How to raise employment

[Rshermr]

So Rabbi says:

We did not have public education in this country until the mid 19th century. And we did just fine.

You are wrong about public education, of course. It did exist prior to the mid 1800's.

1647
The General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony decrees that every town of fifty families should have an elementary school and that every town of 100 families should have a Latin school. The goal is to ensure that Puritan children learn to read the Bible and receive basic information about their Calvinist religion.

1779
Thomas Jefferson proposes a two-track educational system, with different tracks in his words for "the laboring and the learned." Scholarship would allow a very few of the laboring class to advance, Jefferson says, by "raking a few geniuses from the rubbish."

1785
The Continental Congress (before the U.S. Constitution was ratified) passes a law calling for a survey of the "Northwest Territory" which included what was to become the state of Ohio. The law created "townships," reserving a portion of each township for a local school. From these "land grants" eventually came the U.S. system of "land grant universities," the state public universities that exist today. Of course in order to create these townships, the Continental Congress assumes it has the right to give away or sell land that is already occupied by Native people.

1790
Pennsylvania state constitution calls for free public education but only for poor children. It is expected that rich people will pay for their children's schooling.

1805
New York Public School Society formed by wealthy businessmen to provide education for poor children. Schools are run on the "Lancasterian" model, in which one "master" can teach hundreds of students in a single room. The master gives a rote lesson to the older students, who then pass it down to the younger students. These schools emphasize discipline and obedience qualities that factory owners want in their workers.

1817
A petition presented in the Boston Town Meeting calls for establishing of a system of free public primary schools. Main support comes from local merchants, businessmen and wealthier artisans. Many wage earners oppose it, because they don't want to pay the taxes.

1820
First public high school in the U.S., Boston English, opens.

1827
Massachusetts passes a law making all grades of public school open to all pupils free of charge.
Applied Research Center - Historical Timeline of Public Education in the US
And you sounded so sure of yourself. Not that the 1850's have a lot to do with today. We were a primarily agrarian economy. You could get by pretty well without education. No aeronautical engineers needed. No software developers. Etc, etc. Or had you not noticed.


As what? As the US did, or as you think the us did?
You would be wrong again. Public education in england has been going on longer than in the US, and has been more widespread. Sorry, very little private education there, except for the wealthy.


Who said solely. But it is not just Singapore. There is Germany, France, the UK, Spain, France, portugal, and a number of others with better systems. All predominately public systems.

You lose. Again.

Who told you that you had the authority to determine who wins or looses. You should be very, very angry with them. Because they lied to you.

Your "research" and "evidence" are laughable. They do not prove anything you think they prove. You are a prime example of the decline of education. An inability to read and understand simple paragraphs.
You lose. Again.

Really, rabbi, it is laughable to hear a con who does no research criticize someone who does. But that would be you.
You said, and I quote: "We did not have public education in this country until the mid 19th century".
And I proved you wrong. So, your statement was laughable. And untrue. Or do you doubt the research. There is plenty more out there, should you want it.
Actually, I have plenty of education. Did quite well at it, my poor ignorant con. It was not I that made stupid statements. And statements that are provably untrue. Look, dipshit, you can do that with cons. they tend to slap high fives and congratulate each other without ever, at any time, checking what you say. Sorry. I am not a tool. Just like a little truth.
And I am so sorry, but I do not feel like I lost anything. Having a dipshit who just got shot down tell you you loose is kind of funny.

 

[The Rabbi]

You prove nothing except my point that education is declining and you are the prime piece of evidence.
You lose.

 

[Rshermr]

You prove nothing except my point that education is declining and you are the prime piece of evidence.
You lose.

Nah, rabbi. I did not loose. The concept of loosing on this board is a con concept. Really stupid. Childish. You are like teens taking yourself seriously.
The rest? Just your opinion, as usual. And you know how much I respect your opinion.

 

[The Rabbi]

You prove nothing except my point that education is declining and you are the prime piece of evidence.
You lose.

Nah, rabbi. I did not loose. The concept of loosing on this board is a con concept. Really stupid. Childish. You are like teens taking yourself seriously.
The rest? Just your opinion, as usual. And you know how much I respect your opinion.

You prove that you are an illiterate, unable to read and understand simple English.
You lose, yet again.

 

[uscitizen]

Corporatists have been doing a great job of razing employment in the USA.

 

[Rshermr]

You prove nothing except my point that education is declining and you are the prime piece of evidence.
You lose.

Nah, rabbi. I did not loose. The concept of loosing on this board is a con concept. Really stupid. Childish. You are like teens taking yourself seriously.
The rest? Just your opinion, as usual. And you know how much I respect your opinion.

You prove that you are an illiterate, unable to read and understand simple English.
You lose, yet again.

I loose? But rabbi, me poor ignorant con. It was you that was wrong. Plain as day. So, being a con, you are stuck. Nothing to do but attack. Insults. No ability to say what I said that was incorrect. Because, my poor ignorant con, what I said was both correct and supported. And you know it. Nothing left but to attack. Insults. typical con tool tactics. But that is the best you are capable of.
Because you have to keep preaching the dogma. Keep at it Rabbi. By the way, did you ever support anything you have said, or do you just expect people to believe you?
And, as a postscript, if you believe someone could win or loose then you have a really, really insignificant life. Maybe we should simply feel sorry for you, rabbi. What do you think? Nah, who cares. We will never actually know what you think. Because, rabbi, you lie. So your credibility is toast.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your post does not prove me wrong. It actually proves me right in my contention that you are poorly educated and do not understand even the simple things you read.
You lose.

 

[JimmieD]

Estimates are called gueeses in the real world.

By "estimates", I'm talking about statistical tests to measure the proper coefficient. I'm not talking about a random guess.

Robert Barro has actually studied the issue and he concludes it is less than 1.
Here's an artcle about it.

When I get home this evening I can pull my sources that estimate anything between -.5 and 2.

 

[The Rabbi]

Estimates are called gueeses in the real world.

By "estimates", I'm talking about statistical tests to measure the proper coefficient. I'm not talking about a random guess.

Robert Barro has actually studied the issue and he concludes it is less than 1.
Here's an artcle about it.

When I get home this evening I can pull my sources that estimate anything between -.5 and 2.

Sure. Most of Obama's economists believe the multiplier is above 1. They are wrong too. How do we know? Because they've spent a trillion dollars in stimulus and the economy sucks.

 

[Rshermr]

But then, rabbi, as usual, you are totally unable to show any proof of anything you say. Just more opinion from a con tool. And you know how much I respect your opinion.

 

[JimmieD]

Sure. Most of Obama's economists believe the multiplier is above 1. They are wrong too. How do we know? Because they've spent a trillion dollars in stimulus and the economy sucks.

That could be due to any number of reasons other than a wrong multiplier. It could be that their model itself is wrong. It could be that they aren't using the right data. It could be because the multiplier value fluctuates over time.

 

[Rshermr]

So, the rabbi says:
Sure. Most of Obama's economists believe the multiplier is above 1. They are wrong too. How do we know?

Because they've spent a trillion dollars in stimulus and the economy sucks.

So, the rabbi lies again. He just said something really provably wrong. Without any evidence to back him up. So, apparently he believes that we should believe him.
So, I say they've spent 1$
So there. Only 1$.
Well, lets see. Now, understand, rabbi is a con tool. And they hate proof. So, he is not going to want to trust impartial sources. But he will be caught in a lie. Then, he will have to attack. Me, of course. Then the sources if he is still stuck.

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 distributes funds in three ways. Since its enactment in February 2009, $774.7B has been paid out."
Total size of the ARRA is set at $480B. Of that, the above $774,7B has been expended. Of that total spent, of $774.7B, $290.7B was in tax relief, $246B was in contracts, grants, and loans. $238B was in entitlements.
Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money

Now, does that look like a trillion???? The biggest component, tax relief, had the least effect. Lowest multiplier.
So, damn, not quite a trillion. And really, really easy to understand. Should you care to. Unless, your purpose is simply to post con dogma, based on agenda, as usual.

 

[Rshermr]

And, the rabbi says:

Because they've spent a trillion dollars in stimulus and the economy sucks.

So, apparently the rabbi believes the stimulus did no good. Lets see. Some more of that damned impartial evidence you hate so much, rabbi:
"In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise."

“Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. “That,” he added, “is a distinct minority.”
Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - The Washington Post

Stimulus works to increase economic growth and employment when the economy is weak, as it is now. The CBO and almost all economists recognize that once the economy returns to full employment, deficit-financed spending does not work the same as in a weak economy and that continuing to run deficits will likely harm economic growth.
Why Obama's Economic Stimulus Worked - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)

And the stimulus still is increasing jobs.
Obama's 2009 stimulus is still boosting jobs

By the way, the multipliers were there, also. The worst of the expenditure types was one year tax cut to high income people. Worst by a factor of 2. That is no other expenditure type had results as low as twice that of that tax cut.

So, we can believe con tools like rabbi, or you can believe the CBO. My money is on the CBO.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I've been working on a hypothesis as to what taxing and spending does to the unemployment rate in the economy, and here is how it has shaped up so far. I want to debate/discuss it with everyone.

Here is my hypothesis on taxing and spending's effect on the unemployment rate: taxing and spending can create or destroy a net amount of jobs based on the quality of the jobs government creates through spending.

For example, I'm going to say taxing 40,000$ (The per capita personal income, the average amount one job pays I believe) costs one job in the private sector, while the government can counter that by creating one 40,000$ public sector job (salary and benefits total). Or, according to this hypothesis, the government can create 2 public sector jobs that pay 20,000$ each. The important part of this is that government can kill two PS jobs by taxing 80,000$ and making one public sector job that pays 80,000$, which is similar to what the US government is doing now.

My explanation as to why: Taxes in the economy no doubt destroy jobs, this should be obvious, as when you take 1000$ from someone they don't spend it, and the retail service that the money would of gone to doesn't get it, and they see smaller sales, and then they have to downsize. But the other side to taxing is government spending. Money that was previously taxed (not printed or borrowed, hopefully :\ ) is spent and jobs are created through the creation of government jobs, and by giving private sector companies business (causing them to expand). Also, high paying government jobs require higher taxes, thus more killed jobs for less created jobs.

Now, public sector jobs pay vastly more than private sector jobs, 2x more according to the second paragraph of this source. This means according to this hypothesis, the government destroys 2 jobs for every 1 job it creates.

How this can be fixed is to lower the wages and benefits of public sector jobs to their private equivalents, maybe even pay less if we want to lower unemployment further.

Another hole in employment government creates is through entitlements. They cost tax dollars, thus jobs, but no jobs are created with the money.

How that can be solved is by creating "welfare jobs" instead of entitlements. How they would work is that the government would pay a person to work, but they would work under private sector companies.

Obviously an exception would have to be made for the disabled.

What do you guys think?

I think you should buy a copy of SimCity and test your hypothesis.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sure. Most of Obama's economists believe the multiplier is above 1. They are wrong too. How do we know? Because they've spent a trillion dollars in stimulus and the economy sucks.

That could be due to any number of reasons other than a wrong multiplier. It could be that their model itself is wrong. It could be that they aren't using the right data. It could be because the multiplier value fluctuates over time.

They explicitly counted on the multiplier to create the jobs they predicted. It didn't happen.

 

[The Rabbi]

So, the rabbi says:
Sure. Most of Obama's economists believe the multiplier is above 1. They are wrong too. How do we know?

Because they've spent a trillion dollars in stimulus and the economy sucks.

So, the rabbi lies again. He just said something really provably wrong. Without any evidence to back him up. So, apparently he believes that we should believe him.
So, I say they've spent 1$
So there. Only 1$.
Well, lets see. Now, understand, rabbi is a con tool. And they hate proof. So, he is not going to want to trust impartial sources. But he will be caught in a lie. Then, he will have to attack. Me, of course. Then the sources if he is still stuck.

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 distributes funds in three ways. Since its enactment in February 2009, $774.7B has been paid out."
Total size of the ARRA is set at $480B. Of that, the above $774,7B has been expended. Of that total spent, of $774.7B, $290.7B was in tax relief, $246B was in contracts, grants, and loans. $238B was in entitlements.
Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money

Now, does that look like a trillion???? The biggest component, tax relief, had the least effect. Lowest multiplier.
So, damn, not quite a trillion. And really, really easy to understand. Should you care to. Unless, your purpose is simply to post con dogma, based on agenda, as usual.

Deficits have run over a trillion dollars for 4 years. By definition that is "stimulus."
You lose, once more.

 

[Katzndogz]

We may have had schools prior to the mid 19th century, but those schools were not publicly funded. There was no income tax, so teachers didn't get a government check. There was no union so they had to do a decent job.

 

[The Rabbi]

We may have had schools prior to the mid 19th century, but those schools were not publicly funded. There was no income tax, so teachers didn't get a government check. There was no union so they had to do a decent job.

Nor was it universally mandatory. That started in 1852 and was national only in 1917.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, the rabbi says:
Sure. Most of Obama's economists believe the multiplier is above 1. They are wrong too. How do we know?

Because they've spent a trillion dollars in stimulus and the economy sucks.

So, the rabbi lies again. He just said something really provably wrong. Without any evidence to back him up. So, apparently he believes that we should believe him.
So, I say they've spent 1$
So there. Only 1$.
Well, lets see. Now, understand, rabbi is a con tool. And they hate proof. So, he is not going to want to trust impartial sources. But he will be caught in a lie. Then, he will have to attack. Me, of course. Then the sources if he is still stuck.

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 distributes funds in three ways. Since its enactment in February 2009, $774.7B has been paid out."
Total size of the ARRA is set at $480B. Of that, the above $774,7B has been expended. Of that total spent, of $774.7B, $290.7B was in tax relief, $246B was in contracts, grants, and loans. $238B was in entitlements.
Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money

Now, does that look like a trillion???? The biggest component, tax relief, had the least effect. Lowest multiplier.
So, damn, not quite a trillion. And really, really easy to understand. Should you care to. Unless, your purpose is simply to post con dogma, based on agenda, as usual.

Deficits have run over a trillion dollars for 4 years. By definition that is "stimulus."
You lose, once more.

Lets wait for the goof liberal to tell us the difference between a deficit and stimulus, a tax cut and a stumulus, a public works project and a stimulus, a $500 billion Christmas season and a stimulus, and a new invention and a stimulus?

Odd not one liberal has come to his defense about how a liberal goof stimulus is supposed to work??

 

[JimmieD]

They explicitly counted on the multiplier to create the jobs they predicted. It didn't happen.

Of course.