5 votes

Krugman's Concern for the Long-Term Unemployed

Folks, we at Lions of Liberty are very excited to add our newest contributor - Chris Rossini! Here is his debut post on Krugman's concern for the long-term unemployed.

Paul Krugman is getting a bit concerned about the long-term unemployment problem in the U.S.:

The key question is whether workers who have been unemployed for a long time eventually come to be seen as unemployable, tainted goods that nobody will buy. This could happen because their work skills atrophy, but a more likely reason is that potential employers assume that something must be wrong with people who can’t find a job, even if the real reason is simply the terrible economy. And there is, unfortunately, growing evidence that the tainting of the long-term unemployed is happening as we speak.

What can be done?

Well, the first thing is for policy makers to stop listening to Krugman and his ilk. They always and everywhere want to perpetuate the situation with more government “solutions”.

Here are some sound steps that can be taken to get people off the couch and into the marketplace, where they can serve their fellow man:

End The Fed : And end must be put to the engine that creates unemployment en masse via its boom/bust cycles. The unemployed are then kicked while they’re down by the sneaky theft of their purchasing power.

Abolish The Minimum Wage : Government can create as much unemployment as it wants simply by raising the minimum wage. The minimum wage outlaws jobs. If you’re low-skilled, poor, or a teenager (i.e., the target of Krugman’s generosity) you’re forced into unemployment. The government has prohibited you from making a contract with a potential employer that may entail a wage under the government’s arbitrary minimum. Let private individuals freely contract and unemployment will shrink.

Continue Reading



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Poster is economically literate

But it's not just licensing. Regulations need to be addressed, regulations are a cartellizing device. IP law. Anti-trust law. Tax law. Taxes should be flat and preferably consumption. And always lower is better. (yes I know they are inherently immoral, but economically there's better and worse ways to do it) Pretty much everything the government does is to destroy competition, especially anti-trust law.

But the economy is so screwed up it's almost impossible to unscrew it.

Despite what liberals believe, the sole function of government is to concentrate wealth. That it does so under the guise of helping the poor is just good marketing. The reality is that larger government always causes more wealth concentration.

The rich do get richer and the poor do get poorer, and the cause is government. In a free market your wealth will dissipate as soon as you fail to compete. It takes government to maintain the corporate and family dynasties over the course of decades and centuries.

Who cares if work skills

Who cares if work skills atrophy? You still have them in your brain and to get used to the flow of your profession again takes little time compared to training someone from zero knowledge. I scooped ice cream over a decade ago as a high school job. I forget it, but I guarantee you that after a few days of working again I would be back to performing how I was.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Autrophy

Are you implying that all skills, regardless of industry or specialization, atrophy at the same rate? Do you believe the skills required to scoop ice cream atrophy at the same rate as the skills required to program software for an operating power plant? If this is what you believe, I don't know where to start.

I would much rather hire someone for a job that is currently executing a similar job function on a daily basis, than someone who last performed the function 5 years ago. Sure it might take them only 2 months to regain their previous performance level, but that 2 months is money out of my bottom line. This isn't to say that you wouldn't hire someone based exclusively on this fact, but it absolutely is a part of the cost benefit analysis.

*Atrophy

If I was running a business I

If I was running a business I would test them on their skills rather than listen to what they had to say about them. Degrees mean nothing but being able to pass a standardized test, and resumes are NOTHING but an indication as to how good you can bullshit people. A good resume is only important for salesmen.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Maybe

that's why you aren't running a business.

Maybe I don't run a business

Maybe I don't run a business because:

  1. I don't want to.
  2. I like being obligated to only 40 hours, Monday through Friday. Even that is too much. It's much more than half of one's awake life being spent getting ready for, traveling to, and returning home from work.
  3. Most business I find to be an immoral psychological game of getting people to buy more crap they simply don't need on top of services/products they've already purchased. I have nothing to peddle but niche ideas/products that are never profitable. Even the stuff I've made, I have kept the source and information completely open.
  4. I like working my ass off, not managing. Management is glorified babysitting. I find working and being poor to be less stressful than being a manager and having no financial woes. Working is also exercise. Having a desk job requires one to spend personal time exercising. Most people cram that activity into an hour or less, which is pretty unhealthy. It's a newer trend, so until people who are living that lifestyle get old, my opinion that people who are vegans and/or have exercise routines don't live long will only be a theory.
  5. I don't want to deal with bullshitters who think degrees matter and idiots who think they are actually skilled.
  6. I don't want to deal with being sued for discriminating against people I hire and customers.
  7. I think there is such thing as too much money, and in my opinion it's around $50k/year. I don't think people don't have the right to have more than that, I just personally don't want more than that because I would go crazy and just become a drug, sex, or gambling addict, so don't try to label me a socialist for this statement.

I had some other reasons in my head, but they've since escaped my mind.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Whoa

While I may disagree with 1-6, I can at least respect them as your personal views on not wanting to run a business. But I had to stop here:

"7. I think there is such thing as too much money, and in my opinion it's around $50k/year. I don't think people don't have the right to have more than that, I just personally don't want more than that because I would go crazy and just become a drug, sex, or gambling addict, so don't try to label me a socialist for this statement."

Nobody has the "right" to have more than that? Who are you to judge how much money someone has the "right" to? an individual has the "right" to whatever he earns on the market, and he's going to have to earn a lot more than $50k per year to employ folks like yourself.

This blows my mind coming from a Daily Pauler.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

And how can you disagree with

And how can you disagree with #1? It's the only real reason on that list, and it's why it's at the top. The rest are just my subjective opinion as to why #1 exists. I should have arranged it like a tree with the branches being #2-#7 to explain #1.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

My disagreement

is through my point of view, of course you have the right to never desire to run a business at all.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

I see. Maybe my mind will

I see. Maybe my mind will change. I certainly don't see myself running a business, but who knows what will happen 30-40 years down the road. I don't even plan on ever not being single, but who knows, some freedom-loving conservative bimbo could come along who meets my standards.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Holy shit! Did you even read

Holy shit! Did you even read it? I even said that "I don't think people don't have the right to have more [money] than that" and that I personally don't want more money than that as a personal way to keep my behavior in check. Please read it and then retract your statement. It's not like I can lie about what I said by editing it. You've copied and pasted it, so it's there.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

My apologies

I completely misread that....I missed the second use of the word "don't".

Where I live, it would be tough to get by on $50K/year as a single person, let alone one with a family.

IF you don't "trust" yourself with more than that for some reason, that is of course your prerogative.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

No problem. It's my fault

No problem. It's my fault for using a double negative. Since the two identical words are so close together one often gets skipped when reading quickly.

It's not entirely about not trusting myself, it's just that I like working and I really don't want to ever retire, granted I am making better money and am not working as hard as I am in my 20s, so I don't need to build a nest egg.

Where I live a $50k household income is enough to raise a decent-sized family, but barely. With $50k and being single a man can easily survive and have a bunch of toys to play with on his land.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

But his sociology study proves you wrong! /s

Krugpot will always blame the people in the market for terrible economic policies, and there is never a shortage of these pseudoscience sociology studies to parade as evidence for government intervention.

"Irrational, greedy, stupid employer X won't hire people who have been unemployed longer than some arbitrary length of time according to one study, but all-knowing government overlords can fix this undesirable outcome by increasing taxes on employer X in a depression and increasing spending by hiring the unemployed groups in government, thereby tricking Employer X into hiring after government magically ends the recession."

I can't get through two paragraphs of PK's blog without smirking

It's his doofy facial expression at the top of the blog. It's like he just farted and thinks no one heard it or can smell it.

Krugpot is trying to justify (limitless) government spending in a depression by citing a sociology study on the mentality of the employers' for hiring and indirectly blaming them for creating a long-term unemployment class. It is typical progressive central planning arrogance. It is always the fault of the employer and never the idiocy of the central planners. He has framed the debate so that any negative consequences of his voodoo economic schemes are always the result of obstruction, of not being able to spend and plan more because of a fear of debt, and of course irrationality and/or greed by the employers. This way he can never be wrong.

You don't even have to study economics to recognize his horseshit.

sounds

Sounds like a good political platform. End the Fed, Abolish the Minimum wage, abolish unemployment benefits, abolish Obamacare, abolish government licensing, and substantial spending cuts.

Bump

Our government has extended

Our government has extended unemployment benefits so they last up to two years. The result is that unemployed Americans get very picky about what jobs they'll do and don't get serious about looking until the unemployment benefits finally run out. Then our government says we have to import more immigrants because employers can't find Americans to do the work.