WWIII?

This forum is for discussion of political topics, and other serious non-football related debates. Please start these topics here, or they will eventually be moved here.

Moderators: salmar80, NCF, JustJeff, packfntk, APB, BF004, mnkcarp

Re: WWIII?

Postby Waldo » Thu Oct 08, 2015 4:19 pm

get louder at lambeau wrote:
Waldo wrote:Think about it in terms of our money. While the dollar dropping massively in value would be great for US exports and jobs, our money would be worth nothing, we couldn't buy anything that wasn't domestically produced,


Right. Here is the same thing, but taken to less of an extreme - "The dollar dropping somewhat in value would improve US exports and jobs, but our money would be worth less and we couldn't buy as many things that weren't domestically produced."

Sounds like part of the solution to some significant current problems, right?

In effect, with a weaker dollar, Americans who don't have money (poor people, young people, the unemployed, etc.) would have an easier time getting a job and earning money, but people who have money (rich people, established employees, retirees, etc.) would lose out to some extent. The poor would get richer, and the rich would get poorer. The recent increases of income inequality would reverse. Americans would also be naturally incentivized to buy more American made products, not due to nationalistic pride, but because those products would be more cost competitive. Domestic business creation would spike. Competition would drive increased efficiency. Jobs would be created.

Taken to the opposite extreme - "The dollar rising massively would destroy US exports and jobs, but our money would be worth much more, and those who have money would be able to buy much more, but most products would be imported." The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, as is happening now. Those that have money win, and those that don't have money lose. We have trended this way for quite a while now, as illustrated by the declining labor force participation rate and increasing wealth inequality.


You realize you are making the case for inflation, right? That some inflation = good. That the actual problem for a while now has been the lack of inflation.

The whole declining labor force rate is always reduced to "discouraged workers saying f-it and deciding give up on the concept of work", and both sides use it (though the R's far more, given its intertwining with the hugely successful "welfare queen" imagery which was arguably the start of R rage politics and continues to be the well that keeps on giving), but that is far from the reason. While it might describe a very, very small % of the nonparticipating, it certainly is not widespread. The labor force rate issue is structural; retirees (rising), students (rising), stay at home parenting (rising), and disability (rising, good 'ol wars) make up virtually all of it, gov't can do very little to fix this without drastic measures (free childcare for all, increasing retirement age, stop going to and continuing wars).
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4983
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: WWIII?

Postby GreenDay » Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:16 pm

and disability (rising, good 'ol wars)


How absurd. There are at least 10 million more on the disability roles in the last decade. Only a small fraction of the disabled are from the wars (1 million at the very highest estimates), especially since many of the wounded warriors refuse to live as disabled.

Too many 'disabled' are 'abled'

Really, much of the structural unemployed is due to dramatic increases in efficiency. I remember that worker efficiency doubled during the Bush administration (using Bush Adm. is a benchmark, it had nothing to do with Bush).
YoHoChecko wrote: Anyone who can't understand this doesn't deserve the platform that literacy has granted them.
User avatar
GreenDay
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: WWIII?

Postby GreenDay » Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:18 pm

welfare King is a better description than welfare queen, if you want to get technical about it :D
YoHoChecko wrote: Anyone who can't understand this doesn't deserve the platform that literacy has granted them.
User avatar
GreenDay
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: WWIII?

Postby wallyuwl » Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:53 am

GreenDay wrote:
and disability (rising, good 'ol wars)


How absurd. There are at least 10 million more on the disability roles in the last decade. Only a small fraction of the disabled are from the wars (1 million at the very highest estimates), especially since many of the wounded warriors refuse to live as disabled.

Too many 'disabled' are 'abled'


I saw that part of what Waldo wrote, too. Absurd.
User avatar
wallyuwl
 
Posts: 12159
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 pm

Re: WWIII?

Postby get louder at lambeau » Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:55 am

Waldo wrote:The labor force rate issue is structural; retirees (rising), students (rising), stay at home parenting (rising), and disability (rising, good 'ol wars) make up virtually all of it, gov't can do very little to fix this without drastic measures (free childcare for all, increasing retirement age, stop going to and continuing wars).


Do you have some numbers to back this up? I'm sure demographics have a lot to do with it, but I'm still skeptical of this statement. Here is a link to a chart of the LFPR for the 25-54 age group, which removes pretty much all retirees and most students from the equation. - stabilizeshttps://research.stlouisfed.o ... NU01300060

The peak LFPR for 25-54 year olds coincides to within one month of the peak of the Dot Com bubble in early 2000, and then there is a dropoff immediately after the bubble bursts. Then it stabilizes and even rises for a while. The next highest peak coincides with the month with the 2008 crash, and it drops off immediately again and has trended down ever since.

The decision to become a stay at home parent is influenced by what jobs are available. If you can get a good paying job, you might decide that it is worth it to work and pay for childcare. If you can only find a McJob, maybe you might as well stay home. Did you really decide, or was it the economy? Probably some of each.

As to SSDI, it is used by some as a "de facto welfare program" according to some people. No good jobs? Get that lawyer on daytime TV to convince a judge that your chronic pain is bad enough and you will get a check every month for the rest of your life. If you have kids, they will get a check too. Here's an article on it -http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/disability-insurance-americas-124-billion-secret-welfare-program/274302/

As to students, I tend to think college enrollment rising was also due at least partially to the sad state of the labor market they were faced with pre-enrollment. If you can't find a decent job, one of the most obvious options is to go back to school. Not only will it eventually increase your employability and income potential, but it allows you to sit out a hard labor market with hopes of re-entering the market during better times, with school loans often used a convenient temporary substitute for earned income in the mean time.

The bump in this graph coincides pretty well with the Great Recession, and it looks like college enrollment has actually been decreasing since around 2010-2011. The LFPR just continues to drop as these students join the labor force.

Image
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: WWIII?

Postby Waldo » Fri Oct 09, 2015 2:55 pm

GreenDay wrote:
and disability (rising, good 'ol wars)


How absurd. There are at least 10 million more on the disability roles in the last decade. Only a small fraction of the disabled are from the wars (1 million at the very highest estimates), especially since many of the wounded warriors refuse to live as disabled.

Too many 'disabled' are 'abled'

Really, much of the structural unemployed is due to dramatic increases in efficiency. I remember that worker efficiency doubled during the Bush administration (using Bush Adm. is a benchmark, it had nothing to do with Bush).


Vets make up a big chunk in the RISE in the disabled '00 to now.

Also remember there is an autism epidemic, which started exploding from around 1980 (1 in 5000 then to 1 in 68 today).

You got a source for that 10 million number, given that there about 14 million total in the US receiving disability benefits?
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4983
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: WWIII?

Postby Waldo » Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:27 pm

get louder at lambeau wrote:The peak LFPR for 25-54 year olds coincides to within one month of the peak of the Dot Com bubble in early 2000, and then there is a dropoff immediately after the bubble bursts. Then it stabilizes and even rises for a while. The next highest peak coincides with the month with the 2008 crash, and it drops off immediately again and has trended down ever since.

The decision to become a stay at home parent is influenced by what jobs are available. If you can get a good paying job, you might decide that it is worth it to work and pay for childcare. If you can only find a McJob, maybe you might as well stay home. Did you really decide, or was it the economy? Probably some of each.


Incidentally, that date also corresponds to the low point in staying home with the kids.

Image

Also the rise of the internet.

The decision to stay at home IS influenced by the jobs available. One thing to note, there is a huge freelance economy that is NOT considered part of the jobs reports that has greatly been aided by the rise in the internet. It is absolutely possible to make money online staying at home, which is certainly contributing to the rise in SAHM's.

My wife is a stay at home mom that makes some money freelancing online, and also does other odd jobs offline. Could she support herself that way? Absolutely not. But it is a nice augment to my income that is pretty much purely disposable income. Pretty much every other SAHM we know through various means makes money online in some way, shape, or form.

And I don't mean taking quizzes, there are actually valuable things that you can do (she does work with old TV video, basically making it searchable digitally, and has seen her work used on TV (notably after Joan Rivers died)). A huge chunk of the web is built freelance like this.

The new on-demand economy that is developing sucks as stability providing job (much online income is this way), but as an income augmenting job, which is what a SAHM needs, its great. But again, the jobs report and surveys do not capture this type of work since it is freelance and taxed as misc income (1099), not as wages (W-2).
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4983
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: WWIII?

Postby Waldo » Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:54 pm

But, the broader point about the labor force participation rate "problem".

It is the result of an argument searching for a problem. When standard measures about the health of the economy show that it is doing decent to good, one cannot argue against economic policy without looking the fool (tho that certainly doesn't stop many R's, looking the fool is what they do best). So to continue to use arguments against economic policy, alternate economic measures must be found that can at least be explained to be bad with some degree of a reasonable argument.

There is no real evidence that the declining labor force participation rate is actually bad, and noone has offered any solutions targeting it as a core problem to be fixed. It is just a talking point because you can't attack Obama's economic policy head on; by unemployment, GDP, inflation, the housing market, and the stock market, (aka the old standby economic measures) his policies are a winner. And heck, even on the federal deficit, curious how that issue seems to have been forgotten by R's.

Reducing taxes on the wealthy; the Bush, Rubio, Trump, Carson, Fioria, et al economic prescription, does not even vaguely address participation rate. Paul probably would, but that's because he wants to do away with SS, hence forcing old people to work. Sanders does address it to some degree, but minimal (any gains among the younger would be cancelled by expanding SS). Hillary would maintain status quo as closely as any.
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4983
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: WWIII?

Postby Pckfn23 » Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:28 pm

Don't forget the Affordable Care Act allowing workers to move jobs, work for themselves, or be stay at home parents through more affordable single coverage.
Image
No, every post is not secretly about wanting Capers fired.
User avatar
Pckfn23
Brigade
Brigade
 
Posts: 39682
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:24 am
Location: Western WI

Re: WWIII?

Postby BF004 » Fri Oct 09, 2015 8:20 pm

Pckfn23 wrote:Don't forget the Affordable Care Act allowing workers to move jobs, work for themselves, or be stay at home parents through more affordable single coverage.

Generally only more affordable if you are quite elderly or get subsidies.
Image
User avatar
BF004
 
Posts: 11151
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:38 pm
Location: Galesville, WI

Re: WWIII?

Postby GreenDay » Fri Oct 09, 2015 8:21 pm

Waldo wrote:
GreenDay wrote:
and disability (rising, good 'ol wars)


How absurd. There are at least 10 million more on the disability roles in the last decade. Only a small fraction of the disabled are from the wars (1 million at the very highest estimates), especially since many of the wounded warriors refuse to live as disabled.

Too many 'disabled' are 'abled'

Really, much of the structural unemployed is due to dramatic increases in efficiency. I remember that worker efficiency doubled during the Bush administration (using Bush Adm. is a benchmark, it had nothing to do with Bush).


Vets make up a big chunk in the RISE in the disabled '00 to now.

Also remember there is an autism epidemic, which started exploding from around 1980 (1 in 5000 then to 1 in 68 today).

You got a source for that 10 million number, given that there about 14 million total in the US receiving disability benefits?


Sorry, my decade claim was off; It's amazing how fast the years go by. I was thinking since Clinton. But the trend goes back even further

The definition of military 'disabled' is really broad, and many don't take disability.

The numbers of disabled are controversial. The numbers of applicants has gone up, the numbers who are on the disabled roles as percentages of the various work groups are quite high 5-10%.

A general ref, if you're interested. I'm not standing on an specific claim, except that rates are up and a lot more people are seeking disability. It may be an inner city phenomenon, as I and others at county hospitals see a huge increase in claims over the past decades. Also, I dispute the claim that the major driver is the wars.

Production efficiency is skyrocketing - we are headed for a workless economy, based on tech alone, assuming we don't blow it up.

http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
YoHoChecko wrote: Anyone who can't understand this doesn't deserve the platform that literacy has granted them.
User avatar
GreenDay
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: WWIII?

Postby GreenDay » Fri Oct 09, 2015 8:28 pm

Pckfn23 wrote:Don't forget the Affordable Care Act allowing workers to move jobs, work for themselves, or be stay at home parents through more affordable single coverage.


Obamacare is just further transferring rationing to the government. And transferring expenses to full time workers and employers who pay premiums and expenses.

It was a good idea to separate insurance from employment, but Obamacare was not the way.

Medicaid transfers to State won't last; providers are just refusing to take new patients, take Obamacare patients.

If you don't get some natural market controls in healthcare (the patients and doctors have to be accountable to costs), it's just going to continue to decline, unless of course, tech saves people, ,just as tech bailed out the stupidity of energy manipulations by the current admin.
YoHoChecko wrote: Anyone who can't understand this doesn't deserve the platform that literacy has granted them.
User avatar
GreenDay
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: WWIII?

Postby Pckfn23 » Fri Oct 09, 2015 9:29 pm

GreenDay wrote:
Pckfn23 wrote:Don't forget the Affordable Care Act allowing workers to move jobs, work for themselves, or be stay at home parents through more affordable single coverage.


Obamacare is just further transferring rationing to the government. And transferring expenses to full time workers and employers who pay premiums and expenses.

It was a good idea to separate insurance from employment, but Obamacare was not the way.

Medicaid transfers to State won't last; providers are just refusing to take new patients, take Obamacare patients.

If you don't get some natural market controls in healthcare (the patients and doctors have to be accountable to costs), it's just going to continue to decline, unless of course, tech saves people, ,just as tech bailed out the stupidity of energy manipulations by the current admin.

I was referring to the Affordable Care Acts ability to get people who buy individual plans into an exchange where they can essentially get group coverage, thus lowering the cost compared to them buying insurance separately.

You're never going to get market controls unless the government starts controlling the market, which you obviously don't want. The cost of care is needlessly astronomical, you are right on that.
Image
No, every post is not secretly about wanting Capers fired.
User avatar
Pckfn23
Brigade
Brigade
 
Posts: 39682
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:24 am
Location: Western WI

Re: WWIII?

Postby wallyuwl » Sat Oct 10, 2015 2:15 am

Pckfn23 wrote:You're never going to get market controls unless the government starts controlling the market


Currently the govt. controls nearly every aspect of health care. Govt. control is the problem, not the solution. The market will, generally, police itself when businesses (in this case different health care providers) need to compete for business because consumers are aware of and paying the costs instead of insurance companies or the govt. through Medicare and Medicaid. A few controls are necessary to avoid monopolies (which regional monopolies exist now with the govt's blessing), but that is about it.

The cost of care is needlessly astronomical,


Largely because of the lack of free market controls due to burdensome regulation and intervention by the govt., especially the federal govt.
User avatar
wallyuwl
 
Posts: 12159
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 pm

Re: WWIII?

Postby Pckfn23 » Sat Oct 10, 2015 3:17 am

Despite a wide variety of empirical methods and data sources, the
estimates of the demand for health care, shown in Table 3.1, are
consistently found to be price inelastic. Although the range of price
elasticity estimates is relatively wide, it tends to center on –0.17,
meaning that a 1 percent increase in the price of health care will lead
to a 0.17 percent reduction in health care expenditures. The price induced
changes in demand for health care can in large part be
attributed to changes in the probability of accessing any care rather
than to changes in the number of visits once care has been accessed.
In addition, the studies consistently find lower levels of demand
elasticity at lower levels of cost-sharing.
The demand for health is also found to be income inelastic. The estimates
of income elasticity of demand are in the range of 0 to 0.2.
The positive sign of the elasticity measure indicates that as income
increases, the demand for health care services also increases. The
magnitude of the elasticity, however, suggests that the demand response
is relatively small. Studies based on long time series data
tend to report higher income elasticities. The difference in estimates
across time frames is due to the incorporation of the effects of
changes in medical technology in studies that use long time series
data.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/p ... MR1355.pdf
Also
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/~/media/ ... income.pdf

Free Market forces don't work with a service like health care:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2 ... ee-Markets

While the free market, consumer driven health care advocates suggest that our current system prevents people from making good sense decisions based on comparative shopping and other free market applications, this argument completely ignores the one basic reality of healthcare that cannot be ignored – 80% of all health care expenditures in this country are for the treatment of chronic and life threatening illness.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... alth-care/

Fourth, there's the problem that access to care in a free market health care system is completely contingent on one's ability to pay for it. That's a problem when health care costs can hit several thousand dollars per year, even among healthy people. If we believe, as a society, that it is immoral to allow a sick person to suffer, then a free market system, which prices out society's poorest, is complicit in that immorality. What's worse, there are pages upon pages of medical studies that show that the poorest are also the sickest, independent of access to care. That means that in free market health systems, health care is denied to the people who need it most.
Fifth, and finally: Unlike most circumstances, where markets produce meaningful innovation, in health care, the government produces the most important innovations. Consider this: The U.S. is the world's leader in medical innovation. And pundits and politicians alike like to attribute this to our free market health system, as Rick Santorum suggested in a recent op-ed in USA Today. But nothing could be further from the truth. The U.S. is the world's leader in medical innovation because our government pumps tens of billions of dollars into health research each year through the National Institutes of Health. In fact, many of the drugs, medical devices, and clinical tests that ultimately get marketed and sold by private sector medical companies originated in NIH-funded labs across the country.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abdulrahm ... 05396.html
Image
No, every post is not secretly about wanting Capers fired.
User avatar
Pckfn23
Brigade
Brigade
 
Posts: 39682
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:24 am
Location: Western WI

PreviousNext

Return to The Podium - PG13

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron