/liberty/ - Liberty

What the fuck does this even mean?

>>65360

What does what mean?

Why are you saging and asking a question at the same time?

Why are you a faggot?

>>65357

I don't like the use of the unemployment rates. Different countries use varying means to calculate their unemployment figures.

>>65365

Besides, unemployment by itself does not have to mean poverty. You can have every single person above the age of 10 working and it can still be unproductive and detrimental. You might think simple propaganda doesn't need to present true and ought only to agitate, but what do you do when you're exposed for it?

Not the guy that saged initially, but have one from me as well. I have not tolerance for memefaggotry.

>>65366

Unemployment refers to someone who is looking for a job and can't find one.

And I never said it was the only economic figure worth measuring.

>>65360

>what does this mean

>I'm too stupid to understand that the point of this picture is to explain that libertarianism/free markets leads to less unemployment

Hello my Statist friend, I think you should go back to >>>/leftypol/

>>65373

>Unemployment refers to someone who is looking for a job and can't find one.

Yes, and that changes nothing about my argument, nor is your addition contained within the oversimplified image.

>And I never said it was the only economic figure worth measuring.

That's not contained in the misleading image. You don't get to have the cake and eat it too. If you want to make an oversimplified assertion you get a refutation of it as it is. Nobody cares what you also have in mind, nor has to.

>>65380

How is it 'detrimental' to have everybody who wants a job able to find one? It just means they can choose to make money. It doesn't mean people are being forced to work at all.

> That's not contained in the misleading image. You don't get to have the cake and eat it too. If you want to make an oversimplified assertion you get a refutation of it as it is. Nobody cares what you also have in mind, nor has to.

A comparison of unemployment rates doesn't have to explain that it's not the only indicator worth measuring. Putting on such an explanation would be a waste of everyone's time. It would also be totally patronising.

I don't know why you're looking for something complain about.

If you mean the images, they're just a bit of attitude. They're supposed to be obviously cherry-picked, but still convey the message from the meme about what's 'good' what's 'bad'.

Singapore is pretty draconian though.

>>65385

i mean it's 2017

>>65382

>How is it 'detrimental' to have everybody who wants a job able to find one

Because nominal employment in an unproductive occupation is a negative, not a positive. A really high employment rate can also mean a slow stagnant market that can't afford to create new jobs or that there is insufficient competition for jobs leading to higher wages and lower productivity. Of course, a market can be stagnant and everyone still be doing just fine as long as all other factors remain static as well. It's just not something to aim at.

The number of available jobs represents that choice, but those as well can be completely out of reach to the majority due to regulations or them being plain unqualified.

Employment alone does not lead to any valid conclusion that can stand on its own. It always requires additional supporting data to mean something. Focusing so much on it misleads people into further confusion and fallacies.

>>65386

>it's the current year

Go away, John Oliver

>>65399

>Because nominal employment in an unproductive occupation is a negative, not a positive

If their occupation was so 'unproductive' nobody would have hired them.

>insufficient competition for jobs leading to higher wages and lower productivity.

Oy vey.

>Employment alone does not lead to any valid conclusion that can stand on its own

Unemployment is a real phenomenon and it's extremely destructive.

It's true that fucking up interest rates to reduce unemployment is bad, but that doesn't mean unemployment isn't also bad.

>>65412

Nah John Oliver was last year.

>>65442

>Oy vey.

It means you're producing less and everything is expensive. What are you meming at?

>If their occupation was so 'unproductive' nobody would have hired them.

>Failing businesses and bubbles don't exist. Entrepreneurs don't make mistakes and the market produces instant feedback on production and investment in my imaginary world.

>but that doesn't mean unemployment isn't also bad.

It means nothing without context. It's neither.

Stop replying for the sake of appearing like you have something to say.

>>65508

Seems like you ignored the part where I said

>It's true that fucking up interest rates to reduce unemployment is bad, but that doesn't mean unemployment isn't also bad.

I'm talking about the general case and not the limited case.

Unemployment is a great evil. You're defending high unemployment policies just because there some policies to reduce unemployment are foolish.

You clearly don't care about communicating to people, and just want to criticise everything like a retard

>>65512

>you're defending high unemployment policies just because there some policies to reduce unemployment are foolish.

Where do I explicitly defend unemployment? How many times do I have to repeat it to you that without context unemployment means nothing?

>You clearly don't care about communicating to people, and just want to criticise everything like a retard

Unemployment has been used by both sides of the political spectrum. It can be interpreted however you fucking want it to. Of course I'm not going to tolerate something that is both misleading and insufficient to prove anything. Why would I settle for anything less than the truth?

>>65529

>How many times do I have to repeat it to you that without context unemployment means nothing?

Seems like you're just restating the argument that unemployment is actually good because some attempts to reduce it are undesirable.

> It can be interpreted however you fucking want it to.

Bullshit. It has a rigid definition. People can't get a job.

>Of course I'm not going to tolerate something that is both misleading and insufficient to prove anything

It's not at all misleading and insufficient to highlight differences in unemployment rates between countries. But of course you don't care about communicating messages.

>>65578

>Bullshit. It has a rigid definition. People can't get a job.

>can't

>Voluntary unemployment doesn't real

>Wage slavery is bad, but unless everyone is working a fourty hour week all around the year, society must be sick

Wut.

>>65579

There's a difference between can't and won't.

>>65581

Not according to the post I replied to. According to that one, no one would ever be unemployed voluntarily.

>>65582

I said unemployment is when a person can't get a job. How does this imply there is no difference between can't and won't?