Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
The part I read seemed to contain an argument that the improving economic indicators were misleading, in that there was this abnormally large population of discouraged workers out there whose existence wasn't being measured, and that the signs of improvement were thus not quite so good as some would like them to be. (i.e., it's a fake recovery.)

I assumed that those making this argument were simply following along with Paul, as his main thesis on this had been written only a day or so earlier. Could have been just a coincidence, I guess.

I often don't read Krugman, so I'll have to take your word for it. But many people have suggested that this recovery has benefited the market more than employees. It's a question of describing what's going on.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I think that you re far too quick to dismiss the separate and combined effects of such monumental changes as:

(a) the population shift from rural to urban areas,

(b) the shift in the labor force from agricultural to manufacturing,

(c) desegregation, and its ultimate impact on the cohesion of the African-American communities,

(d) the development and dissemination of contraception,

(e) the "Sexual Revolution", and

(f) the anti-War, anti-government, and anti-authority movements of the 1960s and 1970s.

Look at that list, for starters. I invite the audience to consider whether it seems likely that these "other societal changes" had a significant impact on the increase in "unwed motherhood" in America (particularly among minority women).

Or, per Club, can the rise in unwed motherhood in America be traced back principally to the development and growth of a single government program that, ultimately, gave a few hundred dollars per month to poor folks with kids?


S_A_M

[eta: This is an over-broad shot at a guy with better credentials than mine, but I think that Sowell conflates correlation and causation, and oversimplifies his analysis.]

I don't see how (a) or (b) have any bearing.

(c) I believe is not even a true statement.

I do not dispute that (d) - (f) played a roll, but this was minimal and easily proven. If (d) - (f) were primary or even significant factors, you would expect that the increase in unwed mother rates for blacks and whites would be equal. The data does not bear this out.

[bilmore]

This is kinda cool:

Gallup says, we as a country are incredibly happy, to historic levels.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr040105.asp

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't see how (a) or (b) have any bearing.

I'm sure you don't.

Originally posted by sgtclub
(c) I believe is not even a true statement.

I assume that you don't mean that you believe that desegregation had no impact on the black community.
Actually, there is a fair amount of literature on the impact of desegregation on the formerly tight-knit fabric of many black communities -- which was not entirely positive.

Under segregation, people of color in a particular city were compelled to live in the same areas regardless of education or income, and blacks were restricted in their access to many jobs (so lots of the best and brightest became teachers in the segregated schools, for example). This had some beneficial effects -- tightly-knit communities with plenty of great role models, etc. When more opportunities became available, there was a lot of "black flight" to the suburbs, etc., as many of the middle- and upper-income black families naturally left the center cities to chase the "American dream". Role models disappeared, neighborhood institutions vanished, many neighborhoods became clusters of extreme poverty. You can/could see the results in the decaying inner cities of the 1970s-1980s. The premise is that this had an adverse impact on those "left behind" -- and contributed to many social pathologies, such as "babies having babies" and not getting married.

Originally posted by sgtclub
I do not dispute that (d) - (f) played a roll, but this was minimal and easily proven. If (d) - (f) were primary or even significant factors, you would expect that the increase in unwed mother rates for blacks and whites would be equal. The data does not bear this out.

Why would you expect that, when there are other factors in play as well?

s_A_M

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
This statistic also does nothing to rebut the notion that free trade depresses wages in the US (taking into account purchasing power) by increases the supply of labor.

There was something in the Economist about the net benefits of NAFTA on US & Mexican wages, earnings, etc (including increased purchasing power due to decreased costs of goods). It's a snapshot, but on point, I'll see if I can find a link at some point. In general, the outcome was what the Economist generally argues the outcome of freer trade to the liberalizing country is: net societal benefits are pretty sizeable, including increases in average wages; part (though a small part) of the increase in wages overall is that low-paying low-skilled jobs disappear entirely, and some individuals do not recover from that; therefore more of the net benefit should go to retraining those individuals without the skills to move to the new higher margin industries that get a boost from the capital freed by the dismantaling of the low-skill businesses that leave the market.

Incidentally, 6 months-1 year ago they had a different special report on the effects of immigration (which would go more directly to your "increase the supply of labor/decrease wage pressure" point). Their conclusion there was that immigration produces huge net benefits - almost all of which go to the immigrants, but very few of which (economically speaking) go to the non-immigrant residents of the host nation (though they usually do not see any decrease in wages, either, even at the extreme margins).

Of course, the Economist, love it though I may, seems largely to be written by over-educated smarty-pants 25 year olds, so YMMV.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Of course, the Economist, love it though I may, seems largely to be written by over-educated smarty-pants 25 year olds, so YMMV.

Au contraire. I have always thought of The Economist as written by over-educated, smarty-pants, very self-satisfied middle age types in tweed jackets.

S_A_M

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Au contraire. I have always thought of The Economist as written by over-educated, smarty-pants, very self-satisfied middle age types in tweed jackets.

S_A_M

I've known 3 or 4 middle-aged tweed wearing Economist contributors. By my experience they are just well-disguised over-educated smarty-pants 25-year olds, with none of the practial experience that qualifies one to claim middle age.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Man! You were right all along! But what should we do about them? I know! Let's extend ADC!

For the record, I didn't dispute they existed. I merely brought the beautiful precision of math to the table to show how many people needed to have become discouraged in the ptrvious to support your (actually Ty's) theory.

You want to see some "beautiful precision of math" on the subject ?? OK.

As I recall, the discussion centered around the economic statistics from either October or November, 2003 -- whichever month in which there was a net increase of 50,000 jobs AND the official unemployment rate declined from 6.0% to 5.9%.

While the discussion was sidetracked into various b.s. arguments -- one of the core issues was the joint assertions that: (a) 50,000 net new jobs in a month is no big deal for the American economy AND (b) 50,000 net new jobs could not and did nto account for the drop in unemployment. (Thus leading to the "discouraged workers" discussion.)

OK, now the math is coming up. Follow closely -- the numbers are big, but its jest 'rithmetic.

IF the creation of 50,000 net new jobs in a month could operate to drop the unemployment rate by 1/10% (e.g. from 6% to 5.9%) . . .

THEN that would indicate that there are roughly 50,000,000 people in the American labor force. (See, if 50,000 is 1/10 %, then 500,000 is 1%, 5,000,000 is 10%, etc.)

However, we know that number is _way_ too low.

[I'm sure DOL has a figure -- but I'll just point to basic census figures to note that there are over 200,000,000 adults in America. (eta: Here's a chart -- http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet...s=91379358454.) Therefore, whatever caused the decline in overall unemployment for that month -- it most certainly was not entirely (or even principally) job creation.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Why would you expect that, when there are other factors in play as well?

s_A_M

Because (d) through (f) or the "social easing factors" were equally applicable to both whites and blacks. Your response appears to be "that proves my point that items (a) - (c) were the primary factors." To which I'd respond that is plausible, but unlikely, because you then would be attributing no significant factor to welfare programs, which I don't think is your argument.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You want to see some "beautiful precision of math" on the subject ?? OK.

As I recall, the discussion centered around the economic statistics from either October or November, 2003 -- whichever month in which there was a net increase of 50,000 jobs AND the official unemployment rate declined from 6.0% to 5.9%.

While the discussion was sidetracked into various b.s. arguments -- one of the core issues was the joint assertions that: (a) 50,000 net new jobs in a month is no big deal for the American economy AND (b) 50,000 net new jobs could not and did nto account for the drop in unemployment. (Thus leading to the "discouraged workers" discussion.)

OK, now the math is coming up. Follow closely -- the numbers are big, but its jest 'rithmetic.

IF the creation of 50,000 net new jobs in a month could operate to drop the unemployment rate by 1/10% (e.g. from 6% to 5.9%) . . .

THEN that would indicate that there are roughly 50,000,000 people in the American labor force. (See, if 50,000 is 1/10 %, then 500,000 is 1%, 5,000,000 is 10%, etc.)

However, we know that number is _way_ too low. [I'm sure DOL has a figure -- but I'll just point to basic census figures to note that there are over 200,000,000 adults in America.] Therefore, whatever caused the decline in overall unemployment for that month -- it most certainly was not entirely (or even principally) job creation.

S_A_M

Exactly! You can see your point is flawed then?
you understand the "people quitting" are reducing the numbers of people who are in the workforce. By my math, this would require a huge number of people to have quit that month. I did the math quick so I'm not going to throw out how many quit THAT MONTH, but it is large. I'm sure some peopel quit trying that month. All I've ever said is the number who quit, as the news is finally improving, cannot logically be as high as required for your theory to work.

Again, the problem is in bringing math to this question. There are far too many guesses in all of this. How many new jobs created last month? You think that is an accurate number?

I could prove some of this with Laplace transforms, but we don't have a scientific package here yet. Instead, I'll explain it as first put forth by Jethro Bodine "Them zeros is cagey varmits. By themselves they ain't shucks, but you put some numbers in front of em, and Howdy themsuckers add up!

[sgtclub]

Particularly disconcerting is the rise in discretionary spending under Bush . . . .

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Exactly! You can see your point is flawed then?
you understand the "people quitting" are reducing the numbers of people who are in the workforce. By my math, this would require a huge number of people to have quit that month. I did the math quick so I'm not going to throw out how many quit THAT MONTH, but it is large. I'm sure some peopel quit trying that month. All I've ever said is the number who quit, as the news is finally improving, cannot logically be as high as required for your theory to work.

As usual, you are confusing who's point was whos. My point in this argument is merely that the drop in unemployment didn't seem to be the result of job creation.

Sensing the trap laying in wait, you nimbly sprung to an entirely different topic on which you feel more secure. I graciously accept your concession.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Again, the problem is in bringing math to this question. There are far too many guesses in all of this. How many new jobs created last month? You think that is an accurate number?

It is no doubt flawed (hence the constant readjustments which are still flawed) as are the unemployment figures and the census figures -- but since its the best we've got, we'd better use it.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I could prove some of this with Laplace transforms, but we don't have a scientific package here yet. Instead, I'll explain it as first put forth by Jethro Bodine "Them zeros is cagey varmits. By themselves they ain't shucks, but you put some numbers in front of em, and Howdy themsuckers add up!

My, my! To quote whoever was the major villain killed by John Wayne in his role as Rooster Cogburn -- "That's mighty bold talk for a one-eyed fat man."

Feel free to whip out some of them transformations. I used to like their cartoon.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Sensing the trap laying in wait, you nimbly sprung to an entirely different topic on which you feel more secure.

Some of Hank's posts test that line between political commentary and performance art. I reckon I just complemented him, too.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
My point in this argument is merely that the drop in unemployment didn't seem to be the result of job creation.

I suspect I'm being dense here, but, if that was your point, isn't the corollary necessarily "the discouraged workers increase IS the driver for the drop"?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I suspect I'm being dense here, but, if that was your point, isn't the corollary necessarily "the discouraged workers increase IS the driver for the drop"?

I suspect I'm being redundant here, but I'm not sure that you, Luskin, Krugman, DeLong, S_A_M, skeksy and 17, and I (inter alia) are all using the term "discouraged workers" the same way.