Slashdot Mirror

Private employment increased by 21.7 million under the Clinton adminstration.
Private employment has decreased 1.8 million under the Bush adminstration.

I can't figure out how to link to these other statistics directly, but go here and choose "Total Private Employment - Seasonally Adjusted" or whatever.

This is seaonally adjusted.

It peaked March 2001 at 3,718,000
It's now 3,170,000.

Data

The number of jobs is always created at a faster rateaverage annual percentage growth) under Democratic Presidents then Republican Presidents

Here's another chart with the same data

You can get the raw BLS Establishment survey data here

Yes, stronger.

Yes, please--do check.
For starters, check with the U.S. Dept. of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics--which is the agency that tabulates and reports on job gains and losses. Any statistical discussion of employment and employment trends in the U.S. will inevitably use BLS data. And the data, as you've heard in the press, is that unemployment has been declining, and net employment is up, at least since the 4th quarter of 2003. (It may be longer, but I didn't look beyond the "at-a-glance" index on the BLS page I linked to above.)

Employment overall is one thing--but how about geek employment?
I cannot comment about geek employment nationwide--but I can comment about geek employment in the New York-Philadelphia metropolitan area. In short, we're past the tipping point, where recruiters are calling up to offer jobs, instead of not bothering to return your calls for positions. That inevitably has the effect of driving up wages--either direct wages (pay to you) or indirect wages (benefits, free lunch, etc.).

How much of that is smoke?
A lot of people are skeptical about headhunters, and whether they really have the jobs they claim to have. I can't say. What I can say, though, is that my employer is actively recruiting, and we will be making a major effort at on-campus recruiting in the fall.

Digression: in fact, I have an open req for a co-op student who is majoring in either software engineering or computer science, for the Spring 2005 semester. The student will be working on implementing an existing commercial application on Linux using the Mono implementations of C# and ASP.Net, and PostgreSQL. Prior experience with Linux is an absolute must, prior experience with C# will be a strong plus, prior experience with databases is a strong plus, prior experience with PostgreSQL would be nice. Contact me at jmurdoch-at-Lutron-dot-com for more information.

Since so many people are going to mention the unemployment number, you should look at what that number actually means.

This site spells it out in detail. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

I would like to point out that the government does not simply make use of those people applying for unemployment insurance to arrive at the unemployment figures. This is a survey.

Yeah, that's what I've found. Unemployment in the Grand Rapids, MI is between 6 and 7%. On top of that, it's a very conservative area and few are willing to give OSS a chance... There are a few VB and ASP jobs here and there, but since I didn't jump on the .net bandwagon, I'm S.O.L.

If anyone reading this is looking for a junior Linux sys admin with a web development background, feel free to send me a line. My wife and I are willing to relocate.
-Morgajel

Bridge building isn't dangerous anymore

According to OSHA, in 2002, there were 21 fatalities from bridge, tunnel, and elevated highway construction. There were 246 fatalities from heavy construction not including buildings, including highways and streets. The total for construction, including residential and non-residential buildings, was 1,125 deaths.

Say what you will about Unions, but my friends, America's Corporate Greed is ready and willing to exploit you, and teach your management the tricks of the trade. If you think we're overpaid over here, then check our statistics on labor at the department of labor and statistics url:BLS. Note that union workers on average get a few $ more per hour than non-union. And yet, people still believe they are evil.

Note that frequently that "few $ more per hour" is a substantial percent increase in labor costs (according to this document, averaged over all private industries the increase was 16.8% for mid-2002). Combined with the various benefits which unions require from employers, US industries are at a substantial competitive disadvantage, especially in industries like steel where the profit margin is already extremely small.

Besides that, unions for minimum-wage jobs are a racket, plain and simple. Case in point, a friend of mine back in high school was working at a unionized grocery store and getting paid $5.25 an hour. On top of that, he was forced to pay union dues even though he received no benefits and was making minimum wage. On the other hand, I worked in a non-union grocery store, was charged no union dues, and made fifty cents more on the hour than my friend did.

Yes, unions have served a purpose in the past, especially when the government was ill-equipped to take on abusive employers. But by and large, legislation has made illegal most or all of the forms of abuse, and enforcement is much, much better.

The real difference is the scope in looking at it. The owner is looking at what is immediately before him, from his vantage, it makes no sense to not move jobs to Africa if it means more profit for him. The American worker (and even the African worker eventually) looks at the political and economic system, and realizes that an economic and political dynamic, and system, which undercuts his wages and ships his job overseas is not to his benefit, and is actually to his detriment.

In fact the American economic system has done poorly over the past thirty years compared to the prior 30 years. From 1944-1974 there was enormous productivity growth and wage growth in the US. From 1974 to present, according to the BLS, the average US inflation adjusted hourly wage has actually dropped. And production growth is much less than it was in the prior thrity years.

You talk about blame, justification, and moral crusading as if this is an argument about gay marriage or gay bishops or something where consensus can be reached. It is not, it is a simple economic matter where the interests of the IT workers in the US is in direct conflict with the IT owners in the US. Most owners and management look at it from one perspective, most workers look at it from the oppositive perspective.

If Gartner says it, It MUST BE TRUE (tm). Clowns.

The essence if stupidity is this - the more we "compete" with third world countries, the more we as a nation are going to lose. Third world countries don't have our living standards, our infrastructure, or many other opportunities we have worked for for so many years. They don't require benefits, which thanks to our broken healthcare industry (read insurance racket) eat up huge portions of company dollars. They don't require fair living wages, benefits, any kind of job security. So how do we compete globally? Do we push our standards into the toilet in order to accomodate corporate greed and government corruption?
We have two options - force our standard of living down to the early 1900s level in order to "compete" (what we are doing now), or have a US-based revolution that redefines America as a self-sustaining entity - reliance on our own farmers, manufacturing industry, service sectors, etc. In this mode, we refuse to give up the quality of life we have built for ourselves, and start requiring other countries to come to our level playing field if they wish to participate.

What amazes me is that with America's huge installed base of great programming and IT knowledge, there is no influx of jobs coming from the other direction.
Are we SO overpaid that our economy must first experience a massive depression in skills, education and fair wages in order to "compete" (artificially) with the rest of the world? Do other countries' people actually believe that somehow they won't experience the same problems and that they will all become rich and famous; their management won't outsource back to America if the wages are cheaper?

Say what you will about Unions, but my friends, America's Corporate Greed is ready and willing to exploit you, and teach your management the tricks of the trade. If you think we're overpaid over here, then check our statistics on labor at the department of labor and statistics url:BLS. Note that union workers on average get a few $ more per hour than non-union. And yet, people still believe they are evil. This is typical claptrap from businesses that don't wish to impact their profit margins in order to "compete". How soon we forget the awful abuse our parents and grandparents experienced at the hands of large business - and the need that created unions in the first place - it hasn't even been a hundred years.
Remember that everything over here costs a LOT MORE than in India or other countries, even if the vast majority of crap (and I do mean CRAP) we buy comes from China (hello, WalMart).

So, anyone care to speculate where the bottom is, and when we'll reach it?

The traditional concept of a library is being redefined from a place to access paper records or books to one that also houses the most advanced media, including CD-ROM, the Internet, virtual libraries, and remote access to a wide range of resources. Consequently, librarians, or information professionals, increasingly are combining traditional duties with tasks involving quickly changing technology. Librarians assist people in finding information and using it effectively for personal and professional purposes. Librarians must have knowledge of a wide variety of scholarly and public information sources and must follow trends related to publishing, computers, and the media in order to oversee the selection and organization of library materials. Librarians manage staff and develop and direct information programs and systems for the public, to ensure that information is organized in a manner that meets users' needs.

So when you Bush supporters talk about unemployment being so low, please fill in the blanks and talk about the kinds of jobs that are being created (hint: they don't pay as well as the jobs that have been lost)

Wrong. If we were only gaining lower paying jobs, why have wages steadily gone up?

And is it not possible that some people have given up looking for work, and therefore contribute to the lowering of the unemployment rate?

Its possible, but that is not what is happening. Visit the BLS Website and you can see just how many people out there who want a job are no longer looking. A comparison between 1996 (same 5.6% unemployment) and now show a minimal difference.

So when you Bush supporters talk about unemployment being so low, please fill in the blanks and talk about the kinds of jobs that are being created (hint: they don't pay as well as the jobs that have been lost)

Wrong. If we were only gaining lower paying jobs, why have wages steadily gone up?

And is it not possible that some people have given up looking for work, and therefore contribute to the lowering of the unemployment rate?

Its possible, but that is not what is happening. Visit the BLS Website and you can see just how many people out there who want a job are no longer looking. A comparison between 1996 (same 5.6% unemployment) and now show a minimal difference.

Unemployment is below 6% Under Clinton, that was considered full employment. In the Bush world it's a shambles?

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?da ta_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

Extreme upper class? you mean a family of four making $40,000 or more per year?

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=109876, 00.html#tax_rates_2003

You want to see brainwashed, look in the mirror. Better yet, EDUCATE YOURSELF by doing your own research and not listening to the talking heads that have an agenda. The fact are out there. Look them up. Not only will you learn something, you might even draw some conclusions that will surprise you.

Regarding intelligence failures:
Off the top of your head, tell me how many intelligence successes occur annually? No, don't go looking to the media (not even FoxNews...). No, don't even ask Congress.

Can't think of many, right?

By unofficial definition a true "intelligence success" will never be public knowledge. We, as the general public, have no idea of the staggeringly high number of times intelligence has saved our lives. Ironically, we know all too well a sickening amount of detail from such clusterf$%@s that led to 9/11, the U.S.S Cole bombing, etc.

If we had any clue as to how many "intelligence successes" have saved us from destruction/distress we would probably be scared to get out of bed. We should all be thankful that people are out there working to make sure we don't have to hide under the covers quaking in fear.

You wanted some sources? OK:

• Bureau of Labor and Statistics lists plenty of information on employment/unemployment. Take a look at the historical unemployment rates and whip out a calculator. For '92 to '00 I calculate unemployment to an average of 6.1% -- Nothing wrong with that. That's a very healthy unemployment rate and I couldn't complain, but when you compare that with the current rate quoted at 5.6%, a lot of complaints about the current administration's unemployment rate lose their ability to hold water.

• I see 214,000 jobs added last month. That's bad?

• As for the economic theory, I am a firm believer in Keynesian economics as well as the ideas of John Hicks.

• Bankrate.com has some great information and graphical representations of historical rates and economic indicators. Take a look and let me know how you feel about the current indicators?

• If you want a look at how other people are thanklessly putting their lives on the line for my safety and yours, and hence why they command my utmost respect and gratitude to the extent that I refuse to acknowledge intelligence failures, read Book Of Honor by Ted Gup.

Sorry, no references to anything on the Washington Times, FoxNews, the Washington Post, PBS.org, antiwar.com, or thenation.com. Call me crazy, but I like my data unbiased.

That's all for now.

Regarding intelligence failures:
Off the top of your head, tell me how many intelligence successes occur annually? No, don't go looking to the media (not even FoxNews...). No, don't even ask Congress.

Can't think of many, right?

By unofficial definition a true "intelligence success" will never be public knowledge. We, as the general public, have no idea of the staggeringly high number of times intelligence has saved our lives. Ironically, we know all too well a sickening amount of detail from such clusterf$%@s that led to 9/11, the U.S.S Cole bombing, etc.

If we had any clue as to how many "intelligence successes" have saved us from destruction/distress we would probably be scared to get out of bed. We should all be thankful that people are out there working to make sure we don't have to hide under the covers quaking in fear.

You wanted some sources? OK:

• Bureau of Labor and Statistics lists plenty of information on employment/unemployment. Take a look at the historical unemployment rates and whip out a calculator. For '92 to '00 I calculate unemployment to an average of 6.1% -- Nothing wrong with that. That's a very healthy unemployment rate and I couldn't complain, but when you compare that with the current rate quoted at 5.6%, a lot of complaints about the current administration's unemployment rate lose their ability to hold water.

• I see 214,000 jobs added last month. That's bad?

• As for the economic theory, I am a firm believer in Keynesian economics as well as the ideas of John Hicks.

• Bankrate.com has some great information and graphical representations of historical rates and economic indicators. Take a look and let me know how you feel about the current indicators?

• If you want a look at how other people are thanklessly putting their lives on the line for my safety and yours, and hence why they command my utmost respect and gratitude to the extent that I refuse to acknowledge intelligence failures, read Book Of Honor by Ted Gup.

Sorry, no references to anything on the Washington Times, FoxNews, the Washington Post, PBS.org, antiwar.com, or thenation.com. Call me crazy, but I like my data unbiased.

That's all for now.

In an Employment-at-will state you are employed "at the whim of the employer", and only as long as the employer wants you to be employed. Without a contract, the employer can, without any stated reason, tell you you are no longer employed and you have no recourse.

From this (pdf) article in the "Monthly Labor Review" written by Charles J. Muhl, Esq. "In legal terms, though, since the last half of the 19th century, employment in each of the United States has been "at will," or terminable by either the employer or employee for any reason whatsoever. The employment-at-will doctrine avows that, when an employee does not have a written employment contract and the term of employment is of indefinite duration, the employer can terminate the employee for good cause, bad cause, or not cause at all"

In the footnotes, it is noted that "This article does not address statutory exceptions to employment at will. Many such exceptions have been enacted at both the Federal and State level." examples given are federal laws against discrimination, and some states laws against termination for 'whistleblowing'.

Let me get this straight -
You want inefficient and wasteful government solely for the benefit of computer programmers that work at Closed-Source houses?

About 2% of the employed population of the US works in "Computer and Mathamatical Science" jobs. Pare that down to the number that work for the government, get rid of the "Mathamatical Science" jobs, and you should be well less than a percent.
Your inability to cope shouldn't stand in the way of progress.

Also, what is so bad about paying taxes? Like it or not, the services are (mostly) needed. There's something inherently funny about Libertarians and people against the Government. (Originally from the Onion)

OK, the nytimes article says that 182,456 people were laid off in the 1st 4 months of this year. That amounts to 45,614 people a month. This graph shows that the total number of unemployed people in the US at any given time for the past 10 years has been between 6,000 and 9,000 people.

Of the 182,456 people laid off, 4,633 (2.5%) of them lost thier jobs because the job was moved overseas. 4,633 people over four months is 1,158 a month.

According to these numbers, getting laid off is no big deal because most of them get another job immediately. I've been laid off once. It took me 6 months to start working again, and I was laid off in May, read the advertisement for my current job in June. Applied in August, and started working in October.

I should have studied gorilla math in college.

The Foresight Exchange is an idea futures market. Players trade contracts based on claims about the future--such as whether or not there will be another terrorist attack against the United States, how many IT Jobs there will be in 2012, or whether Scaled Composites will win the X-Prize. Players who profit by correctly predicting the future achieve a high score that proves their omniscient wisdom.

It's not just fun and games, though--the exchange provides an overall market consensus prediction. Anyone can create a new claim to help them gain insight into the future. As a software developer I worried about my future job prospects and so I created the ITJOBS market to find out what will happen. The claim pays out from $1 to $0 depending on whether the number of IT jobs paying over $50k/year grows or shrinks by up to 35%. Currently the symbol trades between $0.65 and $0.75 which translates to a market consensus of about 1% annual job growth annually. However, since the claim just began trading thare not yet enough market participants for this prediction to be significant--you could help change that! Sign up and test your foresight.

What's even cooler is that the foresight exchange has a programmable API and documented protocol so that you can write automated trading bots. Since it's play money you have nothing to lose but your self respect! There are many such bots trading on the market now, some of them having been running for years. The Shimari Project includes a Java API that can be used to programatically access the exchange; writing one for your own favorite langauge would also be quite easy. Note though that there is a limit of one account per human player--you can't have a bot and also have a human trading account. This is to prevent various kinds of cheating.

The Foresight Exchange is not just a fun (and free) online game, it's also a useful source of information about the future. If you think you can predict who will win the next election, or you just want to know what the consensus opinion is, sign up and find out. The more people who participate in this market the more accurate its predictions will be.

Disclaimer: I have no relationship with the Foresight Exchange other than that I am a player, a member of the unrelated Shimari Project, and the author of the ITJOBS claim--which I created because as a software developer I wanted to know what the future held in store for me!

like rising unemployment because of outsourcing

Um... you don't think that little dot-bomb bust we had 4 years might have been responsible for the jump in unemployment we had then? Besides, unemployment in the USA has been going down, not up for the past few months now. And to put it in an even better perspective, it is at the same rate now that it was when Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, but of course no one complained about "high" unemployment back then.

And if you think Kerry is going to do anything about outsourcing, then perhaps he should demonstrate some leadership on that issue by selling all of his stock in the Heinz company, which rakes in millions of dollars a year due to outsourced labor abroad. Or he should reject all contributions from the Hollywood Left, which has been outsourcing jobs to Canada for many years now.

The number of employed people went up by 278,000 to 138,576,000

The number of unemployed people went down by 188,000 to 8,164,000

The number of people in the workforce went up by 91,000, and the number of people not in the workforce also went up by 116,000

Compare this with the employment data from September 2003 and you can see that the number of employed people went up from 137,573,000 to 138,576,000, and the number of unemployed people went down from 8,973,000 to 8,164,000.

The average hourly earnings for production workers is at an all-time high of $15.59 per hour. Unless Wal-Mart and McDonalds have tripled their wages, this increase certainly isn't attributed to them.

The number of employed people went up by 278,000 to 138,576,000

The number of unemployed people went down by 188,000 to 8,164,000

The number of people in the workforce went up by 91,000, and the number of people not in the workforce also went up by 116,000

Compare this with the employment data from September 2003 and you can see that the number of employed people went up from 137,573,000 to 138,576,000, and the number of unemployed people went down from 8,973,000 to 8,164,000.

The average hourly earnings for production workers is at an all-time high of $15.59 per hour. Unless Wal-Mart and McDonalds have tripled their wages, this increase certainly isn't attributed to them.

The number of employed people went up by 278,000 to 138,576,000

The number of unemployed people went down by 188,000 to 8,164,000

The number of people in the workforce went up by 91,000, and the number of people not in the workforce also went up by 116,000

Compare this with the employment data from September 2003 and you can see that the number of employed people went up from 137,573,000 to 138,576,000, and the number of unemployed people went down from 8,973,000 to 8,164,000.

The average hourly earnings for production workers is at an all-time high of $15.59 per hour. Unless Wal-Mart and McDonalds have tripled their wages, this increase certainly isn't attributed to them.

That's absolutely true. It's not so long ago that entertainers, jesters, bards, actors, etc. were pretty low down on the social scale. Now however, entertainers (including those involved in sports), are the most affluent and in some quarters, most respected of anyone in the world today.

Median annual earnings of salaried musicians and singers were $36,290 in 2002. The middle 50 percent earned between $18,660 and $59,970. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $13,040, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $96,250. Median annual earnings were $43,060 in performing arts companies and $18,160 in religious organizations.

Source: Occupational Outlook Handbook, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Regardless of comparisons, the economy is not going well. I think it worthwhile to look at this graph - specifically, do the graph from 1969 (the year Nixon took office) to 2004. Note that under President Carter, infamous as a "bad president," the percentage of the population employed rose dramatically. Under Reagan's first term, the rate dropped precipitously, only rising above Carter's levels in Reagan's second term. Under Bush 41 the rate plateaued, then dropped again, and stayed at the lower level until the end of his term. When Clinton came in, we saw a dramatic growth in the employment rates, which lasted until Bush 43 took office, at which time the employment rate took another nosedive which seems, finally, to have plateaued. It seems to have hit bottom in September and March, and is coming back up; but it is coming back up from a rate that is two full percentage points lower than the one that prevailed in the first month of the Bush presidency.

The overall rise in this rate from the 1940s is probably due to the much larger percentage of women entering the workforce, and the smaller percentage of those taking early retirement. But after 1990 or so, I doubt gender differences are really significant for this rate. The natural "full employment" is likely around 64% - until the baby-boom hits retirement age, at which point we can expect to see much lower numbers.

Unfortunately, BLS doesn't have numbers for the great depression, but I would expect them to be significantly below the threshold of this chart.

Employment-population ratio (Current Population Survey)
The proportion of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over that is employed

Step #1 - Make sure any of those pesky "militias" authorized by the constitution won't get in the way... check. (They've been sent over seas.)

So has the standing army. You don't think anyone would notice if the army was being brought back from Iraq and the reservists weren't? Also, the military is sworn to defend the Constitution, not the president. If he made such a bold move, there would be soldiers who would support him, but at least as many wouldn't.

Step #2 - Control information channels... check. (New law allows for more ownership of media outlets in major metropolitan areas.)

Hell, I don't even think Fox News would support him on that one.

Step #3 - Make people feel "lucky" to have a job and be able to support their family. This keeps them too damn busy to pay attention to you... check. (Unemployment rates drop because people don't even apply any more, or have been unemployeed so long they drop off the rolls.)

That's a myth. The unemployment rate counts unemployed persons however long they're unemployed, and is based on a monthly survey, not the number of people seeking unemployment benefits. It is true that people who have given up looking for work are no longer counted, but as you can see that is in fact a very small number of people, compared to the total number of unemployed.

Step #4 - Have your "friends" count the votes... check. (Less than one percent change can throw the election. Get electronic voting put in place and make sure there is not a paper trail.)

Even if Mr. Diebold (who I personally think is a pretty scummy character) were to try to create voting machines that skewed intentionally for a particular candidate, there is no practical way he could possibly find enough likeminded people to work for him and keep such a conspiracy quiet.

Step #5 - Remember that after the election you are still commander in chief for a few months and that "anything" could happen requiring you to call for martial law. Especially if the really bad thing kills the president elect and vice-president elect.

There is no provision in the Constitution that allows an outgoing president to delay his exit from office by declaring martial law. As for killing the pres elect and veep elect, that would quite clearly, according to the law, put the president pro temp (elect) of the Senate in as president when the changeover occurred.

There are many valid critisisms of Bush's performance as president, but there is little question that he will be out of office in a little over four years at the outside maximum.

Step #1 - Make sure any of those pesky "militias" authorized by the constitution won't get in the way... check. (They've been sent over seas.)

So has the standing army. You don't think anyone would notice if the army was being brought back from Iraq and the reservists weren't? Also, the military is sworn to defend the Constitution, not the president. If he made such a bold move, there would be soldiers who would support him, but at least as many wouldn't.

Step #2 - Control information channels... check. (New law allows for more ownership of media outlets in major metropolitan areas.)

Hell, I don't even think Fox News would support him on that one.

Step #3 - Make people feel "lucky" to have a job and be able to support their family. This keeps them too damn busy to pay attention to you... check. (Unemployment rates drop because people don't even apply any more, or have been unemployeed so long they drop off the rolls.)

That's a myth. The unemployment rate counts unemployed persons however long they're unemployed, and is based on a monthly survey, not the number of people seeking unemployment benefits. It is true that people who have given up looking for work are no longer counted, but as you can see that is in fact a very small number of people, compared to the total number of unemployed.

Step #4 - Have your "friends" count the votes... check. (Less than one percent change can throw the election. Get electronic voting put in place and make sure there is not a paper trail.)

Even if Mr. Diebold (who I personally think is a pretty scummy character) were to try to create voting machines that skewed intentionally for a particular candidate, there is no practical way he could possibly find enough likeminded people to work for him and keep such a conspiracy quiet.

Step #5 - Remember that after the election you are still commander in chief for a few months and that "anything" could happen requiring you to call for martial law. Especially if the really bad thing kills the president elect and vice-president elect.

There is no provision in the Constitution that allows an outgoing president to delay his exit from office by declaring martial law. As for killing the pres elect and veep elect, that would quite clearly, according to the law, put the president pro temp (elect) of the Senate in as president when the changeover occurred.

There are many valid critisisms of Bush's performance as president, but there is little question that he will be out of office in a little over four years at the outside maximum.

Are you aware that the unemployment rate here in the US does not count those who's unemployment benifits ran out and who are still jobless?

Wrong.

The US Census Bureau (on behalf of the Bureau of Labor Statistics) determines the unemployment rate using a survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS). The definition of unemployed is:

1) Not currently employed.
2) Available to get a job.
3) Actively looked for work in the last 4 weeks.

There is nothing about unemployment benefits in here at all. This definition of unemployment is used around the world including Canada, Mexico, Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Economic Community. Therefore, these numbers are also good for international comparisons.

During my college days, I worked as a surveyor for the USCB at the Tucson Telephone Center. I lived and breathed the CPS for a full week every month as we tried to get through our share of 50,000 surveys. A lot of fun, lemme tell ya. :)

but

Many nations, including the United States, use both labor force survey data and administrative statistics to analyze unemployment

So there is still room for 'manipulation'

According to the US Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

The number of unemployed persons in the United States and the national unemployment rate are produced from data collected in the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of over 60,000 households. A person's unemployment status is established by responses to a series of questions on whether they have a job or are on layoff, whether they want a job and are available to work, and what they have done to look for work in the preceding 4 weeks.

According to the US Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

The number of unemployed persons in the United States and the national unemployment rate are produced from data collected in the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of over 60,000 households. A person's unemployment status is established by responses to a series of questions on whether they have a job or are on layoff, whether they want a job and are available to work, and what they have done to look for work in the preceding 4 weeks.

Slightly off topic, I suppose, but you know that the unemployment rate in Canada is currently higher (7.3% April 2004) than the US unemployment rate (5.6% April 2004), right?

And you're a Canadian citizen or have compelling reason to believe that you'll be offered a work visa (personal connections, obscure and valuable skills)?

But instead, we're paying our teachers low wages, and chipping away at our long standing scientific advantage over the rest of the world.

Teacher's wages average between $42,000 and $46,000 per year, depending on the grades taught, for nine months of work. This is in contrast to an average of $36,210 for all Americans, the vast majority of whom must work twelve months per year.

So you think that the equivalent of $59,000 per year amounts to being underpaid?

Vouchers are not the answer, as all they do is take money away from the school that need it the most, and give it to schools that are already rich enough to provide a good education.

No. Vouchers take students away from schools that cannot educate and give them to schools that can.

Any good public school system will survive a voucher program if they can educate kids better than private schools.

Washington DC's school district spends more per student than any district in the country, and their public schools are pathetic. Tell me that more money is going to help DC's schools.

(Incidentally, DC's residents are clamoring for a comprehensive voucher program to help them escape the public schools, but since Congress runs DC directly and is not beholden to their interests, it's nearly impossible to pass such a program. There's a very limited one in place now, with a waiting list years long.)

So stop whining and help out your fellow man; pay 1% more in taxes, so that poor kids can go to better schools, and lead better lives.

Sure, on one condition: that you guarantee better performance for my 1% extra in taxes. Can you do that? Could you have done that for DC?

But instead, we're paying our teachers low wages, and chipping away at our long standing scientific advantage over the rest of the world.

Teacher's wages average between $42,000 and $46,000 per year, depending on the grades taught, for nine months of work. This is in contrast to an average of $36,210 for all Americans, the vast majority of whom must work twelve months per year.

So you think that the equivalent of $59,000 per year amounts to being underpaid?

Vouchers are not the answer, as all they do is take money away from the school that need it the most, and give it to schools that are already rich enough to provide a good education.

No. Vouchers take students away from schools that cannot educate and give them to schools that can.

Any good public school system will survive a voucher program if they can educate kids better than private schools.

Washington DC's school district spends more per student than any district in the country, and their public schools are pathetic. Tell me that more money is going to help DC's schools.

(Incidentally, DC's residents are clamoring for a comprehensive voucher program to help them escape the public schools, but since Congress runs DC directly and is not beholden to their interests, it's nearly impossible to pass such a program. There's a very limited one in place now, with a waiting list years long.)

So stop whining and help out your fellow man; pay 1% more in taxes, so that poor kids can go to better schools, and lead better lives.

Sure, on one condition: that you guarantee better performance for my 1% extra in taxes. Can you do that? Could you have done that for DC?

Stare my sources?

Unemployment and non-farm payrolls: BLS

SCO employment figures: this is tertiary regarding those layed off; perhaps you'd like to read the latest 10K.

Consumer debt is a record high... well duh! Debt is a level, and any level should increase over time while the ecnomy grows and inflation is positive. You really get 100% there! The balance of payments is an accounting identity - US concumers are benefitting from cheap imports so money flows out of the country... cheaper goods and services means more can be consumed (good for the consumer) while money flowing out of the country means the US dollar becomes more competitive (falls in the value of the dollar over the past 9 months). GDP numbers for the last few quarters have been very encouraging with excellent production in goods (non-durables and durables alike) and services.

Please explain, to my naive ears, what makes a good economy. No bullshit please, list facts, not supposition.

Jobless recovery my ass

April employment stats released this morning reveal 625K new nonfarm jobs the last two months.

And with unemployment currently at 5.6%, that's lower than it's been the last 30 years, excluding the dot-com bubble 1996-2001. (You'd be hard-pressed to find an economist who would indicate that unemployment of 4.2%, as we had in 1999, is good for the economy, much less sustainable.

If your friend can't find a job, perhaps he needs to switch location, career, or both. It's quite possible there aren't a lot of open positions for Unix gurus in Southern California these days.

Jobless recovery my ass

April employment stats released this morning reveal 625K new nonfarm jobs the last two months.

And with unemployment currently at 5.6%, that's lower than it's been the last 30 years, excluding the dot-com bubble 1996-2001. (You'd be hard-pressed to find an economist who would indicate that unemployment of 4.2%, as we had in 1999, is good for the economy, much less sustainable.

If your friend can't find a job, perhaps he needs to switch location, career, or both. It's quite possible there aren't a lot of open positions for Unix gurus in Southern California these days.

We as consumers benefit from outsourcing in the form of lower prices.


Lower nominal prices, but not lower real prices.

U.S. Real weekly wages fell by 0.7% in March, the month for which data is most recently available. From a $100 check you were going to pocket for your hard work on March 1st, you only had $99.30 on April 1st. For those making $40,000 a year, that's (very roughly) $800 a week, so take $5.60 from such an American's paycheck and throw it into an economic furnace.

Sure, competitive pressures will pull down prices with time. But the average wage earner will not see these price drops for quite some time. And in the interim, their small stash of wealth keeps leaking away, with no liquid investment available on the market that can compensate via a comfortable return.

The biggest problem is something that doesn't come to mind at first. America has an aging population, consisting of many retirees who rely on fixed-income investments to keep them solvent. The 65+ segment of the population is expected to grow by 2.4% a year, more than 3 times the rate of the US population as a whole. These seniors may fall into financial trouble as their income decreases, and will serve as a severe drag on all that growth that isn't manifesting itself in terms of wages. Families will have to support their elderly and suffer reduced work hours that can easily put a kink in that productivity we're supposed to have achieved.

Sure, my kids might enjoy lower prices, but even a 25 cent item is useless if you have but a dime to spend on it.

It's really all just a matter of budgeting and not living above one's means (i.e., not lots of debt!); for instance I can live as I am now on a take-home income of $12k / year ($7,580 in 1988 dollars, for comparison) if I absolutely had to (I currently live near Detroit MI, so I'm not exactly in one of the "low cost" areas); my excess is going to pay off loans fast and build some retirement. Of course, I'm not a super-hip materialistic guy, so what do I know?

The dot-com boom it may not be, but C.S. and related fields are still looking pretty good. The 2002 wage estimates for computer and mathematical sciences make us look better-paid than most other fields. The mean anual pay for research computer scientists, programmers, and application software engineers were $80.5k, $63.7k, and $73.8k respectively. The mean for the whole occupational category is $61,630.

For comparison, the all-occupation mean is $35,560, and the only occupational categories with higher mean wages were management ($78,870) and legal occupations ($77,300). And actually, the situation is even better that it appears: In computing, the median wages were almost exactly the same as the means, while they were 10-20% lower than the means in the other fields. Which is to say that typical computing types really are getting paid those wages, they're not just skewed by a small subset that gets paid a lot more. Heck: The median programmer is making $29/hr, while the median lawyer is making $43. Making 2/3 of what lawyers make is doing pretty well, and S.W. engineers and scientists fared even better.

I know it's hard to get a job. I graduated from college in 2001, when the computing job market was worse than it is now. What I found wasn't my ideal, and it paid less than those averages (as one would expect) but still, it was work and it paid more than enough to live off of. I watched friends who are smarter than I am look longer and find less in other fields. We can be bitter about the "I.T. meltdown" and outsourcing if we want to, but we've still got it pretty good.

...Now if only they included "graduate student" as an occupation.

A lot of guys I know who recently(past 2 years) graduated with degrees in CS don't do programming work, if they even have jobs.

Anyway, if you're in the US, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has pretty much every little labor detail you could want.

Here are their stats on computer programmers. Remember, entry level means you start out at the low end, so depending upon which state and which company, figure $40,000 a year.

A lot of guys I know who recently(past 2 years) graduated with degrees in CS don't do programming work, if they even have jobs.

Anyway, if you're in the US, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has pretty much every little labor detail you could want.

Here are their stats on computer programmers. Remember, entry level means you start out at the low end, so depending upon which state and which company, figure $40,000 a year.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps this sort of data, though possibly with some significant lag time.

Try looking at: http://www.bls.gov/bls/blswage.htm.

Not saying that I agree or disagree, but I just wanted to check the validity of the information by checking the BLS, and in the Occupation Outlook section they say this for "tomorrow's jobs":

Employment in professional, scientific, and technical services will grow by 27.8 percent and add 1.9 million new jobs by 2012. Employment in computer systems design and related services will grow by 54.6 percent and add more than one-third of all new jobs in professional, scientific, and technical services. Employment growth will be driven by the increasing reliance of businesses on information technology and the continuing importance of maintaining system and network security. Management, scientific, and technical consulting services also will grow very rapidly, by 55.4 percent, spurred by the increased use of new technology and computer software and the growing complexity of business.

Most car owners do service jobs that can be wholly or partly done remotely, either from smaller regional offices, or from home. The 'cubicle farms' of US corporations are a totally senseless way of bringing employees together.

In 2001, only 36.3% of the nation's employment involved things that I feel *might* be able to be done from home or local offices. Of course, it depends quite a bit on what the job entails exactly since the list is kinda vauge on specifics. These include: Management, Business and financial operations, Architecture and engineering, Arts design entertainment sports and media, Office and administrative, support, Computer and mathematical, Life physical and social science, Legal, Healthcare support.

That leaves at least 63.7% of the American labor force that has to commute a reasonable distance each day. I'd think you're stretching the definition of "most" a bit...

Cities... actually one of the most efficient ways of living, in terms of cost to the environment per head.

Um. Considering how the density of pollution increases as you get closer to major cities, real life seems to disagree with that theory.

Each person produces an average amount of pollution, x. As the population density increases, so does the concentration of pollution. It stands to reason that the higher the concentration of pollution the more harmful to the environment as a whole. Each person consumes so much energy as electricity, fuel, food, and so forth, no matter where they live. If you live in a city you might, as an individual, consume less gasoline than a suburbanite, but consider the extra resources required for the city to even exist in the first place and it balances out.
=Smidge=

The best factual source for these numbers is directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the US Department of Labor.

Their March 2004 Report is online, as well as archives of past reports.

Do NOT rely on any "statistics" from politically motivated people or organizations such as Robert Reich, or even any Republicans. Anybody can manipulate and cherry pick numbers to make them fit their political agenda. Use the BLS numbers only!

Unfortunately since almost all documentaries seem to be created for political/social agendas or with biases, I highly doubt that my suggestion will be used. That's why I as a potential film viewer will almost never watch a documentary on current events, regardless of the position or whether I agree with it. If it doesn't have footnotes and references I can check, I don't want to be fooled into thinking something is fact when it is not.

The best factual source for these numbers is directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the US Department of Labor.

Their March 2004 Report is online, as well as archives of past reports.

Do NOT rely on any "statistics" from politically motivated people or organizations such as Robert Reich, or even any Republicans. Anybody can manipulate and cherry pick numbers to make them fit their political agenda. Use the BLS numbers only!

Unfortunately since almost all documentaries seem to be created for political/social agendas or with biases, I highly doubt that my suggestion will be used. That's why I as a potential film viewer will almost never watch a documentary on current events, regardless of the position or whether I agree with it. If it doesn't have footnotes and references I can check, I don't want to be fooled into thinking something is fact when it is not.

I remember periodically buying 45RPM singles at Woolco in 1980 for between $1.00 and $1.50. According to the bls.gov calculator that's $2.26 to $3.39 in 2004 dollars. If a single comes without DRM, I don't see what the complaint is about. If it does come with DRM, I don't know why anyone would listen to it unless they were paid a significant amount of money, since a good song with a good hook is like a drug.

Yes, the Bureau of Labor Statistics considers military personnel unemployed (see "Industry Employment")

My intermediate macroeconomics book also says military personnel are excluded from unemployment figures.