Emprworm's rant thread

[GUNWOUNDS]

:-X

[SurlyPIG]

That was way over the line Gunwounds.

For one thing, how could TMA's father have anticipated having a souverely physically disabled daughter and the bills associated therein when he chose his field, presumably years before the event occurred?  A masters in classical studies obviously doesn't yield the greatest financial opportunities but in a combined income is certainly more than adequate for supporting a normal family.  Again, how could he have anticipated that his family situation would not be normal?  That's not laziness, that's not stupidity, that's just plain bad luck, and until you've walked a mile in his shoes, judge not lest ye be judged.

[GUNWOUNDS]

:-X

[Edric O]

Just to set the record straight:

According to the CIA World Factbook, the unemployment rate for the USA is 5.8%. The population is 290,342,554. That means there are about 16,839,868 unemployed people. 16 MILLION.

here we go .... at the american job bank website there are 1,224,984 available... and they get approx 35,000 new jobs in their database every DAY....

The vast majority (if not ALL) of those jobs are not newly created. They are positions left vacant as a result of previous employees quitting or getting fired.

If 35 thousand new jobs were created every day, that would mean over 12 million new jobs every year - in other words, it would mean that the number of jobs is growing faster than the number of people, which is utterly ridiculous.

And that was just the inconsistency discovered by using rudimentary mathematics - I won't even go into the economic reasons why your claim is absurd.

When you add up all the different jobs from across the 50 states that are listed online, in print, or through all the other various programs... the number of jobs becomes astronomical...

I guess it never occured to you that the same job may be listed in two or more places, did it? ::)

The jobs that are listed at your online site are probably the same jobs you will find by looking at ads in the paper. Isn't the purpose of online sites to compile a comprehensive list of ALL jobs from all available sources?

I'd say it's pretty reasonable to assume there are 1 or 2 million jobs available in the US. And when you look at the fact that there are 16 million unemployed people, you realize that even if all the available jobs were filled up, there would still be 14 (let's be generous and say 10) million jobless people. That's enough people to populate an entire COUNTRY.

Admit it: There are at least 10 million unemployed and/or homeless people out there who are in this position THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.

and dont tell me that capitalism doesnt allow for full employment...

It doesn't. This is a fact of basic economics.

In a capitalist economy, the job market it governed by the laws of supply and demand. If there is full employment, that means ZERO demand for new jobs - it means that new jobs can't be created, because there won't be anyone to fill them. It means that no one can start a new business, because there are no employees for him to hire. In order for a market economy to work, some people must always be jobless.

[Wolf]

Just to set the record straight, it is generally agreed upon by economists that the economy is physically unable to support an employment rate less than 5%. Much of the recession experienced pre-9/11 was caused by the attempt at maintaining an unemployment rate of 4.5%. This causes economic instability and long-term harm.

As Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you." It has its merit.

The reason the aggregate supply curve in macroeconomics has a vertical asymptote is because that there is a limited amount of total employment that you can achieve. In the United States, this employment line exists around 95% total employed; this is considered full employment. The United States, by the economic definition, experiences full employment. 5% is, and will always be (well, around that number) unemployed, frictionally, structurally, or otherwise.

Now, that .8% Edric is talking about can be fixed, but that does not have the shocking force of saying 16 MILLION PEOPLE ARE UNEMPLOYED, so we tend not to think about it like that. More accurately, around 2 million people are unemployed who should not be unemployed.

I think Edric pretty much said all of that. What I think we need to address is the 12-14 million people who cannot be helped because the economy simply cannot support them having jobs. The answer, I feel, lies with either government-sponsored projects and social welfare programs. Since, in order for society to function, a part of that society must suffer, it should be the duty of the rest of the society, who live well due to the system that leaves such people in suffering, to somehow alleviate that suffering.

[Edric O]

You are correct, Wolfwiz. However, it should be mentioned that only a capitalist market economy is unable to sustain an unemployment rate of less than 5%. It is a historical fact that planned economies routinely had an employment rate of 100% - in other words, zero unemployment.

So when I say that 16 MILLION PEOPLE ARE UNEMPLOYED, I mean that none of them would be unemployed if we communists had our way. :)

Oh, and there's another interesting thing that should be mentioned: Since a 5% unemployment rate is required in order for the capitalist economy to function (in other words, since some people must be unemployed in order for the rest to live as they do right now), doesn't that mean that society has a debt to repay to those unemployed 5%? After all, they are the sacrificed 5%.

[Wolf]

Exactly, Edric, you can look at it like a sacrifice made by the 5% to the rest of society. Granted, it was an unwilling sacrifice, but it exists nonetheless. This is why I said I feel it is the duty of the majority to alleviate the suffering of this minority, since it was the suffering itself that gave the majority both their station in life, and the very means to alleviate suffering.

So, here's an idea I just had. For the sake of argument, lets call this idea "enlightened capitalism". This system functions the same as any other capitalist system, however, the profits garnered from capitalism should be first used to provide social welfare for those who simply do not have the means to survive. That is the first priority, and everything left over goes to innovation, advertising, etc. What would the reprecussions of this system be?

[Edric O]

Actually, Wolfwiz, your "enlightened capitalism" is better known as the "welfare state" or the "mixed economy" (it's called "mixed" because it is capitalist with socialist elements), and it is more or less the system we have today, with social welfare programs for the poor, free education and healthcare, and so on...

But on the other hand, in reality we haven't reached the kind of "enlightened capitalism" you propose. Many of our welfare programs are inadequate, many of our poor still suffer, and there are some less "enlightened" countries in which healthcare is not free - such as in the United States.

Not to mention that there are powerful right-wing forces at work trying to dismantle the welfare state and return to the more savage capitalism of the past.

And, of course, there is the fact that welfare states have only been established in rich western countries. The vast majority of the world still has classical capitalism - like we had in the 19th century. And all attempts to create mixed economies there have been crushed by the overwhelming power of multinational corporations.

A mixed economy is a very good thing, but it is very fragile and it only patches up the problems of capitalism instead of fixing them. Rather than accepting a 5% rate of unemployment and trying to alleviate the suffering of those 5%, we should create a socialist system in which full employment is possible. Rather than accepting the huge gap between rich and poor and using a progressive income tax to make the gap a little smaller, we should create a socialist system that prevents the gap from developing in the first place. And so on...

[Wolf]

Indeed. However, would it not be prudent to first achieve the welfare state, and then move on from that to a socialist system? I would suppose that the system and method of organization set up by the welfare state would facilitate the transition to socialism, which, from our past discussions, we know sets the state for a communist society.

[TMA_1]

lol gunwounds, now in reality that could be some of the most offensive material I have ever seen, in fact I have agood mind to taddle on you, it would be a good thing to do.

I am happy, because i have never seen you so angry before, so I must have effected you somehow. You dont know our situation. My dad couldnt get a job because he was in the hospital so long, my mom eventually got a job working with vocational rehabilitation. That doesnt pay much though. Now my dad cannot even get up out of chairs and stuff, has to take a shitload of morphine to do anything because of the pain.

I am not asking for pity, because I need none and I wouldnt want any from you or most people on this site. People fall through the cracks, it is just the nature of the beast. We tried hard to get good money, but we just couldnt. You say you know a bunch of people,w ell try taking care of my families "small" problems, then your judgements would make more sense.

I havent seen anything more crude, it was way out of line gunwounds. Grow up, and hope your "double portion" fails you. Your live in a christian family, yet you dont even know what the keys to christianity are, so you make a fool out of yourself practicing old customs that christians dont enact. you judge me not like a christian at all, grow up man.

[GUNWOUNDS]

lol gunwounds, now in reality that could be some of the most offensive material I have ever seen, in fact I have agood mind to taddle on you, it would be a good thing to do.

I am happy, because i have never seen you so angry before, so I must have effected you somehow. You dont know our situation. My dad couldnt get a job because he was in the hospital so long, my mom eventually got a job working with vocational rehabilitation. That doesnt pay much though. Now my dad cannot even get up out of chairs and stuff, has to take a shitload of morphine to do anything because of the pain.

I am not asking for pity, because I need none and I wouldnt want any from you or most people on this site. People fall through the cracks, it is just the nature of the beast. We tried hard to get good money, but we just couldnt. You say you know a bunch of people,w ell try taking care of my families "small" problems, then your judgements would make more sense.

I havent seen anything more crude, it was way out of line gunwounds. Grow up, and hope your "double portion" fails you. Your live in a christian family, yet you dont even know what the keys to christianity are, so you make a fool out of yourself practicing old customs that christians dont enact. you judge me not like a christian at all, grow up man.

if you dont even know how you offended me then you are even more blunt headed than i imagine.... you come out of the blue and tell me (in a rude way) to shut up cause i am ignorant on the subject of poverty, government aid, etc.

[nemafakei]

"Your father failed you i am sorry TMA..... He was an american who grew up here and had everything available to him including the ability to speak english....  he got some degree in classical studies and thought he could support his family on that?..... too bad you had to pay for your dad's mistakes....*GOOD GRAVY*"

...

"your father was just lazy  plain and simple... would your father have gone to a another country and learned another language and stressed himself to get an extremely hard high-level degree so that he could provide a nice home for you? .... obviously not with all of your whimpering..."

Some of the other stuff has been dealt with, but I'd like to say a few things about these little paragraphs.

One, on average, the best paid postgraduates from Oxbridge are those who took degrees in Classics. Not jurisprudence, not business-related degrees, not computing, not mathematics, english, modern languages, or sciences, but Classics. As far as supporting the family is concerned, Classics is not a mistake.

Two, the reason why this is the case is because what a Classics degree shows (in addition to the ability to understand complexities of languages, the ability to understand other cultures, the ability to think in historical terms, and the vast quantities of social and cultural knowledge about the foundations and continuation of western civilisation picked up along the way, along with a guarantee of better English than many students of English) is that you have to work damned hard. No other degree is seen to require quite the willpoer to concentrate and sustain depth of thought. In fact, he got an extremely hard degree learning two other languages more difficult than English, without the benefit of immersion in that language or culture.

Three, the skills learned thereby allow you to work effectively at a great range of jobs helping society, from teaching (and not just Classical subjects), to the civil service.

Four: The fact is, TMA's parents were simply unlucky, in many ways. Does such bad luck mean they qualify for no protection, and no benefit from society, despite all their work? Just because your parents started disadvantaged and ended up well doesn't mean everyone who starts off on par and doesn't do so well is to blame, or should suffer for chance.

Unemployment occurs for many reasons, one of which is laziness. But just because a small number are unemployed are habitually workshy, that does not mean all unemployed are lazy.

[GUNWOUNDS]

"Your father failed you i am sorry TMA..... He was an american who grew up here and had everything available to him including the ability to speak english....

[TMA_1]

my dad took it because he was interested in it, and because he wanted to learn of biblical times because he was a pastor when he was taking these classes, the church broke down though like many do, mainly because of money problems and we couldnt sustain the church tht well, as well as some inter church strife, which plagues many churches.

He minored in helenized greek, and knows a little classical greek too. He also studied a bit of hebrew and I am proud of him because he knows how to work these languages, he has personally translated many books of the bible, with detail and great accuracy.

Nema is right it was a hard degree to earn. After his bachelors, he had to write a thesis, it is over 200 pages and is the largest masters thesis in Western Washington University's history. Really proud of him like I said. He has also helped with his professor/friend

[GUNWOUNDS]

I noticed Edrico stated in several different threads that he figured the unemployed people of America to be around 16 million...

I found this hard to believe and so i had to do some research on my own.

Everyone in America is not listed as "In the Workforce" If you arent then you cant be listed as unemployed.

*NOTE- sources are Census Bureau

What you have to consider...

we need more accurate numbers than simply taking 5 percent of 300 million ....

first we filter the 300 million population by age...

1.) 180,947,526 = people of working age 18-64

now we filter out people who are mentally ill, disabled and are incapable of working (institionalized or incapable of working in society)

2.)180,947,526 - 21,300,000 (total amount of

[nemafakei]

Uhhh, Classics is not vocational training. It trains you ways to think, not minor details of how to apply them.

"1.) job opportunities in that field?

2.) rate of growth in job opportunities in that field?

3.) average income of jobs in that field?"

Well, with classics what field are you talking about, exactly? Classics in fact leaves your options open. A degree in Electronic Engineering rather leaves your eggs all in one basket, and if the job market becomes full, you're stuffed. With classics, you can pick from a range of fields (point three), so job opportunities are wider, and if there are few jobs in one field, you can pick another.

For payment rates, look at point one.

[TMA_1]

yeah the problem is you have a lot of people in jobs like mcdonalds, whihc is a typical defense of people like you. You have a lot of people who hae jobs that cannot support a living, you dont seem to care about that though.

[GUNWOUNDS]

ACELETHAL SAID:

A masters in classical studies obviously doesn't yield the greatest financial opportunities

TMA SAID:

By the way saying that classical studies is not money making is really ignorant.

Well i dont think Ace is ignorant.. i think he is correct...

[GUNWOUNDS]

Well, with classics what field are you talking about, exactly? Classics in fact leaves your options open.

Well the fact that you answered my question ambiguously  tells me that the job market/opportunities and pay  are ambiguous as well.

Which puts you in an ambiguous situation like TMA's father...

Sure programming/science/engineering/law/medicine  may pigeon hole you... but atleast you dont have to wonder where your next meal is gonna come from or where your next paycheck is gonna come in.

Also with programming/science/engineering/law/medicine  you can determine your professional worth....

example:

1.) Programming degree + 10 years experience = $ XXXXX.XX

2.) Classical degree +  X amount of years as a pastor = $ ???.???

as you can see option #1 lets you know where your going in life

option #2 is very ambiguous...

not saying #2 is  horrible and you should never pursue it.. but if you wish to raise a family... i would choose the safest path as to not abuse my children and cause them to hunger or shiver.

[Wolf]

Actually, Edric, I think it was a bit fallacious (if that's a word) to multiply the unemployment percentage by the total US population, while knowing full well that only those between 18-65 years of age can work, and then, only those who are not critically disabled. I think your ideas still stand, however, and that the United States should conentrate on providing for these people. Yet, what Gunwounds pointed out is true, there are much less than 16 million people unemployed, and it would seem that most of his mathematics makes sense, although I cannot be sure until I am done checking his work.

[TMA_1]

I am glad that you listen to others on this site instead of finding things out for yourself. shows real maturity.lol

read what Nema said, he is correct. The problem is

[nemafakei]

To the unemployment question:

I agree that Edric's example was crude, and this is a fairer analysis of the numbers technically unemployed.

"so we have 51 million people who could stay at home"

If their partners earn enough, of which I would imagine many don't.That could well add a good few million to your total labour force and a fair few hundred thousand to the 5.3 million unemployed and 3.3 million deficit you currently have.

"Well i dont think Ace is ignorant.. i think he is correct..."

Well I don't.

NEMA SAID

"on average, the best paid postgraduates from Oxbridge are those who took degrees in Classics"

Now, does anyone has any counter-evidence or counter-argument rather than their own opinion?

Oh, and as to ambiguity, Classics means you can basically pick your field from many - you're not forced into one. So you can in fact pick any of teacher, author, historian/archaeologist, civil servant, computer programmer, lawyer, et cetera.

(Silly thing is money isn't the reason why I'm a clacissist, but the option of going into computer programming (it's just another language) was one of the reasons for aiming for Classics).

[Andrew]

When you say classics, do you guys mean Arts? (like a degree in arts)

Or just the subject of classics with an arts degree?

And Gunwounds, what university do you go to that gives out free loans?

I have student loans and I will have to start paying them back once I am out of school. Never heard of loans you get for free if you are poor. obviously if you get thru univerity you will get a good job, thus be able to pay back loans.

Nevermind, you are talking about America's standards, Canada is probably different.

[nemafakei]

Usually a degree in Classics (the study of the Latin and Greek cultures through the medium of their languages), giving rise to a BA or an MA - hence, yes, it comes under the umbrella of arts (as do history, language subjects, jurisprudence, et al).

[Edric O]

Notice how Gunwounds arrived at his 3 million figure:

First he took only the people who are of working age (18-64), which is perfectly reasonable.

Then he subtracted the people who are mentally ill, physically disabled or otherwise incapable of working, which is again perfectly reasonable.

But this is where things get interesting:

He takes out students - despite the fact that SOMEONE must work to support them (and often they must work themselves).

He takes out housewives - despite the fact that they don't actually make any money and so the other member of the family must work for 2.

He takes out anyone who has a "significant other" to count on for support - despite the fact that the "significant other" may not be able to provide that support.

(notice that he takes out the maximum number of potential housewives - in other words he is assuming that only 1 person needs to work IN EVERY MARRIED COUPLE IN AMERICA)

And, in the end, he takes out 2 million people for whom jobs are supposedly available - so his final 3 million figure is equivalent to my 14 million "unemployed without prospects for a job", not to my 16 million "total unemployed".

Now, I accept the fact that my 16 million figure was inflated - that's why I trimmed it down to the round number of 10 million unemployed without prospects for a job. But Gunwounds's figure of 3 million is grossly deflated - and his claims about the possibility of full employment are utterly absurd.

As I said before:

In a capitalist economy, the job market it governed by the laws of supply and demand. If there is full employment, that means ZERO demand for new jobs - it means that new jobs can't be created, because there won't be anyone to fill them. It means that no one can start a new business, because there are no employees for him to hire. In order for a market economy to work, some people must always be jobless.

And as Wolfwiz explained:

Just to set the record straight, it is generally agreed upon by economists that the economy is physically unable to support an employment rate less than 5%. Much of the recession experienced pre-9/11 was caused by the attempt at maintaining an unemployment rate of 4.5%. This causes economic instability and long-term harm.

The reason the aggregate supply curve in macroeconomics has a vertical asymptote is because that there is a limited amount of total employment that you can achieve. In the United States, this employment line exists around 95% total employed; this is considered full employment. The United States, by the economic definition, experiences full employment. 5% is, and will always be (well, around that number) unemployed, frictionally, structurally, or otherwise.

Exactly, Edric, you can look at it like a sacrifice made by the 5% to the rest of society. Granted, it was an unwilling sacrifice, but it exists nonetheless. This is why I said I feel it is the duty of the majority to alleviate the suffering of this minority, since it was the suffering itself that gave the majority both their station in life, and the very means to alleviate suffering.

There is no such thing as 100% employment in a capitalist market economy.