Need help from Bernie's supporters to understand his economic plan.

[Hereiam2005]

Well, here's the thing. I was reading Professor Gerald Friedman's analysis of Bernie's economic plan, which painted a very optimistic picture of our economy 10 years into Sandersnomic: 5.3% per annum GDP growth, 36 millions new jobs, reduce unemployment to 3.8%, raise wage growth rate to 2.5% by 2026 and more.

Needless to say if such plan can be realized, it would completely change America as we know it, for the better. I love it.

Except there is one small problem: how can we create 36 millions new jobs in 10 years?

[url=http://postimage.org/][img][/img][/url]

According to Bureau of Labor Statistic, the total number of people willing to take a job in the US (U6) is currently 15.9 millions.

The US population would also grow. In 15 years, US working age population would grow by about 10.1 millions, according to the most recent Census data.

Assuming all of them works instead of trying to get a college degree (the number of which should increase due to debt-free education system in Bernie's plan), in 2026, there will be at most 26 millions people willing to take a job.

Here lies the problem: how is it possible to create 36 millions new jobs with only 26 millions people at most willing to fill them?

If someone can explain the flaw(s) in my back-of-envelope-calculation, it would be greatly appreciated.

[Trust Buster]

1. It's áll smoke and mirrors anyway. Sanders knows his economic plan is DOA in Congress.

Sanders has convinced the youth of America that he has a magic wand to use on Congress that President Obama doesn't.

[Hereiam2005]

2. Seriously, anyone? I really need to understand this. I'm at a lost here.

???

[rock]

3. I think you already do

I rather enjoyed the way you spread out the important details and came to the obvious question.

[senz]

11. Oh did you, rock?

The "obvious question." And such a nice big smile!

First, this was not Bernie's statement; the OP claims it is the prediction of one of the economists who studied Bernie's plan.

However, the OP seems to have a misquote. See comment #9.

Keep smiling!

[rock]

15. Well you could be right

Maybe Bernie is different. I've never heard of a politician promising new jobs.

[senz]

29. He never "promised new jobs" Don't state falsehoods.

He devised a fair and equitable economic plan and the economists who studied it said it would have these beneficial results.

Wouldn't you rather work with truth? Don't you want anything good for our country?

[rock]

30. See

[bobbobbins01]

4. Economics...15.9 willing to take jobs being the key here.

At its essence it is basic supply and demand. Most people who are unwilling to take a job because the wage is too low for their skill. His job plans would create jobs at multiple wage levels, increasing the number of people willing to take them. Also if this is coupled with the increase in minimum wage, the base 15 million number would increase dramatically as well(the demand curve would shift):

[Hereiam2005]

5. Those numbers are already included discouraged workers, who don't want to work because

their salary is too low, and marginally attached workers, who don't work because they can't find a suitable job.
There are also legitimate reason for people to not wanting to work: full time students, stay at home spouses, disabled people, and early retiree. You can't force them to work against their will.

[Hereiam2005]

6. Some numbers to consider

In 2030, there would be 208 millions people in the working age population.

However, currently:
There are 17.5 millions people in college
http://www.statisticbrain.com/college-enrollment-statistics/
8.9 millions people collecting Social Security Disability Insurance checks
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibStat.html
5.2 millions stay at home moms
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/momcensus1.html
1.1 millions on active duty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces

Assuming there would be no significant increases from those numbers, in 2030 there would be 175.3 millions people in the working age who could theoretically work.

But in Bernie's economy, there will be 185 millions people actively working full time (while maintaining around 3% unemployment).

How is it possible?

[Zynx]

20. FWIW, Econ 101 teaches that there would be a decline in total employment for a MW increase.

The mechanics are not shifts out in the supply and demand curves. By the way, the demand curve in the labor market is not employees, but employers. Employers demand labor, workers supply it. A MW wage increase does not cause people to supply or demand labor at a higher quantity for the same price. That's what a shift would imply.

Instead it imposes a floor that creates a gap between the existing supply and demand curves. This results in deadweight loss and a net loss in jobs.

I don't necessarily agree with the idea that it causes a large loss in jobs by pricing those out who were willing to work for the lower wages employers were willing to pay, but it certainly isn't that stimulative to labor supply.

[RobertEarl]

7. Some jobs are temporary

Like construction, Bernie plans on rebuilding the infrastructure = construction jobs.

And there are more people looking for a job than what the government tells you.

[anotherproletariat]

8. When you're done figuring this out, can you tell me how he's going to get rid of the big banks?

So glad people are on top of this!

[senz]

10. He's going to break them up through the normal process of divestiture.

It's done all the time.

[anotherproletariat]

12. Divestiture is not a normal presidential power. Won't he need congress? nt

[senz]

14. When in doubt, we go to berniesanders.com and click on "Issues"

Then we click on "Reforming Wall Street."

That takes us to an entire page devoted to the subject (Bernie is orderly and thorough):

https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/

After a couple of paragraphs on the subject, there is a list of key items. Some he has already done or started. The first item is:

Introduced the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act,” which would break up the big banks and prohibit any too-big-to-fail institutions from accessing the Federal Reserve’s discount facilities or using insured deposits for risky activities.

Then we remember that Bernie is presently IN congress, the Senate, and has already introduced a bill to do it.

And of course a president can't and wouldn't conduct divestiture of financial institutions. It would indeed require congress.

I'm getting sleepy now, but if you're really interested, you could look up the bill and see how it's doing, what's in it, etc.

Also, you might want to know that 170 top economists have endorsed Bernie's Wall Street Reform Plan.

If any of the Hillary peeps start asking, "How's he going to pay for it?" direct them to this page:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

Bernie is way wonkier than Hillary; he does this stuff himself. It's one of the many, many things I like about him.

Okay, I'm rapidly fading. G'night, anotherproletariat.

[pangaia]

28. WORK,, Go out and work to elect you progressive congressional rep

and senators.

it is YOUR job to help yourself.

[senz]

9. Friedman said nearly 26 million jobs would be created, not 36 million jobs.

According to this CNN Money article:

Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%.

Those are just a few of the things that would happen if Bernie Sanders became president and his ambitious economic program were put into effect, according to an analysis given exclusively to CNNMoney. The first comprehensive look at the impact of all of Sanders' spending and tax proposals on the economy was done by Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor.

This more sweeping analysis was not commissioned by the candidate, though Sanders' policy director called it "outstanding work." Friedman has worked with Sanders in the past, but has never received any compensation. The Vermont senator asked Friedman to estimate the cost of Sanders' Medicare-for-all plan -- which came out to $13.8 trillion over 10 years -- and included the analysis when he unveiled his proposal last month.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/

[Zynx]

18. It's still completely absurd.

We're currently only a small amount below peak labor force utilization in the prime working age population.

Additionally, one would think that if this set of policies yielded such fantastic growth, we would see every western European country with far higher median incomes than us. We don't. Norway does on account of the oil, but that's it. The distribution here is the problem, but the overall income per capita is higher here.

If one believes that analysis, I'm sorry for them.

[Onlooker]

13. If we create more jobs than there are workers, then wages will go up.

If there are 36 million jobs and only 26 million workers, then employers will have to pay more to complete for that rare commodity called workers.

[JaneyVee]

16. Bill Clinton created 26 Million jobs.

[Zynx]

17. It was 22 million and that was with much faster population growth.

The labor force dynamics were very different.

[HumanityExperiment]

19. Consider this...

what is the new next wave of techno-economy? renewable energy sector manufacturing

solar

wind

wave

fusion

Which nation could be, or should be at the forefront of that endeavor and sector? the US

This will drive not only US population into better paying jobs but IMMIGRANTS to our shores which factors into your 'millions shortfall' but I'm sure you considered that, correct?

There will be a new industrial revolution and at the forefront will be renewable energy of that revolution, either the US gets ahead of it and becomes it's 'champion' or some other nation will do so...

[hellofromreddit]

21. Simply put, 1 job =/= 1 person

If an employer has two job openings, then that's two jobs without people in 'em until they hire those two workers.

If many employers have current job openings available, then the labor market becomes liquid--I as a worker have multiple job options available to me, even though I'll likely only take one of them. So you'll see a situation with more jobs than workers. It also creates a situation where workers can shop for better wages and push up pay through normal capitalism pressure. That's why wages tend up during growth and down during recession.

[pdsimdars]

22. Who makes up this sh*t?

Economists have been all over this, back and forth. The end result is that Paul Krugman had to admit he has been full of shit on this and the other critics had to admit that they didn't really do any work on it. 180 top economists have come out supporting his plan. They guy who they used to create the Gordon Gekko character for "Wall Street" said in an interview, that Bernie's plan was the only one that would work. Talk to them.

I'm not an economist so can't debunk your BS, but top economists have already debunked it. Look it up and stop creating nonsense here.

Obviously a Hillary supporter trying to throw a wrench into small minds.

[BernieforPres2016]

23. Perhaps you could try reading pages 14 and 15 of the Friedman study you linked to

Instead of asking others to read and analyze it for you.

[Avalux]

24. It's possible, and dozens of economics have agreed.

If more jobs are created than those who can fill them, wages go up, companies have to compete for talent. The number of jobs created is not dependent on the population.

Bonus - immigrants work too. There's no lack, no shortage, everyone has a job who wants one.

I really don't see a downside to Bernie's plan and I'm missing the problem you think is there.

[DanTex]

26. "The number of jobs created is not dependent on the population". LOL.

Right, because we can employ more people than actually live in the US.

Actually, that's a fitting argument from a Bernie fan, given that his healthcare projections assumed that we save more money on drug costs than the total amount we spend on drugs.

#berniemath

[DanTex]

25. You're absolutely right, it's a total fantasy. His projections bake in a large number of truly

outlandish assumptions. GDP hasn't grown at 5.3% for a decade at any time since WW2, and that's without the demographic headwinds we face.

A very detailed account of all the flaws in the Friedman analysis by Christina and David Romer.
https://evaluationoffriedman.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/romer-and-romer-evaluation-of-friedman1.pdf

[merrily]

27. Yet another "honest question" for supporters of Sanders!

Thank heaven, not a single dishonest or disingenuous question has been posted yet. What a great bunch of

posters.