Tom W on Doug:
> A family in which
> two adults have to be working full time to earn a similar level of income
> contributes twice as many participants to the labour force and thus
> "improves" the employment picture.
> It's magic: lower incomes + higher labour force participation = a lower rate
> of unemployment.
No, increased labor force participation by itself will raise the
unemployment rate not lower it. Look up the definition of
unemployment.
> ... According to supply side economics, working people are
> "better off" if they're working more hours for less income. You don't buy
> the former set of lies, why should you buy the later?
Where has Doug argued *anything* resembling the proposition that
"working people are 'better off' if they're working more hours for
less income"?
Max & Doug pointed out numerous factual errors in the Chossudovsky
article, including assertions about the U.S. economy which the
author clearly had not checked. Where was the "quaint U.S.-centric
parochialism," to quote a previous Tom W post, in pointing out these
errors?
Failures in logic and careless use of data, which riddled the
Chossudovsky piece, should not be excused because one sympathizes
with the writer's politics. By the same token pointing out these
problems is not tantamount to agreeing with "supply siders" or
other political adversaries.
Best. Colin
