Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (254002)	10/6/2005 7:42:11 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572027

"In any case, there are going to be people who are unemployed. Paying them not to work will have the same effects as reducing the unemployment level down to 0%." You're WAY behind. We went "from welfare to work" in the Clinton era. We DON'T "pay people not to work" anymore, and no one here is making that argument.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (254002)	10/7/2005 12:56:22 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1572027

Ted, What do you mean by the term "full employment". Under Clinton, unemployment dropped below 4%.....most economists believed that was full employment. This used to be 6% back in the 70's and early 80's. Once again, the goal posts are being moved. Back in the 1980s, it was believed that unemployment could never get lower than 5-6% for a whole host of reasons that were proven false under Clinton. In any case, there are going to be people who are unemployed. Paying them not to work will have the same effects as reducing the unemployment level Where did you get the notion that I was suggesting people should be paid to not work? I never said that. What I have said in the past was that people should be paid an unemployment wage that is sufficient to allow them to stay in an apt and not become homeless........and not just for 6 months but a year. ted