7 ms·

You mean the time that the unemployed spend looking for work? It's just another "day off", like the original poster says.

yummyfajitas 13y ago
The article is specifically about the poor who are not looking for work. The 24% includes the employed and unemployed, which you'd know if you read either my blog post or the source it cites.
- streetnigga 13y ago
  Your article headline says otherwise: "The poor don't work because they are economically rational" You should probably be more precise in the language that you use.
- bonemachine 13y ago
  But you never really substantiate this idea that they're "not looking for work." I mean, yeah, you made a line graph and such. And you cite mysteriously precise figures like $22731 and $23706. But to conclude that people with net expenditures in these brackets who also aren't presently working just aren't looking (let alone that they just don't want to work) requires a far deeper (multi-factor) analysis than you're making. It's also very hard to reconcile with the sheer length of the waiting lines at some of the daily employment agencies I've seen at 6AM in my own neighborhood. Or the utterly dour, resigned expressions sewn into the faces of some of the long-term unemployed that I'm sharing seating space with at this coffeeshop, right now. I know that observation carries no statistical weight; but it's meant to be illustrative -- if you're going to make sweeping generalizations about a class of people that contradict the day-to-day observations that most of the people reading this thread seem to have about this topic -- and which are also, BTW, rather insulting to the intelligence and character of this class of people -- you're going to have to be a lot more rigorous in arguments you're offering.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    But you never really substantiate this idea that they're "not looking for work." The claim that the poor are not looking for work is supported by the first paragraph of my first link. The "mysteriously precise" figures are taken the BLS consumer expenditure survey, also linked. But I guess that's just "academic gobbledeygook". Now it's pretty clear that you didn't actually read the blog post. But if you had, you'd also realize that I assumed the character of the rich and poor is identical and that only their incentives differ. In any case, a year after I wrote that, John Cochrane wrote a much better blog post on the topic. My rough calculation is more or less in line with CBO numbers. So it looks like my rough estimates were not too far off. http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/taxes-and-cliffs.html http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/taxes-and-cliffs...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

yummyfajitas 13y ago

The article is specifically about the poor who are not looking for work. The 24% includes the employed and unemployed, which you'd know if you read either my blog post or the source it cites.

streetnigga 13y ago
Your article headline says otherwise: "The poor don't work because they are economically rational" You should probably be more precise in the language that you use.
bonemachine 13y ago
But you never really substantiate this idea that they're "not looking for work." I mean, yeah, you made a line graph and such. And you cite mysteriously precise figures like $22731 and $23706. But to conclude that people with net expenditures in these brackets who also aren't presently working just aren't looking (let alone that they just don't want to work) requires a far deeper (multi-factor) analysis than you're making. It's also very hard to reconcile with the sheer length of the waiting lines at some of the daily employment agencies I've seen at 6AM in my own neighborhood. Or the utterly dour, resigned expressions sewn into the faces of some of the long-term unemployed that I'm sharing seating space with at this coffeeshop, right now. I know that observation carries no statistical weight; but it's meant to be illustrative -- if you're going to make sweeping generalizations about a class of people that contradict the day-to-day observations that most of the people reading this thread seem to have about this topic -- and which are also, BTW, rather insulting to the intelligence and character of this class of people -- you're going to have to be a lot more rigorous in arguments you're offering.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  But you never really substantiate this idea that they're "not looking for work." The claim that the poor are not looking for work is supported by the first paragraph of my first link. The "mysteriously precise" figures are taken the BLS consumer expenditure survey, also linked. But I guess that's just "academic gobbledeygook". Now it's pretty clear that you didn't actually read the blog post. But if you had, you'd also realize that I assumed the character of the rich and poor is identical and that only their incentives differ. In any case, a year after I wrote that, John Cochrane wrote a much better blog post on the topic. My rough calculation is more or less in line with CBO numbers. So it looks like my rough estimates were not too far off. http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/taxes-and-cliffs.html http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/taxes-and-cliffs...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]