1 edit
Originally posted by EladarIt's not "totally impossible" that Jesus is going to come to my house today and hand me an envelope containing a billion dollars. It's just extremely, extremely implausible like your scenario is.(Wait! The doorbell just rang!)
So you are saying that what I've said is totally impossible?
Assuming that all of the people unemployed received government benefits and were no longer looking for work. Would there be 100% unemployment even though no one has a job?
Maybe this will help:
In April, 2.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force,
wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime
in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because
they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
(See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 835,000 discouraged workers
in April, down by 133,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently
looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.
The remaining 1.5 million persons marginally attached to the labor
force in April had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.
(See table A-16.)
http://useconomy.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=useconomy&cdn=newsissues&tm=537&f=10&su=p284.13.342.ip_p504.6.342.ip_&tt=11&bt=7&bts=7&zu=http%3A//www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
There are less discouraged workers than a year ago, so they cannot be contributing to any fall in the unemployment rate.
EDIT: The link is given here: http://useconomy.about.com/od/Employment/p/Long-Term-Unemployment.htm
Last paragraph, "Employment Situation Summary".
My point was that you can't simply take the numbers at face value.
Look at the actual number of people employed, the compare it to what it was before Obama took office. Now tell me how great things are today!
Percentages can be made to look better than they are. Look at the actual number of people in the work force.
Originally posted by EladarThese are non sequiturs. No one claimed "things are great"; my claim is merely that doom and gloom Republicans like sas who predicted the economy would collapse because of Obama's re-election were wrong.
My point was that you can't simply take the numbers at face value.
Look at the actual number of people employed, the compare it to what it was before Obama took office. Now tell me how great things are today!
Percentages can be made to look better than they are. Look at the actual number of people in the work force.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's different. You don't need stocks to live. You need housing.
The same "logic" applies to any asset price; do you think that your stock portfolio should fall to 2009 levels because that is what is "realistic"?
Also, prices of stock portfolios are inherently arbitrary. There's no inherent distinction whether the DJIA is 12,000 or 15,000 other than what you paid for your shares. You can buy as little or as much stock as you like in any transaction.
I would apply that "logic" to other necessary items, such as food and petroleum as, I imagine, would you.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderBecause everybody is legally required to live somewhere or face legal punishment. If that were not true, housing prices would be far lower. Housing is not an option, legally, it's a requirement, and that modifies the dynamics of the housing market. The demand curve is shifted due to government interference.
Is there a point lurking somewhere?
Explain how home prices are "artificially" high, please.
You might like this argument better - we have a Natural Right to our home.
We also have a Natural Right to food, but not peanut butter specifically. Nobody is starving here, but we have a lot of homeless and a surplus of housing that is sitting empty.
We certainly do not have a Natural Right to something as artificial as "stocks" which do not represent any physical object.
Originally posted by sh76It really doesn't matter; the price of an asset is set by supply and demand not by what people "need". In a country with such an inequality of income and wealth, certain items are going to be valued higher simply because those with the most money like to have them.
That's different. You don't need stocks to live. You need housing.
Also, prices of stock portfolios are inherently arbitrary. There's no inherent distinction whether the DJIA is 12,000 or 15,000 other than what you paid for your shares. You can buy as little or as much stock as you like in any transaction.
I would apply that "logic" to other necessary items, such as food and petroleum as, I imagine, would you.
The price of everything is "inherently arbitrary". The economic system we have created is "inherently arbitrary".
Originally posted by no1marauderI was analyzing whether high housing cost was a good thing or a bad thing, not whether there's anything that can or should be done about it. My only point was that I don't necessarily consider double digit house price jumps good news.
It really doesn't matter; the price of an asset is set by supply and demand not by what people "need". In a country with such an inequality of income and wealth, certain items are going to be valued higher simply because those with the most money like to have them.
The price of everything is "inherently arbitrary". The economic system we have created is "inherently arbitrary".
Originally posted by no1marauderHousing is not something rich people buy because they "like to have it". They buy it because it's an efficient way to extract money from non-landowners with minimal investment of time and effort by the rich person.
It really doesn't matter; the price of an asset is set by supply and demand not by what people "need". In a country with such an inequality of income and wealth, certain items are going to be valued higher simply because those with the most money like to have them.
The price of everything is "inherently arbitrary". The economic system we have created is "inherently arbitrary".