Reasons for Jobless Recoveries

[A18]

To be non-employed is not per se to be miserable, as a great many retirees, housewives, and full-time college students—as well, I suppose, as yourself—can attest.

[Ban my account ffs!]

To be non-employed is not per se to be miserable, as a great many retirees, housewives, and full-time college students—as well, I suppose, as yourself—can attest.

And where do you work and how long have you been working?

Let me guess.. you're in college so you shouldn't have to work.  Unfortunately, for many, if college students lose their job, they lose their ability to pay the ever increasing share of the tuition they owe after financial aid.

Not everybody has parents that can just write a check.

Let me know when you join the real world rather than living in fantasy land.

[Beet]

I think what he is saying is that we should increase social welfare benefits so that being unemployed doesn't hinder your ability to be a housewife, go to school or life a comfortable life.

Oh wait it's Philip, never mind.

[A18]

I said that to be non-employed is not per se to be miserable. I did not claim that no non-employed person is miserable. The difference is not especially subtle.

[opebo]

Our point is Philip that people work only for money.  If they have no job they immediately begin to starve.  Obviously people who have money available such as retired, rich, etc., do not work in the normal sense - in any case whatever work they do may be thought of as a hobby, not the ordinary forced toil that almost everyone must do or die.

You're completely missing the obvious fact that the ONLY bad thing about unemployment is lack of money.  You pretend that we are disliking the perennial situation of high unemployment for some arbitrary or knee-jerk reason.  We are not.  We deplore it only because we deplore the thought of dying in abject want. 

[A18]

Tone notwithstanding, your post is not a rebuttal to mine. Indeed, you have actually conceded my point—that joblessness is not per se bad. Why, then, are we to fear marginally lower rates of employment? (It must be stressed that "unemployment"—as opposed to "non-employment"—is not implicated here. Ninety percent of the population could be jobless without there being any unemployment.)

An amusing side-effect of your doctrine is that it would denounce the abolition of child labor. Think of the effect on the job creation figures!

Too often we conflate employment with material well-being and joblessness with misery. In fact, one can be jobless and wealthy; and one can be employed and miserable (even materially).

[opebo]

Tone notwithstanding, your post is not a rebuttal to mine. Indeed, you have actually conceded my point—that joblessness is not per se bad. Why, then, are we to fear marginally lower rates of employment? (It must be stressed that "unemployment"—as opposed to "non-employment"—is not implicated here. Ninety percent of the population could be jobless without there being any unemployment.)

An amusing side-effect of your doctrine is that it would denounce the abolition of child labor. Think of the effect on the job creation figures!

Too often we conflate employment with material well-being and joblessness with misery. In fact, one can be jobless and wealthy; and one can be employed and miserable (even materially).

All correct sir - I did intend to concede your point, but only to ridicule its obviousness and obtuseness.  You speak of something which is almost entirely beside the point.  The key is - working class people have nothing.  No wealth, no means of survival, other than that job.  So, you can understand why, for the 90+% of the population who are powerless in this way, the job becomes a desperate priority, even though for most of them, it merely means survival-in-poverty, not any kind of 'well being'.

The issue in our economy is not tone or misapprehension regarding toils, but simply inequality.  However I do agree with you that it would be preferable that we make being non-employed a comfortable and tenable position for the working class - namely through a reliable and adequate dole.  Regarding child toils - my 'doctrine' does not denounce the abolition of such, but merely suggests that we should replace their earnings with redistributions from their former exploiters.

[MK]

This time is different then lets say 1980-84  when we still had jobs here and ready,  just they layed off workers with the intention that they would start back once the worse was over.

Today this is not the case.

[A18]

All correct sir - I did intend to concede your point, but only to ridicule its obviousness and obtuseness.

We are discussing "job creation" numbers. Once you have conceded that non-employment is not per se bad, "more employment" is not automatically to be preferred to "less employment."

It is your commentary that is beside the point. I do not deny that there are a vast number of people for whom employment is absolutely imperative. And if you want to post some data that speaks to their situation, it will be worth paying attention to. This data does not. It is consistent with a situation in which many are struggling, but it is also consistent with a situation in which no one is (and with everything in between).

[opebo]

All correct sir - I did intend to concede your point, but only to ridicule its obviousness and obtuseness.

We are discussing "job creation" numbers. Once you have conceded that non-employment is not per se bad, "more employment" is not automatically to be preferred to "less employment."

It is your commentary that is beside the point. I do not deny that there are a vast number of people for whom employment is absolutely imperative.

You're not making sense here Philip.  If there are a vast number of people for whom employment is an absolute imperative then, yes, more employment is automatically to be preferred. 

Just because there are a few rich people and olds and little children who may be able to do without a job, that does not obviate the need for 'more employment' (which is quite enormous).

[A18]

Low, and even negative, "job creation" numbers are consistent with each and every one of those people having work.

[opebo]

Low, and even negative, "job creation" numbers are consistent with each and every one of those people having work.

Interesting.  So, if we reduce the number of jobs, this will eliminate the 10% unemployment rate?

[A18]

What is the point of your question? Nothing I have said suggests anything of the sort.

Of course, if 50% of the employed segment of the labor forced retired tomorrow, unemployment would probably all but disappear while the number of jobs (and level of output) diminished astronomically.

[opebo]

What is the point of your question? Nothing I have said suggests anything of the sort.

Of course, if 50% of the employed segment of the labor forced retired tomorrow, unemployment would probably all but disappear while the number of jobs (and level of output) diminished astronomically.

Between the prospect of 50% of the serfs gaining a sufficient stipend to retire upon, and the prospect of the exploitation machine creating a few more positions at the yoke, I'll say the latter is more likely.   One might even say realistic. 

 

[A18]

The point of my extreme example was simply to show that unemployment and job growth—while inversely correlated in practice—are not definitionally tied to one another. If we want to discuss unemployment, let's discuss unemployment—not job growth figures.

But perhaps we should get back to the actual issue—whether "more employment" is to be preferred to "less employment." For the reasons I've given, the answer to that question is no. Let's look at the actual problem, rather than at data that is loosely related to it. I'm not denying that there is human suffering—I'm simply suggesting that we look at actual measures of it.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The point of my extreme example was simply to show that unemployment and job growth—while inversely correlated in practice—are not definitionally tied to one another. If we want to discuss unemployment, let's discuss unemployment—not job growth figures.

But perhaps we should get back to the actual issue—whether "more employment" is to be preferred to "less employment." For the reasons I've given, the answer to that question is no. Let's look at the actual problem, rather than at data that is loosely related to it. I'm not denying that there is human suffering—I'm simply suggesting that we look at actual measures of it.

Missing the forest for the trees comes to mind.  While you use "lofty logic" to quibble about semantics, your point is completely moot. 

Do you have proof that the need for employment is shrinking?

If the unemployment rate does not improve to where it was prior to the recession, then it is a jobless recovery.  Jobless recovery is not defined by the absolute number of jobs created or not created.. it is defined by a general increase in unemployment among those who wish or, most likely, need to be employed, in order to make ends meet.

Opebo and I took your semantic quibbling to mean that you believed that fewer jobs isn't a bad thing because you believe people don't really need jobs. 

If you believe that, then I'd have a hard time listening to anything you have to say, "logical" or not.

[A18]

If you refer back to the original post, you will see that the thread is explicitly about job-growth numbers. If we define "jobless recovery" as you do, then it is indeed something to be concerned about—but the data under consideration do not speak to that issue.

[phk]

Just had to bump this thread in light of a new post by Prof. Hamilton at UCSD.

Warning: A lot more mundane than you had originally thought.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link to Feldstein paper: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1830437

[Bo]

Might as well put up another chart:



As evidenced, the "peaks" are wider in the last two recessions than they were before.

[Sam Spade]

Please start this thread and wake me when a recovery is actually occurring.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The problem is MBAs who don't plan past the end of the current quarter.