Structural Unemployment? pfft

[Pksimon2007]

" If you send 100 dogs into a room to fetch bones but put only 95 bones in the room, then at least five dogs aren't going to get bones.

So what do you do? Are you going to pull those dogs aside and give them extra training so they can acquire the skills to make them better at getting bones?"

~ Warren Mosler

 

[Mr. H.]

Mathematics- hiding Obama's charade since 2008.

 

[pinqy]

" If you send 100 dogs into a room to fetch bones but put only 95 bones in the room, then at least five dogs aren't going to get bones.

So what do you do? Are you going to pull those dogs aside and give them extra training so they can acquire the skills to make them better at getting bones?"

~ Warren Mosler

Your post in no way illustrates structural unemployment, since it is entirely based on shortage of bones.

Why don't you try again?

 

[Pksimon2007]

" If you send 100 dogs into a room to fetch bones but put only 95 bones in the room, then at least five dogs aren't going to get bones.

So what do you do? Are you going to pull those dogs aside and give them extra training so they can acquire the skills to make them better at getting bones?"

~ Warren Mosler

Your post in no way illustrates structural unemployment, since it is entirely based on shortage of bones.

Why don't you try again?

- The shortage of bones is the cause of unemployment.

Those who believe the unemployment is structural will not look at the shortage of bones, but will look at the dogs as the problem.

"The dogs should stay in school", or "the dogs have no work ethic", and so on, become the accepted explanations.

The last things such people want is for there to be more bones. They want the dogs to improve themselves. "There are plenty of bones", they say, "some dogs are just to lazy to get them".

Of course you're right - the problem isn't structural. The problem is a shortage of jobs.

So why, politically, do we claim the unemployed are unemployed because they are "making poor choices"?

 

[william the wie]

" If you send 100 dogs into a room to fetch bones but put only 95 bones in the room, then at least five dogs aren't going to get bones.

So what do you do? Are you going to pull those dogs aside and give them extra training so they can acquire the skills to make them better at getting bones?"

~ Warren Mosler

Your post in no way illustrates structural unemployment, since it is entirely based on shortage of bones.

Why don't you try again?

- The shortage of bones is the cause of unemployment.

Those who believe the unemployment is structural will not look at the shortage of bones, but will look at the dogs as the problem.

"The dogs should stay in school", or "the dogs have no work ethic", and so on, become the accepted explanations.

The last things such people want is for there to be more bones. They want the dogs to improve themselves. "There are plenty of bones", they say, "some dogs are just to lazy to get them".

Of course you're right - the problem isn't structural. The problem is a shortage of jobs.

So why, politically, do we claim the unemployed are unemployed because they are "making poor choices"?

" If you send 100 dogs into a room to fetch bones but put only 95 bones in the room, then at least five dogs aren't going to get bones.

So what do you do? Are you going to pull those dogs aside and give them extra training so they can acquire the skills to make them better at getting bones?"

~ Warren Mosler

Your post in no way illustrates structural unemployment, since it is entirely based on shortage of bones.

Why don't you try again?

- The shortage of bones is the cause of unemployment.

Those who believe the unemployment is structural will not look at the shortage of bones, but will look at the dogs as the problem.

"The dogs should stay in school", or "the dogs have no work ethic", and so on, become the accepted explanations.

The last things such people want is for there to be more bones. They want the dogs to improve themselves. "There are plenty of bones", they say, "some dogs are just to lazy to get them".

Of course you're right - the problem isn't structural. The problem is a shortage of jobs.

So why, politically, do we claim the unemployed are unemployed because they are "making poor choices"?

Half right, student debt for non-STEM education is just an anchor as far as employment goes but real reform would get rid of most of the bureaucracy at the federal, state and local level. 90+% of civil service jobs are capable of automation in the coming decade but I doubt we will see that.

The shortage of jobs while real is more a matter of incompetent policy going back 70 years. bombing the industrial base of the rest of the world created a fairy tale approach to domestic and foreign policy and it is way past time to wake up.

 

[Ernie S.]

" If you send 100 dogs into a room to fetch bones but put only 95 bones in the room, then at least five dogs aren't going to get bones.

So what do you do? Are you going to pull those dogs aside and give them extra training so they can acquire the skills to make them better at getting bones?"

~ Warren Mosler

Seeing all 100 dogs already had access to the same training, I think, perhaps not getting a bone might motivate them in to trying harder the next time.
Now, those that refuse to even go into the room to look, fuck 'em.

 

[Pksimon2007]

" If you send 100 dogs into a room to fetch bones but put only 95 bones in the room, then at least five dogs aren't going to get bones.

So what do you do? Are you going to pull those dogs aside and give them extra training so they can acquire the skills to make them better at getting bones?"

~ Warren Mosler

Seeing all 100 dogs already had access to the same training, I think, perhaps not getting a bone might motivate them in to trying harder the next time.
Now, those that refuse to even go into the room to look, fuck 'em.

- Ah, so in your view, and economy in which 5% of the people starve is a success.

 

[Ernie S.]

If they choose to, it's not on me.

Let's make it more than fair since you don't believe in natural selection.
How about we examine the 5 boneless dogs and find 2 didn't even bother to look for a bone. Eliminate them and give the 3 that looked but failed a half bone each.
Next month, we have another 95 bones, but just 98 dogs.
The odds are fair that 1 or 2 of the dogs who got only half a bone the previous month will be motivated enough to try harder and will be rewarded with a bone. No one will go hungry and I believe you will find after a while that only a few dogs will get a whole bone every month over a period of, say 30 months. At most one dog will end up with half a bone more often than a full bone. The other 2 that got a half share will likely become adept at acquiring bones.

Hunger is a great motivator.

Back to natural selection. Without welfare, the dogs who rarely got a bone wouldn't be chosen as a desirable mate and would not reproduce.

 

[pinqy]

" If you send 100 dogs into a room to fetch bones but put only 95 bones in the room, then at least five dogs aren't going to get bones.

So what do you do? Are you going to pull those dogs aside and give them extra training so they can acquire the skills to make them better at getting bones?"

~ Warren Mosler

Your post in no way illustrates structural unemployment, since it is entirely based on shortage of bones.

Why don't you try again?

- The shortage of bones is the cause of unemployment.

well, yes, because you set the scenario without other possibilities.

Those who believe the unemployment is structural will not look at the shortage of bones, but will look at the dogs as the problem.

I've never heard anyone ever claim unemployment was only structural (though some political rhetoric has emphasized it).

"The dogs should stay in school", or "the dogs have no work ethic", and so on, become the accepted explanations.

Are you claiming structural unemployment doesn't exist at al?

Let's change the scenario...100 dogs, 95 bones in the room, but 50 bones are in boxes that require training to open and only 45 dogs are trained.

So 90 dogs get bones, 10 don't, and 5 bones go uneaten. In this more realistic scenario, the unemployment is equally structural and cyclical

Of course you're right - the problem isn't structural. The problem is a shortage of jobs.

In your scenario. In reality, unemployment is frictional, cyclical, and structural.

So why, politically, do we claim the unemployed are unemployed because they are "making poor choices"?

Many if them are. Have you looked at unemployment by educational level???

 

[Jomama]

I thought structural unemployment was more significant than lack of bones or jobs. I thought it was caused by, among other things;
1. Globalization
2. Collapse of Communism
3. Industrialization of Asia, Eastern Europe and parts of Africa/S. America.
4. Digital technology revolution
5. Peaking industrial technology
6. Over consumption of resources, etc

In 30 years we've had a few billion people join earth, several billion join our economy, and not that much net growth. It aint 100 dogs and 95 bones, it's 200 dogs and 110 bones.

 

[william the wie]

I thought structural unemployment was more significant than lack of bones or jobs. I thought it was caused by, among other things;
1. Globalization
2. Collapse of Communism
3. Industrialization of Asia, Eastern Europe and parts of Africa/S. America.
4. Digital technology revolution
5. Peaking industrial technology
6. Over consumption of resources, etc

In 30 years we've had a few billion people join earth, several billion join our economy, and not that much net growth. It aint 100 dogs and 95 bones, it's 200 dogs and 110 bones.

It's evolution in action.

 

[Pksimon2007]

If they choose to, it's not on me.

Let's make it more than fair since you don't believe in natural selection.
How about we examine the 5 boneless dogs and find 2 didn't even bother to look for a bone. Eliminate them and give the 3 that looked but failed a half bone each.
Next month, we have another 95 bones, but just 98 dogs.
The odds are fair that 1 or 2 of the dogs who got only half a bone the previous month will be motivated enough to try harder and will be rewarded with a bone. No one will go hungry and I believe you will find after a while that only a few dogs will get a whole bone every month over a period of, say 30 months. At most one dog will end up with half a bone more often than a full bone. The other 2 that got a half share will likely become adept at acquiring bones.

Hunger is a great motivator.

Back to natural selection. Without welfare, the dogs who rarely got a bone wouldn't be chosen as a desirable mate and would not reproduce.

- You really seem to miss the point.

It is not the choice of any of the dogs that there are only 95 bones.

 

[Pksimon2007]

" If you send 100 dogs into a room to fetch bones but put only 95 bones in the room, then at least five dogs aren't going to get bones.

So what do you do? Are you going to pull those dogs aside and give them extra training so they can acquire the skills to make them better at getting bones?"

~ Warren Mosler

Your post in no way illustrates structural unemployment, since it is entirely based on shortage of bones.

Why don't you try again?

- The shortage of bones is the cause of unemployment.

well, yes, because you set the scenario without other possibilities.

Those who believe the unemployment is structural will not look at the shortage of bones, but will look at the dogs as the problem.

I've never heard anyone ever claim unemployment was only structural (though some political rhetoric has emphasized it).

"The dogs should stay in school", or "the dogs have no work ethic", and so on, become the accepted explanations.

Are you claiming structural unemployment doesn't exist at al?

Let's change the scenario...100 dogs, 95 bones in the room, but 50 bones are in boxes that require training to open and only 45 dogs are trained.

So 90 dogs get bones, 10 don't, and 5 bones go uneaten. In this more realistic scenario, the unemployment is equally structural and cyclical

Of course you're right - the problem isn't structural. The problem is a shortage of jobs.

In your scenario. In reality, unemployment is frictional, cyclical, and structural.

So why, politically, do we claim the unemployed are unemployed because they are "making poor choices"?

Many if them are. Have you looked at unemployment by educational level???

- we have a shortage of jobs now.

So you can ponder any permutations you want. When you remove all structural components. There is a simple shortage of jobs.

 

[pinqy]

" If you send 100 dogs into a room to fetch bones but put only 95 bones in the room, then at least five dogs aren't going to get bones.

So what do you do? Are you going to pull those dogs aside and give them extra training so they can acquire the skills to make them better at getting bones?"

~ Warren Mosler

Your post in no way illustrates structural unemployment, since it is entirely based on shortage of bones.

Why don't you try again?

- The shortage of bones is the cause of unemployment.

well, yes, because you set the scenario without other possibilities.

Those who believe the unemployment is structural will not look at the shortage of bones, but will look at the dogs as the problem.

I've never heard anyone ever claim unemployment was only structural (though some political rhetoric has emphasized it).

"The dogs should stay in school", or "the dogs have no work ethic", and so on, become the accepted explanations.

Are you claiming structural unemployment doesn't exist at al?

Let's change the scenario...100 dogs, 95 bones in the room, but 50 bones are in boxes that require training to open and only 45 dogs are trained.

So 90 dogs get bones, 10 don't, and 5 bones go uneaten. In this more realistic scenario, the unemployment is equally structural and cyclical

Of course you're right - the problem isn't structural. The problem is a shortage of jobs.

In your scenario. In reality, unemployment is frictional, cyclical, and structural.

So why, politically, do we claim the unemployed are unemployed because they are "making poor choices"?

Many if them are. Have you looked at unemployment by educational level???

- we have a shortage of jobs now.

Overall, yes. But that doesn't mean there is no structural unemployment. And some fields have a shortage of workers, no jobs.

When you remove all structural components. There is a simple shortage of jobs.

No one has argued otherwise. You're the one who claimed there was no structural unemployment

 

[Pksimon2007]

" If you send 100 dogs into a room to fetch bones but put only 95 bones in the room, then at least five dogs aren't going to get bones.

So what do you do? Are you going to pull those dogs aside and give them extra training so they can acquire the skills to make them better at getting bones?"

~ Warren Mosler

Your post in no way illustrates structural unemployment, since it is entirely based on shortage of bones.

Why don't you try again?

- The shortage of bones is the cause of unemployment.

well, yes, because you set the scenario without other possibilities.

Those who believe the unemployment is structural will not look at the shortage of bones, but will look at the dogs as the problem.

I've never heard anyone ever claim unemployment was only structural (though some political rhetoric has emphasized it).

"The dogs should stay in school", or "the dogs have no work ethic", and so on, become the accepted explanations.

Are you claiming structural unemployment doesn't exist at al?

Let's change the scenario...100 dogs, 95 bones in the room, but 50 bones are in boxes that require training to open and only 45 dogs are trained.

So 90 dogs get bones, 10 don't, and 5 bones go uneaten. In this more realistic scenario, the unemployment is equally structural and cyclical

Of course you're right - the problem isn't structural. The problem is a shortage of jobs.

In your scenario. In reality, unemployment is frictional, cyclical, and structural.

So why, politically, do we claim the unemployed are unemployed because they are "making poor choices"?

Many if them are. Have you looked at unemployment by educational level???

- we have a shortage of jobs now.

Overall, yes. But that doesn't mean there is no structural unemployment. And some fields have a shortage of workers, no jobs.

When you remove all structural components. There is a simple shortage of jobs.

No one has argued otherwise. You're the one who claimed there was no structural unemployment

- I made no such claim.

 

[william the wie]

Basically a major problem is that in 2002 the Fed came out with a paper that in short form said QE screwed the Japanese but it won't screw us. First that has to be gotten rid of. Second real aftertax returns for small savers needs to be possible. Only after that is dealt with is it possible to make non-nonsensical comments about the economy.

 

[pinqy]

Your post in no way illustrates structural unemployment, since it is entirely based on shortage of bones.

Why don't you try again?

- The shortage of bones is the cause of unemployment.

well, yes, because you set the scenario without other possibilities.

Those who believe the unemployment is structural will not look at the shortage of bones, but will look at the dogs as the problem.

I've never heard anyone ever claim unemployment was only structural (though some political rhetoric has emphasized it).

"The dogs should stay in school", or "the dogs have no work ethic", and so on, become the accepted explanations.

Are you claiming structural unemployment doesn't exist at al?

Let's change the scenario...100 dogs, 95 bones in the room, but 50 bones are in boxes that require training to open and only 45 dogs are trained.

So 90 dogs get bones, 10 don't, and 5 bones go uneaten. In this more realistic scenario, the unemployment is equally structural and cyclical

Of course you're right - the problem isn't structural. The problem is a shortage of jobs.

In your scenario. In reality, unemployment is frictional, cyclical, and structural.

So why, politically, do we claim the unemployed are unemployed because they are "making poor choices"?

Many if them are. Have you looked at unemployment by educational level???

- we have a shortage of jobs now.

Overall, yes. But that doesn't mean there is no structural unemployment. And some fields have a shortage of workers, no jobs.

When you remove all structural components. There is a simple shortage of jobs.

No one has argued otherwise. You're the one who claimed there was no structural unemployment

- I made no such claim.

You certainly implied it...especially in your analogy where it was all cyclical and none structural.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- The shortage of bones is the cause of unemployment.

well, yes, because you set the scenario without other possibilities.

Those who believe the unemployment is structural will not look at the shortage of bones, but will look at the dogs as the problem.

I've never heard anyone ever claim unemployment was only structural (though some political rhetoric has emphasized it).

"The dogs should stay in school", or "the dogs have no work ethic", and so on, become the accepted explanations.

Are you claiming structural unemployment doesn't exist at al?

Let's change the scenario...100 dogs, 95 bones in the room, but 50 bones are in boxes that require training to open and only 45 dogs are trained.

So 90 dogs get bones, 10 don't, and 5 bones go uneaten. In this more realistic scenario, the unemployment is equally structural and cyclical

Of course you're right - the problem isn't structural. The problem is a shortage of jobs.

In your scenario. In reality, unemployment is frictional, cyclical, and structural.

So why, politically, do we claim the unemployed are unemployed because they are "making poor choices"?

Many if them are. Have you looked at unemployment by educational level???

- we have a shortage of jobs now.

Overall, yes. But that doesn't mean there is no structural unemployment. And some fields have a shortage of workers, no jobs.

When you remove all structural components. There is a simple shortage of jobs.

No one has argued otherwise. You're the one who claimed there was no structural unemployment

- I made no such claim.

You certainly implied it...especially in your analogy where it was all cyclical and none structural.

- I can't help your inferences. Those are yours. I implied nothing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

- The shortage of bones is the cause of unemployment.

No dear, unemployment is caused when the law of supply and demand is not allowed to operate.

Have you heard of the law of supply and demand?