Re: I want to start a new political Party

ndency

fits,

mas-

and

A peculiar leap of logic. I report that I'd failed to get the crummy- ill-paying jobs I'd applied because I'd been rejected as over- qualified, and John Larkin construes this as implying that hadn't even tried.

With his kind of self-valuation, he presumably can't imagine anybody not getting a job they tried for, so the fact that I had tried for some and not got any of them becomes evidence that I hadn't tried hard enough, which becomes "won't even try".

In fact I applied for another job in Sydney this - I won't be in the least surprise if I don't get it - but John Larkin's claim that I don't even try is merely one more libelous product of his uninhibited imagination.

That makes him something decidedly unpleasant. Happily, the internet doesn't transmanit odour.

So you were free to spend the rest of the day admiring yourself in the mirror.

ncy

s,

nd

I suspect that the people who were telling me that I was over- qualified were actually saying that I was too old, but wanted to be even more irritating than was strictly necessary.

For most of the population on food stamps, over-qualification isn't a problem.

But decereasing

Where have you actually seem these citizen making this demand?

The top 5% of the income distribution did get 5% more money in 2011 than the did in 2010, while pretty much everybody else got less, but that was Mitt Romney's electorate, not Obama's.

An interesting - if somewhat unrealistic - view of the Democratic platform.

Why? Obama's policies are more likely to get the unemployment numbers down than Mitt Romney's. You can't see that - presumably because you have the usual right-wing nitwit ignorance about deficit-funded Keynesian stimulus - but the rest of world doesn't suffer from your convenient ignorance.

Why should they reject a system that is more of less working, in favour of one that won't work, and would make the poor - in this case the bottom 80% of the income distribution - even poorer, even if it had worked as promised.

ency

ts,

s-

and

As opposed to krw who is under-qualified for any job that requires a working brain. He does make a fine rubber stamp, and spends a lot of time reminding us how well he can say "me too", no matter how unnecessary it is.

The problem with Obama's decreasing employment is, American capitalism will correct itself, even if you do nothing, and doing nothing is better than what Obama's doing. His policies are impeding the economic turn around. Mikek

thomas-

I just dont understand why Solman has to engage in such hate speech and name calling. Oh well....

Just make sure you are in line to get your free stuff before Santa Claus runs out of presents. You do NOT want to be in that line when the elfs say screw this we are not making any more.

dependency

benefits,

Why would anybody employ you when your main interest is in being juvenile-level repulsive? I bet it's obvious in an interview.

OK, I give up. You are hopeless, and will likely never work or design anything useful again. You will probably find that to be depressing; I sure would.

oday

ependency

enefits,

for

thomas-

mps and

t.

same

ll

A bet you'd lose. I'm not all that easy to provoke, though I do get restive when people make claims about my behaviour that are inaccurate and misleading.

What do you think you are giving up on? Some kind of campaign to get me to search for work in the way that you would search for work?

Not all that optimistic, but not yet persuaded that going after occasional - ostensibly particuarly suitable - jobs isn't worth the effort..

Getting a job may no longer be possible, but I don't have to have a job to design useful circuits. Persuading anybody to use them becomes more difficult outside of a work situation, but it can happen.

I'm retired. I don't want to be, but at my age it's difficult to get un-retired. Not having enough to do, and missing out on the social contact that most people get from work can provoke mild depression, but there are other things that retired people can do, and I'm going to be looking around at some of of them in the coming months, when the business of getting established in Sydney ramps down a bit.

s-

end

of

Sadly for your argument, Obama has been decreasing the rate of unemployment, not increasing it. James Arthur redefines unemployment to get around this inconvenient fact, but Joe Chisolm isn't that clever.

As it did from `1929 to 1933?

After all it worked so wonderfully well for Hoover back then.

Only if you wanted a turn around from slow growth to 6% per per year contraction.

This is the claim that James Arthur has been peddling. He doesn't believe that Keynesian deficit-financed stimuluus can work - though it is obviously working, if not as vigorously as one would like - and wants to abandon it in favour of the policies that worked so well for Hoover from 1929 to1933, when the US economy shrank at 6% per year, as it did for one quarter at the end of 2008, before the stimulus package started working.

What hate speech and name calling? Cite some of it ...

You wouldn't seem to know much about economics would you, if this is your idea of a rational argument.

Employers don't have any right to know about your genetic profile. It should be covered by medical confidentiality. They may want to know, but their particular interest has to be balanced against the interest of society as a whole, which doesn't want to be stuck with an underclass of unemployables. Employers are already forbidden to discriminate on the basis of race, sex or age. Adding genetic make-up to that list isn't much of stretch.

It may become unavoidable after we've learned a great deal more, but at the moment giving an employer a genetic sequence wouldn't help them all that often, and nowhere near often enough to pay for the cost of trawling through it for every potential employee

But it may be relatively easy to compensate for the defect.

That seems to be reporting on a serious study. I think I've actually met Uta Frith. Even so, the genes we know about don't have much effect on peoples behaviour - it's not a label that you can find on every convicted psychopath, but rather a variant that is marginally more common in that population. If we find enough such genes to forecast a significant chunk of the variance between the normal and the violent, we might be in a position to advise some people not to got for jobs where interpersonal violence can be called for - in the military, the police or as security guards - but that would be a s far as it would be worth going. And - as before - we might be able to compensate for some of the defects - as long as you keep on taking the pills you'll be perfectly even-tempered. It works for type 1 diabetes, and manic depression.

What you are really saying is that Keynesian deficit financed stimulus ought to work, but does not seem to be working now.

The reason it is hardly working is that the government has been stimulating the economy using deficit financing long before the last recession. Keynes was not for stimulating the economy except during recessions.

Dan

No, I'm saying that it is working now, but 1% GDP growth per year is less than everybody wants. It's not working as effectively as it might if the stimulus had been concentrated on the people - the poor - who could be relied on to spend all of it.

That happens to be nonsense. The reason that the current stimulus package isn't working as well as it might it that it has been hijacked by the Tea Party and treated as a pork barrel benefiting the people who fund their election campaigns.

From 2010 to 2011, the incomes of the top 5% of the income distribution went up 5%, while the incomes of the bottom 80% of the income distribution stayed put or went backwards. The income of the top 20% did go up by 1%, but since the incomes of the top 5% went up by 5%, the rest of the top 20% wouldn't have seen much of an increase either.

The people who are getting the benefit of the stimulus spending is the group with the highest saving to spending ratio, who spend less of their extra income than anybody else.

It may make the richest supporters of the Tea Party happy, and correspondingly generous with their contributions, but it's the worst possible area into which to direct stimulus spending.

BS is certainly slimy, but i don't think is oil; he emits lots of gas but not a natural kind.

What would be an un-natural gas? Natural gas is mostly methane, and every human human digestive system emits an appreciable amount of that every day, plus a detectable amount of hydrogen. Neither is odiferous

- the associated stink is actually from skatole

Since josephkk is a right-wing nitwit, his opinion on the subject (as on most others) won't have much relation to reality, but it would be nice to know what he had in his feeble approximation to a mind.

What hate speech and name calling? Cite some of it ...

But josephkk is a right-wing nitwit, so there's no name calling there, and identifying him as such will endear him to all the other right- wing nitwits who infest this group, such as yourself, so it scarcely qualifies as hate speech.

Do try to be realistic. Calling him a right wing intellectual would be hurtfully sarcastic.

@BillS So how many of these poor have you talked over the years? I have dealt with (way too) many that will not work for minimum wage because it is more effort than just collecting the dole. Worse, it often results in lower income.

@BillS Thimk about what you just said / posted. Do you see the internal inconsistency?

The only time I saw many of them was when I was taking part in courses designed to make me better at job seeking, when I was on Dutch unemployment benefit from 2003 to 2007. Every last one of them sincerely wanted to get a job. The people of my age thought - correctly - that this was impossible in the Netherlands at the time, and those that thought they saw a way of setting up their own business were concentrating on that - as was encouraged under the rules.

My observation was mainly based on a fairly extensive sociological study done in the U.K. a few years ago. I found the URL a few years ago and posted it here.

The only times I tried to move down-market, I got told that I was over- qualified - which probably meant too old, but it's more irritating, because while you can't conceal your age in a Dutch job application, you could conceal some of your qualifications.

You may have only seen the psychological basket cases. I've yet to see one myself, so I suspect you are suffering more from selective attention, rather than any high proportion of psychological basket cases. I acknowledge that they may exist, but I sincerely doubt that there are enough of them around to make a tolerably generous social security regime unworkable - Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands all do fine with reasonably generous social security regimes.

The Dutch figure for years in the work force is poor, but that's the consequence of embracing early retirement a few decades ago when it was - briefly - convenient, and not getting shot of it when it stopped making sense. The administration has now got the message, but the personnel departments are still living in the past. There was a Ph.D. thesis accepted in Nijmegen a month or so ago on how ageist Amsterdam personnel departments actually are. Quite as bad as I'd suspected from my - limited - sampling of that population.