Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: AD2100 on July 03, 2014, 05:53:54 AM
-
HAPPY JULY 4TH WEEKEND, SUCKA MC'S! :)
(http://www.todoinstitute.com/library/fireworks.gif)
-
LFP hits record low
60-70% of jobs created were part time. People couldn't find full time work.
Summer vacation surge, declines soon after.
Labor market still a train wreck.
Still more people unemployed now than in 2008
-
Anyone with a brain knows unemployment numbers are bullshit. It doesnt mean the unemployed are now employed. What it means is the unemployed are no longer on unemployment.
-
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/record-number-americans-not-labor-force-june
;)
-
We added 800,000 part time jobs and shed 523,000 full time jobs. Does anyone still wish to argue that Obamacare won't destroy full time employment in the us?
-
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/394005_364701580216404_329739013_n.jpg)
-
We added 800,000 part time jobs and shed 523,000 full time jobs. Does anyone still wish to argue that Obamacare won't destroy full time employment in the us?
That's quite the fucking leap there, that obamacare is the sole reason for more part time jobs. You are loony
-
That's quite the fucking leap there, that obamacare is the sole reason for more part time jobs. You are loony
I would say there is at least some effect there.
Either way, the numbers aren't pretty.
-
That's quite the fucking leap there, that obamacare is the sole reason for more part time jobs. You are loony
Riiiiiight...the piece of legislation with the furthest reach into the economy since the Social Security Act of 1935...a set of laws that incentivizes the creation of part time employment...legislation that has been cited by companies in the service industry as a reason for them to no longer make full time hires...that legislation couldn't possibly have anything to do with yesterday's horrible job numbers.
Dumbass.....
-
Yep..everyone knows we're humming right along...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-04/jpm-cuts-its-original-2014-gdp-forecast-half-sees-slowest-full-year-growth-2009
-
That's quite the fucking leap there, that obamacare is the sole reason for more part time jobs. You are loony
You want to demise the country, it starts with healthcare. This is what he's attempting to do.
-
You want to demise the country, it starts with healthcare. This is what he's attempting to do.
WTH, Coach?
"Demise" is a noun meaning "death".
-
Lets see, before Obama was around...jobs were being shipped overseas, people had no healthcare whatsoever, and the labor force had less full time jobs and outsourced everything
Here's a hint....its not Obama, its the corporations that are hell bent on making excessive wealth and profit by finding every single loophole they possibly can. It doesn't matter who is in office....greed is just greed.
Think about it for a minute. If Obama wasn't in office...would everything be perfectly ok????
-
The twats afflicted with Obama Derangement Syndrome can't do anything but whine and cry no matter what. HAHAHA
-
Lets see, before Obama was around...jobs were being shipped overseas, people had no healthcare whatsoever, and the labor force had less full time jobs and outsourced everything
Here's a hint....its not Obama, its the corporations that are hell bent on making excessive wealth and profit by finding every single loophole they possibly can. It doesn't matter who is in office....greed is just greed.
Think about it for a minute. If Obama wasn't in office...would everything be perfectly ok????
1) Jobs being shipped over sea's, cheap labor.
2) Which people had no healthcare what so ever?
3) Corporations are in business to make money, politicians being bought off by lobbyist is another matter all together.
4) Probably not, but that is not the point, Obama is the POTUS, he wanted to be the man, unfortunately we got an idealistic child.
-
Riiiiiight...the piece of legislation with the furthest reach into the economy since the Social Security Act of 1935...a set of laws that incentivizes the creation of part time employment...legislation that has been cited by companies in the service industry as a reason for them to no longer make full time hires...that legislation couldn't possibly have anything to do with yesterday's horrible job numbers.
Dumbass.....
Horrible jobs numbers? relative to what exactly? the thrust of the article is that things are improving. Now if you want to argue in what manner and relative to what I am in but we still aren't sure of the economic impact of ACA, nor has it been resoundingly negative. Your comment was hyperbole wing nut stuff.
-
I would say there is at least some effect there.
Either way, the numbers aren't pretty.
agreed on both.
-
WTH, Coach?
"Demise" is a noun meaning "death".
VERY well aware of that. Obama is purposely trying to kill this country.
-
VERY well aware of that. Obama is purposely trying to kill this country.
Can't blame him for killing your brain cells. They were non existent in the first place.
-
VERY well aware of that. Obama is purposely trying to kill this country.
The fact that the country is in far better shape then when he took office I would say you are incorrect. He is certainly not trying to fuck things up, if you think he is mistakenly doing so then you have an argument.
-
The fact that the country is in far better shape then when he took office I would say you are incorrect. He is certainly not trying to fuck things up, if you think he is mistakenly doing so then you have an argument.
You can't be serious?
-
The fact that the country is in far better shape then when he took office I would say you are incorrect. He is certainly not trying to fuck things up, if you think he is mistakenly doing so then you have an argument.
Lmfao
-
VERY well aware of that. Obama is purposely trying to kill this country.
Uhm. If you're aware why did you use it like you did? What the fuck is wrong with you!?
-
The fact that the country is in far better shape then when he took office I would say you are incorrect. He is certainly not trying to fuck things up, if you think he is mistakenly doing so then you have an argument.
Uhm... what? The country is in a slightly better shape in some ways (mostly related to the cyclical nature of the economy and the fact that the recession ran it's course) but it's in a lot worse shape in other ways.
Overall, I'd say we're worse today than we were when Obama took office. Is Obama the only person to blame? No. Is he the only President to blame? Again, no. But he's the President now and his actions haven't helped - in fact many of them have had the opposite effect. So we shouldn't be surprised if he gets assigned some of the blame.
-
You can't be serious?
what numbers are you considering when making the assessment of the state of the nation now as compared to 2008?
-
what numbers are you considering when making the assessment of the state of the nation now as compared to 2008?
Labor force, welfare numbers, food stamps, average wages, cost of living, etc.
The average person is getting FUCKED in Obama's junta
-
Labor force, welfare numbers, food stamps, average wages, cost of living, etc.
The average person is getting FUCKED in Obama's junta
unemployment is lower, the stock market is way better, the auto industry is better, you guys just overtook saudi arabia as numero uno for oil production. Your nation is in a better place.
AVXO:
How can you say the US is out of the recession and isn't in a better place? My statement still stands, since he has taken office, regardless of the reasons, the country is in a better space. My inference was that if he is purposely sabotaging the economy(coach) and the US in general he is doing a bad job of that.
-
LFP hits record low
Huh?
Summer vacation surge, declines soon after.
The data is seasonally adjusted, meaning it controls for such regularities. Therefore, the jobs data reveal the underlying trend to the extent that there is one.
-
unemployment is lower, the stock market is way better, the auto industry is better, you guys just overtook saudi arabia as numero uno for oil production. Your nation is in a better place.
AVXO:
How can you say the US is out of the recession and isn't in a better place? My statement still stands, since he has taken office, regardless of the reasons, the country is in a better space. My inference was that if he is purposely sabotaging the economy(coach) and the US in general he is doing a bad job of that.
If you think anything is better since Obama came in you are a fucking retard. The country is falling apart, Obama is weak, we look weak abroad....gas costs twice as much. Obama is approaching worst president ever territory. He refuses to deal with the border or even go there. We've lost Iraq and are slowly sending troops back there. The recover is weak and the stock market will correct and then we'll all be fucked. Not to mention the attacks this kind of weakness invites. But don't blame Barry....my fucking cat could do better.
-
Labor force, welfare numbers, food stamps, average wages, cost of living, etc.
The average person is getting FUCKED in Obama's junta
Yeah bro I really can't talk to you on this as you go extreme with the hyperbole and the conversation becomes cartoonish. I was asking coach as a comparison of numbers from 2008/2009 to now
-
unemployment is lower, the stock market is way better, the auto industry is better, you guys just overtook saudi arabia as numero uno for oil production. Your nation is in a better place.
The country is better off in some respects, worse off in others. In still other respects it isn't clear whether it is worse off or better off.
As far as the labor market goes, don't you know that the official unemployment rate goes down when unemployed persons stop looking for work?
That's why people keep referring to the labor force participation rate (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART) -- the ratio of employed and unemployed-but-looking-for-work persons to the adult population. The decline in LPR is often cited as evidence of an unhealthy labor market where unemployed persons are simply giving up.
We can corroborate this claim by comparing LPR to the employment-population ratio (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EMRATIO), the ratio of employed persons to adult population.
At the beginning of the year, the E-P ratio was about where it was in September 2009, whereas LPR was a few percentage points lower than in September 2009. Since LPR is just the E-P ratio + unemployed-but-looking-for-work persons added to the numerator, the variable responsible for their divergence has to be the unemployed-but-looking-for-work value.
If the decline in this value were due to people becoming employed, the E-P ratio would have gone up -- it didn't. Therefore, the only explanation for the divergence is that unemployed people exited the market entirely over the period -- short-term unemployment is perhaps becoming structural.
Further, we can control for the effects of demography -- old workers retiring can skew LPR and E-P -- by looking at the employment rate for 25-55 year olds (workers in their prime earning years). This rate dropped from ~80% to ~75% from September 2007 to September 2009 and still hasn't recovered. Either these workers all colluded to end their careers and have a welfare-fueled party or otherwise this statistic is indicative of something wrong with the labor market.
Still, there's other data to tempter this negativity, and still more to suggest a quicker-than-expected crescendo to the recovery is on the way -- even if LPR, E-P, and the like don't return to their previous highs achieved during unsustainable, debt-fueled asset bubbles. But you can't be surprised when people assess the labor market negatively -- whatever the official unemployment rate -- when data like the above exists. And that's to say nothing of stagnant wages.
-
AVXO:
How can you say the US is out of the recession and isn't in a better place? My statement still stands, since he has taken office, regardless of the reasons, the country is in a better space. My inference was that if he is purposely sabotaging the economy(coach) and the US in general he is doing a bad job of that.
The answer by syntaxmachine pretty much says what I would say. I don't think that things are as rosy as you make them out to be - or as bleak as headhuntersix makes them out to be. Some things are better that much is true; but many things are worse.
-
Huh?
The data is seasonally adjusted, meaning it controls for such regularities. Therefore, the jobs data reveal the underlying trend to the extent that there is one.
Labor Force Participation Rate.
And "seasonally adjusted" is whatever it wants to be, it's in the same dustbin as "Birth-Death Adjustment."
And when it comes to these "Jobs Numbers" it isn't the headline, it's the data contained within that is never reported on by so-called "financial analysts" on CNBC and such. There is the types of jobs being created as opposed to the types that were lost, part time vs full time, wages, hours worked, benefits, what sectors the jobs were in, how many people wanted full time work but had to settle for part time etc. And that is all against the backdrop of under reported inflation. The final nail in the coffin will be amnesty.
Is there a bit more "stability" now? Sure, but it's at the expense of the vast majority of the populations well being. As in, welcome to serfdom.
Just one mans thoughts.
-
And when the stock markets are pointed to as a sign that the overall health of the economy is greatly improved I have to chuckle.
6 years and counting of historical action by the Federal Reserve.
Businesses are sitting on historically high levels of cash, it isn't being spent. Why? ZIRP. They can get money for nothing, not spend it on expansion and production but spend it on stock buy backs + M&A.
-
Labor Force Participation Rate.
I'm aware of what it is and am 'huhing' at your claim that it is at a record low.
-
I'm aware of what it is and am 'huhing' at your claim that it is at a record low.
Fantastic!
But you used "huh" and not "uh huh."
Hence the confusion.
-
The fact that the country is in far better shape then when he took office I would say you are incorrect. He is certainly not trying to fuck things up, if you think he is mistakenly doing so then you have an argument.
The national debt was $10 trillion when he took office. It's now over $17 trillion. That disaster dwarfs any possible "good" he has done since taking office. There is no way we can deem our country to be in "far better shape" when our debt has exploded and threatens to cripple us in the future.
-
The national debt was $10 trillion when he took office. It's now over $17 trillion. That disaster dwarfs any possible "good" he has done since taking office. There is no way we can deem our country to be in "far better shape" when our debt has exploded and threatens to cripple us in the future.
I totally get that part. But is that the only factor in your Matrix when considering the state of the nation. Does nothing else matter? Also, Is there a reason for the debt increase? Why was the spending increased to begin with?
Just asking questions.. Please dont go immature full retard on me...anyone.
-
I totally get that part. But is that the only factor in your Matrix when considering the state of the nation. Does nothing else matter? Also, Is there a reason for the debt increase? Why was the spending increased to begin with?
Just asking questions.. Please dont go immature full retard on me...anyone.
No it's not the only factor we should look at when evaluating the state of the nation, but the debt and debt increase are so bad that they overshadow everything else IMO. This is a crisis. And do you recall this?
He is a stone cold hypocrite. And he's unpatriotic by his own definition.
The reason for the debt increase is we spend more than we take in. Government is irresponsible. Horrible stewards of our money.
-
No it's not the only factor we should look at when evaluating the state of the nation, but the debt and debt increase are so bad that they overshadow everything else IMO. This is a crisis. And do you recall this?
He is a stone cold hypocrite. And he's unpatriotic by his own definition.
The reason for the debt increase is we spend more than we take in. Government is irresponsible. Horrible stewards of our money.
Don't expect a realistic answer from Obama fanatics on this
-
I totally get that part. But is that the only factor in your Matrix when considering the state of the nation. Does nothing else matter? Also, Is there a reason for the debt increase? Why was the spending increased to begin with?
Just asking questions.. Please dont go immature full retard on me...anyone.
Reread syntax's post. He explains the situation concisely.
-
The national debt was $10 trillion when he took office. It's now over $17 trillion. That disaster dwarfs any possible "good" he has done since taking office. There is no way we can deem our country to be in "far better shape" when our debt has exploded and threatens to cripple us in the future.
Not just the explosion of govt debt at pretty much all levels but the releveraging of consumers as well. That's not even bringing into account all of the interventions the fed has done and continues to do.
The return on this "investment" has been nil.
-
Not just the explosion of govt debt at pretty much all levels but the releveraging of consumers as well. That's not even bringing into account all of the interventions the fed has done and continues to do.
The return on this "investment" has been nil.
Agree.
-
Fantastic!
But you used "huh" and not "uh huh."
Hence the confusion.
Seeing as LPR isn't anywhere near record lows, I am very confused indeed.
-
Seeing as LPR isn't anywhere near record lows, I am very confused indeed.
Depends on what you consider "near."
But more accurately it would be lowest LFPR in close to 4 decades.
-
He is a stone cold hypocrite. And he's unpatriotic by his own definition.
I am offended by his policies that are hurting the USA.
As far as getting upset about politicians being hypocrites, lol, well...
-
Huh?
The data is seasonally adjusted, meaning it controls for such regularities. Therefore, the jobs data reveal the underlying trend to the extent that there is one.
simple linear regression to eliminate such extraneous variables. However,the underlying trend as you indicate (you only truly touched on jobs, there are far more markers of progress in my eyes) shows an mild improvement and low term data which is less cyclical (as you know stats of this nature probably utilize a lower alpha level to achieve significance) chance and fluctuation exist in small part. With a nebulous complex dynamic systems I think more attention to long term trends is important. I think this harps back to avxo's point of normal cycling of these variables.
I also think the job market numbers are large part due to automation and education. Jobs are scarce, require more education and then more debt. I am not sure how much impact improving economies will be as automation continues to grow. The job issue is epiphenominal.
-
Horrible jobs numbers? relative to what exactly? the thrust of the article is that things are improving. Now if you want to argue in what manner and relative to what I am in but we still aren't sure of the economic impact of ACA, nor has it been resoundingly negative. Your comment was hyperbole wing nut stuff.
I don't care what the "thrust of the article" is.... the media coverage of this job's report has been pathetic.....we shed 523k full time jobs and added 788k part time jobs. How does that net 288k jobs? By definition, those full time jobs are really 1.5-2 part time jobs. If anything we barely broke even or lost ground. So far as the UE rate goes...I put very little stock in that number for a variety of reasons. The "recovery" from 2008 has been sloooooooooooow and shallow. As indicated by the LPR....many people have stopped seeking work. When they do stop...they no longer count as unemployed. So, getting a job and "quitting" the workforce has the same result, it lowers the UE rate. Is that really a stat you want to hang your hat on?
Obamacare is a train wreck....the left was warned that it would have a negative impact on full time employment because it created an incentive for part time employment. We are seeing that now.
-
No it's not the only factor we should look at when evaluating the state of the nation, but the debt and debt increase are so bad that they overshadow everything else IMO. This is a crisis. And do you recall this?
He is a stone cold hypocrite. And he's unpatriotic by his own definition.
The reason for the debt increase is we spend more than we take in. Government is irresponsible. Horrible stewards of our money.
ok
-
ok
LMFAO - you = fail
-
But Beach.
Why do we spend more than we take in? Why the spike in spending? What took place to warrent such spending? What is the tax climate that results in less money? Shit didnt just happen out of thin air. Those that look at politics in that light, and are extremely inconsistant in their outrage and concern...disgust me
-
unemployment is lower, the stock market is way better, the auto industry is better, you guys just overtook saudi arabia as numero uno for oil production. Your nation is in a better place.
Explain to me what Obama has to do with the stock market being higher? How do you give him credit for that? Ditto for oil and gas on private lands. In fact, I remember him actually shutting down offshore drilling for a while.
Have you seen the problems GM is having? The only thing keeping their stock from diving and eventually going into the toilet again is the current significant US govt ownership in their stock. That's the only thing keeping shorts from driving it into the ground. Those few big hedge funds who still own it will probably turn around and short it back into being worthless - if not now, most likely in a couple of years when certain people are out of office. I'd wager that even more problems will have come out about GM by then. They're a perfect example of why things should be left to free markets rather than big govt interference. They should have been allowed to die, and had their assets auctioned off to better auto manufacturers.
-
But Beach.
Why do we spend more than we take in? Why the spike in spending? What took place to warrent such spending? What is the tax climate that results in less money? Shit didnt just happen out of thin air. Those that look at politics in that light, and are extremely inconsistant in their outrage and concern...disgust me
We spend more than we take in because we're fiscally irresponsible. We had a spike in spending because we elected an inexperienced, incompetent president who worked with an inept irresponsible Congress to explode our national debt.
I don't know what you mean by "tax climate that results in less money"?
You are disgusted with people who express inconsistent views? Seems like misplaced outrage. You ought to be outraged by the people in DC who continually waste hard earned taxpayer money.
-
The answer by syntaxmachine pretty much says what I would say. I don't think that things are as rosy as you make them out to be - or as bleak as headhuntersix makes them out to be. Some things are better that much is true; but many things are worse.
No data can rebut my point, being in a recession and now recovered for all intensive purposes indicates improvement, regardless of the causal agent. The economy is slightly better, I think that is the most accurate generalized statement one could make.
-
Intensive purposes? Your point is mute.....
</sarc>
-
yes intents and purposes. I wrote fucking haz like ten times in the last page. Got me.
intensive, worser, grammer.
-
:)
-
We spend more than we take in because we're fiscally irresponsible. We had a spike in spending because we elected an inexperienced, incompetent president who worked with an inept irresponsible Congress to explode our national debt.
I don't know what you mean by "tax climate that results in less money"?
You are disgusted with people who express inconsistent views? Seems like misplaced outrage. You ought to be outraged by the people in DC who continually waste hard earned taxpayer money.
that didnt answer anything.
but ok... if thats what you think, so be it, who am i to try to actually do root cause analysis. Silly me.
God forbid "we spent a lot because this happened and that happened"...na.. its "we spent a lot because the negro is a retard"... gotcha
-
that didnt answer anything.
but ok... if thats what you think, so be it, who am i to try to actually do root cause analysis. Silly me.
God forbid "we spent a lot because this happened and that happened"...na.. its "we spent a lot because the negro is a retard"... gotcha
Did you read my response?
You asked: "Why do we spend more than we take in?" I responded: "We spend more than we take in because we're fiscally irresponsible."
You asked: "Why the spike in spending?" I responded: "We had a spike in spending because we elected an inexperienced, incompetent president who worked with an inept irresponsible Congress to explode our national debt."
You asked: "What is the tax climate that results in less money?" I responded: "I don't know what you mean by 'tax climate that results in less money'?"
The quotes in your last post are what is retarded. Certainly didn't come from me.
If you want "root cause analysis," ask GigantorX. He's a lot more well versed in specific economic indicators than me. My approach is a lot simpler.
But I don't get the impression you really want a discussion about this anyway. You're more concerned with joining the Soul Crusher groupies/stalkers and finding hypocrisy (which has zero to do with any kind of root cause analysis).
-
Did you read my response?
You asked: "Why do we spend more than we take in?" I responded: "We spend more than we take in because we're fiscally irresponsible."
You asked: "Why the spike in spending?" I responded: "We had a spike in spending because we elected an inexperienced, incompetent president who worked with an inept irresponsible Congress to explode our national debt."
You asked: "What is the tax climate that results in less money?" I responded: "I don't know what you mean by 'tax climate that results in less money'?"
The quotes in your last post are what is retarded. Certainly didn't come from me.
If you want "root cause analysis," ask GigantorX. He's a lot more well versed in specific economic indicators than me. My approach is a lot simpler.
But I don't get the impression you really want a discussion about this anyway. You're more concerned with joining the Soul Crusher groupies/stalkers and finding hypocrisy (which has zero to do with any kind of root cause analysis).
no.. .i seriously thought there was going to be something like "oh well spending went up because of stim bill or something else that happened and spending was the choice of action taken, but instead of spending, we should have don x y or z"...
Thats the response i thought i was going to get. But to blame it on a thought pattern or mental defect was kind of a cop out and gets us no where.
And regarding 3333, i dont even read his posts or comment on them as he has lost every ounce of credibilty with me. You, gigantor x were the only level headed guys that kind of actually didnt go off the edge with the hyperbole and talking points. Coach, 3333 and some of the others make posts that i dont acknowledge and any way shape or form. Your assessment of my motives for posting in the political board is off base. I asked questions about events, not thought processes
-
when i say "current tax climate" im referring to "who pays what at what rate as compared to times when we were doing better or worse"
-
no.. .i seriously thought there was going to be something like "oh well spending went up because of stim bill or something else that happened and spending was the choice of action taken, but instead of spending, we should have don x y or z"...
Thats the response i thought i was going to get. But to blame it on a thought pattern or mental defect was kind of a cop out and gets us no where.
And regarding 3333, i dont even read his posts or comment on them as he has lost every ounce of credibilty with me. You, gigantor x were the only level headed guys that kind of actually didnt go off the edge with the hyperbole and talking points. Coach, 3333 and some of the others make posts that i dont acknowledge and any way shape or form. Your assessment of my motives for posting in the political board is off base. I asked questions about events, not thought processes
Ok. No worries. Not sure we were on the same page. I didn't say anything about a mental defect. I was talking about conduct (fiscal irresponsibility). From my simplistic view, the root cause of our economic crisis is the failure to live within our means. We spend more than we take in. It doesn't really matter to me why we do it. There is no justification for a $17 trillion debt. And this chronic overspending is a problem that affects both parties.
-
when i say "current tax climate" im referring to "who pays what at what rate as compared to times when we were doing better or worse"
wwwhhaaaaaaa - you voted for this disaster 2x over - own it
-
when i say "current tax climate" im referring to "who pays what at what rate as compared to times when we were doing better or worse"
Man don't even get me started on taxes. Our tax system is twisted. Those of us who pay, pay too much. Higher income earners also pay a disproportionate share. Too many people don't have skin in the game.
I'm a believer in the flat tax. Fairest way to go IMO. And overall, we need to give government less taxpayer money.
-
Man don't even get me started on taxes. Our tax system is twisted. Those of us who pay, pay too much. Higher income earners also pay a disproportionate share. Too many people don't have skin in the game.
I'm a believer in the flat tax. Fairest way to go IMO. And overall, we need to give government less taxpayer money.
i totally agree with that. The tax shit is insane. As well as entitlements that are paid with tax money.
-
i totally agree with that. The tax shit is insane. As well as entitlements that are paid with tax money.
All while fagbama is at a fundraiser in Texas and not on the border while thousands flood the nation for free shit
-
Intensive purposes? Your point is mute.....
</sarc>
Man, doggy dog world around here, right? lol
-
simple linear regression to eliminate such extraneous variables. However,the underlying trend as you indicate (you only truly touched on jobs, there are far more markers of progress in my eyes) shows an mild improvement and low term data which is less cyclical (as you know stats of this nature probably utilize a lower alpha level to achieve significance) chance and fluctuation exist in small part. With a nebulous complex dynamic systems I think more attention to long term trends is important. I think this harps back to avxo's point of normal cycling of these variables.
I also think the job market numbers are large part due to automation and education. Jobs are scarce, require more education and then more debt. I am not sure how much impact improving economies will be as automation continues to grow. The job issue is epiphenominal.
I don't see any major points of disagreement here, though I have no clue how much automation and education are contributing to current labor market conditions. This (http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/brent.neiman/research/KN.pdf) paper discusses the decline in global labor share of income around the world and argues that the largest contributor is technological advancement, while this (http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf) Oxford study indicates that almost half of jobs in the US are vulnerable to computerization. But it's above my paygrade to evaluate such papers' methodologies -- I'm too dumb.
It is scary stuff if true though, and maybe indicative of the dangers of maximizing economic efficiency: perhaps we should constrain that maximization if it means a huge, permanently unemployed class of citizens in the future.
-
It is scary stuff if true though, and maybe indicative of the dangers of maximizing economic efficiency: perhaps we should constrain that maximization if it means a huge, permanently unemployed class of citizens in the future.
This actually raises a host of interesting questions. I'll have to read the two papers you link to when I have a free minute.
-
This actually raises a host of interesting questions. I'll have to read the two papers you link to when I have a free minute.
http://singularityhub.com/2013/01/22/robot-serves-up-340-hamburgers-per-hour/