unemployment up to 9.6%

#176
#176
droski said:
you keep stating this and your only evidence is income disparities which is horse****
Click to expand...

No, it had nothing to do with income polarization. It came from two well researched sources, especially the OECD report, of which the USA is a member.
 
#177
#177
utgibbs said:
Cheap labor? It appears real wages were steadily increasing with GDP.

Unlike the last 40 years.

Some single element? No, I said it took many forms.

Germany - social market economy
England - Attlee and the Welfare State; Beveridge Plan
Italy - the National Champions, big nationalizations like ETI
France - "planification" targeted restructuring and modernization of industry; the Monnet Plan
Japan - the MITI

The unifying idea was a full employment economy. The Project Plan was Keynes; the methods of execution depended on country, culture, resources, etc.

Germany calls it the "Wirtschaftswurder."
France calls it "Les Trente Glorieuses"
Harold Macmillan told Britain, "You've never had it so good."

History has cast its judgment. But David Palmer happens.
Click to expand...

If this is the best you can do, stop bothering.

As to Palmer, I noticed you didn't bother responding after having that crammed in your earhole.

Seriously, as bad as that was, you clearly know more Palmer than you do economics.
 
#178
#178
droski said:
I guess you are ignoring the 20% rise in real wages from 1982 to 2000 when monitary policy economics was at it's highest. but hey. everyone is a lot poorer today right?
Click to expand...

The knucklehead acts as if monetary policy was the sole program rolling for the past 40 years, which is patently silly. Further, acting as if the stage being set for massive private expansion in America was some governmental economic policy at work sounds like something my son would say and he's just now working through the multiplication tables.
 
#180
#180
BigPapaVol said:
If this is the best you can do, stop bothering.

As to Palmer, I noticed you didn't bother responding after having that crammed in your earhole.

Seriously, as bad as that was, you clearly know more Palmer than you do economics.
Click to expand...

I guess David Palmer does happen. :crazy:

(I did respond to your ridiculous assertion regarding Bama 1993).
 
#181
#181
EU vs. USA: The Great Divide — European Enterprise Institute

One of the main goals of the Lisbon Strategy was to boost Europe's economic growth and close the development gap between the US and the EU. Last year's economic crisis has trimmed growth rates around the world and further widened Europe's economic lag behind the United States.
Back in 2004, Swedish economists Fredrik Bergström and Robert Gidehag published an excellent analysis of the economic gap between Europe and the US. They showed that if EU countries were part of the United States, Luxembourg would be, after DC and Delaware, the third richest state while all other countries would be ranked in the bottom third of the overall ranking. GDP per capita of France, Germany, UK, Italy and Belgium is comparable to Alabama and Oklahoma's GDP per capita.
The great divergence between the US and EU began in 1970s when productivity growth rates remained fairly steady in the US and slowed significantly in the EU. The major factor behind slow productivity growth in Europe was an increased regulation of labor and product markets. During that period, EU countries experienced strong growth of the unionization, tax burden and government spending.
Bureau of Labor Statistics presented international data on labor force participation for the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and six European countries. In 2008, the lowest participation rate of the labor force was found in Italy (49 percent), France (56 percent) and Germany (58.6 percent). Low rate of labor force participation can be attributed to tax wedge and over-regulation of the labor market which encouraged households in these countries to relocate working hours from formal into informal sector of the economy such as household production; which is very difficult to survey.

Historically, EU countries have had relatively high tax wedge on labor costs which is an important measure of tax burden of the labor supply. In 2008, tax wedge in the US represented 28 percent of labor costs. Moreover, it exacerbated a decreasing trend since 1999. Compared to the US, tax wedge in the EU was significant in Belgium (50.3 percent), Germany (47.3 percent), France (45.5 percent) and Austria (44.4 percent). More importantly, tax wedge in these countries has increased from 1999 onwards.

Part of the difference in tax burden between the US and EU can be explained by high government spending as a share of the GDP on aging-related entitlements and inefficient public sectors in the Continental Europe. In 2009, government spending as a share of the GDP was very high in Sweden (52.5 percent), France (52.3 percent) and Denmark (51 percent) compared to 34.7 percent in the United States where the ratio of government spending-to-GDP is likely to increase in the coming years due to additional entitlement spending and $787 of federal stimulus. Considering the efficiency of public sectors, in 2003, Ludger Schuknecht, Antonio Alfonso and Vito Tanzi published an analysis of public sector efficiency for 23 industrialized countries. The authors showed that public sector performance in Nordic countries and Netherlands is high and efficient compared to inefficient and cumbersome public sectors in countries of Continental and Mediterranean Europe.

The question is what is the real gap between Europe and the US and how should Europe catch-up the US level of income per capita. In 2008, US GDP per capita (PPP-adjusted) was about 40 percent higher than in EU15. The only feasible means of catching up the US is that EU should grow faster than the US. If Europe grew by 1 percentage point faster than the US economy on the permanent basis, then it would catch-up the average US level of income per capita in 34 years. If the EU grew by 2 percentage points faster than the US, the gap would be reduced to 17 years. If the US economic growth will be higher than in the EU, the gap between the continents would further widen.

Currently, the macroeconomic forecast for the European Union is not favorable compared to the US. European Commission forecasted 0.7 percent growth rate in 2010 while the Federal Reserves forecasted 2.5 to 3.3 percent growth rate in this year for the US.

To stimulate economic growth, European policymakers should boost the reduction of government spending and tax burden and a full-fledged liberalization of labor and product markets which could boost human capital as the main engine of economic growth. Without a prudent setup of pro-growth policies already recommended by Andre Sapir et al. in 2003, it is very unlikely for the European Union to ever catch-up the US level of income per capita.
 
#182
#182
CSpindizzy said:
WHAT?!?! Are you smoking? A drop during Carter and recovery during Reagan proves what? It disproves your other claims.
Click to expand...

Oh. I thought your were showing income stagnation. My graph is still more suitable.

Your graph shows median household increases, not wage increases. Women actually entered the workforce during this period. Your graph is actually a gawdawful condemnation of exactly the forces I've been talking about. Growth in household income required an extra body from the home in the workforce. Not saying that is bad per se, but it is shockingly slow for such a phenomena. It's a condemnation of the policy actually.

The "growth" here is, ironically for you, the fight for "same job equal pay" which is still short of the mark. Or, namely, the fight for social justice.

HOWEVER, the US has led the world in this fight, and our record here is much better than Europe / Asia.
 
#183
#183
utgibbs said:
Oh. I thought your were showing income stagnation. My graph is still more suitable.

Your graph shows median household increases, not wage increases. Women actually entered the workforce during this period. Your graph is actually a gawdawful condemnation of exactly the forces I've been talking about. Growth in household income required an extra body from the home in the workforce. Not saying that is bad per se, but it is shockingly slow for such a phenomena. It's a condemnation of the policy actually.

The "growth" here is, ironically for you, the fight for "same job equal pay" which is still short of the mark. Or, namely, the fight for social justice.

HOWEVER, the US has led the world in this fight, and our record here is much better than Europe / Asia.
Click to expand...

so how do you explain the rapid real wage growth of the 90s when women were already well represented in our workplace?
 
#185
#185
Women entered the workforce during Carter/Reagan? Then why the drop-off in household incomes during Carter? Strange that if the two graphs aren't related they show a strange similarity during Carter. Maybe a fluke. Odd it goes down under Carter and goes up during Reagan. And we see a drop off at the end of Clinton utopia as well.
 
#186
#186
droski said:
so how do you explain the rapid real wage growth of the 90s when women were already well represented in our workplace?
Click to expand...

He can't. He has to find one tiny segment on a graph to make a global case. The argument is flawed. But I look forward to hearing his reasoning.
 
#188
#188
CSpindizzy said:
He can't. He has to find one tiny segment on a graph to make a global case. The argument is flawed. But I look forward to hearing his reasoning.
Click to expand...

notice when he's beaten he just doesn't respond to posts. i'm still waiting for evidence that poverty is pervasive in the US and that deregulation caused the long term capital collapse.
 
#190
#190
CSpindizzy said:
He can't. He has to find one tiny segment on a graph to make a global case. The argument is flawed. But I look forward to hearing his reasoning.
Click to expand...

How is it flawed? (By the way, you know you are basically pimping the Clinton years?)

Find the average rate of women's salary over the same time period. Or, maybe easier, just post the pre-1967 data with it, and see how the slope of the curve changes.

Regardless, the graph is a condemnation of wealth growth policies. It seems silly to argue the point, really.
 
#191
#191
droski said:
so where do you think all this money is going exactly? into thin air?
Click to expand...

In a way, yes! It has been the largest increase in income polarization since the 1920s.

Let's not get over-awed by GDP either. GDP goes up when people get cancer or have a car wreck. GDP doesn't change when someone builds a deck for themselves.
 
#194
#194
droski said:
notice when he's beaten he just doesn't respond to posts. i'm still waiting for evidence that poverty is pervasive in the US and that deregulation caused the long term capital collapse.
Click to expand...

Ohmigosh. I was reading your link!

BTW, I'm going to do something else for awhile now. I know you will miss me. If I get a wild hair later, I'll be happy to answer all your posts. Don't get withdrawal so fast, fellers.
 
#195
#195
utgibbs said:
In a way, yes! It has been the largest increase in income polarization since the 1920s.

Let's not get over-awed by GDP either. GDP goes up when people get cancer or have a car wreck. GDP doesn't change when someone builds a deck for themselves.
Click to expand...

GDP growth absolutely is the #1 indicator of standard of living growth. please take a friggin economics class.
 
#196
#196
utgibbs said:
Ohmigosh. I was reading your link!

BTW, I'm going to do something else for awhile now. I know you will miss me. If I get a wild hair later, I'll be happy to answer all your posts. Don't get withdrawal so fast, fellers.
Click to expand...

i'm shocked by the timing of this. absolutely shocked. i'm sure when you return you will explain in detail how purvasive poverty is here and how deregulation caused the long term capital collapse? right?
 
#197
#197
droski said:
you do realize that clinton was a firm believer in monetary policy for growth right?
Click to expand...

I certainly know he rolled back the excesses of the Reagan years.

I'm sorry, but that graph is anemic growth especially considering it covers a time period when an extra person from the household went into the workforce.

There is a reason either Dizzy or the original author did not put the pre-1967 data on there. The slopes between the Keynes / Hayekman years would be quite demarkated.
 
#198
#198
utgibbs said:
How is it flawed? (By the way, you know you are basically pimping the Clinton years?)

Find the average rate of women's salary over the same time period. Or, maybe easier, just post the pre-1967 data with it, and see how the slope of the curve changes.

Regardless, the graph is a condemnation of wealth growth policies. It seems silly to argue the point, really.
Click to expand...

AHHHH. So you're saying you can look a little deeper into ANY chart and find other factors at play and not make broad generalizations. Glad you finally come to that conclusion.

How am I pimping the Clinton years?
 
#199
#199
BigPapaVol said:
not after you were dead wrong regarding the actual team, but those are just pesky little facts right?
Click to expand...

I wasn't wrong. I said Curry and Copeland weren't there.

It was a team that had won something like 24 straight games. We were the first hiccup. They lost to Florida in the SECCG, and started the year ranked #2.

Game, Set, and Match.

They were #2 when they played us.
 
Last edited:
#200
#200
utgibbs said:
I certainly know he rolled back the excesses of the Reagan years.

I'm sorry, but that graph is anemic growth especially considering it covers a time period when an extra person from the household went into the workforce.

There is a reason either Dizzy or the original author did not put the pre-1967 data on there. The slopes between the Keynes / Hayekman years would be quite demarkated.
Click to expand...

you do realize that kennedy's supply side policies are what spurned the 60s real wage growth right?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top