It would have very little effect on un- or underemployment, since un- and underemployment are driven by demand, not supply.
There is zero evidence that unemployment in the United States today is driven by a mismatch between skills-employers-want and skills-workers-have, for instance.
Paul Krugman discusses this in a few of his columns.
Funny - demand is doing just fine. It's only employment that is suffering. See stats here:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2240468
The Keynesians haven't been proven wrong on their claims that increased demand -> increased production. It's the part where increased production -> increased employment that they have been shown conclusively to be incorrect.
You know that the Fed statistics that you cite show that, for example, durable goods production is down 6% since 2007? Even though population has increased in that time. That is to say, the graphs support what I said and what Paul Krugman says, not the nonsense that you think you've learned from Fox News.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/opinion/27krugman.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/a-structural-bla...
If you looked at the fed stats I cited, they show precisely a lack of correlation between production and employment.
Nothing you have cited disputes this fundamental point. Krugman doesn't even try, he just declares victory and insults those who disagree.
That is a pretty extreme claim which seems pretty easily testable; where has it been tested?
Companies hire people to make things or provide services if the company believes it can sell those products or services. If, for example, a company is making 100 widgets a day and selling only 50 widgets a day, the company will not hire new employees at any salary, even a low one, because it already has more widgets than it can sell. If a window-washing company has 6 window washers, and enough work to keep only 3 of them busy, it will not hire a 7th window washer, even at a low salary, because he'll just join the other 3 guys that are already sitting around the office doing nothing. In fact, if that state of affairs is projected to last for a while and laws don't prevent it, he'll fire 3 of the window-washers he already has. As soon as people start wanting window-washing and there is too much work for 6 window-washers, a 7th will be hired.
Unemployment is thus driven by demand for goods and services. The supply of workers is immaterial. Companies don't hire extra workers just because they're cheap.
The U.S. has high unemployment across all sectors. There are no sectors that are booming. Thus, retraining yourself doesn't have any immediately useful benefits during the current recession. ALL fields are slumping.
You stated that unemployment is driven by demand. You also stated that there's no evidence unemployment is driven by a mismatch between the pattern of demanded skills vs. the pattern of present skills.
I am not arguing with you about these claims. I am just going on what you say to me. The combination of those claims LOGICALLY ENTAILS that unemployment, being driven by weak demand in every sector, and NOT just by weak demand for certain skills in specific sectors, MUST be driven by weak demand for labor overall, across sectors; in other words, every single sector does not need any more labor of any kind.
This is what you actually said. If you didn't mean it, then you should have said something else.
What I said... which is true... is that this is an extreme claim, and eminently testable. And you still haven't provided any test of it. Although you seem to expect me to believe it. So rather than linking to Krugman again... why don't you provide evidence for the extreme claims you are making?
By the way... I am a regular reader of Krugman's because I like a lot of what he says, so if you cannot be "clear enough" and cannot defend your extreme claims to a Krugman fan, then the problem isn't that you are being discriminated against on the basis of ideology. It is that you are making bold claims which have certain entailments, you are refusing to recognize these entailments and you are refusing to provide evidence to support the claims at the same time as you refuse to withdraw them.
Since you seem to have an aversion to reading anyone besides Krugman, why not go read his textbook?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1429218290/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...
