October 11, 2009
Britain's Central Planning Death Panels
October 11, 2009
Free Market M.D.
October 11, 2009
Economies of Scale in Compliance
October 11, 2009
Balan's Challenge
October 10, 2009
The Pleasure of Telling Others What to Do
October 10, 2009
Gonick the Great - and How He Could Have Been Greater
October 9, 2009
More Scott Sumner
October 9, 2009
Not From The Onion
October 9, 2009
Thoughts on a Second Stimulus
The lack of regulation of Products purchased, and Investment opportunities which are allowed. City planning is alive and well in this Country, but nothing of the order existent in Europe. The United States regulates Product quality and Safety procedures for its production, but at variance from necessary approved Production schedules still existent in Europe. lgl
As I understand it, it is more expensive to fire workers in Europe, so European companies are less likely to expand their payrolls even times of growth; they might stick with recession level payrolls all the time, which prevents them from fully exploiting the opportunities that arise when the economy is doing well.
The US corollary to this is not simply that US companies fire more workers. It is that US companies constantly eliminate less productive jobs, while constantly creating new jobs in response to new economic opportunities. This results in US labor being utilized more efficiently over the long run than European labor, as evidenced in the higher average output of US workers.
-->The US corollary to this is not simply that US companies fire more workers. It is that US companies constantly eliminate less productive jobs, while constantly creating new jobs in response to new economic opportunities.
--> As I understand it, it is more expensive to fire workers in Europe, so European companies are less likely to expand their payrolls even times of growth; they might stick with recession level payrolls all the time,
Over the last three years, employment in the US has grown from 137,846,000 in January 2001 to 138,603,000 in November 2003, a gain of 750,000, not a loss of 3 million. This according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is the official source:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls
Tim,
Your data lacks percision, to say the least! There is no indication it has been adjusted to Part-Time labor. A study reviewed in my distant past indicated a porporinate 0.1 Average Hours worked, would indicate approximate full-time jobs lost. It was based upon a Labor enrollment of years ago, so would not be of help here, but no similar data is appearing today. I do not think your raw data should be assimilated without serial adjustment. It does not convince me that Bush is not the worst Job performance President since Taft. lgl
You're right, LGL... A gain of 750,000 McJobs (not to mention probably 3 million former "jobs" that are now "McJobs") should not impress anyone, nor cause anyone to vote for the GOP.
LGL - it's not my data, its the US Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics' data. Maybe it lacks precision, but I can't do anything about that.
Steve - you've gone from saying 3 million jobs have been lost, to saying 750,000 jobs have been added, but those jobs don't matter. That's progress, I guess.
I admit, 750,000 jobs added in three years is not good. It's quite bad when the population is expanding by 3 million people a year. But it's not 3 million jobs lost, as lots of people are claiming.
Tim---You got me.
3 million more unemployed people. Either way, it is the worst since Hoover.
the theory of malthus robart