CPCFTW Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) No full employment has nothing to do with Social programs, it has to do with elasticity in the Labor market. The government actually AIMS to keep employment there and views it as a problem when employment dips below that number for a number of reason. Productivity, Wage inflation, and so fourth. The problem is when Employment goes below that number, many sectors feel the crunch in finding workers to fill a skilled job set, and are forced to PAY BIG to either find those workers, bring them here, or train them. Much more money then any tax cut could ever provide. Do you just repeat what is told to you by the right wing? Seriously 6-7% unemployment would be great for our country and its economic growth. We can get there with out a tax cut. BTW your ROUNDING of the unemployment number represents around 100,000 jobs so it is kind of a big deal. Until now the government hasn't been aiming for shit other than pleasing the electorate. We're debating what they SHOULD aim for. The trade off between minimum wage / labour unions vs natural unemployment is a well known phenomenon. My source is Milton Friedman, a Nobel prize winner in economics. Quit spouting BS, you're just throwing economics terminology around pretending to know what you're talking about. The idea behind the natural rate hypothesis put forward by Friedman was that any given labor market structure must involve a certain amount of unemployment, including frictional unemployment associated with individuals changing jobs and possibly classical unemployment arising from real wages being held above the market-clearing level by minimum wage laws, trade unions or other labour market institutions. I get my sources from years of reading academia in pursuit of an undergrad in finance, CFA designation, MBA, and various CSI courses plus years of experience in financial services. I suppose you know best in your 2nd year of sociology plus minor in women's studies. Go to bed son. Edited May 17, 2011 by CPCFTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 Until now the government hasn't been aiming for shit other than pleasing the electorate. We're debating what they SHOULD aim for. The trade off between minimum wage / labour unions vs natural unemployment is a well known phenomenon. My source is Milton Friedman, a Nobel prize winner in economics. Quit spouting BS, you're just throwing economics terminology around pretending to know what you're talking about. This must mean I get to cite Nobel prize winner in economics Paul Krugman and pretend I know everything their is about economic to right? So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment. This theoretical prediction has, however, been hard to confirm with actual data. Indeed, much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages "do," in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) Until now the government hasn't been aiming for shit other than pleasing the electorate. We're debating what they SHOULD aim for. The trade off between minimum wage / labour unions vs natural unemployment is a well known phenomenon. My source is Milton Friedman, a Nobel prize winner in economics. Quit spouting BS, you're just throwing economics terminology around pretending to know what you're talking about. I get my sources from years of reading academia in pursuit of an undergrad in finance, CFA designation, MBA, and various CSI courses plus years of experience in financial services. I suppose you know best in your 2nd year of sociology plus minor in women's studies. Go to bed son. Oh goody... Uncle Milty... I was right in a round about way...I thought maybe you got your free market drivel from the University of Calgary... You went right to the source... Whats next?? Freidrich Von Hayek silliness??? Edited May 17, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) Oh goody... Uncle Milty... I was right in a round about way...I thought maybe you got your free market drivel from the University of Calgary... You went right to the source... Whats next?? Freidrich Von Hayek silliness??? The source is a nobel prize winner. I'm not saying I agree with all of his ideas, but the trade off between natural unemployment level and minimum wage / unions is pretty widely accepted. Punked is acting like I made it up when it's a 40 year old theory. And I'm sure it's a better source than "Punked" on mapleleafweb forums. The Bank of Canada, not the "government", aims to slow growth past FULL EMPLOYMENT which happens to be around 5% in Canada due to hippies spouting whatever BS they read on the twitter and blogs of other hippies. I'm saying the natural rate of unemployment should be lower if we didn't insist on paying people 100k to pick up trash cans. Edited May 17, 2011 by CPCFTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 The source is a nobel prize winner. I'm not saying I agree with all of his ideas, but the trade off between natural unemployment level and minimum wage / unions is pretty widely accepted. Punked is acting like I made it up when it's a 40 year old theory. And I'm sure it's a better source than "Punked" on mapleleafweb forums. The Bank of Canada, not the "government", aims to slow growth past FULL EMPLOYMENT which happens to be around 5% in Canada due to hippies spouting whatever BS they read on the twitter and blogs of other hippies. I'm saying the natural rate of unemployment should be lower if we didn't insist on paying people 100k to pick up trash cans. I quoted a nice source from a noble prize winning Economist myself which disputes your source. The only thing is my guy didn't win the Noble prize a million years ago. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS ON THE FORUMS. The Bank of Canada while independent in some ways is the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) More from a simple google search: Policies to reduce the natural rate of unemployment normally focus on improving the efficiency of the labour market be removing what are called “labour market imperfections”. For example a government wanting to achieve a lower equilibrium rate of unemployment might do the following:Reform the system of welfare benefits so as to reduce the risk of the “poverty trap” Reforming trade unions to reduce their collective bargaining power and also reducing some of the barriers to labour mobility put up by professional bodies and associations which have the effect of limiting the supply of labour into an occupation Reducing income tax to improve the incentives to look for and accept paid work Adopting a more relaxed approach to labour migration In general terms, economists who believe that the natural rate of unemployment can be reduced argue that government policies should seek to make labour markets more competitive and flexible. It's a 40-50 year old idea and you said: No full employment has nothing to do with Social programs Care to retract? Edited May 17, 2011 by CPCFTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 I am glade we both agree natural unemployment is a real thing and Canada isn't that far off from it. That was my point in the first place you were over inflating a number to make it look like Canada was worse off then it is to blame the problem on the fact that Canada is a regulated market. Now we can address you second problem acting like if we got rid of "welfare" system everyone would have a job. Like I have been saying not that many more people then we have employed now roughly 1.5% more, having a job would make our market less elastic creating a new problem. Which would drive employers to other countries with a more elastic market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 This must mean I get to cite Nobel prize winner in economics Paul Krugman and pretend I know everything their is about economic to right? The data is confirmed by looking at the historical natural rate of unemployment in Canada vs US. I believe the rationale for why it is hard to find a direct correlation is that a lot of the time the natural minimum wage rate is above the legislated minimum wage rate anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 More from a simple google search: It's a 40-50 year old idea and you said: Care to retract? No because it doesn't. Even if you had no Social programs you would still reach full employment at 5%. Like it or not Alberta and Sask have Social programs and have at plenty of times in the past reached full employment that is a problem in itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 The data is confirmed by looking at the historical natural rate of unemployment in Canada vs US. I believe the rationale for why it is hard to find a direct correlation is that a lot of the time the natural minimum wage rate is above the legislated minimum wage rate anyway. Just want to point Paul Krugman the Nobel prize winning economist cites a great correlation that disproves your theory. Go ahead read it i Quoted it for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 I am glade we both agree natural unemployment is a real thing and Canada isn't that far off from it. That was my point in the first place you were over inflating a number to make it look like Canada was worse off then it is to blame the problem on the fact that Canada is a regulated market. Now we can address you second problem acting like if we got rid of "welfare" system everyone would have a job. Like I have been saying not that many more people then we have employed now roughly 1.5% more, having a job would make our market less elastic creating a new problem. Which would drive employers to other countries with a more elastic market. See: I'm saying the natural rate of unemployment should be lower if we didn't insist on paying people 100k to pick up trash cans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 See: I see what you say and it doesn't make any sense. No one pays anyone to do that. I can make things up to. No one would need a job if we could all eat air. See. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 Just want to point Paul Krugman the Nobel prize winning economist cites a great correlation that disproves your theory. Go ahead read it i Quoted it for you. Are you serious? I quoted it in the response you just quoted. I'm offering the rationale for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) I see what you say and it doesn't make any sense. No one pays anyone to do that. I can make things up to. No one would need a job if we could all eat air. See. It's called hyperbole. You don't think unskilled, unionized public service workers are overpaid? Edited May 17, 2011 by CPCFTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) It's called hyperbole. You don't think unskilled, unionized public service workers are overpaid? No I don't. Wow race to the bottom much? Canada is doing quite well for itself and you want to make some sort of economic social experiment based on a hyper right agenda. That is crazy talk. Edited May 17, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 Are you serious? I quoted it in the response you just quoted. I'm offering the rationale for it. Yes but you don't have a Nobel prize and Kurgmen does so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) Yes but you don't have a Nobel prize and Kurgmen does so. I said from the start that it was a widely accepted phenomenom among economists. Doesn't mean everyone agrees with it. You tried to claim I was just parroting the right wing. These are my beliefs from my studies, nothing to do with politics. I don't follow politics that much but this election was an exception because of what was at stake (an NDP + new ultra left Liberal coalition)... shudder. Edited May 17, 2011 by CPCFTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 I said from the start that it was a widely accepted phenomenom among economists. Doesn't mean everyone agrees with it. You tried to claim I was just parroting the right wing. These are my beliefs from my studies, nothing to do with politics. I don't follow politics that much but this election was an exception. You are parroting the right wing though. That is still my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) You are parroting the right wing though. That is still my point. Nope the right wing shares the same beliefs as I do. I'm not parroting anything. If anything you're parroting the left wing. What is your educational background besides reading left wing websites like democracynow and links on twitter? A major in english? sociology? philosophy? Edited May 17, 2011 by CPCFTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 Nope the right wing shares the same beliefs as I do. I'm not parroting anything. If anything you're parroting the left wing. What is your educational background besides reading left wing websites like democracynow and links on twitter? Double major Math/Biology. While I am not parroting, I clearly share a vision and belief with progressive economists. Please though tell me how much smarter you are then I am, I would love to see the elitist hyper-libertarian Hayekist. I thought we were all Keynesian now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) Double major Math/Biology. While I am not parroting, I clearly share a vision and belief with progressive economists. Please though tell me how much smarter you are then I am, I would love to see the elitist hyper-libertarian Hayekist. I thought we were all Keynesian now. I'm not saying I'm smarter than you. I just take offense to you saying I'm parroting anyone. I hardly follow politics, and when I did follow it heavily when I was 19-20, like I've said before, I was a borderline commie. I was a hardcore liberal, loved the daily show and colbert report, and thought communism could work if implemented properly. I don't watch fox news, or listen to rush limbaugh, or believe in lynching all gays, I'm just espousing my own political views which I've developed over the past 7-8 yrs and which happen to reflect the ideals of the right wing. I mean, I'm not the one with 7000 posts on a political forum... clearly you are more involved in, and have more exposure to political propaganda than I do. If anyone is doing any parroting, it is you. Edited May 17, 2011 by CPCFTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 Double major I thought we were all Keynesian now. Are you a total Keynesian, or just the spend other people's money half Keynesian? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyStone Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 "or believe in lynching ALL gays" So, the ones that keep it in the closet don't need to be lynched then? Perhaps, your use of the word "all" was unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 Yes but you don't have a Nobel prize and Kurgmen does so. And Obama has a Nobel peace prize. Go figure. Sort of dilutes the impact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy MacNab Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 I have noticed that left wing posters invariably resort to insults when their arguments are refuted. I am sure there is a psychological term for this. Liberalphrenia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.