If there are only 19 bones for every 20 dogs, then it doesn't matter how good a bone hunter they all are there will always be one dog disappointed and the other 19 will be grateful for the bone no matter how thin and weedy it is. Systemically the 'interest rate targeting' approach starts to tighten up policy when unemployment gets below 5% - which they consider 'full employment' even though 1 in 20 haven't got jobs.…
The maximum entropy situation is one dog with 6+ bones and lots with none. It is structurally broken at a statistical mechanics level if you are concerned about fairness.
Why do these articles always start with a story about a person? I see this in nearly all articles from american news papers. It's strange. Seems like a paper from a young student who needs to get his 3000 wordcount. It just bloats the article and makes it difficult to get the information out of it.
I think many journalists like to think themselves as writers. But this ain't a novel!
If we raised farm labor wages by 40% it would cost the consumer less than $25 a year. ”For a typical household, a 40 percent increase in farm labor costs translates into a four percent increase in retail prices (0.30 farm share of retail prices x 0.33 farm labor share of farm revenue = 10 percent, farm labor costs rise 40 percent, and 0.4 x 10 = 3.6 percent). If farm wages rose 40 percent, and the increase were passe…
I dont think the average consumer wants to pay $25 more per year.
> Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not. But not having 3 kids when you cannot afford having them might be. That is the issue nobody likes to address. For driving a car you have to have driving license, for owning a gun you have to have some kind of permit, to made new human being you can just go ahead. No matter if you can raise it. Would she be better of not having them? Might be,…
If there are only 19 bones for every 20 dogs, then it doesn't matter how good a bone hunter they all are there will always be one dog disappointed and the other 19 will be grateful for the bone no matter how thin and weedy it is. Systemically the 'interest rate targeting' approach starts to tighten up policy when unemployment gets below 5% - which they consider 'full employment' even though 1 in 20 haven't got jobs.…
I'm not sure what is the point of the first paragraph but it's considered full employment at 5% because not everyone is interested in having a job. It is impossible to have 100% employment rate. So there's no point in pursuing it. Its a kind of thing like the average number of hands per population is less than two. Seems counter intuitive, but when you think about it, it does make sense. One shouldn't relay on the ex…
People who aren't looking for a job aren't included in those figures.
The reason 5% is considered full employment is there will always be a number of people who are unemployed because they are between jobs, for instance their partner has moved or they are rejoining the workforce after pregnancy or even looking for their first job.
Solving inequality goes against everything in nature. The market is as close to an evolutionary natural state as we can get.
If anything, nature strives for balance and equality. If the market is as you claim it should be working towards an equilibrium.
Equilibrium does not mean equality, far from it. It just means the situation is stable. The predator-prey relationship is in an equilibrium, but they are in no way equal.
America is a country of huge wealth. Wealthy in natural resources, capital equipment, labor ... fucking everything. And yet we have such terrible poverty. When I read stories about poor people in America, always there is lurking just below the surface the key element of scarcity. Not food. Not transportation. Not clothing. Not even, surprisingly, health care. The missing factor in all these broken lives is the simple…
> Why hasn't the market solved this problem? Well my elementary knowledge of economics suggests that the market equilibrium price is the intersection of the supply and demand curves. There is additional demand but at a price lower than can be supplied. It is not profitable to supply housing further, and some demand is not met. This will always be the case (according to my elementary understanding of economics). That…
In most countries where it exists "social housing" is a synonym of "depressive, unsafe space, continuously destroyed by its inhabitants". Probably, this approach solves some problems, but creates new ones at the same time.
I think it would fluctuate depending on the prices of strawberries. And if you spent all your money giving out the maximum possible wage and your crops failed you’d go out of business because you weren’t able to save money.
Exactly. This cannot work without forcing a whole range of products a LOT more expensive than they are. That's a feature, not a bug. But yes, the rest of society will become a LOT "poorer" (but still comfortable) for no more than a decent increase in the living standard of the working poor.
Isn't that just going to plummet the demand for strawberries, thus completely wiping out those jobs?