The Real Unemployment Rate

A often see the claim that the unemployment rate is misleading for a few reasons. First, it doesn't count people as unemployed if they are discouraged and quit looking for a job. Second, it doesn't count those that are just entering the work force but are unable to find employment as unemployed. If you graduate from high school and are just living with your parents unable to find work I don't think you are regarded as unemployed.

For that reason it may be better to consider the Employee Population ratio. You can get the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics here. I'm contrasting that with the unemployment rate, which is available here.


These generally should be expected to move in opposite directions, as they usually do. The decline in the ratio leveled off in mid 2009 and is mostly flat since then. Possibly a slightly further decline. The unemployment rate has just slightly declined as well since then. So these are now moving in the same direction, which is unexpected if the unemployment rate accurately reflects real unemployment (and by real I mean the actual number of people that really would like to be able to work but can't find work).

Here's another point to consider. When you have a large collapse in stock market values you expect that more of the elderly put off retirement and continue to work. Under those conditions just to keep unemployment rates level the employee/population ratio should rise. It's not rising. Yet more elderly are continuing to work. This means that the economy is not creating the number of jobs needed to employee the young people entering the work force. And yet we don't see the unemployment rate rising.

That says to me that the grim realities are being masked. Unemployment is worse than what the official rate indicates.

In Praise of Flip Flopping

Being wrong is one thing. I can't begrudge people of that. I've been colossally wrong. In fact I don't agree with everything I've written on this blog.

Suppose you advocated the invasion of Iraq based on fear of WMD and claims that the process would be easy. Also it would be welcomed by Iraqis. Suppose you advocated tax cuts and deregulated finance thinking that this was the best way to manage economic risk and improve the economic situation generally. How can people not look at the catastrophic failure that was our invasion of Iraq, or the catastrophic failure that was the 2008 economic collapse, and not at least modify some of their opinions? And how can they treat the very people that lead us to these catastrophes as if they continue to be good sources of insight? Take a look at some of Bill Kristol's economic insights prior to the economic collapse:

After the bursting of the dot-com bubble, followed by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we've had more than five years of steady growth, low unemployment and a stock market recovery. Did this just happen? No. Bush pushed through the tax cuts of 2001 and especially 2003 by arguing that they would produce growth. His opponents predicted dire consequences. But the president was overwhelmingly right. Even the budget deficit, the most universally criticized consequence of the tax cuts, is coming down and is lower than it was when the 2003 supply-side tax cuts were passed.

His insights on foreign policy are similarly absurd in hindsight. But he's still treated with respect despite advocating policies, which were implemented thanks to his persuasive power, that have undoubtedly been so destructive.

I shared his views on the war and on Bush's tax policies. Following the collapse it was clear to me that I had been mistaken to trust people like Kristol, so I worked to try and make better sense of the data. Maybe Ron Paul understood the situation. I thought that for a while. Ron Paul expects things like runaway inflation. Seemed plausible.

Well, that's now also been put to the test. And as Paul Krugman explains here it seems pretty clear that Ron Paul is wrong. Maybe Krugman is right. Maybe the Keynsians are better at explaining things. That's what I tend to think now.

I might be wrong. I'm doing the best I can. I've been criticized for flip flopping. OK, maybe I do. But better to be a flip flopper than to be a person who's opinions are never shaken no matter what the evidence.

The Looming Retirement Crisis

I'm certainly sympathetic to right wing claims about personal responsibility. So much of the difficulties people have in this life are a product of their own bad choices. At least in America. You do have the opportunities here that people in most other countries don't get. So supposing you don't take advantage of those. Should others be obligated to bail you out?

Let's take an issue like pensions vs 401k plans. When 401k's were introduced right wingers loved them because they allow people more freedom. A pension is in effect a forced savings plan. Part of your compensation is saved on your behalf. With a 401k you can decide to save that money or not. Suppose you have a financial need in your younger years and you choose to forego savings for some period of time. A 401k allows you the freedom to make that choice. Also the pension funds are invested for you. You don't have the freedom to choose the investments you prefer. In a 401k you do.

Freedom is great. But sometimes the freedom of others affects you. You might not think that the bad choices of others in this sphere would matter to you. But it seems to me that there's a good chance they will.

What have people done with this freedom they now have to save for their own retirement? What they've done is failed to save. To me the paltry savings of Americans is shocking. According to one poll 36% of Americans don't contribute to a savings plan of any kind. 43% have less than $10K saved for retirement, including 29% of those over the age of 55.

And just anecdotal in my world it seems obvious that retirement for people near my age is going to be a catastrophe. I know people that have been laid off. Their savings, which in some cases was not huge to begin with, has taken a massive hit. When you have been forced to contribute to a pension it doesn't matter if you've peen laid off. You can't touch the pension money. People with 401k's can and do. And they of course must pay the corresponding tax penalties.

I hear this again and again. "We're not planning to retire." You can plan to work all you want. But this doesn't mean an employer plans to hire you. I happen to know a guy that recruits technical people, like engineers. He tells me straight out that age discrimination may be illegal, but it is an indisputable part of the corporate world. He can hardly place people in their upper 50's. It's not that elderly people are incapable of doing the job. It's more that elderly people are more expensive. They have health problems. Why hire a 55 year old when you can hire a 25 year old? So you can want to work all you want, but you can't count on working at a job that has any interest in providing health coverage.

Screw 'em, says the right winger. They made the choice to spend their savings or they failed to invest. That's their problem. Well, it may be yours. Again, take a look at what people have. People between the ages of 55 and 65 have an AVERAGE accumulated savings of $69K. And remember that averages are skewed by the few wealthy on the very upper echelons of society. The median (which is the value that reflects the amount at which there is as many above as below) will be lower than $69K, possibly much lower. You'd have to stretch $69K to even provide 2 years of retirement.

With an extremely paltry amount saved, do you not think there will be consequences for you even if you did save? We're talking not just about a LOT of people without adequate funds in their old age. We're talking about the VAST MAJORITY of people. You could have streets packed with elderly homeless people, all clamoring for jobs that offer no benefits, like at Wal-Mart. Whether you like it or not this extreme level of inequality is going to produce social upheaval. And if you've saved your whole life it may not matter. You'll lose much of what you've saved as society crumbles.

The plus side is that we do have Social Security. As I've mentioned before, as a savings plan it's not good. But thinking it through I think it's important to focus on the fact that this is not what it is intended to be. It is intended to prevent the many multitudes that have made those poor choices from starving at the very least. So that's our saving grace. If Republicans don't destroy it.

To me though this whole thing is a catastrophe. Today's elderly probably mostly have pensions. It's not terrible right now. But as the years pass and more and more retire that lack a pension we could start to see a lot more crushing poverty. That's bad for the poor and the rich.

The So Called Liberal Media - Tom Braden

We all know the CNN show "Crossfire". You got one guy from the right and another from the left. When the show started the person on the right was Pat Buchanan. We all know Pat Buchanan and there's little debate about his right wing credentials. Take a look at this guy they put in to stand for the left. Tom Braden. Who was Tom Braden? Not a very well known guy. What were his left wing credentials?

Tom Braden was apparently an ex-CIA operative. He cut his teeth during the Cold War infiltrating trade unions in efforts to undermine Soviet influence. He worked to undermine strike efforts in Italy, using CIA money to pay people to work as scabs. He was involved in a series of CIA front groups and bribes involving journalists.

The left wing journal "Ramparts" was set to publish some of the details of these CIA activities attempting to undermine democracy in Europe and so the CIA unleashed a series of dirty tricks in order to prevent publication. "Ramparts" published anyway, and in response Tom Braden wrote an article for "The Saturday Evening Post". It was called I'm Glad the CIA is Immoral.

With credentials like that he qualifies as a so called liberal in mainstream media.

Due Process Free Kill Orders

Some thoughts from the ACLU on the due process free execution of an American citizen in a non-battle zone.

Learning Experience for the Christian Apologist

When I was a Christian I teamed up with other Christians, some of whom were Reformed, and we ganged up on Catholics. We'd laugh about how crazy their beliefs were and marvel at their inability to properly deal with our arguments. I'd learn a bit as I went.

But I learned a lot more when suddenly the disagreements within my own ranks came to the fore. I'm standing shoulder to shoulder with these people fighting for the true gospel and suddenly we've turned our guns on each other. That's fine really. Catholics are obviously supremely irrational. Since my fellow Protestants are so much smarter and more reasonable maybe we can make progress.

But of course it was a mess. They're really obnoxious. I never noticed before. They don't seem interested in understanding what I'm saying. I never noticed that before. Do they treat Catholics the same way? Do I? I needed to start paying closer attention to their treatment of their critics. These are my mentors. I expect others regard them as mentors. Maybe that is misplaced.

Steve Hays is not someone I knew while I was a Christian. But today he seems to be someone that others listen to. He seems to have a lot of readers at Triablogue. He's treated with respect. To me his inability to seriously interact with critics is more extreme than any other Christian I know. He's also among the most obnoxious apologists I know. But apparently Christians that read him don't see that.

Why? Same reason I couldn't see it. When they are on your team sometimes you don't notice.

James White didn't seem to notice. But maybe he does now. At least a little.

James White has others that contribute at his blog, and one of them, Jamin Hubner, has questioned evangelical devotion to the secular state of Israel (see for instance here). He raised this on his own personal blog, not James White's blog. So Steve, apparently dedicated to the secular state of Israel, essentially tried to compel James White to punish Hubner for this. Allahu Akbar and Omega Ministries. This compels James White to reply, which he did. Wednesday Musings. He's trying to be discreet with a title like that. Let's not have a huge division over an issue like this. Nope. Steve has a new post, once again trying to tweak White over his long running battles with Norman Geisler and Ergun Caner. Geisler Syndrome. White replies only to say wow, Steve didn't interact in a serious way with anything I said.

That's right. He didn't. But that's been going on for a long time in all of Steve's battles. This is the kind of incident that helps Christians see that for the first time.

How Different Denominations See Each Other

This is really spot on. Via Dave Armstrong.