|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
It's obvious that it is not linked to the specific dynamics of innovations on the labor market. As aksfjh pointed out, it is always used as a red herring : tomorrow we will not need that much labor anyway so this unemployment is normal !
The idea of structural problem is way more broad, and might have some weight (for exemple, the idea that a big part of the unemployed since the crisis are now long term unemployed and might not be well adapted to the economy, since it continuously grew since the last four years).
I suggest Yellen's latest speech on the labor market, that has tons of informations on what is possibly happening, and who vaguely suggest that the unemployment rate does not tell the true story about the state of the labor market today (it's quite long, I'm just quoting a part on the subject). http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20140822a.pdf
Consider first the behavior of the labor force participation rate, which has declined substantially since the end of the recession even as the unemployment rate has fallen. As a consequence, the employment-to-population ratio has increased far less over the past several years than the unemployment rate alone would indicate, based on past experience. For policymakers, the key question is: What portion of the decline in labor force participation reflects structural shifts and what portion reflects cyclical weakness in the labor market? If the cyclical component is abnormally large, relative to the unemployment rate, then it might be seen as an additional contributor to labor market slack. [...]
Labor force participation peaked in early 2000, so its decline began well before the Great Recession. A portion of that decline clearly relates to the aging of the baby boom generation. But the pace of decline accelerated with the recession. As an accounting matter, the drop in the participation rate since 2008 can be attributed to increases in four factors: retirement, disability, school enrollment, and other reasons, including worker discouragement. Of these, greater worker discouragement is most directly the result of a weak labor market, so we could reasonably expect further increases in labor demand to pull a sizable share of discouraged workers back into the workforce. [...]
A second factor bearing on estimates of labor market slack is the elevated number of workers who are employed part time but desire full-time work (those classified as “part time for economic reasons”). At nearly 5 percent of the labor force, the number of such workers is notably larger, relative to the unemployment rate, than has been typical historically, providing another reason why the current level of the unemployment rate may understate the amount of remaining slack in the labor market. Again, however, some portion of the rise in involuntary part-time work may reflect structural rather than cyclical factors. For example, the ongoing shift in employment away from goods production and toward services, a sector which historically has used a greater portion of part-time workers, may be boosting the share of part-time jobs. Likewise, the continuing decline of middle-skill jobs, some of which could be replaced by part-time jobs, may raise the share of part-time jobs in overall employment. [...]
|
....
Allies are vital; the United States overstretched in the Bush years; it can’t solve every problem. All true. But it’s also true that none of the basic challenges to world order can be met without U.S. leadership: not Russia’s aggression, not the Islamic State’s expansion, not Iran’s nuclear ambition nor China’s territorial bullying. Each demands a different policy response, with military action and deterrence only two tools in a basket that includes diplomatic and economic measures. It’s time Mr. Obama started emphasizing what the United States can do instead of what it cannot.
WaPo
|
On August 31 2014 05:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +....
Allies are vital; the United States overstretched in the Bush years; it can’t solve every problem. All true. But it’s also true that none of the basic challenges to world order can be met without U.S. leadership: not Russia’s aggression, not the Islamic State’s expansion, not Iran’s nuclear ambition nor China’s territorial bullying. Each demands a different policy response, with military action and deterrence only two tools in a basket that includes diplomatic and economic measures. It’s time Mr. Obama started emphasizing what the United States can do instead of what it cannot. WaPo
It’s time Mr. Obama started emphasizing what the United States can do instead of what it cannot.
And what is that exactly...? Are we going to threaten invasion?
|
On August 31 2014 06:55 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2014 05:57 Introvert wrote:....
Allies are vital; the United States overstretched in the Bush years; it can’t solve every problem. All true. But it’s also true that none of the basic challenges to world order can be met without U.S. leadership: not Russia’s aggression, not the Islamic State’s expansion, not Iran’s nuclear ambition nor China’s territorial bullying. Each demands a different policy response, with military action and deterrence only two tools in a basket that includes diplomatic and economic measures. It’s time Mr. Obama started emphasizing what the United States can do instead of what it cannot. WaPo Show nested quote +It’s time Mr. Obama started emphasizing what the United States can do instead of what it cannot. And what is that exactly...? Are we going to threaten invasion?
Threaten to default on all loans to China unless they stop claiming all the islands around them? Implement a tariff so manufacturing stops moving out?
Start exporting energy so the Middle East/Russia isn't funded by the western world.
Iran is a bit harder but they seem more in line with western wishes recently.
Those might not be the best actions, just alternatives.
|
On August 31 2014 06:55 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2014 05:57 Introvert wrote:....
Allies are vital; the United States overstretched in the Bush years; it can’t solve every problem. All true. But it’s also true that none of the basic challenges to world order can be met without U.S. leadership: not Russia’s aggression, not the Islamic State’s expansion, not Iran’s nuclear ambition nor China’s territorial bullying. Each demands a different policy response, with military action and deterrence only two tools in a basket that includes diplomatic and economic measures. It’s time Mr. Obama started emphasizing what the United States can do instead of what it cannot. WaPo Show nested quote +It’s time Mr. Obama started emphasizing what the United States can do instead of what it cannot. And what is that exactly...? Are we going to threaten invasion?
Regarding the Ukraine, just take off all national emblems, kick the separatists back to Russia and when someone starts complaining just say that Americans like to go on vacation. I'd like to see Putin's face.
|
(Reuters) - The U.S. government sued a small Minneapolis suburb on Wednesday, accusing it of religious discrimination after local leaders denied a Muslim group the right to open a center in the municipality.
The Justice Department filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis against St. Anthony Village, where council members voted 4-1 in 2012 to deny a request by the Abu Huraira Islamic Center to create a place of worship in the basement of the St. Anthony Business Center.
"Religious freedom is one of our most cherished rights, and there are few aspects of that right more central than the ability of communities to establish places for collective worship," Molly Moran, acting assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, said in a statement.
The complaint argues the municipality treated the group's application for a conditional use permit on less than equal terms than other, non-religious, conditional use permits for assembly.
Source
|
On August 31 2014 07:20 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2014 06:55 aksfjh wrote:On August 31 2014 05:57 Introvert wrote:....
Allies are vital; the United States overstretched in the Bush years; it can’t solve every problem. All true. But it’s also true that none of the basic challenges to world order can be met without U.S. leadership: not Russia’s aggression, not the Islamic State’s expansion, not Iran’s nuclear ambition nor China’s territorial bullying. Each demands a different policy response, with military action and deterrence only two tools in a basket that includes diplomatic and economic measures. It’s time Mr. Obama started emphasizing what the United States can do instead of what it cannot. WaPo It’s time Mr. Obama started emphasizing what the United States can do instead of what it cannot. And what is that exactly...? Are we going to threaten invasion? Threaten to default on all loans to China unless they stop claiming all the islands around them? Implement a tariff so manufacturing stops moving out? Start exporting energy so the Middle East/Russia isn't funded by the western world. Iran is a bit harder but they seem more in line with western wishes recently. Those might not be the best actions, just alternatives.
The US can not threaten to default on its loans. Even assuming the US was not running a yearly debt and threatening to not pay is a surefire way to make people not want to buy your debt its still an economic disaster to even threaten such a thing.
|
Not to mention a New York court just had a ruling that a sovereign nation can't selectively pay bondholders. Gotta default on all or pay all.
|
A border patrol agent fired several shots at an armed militia member while chasing a group of immigrants Friday near Brownsville, Texas.
Border Patrol Spokesman Omar Zamora told the Associated Press that agents were pursuing a group of immigrants when one agent spotted a man holding a gun near the Rio Grande.
The agent fired four shots but did not hit the man, Zamora said. The man then dropped his weapon and identified himself as a militia member.
The unidentified man was not arrested and appeared to have permission to be on private property where the incident occurred, Cameron County Sheriff Omar Lucio told the AP. Lucio, whose agency is involved in investigating the incident, said the man was wearing camouflage and was carrying either a rifle or shotgun.
The sheriff said militias really aren't needed at the Texas-Mexico border given the number of law enforcement agencies already working to secure the area.
"It just creates a problem from my point of view, because we don't know who they are," Lucio told the AP.
Source
|
As part of a legal settlement that will allow some illegal immigrants who deported themselves from Southern California to return to the United States, the federal government has agreed to advertise the settlement on various Mexican and Spanish-language media outlets.
The ACLU filed a class-action lawsuit last year on behalf of eleven illegal immigrants who deported themselves. The settlement reached on Wednesday will only cover "longtime California residents with relatives who are U.S. citizens and... young migrants whose parents brought them into the country illegally" who deported themselves between 2009 and 2013. An ACLU official has indicated that there were nearly 250,000 people who were "deported voluntarily from Southern California between 2009 and 2013" and estimated to the Los Angeles Times that the "number of repatriations could reach into the hundreds or thousands."
The U.S. government, through ad buys online, in print, on billboards, and on radio stations, will hope to reach "friends and family of the affected class" in Southern California and Mexico. According to the settlement, the federal government will advertise on television channels like Univision, ESPN Deportes, MundoFox, El Universal, and the Univision Deportes Network. They will also partner with People en Espanol and even the Mexico National Football Team in addition to placing billboards "in high population Mexican border cities of Tijuana, Tecate and Mexicali, as well as focusing placements near border crossings." breitbart
|
On August 31 2014 10:51 Wolfstan wrote:
Not to mention a New York court just had a ruling that a sovereign nation can't selectively pay bondholders. Gotta default on all or pay all.
Of course, there is exactly one sovereign nation that falls under the jurisdiction of new York courts 
but it's true, the us can't start defaulting on debt in any way, that will send the whole house of cards crashing down
|
On August 31 2014 12:51 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2014 10:51 Wolfstan wrote:
Not to mention a New York court just had a ruling that a sovereign nation can't selectively pay bondholders. Gotta default on all or pay all. Of course, there is exactly one sovereign nation that falls under the jurisdiction of new York courts but it's true, the us can't start defaulting on debt in any way, that will send the whole house of cards crashing down
According to wiki, US deficit for 2014 $492 billion[1] (projected)
Interest payments on debts 2013 $415,688,781,248.40
Don't see the large problem. You are pretty much at the point of the deficit being interest payments. Probably holds true for plenty other countries as well.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
In this day in age, it's right to be suspicious.
How is all this better for the teacher?
Here is a longer examination of the new framework, though obviously from a biased source. But he doesn't advocate downplaying America's many failures, now does he advocate ignoring certain crucial aspects.
But the overarching concern should be how does this allow teachers to teach better? This is more of the "teach to the test" stuff that's recently come under fire from various places. This won't help anyone.
Moreover, what was wrong with the system before?
I don't feel like debating every historical squabble, that's outside the scope of this thread. So the better question is why is this needed?
|
On August 31 2014 12:51 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2014 10:51 Wolfstan wrote:
Not to mention a New York court just had a ruling that a sovereign nation can't selectively pay bondholders. Gotta default on all or pay all. Of course, there is exactly one sovereign nation that falls under the jurisdiction of new York courts
...uh...you...realize...that...any...security...issued...in...the...west...has...a...high...probability...of...having...US courts or UK courts as the venue for dispute resolution...so actually...a lot sovereigns who issue bonds in the west fall under ny court jurisdictions by the virtue of choice of law provisions or some other catch....which is why Argentina was sued in New York and recently lost...
|
On August 31 2014 07:20 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2014 06:55 aksfjh wrote:On August 31 2014 05:57 Introvert wrote:....
Allies are vital; the United States overstretched in the Bush years; it can’t solve every problem. All true. But it’s also true that none of the basic challenges to world order can be met without U.S. leadership: not Russia’s aggression, not the Islamic State’s expansion, not Iran’s nuclear ambition nor China’s territorial bullying. Each demands a different policy response, with military action and deterrence only two tools in a basket that includes diplomatic and economic measures. It’s time Mr. Obama started emphasizing what the United States can do instead of what it cannot. WaPo It’s time Mr. Obama started emphasizing what the United States can do instead of what it cannot. And what is that exactly...? Are we going to threaten invasion? Threaten to default on all loans to China unless they stop claiming all the islands around them? Implement a tariff so manufacturing stops moving out? Start exporting energy so the Middle East/Russia isn't funded by the western world. Iran is a bit harder but they seem more in line with western wishes recently. Those might not be the best actions, just alternatives.
Your right those are not the best actions... Each one would hurt the US so much, especially the idea to not pay their debts...
|
On August 31 2014 15:59 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2014 12:51 bookwyrm wrote:On August 31 2014 10:51 Wolfstan wrote:
Not to mention a New York court just had a ruling that a sovereign nation can't selectively pay bondholders. Gotta default on all or pay all. Of course, there is exactly one sovereign nation that falls under the jurisdiction of new York courts ...uh...you...realize...that...any...security...issued...in...the...west...has...a...high...probability...of...having...US courts or UK courts as the venue for dispute resolution...so actually...a lot sovereigns who issue bonds in the west fall under ny court jurisdictions by the virtue of choice of law provisions or some other catch....which is why Argentina was sued in New York and recently lost...
And sovereign nations are free to not give a fuck what US courts say whenever they wish to. Which might be quite reasonable considering how fucked up US law is, being basically a "whoever has more money wins the court case or can at least stall it for such a long time that it doesn't matter or the other side goes bancrupt from lawyer fees" system.
|
On August 31 2014 18:47 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2014 15:59 Sub40APM wrote:On August 31 2014 12:51 bookwyrm wrote:On August 31 2014 10:51 Wolfstan wrote:
Not to mention a New York court just had a ruling that a sovereign nation can't selectively pay bondholders. Gotta default on all or pay all. Of course, there is exactly one sovereign nation that falls under the jurisdiction of new York courts ...uh...you...realize...that...any...security...issued...in...the...west...has...a...high...probability...of...having...US courts or UK courts as the venue for dispute resolution...so actually...a lot sovereigns who issue bonds in the west fall under ny court jurisdictions by the virtue of choice of law provisions or some other catch....which is why Argentina was sued in New York and recently lost... And sovereign nations are free to not give a fuck what US courts say whenever they wish to. Which might be quite reasonable considering how fucked up US law is, being basically a "whoever has more money wins the court case or can at least stall it for such a long time that it doesn't matter or the other side goes bancrupt from lawyer fees" system.
This is a very dangerous road to go down. Ignoring court orders and believing instead that the US legal system as a whole is fucked up and corrupt takes you to weird places.
Suffice it to say that default, selective or otherwise, is an unacceptable option for the United States. The US is not Argentina. This is why Argentina has a debt crisis despite having a 42% debt to GDP ratio while the US is still the standard bearer of a risk-free investment even though it has a 101% debt to GDP ratio. It doesn't matter if it's legal or not, it would cause a monstrous crash that necessitates a rethinking of the most fundamental assumptions of modern finance. Nobody wants that - it's just bad business and bad politics.
|
On August 31 2014 18:57 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2014 18:47 Simberto wrote:On August 31 2014 15:59 Sub40APM wrote:On August 31 2014 12:51 bookwyrm wrote:On August 31 2014 10:51 Wolfstan wrote:
Not to mention a New York court just had a ruling that a sovereign nation can't selectively pay bondholders. Gotta default on all or pay all. Of course, there is exactly one sovereign nation that falls under the jurisdiction of new York courts ...uh...you...realize...that...any...security...issued...in...the...west...has...a...high...probability...of...having...US courts or UK courts as the venue for dispute resolution...so actually...a lot sovereigns who issue bonds in the west fall under ny court jurisdictions by the virtue of choice of law provisions or some other catch....which is why Argentina was sued in New York and recently lost... And sovereign nations are free to not give a fuck what US courts say whenever they wish to. Which might be quite reasonable considering how fucked up US law is, being basically a "whoever has more money wins the court case or can at least stall it for such a long time that it doesn't matter or the other side goes bancrupt from lawyer fees" system. This is a very dangerous road to go down. Ignoring court orders and believing instead that the US legal system as a whole is fucked up and corrupt takes you to weird places. Suffice it to say that default, selective or otherwise, is an unacceptable option for the United States. The US is not Argentina. This is why Argentina has a debt crisis despite having a 42% debt to GDP ratio while the US is still the standard bearer of a risk-free investment even though it has a 101% debt to GDP ratio. It doesn't matter if it's legal or not, it would cause a monstrous crash that necessitates a rethinking of the most fundamental assumptions of modern finance. Nobody wants that - it's just bad business and bad politics.
debt to GDP is mostly irrelevant. It may have some important effects, like on national budgets, but it is pretty unimportant as a number without looking at its trends and its relation to national budgets.
The problem for Argentina is that they defaulted on debt in 2001 and devalued the pesos 2002, but the creditors denounced the default. Therefore there has been a lot of attempts to restructure the debt since then. Argentina is still under the weight to this day even though they devalued and defaulted. That is the current world order: Defaults takes creditors accept and since China is a large creditor, they will be able to reject the default if US tries it. Add the drastic effects on the economic markets from trying to default and it takes extreme desperation for a state to do it today.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
why would the u.s. not pay debt? oh right, congressional grandstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
