Yes. Certainly.
The unemployment rate in the United States is currently about 23% (tending upwards - of course), I guess. So about every fourth US citizen has currently no job.
Thank you, President …, X, Y, Z.
It’s true, but all presidential legacies are built on such lies. Honestly, Obama’s greatest achievement in the economic recovery was not fucking it up. Fact is though, the economy is, for the moment, just about where it needs to be in a capitalist economy. Since the global recession hit its nadir around 08-09 the US has basically enjoyed the most robust economic recovery of any advanced nation in the world.
Well yeah, duh. The more jobs get added the more jobs will be lost.
Yup, that’s how technology works.
Now this is bullshit. Back it up, i challenge you.
That’s so hilarious that you would say that. Seriously. Because women fill positions previously occupied by men just as well as men, and often better than men, that is framed as some kind of injustice, or a problem with liberalism. The fact that women are just as, if not more, capable than men of fulfilling traditionally masculine roles means men are fucking victims of . . . idk, liberal worldviews? Fuckin ridiculous.
Which facts? i mean, yeah, as the overall population rises, so will the population of unemployed, but by no means the overall percentage.
Uh, the unemployment rate has fallen. Steadily and continuously for the last 7 to 8 years.
It’s not Huffington Post or Bloomberg that generate unemployment statistics.
It’s not a cop out, it’s a point of fact. i realize what a great tragedy it is everytime some assembly line worker at the toothpaste factory is replaced by a robot, but you know what? That’s life. Find another line of work. You know how many encyclopedia salesmen lost their jobs after the internet was created? Basically all of them. Does that mean it was a bad thing that the internet was created? A nefarious scheme launched by technocrats? Funny, the only place you can find people saying such crap is . . . wait for it . . . ON THE INTERNET!
Protectionism is not a solution to depreciated wages. At least historically speaking, it never has been.
Yeah they do, they’re just too thick to realize how much they need and rely upon it. They will find out though, as the consequences of Brexit and President Trump start to materialize.
Fucking anarchists. They’re convinced they know the future despite their 100% track record of being wrong in their past predictions. The holy church of anarchy.
Uh, i call bullshit.
This thread is getting interesting. I look forward to responding to it within time. I’m unfortunately very busy as of late.
After a recession there is always a positive trend. Duh. In other advanced nations the nadir of the said recession occurred later than in the US, just because of the fact that the cause of that recession came from the US. There is time between the cause and its effect.
No. Here is no "duh“ possible. It does not automatically mean that jobs will be lost when jobs are added. Who told you such a nonsense?
That is only rhetoric. You are completely off the subject. We are not talking about tecnology but about pure economy here. And it is an economical fact that machines replace the jobs of humans (in the long run perhaps humans at all.
That is no argument.
We already talked about this in other threads. You are not willing to talk about facts.
An example: In the 1950’s and largely also in the 1960’s there was full employment in Europe as well as in the US and in Canada. Then many errors occurred, for example: (1.) the exponentially increasing debts; (2.) the reversing the gold backing of the US Dollar by Richard Nixon in 1971 (which means even much more accelerated, thus even much more exponentially increasing debts and a bastard economy); (3.) the increasing number of unemployed native men, especially the first unemployment of young men (the first youth unemployment started) because of the increasing number of immigrants and female wageworkers. I am not judging here, I am only talking about facts. And if it is right what politicians always and mantra-like claim, namely that full employment, thus the prevention of unemployment, is the main goal, then these said decisions and actions (see: 1., 2., 3.) are very extreme errors.
On one condition: We are talking in my first language, thus not always only in your first language (as I have to do here since I joined ILP). This would be - finally - fair. Do you know what "fairness“ means?
What you are saying here is no argument, but merely rhetoric. We are not talking about capabilities, because we are talking about economical facts.
This is or should be a philosophy forum - not a party conference (where the dictatorship of political correctness is trained).
Again: What you are saying here is no argument but merely rhetoric. We are not talking about injustice or justice, because we are talking about economical facts.
This is or should be a philosophy forum - not a party conference (where the dictatorship of political correctness is trained).
That is (again and again) no argument but merely rhetoric. We are not talking about capabilities, because we are talking about economical facts.
This is or should be a philosophy forum - not a party conference (where the dictatorship of political correctness is trained).
That is (over and over again) no argument. We are not talking about the current dictatorship of political correctness and its misandrous sexism, because we are talking about economical facts.
That is (over and over again) no argument.
See above. Forget your cheap phrase (rhetoric).
The overall population of the US rises just because of the immigration. You have no single argument. And very often, you are completely off the subject.
A philosophy forum does or should not need rhetoric or dictatoship of political correctness.
That is not true. And you should know that it is not true (see here, here, here, and below).
That is (over and over again) no argument.
You are not right, because you are left.
Life is not limbo, life is not hovering, life is, at least sometimes, a burden that one has to bear. And if there are people that are not capable of bearing it, then they must be belped, for example by good politicians. Our "liberal“ and "social“ politicians are not good, because they are leftists. They are just saying: "life is hovering, and if it is not, then we give you money and, yes, more money“ - not mentioning that this all means: DEBTS!
Debts over and over again - that is the real meaning of Keynesianism and Neo-Keynesianism, of inflationism. It is not possible to solve all problems by creating money out of the blue, because it is not possible to create something out of nothing. "Von nichts kommt nichts“ is a German saying. You can’t make something out of nothing. Thus: You can’t make money out of nothing. And if you try it, you will only get: DEBTS.
Basta! Full stop! Enough! End of the story.
Hello UPF
I agree with you that Obama received a situation similar to finding a car in a ditch. It took him time and effort (and money) to put that car back on the road, but I have my reservations to declare that what he is leaving is universally great, and even Hillary, post the Bernie, has expressed reservations about acts that the President still hold on to as good. There is a legacy here, but it is less brilliant, at least possibly, than what the President believes.
This is essentially blaming the victim. Every subset is still an important part of America, a citizen, that counts, that is the responsibility of government to protect. Globalization, sure, has created a crisis, a challenge to many Americans who have to adapt their skill-set to compete in a global market. While this is possible for younger Americans, some older Americans will not become competitive. If you have before you an older guy with butloads of experience then he stacks competitively against a younger person with less experience. If you flip that and now the young and the old have the same level of experience then, legally or not, the old guy loses. The amount of time it takes for a 20-44 year old to find employment is relatively less than the time it takes a 45-60 year old. So, in conclusion, I don’t blame those subsets for backing Trump. Corporations win in globalization, the 1% if you will while the rest of us may win or lose, yet all are at risk. That is not fair. If you want to shut down mines in West Virginia because of your commitment to saving the Planet, then that is laudable, but if you do so by laying waste to the livelihood of thousands of miners who may now go hungry, homeless or worse, on your watch, then that defeats the purpose, that is unbalanced. Just as we helped Detroit evolve into a planet friendly industry, so we have to help the miners. Just as the auto companies, the banks and others were not allowed to fail, so to must the miners be protected through incentives given to companies that hire former miners, educational grants, and govt investment in W. Virginia to develop alternative industries.
Why the fuck does Obama or Hillary need to be good or bad or whatever else simply because Trump is bad or good?
There is no connection between the two. Trump’s goodness or badness stands on its own and has no relation to whatever you think about Obama or Hillary.
You don’t need to defend Obama or Hillary just because you can see what a fucktard Trump is.
This is fuckin’ hilarious!
All of your sources are weak. You’ve all said so much but established only a fraction of the real issues that correspond to the unemployment rate. uglypeoplefucking had some good points when he was first attacking Arminius but little elaboration and no sources. This thread is ridiculous.
Economics consists in Looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.
@ Kennyrisk98.
I was the only one in this thread who referred to longer effects (from the 1950s till 2016) and who gave sources too.
Actually no, there is not always a positive trend after a recession. The Great Depression in the 1930’s is an example. In 2008, the US was able to avoid depression, which most economists (at least, the ones not in the pocket of the GOP and FOX News - the apologists for the right wing policies that caused the recession in the first place) knew that depression was a very real threat. Had we elected a Republican in 2008 and had further tax cuts for the rich alongside a further escalation of the pointless, losing wars we are fighting, depression would almost certainly have proven inevitable.
But regardless, the point is not simply that there has been a positive trend, but rather that America’s recovery from the recession (which started in the US but became global in short order) was demonstrably stronger than the recovery of any other advanced nation in the world. That indicates that the recovery as it happened was not just a matter of course, but a matter of policy decisions. The US recovery almost certainly could have been even stronger than it has been, but obviously partisan politics put severe restraints on what can and cannot be done in response to economic calamities such as we saw starting around 06-07. Nonetheless, the federal government’s response with Obama at the helm has been very different than it would have been with a Republican at the helm.
Yeah, it does. More people working means more people getting laid off or quitting. Just like more people driving means more people getting speeding tickets and getting in accidents.
Well, yeah, that’s precisely what i said. You just told me i was off topic and then repeated me. In any case, i’m glad we can agree on this, at least.
Hmm, i don’t recall ever discussing this in other threads.
Nonetheless, a rise in the number of immigrant workers does not mean fewer jobs for natives (though, in the US, i’m not sure how you even draw a line between immigrants and natives after a generation in the workforce), not when the native population is increasing alongside the immigrant population, as it has been throughout the time period covered by your example. Indeed, as it has been throughout US history. That’s just arithmetic.
But, i don’t speak your first language at all, while you do speak mine. What good would it be for you to start speaking to me in your first language, as i wouldn’t understand what you’ve said?
Political correctness is beside the point: The economic reality is that women, when they are afforded the opportunity to work, contribute as much, if not more, to the economy as men, so it is not a negative economic indicator that more women are doing jobs traditionally done exclusively by men.
By the way, the belief that any given job should be done by men rather than women is also a form of political correctness.
Questions of justice are intrinsically linked with economic realities.
It is demonstrably untrue that “the overall population of the US rises just because of immigration”. In fact, that is about as blatant a falsehood as i have seen on ILP in a good long while. i am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that your inability to provide honest counterarguments, and your inability to comprehend how the statements i make pertain to the discussion at hand, are a product of the fact that English is your 2nd language, but when you say things like that, i begin to wonder . . .
You need reputable sources. Mine come from the US bureau of employment statistics, and from mainstream press throughout Europe and the US (as opposed to ILP threads and obscure sensationalist internet articles by unapologetic right wing demagogues.)
In any case, the statement “you are not right, because you are left”, demonstrates that you are simply being reactionary - that is, not concerned with the truth, but merely with protecting and espousing a particular (flawed and anachronistic) ideology.
You don’t seem to understand what left and right mean relative to US politics. Perhaps this was not the best discussion to have with someone who knows American life only from far distance.
Correct, you don’t make money out of nothing, you make money by providing goods and services. That is why the economic policy of the American right wing, which rests on the pillar of cutting taxes for the wealthy, thus incentivizing speculation (gambling) and rent-seeking, and disincentivizing the production of goods and provision of services (i.e. - actually working for a living) has been so incredibly destructive to the US economy in particular and by extension to the global economy.
And, while that is decidedly NOT the “end of story”, it is the root of our current economic woes.
Period.
i very much agree Omar, Obama made some significant missteps with regards to the economic recovery. Things could have been much better than they are right now if, for example, the bank-bailout bill had imposed greater regulations on banks receiving federal money and broken up those banks (a la Bernie’s position) so they would not be able to rely on the too-big-to-fail excuse when they fuck up and go bankrupt again in the future. As it stands, they are essentially free to go back to the same irresponsible and dangerous lending practices that created the real-estate bubble of the mid 2000s. Further, there should have been comparable funds made available to underwater mortgage holders who got completely fucked up the rear when the bubble burst in 2007. It is basically unconscionable that large financial institutions received so much unconditional federal largess while the victims of those institutions were left to fend for themselves. Of course, that is not entirely Obama’s fault, as he was butting heads with a Congress full of Republicans in the pocket of large, private lending institutions and tea party libertarians who would have just done nothing and let the country fall into a second great depression. Like i said in my most recent response to Arminius, there are political realities that have tied the hands of the president at every turn.
i was anticipating this kind of response. i agree with the spirit and thrust of this, but i would still like to defend my point:
If blue collar Trump supporters are victims of anything in backasswards, Republican run states like West Virginia it is not actually the great recession, but rather A) Republican policies which provide economic life-support to doomed and dying fossil fuel industries, like coal-mining, instead of working to promote industries which, as you suggest, can actually provide a future for the residents of those states. And AGAIN, the political reality in such right wing states is that any move in the direction of newer industries holding the promise of future job-creation are vetoed outright in favor of artificially prolonging the slow death of older, increasingly obsolete industries, and extending the suffering of workers in those industries who are seeing their wages fall or losing their jobs, etc. The president cannot reasonably be held responsible for such situations, as those decisions are made at a state and not a federal level. By extension, the struggling blue-collar Trump supporters are then ALSO victims of B) Their own naivety and ignorance insofar as they keep electing the state officials that prolong the slow death of the industries that employ them, while also supporting Trump, who would do the same at a federal level, extending the economic problems that have befallen places like West Virginia and the rust belt states to the rest of the country and, of course, the rest of us who live and work in that country! If my sympathy for them is somewhat half-hearted, it is because their deeply flawed political reasoning and economic short-sightedness poses a significant and extremely dangerous threat to the well-being of the rest of the country.
Either you do not know what “recession” means, or you are again using rhetoric here.
There is a business cycle. A cycle means that the parts of the cycle are returning parts. You can also speak of “waves”.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle .
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle .
What you see is that a positive trend is after a recession. Recession is always a part of the business cycle. So it is correct to say that there is always a positive trend after a recession. We were not talking about when, whether sooner or later, … and so on.
And it is also true that a recession is after an expansion. The boom between them does not change that correct statement. 13 o’clock is after 11 o’clock. 12 o’clock does not change that correct statement.
You are biased (since 1958 like Faust?), and I guess it is because you are a member of a political party.
I can give you thousands of examples where just the opposite of what you are telling is true.
I did not repeat you. You are putting words into my mouth I never said, and I guess it is because you are a member of a political party.
No. That’s just your leftist rhetoric.
Again: I can give you thousands of examples where just the opposite of what you are telling is true.
Then you would have to learn that language. My point was that at least one of the conditions for your so-called „challenge“ was not fair. And then you just started to misunderstand me again - you are either not capable of understanding or using rhetoric here again. Actually, it is not difficult to understand what fairness means, but either you don’t want to understand or you can’t understand it.
Unfortunately, political correctness is never beside the point. How could or should I forbid you your political correctness, and the government wants you to be politically correct. Political correctness is never beside the point. It is always present, if there is someone who wants others to be politically correct and others or only one who is or seems to be politically correct (like you, for example).
No. Not currently. And not for you, because you are or seem to be (rhetoric!) politically correct. You are using stereotypes again, then mixing women and men so as if they were the same, but finally playing them off against each other (“if not more”). In the long run and for almost all humans, it is a negative (if not the most negative) economic indicator that women are doing jobs traditionally done exclusively by men, because woman will be replaced as well and because of the chaos effected by businessmen and politicians (political businessmen).
They can but do not have to be, and questions of justice are intrinsically linked with social realities (welfare for example) too and often if not oftener than with economic realities. I could give you many examples again.
No. It is true that the overall population of the US rises just because of the immigration (and of the blacks, your former slaves). Obviously, you have absolutely no inkling of demographics. Additionally, it is just politically incorrect, thus a taboo, to talk about demographics in a certain way.
That is not true.
That is also not true. And your statement about my 2nd language is also not true. because English is not my 2nd but my u[]3rd[/u] language.
You are not able to say the tiniest truth, because you suffer from the leftist dictatorship of political correctness.