 |
| |
|
|
el freako
|
 |
Bristol, European Union
Oct 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
Yesterday afternoon, I tracked down that spreadsheet, which you you posted previously. While I think your calculations have high utility, I maintain my position that it's better to have employment as a percentage of age 15+ rather than a more arbitrary working age population figure. We could argue about whether to account for the prison population, but I feel much less strongly about taking that into account. |
Trust you to choose a measure that will flatter your nation and your political stance 
The truth is that in both US and Europe the percentage of those working above the age of 65 is in low single figures, if the working age population was defined as 15-60 then there would be differences favouring europe, but when using 15-65 there is little effect (which is why, when I had the choice of using 15-60 and 15-65 I chose the latter).
All the change to adult population does is make for a larger demoniator for europe, flattering younger nations.
However, as has been pointed out, only a tiny proportion of people continue to work above the age of 65 so including the whole population makes little sense unless you are including them as 'supported population' - in which case you should also include those aged under 16 as well as they are also supported by those in work.
The proper measures should either be employment as % of working age population (15-64), this shows how many people have jobs compared to the age-group that makes up over 95% of the workforce and as such is good for comparing relative labour markets.
Or, if you want to measure how many people a worker has to support then you should use employment as % of total population, his measure is good for comparing the relative burden on those in work.
The US's preferred measure of adults who are not in prison is good for nothing except promoting obscurantism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
I'm way late to this thread, but I thought this article was relevant.
July 12, 2005
The Jobs Problem is Worse Than the War Problem
The No-Think Nation
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Thought is not an American forte. Consider the speed with which our government got us trapped in two quagmires, Iraq and Afghanistan.
The CIA says that Bush's invasion of Iraq has created ideal conditions for training insurgents and terrorists. The longer we are there, the worse it gets.
Our military is being worn down by a gratuitous war of no benefit to anyone except Osama bin Laden. Bush's war has provided substance for bin Laden's propaganda and radicalized the Middle East.
Bush's war is being financed by debt, and the result is to give our foreign bankers more control over our interest rates and our currency's value, should they choose to use the power we have placed in their hands.
Not only has our government demonstrated an inability to think before rushing to war, it cannot think about the economy either.
Each month in the 21st century the government's own statistics tell the tale of the US winding down as a superpower and devolving into a third world country. Not a single net new high tech or manufacturing job has been created for native-born Americans in the 21st century.
Month after month this devastating information is released and ignored.
Now comes a report from Richard Freeman, professor of economics at Harvard University and associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. Freeman's conclusions suggest that the US is not only losing its lead in science and engineering but also might be losing the professions themselves.
A country that outsources its manufacturing and its R&D abroad doesn't have jobs for its own engineers and scientists.
Corporations have moved many information technology, high-tech manufacturing, engineering, and research and development jobs away from America to lower cost countries principally in Asia. The result is declining opportunities and salaries for American graduates in science and engineering, which discourages students from these curriculums.
As my free market friends are found of saying, "the market works." It certainly does. The market is working to close down the great American middle class and to dismantle the ladders of upward mobility.
The US economy in the 21st century has been able to create new jobs only in nontradable domestic services. A labor market orientated toward domestic services is the hallmark of a third world economy.
The jobs problem is more serious than the war problem and receives even less attention. Economists misperceive the offshore outsourcing of jobs as the beneficial workings of free trade, a subject they have given scant thought for 200 years, being, as they are, content with Ricardo's demonstration that comparative advantage ensures mutual gains from trade.
America's no-think economists have yet to fathom that the offshore outsourcing of jobs reflects the workings of absolute advantage, not comparative advantage. When American capital, technology and business know-how employ foreigners in place of Americans, foreigners benefit and Americans lose.
In the short-run the corporations benefit. The lower labor costs raise profits and executive bonuses. But the long-run effect is to destroy the US consumer market for the goods and services that the corporations supply from abroad.
American profits and American employment no longer move in tandem. A recent report in the New York Times by John Markoff and Matt Richtel says profits have rebounded in Silicon Valley but not employment. They use the example of Wyse Technology, a maker of computer terminals.
At the beginning of this year, 90 percent of Wyse's work force was in Silicon Valley. At the present time the figure is 48 percent, with only 15 percent of its engineers remaining in Silicon Valley. The reason?
Wyse has created technology development teams in India and China, adding 100 employees in India and 35 in China so far this year.
America has a new development model, one unprecedented in history. The growth and prosperity of American corporations is now keyed directly to the employment of foreign workers in place of Americans.
It is impossible for a country to prosper when its capital, technology, and business knowledge are used to enhance the productivity of foreign workers in place of its own. American incomes are stagnating and falling. By abandoning American employees, corporations are eroding the great American consumer market and America's position in the first world.
Paul Craig Roberts has held a number of academic appointments and has contributed to numerous scholarly publications. He served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. His graduate economics education was at the University of Virginia, the University of California at Berkeley, and Oxford University. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
Mediocre is at least slightly too negative a way of describing the data. We're near full employment and the labor market is growing at a rate that will bring us to full employment soon enough, barring a recession.
Last edited by DanS on 13-07-2005 at 22:46
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by el freako
It probably did, 64% was reached in the second half of 1997.
However at 180,000 jobs per month created that will still take six years for the US to reach that level. |
That's soon enough, as far as I'm concerned (accepting the constraints of the argument of the 180,000 average, while noting that even a very modest increase in that average would shorten the time period drastically or a very modest decrease in that average would lengthen the time period drastically).
Edit: This argument is a little synthetic, you'll have to agree. We would be approaching those levels at a lower slope this time around than in either of the earlier cases. So times would still be good, even if it took longer to get to full employment.
Last edited by DanS on 13-07-2005 at 23:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
Well, what would you do as a policy measure to reach full employment faster and keep it there?
Last edited by DanS on 14-07-2005 at 03:55
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
you and I both now very well that its the government deficit brought on by president bush and a republican house and senate that has crowded out the private sector and slowed down growth. |
The deficit has many fathers (I would be happy to review the history with you), but as you also know, deficits are short term net positives to growth. Up to this point in the business cycle, the net is probably still well positive. That's what gives the supply siders unwarranted ammo. Besides, the tax cuts were overdue and should have been pushed through in the late 90s. Anyway, it's somewhat ironic that you mention the deficit on a day that everybody has released much lower deficit predictions for this fiscal year.
Last edited by DanS on 14-07-2005 at 07:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
 |
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
no i mean causality and causation in that order
quote:
Anyway, it's somewhat ironic that you mention the deficit on a day that everybody has released much lower deficit predictions for this fiscal year. |
why? i cant turn on a news channel without hearing an unqualified hack who has no idea about economics tell me that the deficit is being reduced because the economy has picked up, so there are more tax reciepts, because of the tax cuts. as i said earlier, no corrolation has been PROVEN betwee a reduction of taxes for the rich and an INCREASE in growth (especially during a recession), only causality. which is just as ridiculous as saying that since doctors treat many patients who later end up dieing, they are the ones who are causing them to die.
Last edited by Lawrence of Arabia on 14-07-2005 at 13:04
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-07-2005 02:35
|