical assets or more likely screw the whole deal (which could lead to war).

This is not "conspiracy theory", this is a fact of free markets. The holders all know the position they are in, they understand what a bond is perfectly, they are no longer in it for financial gain, the big holders use it as geopolitical leverage tool and will make a sacrificial move to crush the USD if they feel overly threatened.

There are two end solutions
[1]
The books are balanced which is highly unlikely considering the US debt is growing exponentially and not shrinking.

[2]
War, a fair assumption considering USA has used much of it's petrodollar profits to build quite a formidable military.

[CMMPro]

"It is not a corporation's job to provide an unskilled worker skills to do a job they are not qualified for."

This is absolutely wrong. Corporations take these chances every day and they most often pay off.
It's not their "job" to train workers per se, but they would be stupid to neglect the ability to get quality employees for far less than they are potentially worth.

When a corporation takes a chance on a worker they are investing in the worker. Someone with zero skills is a high risk investment. If it turns out the worker is lazy or is not smart enough to grasp the concept of what is being taught him then they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment.

A corporation will likely be able to pay someone they will train a somewhat lower wage. If the employee they are training is very smart and can do what is being taught them very well then the employee can take those newly learned skills (that the corporation just paid for) and go to another company that can offer more money.

It is a lose-lose situation to hire and train a no-skilled worker for a job that requires skill

Again...totally wrong. They will swing for the fence 9 times out of 10 and if they hit one home run it is all worth it.

"they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment"

Not true at all, no one guarantees you a job...if you don't make the cut you are out on your ass. It happens every day.

I'm actually a stunning example of this...but it is a long story no one cares to hear.

Companies will generally not fire you for only a few bad days or if someone does not become as productive as they should be immediately. It generally takes at least ~6 months of poor performance before someone will be let go for bad performance.

The problem is that if someone is very good and is able to be very productive after they received their company paid training, there is nothing that would prevent them from taking those skills and going to another employer who can pay a higher salary because they do not invest as much on training entry level employees. The company that takes a chance and hires someone who has no skills is essentially paying for the 2nd company's training

Same with people who are already trained -- they can leave for more money, too. The difference is that workers will feel more loyalty to the companies who take the time to train them. The issue of companies not generally firing people for only a few bad days, on the other hand, is a specific issue that companies can choose to structure their evaluation process to avoid in various ways, and is not specific to new trainees.

Additionally, at least here in Canada many companies get you to sign a contract before you go for expensive training.
If you leave within a predetermined period after the training, you are generally either held in a non-comp clause, or a clause where they can bind you to pay back the cost of your training.

The company I work for put $250k of training into me over the last 10 years, $150k of that in the first 2 years alone to get me up to speed initially...they took a shot on me and out of loyalty alone I'm not going anywhere, they compensate me accordingly so I would never even consider moonlighting or going out on  my own.

In return, they have made so much fucking money from my work...they have no complaints about training costs.

So, this is the flip side to paying to train people...there are failures and there are success stories.

[funtotry]

"It is not a corporation's job to provide an unskilled worker skills to do a job they are not qualified for."

This is absolutely wrong. Corporations take these chances every day and they most often pay off.
It's not their "job" to train workers per se, but they would be stupid to neglect the ability to get quality employees for far less than they are potentially worth.

When a corporation takes a chance on a worker they are investing in the worker. Someone with zero skills is a high risk investment. If it turns out the worker is lazy or is not smart enough to grasp the concept of what is being taught him then they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment.

A corporation will likely be able to pay someone they will train a somewhat lower wage. If the employee they are training is very smart and can do what is being taught them very well then the employee can take those newly learned skills (that the corporation just paid for) and go to another company that can offer more money.

It is a lose-lose situation to hire and train a no-skilled worker for a job that requires skill

Again...totally wrong. They will swing for the fence 9 times out of 10 and if they hit one home run it is all worth it.

"they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment"

Not true at all, no one guarantees you a job...if you don't make the cut you are out on your ass. It happens every day.

I'm actually a stunning example of this...but it is a long story no one cares to hear.

Companies will generally not fire you for only a few bad days or if someone does not become as productive as they should be immediately. It generally takes at least ~6 months of poor performance before someone will be let go for bad performance.

The problem is that if someone is very good and is able to be very productive after they received their company paid training, there is nothing that would prevent them from taking those skills and going to another employer who can pay a higher salary because they do not invest as much on training entry level employees. The company that takes a chance and hires someone who has no skills is essentially paying for the 2nd company's training

Same with people who are already trained -- they can leave for more money, too. The difference is that workers will feel more loyalty to the companies who take the time to train them. The issue of companies not generally firing people for only a few bad days, on the other hand, is a specific issue that companies can choose to structure their evaluation process to avoid in various ways, and is not specific to new trainees.

If a worker does not need to be trained then a company can afford to pay more because they have less training costs.

For example if a company expects two workers to stay with them for two years, one will need to go through training for two months and one will need essentially zero training. The first worker will have zero productivity during training (and will likely have reduced productivity immediately out of training). The company would be able to afford to pay the second worker ~8.3% more then the first worker as they do not need to bear the expense of training the worker (this is disregarding the reduced productivity that is mentioned above). This would result in it being less likely that the worker with existing training will find a better job/salary offer with a competitor

[RoadTrain]

It has grown and grown for sure, but in the end the creditors will call in the debts (dump US bonds) then it's game over.

And what happens then? You know, if someone is selling, someone is buying

Yes there will always be buyers, but for what price?

If someone places a humongous market sell order then it will rip down the bid order book to a very low price, which will (if it's low enough, i.e. china dumps) dissolve confidence in other holders causing a selloff avalanche and the order book will collapse leaving only the US to buy them back using physical assets or more likely screw the whole deal (which could lead to war).

This is not "conspiracy theory", this is a fact of free markets. The holders all know the position they are in, they understand what a bond is perfectly, they are no longer in it for financial gain, the big holders use it as geopolitical leverage tool and will make a sacrificial move to crush the USD if they feel overly threatened.

There are two end solutions
[1]
The books are balanced which is highly unlikely considering the US debt is growing exponentially and not shrinking.

[2]
War, a fair assumption considering USA has used much of it's petrodollar profits to build quite a formidable military.

It still looks like a conspiracy theory. No rational entity would dump by placing a "humongous market sell order". And even if that happens, this dumb entity will just give some free arbitrage money to the most important Treasuty bonds traders - primary dealers. If the current institutional structure of the U.S. monetary system is concerned, the rates of treasury bonds are simply a product of federal funds rate expectations over the bond's maturity. And this is what this "free market" is doing - trading these interest rate expectations. If fed funds rates remain the same, bond yields will converge back to where they were before the selloff.

So, the most likely outcome is
[3]
Things continue as usual.

[abrahamlitcoin]

It doesnt end.. What country right now has no debt?

[CMMPro]

It doesnt end.. What country right now has no debt?

Does the Rothschild family count as a privately owned country yet?

[Cortex7]

It doesnt end.. What country right now has no debt?

Does the Rothschild family count as a privately owned country yet?

Perfect answer!

[Robert Paulson]

It doesnt end.. What country right now has no debt?

Norway
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/norway/government-budget-value

Russia
www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/government-budget-value

Switzerland
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/switzerland/government-budget-value

[CryptoCarmen]

it doesn't end. what is the incentive for ending it.

LOL.. Perfectly said. It doesnt end, it will grow and grow.

Yes. Right now USA economy is in rising, so their debt should decrease. How many it decreased from 2010 to 2014?

[Cortex7]

it doesn't end. what is the incentive for ending it.

LOL.. Perfectly said. It doesnt end, it will grow and grow.

Yes. Right now USA economy is in rising, so their debt should decrease. How many it decreased from 2010 to 2014?

not decreased, risen:

Federal debt held by the public as a percentage of gross domestic product, from 1790 to 2013, projected to 2038.

[RoadTrain]

Still, net private saving has increased dramatically, thanks to government deficit spending.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/W202RC1Q027SBEA

[scarsbergholden]

it doesn't end. what is the incentive for ending it.

LOL.. Perfectly said. It doesnt end, it will grow and grow.

Yes. Right now USA economy is in rising, so their debt should decrease. How many it decreased from 2010 to 2014?

not decreased, risen:

Federal debt held by the public as a percentage of gross domestic product, from 1790 to 2013, projected to 2038.

The federal debt burden as a percentage of GDP will decrease as long as the economy is rising faster then the deficit (as measured by percentage of GDP). The problem is that Obama has demanded that we see higher spending levels, especially on welfare-like programs, which has resulted in higher overall debt levels. As a more conservative president is elected, we will see much more prudent fiscal policies which should result in lower debt levels

[Cortex7]

it doesn't end. what is the incentive for ending it.

LOL.. Perfectly said. It doesnt end, it will grow and grow.

Yes. Right now USA economy is in rising, so their debt should decrease. How many it decreased from 2010 to 2014?

not decreased, risen:

Federal debt held by the public as a percentage of gross domestic product, from 1790 to 2013, projected to 2038.

The federal debt burden as a percentage of GDP will decrease as long as the economy is rising faster then the deficit (as measured by percentage of GDP). The problem is that Obama has demanded that we see higher spending levels, especially on welfare-like programs, which has resulted in higher overall debt levels. As a more conservative president is elected, we will see much more prudent fiscal policies which should result in lower debt levels

Elections exist only to give voters the illusion of choice, and to give the world the illusion of a progressive system.

But The people who make important decisions are not swapped out, it would be a foolish strategy to swap out real government (military and finance) every few years.

If a president ever tries to exert their own control and deviates from the script then he will be murdered. As happened to JFK after he tried to throw a spanner in the private bank corp known as the FED.

Obama makes no decisions, he's just a relatively good public speaker, put in place so that Africa warms to America. Africa is next on the US TODO list.

Besides that... unlimited ecenomic expansion, yes that's what's required to keep a debt based money afloat, but that is impossible to achieve as the world is a finite place.

[Timetwister]

I don't understand people that keep buying US bonds... In the best scenario they get a very small return, negative in real terms.