Does anyone have a plan for long term employment recovery?

[tjvh]

I still think a census recount would stimulate the atrocious employment numbers under Obama.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Raise the minimum wage to $23.50/hr. The rest will fall in place.

better yet, cut all prices by 96%. We could all drive super cars then!! I could afford several!

A liberal lacks the IQ to know there is no free lunch!!

Raising wages and Social Security benefits to match cost of living is a 'free lunch'?

dear, you cant print money and give it to people without it being an idiots free lunch!! If it was really possible the government could just print tons and make us all rich!! Why pussy foot around???

Its so far over a liberals head, sadly. Liberalism is based on pure ignorance,

 

[oldfart]

No one questioned anything. I merely told you all the changes the Government has done with it's statistical data, and explained why it should be taken with a grain of salt. I know all the changes and adaptions institutions have done to all of their statistically data over the years. I'm a stock broker, and it's my job to know this. Otherwise, I cannot give accurate advice to anyone. If you want to be played for a sap, that is your right. Me on the other hand, I know what I'm doing.

Then would you mind giving me one government statistic that you don't like with an your argument for it not being statistically reliable and/or valid?

I think you got caught with a lot of trash talk and rather than admit it, you just keep talking yourself into a deeper hole. Prove me wrong!

 

[Polk]

What will be considered acceptable levels of employment in the future? Will people be glad just to have 30 hour a week jobs and whatever gov't supplements they can qualify for?

Do you truly expect a robust sustainable economy with significant numbers of good paying jobs which are safe from the threat of moving out of the country?

To answer your questions in order:
Lower than has traditionally been the case (due to changing demographics).
Yes, and supplements to the extent they exist (this is largely driven by technology).
I think it's possible to have a robust economy even in light of these changes, but it will require significant changes in how we think about the structure of our lives and our relationships with one another. It's as significant as the Industrial Revolution.

 

[PaulS1950]

The only way to make jobs is by making small businesses thrive. With all the taxes and government requirements small businesses don't stand much of a chance to get started much less be successful.
We need small businesses - that means we need people who want to start businesses.
Without small business there are darn few jobs created.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The only way to make jobs is by making small businesses thrive. With all the taxes and government requirements small businesses don't stand much of a chance to get started much less be successful.
We need small businesses - that means we need people who want to start businesses.
Without small business there are darn few jobs created.

yes, imagine if Gates and Jobs had been raised in a culture that hated business the way the liberal culture does today!!

 

[AmazonTania]

Then would you mind giving me one government statistic that you don't like with an your argument for it not being statistically reliable and/or valid?

I've already given you two regarding the CPI the BLS has done over the years and the changes regarding GDP calculations the BEA is conducting as of Q2 of this year. Perhaps you missed it.

The Government distorts inflation data, and has been doing it for centuries. In the 1970's, the Government took housing prices out of the CPI and replaced it with rents. In the 1980's, they've introduced a chain-weighted component. In the 90's, they've added something called hedonic adjustments and substitutions, which make inflation hardly detectable. There is really no way inflation today is 2% annually. If anything, inflation (if measured originally) should be very close to the inflation of the 1970's.

And now, the Government is going to distort it's GDP data by including "Intangibles" in the investment side of the GDP metric. Just so the GDP can have a bigger number and growth can appear more robust. Keep in mind, not a single country n the world computes GDP this way. So when you compare another country's GDP to ours, it won't even be an apples to apples comparison.

I think you got caught with a lot of trash talk and rather than admit it, you just keep talking yourself into a deeper hole. Prove me wrong!

Hardly.

 

[oldfart]

The Government distorts inflation data, and has been doing it for centuries.

Centuries? Really?

And how do you know any inflation data is distorted? What magic measurement do you use? Or do you use a feeling in your loins?

How, if the CPI is so flawed, does it match up so well with the Billion Price Project number?

In the 1970's, the Government took housing prices out of the CPI and replaced it with rents. In the 1980's, they've introduced a chain-weighted component. In the 90's, they've added something called hedonic adjustments and substitutions, which make inflation hardly detectable.

Please explain to me why any of these changes is wrong. What alternative so you propose? While you are at it, what justification was given for chained indices and substitution effects, and why is that wrong? What theory of consumer spending do you propose and does it provide for substitution?

Inflation is hardly detectable now because we are barely out of a period of deflation. What is your proposal, deflation or higher inflation? What is wrong with a measure that turns out to have a growth rate near zero?

There is really no way inflation today is 2% annually. If anything, inflation (if measured originally) should be very close to the inflation of the 1970's.

Exactly how do you arrive at the number that inflation "should be"? Is this number a desired optimum inflation rate you have discerned or is this the inflation rate your loins tell you is the "natural" rate of inflation? If you have a model for predicting inflation, please let me know what it is and how it differs from the CBO projections.

And now, the Government is going to distort it's GDP data by including "Intangibles" in the investment side of the GDP metric.

We have been kicking around how to measure capital stock for growth theory purposes for at least fifty years. How much of America's capital stock is human capital, and how much is social overhead capital? How do YOU measure them? Or do you just ignore 80% of the capital stock?

Keep in mind, not a single country n the world computes GDP this way. So when you compare another country's GDP to ours, it won't even be an apples to apples comparison.

You think national income accounts are uniform now? And you don't believe that other advanced economies are working to incorporate especially human capital into their growth models?

I look forward to your thoughts on these matters.

 

[AmazonTania]

Centuries? Really?

Obviously not. It's a mis-type.

And how do you know any inflation data is distorted? What magic measurement do you use? Or do you use a feeling in your loins?

I simply like at the percentage at which prices are increasing, pile them into a basket of goods and then compare them to how fast the CPI is increasing. The BLS has all of that data so its not hard for anyone who really wants to do the research to do it. Also you can compare the Big Mac Index percentage increase to that of the official CPI.

How, if the CPI is so flawed, does it match up so well with the Billion Price Project number?

The only explanation I can come with are the migrating factors from buying things online. For one, you are not paying taxes (not yet, anyway) and you and majority of the time you are purchasing items from wholesalers. Although there are services for this, I don't know too many people who really buy their necessities online.

Please explain to me why any of these changes is wrong.

These changes don't accurately reflect what the prices are in the real economy. Certain consumer goods can be increasing steadily, but because the methodology has changed the CPI will show that these items are decreasing. Regardless of whether or not the price has increased within the past 10 years.

What alternative so you propose? While you are at it, what justification was given for chained indices and substitution effects, and why is that wrong? What theory of consumer spending do you propose and does it provide for substitution?

The alternative would be to go back to the way the CPI was computed in the 1970/1980's. The government would have to be more honest about how it devalues it's currency.

Substitutions gives the false premise that prices aren't increasing, because consumers are choosing a substitute over their favorite items. If consumers are able to go with a cheaper substitute as oppose to their original brand, then according to the methodology this proves that prices aren't rising. The only problem with this rationale is that people are going with cheaper substitutes simply because prices are rising.

Hedonic Adjustments makes items appear to be decreasing, despite the nominal price is of an item is rising. Lets say that you have a basic tool such as a hammer, and the nominal price of the hammer has increased 20% within the last 5 years. Hedonic Adjustments will determine the price fluctuations according to the 'quality' of the item compared to a different time period, instead of looking at price increases overtime. So if the quality of the hammer has increased by 15%, this means that according to the CPI the price of the hammer has only increased by 5%, instead of the 20% nominally.

This is done with a lot of electronics, cars, and other things. Although some of these items have not gone down, these items have price decreases in CPI reports.

Inflation is hardly detectable now because we are barely out of a period of deflation. What is your proposal, deflation or higher inflation?

You're kidding, right? The CPI hasn't had a negative year since the 1950's. There hasn't been any deflation in the economy. Falling prices use to be a good thing. It still is a good thing for most people. People like it when the things that they enjoy buying becomes less expensive. That's what creates demand.

What is wrong with a measure that turns out to have a growth rate near zero?

Exactly how do you arrive at the number that inflation "should be"? Is this number a desired optimum inflation rate you have discerned or is this the inflation rate your loins tell you is the "natural" rate of inflation? If you have a model for predicting inflation, please let me know what it is and how it differs from the CBO projections.

I don't have a desired inflation rate. I'm just saying that the similarities with what is going on between the 1970's and 2000 are too parallel for inflation to only be 2 - 3% a year. The printing of money is not only the cause of inflation. The printing of money is inflation.

We have been kicking around how to measure capital stock for growth theory purposes for at least fifty years. How much of America's capital stock is human capital, and how much is social overhead capital? How do YOU measure them? Or do you just ignore 80% of the capital stock?

I don't see what measuring the development for books, YouTube videos and iTunes music has to do with this, but you generally cannot. There are a lot of things you cannot measure in the GDP, but some measurements make more sense than others. The final output of an item is what is measured in GDP. Although the research done to create the item is not added into GDP, R&D is still a business expense and it is still added in GDP already.

You think national income accounts are uniform now? And you don't believe that other advanced economies are working to incorporate especially human capital into their growth models?

GDP is not totally uniform everywhere. There are certain goods and services available in one part of the world, which may be banned in another. Other than Personal Consumption Expenditures, measuring and calculating GDP is pretty much the same everywhere. And no I don't believe advance economies are trying to incorporation human capital into their models. Because it doesn't make sense.

 

[tipofthespear]

Yes I do, but it's quite lengthy, so you will have to vote for it before you can find out what's in it......vote my proposal into Law, and then you can read it to discover what you just voted to make Law......

 

[oldfart]

OK, you make some good points and I really need to stop picking on you. You made a mistake in a one-off comment and then had trouble defending it. We all make mistakes. Why ther was that time in '53 when I.......Never mind.

And how do you know any inflation data is distorted? What magic measurement do you use? Or do you use a feeling in your loins?

I simply like at the percentage at which prices are increasing, pile them into a basket of goods and then compare them to how fast the CPI is increasing. The BLS has all of that data so its not hard for anyone who really wants to do the research to do it. Also you can compare the Big Mac Index percentage increase to that of the official CPI.

Good point that the BLS could provide alternative measures from the data they already have collected. They do this, but not as much as for unemployment stats. The biggest problem is that the news media generally totally ignore all of the alternatives. Only now is U-6 beginning to creep into the public spotlight. Back in the 70's I put some students to work with the Univ of Wisconsin's Institute on Poverty to help develop a "Poverty Price Index". We were working on the best market basket for rural poor in the South. It's still referred to as the "Chitlin' Index". There is always a debate as to whether one single index can be used for all purposes in measuring inflation and I don't expect the question to ever be definitively resolved.

These changes don't accurately reflect what the prices are in the real economy. Certain consumer goods can be increasing steadily, but because the methodology has changed the CPI will show that these items are decreasing. Regardless of whether or not the price has increased within the past 10 years. The alternative would be to go back to the way the CPI was computed in the 1970/1980's.

Two points here. First the choice of what prices to measure is always an arguable judgment call (except for certain non-sampling methods like a GDP deflator). Second comparing indices at different times when the measurement base has changed is another judgment call. BLS adjusts its historical series each time there is a change so time periods usually stay comparable. I don't think freezing the CPI basket at any past point would be a good idea, but generally the raw data would be there for some academic to run the numbers and see what the 1975 market basket results would be. This would overestimate the impact of the price of newspapers (when made out of paper) and almost entirely ignore the prices of personal computers, smart phones, and internet and cell phone services that deliver news and replace printed news. Save a tree; get your favorite news in the on-line edition!

Substitutions gives the false premise that prices aren't increasing, because consumers are choosing a substitute over their favorite items. If consumers are able to go with a cheaper substitute as oppose to their original brand, then according to the methodology this proves that prices aren't rising. The only problem with this rationale is that people are going with cheaper substitutes simply because prices are rising.

It's a problem. Ceteris is rarely parabis. But you HAVE to account for substitution effects. Not only is it grounded in the most basic consumption theory, it is readily observed in the data and supported by research. When the price of corn flakes increases more people eat shredded wheat instead. You can't really draw any value conclusions from this effect. Was the price of corn too low in the past or was the price of wheat too high? Is that the judgment of the consumer or the farmer?

People also exhibit substitution effects regarding changes in quality brought on by changing technology and changing consumer tastes. Ever see a seasonal clothing sale? What's the best month to buy a lawn tractor?

Hedonic Adjustments makes items appear to be decreasing,

You are making a value judgment on an index that would try to freeze technology. My first multiple computer purchase for my business had 1 Mg RAM and 20 Mg hard drives, and my software came on 360k floppy discs that really were floppy (Purchase price was $2200 per unit). None of this technology has been available for over two decades. My most recent computer purchases had 4 Gig RAM and one Terabyte hard drive and cost $600 per unit. How would you compare prices?

You're kidding, right? The CPI hasn't had a negative year since the 1950's. There hasn't been any deflation in the economy. Falling prices use to be a good thing. It still is a good thing for most people. People like it when the things that they enjoy buying becomes less expensive. That's what creates demand.

CPI actually did fall for some quarters and was generally flat for two years. The PPI took a hit, which definitely matters to raw material producers. If you think deflation is such a great idea, look at the Long Depression in America or the two Lost Decades in Japan.

Real wages have been falling for a long time in the US. People who are thrilled at Walmart prices also complain that all the jobs have gone overseas. They forget Henry Ford's insight when he raised factory wages; in the end you cannot make money producing mass consumption items that your workers and people like them cannot afford to buy. Cheap goods are not the answer; they are a race to the bottom.

I don't have a desired inflation rate. I'm just saying that the similarities with what is going on between the 1970's and 2000 are too parallel for inflation to only be 2 - 3% a year. The printing of money is not only the cause of inflation. The printing of money is inflation.

Most economists agree that an inflation rate of 2--3% is optimal for economic growth and price stability. Absent a good short term reason for a higher or lower goal, I go with that.

We have been kicking around how to measure capital stock for growth theory purposes for at least fifty years. How much of America's capital stock is human capital, and how much is social overhead capital? How do YOU measure them? Or do you just ignore 80% of the capital stock?

I don't see what measuring the development for books, YouTube videos and iTunes music has to do with this, but you generally cannot. There are a lot of things you cannot measure in the GDP, but some measurements make more sense than others. The final output of an item is what is measured in GDP. Although the research done to create the item is not added into GDP, R&D is still a business expense and it is still added in GDP already.

You are missing the point. About 80% of growth is attributable to non-physical capital, mostly human capital (education, job training, work discipline, job experience, etc) and social overhead capital (a system of commercial and labor law, patents and intellectual property protection, consumer protection, government regulatory structure, and so forth). These are the factors that really differentiate developed economies from less developed ones. You are correct that it may be misleading to include these factors of production at their cost; some R & D never pans out and a dysfunctional legal tort system results in increased legal costs and less commercial protection. But we need to account for these factors somehow.

I enjoy this type of discussion and hope you do too. Let me know what you think.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You are missing the point. About 80% of growth is attributable to non-physical capital, mostly human capital (education, job training, work discipline, job experience, etc) and social overhead capital (a system of commercial and labor law, patents and intellectual property protection, consumer protection, government regulatory structure, and so forth). These are the factors that really differentiate developed economies from less developed ones.

Rubbish of course. The USA and USSR looked similar using your vague variables. Ford, Jobs, Edison, Gates, and others like them had animal spirits or great entrepreneurial ambition that accounted for our tremendous development.

Republican capitalists encourage this while Democrats vilify
businessmen as greedy dogs who don't pay taxes, pollute the environment, kill factory workers in Bangladesh, pay slave wages, and care only about profit.

 

[OnePercenter]

better yet, cut all prices by 96%. We could all drive super cars then!! I could afford several!

A liberal lacks the IQ to know there is no free lunch!!

Raising wages and Social Security benefits to match cost of living is a 'free lunch'?

dear, you cant print money and give it to people without it being an idiots free lunch!! If it was really possible the government could just print tons and make us all rich!! Why pussy foot around???

Its so far over a liberals head, sadly. Liberalism is based on pure ignorance,

Why print money? Look at the tens of trillions being dumped in the stock market. Besides, business complains they have excessive taxes so we can help them out with larger business expense deductions.

 

[editec]

Nothing that will permanently alter the problems, no.

EVen if we erected tariffs that completely eliminated all trade ( something I do not support) we would STILL have the problems stemming from TECHNOLOGY making workers redundant and economically UNVIABLE.

The only real solution is a change in the SOCIAL CONTRACT.

Naturally that will not happen non-violently, it never does.

Those what have, those who most benefit from the changing conditions are not willingly going to share the wealth.

They will fight a change in social contract tooth and nail.

Exactly as we saw happen during the last time we changed the SOCIAL CONTRACT via unioniSM.

It is going to be a very turbulent century, citizens.

We as yet have not even admitted that we have a problem.

We are still bullshitting outsevles that more educated workers are the answer.

That is simply NOT true for the vast majority of the labor problems facing us.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Revive small business and self employment.

http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/Kane--TheCollapseofStartupsinJobCreation0912web.pdf

The state of entrepreneurship in the United States is, sadly, weaker than ever. There are fewer new firms being formed today than two years ago when the recession ended. As the BLS described quarterly entrepreneurship figures, “New establishments are not being formed at the same levels seen before the economic downturn began, and the number is much lower than it was during the 2001 recession.” The peak number of new establishments was 667,000 in 2006, which dropped every year until it hit 548,000 in 2009. Then in 2010 it fell to 505,000

 

[editec]

Revive small business and self employment.

http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/Kane--TheCollapseofStartupsinJobCreation0912web.pdf

The state of entrepreneurship in the United States is, sadly, weaker than ever. There are fewer new firms being formed today than two years ago when the recession ended. As the BLS described quarterly entrepreneurship figures, “New establishments are not being formed at the same levels seen before the economic downturn began, and the number is much lower than it was during the 2001 recession.” The peak number of new establishments was 667,000 in 2006, which dropped every year until it hit 548,000 in 2009. Then in 2010 it fell to 505,000

AS business models have changed (think WALMART but that is not the only example) devising SMALL BUSINESSES that are economically viable becomes more difficult.

Now that is an organic problem, not a conspiracy.

Business models are ALSO a kind of changing technology. Only not a nuts and bolts technology more of a social system techology.

The effect however, is much the same as any other LABOR SAVING techology.

Fewer workers are needed.

Who here remembers when there were NO malls, no superstores, no massive discounted hardware stores etc?

Most the former REATAIL workers who used to man the retailing on MAIN Street USA, are gone.

The BIG BOX stores are more efficient ergo they hire less workers do do the same (or more) retailing.

 

[oldfart]

You are missing the point. About 80% of growth is attributable to non-physical capital, mostly human capital (education, job training, work discipline, job experience, etc) and social overhead capital (a system of commercial and labor law, patents and intellectual property protection, consumer protection, government regulatory structure, and so forth). These are the factors that really differentiate developed economies from less developed ones.

Rubbish of course. The USA and USSR looked similar using your vague variables. Ford, Jobs, Edison, Gates, and others like them had animal spirits or great entrepreneurial ambition that accounted for our tremendous development.

Ed, what does your comment have to do with defining factors of production? This is Ricardian theory, not Marxist!

Republican capitalists encourage this while Democrats vilify businessmen as greedy dogs who don't pay taxes, pollute the environment, kill factory workers in Bangladesh, pay slave wages, and care only about profit.

Ed, is this class guilt you are trying to confess to here?

 

[editec]

Inflation is hardly detectable now because we are barely out of a period of deflation.

Deflation?

Perhaps the cost of Iphone and homes are deflating but those are hardly important to the kinds of people who count on HONEST accounting of the cost of living, OF.

And trying to tell us that SUBSTITUTION negates the real inflation is likewise DISHONEST AS THE DAY IS LONG, amigo.

 

[Spoonman]

?

yes, move to china where the jobs are. don't count on this administration to bail you out.

 

[oldfart]

Inflation is hardly detectable now because we are barely out of a period of deflation.

Deflation?

Perhaps the cost of Iphone and homes are deflating but those are hardly important to the kinds of people who count on HONEST accounting of the cost of living, OF.

Perhaps you could inform me of your method of "HONEST accounting of the cost of living?" Until then I have to go by the CPI and PPI.

And trying to tell us that SUBSTITUTION negates the real inflation is likewise DISHONEST AS THE DAY IS LONG, amigo.

I never said substitution negates the effects of inflation. Read the discussion upthread and see if you have a beef with anything I actually wrote, as opposed to the strawman arguments you made in this post.