Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis |
- Does Your Job Require a College Degree? Should It?
- U.S. Going to Kill Syrians to Show Syria that Killing Syrians is Wrong
- Just How Distorted is the U.S. Unemployment Rate Number?
| Does Your Job Require a College Degree? Should It? Posted: 09 Sep 2013 10:51 PM PDT For those of you who are employed, I have a simple question: Does your job require a college degree? The reason I ask, is a Gallup poll shows Majority of U.S. Workers Say Job Doesn't Require a Degree. Here is the question Gallup asked: Does the type of work you do require a bachelor's degree from a college or university or some other advanced academic degree? From Gallup ... Fewer than half of adults employed full or part time in the United States, 43%, say the type of work they do generally requires a bachelor's or a more advanced degree. Fifty-seven percent say it does not, unchanged from 2005, but down slightly from 61% in 2002.Cost is the Problem The problem is not the degree. Rather, it's what you have to pay to get the degree. For those who end up trapped in fast food jobs, retail service, and numerous trades, the cost of college cannot possibly be worth the price. And that assumes one lands a job. Millions don't. So what good is a degree in English literature or other Liberal Arts program going to do for you? Hope or Hopeless? For those trapped in student debt, with no job, there is not a lot of hope. For those still in grade school, help is on the way as noted in Future of Education is At Hand: Online, Accredited, Affordable, Useful Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
| U.S. Going to Kill Syrians to Show Syria that Killing Syrians is Wrong Posted: 09 Sep 2013 11:07 AM PDT Abby Martin speaks with UK Parliament Member, George Galloway, about Syria war propaganda and his upcoming film 'The Killing of Tony Blair'. Link if video does not play: George Galloway: Dogs of War Slaver over Syria, Powder keg for Disaster Quote of the day goes to Abby Martin who says "We're killing Syrians to Show Syria that Killing Syrians is Wrong. I just cannot wrap my head around that". George Galloway responded along the lines of "The next time you see President Obama happy clapping in a Christian church, tell him that Al Qaeda slaughtered the Christian people of Syria literally, their necks and throats cut, heads sawed off, the Christian churches on fire at the hands of Al Qaeda, paid for and armed by the United States of America." Galloway was discussing this: Village 'liberated' by rebels... who then forced Christians to convert to Islam One Maaloula resident said the rebels, many of whom had beards and shouted 'Allahu Akbar' (God is great), attacked Christian homes and churches shortly after moving into the village.Yes, the US is literally funding Al Qaeda rebels to fight an insane war on trumped up evidence that Assad used chemical weapons on Syrians. The evidence is in dispute and if chemicals were used, it is equally likely the rebels used them to goad the US into action: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack Still More Hypocrisy To top off the hypocrisy, the US is the biggest user of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, in the entire world. Please read about the use of White Phosphorus by the US military in violation of the convention on chemical weapons. White Phosphorus Images  The above from a Google search for White Phosphorus Burns. What's the Difference Between the US Using Chemical Weapons and Others Doing the Same?  David Stockman nails the heart of US war-mongering hypocrisy with this question: "After having rained napalm, white phosphorous, bunker busters, drone missiles, and the most violent machinery of conventional warfare ever assembled upon millions of innocent Vietnamese, Cambodians, Serbs, Somalis, Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Yemeni, Libyans, and countless more, Washington now presupposes to be in the moral-sanctions business?" David Stockman is the author of The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America and the #1 New York Times bestseller The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed. For further discussion, please see End of U.S. Imperium—Finally!? Obama About to Suffer Glorious Defeat in Congress? Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
| Just How Distorted is the U.S. Unemployment Rate Number? Posted: 09 Sep 2013 02:45 AM PDT On the first Friday of every month, I go through the jobs report and note the grossly distorted statistics. For example, please see BLS in Wonderland written Friday, September 6 Every month I conclude with a couple paragraphs like these: Grossly Distorted StatisticsWonderland Statistics This past month I had a couple of extra paragraphs: Compared to recent Gallup surveys, these BLS stats regarding the base unemployment rate and the alternative measures as well are straight from wonderland. For details, please see Gallup Says Seasonally-Adjusted Unemployment Climbs to 8.6%; Who to Believe (Gallup or the BLS)?Let's take a look at BLS data to get a handle on what is happening, and why. Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate  The participation rate is the "labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population." Explaining the Graph
It's Not Demographics Many people believe demographics explains the decline in the workforce. However, that's not the case. To prove the point, let's focus in on an age group that is generally not retired and historically not in school. Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate - 25 to 54 years  Notice how the participation rate of those 25 to 54 has been in steady decline since the year 2000 except for a slight uptick in the housing boom years. Allowing 6-7 years after high school for college education, most of those 25 should be looking for a job or have a job. Yet the trend is unmistakable. Rick Newman, writing for Yahoo Finance posted the following table in Here Are the Real Labor Force Dropouts.  Here is a chart I posted previously in Normalized Unemployment Rates; Cyclical vs. Secular Forces Participation Rate by Age Group  Not in Labor Force Want a Job  To be in the labor force you have to want a job and look for a job. To be "unemployed" you have to be in the labor force. At the start of the recession, there were 4,648,000 people who wanted a job but were not considered unemployed. There are now 6,285,000 people who want a job now but do not have one. That is an increase of 1,637,000. Adding just the increase back would raise the labor force to 157,123,000 from 155,486,000. It would raise the number of unemployed to 12,953,000 from 11,316,000. And it would raise the unemployment rate to 8.2%. But why stop there? It's All In The Definition The definition of "unemployed" is what it is (for political reasons), but by my more practical definition "you are unemployed if you want a job and do not have one", the corresponding numbers would be as follows:
Actual Employment We can arrive at similar conclusions by looking at the number of employed. Once again the age group 25-54 is the most logical to study. (Total employment is not the best measure because of demographics, those over 60 retiring voluntarily). Employment Rate: Aged 25-54: All Persons in the United States  Demographics sure does not explain that chart so something else must. The answer is threefold:
Rampant Disability Fraud I have talked about disability fraud on numerous occasions. Here are a few examples:
Please read that last link above. It's a real eye opener. Not in Labor Force With a Disability  I would love to show data pre-recession. Unfortunately, the data only goes back to mid-2008. We can see however, that nearly 23 million Americans are not in the labor force because of "disabilities". I suggest "fraud" is more like it. It Doesn't Pay to Work The second reason the unemployment rate is artificially low is "It Doesn't Pay to Work". I wrote about this recently in Why Work for $7.25 When Welfare Pays $15.00 in 12 States and $8.00 in 33 States? Is a Low Minimum Wage the Problem? School I hardly think hiding out in school because there are no jobs (when you really want a job) should constitute someone being "not in the labor force" (yet it does). So What's the Real Unemployment Rate? If you use my definition, "you are unemployed if you want a job and do not have one" then the starting point is 10.9%. But what about those who do not have a job and don't want a job because of disability fraud or welfare considerations? Factor that in and the unemployment rate would be several points higher, say 14-15%. However, that does not count another 7% who have a part-time job but want a full-time job. So if you watch the unemployment rate drop month after month, and you think the number is grossly distorted and totally void of common-sense reality, you are absolutely correct. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Postări
