Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
first off, it's fine to criticize or reject the premise of an article, but it's usually good form to indicate that you're doing it rather than post what appears to be a non-sequitor. just a note.
|
The line I included from your post in my first post indicated that by 2014 there is good reason to believe the 10% unemployment rate will decline only a little. My post provided a reason why that may be true and then included an editorial comment about the rate being in our control.
I don't understand your comment about a non-sequitor.
Quote:
|
i'm not at all sure what actual information you're basing your positions on there, ace. what it sounds to me informs it is more market metaphysics.
|
If you do not accept the view that government can impact employment that is one thing, to pretend that underlying principles that govern markets, including labor markets, do not exist is something else. Given, that I am not clear on your actual position perhaps you can clarify.
Quote:
|
for example: on what basis are you arguing, if you are doing that and not simply asserting, that because measures of unemployment are quirky that therefore there is no problem with unemployment? anything? because it flies in the face of empirical reality and most data that purports to describe that reality. or maybe you can explain away something like what's happening in detroit as being driven by something other than massive, sustained unemployment? for example.
|
Major shifts in employment are not a new phenomenon. The movers behind those shifts are well known. The dynamics of the current shifts in employment are also known, discounting the short-term nature of typical recessions, like the one we are in now, broadly speaking there are shortages and surpluses in various labor market segments. Detroit will never be the industrial power it once was, but far too many hold on to that hope, and government action, I argue, has contributed to the sluggish transition in Detroit to the "new economy".