Re: For Trucker

"Negloid" <negloid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1123518459.252925.4690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> The Trucker wrote:
>> Negloid" <negloid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1123223040.937492.49130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > The Trucker wrote:
>> >> Negloid" <negloid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:1123182161.620609.87480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >
>> >> > jrw wrote:
>
>> > I never
>> > wrote anything about personal failures. Perhaps you need to figure out
>> > what I mean by "marginal worker".
>>
>> Even better it might be good for you to tell us what
>> you mean.
>
> The marginal worker is the last worker a company hires. A marginal
> worker is not necessarily dumber, lazier, sicker, uglier, or fatter
> than other workers. He is just the most recently hired. But there is
> some reason he was hired most recently and in economic models,
> typically he is the least productive employee. (The logic being, for
> example, that the company will hire the most productive first and least
> productive last.) The marginal worker, under low unemployment, often
> is less productive just because he has *less experience*. He is a kid,
> or he is not trained for that job, or he is usually a stay-at-home
> parent who only entered the workforce because the pay was so damned
> good.

Using that definition (that is an economics thing and it
refers to the workers at the "margins") then I retract my
heated objection to the term. Obviously there will always
be marginal workers. When the current marginal workers
are removed from the board then they will be replace with
workers that would be right up against the margin. And this
"margin" thing works both ways. It not only includes the
dudes that are not real productive, but the dudes that are
not all that much in NEED of a job in the first place. I
want to see a situation in which the people must be
ENTICED into giving up their freedom in exchange for a
J_O_B. Unemployment = 0.


>> > I "left out" nothing. I *pointed out* that half of the drop in the
>> > labor force participation rate occured because 16- to 19-year-olds
>> > dropped out of the labor force in larger numbers. Do you dispute that
>> > fact, or claim that it is meaningless?
>>
>> But you suggest that we leave out all sorts of data so as
>> to make the numbers look good.
>
> I suggest only that we pay attention to some of the details. I do not
> suggest that we ignore the 16-19 year old data. In fact I think we
> should give it extra scrutiny. That's the point, "Look everyone, half
> of the people who left the workforce were under 20 years old."
>
> Look at it, don't ignore it.

Agreed. But think about what it ALL means. I always
come back to the question: "In a totally capitalistic
economy, what do you do with the people displaced
by technology?". You want to claim that a bunch of
people stopped working because they _could_ stop.
But that does not "fit" the definition of unemployment,
nor does it "fit" the reality. The unemployment statistics
are supposed to show the number/percentage of people
that _want_ work and yet cannot find work, and
that _should_ include those forced to give up
and join the folks down at the flop house. The
statistics do not show this. And taking jobs away
from teens while raising the cost of education is about
as Republican as it gets. How would you "work your
way through college" if the costs are astronomical and
there are no jobs?

>> >> I too have a religious perspective. But I don't
>> >> manipulate the "data" around whatever
>> >> conclusion I have already adopted.
>> >
>> > There was a major drop in labor force participation amongst teenagers
>> > over the past few years. That is a fact. Do you not see the
>> > difference between a 40-year-old dropping out of the labor force and a
>> > 16-year-old not entering the labor force?
>>
>> I see the difference between teenagers working at Mickey D.
>> and old people working at Mickey D. The oldsters have to
>> work if they want other than dog food for dinner.
>
> This is pretty much what I was getting at. If a 40-year-old drops out
> of the labor force, that tends to be more indicative of labor market
> problems than if a 16-year-old does. The kid doesn't need the job that
> bad. Heck you might be able to prove that lower participation amongst
> kids indicates that parents feel more secure in their own abilities to
> fund their kid's activities so they don't force their kids to go get
> jobs. Maybe, maybe not. But certainly if fewer kids are in the labor
> force this year than last year, I am much less concerned than if they
> were adults.

All of that is fine and good, but what about education for
those not born with the silver foot in their mouth?

> Think of it the other way, Coburn. What if the labor force
> participation rate for kids had risen substantially? With your
> ever-cynical view of the labor market under Republican leadership,
> wouldn't you think it was significant that labor force participation
> for people aged 20+ was even lower than the one being promoted?
> Wouldn't you want to point that out in your effort to prove that even
> more bread-winners than we realize are dropping out of the labor pool?

I would be raising hell about kids in the work force and
the parents using them as income generators. But I would
like to see the labor force participation numbers go WAY
down across the board while the wages/income of the
lower and middle class INCREASES. The unemployment
numbers (being a reflection of those who _*WANT*_ a
job and cannot find one) should also fall as the economy
IMPROVES. A really good economy is one in which
very few family members (maybe even just ONE family
member) need to be employed outside the home in order
to see to the needs of the family (includes education) and
to the needs of retirement. The numbers we are seeing
seem to be misinterpreted and/or misrepresented. The
neoconomist WANTS more labor participation and lower
wages. The neoconomist WANTS everyone working their
butts off just to get along because the unemployment numbers
would look better and the serfs have no time to think about
how they are getting the wrench. The problem with the current
numbers is at least two fold: The data are controlled to some
degree (spin) so as to put a better light on things, but even
more significantly, the numbers are then presented in a manner
that does not really reflect desired reality. The labor participation
numbers are the prime and shining example. I see liberal
Democrats ranting about a fall in this number as an indication
that there are insufficient jobs, and Pugs, instead of being
informative and straight forward about it are cringing over it.
Ridiculous. If productive effort were rewarded MORE and there
was less flow to the rentier then the labor participation numbers
would fall. If rent redistribution allowed every family to spend
more time on home and family in a decent place to live, then the
number of people looking for jobs would fall very quickly and
so too the unemployment rate when properly assessed.
People left the farm and moved to the city so as to
reduce their drudgery per mouth full of food. The next
move is not so easy. It will require a loosening of the bonds
of pure "capitalism".

>> There are
>> also those that were in technology that now work at Mickey
>> D.
>
> ...as well as those who were in technology that are now staying in
> school until they graduate.

That may be true and that's a good thing. But coots like
me won't be going back to school. When you are 60 it don't
make a lot of sense. Unfortunately, I see far too many young
people out here driving trucks (and far to many coots for that
matter). Trucks are a pretty inefficient way to deliver stuff over
long distances. The young people should be working on
better ways to deliver the stuff. There should be a national
commitment to improving that part of infrastructure that provides
for the movement of pure freight. Seems to be a lot of interest
by the lefty loons about reducing auto emissions using mass
transit for people, but no big hubbub about diesel fumes and
trucks. And the statistical accounting of the belly
button lent continues.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org


.