| Author |
Message |
    
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 962
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 5:28 am: |     |
February 10, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Last Friday the Bureau of Labor Statistics delivered yet another disappointing employment report.
Since there's a lot of confusion on this subject, let's talk about the numbers. The bureau actually produces two estimates of employment, one based on a survey that asks each employer in a random sample how many workers are on its payroll, the other on a survey that asks each household in a random sample how many of its members are employed. Most experts regard the employer survey as more reliable; even in the midst of the recovery, that survey has contained nothing but bad news. The household numbers look better, but not particularly good.
For technical reasons involving seasonal adjustment, many economists expected the January report to show a one-time bounce in both measures. Yet employment as measured by the payroll survey rose by only 112,000 — well short of the increase needed just to keep up with a growing population. If employment were rising as rapidly as it did when the economy was emerging from the 1990-1991 recession, we'd be seeing monthly numbers more like 275,000.
Taking a longer view, the payroll numbers tell a dismal story. Since the recovery officially began in November 2001, employment has actually fallen by half a percent, while the working-age population has increased about 2.4 percent. By this measure, jobs are becoming ever scarcer.
The household survey, on which the official unemployment rate is based, tells a less dismal but far from happy story. (Why the discrepancy? We don't know.) The number of people who say they have jobs has risen since the recovery began — but has still lagged behind population growth.
The only seemingly favorable statistic is the unemployment rate, which has recently fallen to 5.6 percent, the same as in November 2001. But how is that possible, when employment has grown more slowly than the population, or even declined? The answer is that people aren't counted as unemployed unless they're looking for work, and a growing fraction of the population isn't even looking. It's hard to see how this is good news.
Other indicators continue to suggest a grim job picture. In the last three months, more than 40 percent of the unemployed have been out of work more than 15 weeks. That's the worst number since 1983, and a sign that jobs remain very hard to find — which is what anyone who has lost a job will tell you.
One last statistic — not about jobs, but about wages. Since the last quarter of 2001, real G.D.P. has risen 7.2 percent. But wage and salary income, after adjusting for inflation, is up only 0.6 percent. This matches what the employer survey is telling us: America's workers have seen very little benefit from this recovery.}
In the light of these dreary statistics, President Bush's recent cheerfulness seems almost surreal. On Friday, he said that he was "pleased, obviously, with the new job growth." When Tim Russert asked in the "Meet the Press" interview what happened to all the jobs that Mr. Bush promised his tax cuts would create, he replied: "It's happening. And there is good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs."
We expect politicians to place a positive spin on economic news, but to insist that things are going great when many people have personal experience to the contrary seems foolish. Mr. Bush's father lost the 1992 election in large part because he was perceived as being out of touch with the difficulties faced by ordinary Americans. Why is Mr. Bush — whose poll numbers are a bit worse than his father's were at this point in 1992 — running the risk of repeating his experience?
The answer, I think, is that the younger Mr. Bush has no choice. He has literally gone for broke, with repeated tax cuts that have fed a $500 billion deficit. To justify policies that more and more people call irresponsible, he must claim that wonderful things are happening as a result.
For a while, that famous 8 percent growth rate seemed to be just what he needed. But in the fourth quarter, growth dropped to 4 percent. And as we've seen, the jobs still aren't there.
So Mr. Bush must put on a brave face. He and his officials must talk up weak economic statistics as if they represented stunning success, and predict marvelous things any day now. After all, they have to keep this up for only nine more months.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
|
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 165
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 9:24 am: | |
Just out of curiosity, all of these people that are no longer looking for work... how are they feeding themselves and their families? How are they paying their rent? Have they just made a decision to live on the street? Are homeless numbers way up? Are they just relying on charity for the rest of their lives?
I know if I decide to stop looking for work, my family will starve and I will lose my house. What are all of these people doing? |
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6356
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 9:50 am: | |
Living on spouse's income only? Just a guess. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 167
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 9:55 am: | |
Boy... my wife would never put up with that. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4608
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 10:10 am: | |
Michael, my recollection is that foreclosures are way up, so that may be part of the answer. I think, and I admit this is opinion based on observation not analysis, that a fair number of people essentially enter the underground economy, doing odd jobs, painting, selling on ebay, selling drugs, robbing banks and about a million other possiblities. Anybody I know who was long term unemployed ended up with business cards saying "Consultant" and as Cjc said, some of them really are.
I also think that some of the people who are no longer looking for work are part of two income households, as Dave indicates, where the second salary is nice, but maybe not essential to paying the mortgage and feeding the kids. |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 487
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 10:47 am: | |
Credit cards?
Seems silly to tentatively doubt the job market is bad based on there not being hobo encampments visible. I'm sure there's a latin term for that type logical fallacy.
AP Dec 18th, 2003
"Hunger and homelessness increased in many of America's largest cities this year, with growing demand for emergency food supplies for families with children, the elderly and even people with jobs, a survey by U.S. mayors finds.
The report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, released Thursday, found that requests for emergency food assistance rose 17 percent overall from last year in the survey of 25 large cities. Requests for emergency shelter assistance increased by 13 percent, the report showed."
|
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 168
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 11:04 am: | |
I'm not saying the market isn't bad... although I don't think its terrible.
What I don't get is the theory that people have just stopped looking for work.
Consulting, doing odd jobs, etc. IS working. I'm simply asking how someone can stop looking for work... any work, if they need the income.
Like I said, my wife would never stand for me just stopping looking for work, even if we could live off of her income (unless I became the kids primary caretaker... but that is work, remember Mr. Mom?)
Long term unemployment stinks, and many of my friends and relatives (including myself) have been laid off, but I don't know anyone who has ever just stopped looking for work. When I was laid off, I started my own business. Believe me, that is work. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 874
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 11:29 am: | |
You don't have to look for work as hard if you are being given upwards of one year in unemployment benefits, many hoping in vain for some low-skill manufacturing job to come back. It's that type of supplement that takes some of the impetus away from a job search. "It only pays $10/hour and I won't take it" is easier to say if you're still drawing a check.
I wonder how many of the obese go to bed hungry, or request food assistance. |
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 479
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 12:27 pm: | |
cjc,
I don't know if you've "drawn a check" from unemployment lately. I have (1999), and I qualified for the max- a whopping $300/week-for 15 weeks- which I still then had to pay taxes on, here in Maplewood.
That certainly wasn't an option to turning down any work, so to imply that you can sort of kick back on your "benefits" as an option to looking is not realistic.
Unless of course, this behavior is most prevelant in people with a $15,000 per year income, in which case the dole becomes an option. I think even the $15K level is considerably less than your manufacturing job example.
I admit I may be out of touch with the benefits system of today. But that's my 5 year old perspective, for what it's worth.
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4610
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
So somebody should start eating Kibbles before they have to to make Bush look good?
"Let them eat cake", said the Queen. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1939
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
as if people with rent to pay and children to feed need impetus. Why are conservatives willing to let large numbers of people end up on the street just to prevent a few from getting away with something? |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2229
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
I would hesitate to include jobs at less than $10/hour as part of the economic recovery. These jobs are better than no jobs, but at $10/hour, you aren't going to support a family. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 408
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 12:41 pm: | |
One of the larger public policy goals of an unemployment insurance program is to help people find the right job. It's better for the individual, and better for society overall. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 876
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 1:04 pm: | |
Monty -- where was that ever written -- that larger policy goal. "Right" job? By who's definition. "Counselor...I know that job is available, but I think my personal development would be stifled in that situation. I'll pass. Please extend my benefits until I'm fulfilled." Take the job, keep looking for a better one, then quit when you find it.
tom -- i'm not saying they're getting away with anything. it's part of the system. I think someone brought up that there are many dual-income households which would make this arrangement possible. Besides, republicans hate people, especially the poor. Or were you just playing dumb with me?
tjohn -- those $10/hour jobs are not better than no jobs -- that's the point. Many in this country think so, are unemployed, and won't take them. No one said they should be able to support a family entirely with that wage. That's why some think we should make low-skilled jobs pay a living wage regardless of their economic value, and subsidize those jobs by taxing the rich.
My dad was unemployed in the 70s - I know it was a long time ago -- and because my mother worked, he was able to run out his unemployment, reject offers he didn't like, and resume working some 2 years later when he found one he liked. And we weren't anywhere near rich. Far from it. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2063
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 1:15 pm: | |
I'm not sure I follow you, cjc. Are you saying that reducing unemployment benefits would help nudge people towards accepting offers they'd rather not take? Well, I'd agree that they would, on aggregate, but my real question is if you support this idea.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 878
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 1:35 pm: | |
Yes, I do support that idea. Take what's out there, keep looking for something better (which I've done even when gainfully employed) and take it when you find it. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2066
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 1:36 pm: | |
Hmm, how about eliminating unemployment benefits?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
las
Citizen
Username: Las
Post Number: 7
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 1:59 pm: | |
Yeah, Tom, that sounds great. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 880
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 1:59 pm: | |
Not entirely. I think extending them for an entire year is over the top. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2071
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 2:30 pm: | |
How do we decide how much is enough and how much is too much? And while we're at it, why not eliminate the benefit? If keeping the benefit short gets people back on the pavement soon, wouldn't eliminating the benefit get them out there even sooner?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 329
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
Take the Tax Cut Quiz!
http://www.flashbunny.org/content/taxcutquiz.html
|
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2076
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 3:09 pm: | |
Hyperbole. And what should the rich do with their tax decreases is not a key question in my mind.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 170
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 3:23 pm: | |
I'm all for helping people in need. I'm all for unemployment insurance.
My problem is this rhetoric:"The only seemingly favorable statistic is the unemployment rate, which has recently fallen to 5.6 percent, the same as in November 2001. But how is that possible, when employment has grown more slowly than the population, or even declined? The answer is that people aren't counted as unemployed unless they're looking for work, and a growing fraction of the population isn't even looking. It's hard to see how this is good news. "
Come on, does anyone really believe that there is some large number of workers that have just stopped looking for work and decided to just sit at home and eat bon-bons (of course how could trhey afford the bon-bons)? By work I mean income, not neccesarily a salaried job, but income producing activities.
|
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2078
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 3:48 pm: | |
You've received several answers, Michael. They're all true, and when you combine them, they explain how many can be unemployed and underemployed without dying. I sympathize with you, because I'm not one who can afford unemployment. Too many responsibilities with not a lot of backup. But some are living off savings, some are depending on their family, some are going into debt, some are losing their homes, and on and on. The statistics could be right even though you can't picture them being true.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
vicciepiel
Citizen
Username: Vicciepiel
Post Number: 114
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 4:11 pm: | |
The maximum you may now receive in unemployment benefits is 26 weeks in most states. Extended benefits ended at the end of 2003 when Congress failed to sign a continuation of the program. However, the House recently passed legislation that would provide benefits for people whose unemployment expired after December 21, 2003.
For the benefits bill to pass, the Senate also needs to vote on and approve the extension.
He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, still dead |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 171
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 4:11 pm: | |
Tom,
Do you really believe that these people who are living off savings, depending on their family, going into debt, losing their homes, and on and on... have STOPPED LOOKING FOR WORK? They've just given up?
Are they planning on living off savings, depending on their family, or going into debt permanently? Without ever paying off their debt, or repaying their family? Do they expect their savings to last them for the rest of their lives?
I never once mentioned underemployment, that is a different topic entirely.
Krugmans assertion is that a growing fraction of the unemployed have simply stopped looking for work.
I have received no answers except for a spouse working instead. That may be valid, but I still do not believe that these great roles of unemployed have simply stopped looking for gainful employment.
So far all this is is rhetoric, there have been no solid statistics I have seen, can anyone point me to some stats that show how many people have stopped looking for work?
Its a baseless assertion. |
guycaruso
Citizen
Username: Guycaruso
Post Number: 31
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
Let's hear what Greenspan has to say about the economy tomorrow. I will take his word over Krugman. One question I have is, how exactly are the Democrats going to create all these jobs ? |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 906
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 4:32 pm: | |
Cowboy, that was funny. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2093
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 9:48 am: | |
Michael, I don't know of any real statistics that show the number or percentage of people who have utterly given up. Does anyone compile such statistics? Upon some thought, I agree that it sounds pretty incredible. How can you give up for the rest of your life?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page