Roanoke College Economics: Kassens' paper makes Top Ten list on SSRN

Roanoke College Economics: Kassens' paper makes Top Ten list on SSRN: The Social Science Research Network describes itself as " .. . devoted to the rapid worldwide dissemination of social science research and...

Miss Millie has another question for ECON 122 students!

For an extra credit point be sure the send your answer to Dr. Kassens via email.

Question: The Employment Situation Report came out on Friday.  What was the reported labor force participation rate?

Roanoke College Economics: ECON 122 Student Blog

Roanoke College Economics: ECON 122 Student Blog: Students in Kassens' ECON 122 (Principles of Macroeconomics) class are finished with their blog assignment. Clearly these are some bright s...

Critique-America's Jobless

I really enjoyed reading this
blog post because I think that it does a great job of explaining how bad the
job market is right now. The mining example does a great job of demonstrating
how desperate some people are for work in the United States. It also
demonstrates how even if somebody was willing to do such dangerous work, it is
very hard to get that job because of the employers uncertainty about the
current economy. Unemployment is so high in the United States because the
economy is very unstable right now and hiring new employees is very risky
during these times. It is crazy how people who are very qualified for jobs are
having a hard time finding them right now. It is crazy that veterans are having
a tough time finding jobs in the country that they risked their lives to fight
for. The only part about this blog post I would have possibly done a little
different is that I would use a different example that had to do with employers
in the United States. The example used is very interesting because it
demonstrates that it is really hard for an employer in another country to hire
workers from the U.S. because then they would be responsible for transporting
the workers to the country and also they would be responsible for setting them
up in the country. By the time the employees were finally ready to work, the
employer would have spent a lot of extra money that they would not have had to
spend if they hired workers from their own country. The example showed that it is really difficult
for Americans to get jobs in other labor markets in other countries but it did
not show the other sides of unemployment in our country. The post needed an
example that used employers from the United States so we could see why it is so
hard to find a job in our own country. The reason someone would leave to work
in another country is because of the problems here and I don’t think that point
was made. I enjoyed this blog post and I agree with every point that was made in
it about unemployment. However, using an example that shows why it is so hard
to find a job in the United States right now would have made it easier for
somebody to understand what a big problem we really do have in this country in
regards to unemployment.

Tien Nguyen - Critique on "Korea" by Colin Picard

            This article mentioned the great success of Korea’s rise in its economy. One of the main points is how Korea is a huge net exporter company that contributes to their GDP. I do agree that being mainly a net exporter country will contribute to a higher GDP. As discussed, net export/imports directly ties in with the GDP equation, while the US is an importing country, the NX of the equation is negative, taking away from GDP. On the other hand while Korea is mainly an exporter, they are selling their goods overseas, giving them a positive number on the NX side, adding to their GDP.

            The writer did mention that South Korea’s labor force is also really strong, does this mean they are fully utilizing their available worker and is at their natural rate of unemployment? I personally do not agree with the statement that South Korea’s labor force is really strong. I feel like Korea probably knows how to utilize their workers and hire the best to avoid failed hiring and losing money which contributes to GDP. Though, in order for Korea to have a strong labor force, full employment should be met. The writer himself mentioned women, even though they have a great education, are not being used in the labor force. It does not mention if they are considered unemployed or not, but to be able to use all their resources to meet the PPF curve, people who are able to work should be in the labor force, women included.

            I do agree that government’s regulation has a huge impact on Korea’s hit or miss economy. Because most of the powerful corporations are own within the family, it is hard for outsider’s to come into higher rank of the business. If the government were able to put forth laws that prohibits one family from being the major contributor, shareholder, higher rank in the business; rather than the company falling to pieces if the family were in financial turmoil, they can then use the assets from other people to prevent the business itself from being in the same condition. Also, if this were to happen, as the writer has stated, GDP would not be as good and could also lead Korea in a terrible recession.

            Overall, I agree with how the writer analyzed the article on Korea’s current condition and how they’re utilizing their labor force.

Anouk van Gaalen

Critique on the blog “Unemployed Veterans”

As the author of the blog mentions the economy has been suffering lately and the job market has been very tight. Even though the economy has shown a slight growth lately, there are still a lot of people without a job. Especially for veterans it can be very hard finding a new job, since they have a different education than is needed for most jobs and especially for the job vacancies. This is called structural unemployment: there is a mismatch in skills between the veterans and employers, but also cyclical unemployment, since the veterans have an extra hard time finding a job because companies are uncertain about the suffering economy and they are not hiring. That is why the government decided to interfere in the economy with expansionary fiscal policy: a bill that is supposed to provide more jobs for veterans. They are lowering the taxes for companies if they hire veterans and the government will retrain veterans to make them hirable for different kinds of jobs. As the author of the original post states, this reduction in taxes for companies is supposed to reduce the unemployment rate, this will increase the national income and therefore it will be a boost for the economy, so will the new education for the veterans give them more chances to be hired and thereby reduce the unemployment rate, increase the income, and the Gross Domestic Product therefore as well.

As the author of the blog says the lowering of the taxes will encourage businesses to hire veterans, because this means that their total amount of cost will lower and the company will be more profitable. The companies can either spend the extra money, which means that the GDP will grow (Investments) or they can reduce the prices of their products or services so that the demand for their product will rice and the GDP will rise through the consumers.  This shows that the lowering of taxes is increasing the GDP and therefore expansionary fiscal policy.

This bill is however only a small part of the Job Package Obama promised. The veterans are only a small part of all the unemployed people. There will have to be a lot more policy to reduce the total unemployment rate. Obama promised to create one million new jobs to reduce the high unemployment rate and so far he has not been successful doing that. Even this bill for the veterans is not signed by Obama yet, but the White House has said that it supports the bill, so it is likely that this bill will go through. This means a step in reducing the unemployment rate in the United States.

Stephanie Parenteau - Critique of "Unemployed Veterans"

Approximately two weeks ago, the House passed a bill with the motive to help unemployed Veterans find work, and also to redefine the qualifications for who is eligible for federal help under new health care reforms. Essentially, the bill was passed to stimulate the business cycle and reduce the economy. Tien thoroughly explains the potentials of the bill, and why she agrees with the House that the bill will do more good than harm and will in fact stimulate our deteriorating economy. However, I disagree with a lot of what this bill has to offer.

  In my opinion, the economy’s two main detriments are its unemployment rate, and the amount of government debt. This bill provides jobs for unemployed veterans by providing employers with tax credits. When an employer receives a tax credit, it reduces the amount of taxes being paid to the government, causing a chain effect that eventually results in government debt increasing. While providing tax credit for employers, the bill also states that it will provide education for veterans in order for them to become more qualified for various positions. Who is ultimately going to pay for this education? The government will be spending more money providing education and job retraining programs, and again will increase government debt.

Currently, there is a very large amount of frustration throughout the United States regarding unemployed students whom have received college degrees and even secondary college degrees. These unemployed students are obviously already well-trained and qualify for many positions in our business cycle that are just not available right now. Not only will this bill proposition result in more government spending, but it will reach an even more unemployment rate for students. I respect veterans tremendously, and do agree that something needs to be done to help for a lesser unemployment rate, but this isn’t a good way to do this. I’m not exactly sure how the government could provide jobs for these vets without increasing their amount of debt, but they need to primarily worry about government spending over anything else.

As for the other half of the bill, which explains that the government will redefine eligibility for federal help under health care reforms, I do agree with Tien that this will help decrease the federal debt deficit, and will make a lot of tax payers happy. Health care is one of the many assets that cause for so much government debt, due to the amount of money the government supplies for these reforms. I think that this part of the Bill will inevitably help the economy and reduce the government debt, while reducing the amount of angry tax payers that have to pay taxes for all of this health care. When reducing eligibility, the government is able to use this money for something else that could quite possibly be more detrimental right now than people with health care.

I do strongly wish for the government to somehow reduce the number of unemployed vets, and provide health care for people who are not financially stable. However, I only agree with the second half of this bill. The United States has the largest amount of debt in the world, and anything that we do to worsen this debt is not going to help the economy. More government spending and less tax collecting might help the veterans and the economy temporarily. But in the long run, it’ll cause the same problems (maybe not as crucial) as when the government was providing financial support for banks when the housing market crashed in 2008. The economy and the government will benefit, however, from the regulation of eligibility for financial support from health care reforms.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/16/news/economy/unemployed_veterans/index.htm?iid=SF_E_Lead