Econ Thread

..et d'autres discussions ennuyeuses
User avatar
AD
Posts: 68917
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 666 times
Received rep: 737 times

Post #51 by AD » Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:26 pm

Don't concede the point Hack. That model only really worked for about 50 years or so and was completely unsustainable.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 102 times

Post #52 by jester » Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:30 pm

mooseOAK wrote:At a time where a poor job market is pushing more high school students into colleges rather than the work force and more debt when they get out.


...student population has actually dropped last year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/educa ... d=all&_r=0

College enrollment has risen for a lot of reasons (good and bad), but the poor job market isn't one of em.
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29849
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 349 times
Received rep: 166 times

Post #53 by mayoradamwest » Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:44 pm

User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 102 times

Post #54 by jester » Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:27 pm

mooseOAK wrote:Poor job market is definitely a reason.


Well, I would love to see data back to WWII and the GI Bill backing that up. Going to college has had increased cultural capital because it has increasingly been tied to success in landing an upwardly mobile career. So, people go to college to get the job they want, not because the existing job market is bad. Much of the current angst towards college is that the recession has seemingly ended the return on investment of that premise, but I think it's much too early to judge on that front.

If you were talking about post-graduate degrees exclusively it would be a different story.
User avatar
PredsFan77
Posts: 37516
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:53 am
Location: 7 TIME LOUNGE JEOPARDY CHAMP!!!
Has given rep: 131 times
Received rep: 376 times

Post #55 by PredsFan77 » Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:31 pm

debt slaves.
CDX.NA.IG.9









[LEFT]Image[/LEFT]
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 102 times

Post #56 by jester » Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:45 pm

...that's about as smooth a bar graph as I have ever seen. And, again, you need to separate out post-grads, cuz that is a different marketplace.

I'll be honest, yours is the first claim I've seen that argues for a correlation between shit job market and people going to college... whereas I've read a lot about the post-war college boom and the tie between the middle class and college. That reality has grown more true, not less.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 102 times

Post #57 by jester » Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:14 pm

mooseOAK wrote:The link that dempsey posted connected the drop in college enrollment to a resurging economy and colleges can help the graph to stay flatter by lowering their standards when they have fewer applicants and increasing their standards when they have more.


Why schools accept or don't accept students has little to do with student motivation, and everything to do with a school's motivations. The big hit this past year was among older students, it was also one year and that does not a trend make. Given that jobs increasingly require a bachelors, the degree incentive remains strong if you want a well paying job.

I suspect the problem stems largely from the schools (finally) pricing out some students paired with the extremely slow recovery we are experiencing. So, the bad economy is a reason not to go to school right now... because debt and no job sucks. But, again, we have a half century of data versus a year... we don't and won't know firm answers for a bit.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 11003
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 27 times
Received rep: 33 times

Post #58 by RTWAP » Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:17 pm

Banana wrote:Don't concede the point Hack. That model only really worked for about 50 years or so and was completely unsustainable.


Image

The money seems to be going into corporate profits and executive salaries.

[quote="Mark A. Sadowski 11. September 2013 at 08:52"]I commented on the latest Saez numbers at Economist’]
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29849
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 349 times
Received rep: 166 times

Post #59 by mayoradamwest » Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:49 pm

dempsey_k wrote:This is what a major in Gramscian Economics does for you.


Image

Edit: :(
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 39497
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 41 times
Received rep: 398 times

Post #60 by Craig » Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:14 am

RTWAP wrote:Image

The money seems to be going into corporate profits and executive salaries.

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=23522


There are lots of workers who aren't goods producers or executives.

Corporate profits benefit investors. What's the distribution of money in the stock market like? I suppose it must be more slanted towards the wealthy than income is, but I would be curious to know. The largest shareholders I can think of in Canada are all pension funds, so some corporate profits are making it back to the middle and lower classes.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 68917
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 666 times
Received rep: 737 times

Post #61 by AD » Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:06 am

RTWAP wrote:Image



Exactly. It was unsustainable.

At no time in the last 4000 years has the manual labour of a single family member been enough to allow for an entire family to be comfy and become land owners. Except for that aforementionned short period of unsustainability.
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29849
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 349 times
Received rep: 166 times

Post #62 by mayoradamwest » Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:39 am

Banana wrote:Exactly. It was unsustainable.

At no time in the last 4000 years has the manual labour of a single family member been enough to allow for an entire family to be comfy and become land owners. Except for that aforementionned short period of unsustainability.


alright then, back to sweet sustainable serfdom.
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29849
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 349 times
Received rep: 166 times

Post #63 by mayoradamwest » Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:02 am

dempsey_k wrote:Serfs were necessary for the mode of production. Not really anymore.


pessimist.
User avatar
clawfirst
Registered Broad
Posts: 40042
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 1:45 pm
Has given rep: 280 times
Received rep: 467 times

Post #64 by clawfirst » Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:42 am

So by my calculations polygamy is the only way to get ahead. I will discuss this with my wife.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57579
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1737 times
Received rep: 1170 times

Post #65 by Dog » Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:55 am

Think we may be assuming that productivity gains went to shareholders if they didn't go to goods manufacturing workers, i don't see any evidence of that. Corporate earnings growth is cyclical, but tend to normalize over longer periods. I've never seen anything that points to ever increasing corporate earnings in real terms since the 70s (and yes i'm aware of the cost cutting since 2009 earnings bump). I think the savings have by in large been passed to consumers through ever more complex items at stable if not declining prices in real terms. Greater efficiency (which in the manufacture side is largely a function of globalization) has gone to "quality of life" (ie. crap we buy) but via the consumer side.
User avatar
PredsFan77
Posts: 37516
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:53 am
Location: 7 TIME LOUNGE JEOPARDY CHAMP!!!
Has given rep: 131 times
Received rep: 376 times

Post #66 by PredsFan77 » Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:57 am

debt slaves
CDX.NA.IG.9



















[LEFT]Image[/LEFT]
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 11003
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 27 times
Received rep: 33 times

Post #67 by RTWAP » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:22 pm

Dog wrote:Think we may be assuming that productivity gains went to shareholders if they didn't go to goods manufacturing workers, i don't see any evidence of that. Corporate earnings growth is cyclical, but tend to normalize over longer periods. I've never seen anything that points to ever increasing corporate earnings in real terms since the 70s (and yes i'm aware of the cost cutting since 2009 earnings bump). I think the savings have by in large been passed to consumers through ever more complex items at stable if not declining prices in real terms. Greater efficiency (which in the manufacture side is largely a function of globalization) has gone to "quality of life" (ie. crap we buy) but via the consumer side.


I have read some bitter complaints about how broken the inflation index is, because it fails to capture that effect. If you put a dollar value in 1970 on the items purchased by a typical consumer today it would be astronomical. The cost to develop an iPhone would be insane. Even in more stable industries, if you took a typical $20K car today and figured out what a car with the same features would sell for in 1970 you would probably be looking at an expensive luxury car. I think it's a classic example of the problem of measuring what we can, not what we should. Nobody knows how to account for progress, so we ignore it and just look at things that are relatively unchanging commodities, or equate items that hold the same approximate spot in their market with a similar good from a previous time that held a similar spot.

Banana wrote:Exactly. It was unsustainable.

At no time in the last 4000 years has the manual labour of a single family member been enough to allow for an entire family to be comfy and become land owners. Except for that aforementionned short period of unsustainability.


Stay at home parents worked. Their work may have been relatively unskilled, but it did have the benefit of not being taxed. A stay-at-home parent can save the family a lot of money on groceries and keep an eye out for sales, buying things ahead of time instead of paying full price in a last minute rush. My anecdotal observation is we live faster, and more expensively, but we're not necessarily better for it.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57579
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1737 times
Received rep: 1170 times

Post #68 by Dog » Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:22 pm

Yay!
User avatar
PredsFan77
Posts: 37516
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:53 am
Location: 7 TIME LOUNGE JEOPARDY CHAMP!!!
Has given rep: 131 times
Received rep: 376 times

Post #69 by PredsFan77 » Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:12 pm

Bad decision.
CDX.NA.IG.9



















[LEFT]Image[/LEFT]
User avatar
AD
Posts: 68917
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 666 times
Received rep: 737 times

Post #70 by AD » Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:18 am

I keep hovering between Pinelopi Goldberg, Hying Song Shin and Janet Curry. I come close to Richard Thaler but never enough to be closest.

Thats after 50 questions.
User avatar
Walrus
Registered Broad
Posts: 1200
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:27 pm
Location: Vancouver

Post #71 by Walrus » Wed Jan 15, 2014 1:21 am

David Autor: http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/participant-bio-2?id=2

And then it switched to Daron Acemoglu but I don't like the cut of his jib quite as much.
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29849
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 349 times
Received rep: 166 times

Post #72 by mayoradamwest » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:05 am

User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 39497
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 41 times
Received rep: 398 times

Post #73 by Craig » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:20 am

Big#D wrote:Is the lack of performance a function of how much they make or is it more a function of the size of their companies?


That's got to be hard to evaluate. If CEO pay is actually correlated to performance, the companies that should be paying them the most are the ones that are having a really rough go. Blackberry should have the most expensive CEO in the world, as should the car companies when they were going to hell.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 68917
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 666 times
Received rep: 737 times

Post #74 by AD » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:23 am

CEO performence and Company performence are not necessarily corelated. In fact, the hardest working CEO are usually in the most difficult situations. Effects of the policies they enact don't nexcessarily translate in short term shareholder value and whatnot.

I'm not a big defender of ceo compensation, but the correlation in the article doesn't help much.
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29849
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 349 times
Received rep: 166 times

Post #75 by mayoradamwest » Fri Jul 11, 2014 10:34 am

User avatar
Ernie
Registered Broad
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:42 pm
Location: The City of Vancouver
Received rep: 1 time

Post #76 by Ernie » Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:32 am

supply and demand, what a novel concept.

well it is in the oil market.
User avatar
Ernie
Registered Broad
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:42 pm
Location: The City of Vancouver
Received rep: 1 time

Post #77 by Ernie » Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:37 am

Kinda of weird that a decade ago we were obsessed with peak oil, and now we're more looking at peak oil demand.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57579
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1737 times
Received rep: 1170 times

Post #78 by Dog » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:06 pm

Ernie wrote:Kinda of weird that a decade ago we were obsessed with peak oil, and now we're more looking at peak oil demand.


Nobody knows nothin'.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57579
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1737 times
Received rep: 1170 times

Post #79 by Dog » Thu Dec 11, 2014 8:45 pm

Thomas Malthus wrote:In this vein I would suggest that everyone who's interested read the book Future Babble by Dan Gardner.

I found it to be a really enjoyable read. Here's the overview:


Obvs, I'd think some subjects lend themselves better to prediction than others. Alot of the social/economic sciences would not, because of the number of agents and other variables. Guess that's why we have a market.

Return to “Le mur de messages”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests