Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
This isn't addressed to you so much as to Ty (and partially to AG, whose response seems to put him in with Ty), but, hey guys, do you not understand that unemployment is termed a trailing indicator for a reason?

The very last thing you do when adding capacity is adding body count.

I do. It's not like I think the sky is falling. I just responded to Hank's suggestion that the falling unemployment rate is great news. If you look at why it's falling -- poor job creation, but lots of people dropping out of the labor force -- then things don't look quite as great as you might otherwise conclude. 'S'all.

edited to add:

The infamous Josh Marshall quotes these two newspapers on the new numbers:

"The nation's job market continued to strengthen in November, with the unemployment rate falling slightly to 5.9 percent and payroll employment rising for a fourth consecutive month, the Labor Department reported yesterday."
Washington Post, December 6th 2003


"The US economy generated significantly fewer jobs than expected in November, according to government figures issued on Friday, damping hopes of a swift revival in the sluggish labour market."
Financial Times, December 5th 2003

Guess it looks worse from the other side of the pond.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
but lots of people dropping out of the labor force

Where pray tell do these people who drop out of the labor force go? Just curious. I would like to know how to drop out of the labor force myself. But then I think, I like food, so I don't.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Where pray tell do these people who drop out of the labor force go? Just curious. I would like to know how to drop out of the labor force myself. But then I think, I like food, so I don't.

They sit in their parents' basements and surf the internet.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
They sit in their parents' basements and surf the internet.

You still have not provided an answer to my question. How does one eat if they drop out of the labor force? Unemployment only lasts for so long, and isn't that much anyways, and welfare isn't what it used to be. If you don't have kids, good luck getting any welfare at all.

I just want someone to explain to me how you are able to live if you drop out of the labor force (unless of course you are rich).

Don't you feel even one iota of an obligation to explain this if for nothing else, Sebby's sake? I know he doesn't post over here, but you post over there. Aren't you his friend? Can't you help him?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If I hacked the government computers and released phony numbers, causing the market to drop today, when it otherwise would have reached 10,000, breaking that seal, could lots of people sue me for the vast economic damage I caused?

isn't that kind of what the government does when its changes interest rates? besides the whole hacking thing.

all of these reports come out, okay here's one that says unemployment dropped, but people expected that, and there weren't as many new jobs as they thought there would be. You change that to not enough new jobs to keep up with entrants to the employment ranks.

Ty, if more people enter than find jobs, I am pretty sure the overall unemployed % would increase, or is there something non-euclidean going on?

and from my days at biglaw, where a shareholder lawsuit litigator guy sat next door. the answer to the question "If__________, can lots of people sue me if the market goes down?" the answer is yes, almost without lmitation on what fills in theblank.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
"The US economy generated significantly fewer jobs than expected in November, according to government figures issued on Friday, damping hopes of a swift revival in the sluggish labour market."
Financial Times, December 5th 2003

Guess it looks worse from the other side of the pond.

Well this started with my assertion that the NYT may put a negative spin on the numbers. I/We accept a newspaper can put a negative spin on the numbers.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty, if more people enter than find jobs, I am pretty sure the overall unemployed % would increase, or is there something non-euclidean going on?

I think this may have something to do with people leaving the labor market, but I am not sure.

I cannot for the life of me understand how they can pay their bills if they leave the labor market, unless of course they were rich to begin with. And if they were rich to begin with, why were they looking for a job in the first place?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think this may have something to do with people leaving the labor market, but I am not sure.

I cannot for the life of me understand how they can pay their bills if they leave the labor market, unless of course they were rich to begin with. And if they were rich to begin with, why were they looking for a job in the first place?

They can get married and watch the kids. Sometimes that second worker only covers luxuries, not necessities.

And there is no line demarcating rich/poor. Some people just alter their behavior when they hit a goal. Don't get me wrong... workers with gaps in their work history certainly encounter problems in many sectors, but lots of people (teachers) save up enough money to not work for a few months .

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
They can get married and watch the kids. Sometimes that second worker only covers luxuries, not necessities. . . . lots of people (teachers) save up enough money to not work for a few months .

Is that who they are talking about when they say people have left the labor market? Those who take a few months off or those who didn't need to work in the first place?

The point I am making is that no one can really leave the labor market unless they have someone to support them or unless they have enough savings to tide them over. I don't think teachers who don't work in the summers are leaving the labor market. The teachers I know have the option of getting their yearly salary paid over 12 months, and most take that option as well as try to take summer jobs (unless their spouse has a good job and then they don't need to take a summer job).

I am discussing this point because I hear people throw this concept of people leaving the labor market around frequently. Yet when I ask them to explain how people can do this, no one ever has a good explanation for me. When people cannot explain a concept that they are using to support their position, that sounds fishy to me.

Are we only talking about the teachers not working in the summer and the women/men who were only working for luxuries when we talk about people leaving the labor market? Cuz if so, I wouldn't get too worried about the economic implications of this group leaving the labor market. The teachers will be back to work come fall (and some were working all summer or just opted to have their salary paid over 12 months) and the people who were just working for luxuries are not a very large group of people.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
all of these reports come out, okay here's one that says unemployment dropped, but people expected that, and there weren't as many new jobs as they thought there would be. You change that to not enough new jobs to keep up with entrants to the employment ranks.

Ty, if more people enter than find jobs, I am pretty sure the overall unemployed % would increase, or is there something non-euclidean going on?

He didn't change the news, Hank -- he interpreted it.

The general consensus among economists is that the U.S. economy needs to generate about 150,000 new jobs per month to keep up with the natural demographic expansion in the labor force. Its a population thing. That is why the market was not overly impressed by an increase of 57,000. There was also the issue of expectations.

The unemployment rate is calculated, more or less, by dividing the number of folks actively seeking employment by the number of folks in the "labor force." [This is an imprecise phrasing.]

Ty was essentially saying that -- given the relatively small numbers of new jobs created in November compared to population -- the explanation for the (small) decline in the overall unemployment rate must come from a reduction in the numerator of the fraction (i.e. fewer people actively seeking employment) rather than in the denominator. It is a true fact that when people stop pounding the pavemet and/or informing their unemployment offices about their job-search efforts (a prerequisite for collection), they are no longer counted in the unemployment figures.

To Not Me -- most folks who "drop out of the labor force" eventually drop back in when the economy turns up. Unless they wish to live a life of crime.

S_A_M

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
Is that who they are talking about when they say people have left the labor market? Those who take a few months off or those who didn't need to work in the first place?

Those are just examples. But going with your second sentence, I'll explain in a moment why the definition of "need" you imply is not accurate.

Originally posted by Not Me
The point I am making is that no one can really leave the labor market unless they have someone to support them or unless they have enough savings to tide them over. I don't think teachers who don't work in the summers are leaving the labor market. The teachers I know have the option of getting their yearly salary paid over 12 months, and most take that option as well as try to take summer jobs (unless their spouse has a good job and then they don't need to take a summer job).

And if they don't take the summer job? In or out of the market? Ditto the numerous workers tied to other seasons, like construction in many areas of the city. They could find another job in the off-season in good times, but if they don't in the bad? Just because they are living off of savings or accumulating debt does not mean they don't "need" to work.

Originally posted by Not Me

I am discussing this point because I hear people throw this concept of people leaving the labor market around frequently. Yet when I ask them to explain how people can do this, no one ever has a good explanation for me. When people cannot explain a concept that they are using to support their position, that sounds fishy to me.

I am explaining, but you are saying people don't "need" to work if there is any other option. Under your definition, I could give up my 6 figures and go live in my sisters basement for awhile. But if I did, and if I quit looking for a job (hey, sis is gonna feed me for awhile), would you agree that I'm out of the labor market and its not because my salary was a luxury? Under the same circumstances, what if I just ran up credit card debts instead of relying on the sister. As an aside, have you seen the consumer debt levels lately? Would you agree that I'm out of the labor market and its not because my salary was a luxury?

Originally posted by Not Me
Are we only talking about the teachers not working in the summer and the women/men who were only working for luxuries when we talk about people leaving the labor market?

What do you think? I'm a pretty good fisherman so I tend to recognize this question for what it is.

Originally posted by Not Me
Cuz if so, I wouldn't get too worried about the economic implications of this group leaving the labor market. The teachers will be back to work come fall (and some were working all summer or just opted to have their salary paid over 12 months) and the people who were just working for luxuries are not a very large group of people.

But the people living off of their families and/or racking up debt is a very large group of people. As is the group of seasonal workers who would work off-season if the pay was right.

If you are willing to only recognize the circumstances of paycheck-to-paycheck and everything-else-is-a-luxury, you should fear greatly for your own retirement. Many people who aren't living paycheck-to-paycheck aren't living in luxury. While they don't have an immediate and absolute "need" to work, their ability to avoid accumulating net-debt or to avoid living in their sister's basement is probably a good thing that we want to recognize and encourage. So if you and me would acknowledge that such people exist (uhm, by encouraging them to stand up and be counted among the unemployed), we could move on to step 2 of this program. I like to call it Say_hello_for_me's program for deficit reduction by maximization of tax payments.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
To Not Me -- most folks who "drop out of the labor force" eventually drop back in when the economy turns up. Unless they wish to live a life of crime.

As I understand it, whether or not you are "in the labor force" for these purposes depends on how you respond to a question about whether you have actively looked for work in the previous six weeks, or something like that. I'm not sure at all about the details. People talk about "discouraged" workers because they're not looking for work anymore. There are plenty of reasons why people might fall into that category -- disability, marriage, etc. -- or later return to the workforce.

[ltl/fb]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Musi...ics/index.html

The Secret Service is trying to determine if any action needs to be taken regarding a lyric from rapper Eminem that may be a threat to President Bush.

I'm not clear on what they are doing with respect to citizens who are enemy combatants -- would he be allowed unsupervised consultation with counsel after shipped off to Cuba, or not?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Musi...ics/index.html

The Secret Service is trying to determine if any action needs to be taken regarding a lyric from rapper Eminem that may be a threat to President Bush.

I'm not clear on what they are doing with respect to citizens who are enemy combatants -- would he be allowed unsupervised consultation with counsel after shipped off to Cuba, or not?

Read the last line of the article. The secret service does not think this is a big deal. My guess is that some reporter looking to creat a story took the lyric to the SS and asked for a quote.

Confidential to eminem: next time use the term "paper" or "chedder" rather than "dead presidents."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Kevin Drum goes after the LA Times for crappy reporting:

SPENDING CAPS....Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal for a constitutional cap on spending increases failed last night, and as usual the LA Times story about it provides no clue about why it failed. Go ahead and read the story yourself and see if you can figure out what the real sticking point was between the Democratic and Republican proposals.

Luckily, the internet allows me to read other newspapers, and apparently the primary point of disagreement was actually pretty simple:

There were some other issues too, but the San Jose Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Sacramento Bee all seem to agree that the baseline for the spending cap was the biggest point of contention.

This is really starting to piss me off. Why is it that the LA Times, with three separate reporters contributing to their story, can't manage to spend a few paragraphs explaining in plain English what the points of disagreement were? Instead, the story is just an enormous mess that explains nothing except that a bunch of people in Sacramento are unhappy with some other people. Who edits this stuff?

Liberal bias? Conservative bias? Forget it. I think the LA Times Sacramento bureau has an incompetence bias. They insist on writing political stories as soap operas instead of spending some time telling us what's really at stake and what's really going on. They need to knock it off.

permanent link