Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Thank you for reminding me why we should never post in any of your threads.
AMF.
Oh, you be welcome Mr. ground hog!Well gleem back through this thread, because cons are agreeing with it. Are you saying they haven't got a clue?
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 higher16.5 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 hasnt seen since World War IIaround $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 doesnt 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
Can't be achieved unless you change the parameters for who is counted as "employed."
For example: Someone on who is a vegetable isn't employed. People that are elderly and can't physically or mentally work.
M-14 "100% employment is not a healthy economy. That's VERY basic stuff....day 1, even"
AND
"Unemployment IS good, it is a necessity."
Syrenn "We will never have 100% employment so long as we have entitlement programs."
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 higher16.5 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 hasnt seen since World War IIaround $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 doesnt 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
"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.
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
Can't be achieved unless you change the parameters for who is counted as "employed."
For example: Someone on who is a vegetable isn't employed. People that are elderly and can't physically or mentally work.
Well sure, those who are capable within a set age group. Yet, ground hog would disagree with this premise, citing 5% non-productive people is necessary.
M-14 "100% employment is not a healthy economy. That's VERY basic stuff....day 1, even"
AND
"Unemployment IS good, it is a necessity."
Syrenn thinks it could be possible to have a 100% without the entitlement programs.
Syrenn "We will never have 100% employment so long as we have entitlement programs."
Yet back to the main problems, is 100% of defined employment a healthy thing, or a bad thing? I can't see how how having people working creates any problems, yet some do to the point of dire warnings like the 2 quotes in the OP.
Lets look from a workers view point. If 100% of the workers are employed, he has an advantage over his employer. The employer will find it hard to replace him, and the worker can make individual demands for wages and benefits, or move on. So if wages are increasing so are products & the inflation. Workers would also being taxed less when capable people from welfare & unemployment are off the roles & also contributing taxes.
Why is any of this bad?
Can't be achieved unless you change the parameters for who is counted as "employed."
For example: Someone on who is a vegetable isn't employed. People that are elderly and can't physically or mentally work.
Well sure, those who are capable within a set age group. Yet, ground hog would disagree with this premise, citing 5% non-productive people is necessary.
Syrenn thinks it could be possible to have a 100% without the entitlement programs.
Syrenn "We will never have 100% employment so long as we have entitlement programs."
Yet back to the main problems, is 100% of defined employment a healthy thing, or a bad thing? I can't see how how having people working creates any problems, yet some do to the point of dire warnings like the 2 quotes in the OP.
Lets look from a workers view point. If 100% of the workers are employed, he has an advantage over his employer. The employer will find it hard to replace him, and the worker can make individual demands for wages and benefits, or move on. So if wages are increasing so are products & the inflation. Workers would also being taxed less when capable people from welfare & unemployment are off the roles & also contributing taxes.
Why is any of this bad?
The problem with this scenario is that a vast percent of the population switch jobs constantly, so it would require everyone to be switching jobs equally at the same time and then taking the other's place. On top of that, you still have younger students graduating from high school and college who will need jobs. If there is 100% employment then their won't be jobs for recent graduates, thereby making the employment rate decrease below 100%. This is, of course, if you had an equal number of people retiring as are entering the workforce.
Why isn't the American goal 100% Employment?
What makes us the greatest country is that we don't have a "plan" for everything. What makes us less great is that we have plans for some things like the social programs you mentioned.
Why isn't the American goal 100% Employment?
Because that would inconvenience our corporations?
After all a 100% employment rate would drive up the cost of labor.
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 higher16.5 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 hasnt seen since World War IIaround $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 doesnt 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
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.
From a theoretical standpoint, you could get close to zero, but it would probably ramp up inflation. You're correct in stating that 4-5% is the rate where you're at functional full employment (those out of work will basically just be those shifting between jobs).
I'd also note that we actually do have a national commitment to full employment. The HumphreyHawkins Full Employment Act.
Very Good!!
The object of the Act is:
1. to provide full employment;
2. to bring growth in production;
3. to bring price stability; and
4. to bring balance of trade and stability.
The Act states that the federal government need to rely on the private enterprise to achieve the goals. The Act also states that the government should take reasonable means to balance the budget. The Act prohibits discrimination on account of gender, religion, race, age, and national origin in any program created under the Act.
"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.
I never studies economics, so forgive me if this is a basic question. If an economy had 100% employment, how would a company be able to expand?
The lowest unemployment rate I've ever heard of is around 2%. That happened when the Harding/Coolidge administrations seriously cut taxes and seriously cut government spending.
It lead to the booming 20s.
Then there were some economic problems. Hoover was in office and decided as President, he should use the power of the government to "fix" the economic problem. Things got worse. FDR won the Presidency and redoubed Hoover's efforts. We saw the Great Depression and no one has ever learned to go back to the Harding/Coolidge techniques that lead to the boom in the first place. The idea that government has to do something has taken root.
Now our current administration is repeating the mistakes of Hoover and FDR. Do we honestly expect different results?
