Patriotic Americans don't question umemployment numbers? (1 Viewer)

[Bergslagstroll]

I think it's an intersing that it's seems that you americans don't have a big discusion about the real number of unemployed. While in Sweden the opposition use every trick in the book, to make the unemployment number look much higher. At the same time the official numbers that are close to the american.

 

[oldreliable67]

I think it's an intersing that it's seems that you americans don't have a big discusion about the real number of unemployed.

We do have discussions, but not being familiar with the discussions held elsewhere, I can't make any comparisons as to their relative sizes. It simply isn't true that 'patriotic americans don't question unemployment numbers'. The rhetoric around unemployment really heats up around elections.

You referred to it as the 'real' number of unemployed. By that, do you mean that there is controversy as to whether the numbers being reported by the folks who generate the numbers are being manipulated for political purposes, or do you mean that the collection and analytical techniques are being employed properly but simply do not reflect reality?

The data comprising the unemployment reports are the most comprehensive, the most studied, the most analyzed data that comes out of the DC numbers mills. To their credit, the Commerce Dept and its various component parts are professionally staffed and quite independent of political influence. Sure, there are instances of patronage in all govt bureaus, but not in the professional ranks where the numbers are crunched.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Mostly because you have an Unemployment rate around 5.5% and a labor force around 4.5 million.

The US is 4.7% and a labor force of about 150,000,000

Despit the doomsayers, that really is pretty good for a country this size

 

[Bergslagstroll]

We do have discussions, but not being familiar with the discussions held elsewhere, I can't make any comparisons as to their relative sizes. It simply isn't true that 'patriotic americans don't question unemployment numbers'. The rhetoric around unemployment really heats up around elections.

You referred to it as the 'real' number of unemployed. By that, do you mean that there is controversy as to whether the numbers being reported by the folks who generate the numbers are being manipulated for political purposes, or do you mean that the collection and analytical techniques are being employed properly but simply do not reflect reality?

The data comprising the unemployment reports are the most comprehensive, the most studied, the most analyzed data that comes out of the DC numbers mills. To their credit, the Commerce Dept and its various component parts are professionally staffed and quite independent of political influence. Sure, there are instances of patronage in all govt bureaus, but not in the professional ranks where the numbers are crunched.

Statistic can always be discused and that is what the opposition are doing in Sweden. That both reason you mention is used. That alot of more people should be added to the unemployment. Like for example people that have early reatirment and are on long sick leave and students. That they actually should be out working. Also that the goverment shuffle people into workprogram. Of course there can be some truth in that, but sweden have a very high percent of productive people as percent of the totale workforce. If you for exampel look on OECD data.

Also I think you could have the same discusion in the USA. Like for example that people that don't search work or are unemployed to long doesn't count. Or that the people can't for example pay health insurance on the salary they get and therefor it's fake job that the goverment has to support by medicare. Atleast if you had the same aggressive/stupid opposition as we have in Sweden.

 

[AndrewC]

I think you underestimate the apathy of the average American. If unemployment affected more voting Americans, rest assured it would be discussed more. However, Many Americans would be shocked if we applied the European model of unemployment calculation.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Statistic can always be discused and that is what the opposition are doing in Sweden. That both reason you mention is used. That alot of more people should be added to the unemployment. Like for example people that have early reatirment and are on long sick leave and students. That they actually should be out working. Also that the goverment shuffle people into workprogram. Of course there can be some truth in that, but sweden have a very high percent of productive people as percent of the totale workforce. If you for exampel look on OECD data.

Also I think you could have the same discusion in the USA. Like for example that people that don't search work or are unemployed to long doesn't count. Or that the people can't for example pay health insurance on the salary they get and therefor it's fake job that the goverment has to support by medicare. Atleast if you had the same aggressive/stupid opposition as we have in Sweden.

Ya but don't you think that the unemployment numbers should only reflect the people who want to work but can't due to a lack of career opportunity, that's the whole point of the unemployment statistic to show the amount of job growth and opportunity not just the amount of people who are working but rather the amount of people who want to work but can't due to failed policy decisions of any given administration.

 

[alphamale]

Yo Bergslagstroll, I lived in Sweden for six months!

 

[Kelzie]

Some unemployment is required in any capitalist situation. Keeps things competitive. I think the US's unemployment rate is very reasonable, but the fact that our very system requires it means that some sort of aid should be provided to the people that are in jobs.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Some unemployment is required in any capitalist situation. Keeps things competitive. I think the US's unemployment rate is very reasonable, but the fact that our very system requires it means that some sort of aid should be provided to the people that are in jobs.

There is it's called unemployment pay, but when if people are out of work so long that there unemployment runs out it's a clear sign that they're not even trying to work.

 

[Kelzie]

There is it's called unemployment pay, but when if people are out of work so long that there unemployment runs out it's a clear sign that they're not even trying to work.

I know what it's called TOT. :roll:

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I think you underestimate the apathy of the average American. If unemployment affected more voting Americans, rest assured it would be discussed more. However, Many Americans would be shocked if we applied the European model of unemployment calculation.

Or you can see it as a will to trust good thing about the own country. Then the unemployment are seen as very low compared to other countries americans are just proud and don’t see any reason to question it. (Meaning both the actual number as if it’s the most relevant number that is presented). There I personally can see it as a good thing to be proud of your countries, only that it can go to far and work against the people.

Some unemployment is required in any capitalist situation. Keeps things competitive. I think the US's unemployment rate is very reasonable, but the fact that our very system requires it means that some sort of aid should be provided to the people that are in jobs.

Or you can see it as a failure of capitalism. That like you says that some people have to be unemployed. And according to harsh capitalist starve or get supported by the government according to humane capitalist like you.

Ya but don't you think that the unemployment numbers should only reflect the people who want to work but can't due to a lack of career opportunity, that's the whole point of the unemployment statistic to show the amount of job growth and opportunity not just the amount of people who are working but rather the amount of people who want to work but can't due to failed policy decisions of any given administration.

Well yes in theory but it can be a lot of things that make things more complicated. Like for example can people really sustain a decent life on the salary they get? An other reason can be that a person have giving up looking and have to live on family or the government. There can be a lot of problem getting job even if a person tries really hard, that I think may bee also is valid in the USA. Like for example that you live in a place with high unemployment at the same time you have personal or other reason that make it almost impossible to move. Also a problem that I actually heard from a professor then I was in the USA. Is that companies don’t want people that only will use them as a stepping stone. That can make it hard for unemployed academics to get low-level jobs. Also you got some people can have made really stupid things that make it hard to get jobs even if they have better themselves and got older and wiser.

Yo Bergslagstroll, I lived in Sweden for six months!

Hopefully you were in sweden during the summer. No hope you liked sweden.

 

[Kelzie]

Or you can see it as a failure of capitalism. That like you says that some people have to be unemployed. And according to harsh capitalist starve or get supported by the government according to humane capitalist like you.

Why is it a failure? It is something that is needed to make society more efficient. If there were no unemployment, people wouldn't feel the need to improve themselves to make them more marketable. It provides a vital function in capitalism, which is why the people that are unemployed need a minimal protection. It shouldn't be comfortable, but they shouldn't starve to death.

 

[oldreliable67]

Or you can see it as a failure of capitalism. That like you says that some people have to be unemployed. And according to harsh capitalist starve or get supported by the government according to humane capitalist like you.

In an abstract sense, it reflects the duality of nature: the presence of good and bad. How would one ever recognize one's possibilities without both an upside and a downside with which to measure and assess one's ambition?

 

[George_Washington]

I think a good way to lower unemployment might be to cut the minimum wage. It might encourage people to worker harder and/or possibly go to college and get a better job. It might also inevitably create more jobs in the private sector, which means we could cut back on government jobs and spending.

One interesting thing in our society that nobody seems to notice is, some people that are more educated get descriminated against, which is also a cause of unemployment. For example, your average Walmart store usually doesn't like to hire a college graduate versus someone with just a high school education because they're afraid the more educated person will only work for a short time before moving on to something better. Which is probably true but I also think a lot of it is because of the minimum wage. Employers are often hesitant to hire college graduates because they know that they have to pay them more because they already have to pay a lot of workers a certain wage plus benefits.

I actually think that if there was no minimum wage, people would be less likely to take low level paying jobs and so there would be more, "incentive" for people to become educated. Therefore, it would amount to us having a more educated society.

 

[Kelzie]

I think a good way to lower unemployment might be to cut the minimum wage. It might encourage people to worker harder and/or possibly go to college and get a better job. It might also inevitably create more jobs in the private sector, which means we could cut back on government jobs and spending.

One interesting thing in our society that nobody seems to notice is, some people that are more educated get descriminated against, which is also a cause of unemployment. For example, your average Walmart store usually doesn't like to hire a college graduate versus someone with just a high school education because they're afraid the more educated person will only work for a short time before moving on to something better. Which is probably true but I also think a lot of it is because of the minimum wage. Employers are often hesitant to hire college graduates because they know that they have to pay them more because they already have to pay a lot of workers a certain wage plus benefits.

I actually think that if there was no minimum wage, people would be less likely to take low level paying jobs and so there would be more, "incentive" for people to become educated. Therefore, it would amount to us having a more educated society.

I wouldn't worry about minimum wage right now. It's fairly close to the market minimum wage (the point where markets naturally won't go below because it is necessary for the basic maintenance of their workers) as it is.

 

[128shot]

Why is it a failure? It is something that is needed to make society more efficient. If there were no unemployment, people wouldn't feel the need to improve themselves to make them more marketable. It provides a vital function in capitalism, which is why the people that are unemployed need a minimal protection. It shouldn't be comfortable, but they shouldn't starve to death.

you're still a humane socialist on the inside.

POSER!


Life is about ruthless capitalism. Didn't you learn anything from John D. Rockefeller? :2razz:

 

[Kelzie]

you're still a humane socialist on the inside.

POSER!


Life is about ruthless capitalism. Didn't you learn anything from John D. Rockefeller? :2razz:

I'm not! I'm not damn it! Didn't you see? I said unemployment was good!:mrgreen:

 

[128shot]

I'm not! I'm not damn it! Didn't you see? I said unemployment was good!:mrgreen:

unemployment is good so you can secretly rally your socialist agenda

its :spin: I tell you :spin:

 

[Kelzie]

unemployment is good so you can secretly rally your socialist agenda

its :spin: I tell you :spin:

Damn you've discovered me! All my plotting for nothing! :lol:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Well yes in theory but it can be a lot of things that make things more complicated. Like for example can people really sustain a decent life on the salary they get? An other reason can be that a person have giving up looking and have to live on family or the government. There can be a lot of problem getting job even if a person tries really hard, that I think may bee also is valid in the USA. Like for example that you live in a place with high unemployment at the same time you have personal or other reason that make it almost impossible to move. Also a problem that I actually heard from a professor then I was in the USA. Is that companies don’t want people that only will use them as a stepping stone. That can make it hard for unemployed academics to get low-level jobs. Also you got some people can have made really stupid things that make it hard to get jobs even if they have better themselves and got older and wiser.

Socialist nations like Germany and France have much larger unemployment rates than the United States.

If your from Sweden then the U.S. and Sweden have the exact same 6% unemployment rate and Sweden hit a road block with their socialist policies back in the early 90s and have been backpeddling ever since.

 

[128shot]

Damn you've discovered me! All my plotting for nothing! :lol:

foiled again!


the thought police will arrest you! :2razz:

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Why is it a failure? It is something that is needed to make society more efficient. If there were no unemployment, people wouldn't feel the need to improve themselves to make them more marketable. It provides a vital function in capitalism, which is why the people that are unemployed need a minimal protection. It shouldn't be comfortable, but they shouldn't starve to death.

First of it’s a waste, that good productive people is home instead of working.

Second it is not fun to be unemployment in countries like USA and Sweden there productive and work is the norm. It also reduces carrier opportunity, retirement funds and social contact also even with a safety net it drastic lessen the economic independence.

Third I see it’s a failure that the second richest capitalist countries in the world (per capita) still need the big stick that is unemployment, the same goes for Sweden. Instead worker should grow from more responsibility, higher salary and more rewarding jobs.

Socialist nations like Germany and France have much larger unemployment rates than the United States.

If your from Sweden then the U.S. and Sweden have the exact same 6% unemployment rate and Sweden hit a road block with their socialist policies back in the early 90s and have been backpeddling ever since.

That do you mean with backpeddling? Yes we had a not so nice drop in the economy in the beginning of the 90’s, but the right wing parties didn’t improve the situation that much and got voted off 94. Also if you look at the recent years with a socialist government in charge you can see that we have a pretty big economic growth. Also we are taking back a lot of reforms that was cut during the 90´s also the unions are still strong.

But back to the topic yes other countries have much higher unemployment but that doesn’t stop us sweds from demanding lower unemployment. It’s one of the biggest arguments of the right wing parties before the election this year that the unemployment should be lower and they also question the real numbers. Two things that from my humble understanding is not that common in the USA.

 

[Kelzie]

First of it’s a waste, that good productive people is home instead of working.

Second it is not fun to be unemployment in countries like USA and Sweden there productive and work is the norm. It also reduces carrier opportunity, retirement funds and social contact also even with a safety net it drastic lessen the economic independence.

Third I see it’s a failure that the second richest capitalist countries in the world (per capita) still need the big stick that is unemployment, the same goes for Sweden. Instead worker should grow from more responsibility, higher salary and more rewarding jobs.

1st: It is not a waste. It introduces competition into the system. From the economy's perspective, there's no waste at all, those people's skills just aren't valued highly enough right now.

2nd: Of course it's not fun. That's why it introduces competition.

3rd: More of a normative statement really.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

1st: It is not a waste. It introduces competition into the system. From the economy's perspective, there's no waste at all, those people's skills just aren't valued highly enough right now.

2nd: Of course it's not fun. That's why it introduces competition.

3rd: More of a normative statement really.

1st First you have the wrong assumption there that we have a perfect capitalistic system. Because only there can you talk about true “capitalistic value” on work. Because today a to low “capitalistic value” on work can have no “true capitalistic reasons” behind it. For example protectionist measures or that the work selling part is too weak and therefore has to accept deals that are unproductive for her (16 hour day, extremely low pay etc.)

Second I still wonder how efficient competition is in the work market. For example instead of getting the best workers for an acceptable price as you get in Sweden with strong unions. You get persons that shut up and are willing to take the lowest salary. That can lead to sloppy jobs then the boss isn’t looking and also work problems like injuries and malpractices goes undetected.

Also you have to weight the interest of the society and the company. For the companies men and women that don’t plan to have children is more competitive in today society. But for the society it better that all women get an equal change as men and also that woman is willing to give birth.

3rd this probably sounds like a funny statement but I think it’s valid: That if you have the enormous resources at your disposal as USA and Sweden has. Then it’s logic not normative thinking that dictate that you should start with normative thinking instead of just logical and economical thinking.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That do you mean with backpeddling? Yes we had a not so nice drop in the economy in the beginning of the 90’s, but the right wing parties didn’t improve the situation that much and got voted off 94. Also if you look at the recent years with a socialist government in charge you can see that we have a pretty big economic growth. Also we are taking back a lot of reforms that was cut during the 90´s also the unions are still strong.

But back to the topic yes other countries have much higher unemployment but that doesn’t stop us sweds from demanding lower unemployment. It’s one of the biggest arguments of the right wing parties before the election this year that the unemployment should be lower and they also question the real numbers. Two things that from my humble understanding is not that common in the USA.

Well if you reenact those reforms then you are going to hit the very same economic rock that you hit during the 90s. The thing about socialism is that it doesn't destroy your economy all at once it takes years of mismanagement for the meltdown to occur as yours did in the early 90s.

SWEDEN: AN EXAMPLE FOR CONSERVATIVES

American conservatives should be shouting the Swedish experience from the rooftops

What would American conservatives say of a country that NOT ONLY has an extensive system of government-paid vouchers for private schooling but also has an extensive system of government-paid vouchers for private hospitalization? And what if the same country had ALREADY made big cutbacks in the size of government? A dream for the distant future? Not quite. That country does already exist. It is Sweden. Probably because the mainstream media turn a blind eye to it, most people seem totally unaware that Sweden is moving steadily AWAY FROM the "Swedish model". In the early 90s, the Swedish government was spending nearly three quarters of the national income. That is now down to about half.

Sweden still has a long way to go of course. After their big economic meltdown in the early 90's (huge unemployment and welfare benefits that could no longer be paid for) they undertook an exemplary program of privatizations and made big cuts to both taxes and welfare benefits but there are still huge disincentives to work in Sweden. Incomes are kept pretty uniform regardless of what you do -- meaning that there is little incentive either to improve one's skills or to work hard -- and the sickness benefit side of the welfare system is still a huge racket. People on sickness benefits no longer get a higher income than they would by working but the benefits are still close to wages and access to the system is very easy. So huge numbers of Swedes have declared themselves too ill to work.

As a consequence, average Swedish incomes have fallen well behind American standards -- as indexed by the most objective criterion we have: GDP per capita. When purchasing power is taken into account, the picture is even worse. A cup of coffee, for instance, is likely to cost you three times as much in Sweden as in the USA. Individual Swedes do however manage their money well so there is little visible sign in Sweden of their lower incomes. Visible poverty in any modern society mainly reflects bad decisions rather than lack of income. Money now buys options rather than survival.

So Leftists who advocate high taxes and pervasive welfare need to be told that the country that went furthest in that direction hit a rock years ago and has been paddling in reverse ever since.

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2005_07_24_dissectleft_archive.html#112224329195935742

Secondly, where have you heard that the U.S. doesn't demand lower unemployment?

Here's an interesting look at what Sweden actually is rather than how the left portrays it to be:

And Sweden has been essentially a one-party State since 1932, with only a very brief interlude in the 1990s. But what exactly the folkhemmet should consist of evolved and developed only very slowly and gradually. Change in Sweden is glacial even in the hands of Leftists so the fundamentally paternalist folkhemmet took many years to develop a sweeping dominance of Swedish life. Bit by bit taxes were raised, business was regulated and taken over and welfare programs were expanded. It was not in fact until the early 1990s that the whole edifice came crashing down. So the concept of a fatherly government was there from the beginning, the one-party State was there and a quiet conviction of Swedish superiority and unique wisdom was also there.

The Swedish folkhemmet State was welfarist, nationalist, paternalist and essentially all-powerful. Because it used its power very sparingly and cautiously, however, and respected civil liberties, it was undoubtedly the mildest of the Fascist States. Fascism varied greatly from country to country (to take a rather striking example, Sir Oswald Mosley initially used to expel from the British Union of Fascists anyone who made antisemitic remarks!) and the distinguishing feature of the Swedish version was undoubtedly that it was the least authoritarian. And after the war the Swedish Social Democrats did as all Leftists did and abandoned overt nationalism -- though a sense of Swedish superiority undoubtedly continued and discreetly made itself apparent from time to time.

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/sweden.html

Well you're living proof of that aren't you?