Tweet
I recently read that when calculating the unemployment rate of the US, stay at home mom's and dad's are not counted. That got me thinking, the US cannot even do an accurate census, let alone keep track of income tax evaders, let alone enforce income tax laws on cash-only jobs... so how accurate are these unemployment rates that I see in the papers all the time? Forgive me if this is an easy answer, but I'm retarded and need guidance from more experienced and knowledgable 'Poly members. I know that the US uses a variety of tools to approximate the census, but I think that the unemployment rate estimate might be too inaccurate to base policy on. And when comparing other unemployment rates across the world, do their counting methods differ? It just takes a faulty estimate here, a minor miscalculation there, and we're comparing numbers that are effectively inaccurate to a large degree.
The other thing I was thinking about is that whenever I see arguments between Americans and others about the quality of life for people, I routinely see people presenting the per capita income statistic. Considering the enormous gap between rich and poor, I don't think this statistic can be accurate in effectively estimating the average income of Americans. And considering our diversity, I'm not sure there is such a thing as an average American anyhow.
Since these statistics are inaccurate, I wonder how inaccurate they are. I would also like to see a statistical analysis of the distribution of wealth. Capitalists always tell me that supply and demand dictates prices and wages. But I think that this may be a fallacy. There is essentially infinite high demand for food and health care. I mean, people need to eat. And in this current economy, most people need automobiles, cars, and telecommunications. Could the huge profits that corporations take actually be making our economies and production capacities inefficient? I mean, if we took the money that is wasted on CEO bonuses, corporate fringe benefits and such, I bet it would come to an enormous figure. All things being equal, if that amount of money were put back into the system instead of going into the pockets of the rich, would it make our economy more efficient? I'm not going to speculate on the answer... the usual suspects of lefties and righties will no doubt choose their sides without bothering to think about my questions, but I only hope that some of our more economically minded and statistically gifted 'Poly members put their political views aside and actually think about this.
My gut tells me that capitalism might be more inefficient than it's fans think. But please, don't think in black and white. This isn't a discussion of capitalism vs. communism... both are extremes and IMO, both don't work. In the broadest sense, the total value of wealth in this world is essentially the total amount of labor hours that the population provides. And if the economy is the total amount of wealth, then it would be a relative constant to the number of able-bodied workers. So the notion that all things being equal, the economy goes up and down at will, is false. Would a more equal distribution of wages be more efficient? *** NOTE I am not talking about the state seizing property or progessive taxation policies, or tax cuts... so please don't go down that road. I simply want to better understand currency, statistics, the idea of a market society, and labor in an attempt to improve the quality of life for human civilization.
The other thing I was thinking about is that whenever I see arguments between Americans and others about the quality of life for people, I routinely see people presenting the per capita income statistic. Considering the enormous gap between rich and poor, I don't think this statistic can be accurate in effectively estimating the average income of Americans. And considering our diversity, I'm not sure there is such a thing as an average American anyhow.
Since these statistics are inaccurate, I wonder how inaccurate they are. I would also like to see a statistical analysis of the distribution of wealth. Capitalists always tell me that supply and demand dictates prices and wages. But I think that this may be a fallacy. There is essentially infinite high demand for food and health care. I mean, people need to eat. And in this current economy, most people need automobiles, cars, and telecommunications. Could the huge profits that corporations take actually be making our economies and production capacities inefficient? I mean, if we took the money that is wasted on CEO bonuses, corporate fringe benefits and such, I bet it would come to an enormous figure. All things being equal, if that amount of money were put back into the system instead of going into the pockets of the rich, would it make our economy more efficient? I'm not going to speculate on the answer... the usual suspects of lefties and righties will no doubt choose their sides without bothering to think about my questions, but I only hope that some of our more economically minded and statistically gifted 'Poly members put their political views aside and actually think about this.
My gut tells me that capitalism might be more inefficient than it's fans think. But please, don't think in black and white. This isn't a discussion of capitalism vs. communism... both are extremes and IMO, both don't work. In the broadest sense, the total value of wealth in this world is essentially the total amount of labor hours that the population provides. And if the economy is the total amount of wealth, then it would be a relative constant to the number of able-bodied workers. So the notion that all things being equal, the economy goes up and down at will, is false. Would a more equal distribution of wages be more efficient? *** NOTE I am not talking about the state seizing property or progessive taxation policies, or tax cuts... so please don't go down that road. I simply want to better understand currency, statistics, the idea of a market society, and labor in an attempt to improve the quality of life for human civilization.
.
Comment