BoatShoes;1588895 wrote:It is earlier in the thread. Go look at the graph.

The specific data are people who are unemployed and not counted in the labor force but tell the BLS that they want a job right now, the unemployed who are counted in the labor force and actively looking for work and people who are employed in part time jobs but want to work full time and cannot get the hours.

While it is not perfect, the BLS distinguishes between people who aren't in the labor force and do not want a job and people who are in the labor force and do want a job.

There's 83 million who say they don't want a job now and 6 million who say they do want a job. Those 6 million who say they want a job end up getting sucked into the welfare state and become part of that 83 million.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.htm

So my point was about the 83 million. And you are arguing with me because of the 6 million? LOL

WebFire;1588905 wrote:That is total unemployed. You were saying 24k that wanted to work. I am not seeing this in any of your graphs.

People counted as "unemployed" have searched for work in the last four weeks.

WebFire;1588907 wrote:So my point was about the 83 million. And you are arguing with me because of the 6 million? LOL

When we start talking about the 83 million then the problem gets even scarier. Imagine how many of those people who might be induced into looking for work if the economy was bustling along. You think you're making a point but it just shows that the lack of employment opportunities is even graver than even I am pointing out. Millions of people are just looking to get by and they cannot find work....the end up being entrenched in the welfare state, black market dealings, under the table employment, etc. and become derided as the moocher class by conservatives when really the proximate cause for all of this behavior in the first place is the persistent lack of gainful employment opportunities.

http://www.amazon.com/When-Work-Disappears-World-Urban/dp/0679724176

BoatShoes;1588915 wrote:People counted as "unemployed" have searched for work in the last four weeks.

So which is it? You are saying 24M want to work, but then you post a link that shows 83M out of 92M don't want to work.

BoatShoes;1588918 wrote:When we start talking about the 83 million then the problem gets even scarier. Imagine how many of those people who might be induced into looking for work if the economy was bustling along. You think you're making a point but it just shows that the lack of employment opportunities is even graver than even I am pointing out. Millions of people are just looking to get by and they cannot find work....the end up being entrenched in the welfare state, black market dealings, under the table employment, etc. and become derided as the moocher class by conservatives when really the proximate cause for all of this behavior in the first place is the persistent lack of gainful employment opportunities.

http://www.amazon.com/When-Work-Disappears-World-Urban/dp/0679724176

I never argued that there would be enough jobs for everyone, though. My point was that if you don't work at it or don't want it, you'll be in that unemployed group. The stat you posted proves that. 83M out of 92M not in the labor force DO NOT WANT TO WORK. That's why they are there.

That was my only point. Yet you berated me.

gut;1587870 wrote:NO! What you are referring to is nominal growth, but what economists care about is REAL growth. The govt CANNOT create REAL growth simply by printing money.

In fact, the entire concept of "smoothing" economic cycles is based on the fact that a major affect of financial and fiscal stimulus is to actually pull future growth forward. And after years of doing this, just like drilling a well you have to keep digging deeper and deeper, and that costs more and more money.

You have this fantasy that there are no long-run implications to endless printing and spending of money. You CANNOT make this problem go away with money, you are only delaying the inevitable. Eventually you have to take your medicine, and how severe and prolonged the pain depends on how deep you dig the hole.

This is what we have to worry about....LBJ starting the Vietnam War and the War on Poverty without a Tax Increase when the unemployment rate was under 5%. The economy increasing spending or cutting taxes and running a deficit at full employment increases the stress on our economy's productive capacity and causes inflation.




But in any event, is there really anyone who wouldn't take 5% inflation right about now and 4% unemployment as opposed to <2% inflation and 7% unemployment?

WebFire;1588921 wrote:So which is it? You are saying 24M want to work, but then you post a link that shows 83M out of 92M don't want to work.

You are getting confused here.

The 6 million who are "Not in the Labor Force" Who want to work + the 12 million "unemployed" who are "part of the labor force" + the 6 million who are "part of the labor force" who want to work more than what they can find gets the 24 million number.

The 83 million who are "not in the labor force" and "do not want to work" are an entirely different story. We weren't even considering the fact that there's not enough work for those people.

WebFire;1588923 wrote:I never argued that there would be enough jobs for everyone, though. My point was that if you don't work at it or don't want it, you'll be in that unemployed group. The stat you posted proves that. 83M out of 92M not in the labor force DO NOT WANT TO WORK. That's why they are there.

That was my only point. Yet you berated me.

Most of those people "do not want to work" for reasons like being old or disabled or children, etc.


My point was that that is irrelevant and wanted to focus on the 24 million who WANT TO WORK.

Let's just assume that those 83 million people are lazy sloths. This is not the case and I will prove that too if you want me to take the time but that is not the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make is that conservatives generally just assume if you want to work and you work hard you will make it and get by.


Yet, there are 24 million people that we KNOW want to work and there is only 4 million jobs to match that number of people.


If there is not enough work for the 24 million people who want to work to be gainfully employed.....what is to happen to those other 83 million who we haven't even considered yet....them become entrenched in the welfare state and end up becoming these people who say that they "DON'T WANT TO WORK" but yet, imagine if those 83 million people WANTED TO WORK....it would make no difference as there are only 4 million available jobs!

WebFire;1588923 wrote: The stat you posted proves that. 83M out of 92M not in the labor force DO NOT WANT TO WORK. That's why they are there.

That was my only point. Yet you berated me.

Most of them aren't moochers but are in college, school, stay at home moms etc.

But let's imagine they were all maximally motivated, hard working conservatives and wanted to work and participate in our economy. What good would it do? There's 4 million jobs available.

BoatShoes;1588926 wrote:You are getting confused here.

The 6 million who are "Not in the Labor Force" Who want to work + the 12 million "unemployed" who are "part of the labor force" + the 6 million who are "part of the labor force" who want to work more than what they can find gets the 24 million number.

The 83 million who are "not in the labor force" and "do not want to work" are an entirely different story. We weren't even considering the fact that there's not enough work for those people.

Ok, I do think I misunderstood. And I think I get your number now. Thank you for clarifying.

Truth be told, when you first threw out the 24k(M), I thought you were putting out the unemployment and claiming they all wanted to work. That is why I was debating in the first place.

BoatShoes;1588932 wrote:Most of them aren't moochers but are in college, school, stay at home moms etc.

But let's imagine they were all maximally motivated, hard working conservatives and wanted to work and participate in our economy. What good would it do? There's 4 million jobs available.

I don't have that answer. I would like to know as well. Obviously 100 cannot be employed. But how do you solve the problem of getting most people into work of some sort?