View Single Post
Old 07-28-2019, 08:17 PM
Scylla is offline
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post appears to be about bus driving. may be what you were actually after.

From that site, and specifically from

Of course there are people who prefer part time work; and of course some of those people don't need more money (others are simply flat out unable to take full time jobs because they have obligations for unpaid work; and of course some are physically unable to.) But 4.3 million (a number which is not currently going down) who want full time work but can't get it is not a trivial number of people.
Thatís between 2-3% of the workforce. Do you remember when we talked about unemployment? Unemployment at 3. 7% is really too low because it means we are through actual full employment and there is a labor shortage. This number usually falls somewhere below the unemployment number (which is where it is now.) like unemployment, this number actually supports the opposite of what you are arguing. It tells us that there are too few part-timers seeking full time employment.

You seem to be trying to argue this idea that the economy is shitty for workers. Itís not. It is the best it has ever been, according to the data. Thatís a fact that anybody who knows anything about this kind of thing is aware of.

And, as I keep saying, the problem is also people who are working full time but still aren't paid enough to live on.
The issue you bring up is found in ďthe working poorĒ figure. I donít think we have the data from 2018 yet, but for 2017 that figure was around 4.5%. That figure is the lowest it has been since they started tracking it in 1986. It appears to be dropping really fast, and will probably be lower in this yearís figures.

This number is NOT the number of people working full time who are living in poverty. It is the percentage of people who have been in the workforce for at least 27 weeks who are living in poverty. The workforce are those who are employed full-time, part time, and those who are unemployed and seeking work. Those who usually work full time living in poverty equal 2.9%. This is also a really good number. 2.32% of these experienced a Labor market problem. One of these problems is low wages. 1.554% suffered from this. This is another really good number. There are any number of reasons why a person who usually works full time, has suffered from low wages and is living below the poverty line. The most common of these is that they are also suffering from one of the other labor market problems. There are other reasons why somebody might be suffering from low wages for reasons unrelated to the economy or job market. These are things like health issues, drug addiction, being jailed, being an unreliable or bad worker.

Thatís about as simple as I can make it for you. The fact though is that this is not actually a real problem for our society. Again, it fits with the other unemployment numbers that we are looking at. The very bottom of the labor force, the most undesirable of workers are still doing very well because there is a labor shortage.

This problem that you are talking about is almost nonexistent, and in fact, like the other numbers we have discussed, it is actually lower than is actually good for the economy.

Raising low wages also puts more money into the hands of people who will spend most of it, thereby increasing the amount of goods and services that businesses can sell.
Thatís technically possible, but in most economies it will be untrue. I can explain why, but we would now be in economics 317 (or something) and in order to do so I would have to go into detail about other factors and concepts that we havenít discussed yet, and no offense, you donít really have knowledge of.

The society as a whole, obviously. As you perfectly well know that I meant.
No. I donít. The ďsociety as a wholeĒ doesnít have a checkbook.

Fifty years of inflation and probably a whole lot of work put into the place over those years aside, that probably looks like a good argument to some.

Of course, as most people can only get at that money if they pack up their lives and move, it's only a good argument to those for whom the word "home" means the same thing as "amount of money for which one could purchase alternative shelter". I've come to realize over the years that there are a lot of such people; and that it's probably not possible to fully explain to them why to a lot of other people that's the equivalent of saying 'why would it matter if you'd never be able to see your spouse again? There's probably somebody else who'd move in with you'. I ask those who don't understand it, however (though with little hope in some cases that this will get through) to recognize that there are quite a lot of humans to whom those statements are pretty much equivalent; and to whom it's the claim that unwillingly trading their home for money is a fair exchange which is nonsense.
Iím struggling to find a rational argument in the above. They have something that is worth a whole lot of money but they donít want to sell it because they are either emotionally attached to it, or doing so is a pain in the neck. But, they need money and/or owning this thing costs more money than they can afford to spend and so we need to help them why?

I had the exact same problem, except it was an Ď83 Porsche 911 turbo that was willed to me by the neighbor I worked for as a kid. He had no wife or kids, but was basically like a really close uncle. It was really hard and it was really sad to let it go. I loved that car, but I had kids, we just moved, I needed to be saving for my kidsí college. It was expensive as hell to run and maintain. the insurance was really high, and I couldnít fit the wife and two baby seats in it. I sold it and bought a sedan, and put the rest Into UTMAs for the kids.

Boo-fucking-hoo!!! Poor me.

You said that a lack of incentives means that people are satisfied. I said that it can mean that they're extremely dissatisfied. I don't see how we said the same thing.
Iím sorry that you donít have the knowledge to grasp it. You should if you wish to argue these things. Iíve been explaining a lot and itís an undo burden to have to educate my debating opponent. What I said is that they are quantitatively the same thing, and that is true whether or no you grasp why.

You're aware that fossil fuel subsidies already exist, yes? I gave you a cite.

And you're aware that private industries demand subsidies from various levels of government all the time?

Why do you think that existing private alternative-energy industries don't want to get some of the benefits?
I am going to stop right there and give up. The rest of your posts is a lot like arguing labor statistics with you.l. You donít know enough to have this discussion, and itís not my place to bring you up to speed. I doubt you will find that satisfying. You may think I am being arrogant, or insulting, or what have you, but it is time for me to move on, because it is not rewarding for me to try to bring someone unwilling up to speed. If you have questions about things that you donít know, I would be happy to answer them, but I am not going to argue with you to do so. You can have the last word.