The Political & Philosophy Thread

[rms]

You have to actually have a good and valuable degree if you want a job. College is one of the biggest shams right now.

that's kind of the issue. white women and blacks get more degrees and go to post-grad than white men but earnings are down (and wealth never increases, that separation is key to this goalpost moving critique). I imagine it's because blacks love soft-science humanities ala sociology

that's a good degree. what are the demographics like? I'm guessing: mostly asian, some white, some indian

UB is beloved to the south/east asians but yeah, maybe 45% white men. 45~% asian men (indians to chinese/japanese/koreans) and maybe 5% women (all races) and the rest are black men. but the ones i've chatted with are first generation african/studying abroad type -- not citizens.

Are Indians and Asians separated in statistics? Just curious.

everywhere, basically. you have South-Asians (indians), SE Asians (Vietnam etc), Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) and the Middle East

We do. Its called the death tax. Hopefully trump gets it repealed

from memory, it's quite low for the super wealthy comparative to the ~250k range

 

[J.]

from memory, it's quite low for the super wealthy comparative to the ~250k range

Could be. The point is that it should not exist. You pay taxes your whole life only to pay what amounts to a Lifetime Tax upon death.

 

[rms]

except rich people consistently get away with taxation their entire life. Mitt Romney paid like 8% taxation as a bajillionaire and I paid 25% as a Soldier. that's bullshit if i've ever seen it

and the interesting thing is that early 20th century insanely wealthy elites wish that all their income could be given away instead of their children, they thought it cancerous for their children and all that

 

[arg]

if a rich guy has a billion dollars and dies, i don't deserve his money, nor do poor people, nor does the government. whoever he wrote in his will deserves the money.

so what if his kids did not work for it, i sure didn't, and the poor and the government sure as hell didn't. The point is it was his money and thus his to give away to whom he pleases.

 

[rms]

there's an argument poor people do deserve part of the wealthy's money, because they usually exploit if not abuse the poor to attain that money. especially if we're talking 20th century and before

the black argument is an insinuation that a lot of this wealth is from land grants from the retrievals from blacks/slaves as well as profits from slaves/other unequal labor practices in our past

 

[CiG]

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.

 

[Dak]

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

 

[CiG]

Holy shit.

 

[Einherjar86]

Think about how much of that percentage is either still in high school, or in college and a) taking money from their parents, or b) taking out student loans. Without getting into a discussion about personal responsibility and the student loan bubble, it's fair to say that plenty of them aren't actively avoiding work or "unemployed." Unemployment and labor participation are different things.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

https://www.facebook.com/Breitbart/videos/vb.95475020353/10158590885510354/?type=2&theater

 

[rms]

Think about how much of that percentage is either still in high school, or in college and a) taking money from their parents, or b) taking out student loans. Without getting into a discussion about personal responsibility and the student loan bubble, it's fair to say that plenty of them aren't actively avoiding work or "unemployed." Unemployment and labor participation are different things.

and retired

 

[Dak]

Think about how much of that percentage is either still in high school, or in college and a) taking money from their parents, or b) taking out student loans. Without getting into a discussion about personal responsibility and the student loan bubble, it's fair to say that plenty of them aren't actively avoiding work or "unemployed." Unemployment and labor participation are different things.

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").

Edit: Right now the LFPR for 25-54 year olds ("prime working years") is ~78% which many think is fine. The problem is that a total LFPR of the low 60s, with all these different entitlements filling the income gap, is unsustainable long term. We are practically at the point where 1 person supports 2 people economically - which isn't even the real case when we take into account the massive amounts of public and private debt.

 

[Einherjar86]

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 have to disagree. Unemployment has to be measured by those who file for unemployment - otherwise you're applying a term with negative financial connotations to a group of people who aren't necessarily in financial trouble and aren't necessarily a drain on the economy. Unemployment isn't a generic catch-all for people who aren't working.

 

[Dak]

I have to disagree. Unemployment has to be measured by those who file for unemployment - otherwise you're applying a term with negative financial connotations to a group of people who aren't necessarily in financial trouble and aren't necessarily a drain on the economy. Unemployment isn't a generic catch-all for people who aren't working.

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.

 

[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.