Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 93
Thanks Tree43Thanks

Thread: Basic Income

  1. #71
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,333
    Thanks
    4092

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    And seniors are paying property taxes on those inflated values.
    Proponents of flat income taxes like to make arguments like this.

  2. #72
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    10,028
    Thanks
    1668

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    It says, of course, that the working age population was growing more slowly than the number of jobs.
    Sorry, but it doesn't get you there either, and leaves out 7 million jobs in the agriculture sector.

    Jan 2007 through Jan 2017 we are millions of jobs short, but the Trumpconomy is closing the gap with 3 jobs added for every new person added Jan 2017 through June 2018.

  3. #73
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    35,036
    Thanks
    30468

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    Sorry, but it doesn't get you there either, and leaves out 7 million jobs in the agriculture sector.

    Jan 2007 through Jan 2017 we are millions of jobs short, but the Trumpconomy is closing the gap with 3 jobs added for every new person added Jan 2017 through June 2018.
    Why do you try to use the FRED data base on the LABOR FORCE to calculate the WORKING AGE POPULATION when FRED gives you a database precisely for that purpose??? It is nothing less than BIZARRE, dude. There are flows into and out of the labor force on a month-to-month basis! The only 'flows' into and out of the working age population are people entering it at the age of 15 and then exiting it at the age of 64.

    You're not only WRONG about this, but you appear to be DELIBERATELY wrong, which is why most people here understand that you're nothing more than a PROPAGANDIST.

  4. #74
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    10,028
    Thanks
    1668

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    It says, of course, that the working age population was growing more slowly than the number of jobs.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTUSM647S

    Why on EARTH simply not use the FRED data series on the Working Age Population, INSTEAD of using the series on the Labor Force, which is NOT the right series to use?!!???

    Here are the numbers:

    June 2008: 196,502,791 in the Working Age Population
    June 2018: 206,520,267 in the Working Age Population


    That's an increase of just a bit over 10 million in the Working Age Population.


    As for the New Jobs Created, we had a bit more than 11 million new jobs created in that same time span.


    Shrug.
    I see you moved the goal posts, moved them down deep into the recession.

    2007-01-01 194817307.12300000
    2017-01-01 205378661.00100000
    2018-06-01 206520267.28600000

    We were millions of jobs short when Trump took office, Trump closed the gap, but we are still short.

    The Trumpconomy is currently creating 3 jobs for every working age person added, so he will soon overtake the number. He has reversed the trend.


    I used the Fred data. They are the same numbers quoted above.

    FRED Graph Observations
    Federal Reserve Economic Data
    Link: https://fred.stlouisfed.org
    Help: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/help-faq
    Economic Research Division
    Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

    LFWA64TTUSM647S Working Age Population: Aged 15-64: All Persons for the United States, Persons, Monthly, Seasonally Adjusted
    Last edited by Libertine; 10th July 2018 at 02:01 PM.

  5. #75
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    35,036
    Thanks
    30468

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    I see you moved the goal posts, moved them down deep into the recession.

    2007-01-01 194817307.12300000
    2017-01-01 205378661.00100000
    2018-06-01 206520267.28600000

    We were millions of jobs short when Trump took office, Trump closed the gap, but we are still short.

    The Trumpconomy is currently creating 3 jobs for every working age person added, so he will soon overtake the number. He has reversed the trend.


    I used the Fred data. They are the same numbers quoted above.

    FRED Graph Observations
    Federal Reserve Economic Data
    Link: https://fred.stlouisfed.org
    Help: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/help-faq
    Economic Research Division
    Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

    LFWA64TTUSM647S Working Age Population: Aged 15-64: All Persons for the United States, Persons, Monthly, Seasonally Adjusted
    Quite the reverse, actually. It is YOU, of course, who wants to move the goal posts back to start the clock at the beginning of 2007, instead of in June of 2008, as I was doing. This way, you get to count ALL the truly MASSIVE JOB LOSSES of the Bush/Cheney/Greenspan Recession as somehow being Obama's 'fault', as you are very fond of doing. Do it your way, and yes, over that ten year period, from January 2007 to January 2017, we did not create enough new jobs for the growth of the working age population. But, as I showed you, from June 2008 to June 2018, we most certainly did. Shrug.

    What you really just demonstrated here, and I thank you for it, was just how monumental an event that Great Recession truly was. It was not for nothing that Alan Greenspan called it "a once-in-a-century event". That's something you've never understood. I wonder if this new way of looking at the data might help you to do that. But probably not.

  6. #76
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,218
    Thanks
    27943

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Baby Boomers control 70% of disposable income in the US.

    https://impactbp.com/baby-boomers
    Too bad it isnt spread equally across that demographic.

  7. #77
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,218
    Thanks
    27943

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    Most companies with 100 or more employees today are self insured. Add in a government bureaucracy and a lot more people and it wouldn't be enough.
    i think you need to do more research.

  8. #78
    Veteran Member Puzzling Evidence's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    21,848
    Thanks
    9432

    From
    Away from sharp objects>
    There is a lot of research to suggest that a modest base income of say $10,000.00 is too lean to live on, and people happily look for work. When people are working, they don't feel like they are getting the shaft, so to speak and it fosters a more favorable view of their country and their fellow citizens because of the base income.

    The base salary would vanish once folks start pulling in 30k+ a year. Further studies suggest that most people (although some) do not stay under the 30k threshold on purpose unless they are disabled in some way.

    Base income encourages higher education and as pointed out earlier, one parent staying at home.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  9. #79
    Veteran Member Puzzling Evidence's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    21,848
    Thanks
    9432

    From
    Away from sharp objects>
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Why do you try to use the FRED data base on the LABOR FORCE to calculate the WORKING AGE POPULATION when FRED gives you a database precisely for that purpose??? It is nothing less than BIZARRE, dude. There are flows into and out of the labor force on a month-to-month basis! The only 'flows' into and out of the working age population are people entering it at the age of 15 and then exiting it at the age of 64.

    You're not only WRONG about this, but you appear to be DELIBERATELY wrong, which is why most people here understand that you're nothing more than a PROPAGANDIST.
    Leroy, is there any way I could use up a favor and get you to not talk like that in THIS thread? I don't think what you said was against the rules, but lets have fun here and discuss this with good nature as requested in the OP. Not calling you out, I understand if you disagree and apologize if I have over-stepped any boundaries here.

  10. #80
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,333
    Thanks
    4092

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Too bad it isnt spread equally across that demographic.
    Why do you say that's "too bad?" You routinely defend the types of policies that perpetuate this.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Quebec to offer guaranteed basic income
    By The Man in forum Current Events
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 12th December 2017, 04:01 PM
  2. Swiss Voters Reject 'Basic Income' Measure
    By excalibur in forum Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 6th June 2016, 12:13 PM
  3. Replies: 184
    Last Post: 22nd March 2016, 04:51 AM
  4. Unconditional Basic Income
    By Ambicatus in forum Opinion Polls
    Replies: 162
    Last Post: 4th July 2015, 04:24 PM
  5. Guaranteed Basic Income
    By Suppiluliuma in forum Current Events
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 23rd November 2013, 06:51 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed