Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>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."> Nowhere in there does he say that the demographic shift is fully responsible. At most he implies it's largely responsible. But nowhere does he say it's fully responsible. YOU read that in. {{ALERT! PLEASE DO NOT MAKE THIS ANOTHER THING ABOUT DCA. THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE IS FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY}} It's akin to someone saying "DCA's attendance went up last year. Not hard to do when you offer so many discounts." That implies discounts were largely responsible, but doesn't say they fully were. Someone else could say "not hard to do when DL's 50th is on and so many people are coming to the DLR in general." Same thing. So which is it? No doubt those two plus other factors. But no one with a brain would attribute it to any one thing, and neither did mrichmondj. He pointed out one component, which you continue to deny has ANY effect, strangely. >>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.> Unless the retiring person's job is eliminated (which shouldn't happen often in a good economy, right?), what normally happens is that someone - within the company or from outside - takes their job, at that rough pay grade. Someone who was hired a couple of years go moves up a bit, and the entry level person comes in at what that second person was at a couple of years ago. It's not a matter of the new hire getting moving into the retiring person's job; don't be so simplistic. <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.> Do you even know what dogma IS? You throw these words (and concepts) out, and it's like seeing someone who doesn't really understand what they're saying trying to bluff their way through. >>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!!!> You are a curious one. All I've ever said is that the demographic shift must be responsible for PART of the answer. It could be a small part for all I know. But to try to deny it means anything is just illogical - and the true sign of someone who is "completely glued to his stance." <>>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.> Exactly. Which is why you can't "understand" that 2+2=5. Math is math. You seem to once again have missed the point. <What makes you think Retiring Workers as "A" is equivalent to Younger Workers as "B"?> I don't - as I explained above. An incoming worker doesn't have to take the job of the retiring worker (others in between in the workforce will do that) for the math to hold.
Originally Posted By woody >>Exactly. Which is why you can't "understand" that 2+2=5. Math is math. You seem to once again have missed the point.<< This makes absolutely no sense. I missed nothing substantial. >>Nowhere in there does he say that the demographic shift is fully responsible. At most he implies it's largely responsible. But nowhere does he say it's fully responsible. YOU read that in.<< The argument he made was clear. You read more into it to fit your hypothesis that you have yet to support. >>It's akin to someone saying "DCA's attendance went up last year. Not hard to do when you offer so many discounts." That implies discounts were largely responsible, but doesn't say they fully were. Someone else could say "not hard to do when DL's 50th is on and so many people are coming to the DLR in general." Same thing. So which is it? No doubt those two plus other factors. But no one with a brain would attribute it to any one thing, and neither did mrichmondj. He pointed out one component, which you continue to deny has ANY effect, strangely.<< If someone made that claim, I would ask for backup for precisely that claim. Otherwise, I'll argue that it is wrong. If someone made an argument based on DL's 50th, then that argument counters the argument about the discounts. I would not join the two arguments together and say both are responsible unless one or the other decided to conceded the argument or came to an agreement. I haven't conceded the argument and mrichmondj hasn't altered his premise. You're rather disingenuous in trying to change the subject. >>An incoming worker doesn't have to take the job of the retiring worker (others in between in the workforce will do that) for the math to hold.<< You haven't proved anything. You haven't made the link between how unemployment rates are precisely linked to the number of people retiring. >> bluff their way through.<< You bluffed your way through your new math and 2+2=5. Time to re-learn algebra.
Originally Posted By JeffG I know that this is fruitless, but I see that nobody has tried to demonstrate the simple math that Dabob has been trying to explain... For illustrative purposes, let's say that the workforce consists of 10 people, 5 of whom are employed. That gives you a 50% unemployment rate. Now, let's say that 3 of the employed people retire while 2 additional people enter the work force. Meanwhile, there continue to be 5 available jobs. After those changes, the new work force consists of only 9 people and there are still 5 that are employed. The unemployment rate is now around 44% instead of 50%. It works the same way in real life. If the number of people that retire in a given year is more than the number that enter the work force, it will cause a downward trend in the unemployment rate. As has been pointed out numerous times, that is simple, unavoidable math. Of course, nobody is denying that other factors singificantly impact the unemployemnt rate as well, possibly to a much larger extent than the demographic shift. Certainly numerous economic factors affect how many jobs are available. The skill sets of the retirees and those entering the work force certainly also impact the situation dramatically. The existence of other factors simply doesn't dismiss that the demographic shift >is< an influence. How big an influence it really is simply requires a lot more data than what has been introduced in this thread, but the fact that it does influence the statistic is undeniable. -Jeff
Originally Posted By woody >> I see that nobody has tried to demonstrate the simple math that Dabob has been trying to explain...<< You made an attempt to show the math, but an incomplete attempt. Dabob2 did one thing well. He said there are many factors, but he stopped short. I believe the demographic shift has NO effect on low unemployment due its mitigating factors (that Dabob ignored). Economic decline due to... 1. Less consumption. 2. Higher taxes. 3. Social Security benefits. 4. Smaller workforce. Back to school.
Originally Posted By woody >>Now, let's say that 3 of the employed people retire while 2 additional people enter the work force. Meanwhile, there continue to be 5 available jobs. After those changes, the new work force consists of only 9 people and there are still 5 that are employed. The unemployment rate is now around 44% instead of 50%.<< There may not "continue to be 5 available jobs." 1 job may be eliminated when production declines due to less consumption; while company has great difficulty in filling that job due to a shrinking workforce. So the company ends up filling 1 job with the available pool of workers while paying a bit more money to that worker. The workforce becomes 9 people total with 4 people employed. The unemployment rate becomes 55%, which is a slight increase in unemployment. See how it works.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I'll buy your hypothesis woody -- but why on earth are we throwing all of our nation's resources into a fruitless war in Iraq when we have the economic decline on the horizon that you speak of? You'd think someone would be smart enough to recognize that we'll need to save some money to prop the economy up then. But instead we dig ourselves deeper in debt so that when the economic decline that you predict arrives we'll be in no position to do anything but just be broke.
Originally Posted By woody The demographic shift is real, but the economy is doing well to counter the effects. How? 1. Immigration (legal or illegal). Many overseas educated technical workers are replacing a shrinking pool of skilled workers. Unskilled immigrants provide the remaining cheap labor. 2. Low taxes fuels the economy, but it doesn't mean taxes will remain low. Taxes are raised in other areas. 3. Cheap overseas goods mean people can spend more money for basic goods. In the long run, it is a bad thing, but it is good right now. 4. Encourage older people to work longer. Raise the retirement age. Only employed people pay taxes in larger amounts while consuming more. A working person is more likely to buy more clothes, replace their cars, and spend more on themselves.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I love the idea that you are going to make the Baby Boomers work longer and defer retirement. My parents and all of their Baby Boomer friends retired immediately at age 55. They had no desire to work until age 65. Could they afford early retirement? Absolutely not -- but that doesn't mean folks aren't doing it in record numbers. Just another example of where the kids will be bailing out the parents in the years to come. I'm not worried about unemployment -- the kids of the Baby Boomers will need to work 2 jobs just to pay for all the unpaid bills that are accumulating now.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'll buy your hypothesis woody -- but why on earth are we throwing all of our nation's resources into a fruitless war in Iraq when we have the economic decline on the horizon that you speak of?> One, it's not fruitless if it leads to greater peace and prosperity in the Middle East, and therefore increases our safety. Two, the costs of the war in Iraq are small compared to the costs of Medicare and Social Security.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal "One, it's not fruitless if it leads to greater peace and prosperity in the Middle East, and therefore increases our safety. Two, the costs of the war in Iraq are small compared to the costs of Medicare and Social Security." 1. It won't. The unrest in the Middle East is too deeply rooted in religion and faith to be changed by bombs and guns. Us beating the you-know-what out of a country for a little while, or forever, isn't going to change them into the kind of democracy we have here. The problem in the Middle East goes far beyond military action. 2. Neither of which takes adequate care of Americans. Medicare is barely covering basic medical needs and often doesn't cover necessary treatment or medications. Most Americans do not receive the medical care they need so until THAT happens I'd rather see us spending time and resources fiixing that problem. It's hard to care about us lending a hand to a foreign country when we aren't even feeding and providing medical care to our own citizens. Social Security is holding steady and is an excellent, necessary program. That said, this country treats its elderly like throw aways and its a disgrace. I am hopeful that the SSA will continue to pay attention to this program and provide the benefits earned by so many workers over the years. P.S... Before anyone questions it... I DO love America and I DO hate the terrorists. Just to be clear.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <1. It won't.> You don't know that. We're seeing millions of people come out to vote. We're seeing Iraq's economy flourish. We're also seeing more and more arabs turning against the terrorists. Iraq may not become a democracy like we have, but there's a very good chance it will be better than it was under Saddam Hussein. <2. Neither of which takes adequate care of Americans.> That does not blunt my point.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy imadisneygal, so what is your solution to the middle east and medical care here in America? You sound like so many liberals out there. Fast to complain and distort the facts, yet never a solution to offer in return.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "1. It won't. The unrest in the Middle East is too deeply rooted in religion and faith to be changed by bombs and guns. Us beating the you-know-what out of a country for a little while, or forever, isn't going to change them into the kind of democracy we have here. The problem in the Middle East goes far beyond military action." This is the plain and simple truth. Several hundred years of religious strife with roots so deep they go back to biblical times is NOT going to be changed by a few years of us being there. Period, end of discussion. It's became painfully obvious to everyone except those with arrogant fantasies of supremacy. Guess what, folks. We AREN'T the Greatest Generation. They're mostly gone, and it's doubtful they would have prevailed anyway. We're trying to change a religious-based mindset with guns, ammo and a form of government most of the Iraqi people are unable to comprehend or accept due to these very same religious tenets. Yet people who have never been there think they know what's best. Lunacy.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I don't necessarily believe in medical care as a universal entitlement. But just for comparison's sake: $315.8B appropriated so far for the war in Iraq (this is funding outside the regular military budget) That same amount could pay for health care benefits to over 71M people. Throwing money down a rabbit hole in the Middle East doesn't solve any of our long term economic challenges. Social Security alone faces a $4T shortfall by the year 2080. When you factor in the cost of war, plus our increasing payments to service the federal debt, those two budget line items together will exceed $4T easily in the next 20 years. The bills will come due for us all in the not too distant future. In one way or another, we are going to pay dearly for our spending decisions today.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <This is the plain and simple truth.> No, it's not. It's just a pessimistic opinion. <It's became painfully obvious to everyone except those with arrogant fantasies of supremacy.> The people with "fantasies of supremacy" are those who believe the Iraqi are incapable of creating a prosperous, free democracy. <Yet people who have never been there think they know what's best.> I've read columns by people who have been there that are more optimistic than your opinion, and you haven't been there. So how can you think you know what's best?
Originally Posted By imadisneygal "You don't know that. We're seeing millions of people come out to vote. We're seeing Iraq's economy flourish. We're also seeing more and more arabs turning against the terrorists. Iraq may not become a democracy like we have, but there's a very good chance it will be better than it was under Saddam Hussein." Listen, I don't doubt that things are better now for most Iraqis than they were when Saddam was in power. What I question is whether it's our job to police the world and tell them how to run their own country. And the millions of Iraqis who came out to vote are still subjected to violence and bloodshed in their country every day. How has them voting helped? They still don't have an effective government in place. The country is rife with rebellions and insurgencies. I don't see why it's our job to make Iraq into a democracy at the expense of our own citizens. We're talking about rebuilding Iraqi schools, providing food and medicine to the Iraqi people - even doing FREE surgery to correct a spinal defect in a little girl from Afghanistan when there are people here who need adequate education, food, and medical care. It doesn't take much to have things better than they were under Saddam. If that's our goal then we're done and let's get the heck out of there... "imadisneygal, so what is your solution to the middle east and medical care here in America? You sound like so many liberals out there. Fast to complain and distort the facts, yet never a solution to offer in return." First of all, what facts have I distorted? The problem in the middle east IS more than the military can accomplish on its own. Medicare DOESN'T provide the necessary care for most Americans. And Social Security is a much needed and valued program. Show me a distorted fact, Beau. It sounds good to say that I'm just a liberal distorting facts, but it doesn't hold water. Secondly, I am not fast to complain. My complaints come after thinking, observing, and rehashing my opinions almost daily. I don't take this lightly and I don't complain for the sake of complaining. I really think we're in over our heads in Iraq due to the depth and breadth of the religion and faith in the region. As far as the solution to the Middle East, obviously I don't have one. Many of the world's most brilliant minds have been trying to fix it for well over a thousand years and no one has been able to fix it yet. So thinking that I, with my little psychology degree, can fix it would be ridiculous. What I DO think about it is that it's more a diplomatic matter than a military one. And the answer does not lie in trying to bully the middle east into thinking the way we do. But rather to try to adjust our thinking to recognize that we're not the only country in the world and that our way isn't necessarily the best way for everyone else. People are scared of what they don't know and instead of trying to understand it and integrate it into the world we're trying to blow it off the map. Islam isn't going to go away. So why are we trying to pretend it is? To speak to the solution to medical care here in America - my answer is Universal Health Care. I know, I know, I know. Why should your taxes pay for someone else's health care? They should just get a job with benefits like you have, right? We are responsible for our citizens. Our little "empire" that we have here in the U.S is going to fall harder than the Romans if we don't take care of our own citizens. It is a disgrace that in this time period in a country this rich we have citizens without food and medical care. So yes, I think the government should provide health care for all citizens. Even if it means using my tax dollars to do it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That same amount could pay for health care benefits to over 71M people.> And then what? Can we afford to continually pay more for health care benefits for continually more people? Is that really the best use of the federal government? And when looking at how much the Iraq war has cost us, you also need to look at how much not going to war would cost us. <a href="http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.23916" target="_blank">http://www.aei.org/publication s/pubID.23916</a>,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What I question is whether it's our job to police the world and tell them how to run their own country.> We didn't go into Iraq to police the world or to tell them how to run their own country. We went into Iraq because making Iraq a free and prosperous place will make us safer and more prosperous.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "We didn't go into Iraq to police the world or to tell them how to run their own country. We went into Iraq because making Iraq a free and prosperous place will make us safer and more prosperous." You managed to contradict yourself within one sentence. Pretty funny.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal "And then what? Can we afford to continually pay more for health care benefits for continually more people? Is that really the best use of the federal government?" I think it's definitely one of the best uses of the federal government to take care of its citizens. And yes, we can afford to do it. If we'd spend money on preventive care we'd spend a lot less on acute care in the long run. This is where the dichotomy comes in. Conservatives don't think it's their problem to take care of other people's health care and many liberals think it's not only our problem but it's our responsibility. The article about War vs. Containment has some valid points, but the containment theory points to life for the Iraqis had we not gone to war there. Right now we're talking about Americans and taking care of our own citizens. When all Americans are fed and medically cared for then maybe it will be easier to understand our going into another sovereign nation and changing their way of life to suit our own. Or even removing a vicious, horrible, violent dictator from another country. When we take our own citizens as seriously as we are taking the Iraqis then maybe this war will make more sense to me.
