dagblog - Comments for "Gallup Survey Pegs Mid-February U.S. Unemployment at 10%;"

LOL! (can't sign in again; no

Anonymous stardust — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:26:05 +0000

In reply to "basing the "correct"

LOL!

(can't sign in again; no worry; it happens everywhere now)

"basing the "correct"

Obey — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:09:16 +0000

In reply to I haven't really made an

"basing the "correct" percentage of paid, reported jobs on what we've seen during that period makes no sense to me"

There are a lot of societal changes of various kinds over the decades, which is why I took only the most recent jobs-peak (hence with least variability in this regard) as a proxy for 'everyone-who-wants-a-job-has-one', i.e. 'full-employment'.

I wasn't trying to make an abstract philosophical point about what full employment is for all societies for all eternity.

I'm modest that way.

;0)

I haven't really made an

Donal — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:53:53 +0000

In reply to I still don't see the line

I haven't really made an argument that there will be fewer jobs. I have observed that the last fifty years has been anything but typical. Therefore basing the "correct" percentage of paid, reported jobs on what we've seen during that period makes no sense to me. I think we'll see a lot more work and a lot less pay.

I still don't see the line

Obey — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:42:33 +0000

In reply to What I consider unsustainable

I still don't see the line you're suggesting that takes us from

unsustainable current mode of life

job losses

Energy, water, and food resources may get more expensive (in the only important sense that technology increasing efficiency of use of those resources may not be able to keep pace with the increase in raw resource price). And that - ceteris paribus - means less of that stuff for all around. Fine.

How does THAT translate into job losses? Is the idea that people will have less money for all the little extras - the various products and services that constitute the luxury/leisure industry? And that the shrinking of those industries will cause job-losses? I don't see that. The RELATIVE prices of these things will go up, but that just means a transfer of wealth from the net consumers of these things to the net producers. Whoever controls these resources will make plenty of money. It's just a shift of income, not a loss. I say this as someone living in Geneva, which pretty much makes its money off of taking care of oil sheiks and their every whim each summer season. And it makes a nice amount of money that way, and has pretty much full employment.

Denmark is another place well on its way to creating a sustainable form of life. And they don't have any serious labor market issues. They have for one thing a much HIGHER emratio than the US.

I'm trying to grasp what your argument is. I still don't get it.

What I consider unsustainable

Donal — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:02:14 +0000

In reply to I don't see the connection

What I consider unsustainable is ... a very long list. Most everything we make requires energy to run machines, and water to cool those machines. Energy and water are becoming more scarce. Most everything we make leaves waste. We have mountains of waste already. Just getting people to their jobs takes investment in infrastructure that we aren't doing. blah, blah, blah ... you know all this.

Now we aren't all going to roll over and die, (though some will drink themselves to death) but we will have to adjust. Couples might have to live on one income. Kids might stay with parents even longer into adulthood, and parents may move in with kids. More jobs might be off the books. More jobs might be done by hand, and we might even see fewer leaf blowers.

If we only bought stuff

Verified Atheist — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:57:20 +0000

In reply to I don't see the connection

If we only bought stuff (including services) we truly needed, the emratio would probably be around 5-15% (depending on how one defines "truly needed") - unless we shifted to shorter workweeks, etc. (The heresy! It burns!)

I don't see the connection

Obey — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:48:10 +0000

In reply to I think it would be a mistake

I don't see the connection you (and others, like Destor) see between

'we can't keep buying so much stuff'

and

'jobs are going to have to disappear'

I take it that part of the thinking is that buying so much stuff is environmentally unsustainable, and so less stuff will be produced and so fewer production jobs will be available. Or something.

That sounds like nonsense to me, with all due respect. I don't see how this shows we won't continue to get more productive, we just need to shift to more sustainable consumption (i.e. more pilates lessons, less Humvee with wikked rims). There'll be more jobs in spas than in factories. I don't know if that is a step forward, but I don't see the case for a future where no one will want anything - stuff or services -from anyone else, and we'll all just sit alone at home twiddling thumbs and eating cheetos, while the factory robots hum away...

anyway big questions.

I think it would be a mistake

Donal — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:38:33 +0000

In reply to Yeah, like Atheist says, I

I think it would be a mistake to regard lifestyles of the last fifty years as normal and sustainable. I think we are facing some profound changes. I doubt that we will (all) return to a Republican past where the wife stays home with a brood of children, but I do think that families will agglomerate around the people that can find and hold jobs.

I assumed that the bulge is

Donal — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:24:12 +0000

In reply to That graph might be

I assumed that the bulge is largely due to more women entering the workforce instead of staying home, an option that is harder to contemplate now due to all the stuff we buy. But I recently read a calculation that an average second family income, once you subtract daycare, transportation and taxes, works out to a take home of only a few thousand dollars.

Yeah, like Atheist says, I

Obey — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:22:02 +0000

In reply to I did a version of the graph

Yeah, like Atheist says, I don't think we should be comparing the current situation to a time of bigger households. Arguably (?), back then it was a more often a matter of choice to have one of the adult members of the household the wife stay home while the husband was the wage-earner. So if we want a measure of the extent to which there is an unsatisfied desire for a paid job, the emratio is probably only valid going back 20-30 years. I.e. a 57% emratio in the 1950s wasn't a sign of a shortage of jobs, whereas a 58% emratio now very much is such a sign.