Gallup unemployment falls to 8.4%, matching lowest level since Jan 2010

What a shocker coming from you.

 

Traditional socialism, through central planning, has been highly successful in engineering economic development. But what's that got to do with the US? Socialism has nothing to do with the US. You could refer to aspects such as social democracy, adapting the insider-outsider model to demonstrate how interventionism will tend to deliver an inefficiently high level of unemployment. Even then its a bloomin big stretch as the US is infected to its core by neo-liberalism and therefore economic apparatus linked to right wing folly

 

.....said with tongue in cheek, as europe collapses into rot.

 

LOL! Did you think of that all by yourself?

 

Your post again lacks sense and any resemblance of quality

 

Awesome, you agree.

 

Given you've got nothing to say (except come out with a mix and match of immature effort and clear nonsense), I can't be bothered with you.

 

some things are best left to the government ie garbage collaction, police, fire department etc.....but everything else is handled more efficiently by the private sector!

 

That wouldn't be justifiable as, to make that conclusion, you actually have to assume perfect competition. Even then you're not actually saying much, given the use of the market is consistent with socialism.

Supply side shocks impact negatively on labour, creating problems associated with the destruction of human capital. An efficient capitalist society would therefore involve active involvement in unemployment control

 

but government controlled businessess have a captive audience like garbage collection or police.....we the people have no say in the mater.....and so government offer rediculous salaries and benefits and in the end you have the situation you have now in many cities.......bankruptsy!

 

The public sector tends to have workers with higher levels of human capital. The benefits received are also easily controlled through bargaining. Indeed, more efficient hierarchical mechanisms can be employed

 

then explain to me something, look at all the people working for the governent and compare the salaries to a private sector comparable job!

transit worker 25 dollars/hr school bus driver 8 dollars/hour
school janitor 27 dollar/hr hotel maintenance worker 10 dollars/hour


there are many many more examples like this I am sure......and we the taxpayers have to pay for it through taxation!

 

One would have to control for human capital differences. As already mentioned, the public sector worker tends to have higher human capital. There certainly remains significant differences in wage differentials. However, that reflects greater underpayment in the private sector

 

what you are "REALLY" trying to say is that those public sector jobs are protected by unions.......which is a form of baby sitting if you ask me!

 

No, what I am saying is clear-cut: you deliberately ignore the underpayment suffered in the private sector and you deliberately ignore the higher human capital levels observed in the public sector

 

and why do you call the ones in the private sector under paid? Could be the other way around and the government jobs are over paid?

 

A basic understanding of labour economics will confirm it

Given the higher human capital levels, you're going to struggle to prove that

 

you think? OK lets see......

Private sector....the consumer has choice...will always choose the best value for the dollar...so companies can't just pay any amount to workers or they will become insolvent.

Public secvtor....no competition....unions can charge whatever they want, and since the employees are usually also voters the government caves in to demands...sounds pretty stright forward to me

 

No, I bother to embed my comments into economic comment. That's more than you do

You'd only have a point if perfection competition existed. It doesn't. Employers make abnormal profit and they also have labour power. The two are of course connected, with underpayment reflecting economic rent.

Its straight forward to you as you're reliant on utopianism and use that to make inaccurate remark over practice.

Competition in the public sector clearly exists. Indeed, that competition can lead to inefficient outcome (see, for example, how differences in bargaining strength led to inefficient wage differentials in the National Health Service; the biggest employer in Britain)

 

I dissagree, had there been competition in the public sector there would not be as much waste and dublication.....although it can be argued that large corporations can also be wastefull with dublication, its not to the same degree as the public sector!

 

How many workers is 9.1% unemployment?

How many workers is 100% employment?

I've read that 100% is ~155 million. If this is accurate, then 9.1% is about 14.1 million.

This would mean the 16.2% unemployment+under-employment+given up looking+etc. is about 25.1 million.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...there are too many political games and adjustments and policy to expect government unemployment numbers to be accurate. The ONLY way we can really know how things are going is to keep track of how many are employed...this is a hard number that is easily known.

If we know 155 million equals 100% employment, when we have a population of 312 million, then we know on average that 50% of the US population can be counted as the 100% employed...or the total workforce.

So...if we trend the actual quantity of people employed, against 50% of the current population, this should give us more accurate numbers of employed, and unemployed...

 

Evidence or just more bacardi talking points?

Overhead for most government services is lower than private charities.

 

You continue to make comment based on perfect competition. Once we refer to imperfections, apparent competition can increase inefficiencies (we see that with health care and economies of scale)

 

notice that when telecommunications were deregulated the cost of long distance collapsed? This is what happens when you have healthy competition. There is no competition in the government so hence prices are always higher due to inefficiancies!

 

the only example I can think of in the private sector is monopolies......but here again, if a competitor sees that you are making a handome profit on something...they will come in and charge a little less and try to take market share away from you and still make a tidy profit for themselves!