No, not my personal unemployment, which is an amazing tale all of its own. No, this post is about bringing 4ECon back up to what it is in my dreams: A giant resource for all the statistics necessary to win any economic or political argument.
Since I do all of my own data mining from the most raw and reliable source on Earth, my future employer - the bureaus of the U.S. government, it will take time to develop a decent amalgam of beefy data. That's all right, though, as the wait will some day be worth it. Here's why this post does its job as yet another useful debater's tool from the 4EConglomeration:
There is a slight chance that someone, possibly an older and more disgruntled someone, will one day try to use anecdotal unemployment stories to convince you that times were better "back in my day," and "it just keeps getting worse with every generation." My parents - and for that matter, the democratic presidential candidates - have a bit of this mindset. In fact, Mrs. Clinton seems to have adopted the slogan "Put America Back to Work," which prompted me to give my TV the evil eye. So, instead of shrugging at grandpa or voting for the wrong reasons, you might want to insert some rock-hard data into that brain of yours:
Unemployment Rates, 1948-2007
Two things you must know before you take this knowledge into the nonCon world:
1. The president during any period in the above graph usually has an extremely tiny effect on the jobs situation during his reign. THE ONLY REASON I included the presidents' terms was to offer specific counterpoints to outrageous claims. For example, here's an outrageous claim I've heard more than enough over the past few years: "Since George Bush took office, Americans have been put out of work and poverty is increasing." Well, not according to reality - the decrease in unemployment under Bush's presidency is almost identical to the decrease under Clinton.
2. Full employment = 4.00% to 6.40%. In this range, it's almost impossible to have a statistically significant survey that says there are an unacceptable number of people out of work. In simple terms: If the unemployment rate is less than 5 1/2 % or so, the jobs situation is pretty damned excellent, and a very, very small percentage of people are looking for work with no luck.
So I have a question: Given that the unemployment rate is currently around 4.7%, who exactly is going to be put to work by the "Put America Back to Work" program? I can only assume that the program might involve somehow forcing me to end my "vacation" and making me shovel shit for a living, New Deal style. That's no good at all. ..If only the public knew more Rock Hard Data, misleading statements like this wouldn't be around to threaten my optimism.
Oh, and I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "Hillary Clinton meant she wanted to put people to back to work with high wages, not just those low-wage, crappy jobs created after the recession ended" ...You think I don't know what she meant?!? I know what she meant - the problem is that wages are already within a couple percentage points of their highest (inflation adjusted!) level in history, and putting people back to work with even higher wages is a nonsensical statement, as they already have the exact jobs to which they would "go back." Of course, she might have meant "cut the income tax," which would help the employment rate, but I have a feeling that's not the plan.
---
So study the graph and the data well, as you might someday need to argue with a victim of pessimism or a presidential candidate about what the 'jobs situation' really is. ...And if you ever hear someone utter the phrase, "outsourcing is destroying this country!" or something similarly employment-pessimism-related, please ask that he or she come get some Rock Hard unemployment data. If the unemployment stats don't prove the point, then the wage and income data that I'm sure to post someday will do the trick - along with a long, hearty post about the huge benefits of freer international trade. Oh, I just can't wait for these posts!
---
As always, if anybody has any doubts as to the legitimacy of my claims or my statistics, or if anyone can think of some point of argument that I've missed, please bring your concerns to light in the comment area so I can completely discredit and crush them with badassery.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Rock Hard Unemployment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The county in which I live (Campbell County) has an unemployment rate of 2.2%. The oil/gas/mining industries have a large percentage of the 'good' jobs, so naturally the service sector is left with an worker pool generally composed of retarded idiots mixed in with high school kids working part time, some of which are reasonably competent, but ultimately those kids will graduate and take the 'good' jobs or go off into the world somewhere.
Anyway, having a large pool of jobs to choose from appears to be excellent if you a) are unemployed and would like to not be unemployed, or b) hate your job and you'd like to have a different one, say, tomorrow. It sucks when you would like to have good service at a restaurant, or would like to pay a reasonable price for a service rather than pay ungodly amounts of extra money just so that the business in question can pay its employees high enough wages to have enough employees to have a business. Case in point--Stacks took my car in to get an oil change and tire rotation about six weeks ago and it cost about twice what said services would cost in a "normal" place.
In any case, I suspect Mrs. Clinton's slogan is aimed at wooing the people of the great state of Michigan (where the Campbell County Economic Development Corporation holds big ol' job fairs) and other locales which have locally high unemployment rates. It is probably also geared toward morons who think that zero percent unemployment is a good idea, as taking advantage of dumb people has been a common campaign strategy for quite some time.
Regardless of whether a president has any effect on unemployment rates during his presidency, I must say--I like Ike.
That's kinda funny - It seems like, in Gillete, it's hard to be a business owner and hard to be a customer, but not hard to be an employee.
Based on this, I'd be willing to bet that the birth rate in Campbell County is higher than the national average. I'm guessing the high school dropout rates are higher, too.
In fact, now I'm really curious. Gretchen, if you have the means - since you have more geographic info than I about your area - and the time, be a pally and snoop around for me - or for us, the Conglomerate, I mean...
I could just Google it, but I'd feel guilty about answering my own claim before I even finish this comment...
Google standards might be sided one way or another, so I think it's smart to do both - look at what the G-Unit can offer, and then do some 'remote' research, and see how close the socio-economic standards of data for Campbell County actually compare.
...just a suggestion from a 'Conglomerate' member...
I did partake in a bit o' snooping on various government websites and found the following:
The birth rate in Campbell County is indeed higher than the national average (16.1 vs 14.0 for 2004, the most recent year with official data from the Wyoming Department of Health. The 2005 and 2006 estimates are both 16.8 and 14.1) and has been increasing since 2000, which is roughly when the local economic boom began.
The high school graduation rate (I looked at graduation rates because the U.S. Department of Education makes it a pain in the ass to compare apples to apples in terms of how much we suck) is higher than the national average (81.6% vs. 75.0% in 2005, the latest year with official data). I suspect this has something to do with the amount of money that is pumped into the school system here--something I did not mention in my earlier comment. I think first-year teachers start at $44,000 or so. The school facilities are quite fancy (the high school has a marble staircase so the kiddies can have a prom procession and the junior high has a freakin' planetarium attached to it), there are a shitload of advanced classes for the smarty kids, and the sports teams all constantly destroy their opponents and win lots of championships. Did I mention that several of the elementary schools still have merry-go-rounds? Anyway, I don't have much first-hand experience with the schools, but I hear they're doing something right.
It took a bit of digging beyond Google to get some numbers, by the way. It's been a while since I went rummaging for statistics on government websites. What a refreshing little joy that was (seriously). I suppose I could make some graphs with some trends or something, but that would require me to copy and paste more things than I really want to at this hour.
That was excellent.
I gotta agree, mining for stats is kinda fun... Although I pretty much never use Google, it's always bls.gov, bea.gov or census.gov. I just can't get enough of the gov.
So I was slightly correct about the birth rates, but didn't nail the graduation rates. I like your reasoning, though - that it might be overcome by funding. I think I'd be less willing to drop out if I could tell my future employers the high school that gave me a degree had a marble staircase (metaphorically and literally).
I'm actually surprised that schools and employment opportunities up there are so good - for no reason, of course. I've just always assumed the innards of the country were less fantastic than the edges.
I can't believe I just said that. It's funny, because I just realized that I really do assume proximity to the "edge" of the country leads to better living... That's silly...
Anyways, the graduation rates should correlate somewhat positively with high birth rates, I'm thinking now. The basic premise for my initial statement was that low unemployment => high birth rates, and the nature of employment leads to high dropout rates. I think I should have concluded that low unemployment, regardless of the nature of the work, should lead to higher birth rates AND better grad rates, due to the type (income and status) of people retained by the county's businesses...
So it depends on the "type" of people up there...
And that's why I recruited you, Gretchen, and you came through like a pro - I think the planetarium answers the question pretty firmly.
I owe you one (1) data with one (1) data interpretation. These are redeemable any time, not valid with any other numerical offer.
By edges do you mean coastlines or borders? Because I must say that El Paso does not bring to mind an image of better living. Neither does anything on the Canadian border because it's just too damn cold. Or those trailer parks in Florida near the coasts that constantly get destroyed by hurricanes and tornadoes.
Anyway, the employment opportunities up here are fueled mostly by the development of various minerals (and vitamins too--we have a huge Vitamin B12 Complex). There are similar places sprinkled across the map but you never really hear much about them.
I'll be taking you up on that data with interpretation one of these days. But not today, because it will have to be more of a surprise. You'll know when there is a picture on my blog that has "BAM!" written in red letters across it.
Post a Comment