>>>That's like saying that unemployment is bad for society. Yes on moral grounds, very much NO according to economic wizards.
>>
>>I don't know what economic wizards you are talking about but unemployment is a sign of inefficient use of resources. If you sell goods, you need people to sell them to. Unemployed people are a negative on the society. I don't think "economic wizards" would tell you 20% unemployment is better for society that 4%.
>
>I think he meant that for some? economists is good to have some level of unemployment, to keep salaries down, then, for those guys, 4% unemployment is good while 0% is bad.
>
>
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PhillipsCurve.htmlBut that is because 0% either means stagnation or labor shortage. It is also no even vaguely realistic. The numbers are usually fiddled by withdrawing from the count people so disfunctional - or so well supported on state dole - that they are "no longer looking for work"
4% represents the economy when everyone who wants a job can find a job ( that is not to say "dream job" or a job they think is befitting their station, but a job ) It also shows you may not be cooking the numbers. 0% unemployment is like the 99% voter turnout in some elections <g>
Charles Hankey
Though a good deal is too strange to be believed, nothing is too strange to have happened.
- Thomas Hardy
Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.
-- T. S. Eliot
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
- Ben Franklin
Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.
