I — at great hazard of being a fool contesting him — disagree completely with 4 points out 5. Make it just 1 point: virtual de-unionization. Germany faces the other 4 and the labor force is doing just fine there — better than anywhere in the world.
in the monthly employment summaries, there’s been an ongoing discrepancy between the unadjusted jobs / employed number from the two surveys since July…from July to December, the unadjusted count of the employed from the household survey fell by 690,000, from 1,45113,000 in July, to 144,423,000 in December…over the same time frame, the unadjusted non-farm payrolls rose by 2,176,000, from 135,577,000 in July to 137,753,000 in December…
here are unadjusted payroll jobs monthly (000’s):
2013-07-01 135577
2013-08-01 136002
2013-09-01 136612
2013-10-01 137523
2013-11-01 137999
2013-12-01 137753
here’s the raw unadjusted count of the employed from the household survey (000’s):
2013-07-01 145113
2013-08-01 144509
2013-09-01 144651
2013-10-01 144144
2013-11-01 144775
2013-12-01 144423
Denis, i get the feeling that Mark is forcing those posts over at CBS Moneywatch…the headline sounds like some editor suggested it…seriously, do you think Matk would have written that on his own volition if he wasnt under contract to produce something for them?
If you get the print edition of the NY Times turn to page A8 of today’s edition, April 14th. That full page advertisement is the work of the Employment Policies Institute, otherwise known as Berman & Co. a PR and lobbying firm for the tobacco, hotel, alcohol, and restaurant industries. You wouldn’t know that from the content of the ad nor the fine print at the bottom of the page. But just google EPI and you’ll find a host of exposes on this deceitful representation of what are described as facts on the issue of jobs and pay.
BTW, the focus of the ad is that Congress should focus on job creation rather than minimum wage because there are more unemployed amongst the poor than there are working poor among the poor. A bit convoluted, I know. As though job creation and minimum wage improvement were mutually exclusive. I guess the assumption is that the Congress cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.
Rjs,
Yes, I am sure he wrote it under his own volition. These guys — the biggest progressive economists — have a remarkable ability to see things only in the context of the world (the economy) they live in.
In the context of a society where re-unionization is SOCIALLY impossible, Mark’s essay makes perfect sense. In the context of what is MECHANICALLY possible — just what could work; forget the politics they are epic fails.
Look at the seven Nobel Prize winners who are about to support a $10 an hour minimum wage. With their extra expertise they should be explaining to the world that $20 is very possibly workable — like Senator Warren …
… but she is a female.
I think the biggest part of the inability to pass the “invisible” SOCIAL barrier has something murky to do with pack hunter psychology — innate behavior. When faced with a social question — that doesn’t have any direct impact on him (economics is a pretty secure profession as Noah Opinion points out) a human male scans the social environment for others who might have a direct interest (and therefore commitment). Finding none the human male sees an impassable chasm preventing any purposeful discussion.
The human female — individual gatherer — OTH sees an abstract answer to a mechanical problem (for example, legally mandated, centralized bargaining as the only MECHANICAL way back to a truly free American labor market and political forum) and she assumes she can sell it to two others each of whom can sell it to two others, etc.
If it makes mechanical sense it is enough for the human female. Getting past male social intransigence is the big hidden dimension in the way of what should be perfectly open paths to progress, if you ask (non-professional) me. 🙂
Wherein I take sharp difference with Mark Thoma on his “5 Reasons Why Your Pay Isn’t Rising As Fast As It Should”
I — at great hazard of being a fool contesting him — disagree completely with 4 points out 5. Make it just 1 point: virtual de-unionization. Germany faces the other 4 and the labor force is doing just fine there — better than anywhere in the world.
[snip — you’ve heard all the rest from me before]
in the monthly employment summaries, there’s been an ongoing discrepancy between the unadjusted jobs / employed number from the two surveys since July…from July to December, the unadjusted count of the employed from the household survey fell by 690,000, from 1,45113,000 in July, to 144,423,000 in December…over the same time frame, the unadjusted non-farm payrolls rose by 2,176,000, from 135,577,000 in July to 137,753,000 in December…
here are unadjusted payroll jobs monthly (000’s):
2013-07-01 135577
2013-08-01 136002
2013-09-01 136612
2013-10-01 137523
2013-11-01 137999
2013-12-01 137753
here’s the raw unadjusted count of the employed from the household survey (000’s):
2013-07-01 145113
2013-08-01 144509
2013-09-01 144651
2013-10-01 144144
2013-11-01 144775
2013-12-01 144423
here’s what the two look like next to each other on a chart:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?graph_id=144994&category_id=0
see how that red line has risen above the blue one for the first time in years?
ive been watching it since it started & will probably post on it later today..
Denis, i get the feeling that Mark is forcing those posts over at CBS Moneywatch…the headline sounds like some editor suggested it…seriously, do you think Matk would have written that on his own volition if he wasnt under contract to produce something for them?
If you get the print edition of the NY Times turn to page A8 of today’s edition, April 14th. That full page advertisement is the work of the Employment Policies Institute, otherwise known as Berman & Co. a PR and lobbying firm for the tobacco, hotel, alcohol, and restaurant industries. You wouldn’t know that from the content of the ad nor the fine print at the bottom of the page. But just google EPI and you’ll find a host of exposes on this deceitful representation of what are described as facts on the issue of jobs and pay.
BTW, the focus of the ad is that Congress should focus on job creation rather than minimum wage because there are more unemployed amongst the poor than there are working poor among the poor. A bit convoluted, I know. As though job creation and minimum wage improvement were mutually exclusive. I guess the assumption is that the Congress cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.
Rjs,
Yes, I am sure he wrote it under his own volition. These guys — the biggest progressive economists — have a remarkable ability to see things only in the context of the world (the economy) they live in.
In the context of a society where re-unionization is SOCIALLY impossible, Mark’s essay makes perfect sense. In the context of what is MECHANICALLY possible — just what could work; forget the politics they are epic fails.
Look at the seven Nobel Prize winners who are about to support a $10 an hour minimum wage. With their extra expertise they should be explaining to the world that $20 is very possibly workable — like Senator Warren …
… but she is a female.
I think the biggest part of the inability to pass the “invisible” SOCIAL barrier has something murky to do with pack hunter psychology — innate behavior. When faced with a social question — that doesn’t have any direct impact on him (economics is a pretty secure profession as Noah Opinion points out) a human male scans the social environment for others who might have a direct interest (and therefore commitment). Finding none the human male sees an impassable chasm preventing any purposeful discussion.
The human female — individual gatherer — OTH sees an abstract answer to a mechanical problem (for example, legally mandated, centralized bargaining as the only MECHANICAL way back to a truly free American labor market and political forum) and she assumes she can sell it to two others each of whom can sell it to two others, etc.
If it makes mechanical sense it is enough for the human female. Getting past male social intransigence is the big hidden dimension in the way of what should be perfectly open paths to progress, if you ask (non-professional) me. 🙂