Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I thought Dakka would enjoy this Wall Street Journal post about the employment rate.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304441304579477341062142388

Here is the key quote....

What's going on? Think of the labor market as a spring bash you've been throwing with great success for many years. You've sent out the invitations again, but this time the response is much less enthusiastic than at the same point in previous years.

One possibility is that you just need to beat the bushes more, using reminders of past fun as "stimulus" to get people's attention. Another possibility is that interest has shifted away from your big party to other activities.

Economists are sorting out which of these scenarios best explains the slack numbers on labor-force participation—and offers the best hope of reversing them. Is the problem cyclical, so that, if we push for faster growth, workers will come back, as they have in the past with upturns in the business cycle? Or do deeper structural problems in the economy have to be fixed before we can expect any real progress? To the extent that problems are related to retirement or work disincentives that are either hard to change or created by policy, familiar monetary or fiscal policies may have little effect—a point getting too little attention in Washington.

and

Baby boomers can't be the whole story, though, since the participation rate has declined for younger workers too. This part of the drop is a function of various factors, including simple discouragement, poor work incentives created by public policies, inadequate schooling and training, and a greater propensity to seek disability insurance. Globalization and technological change have also reduced employment and wage growth for low-skilled workers—which raises questions about whether current policy is focused enough on helping workers to achieve the skills necessary to work productively and earn decent incomes.

So why would Dakka like this? Because it is a really massive "Blame the Victim" moment. There is nothing Dakka likes better.

For my money, I think the Structural problems are accurate. Automation and Outsourcing means there are simply less jobs to go around unless you have a <Cue Liam Neeson> "very special set of skills". Therefore, the work disincentivisation isn't that people don't want to work, they can't get jobs even if they wanted to. Especially men without college degrees. Even if the Business Cycle improves, those jobs won't reappear. They have already been automated and outsourced never to return.

Therefore, if you can't get a job that pays worth a darn (see NPR's Secrect Life of a Food Snap) and causes you to be on Food Stamps anyway, what would be the logical thing to do? You could:

a: Bust your hump working a McJob and still need government assistance
b: Not bust your hump and live on government assistance

What is the logical answer to such a dilemna?

Therefore, I actually think the Structural argument makes a lot of sense. However, it isn't the workers that are the ones who are choosing to no longer participate in the system. It is the system itself which is making the choice to not work seem logical.

Granted, Dakka will not solve this raging argument in Economics, but I am interested in your thoughts about the current Job Rates. Cyclical or Structural?

Its extremely structural. The US has massive structural problems in the economy that need to be addressed. A job bill won't do it. Lowering tax rates won't do it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its extremely structural. The US has massive structural problems in the economy that need to be addressed. A job bill won't do it. Lowering tax rates won't do it.

We need to get more blue collar manufacturing back... otherwise, we're becoming a more Service Orientated industry.

What I am a bit surprised about is how "Structural" is considered a Conservative talking point, while "Cyclical" is considered a "Liberal" talking point.

That makes no snese to me.

 Easy E wrote:
What I am a bit surprised about is how "Structural" is considered a Conservative talking point, while "Cyclical" is considered a "Liberal" talking point.

That makes no snese to me.

Huh? That doesn't compute man...

It's both. Structural because, simply put -short of a job program- there will never be enough jobs to go around for full labor participation (meaning complete and total employment for all employable citizens). Beyond that it is also the result of an increasingly educated work force as a result of the college education bandwagon campaign that is pushing more people through college on the basis that somehow everyone needs a college education. Most young people would rather go unemployed than be underemployed for a variety of reasons. This also has the impact of making the job-market more competitive, meaning that potential employers hold higher standards for potential employees. Positions that a few years ago were once 'entry-level' now have 2 year experience requirements, meaning that only someone with work or internship experience is now qualified for a position that was once available to any fresh-faced college grad.

Its also cyclical, because currently there are less jobs to go around as a function of current SOPs and 'best practices' in businesses, as well as the current economic and technological climate. Pending future technological advances, etc. this may or may not create/destroy additional employment opportunities.

Might be a nice idea to work on the infrastructure of the US.
Lots and lots of nice blue collar work that can give someone good experience and help the US infrastructure.
This would have a lot of benefits.
More white collar work (Management, logistics etc), attract researchers due to enhanced networking through universities and colleges across the country, give people vital skills in a helpful trade.

After the country has more or less upgraded the whole infrastructure you use that same workforce to maintain it. Any excess workforce you offer a 6 month on, 6 month off contract (Negotiable) to do similar work in foreign countries in need of similar work. Bonuses provided to those who are willing to teach locals how to maintain their newly built infrastructure.

If you can't build cars. Build roads for the cars to go on.

But yeah, I agree with Chaos.

Are US unemployment benefits more generous now than 20 years ago?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Are US unemployment benefits more generous now than 20 years ago?

Yeah... and also, you originally only can get 26 weeks of unemployment check...

Now? It's a looong time:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3164

We need to stop making it attractive to move jobs overseas and make it attractive for more foreign companies to move their manufacturing here.