What does this shift in the Beveridge curve relationship mean? In a literal sense, it means that for a certain unemployment rate (on the horizontal axis), there is a higher rate of job openings (on the vertical axis). To put it another way, employers in the years after 2009 seemed more reluctant to fill their job openings, or as economists say, it appeared to be harder for employers to find a match when they listed a job among the workers who were applying for those jobs. The "matching efficiency" of the US labor market had declined....This means that "transitional unemployment" is increasing. After becoming unemployed, it is taking longer to find a matching job. It also implies that more workers will be less than ideally employed, that is, taking jobs beneath their qualification level, or part-time jobs.
Conversable Economist
What Message is the Beveridge Curve Sending?
Timothy Taylor | Managing editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives, based at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota
11 comments:
The theft of family farms and businesses via government privileges for private credit creation left many victims and their descendants in need of jobs, i.e. to be wage slaves, often to the thieves.
So creating wage-slaves is hardly the optimum goal in the first place - just ask most wage slaves.
Instead, we should focus on just reform and restitution and those would maximize the ability of people to do meaningful, at least to them, WORK.
It appears to me that quite a few who recommend a Wage Slavery (Job) Guarantee for others have quite comfortable positions of their own with a great deal of autonomy, unlike a lot of jobs.
”It appears to me that quite a few who recommend a Wage Slavery (Job) Guarantee for others have quite comfortable positions of their own with a great deal of autonomy, unlike a lot of jobs.”
Only in your narrow-minded head.
“Instead, we should focus on just reform and restitution and those would maximize the ability of people to do meaningful, at least to them, WORK.”
And how would that come about? Some will have good land some will have not so good and that is Fair?
Some will have good land some will have not so good and that is Fair? s400
Obviously, all parcels of land to be re-distributed by National land lotteries should be of roughly equal or better value.
But short of massive redistribution, the ownership of much more than one's share of finite resources such as land should be outlawed.
"But short of massive redistribution, the ownership of much more than one's share of finite resources such as land should be outlawed."
Idiocy. Land (the planet) is a communal resource. Nobody "owns" any of it, except by the exertion of power over others. This is the essence of the problem.
Exactly. Fair to me is Andrews thinking. Its all just me me me thinking.
It appears to me that quite a few who recommend a Wage Slavery (Job) Guarantee for others have quite comfortable positions of their own with a great deal of autonomy, unlike a lot of jobs.
I don't think crucifixion is a very comfortable position.
Andrew, as I asked you a while ago without an answer in the Why 50 Million Chinese Homes are Empty post -
Would you believe that a JG is good and for justice, not opposed to it; would you take a second look at the JG if Jesus told you it was right?
This is very serious question.
The Hebrews had well-fed jobs as slaves in Egypt. But God's purpose was that each family of them* would own roughly the same amount of rich agricultural land in the Promised Land and work for themselves.
So that's the Biblical ideal and it's magnificent and produces great people.
What you're peddling is shoddy in comparison and unjust to boot since victims of theft should not have to work for the restitution due them.
Quote whatever you want from God's Word but since I've already read the entire Bible and my positions are based on it, it's not likely you'll find anything that should change my mind.
*except for the the priestly tribe, the Levites, who had other provision in the Law.
What you're peddling is shoddy in comparison and unjust to boot since victims of theft should not have to work for the restitution due them.
Sure restitute people for whatever theft happened in the past. But what then?
But what about the restitution due to the people for a system like yours that has money, but no job guarantee? You've never responded.
If there's money, people might need it, so they need a way to get it - when they want. Not when Andrew Anderson or anyone else thinks they need money, but when they think they need money. All your cures don't do anything for this problem. This demand for reciprocity, for equal treatment is shoddy? This irrational thwarting of the easily satisfiable demands of the poor or of anyone else is justice? Not in my book. Nor in Jesus's.
Quote whatever you want from God's Word but since I've already read the entire Bible and my positions are based on it, it's not likely you'll find anything that should change my mind.
Ok, will do so tomorrow. Exhausted from the flu. But you would reconsider when you hear Jesus supporting the Job Guarantee - in a fairly detailed way at that, I hope? Maybe it's because part of the passage is so famous and familiar that one doesn't really see the whole of what it is saying unless you really try to focus on it.
Illustrates two personal rules:
A) Was ist bekannt ist nicht erkannt. or Das Bekannte überhaupt ist darum, weil es bekannt ist, nicht erkannt (Hegel) What is familiar is not understood precisely because it is familiar.
B) When you find a great quote, always always always look it up!
there are three possiblities. iii) is the relevant here.
i) The quoter actually quoted it in full and faithfully to its meaning. This is less common than the next two alternatives.
ii) The context makes clear that the quote means the exact opposite of what the quoter used it to mean.
iii) The quotation wasn't deceptive, but the quoter eviscerated it and edited out the most enlightening and important parts.
I admit I am enjoying teasing you a bit.
But what about the restitution due to the people for a system like yours that has money, but no job guarantee? Calgacus
Not just money but land stolen by government-privileged banks and shares in companies that were likely built with theirs or their ancestors' legally stolen purchasing power.
Besides which, having money but no job does not seem to inconvenience the rich much.
If there's money, people might need it, so they need a way to get it - when they want. Calgacus
So pay them the wages you would under a JG but make showing up for work entirely voluntary. Nor would the lack of a work requirement be inflationary since unless JG workers unfairly compete with the private sector, they aren't helping to lower the general price level anyway by providing new SUPPLY but only new DEMAND, assuming the public sector is fully staffed.
Post a Comment