Not the kind of “Change” I like to see.
Looking back at the recessions in the 1960’s, ’70’s, and ’80’s, we see a sharp recovery in employment. No such luck with the last recession.
I have a colleague who sends me
crap fallacies like Paul Krugman’s latest unemployment “it isn’t structural” polemic. My colleague hates government austerity, loves higher taxes, and loves deficit spending (uhh- he calls it necessary stimulus.)
Mr. Krugman sets up a straw man argument about the ratio of government employment to U.S. population remaining flat to show there is no structural problem. (Conveniently ignoring the fact that government employment growth is at it’s highest level since 1968)
Strawman argument from a Nobel prize winner. Isn’t that something?
That’s what happens- I guess- when you look at U-3 instead of U-6 Unemployment figures.
Let’s look at some less obscure points. How about the ratio of Americans not in the workforce between 2000-2011 versus the increase in population over the same period?
Population increased over 30 million; folks not in the workforce increased to 17.9 million in the same period.
That is probably too weak a signal for an economist of Mr. Krugman’s pay grade to acknowledge.
Look at the chart above.
Here are some of the facts behind that chart:
- There are 242 million working age Americans
- Only 142 million of them have jobs
- Those who aren’t working are depending on the government for their spending
- There seems to be no employment recovery. (That ‘jobless recovery’ thing.)
Bottom line, added to every other dependency and entitlement program, the unemployment that is “not structural’ according to Mr. Krugman actually brings the number of Americans dependent upon the federal government up to 91 million.
Our shops have openings for skilled machinists. Our schools have programs to teach machining. Yet there are no applicants.
Dear Mr. Krugman, we do have a ‘structural’ unemployment, problem, and it isn’t at all what you think.