Republicans Block Tax Credits as 'Protest'

[Adhemar]

I'll be the first to admit I don't have enough of a grounding in the specifics to try and make any declarations as to what, exactly, the cause is.

I'm just saying that reduced labor force participation is not an inherently bad thing, economically speaking.

I would disagree, given what we know about the economic conditions here and around the world. I think declining participation is, in fact, a significant sign of economic weakness with nothing but bad effects likely to follow from it.

GDP is still growing, the economy is strengthening. We need to ensure the lower classes and those unemployed can still function as consumers, because a consumer economy needs a strong consumer class, but as long as that holds true and the economy continues to grow, I don't see the problem with reduced labor force participation.

And if it doesn't hold true? If inflation-adjusted GDP grows slower than the population the net economic effect is still negative and we have not yet recovered ground lost in this area since the recession. This is what people mean when they describe the recovery as anemic.

Again, GDP is continually growing.

See above. Per capita GDP must outpace inflation and population growth for this assumption to hold value. This is not true in many European economies, for example, despite nominal GDP growth.

At worst, this means we need to re-address the tax burden distribution, putting more of a burden on those who are profiting off that growing GDP. There's no suggestion that the tax burden is becoming unsustainable.

That's another debate (and a highly ideological one) and not directly consequential to this one.

Yes. But that doesn't matter.

The whole thing is predicated on this idea that people who aren't working are only unemployed because they are lazy good-for-nothings, and that this trend suggests that people are becoming "worse". Which isn't true. It's a ridiculous basis to operate from.

No, you misunderstand the argument. The argument is predicated on the idea that people who cannot find a job for [6 months|1 year|3 years|whatever] get discouraged and stop looking, not that they're just lazy welfare bums. The argument is that economic conditions are worse than the blanket "unemployment rate" makes them appear, because it doesn't count anyone not actively seeking employment because it assumes anyone who wants to earn wages is looking for a job. This is partially due to the very long established trend of ever-increasing economic participation in the U.S. I think this is undeniably true and anyone denying it is either willfully deceptive or has their head buried in the sand. Now, quantifying exactly how much worse the economy is at present than the unemployment rate indicates is nearly impossible and deciding where to apportion the blame for it is even more difficult (and will pretty much always come down along the lines of your pre-existing sympathies).

- - - Updated - - -

I'll be the first to admit I don't have enough of a grounding in the specifics to try and make any declarations as to what, exactly, the cause is.

"Rather than being the result of demographics or choice, the rise in the number of people who are not actively looking for work is in substantial part the result of low demand for labor, according to a new study by David Blanchflower and Adam Posen, both of whom are former members of the Bank of England's rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee.

[...]

As a result the Fed has moved to a far more complex data set to use to help set forward guidance of when it might eventually raise interest rates.

Not only will it look at the unemployment rate, but also the change in the participation rate, job turnover, wage growth and long-term unemployment, among others."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A3L07B20140422

[Rukentuts]

If that happens than we'll be at a stalemate for another 2 years.

We'll be at one anyway.

[Avlivar]

Thanks, Obama