Moving in the right direction
Posted by aogWednesday, 14 July 2010 at 09:26
TrackBack Ping URL
From National Review Online
Private Sector Losses vs. Public Sector Gains [Veronique de Rugy]
It’s been a while since I reported on private-sector and public-sector job growth since the passage of the stimulus bill. Here is a chart, based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that speaks for itself.
Since the beginning of the recession (roughly January 2008), some 7.9 million jobs were lost in the private sector while 590,000 jobs were gained in the public one. And since the passage of the stimulus bill (February 2009), over 2.6 million private jobs were lost, but the government workforce grew by 400,000.
I will leave it up to you to draw conclusions.
Some more movement in the right direction.
Friday, 16 July 2010 at 13:02|
In a company of all excellent employees with no “low-performance slackers” there is still, by definition, a “worst employee”, [etc].
Surely you aren’t serious.
While technically true, nobody outside of the Asperger community is going to read “you let your worst employees go” and think “hmmm, the author may be referring to workers who, while excellent employees, are nonetheless least among equals.” It’s similar to the way that we speak of “luck” - unless modified by “bad”, a reference to “luck” alone habitually means good luck, although technically an unqualified “luck” could be positive or negative.
So again, you completely and absolutely misrepresented what I wrote.
While my paraphrasing of your position was admittedly hyperbolic, let’s see if it was a “complete and absolute misrepresentation”, shall we?:
I think that it’s far from clear how many of the unemployed are in a terrible hurry to go back to work.
Rough quotes: “…these previously stable workers who lost their jobs but found new ones later were earning 20% less a decade later than other workers who weren’t let go…”
I’m surprised it’s only 20%.
In a downturn, you let your worst employees go, not your best. It isn’t even vaguely surprising that this filtering effect would predict who would make substantially more in the future.
Well, they could become some of society’s heroes and employ themselves and others… They won’t though, because they’d rather sit around and let someone else take the risks of employing them…
You have written that the unemployed are in no hurry to be fiscally-productive; that unemployed people are inherently the worst of the labor force and that even during better times, the currently-unemployed can be expected to underperform once employed; and that the unemployed are risk-adverse, lack initiative, and would “rather sit around.”
Again I must ask, the implications of your own writings differ from “losers”, “slackers” and “bad rubbish” how, exactly?
If you like, we could talk about how the “19th century panics/Great Depression” environment largely negates the usually-true “the worst performers get let go” dynamic, and about how we’re not likely to match the fairly-recent high points in employment, and labor force participation among ages 16 - 65, for another two decades.
Saturday, 17 July 2010 at 00:25|
Well, Bret, I must admit to being a little disappointed; I provided the relevant quotes, and asked for additional clarification if you still thought that your intent was being twisted. For you to simply repeat your mistaken assertion, without further substantiation, is a somewhat inelegant and surly capitulation.
No, [Bret] did not write that, or anything that could be construed, even by scrunching one’s eyes up, as meaning anything remotely like that.
If interested, you can read the entire exchange beginning here, and continuing intermittently down to the end of the thread, in the context and with the modifiers and qualifiers which inform my interpretation. Therein lies your eye-scrunch, unremote. A humorous look at the importance of context.
Now, consider the effect that extending unemployment benefits has. Yes, they are defensible on compassionate terms, but you are going to have a real hard time convincing anyone that doing so will, at least for some people, provide sufficient reason to delay taking another job.
Yes, some. However, until there are substantially fewer than today’s six job-seekers for every one open position, I daresay that society isn’t much suffering if a small percentage of unemployed people don’t diligently seek jobs because they find the unemployment social-benefits package to be too appealing. Indeed, given that the number of people working part-time due to economic reasons has doubled from 2005 PDF ‘til now, to 8.6MM people, it seems that there are a very substantial number of people takin’ anything they can get, regardless of how poor the job.
Further, the BLS defines “part-time” as anything between “1 - 34 hours worked per week”, but doesn’t track the median number of hours worked per job, so it may be that many of these jobs are quite poor. I heard anecdotally that a lot of the seasonal retail hires last Christmas were being scheduled for fewer than ten hours a week, some as little as five. And we know that the temps hired for the Census weren’t working steadily through the Census period; a couple weeks on, a couple weeks off before being recalled…