throwaway37585

> Education in the US suffers from a similar problem because of its patchwork and variable system of state and federal funding, much of which was specifically designed to disadvantage the poor and minorities.

I don't disagree with this. There are other important factors, of course.

Comment · 8 years ago

> There isn't "still" slack, the slack is growing as the laborforce participation rate is lower today than it was in 2013.

The labor force participation rate is currently about 62.8%. In 2013, it was at most about 63.8%, only 1 percent higher [1].

> How can it be in a "booming" economy that fewer people want to work and real wages are also falling?

Real average hourly earnings for June 2013 were $10.31 [2]. Real average hourly earnings for June 2018 were $10.76 [3]. Real earnings increased over that period. So what are you referring to, exactly?

> I haven't seen an economic explanation for this.

This reminds me of a how a creationist says “Well, I haven't seen an explanation for this" and proceeds to dismiss an entire field.

> The lack of evidence that they are more than just theories, I want the data.

Lack of evidence about what? Be specific.

[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-parti...

[2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/realer_07162013.ht...

[3] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/realer_07122018.ht...

Comment · 8 years ago

> That’s the reality of privatized healthcare.

What makes you say this a problem with "privatized healthcare" rather than a systemic problem with how it works in the U.S.?

Comment · 8 years ago

How is that an "indictment" of "the capitalist system"?

Comment · 8 years ago

Interesting that you mention that. Relative to the size of its wealth, the U.S. spends a disproportionate amount on health care. Even as a high income country, the U.S. spends more per person on health than comparable countries. Total health expenditures per capita, U.S. dollars, PPP adjusted, 2016 [1]:

United States: $10,348

Switzerland: $7,919

Germany: $5,550

Netherlands: $5,385

Austria: $5,227

Belgium: $4,839

France: $4,600

United Kingdom: $4,192

See [2] for a breakdown by country of government/compulsory healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP: https://imgur.com/a/BzaVX6w. The U.S. comes out on top, by far. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the problems with U.S. healthcare won't be solved by pouring more money into it, but rather by addressing systemic issues with the way it works?

Regarding education:

The United States spends more than other developed nations on its students' education each year... Spending, of course, only tells part of the story and does not guarantee students' success. The United States routinely trails its rival countries in performances on international exams despite being among the heaviest spenders on education... The average first-year high school teacher in the United States earns about $38,000. OECD nations pay their comparable educators just more than $31,000... Among all educators, U.S. payrolls are competitive. The average high school teacher in the United States earns about $53,000, well above the average of $45,500 among all OECD nations. [3]

The United States spent $12,300 per FTE student at the elementary/secondary level, which was 29 percent higher than the average of $9,600 for OECD member countries reporting data... At the postsecondary level, total government and private expenditures on education institutions as a percentage of GDP by the United States (2.7 percent) were higher than the OECD average (1.6 percent) and were higher than those of all other OECD countries reporting data. [4]

Again, has it ever occurred to you that maybe the problems with U.S. education won't be solved by pouring more money into it, but rather by addressing systemic issues with the way it works?

[1] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...

[2] https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm

[3] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-glob...

[4] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp

Comment · 8 years ago

The same article the GGP linked to explains why wages haven’t grown as quickly:

Economists believe that the unemployment rate can dip even further because there's still slack in the job market.

Productivity and inflation are lower than in previous periods of growth, and economists believe that has kept a lid on wages. The erosion of workers' bargaining power has also played a role. Another explanation: Employers are turning to new workers — such as younger people and those just re-entering the job market — to fill positions vacated by better-paid veteran workers who are either retiring or taking new positions elsewhere. Economists are confident that wages will keep climbing as competition for workers grows. Dozens of companies have already announced pay hikes and more attractive benefits to lure workers. On Thursday, Costco said it would raise starting wages for US employees by $1, to a minimum of $14 an hour.

What do you find unsatisfactory about these explanations?

> But the combination means that there's a problem, because in a free market you would expect the opposite: in times of low unemployment, companies would need to increase wages to attract employees. That this is not happening is a blow against...

It sounds like you’re setting up a strawman and attacking it. See above.

> because the labor market doesn't behave like a free market.

No one believes the labor market is or behaves like a free market. Again, this is a strawman.

Comment · 8 years ago

> Not the parent, but how about all of Western Europe?

You're going to have to be more specific. What about "all of Western Europe"?

> As much as economics wants to tout itself as a science

Is this going to be a game of definitions? What qualifies as a "science", in your view? Do you consider sociology to be a science? Psychology? Ecology? Geology? Anthropology? Archaeology? History? Linguistics?

> tested in real countries over the past 75 years

Which 75-year-old policies are you referring to, exactly?

> it just retreats into some dressed-up version of American Exceptionalism

What you could possibly mean by economics being a "dressed-up version of American Exceptionalism" is honestly a complete mystery to me.

> to explain the failing of its own prescriptions.

Which prescriptions are you referring to?

Comment · 8 years ago

> Chavez and Maduro are not leftist.

Are you serious? Do you know anything about the beloved "Bolivarian Revolution" and its policies?

Comment · 8 years ago

> More than half of the country support the government

Please provide a credible source for this claim.

Comment · 8 years ago

> Brazil is a real dictatorship, Venezuela isn't

What's your evidence for this outrageous claim?