Republicans Block Tax Credits as 'Protest'

[Rukentuts]

And FOX News has more viewers than the "mainstream media" outlets too. Credibility must be awesome.

[Elegiac]

By September 2009, Zero Hedge had begun drawing more traffic than more established financial websites

"Drinking mercury and eating powdered jade is the secret to immortality. A hundred thousand Chinese alchemists couldn't be wrong, right?"

- - - Updated - - -

And FOX News has more viewers than the "mainstream media" outlets too. Credibility must be awesome.

Or it just goes to show you how stupid the 'average' person truly is.

[tiporispit]

Democrats, frustrated with Republicans for blocking presidential nominees

Wait, did they just admit that Presidential elections are predetermined?

[obdigore]

Wait, did they just admit that Presidential elections are predetermined?

Do you know anything about American Civics?

[Elegiac]

Wait, did they just admit that Presidential elections are predetermined?

Presidential nominees to executive and judicial positions.

[Rukentuts]

Presidential nominees to executive and judicial positions.

The fact that the President has to ask and beg Congress for people on his staff is absolute horseshit.

[Endus]

"Dropped out" in this context means "gave up hope of finding employment" and that's why it's a different number than "retired." BLS unemployment rates are only a small part of the economic puzzle. While "Tyler Durden" may or may not be a moron, the theory he is attempting to expound is not new and labor participation rates ARE down, even when adjusted for the same criteria BLS uses for tracking unemployment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000. See also real wage decline over same time period as many of the "replacement" jobs were low-wage service industry jobs.

Yes, but the problem is that "giving up hope of finding employment" does not translate to "sitting on welfare".

Some of them become homemakers. Some of them take up self-employment with something like writing or art, which eventually earns them an income. Some of them go back to school (I'm heading to grad school in the fall, for instance). All of these involve dropping out of the workforce.

I'm not claiming that the economy is great, in the US. It's better in Canada, right now. The US has some serious issues. But the labor force participation and unemployment are not interchangeable; they refer to different things, and a lowering labor force participation rate is not automatically a bad thing.

Here's the last 65 years or so;



Yes, the labor participation rate is falling. It's about where it was in 1980. Prior to 1980, it was much lower. The main reason? Wages were high enough that single-wage-earner families were much more common. One spouse being a homemaker is a person who isn't part of the labor force. And that's fine. It doesn't mean the economy's in trouble. There is no direct correlation, there.

[Reds4Life]

The fact that the President has to ask and beg Congress for people on his staff is absolute horseshit.

Yeah. That horrible US Constitution. If we could only do away with it we could have your utopia.

[Elegiac]

The fact that the President has to ask and beg Congress for people on his staff is absolute horseshit.

"Checks and balances".

The United States of "it turns out nobody thinks the electoral college is a good idea" America is not designed to be efficient.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah. That horrible US Constitution. If we could only do away with it we could have your utopia.

No, the complaint is that the Constitution errs too much on the side of safety to the point it precludes efficiency.

[Endus]

Editors have experience in various areas of finance and operations, differing from journalists who become experts about finance as they write about it, but have no practical work experience in the sector.

They're anonymous. By definition they do not have any credentials whatsoever.

If I claimed to have thirteen Ph.D.s in Economics and acted as an economic advisor to 32 world leaders, that doesn't mean I actually have those credentials, and because I'm anonymous (or rather, using a pseudonym, which is actually better), you have no way to verify that. So my claim is pointless and should be ignored. Theirs should be, for the same reason.

Again; no economist on the planet agrees with this "implied unemployment rate". It isn't economic theory.

[Xeones]

Wait, did they just admit that Presidential elections are predetermined?

Do you know how the government works?

[prwraith]

Last time I checked, it was their right to filibuster. Maybe if Harry Reid wasn't such a complete fucking tool, they wouldn't have to.

Nobody should have a right to fillibuster. It's the equivalent of letting the stupid kid walk around and throw stuff to stop the class from taking a test.

[Rukentuts]

Nobody should have a right to fillibuster.

The filibuster is meant to sway your opponents to reconsider. It's why you should have to make an ass of yourself for stalling, and not just say a few words and have it go away.

If the Republicans retake the Senate, it may be the only positive change they do.

[araine]

No, it's actually the democrats throwing the tantrum because the bill they wanted to pass failed to do so with the required number of votes.

And it was GOP voting down taxcuts, wonder what grover will say about this but really the biggest agenda in the GOP is be anti obama is more important than lowering taxes

[Adhemar]

Yes, but the problem is that "giving up hope of finding employment" does not translate to "sitting on welfare".

I'm not familiar enough to say for sure, but I believe the "dropouts" are people who were looking for a job and are no longer doing so, which means there is a very high correlation to "real" unemployment and we're probably not talking about more people deciding they want to pursue that novel they always wanted to write.

Some of them become homemakers. Some of them take up self-employment with something like writing or art, which eventually earns them an income. Some of them go back to school (I'm heading to grad school in the fall, for instance). All of these involve dropping out of the workforce.

All of them also decrease the reported unemployment rate without adding jobs.

I'm not claiming that the economy is great, in the US. It's better in Canada, right now. The US has some serious issues. But the labor force participation and unemployment are not interchangeable; they refer to different things, and a lowering labor force participation rate is not automatically a bad thing.

I don't recall seeing anyone claiming they are interchangeable, but they are certainly related and both have an impact on the job market.

Here's the last 65 years or so;

Yeah, you're covering some very massive socio-economic landscape shifts in those 65 years, so that's basically a useless graph. The last 20 years would be a much better scale.

Yes, the labor participation rate is falling. It's about where it was in 1980. Prior to 1980, it was much lower. The main reason? Wages were high enough that single-wage-earner families were much more common. One spouse being a homemaker is a person who isn't part of the labor force. And that's fine. It doesn't mean the economy's in trouble. There is no direct correlation, there.

Do you think we're experiencing a voluntary return to single-earner households? Because otherwise you're just creating a red herring. What happened 35 years ago isn't particularly relevant to present day labor force conditions.

[Endus]

Yeah, you're covering some very massive socio-economic landscape shifts in those 65 years, so that's basically a useless graph. The last 20 years would be a much better scale.

The argument was that labor force participation must/should remain high, for the benefit of the economy.

The longer-scale graph explicitly proves this claim to be false.

Yes, there were some fairly massive socio-economic shifts in that period. The point is, there can be more such shifts, and in fact, many of us have been calling for one for some time now. That whole thing about addressing wealth inequality and bolstering the lower classes and all that? It's exactly that kind of massive shift.

The point was that a lower labor force participation rate isn't automatically "bad". Unemployment, on the other hand, demonstrates a clear and fairly consistent measure that isn't reliant on other context, as you just stated the labour force participation rate clearly does.

Which is why economists use unemployment statistics for discussing this stuff, rather than labor force participation.

Do you think we're experiencing a voluntary return to single-earner households? Because otherwise you're just creating a red herring. What happened 35 years ago isn't particularly relevant to present day labor force conditions.

I didn't say that. It was merely a single example.

Going back to school is more and more common, in particular.

And, frankly, there's nothing wrong with people being on welfare for a few years. That isn't a symptom of economic failure.

[Adhemar]

The argument was that labor force participation must/should remain high, for the benefit of the economy.

The longer-scale graph explicitly proves this claim to be false.

No, it doesn't. You provided the explanation for why it doesn't and that explanation doesn't apply to modern conditions. The long-term trend for the US economy over the first 55-years of that graph was increasing participation and a much stronger economy. The last 10-years shows a very different story with stagnant economic conditions and declining participation. That only establishes correlation, and not causation, but it's a fairly strong argument compared to saying people have suddenly decided to be homemakers.

Yes, there were some fairly massive socio-economic shifts in that period. The point is, there can be more such shifts, and in fact, many of us have been calling for one for some time now. That whole thing about addressing wealth inequality and bolstering the lower classes and all that? It's exactly that kind of massive shift.

Either make your argument or don't. What socio-economic change do you think is pushing people out of the labor market? I'm not aware of any massive shift in social or economic conditions here that would cause people to stop wanting to earn wages.

The point was that a lower labor force participation rate isn't automatically "bad". Unemployment, on the other hand, demonstrates a clear and fairly consistent measure that isn't reliant on other context, as you just stated the labour force participation rate clearly does.

Which is why economists use unemployment statistics for discussing this stuff, rather than labor force participation.

Declining participation is a fairly new phenomena, as is the shift to lower-wage service jobs. Both are just as relevant to this discussion as the unemployment rate. When you can take increasing labor participation for granted, it's not an important metric, but when that assumption is removed it changes the discussion.

And declining participation in the economy may very well be "bad" in and of itself, as it means there are less people carrying the tax burden (see Japan's retirement crisis for a good idea of why this can be "bad").

I didn't say that. It was merely a single example.

Going back to school is more and more common, in particular.

And, frankly, there's nothing wrong with people being on welfare for a few years. That isn't a symptom of economic failure.

Not facets of this argument I care about, but if you want to disprove someone's claim you need to provide a more compelling or simpler explanation, and people suddenly deciding to stop seeking employment in order to return to the homemaker lifestyle of the 50s despite the fact that most earners are seeing smaller incomes isn't plausible. It's much more plausible that many (probably most) of the declining size of the labor force is due to long-term inability to find employment (and this is further bolstered by the disproportionate number of "long-term unemployed").

[mvaliz]

Mr. Propaganda at it again I see. The unemployment rate is dropping because they are playing with the numbers. The number of unemployed grows, yet the % drops.....ever wonder how that happens? Of course you don't. Spreading the lies is the goal.

My want of listening to your opinion has decreased 75% simply by labeling Endus as "Mr. Propaganda". He is anything but.

[Endus]

Either make your argument or don't. What socio-economic change do you think is pushing people out of the labor market? I'm not aware of any massive shift in social or economic conditions here that would cause people to stop wanting to earn wages.

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.

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 declining participation in the economy may very well be "bad" in and of itself, as it means there are less people carrying the tax burden (see Japan's retirement crisis for a good idea of why this can be "bad").

Again, GDP is continually growing.

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.

Not facets of this argument I care about, but if you want to disprove someone's claim you need to provide a more compelling or simpler explanation, and people suddenly deciding to stop seeking employment in order to return to the homemaker lifestyle of the 50s despite the fact that most earners are seeing smaller incomes isn't plausible. It's much more plausible that many (probably most) of the declining size of the labor force is due to long-term inability to find employment (and this is further bolstered by the disproportionate number of "long-term unemployed").

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.

[Tharkkun]

The filibuster is meant to sway your opponents to reconsider. It's why you should have to make an ass of yourself for stalling, and not just say a few words and have it go away.

If the Republicans retake the Senate, it may be the only positive change they do.

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