3 ms·

> The truth is there are very few places new jobs are coming from and many places they are being destroyed. Well, given that almost all measures show that the

by drcode 12y ago

> The truth is there are very few places new jobs are coming from and many places they are being destroyed. Well, given that almost all measures show that the unemployment rate has gone down in the last 5 years, it means exactly the opposite of what you say: More new jobs are appearing than are being destroyed. (other time frames lead to other conclusions of course) > If you want an economic outcome you have to design an economy that delivers that outcome. That is pretty much a textbook example of the "wishful thinking" you accuse me of. You really think anybody has a clue as to how we'd design an economy that would lead to a specific economic outcome?

nhaehnle 12y ago
5 years is not a good time horizon for unemployment rate comparison, because that time window is during the Great Recession/Lesser Depression, which surely dominates any longer term (and therefore slower) effects of technology. > You really think anybody has a clue as to how we'd design an economy that would lead to a specific economic outcome? Not at a detailed level, but stuff like tax cuts for the rich and financial deregulation are not random accidents.
Zigurd 12y ago
If by a limp recovery after an ibank-created crisis, then yeah. Participation rate down, massive increases in SSD, massive growth in income disparity, no change to these trends in sight. It's denial in the form of statistics. > "You really think anybody has a clue as to how we'd design an economy that would lead to a specific economic outcome?" Yes. Start with these design changes: raising the minimum wage and cutting the work-week.
- drcode 12y ago
  > raising the minimum wage... So you're saying making it more expensive to employ people is going to decrease unemployment?
  - fuejhdjc 12y ago
    So you're saying allowing wages to drop will make people better able to pay their bills?
    - innguest 12y ago
      "We shouldn't drop wages because people won't be able to pay their bills". Appeal to consequences. Try another.
      - fuejhdjc 12y ago
        As if the parent comment wasn't as well. I was just pointing out that it's a two-way street. Suppose we continue with the status quo and jobs begin miraculously materializing: there's a very good chance that they will be lower paying than what we have now, and it will still be difficult to make a living. To some extent it's a lose-lose situation unless we can come up with a third option like a universal basic income. Edit: My, aren't we feeling pedantic today? I have a great idea: let's argue semantics rather than content!
        innguest 12y ago
        > As if the parent comment wasn't as well. Tu quoque fallacy. Try again. > I was just pointing out that it's a two-way street. No. Watch closely. You said if we drop wages then people can't pay their bills, and therefore we should not drop wages. Your claim is that we should not do something based on the consequences of that action. The parent said that increasing minimum wage is equivalent to making it more expensive to employ someone. The parent is not claiming anything, but genuinely asking: - assuming increasing minimum wages is another way to say that we would make employment more expensive - then how is it that making employment more expensive helps decrease unemployment? Which is a genuine question that you have not answered. > Suppose we continue with the status quo False dilemma. What is being argued is neither continuing the status quo nor increasing wages, but a third alternative, namely (I presume) abolishing minimum wage laws.
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  I'm sure that you think that would work. In reality, though, people who are sure that their solution will fix the economy very often run into the law of unintended consequences. I buy drcode's skepticism more than I buy your certainty and optimism.
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    How much evidence have you actually looked at? A priori pessimism is no more innately correct than a priori optimism: both are ungrounded until you look at the data.
    - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
      Well, I've looked at the fate of enough "this is sure to work" ideas for fixing the economy to claim that my pessimism is, on average, warranted. I haven't done an in-depth analysis of this specific proposal, however, so in that sense I haven't "looked at the evidence".
      - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
        Really? And who, exactly, said that they were sure to work, and how, exactly, were the ideas implemented (that is, how loyal were the implementations to the proposals)?

by drcode 12y ago

nhaehnle 12y ago

5 years is not a good time horizon for unemployment rate comparison, because that time window is during the Great Recession/Lesser Depression, which surely dominates any longer term (and therefore slower) effects of technology. > You really think anybody has a clue as to how we'd design an economy that would lead to a specific economic outcome? Not at a detailed level, but stuff like tax cuts for the rich and financial deregulation are not random accidents.

Zigurd 12y ago

If by a limp recovery after an ibank-created crisis, then yeah. Participation rate down, massive increases in SSD, massive growth in income disparity, no change to these trends in sight. It's denial in the form of statistics. > "You really think anybody has a clue as to how we'd design an economy that would lead to a specific economic outcome?" Yes. Start with these design changes: raising the minimum wage and cutting the work-week.

drcode 12y ago
> raising the minimum wage... So you're saying making it more expensive to employ people is going to decrease unemployment?
- fuejhdjc 12y ago
  So you're saying allowing wages to drop will make people better able to pay their bills?
  - innguest 12y ago
    "We shouldn't drop wages because people won't be able to pay their bills". Appeal to consequences. Try another.
    - fuejhdjc 12y ago
      As if the parent comment wasn't as well. I was just pointing out that it's a two-way street. Suppose we continue with the status quo and jobs begin miraculously materializing: there's a very good chance that they will be lower paying than what we have now, and it will still be difficult to make a living. To some extent it's a lose-lose situation unless we can come up with a third option like a universal basic income. Edit: My, aren't we feeling pedantic today? I have a great idea: let's argue semantics rather than content!
      - innguest 12y ago
        > As if the parent comment wasn't as well. Tu quoque fallacy. Try again. > I was just pointing out that it's a two-way street. No. Watch closely. You said if we drop wages then people can't pay their bills, and therefore we should not drop wages. Your claim is that we should not do something based on the consequences of that action. The parent said that increasing minimum wage is equivalent to making it more expensive to employ someone. The parent is not claiming anything, but genuinely asking: - assuming increasing minimum wages is another way to say that we would make employment more expensive - then how is it that making employment more expensive helps decrease unemployment? Which is a genuine question that you have not answered. > Suppose we continue with the status quo False dilemma. What is being argued is neither continuing the status quo nor increasing wages, but a third alternative, namely (I presume) abolishing minimum wage laws.
AnimalMuppet 12y ago
I'm sure that you think that would work. In reality, though, people who are sure that their solution will fix the economy very often run into the law of unintended consequences. I buy drcode's skepticism more than I buy your certainty and optimism.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  How much evidence have you actually looked at? A priori pessimism is no more innately correct than a priori optimism: both are ungrounded until you look at the data.
  - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
    Well, I've looked at the fate of enough "this is sure to work" ideas for fixing the economy to claim that my pessimism is, on average, warranted. I haven't done an in-depth analysis of this specific proposal, however, so in that sense I haven't "looked at the evidence".
    - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
      Really? And who, exactly, said that they were sure to work, and how, exactly, were the ideas implemented (that is, how loyal were the implementations to the proposals)?