I had a friend who lived near the Staples Center in 2001 (Back2Back, on the way to Three-Peat). This is normal victory celebration in the US. BUT YOU ARE IN CANADA! Also, not a G8 meeting.
July 16-17
Between the 10 and the 101.
….
FuuuuuuuuuuuuSince I don’t know what this means or refers to, I’ll assume I won’t be impacted by this.
Woah. I’m heading to LAX on the 17th (from Santa Barbara). You just saved me a LOT of headache. Now I’m going to think about how I got this news via a computer tech in New Mexico.
I was gifted these for Christmas, which was obviously a re-gift and never opened the box.
I strongly suggest extending the re-gifting cycle. Preferably to a coworker in a secret-Santa. Or an ex-boyfriend you still keep in touch with because his parents are friends with your parents.
Duly noted. So the decline in the labour market participation rate isn’t an artifact of long-term unemployed people lapsing out of the official unemployment stats after all. These people are actually giving up on looking for work and doing… something else. It’s not clear what.
Thanks for the clarification!
Well, from a practical standpoint, things can diverge. I think most people, after their unemployment insurance runs out after a maximum (depending on state) 99 weeks, are willing to say, “I don’t think there’s any jobs out there to be had. Why bother looking? It’s a waste of time.”
And if they do say that, they’ll be considered as not looking, at which point they will not be counted as unemployed. However, as a consequence of no longer being unemployed, they would also not have had a duration much longer than 99 weeks (they subsequently disappear from the average duration statistic).
I can’t imagine actively looking for a job for that long. I can easily believe someone could have given up before the 99 weeks were up. Granted, I wouldn’t have admitted to giving up for fear of losing my benefits, paltry as they may be. But after the benefits expire? Why not? In many places, there aren’t jobs being offered in many industries. Unless people switch industries or try to start their own business (which might stop the check), they are SoL. If you had 400 bucks a week that depended on you saying that you still believed you could get a job and were still actively looking, wouldn’t you play along, even if you knew no business was hiring?
I wonder what a laborer in a paper mill in Podunk, Kansas says when the paper mill closes. For some towns, a single factory might be the largest employer. When it’s gone, what’s left? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that there’s very little in the way of potential job offers. But they’ve got to say they’re looking, right? Wouldn’t you lie, to yourself and the government clerk, if it meant the difference between $0 and $400 a week?
Would you give a different answer to the job search question to the BLS phone survey? Is there any assurance the person on the other end could give you that would make you admit that you lied to get the only check that pays your bills?
jasencomstock replied to your quote: My first question is where are all the workers…
I think after 99 weeks a person isn’t considered looking for employment anymore, so they are not considered actively unemployed.That might be the cutoff for benefit eligibility (not sure how this works in the US), but as far as the US BLS is concerned, unemployment can last as long as you’re looking. The breakdown goes up to five years, beyond which there’s just a category for five years or more.
That’s true for duration statistics, but those people are not included in number of people unemployed. Nor are people underemployed, those that have stopped looking nor disabled folks like me:
This change affects estimates of average (mean) duration of unemployment. The change does not affect the estimate of the number of unemployed persons and does not affect other data series on the duration of unemployment.
Duly noted. Thanks so much for pointing this out! I’ve been blithely going through all this employment data for my RAship without thinking about how it affects the actual headline stats - my fault for not being more careful with the definitions. Sorry about that.
This means there are potentially a whole lot of people who have been looking for work but totally unable to find it for a very, very long time - wow, that is a seriously suboptimal situation. (Although it doesn’t look like this explains all the people leaving the labour market.)
It sounds like this person misinterpreted the BLS.
That’s true for duration statistics, but those people are not included in number of people unemployed.
This is incorrect. The people are counted as unemployed. The procedure is pretty unambiguous. First, they are established as unemployed. Then the duration is established. There are no people unemployed for 4 years who do not count as unemployed. In order to be unemployed for a duration, they are first unemployed. This is clarified in This chapter of the BLS Handbook of Methods.
The linked article is about a recent change in the data. The maximum recorded value for unemployment duration has increased from 2 to 5 years. The reason the duration limit change from 2+ to 5+ years doesn’t impact the unemployment rate is that those people are always counted as unemployed. Changing a 3 year unemployed person from a duration of 2+ to 3 years doesn’t impact the unemployment rate (he was unemployed before and after the change). It does, however, impact the average duration of unemployment (the average duration just got longer). Historical comparisons of average length of unemployment just got a bit more complicated. Historical comparisons of unemployment rates were unaffected by the change.
Oh, there’s certainly an argument to be made that we might be better off if prisons and sentencing guidelines were designed to rehabilitate. But aside from the legal opinion of the courts, there’s quite a bit of evidence that if our prison system were judged on the merits of rehabilitation, it would be an utter failure. Of course, I’m not really sure what metric you could use to determine that our prison system isn’t a failure. Also, I don’t know why that part of your post stood out to me. I really did read it.
| — |
Eagles quarterback Michael Vick, to NBC News. [gawker.] (via thedailywhat) I’m not really sure how to handle this. Full disclosure: I’m a huge Philadelphia Eagles fan and have been since I was born. On the other hand, I’m a huge animal lover and actively participate in charities designed to establish no-kill animal shelters in my state, Pennsylvania. Michael Vick is a profound challenge for my ethics. One thing is clear: completing a prison sentence doesn’t erase your crimes. Michael Vick did systematic, terrible things to dogs over the course of his life that honestly enrage me to think about. I think he is only being offered any sort of public acceptance because he throws and runs well - because he’s winning on a football team. A common dog-abuser that did the sort of things Michael Vick did would go in society’s permanent discard pile. Is it only my fandom that begs me to forgive him? I do believe that criminals should be forgiven for their crimes, eventually. Prison is intended to punish and rehabilitate people who commit crimes. I want to believe that Michael Vick can be a member of society again without being permanently branded. That said, he took lives. Not one; dozens. And he took those lives in sadistic ways. This is to say nothing of the dozens (probably hundreds) of additional animals that suffered greatly under his hand. What I want to do is trust Michael Vick. I want him to be an example for the community, especially where dogs are concerned. More importantly, I want him to be an example for felons everywhere. I want him to teach criminals - hard criminals who’ve committed unspeakable acts - that they’re able to be normal again, to rejoin society as human beings that underwent the change necessary to function. To be accepted. For Michael Vick to be a beacon of hope instead of a mark of shame, we need to be beacons of forgiveness. We need to accept what he did, accept his punishment, and accept his attempts to re-enter society. We must not be skeptical of his desire to be rehabilitated, to love animals like a normal person, to keep and care for animals like a parent should. And we must parse this need out from our eagerness to look past the crimes of sports stars, athletes, and celebrities. We must treat all criminals like we will treat Michael Vick. I hope he gets a dog. I hope he loves it like he should, like a father loves a child. I hope that dog tours the country on his platform for change to jails and kennels. And I hope other inmates see his example and understand that they, too, can one day be normal again without the everlasting judgement of society. It’s an act of trust and faith on our part, to forgive. We must put our faith in Michael Vick and trust that he is a better man for his horrific mistakes, a better man with the unique ability to raise others up as well. It churns my stomach to make that leap. Others will not make it. I understand and do not agree with them. (via correlationstonone) Prison is intended to punish and rehabilitate people who commit crimes. Picking a nit. It is widely interpreted that Mistretta v. United States decided that prisons are not intended to rehabilitate. |
This once looked like a pretty sure thing. Now it looks like the Build America Bonds program won’t be extended. This, combined with the falloff of other federal aid, will put a lot of strain on California’s budget.
I guess some cans weren’t meant to be kicked forever.
I like CA for a trial patient. Or patient zero, more likely.
For sentimental reasons, I prefer Illinois go first.
Let us all move to Iceland!
For the default-and-devalue option to work, you’ve got to have the devalue option. We don’t. Even if we did, it’s no cup of tea. I’m all for the default part, though.
The problem with default is that you generally get a fat dose of living-with-a-balanced-budget to go along with it. California doesn’t know how to do that. Imagine not being able to auction bonds off to build a school. Then there’s a bunch of other fallout to go with it. California debt is mostly held domestically. The general structure of tax incentives for municipal bonds makes the interest rate worthwhile locally, not so much elsewhere. It’s much easier to default when outsiders are holding your debt. Your default becomes their problem. When your own people hold your debt, their problem tends to transform back into your problem.
There’s currently also a legal framework problem with default. There’s no laws to enable states to default. That doesn’t mean a state can’t default. Skip a payment and the state has defaulted. But now what happens? It was illegal for the state to skip a payment. But Let’s assume the state defaulted because they actually ran out of money. If there’s no money, then the legal constraint on skipping a payment doesn’t prevent it from happening. And raising taxes without a 2/3 majority in the state legislature is also illegal. So it’s illegal to skip a payment and illegal to get the funds to make a payment. That would be quite a bind, wouldn’t it?
Incidentally, Iceland is screwed in a bunch of different ways. Getting out of recession isn’t an all-clear. After all, we’ve been out of recession for a year. Simple example: Iceland over-fished. They’re going to need to start importing food. If currency wars start heating up, expect Iceland to be hurt by the resulting protectionism. They handled their banking crisis well, but they’ve got a few problems remaining to be dealt with.
This once looked like a pretty sure thing. Now it looks like the Build America Bonds program won’t be extended. This, combined with the falloff of other federal aid, will put a lot of strain on California’s budget.
I guess some cans weren’t meant to be kicked forever.
I like CA for a trial patient. Or patient zero, more likely.
For sentimental reasons, I prefer Illinois go first.
