4 ms·

Great! What was most evil about the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush era was the sociological contraction (reduction in good, stable, career-building jobs; mounting he

Great! What was most evil about the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush era was the sociological contraction (reduction in good, stable, career-building jobs; mounting health and education costs; solidifying class barriers) that persisted in spite of impressive economic expansion. This was exemplified most poignantly by the 2000s "expansion", wherein job growth at its best was barely keeping up with the country's population increase, and salaries were stagnant except in a few industries. The average American has been in the damn recession for a long time, but now it's something deeper and it's being noticed because of its effect on "important people". Consumer credit allowed this arrangement of economic-expansion-despite-social-contraction to continue, to the benefit of those riding (note my word choice) large corporations. People were getting poorer, less likely to find good jobs and less able to buy healthcare and higher education, but they could use a slab of plastic to buy trinkets, and this kept the consumer economy afloat, and the people in charge rich (and increasingly so). The consumer credit rewind's bringing this arrangement to an end. This is beautiful. To those hard-working, saving Americans, keep it up!

yummyfajitas 18y ago
Comparing job growth to population is a really poor measure. What you are measuring is (on the books jobs) / (estimated population). An illegal immigrant contributes to the denominator (perhaps fractionally, depending on how accurate the census is), but not the numerator if his job is off the books. Jobs/people fails to account for demographic change. We are getting older, and old people work less. Our bubbleicious prosperity also allowed women to stay home if they wanted. Unemployment is a much better measure; unemployment is (# of job seekers) / (# of workers + # of job seekers). It excludes people who no longer want to work from the denominator, which counting the population does not. I don't know if/how it addresses illegal immigration, however.
- whatusername 18y ago
  it does exclude the # of people who give up looking for jobs though.
- mattmcknight 18y ago
  Unemployment can be a misleading measure. The number of job seekers is not a particularly meaningful measure, nor is it accurately measured. It's much better to look at how many workers are supporting the population of the country. The proportion paying taxes is getting to be less than half. Anyone not paying taxes doesn't count.
- time_management 18y ago
  Unemployment is a poor measure, because it doesn't count workers who no longer qualify for unemployment, discouraged workers, people in prison, or those forced into part-time or marginal labor because of being unable to find full-time work with decent pay and benefits. The illegal immigrants would fall into the last of those categories. By the way, if all the other categories are included, we're comparable to the EU countries. The claim that those countries have horrific unemployment compared to us is false. Comparing job growth and population growth in raw numbers is not a valid comparison, but comparing the percentage changes is reasonable. Population grows by about 1.3% per year, so job growth ought to be at about the same rate for the long-term health of the economy.

yummyfajitas 18y ago

Comparing job growth to population is a really poor measure. What you are measuring is (on the books jobs) / (estimated population). An illegal immigrant contributes to the denominator (perhaps fractionally, depending on how accurate the census is), but not the numerator if his job is off the books. Jobs/people fails to account for demographic change. We are getting older, and old people work less. Our bubbleicious prosperity also allowed women to stay home if they wanted. Unemployment is a much better measure; unemployment is (# of job seekers) / (# of workers + # of job seekers). It excludes people who no longer want to work from the denominator, which counting the population does not. I don't know if/how it addresses illegal immigration, however.

whatusername 18y ago
it does exclude the # of people who give up looking for jobs though.
mattmcknight 18y ago
Unemployment can be a misleading measure. The number of job seekers is not a particularly meaningful measure, nor is it accurately measured. It's much better to look at how many workers are supporting the population of the country. The proportion paying taxes is getting to be less than half. Anyone not paying taxes doesn't count.
time_management 18y ago
Unemployment is a poor measure, because it doesn't count workers who no longer qualify for unemployment, discouraged workers, people in prison, or those forced into part-time or marginal labor because of being unable to find full-time work with decent pay and benefits. The illegal immigrants would fall into the last of those categories. By the way, if all the other categories are included, we're comparable to the EU countries. The claim that those countries have horrific unemployment compared to us is false. Comparing job growth and population growth in raw numbers is not a valid comparison, but comparing the percentage changes is reasonable. Population grows by about 1.3% per year, so job growth ought to be at about the same rate for the long-term health of the economy.