What 'Unemployment' Really Means These Days

[akrowne]

(This article syndicated from autoDogmatic.)

The latest BLS employment situation report states 4.5% unemployment, and 167,000 jobs created in December.

Are you done doing backflips? Good (just kidding).

While anecdotally it is easy to see that there is indeed a shortage of "skilled" workers in the US today, it has struck me in recent months as a bit hasty to extrapolate this observation into the conclusion that "unemployment is low." Intuitively (to anyone with their eyes open, at least), one suspects that in a society as bifurcated as ours, the half with the "short end" of the stick doesn't have such bright employment prospects. You just get that kinda feelin', being out and about.

Suspicions that the headline numbers are somehow failing to reflect this reality find confirmation from a surprising place: the information put out by the government bureaus themselves.

First off, we learn here that the headline "unemployment" number we see every month isn't the unemployment number -- it's one of many, in a creative hierarchy introduced circa 1995. In fact, there are three more key unemployment numbers: one including marginally attached workers, one including discouraged workers, and one including compulsory (my term) part-time workers:

The explanation of these categories is :

Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.

I don't know about you, but those strike me as really important things to track. Especially if, like, you subscribe to NAIRU and believe high employment is the source of inflation (here I'm thinking of fringe players like the Fed and Wall Street... and the mainstream economics profession. And finance.). Then wouldn't you want to know how high employment actually was, in the most comprehensive sense?

Maybe not, if you knew you might not like what you'd see.

So for one, it turns out all those college grads forced to take a few shifts at Starbucks to make ends meet show up as "employed" by the headline count, but tellingly aren't included in the compulsory part-time count. Because, well, in an important sense, these people aren't fully employed.

What bothers me a little more, though, are those categories of "discouraged" and "marginally attached" workers. After enough failure at finding a job, the natural thing to do is give up looking. And the only real distinction I can divine between "marginally attached" and "discouraged" workers as that discouraged workers at least have a theory as to why they can't find a job. For that, they go even farther into the basement of statistical purgatory.

It's time for some numbers. What does the breakdown look like for this whole dichotomy? For December, 2006, We have:

Headline Unemployment	4.5%
Unemployed+discouraged	4.7%
The above+marginal	5.3%
Above+part time	8.0%

Wow! 8%! That's scandalously close to "twice the headline number"!

As is probably not too shocking, the most widespread problem these days seems to be those "underemployed" part-time folks. I sure run into them a lot more than vagrants and deadbeat 20-somethings living back at home and the like -- but there's certainly no shortage of any of these demographics.

Interestingly, the data in the above breakdown isn't included in the employment situation report itself; that only gets the smaller, mostly-exclusive (headline) unemployment figure. How convenient.

If you aren't yet at least annoyed, don't fret: one can get even more creative from here. At one point not too long ago, I reflected on our nation's highest-in-world prison population which I had heard to be approximately 2 million, and wondered what the impact of that population is on unemployment record-keeping. Is the government sweeping an endemic unemployment problem under the rug, by doing things like locking up nonviolent drug offenders (rumored to be about half of the total) and vagrants?

The data is certainly suggestive.

Reporting from the Department of Justice's data, in 1980, about 1.5 million people were in the corrections system in some capacity (in jail or prison, on parole, or on probation). In 2005, that number had skyrocketed to about 7.5 million, with about 2.2 million of those physically in jail. As a sidebar, that is twice communist China's incarceration level, which compared to the 1.3 billion people of China represents a per capita incarceration rate over 8 times higher! Not something to be proud of.

Anyway, that means the ongoing corrections population in the US grew by 6 million in the past quarter century; or a growth of a factor of five (the national population itself has somewhat lagged this rate, racking up only a factor 1.3 in the same time span).

With numbers like that, we could be talking about some real distortion of employment figures. What if we were to actually count those people as unemployed -- which they are? (In fact, they're worse than unemployed -- we spend well over the median wage supporting each of them -- but we'll let that slide for now.) The picture might look like this:

Headline unemployment	4.5%
Headline+prison population	5.8%
Headline+all corrections	9.2%
All-unempl.+prison pop.	9.3%
All-unempl.+all corr.	12.7%

Almost 13%. That's a lot of the workforce that's actually not productively engaged at all! (Note: here I'm using 152 million as the baseline labor pool as per the BLS, and adding in 2 and 7.5 million from the corrections population as appropriate for comparison. I'm also implicitly assuming non-imprisoned people who are on parole or probation aren't very employable; but if you dispute this, you're welcome to use the 9.3% imprisonment-only number).

In some subpopulations, this is all rather noticeable -- better than 1 in 12 African American males are locked up.

I've been suspicious of other objective problems in the unemployment reporting, as well. For example, as someone involved in hiring in the IT area, I've noticed that our biggest employment competitor is... the government. And not just the government in general, but in specific, defense and intelligence as well as their private contractors. In sum, the homeland security complex. Given the amount of deficit spending supporting this massive employment complex, I have my doubts it will be around forever -- so we certainly shouldn't be relying on all those jobs it provides.

Another example is the approximately 2.5 million realtors counted as "employed." Are they, now? I bet a good half to a third of them aren't earning enough commissions to stay in the business anymore, now that we've hit a major slowdown. It's only a matter of months until quite a few of them (perhaps .5-1.5 million) hit the unemployment line. Ditto housing construction workers.

No amount of massaging is going to be able to hide all that.

And then there's health care; my arch-nemesis (ok, maybe banks are my arch-nemesis. Or maybe the Fed. But health care is at least on my "enemies" list). This industry has gone too far for too long, benefitting disproportionately from a broken tax structure. The double-digit annual expense growth in this sector for the past decade has naturally fuelled an employment bonanza. The spending in this area would surely be trimmed back by about 1/4 just bringing the US in line with the rest of the developed world; I suspect it could be cut back by 1/3 or more by applying actual "free markets" (I heard they're a cool thing invented by this "Friedman" guy...)

One day, the day of reckoning for the US health care complex will come (for some, the cold hand of death is already being felt upon the shoulder).

Coincidentally enough, BusinessWeek recently had a story where they analyzed the main sources of job growth in the US since 2001. Here's the chart that sums up the whole article:

Submitted for your consideration.

Please don't feed the statistigandists!

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: What 'Unemployment' Really Means These Days

Aaron, you are really serious in thinking and writing about this stuff. Good, and another thoughtful contribution.

It seems that including the incarcerated in the unemployed is fair enough. What would be the percentage unemployed with that thrown in with the first computation based on the headline numbers, discouraged, and marginal. Would it be 1.3% added to 5.3% thus 6.6%. It seems for every 2 or 3 people working part-time, that would equal about 1 fully employed person, thus to me the 8% number in first box is perhaps "artifically" high unless you are one of those in the part-time group.

Peter Schiff noted in his comments 1/5/07 regarding the last non-farm payroll numbers: 178,000 service sector jobs added, manufacturing decreased 12,000 jobs.
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/ed...2007/0105.html

He went on, "A service sector can only exist so long as it is supported by a vibrant manufacturing sector. The reason is simple. People employed in the service sector consume goods but do not actually produce any of them. Therefore they must rely on others, who presumably benefit from their services, to produce goods in their stead."

As an example, suppose that ten castaways were marooned on an island. What if on the day they washed up on shore they all decided to assume the following jobs; lawyer, accountant, banker, economist, actor, philosopher, astrologer, beautician, teacher, and nurse. How long do you suppose they would all remain alive without food, water, or shelter? Someone has to provide those things or everyone will perish."

"In modern America, the goods shortfall is being made up by foreigner producers, who only derive a marginal benefit from the American service sector. In December, 43,000 new jobs were added in the education and health care sectors and 50,000 were added in business and professional services. What are all of these people going to export in order to pay for all the imported goods their paychecks will permit them to consume? Is there really that big a demand for American legal services in China? Do the Japanese really need our accounting advice? Do Saudi Arabian children benefit from pre-schools in America? How many sick Germans will seek treatment in American hospitals?"

[Finster]

Re: What 'Unemployment' Really Means These Days

(This article syndicated from autoDogmatic.)

The latest BLS employment situation report states 4.5% unemployment, and 167,000 jobs created in December.

Are you done doing backflips? Good (just kidding)....
Please don't feed the statistigandists!

There another question that seems never to get asked, but which is more fundamental and important. For as interesting as the accuracy of our facts is, we invariably go a step further and apply a value judgment - with zero critical examination.

Why does more employment = better and less employment = worse?

What science underlies this highly questionable proposition? What facts?

Since when was slogging away forty to eighty hours a week for an employer an end unto itself? We certainly seem to treat it as one, but are we justified in doing so?

I submit that the real objective of economic optimization is material well-being. And that defining surrogate, subsidiary measures misleads us egregiously. Just for example, is it better if it takes two working people in a family to fulfil its material needs and wants, than if only one does the same trick? Surely the overall economic proposition is better in the latter case, so if we carelessly use a measure of "employment" as our standard, we wind up pursuing the less sanguine outcome.

High time we start asking the right questions before we get too wrapped up in precise answers.

[akrowne]

Re: What 'Unemployment' Really Means These Days

It seems that including the incarcerated in the unemployed is fair enough. What would be the percentage unemployed with that thrown in with the first computation based on the headline numbers, discouraged, and marginal. Would it be 1.3% added to 5.3% thus 6.6%.

Yup Jim, I think that 6.6% is just about the lowest one can reasonably go based on the accessible data to truly represent the portion of the adult population that isn't productively working. Probably some fraction of the underemployed should be added in as well.

Schiff's comments very much relate to my thinking on the structural problems the US faces.

Why does more employment = better and less employment = worse?

Well one answer, if you subscribe to the NAIRU framework, is that "too much" employment could lead to inflation. Of course this paradigm is a distraction, or at best misguided, as inflation cannot happen without excess money/credit creation.

A more meaningful answer, I think, is that people need to be working to support themselves and those who are not working, or are in some sense a burden on the rest of society. I think an objective goal would be to have the amount of productive work equal to (or optimally) in excess of the amount of wealth needed to support both the productive and non-productive elements of society.

That's why one could go even further with the prison observation: if these people are costing us $50k a year to keep locked up, then not only are they not working, but it takes more than one person who is working to support them. So in a sense those factors cancel out and cannot be the source of any national growth in wealth or standards of living on net. You cannot simply sweep them under the rug and thing you're getting something (higher employment and more GDP growth) for nothing.

So this latter point is more along the lines of my own motivation.

[DemonD]

Re: What 'Unemployment' Really Means These Days

Aaron, I thank you again for another great analysis.

I'm not sure about where you live, but here in LA, there are jobs everywhere for anyone who wants them. The issue here is mostly a cost of living, it's too expensive to live here to staff everything. I'm told that the San Francisco peninsula is about the worst place in the world in terms of this, but it's pretty bad in LA too; and unlike a Manhattan, where there is good public transportation, it's not easy to subway in the poor people to clean all your floors and flip all your burgers.

On the other hand, I know a lot of rich, snotty kids who are vagrants. And I know a lot of middle and lower-middle class kids who are either unemployed or underemployed, and really don't care. Go to any town in the midwest and ask where you can get some crystal meth. It's pretty much a family tradition nowadays to have someone either in jail or rehab.

Speaking of "illegal" drugs, it saddens and disheartens me how they are dealt with in the USA. Again, I will point towards the federal government for absolute failure in caving in to the absolute right winged extreme of this country. I wonder how many people are in jail for nonviolent drug offenses?

(And I wonder if the "employment" stats take into account people who make their living from selling "illegal" drugs.)

Imagine if all the drug dealers in jail were not in jail, but rather out selling drugs as a full time job. That's a lot of jobs! And a lot of tax revenues coming into government coffers, plus the revenue not being spent on incarcerating these people. I wonder if there are any unofficial estimates of people who make their living selling "illegal" drugs. There is no doubt that the illegal drug trade in this country is BIG business. See the following:

Pot is called Biggest Cash Crop
LA Times Dec 18, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...home-headlines

A report released today by a marijuana public policy analyst contends that the market value of pot produced in the U.S. exceeds $35 billion — far more than the crop value of such heartland staples as corn, soybeans and hay, which are the top three legal cash crops.

California is responsible for more than a third of the cannabis harvest, with an estimated production of $13.8 billion that exceeds the value of the state's grapes, vegetables and hay combined — and marijuana is the top cash crop in a dozen states, the report states.

The report estimates that marijuana production has increased tenfold in the past quarter century despite an exhaustive anti-drug effort by law enforcement....

Gettman's report cites figures in a 2005 State Department report estimating U.S. cannabis cultivation at 10,000 metric tons, or more than 22 million pounds — 10 times the 1981 production....

Nationwide, the estimated cannabis production of $35.8 billion exceeds corn ($23 billion), soybeans ($17.6 billion) and hay ($12.2 billion), according to Gettman's findings.

The overwhelming majority of Americans are for decriminalization of cannabis, as are many Western countries, including Canada, where cannabis is more or less completely legal.

On this, though, I cannot blame the Republicans, because the Dems cave in usually even worse to the special interests on this issue. There does not seem to be any hope of a change in policy any time soon, either.

Aaron, any thoughts on how the drug trade effects the economy? I imagine if we nuked columbia and wiped out all the coca in the world, there would be a lot less business getting done on Wall Street o_0

[Finster]

Re: What 'Unemployment' Really Means These Days

Well one answer, if you subscribe to the NAIRU framework, is that "too much" employment could lead to inflation. Of course this paradigm is a distraction, or at best misguided, as inflation cannot happen without excess money/credit creation.

A more meaningful answer, I think, is that people need to be working to support themselves and those who are not working, or are in some sense a burden on the rest of society. I think an objective goal would be to have the amount of productive work equal to (or optimally) in excess of the amount of wealth needed to support both the productive and non-productive elements of society.

That's why one could go even further with the prison observation: if these people are costing us $50k a year to keep locked up, then not only are they not working, but it takes more than one person who is working to support them. So in a sense those factors cancel out and cannot be the source of any national growth in wealth or standards of living on net. You cannot simply sweep them under the rug and thing you're getting something (higher employment and more GDP growth) for nothing.

So this latter point is more along the lines of my own motivation.

Fair enough, AK. But the "if you subscribe to the NAIRU framework" caveat is a canyon. I don't. On the other hand, I'm not sure this is the place for an in-depth debate on Keynesian economics, so won't belabor it unless you deem fit.

For my money, the better the economy the more is produced from less toil. In the ideal extreme, everyone's material needs would be satisified but no one would need to work; imagine, for example, technology having advanced to the point where everything was produced with automation. People's time would be spent mostly on social, artistic, intellectual and spiritual endeavors.

Clearly, a full employment model is at cross-purposes with such an ideal. One wonders if it is altogether out of ignorance, however; perhaps the corporate agenda is to enslave as many hoi polloi as possible ...

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: What 'Unemployment' Really Means These Days

DemonD,

I really wish you would not post things as in #5 above.

You suggest our Fed Gov't isn't doing what is best for its people.

You suggest that something might be wrong with allowing criminal activity that generates billions from illegal drug sales to escape taxation.

You suggest that you cannot blame the Republicans or Democrats.

All this suggests to me you are a spoilsport with regard to government. It is we the people who elect the government, it is we who will ultimately suffer when the government does not generate revenues to pay what it spends. It is we who seem content with a two party system.

All in all, your post is a good one in that it left me more deeply pissed off with how bad the government is, and with the feeling unfortunately that the country is destined to live with it until and if something external to voters forces a change upon it.

[DemonD]

Re: What 'Unemployment' Really Means These Days

I really wish you would not post things as in #5 above.

LOL sorry Jim, next time I have a very affective and poignant thought, I'll be sure to keep it to myself.

You suggest our Fed Gov't isn't doing what is best for its people.

You suggest that something might be wrong with allowing criminal activity that generates billions from illegal drug sales to escape taxation.

You suggest that you cannot blame the Republicans or Democrats.

All this suggests to me you are a spoilsport with regard to government. It is we the people who elect the government, it is we who will ultimately suffer when the government does not generate revenues to pay what it spends. It is we who seem content with a two party system.

All in all, your post is a good one in that it left me more deeply pissed off with how bad the government is, and with the feeling unfortunately that the country is destined to live with it until and if something external to voters forces a change upon it.

There is some hope, Jim. I'll bring the optimist out of you, I promise.

Firstly, we have had a change in federal congressional leadership. Many on the extreme left do not see a difference between the Dems and the Repubs, but there is a significant difference. There will be many hearings, and many people in the Bush administration will be outed. There are many people quaking in their boots at what Henry Waxman will reveal about them in the next couple of years (chairman of house oversight committee). Mr. Waxman is a very ethical person who has fought for many years for ethical principles, the environment, and other such idealistic things.

Second, we have Nancy Pelosi as our Speaker of the House. The fact that we have a woman as Speaker shows some progress to begin with. Second, while Pelosi is a moderate, she is a moderate with a strong bend towards ethics, and she will be doing her best to scale down the wag the dog military action we have going on in the middle east. The Congress are no longer the lackeys of the bush administration. If you have kept abreast of congress this time around, you also have seen many republicans jumping ship and joining the democrats to implement a pay-as-you-go system to keep a ceiling on the national debt.

Wonder why the dollar has strengthened this week? Read the last sentence of that last paragraph. And then also realize the democrats have ended tax breaks for the rich after 2010, and are working towards getting student loans down. And the Democrats are also looking to revamp the "Leave My Child Alone" (aka "No Child Left Behind") law that was poorly thought of and pushed through congress.

As far as "illegal" drugs, and I put that term in quotes, because there are quite a few legal drugs that are legally distributed by legal drug dealers (aka, doctors and pharmacists and pharma companies), as far as "illegal" drugs, there are many places in this country where rules have been improving in terms of progressing. Mostly this has been happening on the west coast, where we are not bound by conservative right-winged hypocritical wackos. Many prosecutors in California will not prosecute offenders for minor drug offenses, usually pot. California is among 18 states that have either medical marijuana or decriminalization statutes. California, btw, is one of the most influential governing bodies in the world; they always like to brag that if it were it's own country, it would have the 9th highest GDP of all countries.

There is also, now, in popular culture, widespread acceptance of drug use. Pretty much everyone knows that GW Bush did coke in the 70's. Everyone knows Clinton's "didn't inhale" thing. Gore didn't lose in 2000 because he admitted to "inhaling." Barack Obama will not be detracted because he admitted doing cocaine either.

The one thing that I wish would be discussed more often on economics and finance-based discussion is the black and gray markets. None of the charts or figures accurately depict the economics of the coca, opium, or cannabis trade, yet these industries generate huge profits for many people in this world. You could add this to the optimism, because all those profits from wall street? You can be sure that some of those profits are going to more needy people transporting, growing, and selling coca products. And with all that money, there is more of a reason to celebrate this year. (There is a reason that NYC is "The City The Never Sleeps.")

More optimism: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. 100$ laptops for developing countries. Many people with celebrity and power like Bono working for improved conditions in Africa. And how about the Ethiopian army freeing Mogadishu in Somalia from hard-line Islamic courts? Of course, that's not to say somalia is a haven for peace, but think of it: An African nation lends a hand to it's neighbor, drives out an enemy that has terrorized that neighbor's citizens for over a decade, an enemy that some of the world's biggest powers could not defeat. Why also has oil dropped recently? Reports are out of Iran the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have died; if he is not dead, he is very close to death, and reports are the new grand ayatollah will not be as hell-bent on armageddon as the current Iranian administration. Iran's last elections bear that out, as the opposition party to Ahmadinejad, which is more moderate, won more seats in their council elections. Along with this, more women in all of the middle east are winning political elections and clout.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070104...s_070104081328

And Jim, I'm not sure if you are aware at the absolute EXPLOSION in creativity and artistry that has happened in the past decade in the US and this country.

For my money, the better the economy the more is produced from less toil. In the idea extreme, everyone's material needs would be satisified but no one would need to work; imagine, for example, technology having advanced to the point where everything was produced with automation. People's time would be spent mostly on social, artistic, intellectual and spiritual endeavors.

While I enjoy vastly investing and growing my wealth, and learning about finance, economics, and investing, this is just one part of how I live my life. You would probably not be able to begin to fathom the things I do and see; and there are many people out there who put me to shame in terms of creativity and artistry. Technology, advances in knowledge, computing power, communications, transportation, and materials have led to exponential increases in the variety of art, entertainment, and social events that a person can enjoy nowadays. Have you seen what the graphics of an Xbox 360 can do? Have you heard classical music remastered in 5.1 surround sound with a reference speaker system? Have you seen a beautiful woman dance with a hula hoop that is on fire? How about people who love to ski on powder... why not take a helicopter up to otherwise unreachable heights? Or maybe you'd like to go to Amsterdam and get legally high on some of the most potent strains of cannabis ever cultivated? Maybe I can go to the beach, and take a picture on my cellphone, and I want to show it to you, my good buddy, so I just fire off a message to you. Much better than sending a postcard that will take 3 weeks to get there eh?

One thing I take heart from is something someone told me. I met this girl Julia. Actually her name is Yulia, as she was born in russia, and lived there for the first 12 years of her life. She told me that there was so much pressure on the russian government, because there was such a HUGE gray market for things like vcr's and tv's, that gorbechev almost had no choice. The USSR was becoming a capitalist state, whether he liked it or not. Because the US had built up such a huge financial advantage, Russia was not able to keep up their army, due to lack of both funding for their military, and due to the lack of innovation, which tends to happen when people don't have any self-interest in inventing things. Yulia had a good vantage point on this I guess because she told me her dad was a vcr importer in the 1980's, lol. In any case, the point is that when a population adopts certain cultural habits, there is no government in the world that can stop that tidal wave of progression.

Because, seriously Jim, in what other society could you find a couple of guys experimenting enough to create a whole display show of mentos and diet coke?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKoB0MHVBvM

Happy weekend my friend!

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: What 'Unemployment' Really Means These Days

DemonD,

I appreciate your optimism and your time and thought to put it down.

This is off the topic, but when individuals as you put forth worthwhile thoughts it unendingly makes me wonder: who is this guy? I cannot but imagine that were you and I, or many others here and I, to run into each other at a cocktail party and have reason to discuss what has been written in #5,7, & 8, that I would walk away from the conversation knowing something about who you are. Your name, if I caught and remembered it (and that is not important here), what you do, where you live, how old you are or might be, what you do for a living, and perhaps something about your education. Knowing all of that would in no way detract from your or anyone else's opinion, but it likely would offer some me insight into how you gained your insight or have arrived at your opinions. I think iTulip is a wonderful site, and I have learned a lot here. It is also an outlet for me personally that right now I would hate to give up because I could not readily replace it. I wouldn't be lost without it, but I would miss it. The only big thing existing in it that I find distracting is the almost total anonymity from most of those who contribute.

Why don't you and everyone, put something in the Profile data that exists when one clicks the name of the poster. Gee, I would like that. I cannot be the only one who wonders something about others who post. If you put your in your birthdate, iTulip will send you a birthday message, and you can't beat that!

Gotta go walk my dog.

[Finster]

Re: What 'Unemployment' Really Means These Days

The fact that we have a woman as Speaker shows some progress to begin with.

Why?

Maybe you can explain this to me. The media have been in paroxysms of delight all week. The only way you could miss the celebration was to have lived in a cave. But if there has been one iota of explanation as to why we are all supposed to be celebrating, I've missed it.

Let's see ... is it because Congress will pass superior legislation by virtue of its Speaker being female? Because women make better politicians? Better leaders? They are just generally superior to men?

Please, someone explain why the fact that the Speaker Of The House is female is just generally good. Or if it's "progress", progress towards what?

[BK]

Re: What 'Unemployment' Really Means These Days

akrowne,

You probably can speak to how illegal immigration distorts the Employed/Unemployed picture. For example, I believe Heatlhcare employment and Government Employment Benefit from illegal Immigration - because you obviously need a lot more folks in both these areas when you allow lots of poor folks into your country. Meanwhile, Many of the folks who come to the USA without proper paper work end up working for Cash or low wages. This means the Immigrants are likely to under pay or pay no taxes at all (out side of sales tax). Many of them live in a Cash only world - why else as First Datas - Western Union experience a boom in business over the last ten years.
The result the dollars paid per hour for low skill labor jobs drops. Meanwhile these Immigrants still require Healthcare, education, and Police/Fire services. Luckily homeowners are happy to pay higher and higher property taxes. Meanwhile the native born low skilled American is left with less and less opportunity - and is even more likely to end up in prison.

Any thoughts?

[WDCRob]

Re: What 'Unemployment' Really Means These Days

Please, someone explain why the fact that the Speaker Of The House is female is just generally good. Or if it's "progress", progress towards what?

Finally! A chance to explain something to Finster, instead of the other way 'round.

One good argument is that roughly half our population is made up of women. And to whatever extent there are structural reasons that we can't harness the talents of half our population in any field we're all poorer as a result.

Now whether any of us will benefit from having this specific woman, in this specific institution rise through the "marble ceiling" is up for argument. But to whatever degree Pelosi is symbolic of the fact that in the last fifty years women have found themselves able to contribute in ways they once couldn't it's worth celebrating.

And at the very least having people who "look like you" in places of power legitimizes that power from your point of view -- even when that power is exercised no better or worse than previously.

[DemonD]

Re: What 'Unemployment' Really Means These Days

Why?

Maybe you can explain this to me.

Please, someone explain why the fact that the Speaker Of The House is female is just generally good. Or if it's "progress", progress towards what?

It's progress in that it is a change in the status quo, which is white men and their wars. It's progress towards an ideal that can never be reached which is what I would describe as "fairness in opportunity." It's progress in that we now have a historically under-represented group represented in a position of power. And it's progress just by the fact that a woman has broken through the "Gold Ole' Boy" network.

To get the best minds and best leaders, the people with these best minds must have the opportunity to succeed. Pelosi's becoming Speaker is representative of a change for the better in this regard.

Remember, women didn't even have a national right to vote until 87 years ago. And "separate but equal" was just fine and dandy... only 54 years ago. Was it a good thing when Jackie Robinson was allowed to play baseball in 1947? I would think most people would give that a resounding "yes." This is not such an extreme happening, but it is a positive move in the direction of progress. So yes, to me, a woman being elected Speaker is a sign of progress towards an opening up of the leadership of this country to allow the best leaders to lead irregardless of their gender, color, religion, or background.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: What 'Unemployment' Really Means These Days

LOL sorry Jim, next time I have a very affective and poignant thought, I'll be sure to keep it to myself.

There is some hope, Jim. I'll bring the optimist out of you, I promise.

Well, DemonD, it didn't work. For reasons I don't understand, I think I am a hard-wired pessimist. Occasionally I have read that is bad for longevity, and despite that I seem incapable of becoming optimistic about much these days.

Firstly, we have had a change in federal congressional leadership. Many on the extreme left do not see a difference between the Dems and the Repubs, but there is a significant difference. There will be many hearings, and many people in the Bush administration will be outed. There are many people quaking in their boots at what Henry Waxman will reveal about them in the next couple of years (chairman of house oversight committee). Mr. Waxman is a very ethical person who has fought for many years for ethical principles, the environment, and other such idealistic things.

For most years I voted Republican, in retrospect mostly because the Republican candidates struck me as less repulsive in their demeanors than did, and still do, most Democrats. How is that as an example for intelligent voting?! I still find Waxman, Pelosi, Kennedy too repulsive to listen to when they appear on TV, and factually I leave the room or mute the TV when politics are discussed or aired.

Second, we have Nancy Pelosi as our Speaker of the House. The fact that we have a woman as Speaker shows some progress to begin with. Second, while Pelosi is a moderate, she is a moderate with a strong bend towards ethics, and she will be doing her best to scale down the wag the dog military action we have going on in the middle east. The Congress are no longer the lackeys of the bush administration. If you have kept abreast of congress this time around, you also have seen many republicans jumping ship and joining the democrats to implement a pay-as-you-go system to keep a ceiling on the national debt.

Write it down and put it on your refrigerator and look at it over the next 30-50 years, politicians are interested in two things: their own welfare and getting elected or re-elected, period.

Using words as politician and ethics together when speaking of either is oxymoronic. Same for decreased spending by politicians.

Wonder why the dollar has strengthened this week? Read the last sentence of that last paragraph.

If that is the reason, and were it to come to fruition, then I will believe it when it happens. Interestingly, Tet, has made some comments about strengthenig of the d0llar/bonar, which I hope will generate some more discussion. http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=790 post #2.

There is also, now, in popular culture, widespread acceptance of drug use. Pretty much everyone knows that GW Bush did coke in the 70's. Everyone knows Clinton's "didn't inhale" thing. Gore didn't lose in 2000 because he admitted to "inhaling." Barack Obama will not be detracted because he admitted doing cocaine either.

DemonD, I do not care if the Baptists and Mormans, as examples, come out in favor of mind-altering drugs used for rationalized recreational or "creative" purposes. I hold that a human mind is the best it might be when it is operating in a state of sobriety. If society is to continue to advance it will not do so on the basis of advancements made by people who chronically used mind-altering drugs, unless through some rare serendipitous occurrence. So what with Clinton, Gore, Bush, Obama if they used drugs, everyone has to grow up and confront popular culture, hopefully at least some people in high places will have left childhood development back where it belongs--in childhood.

The one thing that I wish would be discussed more often on economics and finance-based discussion is the black and gray markets. None of the charts or figures accurately depict the economics of the coca, opium, or cannabis trade, yet these industries generate huge profits for many people in this world.

Yes, and I suppose at the expense of many who can ill afford the costs.

You could add this to the optimism, because all those profits from wall street? You can be sure that some of those profits are going to more needy people transporting, growing, and selling coca products. And with all that money, there is more of a reason to celebrate this year. (There is a reason that NYC is "The City The Never Sleeps.")

This seems to me to be right at the pinnacle of rationalizing the unproductiveness of drug using behavior for the persons who have to come up with the money in order to use drugs. Seeing any good to production and distributing mind-altering, life-changing-for-the-worse drugs, is totally missing what I see as the problem: The people on the planet are producing too many offspring who have no prospects for a truly useful place in societies.

More optimism: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. 100$ laptops for developing countries. Many people with celebrity and power like Bono working for improved conditions in Africa.

I think my entire adult life has been exposed to the poverty in Africa, and unendingly to pleas to the rest of the world to help. It hasn't happened in the history of man, and I don't think a hundred years from now it will happen as the result of external "help." I wonder seriously if Gates, Oprah Winfrey and anyone else is really doing a good thing with charity to Africa. Perhaps they are, and their efforts will someday be rewarded. I think at best perhaps a few people will benefit from the gifts of Gates and Winfrey, but probably when all is said and done there will just be more and more babies, covered in flies with bloated bellies, being shown to the rest of the world with a plea to help. It seems from where I am, most who get educated, whether in Africa or out of Africa, end up leaving Africa.

And how about the Ethiopian army freeing Mogadishu in Somalia from hard-line Islamic courts? Of course, that's not to say somalia is a haven for peace, but think of it: An African nation lends a hand to it's neighbor, drives out an enemy that has terrorized that neighbor's citizens for over a decade, an enemy that some of the world's biggest powers could not defeat.

If it holds up, that is rather remarkable, and perhaps even something about which one could develop a bit of optimism. However, the Taliban have not disappeared in Afghanistan. So it may be a bit early in Somalia.

Why also has oil dropped recently? Reports are out of Iran the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have died; if he is not dead, he is very close to death, and reports are the new grand ayatollah will not be as hell-bent on armageddon as the current Iranian administration. Iran's last elections bear that out, as the opposition party to Ahmadinejad, which is more moderate, won more seats in their council elections. Along with this, more women in all of the middle east are winning political elections and clout.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070104...s_070104081328

For a long time, I have hoped that in my lifetime, I would see sanity, as I perceive it, win out with regard to solution of so many various problems. Perhaps it will happen in Iran, but women in Islam it seems to me are destined to grovel around at the bottom of the heap, and that position is a part of the culture and has been extant for 1500 years or so, and I don't think anyone alive today will live to see it truly change.

And Jim, I'm not sure if you are aware at the absolute EXPLOSION in creativity and artistry that has happened in the past decade in the US and this country.

If the link below on Mentos and Diet Coke is an example, perhaps I don't appreciate the value of "creativity and artistry." That as an example strikes me a pure foolishness. It shows to me how potentially productive brain function was aborted into true uselessness.

While I enjoy vastly investing and growing my wealth, and learning about finance, economics, and investing, this is just one part of how I live my life. You would probably not be able to begin to fathom the things I do and see; and there are many people out there who put me to shame in terms of creativity and artistry.

I certainly cannot begin to fathom the "things you do and see" when I have absolutely no idea what they may be. I would hope it is interesting.

Technology, advances in knowledge, computing power, communications, transportation, and materials have led to exponential increases in the variety of art, entertainment, and social events that a person can enjoy nowadays. Have you seen what the graphics of an Xbox 360 can do? Have you heard classical music remastered in 5.1 surround sound with a reference speaker system? Have you seen a beautiful woman dance with a hula hoop that is on fire? How about people who love to ski on powder... why not take a helicopter up to otherwise unreachable heights?

No, No, No, No as answers to your four questions. And not because I am anti-entertainment, but I never saw my personal life's goals at importantly aimed at being entertained. It still confuses or in someway frustrates me to have watched the practical development of computer technology evolve to what seems at the moment to be games, movies, youtube videos, music, digital photos, and cellphone fixation. Were it not for technology, I would not be here discoursing with you, and I don't think of my doing so as entertainment. Entertainment for the most part is all incoming stimulus to the brain. Perhaps facile use of a joystick, if that is what one does, has some value in some other fields--operating drones to kill the enemy or something like that, but otherwise it strikes me as useless, even if you earn money in contests--if you can imagine such contests which I do understand exist.

Or maybe you'd like to go to Amsterdam and get legally high on some of the most potent strains of cannabis ever cultivated?

I did that a few years back. My current wife was a marijuana and alcohol junkie. I had never smoked marijuana, honestly, and we did in Amsterdam because she wanted to, and I said, what the hell, why not? I got as "drunk" or mind-bent as if I had drunk too much booze. No better, no worse, I was essentially useless and would have been dangerous to myself and others if driving. Where is the value? I fail to appreciate it as useful, constructive behavior. If in fact marijuana has a true use medically, I am all for it. If people want to buy marijuana and smoke it in a legal landscape I am all for it, same for all the other crap. My feeling is that for the sake of society, it should be legalized and taxed, otherwise the proceeds from such behaviours go to a few operating outside the tax system, while the producers, mules, street-sellers get ripped in one degree or another. Can you imagine a street-seller having to buy a computer and keep up with his sales and submit tax payments? It might be another reason to stay in school.

Maybe I can go to the beach, and take a picture on my cellphone, and I want to show it to you, my good buddy, so I just fire off a message to you. Much better than sending a postcard that will take 3 weeks to get there eh?

Wow!! What's left for an encore?

One thing I take heart from is something someone told me. I met this girl Julia. Actually her name is Yulia, as she was born in russia, and lived there for the first 12 years of her life. She told me that there was so much pressure on the russian government, because there was such a HUGE gray market for things like vcr's and tv's, that gorbechev almost had no choice. The USSR was becoming a capitalist state, whether he liked it or not. Because the US had built up such a huge financial advantage, Russia was not able to keep up their army, due to lack of both funding for their military, and due to the lack of innovation, which tends to happen when people don't have any self-interest in inventing things. Yulia had a good vantage point on this I guess because she told me her dad was a vcr importer in the 1980's, lol. In any case, the point is that when a population adopts certain cultural habits, there is no government in the world that can stop that tidal wave of progression.

If there are not already enough negatives in our reasonably well developed society with failing education, crime, global warming, rising oceans, polution, people without healthcare, homelessness, there must be others, then it salves my worries that games, digital photography, videos, iPods, cellphones, and the use of mind-altering drugs represent tidal activities that shall never be curbed by any government on the horizon. The US has a lot to look forward to, we have only begun to realize the American Dream, and that is to be entertained--if you doubt it see the video below.

Because, seriously Jim, in what other society could you find a couple of guys experimenting enough to create a whole display show of mentos and diet coke?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKoB0MHVBvM

Happy weekend my friend!

DemonD, I am not on your case, I just have a different perspective. Happy whole 2007 to you, and good luck in the markets.

[Finster]

Re: What 'Unemployment' Really Means These Days

It's progress in that it is a change in the status quo, which is white men and their wars. It's progress towards an ideal that can never be reached which is what I would describe as "fairness in opportunity." It's progress in that we now have a historically under-represented group represented in a position of power. And it's progress just by the fact that a woman has broken through the "Gold Ole' Boy" network.

To get the best minds and best leaders, the people with these best minds must have the opportunity to succeed. Pelosi's becoming Speaker is representative of a change for the better in this regard.

Remember, women didn't even have a national right to vote until 87 years ago. And "separate but equal" was just fine and dandy... only 54 years ago. Was it a good thing when Jackie Robinson was allowed to play baseball in 1947? I would think most people would give that a resounding "yes." This is not such an extreme happening, but it is a positive move in the direction of progress. So yes, to me, a woman being elected Speaker is a sign of progress towards an opening up of the leadership of this country to allow the best leaders to lead irregardless of their gender, color, religion, or background.

Thanks, DemonD. This is surely more explanation than the media offered last week. But it raises some more questions. Let’s see if we can get at the underlying premises of this belief system. I’ll state what each premise appears to be, and you may correct me where I’m wrong.

It's progress towards an ideal that can never be reached which is what I would describe as "fairness in opportunity."

Your belief system holds that "fairness in opportunity" is when it is better for a woman to hold a particular job than a man.

It's progress in that we now have a historically under-represented group represented in a position of power.

Your belief system hinges not on the individual, but the group.

And it's progress just by the fact that a woman has broken through the "Gold Ole' Boy" network.

Your belief system holds that the fact that while women are more than half the population, but comprise less than half of certain occupations, is due to a conspiracy to exclude them. There are no inherent or innate differences between men and women or their vocational preferences that might otherwise account for this.

And "separate but equal" was just fine and dandy... only 54 years ago. Was it a good thing when Jackie Robinson was allowed to play baseball in 1947?

In your belief system, gender and race are the same thing.

Remember, women didn't even have a national right to vote until 87 years ago.

Women getting the right to vote was the removal of an inequity. Discriminating against men in employment is merely an extension of the original removal of inequity, not the application of a new inequity.

I would think most people would give that a resounding "yes."

Large numbers of people believing the same thing makes it right.

It's progress in that it is a change in the status quo, which is white men and their wars.

White men are the cause of wars. Therefore, the fewer of them in political power, the better.

…

How am I doing so far?