Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Did anyone ever post definitive info on the "discouraged workers" whose massive and growing existence showed the lie of the new eco-stats?

If not, I found some, here.

(DoL stats track this group quite precisely, and, by gosh, the number is lower than usual for this unemployment rate.)

(1) No one said the stats were a "lie." At least not that I can recall. The unemployment rate is what it is.

(2) Luskin is responding to Krugman. I don't think anyone here quoted or relied on Krugman in this regard, though the skekster can speak for himself.

(3) Somehow, people are talking past each other about "discouraged" workers. E.g., Brad DeLong said the following about six weeks ago:

• Something like 1.5 percentage points of the rise in the unemployment rate that we would have expected to see from such a decline in capacity utilization has not been there--has been taken up in a rise in discouraged workers and a reduction in labor force participation much larger than one would have expected given the shift since the end of 2000 in the unemployment rate.

He doesn't appear to be using the term in the specific way that Luskin and the federal government are, and the effect on the employment rate he identifies (~1.5 points) is substantially higher than the percentages Luskin is talking about. Rather than assume that someone is lying, as Luskin does, it seems to me rather more likely that these people are talking about different (but related) things. But I haven't figured it out yet.

(4) On your underlying question, here is another datum from DeLong: The employment-to-population rate has dropped sharply in the last few years.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
((4) On your underlying question, here is another datum from DeLong: The employment-to-population rate has dropped sharply in the last few years.

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.

[Say_hello_for_me]

a vulture nibbling on a road-kill raccoon in W.VA;

a 45/50 MPS speed limit in PA's Dutch country (and not on main-roads either)... its amazing we don't hear about more buggies getting crushed by autos;

the sunken road at Antietam;

Cold Mountian (Nicole was too old for her role, Natalie whats-her-name was an awesome bit character, almost everyone else did well)... a nicely done anti-war movie, just a bit awkward at times in asking the audience to suspend disbelief;

a quote somewhere in the papers that 1/3 of the "discouraged" workers actually indicate that they are too "depressed" to look for jobs (yes, what a fucking joke);

stocks that are up the first week or month of the year are often the best indicators of what is to come the rest of the year (consult your financial advisors);

Gary, IN's police chief blaming the highest per-capita murder rate of some-sort-or-another in the U.S. on displaced Chicago democrats;

advertisements for memories and input for a new national park for "Rosie the Riveter" (I'm not kidding)... so chicks (hi Sebastian!) get a fucking national park because someone finally told them to get off their asses and help save the world, but the third most populated city in the country still gets zilch (kiss my ass, no, apologies beforehand);

an excellent 2 part series in the LA Times a week ago on how Saddam's regime was acquiring all kinds of weaponry illegally, especially from Eastern Europe via Syria;

very promising results from Chicago's efforts to lower their homicide rate... but give Bratton 2 or 3 more years and LA may be one of the 10 safest cities of America's most populated 200;

on that note, a very interesting article in the LA times in the last few days noting how some blocks in LA have been the scene of as many as 8 or 10 unsolved murders in the last 15 years... you can only imagine how many convicts' heads I'd advocate beating on those blocks until someone talks (all of em);

on the unemployment scene, while I think staff at our firm our underpaid insofar as they can make more elsewhere with their experiences at our firm, the voluntary turnover rate in the last 2 months has been nothing but astounding. All indications are that we should be lowering the unemployment rate in the next 6 months unless we can get experienced people to take our (apparently) unrewarding pay for staff. The fact that its the first time this has happened at this rate in several years is being taken as an indication that the employment scene could get very, very hot very, very quick as people looking for exits start finding open doors;

there's more, but I forgot most of it.

Hello

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by bilmore

Did anyone ever post definitive info on the "discouraged workers" whose massive and growing existence showed the lie of the new eco-stats? ... by gosh, the number is lower than usual for this unemployment rate.)

This statistic doesn't track underutilized workers. People who were fired and took job temping or working part-time to get by. These people are part of the labor force.

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.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Gary, IN's police chief blaming the highest per-capita murder rate of some-sort-or-another in the U.S. on displaced Chicago democrats;

Now, if he credited a sudden spike in Gary's per-capita voting rate to displaced Chicago democrats, I'd say he was on to something.

[Hank Chinaski]

You know at your kid's soccer game, the one lout yelling at the other team and the refs?
Do you like him?
Would you vote for him?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/03/po...3TEMP.html?8br

"Howard gets angry," said one longtime friend, Thomas R. Hudspeth, a professor at the University of Vermont. "He doesn't suffer people being unfair or duplicitous. In the heat of sports events with his kids, for instance, I can remember him yelling, red-faced, his neck muscles bulging," if, as a spectator, he saw dishonesty among his children's opponents or poor calls by referees.

Reports state, that as coach of his son's baseball team, he would not, however, authorize a raid of the other team's coaches equipment bag. This despite credible report the man had acquired a good deal of pinetar.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Reports state, that as coach of his son's baseball team, he would not, however, authorize a raid of the other team's coaches equipment bag. This despite credible report the man had acquired a good deal of pinetar.

The most interesting theory that I've heard so far - which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved - is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
both were occuring earlier than the baby issue, and neither explain much. the northern cities took in great numbers of people moving from rural southern areas, black and white. But doesn't a family that moves to a strange city tend to get tighter? Aren't the immigrants likely to live in cohesive communities of similarly situated people?
Plus, if you live near rural areas, you'd know that people there are maybe more sexually active earlier than in urban areas.

You're missing all of my points, and are making a mistake (for ther purpose of this conversation and my point) by trying to tease each factor out and discuss it separately.

With reference to these issues, I was noting the disruption of traditional patterns of life, dislocation from traditional communities, and the removal (in many cases) from the network of extended family living all within a few miles of each other.

And, while I agree that industrialization and the accompanying population shifts were occurring earlier -- I'm talking specifically about the massive shift for Southern blacks to Northern cities that took place during the Great Depression through the 1950s. This is actually nicely positioned in time as a prequel to the explosion in unwed mothers.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Baby problem started earlier than any ultimate impact.

Yes. BUT, I was discussing the period from 1920-1980, and there was impact by 1980. Also, one could readily conclude that the mix of relevant factors changes over time.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
We are talking about people who got pregnant, right?

Ho, ho. Yes, but you can't be blind to the changes in societal attitudes and behavior that resulted from the development and ready availability of effective methods of contraception.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
people always screwed, its just that they used to get married when they got pregnant. sexual revolution may have made it okay for nice girls to do it w/o expecting a ring. sexual revolution doesn't explain leaving babies/moms on their own.

That's right, Hank. So . . look at the last three/four factors I cited together all and consider them all together. People's attitudes and behavior clearly changed. The question is why -- and whether (per Club) it all traces to the existence of AFDC. It seems nonsensical to me to believe that people actually thought -- "Hey, no need to marry the Baby Momma, she'll get $150 a month from the G."

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
hippies aren't where the problem was. I'm sure lots of Sky or Seagull's were born out of wedlock, but the dads stuck around. They had them communes and all. Don't you watch Dharma and Greg? Or ask Atticus or Fringey, they'll tell you.

See Above.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Look bottom line, you can't tell much about social impact of anything with certainty. Asimov said sociaology didn't become a real science until it could be used on galactic populations.
It is just troubling that you seem to dismiss one very plausible cause/effect for what appears to be a list of maybes with no apparent relationship to the problem.

Perhaps not. However, I can't see why you believe that the cause/effect of AFDC to unwed motherhood is "very plausible" as opposed to the idea that constellation of massive social changes led to drastic changes in people's attitudes and behavior.

Hank -- you and Club are suggesting that people responded to the availability of a sub-poverty level stipend for poor children by having more kids and remaining unmarried to collect that dough. I don't think it credible that such "incentives" created the behavior.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Did anyone ever post definitive info on the "discouraged workers" whose massive and growing existence showed the lie of the new eco-stats?

If not, I found some, here.

(DoL stats track this group quite precisely, and, by gosh, the number is lower than usual for this unemployment rate.)

SEE! SEE! Club and Hank and Lunatic-Fake-Woman -- the concept does exists, and is a real economic thing -- Bilmore just cited it.

Plus, BB -- the point under discussion wasn't any larger than whether the existence of those "discouraged workers" accounted for a one-tenth of one percent drop in the unemployment rate in the face of realtively low monthly job growth numbers.

Then, Hank and Lunatic-Fake-Woman began to dispute the concept.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Plus, BB -- the point under discussion wasn't any larger than whether the existence of those "discouraged workers" accounted for a one-tenth of one percent drop in the unemployment rate in the face of realtively low monthly job growth numbers.

Then, Hank and Lunatic-Fake-Woman began to dispute the concept.

S_A_M

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.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

That's right, Hank. So . . look at the last three/four factors I cited together all and consider them all together. People's attitudes and behavior clearly changed. The question is why -- and whether (per Club) it all traces to the existence of AFDC. It seems nonsensical to me to believe that people actually thought -- "Hey, no need to marry the Baby Momma, she'll get $150 a month from the G."

S_A_M

I don't and won't speak for them, but why does the intent have to be "let's have a kid to get paid". If someone thinks "its okay to take a chance on getting pregnant" or "its okay to take a chance carrying this pregnancy through though I don't plan on getting a job", at least in part because their care is provided for by the G, then why wouldn't their consideration of the G's support be enough to consider the G's support as a causation?

The best example I can cite in support of Club's line of argument is that pregnancy rates for the unmarried, as well as abortion rates etc for the unmarried, seem to have started dropping as welfare reform kicked in. While the trend may (or may not) have started before (or after) welfare reform, I think its at least arguable that people cumulatively slowed down in engaging in the risky behavior once the limits were imposed.

Not to say I don't still stare at the news with an open mouth when I see stories of public housing teens or other recipient-types with 3 kids since '96 (or parents in their 20's with 5 or 7), because I still do run across those stories occasionally.

A great example was the D2 nightclub disaster in Chicago where almost all of the deceased were single parents of either sex (with more than 1 having children by different partners). It would almost make you think that the ghetto norms haven't changed, but the cumulative statistics collected by the government indicate otherwise.

So, if the childbearing rates start dropping in the group once the threat of cutoff is imposed, why would it be hard to believe that they rose as a result (and concurrent with) of the adoption of the great society social programs?

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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 the graph I linked to. He's talking about a drop since 2000. If there's been a Sexual Revolution in the last three years, I missed it, and I've been on the FB during that time.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If there's been a Sexual Revolution in the last three years, I missed it, and I've been on the FB during that time.

Which is the cause, and which is the effect?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Plus, BB -- the point under discussion wasn't any larger than whether the existence of those "discouraged workers" accounted for a one-tenth of one percent drop in the unemployment rate in the face of realtively low monthly job growth numbers.

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If there's been a Sexual Revolution in the last three years, I missed it, and I've been on the FB during that time.

Duh. don't you have like a 3 year old?
No soup for You!