Politics: A new beginning

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
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.

True. It's Monday, and I am surely one such discouraged worker.

However, (and I'm not talking about this board right now), I'm reading more and more tripe that attempts to bring out the definition of discouraged worker further and further, encompassing all those who wish they made more money, as well as all those who made unsupportable sums in the dot-com irrationality and aren't doing so now, and I get the feeling that if they can just define it so widely as to make quantification impossible, they can keep citing it without having to defend it.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

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"?

Nope. I don't _think_ its a necesary corollary. I'm willing to buy the idea that something else happened that I don't have the numbers for or haven't been informed of.

Here -- I'm just saying that it is about statistically impossible for 50K new jobs to drop the U.S. unenmployment rate by .10%. Back when, as I recall, I was arguing principally that the concept of "discouraged workers" was a valid concept which _can_ cause the complete job picture to be masked behind a seemingly positive unenmployment rate. (If I'd thought of the numbers back then, I'd have argued them back then.)

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
True. It's Monday, and I am surely one such discouraged worker.

However, (and I'm not talking about this board right now), I'm reading more and more tripe that attempts to bring out the definition of discouraged worker further and further, encompassing all those who wish they made more money, as well as all those who made unsupportable sums in the dot-com irrationality and aren't doing so now, and I get the feeling that if they can just define it so widely as to make quantification impossible, they can keep citing it without having to defend it.

Please see the graph I linked to on Professor DeLong's site, which reflects employment as a share of working-age population -- a quantification of a different (but obviously related) metric.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

A "private" delegation is heading to North Korea to look at their nuclear plant and -- maybe -- negotiate. Very interesting. Hopefully, a sign of progress.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

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"?

Off the top of my head, I can think of the following options, most of which are just general demographic trends that would decrease the total numbers in the "workforce":

(i) increases in baseline eduction (delaying reality by going to univ/grad school, which is the path of more young adults each year, increasing the average age of initial entry into the job market);
(ii) new skill acquisition (going back to school - some might lump this with "discouraged workers" in many cases);
(iii) ageing population (more retirees this month than new workers - a less encouraging demographic reality);
(iv) earlier retirement (a general long-term US trend, albeit one that I suspect is less pronounced these past few years);
(v) "I'm doing it for the children"/Mommy-tracking (I have no clue if this is on the increase - again, many might also be termed "disgruntled").

That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are lots more I haven't really thought through (gray economy, dunno how self-employment is treated, I'd guess the "Back-To-Bombay" effect is largely past now).

Incidentally, while we're on numbers, the BLS reports that, in 2000, there were deemed to be 140 million individuals in the labor force (8 million between 16 and 19, which probably includes a fair number of HS summer jobs). http://www.bls.gov/opub/rtaw/stattab2.htm (I'm sure there are better tables & stats on the site, but I'm too lazy to look.)

[sgtclub]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110004508

[WSJ Opinion on DEM Field]

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic

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,

Yeah, the economist claimed a majority of the jobs created post-NAFTA had above median wages.

But these arguments about free trade not depressing wages are plain screwy. I makes no sense that if you increase the relevant supply of labor that wages won't fall. Item: IBM said wages for an engineer in India are 10 or 20 percent of wages for an engineer in the US. And because of that disparity, IBM is planning to relocate engineering jobs to India. It's nutso to think this kind of a price differential doesn't depress wages for the benefit of shareholders and consumers. IBM said that if you take productivity into account the differential shrinks, some, but obviously not enough for IBM's bean counters. Check WSJ for this story.

[Hank Chinaski]

to 10500. Nasdaq up too.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107373,00.html

at the height of the bubble during Clinton's term what was the highest NYSE reached?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

According to the LAT, "There are the 8.7 million unemployed, defined as those without a job who are actively looking for work. But lurking behind that group are 4.9 million part-time workers...who say they would rather be working full time — the highest number in a decade. There are also the 1.5 million people who want a job but didn't look for one in the last month. Nearly a third of this group say they stopped the search because they were too depressed about the prospect of finding anything. Officially termed 'discouraged,' their number has surged 20% in a year. Add these three groups together and the jobless total for the U.S. hits 9.7%, up from 9.4% a year ago." And the "segment of the labor force that has been jobless for more than 15 weeks has risen nearly 150% since 2000. The current level is the highest since the recession of the early 1990s. Nearly one-quarter of the jobless have been unemployed for longer than six months."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
at the height of the bubble during Clinton's term what was the highest NYSE reached?

Short of 12,000 as I recall

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
According to the LAT, . . . "the jobless total for the U.S. hits 9.7%, up from 9.4% a year ago."

"To counter this last point, liberals have lately taken to adjusting the household survey numbers so as to get the "true" unemployment rate. One technique is to add to the number of unemployed those working part time for economic reasons, temporary workers and others marginally attached to the labor force. In November, these adjustments would have given us an unemployment rate of 9.7 percent instead of the official figure of 5.9 percent.

Princeton economist Paul Krugman claimed in a Dec. 30 New York Times column that the adjusted data "indicate the worst job market in 20 years." However, the BLS shows unemployment rates as high as 12.8 percent in the mid-1990s using the same methodology. Therefore, Krugman's claim is simply wrong factually."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/b...20040106.shtml

Point is, if we get to decide how we're going to count everything to best fit our ambitions and ideologies, we need some consistency.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
"To counter this last point, liberals have lately taken to adjusting the household survey numbers so as to get the "true" unemployment rate. One technique is to add to the number of unemployed those working part time for economic reasons, temporary workers and others marginally attached to the labor force. In November, these adjustments would have given us an unemployment rate of 9.7 percent instead of the official figure of 5.9 percent.

Princeton economist Paul Krugman claimed in a Dec. 30 New York Times column that the adjusted data "indicate the worst job market in 20 years." However, the BLS shows unemployment rates as high as 12.8 percent in the mid-1990s using the same methodology. Therefore, Krugman's claim is simply wrong factually."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/b...20040106.shtml

Since no one here is relying on Krugman, you are now quoting himself so that you can then debunk him. Would you like a separate thread so you can do this without any interruptions?

Originally posted by bilmore
Point is, if we get to decide how we're going to count everything to best fit our ambitions and ideologies, we need some consistency.

The rest of us are discussing the so-called jobless recovery. Pardon me for returning to that subject, but you aren't disputing that employment is not doing as well as the markets, which is the point.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The rest of us are discussing the so-called jobless recovery. Pardon me for returning to that subject, but you aren't disputing that employment is not doing as well as the markets, which is the point.

Interesting way to avoid discussion of the basis for the "jobless recovery" claims. I'm quoting unemployment numbers and trends, and you're denying that this is germane to the "jobless recovery" topic? The whole point was, originally, the employment numbers don't seem to be rising to a degree that implies a job recovery, followed by discussion as to why the published UE stats were misleading. You seem to be dealing with this in the same way you handled the Iraqi museum looting - the casual "we're not talking about that anymore, so move on" theme.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
to 10500. Nasdaq up too.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107373,00.html

at the height of the bubble during Clinton's term what was the highest NYSE reached?

Be careful, FoxNews skews the NYSE upwards.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Interesting way to avoid discussion of the basis for the "jobless recovery" claims. I'm quoting unemployment numbers and trends, and you're denying that this is germane to the "jobless recovery" topic? The whole point was, originally, the employment numbers don't seem to be rising to a degree that implies a job recovery, followed by discussion as to why the published UE stats were misleading.

The only unemployment number you quoted related to Krugman's claim -- the one about the mid-1990s. What we're all talking about is numbers from the last few months. You're debunking a claim that Krugman made and that no one here -- not S_A_M, not skeks, not me -- has repeated. So, debunk away, but don't pretend that you're talking about what the rest of us are. Meanwhile, S_A_M responded to your post about discouraged workers with some nice math, and I gave you statistics about the proportion of people in the work force, but you are ignoring both of us.