{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
由Telec编辑：
2/28/2013 12:51:50 PM
17
Which is more important - GDP or unemployment?
You can gear a policy to help with GDP growth or with unemployment. Which do you choose?
(For the sake of argument, assume that the relative improvement is approximately the same, on whatever scale you choose to use)
And what if the policy which helped unemployment would damage GDP?
-
I think unemployment is a bigger issue than the GDP growth. Having some sense of income--even if it is low and the value of cash is inflating--seems better to me than having no means of income, even if the GDP is growing.
-
由Diplomat编辑： 3/1/2013 4:30:03 AMUnemployment is more important, as GDP only indicates the worth of the products your nation produces in a year, not the quality of living of your population. Plus, more employment means more circulation, which means more bought products, which means more production, which means a higher GDP. So I fail to see how raising employment would ever hurt GDP.
-
Neither. You need to control inflation. GDP doesn't mean shit if the money itself doesn't mean shit. You could have a skyrocketing GDP that only exists due to ridiculous inflation. If we were able to revert back to a time where $.25 could get you into the movie theater, then our GDP would be very, very low. However, because the money itself would be worth so much, the GDP would be a helluva lot more meaningful than it is now. If we can have a low inflation rate, then prices will be low enough to the point where lower wages would mean more than higher wages now. That would make it so businesses have less room to raise and drop prices, since each dollar would mean much more to the average guy. Think of it this way: Whether a bag of chips is $3 or $4 right now, it really doesn't matter. That little dollar is takes ten minutes to make in even the worst of jobs. But if $1 was the equivalent to $5-$7 now, companies would be forced into keeping their pricing intervals smaller. Making your money worth more makes it so that way more people have access to the smaller things.
-
2 回复
-
1 回复Unemployment. GDP benefits the rich more than the lower classes (percentage difference between average wage worker and CEO has dramatically increased), whereas unemployment generally helps those who need the help because the rich aren't bothered by unemployment. When is the last time you've seen a millionare CEO begging for money?
-
由HurtfulTurkey编辑： 2/28/2013 3:26:06 PMUnemployment. More labor means businesses are making more money and can afford to pay more workers, so it's easy to assume GDP is simultaneously increasing. [quote]And what if the policy which helped unemployment would damage GDP?[/quote] Then Okun's Law is violated and something else is decreasing GDP which needs to be addressed.
-
2 回复由TheBrandingIron编辑： 2/28/2013 2:21:13 PMGDP is not that significant in terms of this comparison. However, GDP per capita is pretty critical, as it is the standard of living.
-
4 回复
-
4 回复Unemployment. The more people working means the more revenue the Government can tax. At a certain point, the amount of tax needed to operate the government stops being a percentage and starts being a real number. So, if enough people are working, that real number starts to be a lower percentage of everyone's check. So, at the end of the day, is you want lower taxes, you need more people paying them. Look at it like this, if there you are at a restaurant, and have a $100 bill, the more people chipping in to pay it means that you personally pay less. The economic boon under Clinton made the Bush era tax cuts a possibility.
-
2 回复
