Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Unemployment is structural and not cyclical

flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 7:30:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Current unemployment is a structural issue. The fed is wrong in using it as a criteria for the end of QE. This is a mismatch between skills and what the economy demands. Too many have received college degrees in underemployed majors. Companies are doing more with less and the encouragement of the Obama administration to move more to food stamps and disability has created a dependency class of unemployables with no job skills and no experience.

Sources include the population ratio, labor force participation rate, and the employment rate.

As is evident from these three graphs, people are dropping out of the labor force and employment is not even kind of improving since 2008.

EMPLOYMENT TO POPULATION RATIO
http://data.bls.gov...

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
http://data.bls.gov...

LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE
http://data.bls.gov...

If you take the labor force participation rate subtracted from the employment to population ratio you can derive the figures for those who are looking for work but are not employed to find out how tight the labor market is.

The labor participation rate is falling and in my opinion will fall back to 1954 figures of 60%, before women entered the labor force. I do not think that women will be leaving the labor force. I think that upper middle class women are here to stay in the labor force and that in their place we will have a dependency class that attempts to fake disabilities in order to get government aid. If you click fomatting options on the labor force participation rate graph and change it from range to "All Years" you can see historical data further back.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 7:42:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Old people are not retiring sooner either, they are working longer which means this drop is coming from those of prime working age

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

Here are the roles for SSI Disability which is increasing much faster than population growth.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com...

Also another major factor is that students are staying in school and accumulating massive debt which will contribute to a massive divide in the upper and lower classes.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com...

With the upper class being much older and the lower class being very young.

In short people are dropping out of the labor force are going two places

1. School and accumulating debt (younger)
2. SSI Disability and taking taxes (30s-50s)

This will cause the the younger ones accumulating the debt to be much worse off than the older ones taking free money which will only increase the age gap and contribute to the current group of workers 20 - 30 to be significantly worse off than the older generation and will have a long term impact on domestic consumer spending.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 9:04:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
First of all, historically speaking unemployment is not all that bad.

Second, globalization is IMHO the overarching reason as to why unemployment is relatively weak in the US. This has been true of Japan for over 20 years now due to "hollowing out" to the rest of east Asia. Now it is our turn.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 9:44:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 9:04:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
First of all, historically speaking unemployment is not all that bad.

Second, globalization is IMHO the overarching reason as to why unemployment is relatively weak in the US. This has been true of Japan for over 20 years now due to "hollowing out" to the rest of east Asia. Now it is our turn.

This defies okuns law thus your conclusion is incorrect. Even if the US has a national decline, GDP still suffers from underemployment. Japan has been in decline due to an overvalued currency and high cost of living.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:12:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
seriously there is no one else that has any thoughts on this?
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:52:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 9:44:11 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/24/2013 9:04:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
First of all, historically speaking unemployment is not all that bad.

Second, globalization is IMHO the overarching reason as to why unemployment is relatively weak in the US. This has been true of Japan for over 20 years now due to "hollowing out" to the rest of east Asia. Now it is our turn.

This defies okuns law thus your conclusion is incorrect. Even if the US has a national decline, GDP still suffers from underemployment. Japan has been in decline due to an overvalued currency and high cost of living.

Okun's law takes international relations to be ceteris paribus and is not applicable here. Also, it is nothing more than a guideline. If it is violated, finding reasons for its invalidity become paramount. I have proposed reasons.

My assertion stands.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:54:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I find these claims to be highly dubious. For one, college graduates have a lower rate of unemployment then the rest of the population. Second off, the number of people in math-intensive and engineering majors hasn't change:

http://www.maa.org...

I suppose one can say there's a smaller percentage of graduates in engineering. But the unemployment rate skyrocketed during the Great Recession. So what was the specific "structural" problem that occurred. Were there jobs misallocated and need to be sent someplace else. If so what are they and where should the new jobs go? And what's the source? What are the jobs companies are desperate for?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 10:42:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:54:30 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I find these claims to be highly dubious. For one, college graduates have a lower rate of unemployment then the rest of the population. Second off, the number of people in math-intensive and engineering majors hasn't change:

http://www.maa.org...

I suppose one can say there's a smaller percentage of graduates in engineering. But the unemployment rate skyrocketed during the Great Recession. So what was the specific "structural" problem that occurred. Were there jobs misallocated and need to be sent someplace else. If so what are they and where should the new jobs go? And what's the source? What are the jobs companies are desperate for?

My answer to all of this is "overseas". There are people all around the world that can do what an engineer, doctor, factory worker, farmer, can do, except they do it for 10% of the pay.

Companies are not concerned about job creation, they are concerned about profit. Profit is all about marginalization of costs. Companies marginalize costs by ceteris paribus paying labor less to do the same job.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:09:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 12:52:07 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/24/2013 9:44:11 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/24/2013 9:04:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
First of all, historically speaking unemployment is not all that bad.

Second, globalization is IMHO the overarching reason as to why unemployment is relatively weak in the US. This has been true of Japan for over 20 years now due to "hollowing out" to the rest of east Asia. Now it is our turn.

This defies okuns law thus your conclusion is incorrect. Even if the US has a national decline, GDP still suffers from underemployment. Japan has been in decline due to an overvalued currency and high cost of living.

Okun's law takes international relations to be ceteris paribus and is not applicable here. Also, it is nothing more than a guideline. If it is violated, finding reasons for its invalidity become paramount. I have proposed reasons.

My assertion stands.

It's a law not a guideline.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:17:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:54:30 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I find these claims to be highly dubious. For one, college graduates have a lower rate of unemployment then the rest of the population.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com...

http://cdn.theatlantic.com...

http://www.theatlantic.com...

Incorrect, it appears lower because many are in low retail jobs, continuing masters degree programs, or are living at home with mom and dad and have dropped out of the labor force.

Second off, the number of people in math-intensive and engineering majors hasn't change:

http://www.maa.org...

I suppose one can say there's a smaller percentage of graduates in engineering. But the unemployment rate skyrocketed during the Great Recession. So what was the specific "structural" problem that occurred. Were there jobs misallocated and need to be sent someplace else. If so what are they and where should the new jobs go? And what's the source? What are the jobs companies are desperate for?

The specific structural problem is two-fold. During the recession college-degree worker productivity increased which decreased the long term demand for college graduates in the labor force. Meanwhile the supply of college graduates increases at an ever increasing rate.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 4:21:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Current unemployment is quite structural. Obamacare, higher taxes (and uncertainty in regards to high taxes), energy (and uncertainty as to higher costs on energy) make employers more practical as to who they choose to hire. As we see in countries like France (particular in regard to insane tax rates), this is not simply a temporary problem. Picking college degree in profitable areas and/or having a definite career plan early on is a wise strategy, but the overall problem is institutional and must thus be addressed institutionally.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 4:47:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:17:51 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:54:30 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I find these claims to be highly dubious. For one, college graduates have a lower rate of unemployment then the rest of the population.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com...

http://cdn.theatlantic.com...

http://www.theatlantic.com...

Incorrect, it appears lower because many are in low retail jobs, continuing masters degree programs, or are living at home with mom and dad and have dropped out of the labor force.


I'm curious what the definition of "recent graduate" is (how long has the person graduated for). Note, however that if you compare this to recent high school graduate, the number is a lot less. There are actually legit reasons to drop out of the labor force as a recent college graduate, like if you have a baby and your husband (or wife) can afford the salary. Or you have a trust fund.

We have data showing that unemployment dramatically increased for those w/ only a high school degree, but not so much for college degree majors:
http://research.stlouisfed.org...

Second off, the number of people in math-intensive and engineering majors hasn't change:

i've already mentioned that.


http://www.maa.org...

I suppose one can say there's a smaller percentage of graduates in engineering. But the unemployment rate skyrocketed during the Great Recession. So what was the specific "structural" problem that occurred. Were there jobs misallocated and need to be sent someplace else. If so what are they and where should the new jobs go? And what's the source? What are the jobs companies are desperate for?

The specific structural problem is two-fold. During the recession college-degree worker productivity increased which decreased the long term demand for college graduates in the labor force. Meanwhile the supply of college graduates increases at an ever increasing rate.


That doesn't make any sense. If worker productivity increased, then demand increases as well, since that means businesses would obtain a greater profit from higher more productive workers. At any rate, the supply and demand for jobs doesn't really matter for structural unemployment, only whether there's a disequilibrium or not.

Also if you look at the chart of

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Yes, educational attainment has been increasing but this doesn't effect general unemployment rates or structural unemployment since the great recession wasn't a response to this. One can say its a gigantic waste of resources, but that's it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 5:05:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:09:44 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:52:07 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/24/2013 9:44:11 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/24/2013 9:04:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
First of all, historically speaking unemployment is not all that bad.

Second, globalization is IMHO the overarching reason as to why unemployment is relatively weak in the US. This has been true of Japan for over 20 years now due to "hollowing out" to the rest of east Asia. Now it is our turn.

This defies okuns law thus your conclusion is incorrect. Even if the US has a national decline, GDP still suffers from underemployment. Japan has been in decline due to an overvalued currency and high cost of living.

Okun's law takes international relations to be ceteris paribus and is not applicable here. Also, it is nothing more than a guideline. If it is violated, finding reasons for its invalidity become paramount. I have proposed reasons.

My assertion stands.

It's a law not a guideline.

You concede that it does not take international relations into account, and is thus not applicable to my assertion.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 5:22:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 4:21:10 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
Current unemployment is quite structural. Obamacare, higher taxes (and uncertainty in regards to high taxes), energy (and uncertainty as to higher costs on energy) make employers more practical as to who they choose to hire. As we see in countries like France (particular in regard to insane tax rates), this is not simply a temporary problem. Picking college degree in profitable areas and/or having a definite career plan early on is a wise strategy, but the overall problem is institutional and must thus be addressed institutionally.

This is not just targeted at you but also the rest of the people participating in this thread.

The structural concerns you mention are underpinned by the growing trend of globalization...that labor markets are no longer local. Instead of jobs shifting from one productive area to another (like, say, construction/finance to...something else), jobs are instead shifting from one locality to another. Instead of multiplier effects from factory jobs in the US affecting the US economy, there are now multiplier effects from factory jobs in Chindia affecting the Chindia economy. This makes finding productive jobs in America much more difficult than if globalization did not exist.

This is a long term trend that started for Japan well over 20 years ago. Like a tsunami spreading outward, it has only more recently affected the US in a significant manner, and was only exposed because of the economic tide receding in 2008.

Corporations are now more profitable than ever because of cost cuts. They can cut costs because the pressure is to ship any possible labor overseas. US labor simply is not competitive.

Any analysis that only considers an US-centric model is ignoring this major and over-arching trend. Globalization is a two-way street.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 7:33:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 5:05:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:09:44 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:52:07 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/24/2013 9:44:11 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/24/2013 9:04:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
First of all, historically speaking unemployment is not all that bad.

Second, globalization is IMHO the overarching reason as to why unemployment is relatively weak in the US. This has been true of Japan for over 20 years now due to "hollowing out" to the rest of east Asia. Now it is our turn.

This defies okuns law thus your conclusion is incorrect. Even if the US has a national decline, GDP still suffers from underemployment. Japan has been in decline due to an overvalued currency and high cost of living.

Okun's law takes international relations to be ceteris paribus and is not applicable here. Also, it is nothing more than a guideline. If it is violated, finding reasons for its invalidity become paramount. I have proposed reasons.

My assertion stands.

It's a law not a guideline.

You concede that it does not take international relations into account, and is thus not applicable to my assertion.

A law is an empirically derived fact that takes everything into account. It is applicable to everything, thus why it is a law.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 7:34:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 5:22:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The structural concerns you mention are underpinned by the growing trend of globalization...that labor markets are no longer local.

This blatantly ignores the law of comparative advantage and thus is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 7:39:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 5:22:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 4:21:10 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
Current unemployment is quite structural. Obamacare, higher taxes (and uncertainty in regards to high taxes), energy (and uncertainty as to higher costs on energy) make employers more practical as to who they choose to hire. As we see in countries like France (particular in regard to insane tax rates), this is not simply a temporary problem. Picking college degree in profitable areas and/or having a definite career plan early on is a wise strategy, but the overall problem is institutional and must thus be addressed institutionally.

The structural concerns you mention are underpinned by the growing trend of globalization... *snip*

To the extent that businesses swap jobs from one location to another, while still profiting from the former location? Sure, but that's merely a symptom of what I pointed out in my comment.

Lets boil this down to the brass tacks. Businesses desire profit. Profit = Revenue - Expenses. Logically, businesses will attempt to adapt to anything that increases expenses and/or reduces revenue.

In light of the above logic, let us take my country (United States) as an example. We have a wide variety of policies that directly increase business expenses and reduce business revenue. Some of them are good. Some of them of bad. A great deal of them forces businesses to adapt by employing people in locations where many of these policies don't apply, laying off current employees and/or simply sitting on their profits without hiring additional employees. Other businesses are simply forced to close down entirely.

The more employment gets in the way of profit, the less businesses are inclined to expand it. This isn't a merely a trend, but the inevitable outcome of human nature. As such, the solution is clear.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 8:05:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 7:34:08 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 5:22:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The structural concerns you mention are underpinned by the growing trend of globalization...that labor markets are no longer local.

This blatantly ignores the law of comparative advantage and thus is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

lol...first of all, these "laws" are simply not set in stone.

Second of all, comparative advantage ignores external variables. It assumes cooperation in a competitive environment, which IMHO invalidates it as a paradigm for global trade.

Competitive advantage is much more useful. And since we are quoting wikis:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 8:06:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 7:39:01 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 5/26/2013 5:22:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 4:21:10 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
Current unemployment is quite structural. Obamacare, higher taxes (and uncertainty in regards to high taxes), energy (and uncertainty as to higher costs on energy) make employers more practical as to who they choose to hire. As we see in countries like France (particular in regard to insane tax rates), this is not simply a temporary problem. Picking college degree in profitable areas and/or having a definite career plan early on is a wise strategy, but the overall problem is institutional and must thus be addressed institutionally.

The structural concerns you mention are underpinned by the growing trend of globalization... *snip*

To the extent that businesses swap jobs from one location to another, while still profiting from the former location? Sure, but that's merely a symptom of what I pointed out in my comment.

Lets boil this down to the brass tacks. Businesses desire profit. Profit = Revenue - Expenses. Logically, businesses will attempt to adapt to anything that increases expenses and/or reduces revenue.

In light of the above logic, let us take my country (United States) as an example. We have a wide variety of policies that directly increase business expenses and reduce business revenue. Some of them are good. Some of them of bad. A great deal of them forces businesses to adapt by employing people in locations where many of these policies don't apply, laying off current employees and/or simply sitting on their profits without hiring additional employees. Other businesses are simply forced to close down entirely.

The more employment gets in the way of profit, the less businesses are inclined to expand it. This isn't a merely a trend, but the inevitable outcome of human nature. As such, the solution is clear.

We are in full agreement. Cheers.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 8:08:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 8:05:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:34:08 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 5:22:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The structural concerns you mention are underpinned by the growing trend of globalization...that labor markets are no longer local.

This blatantly ignores the law of comparative advantage and thus is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

lol...first of all, these "laws" are simply not set in stone.

I'll stop you there. Yes they are.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 8:09:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 8:08:06 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:05:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:34:08 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 5:22:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The structural concerns you mention are underpinned by the growing trend of globalization...that labor markets are no longer local.

This blatantly ignores the law of comparative advantage and thus is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

lol...first of all, these "laws" are simply not set in stone.


I'll stop you there. Yes they are.

We agree to disagree.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 8:10:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 8:09:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:08:06 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:05:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:34:08 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 5:22:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The structural concerns you mention are underpinned by the growing trend of globalization...that labor markets are no longer local.

This blatantly ignores the law of comparative advantage and thus is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

lol...first of all, these "laws" are simply not set in stone.


I'll stop you there. Yes they are.

We agree to disagree.

I don't agree to disagree, you're just wrong and shouldn't discuss economics, ever.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 8:15:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 8:10:39 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:09:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:08:06 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:05:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:34:08 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 5:22:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The structural concerns you mention are underpinned by the growing trend of globalization...that labor markets are no longer local.

This blatantly ignores the law of comparative advantage and thus is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

lol...first of all, these "laws" are simply not set in stone.


I'll stop you there. Yes they are.

We agree to disagree.

I don't agree to disagree, you're just wrong and shouldn't discuss economics, ever.

Again, we agree to disagree. Your prejudice is forcing you to make statements you shouldn't be making.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 8:22:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 4:47:33 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:17:51 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:54:30 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I find these claims to be highly dubious. For one, college graduates have a lower rate of unemployment then the rest of the population.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com...

http://cdn.theatlantic.com...

http://www.theatlantic.com...

Incorrect, it appears lower because many are in low retail jobs, continuing masters degree programs, or are living at home with mom and dad and have dropped out of the labor force.


I'm curious what the definition of "recent graduate" is (how long has the person graduated for). Note, however that if you compare this to recent high school graduate, the number is a lot less. There are actually legit reasons to drop out of the labor force as a recent college graduate, like if you have a baby and your husband (or wife) can afford the salary. Or you have a trust fund.

The article seems to specify under the age of 25 as the difference between recent grads and grads. The data presented clearly defies long term norms. I don't think a sudden increase in pregnancies or trust fund babies is the relation.

We have data showing that unemployment dramatically increased for those w/ only a high school degree, but not so much for college degree majors:
http://research.stlouisfed.org...

I'm not arguing that it didn't. I'm arguing the structural problem that a lot of recent grads are not getting jobs that require college degrees and essentially bumping out highschool grads out of their traditional jobs. The structural problem is a high debt load and higher unemployment that will haunt the younger generation.


Second off, the number of people in math-intensive and engineering majors hasn't change:

i've already mentioned that.

I know i forgot to delete your older quote as i felt it wasn't applicable i didn't really reply directly to it.


http://www.maa.org...

I suppose one can say there's a smaller percentage of graduates in engineering. But the unemployment rate skyrocketed during the Great Recession. So what was the specific "structural" problem that occurred. Were there jobs misallocated and need to be sent someplace else. If so what are they and where should the new jobs go? And what's the source? What are the jobs companies are desperate for?

The specific structural problem is two-fold. During the recession college-degree worker productivity increased which decreased the long term demand for college graduates in the labor force. Meanwhile the supply of college graduates increases at an ever increasing rate.


That doesn't make any sense. If worker productivity increased, then demand increases as well, since that means businesses would obtain a greater profit from higher more productive workers. At any rate, the supply and demand for jobs doesn't really matter for structural unemployment, only whether there's a disequilibrium or not.

This is incorrect. If I have two workers each making 10 bananas each a day. Demand for bananas is 20. Economy goes into a recession and I fire one worker demand for bananas is 12. The remaining worker can make 12 bananas.

Productivity has increased, demand has decreased.

This is a structural problem because previously we demanded say 20% of workers being college graduates. Productivity increases and now we only demand 10% of workers. The remaining 10% have to take lower paying jobs with high debt burdens. This is a structural mismatch and the waste is the unnecessary education taken and the long term costs of that.


Also if you look at the chart of

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Yes, educational attainment has been increasing but this doesn't effect general unemployment rates or structural unemployment since the great recession wasn't a response to this. One can say its a gigantic waste of resources, but that's it.

It does affect structural unemployment if it leaves a large bulk of those graduates in an industry that doesn't demand them. This mismatch of skills and demand creates a structural issue.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 8:37:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 8:15:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:10:39 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:09:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:08:06 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:05:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:34:08 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 5:22:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The structural concerns you mention are underpinned by the growing trend of globalization...that labor markets are no longer local.

This blatantly ignores the law of comparative advantage and thus is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

lol...first of all, these "laws" are simply not set in stone.


I'll stop you there. Yes they are.

We agree to disagree.

I don't agree to disagree, you're just wrong and shouldn't discuss economics, ever.

Again, we agree to disagree. Your prejudice is forcing you to make statements you shouldn't be making.

No that's sort of the background in basic economics.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 8:48:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 8:37:58 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:15:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:10:39 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:09:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:08:06 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:05:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:34:08 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 5:22:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The structural concerns you mention are underpinned by the growing trend of globalization...that labor markets are no longer local.

This blatantly ignores the law of comparative advantage and thus is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

lol...first of all, these "laws" are simply not set in stone.


I'll stop you there. Yes they are.

We agree to disagree.

I don't agree to disagree, you're just wrong and shouldn't discuss economics, ever.

Again, we agree to disagree. Your prejudice is forcing you to make statements you shouldn't be making.

No that's sort of the background in basic economics.

Bro, economic "laws" are not "set in stone". Any economic "law" is subject to debate, as is any scientific theory. You certainly want to know what are the key assumptions behind the law to find out where and when it is applicable.

People like yourself, with a rigid, inflexible interpretation of these laws, will make extremely brittle conclusions that will have difficulty adapting to changing environments. Use of these conclusions in improper environments would lead to conclusions that are dramatically off.

But, again, we agree to disagree. Cheers, and good luck with your studies.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 10:08:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 8:48:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:37:58 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:15:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:10:39 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:09:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:08:06 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:05:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:34:08 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 5:22:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The structural concerns you mention are underpinned by the growing trend of globalization...that labor markets are no longer local.

This blatantly ignores the law of comparative advantage and thus is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

lol...first of all, these "laws" are simply not set in stone.


I'll stop you there. Yes they are.

We agree to disagree.

I don't agree to disagree, you're just wrong and shouldn't discuss economics, ever.

Again, we agree to disagree. Your prejudice is forcing you to make statements you shouldn't be making.

No that's sort of the background in basic economics.

Bro, economic "laws" are not "set in stone". Any economic "law" is subject to debate, as is any scientific theory. You certainly want to know what are the key assumptions behind the law to find out where and when it is applicable.

People like yourself, with a rigid, inflexible interpretation of these laws, will make extremely brittle conclusions that will have difficulty adapting to changing environments. Use of these conclusions in improper environments would lead to conclusions that are dramatically off.

But, again, we agree to disagree. Cheers, and good luck with your studies.

Theory and law are two different things. It is like saying the law of gravity is up for debate. No its not.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 10:22:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 10:08:51 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:48:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:37:58 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:15:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:10:39 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:09:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:08:06 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 8:05:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:34:08 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 5:22:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The structural concerns you mention are underpinned by the growing trend of globalization...that labor markets are no longer local.

This blatantly ignores the law of comparative advantage and thus is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

lol...first of all, these "laws" are simply not set in stone.


I'll stop you there. Yes they are.

We agree to disagree.

I don't agree to disagree, you're just wrong and shouldn't discuss economics, ever.

Again, we agree to disagree. Your prejudice is forcing you to make statements you shouldn't be making.

No that's sort of the background in basic economics.

Bro, economic "laws" are not "set in stone". Any economic "law" is subject to debate, as is any scientific theory. You certainly want to know what are the key assumptions behind the law to find out where and when it is applicable.

People like yourself, with a rigid, inflexible interpretation of these laws, will make extremely brittle conclusions that will have difficulty adapting to changing environments. Use of these conclusions in improper environments would lead to conclusions that are dramatically off.

But, again, we agree to disagree. Cheers, and good luck with your studies.

Theory and law are two different things. It is like saying the law of gravity is up for debate. No its not.

I've discussed before that the theory of comparative advantage requires a few assumptions, which if the break down, don't become true in the real world. Of course you blocked me on facebook for saying this, which seemed kind of silly. I agree for the most part that free-trade is generally good.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 1:14:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 7:33:02 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/26/2013 5:05:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
It's a law not a guideline.

You concede that it does not take international relations into account, and is thus not applicable to my assertion.

A law is an empirically derived fact that takes everything into account. It is applicable to everything, thus why it is a law.

Say's law.