Slashdot Mirror
From 1999 To 2016, America Lost 11.4 Million People From the Workforce (washingtonpost.com)
Andrew Van Dam, writing for the Washington Post: Where did all the jobs go? Well, we're finally starting to find some satisfactory answers to the granddaddy of all economic questions. The share of Americans with jobs dropped 4.5 percentage points from 1999 to 2016 -- amounting to about 11.4 million fewer workers in 2016. At least half of that decline probably was due to an aging population. Explaining the remainder has been the inspiration for much of the economic research published after the Great Recession.
People look at employment and treat it as a measure of poverty. When that doesn't satisfy, they look at things like number of employed and the labor force participation rate. The dialogue goes in the direction of "why isn't everyone working?"
A comprehensive economic report would include income distribution, standard of living, number in poverty, number receiving aid, percent of GDP of aid disbursed, number homeless, number hungry, number in college, number retired, and so forth.
With a labor participation rate above 50%, excluding those in college and those in retirement, you've got single-adult households and multi-worker households: men and women are working. Single-adult households suggest labor force participation rate should be higher; whereas multi-worker households suggest wealth (to pay nurses, day cares, and the cost of appliances to do housework, freeing one householder to pursue a career for self-fulfillment) or poverty (to keep the household financially-solvent). Multi-adult, single-worker households tend to suggest wealth as well (non-workers can pursue non-work efforts for self-fulfillment).
This gets even more-complicated when you realize traditional family values don't describe today's world: not everyone wants kids and, while there are roughly an equal number of men and women, not every two-adult household is a male-female pairing. A single-worker lesbian household is still a woman working and a woman not-working; a single-worker gay male household is a man working and a man not-working. Which is more likely? How far does our workforce currently lean toward male workers and female non-workers? For that matter, how many households are now female-breadwinner households where the man doesn't work?
Unemployment isn't a flat descriptor of economy.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I mean, if you are on welfare and you only have shitty options for jobs I really can't blame people for staying on welfare.
It's my personal impression, as someone in the Get-Off-My-Lawn age, that there is less stigma about being unemployed these day, as way back when.
When I was growing up, if someone in my town was unemployed, it was a scandal. But now, after the Dot.Com bust, and the Sub-Prime recession, being unemployed is more of a "Hey, shit happens!" bagatelle.
During the Sub-Prime recession I saw a spot on CNN reporting that more middle-class folks were applying for Food Stamps . . . something that they would have been embarrassed to do earlier. But folks now figure, "Hey, the government is picking up the tab, and I am entitled to it!"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
What, increasing the obesity rate of the population by 33% has side effects?
There's so many variables that are poorly tracked. Some people retire willingly at 55; others are still working (willingly or otherwise) at 75. Some people quit temporarily to look after children or aging parents. Some are physically or mentally unable to work. Some go back to school or try to start their own businesses. Some work for cash in the underground economy. Then there's underemployment where people work one (or more) part-time or "gig" jobs when they would rather be working full-time. A single percentage number cannot capture everything that's going on in the workforce.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
The Welfare system unfortunately has so many crazy rules to prevent abuse, that it also creates a system which is difficult to get out.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The Welfare system unfortunately has so many crazy rules to prevent abuse, that it also creates a system which is difficult to get out.
The real question is if that's a bug or a feature. Maybe I'm a cynic but I think it's the latter.
Newt, Bill, and their cronies didn't care that the money was still being spent, they just checked the box with their 'base' and went on, enjoying the very, very, shortlived economic cycle that gave them breathing room.
Effing Republicans are lying sacks of crap when it comes to budgets. They will happily roll over for any corporate interest to explode the deficit/debt while still crying about PBS and the EPA. See for instance Dubya and Medicare Part D, an entitlement which has cost $727.3 billion and counting. Look at Trump who is doubling and tripling down on the disaster that was the Obama budget. More planes, more bombs, more ships (for Lockeed/Northrup/Boeing) more infrastructure for cronies.