Showing posts with label Jobs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jobs. Show all posts

Thursday, January 12, 2017

96 Million Americans Are Looking For a Job




The real number is around 5.1 million, but what does that mean anymore?

Donald Trump’s first press conference as president-elect will be best-remembered for his jeering at the press and vague dismissals of financial and ethical impropriety. But buried inside the taunting and dissembling was a Trump moment that stands out as a kind of microcosmic footnote—subtle yet representative of his ability to scramble the news cycle with simple falsehoods.

“Right now, there are 96 million [people] wanting a job and they can't get [one],” he said. “You know that story. The real number. That's the real number."

No. That’s not “the real number.”

This is a perfect example of the effect Trump will have on any policy debate he seizes. He takes a fraught yet critical topic—American work, lack of the work, and the way the U.S. government addresses both—reduces it to a bizarro sound bite that bears no relationship to reality, and bends the political and policy conversation toward his dramatic warping of the truth, all without offering a substantive plan to address even the moderate version of his apocalyptic proclamations.

Trump didn’t pull this particular figure out of thin air. There are 96 million Americans over the age of 16 who are not in the labor force. But “not in the labor force” does not mean they want a job and can’t get one. In fact, it means something quite different: that they are neither working nor looking for work.

To use this number as a data point about unemployment is absurd. Most of these 96 million people are retired. Most of the rest are stay-at-home parents and students. To say that 96 million people “want a job and can’t get one” is to argue that a 90-year-old grandfather at a nursing home is struggling to find a suitable job. Is Trump hoping grandpa gets back on his feet and starts realizing his latent labor potential? If not, don’t call him unemployed! If yes, we have deeper issues.

I don’t want to give the impression that unemployment is a cut-and-dry issue just because Trump’s mistake is cut-and-dry. As CNBC's Steve Liesman wrote, the real number is closer to the 5.4 million Americans who say they want a job but aren't working. Liesman is technically right. That is the official figure. But determining the “real” unemployment rate is not like measuring the pressure of a gas in a beaker. It’s a measurement inflected with mutable values and arbitrary definitions.

The Trump Regime has a whole host of Baghdad Bobs on the payroll. Their job is to appear on television, repeat lies, and pretend they are hurt when someone points out that they are lying.













Tuesday, April 5, 2016

The New Republic is Hiring

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="800.0"]  via Gawker  via Gawker [/caption]


Are you looking for a gig handling the Twitter account of a media empire that has seen better days? The New Republic is going to be hiring, soon...

Friday, April 1, 2016

Fewer and Fewer Bums Out There




Thanks to President Obama, there are fewer bums out there:

The rest of the world economy and Wall Street may have been shaky, but American employers were full steam ahead in March, adding a stronger-than-expected 215,000 jobs, according to new figures Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Average hourly wages rose 0.3 percent, up from the 0.1 percent registered in February. However, the unemployment rate edged up to 5 percent, a slight bump from 4.9 percent a month ago. So far this year, average monthly job gain have averaged out at 209,000.

Now, there may be an uptick of hobos, but that simply means that Obamacare has given them the option of spending the summer on the lam from all the railroad dicks out there because they know that if they take a truncheon to the throat, they can spend a month in County Hospital eating that spread.

I used to think I would end up sleeping under a bridge, using the railroad tracks as a sidewalk. What happened to my dream? How did I end up respectable and bathed?

 

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Would You Pay More if Amazon Hired Union Workers?




Whenever anything related to Amazon comes up, I feel like commenting on it after I tell you that:

1. I publish crappy short stories on Amazon as a wannabe author

2. I use Amazon extensively to entertain the family

3. I buy things cheap from Amazon on a regular basis

Having said that, would I pay more if Amazon hired union workers?

Absolutely. I would pay more. And so, adding 1,000 jobs to Baltimore's work force will improve the lives of a lot of people even if these jobs aren't union jobs (don't laugh because this is not Germany and nobody forms a union here and survives). You'd have to be a braying jackass to make it about yourself and bemoan 1,000 jobs in the economically depressed Southeastern part of Baltimore. Whatever they are going to pay those folks just isn't enough, but at least it is something.

If someone were to stumble across this crappy blog, they would know one thing--Amazon's stuff is dirt cheap because they don't pay their people enough. If they charged just a little more for their stuff, I would still buy things from Amazon.

Really, this isn't hard to understand.