Rolling US Economy Into The Shitbin Thread

not sure what you're trying to say by posting this graph, dandy don? business insider is a weird publication. i can never figure out where they're coming from.

Business Insider is a link bait publication, but some of their stuff is worth reading. Assuming you can get over the hysterical headlines that they usually post.

I posted the jpg because I found it interesting--each of those graphs shows growth in programs that easily outpace the rate of population growth.

FWIW, those charts I posted comes from here, which is a very interesting read if you have some time to kill.
http://www.gluskinsheff.com/Assets/Documents/Musings%20and%20Special%20Reports/Breakfast_with_Dave_2014_02_05_Free(Website).pdf

and actually, if you just skim through that PDF for the graphs, it's got some interesting tidbits

each of those graphs shows growth in programs that easily outpace the rate of population growth.

if that's true, then it's hard to come to any conclusion other than that the fruits of our ever-increasing prosperity since the 1970s have not been shared equally. if each year a bigger proportion of americans have to rely on government assistance, it just proves that productivity gains are being gobbled up by a lucky few. it's not as though the means-testing for food stamp and welfare benefits have gotten more generous in that time.

a rising tide lifts all yachts

Not sure if prosperity can be shared "equally" but certainly the widely recognized problem of chronic unemployment is something that economists have studied a lot recently. It's a pretty complicated problem with a lot of variables.

But if more people are on government assistance, and that pace is escalating, I don't see how that can be a good thing.

I don't think anyone sees it as a "good thing." The divide seems to be more among people who see it as symptom vs cause

But if more people are on government assistance, and that pace is escalating, I don't see how that can be a good thing.

Certainly a good thing for Wal Mart and other big corporations who encourage that kind of thing in order to keep wages down.

I don't see how that can be a good thing.

It could not "be a good thing", if what you want to compare it to is a situation where jobs are freely available to those who can accomplish them, thereby allowing every able person to earn a living wage and contribute to social wealth by creating a prosperous household.

But the situation described in those graphs can be a very good thing, if you compare it to a situation where there is no possibility of the disabled or unemployed getting jobs or earning an income, because employers will not or cannot employ them, causing them to fall into dire poverty with no income whatsoever. That would be amazingly shitty.

everyone is on government assistance in some way shape or form. oil subsidies, 0.75% interest the government charges to lend to big banks, etc.

not bill o'reilly.

Aimless OTM.

The American economy added 113,000 jobs in January, a disappointing showing that is likely to spur fears that the labor market is poised for yet another slowdown.

But after an extraordinarily weak showing for hiring in December, some experts are concerned that weakness is carrying into 2014 and signaling a broader loss of momentum in the economy.

Still, in the fall there had been enough pickup in hiring to persuade the Federal Reserve in December to gradually begin scaling back its stimulus efforts. With the January report substantially weaker than expected, that call is looking increasingly premature.

You know what creates jobs? Consumer demand for goods. You know how to boost consumer demand? Make sure people have money to buy things. You know how to do that for people who are out of work? Give them money.

But no, let's definitely cut the top tax rates again. In fact, let's get from five brackets down to two - people who make more than $500,000 a year will pay nothing, everyone else will pay 45%. That should fix it.

There's some handwringing that the ACA will cost the US jobs, not due to cuts, but because some people will no longer take jobs just for the sake of insurance. But if those same people do not feel compelled to work, I doubt it's because they're freeloaders. They've just found a way to make things work, or found that it's better or more financially/emotionally rewarding to stay at home with the kids while a spouse works, or whatever.

they don't want to be indentured anymore. good for them. let people retire and others cut back on their hours, so people who are out of work can take those jobs

i feel like i have seen dandydonweiner post intelligently about economics in the past? am i wrong?

But if more people are on government assistance, and that pace is escalating, I don't see how that can be a good thing.

in the img you posted only one of the program is increasing at an accelerating rate, food stamp recipients. welfare recipients looks like its decelerating, and disabilities looks like it's been increasing at constant rate for at least a decade

Not sure if prosperity can be shared "equally" but certainly the widely recognized problem of chronic unemployment is something that economists have studied a lot recently.

unemployment is only one part of this. income inequality since the 70's has mostly been driven by wage inequality

It's a pretty complicated problem with a lot of variables.

saying this but not explaining how it's complicated is a dick move

Maybe he doesn't have time to explain in detail how it's complicated, or maybe he doesn't know.

But let's see: we have less union membership which previously allowed some folks to make a living; we have a lower capital gains tax rate and low effective corporate income tax rate that benefits the upper classes; we have more manufacturing jobs that have shifted overseas, hence more unemployed people living on food stamps

an abiding question for mature adult americans -- what's worse: idiot apologists or asshole apologists for supply-side economics? it's hard to say!

just saying that

"It's complicated ;-)" - An Economist

is a big part of what got us into this problem. it's true that things are complicated but when u consider that "unemployment during recessions is voluntary" has been considered a legitimate opinion among macroeconomists for the past 20 years i don't think we should let economists' claim to authority on complex things with lots of variables shut down discussions

Silver lining of the chronically unemployed is the unemployment rate is 6.6% now!

less drain on resources too!

It's a pretty complicated problem with a lot of variables.

saying this but not explaining how it's complicated is a dick move

A dick move? If so, it was unintentional. Curmudgeon was right--the global economy is a massive ecosystem and the people who study it (economists, both academic and otherwise) regard it as very complex. I'm not dodging the issue to note that it's complex, I'm noting it because its complexity is what makes it a hard problem to solve,

i apologize if it wasn't intentional but this does look to me like waving away tracer's point & i don't see what the point of invoking complexity is if you're not gonna, like, say anything except as a silencing manoeuvre

if that's true, then it's hard to come to any conclusion other than that the fruits of our ever-increasing prosperity since the 1970s have not been shared equally. if each year a bigger proportion of americans have to rely on government assistance, it just proves that productivity gains are being gobbled up by a lucky few. it's not as though the means-testing for food stamp and welfare benefits have gotten more generous in that time.

― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Thursday, February 6, 2014 8:50 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Not sure if prosperity can be shared "equally" but certainly the widely recognized problem of chronic unemployment is something that economists have studied a lot recently. It's a pretty complicated problem with a lot of variables.

― Pale Smiley Face (dandydonweiner), Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:04 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Heard an economist on the radio the other week defend the US tax code as essentially equitable, stressing that where this country falls very far short of its western peers is when it comes to actual distribution of tax income. I suppose that's basically along the lines of ... giving gratuitous incentives to huge companies with little clear return on the investment vs. spending more on the unemployed/uneducated/great unwashed? I mean, I know someone who just recently spent some time in Spain, which of course has unemployment numbers a magnitude higher than those here. And yet traveling around, you never see as much abject poverty and economic distress as you do here, even in the best of times.

To hear the conservatives tell it, abject poverty and economic distress are what made this country the Greatest Nation on Earth.

Well, how could we have risen to such great heights if we didn't spend all that time in the gutter?

Abject poverty and economic distress are what incentivized (if I may be so bold as to employ that bit of neologic meconium) all those child laborers, sweatshop pieceworkers and ill-clad ditch diggers to haul themselves up by their bootstraps, because they were made of sterner stuff than today's mollycoddled pantywaist disability queens.

If you don't believe this, you could go ask them. They'd tell you exactly how physical exhaustion and malnutrition helped power them and their children into a better world of Model Ts for All! That is, if they weren't all dead.

i don't see what the point of invoking complexity is if you're not gonna, like, say anything except as a silencing manoeuvre

You are free to dispute that chronic unemployment is not a complex problem.

Was not waving away that point at all, other than I do not see how, realistically, prosperity can be shared "equally". I summarily waved that point away, but not for philosophical reasons.

But since you bring that up, given our global economy, it would be quite complicated to share prosperity equally.

tax the rich

prblem solved pale smiley face

I do not see how, realistically, prosperity can be shared "equally".

This is something of a straw man, because the solution to this problem does not require an equal distribution of wealth, but simply a distribution that more nearly approaches equality, and that is not especially difficult or complex to initiate.

sure, we should employ and enforce systems that influence or even codify equality. But that's not what was posted.

and I would argue that it is complex to initiate globally.

nah, you just put on the ground, give the richest guy a very sharp knife, and tell him 'ok dude, cut this into 6.5 billion pieces. you choose your piece last." that's how we did in my house.

more of that, less of me Hunt3r

then rich guy stabs 6.5 billion people and keeps all the money.

Rich guy pays someone to stab everyone for him. He's got stuff to do.

confessions of an economic hitman

it is complex to initiate globally

Certainly, because there are no global institutions in place with the power to create or effectively enforce the laws that would be required. That would require a global institution with the power to impose taxes and control currency.

But who was it that was arguing that global economic equality was the only acceptable alternative to the present situation? I must have overlooked that post. I'll go back and check.

don if it makes you feel better we could use the phrase "even remotely fairly"?

http://www.cepr.net/images/btp-2013-07-17.png

i don't see what the point of invoking complexity is if you're not gonna, like, say anything except as a silencing manoeuvre

You are free to dispute that chronic unemployment is not a complex problem.

i mean in a way it's not, in that there is a pretty simple solution: employing people directly or incentivizing firms to hire people. it's worked in the past. the reasons for that not being politically feasible right now are perhaps complex, but i don't think it's particularly complex as a purely economic problem. you can use pissarides-style equilibrium unemployment searching & matching models to explain it with firms cutting on searching costs. what is it that you find so complex about it?

Was not waving away that point at all, other than I do not see how, realistically, prosperity can be shared "equally". I summarily waved that point away, but not for philosophical reasons.

But since you bring that up, given our global economy, it would be quite complicated to share prosperity equally.

internationally, sure that would be very complex. but nationally again i don't see what the big deal is? i mean there are arguments that re-distribution would "shrink the cake" so depending to what degree you believe those theories (i don't for the most part) you may think it less worthwhile to have a more equal distribution. but given that median income has been decreasing for 30 years and all nearly wealth gains have been absorbed by the top of the distribution there's not really any purely economic argument against it.

best thing for us to do would be to lower taxes on the rich and slash the social safety net. big government=evil. big business=good

Best thing would be track down the 85 richest people in the world and rob them of their wealth, doubling the worth of the bottom 50 percent of the planet.

In 2012, the top hedge fund manager in the U.S., David Tepper of Appaloosa Management, took home $2.6 billion in compensation. That's $50 million a week, or $824 every second of the year.

http://www.currentargus.com/carlsbad-news/ci_25084131/carlsbad-current-argus

I bet he's a hard-working job creator. Or maybe not.

i bet he works 50 times harder than the poor schlubs pulling only $1m / week. time to cut his taxes, to encourage him some more?

$24t up in smoke, after how many trillions for iraq? who won the war of 911, n. ron-ben ghazi? tax cuts!