Emprworm's rant thread

[GUNWOUNDS]

My 3 million is theoretical... but atleast i was able to show a mathematical road to how i got there...

whereas you just pulled 16,14, and 10 million out of thin air...

My 3 million figure is BEST case scenario..... your 10 million is worst case scenario....

and (THEORETICALLY) students do not have to work, wives do not have to work, and if a boyfriend supports his girlfriend... she does not have to work.... not all households can be supported with one income... but i wanted to show the lowest unemployment number possible.... just as you wanted to show the highest number possible... with your 16 million figure....

I am not really trying to make a political statement here.. i just wanted to point out your gross mathematical error.

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.

Ahh but your missing something... i thought you would have noticed it in my mathematics...

You see... if you have full employment

[TMA_1]

why dont you try grouping all your posts into one thread gunwounds...

[GUNWOUNDS]

I would think that a christian would understand that money isnt everything, you sound like the typical republican that cares only for money.

Money isnt everything

[SurlyPIG]

your obviously ignoring the obstacles my father had to face...did my father grow up thinking he would be in another country having to learning another language and having to start from scratch??

Unless your father was foced into a naval exchange, he chose to leave his country, chose to have to learn a new language and chose to start from scratch.

TMA's father isnt the only man on earth to ever have a disabled child... does every man on this earth who has a disabled kid live in squalor? i think not.  Also TMA's father could have purchased GOOD medical insurance.... you know its called planning ahead........and many other possible routes... another oversight on his side.....

In your country, yes a lot of them do.  Your country has poor disability assistance and poor medical coverage in general.  In most countries, TMA's family would be a lot better off.  In some (backward) countries, TMA's sister probably wouldn't have been allowed to live.  And I don't know about you, but when I have a kid, I probably won't be thinking, "Gee I'd better get extra disability insurance in case my child has horrible birth defects."  Perhaps it's because I don't have to.

Also much of TMA's story is hardly a boo hoo story.... tons of people live lives like that and they dont have the excuse of a disabled sibling...

Correct.  If anyone, those are the ones to whom you should be condescending, not to TMA.

I know a family who lived the same life as TMA simply because the mother didnt use birth control and had 8 kids to feed....

What was it emprworm said about welfare?  The more kids you have, the more you get?  And again, she chose not to use birth control and chose to have eight kids.

you telling me that 1 normal kid and one disabled kid is harder to take care of than 8 normals kids?... i doubt it.... and this family was not educated.. they worked labor jobs....and were still able to feed and clothe  8 kids.... so what is TMA's Dad and mom's excuse now?.... you still think they are unlucky??

In your country, yes.  Tax breaks and welfare cheques are proportionate in size to the "child output," so to speak, the needs of the child are not taken into account.  If your country had even minimal health care and education for the disabled, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

and you said i shouldnt judge?... well then TMA needs to not insult people and watch who the %#$^ he calls ignorant...

Unless your family grew up with a disabled kid in the family, then you are ignorant of what that's like as is everyone else in this thread, but the only reason you were singled out is because you went on a tangent of judgemental, baseless speculation.  And trust me, you don't come off as the more reasonable person when TMA's statement

stop speaking from a point of ignorance gunwounds

is replied with

"screw you !..... you are the biggest  f'n idiot i have ever met...".

Which, in and of itself, is quite a ridiculous statement considering you've never actually met him.

One last thing, do *NOT* twist my words to support your own argument.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Unless your family grew up with a disabled kid in the family, then you are ignorant of what that's like as is everyone else in this thread, but the only reason you were singled out is because you went on a tangent of judgemental, baseless speculation.

[TMA_1]

thank you ace, and hope I was able to clarify in one of ym posts that he twisted your statements.

[GUNWOUNDS]

OK i can see Ace is backpedaling to save face and tripping all over himself.. so let me kick him while he is down.....

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

hmmmm as you can see here... YOU use the word OBVIOUS.... meaning you're pretty sure of yourself... no doubts... yep you are SURE that this degree doesnt give you good financial opportunities...

[SurlyPIG]

Why do I even bother posting?

Gunwounds, a broken neck years after birth is an accident and is much easier to get covered by medical insurance.  Disabilities from birth are far more difficult to get covered because they are far less likely, thus far more expensive.  And last I checked, paraplegics don't have trouble communicating and can go to ordinary public schools provided there's an elevator.

And no a degree in classics won't get you as much money immediately as a degree in programming or law and doesn't have the long term potential compared to something like commerce but you can always get a job as a teacher of sorts and can make a solid income on its own.

Besides, this nitpicking of details is a rather pathetic diversion from your ridiculous expectation of TMA's father to have anticipated the financial strain of a disabled child years before she was born.  And I'm sorry but being the second generation child of an immigrant that had lots to start off with doesn't give you the right to be a condescending, holier-than-thou, judgemental chauvanist.  A lesser person would be quite offended by the crap you've said in this thread but TMA doesn't seem to care so this is the last you'll hear about it from me.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Why do I even bother posting?

Gunwounds, a broken neck years after birth is an accident and is much easier to get covered by medical insurance.

[Andrew]

Not everyone is smart enough to obtain education in the high paying jobs or even the interest in it, therefore taking a degree in classics is better than not getting an education. Unless you want big expensive cars, houses and everything else you don't need a degree in law, medicine or any of those high paying jobs.

I agree a masters in Classics doesn't provide the most income, that is obvious. Same goes for a combined income say if both people worked with classics degree.

If a person can find a good job with classic degree then that is great. They probably will get by. Especially if you work at a university teaching Classics with your degree (after getting your education thingy).

This thread seems to be getting pointless.

[Wolf]

Gunwounds, there are really two ways to create new jobs in a full-employment capitalist market system. One way is to physically create new industries and technologies (industries that never before existed; I'm not talking a new version of wireless, but the warg industry) that demand unskilled labor, and later on skilled labor that was never before demanded. This satisfies the economic princpiples that Edric pointed out; the core tenets of supply and demand. The other way to create jobs is to annihilate the system through massive mismanagement and start over from scratch. However, even this is only a short-term fix. Since the employment rate might go about the magic 90% number and might even reach 100%, the basic physical operation of a capitalist market system for long periods of times restores the system to the 95% employment figure in the long run.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Gunwounds, there are really two ways to create new jobs in a full-employment capitalist market system. One way is to physically create new industries and technologies (industries that never before existed; I'm not talking a new version of wireless, but the warg industry) that demand unskilled labor, and later on skilled labor that was never before demanded. This satisfies the economic princpiples that Edric pointed out; the core tenets of supply and demand. The other way to create jobs is to annihilate the system through massive mismanagement and start over from scratch. However, even this is only a short-term fix. Since the employment rate might go about the magic 90% number and might even reach 100%, the basic physical operation of a capitalist market system for long periods of times restores the system to the 95% employment figure in the long run.

i understand what your saying wolfwiz.... but take this scenario.... and tell me why it wouldnt work:

Economy reaches Full employment (100%)

Now .....new jobs are made....... and there is actually a surplus of jobs for once....

There is always and influx of Students into the job market every graduation year....

thus the surplus of jobs gets filled....

thus we temporarily dipped to 99% employment while we waited for the freshly graduated students to pick up the surplus jobs...but then we go back to 100 percent....

Theoretically the only reason why we should never stay at 100% Full employment is because fresh graduates are churned out every year and it takes time for them to settle into a job...

which is perfectly normal....

ALSO , i fail to understand Edrico's point about new jobs not being created at 100 % employment.... how is this?... why can there never be a surplus of jobs?

ther are job surpluses all the time.... take for example a company where one person does the work of 3-4 people... its called an understaffed company....

its perfectly doable.... the company has 3-4 positions open and ready to hire someone... however.... the 1 person working there with lots of experience is able to perform all the necessary duties...(although that person is stressed).

[GUNWOUNDS]

claims about the possibility of full employment are utterly absurd.

proof is in the pudding

Here is how easy it is to create millions of jobs...

http://www.house.gov/transportation/press/press2003/release50.html

scroll to the bottom and look at the chart.... look at the numbers in the far right column for each state... those are the 1.3 million new jobs coming to us just from highway infrastructure construction jobs alone....

Dont nonchalantly dismiss my claims as absurd without giving a good reason first or counter-proof....

[TMA_1]

lol good gravy gunwounds, you still dont get it do you? I wasent saying that I should recieve some sort of badge of honor, and I wasent saying that somehow I know it all, I was saying that you dont know it all, and that you seem to be ignorant on matters of poverty from the statements that you have made. It really is that simple.

So you think being a pastor is a bad job since it doesnt usually pay well? My dad was a pastor before my sister was born and didnt know of what would happen, even after she was born he treid to stay in the ministry, but it didnt work out, the lord just didnt want it.

You say you are a christian, so why do you have hostilities towards being a pastor? That is one of the most noble professions you can aim towards, working directly with the lord. Money isnt everything, and maybe you should read more scripture to see that.

[GUNWOUNDS]

You say you are a christian, so why do you have hostilities towards being a pastor?

I of course have nothing against pastors.... however IMO a pastor is not a full time job.

My grandmother is a pastor and she doesnt make a dime.... but thats ok cause my grandfather has a nice retirement that takes care of them...

You see...... being a pastor is sort of a hobby for my grandmother.. she knows the bible inside and out she writes teachings , preaches, helps out others etc, the whole nine yards etc, etc ... but she doesnt make anything from it.... its a small church and so how can it generate any funds?..... secondly, she would not be so naive as to think she could support a family with such a pseudo-profession. I mean seriously... you compare pastorship to a

[TMA_1]

you are easily labelled gunwounds, it is simple.

And no I cant even pin down your denomination through some of the ideas you have expressed, it is different to me. I just bothered you about it because I was upset at you, you understand, generally people get upset when they are insulted. ::)

It says in the bible that pastors should be able to make a living off of their work, it says that those attending teh church should try and give a living to those that are serving the church. It is NOT a hobby, which really scares me that you call it such, almost like calling the office of prophesy in ancient israel just a passing fancy...

My dad did have to have other part time jobs, for awhile he wrote for a magazine dealing with cooking wild game, which actually did pretty well but he had to bag it once my sister came into life, because when my sister was younger we had to stay near the hospital in seattle for months at a time, they let him go with some money for help, but after that not much could be done. my dad tried to get some jobs but would have to be let go because all of the fam had to go to the hospital in seattle and back.

anyways why am I telling you all this personal stuff? it really shouldnt be that big a deal. I guess I am trying to explain to you the simple facts, so that maybe you wont have to resort to saying nasty things.

and I do apologize for insulting your religious beliefs, even though I disagree with some of the major docternal issues of them.

I think this thread is pretty much done, but it really wasent that big a deal as it is empr's rant thread that is not posted much upon by empr anymore. Sorry guys for all this, maybe gunwounds will learn not to freak out though, then tell me I am going on tangents. that just cracks me up.lol

[GUNWOUNDS]

And no I cant even pin down your denomination through some of the ideas you have expressed, it is different to me.

As i said denomination really doesnt mean much as people nowadays pick and choose different things like a buffet dinner...

The best way i can explain my denomination is that i dont have one... the church i go to currently is termed a "non-denominational" church and it belives all christians should be unified and does not believe in the

[TMA_1]

it says that a worker (pastor) should be given his due in the bible, it says that a pastor should be able to survive on his earnings. It is a sad day these days when pastors cant sustain themselves off of church fundings. It used to be that way, but it is harder now, it should not be relegated to a hobbie, or anything close to it.

Most of your docterns I beleieve, except the gift of tongues, which is totally different then what the charismatics believe, it also says taht these gifts would cease to exist as soon as the complete canon of scripture was made, because before then they had to rely on info that wasent yet fully organized into the word.

[Wolf]

Gunwounds, I am confused as to what you are saying about your scenario. At 100% employment, full employment, no new jobs are made unless a new industry is created. Currenty, it is nearly impossible for college students just graduated to find a job, because there are simply no jobs to be found.

[Andrew]

About the 100% employment, let's not forget about people retiring.

And we are talking about theoretical 100% employment right? As it is pretty much impossible to get 100% employment as people are not always working at a job. (They could be layed off, looking for new job etc.)

[GUNWOUNDS]

About the 100% employment, let's not forget about people retiring.

And we are talking about theoretical 100% employment right? As it is pretty much impossible to get 100% employment as people are not always working at a job. (They could be layed off, looking for new job etc.)

100% employment = everyone who WANTS a job has a job.....

Edrico claims that 100% employment is everyone working whether they want a job or not..... so he thinks housewives should be forced to be counted as unemployed which is rediculous.

Just because a husband may have to earn for 2 people doesnt mean there is something wrong... there is nothing wrong with one person supporting another.... also the United Staes Department of Labor does not count housewives as unemployed....because you have to WANT to work to be considered unemployed.

[GUNWOUNDS]

At 100% employment, full employment, no new jobs are made unless a new industry is created.

why is this so ?

100% full employment means that everyone who wants a job has a job...... it doesnt mean every job opening is filled.

SO it is possible to have everyone employed but yet still have a surplus of jobs.

[nemafakei]

Once everyone is employed, no new businesses can be feasibly created, since everyone already has a job.

[Wolf]

Gunwounds, an unfilled job is not a job at all. What I am saying is that it might as well have vanished into thin air. So, there is a job, but no one around to fill it? This is also not a good economic condition to be in, it means that you are unable to support yourself as a whole. I apologize for not articulating this better.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Gunwounds, an unfilled job is not a job at all. What I am saying is that it might as well have vanished into thin air. So, there is a job, but no one around to fill it? This is also not a good economic condition to be in, it means that you are unable to support yourself as a whole. I apologize for not articulating this better.

Once everyone is employed, no new businesses can be feasibly created, since everyone already has a job.

Ok now i completely understand what you two are saying.

However, I just thought it was ok to have 100% employment so long as there was always a steady supply of NEW bachelor's students, master's students, and PhD Students graduating every year....

They would be the fresh meat so to speak to create the new businesses and to fill in the surplus jobs...

But i am sure both of you two will reply to me that