Fewest working, or looking for work, since.........1978!!!

[fskimospy]

I'm not surprised, but I've been reading economist Paul Craig Roberts's columns for several years now. The real unemployment number is probably well above 20% (23% according to the Shadow Stats guy).

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/

No Jobs for Americans

The Case of the Missing Recovery

More Misleading Official Unemployment Statistics

As soon as you are referencing shadow stats that should be a sign that you have made a terrible mistake. That site is the 'unskewed polls' of economics.

 

[shortylickens]

I look for work thru the college internship.
Can only assume they report our numbers to the government.

 

[Doppel]

I really think this country has gone overboard with giving money to people not working. The motivations are just not sufficient. I know the labor market sucks, but these endless unemployment benefits are a crutch for many. Other benefits fill in huge gaps due to lack of income as well.

 

[nehalem256]

The only way the increase in employment caused by women's lib would be a bubble would be if women's lib were not a permanent change. There are other phenomenon like automation which you mention which affect the labor participation rate but they are separate, new issues and are unrelated to the cause of the increase in employment which you depict in your chart.

What is funny is that Ben Bernanke said essentially the same thing as you in October 2005 about the housing bubble 😀

Ben S. Bernanke does not think the national housing boom is a bubble that is about to burst, he indicated to Congress last week, just a few days before President Bush nominated him to become the next chairman of the Federal Reserve.

U.S. house prices have risen by nearly 25 percent over the past two years, noted Bernanke, currently chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, in testimony to Congress's Joint Economic Committee. But these increases, he said, "largely reflect strong economic fundamentals," such as strong growth in jobs, incomes and the number of new households.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102602255.html

And I never said that women were the ones that had to drop out of the workforce. Just that their was a workforce participation bubble.

 

[fskimospy]

I really think this country has gone overboard with giving money to people not working. The motivations are just not sufficient. I know the labor market sucks, but these endless unemployment benefits are a crutch for many. Other benefits fill in huge gaps due to lack of income as well.

What do you think would happen if we got rid of (or massively reduced) benefits for the unemployed? I mean it is a simple fact that there are many more workers than jobs currently, so what would they do? How do you square this idea with the bad experience of North Carolina trying to implement something similar?

 

[Mixolydian]

The problem is people aren't willing to actually work. They think they should be paid a lot of money to sit around and do nothing.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem is people aren't willing to actually work. They think they should be paid a lot of money to sit around and do nothing.

Do you have any empirical basis for this?

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem is people aren't willing to actually work. They think they should be paid a lot of money to sit around and do nothing.

We finally come around to one of the great bits of rationalized denial by conservatives.

Obviously, the reason that there aren't enough jobs is because people don't want to work, right?

I'm confident that was the belief in such circles back in 1931, as well.

Automation & offshoring have taken a toll on job availability in this country, obviously. It wouldn't be nearly as bad if income hadn't shifted radically to the tippy-top over the same period of time.

 

[Doppel]

What do you think would happen if we got rid of (or massively reduced) benefits for the unemployed? I mean it is a simple fact that there are many more workers than jobs currently, so what would they do? How do you square this idea with the bad experience of North Carolina trying to implement something similar?

At this point starve and/or revolt, they have become a permanent underclass that must be weaned slowly. While reducing their benefits it may make sense through legislation to alter working conditions away from the obviously top-heavy nonsense it's become in recent decades.

 

[Jhhnn]

Do you have any empirical basis for this?

As a core conservative belief, it requires no empirical evidence. It's simply an article of faith, like the virgin birth or the infallibility of Mohammed.

It's not a conclusion, but rather a predicate on which conclusions are based.

It's why conservative leaders push faith based everything, to promote faith based thinking as rational. If you can be induced to think that way, their pitch is a lot more appealing.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not surprised, but I've been reading economist Paul Craig Roberts's columns for several years now. The real unemployment number is probably well above 20% (23% according to the Shadow Stats guy).

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/

No Jobs for Americans

The Case of the Missing Recovery

More Misleading Official Unemployment Statistics

At this point starve and/or revolt, they have become a permanent underclass that must be weaned slowly. While reducing their benefits it may make sense through legislation to alter working conditions away from the obviously top-heavy nonsense it's become in recent decades.

I'm still wondering how this is a good idea. There aren't jobs available for these people right now, so is the idea that when benefits are cut that jobs will magically appear?

 

[IGBT]

the "vast middle class" was created by the industrial revolution. Your obama want's to de industrialize America. So for the vast majority of you that means liberal induced poverty. All the obama has to do to pacify you is give you legalized dope / all the contraceptives you want / lots of Big Gov abortions and handouts paid for by your working neighbors / all fueled by liberal grievance mongering and microcephalic eco-KOOK environmental racket. Elections Have Consequences.

 

[Matt1970]

The problem is people aren't willing to actually work. They think they should be paid a lot of money to sit around and do nothing.

We finally come around to one of the great bits of rationalized denial by conservatives.

Obviously, the reason that there aren't enough jobs is because people don't want to work, right?

I'm confident that was the belief in such circles back in 1931, as well.

Automation & offshoring have taken a toll on job availability in this country, obviously. It wouldn't be nearly as bad if income hadn't shifted radically to the tippy-top over the same period of time.

Seeing as how you have proven time and time again and even in this post you feel you have the right to what other people have earned, how is what he said that far off the mark?

 

[dmcowen674]

Fewest working, or looking for work, since.........1978!!!

And I thought everything were up and up, unemployment rate was down but what do we have here?

How do you think we would ever recover from the damage Bush and Republicans have done to this Country?

They gave Corporations unlimited power to break the soul of Americans and they have done just that.

 

[umbrella39]

the "vast middle class" was created by the industrial revolution. Your obama want's to de industrialize America. So for the vast majority of you that means liberal induced poverty. All the obama has to do to pacify you is give you legalized dope / all the contraceptives you want / lots of Big Gov abortions and handouts paid for by your working neighbors / all fueled by liberal grievance mongering and microcephalic eco-KOOK environmental racket. Elections Have Consequences.

Yet another disconnected IGBT eco-KOCK lover post.

 

[Tom]

We've achieved Carter 2.0.

Do you have any clue about the economy in the 1970s ? Those of us who were around do.

Carter inherited a terrible economy from Nixon/Ford. An economy completely unlike our current one. Inflation was rampant, unless you were there you can't really imagine what its like when the price of everything is going up all the time, at much higher rates than increases in income.

Carter actually managed to get a handle on inflation, but preoccupation with the Iran hostage crisis and being probably too fiscally responsible, he was pretty conservative, kept growth low.

Which led to Reagan, who had two factors that led to a better economy, at least for a while. 1. pent-up demand. The economy is cyclical and the doldrums of the 70s had run their course.
2. Reagan was a BIG spender who greatly increased government spending, which is good for growth. But it did create massive deficits, something Carter wasn't willing to do, which didn't get fixed until Clinton and the Democrats raised taxes.

Which, btw, is one reason Obama will succeed in the long run, because he finally got the worst of the Bush tax cuts reversed which were fiscally irresponsible and destroyed the delicate balance Clinton had achieved.

 

[OverVolt]

It takes a bachelors degree to be a prison guard these days.

I was thinking this morning that it actually makes alot of sense for so many to drop out of the labor force. If productivity is skyrocketing on the backs of all the front line, entry level people... Junior bankers are told they now have to take 4 weekend days off per month (AKA 4 Saturdays OR Sundays off a month, whoopee) etc. Its just... a bad deal. I think only 6% of workers are part of a union anymore.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/27/opinion/krugman-the-fear-economy.html

I like that article even though I don't like Krugman that much, its very clear and concise. It talks about how employment is a power relationship. The relationship has skewed so far toward the employer. If you've kept your job for 5+ years, you wouldn't notice. You have a cushy job though.

If employees have very little power it makes sense that your only options are to either go along and work long hours for bad money or drop out of the labor force.

 

[Vic]

the "vast middle class" was created by the industrial revolution. Your obama want's to de industrialize America. So for the vast majority of you that means liberal induced poverty. All the obama has to do to pacify you is give you legalized dope / all the contraceptives you want / lots of Big Gov abortions and handouts paid for by your working neighbors / all fueled by liberal grievance mongering and microcephalic eco-KOOK environmental racket. Elections Have Consequences.

Crazies like you are one of the reasons that swing voters and independents voted for Obama.

 

[theeedude]

Some of it is Baby Boomer retirements.
Some of it is lack of jobs, so people stop looking and go to college or do whatevs instead.
Would be interesting to overlay it with retirement, college enrollment, and disability stats.

 

[IGBT]

Crazies like you are one of the reasons that swing voters and independents voted for Obama.

the self flagellating guilty white liberals and the liberal hollywood glitteroty elected the obama. All it takes to get liberal support these days is the possibility of legalized dope and free contraceptives and you are off to the poles to vote numerous times for your grievance mongering liberal candidate.

 

[Hugo Drax]

The media is clueless, especially financial media, that is cheering on the stock market.
When you look at the numbers, the market is growing primarily through earnings increases which come not from organic growth, but from squeezing the wage earners so that more money is left for profits and share buybacks. Which is all fine and dandy if it was happening in isolation, except, of course those wage earners are also the customer base of those businesses. These companies are getting fat by eating the legs that support them, and stock market is thinking times are fat buy just looking at the flabby upper body and ignoring the stubs that support it.

That Bull market, its hedged. Well except the people with 401Ks and the Average Joe Six pack.

 

[Vic]

the self flagellating guilty white liberals and the liberal hollywood glitteroty elected the obama. All it takes to get liberal support these days is the possibility of legalized dope and free contraceptives and you are off to the poles to vote numerous times for you grievance mongering liberal candidate.

Lol.. I rest my case.

 

[IGBT]

Lol.. I rest my case.

yes..get some rest and read up on your liberal mythology.

 

[Moonbeam]

the self flagellating guilty white liberals and the liberal hollywood glitteroty elected the obama. All it takes to get liberal support these days is the possibility of legalized dope and free contraceptives and you are off to the poles to vote numerous times for your grievance mongering liberal candidate.

I'm just glad for you that as time has moves forward your thinking more and more represents the liberal wing of your party.

 

[Hugo Drax]

I'm rather concerned to see the market rise so far, seemingly detached from reality. Moonbeam would say I have nightmares of bubbles under my bed.

You'd think the labor force returning to a pre-1970s "normal" would take a bite out of everything.

In the 1970s people bought a car and kept it for years like 6 years on average I believe. You did not have people perpetually leasing automobiles and luxury vehicles were actually a rare sight. Now you will see the people driving Mercedes and bmws quite a bit.

Also people did not borrow or spend no where near as much as you see today. Nor did you see people buying McMansions with 5 bedrooms for a family of 3.

Back then the regular working guy lived in a modest rambler or ranch style home, about 900-1300 square feet. And the kids shared one room, mom and dad slept in the other room.

People live a much more modest lifestyle in the 70s and a lot of families had single earners ie the dad and mom stayed home.

And one thing for sure kids did not walk around with 500 dollar phones that had A 100 a monthly bill. That would be unimaginable.

This is why the participation of the labor force was smaller back then.


So If we are indeed seeing a labor force bubble correction, does this mean people will spend and live like the 1970s?


That would be the last thing the elites such as the kock brothers would want to see.

At some point something is definitely going to give way.