|
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. |
On January 06 2013 09:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 09:00 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:59 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2013 07:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:10 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2013 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:01 oneofthem wrote:
but if wages rise it's inflation! the horror Inflationary, not inflation. well, there is this whole NAIRU idea that basically makes a policy imperative out of having unemployment. not very far from the idea of a reserve pool of labor that keeps wage down. But in that circumstance wages are irrelevant. If wages rise $1 and prices rise $1 real wages have risen $0. Keeping wage price inflation in check does not mean keeping real wages in check. having unemployment does mean less bargaining power for labor and less share of production value for labor, so real wage can be kept down. When unemployment is that high the policy is to bring unemployment down. Some unemployment doesn't mean that real wages can be kept down. Too much unemployment does. Out of curiosity then, what in your opinion constitutes Too much unemployment? >5% is pretty standard. Around that and you are left with structural unemployment, more or less. In other words you want enough jobs available for everyone that wants one and it just becomes a matter of matching the available worker to the available job.
This is absolutely not what capitalism wants. You want a bit fewer jobs than the number of people who want them, obviously.
How can you even write these two sentences next to each other and not explode from ideological overload?
|
On January 06 2013 09:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 09:00 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:59 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2013 07:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:10 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2013 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:01 oneofthem wrote:
but if wages rise it's inflation! the horror Inflationary, not inflation. well, there is this whole NAIRU idea that basically makes a policy imperative out of having unemployment. not very far from the idea of a reserve pool of labor that keeps wage down. But in that circumstance wages are irrelevant. If wages rise $1 and prices rise $1 real wages have risen $0. Keeping wage price inflation in check does not mean keeping real wages in check. having unemployment does mean less bargaining power for labor and less share of production value for labor, so real wage can be kept down. When unemployment is that high the policy is to bring unemployment down. Some unemployment doesn't mean that real wages can be kept down. Too much unemployment does. Out of curiosity then, what in your opinion constitutes Too much unemployment? >5% is pretty standard. Around that and you are left with structural unemployment, more or less. In other words you want enough jobs available for everyone that wants one and it just becomes a matter of matching the available worker to the available job.
As a follow up then, what is your opinion on the number of under-employed people? People that have useful degrees but have to resort to part-time/unskilled labor due to a lack of openings. I hear the problem of underemployment is becoming quite the issue, with some 14% of workers reporting being underemployed in the most recent jobs report if I remember correctly.
|
Underemployed is such a bs term,
just an invention from statistics to push the numbers where they want to have them.
Its a luxery problem, the term didnt even exist 25 years ago.
Everyone is underemployed,almost noone works up to his full max capacity and talents.
Think about the number of underemployed chinese people lol, they as smart as us but they mostly have to do dumb production work.
Underemployment is a non isue imo, an imaginary problem for wich there basicly is no solution
People are getting smarter fast and it take some time before this extra smartness of people has led to a more sophisticated economy and higher level jobs.
It also is impossible to give everyone a good job since even in a world where everyone has iq200, there is still lots of dumb work to be done.
|
On January 06 2013 11:43 Rassy wrote:
Underemployment is a non isue imo, an imaginary problem for wich there basicly is no solution
That's because it's not a problem, it's the goal.
|
Hmm we confusing two things i feel though i still have to agree with you i think lol.
Capitalism indeed wants more workers then jobs like you said, the labour market needs lubrication
Just below 5% unemployment would be a good number according to manny economists.
Underemployment (people working lower level jobs then they could with their degrees) is not realy a goal i think but will naturally follow from the above.
There are just not enough jobs for everyone, so high educated people are going to compete for lower level jobs to still get a job and make sure that they are not amongst the 5% that does not have a job.
|
On January 06 2013 11:54 Rassy wrote:
Hmm we confusing two things i feel though i still have to agree with you i think lol.
Capitalism indeed wants more workers then jobs like you said, the labour market needs lubrication
Just below 5% unemployment would be a good number according to manny economists.
Underemployment (people working lower level jobs then they could with their degrees) is not realy a goal i think but will naturally follow from the above.
There are just not enough jobs for everyone, so high educated people are going to compete for lower level jobs to still get a job and make sure that they are not amongst the 5% that does not have a job.
5% unemployment is good because it permits the workforce to shift it's needs around. It gives that little bit of flexibility and incentive to retrain as needed. It's a healthy elasticity, and makes it fluid for career changes and job changes.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the workforce can shift itself around with or without first becoming unemployed. structural transfers can happen either when someone goes back to school (and is not counted as unemployed), or by getting a better offer while at a previous job.
structurally necessary unemployment is fine, whatever. but the problem is fixing the exact amount of it and thus having it play into immediate policy decisions. it probably would be better to consider a more nuanced measure that takes into account job quality than simple unemployment though, and this really is the larger point. americans are having a harder time finding good jobs, at least on the "lower than elite professionals" tier.
|
On January 06 2013 11:43 Rassy wrote:
Underemployed is such a bs term,
just an invention from statistics to push the numbers where they want to have them.
Its a luxery problem, the term didnt even exist 25 years ago.
Everyone is underemployed,almost noone works up to his full max capacity and talents.
Think about the number of underemployed chinese people lol, they as smart as us but they mostly have to do dumb production work.
Underemployment is a non isue imo, an imaginary problem for wich there basicly is no solution
People are getting smarter fast and it take some time before this extra smartness of people has led to a more sophisticated economy and higher level jobs.
It also is impossible to give everyone a good job since even in a world where everyone has iq200, there is still lots of dumb work to be done.
Degree in chemistry ---> Work in chemistry for 10 years ---> massive lay-offs ---> Only able to get a job working at a bank, making 60% what they used to.
How is that not what should be considered "under employed"
|
oh I thought you meant underemployed like working less, not underemployed like overqualified.
|
Then you are not underemployed, but over-educated lol.
All jokes aside, i realy dont see this as a huge problem, or something the economy should take care off, though i do understand that it is verry harsh for the people involved. I have worked below my education and for a low wage for quiet some time myself.
People get better education and get smarter all the time,you can not expect the economy and jobs to keep up with this, and its not the economys fault for not keeping up either.
There is an x amount of jobs, wich require an x amount of education,then if people decide to get x+1 education, then thats their own choice,
It just does not entitle you to an x+1 lvl job and its not the economys responsability to provide one either imo.
I do understand the term underemployment, but i dont agree with making it a huge social economic isue.
We have to go with the jobs we have,low lvl jobs will always need to be done no matter how well educated people are.
In the long run it would be nice if higher education let to a higher lvl of technology and a higher lvl of jobs, but this doesnt happen from one day to another.
Education (and scientific research) comes first, the economy and jobs will always lag a little behind i think.
@ samz!dat:
yes, i did mean the overqualified part because i thought that was what the poster right after you was pointing at, i am not 100% sure about this now annymore though.
Edit:
Underemployment would be an isue if the average lvl of jobs in a country is declining, i do 100% agree with that btw.
I do not think this is the case though in the usa, the jobs get slowly more complicated and require more education.
Its just that the lvl of education maybe rises faster then the level of jobs.
If am wrong here and the average job is getting dumber so to say, then pls correct me.
|
Okay, at least when I posted it I meant under-employed in the sense of a physics doctorate having to work as a bank teller. Not sam!zdat working 10 hours less a week so he can read his books more.
|
lol you know me too well totalbalance
|
On January 06 2013 14:26 sam!zdat wrote:
lol you know me too well totalbalance
Well we hang around the same threads a lot it seems.
|
On January 06 2013 10:59 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 09:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 09:00 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:59 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2013 07:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:10 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2013 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:01 oneofthem wrote:
but if wages rise it's inflation! the horror Inflationary, not inflation. well, there is this whole NAIRU idea that basically makes a policy imperative out of having unemployment. not very far from the idea of a reserve pool of labor that keeps wage down. But in that circumstance wages are irrelevant. If wages rise $1 and prices rise $1 real wages have risen $0. Keeping wage price inflation in check does not mean keeping real wages in check. having unemployment does mean less bargaining power for labor and less share of production value for labor, so real wage can be kept down. When unemployment is that high the policy is to bring unemployment down. Some unemployment doesn't mean that real wages can be kept down. Too much unemployment does. Out of curiosity then, what in your opinion constitutes Too much unemployment? >5% is pretty standard. Around that and you are left with structural unemployment, more or less. In other words you want enough jobs available for everyone that wants one and it just becomes a matter of matching the available worker to the available job. This is absolutely not what capitalism wants. You want a bit fewer jobs than the number of people who want them, obviously.How can you even write these two sentences next to each other and not explode from ideological overload?
Why would capitalism want that? Capitalists like making money. What you are suggesting runs counter to that goal.
|
On January 06 2013 14:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 10:59 sam!zdat wrote:On January 06 2013 09:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 09:00 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:59 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2013 07:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:10 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2013 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:01 oneofthem wrote:
but if wages rise it's inflation! the horror Inflationary, not inflation. well, there is this whole NAIRU idea that basically makes a policy imperative out of having unemployment. not very far from the idea of a reserve pool of labor that keeps wage down. But in that circumstance wages are irrelevant. If wages rise $1 and prices rise $1 real wages have risen $0. Keeping wage price inflation in check does not mean keeping real wages in check. having unemployment does mean less bargaining power for labor and less share of production value for labor, so real wage can be kept down. When unemployment is that high the policy is to bring unemployment down. Some unemployment doesn't mean that real wages can be kept down. Too much unemployment does. Out of curiosity then, what in your opinion constitutes Too much unemployment? >5% is pretty standard. Around that and you are left with structural unemployment, more or less. In other words you want enough jobs available for everyone that wants one and it just becomes a matter of matching the available worker to the available job. This is absolutely not what capitalism wants. You want a bit fewer jobs than the number of people who want them, obviously.How can you even write these two sentences next to each other and not explode from ideological overload? Why would capitalism want that? Capitalists like making money. What you are suggesting runs counter to that goal.
Like Blue said, so there's flexibility.
Kind of like why the US went off the gold standard. Not enough flexibility.
|
On January 06 2013 11:02 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 09:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 09:00 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:59 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2013 07:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:10 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2013 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:01 oneofthem wrote:
but if wages rise it's inflation! the horror Inflationary, not inflation. well, there is this whole NAIRU idea that basically makes a policy imperative out of having unemployment. not very far from the idea of a reserve pool of labor that keeps wage down. But in that circumstance wages are irrelevant. If wages rise $1 and prices rise $1 real wages have risen $0. Keeping wage price inflation in check does not mean keeping real wages in check. having unemployment does mean less bargaining power for labor and less share of production value for labor, so real wage can be kept down. When unemployment is that high the policy is to bring unemployment down. Some unemployment doesn't mean that real wages can be kept down. Too much unemployment does. Out of curiosity then, what in your opinion constitutes Too much unemployment? >5% is pretty standard. Around that and you are left with structural unemployment, more or less. In other words you want enough jobs available for everyone that wants one and it just becomes a matter of matching the available worker to the available job. As a follow up then, what is your opinion on the number of under-employed people? People that have useful degrees but have to resort to part-time/unskilled labor due to a lack of openings. I hear the problem of underemployment is becoming quite the issue, with some 14% of workers reporting being underemployed in the most recent jobs report if I remember correctly.
IMO it would be similar to unemployment if its due to a temporary drop in demand for those skills. Typically if that's the case then the underemployment goes away along with unemployment going away.
|
On January 06 2013 14:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 11:02 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 09:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 09:00 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:59 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2013 07:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:10 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2013 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:01 oneofthem wrote:
but if wages rise it's inflation! the horror Inflationary, not inflation. well, there is this whole NAIRU idea that basically makes a policy imperative out of having unemployment. not very far from the idea of a reserve pool of labor that keeps wage down. But in that circumstance wages are irrelevant. If wages rise $1 and prices rise $1 real wages have risen $0. Keeping wage price inflation in check does not mean keeping real wages in check. having unemployment does mean less bargaining power for labor and less share of production value for labor, so real wage can be kept down. When unemployment is that high the policy is to bring unemployment down. Some unemployment doesn't mean that real wages can be kept down. Too much unemployment does. Out of curiosity then, what in your opinion constitutes Too much unemployment? >5% is pretty standard. Around that and you are left with structural unemployment, more or less. In other words you want enough jobs available for everyone that wants one and it just becomes a matter of matching the available worker to the available job. As a follow up then, what is your opinion on the number of under-employed people? People that have useful degrees but have to resort to part-time/unskilled labor due to a lack of openings. I hear the problem of underemployment is becoming quite the issue, with some 14% of workers reporting being underemployed in the most recent jobs report if I remember correctly. IMO it would be similar to unemployment if its due to a temporary drop in demand for those skills. Typically if that's the case then the underemployment goes away along with unemployment going away.
What would be your response if the level of unemployment went down only because the level of underemployment went up and their was clear data showing the reason was due to high quality jobs leaving the country?
|
On January 06 2013 14:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 10:59 sam!zdat wrote:On January 06 2013 09:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 09:00 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:59 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2013 07:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:10 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2013 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:01 oneofthem wrote:
but if wages rise it's inflation! the horror Inflationary, not inflation. well, there is this whole NAIRU idea that basically makes a policy imperative out of having unemployment. not very far from the idea of a reserve pool of labor that keeps wage down. But in that circumstance wages are irrelevant. If wages rise $1 and prices rise $1 real wages have risen $0. Keeping wage price inflation in check does not mean keeping real wages in check. having unemployment does mean less bargaining power for labor and less share of production value for labor, so real wage can be kept down. When unemployment is that high the policy is to bring unemployment down. Some unemployment doesn't mean that real wages can be kept down. Too much unemployment does. Out of curiosity then, what in your opinion constitutes Too much unemployment? >5% is pretty standard. Around that and you are left with structural unemployment, more or less. In other words you want enough jobs available for everyone that wants one and it just becomes a matter of matching the available worker to the available job. This is absolutely not what capitalism wants. You want a bit fewer jobs than the number of people who want them, obviously.How can you even write these two sentences next to each other and not explode from ideological overload? Why would capitalism want that? Capitalists like making money. What you are suggesting runs counter to that goal.
On January 06 2013 09:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 09:00 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:59 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2013 07:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:10 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2013 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:01 oneofthem wrote:
but if wages rise it's inflation! the horror Inflationary, not inflation. well, there is this whole NAIRU idea that basically makes a policy imperative out of having unemployment. not very far from the idea of a reserve pool of labor that keeps wage down. But in that circumstance wages are irrelevant. If wages rise $1 and prices rise $1 real wages have risen $0. Keeping wage price inflation in check does not mean keeping real wages in check. having unemployment does mean less bargaining power for labor and less share of production value for labor, so real wage can be kept down. When unemployment is that high the policy is to bring unemployment down. Some unemployment doesn't mean that real wages can be kept down. Too much unemployment does. Out of curiosity then, what in your opinion constitutes Too much unemployment? >5% is pretty standard. Around that and you are left with structural unemployment, more or less.
edit: you also need a reserve army of the unemployed
|
On January 06 2013 15:04 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 14:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 11:02 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 09:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 09:00 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On January 06 2013 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:59 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2013 07:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 07:10 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2013 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Inflationary, not inflation. well, there is this whole NAIRU idea that basically makes a policy imperative out of having unemployment. not very far from the idea of a reserve pool of labor that keeps wage down. But in that circumstance wages are irrelevant. If wages rise $1 and prices rise $1 real wages have risen $0. Keeping wage price inflation in check does not mean keeping real wages in check. having unemployment does mean less bargaining power for labor and less share of production value for labor, so real wage can be kept down. When unemployment is that high the policy is to bring unemployment down. Some unemployment doesn't mean that real wages can be kept down. Too much unemployment does. Out of curiosity then, what in your opinion constitutes Too much unemployment? >5% is pretty standard. Around that and you are left with structural unemployment, more or less. In other words you want enough jobs available for everyone that wants one and it just becomes a matter of matching the available worker to the available job. As a follow up then, what is your opinion on the number of under-employed people? People that have useful degrees but have to resort to part-time/unskilled labor due to a lack of openings. I hear the problem of underemployment is becoming quite the issue, with some 14% of workers reporting being underemployed in the most recent jobs report if I remember correctly. IMO it would be similar to unemployment if its due to a temporary drop in demand for those skills. Typically if that's the case then the underemployment goes away along with unemployment going away. What would be your response if the level of unemployment went down only because the level of underemployment went up and their was clear data showing the reason was due to high quality jobs leaving the country?
Well there are two ways to combat this.
Lower taxes or lower the minimum wage.
|
How does lowering the minimum wage change the flight of high quality jobs? Lowering it (maybe, I don't believe this) can theoretically increase the number of low wage jobs overall but high-quality high-wage job markets and the minimum wage don't strike me as strongly correlated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
