For Greece the headline unemployment is on average 9 percent. However it is at least 50 because in Greece there is another trick. People unemployed more than 2 years, are erased from unemployment rate as inactive, not belonging to able to work population.
True Rate of Unemployment
371–380 of 381 posts
Re: True Rate of Unemployment
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably the family of 4 isn't a family of 4 from the 1950s. Supporting a family of 4 on $50K or less hasn't been a thing for at a decade, so they were clearly in control of the variables at the relevant point in time. "Should" is fine because I'm disputing the very idea that this is an issue society should be responsible for solving. If I want a 4 bedroom home or lobster for dinner, buy it, then complain that I've…
I don't think you understand the actual point here. Or worse, are choosing not to understand the point. >Should" is fine "Should" is not what I'm arguing. If you want to make your theoreticals, find another discussion. I'm simply using this to highlight existing problems and the (lack of) solutions to it. "You should have X" is a dismissal of the problem (and quite frankly, an active show of malice), not a solution t…
I’m disputing that it’s anyone’s responsibility except their own to find a solution to it.
Work harder, earn more, or make do with less - they chose to take on two 18 year financial commitments and now are complaining that despite the bevy of financial benefits society already gives them compared to individuals without children, it’s not enough.
Re: True Rate of Unemployment
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economists have been championing Georgism for more than a century and we still refuse to consider it. I would argue that unreasonably expensive land prices are the most serious economic and social issue in the West today. It's a systemic problem, from which so many other issues are caused: homelessness, poverty, suppressed economic activity, inflation, class stratification, "failure to launch," fertility rates, inequ…
Some (few, heterodox) economists have been championing Georgism for more than a century. Some other economists[1] take it seriously enough to write refutations, explaining why they consider it to be a very bad idea. Your post seems to consider Georgism to be obviously correct. You've got a lot more proving to do before that can be considered settled. [1] Even Paul Krugman, who I disagree with on almost everything, co…
It's fair to criticise my absolute language but if I add up the top 100 most influential economists of the last century, the vast majority were in favour of LVT. There are notable exceptions, like Krugman, but let us not characterise him as representative of an equally large cohort of dissent. They are the firm minority.
Re: True Rate of Unemployment
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you understand the actual point here. Or worse, are choosing not to understand the point. >Should" is fine "Should" is not what I'm arguing. If you want to make your theoreticals, find another discussion. I'm simply using this to highlight existing problems and the (lack of) solutions to it. "You should have X" is a dismissal of the problem (and quite frankly, an active show of malice), not a solution t…
I’m disputing that it’s anyone’s responsibility except their own to find a solution to it. Work harder, earn more, or make do with less - they chose to take on two 18 year financial commitments and now are complaining that despite the bevy of financial benefits society already gives them compared to individuals without children, it’s not enough.
[dead]
Re: True Rate of Unemployment
#375Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Then maybe it's time you look up how unemployment statistics are calculated in Switzerland and you will be surprised that you counted into them." Not to criticise, but just to point out that this sentence doesn't quite make sense in English, and it's not immediately apparent what you mean. The sentence has to precisely opposed interpretations.
Oh interesting. What are the interpretations and why?
> Then maybe it's time you look up how unemployment statistics are calculated in Switzerland and you will be surprised that you counted into them.
First off the sentence simply doesn't make sense. Specifically 'you will be surprised that you counted into them.' I assume the commenter meant something like 'you will be surprised that you were included in those statistics. But it's highly ambiguous since 'you counted into them' isn't sensical.
Trying to parse it from context, they could be suggesting a reader would be surprised at how the statistics are calculated, at who is included, at who is not included, or at how similarly they are calculated when compared to other countries.
Re: True Rate of Unemployment
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Then maybe it's time you look up how unemployment statistics are calculated in Switzerland and you will be surprised that you counted into them." Not to criticise, but just to point out that this sentence doesn't quite make sense in English, and it's not immediately apparent what you mean. The sentence has to precisely opposed interpretations.
> this sentence doesn't quite make sense in English > The sentence has to precisely opposed interpretations. Muphry's Law still holds true.
Always, but perhaps not in this case. I wasn't correcting spelling, but coherence. The comment I replied to includes a sentence that is both ambiguous and non-nonsensical. It doesn't seem to be an issue of grammar, but rather clarity of thought.
Re: True Rate of Unemployment
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh interesting. What are the interpretations and why?
I beg to differ, perhaps my English dialect is different but sounds pretty OK to me – even for Chatty https://chatgpt.com/share/6a98091f-9550-83eb-b17e-c636ac3441...
Expert as a stochastic parrot may be in impersonating expertise, grammatical or otherwise, I don't see how citing it is relevant.
Re: True Rate of Unemployment
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm responding to a comment that was quite explicitly about everyone being above average. The commenter listed out a number of average costs to illustrate that they're not affordable to employed households pulling in less than the average. I think it's important to ensure everyone enjoys a decent quality of life, and I'm sure the apathy you're describing exists, but what's much more common in my experience is frustra…
>what's much more common in my experience is frustration with the mathematical invariant that 50% of households can't afford a 50th percentile lifestyle. Are we calling "shelter and 2 kids" a "50th percentile lifestyle" now? Is half the country now destined to either not raise family or raise a family on substandard conditions (putting a huge systematic burden on a child's upbringing)? If such basic goals set by biol…
Again, it depends entirely on what you mean by "substandard". It's entirely reasonable to demand specific standards - "children should have healthy food", "children should have health insurance coverage", etc. The median American child gets these things, with 81% of American children satisfying even the strictest standards of food security and 94% having health insurance. Getting these numbers closer to 100% is a laudable goal, and I've never encountered an effort to do so that I didn't support. Perhaps there's some other standard that isn't commonly tracked but should be!
If you mean "comparatively substandard", again, you have an unresolvable argument with mathematics. No system can possibly arrange things so that 80% or even 60% of American households have a 50th percentile standard of living.
Re: True Rate of Unemployment
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some (few, heterodox) economists have been championing Georgism for more than a century. Some other economists[1] take it seriously enough to write refutations, explaining why they consider it to be a very bad idea. Your post seems to consider Georgism to be obviously correct. You've got a lot more proving to do before that can be considered settled. [1] Even Paul Krugman, who I disagree with on almost everything, co…
It's fair to criticise my absolute language but if I add up the top 100 most influential economists of the last century, the vast majority were in favour of LVT. There are notable exceptions, like Krugman, but let us not characterise him as representative of an equally large cohort of dissent. They are the firm minority.
The vast majority? I'd like to see your notes.
Re: True Rate of Unemployment
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be confused about the point people are making. The point is that from about 1945 until around 2000 in the USA there really wasn't such a thing as "a job that doesn't pay enough to live on". People owned houses and cars by working at grocery stores. A single income from any white collar job supported a stay-at-home spouse. Teenagers bought cars by working part time. College kids paid their tuition and livi…
> from about 1945 until around 2000 in the USA there really wasn't such a thing as "a job that doesn't pay enough to live on". Also, this is flatly wrong in that the wage laws were crafted specifically to enforce certain jobs not paying enough to live on. In particular, US labor & minimum-wage laws have exemptions for the types of labor which was commonly associated with disfavored groups. As a result, those jobs hav…
Minimum wage was first established in the US in 1938, so I'm not so sure they're wrong. Almost sounds more like you're confirming what they said, since it's barely been adjusted with inflation.