This is basically the only section of the forums I check regularly. I find the anti-intellectualism very uninteresting.
I view structural forms of unemployment as part of any "natural" rate of unemployment as due to a normal function of Commerce; in other words, I view structural forms of unemployment inherent in business as a subset of natural unemployment in any mixed-market economy. Why do you believe that a public policy that could solve official poverty induced by any rate of unemployment and as easily administered 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. Can you describe how being able to claim unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed, would not work in our republic?
Sunshine , the day that this pseudo rubbish gets regarded by accredited thinkers as worthwhile , is the day I will drink myself to death on Absinthe .
What in God's name are you on about? UI Benefits can be claimed when your unemployed assuming you didn't do something stupid to get fired. This already exists, so I have to default back to my first reply. Almost nothing interesting. Do you have something to say regarding the abnormally high poverty in the US?
I am referring to being moral enough to bear true witness to our own federal doctrine regarding employment at will and State at-will employment laws.
What specific issue to you have with work-at-will laws? Please spare me if this is about to delve into the silly wage-labor = slavery nonsense.
Everything that was forecast by smart analysts from 2005 onwards has come true . It will get even worse because the true unemployment figures remain awful , foreclosures continue at a huge level , house prices will continue falling , Bank's paper assets will decline further , the Federal Reserve will continue to plough astronomic sums into the toxic banks to prevent defaults , manufacturing cannot compete with lower production costs from China , India , south America and Asia . The US will not be able to change its Global War Strategy , thereby further decimating the system . Poverty will rise exponentially . It is just a matter of time before the underbelly will rise up violently . No . I guess have nothing to offer other than the causes of what is happening and that will continue to happen , but on a scale unimaginable to most Americans.
Very, very well put. But why arent we doing something to keep those people out, they are destroying our country!!!!!!!!!
Americans are very unintellectual, partly due to laziness, largely due to the regimented nature of the schools.
It is merely about actually solving official poverty and improving our standard of living, merely by being moral enough to bear true witness to those laws and that doctrine; instead of merely paying for a war on poverty for over thirty years and engendering those hellish conditions on Earth from those forms of perpetual warfare, instead of the perpetual welfare as enumerated by our Founding Fathers.
I'm fairly certain you don't even know what your talking about. It's almost as if each word is just chosen at random. You also didn't elaborate on your disagreement regarding work-at-will laws, how about dropping the psuedo-prose and the attempts at sounding smart and just say whatever the hell it is your trying to say.
Why blame it on a more liberal institution like education; when it can be more difficult to convince our own elected representatives to be moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of morals and that form of moral absolutism.
I have provided a very good point regarding the number of homeless children you referred to at the start of this thread. The definition of "homeless" is extremely broad and misleading. Thats a fact. There is my example of bias, and its a very good one. Rather then refute it, you dodge to some other issue (LIS) which is a hidden data base which uses nonpublic normalization methods (read their site). The data protection arguement is total BS. The USA contributes to LIS and the LIS data is supposed to be free of charge to US citizens and organizations, so the cost aspect is irrelevent. The LIS raw data is not released to anyone outside of LIS, but the anonymized data is released. Privacy issues are BS. There is no reason the data cannot be made available to anyone. There is no excuse to "protect" the data. I can download the IRS tax data base directly via IRS.gov, I can download all kinds of crime and accident data via the cdc and FBI sites, but I can't download LIS data without being "approved". I don't trust LIS for that very reason. Is your motivation to educate, or are you just hiding behind a lost position you cannot support? Your antagonistic attitude says you are hiding.
Well said . You have spoken more sound common sense than the pseudos have ever been heard to . The trouble is that they cannot recognise good grounding comments if a few phoney labels , random graphs and an appeal to Keynes or Friedman or Galbraith or M. E . Plonker are absent .
Not really. You've merely given bland comment to avoid the question posed: "why does the US have high poverty?" The methods employed in harmonisation are all disclosed (see, for example, the working paper series). You've made false claims about a data source you don't understand. When asked to refer to one study that disputes that the US has high relative or absolute poverty you hide. Mere truth. As I said, my missus had to go in front of a judge to gain access to a sister panel dataset. There are numerous countries involved in the LIS (the clue is in international comparable objective!). That ensures significant legal constraints. Some will have different mechanisms. Take the now redundant ECHP, given a smaller number of very specific panel sources that merely requires a contract signed with Eurostat. I don't find your naivety at all interesting. Even when data is readily available (such as the sources provided by the ESRC Data Archive), there are numerous contracts that need to be signed. For the most sensitive sources (where maintaining anonymity is a significant concern, only computers within the ONS are allowed). Of course, as long as you demonstrate that you're involved in non-profit research, gaining access isn't difficult. They wouldn't let me in though as mine is 'all for profit' You're not a very good kidder. You don't like the data as it confirms the US poverty position. Furthermore, you cannot discount it with either actual evidence of bias or results from other data sources. I'm after responses to a simple question. Your dodging is just dull in its predictability. I wouldn't have to run a logit here!
I wont deny that many politicians are amoral, in fact we should get all of the incumbents ousted in the next few elections.
Everything you write confirms my position. Interesting that you don't see it. It is very clear even in your own replies.
There is nothing in your replies, neither valid critique or application of alternative information. If you want to be useful, rather than just dodge, meet my little request: Refer me to one paper that rejects that the US, using relative or absolute poverty methodologies, has high poverty compared to other developed countries
Although the federal consitution itself is neutral, it certainly was not "designed" to be gender and race neutral: only free white males were allowed to vote.
How should we inquire as to the moral rectitude of any elected representative to government; or, what is to prevent the next person from claiming they have morals and try to convince us to have a voting relationship with them, so that they may "rule over us"? In my opinion, resorting to the morals of Religion, should be considered a civic fallacy due to our First Amendment. Our Founding Fathers ordained and Established for us, all the temporal and secular morals we should need, to Secure the Blessings of Liberty on Earth, in the US.
Our Founding Fathers, Ordained and Established our secular and temporal Constitution for themselves and their Posterity. What you are describing is legacy States' rights issues which should have no longer been an issue after 1808.
Its sub-Phillips Curve rhetoric twinned with a splice of unclear morality splurge in order to limit economic response
Why is there any reticence at all, to being moral enough to bear true witness to our own State, at-will employment laws and the federal doctrine regarding employment at will in our republic; we even have a McCarthy era phrase in our own pledge of allegiance to our own republic, to help out. We could be solving official poverty by solving for a natural rate of unemployment, by compensating for that income with a minimum wage that also solves for official poverty, whenever a person can claim to be unemployed.
Utter drivel! The natural rate of unemployment cannot be used within poverty analysis. As mentioned, its for nonsense such as the vertical Phillips Curve. The minimum wage is also an ineffective and inefficient poverty alleviation device. It cannot be used to 'solve poverty'.
A natural rate of unemployment at a new equilibrium of less than one percent would definitely affect poverty metrics and any analysis obtainable from them. A hypothetical minimum wage that simply pays the least efficient to not provide labor input would solve for simple poverty when due to a lack of income normally associated with gainful employment.
