I don't care what you get up to. I'll continue to follow best practice either way. To understand issues such as inequality of opportunity one has to refer to the necessary empirical methodologies that are published in academic journal. Bit obvious really!
All well and good but show me the numbers and the analysis. There are people who do this for a living who disagree with you and you are actually standing in a sinking ship.
Already given the summary, providing the methodology and the conclusions. Your innocence of these empirical studies doesn't interest me
I have referenced an article that proves Not Amused's stance is inconsistent with economic reality. Your views on it aren't important, given you're merely following a standard anti-intellectualism based on ignoring best literature review practice
Perceived consensus is often an example of specific empirical bias, such as publication bias. Economics, being an inter-disciplinary discipline that is characterised by multiple (often conflicting) schools of thought, should be full of debate
Q: What do you get when you cross Don Vito Corleone (The Godfather) with an economist? A: An offer you can't understand!
Reiver just translated what your quoted in English in to Reiver speak (I have listened to a bunch of economist - not one talked that way) I read an explanation why lawyer speak is so hard to understand. If the other lawyer has to ask for clarifiaction, obviously they are less intelligent. Sound familiar? ROTFL......
One would focus on the welfare state's ability to reduce poverty. The US tends to have an efficient system (I.e. It has a high % of expenditure going to poor households) but an ineffective system (I.e. It has only a marginal effect on poverty rates) Golly, don't you know your labour supply analysis? That's shocking! The important point is to avoid corner solutions. More generous systems are more likely to avoid unemployment and poverty traps
So, is it the lack of generosity, or the ineffectiveness of the system? What is needed to make the US welfare system effective? I do, that is why I asked the question. Shocking that you missed that. Depends who you are. For the government agency that manages welfare, they want the MRS for work to be zero, job security. A statement in a vacuum.
It wasn't difficult. To measure genorisity we can refer to effectiiveness in poverty alleviation. In terms of a negative income tax approach or the minimum.income guarantee, a higher minimum payment and a reduction in the effective marginal tax rate. A question which has the stench of someone who didn't understand labour supply. Its the corner solution that's the problem, often created in non-generous systems that- due to perceived efficiency issues- create severe non-linearities in the consumption-leisure schedule. Note that those countries with more generous welfare also tend to have greater social mobility (I.e. Poverty is likely to be a shorter term problem) A statement that referred to genuine work incentive issues, which I'd expect to be ignored by someone that doesn't understand labour supply
How would you account for the outliers which are actually the norm in some regions of the US? What I mean by this is there are some regions and areas where no matter what you do for people they continue to buy drugs and just remain social outcasts. Money can not fix this so the welfare may not be what is needed. Some things can not be measured and just throwing more money at it does not work. What would you consider a generous system and again how do you prevent abuse? People are already crying foul about drug testing welfare recipients. Explain please.
Note that its very difficult to empirically document an underclass. We typically see them in countries with class limitations, as illustrated by the problems encountered in Anglo-Saxon countries. The welfare state is no panacea, often it is just fire fighting some of the inefficiencies created through capitalism, but it does encourage social mobility and can generate greater entrepreneurship. There will always be abuse. Too much focus on efficiency will hamper effectiveness, as shown by the US compared to other systems. Now I'm not a fan of pishing about the margins with welfare policy. I'd much prefer to see radical changes in property rights through socialism. However, once we have capitalism and inefficient income differentials, I'd suggest the need for a comprehensive negative income tax; designed to integrate tax and benefit at a specific absolute poverty levels with low withdrawal of benefit to ensure low effective marginal rates of tax The fellow isn't interested in work incentives. He hasn't referred to corner solutions in the labour supply approach (where economic rationality informs the worker not to work!)
I love the country singers with their jingoistic slogans that have a minimal at best grasp on reality! "It breaks his heart, seein' foreign cars..." - Well Toby, let's examine that statement for a second, shall we? Driving down the street you see two automobiles - a Chevrolet and a Toyota. Which is the foreign car? Before you answer, let's examine these automobiles a little more carefully - we're looking at a Nissan Altima, and a Chevrolet Camaro. Now which would you say is the foreign car? Again, before you answer, know this - the Nissan Altima is assembled at the Nissan manufacturing plant in Canton, Mississippi. The Chevrolet Camaro is assembled at the GM manufacturing plant in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada. Now which is the foreign car - the automobile assembled by a United States-based corporation in a foreign country, or the automobile assembled by a foreign-based corporation in the United States? Since the title of the song is "Made In America", then it only seems logical that the Chevrolet Camaro is the foreign car that's breakin' his heart, doesn't it? Maybe Toby's heartbroken protagonist needs to hop in his Dodge Ram pickup and think about this. Oops, wait a minute... the Dodge Ram is built in Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico! Maybe his wife will come pick him up in her Lincoln MXZ. Oops again, the MXZ is built in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico! IMHO - Toby should retire to his tour bus and think long and hard about what the phrase "Made In America" really means. And while he's sitting on his Prevost tour bus, he needs to keep in mind that it was assembled in Sainte-Claire, Quebec, Canada.
Many US citizens have a nostalgia for the days when manufacturing jobs meant financial security. Declining wages and high unemployment rates have only caused this to deepen. Whether it is the fault of individuals or of an entire system is unimportant, the fact is our workers are not educated enough to be competitive. Even when they are educated they are not economically desirable as our standard of life demands a higher income than competing workers in foreign countries. Underemployment is the norm today and the working class often have to work two jobs to make ends meet. They are called lazy or unpatriotic if they accept government assistance or complain. You sound very well educated in these economical conditions though. So I guess your right. Things are better now.
There's inconsistency in your comment. You've started by blasting education levels and then suggested, through the reference to underemployment, that skills aren't fully utilised. You can't have it both ways!
