>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Looking to someone else to fix things will never avail, be it Republican, Democrat, President, Senator, Mother, Father. Outsourcing positive change to another might be the main sickness with the current understanding of our role in government.


I guess I see it differently. The real problem is that people seem to think so highly of themselves that they think they don't need help from anyone, think they've never gotten help from anyone, and therefore resent the idea that they might have to help someone themselves.

We all have to rely on other people, almost constantly. It's not too much to ask the people we rely on to do the things we expect them to do, especially if they ask us to give them a really important responsibility in our society.

There's a reason why we have a government. If it's not working, we need to fix it. We can't just stiffen our upper lips and pretend like we never needed a functional government in the first place.

Looking to someone else to fix things will never avail, be it Republican, Democrat, President, Senator, Mother, Father. Outsourcing positive change to another might be the main sickness with the current understanding of our role in government.

A. I don't understand how you're arguing we haven't been practicing Keynesian economics since the Great Depression. We've run deficits almost the entire time, lowered interest rates even further during recessions, and enact stimulus when recessions hit in the form of tax rebate checks, income tax cuts to consumers, gov't programs to provide jobs to increase demand, extended unemployment, etc., although we normally do a poor job of running surpluses when we should. But in a nutshell, that is Keynesian economics. And it has worked pretty well overall. Influence of monetarist policies have tamed the Keynesian interventions, but there's little doubt that all the above actions in the last two recessions were born of Keynesian thought.

B. If a business is making $100,000 off your labor, but is paying you $80,000, resulting in a $20,000 profit, why wouldn't they fire you if they could fire someone to do your job for $50,000, resulting in a 250% increase in profit? It does happen. I was the victim of it in 2004.

C. If the devils in the details could be worked out, and that's a big if, I'd be in favor of having stipulations to unemployment benefits. But you got a lot of issues you'd have to deal with. What if the person on unemployment has kids? You're gonna deny them welfare if the kids would starve? Very complicated issue as just one example.

I do think though we need in this age better education to retrain workers for the new jobs that come into the US as jobs get outsourced to other countries.

D. About the FDIC... First off, you're saying that people could check the banks' ability to make too risky of loans, but it's a whole other thing to say FDIC insurance encourages bad lending. It's simply not true. Again, regardless if deposits are insured or not, banks will go under if they make risky loans regardless of deposit insurance for consumers in most cases. Again, bailouts are a whole other issue. As for people checking the banks for bad lending, that's a pipe dream. The general consumer has no clue what are good or bad loans overall, nor the time to monitor the lending practices of banks. Hell, BANKERS didn't understand the crap they got themselves into in the mortgage crisis until it was too late, and they're professionals in the field. It's not a practical solution. On top of all that, the FDIC does in some ways help to ensure baseline qualities of banks. Not every bank can be FDIC insured, and many of the regulations FDIC insist upon make the banks more solvent, etc. So when consumers insist the bank is FDIC insured, they're insuring their deposits as well as guaranteeing a minimal level of integrity in the bank itself.

Lastly, I'm totally down with reasoned dialogue, even from points of view I completely oppose. I'm not slamming this guy because he's a conservative. I'm slamming him because he made ridiculous claims that are obviously factually inaccurate. Ideology shouldn't blind people from obvious fact that don't fit.

>> ^bmacs27:

@heropsycho
I'd disagree with you on a couple of points.

However, I will say once again, Keynesian economics works. We've practiced it since the Great Depression, and it works without a doubt.
First of all, we haven't really practiced Keynesian economics since stagflation during Carter. The decoupling of inflation and growth was very troubling to economists as the Keynesian theory had no explanation for it. In the period between Carter and Obama, we effectively practiced Monetarist economics, or "supply-side" economics. It's that economic policy everyone is railing against even though it was practiced during one of the periods of greatest growth in our history (obviously there are confounds, e.g. the personal computer). The Austrians just don't think that demand focused interventions will work any better than supply focused interventions. There is always a deadweight loss to taxation.

Profit centers do in fact get outsourced, although granted not as often as cost centers. Why would a company not outsource a profit center if it would increase profits in the long run?
Profit centers are most often NOT outsourced. If there is another profit center abroad, you expand, you don't fire the guy that's making you more money than he's costing you.

And prolonging unemployment has also provided an artificial market for goods and services for those who do have jobs. It's not so simple to suggest that extended unemployment is a disincentive to work. It's also providing those who are collecting it who actually can't find another job with income to spend, which props the entire economy up. It's not an either/or; it's both. And there are far more people right now on unemployment who cannot find another job than those holding out for something that pays what they're used to.
I understand the demand side argument. I'm saying, rather than giving them money for nothing, let's give them money to become hirable. It's similar to saying that the money handed to banks should have had conditions attached. When people are begging for money, they ought to accept some stipulations.

Finally, bear in mind that when it comes to finding common ground, and that kind of thing, you cannot find common ground with people who are fundamentally altering obvious fact to suit their views. Schiff made to completely ludicrous claims (child labor was ended by the market, and the FDIC deposit insurance fuels bank speculation). Both claims are preposterous.
I agree with you about child labor, however I'd disagree with you about the FDIC. People should be paying attention to what banks do with their money, and respond to poor decision making with the withdrawal of their deposits. Instead, they just assume it doesn't matter (in terms of risk) where they keep their money and just shop for the highest interest rate. Those higher interest rates are most often fueled by more than traditional lending (as anyone banking in such a manner would lose deposits to higher yields in the distorted marketplace).
Also, I'm Keynesian. I just don't think free market viewpoint you'd read in the Economist, Financial Times, WSJ, or any other reasonably reputable conservative source is being well represented on this website. If we all cheerlead for one team, we'll never substantially challenge our own groupthink.

@heropsycho

I'd disagree with you on a couple of points.


However, I will say once again, Keynesian economics works. We've practiced it since the Great Depression, and it works without a doubt.

First of all, we haven't really practiced Keynesian economics since stagflation during Carter. The decoupling of inflation and growth was very troubling to economists as the Keynesian theory had no explanation for it. In the period between Carter and Obama, we effectively practiced Monetarist economics, or "supply-side" economics. It's that economic policy everyone is railing against even though it was practiced during one of the periods of greatest growth in our history (obviously there are confounds, e.g. the personal computer). The Austrians just don't think that demand focused interventions will work any better than supply focused interventions. There is always a deadweight loss to taxation.


Profit centers do in fact get outsourced, although granted not as often as cost centers. Why would a company not outsource a profit center if it would increase profits in the long run?

Profit centers are most often NOT outsourced. If there is another profit center abroad, you expand, you don't fire the guy that's making you more money than he's costing you.


And prolonging unemployment has also provided an artificial market for goods and services for those who do have jobs. It's not so simple to suggest that extended unemployment is a disincentive to work. It's also providing those who are collecting it who actually can't find another job with income to spend, which props the entire economy up. It's not an either/or; it's both. And there are far more people right now on unemployment who cannot find another job than those holding out for something that pays what they're used to.

I understand the demand side argument. I'm saying, rather than giving them money for nothing, let's give them money to become hirable. It's similar to saying that the money handed to banks should have had conditions attached. When people are begging for money, they ought to accept some stipulations.


Finally, bear in mind that when it comes to finding common ground, and that kind of thing, you cannot find common ground with people who are fundamentally altering obvious fact to suit their views. Schiff made to completely ludicrous claims (child labor was ended by the market, and the FDIC deposit insurance fuels bank speculation). Both claims are preposterous.

I agree with you about child labor, however I'd disagree with you about the FDIC. People should be paying attention to what banks do with their money, and respond to poor decision making with the withdrawal of their deposits. Instead, they just assume it doesn't matter (in terms of risk) where they keep their money and just shop for the highest interest rate. Those higher interest rates are most often fueled by more than traditional lending (as anyone banking in such a manner would lose deposits to higher yields in the distorted marketplace).

Also, I'm Keynesian. I just don't think free market viewpoint you'd read in the Economist, Financial Times, WSJ, or any other reasonably reputable conservative source is being well represented on this website. If we all cheerlead for one team, we'll never substantially challenge our own groupthink.

bmacs27,

I actually agree with a lot of what you just wrote. Market interventions won't fix many of our problems. I'm not in favor of complete mortgage forgiveness. Printing the money to do this would cause hyper-inflation and would wreck the economy. Not to mention the fact that mortgages within people's retirement benefits would become worthless, destroying retirement plans.

However, I will say once again, Keynesian economics works. We've practiced it since the Great Depression, and it works without a doubt.

Profit centers do in fact get outsourced, although granted not as often as cost centers. Why would a company not outsource a profit center if it would increase profits in the long run?

And prolonging unemployment has also provided an artificial market for goods and services for those who do have jobs. It's not so simple to suggest that extended unemployment is a disincentive to work. It's also providing those who are collecting it who actually can't find another job with income to spend, which props the entire economy up. It's not an either/or; it's both. And there are far more people right now on unemployment who cannot find another job than those holding out for something that pays what they're used to.

Finally, bear in mind that when it comes to finding common ground, and that kind of thing, you cannot find common ground with people who are fundamentally altering obvious fact to suit their views. Schiff made to completely ludicrous claims (child labor was ended by the market, and the FDIC deposit insurance fuels bank speculation). Both claims are preposterous.

@NetRunner Honestly, I'm unimpressed. Peter Schiff may not be John Nash, but you sound like Chris Matthews. Do you get your economic wisdom from Mother Jones or HuffPo?


So the response to "I doubt he's really paying 50% in taxes" is not to recount even a hypothetical example of how someone could wind up paying a sum total of 50% in taxes, but instead to just argue that the dubious statement might feel true because there are many various taxes someone might be paying?

Hypothetical example (which I thought I outlined for you): Peter Schiff owns/runs a business as his primary mode of income. That business pays a 35% corporate tax rate on their profits. The remaining profits translate into capital gains, which are then taxed at 15%. While obviously the tax rates aren't perfectly additive (15% of 65% is smaller than 15% of 100%), you can still see how one could quickly approach 50% in taxes. I haven't even included any local taxes or consumption taxes. These aren't dubious statements. These are facts about the tax code which progressives should learn to wise up to. There is a valid point there about streamlining the tax code. Like you said... Meh.


The response to my argument about the impact of marginal tax increases on employment is to make some argument about Schiff's personal labor/leisure preferences? That has nothing to do with it at all. If Schiff is the entrepreneurial capitalist he claims to be (and not just the F-list media personality he seems to be), then he doesn't really do any direct labor, he just makes choices about allocations of capital -- he makes investment decisions, and business deals where all the real work is done by other people.

He's making the case that if he has to pay a few more percentage points in taxes, he's going to start walking away from making investment deals that would have made his company money and employed people. Hell, he goes so far as to say that he would dissolve his ostensibly profitable business and fire all his employees, rather than sell it to someone else who still likes making money, even if they have to pay taxes.

Making investment deals and business decisions isn't quite like arguing on the internet and playing video games. You have to meet people, negotiate, spend basically all day on the phone or in a plane. You don't have much time for your family (though I don't know if he has one). While it may not be coal mining, it's certainly work. It's at least as much work as the people typing things into excel between trips to the water cooler are doing. It's quite possible that if he were to decide to leave, or cut back his hours worked (because of government disincentive), the firm would downsize or even fail. All those workers whose paychecks depended on his profitable decision making could be out of work. Now like I said, someone else might hire back those same workers (e.g. if he sold the firm), however there is no guarantee the business will be as profitable without their greatest profit engine (Schiff himself). Like I further argued, if there were someone equally capable of running the firm as profitably, they would likely already be a competitor.


As for the "buying labor low" argument, which sector is doing that? Right now what they're doing is shedding lots of employees, not paying out raises, cutting health benefits, and hoping that if/when they need more labor, the extended period of unemployment will provide them with a pool of desperate talent willing to work for far less than they would have pre-2007.

Right, because the government won't let the labor market correct. They keep propping everybody up with prolonged unemployment (I've known somewhat skilled people that wouldn't take jobs because unemployment pays better), and direct government employment. It is happening within some sectors, particularly highly skilled labor. Perhaps you've heard of the skills gap in the current employment picture? For example, the university I'm at is shedding lecturers, and poaching high-valued researchers from struggling institutions. There have been plenty of proposals to bridge this skills gap in more industrial sectors as well, e.g. turning unemployment benefits into vocational training. But instead you took a left turn towards "the mean corporations won't do things that are against their interests."


It's true that once upon a time, back when we had a lot of unionization, a lot of companies hoarded talent in exactly the manner you describe, so they could potentially enter into the expansion with a competitive advantage. But that's the old way of thinking, back when labor was broadly considered a valuable company resource, and not simply a fungible commodity to be purchased or discarded as needed. Offshore contractors, anyone?

Now you're a protectionist? Have you heard of "cost centers" and "profit centers?" Profit centers (valued labor) don't get outsourced. Cost centers (commoditized, fungible, unskilled, expensive labor) do. With regard to unions, it has often been their own inflexibility with their contracts (not that executives aren't equally guilty with bonuses) that has resulted in layoffs as opposed to shared pain (evenly spread hour reductions).


Lastly about the "leave the money where the market put it" -- that's a good one! You seamlessly pivoted from "economics as a theory for understanding the world" to "economics as a system of moral justice". Nicely done, you're pretty good at talking like a conservative!

Thanks. I think it's important to be able to see all sides rather than just cheerlead. Also, "economics" is theory, "the market" is the most efficient system for allocating resources with respect to individual preferences known to man. We can talk about our favorite flawed microeconomic assumptions if you want, but it's a tough case that "because I said so" is going to be more efficient than voluntary exchange.


Still it doesn't address my basic economic argument at all -- that our high unemployment is fundamentally a function of a lack of demand. Lots of people don't have money to spend, even on things they desperately need. The handfuls of people who do have money don't see any way to employ that money in a profitable way, so they're just sitting on it. There's a few ways to try to solve that problem, but cutting (or maintaining existing) taxes on the top income earners won't help.

(I get nauseous arguing against the Keynesian point so I won't directly). What I'll say is that it isn't clear drastically raising taxes on the rich will help either. What might help is a more efficient allocation of the government revenue we already have (like the vocational training instead of unemployment I outlined above). The other thing that I, and I think many others would like to see is an increase in the standard of living of individual business proprietors. They've been doing worse than "traditional labor" over the past few decades in case you haven't noticed.


A simple, but radical solution would be for the Fed to simply buy up everyone's mortgages, and then release the leins on everyone's deeds. In other words, just have Uncle Sam pay off everyone's mortgage with freshly-printed money. I suspect consumer spending would return if we did that!

I do too! I bet everyone would go leverage themselves to the gills buying houses knowing full well that when they can't cover the debt the government will bail them out! Sure, stopgap coverage, renegotiation, all that would be great (much better than bailing out the banks directly IMO), but a full fledged free money party only exacerbates the delusion. It's a recipe for currency debasement. People need to be allowed to demonstrate and feel the consequences of their lack of creditworthiness. Also, those that were creditworthy should be appropriately rewarded. It's sort of like the OWS girl that wants rich people to pay back her 100gs in student loans, but all those people that saved for college, worked for scholarships, held a job through school, well they're probably just fine the way they are.


As for my closing quip, I'm quite serious -- Schiff doesn't deserve any respect or deference. It's not classy to be deferential to the expertise of people who don't actually have any; it's foolish.

You don't find common ground, build coalitions, or change minds with ridicule.

The people who demand and benefit from false prosperity are also masochistic in a dumb kind of way. If everyone was smart, we wouldn't have this problem. But they are not. Whether you are intentionally doing something or unintentionally doing something is irrelevant.

Even now jobs (money) dominate over issues vastly more important... Because we don't care...

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Although you are right, Cain is partially right too. We allowed our bubble to blow up because the middle class and poor were benefiting from the false wealth as well. So too were the rich--who lobbied for the disaster. But it was all of America.
In other words, we demanded stupidly from Washington and they accepted. Even now they want to lower tariffs (I.e., outsource more jobs) and lower taxes (I.e., do the will of the Tea Party.) Crazy.

Wait wait wait. I didn't vote for deregulation. I certainly didn't vote for banks to lobby congress.
I don't even think the Republican voters who did vote for deregulation knew that they were voting for bubbles and the biggest recession in generations. They certainly were told differently by Republican politicians, and the corporations who love them.
The people who promote the idea that markets are self-regulating were and are liars. Scam artists. Frauds. Yes, people were suckers for believing them. But I don't blame them for being naive and trusting, I blame the predatory fucks who used them to screw all of us out of our savings and livelihoods.
Cain wants people to mostly blame the victims of the scam for believing in the scam...all the while promoting the original scam itself!

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Although you are right, Cain is partially right too. We allowed our bubble to blow up because the middle class and poor were benefiting from the false wealth as well. So too were the rich--who lobbied for the disaster. But it was all of America.
In other words, we demanded stupidly from Washington and they accepted. Even now they want to lower tariffs (I.e., outsource more jobs) and lower taxes (I.e., do the will of the Tea Party.) Crazy.


Wait wait wait. I didn't vote for deregulation. I certainly didn't vote for banks to lobby congress.

I don't even think the Republican voters who did vote for deregulation knew that they were voting for bubbles and the biggest recession in generations. They certainly were told differently by Republican politicians, and the corporations who love them.

The people who promote the idea that markets are self-regulating were and are liars. Scam artists. Frauds. Yes, people were suckers for believing them. But I don't blame them for being naive and trusting, I blame the predatory fucks who used them to screw all of us out of our savings and livelihoods.

Cain wants people to mostly blame the victims of the scam for believing in the scam...all the while promoting the original scam itself!

>> ^Phreezdryd:

Wall Street didn't constantly lobby to remove any restrictions on their highly risky and/or fraudulent activities that led to almost collapsing the American economy, and sent damaging shockwaves throughout the world economy.
Oh wait, they did.


Although you are right, Cain is partially right too. We allowed our bubble to blow up because the middle class and poor were benefiting from the false wealth as well. So too were the rich--who lobbied for the disaster. But it was all of America.

In other words, we demanded stupidly from Washington and they accepted. Even now they want to lower tariffs (I.e., outsource more jobs) and lower taxes (I.e., do the will of the Tea Party.) Crazy.

>> ^conan:

Why is it ok if a guy worth multi millions makes fun of "them" who are "up there". He's one of the 1% himself.


Bill Maher and other entertainers didn't scheme their way to where they are. some entertainers might have slept their way to higher income, but none of them sold bundled mortgages back to the public, fucked your savings account, outsourced your job, or raised your interest rates to 30%

I would like a true accounting as much as the next guy. I want to know where the failout money went, every last penny. I want arguments with real facts and figures, and we don't have them. (Example: Outsourcing. Is it really a problem? How many jobs were actually outsourced? In what fields)?


I agree with you 100%, and I think most people would too. It's my money too dang nab it; true capitalism has no bailouts. The problem today is that we have a corporate-socialist-capitalist government. In other words, the banks got a bailout and the people didn't. I speak for myself here when I say that any amount of money spent on somebody else's greed (whether it's personal buying a house, or corporate buying toxic mortgages) was a waste of money. People talked about the real-estate bubble bursting since 2004; everyone had 3 years to get their act together (capital gains on homes is 2 years, so they had plenty of time to refinance or sell), yet some actually paid attention and limited their losses, and others believed that during recession (2001) it still made sense that house prices were on the rise.


Everything is political. Everything. When the cleverer politicos "respond" to these mobs, the "solutions" will be far worse than the original problems. That's government in action.


I agree with you here as well. I like the practice of democracy and I don't have an issue with these people voicing their concerns, and like I said before, I don't see this problem solved by any existing politician today. I have no faith in the federal government, Democrat or Republican. So far I am liking the movement, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, like I did with the Tea Party. The moment I see the OWS people align with an existing corrupt party (choose your flavor), then I'll polarize against it.

Good day to you.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I appreciate the work that went into your response and I read all of it. "Leaderless" movement? Don't believe it.

I would like a true accounting as much as the next guy. I want to know where the failout money went, every last penny. I want arguments with real facts and figures, and we don't have them. (Example: Outsourcing. Is it really a problem? How many jobs were actually outsourced? In what fields)?

Everything is political. Everything. When the cleverer politicos "respond" to these mobs, the "solutions" will be far worse than the original problems. That's government in action.



>> MonkeySpank:[snip]

So in short, QM, I think you're not always wrong as I tend to agree with some of your posts, but you're not always right either. Neither am I. The truth is somewhere in between.

As my old English teacher used to say, the best argument is the one that sits on the fence...


I appreciate the work that went into your response and I read all of it. "Leaderless" movement? Don't believe it.

I would like a true accounting as much as the next guy. I want to know where the failout money went, every last penny. I want arguments with real facts and figures, and we don't have them. (Example: Outsourcing. Is it really a problem? How many jobs were actually outsourced? In what fields)?

Everything is political. Everything. When the cleverer politicos "respond" to these mobs, the "solutions" will be far worse than the original problems. That's government in action.



>> ^MonkeySpank:

QM,
There is no need to put labels on these people. Labels are a sign of weakness in any argument. The OWS have repeatedly stated that they are not affiliated with any party.. >>

Replies within message:

>> ^quantumushroom:

I was 100% against the failouts, but not much you can do against a leviathan government made that way by worshipers of leviathan government as the solution to every problem. You don't create a Kong then act surprised when Kong does what he wants instead of what you want, do you?


If I recall, Bush pushed for the bailout. Here is the Fox News article.


Due to increasingly efficient software and other tech advances, over time a job that once required a thousand workers can be done with only 300. It's called "creative destruction" and yeah, it requires you to be on the ball.


I agree with you. This happened to the TV repairmen in the 80s when the Japanese firms starting making better TVs. It's a problem that we will have to deal with regularly. It happened, and it will happen again. If it wasn't for prescriptions, most General Physicians would be out of the job today as internet self-diagnostics have become extremely popular in the last 10 years. We still subsidize farmers, cotton growers, and steelworkers. I say let's drop them! The same rule should apply to all. If we are willing to support outsourcing, then we should be willing to cut all subsidies to farmers, oil companies, pharmaceuticals, etc. I'm all for that.

I've never been offered a job by a poor man, have you? Unless you're a vote-buying politician, you shouldn't overly concern yourself that someone else has more than you, nor blame them. Economics is not a zero-sum game.

I don't see your point at all here. People do not want to tax the rich more, they just want repeal the tax breaks that Bush implemented. Unless you know otherwise, over the ENTIRE lifespan of these tax breaks, the economy has been on a downhill. How can you justify them then? Remember this is tax breaks over income only, if the rich invest their money into their businesses, they are never taxed on that money anyways.

QM,
There is no need to put labels on these people. Labels are a sign of weakness in any argument. The OWS have repeatedly stated that they are not affiliated with any party. They are mad at the current state of our government; they are not promoting a political agenda - I didn't see a single banner promoting somebody's name on it. I think you, and many others, keep missing the fundamental point that these people are attacking lobbyism and backroom deals that happen in Washington - most of which are triggered by the oil industry, big pharma, and the financial sector. The focal point of their day-to-day transactions is indeed Wall St.

Why not Washington you say? People are mad at the economy (outsourced jobs, bailouts, foreclosures) and the pulse of our economy is measured in Wall St. Why is this a surprise? The medial keeps trying to funnel the OWS people into a political agenda, which in fact, is non-existent. As LaGreca stated so eloquently, this is a "general assembly vs. top-heavy town hall" issue; I think people from all parts of the political should agree with that, regardless of their affiliation. The assumption that people are going to come with a list of demands is based on the fact that this is a political movement with a leadership. Many people at OWS have different conflicting concerns, and there is nothing wrong with that. That's how democracy works. One thing they all agree on is that change is needed (and by change I don't mean replace President A with President B).

I know you are going to attack Obama and Liberals (I despise Obama btw), but you have to understand that this collapsed economy was created by Bush and happened on his watch - the house has been under republican control for quite some time now and the senate has 13 centrist democrats that lean toward republican ideology and vote against their own party consistently. You just can't blame one man or one party. The whole system is rigged. When it comes to the economic policies, it's not who's playing the game that's the problem, it's the rules of the game itself.

So in short, QM, I think you're not always wrong as I tend to agree with some of your posts, but you're not always right either. Neither am I. The truth is somewhere in between.

As my old English teacher used to say, the best argument is the one that sits on the fence...

>> ^quantumushroom:

Ah, I see what you attempted, so let me elaborate.
The average oh-so-lovable working class stiff is chock-full of wrongful assumptions about business, law and government, but he's still forgotten more than will ever be known by the self-anointed liberal intelligentsia, whose theories and follies he pays for every day.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
The average oh-so-lovable working class stiff is chock-full of wrongful assumptions about business, law and government.
Tell me about it.

Netrunner said: "High unemployment represents a huge chunk of useful labor potential going to waste."

The 'jobless economic recovery' we've experienced means all those people who don't like to read weren't contributing much to the economy. Last-century jobs are increasingly better done by automation or by overseas outsourcing. There are never enough talented 21st century workers.

There are always some people who are 21st century thinkers who are unemployed, but the only reason 'unemployment is high' is because we imported 80 million unskilled workers over the last 40 years. Agreeing to put in place rational border control would be a good start.


Netrunner said: "Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either."

1. Salary is a reasonable measure of how much we're contributing to humankind. If society values something, it will be willing to pay for it.

2. Advocating careerism is humanistic and good for the world.
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
We should be clear what we're talking about when we say there are problems with unemployment: people don't want to work hard at jobs that the economy actually needs.

Seriously? You think everyone who's unemployed is just being lazy?

The reason my mediocre friend vastly outperformed most of the people I know was because he was doing work that was valued by the economy.
That often involves hard work, but the more people invest themselves into their career, the more rewarding and fun it becomes, and the more they grow as people.

But that's not the cause of unemployment. People should be free to pursue whatever kind of career they want to. Some people may just chase whatever has the highest salary, but most will probably go for something they enjoy working on, so long as the pay is decent. In a bad labor market with high unemployment, you don't have those options. You get PhD's applying to work at McDonald's to pay the bills, and getting turned down because they're overqualified (or they're just not hiring!).
High unemployment represents a huge chunk of useful labor potential going to waste, not some mass outbreak of people deciding to take a break from working.
Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either.