The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
sigh. I think everyone including Paul Craig Roberts has debunked the magic 4.8 percent, yet it keeps coming back like a bad penny. PCR wrote in the paper version of Counterpunch (Jan 2006) that to keep up with population growth, the US should create 1,800,000 jobs per year (and that in itself is a frightening statistic). However, instead a total of 1,054,000 new net private sector jobs were created in the preceding 5 years, and if you add the government-sector new jobs you get a total of 2,093,000 (he is using DOL statistics here).
This five-year figure is over 7 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth. PCR asks, how can there be only 4.7 percent unemployment? And answers his own question: the figures are cooked.
The unemployment rate does not measure the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs to offshore outsourcing and to foreign workers brought into the US on work visas. These millions of Americans have exhausted their unemployment benefits and severance benefits and have been unable to find jobs to return to the work force. Economists refer to these millions of unemployed people as discouraged workers who have dropped out of the work force. As they have given up searching for jobs, they are not considered to be in the work force and therefore do not count as unemployed. [my boldface]
Now, this is a fascinating use of language. People who give up trying to find jobs in a "jobless recovery" are referred to as having "dropped out" of the workforce as though they had wilfully decided to be idle. People who cannot find jobs and therefore are not "in the work force" do not count as "unemployed" -- now from my admittedly nonwonkish labour perspective, if you are of working age and not in the workforce you are, in fact, unemployed.
In other words the Bushco spinmeisters have pulled another of their HumptyDumpty moves and redefined "unemployed" to mean whatever makes the situation look less dire. Perhaps we should rephrase the cynical old Soviet saying to something more like, "We pretend there are jobs to apply for and they pretend to offer them to us." PCR notes that 25,000 people recently showed up to apply for 350 openings at a Chicago Wal*Mart (he does not cite dates or names, so this is anecdotal but believable). Long lines of discouraged people applying for a tiny handful of jobs -- this is what we used to call Depression. And what the wingnut press happily refers to as a "hot job market." Maybe a hot job market for BushCo pundits desperately slapping wallpaper over a crumbling economy, I dunno. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
This thing about the American unemployment statistics keeps coming up. I keep saying I think the statistics are rubbish, but I only have anectdotal evidence, common sense, and some scattered statistics for poverty and some inner-cities. Do you have any handy links for where, exactly, the 4.8% is debunked? I'd be forever grateful. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
Take a look at the wiki: Economics Page (scroll down to topic Measuring unemployment and employment). There's a section on America. Also, Colman's diary Comparing unemployment statistics is on America too.
I contributed some information in this comment. It contains links to further information and discussion of American unemployment.
On the "dropped out of the market" people, a die-hard warrior of the marketista tribe, Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute2, makes out that the rise in the number of these "disappearing jobless" shows the success of the American economy, since Americans are now prosperous enough for moms to stay home and bring up their kiddies (which is what they always wanted to do, huh), and for youngsters to stay longer in school.
1I know where you were really, you were in there fighting the good fight! 2The link to Furchtgott-Roth's screed is now broken. The Hudson Institute never seemed very proud of this "rebuttal" to Katharine Bradbury's study (pdf). I had a job getting hold of it, and now they seem to have pulled it. I'll email a copy to anyone who really, really wants one.
D. Izzy Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
Note, however, that in Europe that's called "low labour participation" and a bad thing.
Bush presidencies = lower labor participation rates In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
ps: for comparison purposes, since mention of France was made, the carceral population ratio in the USA is 686 for every 100 000 inhabitants, while in France it is 90 prisoners for every 100 000 inhabitants. UK ratio: 140.
Sources: Wikipedia, (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_en_France , , French Justice Ministry ((http://www.justice.gouv.fr/presse/conf150206a.htm), http://www.prisonstudies.org/ (etc etc - it's not like this is breaking news)
google for "prison industrial complex"
I hate it that you Euros are all relaxing at home after a good slow-food meal when I, half a world away, am still at the office allegedly working. gotta go. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
by gmoke - Jan 27
by Oui - Feb 14
by Oui - Feb 13
by Oui - Feb 12
by Oui - Feb 10
by Oui - Feb 102 comments
by Oui - Feb 93 comments
by Oui - Feb 92 comments
by Oui - Feb 8
by Oui - Feb 81 comment
by Oui - Feb 74 comments
by Oui - Feb 7
by Oui - Feb 6
by Oui - Feb 5
by Oui - Feb 53 comments
by Oui - Feb 4
by Oui - Feb 3
by Oui - Feb 12 comments