Unemployment Visualized

[drkitten]

But I think my example above is something of an incentive, in that it boosts the company's profits and gets investors to perhaps take second looks.

Not really. The company simply cutting costs. It's not trying to "create jobs." The reason it's not trying to create jobs is that very few programs, if any, actually reward job creation over simple employment.

I could easily imagine a badly written government program that offers companies $1000 per "job created." If that were the case, I could easily "create" a new job for every employee in my workforce, with a new budget line and a slightly re-written job description. ("See, in the old description, typing and filing were the second and third items. Now they're the third and second!") A decent sized company could milk the program for millions without hiring anyone new.

A better written program would offer incentives for "new hires"; while I could game this by firing everyone and replacing them with n00bs, that would be dumb beyond belief, because I'd also have to re-train all the n00bs and all my valuable employees would take their skills, contacts, and knowledge to my competitors. So it would still be gameable, but harder.

But since to the best of my knowledge neither of those programs actually exist (at any significant scale), companies wouldn't bother. What was actually written into the stimulus package was an incentive for "new hires" at companies that "expand their payroll," meaning they're putting more people (total) to work; I wouldn't see a dime for simply cutting costs by firing my expensive admin II and getting an admin I. However, I might get $5k or so by hiring an admin I to help my admin II, which might make it cheaper than paying overtime to my poor overworked assistant.

 

[Just thinking]

The BLS doesn't really deal in "created" jobs. The unemployment rate is the number of people actively looking for work divided by the labor force. Hence, hiring one person while firing another makes no net difference to the unemployment rate.

Where have I mentioned the BLS in all this? I'm speaking of the 800,000+ jobs number that keeps coming out of Washington. How are they arriving at that number? And how much of that number can come about from my given scenario?

If the employees quit rather than being fired or laid off, it seems likely that company A will want to hire replacements for most of them anyway.

Yes ... my whole point exactly. But if that company took stimulus money, those replacements might also get counted as a stimulus jobs, which would defraud the whole statistic.

Not the BLS stats. They don't keep track of "new hires." They keep track of who is employed and who is not, but is actively seeking employment.

So? My point is about stimulus jobs numbers, not unemployment. So just how are those numbers arrived at, if not the BLS?

Those numbers are indeed "questionable." They are probably based on models or surveys, both of which are questionable methods, and are likely put out by people working for politicians or political think tanks or the like.

Ah ha ... you've gone around enough of my comments to arrive at my initial concerns. And you too find them "questionable". You see, we're more together on this than you may have at first thought.

 

[Puppycow]

Where have I mentioned the BLS in all this? I'm speaking of the 800,000+ jobs number that keeps coming out of Washington. How are they arriving at that number? And how much of that number can come about from my given scenario?

A lot of numbers "come out of Washington." It's hard for me to say what the claim really is, much less its basis, based on that description.

It could be the net change in employment (or maybe private-sector employment) since the beginning of the year. Can't be sure without a link to a news article with the specific claim in question.

 

[WildCat]

Now they've published Another Way To Visualize Unemployment

This one is based not on monthly job gains or losses but on unemployment rates.

Unemployment rates are understated currently, because people who have given up looking for a job aren't counted as unemployed.

 

[Just thinking]

Unemployment rates are understated currently, because people who have given up looking for a job aren't counted as unemployed.

Not only that, but just who decides if a person has "given up" ?

 

[daenku32]

Well it's only going to get worse now that they will be cutting the permanent government jobs as well. The temporary ones, gone for sure as well.

 

[Just thinking]

So?

Wherever does this notion come from that Government jobs are somehow visualized as something above private sector jobs? ... and should never be lost?

 

[daenku32]

So?

Wherever does this notion come from that Government jobs are somehow visualized as something above private sector jobs? ... and should never be lost?

If you care about unemployment numbers, GDP, etc, I think you should try to save all the jobs you can. Government jobs are the easiest to save. Private sector jobs, not quite so. Unless...you make a condition that the business tax credit MUST go directly into to the paychecks of the workers. IE, you can't get a tax credit AND fire someone.

 

[ServiceSoon]

If you care about unemployment numbers, GDP, etc, I think you should try to save all the jobs you can. Government jobs are the easiest to save. Private sector jobs, not quite so. Unless...you make a condition that the business tax credit MUST go directly into to the paychecks of the workers. IE, you can't get a tax credit AND fire someone.

You've done it, broken the economic code that is. All we have to do is mitigate private sector jobs to gov jobs and our problem will be solved! That way all our precious numbers will look good.

 

[Puppycow]

Too many government jobs really is bad. Even Cuba has come to realize this. Recently they laid off half a million government employees.

When people have so much job security that they can't imagine they will ever be fired, there is little incentive to be productive or creative.

 

[drkitten]

Not only that, but just who decides if a person has "given up" ?

The unemployment office that processes your check. You have to be 'actively looking for work' in order to get the money, and you have to attest to that on a regular basis. And, yes, they will audit you if they feel like it, so you need to be prepared to tell them which jobs you applied for last week.

 

[TraneWreck]

This just proves that Paris Hilton needs a tax cut.

 

[daenku32]

Too many government jobs really is bad. Even Cuba has come to realize this. Recently they laid off half a million government employees.

When people have so much job security that they can't imagine they will ever be fired, there is little incentive to be productive or creative.

So they are more productive being unemployed?

PS. Why do I get this feeling that a lot people think that government employees just take their government paychecks and bury them in the flower bed of the government building's green space? That somehow these government employees are really good at not spending that government paycheck in private grocery stores, car dealerships, utility and phone companies, and heck, a little $1 movie rental even. And certainly they won't use that paycheck for home improvements, or paying their kids college tuition, or fixing up the brakes on the car. For some reason, they are just able to live without spending any of that government money.

Strange. Here I thought that even if they spent their day spinning pens between their fingers they would eventually spend their not-hard-earned money to whomever provides the most efficient and quality service? Like the rest of us.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Too many government jobs really is bad. Even Cuba has come to realize this. Recently they laid off half a million government employees.

When people have so much job security that they can't imagine they will ever be fired, there is little incentive to be productive or creative.

Well, Cuba hasn't laid them off, well at least not in the same way a "lay off" is here. It's true they've shed quite a few government jobs, but those people who lost their job aren't just left on their own, but will be transitioned into private employment, both through "Traditional" private sector jobs, and worker co operatives. I agree though, public sector jobs shouldn't account for every possible employment like they did in Cuba (This even included hair salons), but it should account for some, perhaps even a significant amount of the job force. Really depends on the situation, and line of work.

 

[daenku32]

Well, Cuba hasn't laid them off, well at least not in the same way a "lay off" is here. It's true they've shed quite a few government jobs, but those people who lost their job aren't just left on their own, but will be transitioned into private employment, both through "Traditional" private sector jobs, and worker co operatives. I agree though, public sector jobs shouldn't account for every possible employment like they did in Cuba (This even included hair salons), but it should account for some, perhaps even a significant amount of the job force. Really depends on the situation, and line of work.

Exactly. Employment figures are only about 5-10% below 'optimum'. Even if every last one of the unemployed in that gap was hired by the government we would be far from a Communist system.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Exactly. Employment figures are only about 5-10% below 'optimum'. Even if every last one of the unemployed in that gap was hired by the government we would be far from a Communist system.

Agreed. If we took all the currently chronically unemployed and say, put them to work via public employment in things badly needed like infrastructure maintenance and redevelopment, the vast majority of the employed would still be through private sector jobs. Keeping people working and productive, especially for the public good, is generally a win/win scenario in my book.

Of course, we don't need to give them all "government" jobs, we can also put more badly needed funds in our public higher education, and make it easier (financially) for people to obtain degrees that translate into decent needed employment.

 

[tyr_13]

Of course, we don't need to give them all "government" jobs, we can also put more badly needed funds in our public higher education, and make it easier (financially) for people to obtain degrees that translate into decent needed employment.

I have a degree and I'm still in the same job I worked my way through college in. In fact, I was recently passed up for a promotion and one reason they gave me was, 'you'll just leave when something better comes up' because I have a degree. I was told essentially the same thing applying for another job.

So in part because I have a degree I can't find a better job.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

I have a degree and I'm still in the same job I worked my way through college in. In fact, I was recently passed up for a promotion and one reason they gave me was, 'you'll just leave when something better comes up' because I have a degree. I was told essentially the same thing applying for another job.

So in part because I have a degree I can't find a better job.

Yes, that's a very common situation, but I'm not describing the solution as "everyone gets a degree, then a decent/good job". Of course that's not a good solution, because not all degrees are created equal, and quite a few are rather worthless on the job market. This is why I said "for people to obtain degrees that translate into decent needed employment." But really, that was bad wording anyway. I should have said "translate into degrees that objectively increase the chances of securing employment in a particular field that pays a decent (living) wage". After all, some degrees open up other realms of employment that you simply can't get without it. If I say, want to be a nurse, I'm going to at least need to get an A.S. in nursing before I can even be considered for the job. But I'm not advocating it as a singular solution either, any solution to a problem like large unemployment takes many solutions, all account for various variables, location, and individuals in question.

 

[Just thinking]

The unemployment office that processes your check. You have to be 'actively looking for work' in order to get the money, and you have to attest to that on a regular basis. And, yes, they will audit you if they feel like it, so you need to be prepared to tell them which jobs you applied for last week.

And if you meet their definition of "actively looking" yet your benefits have expired, then what? They say you've given up, but you may very well still be actively looking --- even more so now that you've no income at all. Basically, it's open season on definitions here.

 

[Just thinking]

Agreed. If we took all the currently chronically unemployed and say, put them to work via public employment in things badly needed like infrastructure maintenance and redevelopment, the vast majority of the employed would still be through private sector jobs. Keeping people working and productive, especially for the public good, is generally a win/win scenario in my book.

You left out one little caveat ... if the state/federal government can afford the projects. You might just wish to see what's happened in NJ to see the effects of just going forward without fiscal responsibility.