Opposed to Welfare -- Racist?

[Newpublius]

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/29/paul-krugman-the-economy-of-race-prevents-medicare-and-obamacare-expansion/

According to Paul Krugman, apparently if you don't support the welfare state, surely you must be a racist, after all the only reason you would do so is because you don't want minorities to collect welfare.

[Dr. Who]

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/29/paul-krugman-the-economy-of-race-prevents-medicare-and-obamacare-expansion/

According to Paul Krugman, apparently if you don't support the welfare state, surely you must be a racist, after all the only reason you would do so is because you don't want minorities to collect welfare.
Since an awful lot of non-minorities also collect welfare, I don't think that it's an accurate point of view.

[Captain Obvious]

This is all a part of the establishments goal of normalizing gubmint dependence.

[AZ Jim]

First of all, more white folks are on welfare than any minority (yes there are more whites in population). I pose this question, what does society do when we have a measured amount of people who either cannot work or will not work? Especially when they might have innocent children. Even if everyone who is on welfare wanted a job, we couldn't supply them with one. I agree its a problem, I agree there are abuses, I agree we need to do more to sort out the cheats, but we cannot simply say "Ok, No more wefare!" The next thing would be we would literally see huge amounts of people begging, selling their bodies, mugging, robbing because hunger motivates people to those things. It IS a problem.

[decedent]

http://inequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/poverty.png

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/SNAPCharts1_1.png

[Mac-7]

First of all, more white folks are on welfare than any minority (yes there are more whites in population). I pose this question, what does society do when we have a measured amount of people who either cannot work or will not work? Especially when they might have innocent children. Even if everyone who is on welfare wanted a job, we couldn't supply them with one. I agree its a problem, I agree there are abuses, I agree we need to do more to sort out the cheats, but we cannot simply say "Ok, No more wefare!" The next thing would be we would literally see huge amounts of people begging, selling their bodies, mugging, robbing because hunger motivates people to those things. It IS a problem.

Often we find the same people defending the welfare programs also defend obama and hillary's plan to bring in 10's of thousands of poor people from syria that our welfare system must deal with.

and it is often the defenders of welfare that argue for open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens.

and lets not forget the libertarians who want to legalize harmful drugs that often lead to welfare dependency.

finally there are the free traders who say if a widget can be made cheaper in china by slave labor than it can in America then by all means close the factory in America and put the American workers on welfare.

[Dr. Who]

First of all, more white folks are on welfare than any minority (yes there are more whites in population). I pose this question, what does society do when we have a measured amount of people who either cannot work or will not work? Especially when they might have innocent children. Even if everyone who is on welfare wanted a job, we couldn't supply them with one. I agree its a problem, I agree there are abuses, I agree we need to do more to sort out the cheats, but we cannot simply say "Ok, No more wefare!" The next thing would be we would literally see huge amounts of people begging, selling their bodies, mugging, robbing because hunger motivates people to those things. It IS a problem.
I tend to agree. One only needs to look at the per capita rate of crime during the 20's and 30's, then the introduction of relief, WWII, a spike when all of the vets returned, some who couldn't get work, a decline in crime, followed by a steady incline as industrial employment fell and a welfare was being cut back, particularly eliminated where men were in the household. A major spike during the Regan era, where welfare was cut back severely while a recession was taking place. Another spike tied to the recession of the 90's and again in the early 2000's followed by a lot of tinkering with the welfare system followed by a steady decline in violent crime.

http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/assets/Murders 1.bmp

[FindersKeepers]

First of all, more white folks are on welfare than any minority (yes there are more whites in population). I pose this question, what does society do when we have a measured amount of people who either cannot work or will not work? Especially when they might have innocent children. Even if everyone who is on welfare wanted a job, we couldn't supply them with one. I agree its a problem, I agree there are abuses, I agree we need to do more to sort out the cheats, but we cannot simply say "Ok, No more wefare!" The next thing would be we would literally see huge amounts of people begging, selling their bodies, mugging, robbing because hunger motivates people to those things. It IS a problem.


We are on the same page here. Yes, more whites are on welfare, so Krugman is barking up the wrong tree. (He does that, regularly.)

As a nation of people, I think the vast majority of us agree that it's right and appropriate to help children who cannot help themselves -- and -- the elderly and infirm as well.

The problem is -- we've abdicated our responsibility for caring for our neighbors to the government. When the breadbasket of our nation was founded, settlers would gather to help one neighbor build his barn one month, and that neighbor would join others in helping to build another neighbor's barn the next month. In that manner, we assisted our neighbors and they, in turn, assisted us when we needed it.

"Need" creates jobs. But, when the government steps in and fills that need -- it circumvents that natural employment order.

At the very least, welfare should not be free. Recipients should be required to donate a minimum number of hours in service to their communities in order to collect it. Single mothers could take their turn caring for children at a public daycare, so other mothers could look for work, or just any other little thing like that. Giving recipients a job would boost their self-confidence and bring them a step closer to finding a job outside the welfare system.

Just my two cents.

[Peter1469]

First of all, more white folks are on welfare than any minority (yes there are more whites in population). I pose this question, what does society do when we have a measured amount of people who either cannot work or will not work? Especially when they might have innocent children. Even if everyone who is on welfare wanted a job, we couldn't supply them with one. I agree its a problem, I agree there are abuses, I agree we need to do more to sort out the cheats, but we cannot simply say "Ok, No more wefare!" The next thing would be we would literally see huge amounts of people begging, selling their bodies, mugging, robbing because hunger motivates people to those things. It IS a problem.

Very few people advocate eliminating welfare totally, at least not without replacing it with something like a guaranteed minimum income. Many advocate reforming welfare so it is a true safety net and not a hammock.

As far as the OP: calling those who oppose welfare racist is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well. It is an attempt to shut down opposition, at least vocal opposition. Who wants to be called a racist?

[FindersKeepers]

As far as the OP: calling those who oppose welfare racist is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well. It is an attempt to shut down opposition, at least vocal opposition. Who wants to be called a racist?

Krugman regularly takes part in politically correct "shaming," with the exact intent you mentioned. The man is, for the most part, full of hot air.

[Safety]

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/29/paul-krugman-the-economy-of-race-prevents-medicare-and-obamacare-expansion/

According to Paul Krugman, apparently if you don't support the welfare state, surely you must be a racist, after all the only reason you would do so is because you don't want minorities to collect welfare.

Yes, that meme has floated around endlessly on the 'net in regards to people who oppose welfare must be racist. It is a simplistic view to have and the racist word is thrown out to shut down the argument. I am staunchly opposed to generational welfare and not having any controls over how long a person can be on it. Now, there are people who only highlight a particular subset of Americans who are on assistance and are not concerned about the other half, but that is neither here nor there, because there are other factors in play with people who have agendas.

[Standing Wolf]

finally there are the free traders who say if a widget can be made cheaper in china by slave labor than it can in America then by all means close the factory in America and put the American workers on welfare.

And what political affiliation and ideology would you think the heads and owners of those corporations would most likely have?

[Chris]

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/29/paul-krugman-the-economy-of-race-prevents-medicare-and-obamacare-expansion/

According to Paul Krugman, apparently if you don't support the welfare state, surely you must be a racist, after all the only reason you would do so is because you don't want minorities to collect welfare.


That seems to be the way liberals argue these days. They look at an issue and paint any opposition to their progressive policies as evil.

[Chris]

First of all, more white folks are on welfare than any minority (yes there are more whites in population). I pose this question, what does society do when we have a measured amount of people who either cannot work or will not work? Especially when they might have innocent children. Even if everyone who is on welfare wanted a job, we couldn't supply them with one. I agree its a problem, I agree there are abuses, I agree we need to do more to sort out the cheats, but we cannot simply say "Ok, No more wefare!" The next thing would be we would literally see huge amounts of people begging, selling their bodies, mugging, robbing because hunger motivates people to those things. It IS a problem.



Wouldn't the solution, since a rising tide raises all boats, be greater prosperity? Welfare keeps people in a cycle of poverty. The poverty rate, which was in decline prior to the War on Poverty, has leveled out at about 15% ever since. Should we keep repeating hoping for a different outcome?

[Chris]

Yes, that meme has floated around endlessly on the 'net in regards to people who oppose welfare must be racist. It is a simplistic view to have and the racist word is thrown out to shut down the argument. I am staunchly opposed to generational welfare and not having any controls over how long a person can be on it. Now, there are people who only highlight a particular subset of Americans who are on assistance and are not concerned about the other half, but that is neither here nor there, because there are other factors in play with people who have agendas.

That meme is floated by liberal progressives like Krugman. He's probably sucking up to Clinton for a cabinet position.

[Newpublius]

First of all, more white folks are on welfare than any minority (yes there are more whites in population). .

Agreed, thats why Krugman is full of it.

[exploited]

Wouldn't the solution, since a rising tide raises all boats, be greater prosperity? Welfare keeps people in a cycle of poverty. The poverty rate, which was in decline prior to the War on Poverty, has leveled out at about 15% ever since. Should we keep repeating hoping for a different outcome?

There is no evidence whatsoever that eliminating welfare will result in greater prosperity.

[Cletus]

First of all, more white folks are on welfare than any minority (yes there are more whites in population). I pose this question, what does society do when we have a measured amount of people who either cannot work or will not work? Especially when they might have innocent children. Even if everyone who is on welfare wanted a job, we couldn't supply them with one. I agree its a problem, I agree there are abuses, I agree we need to do more to sort out the cheats, but we cannot simply say "Ok, No more wefare!" The next thing would be we would literally see huge amounts of people begging, selling their bodies, mugging, robbing because hunger motivates people to those things. It IS a problem.

Yes, we can.

[Truth Detector]

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/29/paul-krugman-the-economy-of-race-prevents-medicare-and-obamacare-expansion/

According to Paul Krugman, apparently if you don't support the welfare state, surely you must be a racist, after all the only reason you would do so is because you don't want minorities to collect welfare.

Paul Krugman is a moron in every sense of the word. The notion that he has an economics education defies the willing suspension of disbelief.

But isn't this typical with Progressive Liberals? In order to avoid an intelligent debate, they merely label those who disagree as racists, homophobes, misogynists and rednecks.

[Truth Detector]

First of all, more white folks are on welfare than any minority (yes there are more whites in population). I pose this question, what does society do when we have a measured amount of people who either cannot work or will not work? Especially when they might have innocent children. Even if everyone who is on welfare wanted a job, we couldn't supply them with one. I agree its a problem, I agree there are abuses, I agree we need to do more to sort out the cheats, but we cannot simply say "Ok, No more wefare!" The next thing would be we would literally see huge amounts of people begging, selling their bodies, mugging, robbing because hunger motivates people to those things. It IS a problem.

So after dancing around the topic, you're in agreement that Paul Krugman is a moron for making such comments even if he is one of your own? :biglaugh:

[exploited]

Yes, we can.

No, you can't. You need to recognize that one of the primary benefits and motivations of welfare is making sure that the wealthy aren't killed on a regular basis.

[Truth Detector]

Wouldn't the solution, since a rising tide raises all boats, be greater prosperity? Welfare keeps people in a cycle of poverty. The poverty rate, which was in decline prior to the War on Poverty, has leveled out at about 15% ever since. Should we keep repeating hoping for a different outcome?

^Spot on; but then we must also remember that the ONLY way Progressive Liberals can maintain their control over low information voters is by convincing them that they would starve or have no shelter without the good graces of Government led by.....Progressive Liberals.

[Truth Detector]

There is no evidence whatsoever that eliminating welfare will result in greater prosperity.

There is ZERO evidence that by having more of it, people will rise out of poverty; or the crime infested urban sewers Liberal Progressives have created for them.

[Truth Detector]

No, you can't. You need to recognize that one of the primary benefits and motivations of welfare is making sure that the wealthy aren't killed on a regular basis.

:rofl:

[Truth Detector]

Things that make me laugh about Liberal Progressive math/philosophy:

First off, Liberal Progressive math is damned funny. Yes, the NUMBER of whites on welfare do exceed the numbers of non-whites. BUT, the RATIO of those living on welfare in those communities is far in excess of those in the white community.

I do wish Liberals weren't so dishonest or math challenged.

Secondly, the economy is INFINATE not FINITE. Therefore, just because someone EARNS a lot more, as in starting a company like Microsoft, that does not mean someone else had to go without. In fact, Bill Gates, as a result of his success, created a massive amount of wealth and opportunity that NO Government enterprise could ever hope to match no matter how much money the dishonest politicians had to steal to get there.

Thirdly, it would NEVER be in a company's best interest to make everyone poorer or to poison/kill their customers. They just could not sustain a business very long doing that. Most legitimate enterprises actually do work with the communities they are in and try to promote prosperity and growth while making a decent profit to grow their businesses.

Lastly, we, the American sheeple, should be much more fearful of politicians and BIG Government than we are of corporations. Our Constitution was a lesson and exercise in avoiding that in the interests of liberty. Corporations are only as powerful as consumers make them and cannot sustain their businesses without satisfying demand. Government uses force and the power of laws and go on for as long as they can dupe the sheeple to keep paying for their largess. Government is NOT your friend, but rather, a necessary evil that should be contained.

[Chris]

There is no evidence whatsoever that eliminating welfare will result in greater prosperity.

There is evidence aplenty it is not working.

[AZ Jim]

Wouldn't the solution, since a rising tide raises all boats, be greater prosperity? Welfare keeps people in a cycle of poverty. The poverty rate, which was in decline prior to the War on Poverty, has leveled out at about 15% ever since. Should we keep repeating hoping for a different outcome?So, your solution?

[Chris]

So, your solution?

Despite all the Keynesian nonsense that government can control the economy, and Krugman is a Keynesian. it's the government meddling in the economy that restricts and constrains growth and prosperity, so get the government out of the way and let people work and trade freely.


Nota bene, I am not against some sort of Hayekian minimum income so long as it does not act as a hammock that incentivises people to settle for that, but as a hand up incentivizes people to go out and do for themselves, if they can.

[exploited]

There is evidence aplenty it is not working.

Depends what you mean by working. Some people think the goal of welfare is to get people off welfare and make them productive. If that is your perspective, no, welfare isn't working.

My perspective is that welfare exists as a mechanism for easing the impact of social dysfunction. There will always be a small portion of the population that, either by choice or circumstance (such as a disability), will not or cannot work. You can leave them to their devices, but this will result in increased crime, violence, social strife, substance abuse and more. In order to protect productive people in the same class and above, you must provide a basic degree of support. Otherwise what you get is stuff like favelas - entire communities of the most downtrodden people on earth, ruled by the whims of whatever boss, warlord or gang that can provide them with something a bit better than absolute poverty.

It is nice to dream of a world where these people aren't abused, where they have options and perhaps a will to improve themselves. But all throughout history, these people have existed, and I don't realistically expect otherwise. Thus, welfare, which even now can barely keep a lid on social dysfunction.

[Chris]

Depends what you mean by working. Some people think the goal of welfare is to get people off welfare and make them productive. If that is your perspective, no, welfare isn't working.

My perspective is that welfare exists as a mechanism for easing the impact of social dysfunction. There will always be a small portion of the population that, either by choice or circumstance (such as a disability), will not or cannot work. You can leave them to their devices, but this will result in increased crime, violence, social strife, substance abuse and more. In order to protect productive people in the same class and above, you must provide a basic degree of support. Otherwise what you get is stuff like favelas - entire communities of the most downtrodden people on earth, ruled by the whims of whatever boss, warlord or gang that can provide them with something a bit better than absolute poverty.

It is nice to dream of a world where these people aren't abused, where they have options and perhaps a will to improve themselves. But all throughout history, these people have existed, and I don't realistically expect otherwise. Thus, welfare, which even now can barely keep a lid on social dysfunction.



I gave the evidence earlier. Prior to the War on Poverty, the poverty rate was in decline. Since the War on Poverty it has virtually flatlined--like global temperatures.

https://i.snag.gy/Ngd7Rt.jpg


If the goal of welfare is not a helping hand to help people out of poverty then is is merely another form of political corruption.


Prosperity would keep people from crime, violence, social strife, substance abuse and more. They'd be too busy for those things.

[exploited]

I gave the evidence earlier. Prior to the War on Poverty, the poverty rate was in decline. Since the War on Poverty it has virtually flatlined--like global temperatures.

https://i.snag.gy/Ngd7Rt.jpg


If the goal of welfare is not a helping hand to help people out of poverty then is is merely another form of political corruption.


Prosperity would keep people from crime, violence, social strife, substance abuse and more. They'd be too busy for those things.

Sheer utopian thinking. Further, what your chart reflects is a boom and bust cycle, not the impact of Great Society legislation. Compare it to this chart:

http://ablog.typepad.com/.a/6a00e554717cc988330147e220e3f9970b-pi

You notice how these charts are the inverse of one another? It is almost like the economic output of the country has a drastic impact on poverty rates.

Is there any social problem that you do not blame on government? Because I've yet to see you attribute anything negative to anything but a government program.

[Chris]

Sheer utopian thinking. Further, what your chart reflects is a boom and bust cycle, not the impact of Great Society legislation. Compare it to this chart:

http://ablog.typepad.com/.a/6a00e554717cc988330147e220e3f9970b-pi

You notice how these charts are the inverse of one another? It is almost like the economic output of the country has a drastic impact on poverty rates.

Is there any social problem that you do not blame on government? Because I've yet to see you attribute anything negative to anything but a government program.




Sheer utopian thinking.

Huh? I posted facts.


what your chart reflects is a boom and bust cycle, not the impact of Great Society legislation

Each of those hills and valleys in my chart is a boom and bust cycle.


You notice how these charts are the inverse of one another?

Overlaid they track each other fairly well. Both show the hills and valleys of booms and busts over the same time period.


It is almost like the economic output of the country has a drastic impact on poverty rates.

Correlation is not causation.


Is there any social problem that you do not blame on government?

Sort of straying from the point aren't you?

Most social issues have nothing to do with the government nor should the government meddle in them.


I've yet to see you...

Start a thread about me -- oh, wait, that would be considered a call out.

[exploited]

Huh? I posted facts.



Each of those hills and valleys in my chart is a boom and bust cycle.



Overlaid they track each other fairly well. Both show the hills and valleys of booms and busts over the same time period.



Correlation is not causation.



Sort of straying from the point aren't you?

Most social issues have nothing to do with the government nor should the government meddle in them.



Start a thread about me -- oh, wait, that would be considered a call out.

Now this is sheer irony. Correlation is not causation, says the guy who in his last post just posted a chart that correlates Great Society Legislation with the Boom and Bust Cycle, without establishing causation.

And, yes, you are guilty of utopian thinking. The idea that people will simply be "too prosperous" because all of a sudden everyone will be motivated to improve themselves is absolutely a utopian sentiment. If only the government got out of things, these people will see the light!

[Chris]

Now this is sheer irony. Correlation is not causation, says the guy who in his last post just posted a chart that correlates Great Society Legislation with the Boom and Bust Cycle, without establishing causation.

And, yes, you are guilty of utopian thinking. The idea that people will simply be "too prosperous" because all of a sudden everyone will be motivated to improve themselves is absolutely a utopian sentiment. If only the government got out of things, these people will see the light!



Yes, I posted correlation. Thank you.

I didn't post a chart of boom and bust. I offered boom and bust as an explanation of the hills and valeys in the chart.

Facts are now utopian?


The idea that people will simply be "too prosperous" because all of a sudden everyone will be motivated to improve themselves is absolutely a utopian sentiment.

That is utopian. It comes from you, not me. Please don't pretend to quote me.


If only the government got out of things, these people will see the light!

That's from you as well. I didn't say that.

[exploited]

Yes, I posted correlation. Thank you.

I didn't post a chart of boom and bust. I offered boom and bust as an explanation of the hills and valeys in the chart.

Facts are now utopian?



That is utopian. It comes from you, not me. Please don't pretend to quote me.



That's from you as well. I didn't say that.

Didn't take long for this to settle into a predictable routine. You didn't say this...


Prosperity would keep people from crime, violence, social strife, substance abuse and more. They'd be too busy for those things.

...in response to a post I made about how there has always been a certain portion of the population who will not or cannot work, and that we need welfare to minimize the social dysfunction of such people?

Do you know what an inference is?

[Chris]

Didn't take long for this to settle into a predictable routine. You didn't say this...



...in response to a post I made about how there has always been a certain portion of the population who will not or cannot work, and that we need welfare to minimize the social dysfunction of such people?


I did say "Prosperity would keep people from crime, violence, social strife, substance abuse and more. They'd be too busy for those things."

That is nothing like your misinterpretation of it.

What I said extended your argument that welfare was useful to keep people from those things. Additional wealth, beyond welfare, prosperity, should then, by logical entailment of your argument, be even better.

Are you now going to contradict yourself?


And for God's sake stop talking about talking. All these he saids she saids stand outside the argument as if you have made yourself referee. If you step outside the game, you forfeit.

[exploited]

I did say "Prosperity would keep people from crime, violence, social strife, substance abuse and more. They'd be too busy for those things."

That is nothing like your misinterpretation of it.

What I said extended your argument that welfare was useful to keep people from those things. Additional wealth, beyond welfare, prosperity, should then, by logical entailment of your argument, be even better.

Are you now going to contradict yourself?


And for God's sake stop talking about talking. All these he saids she saids stand outside the argument as if you have made yourself referee. If you step outside the game, you forfeit.

It isn't a misinterpretation. It is quite literally a direct consequence of your argument. If you argue that these people would be too busy and prosperous to engage in crime, violence, etc., it must be because they all of a sudden became motivated to work. Whereas my point is that, in the absence of welfare, they will revert to crime, violence, social strife, theft, etc., because they will not engage in real work, but they will still need to eat. It is impossible for this inference to be any clearer, and yet here you are, denying it again.

The simple fact is that you can't stand it when people follow your arguments to their logical conclusions. It is beyond weird.

[Chris]

It isn't a misinterpretation. It is quite literally a direct consequence of your argument. If you argue that these people would be too busy and prosperous to engage in crime, violence, etc., it must be because they all of a sudden became motivated to work. Whereas my point is that, in the absence of welfare, they will revert to crime, violence, social strife, theft, etc. It is impossible for this inference to be any clearer, and yet here you are, denying it again.

The simple fact is that you can't stand it when people follow your arguments to their logical conclusions. It is beyond weird.




If you argue that these people would be too busy and prosperous to engage in crime, violence, etc., it must be because they all of a sudden became motivated to work.

That is not a 'direct consequence".

If, as you argued, welfare would keep them from those problems, then, again, as entailed in your argument, prosperity would do even more. Prosperity comes from, among many things, work. So, no, it's greater wealth and more work.

Work is not a consequence, it's a driver, among many other things.

So from my words to your misinterpretation there is still no connection. Try again.



The simple fact is that you can't stand it when people follow your arguments to their logical conclusions. It is beyond weird.

Ad hom again. My my. You destroy any pretense of argument with fallacies.

[exploited]

That is not a 'direct consequence".

If, as you argued, welfare would keep them from those problems, then, again, as entailed in your argument, prosperity would do even more. Prosperity comes from, among many things, work. So, no, it's greater wealth and more work.

Work is not a consequence, it's a driver, among many other things.

So from my words to your misinterpretation there is still no connection. Try again.




Ad hom again. My my. You destroy any pretense of argument with fallacies.

From obstinate to literally incoherent. If you're some dude with no money, who doesn't want to, or can't, work, where is this prosperity going to come from? Probably their stock holdings, right?

[Chris]

From obstinate to literally incoherent. If you're some dude with no money, who doesn't want to, or can't, work, where is this prosperity going to come from? Probably their stock holdings, right?

Ad hom is https://s11.postimg.org/rn2opjbg3/waving_white_flag.gif

Not good discourse ethics.



Despite all the Keynesian nonsense that government can control the economy, and Krugman is a Keynesian. it's the government meddling in the economy that restricts and constrains growth and prosperity, so get the government out of the way and let people work and trade freely.


Nota bene, I am not against some sort of Hayekian minimum income so long as it does not act as a hammock that incentivises people to settle for that, but as a hand up incentivizes people to go out and do for themselves, if they can.

Implication being that if they can't they still get the helping hand.

[exploited]

Ad hom is https://s11.postimg.org/rn2opjbg3/waving_white_flag.gif

Not good discourse ethics.




Implication being that if they can't they still get the helping hand.

This is a perfect example of why people shouldn't Google logical fallacies and then start quoting them without formal training. You understand that me calling your argument obstinate and then incoherent is not an ad hom, right? I will get you to start using that term properly, even if it kills me, lol.

I am assuming you are limiting access to welfare to those who are disabled, and can't work, rather than those who are able, but don't want to work, is that right? Because if that is the case, it in no way addresses my argument, which is that providing a basic standard of living is a mechanism for controlling social dysfunction that arises from poverty. On the other hand, if you are arguing for a basic minimum income available to all people, with no conditions, we are in perfect agreement, and I congratulate you on adopting a basic tenant of socialism.

Who pays for this, by the way? What voluntary mutual agreement organization funds this? The local fishermen's guild? The municipal-government-not-municipal-government?

[Chris]

This is a perfect example of why people shouldn't Google logical fallacies and then start quoting them without formal training. You understand that me calling your argument obstinate and then incoherent is not an ad hom, right? I will get you to start using that term properly, even if it kills me, lol.

I am assuming you are limiting access to welfare to those who are disabled, and can't work, rather than those who are able, but don't want to work, is that right? Because if that is the case, it in no way addresses my argument, which is that providing a basic standard of living is a mechanism for controlling social dysfunction that arises from poverty. On the other hand, if you are arguing for a basic minimum income available to all people, with no conditions, we are in perfect agreement, and I congratulate you on adopting a basic tenant of socialism.

Who pays for this, by the way? What voluntary mutual agreement organization funds this? The local fishermen's guild? The municipal-government-not-municipal-government?



And now you make things up about Googling logical fallacies?

"From obstinate to literally incoherent." Your words.



calling your argument obstinate and then incoherent is not an ad hom, right?

Right. Calling my argument that. But you didn't.



I am assuming you are limiting access to welfare to those who are disabled, and can't work, rather than those who are able, but don't want to work, is that right? Because if that is the case, it in no way addresses my argument, which is that providing a basic standard of living is a mechanism for controlling social dysfunction that arises from poverty.

I took your argument and extended it. If your argument is true, that welfare, a small amount of wealth, reduces problems associated with poverty, then by logical entailment, prosperity, a greater amount of wealth, would do more to alleviate such problems.

All this if you are arguing this and if you are arguing that is offering strawmen instead of addressing what I posted, clearly, several times, and just did again. I will not defend your strawmen, only my own arguments.

Who pays for your solution? Same mine in the context of this discussion. Why are you bringing in funds, guilds, municipalities, I've said nothing even remotely related to those things. Introducing more strawmen.

[Chris]

If the purpose of welfare is to keep those who suffer "social dysfunction" from "crime, violence, social strife, substance abuse and more" then it merely cages them like animals and chains them like slaves.

[exploited]

And now you make things up about Googling logical fallacies?

"From obstinate to literally incoherent." Your words.




Right. Calling my argument that. But you didn't.




I took your argument and extended it. If your argument is true, that welfare, a small amount of wealth, reduces problems associated with poverty, then by logical entailment, prosperity, a greater amount of wealth, would do more to alleviate such problems.

All this if you are arguing this and if you are arguing that is offering strawmen instead of addressing what I posted, clearly, several times, and just did again. I will not defend your strawmen, only my own arguments.

Who pays for your solution? Same mine in the context of this discussion. Why are you bringing in funds, guilds, municipalities, I've said nothing even remotely related to those things. Introducing more strawmen.

I don't see much productivity coming from our conversations, and for the sake of both our time and efforts, I won't be responding to you any further. Best of luck in the future.

[Chris]

I don't see much productivity coming from our conversations, and for the sake of both our time and efforts, I won't be responding to you any further. Best of luck in the future.

I've expressed my opinions and ideas. What, did you think this was a personal discussion? Forums are many-to-many communication. See Douglas Adams's "Four Ages of Sand."

[Dr. Who]

Violent crime in America is very much tied to the boom and bust cycle. Violent crime responded positively after welfare was introduced during the great depression and has also responded negatively during those times when welfare has been cut back by government responding to welfare criticism. It is currently rising again because of the significant unemployment affecting certain sectors of the population. There is therefore an absolute correlation between economic performance, welfare and violent crime, in particular. Taking away welfare would simply create the sort of climate that would encourage a rise in criminal enterprise, more organized crime, a larger underground economy and a huge increase in the sorts of crime that you see in places like South Africa and South America, where kidnapping wealthy people is actually commonplace. You would also see the kind of slums that you see in third world countries.

It would be wonderful if everyone could be employed, but realistically we know that for a variety of reasons that won't happen, because it has never happened in history, not even under communism. Apart from those people who are physically and mentally disabled, there are people who are simply unemployable because they are socially dysfunctional, have prison records, have substance abuse problems or are functionally illiterate or are just not motivated to work. That is a fairly fixed percentage of any population. Back in the 19th century, this was realistically called the surplus population. At the time unemployment was not measured by the number of people actually seeking work, but by those who were not producing wealth or involved in the production of wealth. The surplus population was defined as that part of the population who were not receivers of rents and profits, as in the propertied classes, or actively holding jobs as in the working class. Even soldiers were not considered employed since they did not produce surplus value for the capitalists. The surplus population was explained according to the Malthusian law of Population:

According to the Malthusian law, the population inevitably grows faster than the means of subsistence. Even if technological and scientific progress caused agricultural production to soar, the rise in the means of subsistence would, according to the Malthusian population theory, cause the population to grow even faster.:


"Through the animal and vegetable kingdoms, nature has scattered the seeds of life abroad with the most profuse and liberal hand.... The germs of existence contained in this spot of earth, with ample food, and ample room to expand in, would fill millions of worlds in the course of a few thousand years. Necessity, that imperious all pervading law of nature, restrains them within the prescribed bounds. The race of plants, and the race of animals shrink under this great restrictive law. And the race of man cannot, by any efforts of reason, escape from it. Among plants and animals its effects are waste of seed, sickness, and premature death. Among mankind, misery and vice." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_growth_model

We leave entire segments of our "surplus population" out of the equation because we only measure unemployment by those who are actively seeking employment. Not only that, but the entire prison population is also excluded from our calculations. We count only the employable in our unemployment numbers, leading to the false conclusion that full employment is even a possibility. This makes governments look better when the unemployment stats come out, but doesn't change the fact that there is a significant portion of the population that will never work and that number is now increasing due to automation and technology.

[Chris]

Violent crime in America is very much tied to the boom and bust cycle. Violent crime responded positively after welfare was introduced during the great depression and has also responded negatively during those times when welfare has been cut back by government responding to welfare criticism. It is currently rising again because of the significant unemployment affecting certain sectors of the population. There is therefore an absolute correlation between economic performance, welfare and violent crime, in particular. Taking away welfare would simply create the sort of climate that would encourage a rise in criminal enterprise, more organized crime, a larger underground economy and a huge increase in the sorts of crime that you see in places like South Africa and South America, where kidnapping wealthy people is actually commonplace. You would also see the kind of slums that you see in third world countries.

It would be wonderful if everyone could be employed, but realistically we know that for a variety of reasons that won't happen, because it has never happened in history, not even under communism. Apart from those people who are physically and mentally disabled, there are people who are simply unemployable because they are socially dysfunctional, have prison records, have substance abuse problems or are functionally illiterate or are just not motivated to work. That is a fairly fixed percentage of any population. Back in the 19th century, this was realistically called the surplus population. At the time unemployment was not measured by the number of people actually seeking work, but by those who were not producing wealth or involved in the production of wealth. The surplus population was defined as that part of the population who were not receivers of rents and profits, as in the propertied classes, or actively holding jobs as in the working class. Even soldiers were not considered employed since they did not produce surplus value for the capitalists. The surplus population was explained according to the Malthusian law of Population:

According to the Malthusian law, the population inevitably grows faster than the means of subsistence. Even if technological and scientific progress caused agricultural production to soar, the rise in the means of subsistence would, according to the Malthusian population theory, cause the population to grow even faster.:


"Through the animal and vegetable kingdoms, nature has scattered the seeds of life abroad with the most profuse and liberal hand.... The germs of existence contained in this spot of earth, with ample food, and ample room to expand in, would fill millions of worlds in the course of a few thousand years. Necessity, that imperious all pervading law of nature, restrains them within the prescribed bounds. The race of plants, and the race of animals shrink under this great restrictive law. And the race of man cannot, by any efforts of reason, escape from it. Among plants and animals its effects are waste of seed, sickness, and premature death. Among mankind, misery and vice." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_growth_model

We leave entire segments of our "surplus population" out of the equation because we only measure unemployment by those who are actively seeking employment. Not only that, but the entire prison population is also excluded from our calculations. We count only the employable in our unemployment numbers, leading to the false conclusion that full employment is even a possibility. This makes governments look better when the unemployment stats come out, but doesn't change the fact that there is a significant portion of the population that will never work and that number is now increasing due to automation and technology.


Can you support any of those claims with data.


Malthus has been demonstrated wrong.

https://i.snag.gy/FAxm1G.jpg

[Dr. Who]

Can you support any of those claims with data.


Malthus has been demonstrated wrong.

https://i.snag.gy/FAxm1G.jpg
I'm not sure that Malthus was demonstrated as being wrong at all. While income has risen in fortunate western countries, extreme poverty and insufficiencies in food is a continuing and sometimes an increasing characteristic of the third world. Since we are no longer an insular society and much of the goods that make living more affordable for Americans are produced in places where people have not enough to eat and where agricultural production does not go to feed the domestic population, but to feed affluent western societies.

" The rapid increase in the global population of the past century exemplifies Malthus's predicted population patterns, whereby expansion of food supply has encouraged population growth. "Neo-Malthusianism" may be used as a label for those who are concerned that overpopulation may increase resource depletion or environmental degradation to a degree that is not sustainable. Many in environmental movements express concern over the potential dangers of population growth.[11] The Club of Rome published a famous book entitled The Limits to Growth in 1972.[12] Paul R. Ehrlich is a prominent neo-Malthusians who first raised concerns in 1968 with the publication of The Population Bomb.In 2011 Andrey Korotayev suggested that the emergence of major sociopolitical upheavals at the escape from the Malthusian trap is not an abnormal, but a regular phenomenon.[13]"

Furthermore, I was really discussing that permanent fixture in society - the surplus population, which is still with us, despite all of our advances, even though we have chosen a deceptive method of calculating our numbers of unemployed. When you fudge those numbers it makes it seem like full employment is a realistic possibility. The truth is that the numbers of the unemployed are about 1/3 higher than claimed in those manipulated statistics.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abbymccloskey/2015/02/18/more-than-one-in-ten-workers-unemployed-or-underemployed/#50700a89219c

[Chris]

I'm not sure that Malthus was demonstrated as being wrong at all. While income has risen in fortunate western countries, extreme poverty and insufficiencies in food is a continuing and sometimes an increasing characteristic of the third world. Since we are no longer an insular society and much of the goods that make living more affordable for Americans are produced in places where people have not enough to eat and where agricultural production does not go to feed the domestic population, but to feed affluent western societies.

" The rapid increase in the global population of the past century exemplifies Malthus's predicted population patterns, whereby expansion of food supply has encouraged population growth. "Neo-Malthusianism" may be used as a label for those who are concerned that overpopulation may increase resource depletion or environmental degradation to a degree that is not sustainable. Many in environmental movements express concern over the potential dangers of population growth.[11] The Club of Rome published a famous book entitled The Limits to Growth in 1972.[12] Paul R. Ehrlich is a prominent neo-Malthusians who first raised concerns in 1968 with the publication of The Population Bomb.In 2011 Andrey Korotayev suggested that the emergence of major sociopolitical upheavals at the escape from the Malthusian trap is not an abnormal, but a regular phenomenon.[13]"

Furthermore, I was really discussing that permanent fixture in society - the surplus population, which is still with us, despite all of our advances, even though we have chosen a deceptive method of calculating our numbers of unemployed. When you fudge those numbers it makes it seem like full employment is a realistic possibility. The truth is that the numbers of the unemployed are about 1/3 higher than claimed in those manipulated statistics.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abbymccloskey/2015/02/18/more-than-one-in-ten-workers-unemployed-or-underemployed/#50700a89219c



You would need to read Clark's A Farewell to Alms to see that same curve hold for just about everything, life style, health, happiness, etc.

It's also true for population:

https://i.snag.gy/jeOGTH.jpg

Which is directly counter to Malthus. "The rapid increase in the global population of the past century exemplifies Malthus's predicted population patterns" were that population would fluctuate around the same level as it did pre-industrial society.

[Dr. Who]

You would need to read Clark's A Farewell to Alms to see that same curve hold for just about everything, life style, health, happiness, etc.

It's also true for population:

https://i.snag.gy/jeOGTH.jpg

Which is directly counter to Malthus. "The rapid increase in the global population of the past century exemplifies Malthus's predicted population patterns" were that population would fluctuate around the same level as it did pre-industrial society.
Which still doesn't address the persistent existence of that surplus unemployed population. They haven't disappeared as they should have.

[Chris]

Which still doesn't address the persistent existence of that surplus unemployed population. They haven't disappeared as they should have.

I don't think so. There will always be those displaced and transitioning between jobs. Always those stopping looking, retiring early. Always those unable to work. And then the free riders.

0% unemployment is actually considered a bad thing.

[Dr. Who]

I don't think so. There will always be those displaced and transitioning between jobs. Always those stopping looking, retiring early. Always those unable to work. And then the free riders.

0% unemployment is actually considered a bad thing.
So, in the end, we will always have a portion of the population that will either need support or absent a social safety net, will be reduced to the form of self-help that society abhors. Additionally, the proportion of the population falling into this category will rise and fall according to economic and even technological conditions. My ultimate point is that a social safety net is a necessity and can only be eliminated at our own peril.

[Newpublius]

We count only the employable in our unemployment numbers, leading to the false conclusion that full employment is even a possibility. This makes governments look better when the unemployment stats come out, but doesn't change the fact that there is a significant portion of the population that will never work and that number is now increasing due to automation and technology.

I wanted to address this briefly. First off, you make a point with respect to measuring unemployment only by those looking for work. On this point I just want to point out that there are different measures of unemployment....U1...2....3...4....5...6....and so on. We typically use U-6 and with respect to U-6 you're correct, that measure excludes what are called 'discouraged workers'

As for your second point, the fact is the participation rate will never be 100%. You have people not in the labor force for various reasons, they are disabled, they are infants, they are old, they are retired.....or they contribute solely at home which we know is important but which doesn't count as an economic participant for purposes of the BLS. Frankly your point about prisons is relatively specious, it just isn't materially relevant to the population as a whole.

"We count only the employable in our unemployment numbers, leading to the false conclusion that full employment is even a possibility."

Full employment means those who want a job have one. We don't count the non-participants for that purpose. It doesn't mean we don't measure the participation rate, or the employed:population ratio, does it? Of course not. Full employment now is even a misnomer where we concede a certain amount of unemployment as being natural. That is dead wrong by the way, there's no reason the labor market shouldn't 'clear' and it would, or at least come close, barring some frictional unemployment, but for government intervention.

[Chris]

So, in the end, we will always have a portion of the population that will either need support or absent a social safety net, will be reduced to the form of self-help that society abhors. Additionally, the proportion of the population falling into this category will rise and fall according to economic and even technological conditions. My ultimate point is that a social safety net is a necessity and can only be eliminated at our own peril.

Safety net, not a hammock.

[Newpublius]

So, in the end, we will always have a portion of the population that will either need support or absent a social safety net, will be reduced to the form of self-help that society abhors. Additionally, the proportion of the population falling into this category will rise and fall according to economic and even technological conditions. My ultimate point is that a social safety net is a necessity and can only be eliminated at our own peril.

My only point on this is that prior to the New Deal, except maybe at the Donner Pass, nobody starved. Even in the Great Depression which was as nasty a Depression as you can get, there was a significant period of time before the start of the event and FDR's implementation of the New Deal. Still....nobody starved.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.

http://greatdepressionbhs.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/8/4/15842070/257662_orig.jpg

Times Square, I would walk through this spot every morning and evening.

[Chris]

My only point on this is that prior to the New Deal, except maybe at the Donner Pass, nobody starved. Even in the Great Depression which was as nasty a Depression as you can get, there was a significant period of time before the start of the event and FDR's implementation of the New Deal. Still....nobody starved.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.

http://greatdepressionbhs.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/8/4/15842070/257662_orig.jpg

Times Square, I would walk through this spot every morning and evening.

Adam Smith in Wealth explains how before modern times communities took responsibility for themselves. If someone became destitute the community provided for him. In order to move from one community to another you had to find someone who would vouch for your ability to take care of yourself and family.

The bigger the government the smaller the community. The individual becomes lost in the collective.

[Dr. Who]

I wanted to address this briefly. First off, you make a point with respect to measuring unemployment only by those looking for work. On this point I just want to point out that there are different measures of unemployment....U1...2....3...4....5...6....and so on. We typically use U-6 and with respect to U-6 you're correct, that measure excludes what are called 'discouraged workers'

As for your second point, the fact is the participation rate will never be 100%. You have people not in the labor force for various reasons, they are disabled, they are infants, they are old, they are retired.....or they contribute solely at home which we know is important but which doesn't count as an economic participant for purposes of the BLS. Frankly your point about prisons is relatively specious, it just isn't materially relevant to the population as a whole.

"We count only the employable in our unemployment numbers, leading to the false conclusion that full employment is even a possibility."

Full employment means those who want a job have one. We don't count the non-participants for that purpose. It doesn't mean we don't measure the participation rate, or the employed:population ratio, does it? Of course not. Full employment now is even a misnomer where we concede a certain amount of unemployment as being natural. That is dead wrong by the way, there's no reason the labor market shouldn't 'clear' and it would, or at least come close, barring some frictional unemployment, but for government intervention.

My comments on the prison population were relevant to my discussion of the surplus population. Most people in prison also eventually come out of prison, and most who do are, relatively speaking, unemployable which goes to the rate of recidivism. Here is a sobering statistic:
In total, 6,899,000 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2013 – about 2.8% of adults (1 in 35) in the U.S. resident population. Here is another: Although debtor's prisons no longer exist in the United States, residents of some U.S. states can still be incarcerated for debt as of 2016. The Vera Institute of Justice reported in 2015 that jails throughout the United States have become warehouses for the poor, the mentally ill and those suffering from addiction as such individuals lack the financial means or mental capacity to post bail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

So, discounting the mentally and physically ill, retired people, children and homemakers, there is also 2.8% of the population that is the least employable in the country, in addition to those who for various reasons seem unable to find employment. Of that 2.8%, there are undoubtedly many who would prefer to be employed than languishing in prison, but the war on drugs has ensured that the majority of them were removed from the employment seeking population. Imagine the unemployment numbers if there were no war on drugs. So I contend that they are a relevant statistic in this political paradigm which is unlikely to change anytime soon. Furthermore, my reason for posting was because I don't think that it is possible to remove the social safety net without incurring a huge increase in criminal enterprise which would pose a very real threat to society as a whole.

[Dr. Who]

My only point on this is that prior to the New Deal, except maybe at the Donner Pass, nobody starved. Even in the Great Depression which was as nasty a Depression as you can get, there was a significant period of time before the start of the event and FDR's implementation of the New Deal. Still....nobody starved.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.

http://greatdepressionbhs.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/8/4/15842070/257662_orig.jpg

Times Square, I would walk through this spot every morning and evening.

Your information is incorrect:
The economic collapse was terrifying in its scope and impact. By 1933, average family income had tumbled 40 percent, from $2,300 in 1929 to just $1,500 four years later. In the Pennsylvania coal fields, three or four families crowded together in one-room shacks and lived on wild weeds. In Arkansas, families were found inhabiting caves. In Oakland, California, whole families lived in sewer pipes.


Vagrancy shot up as many families were evicted from their homes for nonpayment of rent. The Southern Pacific Railroad boasted that it threw 683,000 vagrants off its trains in 1931. Free public flophouses and missions in Los Angeles provided beds for 200,000 of the uprooted.


To save money, families neglected medical and dental care. Many families sought to cope by planting gardens, canning food, buying used bread, and using cardboard and cotton for shoe soles. Despite a steep decline in food prices, many families did without milk or meat. In New York City, milk consumption declined by a million gallons a day.


President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3434

[Newpublius]

Your information is incorrect:
The economic collapse was terrifying in its scope and impact. By 1933, average family income had tumbled 40 percent, from $2,300 in 1929 to just $1,500 four years later. In the Pennsylvania coal fields, three or four families crowded together in one-room shacks and lived on wild weeds. In Arkansas, families were found inhabiting caves. In Oakland, California, whole families lived in sewer pipes.


Vagrancy shot up as many families were evicted from their homes for nonpayment of rent. The Southern Pacific Railroad boasted that it threw 683,000 vagrants off its trains in 1931. Free public flophouses and missions in Los Angeles provided beds for 200,000 of the uprooted.


To save money, families neglected medical and dental care. Many families sought to cope by planting gardens, canning food, buying used bread, and using cardboard and cotton for shoe soles. Despite a steep decline in food prices, many families did without milk or meat. In New York City, milk consumption declined by a million gallons a day.


President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3434

You can find cases of hunger today as addicts will trade food to fuel their addiction.

Life expectancy actually went up during the first part of the Great Depression: 57.1 in 1929 to 63.3 years in 1932.

So, for instance, your figure here: "in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger"

We'll assume its a true stat. I have no reason to doubt you didn't google that up from somewhere. It is either true or false as the case may be; in fact I would've assumed the number to be much, much higher, at least in the thousands. You're still missing the forest for the trees which is that stat actually does not represents a material statistic in a society of 126mn people.

[Dr. Who]

You can find cases of hunger today as addicts will trade food to fuel their addiction.

Life expectancy actually went up during the first part of the Great Depression: 57.1 in 1929 to 63.3 years in 1932.

So, for instance, your figure here: "in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger"

We'll assume its a true stat. I have no reason to doubt you didn't google that up from somewhere. It is either true or false as the case may be; in fact I would've assumed the number to be much, much higher, at least in the thousands. You're still missing the forest for the trees which is that stat actually does not represents a material statistic in a society of 126mn people.
There were thousands of deaths - most were attributed to disease, but the diseases were secondary to malnutrition, particularly among children, but then again people had large families then, so the loss of one or two would not make a statistical difference.

[Newpublius]

There were thousands of deaths - most were attributed to disease, but the diseases were secondary to malnutrition, particularly among children, but then again people had large families then, so the loss of one or two would not make a statistical difference.

and yet this qould be difficult to reconcile with lower overall death rate and increased life expectancy. The discussion really is the suffiency of charity and despite what would be a prediction of wholesale famine, that's just not something we saw in the US outside of Andersonville. The Civil War itself was far and away worse than the Great Depression and even here......the US has been fortunate in this respect, but our history prior to the New Deal is not one littered with stories of famine

[Dr. Who]

and yet this qould be difficult to reconcile with lower overall death rate and increased life expectancy. The discussion really is the suffiency of charity and despite what would be a prediction of wholesale famine, that's just not something we saw in the US outside of Andersonville. The Civil War itself was far and away worse than the Great Depression and even here......the US has been fortunate in this respect, but our history prior to the New Deal is not one littered with stories of famine
Moving back to my point about the surplus population, particularly going forward, I think that this video is relevant:


https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU

[AeonPax]

`
`
Paul Krugman made a compelling argument against the deadly politics of conservative policy but destroyed it when he brainlessly summed it up by saying it's a white problem. What a tool.

[Peter1469]

I don't think so. There will always be those displaced and transitioning between jobs. Always those stopping looking, retiring early. Always those unable to work. And then the free riders.

0% unemployment is actually considered a bad thing.

Once you get below ~5% unemployment you are hiring the bottom of the barrel. People who for any number of reasons will never be good employees.

[Peter1469]

I wanted to address this briefly. First off, you make a point with respect to measuring unemployment only by those looking for work. On this point I just want to point out that there are different measures of unemployment....U1...2....3...4....5...6....and so on. We typically use U-6 and with respect to U-6 you're correct, that measure excludes what are called 'discouraged workers'

As for your second point, the fact is the participation rate will never be 100%. You have people not in the labor force for various reasons, they are disabled, they are infants, they are old, they are retired.....or they contribute solely at home which we know is important but which doesn't count as an economic participant for purposes of the BLS. Frankly your point about prisons is relatively specious, it just isn't materially relevant to the population as a whole.

"We count only the employable in our unemployment numbers, leading to the false conclusion that full employment is even a possibility."

Full employment means those who want a job have one. We don't count the non-participants for that purpose. It doesn't mean we don't measure the participation rate, or the employed:population ratio, does it? Of course not. Full employment now is even a misnomer where we concede a certain amount of unemployment as being natural. That is dead wrong by the way, there's no reason the labor market shouldn't 'clear' and it would, or at least come close, barring some frictional unemployment, but for government intervention.

U-3 is the measure commonly used by politicians and the media. Here is an article (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080415/true-unemployment-rate-u6-vs-u3.asp)that discusses each of the U numbers but focuses on U-3 and U-6


The True Unemployment RateThe U-3 unemployment rate is a comparatively narrow technical measure (http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0609/what-the-unemployment-rate-doesnt-tell-us.aspx) that leaves out a whole swath of out-of-work people who are willing and able to take a job but who don't fit the narrow BLS definition of "unemployed." For example, a stonemason who wants to work but who has become discouraged by a lack of opportunity in the midst of a deep economic recession (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp) would not be included in U-3 unemployment. A marketing executive who is laid off at age 57 and stops scheduling new job interviews due to her experience of age discrimination would not be included in U-3 unemployment. A person who only works one six-hour shift per week because no full-time jobs are available in his area would not be included in U-3 unemployment.


In contrast to the U-3 rate, the U-6 unemployment rate includes all of these cases. Consequently, the U-6 rate is much truer to a natural, non-technical understanding of what it means to be unemployed. By capturing discouraged workers, underemployed workers and other folks who exist on the margins of the labor market (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/labor-market.asp), the U-6 rate provides a broad picture of the underutilization of labor in the country. In this sense, the U-6 rate is the true unemployment rate.

[zelmo1234]

First of all, more white folks are on welfare than any minority (yes there are more whites in population). I pose this question, what does society do when we have a measured amount of people who either cannot work or will not work? Especially when they might have innocent children. Even if everyone who is on welfare wanted a job, we couldn't supply them with one. I agree its a problem, I agree there are abuses, I agree we need to do more to sort out the cheats, but we cannot simply say "Ok, No more wefare!" The next thing would be we would literally see huge amounts of people begging, selling their bodies, mugging, robbing because hunger motivates people to those things. It IS a problem.

Sympathy, never is the right answer in this situations.

For those that Truly can not work, the way they are treated under the current disability program is disgraceful. And we should be Ashamed.

For that that will not work, we should not infringe on their Freedom to choose, but we also have no obligation to support them. They are free to choose Starvation after a term of a helping hand. 60 months lifetime would be my preference. It is not my responsibility to support people like this. If a group of people feel that it is necessary, they are free to set up a charity to do so, but stealing from the productive to provide for the lazy is criminal.

As for the children. If a parent is too lazy to work, they are too lazy to be a good parent. and the Children should be removed to live with other productive family members of put up for adoption. Children should never suffer

[Chris]

Once you get below ~5% unemployment you are hiring the bottom of the barrel. People who for any number of reasons will never be good employees.

That and if people were 100% employed who would fill new jobs in new businesses?

[Peter1469]

That and if people were 100% employed who would fill new jobs in new businesses?

Immigrants.

[Truth Detector]

That and if people were 100% employed who would fill new jobs in new businesses?


Immigrants.

Let's qualify this because in the brave new world of Obamunism, this could mean anyone; LEGAL immigrants. ;)

[Chris]

Immigrants.


True enough but as they come in they would be unemployed unless they came with work visa and contract in hand.

[Peter1469]

True enough but as they come in they would be unemployed unless they came with work visa and contract in hand.

Right. And that is how the US should handle immigration for employment purposes.

[Chris]

Right. And that is how the US should handle immigration for employment purposes.

Oh, I more than agree. No one should be allowed to come here without a contract in hand and work visa.

[DGUtley]

Oh, I more than agree. No one should be allowed to come here without a contract in hand and work visa.

My wife's nephew "studied" in Poland for 5 years and then brought a girl back with him, preggers naturally. The first thing they did when they hit the USA was march down to the welfare office to sign up. Well, 8 years later, still on welfare both of them (now divorced) and the three kids. Kills me, just kills me to see the leech that they've become.

[Chris]

My wife's nephew "studied" in Poland for 5 years and then brought a girl back with him, preggers naturally. The first thing they did when they hit the USA was march down to the welfare office to sign up. Well, 8 years later, still on welfare both of them (now divorced) and the three kids. Kills me, just kills me to see the leech that they've become.

Ok, forgot about students, we should allow students who qualify.

Your wife's nephew sounded like Mike on All in the Family.