• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Unemployment: Good news or bad news?

Regarding the unemployment information in this thread ...

  • This is good news (I lean right)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • This is bad news (I lean left)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • This is bad news (I'm a centrist)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .
I'm not saying other countries don't do it. I'm talking about this country. I said it won't happen here. They won't be forced to cut back hours and automatically hire more people.

In terms of political feasibility, sure. Neither the Democrats or Republicans have any political will to do so, and even Sanders hasn't called for a reduction of the workweek. But if a reduction in the workweek were to be implemented, it would result in better working conditions for workers. The fact of the matter is that most Americans are already overworked because they work such long hours. It's simply not a sustainable business model to overwork employees with a shorter workweek in an industrialized country, when more humane working conditions, including shorter workweeks, produce a happier, and therefore more productive worker. There are benefits in terms of productivity when it comes to expanding the rights of workers. I'd also support policies promoting unionization so that a transition to a shorter workweek include workers having a say in how they are treated.

Actually, that probably does not work that way. I would have to look up to see, what studies have been done. But the French did reduce worked hours a while back and seemed to effect the reduction in economic activity I had expected. This is because the cost of doing business rises, when two people do the job one could. When the cost of business goes up it reduces production. Ultimately you need fewer employees.

I recognize that the French implementation of the 35 hour workweek wasn't perfect by any means. One way to compensate for raising costs of business is to abolish the corporate income tax. I disagree with the idea of taxing the internal workings of a corporation as a form of funding for the government; this money would be put to better use by providing employees with better benefits, wages, working conditions, etc., such as a 35 hour workweek. Regardless, reduction of the workweek is not the only method of reducing unemployment; I posted earlier about establishing public works programs with jobs available to anyone who applies, and the workweek reduction ensures that a reduction in employment is not restricted to one sector of the economy. Additionally, independently of the 35 hour workweek's effect on unemployment, I support it as a matter of improving working conditions.
 
In terms of political feasibility, sure. Neither the Democrats or Republicans have any political will to do so, and even Sanders hasn't called for a reduction of the workweek. But if a reduction in the workweek were to be implemented, it would result in better working conditions for workers. The fact of the matter is that most Americans are already overworked because they work such long hours. It's simply not a sustainable business model to overwork employees with a shorter workweek in an industrialized country, when more humane working conditions, including shorter workweeks, produce a happier, and therefore more productive worker. There are benefits in terms of productivity when it comes to expanding the rights of workers. I'd also support policies promoting unionization so that a transition to a shorter workweek include workers having a say in how they are treated. .

I'm not saying someone, some day couldn't get the work week shortened to 35 hours. I'm saying your comment that employers would have to hire more people because of it would never happen.

If 5 hours means the difference between "humane" and "inhumane", then I think workers are very weak. Most people I know who are successful work far more than that. I know I do. I have to work a lot on Sundays and in the middle of the nights because I'm in a job that requires me to work with people in Europe and the Middle East. Same with the employees I manage. It's not the end of the world to us.
 
Fair enough - those are skilled services we can market to each other at a (currently) livable rate.

As long as the skill levels in a particular specialty are high enough, there shouldn't be much downward wage pressure from unskilled citizens & immigrants as seen in some service industries - though corporations using very low-skilled labor are nipping away at some of these specialties (ex: oil change 'only' places, vs full service mechanics).

But there's another good thing to note for some of the skillsets you mentioned: Relatively easy entry to becoming your own boss - and THAT'S something to say!

For those so inclined with a bit of entreprinerial spirit - absolutely. For those not so inclined - a good plumber can still make well over a grand a week - same with many of the other skilled trades. When I worked in the legislature, I toured a training facility operated by the IBEW - the electricians union in these parts - and they have programs to educated kids for free and they can start earning money as helpers as soon as their second semester on the job part time in addition to their classes. They operate their own school and its pretty much state of the art.

The high school I taught at was once known for all sorts of career programs but little by little they axed them since they were far more costly to operate than regular college prep classes. Its a crying shame. That is definitely a direction we should go.

I have a grandson who is entering high school this September and he says he would like to try his hand in real estate instead of going to get a degree. The kid is smart enough to go into almost any field he desires short of nuclear engineering or something like that and I think its great that he has figured this out on his own. Of course, this probably will change at least a half dozen times over the next four years and he could well end up a lion tamer for Ringling Brothers. Hopefully not.
 
While I agree with almost everything you wrote above that quote, I think your conclusion overlooks what a lot of habitual critics of this economy avoid mentioning: the voluntary removal from the work force of about 4 million boomers retiring per year. With our low birth rate, we're going to see a decrease in the working age population over the next few decades which might be offset by the ability of businesses to improve productivity. But to do that we need to have workers who are well educated/trained to do the types of jobs the future economy needs. Many job openings even go unfilled today because employers are not finding the type of skilled workers they need. This country is behind on providing an educational system that provides that education and training. We're still using an idea born in the 19th century that all kids have to go through the same educational pipeline instead of beginning at the earliest of school ages trying to sort kids out by inclination and talents to an education that they can use.

One other thing I forget to mention in response to some of the issues you raised: we spend thousands of hour teaching kids stuff that the vast vast majority never really need to know once they become adults all in the name of a broad education. Back in the late 90's I was sent to a national seminar on curriculum development and some expert shocked everyone when he stated the percentage of American jobs which required a basic understanding of math that was beyond the old fashioned basics of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. He was not asking if it would be good to know things like algebra and trig and the like , but asking what percentage of jobs in America had to have those skills in order to do the job. I remember that nobody in the room even came close to the answer.............. which he stated was five percent. Not fifty-five percent...... not even twenty-five percent .... not even ten percent ..... but five percent. Sure, he conceded that there were plenty of jobs that a person could use algebra or something else to help them solve problems - but one could also use the basic arithmetic computations to do it to. Only five percent of American jobs actually had to have those higher math skills or you could not do the job.

So then, how many kid in the American education system - both public and private - force kids to take higher math classes beyond what we used to call basic math?

Then compare that to the number of kids who will have relationships with other people, many ending up in crisis and crashing and burning leaving a wake of misery and hurt in their wake causing all manner of societal problems costing God knows how much.... who will be parents .... who will have houses .... with all the various problems that come about in those areas and ask yourself why we do not teach those skills to the vast majority of students like we mandate they take higher math.

I was impressed. And it told me how much in the wrong direction we were going.
 
The high point was in 98...here is the historical participation rate
View attachment 67186674

As you can see...raised dramatically, and has started dropping from it's high in 98/99. So yes, the trend has been downward for a long time.

But if you look at the end of the graph, you can see that the downward trend has slowed drastically. In fact, it has virtually stopped for the last 18 months or so (overall).

Since I see no evidence that baby boomers have stopped aging, then the explanation seems fairly obvious to me - those nearing retirement simply cannot afford to retire and have to stay in the workforce; a position born out (to some extent at least) by the fact that the number of Americans over 55 has increased drastically since the end of the Great Recession...FAR higher then any other age group (to my knowledge).


BTW - I would like to add that the U-3 rate is, imo, a waste of time. And the fact that the Fed used to use it as a benchmark for raising rates but has now abandoned it and no longer uses it as a major reference point for employment backs up my viewpoint to at least some extent.
An unemployment measurement that can theoretically be at zero when only one American is employed even if every other eligible American wants to work but they had to give up looking for work because there were no jobs (as the U-3 could be) is a waste of time to me. Plus, not counting people as unemployed who want a job desperately but are forced to give up looking for work (as the U-3 does) is ridiculous, imo.
 
Last edited:
They won't be forced to cut back hours and automatically hire more people.

That ought to go into a file, along with "people will never accept Obamacare" and "this country will never support same-sex marriage" for famous conservative predictions that never came true.
 
I agree with much that you wrote here. And having spent 33 years in education - I can tell you conclusively that we badly need to regear much of what we do particularly for the non-college bound student.
you are right this is what Obama wants to do ...have big companies with local small colleges train people specific to the business needs..
 
I voted for Obama ..but I want to tell him is that why do you charge more taxes per dollar when we work overtime.. instead of charging the regular tax rate per dollar.. no one wants to work overtime we only do it to make ends meet..it is almost like you are putting a penalty tax for working overtime on us.
 
Apparently that quote is something your agree with. Let me just say that nature doesn't care what you care about. We might be not far down below polar bears on the list of species nature decides can't be supported anymore and that might be something you care about but it won't help you a bit.

I actually don't agree with my signature.
 
Last edited:
But if you look at the end of the graph, you can see that the downward trend has slowed drastically. In fact, it has virtually stopped for the last 18 months or so (overall).

Since I see no evidence that baby boomers have stopped aging, then the explanation seems fairly obvious to me - those nearing retirement simply cannot afford to retire and have to stay in the workforce; a position born out (to some extent at least) by the fact that the number of Americans over 55 has increased drastically since the end of the Great Recession...FAR higher then any other age group (to my knowledge).


BTW - I would like to add that the U-3 rate is, imo, a waste of time. And the fact that the Fed used to use it as a benchmark for raising rates but has now abandoned it and no longer uses it as a major reference point for employment backs up my viewpoint to at least some extent.
An unemployment measurement that can theoretically be at zero when only one American is employed even if every other eligible American wants to work but they had to give up looking for work because there were no jobs (as the U-3 could be) is a waste of time to me. Plus, not counting people as unemployed who want a job desperately but are forced to give up looking for work (as the U-3 does) is ridiculous, imo.

Labor participation always drops during a recession, sure, and it has slowed, mainly due to the improving of the economy, but this long term trend will continue. You're also looking at a short amount of time relative the long term aging of the population. The graph has multiple instances where trends slowed or even had one year jumps, ultimately though, our country is getting older so an overall labor force participation rate just isn't going to be useful. Focusing on the working age population is much more meaningful which I've provided.
 
One other thing I forget to mention in response to some of the issues you raised: we spend thousands of hour teaching kids stuff that the vast vast majority never really need to know once they become adults all in the name of a broad education.

I agree 100%. A few weeks ago a high school English teacher in the East Bay area whose students are 100% minorities went public saying she doesn't teach Shakespeare anymore. Her students don't relate to a 16th century Englishman and it was futile to make them try to learn it. It just never worked. You should have seen the conservative backlash, mind you, from people who couldn't correctly identify a quote from Shakespeare if their lives depended on it. I tried to remind people what trying to learn Shakespeare even for kids of anglo-saxon heritage even as far back as when I was in high-school. It was dreadful. There might have been 1 in 30 kids for whom this was exciting. We never went to plays. We just took turns reading the play with barely a shred of understanding and taught largely by teachers who were also just barely comprehending the dialog. It was in the curriculum because "everyone" assumed it had to be. He was the greatest playwright in the English language. Never mind the language he wrote in is scarcely recognizable to modern English. Beowulf and Chaucer were even worse. I'm not saying don't offer classes in the English classics but I am saying don't force kids to take it (and fail the exams) who will never be in the slightest way interested in it. A few months ago a math teacher wrote an article in Harper's that he felt there was no reason at all to expect kids to pass a class in algebra II in high school. Sure, give them a brief introduction to the basics and how it can be used in some highly technical occupations but no requirement to pass a course in it. Even algebra I was never going to be of any use to more than a tiny fraction of adults in later life but it was at least an introduction into higher math and getting just a passing understanding of the way math can be used to solve equations with unknown values could be made interesting for a lot of kids (again, teachers being adept at figuring out the way to connect abstract mathematical concepts to real life situations would be essential and I suspect that is what's lacking in most science and math classrooms around the country today). Teaching is the hardest job there is and we make it harder by forcing too many kids to try to learn things that they are either indifferent or even hostile to before anyone gets started. Here's what I think the educational approach in this country at each and every year a kid starts school: "Here's the really basic stuff; oh, you want to learn where this or that subject leads? Let us know and we'll put you on that track."
 
Since I see no evidence that baby boomers have stopped aging, then the explanation seems fairly obvious to me - those nearing retirement simply cannot afford to retire and have to stay in the workforce; a position born out (to some extent at least) by the fact that the number of Americans over 55 has increased drastically since the end of the Great Recession...FAR higher then any other age group (to my knowledge).

A Gallup poll in Jan of this year found that only 1/3 of the oldest members of the baby boomers haven't retired. Furthermore, the SSA stats show that starting in 2011 the number of recipients of benefits tripled from the rate BEFORE the Great Recession. So boomers do indeed feel comfortable retiring. Nate Silver's "FiveThirtyEight" reports that the labor participation rate of boomers has gone down from 82% in 2003 to 66% by 2013. As far as baby boomers not ceasing to age after they hit 55, I zink you were just tryeeng to make ze joke, non?
 
Lowest unemployment rate since before the Bush recession. Definitely good news.

The vast majority of people who are not participating are not participating for good reasons. They're 17 year old high school students who aren't working because they're in school, they're medical school students, they're homemakers supported by their spouse, they're 78 year old retirees, etc. The perception that non-participating means that you gave up looking for work and just sit around on welfare is ridiculously far off base. The census measures how many people are in that category- discouraged workers. It is just around 0.5% of the population. That is up a bit from say 2006 when it was 0.4%, but that difference is pretty much negligible. It's just the inevitable consequence of a big recession that some people- in this case, a tiny number of people- will give up on the economy.
 
Really? What's it for, then? Is that the norm on this forum?

I'm not sure, I don't pay too much of attention. I thought the comment was so outrageous I made it my signature, so everyone reads it when I post something. I haven't seen him on these forums as much, but then again, I don't come to the forums that much either.

I guess it's the minority? I'm sure other people do it.
 
Strong job growth, but a mixed bag overall. As far as longer term trends go, it isn't much of a barn-burner, but positive nonetheless.
 
And as I said, the population overall has been getting older since day 1. And the work force grew long before Obama took office (grew by almost 8 percent in 40 years), not shrank. In 2000 it was 67 percent participation. In 2007 it was 66 percent. In January of 2009 it was 65.7. These were very slight drops.
For your reading pleasure. An aging workforce does in fact account for a substantial chunk of the decline:

Since the final quarter of 2007, the labor force participation rate has fallen from 65.9 percent to
62.8 percent in the second quarter of 2014, a decline of 3.1 percentage points. In this report, the
Council of Economic Advisers estimates that this 3.1 percentage point decline can be attributed
to three main sources:
About half of the decline (1.6 percentage point) is due to the aging of the population.
Because older individuals participate in the labor force at lower rates than younger
workers, the aging of the population exerts downward pressure on the overall labor force
participation rate. While older workers today are participating in the labor force at higher
rates than older workers of previous generations, there is still a very large drop-off in
participation when workers enter their early 60s.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/labor_force_participation_report.pdf
 
That ought to go into a file, along with "people will never accept Obamacare" and "this country will never support same-sex marriage" for famous conservative predictions that never came true.

No idea what this means or why you think I'm interested in predictions about Obamacare or same sex marriage since we aren't talking about them.
 
It is absolutely meaningless since the statistics are so juggled. Just because you stop COUNTING some people, it does not mean that they are no longer unemployed. The Labor Participation Rate is a much more accurate figure and it is the WORST in decades.
 
It is absolutely meaningless since the statistics are so juggled. Just because you stop COUNTING some people, it does not mean that they are no longer unemployed. The Labor Participation Rate is a much more accurate figure and it is the WORST in decades.
Ok, so what do you consider to be unemployed and why? Retirees? Students? Stay home spouses? Disabled?
If someone doesn't't want a job? If someone can't work?

The "why" is most important. What are you trying to measure and does your definition help?

The numbers are not juggled. Either someone meets the definition or not.

If you don't like the definition, what's your's and why?

Keep in mind that the Labor Force Participation Rate went steadily up until 2000, and down since then. And think: the participation rate is higher than any time before 1978. If you use the participation rate as your standard, you're saying our job situation is better than all the 50's and 60's.
 
I'm not saying someone, some day couldn't get the work week shortened to 35 hours. I'm saying your comment that employers would have to hire more people because of it would never happen.

If 5 hours means the difference between "humane" and "inhumane", then I think workers are very weak. Most people I know who are successful work far more than that. I know I do. I have to work a lot on Sundays and in the middle of the nights because I'm in a job that requires me to work with people in Europe and the Middle East. Same with the employees I manage. It's not the end of the world to us.

It's not the fine line between humane and inhumane. A reduction of the workweek would be more humane than the status quo. I recognize that many people have to work longer than 40 hours as is; people who work overtime deserve compensation for that.
 
Back
Top Bottom