Jobs

[KissMy]

0ver 90 percent are working and getting raises.

Wrong! - If you count unemployment the way they did back in the 1930s only 78% are gainfully employed. When you include long-term discouraged workers (who were defined out of official existence in 1994) added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers we have 22% unemployment in this country. This equals the Great Depression.

 

[topspin]

I'm not into crying about how a particular number is calculated, jobs are growing now. Not fast but total output is going to be higher.

 

[Toro]

0ver 90 percent are working and getting raises.

Wrong! - If you count unemployment the way they did back in the 1930s only 78% are gainfully employed. When you include long-term discouraged workers (who were defined out of official existence in 1994) added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers we have 22% unemployment in this country. This equals the Great Depression.

Wrong. That is not how they calculated unemployment during the great depression.

Here is the employment to population ratio. More people are working today relative to the working population as a whole than at anytime before the mid-70s.

That doesn't mean things are good. What is means is that there are still more working today than at any time prior to 35 years ago.

Somebody has estimated what the U-6 rate of unemployment would have been during the depth of the Great Depression. His name is Michael Darda of MKM Partners. That rate would have been 44%.

"At the business trough in 1933," Mr. [Michael] Darda [chief economist of MKM Parnters] points out, "the unemployment rate stood at 25% (if there had been a 'U6' version of labor underutilization then, it likely would have been about 44% vs. 16.8% today. . . ).

The Capital Spectator: CYCLICAL THOUGHTS

So to compare today to the 1930s is specious.

BTW, there was a time series which estimated a similar rate of unemployment during the early 1980s, which I have posted elsewhere. That rate got as high as 16%.

 

[KissMy]

0ver 90 percent are working and getting raises.

Wrong! - If you count unemployment the way they did back in the 1930s only 78% are gainfully employed. When you include long-term discouraged workers (who were defined out of official existence in 1994) added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers we have 22% unemployment in this country. This equals the Great Depression.

Wrong. That is not how they calculated unemployment during the great depression.

Here is the employment to population ratio. More people are working today relative to the working population as a whole than at anytime before the mid-70s.

That doesn't mean things are good. What is means is that there are still more working today than at any time prior to 35 years ago.

Somebody has estimated what the U-6 rate of unemployment would have been during the depth of the Great Depression. His name is Michael Darda of MKM Partners. That rate would have been 44%.

"At the business trough in 1933," Mr. [Michael] Darda [chief economist of MKM Parnters] points out, "the unemployment rate stood at 25% (if there had been a 'U6' version of labor underutilization then, it likely would have been about 44% vs. 16.8% today. . . ).

The Capital Spectator: CYCLICAL THOUGHTS

So to compare today to the 1930s is specious.

BTW, there was a time series which estimated a similar rate of unemployment during the early 1980s, which I have posted elsewhere. That rate got as high as 16%.

using the EMRatio to compare to the 1930s prior to introducing more women in the workplace dosent quite work. The 1980 U6 is not the same as U6 after 1994. Bottem line is there is 22% spare capacity in the labor pool.

 

[Toro]

using the EMRatio to compare to the 1930s prior to introducing more women in the workplace dosent quite work. The 1980 U6 is not the same as U6 after 1994. Bottem line is there is 22% spare capacity in the labor pool.

First, the EM ratio is very relevant because it demonstrates clearly that a marginal unit of labor was more important to economic output and consumption. If a one income home loses its sole source of income, it has far greater consequences than a two income home losing one income. Also, there were few social programs back then, thus the devastation from unemployment was even greater.

Second, there was another time series which was very similar to the U-6 reading. I believe it was called U-7 but I may be wrong.

Finally, John Williams is not God, and most economists reject his work.

 

[pinqy]

Wrong! - If you count unemployment the way they did back in the 1930s only 78% are gainfully employed.

Please provide a link explaining exactly how they calculated unemployment in the 1930's. Meaning exact definition and how the information was collected.

When you include long-term discouraged workers (who were defined out of official existence in 1994) added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers we have 22% unemployment in this country. This equals the Great Depression.

Except discouraged workers have NEVER been completely included in the definition of unemployed. Prior to 1967 the definition of Unemployed did allow for the discouraged to be included, but not consistantly and it was the interviewer's discretion. After 1967 they weren't included at all, so the addition of a time limit in 1994 did not change the definition of Unemployed at all, since they hadn't been included since '67.

And since the U-6 includes ALL Marginally Attached, a category that didn't even exist before 1994, it's ridiculous to claim that the U-6 is closer to historical. The UE rate for the Depression (which wasn't calculated until 1947) is closer to the U-3 (minor changes).

 

[georgephillip]

How does the number of US millionaires and billionaires today compare with 35 years ago?

Being unemployed in 1975 before millions of good paying jobs were given to China and India meant the possibility of returning to work when demand increased.

In 1975 the richest of the rich in this country "earned" an average of about $3 million/year. That average currently stands at about $23 million/year.

Is that extra $20 million/year for a fraction of 1% of the US population a direct consequence of the outsourcing of millions of blue collar jobs?

If it is true today that the richest three men on this planet have more money that the poorest 48 countries, is that level of inequality sustainable?

 

[Neubarth]

How does the number of US millionaires and billionaires today compare with 35 years ago?

Being unemployed in 1975 before millions of good paying jobs were given to China and India meant the possibility of returning to work when demand increased.

In 1975 the richest of the rich in this country "earned" an average of about $3 million/year. That average currently stands at about $23 million/year.

Is that extra $20 million/year for a fraction of 1% of the US population a direct consequence of the outsourcing of millions of blue collar jobs?

If it is true today that the richest three men on this planet have more money that the poorest 48 countries, is that level of inequality sustainable?

A very good point. We reward innovation and enterprise in this country. Perhaps that is why so many great inventions have come from the United States. Obama will put a stop to all of that innovation with his projected tremendous increase in Taxes in the coming years.

We will see where innovation goes after that. India? China?

My bet is on Germany.

 

[georgephillip]

Do you believe the US is currently a Democracy or an Oligarchy?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do you believe the US is currently a Democracy or an Oligarchy?

The irony is we are a democratic obligarchy. We keep electing the same power elite (or those put up by the power elite). I'd hoped Obama was different - his choice of Timothy Geithner as Sect. Treasury and Larry Summers as an ecomomic adviser makes me wonder what he was thinking. Insiders have no clue as to the plight of real Americans, or, at least they don't seem to care if they do.

 

[Mini 14]

I'm not into crying about how a particular number is calculated, jobs are growing now. Not fast but total output is going to be higher.

So is total population, workforce population, and the national debt.

My revenues are going to be higher this month than last. In and of itself, it doesn't mean or imply that my profit will be any larger.

 

[georgephillip]

Do you believe the US is currently a Democracy or an Oligarchy?

The irony is we are a democratic obligarchy. We keep electing the same power elite (or those put up by the power elite). I'd hoped Obama was different - his choice of Timothy Geithner as Sect. Treasury and Larry Summers as an ecomomic adviser makes me wonder what he was thinking. Insiders have no clue as to the plight of real Americans, or, at least they don't seem to care if they do.

Sometimes the radicals (Noam Chomsky & Alexander Cockburn) get it right. Both saw Obama as a centrist Democrat in the Clinton mold long before Obama reached Washington.

Possibly his selection of Geithner and Summers has more to do with the amount of Wall Street money his campaign raised in '08?

What I wonder most about is why so many "progressives" seem incapable of judging Obama by his policies and character...

 

[Neubarth]

I'm not into crying about how a particular number is calculated, jobs are growing now. Not fast but total output is going to be higher.

Not so.

 

[antagon]

Do you believe the US is currently a Democracy or an Oligarchy?

The irony is we are a democratic obligarchy. We keep electing the same power elite (or those put up by the power elite). I'd hoped Obama was different - his choice of Timothy Geithner as Sect. Treasury and Larry Summers as an ecomomic adviser makes me wonder what he was thinking. Insiders have no clue as to the plight of real Americans, or, at least they don't seem to care if they do.

Sometimes the radicals (Noam Chomsky & Alexander Cockburn) get it right. Both saw Obama as a centrist Democrat in the Clinton mold long before Obama reached Washington.

Possibly his selection of Geithner and Summers has more to do with the amount of Wall Street money his campaign raised in '08?

What I wonder most about is why so many "progressives" seem incapable of judging Obama by his policies and character...

many progressives like obama's policies and character. like wall street, too.

 

[editec]

Do you believe the US is currently a Democracy or an Oligarchy?

It is now and it always has been an oligarchy.

The degree to which the insiders have been giving themselves advantages that the rest of us end up paying for, however, has accelerated considerably in the last 30 years.

That is why this economy is unsustainable.

We allowed our masters to screw the midddle class.

 

[froggy]

What about all those the taxpayers bailed out, why aren't they creating jobs?

 

[editec]

What about all those the taxpayers bailed out, why aren't they creating jobs?

What taxpayers have been "bailed out"?

 

[froggy]

What about all those the taxpayers bailed out, why aren't they creating jobs?

What taxpayers have been "bailed out"?

Read it again a little slower.lol

 

[georgephillip]

The irony is we are a democratic obligarchy. We keep electing the same power elite (or those put up by the power elite). I'd hoped Obama was different - his choice of Timothy Geithner as Sect. Treasury and Larry Summers as an ecomomic adviser makes me wonder what he was thinking. Insiders have no clue as to the plight of real Americans, or, at least they don't seem to care if they do.

Sometimes the radicals (Noam Chomsky & Alexander Cockburn) get it right. Both saw Obama as a centrist Democrat in the Clinton mold long before Obama reached Washington.

Possibly his selection of Geithner and Summers has more to do with the amount of Wall Street money his campaign raised in '08?

What I wonder most about is why so many "progressives" seem incapable of judging Obama by his policies and character...

many progressives like obama's policies and character. like wall street, too.

Obama's policies seem very similar to both presidents that came before him. He's shown no inclination to rein in Wall Street's or the Pentagon's sense of entitlements, while preaching austerity to those on Social Security and unemployment.

The Public Option, Payday Loans, and Honduras tell me all I need to know about his character.

US progressives may find themselves on the wrong side of history like their Russian counterparts almost a century ago if we are heading for another Bolshevik Revolution.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do you believe the US is currently a Democracy or an Oligarchy?

The irony is we are a democratic obligarchy. We keep electing the same power elite (or those put up by the power elite). I'd hoped Obama was different - his choice of Timothy Geithner as Sect. Treasury and Larry Summers as an ecomomic adviser makes me wonder what he was thinking. Insiders have no clue as to the plight of real Americans, or, at least they don't seem to care if they do.

Sometimes the radicals (Noam Chomsky & Alexander Cockburn) get it right. Both saw Obama as a centrist Democrat in the Clinton mold long before Obama reached Washington.

Possibly his selection of Geithner and Summers has more to do with the amount of Wall Street money his campaign raised in '08?

What I wonder most about is why so many "progressives" seem incapable of judging Obama by his policies and character...

Many progressives want him to lead more to the left, and radicals on the right see him as far left (it all depends on ones perspective). On most issues I find the Obama presidency refreshingly cerebral and centrist - the one issue I question is the economic policy.
It's obvious the Republican Party is fighting for its survival, they have lost the last two elections and feared a successful Obama administration might be their undoing. As the economy is central to the success of any president, McConnell and Boehner as well as Limbuagh - the defacto leaders of the R party - have made every effort to stonewall an economic recovery. With an intense propaganda campaign against Obama from even before his inauguration, aided by the conservative media, it's little wonder recovery has been slow.
IMHO the biggest lie told by the Republicans is "Country First".