08-11-2004 08:47									#121
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

You forgot that somehow Haliburton gets to pocket the $10K difference in some fashion or other.

	08-11-2004 09:23									#123
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: How'd I do guys?

An A for effort.

	08-11-2004 09:30									#124
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Face it guys, the economy sucks and your man is in charge. That means your man sucks.

	08-11-2004 09:36									#125
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DanS Well, the US labor force participation rate is about at its historic highs and is still about 5 points higher than the Eurozone rate. I guess I don't see anything profound going on.

Really DanS, I expect better anaysis from you.

Just look at this:

Labour Force Participation rate, october of each year:

1964: 58.6%
1974: 61.3% (+2.7%)
1984: 64.4% (+3.1%)
1994: 66.7% (+2.3%)
2004: 65.9% (-0.8%)

(source: bureau of labour statistics )

That looks profound to me.

Agreed that the EuroZone's participation rate is lower, but then Canada, Australia and Britian have all caught up and passed the US in the last decade - they didn't stop at the level the US did so therefore something unusual is going on in the US labour market.

	08-11-2004 09:36									#126
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by JohnT How'd I do guys? Che? Sava?

Yes, the Commie Pod Person Project snares another one.

	08-11-2004 09:41									#127
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Nice thing about that argument is that the value you can assign to "potential income" is virtually limitless!

Why, had FDR cloned himself and blocked the 22nd amendment we would all have million dollar incomes and bread would cost a nickel!

Damn Bushies! If they only hadn't have blocked stem-cell cloning research and supported term limits!

Last edited by JohnT on 08-11-2004 at 18:45

	08-11-2004 09:58									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Really DanS, I expect better anaysis from you.

I aim to please.

Really, I don't think it's profound. A change happened over a long period of time and now it's finished. There are only a couple of countries that are well above the US participation rate (Switzerland's rate sure is weird). Australia, Canada, and the UK participation are similar to the US participation rate as has been defined by OECD.

If you add up all the people in school (in anglophone countries and Korea) and women staying home with their kids, it's increasingly tough to push participation higher. I expect that there is a point where the participation rate tops out. At that point, the rate might even fall, because husbands are making enough money so that their wives can stay home with the kids, if they wish, for instance.

	08-11-2004 11:08									#129
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The real problem with America from the left's point of view is that it has too many wealthy people who do nothing. This, in their view and as express so recently by Al Gore, is cruel and demands action like increasing estate taxes and perhaps even direct action such as wealth reduction ala Robin Hood or, better, Stalin.

	08-11-2004 13:04									#130
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DanS I expect that there is a point where the participation rate tops out.

Yes there does seem to be a level, it's around 80% of the working age population - so why did the US's level top out at 77% and has since fallen to 75%? (whilst Canada's has gone on to 80%)

quote: Originally posted by DanS At that point, the rate might even fall, because husbands are making enough money so that their wives can stay home with the kids, if they wish, for instance.

I fail to see how this follows DanS, if wages have risen substantially then this is possible (but still unusual) but wages have not risen that substantially in the US.

Thinking more about it I believe the difference is cultural - the US has a higher proportion of socially conservative people than the rest of the english-speaking world and they tend to frown upon working women.
This is an interesting example of Social Conservatism having an economic cost.


On current trends it will take around a decade for the US to fall below the EU in terms of labour force participation (in the last 8 years half the gap has been eliminated) - bringing us back to the state of affairs that endured from the when records began untill the early 1980's.

	08-11-2004 14:41									#131
	Got spare money?

quote: Thinking more about it I believe the difference is cultural - the US has a higher proportion of socially conservative people than the rest of the english-speaking world and they tend to frown upon working women. This is an interesting example of Social Conservatism having an economic cost.

Labour force participation may be lower, but the US has always been more efficient than Canada. If our dollar were at par, in most cases, we would struggle to compete.

So, in one way, you have a cost, but there are definite benefits to doing things this way.

How much of that second income gets eaten up in daycare and other costs?

	09-11-2004 02:03									#132
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Yes there does seem to be a level, it's around 80% of the working age population - so why did the US's level top out at 77% and has since fallen to 75%? (whilst Canada's has gone on to 80%)

There is no magic overall number, as the rest of your post shows.

quote: I fail to see how this follows DanS, if wages have risen substantially then this is possible (but still unusual) but wages have not risen that substantially in the US.

Perhaps I should rephrase. The husband now has steady employment, so his wife can stay home with the kids, if she wishes. In the words of my sister, "he can always find another job if he gets laid off of this one."

quote: Thinking more about it I believe the difference is cultural - the US has a higher proportion of socially conservative people than the rest of the english-speaking world and they tend to frown upon working women. This is an interesting example of Social Conservatism having an economic cost.

That doesn't make any sense. You're falling into a rather ham-handed Euro stereotype. If there is any frowning going on, I haven't heard about it, and I have family dispersed all over the red states. A lot of women would love to stay home with their kids, if given half a chance.

	09-11-2004 02:51									#133
	Get a bigger avatar today!

el freako, I find your phrase "frown on working women" to be the opposite of the truth. The left appears to frown on women who stay at home and raise the kids. They also undermine the very concept of family by consistently denigrating the role of a father. It is remarkable how hostile Europe and Canada appear to be to what we in the US call "family values."

We do not "frown" on women who work so that the family can afford to live. We do not frown on women who chose a "career." We, except for the socialists, do however frown on women who deliberately choose to have children outside marriage.

	09-11-2004 03:37									#134
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DanS There is no magic overall number, as the rest of your post shows.

Very true, however the slowdown in the growth of the workforce has completely counteracted the improvement in productivity growth - so the economy is unlikely to have long-term growth faster than it used to (around 3% a year)

quote: Originally posted by DanS Perhaps I should rephrase. The husband now has steady employment, so his wife can stay home with the kids, if she wishes. In the words of my sister, "he can always find another job if he gets laid off of this one."

Aha, now I get you - however, anecdotes aside, it still applies that real wages have not risen substantially in order for US households to be able to afford their second earners to leave the workforce.
Indeed with spending by households continuing to outpace income growth the above scenario does not even seem to be bourne out by the economic statistics.

quote: Originally posted by DanS That doesn't make any sense. You're falling into a rather ham-handed Euro stereotype. If there is any frowning going on, I haven't heard about it, and I have family dispersed all over the red states. A lot of women would love to stay home with their kids, if given half a chance.

Again anecdotes, but then again I have no statistical evidence to dispute you so I hope you'll accept that that was my error as a foreigner (although I do wish you had statisical evidence to support your claim)

quote: Originally posted by Ned The left appears to frown on women who stay at home and raise the kids. They also undermine the very concept of family by consistently denigrating the role of a father. It is remarkable how hostile Europe and Canada appear to be to what we in the US call "family values."

Now here you've lost me Ned - from what you say the left in the US is far more 'left-wing' than it is over here in europe.

Please could you elaborate?
How is the role of the Father being denigrated?
What are the US 'family values' that Canada and Europe are hostile to?

	09-11-2004 04:04									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Whoa, that's not a quote from DanS. Rather that's a Ned quote.

quote: (although I do wish you had statisical evidence to support your claim)

I have a very large family. Almost a valid sample.

quote: Very true, however the slowdown in the growth of the workforce has completely counteracted the improvement in productivity growth - so the economy is unlikely to have long-term growth faster than it used to (around 3% a year)

As stated in my PM of some time ago, we just don't know how productivity will shake out. We're still revising our productivity figures going 5 years back.

	09-11-2004 04:07									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

el freako, perhaps this anti-family values attitude is more apparent in France and other Continental countries than England. I refer to the recent flap over the Italian catholic who wanted to be EU justice mininister. A major reason he was rejected was because he was in favor of "family values." I was told by Spiffor that in the EU, families mean that anyone can raise children, single mothers, gays, anyone; and within the man-woman family, it is understood that the father can stay at home and the mother be the breadwinner. To me, these concepts are the antithesis of family values.

I have also been told that increasingly, the very concept of marriage is losing favor on the continent as couples simply live together and have children. I presume this allows either party to depart at any time without legal entanglements as it is presumed that both parties have careers.

	09-11-2004 04:49									#137
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ned I refer to the recent flap over the Italian catholic who wanted to be EU justice mininister. A major reason he was rejected was because he was in favor of "family values."

He was rejected because he said homosexuality was a sin, and that women should be at home having babies and not pursuing careers.

	09-11-2004 05:52									#138
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Maybe I'm slow on account of the meds, but let me see if I get this:

Lots of jobs got created last month (good thing)

Because of this, all the scads of people who had previously been out of work start looking again, and despite the fact that nearly half a mil got hired, unemployment went UP slightly (bad thing)

On balance, I'd say the Fundiepublican gets a , true?

I mean, unemployment still nosed up, signifying that while some decent jobs got created (and you have to understand that the nearly half mil number also includes lots of temp work and McJobs), on balance, it wasn't enough to actually get the unemployment rate to go DOWN (which, I presume, is the goal, yes, and the mark of a HEALTHY, growing economy?

-=Vel=-

	09-11-2004 06:31									#139
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned I refer to the recent flap over the Italian catholic who wanted to be EU justice mininister. A major reason he was rejected was because he was in favor of "family values."

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin He was rejected because he said homosexuality was a sin, and that women should be at home having babies and not pursuing careers.

Also in the past he has used his position not only to consider homosexuality a sin (which is fair enough, he's entitled to his beliefs) but also to make life much more difficult for them (which, as proposed commissioner for Justice is totally out of order).

Basically he was against women working and for the persecution of homosexuals.

So, Ned, are these the 'family values' that you espouse then?
And you still havn't answered me about how 'Fatherhood' is being denigrated.

	09-11-2004 18:54									#140
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Did I kill this thread?

-=Vel=-

	09-11-2004 20:08									#141
	Suffering from ads?

The beauty of this thread is that can be resurrected, at my discretion, every month. Ever read Ubik?

	09-11-2004 20:50									#142
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by el freako Also in the past he has used his position not only to consider homosexuality a sin (which is fair enough, he's entitled to his beliefs) but also to make life much more difficult for them (which, as proposed commissioner for Justice is totally out of order). Basically he was against women working and for the persecution of homosexuals. So, Ned, are these the 'family values' that you espouse then? And you still havn't answered me about how 'Fatherhood' is being denigrated.

The original story was quite a bit different on the issue of family. What appears in the above statement by Dauphin bears no resemblence to the news report.

How do we resolve these differences. Do you have a link to the quote about the role of women as the quote I saw talked about the role of men.

	09-11-2004 21:24									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned The original story was quite a bit different on the issue of family. What appears in the above statement by Dauphin bears no resemblence to the news report.

Here is a link to an article in The Economist

Here is the most damming paragraph:

quote: After being made (Italy's) Europe minister in 2001, Mr Buttiglione astonished colleagues with a string of demands that went far beyond his remit. Within days, he had called for a ban on artificial insemination, for state funding for private (religious) schools and for payments to women who rejected abortions.

quote: Originally posted by DanS We're still revising our productivity figures going 5 years back.

As GDP has not been revised for 5 years ago do you mean that employment or hour worked has been?
If neither of those have been revised how can productivity be revised (hours? change in share of non-farm private sector?) and anyway unless GDP has been changed then productivty growth remains at around 2% a year for GDP per hour worked in the whole economy.
So, with the workforce expanding at around 1% a year (although this year it looks like only managing half that) the US's long-term rate of growth is 3% a year, down from 3.5% in the 1996-2000 period (when the workforce grew by 1.5% a year).

	09-11-2004 21:25									#144
	Suffering from ads?

BTW, you will need a subscription.

	10-11-2004 02:54									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ned The real problem with America from the left's point of view is that it has too many wealthy people who do nothing. This, in their view and as express so recently by Al Gore, is cruel and demands action like increasing estate taxes and perhaps even direct action such as wealth reduction ala Robin Hood or, better, Stalin.

I actually agree that people who do nothing and are wealthy should be profoundly taxed. Every cent we take from them is a cent we don't have to take from productive people. Why do you seem to think that heavy taxation of non productive wealthy people is worse than any taxation of productive people?


Taxes
estate taxes
dividend taxes
payroll taxes

	10-11-2004 03:36									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

If they worked so much then they wouldn't want work to be taxed so much. Since they get most of their income from non-work sources that's not the case.

	10-11-2004 03:59									#147
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Most of these new jobs are McJobs. The republicans want to go back to the way the economy was in the 20's, and we all know what happened in 1929. It took LIBERALS to make sure the Great Depression never happened again.

	10-11-2004 04:03									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Odin Most of these new jobs are McJobs. The republicans want to go back to the way the economy was in the 20's, and we all know what happened in 1929. It took LIBERALS to make sure the Great Depression never happened again.

I've asked you before, but cite? And I mean like the DOL or something, not some editorial column.

	10-11-2004 04:07									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The McJobs assertion was effectively dispelled by an earlier post.

	10-11-2004 04:13									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by pchang The McJobs assertion was effectively dispelled by an earlier post.

no it was not. PLATO pointed out that about 100,000 of these jobs were in relatively well paying fields. Fine- that leaves 300,000 jobs to account for then. And that does not answer the question of the numbers of well paying jobs lost vs well paying jobs gained.