My main issue with GOP moral bankruptcy - the election to choose Party over Country. Here’s an example:
“I read you writing about this, about wanting to say nice things when you can and criticize when you need to. He may be an idiot, but he’s still the President and leader of my party and he is capable of doing some things right,” he says before conceding it’s usually other people doing the right things in the President’s name.
What’s the problem, though? Well, get ready…
"It’s like Forrest Gump won the presidency, but an evil, really fcking stupid Forrest Gump. He can’t help himself. He’s just a f**king idiot who thinks he’s winning when people are btching about him. He really does see the world as ratings and attention.
“I say a lot of shit on TV defending him, even over this. But honestly, I wish the motherfcker would just go away. We’re going to lose the House, lose the Senate, and lose a bunch of states because of him. All his supporters will blame us for what we have or have not done, but he hasn’t led. He wakes up in the morning, shts all over Twitter, shts all over us, shts all over his staff, then hits golf balls. F*ck him. Of course, I can’t say that in public or I’d get run out of town.”
And yet the congressman supports Trump? And most of the crap the Congressman bitches and moans about is the base and how they love Trump, but also how Trump’s going to kill the party.
Dude - you helped create this base. Be accountable, and stand up for what’s right.
Again, data shows we are experiencing a very tight labor market. Job openings rates hitting record levels. Robust wage/compensation growth (although in my experience it is usually the left who eschews compensation especially when promoting a lot of policies such as health insurance mandates, family leave etc. You can debate the merits of those policies, but they are going to have a negative impact on wages.) as measured by the Employment Cost Index, etc.
At the same time, you simply don’t have a similar decline in the same level of enrollees on social assistance programs. SNAP enrollment didn’t peak until 2013 fours year AFTER the peak period of the UI rate. You also have lower LFPR especially for low-skill workers which the CBO emphasized this week and is also what you expect if public policies are contributing to a decline in LFPR.
Finally CBO released a new working paper this week where the estimate federal fiscal policy over last decade has strongly contributed to the decline in LFPR for prime age adults (and they anticipate LFPR to increase due the new tax cut bill in next decade).
Overall, I agree with your arguments that people don’t want find jobs when wages are low but that is certainly not the case now, but the rolls of federal programs remain stubbornly high. I believe this is a large societal program and we need to make work requirements etc more stringent. I haven’t seen the entire Exec Order today but believe it will help.
A shrinking prime-age labor force/growing elderly pop is a big problem.
Don’t understand the positive.negative incentives. Rich people/poor people are affected by tax rates that decrease their income and lower the enthusiasm for work.
I think we are seeing the Peter principal in action. Paul had his ideal job as the budget chairman. He was quite good at it actually working with Senator Murray to pass a two-year budget, which constrained spending far more with the Republican only control 2 out 3 branches than we saw this year.
He never wanted to be Speaker period , much less to be Speaker with a nut like Trump in the White House.
I think Ryan wanted both spending cuts and tax cuts, he got 1/2 a loaf. As awful as the last year was, we know that 2019 will be worse for the Republicans.
I’m not really sure this is supported by data. I do agree that the labor market is tight; otoh, there does not seem to be evidence that a significant contributing factor to declining labor participation is due to government assistance.
Pew Research in 2013 suggested:
These researchers acknowledge that scholars don’t yet know all of the causes of these changes. They suggest globalization, the diminishing power of labor unions and the dizzying pace of technological change all may pose barriers to stable employment and raise frustration levels, particularly among men. Other scholars have cited institutional changes that have made it easier for mothers to work. Changes in family structure, immigration and the aging of the Baby Boom generation also may contribute to these trends. Add to that the simple fact that men—particularly those with a working wife—don’t need to work as long or as hard these days to support a family, or to even work at all.
To this long and growing list Autor and Wasserman add another intriguing possibility: Absentee dads.
Sifting through Census data, they find a significant share of this shift in employment outcomes is largely occurring in one group: men born into single-parent households, most of which are headed by women. As a group, these boys are significantly less likely to graduate from high school or go to college than other children, they found.
While this paper released by the Federal Reserve Board in 2014 on this very topic concluded
Combining the results from these different approaches, our overall assessment is that much – but not all – of the decline in the labor force participation rate since 2007 is structural in nature. As a result, while policymakers can view some of the current low level of the participation rate as indicative of labor market slack beyond that indicated by the unemployment rate alone, they should not expect the participation rate to show a substantial increase from current levels as labor market conditions continue to improve. Indeed, as we show in the final section of the paper, projections from our model point to further declines in the trend participation rate over the next decade or so.
So without more investment in this particular topic i don’t with a cursory glance see much support from academic literature that labor force participation as the problem exists today is correlated with government assistance. This is not to say it isn’t plausible, but (at least my own position right now) would be that it’s conjectural and not supported by the data.
[edit a little bit more, which also supports my previous conjecture i noted above that it has to do with globalization and technology winnowing out middle level, semi-skilled or lower skilled jobs.]
The role of polarization in the secular decline in participation for less-educated adults
Returning to the top panel of figure 4, prime age males without a college degree have experienced a long secular decline in their participation rates, joined by prime age women without a college degree beginning in the early 2000s. These declines have been the subject of a considerable literature reaching back to the 1980s. The early literature, which focused on prime age men, identified declining labor market opportunities for low-skilled workers, manifested in stagnant real wage growth, as the likely explanation (e.g. Juhn, 1992). However, since the 1990s, changes in labor demand have not been characterized by a monotonic increase in the demand for skilled workers, but rather by a decline in labor demand for occupations that have tended to be “middle-paying” or middle-skill jobs, and a concurrent increase in the both the share employed in higher-paying jobs (for better educated persons) and the share employed in lower- paying jobs (for less educated persons), e.g. Autor 2010.26 Can this polarization explain the decline in labor force participation among these workers over the past decade or two?
Polarization in labor demand, driven by exogenous technological changes and globalization, seems at least a plausible candidate explanation for some of the secular decline in participation among less-educated individuals. The idea is that polarization, while increasing demand for better-educated workers, displaces some less-educated (non-college) workers who were employed in middle-type jobs. Of these, some are able to transition to high-type jobs, some transition into the lower-paying service sector (perhaps displacing lower-skilled workers), and some may temporarily or permanently drop out of the labor force, as the decline in demand for their labor pushes their offer wages below their reservation level.27 Labor force withdrawal is likely to be most acute for less-educated adults, since they are most likely to have been employed in middle-type or lower-type jobs.28
I wonder if Ryan knows how the Supremes are going to rule on the WI gerrymandering case that tipped the scales on retirement?
So that violin uses superstrings, right?
I kill myself sometimes.
Bye bye Paul Ryan. You wont be missed. Now fuck off and dont let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Scumbag.
In demographer circles, this is referred to as the end of the Demographic Dividend.
Hi everyone!
Remember Missouri Governor Eric Greitens? The Missouri House did its own investigation, and just released their 25-page report. Hoo-boy.
Sounds like Greiten is quite the lady killer.
Oh, and there’s another report coming. Seems Eric runs a veterans charity and somehow charitable donations to those veterans found their way into his campaign funds.
And just to be clear: Republicans control the Missouri Legislature, and it is a Republican chairing the committee conducting this investigation.
So with Ryan retiring does this mean Nehlen is front runner for the Republican spot?
Be careful what you wish for. Sometimes the devil you know is better. Consider Boehner before Ryan for example. Completely Insane is definitely a possibility, as opposed to somewhat rational despite Tax Cut religion.
Boehner wanted to cut a deal with Obama, but couldn’t because the tea party faction is nutso.
Ryan is a pure Ayn Randian, and now he’s not hardcore enough for them.
The next guy? There’s a pattern.
Seriously, Greitens was being groomed by the party as its next superstar and a potential White House candidate in 2024. And boom.
Currently. Though literally anyone could step up and beat him in the primary. They have until June 1 to do so.
Or as someone online said: “It’ll be much more satisfying to watch Nehlen lose by 70% to some random dude than lose to Ryan by 70%.”
How much you wanna bet the recommendation is “don’t do it”?