I have mixed emotions about Independence Day. I have mixed emotions about the World Cup, and about the increasing number of nation-oriented teams in professional cycling
( Read more... )
By any objective standard I can think of, the US really is the greatest country on Earth. I am delighted that the US is not subject to "international consensus" and other silly notions; I shudder to think what would happen if the US joined the ranks of the Western European nations who aren't even capable of policing their own backyards (e.g., Bosnia) absent US help, much less fight terrorist threats from Asia.
Of course that's subject to change. The current administration has managed to turn the fiscal crisis into an utter disaster - jobs are down 652,000 in June, including people both out of work and no longer looking for work. The President's foreign policy is, if anything, even worse. This reckless behavior will hopefully end after the November elections, but if it does not, the US will spend decades recovering and the rest of the world will suffer with us.
Okay, pick an objective standard, and show how the USA is the best nation at that thing.
The economic condition of the USA started to seriously deteriorate with the passage of NAFTA in 2002 (the never-used Motorola plant in northwest suburban Illinois is probably the poster child for this, as well as the former Searle complex in Skokie). It won't effectively recover until labor costs are equal throughout the NAFTA areas.
In real terms, the economy probably truly began to deteriorate back during the Reagan administration, when we became a net-importing country. Until we get back to being a net-exporting country, other countries are economically stronger than we are.
We haven't been able to bludgeon Iraq or Afghanistan into submission, and we're broke. Any country not at war is in better shape than we are.
This is part of a longer debate you and I have had before. Michigan auto workers can no longer expect to earn $100,000 a year taking part A from bin B and bolting it onto assembly C. Or, for that matter, by sitting around and reading a newspaper as part of a "job bank."
Blaming NAFTA for the self-destructive behavior of union labor isn't productive. Phrased differently, forcing all Americans to pay a premium for every good they purchase in order to prop up the salaries of union members finally failed politically. The rest of the country wasn't interested in propping up the unions' inflated notions of the value of their labor.
Trade between the NAFTA members did, as expected, generate tremendous economic opportunity and activity. The auto unions decided to sit it out and rely on their political contacts instead of reforming and adapting. The notion of a job that belongs to a person remains deeply ingrained in Michigan's culture, and from the outside I continue to marvel at it
( ... )
It's only 625,000 fewer if you think the 'discouraged' people were employed last month.
You ask a very simple question though: "How many people are employed?" Answer per BLS: May: 139,420,000 June: 139,119,000
I think that's 301,000 fewer people employed. As you note, counting the unemployed is much harder. Despite what many people think, the BLS does try to track all (most? many?) of the variations. There's a table for "Discouraged Workers" May: 1083 (in thousands) June: 1207
My math says that's 124,000. I must be looking at a different table than everyone else.
The table for the number of unemployed people says: May: 14973 June: 14623
or 350,000 fewer people unemployed. I really must be looking at the wrong tables, so I'll stop.
You're correct that I've mis-stated what the number means. According to the calculation in the reference, the number of employed Americans, which includes both those seeking work and those discouraged, increased by 652,000 in June 2010. The change in "employment level" was 301,000.
From the article I cited, "The share of the US working-age population with jobs in June fell from 58.7pc to 58.5pc. The ratio was 63pc three years ago."
The BLS web site states that the "Civilian Labor Force Level," which they also cite as "Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate," is down 652,000 in June 2010.
This latter 652,000 is calculated by adding the number of people who lost jobs plus the number of people who have dropped off of unemployment but have not gained jobs.
These numbers are not the entire story. In France, at least one hundred cars burn every weekend as unemployed Moslem youths riot - the unemployment rate for young people in socialized France is amazingly high. What's our demographic picture?
You seem to be dropping an "un" in Paragraph 1, Sentence 2. There is no way that the number of EMployed Americans is the sum of those seeking work, plus those discouraged. That's the number of UNemployed.
That said, your statement "The question is, how many people are employed; the answer is, 625,000 fewer" is factually wrong. There are 301,000 fewer people employed. The number of unemployed is more than that due to the enlarging workforce.
And why is it that LJ is goofing the parent of my replies? I hit Reply on Moshe's comment both times, but it's kicking it as a reply to the original post. This is a reply to my post, why do I think it will foul that up?
You're correct and I was wrong about one part of this, as I state above: it's 301k fewer jobs. The debate seems to be over what the other 351k drop in "workforce participation" means; you seem to believe it's an increase in the workforce, and I get the distinct impression that it's something else entirely. If it were, e.g., the recent influx of high school and college graduates, it'd be zeroed out by the usual statistical magic. The implication of the economics article is that it's the number of people of working age who are actually working, regardless of whether they're "unemployed and looking for work" or "unemployed and have given up."
I guess it could be something else, but when I try to lay out an equation I don't see what it could be. There's a "Potential Workforce" of everyone over 16. There's some number of "Voluntarily unemployed" (retired, stay at home parent, etc). Some people actually have jobs (amazing at that seems), and then there's the unemployed be they discouraged or not. Everyone has to fit in one of my three broad categories, so PW = VU + E + U. If E and U both go up, either PW is going up, or VU is going down. Ah ha! It's retirees dying. Math problem solved, I can go to bed.
The only bright spot is that the first derivative of unemployment changed sign around Dec 2009. Hopefully it won't change back.
Comments 20
Patriotism certainly doesn't *need* to the last refuge of a scoundrel and can be a force for good.
Reply
By any objective standard I can think of, the US really is the greatest country on Earth. I am delighted that the US is not subject to "international consensus" and other silly notions; I shudder to think what would happen if the US joined the ranks of the Western European nations who aren't even capable of policing their own backyards (e.g., Bosnia) absent US help, much less fight terrorist threats from Asia.
Of course that's subject to change. The current administration has managed to turn the fiscal crisis into an utter disaster - jobs are down 652,000 in June, including people both out of work and no longer looking for work. The President's foreign policy is, if anything, even worse. This reckless behavior will hopefully end after the November elections, but if it does not, the US will spend decades recovering and the rest of the world will suffer with us.
Reply
Reply
The economic condition of the USA started to seriously deteriorate with the passage of NAFTA in 2002 (the never-used Motorola plant in northwest suburban Illinois is probably the poster child for this, as well as the former Searle complex in Skokie). It won't effectively recover until labor costs are equal throughout the NAFTA areas.
In real terms, the economy probably truly began to deteriorate back during the Reagan administration, when we became a net-importing country. Until we get back to being a net-exporting country, other countries are economically stronger than we are.
We haven't been able to bludgeon Iraq or Afghanistan into submission, and we're broke. Any country not at war is in better shape than we are.
Reply
Blaming NAFTA for the self-destructive behavior of union labor isn't productive. Phrased differently, forcing all Americans to pay a premium for every good they purchase in order to prop up the salaries of union members finally failed politically. The rest of the country wasn't interested in propping up the unions' inflated notions of the value of their labor.
Trade between the NAFTA members did, as expected, generate tremendous economic opportunity and activity. The auto unions decided to sit it out and rely on their political contacts instead of reforming and adapting. The notion of a job that belongs to a person remains deeply ingrained in Michigan's culture, and from the outside I continue to marvel at it ( ... )
Reply
You ask a very simple question though: "How many people are employed?" Answer per BLS:
May: 139,420,000
June: 139,119,000
I think that's 301,000 fewer people employed. As you note, counting the unemployed is much harder. Despite what many people think, the BLS does try to track all (most? many?) of the variations. There's a table for "Discouraged Workers"
May: 1083 (in thousands)
June: 1207
My math says that's 124,000. I must be looking at a different table than everyone else.
The table for the number of unemployed people says:
May: 14973
June: 14623
or 350,000 fewer people unemployed. I really must be looking at the wrong tables, so I'll stop.
Reply
From the article I cited, "The share of the US working-age population with jobs in June fell from 58.7pc to 58.5pc. The ratio was 63pc three years ago."
The BLS web site states that the "Civilian Labor Force Level," which they also cite as "Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate," is down 652,000 in June 2010.
This latter 652,000 is calculated by adding the number of people who lost jobs plus the number of people who have dropped off of unemployment but have not gained jobs.
These numbers are not the entire story. In France, at least one hundred cars burn every weekend as unemployed Moslem youths riot - the unemployment rate for young people in socialized France is amazingly high. What's our demographic picture?
Reply
Reply
That said, your statement "The question is, how many people are employed; the answer is, 625,000 fewer" is factually wrong. There are 301,000 fewer people employed. The number of unemployed is more than that due to the enlarging workforce.
Reply
Reply
Reply
The only bright spot is that the first derivative of unemployment changed sign around Dec 2009. Hopefully it won't change back.
Reply
Leave a comment