In unemployment figures don't show actual unemployment, but deliberately excludes groups for the purpose of keeping the figure low (and the UK was very explicit that this was the purpose when Thatcher's government sliced several million off the official figures, less sure if the US was as honest) then it's hard to call it anything else.

Smokers are deprioritised on lung transplant lists. Foreigners have to pay. So we've already got differential service. We just say that sportsfolk who knowingly and deliberately inflict damage on themselves in such contests get lower priority on medical procedure lists as well.

Not removed - they've paid national insurance - but all procedures are on a prioritised queue already, just given them a low priority. (No, not in the UNIX sense.)

They'll get seen to, when service permits. Of course, there'd be more service if the rich paid more taxes, but that's between the sports stars and the rich. They can take care of that dispute between themselves.

and radio ads that claim such should be sued to Pluto.

There was a tech slump around 1983 due to the video game crash, and again in 1992 due to mass "Glasnost" aerospace layoffs. There probably would have been one around 2009, but mobile devices were booming, taking up the slack.

Save up, the "business cycle" ain't going away.

I mean you are cherry-picking experts' opinions of that time after you know the outcome. Let's say there were 100 experts with an opinion back then. Let's say 20 predicted it was not transitory. You now quote the 20, pretending the 80 didn't exist. A propaganda trick.

A buffed Darwin Award

Well, technically that is the entire point of some of the major sports in the world, and it would be problematic to say that deliberately causing brain damage for competition is ok in one sport but not in another.

On the other hand, I am not altogether convinced it should be openly encouraged in any sport.

This is a tricky one, because I would also argue that I should have no say in what a person does to their own body for their own reasons, that my firm belief that people should have bodily autonomy when it causes no actual harm to others does not permit me to condemn others for doing stuff to their own body for their own reasons when it does no actual harm to others even if it's a context I don't agree with.

Given that (ethically) I cannot condone wilful irreversable damage but (ethically) cannot condemn personal choises that harm nobody else, the obvious conclusion is that I don't believe such sports should be actively promoted or encouraged, but that what individuals do in the privacy of a private sporting event should not concern those outside until or unless actual harm outside of those events occurs.

You are cherry-picking opinions after the fact

So all the well-educated economists just magically ignored that knowledge?

Most probably thought they were talking about a TV series.

Pandemic consumer psychology was poorly mapped at the time.

Hadn't been a world pandemic since 1917, when trade was different.

Treadmill? That can be optimistic.

One place I worked for, I was hired to do DB and coding. Sped their database up by a factor of 60, and resolved tickets efficiently.

Another place I worked for, I was hired to do QA. Found numerous performance issues and dangerous security holes.

Didn't last in either, because politics are more important than people, and revenue is more important than wages. Once all the factors that seriously impacted profit were removed, keeping me would merely have meant a better product, not more cash. The market is only so big, and once you've taken all the share you're going to, being better won't increase it. Companies don't think beyond the next quarter.

Two other places I worked for, the CEO was using it to scam money off investors and get cheaper healthcare. They never intended to produce a product.

If you're forced to treat employees well, these things will still happen but they'll happen less often. Because the risks are higher, the payoff is lower, and penalties for getting caught are a whole lot worse.

That's how it works in a coupled system.

Agreed. There's deliberate undercounting for the long-term unemployed, and a failure to account for the fact that firing seasoned workers with acquired skills isn't the same as hiring inexperienced yoofs who have no meaningful experience in producing robust, high quality products. Although, to be fair, corporations don't seem keen on producing those.

However, there's another factor to consider. The number of retirees is smaller than the number of people entering work for the first time. Due to Covid, a LOT smaller than usual. This means that the markets are expanding. If the markets are expanding but the numer of people being added is only keeping pace with job circulation and retirement, then the job market (as a percentage of those who can work) must be smaller relative to both the markets and the work that needs to be done.

This is the most misleading part of employment statistics. Whilst total unemployment is important (but only useful if not deliberately undercounted), you also need to know the employment:activity ratio and the employment:expected employment in a fully functional market of that size ratio.