11 ms·

The economic and demographic points seem to lack perspective in some places and in others are downright conflicting. Take the evidence cited about how NEETs ma

The economic and demographic points seem to lack perspective in some places and in others are downright conflicting. Take the evidence cited about how NEETs make up 10% of young people. However, the report itself offers one explanation for the numbers. "More than two-thirds of NEETs, in particular young women, are not actively looking for work. The NEET gender gap is larger in Japan than in most other OECD countries as many women in their late 20s withdraw from the labour force to care for children." People leaving the workforce to pursue homemaking and childrearing shouldn't be a societal problem if it's done voluntarily. On the other hand, in the US, unemployment among 16-19 y/o's is around 14% and among 20-24 y/o's is around 7%. These populations are actively seeking work and unable to obtain it (and not homemaking), meaning that the number of "American NEETs" is likely higher than these numbers. The author seems to suggest that the US is downstream from Japan and that the epidemic of NEET-ism will only get worse, but if the current numbers are any indication, America's NEET problem is far worse than Japan's. But the differences in unemployment between the two countries seem to be something more systemic. The total unemployment rate in the US has been roughly double Japan's for the past decade. And of course, it is natural that younger populations are hit harder by scarcity of jobs because most of them have little work experience. The author seems to suggest that shifting cultural trends are causing younger people to increasingly choose a life of unemployment. But past generations have had this same class of youth, be it the beatniks of the 60s, hippies of the 70s, or "Jay and Silent Bob" suburbanites of the 80s and 90s. The primary shift is in how this class is presenting itself culturally. Many of these people are simply embracing a lifestyle of joblessness to feel content in the lack of opportunity being presented. The author cites a lack of human labor as a source of Japan's societal woes, but this is a leading contributor to why the country has what the author calls an "envious" 2.5% unemployment rate. Importing labor en masse from the third world will inevitably limit opportunities for citizens, especially young adults who will be competing for entry level jobs. Furthermore, lower class wages decline, increasing income disparity. The data supports this, Japan has a significantly lower Gini-coefficient (37.9) than the US (47.0). Indeed, keeping migration into the country low is not a source of problems, but instead giving Japan the upper hand on important measures of economic well being.

true_religion 8y ago
NEET is not synonymous with unemployed. It includes people who aren't in education or training as well. So comparing with the unemployed group in America, isn't a proper parallel. You would need to compare to people who are both unemployed and also not in school. Hence the unemployment number of 16-19 year old versus NEETS, would be very skewed as most of those people on those age in the US are legally required to be attending school thus can't be NEETs.
- tossaway1 8y ago
  Unemployment numbers in the US don't include students.
  - dismantlethesun 8y ago
    The US unemployment rate includes students, so long as they were seeking work at for at least one season of the year. If you look at it on a month-to-month basis, it is seasonally adjusted, as students typically seek work during the summer [1]. If you look at it, the unemployment rate for 16 year old's is incredibly high---at ~16% [2]. These people like OP said, are nearly universally in schooling and would not be counted as NEETs. I can't say though how the NEET score is calculated in Japan. If it is so strict as to only include people who have never held a job, education, or training of any kind during the year then it can't be compared to any unemployment statistic as those would typically drop someone if they worked once or gave up. Either ways, comparing it is bad---which is what the grand-poster is getting at, so I think we all agree. [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm [2] https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm
- emodendroket 8y ago
  Unemployment rates only include people actively seeking work (actually, this is a common criticism of the figures, since they don't include people who've just given up).
cinquemb 8y ago
I think this article is just really trying string together anecdotes to fit a narrative that kind of glamorizes the incentives most people are facing now in the economy. I find the analysis here much better[0]: wrt Japan: "For all its tortured economic history since 1989, Japan has never really had an unemployment problem. Going by its unemployment rate alone, conditions don’t ever appear to be all that out of line. At its worst, in both the dot-com recession as well as Japan’s experience during the Great “Recession”, the highest it ever got was 5.5%. That’s more than it ever was during the country’s immediate postwar history, but nothing that betrays permanent depression." "But a comprehensive review of its labor market story gives us an entirely different sense than what comes out of the unemployment rate. Though many Economists claim that Japan’s are demographic problems, there is no doubt that those followed its monetary disintegration. If the Japanese are intent on committing demographic suicide, there’s a macroeconomic reason behind it, not the other way around." wrt US: "According to the latest figures, the unemployment rate in the US is now down to 3.9%. The reason it crossed the 4% line in April was perfect. Not in the manner of what a 3.9% unemployment should indicate, rather it was all the wrong things that expose the unemployment rate for what it is – meaningless." "The primary reason for its drop was another monthly subtraction from the labor force. Down for a second month in a row, in April by 236k, the HH Survey managed to increase by all of 3k. The result: a perfectly representative decline to 3.9%." "There are those who will claim that’s just the labor shortage getting worse. Companies are, according to much of the mainstream media, often desperate for workers. At some point, if the shortage was so bad and so obdurate as to be beyond all capability to correct, then we might expect the pace of hiring to slow. The labor force would languish behind, which many Economists are desperate to attribute to opioids and retirees." "The problem with that line of thinking is March 2017. For fourteen months now, the unemployment rate has been below even the much-reduced Federal Reserve lower bound for the economy’s central tendency at full employment. That’s fourteen months where labor pressures are building at this extreme. For a labor shortage of that degree (never mind it’s been talked about constantly for three years), a year and two months is an eternity. Even if businesses can’t find enough workers, they would paying through the nose for ones they can." "And yet, no wage acceleration can be found anywhere. As detailed yesterday, we find more often than not the opposite indication in some of the more comprehensive data. Inside the payroll report, average weekly earnings continue to be depressed just as they have since 2008. The chart above actually overstates the condition of the labor market to a considerable extent, which explains the chart below." "There is actually very little employment growth. That’s not what you hear in the media, the constant touting of monthly 200k gains or 2mm jobs per year as if either are good numbers. They aren’t, and in fact are very far from being good. Last year was one of the worst years in the US labor market in some time. That plus continuously depressed wage/income growth (why would businesses actually pay more, the stupidity of the labor shortage narrative aside?), there is no reason or incentive for the labor force to expand." Now the similarities: "The unemployment rate, therefore, has problems not just in its denominator (participation) but also its numerator. While labor force growth is practically nothing, employment growth is only a little more than nothing. Historically speaking, like Japan the US labor market came to a screeching halt and never recovered. The unemployment rate descends only because that small, relatively minor improvement over the bottom. Neither are actually keeping up with population growth, which itself has slowed. The result is that a 3.9% unemployment rate is nothing like the one from the year 2000. It is, however, pretty comparable to the low Japanese unemployment rate in how little it describes of the labor market." No need to worry about any of this in the US though, there are %3 down payment, no income requirements[1] for you to get house, so freddiemac can bundle up these "assets" and "securitize" them… that should keep this economic situation kicking longer :D [0] http://www.alhambrapartners.com/2018/05/04/three-point-nine-still-no-boundary-for-sanity/ http://www.alhambrapartners.com/2018/05/04/three-point-nine-... [1] http://www.freddiemac.com/singlefamily/factsheets/sell/pdf/homeone.pdf http://www.freddiemac.com/singlefamily/factsheets/sell/pdf/h...

true_religion 8y ago

NEET is not synonymous with unemployed. It includes people who aren't in education or training as well. So comparing with the unemployed group in America, isn't a proper parallel. You would need to compare to people who are both unemployed and also not in school. Hence the unemployment number of 16-19 year old versus NEETS, would be very skewed as most of those people on those age in the US are legally required to be attending school thus can't be NEETs.

tossaway1 8y ago
Unemployment numbers in the US don't include students.
- dismantlethesun 8y ago
  The US unemployment rate includes students, so long as they were seeking work at for at least one season of the year. If you look at it on a month-to-month basis, it is seasonally adjusted, as students typically seek work during the summer [1]. If you look at it, the unemployment rate for 16 year old's is incredibly high---at ~16% [2]. These people like OP said, are nearly universally in schooling and would not be counted as NEETs. I can't say though how the NEET score is calculated in Japan. If it is so strict as to only include people who have never held a job, education, or training of any kind during the year then it can't be compared to any unemployment statistic as those would typically drop someone if they worked once or gave up. Either ways, comparing it is bad---which is what the grand-poster is getting at, so I think we all agree. [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm [2] https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm
emodendroket 8y ago
Unemployment rates only include people actively seeking work (actually, this is a common criticism of the figures, since they don't include people who've just given up).

cinquemb 8y ago

I think this article is just really trying string together anecdotes to fit a narrative that kind of glamorizes the incentives most people are facing now in the economy. I find the analysis here much better[0]: wrt Japan: "For all its tortured economic history since 1989, Japan has never really had an unemployment problem. Going by its unemployment rate alone, conditions don’t ever appear to be all that out of line. At its worst, in both the dot-com recession as well as Japan’s experience during the Great “Recession”, the highest it ever got was 5.5%. That’s more than it ever was during the country’s immediate postwar history, but nothing that betrays permanent depression." "But a comprehensive review of its labor market story gives us an entirely different sense than what comes out of the unemployment rate. Though many Economists claim that Japan’s are demographic problems, there is no doubt that those followed its monetary disintegration. If the Japanese are intent on committing demographic suicide, there’s a macroeconomic reason behind it, not the other way around." wrt US: "According to the latest figures, the unemployment rate in the US is now down to 3.9%. The reason it crossed the 4% line in April was perfect. Not in the manner of what a 3.9% unemployment should indicate, rather it was all the wrong things that expose the unemployment rate for what it is – meaningless." "The primary reason for its drop was another monthly subtraction from the labor force. Down for a second month in a row, in April by 236k, the HH Survey managed to increase by all of 3k. The result: a perfectly representative decline to 3.9%." "There are those who will claim that’s just the labor shortage getting worse. Companies are, according to much of the mainstream media, often desperate for workers. At some point, if the shortage was so bad and so obdurate as to be beyond all capability to correct, then we might expect the pace of hiring to slow. The labor force would languish behind, which many Economists are desperate to attribute to opioids and retirees." "The problem with that line of thinking is March 2017. For fourteen months now, the unemployment rate has been below even the much-reduced Federal Reserve lower bound for the economy’s central tendency at full employment. That’s fourteen months where labor pressures are building at this extreme. For a labor shortage of that degree (never mind it’s been talked about constantly for three years), a year and two months is an eternity. Even if businesses can’t find enough workers, they would paying through the nose for ones they can." "And yet, no wage acceleration can be found anywhere. As detailed yesterday, we find more often than not the opposite indication in some of the more comprehensive data. Inside the payroll report, average weekly earnings continue to be depressed just as they have since 2008. The chart above actually overstates the condition of the labor market to a considerable extent, which explains the chart below." "There is actually very little employment growth. That’s not what you hear in the media, the constant touting of monthly 200k gains or 2mm jobs per year as if either are good numbers. They aren’t, and in fact are very far from being good. Last year was one of the worst years in the US labor market in some time. That plus continuously depressed wage/income growth (why would businesses actually pay more, the stupidity of the labor shortage narrative aside?), there is no reason or incentive for the labor force to expand." Now the similarities: "The unemployment rate, therefore, has problems not just in its denominator (participation) but also its numerator. While labor force growth is practically nothing, employment growth is only a little more than nothing. Historically speaking, like Japan the US labor market came to a screeching halt and never recovered. The unemployment rate descends only because that small, relatively minor improvement over the bottom. Neither are actually keeping up with population growth, which itself has slowed. The result is that a 3.9% unemployment rate is nothing like the one from the year 2000. It is, however, pretty comparable to the low Japanese unemployment rate in how little it describes of the labor market." No need to worry about any of this in the US though, there are %3 down payment, no income requirements[1] for you to get house, so freddiemac can bundle up these "assets" and "securitize" them… that should keep this economic situation kicking longer :D [0] http://www.alhambrapartners.com/2018/05/04/three-point-nine-still-no-boundary-for-sanity/ http://www.alhambrapartners.com/2018/05/04/three-point-nine-... [1] http://www.freddiemac.com/singlefamily/factsheets/sell/pdf/homeone.pdf http://www.freddiemac.com/singlefamily/factsheets/sell/pdf/h...