Was the real US unemployment rate in 2006:

But I would be ahppy enough if at least the raw data would be unbiased.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

Swing weekends, and I only got two days off in a row twice a month, which all compounds to make you feel as though you never leave work.  To top it off, they made us work holidays, incuding Christmas.

I don't think that the extent to which the "flexibility" that creative scheduling gives employers power over their workers lives far in excess of anything appropriate in a democracy is fully understood unless you've lived it.  

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

Also 'proper' temping removes people from the unemployment registers but much of the time can't be counted as a 'proper' job.

Although economically the concept of unemployment misses the point. Many people with full time jobs are unproductive time-servers who are effectively on corporate benefits - they turn up, write a few emails, sit in a few meetings, but wouldn't really be missed if they disappeared.

E.g. I can think of one company which makes 3D modelling and animation software. Every year or so they send me an update for review, which comes with:

A shiny presentation gimmick
A big pack full of paper in plastic binders, most of which no one reads
Special preview CD-Rs with pre-release software

The PR company that handles their account puts all of these packs together by hand. The preview copies always appear at least four weeks after they say they will. And the preview registration process never works.

So... I always download a cracked copy from the filesharing networks - the finished product is always available there, even if the PR people don't have it - and use that to write the review.

So what are these people for, exactly? They're contributing to GDP, but they're not doing anything that's any practical use to anyone.

Other people are frantically overemployed, doing the work of two or more people and putting in very long hours.

And there's also corporate puritanism which assumes that if you're not in the office for ten hours a day you're not pulling your weight, no matter how much of a contribution you actually make.

Even when people are being productive, it's often toxic productivity - selling more useless crap to people who don't need it and can't afford it.

The tyrannosaurus on the table is the fact that the concept of work is broken. The idea of working a set routine is madness. Many of the jobs people do are madness. Many of them would be happier and more productive doing other things.

But it's taboo to even suggest a restructuring which might free up some time outside of 'economic productivity' and also give people a chance to contribute in more spontaneous, self-directed and useful ways.

So, of course, there can be ambiguity with disabled people who would really like to find work.

All the rest of your rant, you know I agree with...

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

People understand that the economy is far from the paradise that the offical numbers would have you believe, but there's little understanding of the reasons why the offical unemployment numbers are not comparable between the US and France.

And hence the French model becomes a recipe for massive unemployment in the minds of the American masses.   C'est la vie.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

I am sitting here bloated with Ham, alcohol, sweet potatos, green beans, blueberry pie, alcohol, eggnog with rum, and coffee.  Now I'm about to have an after-dinner Amaretto.

Then I'll have some more alcohol.

BUT I CAN STILL TWITCH A MOUSE!

(What's a VCD, anyhow?  Video Compact Disk?)

A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

Oct06 7.6%
Oct07 7.9%

Table A-12.  Alternative measures of labor underutilization


Utsukushikereba sore de ii

All countries, whether inadvertently or on purpose, distort their unemployment pictures with the public sector, and we'd have to take on quite an accounting project to get the full story.

My main point was that we couldn't look at it in a static model, in which those in prison or in the military would be unemployed but for being in prison or the military.  Certainly many would be, especially among the prison population.  I don't deny that for a moment.  But many would not be.  A lot of it is simply a matter of resources being shifted one way or another -- or, in the case of prison, taking people, some who would be productive, and making them unproductive.

As always, macroeconomics doesn't lend itself to clean mathematics.  It's murky.  Better to focus on trends and how the degree of impact from different variables may affect things than to say "X means y."  It's sort of like trying to call the point at which we hit recession.  We can all see a recession coming in many cases, but when it actually hits is anybody's guess.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

How much of the US military spending is really just supporting jobs that would be otherwise lost in key electoral districts?

Much of it.  Especially when Congress starts talking about base closures every few years, it's primarily an issue of moving money from the fast-growing urban centers to the long-declining rural areas.  The small towns can't compete with the Philadelphias and Bostons, let alone the New Yorks, on labor supply or skill level, and they tend to be towns that were built around a single industry or even a single factory.  Now that those industries are gone, they cling to military bases.  It's basically a redistribution mechanism.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!