Say little, and
love much;
give all;
judge no man;
aspire to all that is pure and good.
White Eagle
Chart of the Day
 |
| Via Cato Institute |
Is the Record Low Labor Rate Participation Rate a Matter of Baby Boomer Retirees? Not So Fast....
On the surface it sounds plausible--the Baby Boomers started becoming eligible for early social security around the start of the recession and 65 in 2010; given a jobless recovery and a government pension, why wouldn't an unemployed older worker retire? But even a little thought will give pause--why are wages relatively stagnant? Why are teen/young adult/minority unemployment rates still stubbornly high? Why are so many college graduates having trouble finding a perm job (vs. part-time/temp work) relevant to college degree qualifications?
The 55+ age group, in contrast, has seen an increase in employment of 4.8 million workers. Employment in the 16 to 24 group is down by 1.8 million.Is it unusual we've seen older Americans delaying retirement or coming out of retirement to shore up private savings and nesteggs? Probably not. The issue of poor labor force participation has more to do with government incompetently raising the cost of labor during the recession and anti-economic growth policies in general, disincentives for investment, etc.
The labor force participation rate of Americans aged 55 and over has increased by 4.6 percentage points from 2003 to 2013. Both men and women have seen increases in labor force participation rates and employment levels.
In contrast, for the 25 to 54 age group, the core group of workers in the labor force, participation rate has declined by 2 percentage points over the same time period, from 83 percent to 81 percent.
The biggest decline in labor force participation rates can be observed for workers aged 16 to 24. In 2013, 55 percent were participating in the labor force, compared to 62 percent in 2003, a decline of 7 percentage points.
Entertainment Potpourri: "The Roosevelts", Part VII/Finale
This concluding segment focuses on the progress of WWII during FDR's third term, his unpassed second bill of (economic rights) but the GI Bill of Rights which Burns uncritically links to the growth of the middle class, his largely undisclosed declining health (heart problems), his fourth-term election, and his death (leading Hitler to rejoice at outlasting his nemesis, even as his whole world was crumbling around him). It closes with Eleanor's nearly two decades afterwards involved in early UN development and a force in Democratic politics through JFK's election.
I have some issues here with the coverage here; for instance, the election coverages are relatively brief and seem to relish portraying FDR's mocking his opponents; the Republicans are portrayed as being petty and personal (Burns spends a lot of time covering allegations of preferential treatment of Roosevelt's sons in the war) The Pacific theater is given little coverage until after Germany surrendered, and even then Burns buys fully into the myth that the atomic bombs ended the war. There was also this weird snippet where FDR seems relieved that Stalin promises to join the US in finishing the war on Japan. Burns does cover, although far too briefly, the way that Truman was left out of the loop for the most part until FDR's passing. I also think that Burns gave little coverage to, e.g., the unconscionable internment of certain immigrant groups.
A few comments here, on some of the topics:
- I've given a more comprehensive critique of FDR elsewhere (e.g., here)
- The Second Bill of Rights. I think I discussed this in more depth in a prior post but a brief blog query shows a passing reference in FB Corner here. I've discussed several times the distinction of negative rights/liberty and positive rights/liberty. The Constitution, as even Obama has conceded, reflects negative rights--things that government or others can't infringe without due process--the rights of life, liberty and property: things like your freedom of expression, to travel, privacy (against arbitrary State search). Positive rights are things government must do on your behalf, e.g., on some concept of redistributive equality of opportunity. Familiar ones including furnishing a lawyer on your behalf and free public lower education. Others include things like old-age pension, food, shelter, minimum income, healthcare, etc. This basically displaces the dynamic, innovative free market throughout the economy which effectively grants the State a blank check at the expense of the fundamental rights of citizens. It is not only a morally corrosive agenda: centrally planned economies, as Mises points out, are unable to allocate resources efficiently and effective without a competitive market. Furthermore, it suppresses private-sector charities and institutions (e.g., schools and hospitals).
- FDR's vanity, political ambition, and lack of public transparency. I was not a fan of hiding the effects of FDR's polio. This doesn't mean I would have wanted slow-motion replay of him falling down or undue attention on him, say, getting in and out of a car, etc. But I think it would have been a positive thing to show what a disabled person was capable of doing. But pollyannish reports on FDR's health were unfair to American voters, and FDR's ego prevented Truman from being up to speed at the time of FDR's passing, which I find unconscionable.
- The unconscionable atomic bombs dropping on Japan. I have written multiple segments on this topic since early August. MacArthur had presented FDR terms for a Japanese surrender virtually equivalent to what the US ultimately accepted, asking to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor, before Yalta; this is attested to by a reputable Tribune reporter, who was unable to publish the offer due to war censors. By spring oil imports had come to a stop; maybe a quarter of Japanese homes had been destroyed, and food was increasingly scarce. There was a blockade on an island with limited natural resources, the Japanese couldn't stop the constant bombing, their military was sharply degraded. Most of the name generals--MacArthur, Eisenhower, etc.--disagreed with dropping the atomic bombs. If the early offer of a Japanese surrender is correct--FDR reportedly said something like, "MacArthur is a great general but a lousy politician" in dismissing the offer--then FDR was a monster and a war criminal. How many Americans were unnecessarily killed or injured (not to mention Japanese civilians) by an unnecessary extension of the Pacific War?
Liberty and Its Fundamental Nature
Charity and the Free Market
Liberty and the Entrepreneurial Spirit
Facebook Corner
I often see trolls in various groups, e.g., "progressive"/union on IPI, nativist/neocon on Cato Institute or Reason. I find myself getting more impatient, especially with certain trolls; some of my responses have a tougher tone. It depends on context; sometimes it's a troll whom I've corrected before, it may be some predictable contemptible comment that I've seen so many times (e.g., Milton Friedman's unprincipled stand of immigration--wait until the end of the welfare state--often cited by nativist propagandists), sometimes the troll is responding without reading the linked post; I'll often response to a wave attack by trolls. There are many times these trolls will engage in direct personal attacks. I don't always capture the full thread and reprint cheap shots directed at me. Below I'm responding to one nativist troll in particular. Part of the reason is that I meticulously research my positions; in one of my academic articles I cited over 400 references; the editor came back and said, "We'll accept your article on the condition you cut your references in half." I find it incredulous that someone says, e.g., "I'm not sure I believe figures on unauthorized immigrant income": that person is criticizing research simply because it doesn't fit his anti-immigration perspective, not based on unknown data sources, research methodology, statistics, etc. When I look at an issue like minimum wage, I'm aware of the law of supply and demand, of a limited number of low-wage positions, the impact of minimum wage policy on smaller companies, the fact that more robust economic growth increases demand for workers and their wages, without creating a surplus of unemployed unskilled/inexperienced workers, etc. I certainly am not familiar with every minimum-wage study published in the economic literature, but I'm far more informed than most "progressives" who cite Card and Krueger without understanding their methodology and its limitations.
(LFC). Is it ever justified to enslave an innocent human being? Is a slave justified in overthrowing his master? Are draft board officers any better than chattel slave owners? Are police who arrest draft dodgers any different than slave catchers? And how is incarceration of "victimless criminals" any different than chattel slavery or military conscription?
How many times has he pulled this stunt? He's been proposing this since at least as far back as 2003, as a simple Google search will reveal. (Let's also point out the demagogue has also called for a war tax.)
However, I think most people on this topic don't realize that Rangel is really engaging in a bit of political posturing, in essence public policy poison pill. He thinks if the American people have skin in the game--their own kids vs. other kids--they'll be less tolerant of perpetual military interventions elsewhere.
The problem is that he is playing an extortion game with American youth being held hostage. And I'm not sure that the interventionists wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth: imagine being guaranteed a supply of fresh new soldiers. This is moral hazard of the highest order.
(Drudge Report). WORLD WAR E
This is another unconstitutional act which needs Congressional approval.
(The Mackinac Center for Public Policy). Irving Bailey was looking for a conventional school alternative for his daughter but was lucky to find one less than a mile from his Detroit home in a charter public school, Jalen Rose Leadership Academy. Bailey’s daughter is a high school senior now looking forward to studying engineering and communications in college.
“It’s been a great opportunity for her. She’s done internships. I like the small classroom settings and the hours, 8:30 to 4. She’s doing well maintaining a 3.5 to 3.8 grade point average,” he said.
Bailey said the conventional schools have improved, but he removed his daughter four years ago because of poor communication, lack of homework and assignments, teacher absences and large classes. He doesn’t see a need to for a charter public school moratorium.
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/20528
The legislators are basically vested in the local public school monopoly and are coming up with disingenuous rationalizations. Take, for example, the ones arguing about transportation logistics to new schools. This is just a stall tactic; where there is a need, the market will find a way without school bureaucracies, e.g., ridesharing.
(IPI). Horizon Pharma, Inc., a Deerfield-based specialty drugmaker, shifted its corporate address to Ireland Friday.
Inversions don't affect US-based taxes.
(Cato Institute). Unemployment rates for native-born Americans & immigrants both respond to a growing or shrinking labor market: http://bit.ly/Zn2lJp
But native born Americans should not have to compete with illegals.
Jobs are not widgets; they belong to a business, and a business has the right to hire the workers of its choice. Americans already have to compete on a global stage.
That's probably one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard.
I work in construction. EVERY SINGLE dry waller, painter, roofer, concrete layer, tiler, asphalt layer, landscaper and most carpenters are illegals. The ONLY trades not completely overrun by illegals are electrical and plumbing. Because you need to be state certified (in California, anyway).
This has absolutely nothing to do with a global economy. This is 100% because you can pay an illegal about a third of what you can pay an American OR a LEGAL immigrant. PLUS you don't have to pay illegal's payroll taxes, worker's comp, insurance, Healthcare or any type of retirement.
This has NOTHING to do with global economics. It's nothing but under cutting the American workforce.
You are an economically ignorant troll. You are simply a unionist whore, begging for Statist protection against other workers at the expense of consumers. If and when you have artificial shortages of labor, there will be workarounds--that's why you have people smuggled across the border. There have been studies by the Pew Hispanic Poll and US Census that disprove your union propaganda.
But being the idiot you are, I was referring to internationally traded goods and services, and I stand by that fact.
Thanks, Captain Obvious!
This is for the idiots who believe that immigrants are taking jobs at the expense of Americans at birth.
Well, that's undeniable. But of course, illegals also suffer when the economy sucks. Oh wait. Are you using immigrant and illegal immigrant interchangeably?
I'm not the ignorant bastard who is trying to defend the unethical, corrupt restrictive immigration policies since the 1920's. I'm not the history fool who doesn't realize that our national growth was highest during the Gilded Age, where, despite almost unlimited immigration, wages and the standard of living increased overall. I'm not the economic illiterate who is totally unaware of the preponderance of economic data affirms win-win immigration policy.
So, what this graph tells me is the unemployment rate would be much lower if we removed those 10-20 who knows how many millions of illegals? I also suspect median wages would increase as I know several construction workers who used to make a decent living that now make just above minimum wage due to, wait for it, illegals willing to do the job at half the price.
Idiot troll! Have you learned nothing about the minimum wage debate? Jobs are available at a price that provides at least that much benefit to business. When the economy is soft, wait for it, compensation, just as other factors of production, go down. Guess what? There were Latino construction workers before the recession. Guess what? There was a net emigration to Mexico during the recession. A few inconvenient truths.
What is with the Cato institutes obsession with immigrants? No one in America dislikes immigrants!
Not sure why Cato is pulling this liberal semantics trick of mixing immigrants with ILLEGAL immigrants and trying to act like there's no difference.
What a retarded troll; he doesn't realize what the Cato article meant by "unauthorized immigrants" (there's even a chart devoted to them). Chalk it up to his nativist school teachers.
To the OP: immigrants often are scapegoated by ugly nativists and xenophobes in bad economic times. That's why, for instance, Asian Americans voted in even larger percentages against Romney than Latinos. The troll's Statist worship of a piece of paper, voted by majority vote of bigots, is an arbitrary distinction.
So, what this graph tells me is the unemployment rate would be much lower if we removed those 10-20 who knows how many millions of illegals? I also suspect median wages would increase as I know several construction workers who used to make a decent living that now make just above minimum wage due to, wait for it, illegals willing to do the job at half the price.
Idiot troll! Have you learned nothing about the minimum wage debate? Jobs are available at a price that provides at least that much benefit to business. When the economy is soft, wait for it, compensation, just as other factors of production, go down. Guess what? There were Latino construction workers before the recession. Guess what? There was a net emigration to Mexico during the recession. A few inconvenient truths.
Immigrants or "Illegal" Immigrants?? There is a Difference!!
Only in the eyes of nativist losers who we should deport first.
No. There's only no difference for ignorant fools who can't comprehend reality. I'm not air why Cato is using "immigrant" and "illegal immigrant" interchangeably. That's a liberal semantics trick. Of course, Ronald can't comprehend this.
Idiot troll! He still doesn't understand immigrants are immigrants. In other words, BOTH. "Unauthorized immigrants are very mobile workers. If they come from geographically closer places like Mexico or Latin America then they can respond very rapidly to changes in the U.S. labor market. They are then very mobile once they arrive in the United States. The stock of unauthorized immigrants peaked in 2007 before the Great Recession and dipped after that as the unemployment rate for immigrants rose (-0.42 correlation coefficient). By the way, the worst period for native job growth occurred during the period when the number of unauthorized immigrants also declined. If immigrants really did substantially decrease employment opportunities for Americans, we wouldn’t see that effect."
(Reason). In case you missed it, here are 3 Reasons to NOT Fight ISIS.
Sure - let's wait until they attack us at home - or maybe if we close our eyes and pretend they don't exist they will go away. Your are correct on point one - they are not that powerful (so we should destroy them while it's still easy) but you've got the second two points very wrong. This isn't a regional conflict and we can define victory as the core of ISIS is dead and pushing up dirt and the wanna be's go back to petty crime in their own countries.
This thread is full of fear-mongering neocon bullshit as usual.
All stupid reasons. Kill them all. Attack Isis without mercy and kill them. Death to Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, al shish kabab, boko haram, the Taliban, and the entire Iranian government and military. Kill all jihadists.
Idiot. We are not the policeman of the world. And you are basically seeding the expansion of radical Islam with your interventionist nonsense with its spillover collateral damage--and the threat of blowback.
If there is any validity to ISIS, then I think we should destroy them before they become too big. Nip it in the bud, I say. They are busy recruiting now, right? Get rid of the cock roaches/termites now before they become an infestation. Should we be arming the cannibal rebel fucks? Of course not. Satellite bomb their training camps!
Talk about utterly clueless. We can't play global Whac-a-Mole with these guys. They adapt to threats and come back ever more bloody.
Currently its a Regional Conflict, currently ISIS is not a threat, but ISIS will grow and secure more land and resources for their rise. I'm not saying we send troops and conduct a war like Iraq, but ISIS must be taken seriously. They will eventually grow to become a serious threat, and if actions aren't taken they will strike here. Why wait on something that is inevitable? Why wait until the eventual attack comes and citizens here die from inaction. Its irresponsible to sit and wait until ISIS becomes a threat with global reach.
Domino theory, replacing "communist" with "radical Muslim". "Preventive" warfare is a blank check to perpetual war.
(Libertarian Catholic). Must Catholics support socialized medicine? #no h/t Joe's People
This is nonsense. The market will find the way to meet the healthcare needs of people--including charitable/church institutions.
Proposals
He played a shell game...
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Eric Allie via IPI |
Barry Manilow, "Even Now"
