If you have a problem with the numbers, call (703)-482-0623. They'll be more than happy to discuss their analysis methods with you.
Of course my comments were US specific, although there are many other economies that suffer the same fate for the same reasons. Deficit spending leading to massive government waste and debt is one side of the coin. An economy (labor force, manufacturing, and so forth) that has become less competative is another factor. The decrease in economic activity has led to lost jobs and reduced income Tax. From 2008 until now the Federal income dropped from 2.7 down to 2.15 Trillion. Interest on the massive debt eats eats away 450 Billion of that spending capacity leaving us with 1.7 Trillion to spend. The Government was propping the economy up with massive deficit spending which kept things going but also created a false economy. As this spending was scaled back folks who were working in this false economy got left behind. At the same a less competative manufacturing sector was shedding Jobs. An education system that has large numbers slip through the cracks does not help. The base problem has been the false economy created by deficit spending. Things were good for 17 years 83-2000 but in the last 12 years the cracks in the false economy have been creating poverty.
This isn't spam, unless you choose to ignore the argument with your special pleading. But, then, why even bother to even have a point or an argument when appealing to ignorance can be so much easier? Why do you believe that a natural rate of unemployment is static in regards to our US economy; if that is not the case, then why claim I am not being accurate in my description of a natural rate of unemployment in its natural environment and Age. Are you also claiming that a natural rate of unemployment is no different in an Information Age than the Iron Age; if not, then my view must be more correct. Unemployment compensation has already been proved to generate a positive multiplier effect; and may also generate positive gains from increases in productivity.
Its spam on two levels. First, you know (as you've been told countless times) that you're abusing terms. Second, you know that you're not actually making any relevant comment to poverty alleviation The rest of your post was continued and repetitive spam
Unemployment compensation has already been proved to generate a positive multiplier effect; and may also generate positive gains from increases in productivity in a manner analogous to agricultural subsidies in the US; it could be said that such a public policy promotes and provides for the general welfare of the United States and the common defense.
Its an automatic stabiliser. Whilst that's useful in understanding government effects on the business cycle, it is not helpful in a general discussion on poverty. Its bobbins to suggest otherwise
I am not sure why you believe that. In the US, most of the several States have at-will employment laws and recognize the federal doctrine regarding employment at will. It could be a relatively simple matter to actually solve for official poverty in our republic, by solving for any rate of unemployment above zero percent. Unemployment compensation infrastructure already exists in every State of the Union and the federal districts. From one perspective, we could be stabilizing the business cycle without the use of more arbitrary command economics while increasing the circulation of money in money based markets, in a supply side friendly manner that could be analogous to a rising tide lifting all boats.
Its simple economics: unemployment benefit supports demand and therefore acts as a stabiliser, but you won't find it can be used to "solve unemployment". Its utter nonsense of course for this thread as we're referring to US high poverty despite its history of relatively low unemployment rates.
Solving for any rate of unemployment could entail a form of minimum wage that simply subsidizes the least efficient to not provide labor input to our more developed economy. It would still maintain an economic effect of that form of full employment of monetary resources in our economy.
This is just inane repetition of your previous abuse of terms. Why don't you answer one simple question? Why are you rambling on about unemployment when the US has had a history of lower unemployment rates?
Why do you have any issues with my use of a minimum wage that simply pays potential labor market participants, to not provide labor input to the economy and instead pursue some other opportunity cost for that wage? It doesn't really matter how low our natural rate of employment has been historically since we have also had official poverty for the same amount of time. From my perspective, only an unemployment rate below one percent can actually solve for most of our poverty in the US. An alternative is to use those resources in the same manner, even without the labor input, simply for price discrimination.
You're not making sense (again!). You've rambled on about unemployment. You're so insistent that we have to refer to unemployment that you've reinvented economic terms and given them inappropriate definitions. However, we know that- to compared to other developed countries- the US has high poverty and also a history of low unemployment. You therefore are twinning erroneous comment with irrelevant comment. We cannot use unemployment to explain the poor performance of the US in the poverty stakes.
I am referring the issue of official poverty and lack of full employment in our economy. Do you believe that we could solve official poverty with full employment in the market for labor for any potential labor market participant that could command a prevailing market based wage? The same priniciple applies with merely full employment of resources such as money that would otherwise be obtained from full employment. We were running massive surpluses when we had the lowest unemployment in thirty years; why is that not the case now, with high unemploynment, if the correlation you are trying to make is very valid? Unemployment does correlate to a poverty of money in money based markets. Since that is the case, then the rest of my assumptions must also be valid.
You're dodging and saying the same thing again after again. You can't refer to unemployment in this thread as the topic is why the US has high poverty compared to other developed countries. Unemployment cannot explain that outcome. Time for you to ditch the abuse of simple concepts and actually offer something relevant: Why does the US have higher poverty than their European counterparts?
Tell him Dani. The EU avge is around 9% unemployment US is 16% on a conservative measure .Actual is around 22% And when he points to the Gov't figure at 8.3% , take him though the facts which make this figure look the BS it actually is . Keep it simple with facts . He cannot handle those settings .
I appreciate you like to play conspiracy theory and you're rather lax when it comes to economic reality. However, you won't find one reputable sourxe that finds the US has a poorer unemploymet record than Europe. Check out the ILO. Nor will you be able to refer to a source that concludes 'the US has higher poverty than Europe because of its unemployment rate'
Actually, you may have missed the point about unemployment compensation doubling (in the most efficient and market friendly of manners), as a social safety net which could actually solve official poverty in the US to the extent any poverty is due to a simple lack of income in our capital based market economy. I have already explained my view of our unique, US social dilemma. We could have official poverty under one percent in our case under our current methodologies, merely by being moral enough to bear true witness to State at-will employment laws and a federal doctrine regarding employment at will.
I haven't missed anything as you haven't said anything. You've rambled on about uneemployment despite, without doubt, unemployment being incapable of explaining poverty in the US relative to Europe
It was about unemployment compensation, not unemployment. Why do you believe unemployment compensation would not solve for official poverty in any at-will employment State?
You're nearly making me smile. Perhaps you'd like to refer to one study that refers to US unemployment compensation being behind their high poverty rate? Don't hide now.
Why am I not surprised you have no solutions to our modern social dilemmas, with your current methodologies. You remind me of republicans who were able to elect an Ivy League MBA, and actually and almost magically, turn massive surpluses into massive deficits; contrary to a Capitalist maxim that states it takes money to make money. Why do you believe we would have official poverty to the extent we do, if a person could simply apply for unemployment compensation whenever they don't have recourse to a prevailing market based wage, that could provide a form of minimum wage that actually solves for official poverty?
I'm not interested in inane dodge tactics. Answer the very simple question: Can you refer to one study that refers to US unemployment compensation being behind their high poverty rate? We know the answer: nope. Your whole argument is built on irrelevance
I have never claimed that poverty is due to unemployment compensation. Why resort to non sequiturs, with your current methodologies?
To answer your tortured question , just try the very people who produce the figures .Even they say publicly that they are dishonest . Is there actually one person of any repute who dares to publicly deny the figures I quote? Of course not .And please don't refer to me people who simply confirm that the official figures are correct in the sense that they describe the pre-set definition of unemployment The point is that their terms --- their definitions -- are dishonest . Treat yourself . Go and look at the terms of definition . You don't have to be clever to see how misleading and disingenuous they are . Just honest . Namely , the so called official figures do not cover a definition that anybody living in the real world finds descriptively honest . Ordinary people can be forgiven for believing information processed to them by mainstream media . You have been shown where you are wrong and your refusal to accept self evident truth goes beyond stubbornness. Give it a rest and stop repeating information without first thinking about its sources and the basis of these sources . Otherwise , you are guilty by association of intellectual dishonesty .
You've only really give vocab abuse whilst rambling incoherently about unemployment. We both know that you can't refer to one study that concludes US high poverty is the result of unemployment. You therefore have nothing but spam
