Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
yep.
Higher productivity means fewer jobs. Ok, but which is the cause and which is the effect?
You cannot claim that technology is absolutely the primary driver in productivity gains because there is no way to prove it. That's the itchy thing about economics, you(the general you, not onetime2) can make a whole bootyload of assertions based on ceteris paribus and the laws of supply and demand, but when it comes down to it you're nothing more than an educated guesser with an inherent tendency to back up your own preconcieved notions.
How is slow job creation not a sign of economic distress? I think if you didn't have a job you'd be pretty fucking distressed. I'm talking about economics here as they effect actual living americans who have to pay rent and buy groceries and feed children, not some abstract indicator that looks good on paper and means a lot to econ majors. We're talking about the economy in action as it effects real people. Claiming slow job creation isn't a sign of distress is a reflection of the sociopathic economics that care only for numbers on a page.
Bush deserves some of the blame for economic hardship because he has done nothing to allieve it. Cutting taxes disproportionately for the wealthy does nothing timely to help anyone who currently can't find a job. They can wait, probably for a very long time, for the money to trickle down but in the end it probably won't amount to much.
Unemployment is normal in any economy, especially when it is changing direction. The problem lies in how you deal with that unemployment. I've heard you often refer to the need for the retraining of the workforce to take advantage of changes in the economy's direction. What exactly has the president done to make that period of unemployment and retraining easier on the average american (the person the economy should be serving)?
|
You appear to be confused about the words "primarily" and "sole". The main reason you pointed to for rising productivity was fewer workers being forced to do more that would imply that is what you believe to be the primary driver. Sole driver would mean it and it alone. Reread what I posted and perhaps you will recognize I never intended (nor said) sole.
Feel free to explain how the rising productivity occured during times of historically low unemployment. Certainly unemployment could not cause increased productivity
before there is unemployment.
Slow job growth when the economy is near full employment is a sign of distress now? The general concensus is that full employment is in the 5 to 6% range. Where are we now?
You claim that Bush bears some blame but you've never offered one example of what he's done to hamper the economy or an example of what he could have done to make it better. That was, after all, my initial challenge in the thread. If you have no belief or interest in economic theory and reality then why bother to post about economic indicators, the state of the economy, and the President's responsibility for current economic conditions?
I will take educated guesses backed up by years of economic analysis, in depth understanding of economic indicators, and historical truths over finger pointing with absolutely no presented facts any day.
I speak of his goal of financing retraining of workers in industries which are dying out or becoming less labor intensive as examples of good programs. I do not point to them as being the end all be all of economic fixes.
They have zero chance of stopping displaced employees. It is simply a resource to help ease the transition.