OK, statisticians and number crunchers, what do you make of these figures?

[Kushinator]

i think you have the implied driver backwards--unemployment is related to GDP

Nah.

 

[fmw]

The problem with our leadership is that we don't seem to agree on what type of leadership activity can result in a good economy. Or whether we want a government that promotes a "fairness" in our economy or a government that just pursues a good economy without any regard to fairness. Heck, we can't even agree on the meaning of the terms that we use. No two people seem to define "fair" the same in every situation, especially when the situation may personally involve themselves.

Some seem to believe that we should reduce taxes on those with the most ability to pay, and increase taxes on those with the least ability to pay taxes, justifying this policy by using terms like "fair" and "don't penalize the successful", and "skin in the game". Exactly how this is going to improve our economy, I have no idea.

Others apparently desire to knock down those at the top while providing freebies to those at the bottom. Again, they use terms like "fair" to justify such, and again, I have no clue how this promotes a good economy.

And we are all constantly redefining the word "fair" to make it utile for our particular political agenda. So say mom as a plate with 9 cookies of differing sizes, and has to distribute them to a group of 10 kids who are all unique in some aspect. I bet you would end up with 11 (including mom's) different definitions of "fair". The tall kid is going to say that he should get the biggest cookie because he is the tallest, the fast kid is going to say that he should get the biggest cookie because he is the one who is accustomed to eating the most, the jock kid is going to say that he burns the most calories, the skinny kid is going to say that he he has the most need for the biggest cookie, the shortest kid is going to claim that he needs the big cookie the most, the rich kid and the poor kid and the minority kids are all going to claim that they are entitled to the biggest cookie because of their socio/economic/racial standing, and mom is going to want to give the big cookie to her own kid simply because he is her kid. Naturally the ugly kid will probably be the one who ends up with no cookie because everyone is going to agree that he/she is the least deserving - just because.

Typically, the best result isn't at either extreme, it's somewhere in the middle, but we need to find this middle ground not just for the sake of compromise, but for the sake of finding the best solution that will yield the best results for for the most people. It's complicated. Probably way to complicated for any publicly elected official.

The term fair should never be applied to government. Government has no business deciding what is fair or unfair. It is subjective. The founding fathers used the word equal and that is the only approach the government should take. Equal is objective. Treat everyone the same under the law. Very straightforward. I get chills every time I hear the government use the term fair.

 

[Fisher]

Nah.

sure it is. people like to try to reverse Okun’s Law and make unemployment the driver to argue for employment programs. It is the loss of demand that starts the cycle, not what ends it. Companies do not lay off/fire people they need. If they don't need them, they get rid of them; when they need them, they hire them.

 

[Kushinator]

sure it is. people like to try to reverse Okun’s Law and make unemployment the driver to argue for employment programs. It is the loss of demand that starts the cycle, not what ends it. Companies do not lay off/fire people they need. If they don't need them, they get rid of them; when they need them, they hire them.

Revised version of Okun's rule of thumb: "for every 1% increase in the unemployment rate, a country's GDP will be roughly an additional 2% lower than its potential GDP"

 

[Tucker Case]

If you read it correctly you'll find they are saying only 47% of the workforce has full time jobs.

Your math was correct, but your description is false. It is not 47% of the workforce, it is 47% of the adult civilian population.

If we wanted to find out the percentage of the workforce that have full-time jobs, we'd use the civilian labor force number rather than the adult civilian population number to calculate our percentage. In this instance, it would be:

116788/155835 = 74.9%

If we include those who are marginally attached to labor force and discouraged workers to the "workforce" numbers (which is reasonable, IMO, we get 159,444 instead of 155,835. Teh calculation is then

116788/159444 = 73.2%

So if we want to find out how much of the adult civilian labor force has full time jobs, it is between 73.2% and 74.9%, depending on what one wishes to use to define the work force.

A more important number, perhaps, would be the percentage of people who would like to have full time employment that actually do have such employment.

This, at minimum, would eliminate the 19,044 part-time for non-economic reasons people from the denominator of the equation. It would also make sense to remove those marginally attached to the work force, but not remove the discouraged workers. This would make the total removed from the denominator 21,626.

Plugging these data into the equations above, we get the following:

116788/(155835-21626) = 87%

116788/(159444 - 21626) = 84.7%

This would mean that 84-87% of the adult civilians who wish to have full-time employment have full-time employment, and the unemployment/underemployment rate is between 13-16%.

 

[Fisher]

Revised version of Okun's rule of thumb: "for every 1% increase in the unemployment rate, a country's GDP will be roughly an additional 2% lower than its potential GDP"

You can "revise" all you want but our recession was not caused by unemployment. Unemployment growth was caused by a recession which was caused by a loss of demand that was caused by the financial collapse that was caused by the mortgage crisis. Your analysis would have one believe that companies fired a bunch of people that resulted in the banking collapse which is so far detached from reality that there is no point even humoring your wrongness.

 

[Kushinator]

You can "revise" all you want but our recession was not caused by unemployment. Unemployment growth was caused by a recession which was caused by a loss of demand that was caused by the financial collapse that was caused by the mortgage crisis. Your analysis would have one believe that companies fired a bunch of people that resulted in the banking collapse which is so far detached from reality that there is no point even humoring your wrongness.

Okun's rule of thumb is an empirical relationship. A relation can work both ways, e.g. mathematical symmetric relation.

But hey, you're the expert right?

 

[Tucker Case]

And we are all constantly redefining the word "fair" to make it utile for our particular political agenda. So say mom as a plate with 9 cookies of differing sizes, and has to distribute them to a group of 10 kids who are all unique in some aspect. I bet you would end up with 11 (including mom's) different definitions of "fair". The tall kid is going to say that he should get the biggest cookie because he is the tallest, the fast kid is going to say that he should get the biggest cookie because he is the one who is accustomed to eating the most, the jock kid is going to say that he burns the most calories, the skinny kid is going to say that he he has the most need for the biggest cookie, the shortest kid is going to claim that he needs the big cookie the most, the rich kid and the poor kid and the minority kids are all going to claim that they are entitled to the biggest cookie because of their socio/economic/racial standing, and mom is going to want to give the big cookie to her own kid simply because he is her kid. Naturally the ugly kid will probably be the one who ends up with no cookie because everyone is going to agree that he/she is the least deserving - just because.

Why not just cut the cookies up so that every kid can get an equal portion? That's the objectively "fair" way.

The problem in your analogy is that every kid is asked to come up with their own, totally subjective definition of "fair". Whereas if they were actually offered an objectively fair way to do it, they would all probably agree that that is what is fair. The ones who disagree with the objectively fair way are not disagreeing because it is unfair, they are disagreeing because they are being greedy and seek to pretend that their way is fair.

 

[Mach]

Why not just cut the cookies up so that every kid can get an equal portion? That's the objectively "fair" way.

That's the objectively equal way, or just equal. The idea that fair = equal is an objective fact is absurd.

The problem in your analogy is that every kid is asked to come up with their own, totally subjective definition of "fair". Whereas if they were actually offered an objectively fair way to do it, they would all probably agree that that is what is fair. The ones who disagree with the objectively fair way are not disagreeing because it is unfair, they are disagreeing because they are being greedy and seek to pretend that their way is fair.

Except that any charismatic leader or slick communicator can shape opinion such that they can convince one audience of this "truth", and take another audience and convince them of just the opposite. The profession of law is based off that, see sophists. Same reason we have two major parties that say nearly opposite things yet somehow manage to get near 50% support.

Objective/subjective are terrible IMO and should be stricken at the least from common language, maybe philosophy too.

 

[Tucker Case]

That's the objectively equal way, or just equal. The idea that fair = equal is an objective fact is absurd.

The idea that objectively fair = equal in that scenario is not absurd, though.

Notice that I never once said "fair = equal is an objective fact"? That was something you made up. totally imaginary. It's a dragon ****ing a unicorn in the ass while a leprechaun videotapes it.

Don't do that. Life's easier if you only have to battle real problems, rather than imaginary ones.

Except that any charismatic leader or slick communicator can shape opinion such that they can convince one audience of this "truth", and take another audience and convince them of just the opposite. The profession of law is based off that, see sophists. Same reason we have two major parties that say nearly opposite things yet somehow manage to get near 50% support.

that has nothing to do with charisma, and everything to do with having choices limited to two equally ****ty options, and being led to believe that nothing but those two options exist. If two statements are made that are equally false, but people are told one of them MUST be true, and they believe the claim that one must be true, a 50/50 split is expected, since they are equally false statements.

For example, if we had our options limited to "The sky is red" and "the sky is green" and we had to pick which one best describes the sky (while being ignorant of the fact that the sky is blue is a potential option), you could expect 50% of the people to pick one, and 50% the other, and then be convinced that their choice was the better of the two.

Objective/subjective are terrible IMO and should be stricken at the least from common language, maybe philosophy too.

Bully for you. I think it's terrible to make things up and pretend that another person said it and that strawmen should be stricken from debates, but that ain't going to happen any time soon.

 

[austrianecon]

Your math was correct, but your description is false. It is not 47% of the workforce, it is 47% of the adult civilian population.

When I say workforce I mean working age since that's the point of Full Employment.

 

[Tucker Case]

When I say workforce I mean working age since that's the point of Full Employment.

Even retirees, stay at home parents, the disabled, and other people who are either done with working, not interested in employment, or unable to perform the tasks necessary for employment? The entire adult civilian population includes those people. Those people are not, by any standard, part of the workforce, nor should they be.

 

[austrianecon]

Even retirees, stay at home parents, the disabled, and other people who are either done with working, not interested in employment, or unable to perform the tasks necessary for employment? The entire adult civilian population includes those people. Those people are not, by any standard, part of the workforce, nor should they be.

No, working age is 15-64. The number given was 245 in the article so I went with that number for the purpose of explaining. It's more like 243 million. Working-age Population in the United States (USAWFPNA) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

 

[Tucker Case]

No, working age is 15-64. The number given was 245 in the article so I went with that number for the purpose of explaining. It's more like 243 million. Working-age Population in the United States (USAWFPNA) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

People can't retire before 64? I've got to let a lot of people know that you said they can't be doing what they are doing!

And what do you think about stay at home parents and other people who have no desire to work or are unable to work due to infirmity and such? Are they to be included in the workforce despite their incapacities or lack of desire for non-nefarious reasons?

 

[austrianecon]

People can't retire before 64? I've got to let a lot of people know that you said they can't be doing what they are doing!

And what do you think about stay at home parents and other people who have no desire to work or are unable to work due to infirmity and such? Are they to be included in the workforce despite their incapacities or lack of desire for non-nefarious reasons?

Doesn't matter.. for the purpose of the BLS and the US Government that's the total working-age. Are there exceptions absolutely, but for the purpose of find the jobs needed full employment you have to know the working age population. No reason to make a mountain of mole hill.

 

[Tucker Case]

Doesn't matter.. for the purpose of the BLS and the US Government that's the total working-age. Are there exceptions absolutely, but for the purpose of find the jobs needed full employment you have to know the working age population. No reason to make a mountain of mole hill.

I'd say that you need to know the population of people who wish to be employed, not the total population of working aged people. There are millions of people who do not wish to be employed for various reasons. They should not be viewed as "unemployed" and they certainly shouldn't be included in a discussion about full-time employment. Even if the jobs are available, they won't take them.

 

[austrianecon]

I'd say that you need to know the population of people who wish to be employed, not the total population of working aged people. There are millions of people who do not wish to be employed for various reasons. They should not be viewed as "unemployed" and they certainly shouldn't be included in a discussion about full-time employment. Even if the jobs are available, they won't take them.

And I said it doesn't matter. It's a good thing having more jobs then people. It's not a down side.

 

[Tucker Case]

And I said it doesn't matter. It's a good thing having more jobs then people. It's not a down side.

Depends on how many more jobs there are, no?

 

[code1211]

Obviously not everyone feels that way, or else we wouldn't keep electing these folks. It's not the government verses everyone else - we are the government.

Clearly, we are not the government.

Regarding the elections, we elect the folks who can campaign the best.

In terms of this process selecting a person who will do a good job in leadership, we might as well have a cup cake baking contest.

 

[code1211]

I misspoke. It is 47% that do have full time work, according to the blogger's interpretation of the stats.

Thank you. I thought that, as i often do, I missed something. Again.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Warning: This post includes numbers and stats, which may blow the minds of mathophobes. Be aware!

Take a look at this and tell us: Is the recession coming to an end? Is unemployment currently (a) terrible, (b) not too bad or (c) great?

A blog site cited on another forum claimed, based on the figures given, that only 47% of adults had part time jobs. Do you come to the same conclusion?

What say ye?

Sorry, I lost focus after the words "numbers and stats," cuz my mind was blown..... Let me take some time to recover and try again. LOL

Hmm. in truth I don't trust the government's data, because I have no faith in the process whereby they determine what constitutes the members of the labor market. I think the figures are under-represented because they do not include the Hidden Unemployed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment

I think BLS statistics are a propaganda tool used by government and supported by business interests.

 

[code1211]

How?



How?



Regardless of your thoughts on health care reform, this administration has been about as pro-business as one could expect. Because we cannot drill off the coast of LA county, or because oil companies do not want to pay more to ensure environmental externalities are kept to a minimum??? Come on.



When will the private sector? I am being serious.



Ye who has such little faith in the private sector does himself a disservice when resorting to the blame game. The private sector is now more profitable than ever. The bottom line is, profits do not always equal jobs!

Obama and his henchmen are actively campaigning against the coal industry and is doing so by regulation since he cannot pass laws to accomplish what he intends to accomplish.

Have you been hibernating during the 5 year study on the impact of the Excel pipeline?

This administration is pro union. It actually sued Boeing for creating 2600 jobs because those jobs were non union. When Boeing paid the union off, the government dropped the suit.

The private sector created jobs for the whole history of the country and is doing so now to the chagrin of the Obama Administration.

The threat of the obama attack on business is only one isn a series of problems faced by business today. if the Democrats take back the house in 2014, Canada will need to work on their border security to keep the damn Americans out.

Profits may not equal jobs, but bankruptcies won't either.

 

[imagep]

That's the objectively equal way, or just equal. The idea that fair = equal is an objective fact is absurd.

Since any other definition of "fair" derives from greed or politics or personal viewpoint, then probably the only possible rational definition on fair would be that fair = equal.

 

[imagep]

When I say workforce I mean working age since that's the point of Full Employment.

Should someone who is a paraplegic, or 112 years old, or a full time high school student be considered as being part of our workforce? Heck no, thats rediculous.

Honestly, we would probably not even start counting people as being potententially being employed unless they are at least 21, less than 65, and full capable of working 40 hours a week. Pretending like all 16 year olds "should" be working, or that my 99 year old grandmother "should" be working is ludicrus.

 

[imagep]

No, working age is 15-64. The number given was 245 in the article so I went with that number for the purpose of explaining. It's more like 243 million. Working-age Population in the United States (USAWFPNA) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

I'm pretty sure that the guberment uses the range of 16 or older, with no maximum age.