So just to clarify, you think the system with the occasional spike in unemployment is the inferior one, even if that spike still results in unemployment rates that are lower than the system with constant double-digit unemployment?
Paul Krugman quotes should be on the Vagina thread.
In case Linux is still holding to his bizarre notion that only France and Germany have a welfare state and tough labor laws, he'll be happy to know that the whole EU now recognizes an "entitlement" to a second vacation if you get sick during your 6 week vacation entitlement: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/wo...ions.html?_r=1
Of course it is an extreme example but meant to ilustrate how your idea that those 10% are permanently unemployed or just in and out of jobs, BESIDES once out of a job they should have access (in an ideal society of course) to the acquisition of more training so that when they jump back in the chair they get a better job.
In short THIS is what is moral, perhaps it is not the most efficient, but the idea that people are hopeless is ridiculous.
EDIT, just to be clear again extreme example, this is not France, but they are certainly closer to this.
Stop putting words in his mouthBenjamin Franklin warned us about people like you. He understood perfectly that the false security of politicians' empty promises always seductive now but leads to ruin in the long term. That is in fact the entire basis of the current sovereign debt crisis:
He is talking about defense, not job security, this quote only applies to shut up the republican warmongers.In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. Whether he could, as he supposes, “if his Hands had been properly strengthened, have put the Province into such a Posture of Defence, as might have prevented the present Mischiefs,” seems to us uncertain; since late Experience in our neighbouring Colony of Virginia (which had every Advantage for that Purpose that could be desired) shows clearly, that it is next to impossible to guard effectually an extended Frontier, settled by scattered single Families at two or three Miles Distance, so as to secure them from the insiduous Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers: But thus much is certain, that by refusing our Bills from Time to Time, by which great Sums were seasonably offered, he has rejected all the Strength that Money could afford him; and if his Hands are still weak or unable, he ought only to blame himself, or those who have tied them
Last edited by linux; 06-22-2012 at 01:31 PM.
You're confused. I used to be more polite to you before realizing that you just threw crap at the wall to see what would stick. That and you have no factual basis for many of your claims and little regard for the facts cited by others to refute those baseless claims. You often cite theoretical models instead of real-world statistical data. The later is what I will use to refute your claims WRT to France.Man what happened to you Sushi, you used to be more even keeled, or at least attempted to understand what is being said, think of it like a game of random musical chairs with 10 players, it is entirely possible for the whole thing to cycle and the amount of average employment would be avg time unemployed (say two years) * number of players and that is avg employment time (say 20 years).
First, there is no comparison whatsoever between the US and France in this regard. Chronic unemployment is a CONSTANT feature of French economy - as is high unemployment generally. Even then the statistics fail to communicate the true extent of relative weakness in France's economy. The proportion of their adult population that is employed is FAR lower than that of the US. Their labor force participation rate has never even reached 59% and is currently at 56.3%. For the US, the peak was 68% and current is 63.8%. A much large proportion of France's population is simply excluded from the unemployment statistics even though a far lower proportion of French adults are working than Americans.
Even the "employed" in France aren't working that much. There is much more part-time and useless make-work in France. Average hours worked per year are 1,450 in France vs 1,740 in the US.
The proportion of French unemployed who have been jobless for a year or longer averages 40%. The historic range has generally been 35-40%. Even if you super-generously assume that every one of that 40% find a job in week 53 and the rest are spead out evenly from 1-52 weeks, the average duration of unemployment in France would be 37.1 weeks under very optimistic assumptions. In reality, the duration would certainly be much longer than that. Now compare that to the situation among the (far fewer) US unemployed. The historic duration in the US is more like 8 weeks. Even under recent extreme strains, the peak duration was 25 weeks and current is more like 20 weeks. So the VERY bad conditions in the US are about half as bad as NORMAL times in France re: chronic unemployment. If you want respect, at least write stuff that is somewhat compatible with the data.
Good this is what I always wanted.The later is what I will use to refute your claims WRT to France.
I don't deny this, but again this is in no way says that the there are ~40% of people that can never be employed in either country, just that there are 6 chairs and 10 players and the game is ongoing. IF it were hopeless as you stated theoredically in post #44 (it could be practical if you provided more statistics on the unemployable for example) if the game is rigged so that Player A has a 0% probability of entering the job market that would be immoral. True randomness is egalitarian too.First, there is no comparison whatsoever between the US and France in this regard. Chronic unemployment is a CONSTANT feature of French economy - as is high unemployment generally. Even then the statistics fail to communicate the true extent of relative weakness in France's economy. The proportion of their adult population that is employed is FAR lower than that of the US. Their labor force participation rate has never even reached 59% and is currently at 56.3%. For the US, the peak was 68% and current is 63.8%. A much large proportion of France's population is simply excluded from the unemployment statistics even though a far lower proportion of French adults are working than Americans.
When a shock happens, when a chair is removed for example, significant stress is introduced, people are no longer fired because they are not good enough, and somebody else is better, they are fired because of uncontrollable reasons, meaning it loses a certain morality, there is no guarantee of being a more skilled worker or one that took advantage of his unemployment to make it back. The US is very mild in this The Baltic states experienced 20% unemployment.
If unemployment were like a bench where a player rests to get better and get back into the game, it is infinitely more sane than a place where a team loses a position and all of a sudden has to play with 10 instead of 11 players.
Again this is not a debate about productivity, I will not harshly deny that a sweatshop is more productive (in pure worker hours) than the US or France, but is that really the goal? Yes, I don't want a slacker hedonistic utopia either, but at some point people come before productivity and profits.Even the "employed" in France aren't working that much. There is much more part-time and useless make-work in France. Average hours worked per year are 1,450 in France vs 1,740 in the US.
This is hardly hopeless, probably strenuous on the system so that there is an adequate safety net, but not hopeless.The proportion of French unemployed who have been jobless for a year or longer averages 40%. The historic range has generally been 35-40%. Even if you super-generously assume that every one of that 40% find a job in week 53 and the rest are spead out evenly from 1-52 weeks, the average duration of unemployment in France would be 37.1 weeks under very optimistic assumptions. In reality, the duration would certainly be much longer than that. Now compare that to the situation among the (far fewer) US unemployed. The historic duration in the US is more like 8 weeks. Even under recent extreme strains, the peak duration was 25 weeks and current is more like 20 weeks. So the VERY bad conditions in the US are about half as bad as NORMAL times in France re: chronic unemployment. If you want respect, at least write stuff that is somewhat compatible with the data.
Still like always "throwing $#@! against the wall" as you put it is perfectly allowed in economics since it is not a real science, my theory is that perhaps a real safety net where players that go off the roster to practice their game and get better while their family is taken care of, could provide more gross productivity, not from worker hours (which is admitedly much lower) but in the quality of said worked hours.
Yeah France has a lower GDP per capita than the US, but they are much higher than other economic liberal utopias like the Baltic states.
And we are not even talking about the best case scenario which is Germany not France.
So you admit you just spouted a bunch of BS and now use a bunch of words to crawfish.
You can't make a valid comparison of the US and France that supports your argument. You implicitly admit this by attempting to shift your argument to the Baltic States. Of course they are worse off since they were crushed by generations of comprehensive socialism and haven't had time to catch up yet. OTOH they are advancing at a far greater pace than France (or the US for that matter) so even there your point is invalid.
Using the musical chairs argument:
France is muscial chairs with 100 people and 90 chairs.
USA is musical chairs with 100 people and 95 chairs, but then 3 chairs are removed.
You'd rather have less chairs than have the number of chairs change from time to time? Shouldn't the goal be to have as many chairs as possible?
Last edited by The Missing Link; 06-22-2012 at 04:00 PM.
This was a moral argument from the begining, and your inability to read it because you are so dead sure you are right is what lead to this sideshow.I rather have less suffering yes,
Yes France has a more moral labor market than the US. I am not talking about productive but I don't disagree.
I rather have MORE PERMANENT chairs, and after that a bench and a developmental league. Scenario B is: more PERMANENT chairs & TEMPORARY bleachers with players thrown out into the street for any reason.You'd rather have less chairs than have the number of chairs change from time to time? Shouldn't the goal be to have as many chairs as possible?
Ideally (again morally for Sushi) Scenario A that is what most countries should strive for, but the most liberal practice the extreme version of scenario B.
I also argue meekly that scenario A could also be more productive too, on average, and I am fully aware there is the possibility of exploit but you would just need good regulation.
Linux, I'm not sure I buy your moral argument, either. That's like not donating extra money to charity this month because you don't know if you'll still have extra money next month. The charity won't care if you make consistent donations; it'd rather have more total donations.
Last edited by The Missing Link; 06-22-2012 at 04:49 PM.
Personally my definition of morality is inverse utilitarian (minimizing suffering), having families suffer for no fault of their own in a wave of mass layoffs, and without any social nets, is not moral. Even if it means more strain on those that are productive, even if it risks more business failing during economic Armageddon, even if it means a bit higher unemployment, and last but not least a social safety net.
At what point will the system support this without collapsing? that is the sweet spot that economics has never (and never will be able) to predict. It is a moving target as well, but it is most certainly my north.
Last edited by linux; 06-22-2012 at 05:25 PM.
It doesn't matter because you're wrong on the facts. The US provides more total chairs than France. The US provides more long-term chairs than France. The American chairs are individually higher quality and more stable. The game in France is sufficiently bad that a large number of adults don't even bother to play (not in the workforce).
So there is no soft landing, there is no free adult level education, and there is the potential of being laid off for absolutely any reason whatsoever in some rightwing states. Sometimes en mass due to economic slowdown making taxing both the system and standing out more difficult.
I don't care if the unemployment is 4%-8%, those are still a very tortured 4%-8%, and a more nervous 95-91% to boot, the 1% is happy though.
Though politicians love to talk about saving for a rainy day, not many have actually managed to pull it off. How Chile bucked the trend.That reversal can't be attributed to the fortunes of the Chilean economy. Quite the contrary: At the time, Chile was bearing the brunt of the global recession. In 2009, the price of copper fell abruptly, growth turned negative, and unemployment topped 10 percent. But the government was able to respond with sharply increased spending to cushion the blow and speed the recovery, drawing down revenues that had accumulated while the world couldn't get enough Chilean copper. Now that the rainy day had come, Bachelet and Velasco were viewed as heroes.
The significance of this episode is not that an especially wise or brave policy prescription can make a very big difference; it can, but the idea of saving in a boom in order to be able to spend in the bust is not new. And while action to this end is less common than the words, there are certainly examples of governments that have shown the courage to put away the fiscal punch bowl before the crowd had drunk its fill.The restraint on Chile's fiscal policy is codified in law.Part of the credit for Chile's structural budget rule should go to the government of President Ricardo Lagos (2000-2006) and his finance minister, Nicolas Eyzaguirre. They opted for the structural budget benchmark, and delegated the calculations to experts. The payoff, in the form of budget surpluses in good times, was immediate. Between 2000 and 2005, public savings -- that is, the difference between revenues and expenditures rose from 2.5 percent of GDP to 7.9 percent.http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...iumph?page=0,0As a result, the fiscal surplus reached almost nine percent of GDP during the boom. Chile used the surplus to pay down its debt to a mere four percent of GDP and was still able to sock away a sum equal to about 12 percent of GDP in its sovereign wealth fund. The country's credit rating climbed to A+, the same as Japan's.
Which brings us back to the beginning of our story: The rainy-day fund was there to be spent in the recession of 2008-09, when stimulus was sorely needed. In short, Chile managed what policymakers in most developing countries have only dreamed about: A truly countercyclical fiscal policy.
There's no compelling reason why a version of Chile's structural budgeting institutions couldn't be emulated by other developing countries that are dependent on the vagaries of commodity prices. The whole point, after all, is to design a system to work in an environment in which politicians are as prone to myopia as teenagers.
Football .. Basketball .. Baseball .. Other Sports .. RC Didn't Offer .. Gamboool
Varsity .. Hole in the Wall .. PCL .. Einstein's .. Nasty's .. GM Steakhouse .. NSAA
Bada Bing .. Can you help me with this? .. Shagslist .. Cloak Room .. Classics .. Bellmont