Why isn't the American goal 100% Employment?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by shintao, Mar 6, 2011.

  1. shintao
    Offline

    shintao Take Down ~ Tap Out

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,231
    Thanks Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +339
    This is a great read to get your wheels spinning. It points out some countires (? Where?) have achieved full employment, yet we never have. Part of the answer is we have never put in place programs to move people from unemployed to employed and up the ladder to success. And we have established social nets tht allow a person to reject personal responsibility (As Retards note: welfare, unemployment). But most importantly, there is no program or effort or plan to put all Americans to work.


    ==========ARTICLE

    Since Barack Obama entered office in January 2009, the official unemployment rate has averaged more than 9.5 percent, representing some fifteen million people in a labor force of about 154 million. By a broader definition, including people employed for fewer hours than they would like and those discouraged from looking for work, the unemployment rate has been far higher—16.5 percent, on average. Still worse, if we count people who have dropped out of the labor force, unemployment would rise to nearly 20 percent, or 30 million people, roughly twice the combined populations of New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

    The stimulus has clearly proven inadequate for fully reversing the effects of the Wall Street collapse. Combined with the huge decline in tax revenues tied to the recession, the stimulus spending has also generated federal fiscal deficits of a magnitude the United States hasn’t seen since World War II—around $1.4 trillion in 2009 and 2010, or 10 percent of GDP each year. Bringing the U.S. economy, along with most of the rest of the world, out of the deep ditch into which Wall Street has shoved it will clearly be a long, hard struggle.

    Beyond the challenges in advancing such short-term programs, there is a broader and longer-term goal that is not even on the agenda: creating and sustaining a full-employment economy in the United States. Especially at this historical juncture, as we attempt to grope our way out of the Great Recession and onto some kind of new growth trajectory, we need to be clear on the centrality of full employment as a policy goal. That is, we need to think about what exactly we mean by full employment; on why, properly defined, full employment is so fundamental to building a decent society; and on what kind of longer-term policy innovations will be needed both to get the U.S. economy to full employment and, once there, to stay. Success in answering these questions will necessarily engage large numbers of people coming at the issue from a wide range of perspectives. My proposals here are aimed at energizing this broader debate in fresh and constructive directions.

    An economy operating at full employment has the capacity to deliver great individual and social benefits. Why then doesn’t everybody agree that this should be a fundamental goal of public policy, with debates focused on the narrower question of the most effective means of achieving it?

    Boston Review — Robert Pollin: Back to Full Employment
     
  2. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Sounds like "full employment" equates to "required employment" the way the snippet reads.

    What countries ever had 100% employment?
     
  3. Mini 14
    Offline

    Mini 14 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    3,947
    Thanks Received:
    570
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +570
    The writer knows nothing of economics.

    100% employment is not a healthy economy. That's VERY basic stuff....day 1, even.
     
  4. shintao
    Offline

    shintao Take Down ~ Tap Out

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,231
    Thanks Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +339
    I don't know. I never heard of it.

    But why isn't 100% our countries goal? Never has been as far as I know. Never been questioned. It is like asking why don't we fly to the end of the Universe. LOL! Maybe freedom of choice, freedom not to hire, freedom to fire, etc. prevents us having a 100% .
     
  5. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    100% employment would only be possible if everyone not otherwise employed, drew a check from the state.

    I would think.

    There's a percentage of people who simply cannot work. The premise is faulty. When unemployment was hovering around 5% awhile back, that was pretty much as 100% as you'll ever see.
     
  6. Mini 14
    Offline

    Mini 14 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    3,947
    Thanks Received:
    570
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +570
    "Full employment" in modern US is generally accepted to be "about 5% unemployed."

    Less than that would indicate an imbalance in the wage rate, or industries that are growing too fast to meet production. Every time employment has fallen below 5%, it is met with a "bounce" back as the markets compensate for their own rate of growth.

    100% employment would be catastrophic for a population and economy our size. It could not be sustained for very long at all, and the "bounce" would make our current recession seem like the Industrial Revolution.

    Aside from the fact that it is impossible.

    As I said, the writer knows nothing of economics. Next week he'll probably write an article about eliminating war forever.
     
  7. syrenn
    Offline

    syrenn BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    47,839
    Thanks Received:
    10,387
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +10,404


    Becasue a good deal of the people who are not working are more then happy to continue to suck off of the government teat. Tell them you have a minimum wage job that they have to show up 40 hours a week for, they will turn you down flat.

    Its called LAZY. They dont want to wrok and have no intention of EVER working.

    Why work when its so much easier to put your hand out and have you life taken care of?


    We will never have 100% employment so long as we have entitlement programs.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2011
  8. xsited1
    Offline

    xsited1 Agent P

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,750
    Thanks Received:
    5,300
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    Ratings:
    +5,307
    So Wall Street is solely to blame? :lol:

    Next.
     
  9. skeptic
    Offline

    skeptic BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    417
    Thanks Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +23
    why doesn't our country set a goal to send all Americans to the moon?
     
  10. shintao
    Offline

    shintao Take Down ~ Tap Out

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,231
    Thanks Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +339
    You mean essential stuff if you are a conservative, judging from these two conclusions. I really don't see it set in stone. I don't see it 101 either, and can be debated, so I give both sides of this argument.



    1)It is a terrible thing in capitalism. It results in wages going up, and the business cycle having to deal with stagnating growth rates with downsizing, not to mention a rise in inflation. The only actual economic system where full employment is utilized is Marxism. I know, its horrible.

    Read more: Answers.com - Why is full employment important to the economy

    2)Full employment is not good for the economy as it may result in an inflationary period where workers have more disposable income and as a result would drive prices upwards. This would take a while to happen though. Also, a lot of central banks base their policies around controlling inflation (The ECB).

    Read more: Answers.com - Why is full employment not a good thing for the economy


    And to agree with cons "100% labor is bad", is for cons to admit that unemployment & welfare are good things. Are you making that admission today? That you think lazy unproductive people we are taxed for are a good thing for capitalism??:eusa_angel:

    Time to eat ya cake...........
     

Share This Page