The Employment to Population Ratio

as I said, to get the social benefit of education you need to also provide food clothing shelter etc so there is no meaningful distinction. Notice how the liberal is easily defeated

 

Clearly you don't understand what social benefits entail. By definition, it means the market underprovides. Why haven't you taught yourself basic supply and demand?

 

any evidence that I don't know supply and demand?

 

Already informed you. You are unaware that social benefits necessarily ensures underprovision through the market. That is basic supply and demand (with the demand curve referring to private benefits only). That you don't understand the nature of externalities is obvious.

 

why does market under provide education and not food??

 

Because education derives positive externalities (i.e. gains from investment are not restricted to the investor). As I said, you're clearly ignorant of basic supply and demand theory

 

and to properly avail oneself of a proper communist education one needs free food clothing shelter transportation and psychological counseling too-right? And lets never forget that free education is but 1 of 1001 interventions in the Republican free market that a libcommie wants.

 

Again you make no sense. Supply & demand says education is underprovided. Are you going to dismiss supply & demand?

 

Getting a job or not on a particular day is not about winning and losing. It's a process that focuses only on the individual seeking employment. Nothing will change my mind about ~20% of Americans simply will not obtain long-term and reasonable employment. The myriad reasons for this are not something society can fix or force! One of the most obvious reasons is millions of Americans simply do not live where the jobs are located. And second, even if they did, millions do not possess the skills and education to obtain reasonable jobs. Third, millions of Americans are not mentally and physically healthy, or are older. Then we can talk about millions more who simply to lazy to work...it's just not in their DNA. There is nothing that can force change to these issues...

 

Comparing is stupid! Let's compare the difference between me and you then tell me how these differences have any meaning? Metrics by themselves tell a story without comparing to anything. Either the metrics are acceptable or they are not...no matter what someone else is doing is another country with a different government system with a difference society with a different culture with different goals, etc. etc. etc.

The whole world has a documented underclass! I've lived and worked in the US for more than seven decades, including owning a business, and I can tell you unequivocally that the number one issue has always been, and will continue to be, the quality of the worker. Today it's a disgusting process to try to find great quality workers! I have no problem assuming that these same people also make questionable decisions how they manage their lives, and IMO there is little government can do to force this to change.

For 98% of the US workers, it's 100% about the work ethic. This assumes the workers have the credentials to secure long-term and reasonable employment...

 

This comment is tantamount to admitting defeat before even trying. LIke saying, "Well, why bother. They'll never change:"

Education WILL CHANGE a person. Guaranteed.

But what education?

Hint: The major subject for a high-school degree in France (meaning one of the highlight subjects in which you must do well) is ... philosophy. Unbelievable. Why study philosophy?

Because it teaches one how to think ...and not just react.

 

Far from it. It provides the means to work out what success really means. The woeful outcomes from the US are in full display. The problem with it is typically focused on data issues created by having a common methodology. But that only means the researcher with more basic skills doesn't bother with it.

And that would be insightful. If we both have high income but your parents had low income, we'd have an example of mobility to investigate.

This is false. Its actually difficult to empirically find an underclass. By definition, an underclass refers to a significant group that exhibit zero upward income or wealth mobility. As I said, most countries demonstrate significant volatility at the low end of the distribution (reflecting upward and downward mobility)

Do you have any evidence that the US is more feckless than their Western counterparts?

 

Winning or losing, as I've been employing the terms, relates to ones assessment of their achievement in acquiring their own goals in life, NOT a government produced statistical median value. There are probably some living solely on government assistance who are content to live out their lives on that alone, while others make great efforts to try and eliminate the need, and still others who will go to great length to do no more than what will allow them to continue to receive full benefits.
I agree that seeking and acquiring employment is an individual process, in which some individuals find success more difficult than others. Government however, should not be viewed as the producer of jobs, nor should it be viewed as the provider of a living income for those who are without a job.
While I don't think we could ever acquire an accurate figure, ~20% may be much higher or much lower than what exists at a particular time, I do agree that it is a proven/provable fact that there are Americans who will NOT accept long-term/full-time reasonable employment, and primarily because doing so would put an end or reduce the aid they receive from government.
I agree the issue is one in which there exists no permanent solution, and therefore government, especially the Federal level applies expedient measures which results in costly consequences to accumulate and be applied to successive generations.
Nothing is to big or to small to fail, and while I fully support society helping those who try to help themselves, those who make up our societies are from where such help should be provided, both individually and collectively recognizing the fact that 100% success is NOT achievable.
Not continuously subsidizing irresponsible behavior is NOT an application of force.

 

It's not about defeat...it's about reality. Why does nothing change from decade to decade? Either the collective we are incapable of doing better or we simply refuse to do better...no matter the answer it is reality!

 

Comparing does not define success? Comparing defines what others have done compared to what we have done...and this comparison does not take in effect the vast differences between governments and cultures and history and society.

The evidence is in the pudding...decade after decade the US cannot do better. We are achieving our maximum potential. And this cannot improve due to the US culture, politics, and human behavior. I've referred to it as the Peter Principle in which we have reached our full potential. And year after year, decade after decade, we prove that collectively we cannot do better...

 

I don't think many Americans are happy living out their life on government assistance. I simply believe they are faced with two realities; First, jobs don't exist where they are located, and second, they don't possess the skills and education to acquire reasonable employment.

Government doesn't produce jobs or provide a living. Government has a difficult task how to take care of those who for whatever reasons have not been able to take care of themselves. If government does not provide assistance, and people are forced into the streets, this becomes a much larger problem.

The root problem to make you happy is how to 'means test' the existing 100+ million Americans receiving some forms of government assistance, plus those entering this group every day? There should be obvious fraud protection built into the process but it will never be 100% effective...or even 80% because of the massive task it will take to enforce.

You cannot ignore the question; what happens if the government cuts off someone's assistance?

 

I disagree a bit here.

The government does produce jobs and provide a living for a very great many people, The problem is... they don't share those jobs out.

So what we get is a few government employee's on great money and great work conditions while loads of people are on benefits.
This is a double whammy.

No. 1. Public money and opportunity is not shared equally amongst the public who need it, and no.2 an unreasonable standard for work conditions and pay and pensions is set as the normative bar.
If a state worker gets it, every one else should be able too. But we aren't.

So less people are willing to work because they feel work is a rip off, Less govt. jobs are being shared out amongst those who could use a job and less government resouces are available for other people because they are being hogged by a greedy and low productive/counter productive few.

There is a buttload more the government can do. It can change it's culture or it can shut itself down.
Release that money into the wider economy where it can be distributed more evenly and more meritocratically by "the market".

The solution to not enough jobs, is to create less jobs for certain people.

In then end we can't make excuses for anyone.
We can;t leave anyone behind. You haven't got a job because you are thick. unlucky. Wrongly located. Unfit. Unmotivated.

Leaving people behind, is leaving people behind,
Cut their benefits off and 95% of them will find work.
Works like a charm.

Or rather once they find work, they won't quit. Or slack off.
Nothing like a bit of starvation to get the work ethic strong in a person.

 

you could reduce assistance as circumstances indicated as long as you had a system wherein the incentive was always to work more and more productively

 

Comparing enables success to be measured. Crowing about the American Dream, for example, makes no sense when the US apes the class divides of Mother England.

 

What I look at is the effort put forth to eliminate the need of government assistance. Of the 'two' realities you mention, the first is easily solvable, if jobs don't exist where you live moving to where jobs do exist is one solution or finding something you are able to do that others are willing to pay for is another. I don't consider your second reality to be a valid excuse. Reasonable employment is nothing more than a job, even one that pays the government mandated minimum wage.

For most, government assistance should be provided only by government providing remuneration as a result of labour performed by the recipient. Government could provide transportation and temporary housing to where it has work to be done and maybe then some of those being assisted might find more a permanent solution at a new location.

It is not/should not be the responsibility or a function of government to try and make everyone happy. There is no 'one' means test applicable, and the best means test is one in which is devised relative to the local society in which it is to be applied. A few hundred million dollars doesn't sound like much when you talk about 100+ million people receiving assistance, and much of it could be occurring in just a few locations.

"What happens when government cuts off someone's assistance?" Nice question. The answer would depend upon the person. I'm curious to know what you think 'should' happen if if the government cuts off someone's assistance?

 

Economies change, customer behaviour changes, lots of things change.

The biggest change of all afflicting us (all) is the fact that we are exiting the Industrial Age and entering the Information Age. You should be happy.

If China's export policy of "beggar thy neighbor" has worked wonders in the Industrial Age (cheap labor) that is not going to be the same dominant parameter in the Information Age. The latter is typified by the handling of "information", which requires skills far beyond that of slapping a car together on a product line.

Foremost of which is that it takes "smarts" to do it whilst interacting with humans requires even more personal social attributes. (Like know how not to piss people off when they get upset by some problem.)

In fact, women are better at this ever more important human-activity than men. So ladies, go for it!

My recurrent point is that the Information Age takes "smarts" rather than the brute-force of slapping products together and getting them out the door (into customer hands).

And we as a nation are not doing what is necessary to UPGRADE our workforce skills. So, yeah, if you want spend your life flipping hamburgers at Macdonalds (for the minimum wage), then that is YOUR choice.

A choice that you need not have made had you the means and the smarts to get better qualifications with advanced Post-secondary Degrees - THAT DID NOT COST AN ARM-AND-A-LEG TO OBTAIN AT A STATE SCHOOL.

Post-secondary schooling should be free, just as secondary schooling ....

PS: And if you will look at American history you will see that America had exactly the same problem making secondary-schooling available to all citizens ...

*If interested: Historical Timeline of Public Education in the US

PS: From here: "In the United States, the first free public institution of higher education, the Free Academy of the City of New York (today the City College of New York), was founded in 1847 with the aim of providing free education to the urban poor, immigrants and their children. Its graduates went on to receive 10 Nobel Prizes, more than at any other public university.

During the late 19th century, the government's compulsory education was introduced as free or universal education, and extended across the country by the 1920s"

PPS: Completion rates historically infographic:


Note that barely 30% receive an advanced degree. And I suggest THIS is the reason that so many cannot find decent jobs ...

 

1) advanced stem degrees are free today thanks to internet. Georgia Tech now gives more degrees on line than in class.
2) many people can't find decent jobs because liberal taxes,unions, and regulations shipped 20 million to China
3) and because liberals invited in 30 million illegals to bid down our wages

 

and lets guess the liberal solution. Could it be yet another welfare program on top of the 1001 programs they already support.

 

The people we are talking about not only will not relocate for jobs, but logistically it's not practical to force 10-20 million Americans to relocate to the already over-populated employment centers of the US.

Regarding government assistance discussion, a reasonable job is one that provides enough income to not require government assistance. What idiot is going to relocate to work a minimum wage job?

Government does not try to make everyone happy? Government has a difficult task between providing government assistance and having people live and die in the streets. The latter is more costly and certainly inappropriate compared to providing 'some' assistance.

The answer to the question about cutting off government assistance is that we will never know how much pain and suffering it might cause...

 

Who cares about these things? Tell what has changed with poverty, wealth disparity, education, etc.?

We will always have an industrial need. We will evolve and create other needs...like information.

Even in an 'information' company of 1 million workers, there remains the need for basically the same skills we have today.

Most all jobs require personal interaction. This is required for both men and women.

Many industrial company jobs do not require brut force.

Free college won't solve any problems. First, the 50% of our kids who fail 'free' public K-12 education are the same ones you think will magically desire to attend college...good luck! Second, if college is free, over time, it will be dumbed-down to the level that it's success rate will resemble today's 50% high school failure rate.
[/QUOTE]