|
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. |
|
|
Let me start with "I know, I know..."
This article tries to find the "real" Dollar value of the department of defense's overseas spending, done by David Vine - a Tom Dispatch regular and assistant professor of anthropology at American University, in Washington, DC. (also, very long article)
http://mondediplo.com/openpage/picking-up-a-170-billion-tab
As many of you would say he is very left, so if you read the article .. ignore his needling and his agenda, take the article for what it is ..
I am not going to write a tl:dr 
|
Another thing .. I know this is old news but hey. I have to write it somewhere.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1
Just two quotes from the article.
"Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.” "
"But “this is more than just a data center,” says one senior intelligence official who until recently was involved with the program. The mammoth Bluffdale center will have another important and far more secret role that until now has gone unrevealed. It is also critical, he says, for breaking codes. And code-breaking is crucial, because much of the data that the center will handle—financial information, stock transactions, business deals, foreign military and diplomatic secrets, legal documents, confidential personal communications—will be heavily encrypted. According to another top official also involved with the program, the NSA made an enormous breakthrough several years ago in its ability to cryptanalyze, or break, unfathomably complex encryption systems employed by not only governments around the world but also many average computer users in the US. The upshot, according to this official: “Everybody’s a target; everybody with communication is a target.” "
In case you really did not know, this is not a conspiracy ... this is reality.
I know that to some U.S. citizens every citizen of another country is worth nothing but hey .. uhm .. I dont really like that.
Now. I have no doubt that my government is doing the same or something similar (well maybe not Austria, too lazy for that) but some interagency in the EU surely does. Its just that .. this makes me so sad beyond believe. Its like all the Stasi employees emigrated to every powerfull country after 1989 and try to achieve what they never could 
It just makes me sad ... because there is absolutely zero I can do against it.
I know this is not really a discussion, just my frustration
Sorry.
|
I mean lol its not like it is better for any of you U.S. citizens, just quoting the Wall Street Journal ...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324478304578171623040640006.html
"The rules now allow the little-known National Counterterrorism Center to examine the government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them. That is a departure from past practice, which barred the agency from storing information about ordinary Americans unless a person was a terror suspect or related to an investigation.
Now, NCTC can copy entire government databases—flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and many others. The agency has new authority to keep data about innocent U.S. citizens for up to five years, and to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior. Previously, both were prohibited. Data about Americans "reasonably believed to constitute terrorism information" may be permanently retained.
The changes also allow databases of U.S. civilian information to be given to foreign governments for analysis of their own. In effect, U.S. and foreign governments would be using the information to look for clues that people might commit future crimes."
We are all fucked, dont worry.
EDIT : Sorry for the three posts, I did not really have a concept and just wrote it as I went along ..
|
On January 06 2013 17:27 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 15:04 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Incentivise lower education or incentivise the use of the higher educated (taxes, regulations, tax-breaks, subsidies etc.).
Lowering taxes in response to "underemployment" (the overqualified employment) is not the answer generally since it encourages increase in lower educated jobs mostly. If it is a question of underemployment in terms of fewer hours than wanted, it is neither a solution since unemployment is low. You risk emptying the flexibility by making unemployment too low.
I don't know enough about government protected minimum wages, but from what I hear, it is already low in USA. Is it possible to live on food stamps when you have a job in USA? If it isn't there is something to be said about the livelyhood. Especially for people in part time jobs, a lowering of minimum wage is problematic. Since a lot of the people in multiple minimum jobs are lesser resourced to begin with, it is a radical step towards more need of charity.
|
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?
I think decisions get pretty complex at that point. Sometimes jobs leave for good and people just need to retrain. Other times there's a competitiveness issue and jobs can be brought back.
|
On January 07 2013 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 15:04 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I think decisions get pretty complex at that point. Sometimes jobs leave for good and people just need to retrain. Other times there's a competitiveness issue and jobs can be brought back.
I personally think the US needs to lower its corporate tax rates, they are a little high compared to other countries at the moment. Even Jamie Dimon says he would be willing to pay higher income taxes if America would lower the corporate rate.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/10/us-jpmorgan-dimon-taxes-idUSBRE8991DI20121010
|
On January 07 2013 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 15:04 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I think decisions get pretty complex at that point. Sometimes jobs leave for good and people just need to retrain. Other times there's a competitiveness issue and jobs can be brought back.
What if it's the worst case scenario, and the U.S. really is such a rich and productive country that there isn't ever going to be enough work for everyone to find employment that provides them with a comfortable standard of living?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On January 07 2013 04:43 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 15:04 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I think decisions get pretty complex at that point. Sometimes jobs leave for good and people just need to retrain. Other times there's a competitiveness issue and jobs can be brought back. What if it's the worst case scenario, and the U.S. really is such a rich and productive country that there isn't ever going to be enough work for everyone to find employment that provides them with a comfortable standard of living?
Is that really the "worst case scenario?" Seems like a normal scenario to me.
|
On January 06 2013 23:19 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 17:27 BluePanther wrote:On January 06 2013 15:04 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Incentivise lower education or incentivise the use of the higher educated (taxes, regulations, tax-breaks, subsidies etc.). Lowering taxes in response to "underemployment" (the overqualified employment) is not the answer generally since it encourages increase in lower educated jobs mostly. If it is a question of underemployment in terms of fewer hours than wanted, it is neither a solution since unemployment is low. You risk emptying the flexibility by making unemployment too low. I don't know enough about government protected minimum wages, but from what I hear, it is already low in USA. Is it possible to live on food stamps when you have a job in USA? If it isn't there is something to be said about the livelyhood. Especially for people in part time jobs, a lowering of minimum wage is problematic. Since a lot of the people in multiple minimum jobs are lesser resourced to begin with, it is a radical step towards more need of charity.
The Federal minimum wage is low but many states and cities have higher minimums. Cost of living varies a lot ('tis a big country!) so having one all encompassing minimum is problematic. Minimum wage in the US mainly affects young people because they don't have skills yet. So yeah you can't raise a family on it but you aren't supposed to either.
And yes, there are a bunch of government support programs available to people on minimum wage and above.
|
On January 07 2013 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 15:04 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: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:
[quote]
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? people just need to retrain.
To do what? 
|
On January 07 2013 04:43 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 15:04 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I think decisions get pretty complex at that point. Sometimes jobs leave for good and people just need to retrain. Other times there's a competitiveness issue and jobs can be brought back. What if it's the worst case scenario, and the U.S. really is such a rich and productive country that there isn't ever going to be enough work for everyone to find employment that provides them with a comfortable standard of living?
Well that's getting into a borderline paradox - if we're so productive there should be plenty of jobs available at a high wage. From an employer's perspective jobs aren't cheap or expensive based on the wage it is cheap or expensive based on the wage relative to the production. So US workers can be very productive, earn a high wage and be cheap from the employer's point of view.
Ex. A Chinese worker produces 10 units per hour at $1 per hour.
A US worker produces 1,000 units per hour at $20 per hour.
The US worker is cheaper!
|
On January 07 2013 04:55 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 15:04 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: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:
[quote]
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? people just need to retrain. To do what?
Well realistically that would depend on the individual and their circumstance.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there is no vast consciously designed capital class conspiracy at least when it comes to the labor market.
|
are you talking to me, oneofthem?
On January 07 2013 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 04:55 sam!zdat wrote:On January 07 2013 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 15:04 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: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:
[quote]
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? people just need to retrain. To do what? Well realistically that would depend on the individual and their circumstance.
So you don't know either, ok. This is just a non-answer and market worship.
|
On January 07 2013 05:06 sam!zdat wrote:are you talking to me, oneofthem? Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 07 2013 04:55 sam!zdat wrote:On January 07 2013 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 06 2013 15:04 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: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:
[quote]
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? people just need to retrain. To do what? Well realistically that would depend on the individual and their circumstance. So you don't know either, ok. This is just a non-answer and market worship.
Would you have rather heard we create government funded positions for philosophical study?
|
I just want to hear what people think people are going to spend their time doing in the future, nobody will tell me even though I keep asking
edit: it's not about me at all, I live modestly on philosophical principle and I'm going to inherit several million dollars so I could mostly care less
|
On January 07 2013 05:11 sam!zdat wrote:
I just want to hear what people think people are going to spend their time doing in the future, nobody will tell me even though I keep asking
edit: it's not about me at all, I live modestly on philosophical principle and I'm going to inherit several million dollars so I could mostly care less
well I can tell you what I think I hope to be doing. I am not an American so I am not sure how much it pertains to this thread though.
I hope to graduate high school and get a degree in either economics or financial mathematics. From there I hope to get a job working in finance, my dream would be to work at Berkshire Hathaway but that is unlikely to happen so I will settle for working for one of the larger more generic financial institutions. If I make enough I would like to start my own fund or maybe just retire early and enjoy my money. After that I suppose I grow old and die.
|
You don't want to hear my opinion about your becoming a financier.
|
On January 07 2013 05:29 sam!zdat wrote:
You don't want to hear my opinion about your becoming a financier.
In fact I would love to hear your opinion
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/50e59477eab8ea3b2500000e-567-756/w6ckcr.jpg)
