YJ,

"I think you misunderstood the fundamental position. I don't think anybody was arguing that it was the same people staying unemployed, [...]"

On the contrary, it's been crucial to the argument being made. A constant (positive) unemployment rate is only an argument for some kind of long-term welfare if a lot of the people making up the unemployment are long-term unemployed. Otherwise, it's only an argument for short-term unemployment insurance.

Moreover, you've been assuming it continually. I'll document a few of them.

In your Wednesday post at 7 PM (all times EST), you refute my quote "The ONLY 'idealization' being made there has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the unemployment rate can reach 0%" with my quote, "In fact there is no such person [condemned to unemployment] in (at least ideal) capitalism." But these two quotes are only in tension if you make assumption that you are now saying you didn't make.

And again (12:08 PM today), you said, "Well, it still seems to me that in your assertion that 'no such person exists' you're effectively saying the same thing - that capitalism doesn't necessarily require an unemployment rate." But once more, if it's not the same people, then you're wrong in saying that one of these implies the other.

"I think one could pretty easily demonstrate that these people by and large come from the same low social strata."

Which people? People who are at some point unemployed? This isn't relevant. We're talking about whether capitalism condemns anybody to permanent unemployment, not what stratum people who are temporarily unemployed come from. (They come from all strata).

"We're talking about whether capitalism condemns anybody to permanent unemployment."

We are? Is that what you're talking about, Pete? Sure isn't what I'm talking about. That's just silly. I had never given "no such person" the weight of permanence on an individual level you are now claiming it has had all along. I don't understand why you say it needs individual permanence to put those two quotes in contention. The argument Pete makes still stands if a rotating base of individuals is only condemned to temporary unemployment.

Again, I think you've misunderstood Pete's point - or maybe I did, in which case I absolutely disagree with him. I'm not sure that "no such person [condemend by the system to *permanant* unemployment] exists," but they are definitely so few and far between that I wouldn't press the point. Maybe I do need to slow down a bit if I missed something that big.

Pete?

Pete is certainly not making that point now, but he was or seemed to be initially, such as when he said that you "leave 3% of your population with no means of support." If (hypothetically) all 3% were just months away from a job, then you wouldn't really have left anybody with no means of support, would you? Even if another 3% were about to briefly become jobless.

(NB: Yes, of course some people do remain jobless for longer than a few months, but I'm focusing on the logical point here, and whether Pete's case depended on it. See our back-and-forths about Britain for better realism).

"I don't understand why you say it needs individual permanence to put those two quotes in contention."

Well, now I'm confused, because it seems blindingly clear that it needs it. Let's review this slowly. I said "The ONLY "idealization" being made there has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the unemployment rate can reach 0%." In your Wed. 7PM post, you quoted the following as in tension: "In fact there is no such person [condemned to unemployment] in (at least ideal) capitalism." Let's call the former statement p and the latter statement q. Now q is only in tension with any statement that suggests that there IS a person condemned to unemployment -- that's the negation of q. Therefore, by placing these in tension, you were suggesting that p implies (or suggests) not-q, i.e., that a nonzero unemployment rate implies the existence of an individual person condemned to unemployment.

In other words, you assume individual permanence of unemployment. Otherwise, the tension you are finding makes no sense. If 3% unemployment can exist, but no individual be condemned to unemployment, then both my statements are true, and in particular, are not in tension.

"I'm not sure that "no such person [condemend by the system to *permanant* unemployment] exists," but they are definitely so few and far between that I wouldn't press the point."

And that's exactly what I meant when I repeatedly argued that the "idealization" I had made wasn't an important one, and could be addressed at the margins by legislation that wouldn't alter my primary point.

"If 3% unemployment can exist, but no individual be condemned to unemployment, then both my statements are true, and in particular, are not in tension."

I still disagree. Just because we agree that no individual is not condemned to permanent unemployment, doesn't mean that at any given time, 3% of individuals aren't condemned to some temporal length of it.

In other words, I don't feel that removing the permanance from your statement changes anything. You say, "If 3% unemployment can exist, but no individual be condemned to unemployment, then both my statements are true." However, individuals are still unemployed, and it is Pete's contention that they are condemned to be so by the system.

If you had instead said, "If 3% unemployment can exist, but no individual be condemned to *permanent* unemployment, then both my statements are true," then I would agree with you, but you still don't make that distinction. It might sound like that's splitting hairs a bit, but it does seem to be our main disconnect, so it's an important distinction.

YJ,

"I still disagree [that the statements aren't in tension]. Just because we agree that no individual is not condemned to permanent unemployment, doesn't mean that at any given time, 3% of individuals aren't condemned to some temporal length of it. "

My initial statement, quoted in full context, was this:

"Our main disagreement is your seeming implicit assumption that the unemployed are a fixed class who thus need to be helped because capitalism has condemned them to be unemployed. In fact there is no such person in (at least ideal) capitalism. You seem to back away from even that in your last post, though, accepting short-term assistance as perhaps sufficient. "

As you see, the "no such person" remark was explicitly referring to somebody condemned to permanent unemployment. Moreover, the entire context of my argument was focusing on long- versus short-term unemployment. You are not allowed to change the meaning of my words in order to find them at odds with each other.

If you are unemployed for the short term, you are not "condemned to unemployment" by the system.

"In other words, I don't feel that removing the permanance from your statement changes anything.... However, individuals are still unemployed, and it is Pete's contention that they are condemned to be so by the system. "

Of course it changes something. It changes whether the statistic can be used in support of the need for long-term welfare programs under capitalism, or only short-term unemployment insurance. This has been my consistent point, which you have consistently ignored.

You are really just grasping at straws now. Please stop blatantly misinterpreting my words.

OK, I'll accept your rudeness once from before, but we're drawing up to the point where you can pretty much go fuck yourself. If I misunderstood you, fine, but I'd like to think you'd know by now after several previous civil arguments that I'm not one for creating strawmen.

You're the ONLY person here who's claiming the argument we made was that the same people remain unemployed throughout. I never made that claim, implicitly or otherwise, and I seriously doubt old Pete did either. It's a stupid concept and if you think I'd actually present it as an argument you haven't been paying attention to me much.

So it's your strawman. Knock it down if you want, torch the shit out of it - at least I can admit I didn't catch your original intent, and have tried to make my position clearer in this new light. You, however, insist on trying to tell me what I've meant all along, and that I'm also deliberately warping your speech? Laughable. Maybe next time make your point more clear and this won't happen (and yes, I too am guilty of that, but again, only one of us admits it).

As far as your consistent point, which I've "consistently ignored," it's been consistently irrelevant to me. I haven't ventured an opinion one way or the other about long-term vs short term unemployment insurance. I honestly don't KNOW where to draw the line on something like that, so the question of whether capitalism necessitates an unemployment rate is far more interesting to me. And in that vein, chump, the permanence or temporariness of said unemployment changes nothing.

YJ,

I don't care whether you have an opinion on the short- versus long-term thing. I think it's a reasonable thing to be undecided about. But to ignore that that's what _I_ have been talking about throughout puts you at substantial risk of misinterpreting what I'm saying -- which is exactly what happened. Completely ignoring the context of a statement indeed makes it likely that you will misinterpret it.

"You're the ONLY person here who's claiming the argument we made was that the same people remain unemployed throughout."

It was the only thing you could have been saying that would have justified the conclusion that was being drawn. Pete has already made it clear that those are indeed the people he's interested in, but that he's willing to admit that the number in question is substantially less than the unemployment rate. I haven't had an issue with Pete in a couple pages now.

So I'm not creating any strawmen, YJ. Rather, you're coming into a conversation, misinterpreting apparently everybody, and then doggedly insisting on your interpretation of two people who weren't talking to you and who have already reached an understanding in order to tell one of them that he didn't say what he says he did.

"but I'd like to think you'd know by now after several previous civil arguments that I'm not one for creating strawmen."

Actually, this is at least the second time you've doggedly grasped onto an improbable interpretation of somebody's words and refused to consider any alternatives for a good long while, even when confronted with evidence that that's not what he meant. It's true that you can be civil and reasonable, but no, I can't say that I haven't known you to use straw men before.

(Though I should add that at this point, I don't think your use of straw men in either case was deliberate. I do apologize if I suggested in either this most recent post or the prior one that it was. I think there was ample contextual evidence in this thread, as there was the last time this happened, to make it clear on careful reading what I was saying, so no, I am not going to apologize for unclarity; but I will apologize for impugning your motives where I can't really know them).

Nothing dogged about it. I did with you what I think you did with Pete, which is what most everybody does. People naturally interpret an opposing argument in the way that is most favorable to their counterargument. This isn't creating a strawman, it's a common thing that occurs especially often in text. I do agree that it is frustrating as hell, because if you're like me you put waaaay too much thought into it and then later find out you were talking about different things.

The strawman is when you persist in claiming that's the opposition's position after it has been clarified, which I believe you are still doing. I don't see the point, however, in addressing any more what Pete meant, since only he knows for certain, and I'm obviously not going to convince you.

Just be aware that if/when he comes in and should he clarify his statement in my favor, all of the arguments you made against me just now will instead apply to you. And if not, then so what? I let my misinterpretation of what he said filter into what you said. It happens.

There is merit in what you said about context, but it seems we are still disagreeing about what that context actually is.

So I'd encourage you to be a bit more forgiving with misinterpretations in a forum like this. As you said to me, I don't blame you either or question the deliberacy of it if you did indeed misinterpret him. What I do take issue with is your righteous indignation over what is a pretty easy mistake to make, whichever of us made it.

Please disregard paragraph #2 :P

All right YJ. Let's wrap this up with a general agreement that misinterpretations are frustrating, potential strawmen aren't always deliberate, and we should all try to take context into account in interpretation, which can be hard in text, and move on.

Good enough. Next time I'll try to be more careful. Whatever else, I've forgotten my personal best rule of debating, which is to ask a lot of questions instead of blathering on.