Reference to natural unemployment continues to be a red herring. You need to come up with a different buzzword, particularly as the US has high working poverty
I'm a socialist and therefore against capitalism by definition. Unemployment is inevitable (we just have to refer to frictional varieties). Capitalism is, however, reliant on unemployment as it disciplines the workforce. However, none of this can be used to explain the US poverty result. You've merely used it to refer aimlessly about immigration. Shall I repeat? I'm not interested in your blubbering about immigration. This is about poverty and I've already proved that immigration cannot be used to explain the US result Refer me to one study that links trade liberalisation with US poverty. So far you've offered nothing in support, relying purely on unsupportable opinion
Why do you believe that a natural rate of unemployment is irrelevant in any money based market, if it can be correlated to poverty when due to a simple lack of income that would normally be associated with employment? From my perspective, simply solving for a natural rate of unemployment should also solve for official poverty in the US, to a corresponding extent, while providing some economic stimulus and multiplier effect through that circulation of money in money based markets. The issue of high working poverty is addressed in two different manners; first, by having recourse to a minimum wage that simply pays the least efficient potential labor market participants to not provide labor input to the economy. The second issue should be addressed by that form of public sector competition for labor with the private sector. This form of competition with the private sector should lead to gains from efficiency wages and productivity as labor become more efficient and commands efficiency wages.
http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/ http://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/new-study-says-globalization-hurts-middle-class Look at that graph. It clearly showed that jobs and housing were unable to accomodate all those new people. http://kpbs.media.clients.ellington....jpg?8e0a8887e886a6ff6e13ee030987b3616fc57cd3 http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-01-oppose_x.htm You might also be interested in this: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article27036.html
What I find highly discouraging about this thread is the amount of cognitive dissonance it's generating in some of the posters. They'd rather argue with the methodologies, the source or the concept of poverty rather than accept date from multiple sources that shows, despite our extreme wealth we have a staggeringly high levels of both relative and absolute poverty. On to the why. First, despite mobility statistics being very grim, a lot of folks still cling to the concept of the American dream, and would like to believe it's alive and well, that everyone was given similar opportunities and their lack of success is Darwinian (humorously considering the folks who feel this way often reject his findings). The problem is emergent, the poor procreate faster than the wealthy, social mobility is at an all time low so there are simply more people born into a situation they're likely to never escape. This is as much a sociological issue as it is an economic one.
Try to actually respond to my posts! Find me one study that links trade liberalisation with higher poverty. Please ensure you present authors, year, title, journal and page numbers. I've grown bored of your "from the 30s" attitudes
From my understanding, trade is usually mutually beneficial under most forms of Capitalism; doesn't that suggest that playing shell games with Statism, in excess, is less beneficial to Commerce?
You could stop right there, except in a few cases, trade is almost universally mutually beneficial assuming all parties are willing participants with rational objectives.
Trade is mutually beneficial to the individuals involved in the trade, at least directly. But it can also lead to job losses. Let me give you an example. You have a child that cannot find a job. You need someone to graden your yard every week. Your child is not very productive, it takes him three hours to do the work. Or you can hire someone else to do the gardening, which only takes them two hours. You would have to pay both of them five dollars per hour. Which one do you choose? Hiring your child is more expensive. But if you do not hire your child, he will not have a job. Then you will feel sorry for him and give him five dollars every week. Option A: 3 hours X 5 dollars = costs you 15 dollars, your child gets 15 dollars Option B: 2 hours X 5 dollars = 10 dollars + 5 dollar allowance for child = costs you 15 dollars, your child gets only 5 dollars So even though it might be "cheaper" to hire an outsider, it still makes more sense to hire someone that is a member of your family.
I am arguing a Moral failure as a Cause of official poverty in the US, even with a McCarthy era phrase in our own pledge of allegiance to our own republic.
Also, making workers compete with workers in other countries with lower standards of living, and lack of worker protections, can drive down wages. Decreasing wages will increase inequality, because the wealthy will benefit more from the corresponding decrease in prices than the working people. http://www.politicalforum.com/economics-trade/224145-american-worker-should-protected.html I agree very much with this.
I agree that we should not have to actually compete with third worlders by actually having a third world work ethic instead of a first world work ethic in our more developed economy.
From my understanding, structural forms of unemployment are a normal occurrence in Commerce. It may be considered one reason why our Founding Fathers delegated the power to provide for the general welfare, to our federal Congress. Why do we also not have the infrastructure which better befits the glory of our republic?
"When it comes to differences between countries, social cohesion plays a major role. Broadly speaking, countries that are more ethnically or racially homogenous are more comfortable with the state seeking to mitigate inequality by transfering some of the resources from the richer to poorer people frough the fiscal system." "The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist. Ethologist Frank Salter wrote: "With all the racial diversity and poverty, the taxpayers with more money will be more reluctant to pool their money into public schools, public health systems, government retirement schemes, and welfare. More services will become privitized as taxpayers will not want to pay for the masses of poor minorities."
You're not actually arguing anything. There is no reference to poverty alleviation policy. They is only nonsensical reference to concepts such as normal unemployment (used actually in rather bland analysis into inflation)
Our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land was intelligently designed to be gender and race neutral, from inception. It is a simple moral failure on our part, even with a McCarthy era phrase in our own pledge of allegiance to our own republic. It is no wonder some people who may pray up to five times a day call us the great shysters.
I went to the LIS (Luxembourg Income Study) web site. Big pain in the ass. Its just a giant database for people to use, data sets cannot be downloaded or directly accessed. Data is "manipulated" to equalise across nations. I can't get access to the data or the "normalization" process. So LIS has data, big deal. It is not transparent, and the people that are deemed worthy enough to gain access to the data can manipulate it in any way they want, to promote whatever agenda they have. Like I said, so many studies are oriented to promote an agenda that its all unreliable. And you just assume the US has high relative poverty. The data I have seen is very questionable, and the data set you mentioned (LIS) is hidden. I go back to my original statement, how do you know poverty is so high when the data is so questionable?
Any rate of unemployment could be viewed as an inefficiency rate in that market for that political-economy. It correlates to a poverty of money in money based markets. Simply solving for a natural rate of unemployment so that a new equilibrium is achieved below one percent, could be said to solve for official poverty.
I'm pretty sure you just seriously butchered some terminology there. Natural unemployment occurs (partially) because of frictions within the labor market, by definition it's a supply side phenomenon and as such can't be solved with demand side solutions. I suppose I could assume your making an allusion to NAIRU, but you've given no indication in this post that you have a solution for inflationary issues.
It is about the concept not semantics for special pleading purposes. Why do you believe that a public policy that could solve official poverty as easily and conveniently as ministering minimum wage laws are now would be very difficult if the infrastructure already exists in every State of the Union and the federal districts?
I'm not talking about semantics, I'm talking about terminology. Frankly, I'm still not sure what you're talking about.
Not a particularly high powered response! We have one of the most popular international datasets available for poverty research. Its very popularity is the result of by-passing problems with national-based definitions, ensuring accurate and consistent cross-country output. We have all methods disclosed and we also have all research provided in working paper format. Its available to everyone who has gone through the data protection process (e.g. Datasets, encompassing large samples to the postcode level, will include personal information that need to be anonymised). Providing biased results will be discovered in a researcher's heartbeat! You'd have to assume some academic conspiracy that includes the biggest names in the field (such as Smeeding). Crikey, even Fox News watchers might question the existence of such a ludicrous conspiracy. You can't show any bias. You only have a 'I won't listen' tantrum that is based on ignoring the numerous complementary papers that validate the well known: US poverty exceeds most other developed countries (the exception being Britain which, whilst it significantly fell under the Labour governments, has a history of exceedingly high child poverty rates) Get it right now: I refer to the empirical evidence, evidence which will be confirmed by any dataset. Can you refer to one study, using either absolute or relative poverty methodologies, that concludes the US has low poverty compared to other developed countries? Try not to dodge now!
Nor have they . They suffer from Text Bookitis . Look at some of the other threads in this section . They will have you doubled in laughter and amazement .
I haven't said anything about the relative poverty in America, maybe we have a high rate compared to other industrial nations, maybe not. But I defientiely question the data. I looked at the reference you provided (LIS), just as I researched the data source of the "homeless children" post that started this op. You should know by now that I check references. I am not impressed by a data base that only allows certain annointed people to access the data. I looked at the process of gaining access to LIS, it doesn't look like I can gain access. Why are they so protective of their data? Maybe its good data, maybe not, and maybe its only released to people of a similar ideological leaning. In any case, when confronted by someone - me- that has done some reading and concludes there are a lot of biased reports, it doesn't do your case any good to refer me to a cloistered place like LIS. Just the opposite. You can refer to some mysterious "empirical evidence" all you want, you haven't provided anything to back up your case. The number of homeless children provided in your initial post was a very flawed number. LIS is a terrible reference to one of the nonanointed. You case is sinking fast.
You can't say anything as the high poverty, in terms of absolute or relative 'poverty threshold' methodology, is confirmed by every source. It is therefore of no surprise that, when asked to present a source that disputes the US high poverty result (using any standard methodology, such as the Foster index and the analysis into both poverty incidence and the depth of that incidence), you provide nothing. You can't refer to one example of bias, so let's not exaggerate! I also know you make unsuppportable claims. Here, you moan about an accepted data source that is arguably the best for international comparison. But its not just moan, its empty whinge as you cannot offer one valid criticism I've already informed you: data protection policy has to be followed. LIS provides harmonised data from multiple countries with different rules on privacy and data protection. This ensures some limit on use, but with any user gaining access by going through the required legal mechanisms. My other half, who is an economist by trade, has used a sister data set (panel data though, rather than cross-sectional) and had to go to court for a judge to give permission for non-anonymised access. This is a ridiculous claim. The source uses national datasets, but ensures consistency in definition. By definition, its available to any researcher. As I'm educated in the area I will refer to the best source for international comparison. Your response hasn't been high powered, with zero content and a complete inability to offer critique. Now you might not like the fact that the US has high poverty and you may even want to enjoy a dose of dissonance avoidance as you limit the valid information sources that are available to you. Fair enough. Stick to Fox News etc, but you're just avoiding the debate and using bluster to do it. Let's see if you can actually blag support for your position. Refer me to one paper that rejects that the US, using relative or absolute poverty methodologies, has high poverty compared to other developed countries. All of those LIS working papers say otherwise...
