Originally Posted By mrichmondj Thanks Doug -- mea culpa. I failed the reading comprehension test for the day. :-( Maybe time to get some sleep after being up for the past 36 hours.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I was quite a tough grader who didn't let the students get away with lazy thinking or lazy arguments>> <Considering that YOUR arguments are not based on fact and ONLY on your understanding of logic> I love this. Math isn't an "understanding" of logic. It is math. You can't "understand" that 2+2=5. <<We were talking about the unemployment rate and the demographic shift's effect on THAT.>> <Yes, that's the argument which you have provided NOTHING FACTUAL.> I'm ONLY talking about the math of the demographic shift. And the only factual thing you need is an understanding of math and ratios. You keep trying to read more into it, and this - being charitable - I suppose explains your consternation. <More interesting articles.... I suppose you really don't teach economics. And even if you do, you allow your biases to take hold.> You're assuming things you don't and can't know. <<My "theory" is just based on basic math. I think deep down you even know this, because - all other things being equal - if more people retire than join the workforce, the unemployment rate will decline somewhat.>> <Deep down..... down..... down..... down.... Do you really think this is the argument?> It's the only argument I'm making. Check the posts. You keep thinking I'm talking about something else, and I'm not. <The original argument is why is Bush's economy have low unemployment?> Here's how it worked. mrichmondj came on to say that the demographic shift was responsible for at least some of the drop in unemployment. You dismissed it entirely. I then chimed in to say you can't dismiss it entirely, because math is math. Nowhere, however, did I say this was the only, or even the major reason for the lowered unemployment numbers. Only that you couldn't dismiss it outright. It must by definition be responsible for part of it. mrichmondj may have implied that it was responsible for the lion's share, but I never did; I only said you couldn't pretend it counted for nothing. You go off trying to prove other reasons for causation, but that's not my argument. My only argument is that the demographic shift must be responsible for SOME of the changes in numbers. <We are talking about the low unemployment rate of 4.8%. Is this low? Or not? We are not talking about slightly lowering it from 5.08% as it was in 2005. We are asking an empirical (verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment) question. Why is it low?> See above. As I've said repeatedly, there could be any number of reasons. I haven't argued for or against any of them - with the exception of insisting that the demographic shift must be partly responsible, because math is math. It may be responsible for only a small amount. But it can not be responsible for none of it. <You never attempted to find out so your argument is based on nothing.> Oh woody, the other thread was right. It is like arguing with... well, you know.
Originally Posted By woody >>Here's how it worked. mrichmondj came on to say that the demographic shift was responsible for at least some of the drop in unemployment.<< No, he said demographic shift is fully responsible for the low unemployment rate. Repeat: mrichmondj said "low unemployment: not hard to do when your work force is retiring faster than there are younger people to replace the retirees." >>I'm ONLY talking about the math of the demographic shift. And the only factual thing you need is an understanding of math and ratios. You keep trying to read more into it, and this - being charitable - I suppose explains your consternation.<< In the math of a demographic shift, the next generation taking over the job of the retiring generation is not at the same rate. Unless you expect companies to start hiring outside of their pay grade; therefore, your math is flawed. The amount of Retirees does not equal the amount of Replacement Workers. If you only care about math and ratios, you can't expect an easy pass in transferring that match to the low unemployment rate. Sounds like educational dogma. >>I haven't argued for or against any of them - with the exception of insisting that the demographic shift must be partly responsible, because math is math. It may be responsible for only a small amount. But it can not be responsible for none of it.<< This deserves a peer review, professor!!! But, I'm talking to someone who is completely glued to his stance. Math is math. Over!!!
Originally Posted By woody >>I love this. Math isn't an "understanding" of logic. It is math. You can't "understand" that 2+2=5.<< I can't let this get away. 2+2=4 unless you're trying to prove a new hypothesis. What makes you think Retiring Workers as "A" is equivalent to Younger Workers as "B"? On math, you can't say A = B. And you can't add A+B without normalizing the numbers. And another thing, mrichmondj disproves his own theory. Going back to Post 178, the workforce differential between "people age 60-64 (nominal retirement age)" and "people age 20-24 (nominal age for entering the workforce)" is narrowing slowly. Over ten years, "the number of potential new workers has declined by about 1.5M. Not a hugely significant number." In summary, the ratio of retiring to new young workers has minor affect on the unemployment rate.
Originally Posted By woody Interesting article. I didn't realize unemployment is a real concern for the aging population. The issue of Social Security drives public policy to encourage full employment of older people. So the government doesn't want older folks to retire too quickly because they will start using the Social Security benefits in greater numbers. They also want to discourage early retirements and help those who are unemployable due to work and health reasons. Dabob2's new math is an illusion. Unemployment is a double edged sword. Older people who are unemployable, but under the retirement age, are shifted into Social Security, which is not considered a helpful trend. In summary, the government doesn't want low unemployment on the backs of our retirees (age 55 and over). Keep them working!!! Shouldn't we consider their expertise? ---------------- <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:3759246&ctrlInfo=Round19" target="_blank">http://www.highbeam.com/librar y/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:3759246&ctrlInfo=Round19</a>%3AMode19a%3ADocG%3AResult&ao= "While these difficult choices about social security financing were being considered, first by the National Commission on Social Security Reform in 1982 and then by the Congress in early 1983, the United States was again experiencing high levels of unemployment. However, the immediate financing problems of the social security system, and the growing awareness of adverse worker-to-beneficiary ratios in the next century forestalled any serious interest in liberalizing social security retirement or disability policy to alleviate unemployment. Concern about unemployment entered the social security debate only as an argument by the minority against the gradual increase in the full retirement benefit eligibility age in the next century. In considering the social security amendments, however, legislators were fully aware of the need for immediate relief for the unemployed, for the same legislation that enacted the Social Security Amendments of 1983 included provisions for extending the Federal Supplemental Compensation program for unemployed workers who had exhausted their regular and extended unemployment insurance benefits." "Congress was also aware of the special problems the future delay in the retirement age might pose for older workers and it included as part of the 1983 amendments a mandate for a study of the implications of that change for older workers who, because of health problems or arduous jobs, might not be able to delay retirement."
Originally Posted By Beaumandy How will democrats create more jobs if they were to get into power? How will they keep the unemployment rate as low as Bush has it?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj How will Bush get the unemployment rate back to where Clinton had it?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy He has it lower than Clinton had it. Your asking how he can make unemployment higher?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Funny, the Bureau for Labor statistics show the unemployment rate throughout 1998 and 1998 as lower than the current rate. Feb '06 rate: 4.8% Feb '99 rate: 4.4% Feb '98 rate: 4.6%
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Seems pretty close. BUT... what were the jobs in the late 90's?? Tons of them were internet jobs that are now a distant memory. The reason unemployment is low now and the reason people have so much money now, is because the tax cuts Bush has put into place. These have created more jobs and extra inclome for people like me who get fat returns back every year. The dems would for SURE raise those taxes because they can't grasp the fact that America runs best when people, not the government, gets to hold onto their money.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj If people have so much money now, why is the savings rate negative? Why is Wal-Mart the nation's #1 retailer?
Originally Posted By woody The savings rate does not count other factors. If you invest in stocks, bonds, and you have a lot of home equity, they don't count. Only cash in banks and other institutions counts.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <---staring longingly at the post above me.... Because woody was there... *sigh*
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Jim--to be fair to Woody's post 215 I might be a prime e.g. for him with < than 20K in bank But >2million in real estate equity so you have to be fair and balanced. Savings rates mean diddly with me seeing my real estate equity increased almost a million in a year and a half. I'm not big on 3% interest.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Plus, you can always take out a home equity loan and spend, spend, spend like the rest of America!
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Mrich--if you read my post--exactly what I did but it was INVEST in 3 mill of Orlando real estate. That's where we made more money in a year and a half then my previous 28 years working my butt off in the labor force. Real Estate prices have to inexorably go up because of supply and demand and people have to have a place to live so our rentals are cooking. So to reiterate who cares about the savings rate making NO money. The key is UNEARNED income as everyone knows and is why Arnold Palmer, our world famous celebrity living here and in the winter in Jupiter Island next to Tiger's new 38 mill home make more money NOW then when they were playing their sports. MUCH more.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Thanks for the tip, joe. I'll stick with the cash under my mattress method for now, though. That and the stock shares in ExxonMobil and Halliburton.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Ever since I saw Disneyland PACKED on a Wednesday in FEB I knew Americans had money to burn. This is a good thing. ( Except for the huge lines for Storybook Land )
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Are you parlaying the stocks? You can probably make more in stocks Mrich than real estate as that seems to be your area of expertise. In Rich Dad Poor Dad, the author made a ton in diverse investments so I'm not trying to say real estate is the only way. It just works for me after NOT much else working for 28 years. I guess you have to find your niche and keep on doing it?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Beau tell Mrich to get that money out of the mattress and do his patriotic duty and spend at disney like the rest of us. Beau--are you playing any golf or do all you people up there just drink starbucks coffee and gamble?????????
