4 ms·

I'm old and generally pessimistic. But I've seen enough recessions to know that when you've read the seventeenth article about the never-ending bottom (as I did

by ojbyrne 17y ago

I'm old and generally pessimistic. But I've seen enough recessions to know that when you've read the seventeenth article about the never-ending bottom (as I did during the reagan era, during the early 90s when Germany and Japan were going to destroy the US economy, and post dotcom collapse), I can't help but think it's time that the pundits will all be contradicted on the upside. Just like they were on the downside. Nations that have demographics and immigration policies that promote population growth are going to succeed comparatively over the next 20 years. The US isn't at the top of the heap there, but its close.

gamble 17y ago
This too will pass. On the other hand, for certain groups the last thirty to forty years have been a long, slow slide from the top of the economic heap to the bottom. Specifically, conditions for white men without college degrees have gone from great to exceedingly poor. It's had an enormous, perhaps defining impact on modern politics, and will continue to be one of the most important influences in the future.
- ojbyrne 17y ago
  My initial reaction to your comment is that specifically, conditions for white women with college degrees have gone from exceedingly poor to not too bad. Just saying.
  - dschobel 17y ago
    The Economist ran a cover story on precisely this phenomenon a few weeks back: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15174489 http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1...
    - ojbyrne 17y ago
      Which is my point. The perception of "really bad times" is at least somewhat driven by the fact that a few older white males perceive that their cohort is doomed.
  - gamble 17y ago
    Conditions for almost everyone who's not a working-class white man have improved. But it doesn't change the fact that there is a large group of people who have done very poorly and tend to vote for people who pander to their grievances. The fact that the economic crisis made things markedly worse for these people doesn't bode well for politics in the next few years, if history is any guide.
    - ojbyrne 17y ago
      In statistics, they generally use the phrase "regression to the mean."
natrius 17y ago
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/21/business/21unemployed_graphic2/21unemployed_graphic2-articleInline.jpg http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/21/business/21un... There's still a good chance that you're right, but that chance is much smaller than it would've been had you said the same thing in the 80's.
- ATB 17y ago
  According to that graphic, the previous highest peak of long-term unemployed in the US was in the early 1980s, with around 3m unemployed. The current high peak in 2010, which looks like it may be decreasing now, is just over 6m. According to the US census, the number of people living in the US at that point was in the low 200ish million, maybe ~230m. As of right now, in early 2010, it's somewhere around 305-310 million. That number includes a lot of baby boomers (70+ million people, born between 1943 and 1960) who are getting very close to retirement age, especially those whose age and skill set make them unattractive to hire. Taking into account the nearly 50% increase in US population and the rapid ageing of 70+ million people, many of whom possess skills that aren't necessarily well-suited to the information economy, the chart isn't all that shocking.
- kls 17y ago
  right it is a different world now, the 80's had a technical revolution to pull them up where as today there is nothing revolutionary in sight. Nothing that somone is saying holy crap that is going to change the world, no automobile, no plane, no personal computer. Currently we only have evolutionary stuff like shrinking a computer down to a phone, etc. Something will come along but right now it's looking a lot more like the 70's than it is the 80's personally I think a lost decade is at hand unless something comes out of left field.
100k 17y ago
The point of the article is more that an entire generation is going to be scarred by this recession. The author cites research showing that people who enter the workforce during a recession never catch up the lost wages. They always lag behind their more fortunate peers.
- ojbyrne 17y ago
  Uh, duh. I graduated in 1983, the peak of Reaganism/Thatcherism. Life is long, and over the 40 years of a typical career, if you work your ass off, and get a little bit of luck, things balance out. You end up making a little bit less than the people who graduated two years later, and a lot more than the people who don't work as hard.
exit 17y ago
growth growth growth. what do we do when population growth is no longer sustainable?
gaius 17y ago
immigration policies that promote population growth It's more subtle than that, and to a certain extent it's zero-sum. Countries compete to attract skilled immigrants, and there is a finite supply of doctors, engineers etc willing to relocate per year. As we see in the UK there is a much larger supply of people who simply shop around for the best welfare then claim "asylum". The brutal truth is that it's in no country's best interest to admit people who are unable or simply unwilling to contribute to their economy.
- marshallp 17y ago
  I find this 'welfare scrounger' outrage coming from britain laughable. Britain has the least generous welfare system of any rich european country, yet you get the most compaints from there.
  - gaius 17y ago
    It's because we're the most accomodating. Seriously, try speaking to the Swedish or French government in anything other than the national language. Only the UK will automatically hire a translator. Generous welfare is no use if you can't claim it. That's the secret of most European countries. Why do you think all those people already in a safe country, France, are trying to get from Sangatte to Dover? It's not "asylum" once you're already safe!
  - glymor 17y ago
    France/Germany restricted entrance from the enlarged EU; whereas upper estimates of 500,000 new migrants entered the UK. From an economic perspective the backlash has been undeserved: broad agreement that immigration is likely to have reduced the natural rate of unemployment ... By 2006Q3, only 353/2328 applications for income support; 859/5154 applications for incoming based jobseekers allowance; ("The Impact of the Recent Migration from Eastern Europe on the UK Economy" Monetary Policy Committee, Bank of England.)
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- tjgabbour 17y ago
ippisl 17y ago
isn't the need for population growth decline with the rapid rise in productivity and automation, and at some point population growth becomes a liability?

by ojbyrne 17y ago

gamble 17y ago

This too will pass. On the other hand, for certain groups the last thirty to forty years have been a long, slow slide from the top of the economic heap to the bottom. Specifically, conditions for white men without college degrees have gone from great to exceedingly poor. It's had an enormous, perhaps defining impact on modern politics, and will continue to be one of the most important influences in the future.

ojbyrne 17y ago
My initial reaction to your comment is that specifically, conditions for white women with college degrees have gone from exceedingly poor to not too bad. Just saying.
- dschobel 17y ago
  The Economist ran a cover story on precisely this phenomenon a few weeks back: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15174489 http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1...
  - ojbyrne 17y ago
    Which is my point. The perception of "really bad times" is at least somewhat driven by the fact that a few older white males perceive that their cohort is doomed.
- gamble 17y ago
  Conditions for almost everyone who's not a working-class white man have improved. But it doesn't change the fact that there is a large group of people who have done very poorly and tend to vote for people who pander to their grievances. The fact that the economic crisis made things markedly worse for these people doesn't bode well for politics in the next few years, if history is any guide.
  - ojbyrne 17y ago
    In statistics, they generally use the phrase "regression to the mean."

natrius 17y ago

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/21/business/21unemployed_graphic2/21unemployed_graphic2-articleInline.jpg http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/21/business/21un... There's still a good chance that you're right, but that chance is much smaller than it would've been had you said the same thing in the 80's.

ATB 17y ago
According to that graphic, the previous highest peak of long-term unemployed in the US was in the early 1980s, with around 3m unemployed. The current high peak in 2010, which looks like it may be decreasing now, is just over 6m. According to the US census, the number of people living in the US at that point was in the low 200ish million, maybe ~230m. As of right now, in early 2010, it's somewhere around 305-310 million. That number includes a lot of baby boomers (70+ million people, born between 1943 and 1960) who are getting very close to retirement age, especially those whose age and skill set make them unattractive to hire. Taking into account the nearly 50% increase in US population and the rapid ageing of 70+ million people, many of whom possess skills that aren't necessarily well-suited to the information economy, the chart isn't all that shocking.
kls 17y ago
right it is a different world now, the 80's had a technical revolution to pull them up where as today there is nothing revolutionary in sight. Nothing that somone is saying holy crap that is going to change the world, no automobile, no plane, no personal computer. Currently we only have evolutionary stuff like shrinking a computer down to a phone, etc. Something will come along but right now it's looking a lot more like the 70's than it is the 80's personally I think a lost decade is at hand unless something comes out of left field.

100k 17y ago

The point of the article is more that an entire generation is going to be scarred by this recession. The author cites research showing that people who enter the workforce during a recession never catch up the lost wages. They always lag behind their more fortunate peers.

ojbyrne 17y ago
Uh, duh. I graduated in 1983, the peak of Reaganism/Thatcherism. Life is long, and over the 40 years of a typical career, if you work your ass off, and get a little bit of luck, things balance out. You end up making a little bit less than the people who graduated two years later, and a lot more than the people who don't work as hard.

exit 17y ago

growth growth growth. what do we do when population growth is no longer sustainable?

gaius 17y ago

immigration policies that promote population growth It's more subtle than that, and to a certain extent it's zero-sum. Countries compete to attract skilled immigrants, and there is a finite supply of doctors, engineers etc willing to relocate per year. As we see in the UK there is a much larger supply of people who simply shop around for the best welfare then claim "asylum". The brutal truth is that it's in no country's best interest to admit people who are unable or simply unwilling to contribute to their economy.

marshallp 17y ago
I find this 'welfare scrounger' outrage coming from britain laughable. Britain has the least generous welfare system of any rich european country, yet you get the most compaints from there.
- gaius 17y ago
  It's because we're the most accomodating. Seriously, try speaking to the Swedish or French government in anything other than the national language. Only the UK will automatically hire a translator. Generous welfare is no use if you can't claim it. That's the secret of most European countries. Why do you think all those people already in a safe country, France, are trying to get from Sangatte to Dover? It's not "asylum" once you're already safe!
- glymor 17y ago
  France/Germany restricted entrance from the enlarged EU; whereas upper estimates of 500,000 new migrants entered the UK. From an economic perspective the backlash has been undeserved: broad agreement that immigration is likely to have reduced the natural rate of unemployment ... By 2006Q3, only 353/2328 applications for income support; 859/5154 applications for incoming based jobseekers allowance; ("The Impact of the Recent Migration from Eastern Europe on the UK Economy" Monetary Policy Committee, Bank of England.)
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
tjgabbour 17y ago

ippisl 17y ago

isn't the need for population growth decline with the rapid rise in productivity and automation, and at some point population growth becomes a liability?