Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Intellectuals and totalitarianism (was Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT)
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:00:16 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <BtJvys.2zv@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.151711.11213@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug22.042821.23309@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug22.013907.9370@tss.com> mathon@tss.com (John D. Mathon) writes:
>>>>By what measure do you mean healthier?  The American is still the richest,
>>>>most productive worker in the world BY A WIDE MARGIN.

>>>	But then why have we lost major industries to the Japanese and
>>>Europeans?

>>Why not?  What does it matter if we lose and industry here and there?
>>If we had rampant unemployment I might be a bit more worried. 

>  Were there supposed to be smiley's here?     I think we *do* have 
>  rampant unemployment.  Japan's unemployment rate is 3.2%.  Our official
>  unemployment rate is 7.8% and that only counts people who show up 
>  at the state employment office regularly.  It also doesn't reflect all
>  the former high-wage, good-job workers who are now flipping burgers
>  and driving cabs.   Michael Friedman is surely one of the few people
>  in the US who doesn't think we have rampant unemployment.

Well, let's take it from the top.

1.  If you want to use numbers for comparison, you have to use the
same number.  Japan's 3.2 doesn't include people who have given up
either.

2.  How many former high-wage people are flipping burgers?  If they
are really that desperate then why aren't companies hiring them for
salaries half-way between their former wages and burger flipping wages
to do the high-wage work?

3.  7.8% unemployment, although higher than we would like, is hardly
rampant unemployment.  Your problem is that 12 years of Regan/Bush has
spoiled you.

4.  The 7.8% figure includes people in the underground economy who
obviusly should not be counted.

>  I'm NOT agreeing with the other poster's hopes for a social-democratic
>  solution to this:  The unemployment rate in West Germany before unification
>  was >8%, I'm sure the unified Germany's rate is higher still.  The
>  unmplyment rates in Canada and the UK are also higher than the US and
>  AW&ST said in the current issue that French aerospace industries will
>  cut 32,000 jobs over the next 2 years; this on top of a very weak 
>  economy there.   So it's clear to me that more government spending and 
>  bigger deficits isn't the solution.  But on the other hand neither is
>  Mr. Friedman's pollyanna attitude.

If everyone else's unemployment rate is higher than ours then why is
ours "rampant"?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:6013 talk.politics.misc:42377 alt.activism:15545 sci.econ:7197