The Political & Philosophy Thread

[Einherjar86]

I think the negative implications are inherent in the current "mixed economy" structure. Obviously there are a select group of people that are neither on the dole nor working/seeking work, but I would (with no evidence at hand) assert that this group is very likely quite small.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-says-us-has-93-milion-people-out-work/

Out of the 93.8 million Americans age 16 and up who are deemed "not in the labor force," 9.7 million of them are between 16 and 19 years of age. Another 5.7 million are between 20 and 24. And 37.8 million are age 65 and over. (In fact, 17.5 million are over 75 years old.)

What’s left? This leaves 40.5 million Americans who are not in the labor force and are between the ages of 25 and 64. It’s possible to argue that this number should be a bit higher -- college typically ends at age 22, not everyone goes to college, and healthy seniors today can usually work past 65 if they wish. But right off the top, Trump’s claim significantly overstates the matter.

The official number of unemployed Americans is 8.3 million -- less than one-tenth of what Trump says. But to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, it’s possible to expand this number using more credible economic thinking.

Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, says it’s not unreasonable to include:

• The 6.4 million people who haven’t looked for work recently enough to qualify as being "in the labor force," but who say they "currently want a job."

• And the 6.5 million people working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job.

This would mean that upwards of 21 million Americans could be described with some justification as "out of work" involuntarily, either fully or partially. But that’s not even one-quarter of the number that Trump offered.

 

[Dak]

I know all that. I don't know how that addresses my post.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sorry. Just seemed like maybe you'd forgotten is all.

Isn't roughly half of America unemployed? Hard to see how they were exploited at home watching Dr. Phil.

Edit: Wait it's nowhere near half my bad.

Labor force participation rate is ~63%. Close enough.

If you "know" all the stats I linked to, then you made this earlier post in bad faith.

 

[Dak]

If you "know" all the stats I linked to, then you made this earlier post in bad faith.

The point is that those people are consuming resources and aren't producing many. When you take into account that without debt, 1 person almost has to support 2 people this is a problem. Then, when you take into account debt obligations and entitlements, the figure is more like 1 person has to support many more people (5?10?etc). It's simply not sustainable, no matter how many good reasons people can come up with why that 37% isn't working (especially with a population that is currently aging).

 

[Einherjar86]

My point is that CIG was talking about unemployment. You mentioned labor participation as though they're interchangeable.

 

[Dak]

My point is that CIG was talking about unemployment. You mentioned labor participation as though they're interchangeable.

They aren't. But his concerns are related to the LFPR and that's the number he was thinking of that was so bad. It's not interchangeable and both numbers provide different yet valuable information. The problem is when people cite the unemployment number as evidence that everything is ok. The LFPR wouldn't be a problem in itself (obviously we don't necessarily expect 16-18 year olds to "carry their own weight"), but given the current "econopolitical" situation, such a low LFPR figure with projections of decline are troubling.

 

[CiG]

 

[Serjeant Grumbles]

They aren't. But his concerns are related to the LFPR and that's the number he was thinking of that was so bad. It's not interchangeable and both numbers provide different yet valuable information. The problem is when people cite the unemployment number as evidence that everything is ok. The LFPR wouldn't be a problem in itself (obviously we don't necessarily expect 16-18 year olds to "carry their own weight"), but given the current "econopolitical" situation, such a low LFPR figure with projections of decline are troubling.

Start sending off the elderly to die on ice floes, then.

 

[Einherjar86]

The problem is when people cite the unemployment number as evidence that everything is ok.

Sure, but you effectively just did the opposite. Your exact words were "close enough" - you cited labor participation data as evidence that everything is ultra-fucked.

You basically just did the same thing Trump did when he claimed that we have 93 million people out of work that are looking for jobs.

 

[Dak]

Sure, but you effectively just did the opposite. Your exact words were "close enough" - you cited labor participation data as evidence that everything is ultra-fucked.

You basically just did the same thing Trump did when he claimed that we have 93 million people out of work that are looking for jobs.

No, the point is that they aren't looking for jobs (and not working, so how exploited?), and that those jobs don't exist and the kind Trump is promising aren't the answer. Manufacturing has been trickling back to America but it's heavily automated, and only becoming more so.

Automation is likely to expand to meet the needs of growing automation. This still won't fix the debt/obligations problem.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, the point is that they aren't looking for jobs (and not working, so how exploited?), and that those jobs don't exist and the kind Trump is promising aren't the answer.

I know they're not looking for jobs, Dak. I said that Trump said that 93 million people were out of work and actively looking for work, which translates into unemployment - i.e. Trump said that our unemployment rate is over 40%. Then you cited that statistic in reference to CIG's question about unemployment, saying it's "close enough."

Look, I'm really not trying to get into a big thing with you here. I think that you just got a little excited and fell into a sensationalist trap. It happens to all of us.

 

[Dak]

Pretty sure elsewhere (like shortly after that claim came out) I went round and round with cf about it. Trump is wrong that 93 million need work. The problem is that we have too much debt and entitlement for even 100% LFPR, much less 63%.

 

[EternalMetal]

Even with my GI Bill I was working practically the entire time I was in school, even up to 30 hours a week at one point. I would say subsisting on parental money or student loans is "actively avoiding work" and definitely unemployed (as in not employed and able bodied, not the BLS definition of "unemployment").

I dont mean to discredit the possible enormity of your workload while in school, but as an undergrad working toward my degree in molecular biology, I literally had no spare time to put towards a job. All of my spare time spent away from studying was spent at the lab working on research for part of my thesis. Ok, maybe some of my time was spent smoking pot, but we had a 9PM rule and were in bed by midnight for classes/studying the following day (in other words less downtime than almost any part time job would require). Also, the physicians assistant graduate program in which I have been applying to for the past couple of years has 20+ credit semesters, and they warn you beforehand that between classes, studying, and clinical hours, you will not be able to hold any sort of outside employment. Under certain circumstances I imagine that some students could perceptibly have enough free time for a part time job, but this would also be dependent upon workload, major/program specifics, family obligations, etc. There are far too many factors to group students who do not seek employment into an "actively avoiding work" category.

By all means continue your debate, but I hate people who go to school for business (or other less demanding majors) and suggest that it is a lack of work ethic that results in unemployed college students.

 

[Dak]

I dont mean to discredit the possible enormity of your workload while in school, but as an undergrad working toward my degree in molecular biology, I literally had no spare time to put towards a job. All of my spare time spent away from studying was spent at the lab working on research for part of my thesis. Ok, maybe some of my time was spent smoking pot, but we had a 9PM rule and were in bed by midnight for classes/studying the following day (in other words less downtime than almost any part time job would require). Also, the physicians assistant graduate program in which I have been applying to for the past couple of years has 20+ credit semesters, and they warn you beforehand that between classes, studying, and clinical hours, you will not be able to hold any sort of outside employment. Under certain circumstances I imagine that some students could perceptibly have enough free time for a part time job, but this would also be dependent upon workload, major/program specifics, family obligations, etc. There are far too many factors to group students who do not seek employment into an "actively avoiding work" category.

I'm not arguing that every single college person that isn't working can, but how many people are majoring in molecular biology? Most majors do not require that level of work.

 

[J.]

So everyone is currently talking about a gov't agency enforcing our laws by removing illegal peoples from US soil. Watching the left's and right's reactions is fascinating.

 

[rms]

Huh

 

[rms]

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article132091644.html

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not arguing that every single college person that isn't working can, but how many people are majoring in molecular biology? Most majors do not require that level of work.

Actually, that's how it is for a lot of students in the hard sciences and engineering.

 

[no country for old wainds]

i did philosophy and got a huge loan + maintenance grant + bursary grant and was unemployed the whole time and it was great, highly recommended

 

[Baroque]

The philosopher... you know so much about nothing at all!

but yeah financial aid is great. I still work though because I have some expensive tastes and a child