AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (5 comments)

  1. Sure, if the BANKSTERS such as them and Goldman Sachs are able to CONTINUE to STEAL from the economy! (but neither barry nor mitt would dare disturb that from continuing so they’re probably right)

  2. SeattleSam

    Cut through all the detail and the big bottom line is this:

    1. You are unlikely to have high levels of growth as long as more and more of your resources get consumed by low productivity activities — i.e. virtually everything in the government budget.
    2. When you increase the cost of hiring people (e.g. through taxation, mandated benefits, onerous regulations) while the cost capital of capital is low (QE3, 4, 5, 6 . . . 15), you have every incentive to make labor saving investments.

    The only wild card here is technology. It’s possible that accelerating change in technology will make EVERYTHING so much more productive that it will overcome the two big drags. Our grandchildren might live in a world where the private sector becomes so super productive that government can go on consuming voraciously and where we simply warehouse two thirds of the population that can’t or won’t work.

    1. You are unlikely to have high levels of growth as long as more and more of your resources get consumed by low productivity activities — i.e. virtually everything in the government budget.

      You are a regular laugh machine. One of the reasons for sluggish GDP and employment growth in this recovery is the thing you disdain.

      Trend growth in government employment would be about 1.6 million jobs created since the last business cycle peak.

  3. Math is hard

    He gets it wrong out of the gate.

    The new entrants into the labor force isn’t 130,000. It’s 90,000 per month.

    The jobs gap is at 9 million now. Having 3-4% growth would close it within 4 years.

  4. Todd Mason

    A source for Glassman’s work would be nice because it appears nonsensical based on the bloggers description. Here is my url: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/projections-overview.htm

    The BLS says the economy will add 20 million jobs between 2010 and 2020 — or a minority of the 50 million OPENINGS it expects in the decade. The difference: Replacement needs, principally the coming wave of boomer retirements.

    The blogger says Glassman accounts for the boomers, and he does through 2012ish, which is he first swell of the boomer tsunami. But the only way to reconcile the yawning gulf between the BLS numbers and “Glassman’s” is for the blogger to assume that the “other” retirement number would remain frozen at its last fix for the next 44 years. The blog post below turning the Brookings calculator into 11 years of struggle was merely ludicrous. This one smacks of propaganda. That said, I will apologize if the Glassman link makes a cogent case.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content