EC> While on the subject of Paul Krugman, some interesting
 EC> comments from John C. Goodman at the Health Policy Blog:

 Notice, this is a blog, not an economist's report.

 EC> "Since Barack Obama took office almost 10 million people
 EC> have dropped out of the labor force. More than half a
 EC> million dropped out in the last month alone. Today, a
 EC> record 90 million people ù almost one third of the entire
 EC> population ù are not working and not even looking for a job.

 I will assume that Krugman is talking about those listed in the
 govt employment stats, not the total population. Since 90
 million of the total population could be accounted for by
 children alone, that seems likely.

 ...

 EC> Mulligan estimates that roughly half of the excess
 EC> unemployment we have been experiencing is due to the lure
 EC> of entitlement benefits ù food stamps, unemployment
 EC> compensation, disability benefits, etc. In other words, we
 EC> are paying people not to work. In a separate analysis,

 That is easily disproved by the simple mentioning of the fact
 that the unemployment rate, those looking for jobs, is still at
 7%, and the real unemployment rate is more like 15%. When the
 numbers who need a job now but are not looking are about 6
 million, and the number unemployed or under-employed is
 somewhere around 25 million, then you can't ascribe any
 unemployment to govt benefits. Also, notice Krugman was talking
 about those not in the labor force, not those unemployed.

 Look back at the stats on working age in America not in the work
 force. That 90 million record can be accounted for largely
 because there is a record number of people in this country.

 Then look at the numbers, which I found on the Dept of Labor
 site. I downloaded my copy in 2010, so it's not quite up to
 date, but it goes back to 1947. From 1947 the number not in the
 workforce was about 42 million. In 2010 it hit 85 million. A
 whole lot of that is just the increase in population.

 Then you add in those who have retired, after all, when someone
 is laid off at age 60, and can't find a job by age 62,
 retirement may be the only option.

 I have downloaded the CBO report he cited, but what he said and
 what is supported by the material he provided is widely
 seperate.

 EC> Mulligan estimates that much of the remaining unemployment
 EC> may be due to other Obama administration policies,
 EC> especially the Affordable Care Act.

 Mulligan can estimate until the cows come home, but it's all BS
 until proven. Esp since most of the ACA, the part that might
 affect employment that way, hasn't taken effect yet.

 EC> So what does Krugman have to say about MulliganÆs study?
 EC> Nothing. Nothing? Not a thing. Not about CaseyÆs study or
 EC> any other serious study. But he rejects MulliganÆs
 EC> conclusion by claiming that the fall in labor force
 EC> participation

 EC> 'wasnÆt a mass outbreak of laziness, and right-wing claims
 EC> that jobless Americans arenÆt trying hard enough to find
 EC> work because theyÆre living high on food stamps and
 EC> unemployment benefits should be treated with the contempt
 EC> they deserve.'

 And he's right. Recently I got involved in researching some
 programs for a young man who is clearly handicapped, and unable
 to find work he is capable of doing. In doing the research I got
 a good idea just how poor the benefits are.

 When I was working I also learned about how poor unemployment
 benefits are from some of my co-workers who were laid off at
 varying periods.

 So, I am not impressed with anyone claiming that people are
 unemployed deliberately because of government benefits.

 Hell, food stamps and medicaid should not even be mentioned when
 right wing supporting Wallmart is the biggest corporate food
 stamp and medicaid parasite in the country. Recently I learned
 they hired consultants to help their employees sign up for food
 stamps and medicaid. Seems a decent pay check is unreasonable to
 expect.

 The reason so many people are out of the workforce is the jobs
 just aren't there.

 EC> Hmmm. Last time I looked, economics is a science.

 No, it isn't.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)