A Jobless Horizon

Posted: October 28, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: jobs, The Great Recession, U.S. Economy | 17 Comments

Many economists are still forecasting a rather bleak jobless recovery in our future.  The latest outlook  from Macroadvisors (h/t to Mark Thoma & Economist’s View) suggests that we won’t see substantial job creation until the end of 2013.  This would be a full four years after the technical end of the recession.  That’s not good.

A jobless recovery is an unpleasant and stubborn thing.  Basically, the GDP of a country will grow which means the production of goods and services available to the economy increases, but that growth rate isn’t sufficient enough to create jobs.  This has all kinds of ramifications and none of them are pleasant.  In the past, we’ve trended towards decreasing employment in many sectors and there’s a lot of reasons for that.  First, we’ve improved processes through technology or consolidation of businesses which were typical of earlier points in time.  This continues but to a lesser extent.  Second, globalization has been an important factor–especially recently–as manufacturing and other industries seek outsourcing and other countries’ markets as a way to improve their bottom lines.  The interesting thing about the Macroadvisor forecast is that it indicates that the main source here is just plain slow growth. This is the most troubling because it’s usually the easiest thing for the government to correct by increasing its domestic demand.

Here are their main points:

  • The U.S. is in the midst of another “jobless recovery,” in the sense that employment gains have been meager relative to enormous job losses that occurred during 2008 and 2009.
  • We anticipate that job gains will continue at a moderate rate, and that the pre-recession peak in private nonfarm payroll employment won’t be reached until 2013, nearly 4 years after the recession ended.
  • This would be roughly comparable to the time it took to regain the pre-recession peak in employment following the 2001 recession, but approximately twice as long as the recovery in employment following the 1990–91 recession and approximately four times as long following recessions in 1970, 1973–75, and 1981–82.
  • The overwhelming factor contributing to the much more sluggish pace of job creation in recent recoveries is much slower growth of output.
  • In contrast, other factors — including productivity growth and changes in the workweek — have played only minor roles in accounting for slower growth of private nonfarm payrolls in recent recoveries.
  • The severity of the decline in employment during 2008 and 2009 is largely accounted for by the weakness in output during the recession, and not by anomalous behavior of productivity.

This is also troubling in other ways.  Some of it, as their analysis points out, seems to be due to an increasing trend in our economy.  In other words, this has become a pattern in the last three recoveries and it’s just progressively getting worse.   It is looks like we’ve reached a growth plateau.

Some of this is also because of the reasons pointed out above.  The U.S’s strongest periods of growth occurred during periods where other countries were not growing so quickly in terms of production.  If you think of the post World War 2 period–a time many folks consider the ‘golden age’ of the US–you should realize that we were one of the few intact industrialized nations left standing.  We were nearly the world’s sole supplier and every one else needed goods.  The last 60 years have been a story of the rest of the world developing its production capacity.  We are no longer the world’s company store.  Now, we have become the world’s biggest customer.

Another reason is the political climate that changed abruptly during the Reagan Revolution. We seem keen on supporting business who can go just about any where for workers and consumers now, but have no desire to prop up U.S. households.  Incomes have been down for some time.  Now, borrowing capacity is down.  While businesses can take their capital some place else, households are unlikely to do that.  We keep our labor some where in the U.S. and with the recent decline of our home values and ability to sell homes, we are almost limited to our current situations at the moment. U.S. Labor is not a very mobile factor.

At one point, government could be counted on to give some Keynesian tweaking by increasing its employment.  This still happened during the Reagan years by revitalizing the military capital. Think about all those new Navy ships.  This was less necessary during the Clinton years because of the boost to productivity and incomes from information technology plus the cold war peace dividend.  Now, all we see are state balanced budget amendments that force states to take recessionary actions during recessionary times and ignore spending prohibitions during good times. We also have such low taxes from the Dubya years, that any attempt to regain some traction there is going to be met with intense political ill will.  This imbalance–if anything–will get worse because the last two years and Democratic political capital were wasted on political efforts not associated with job creation.  We’re seeing meager attempts at tax incentives and those are likely to continue. This will not help the American household or create jobs for them.  Eventually, forces will be such that deficit reduction attempts will prevail and all bets will be off if job growth isn’t sufficient by then.

What does that mean for most of us?  Well, it means more stagnant incomes and downsized lives.  It means trying to avoid using credit and looking for ways to pad that rainy day fund.  It also means that it may take a very long time to find that job you really want and deserve.  You may have to move to get it and you may have to sell a home–if you have one–at a price that will put a hamper on your retirement plans.  And ah, you’re retirement days, with decreased income  and employment comes decreased contributions to both social security and related funds.  Something you should–if you can–try to offset.  Something, however, the government cannot offset without doing something to the programs.

One of the most troubling things of all of this is the likely decreased contributions to sustaining Social Security and Medicare from the decreased incomes and labor participation.  This–and political will to decimate the system–will make it highly unlikely that either program will make it through the next five years unscathed.  I can almost guarantee it given the Cat Food Commission’s goals and composition.  I can also foresee Wall Street attempting to get access to your funds to play speculation games.  This will make your return subject to market momentum and whims.

I think it’s more important for us to make our voices heard to government on all these issues or an erosion of middle class lifestyles will likely result.  This is where it’s also important to argue from a rational economic viewpoint rather than the anti-government hysterics of the tea party. Yes, we all agree that’s something amiss.  Yes, we can see that our dollars are going to the wrong people.  But the deal is this, if you continue to lose income and job standing, taxes are really irrelevant.  And this brings me back to the slow growth forecast above.  You see, we are a consumer economy, and of course our economy will grow slow if there are no jobs and no decent pay levels with which we can purchase things.

Again, corporations can buy things and people from any where and they can move at will. There are growing markets in China, India, and even Vietnam.  We, however, are pretty much stuck with situation.  And that is why every one needs to vote their interests and not their anger.

A little housekeeping

Posted: October 28, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Festivities, just because | 56 Comments

Well, things unfolded a lot quicker than I supposed, so I’m going to have to do some housekeeping around here as it looks like Sky Dancing will be a bit more than a file cabinet.

I just wanted to let every one know that effective this afternoon,  I have resigned my affiliation with The Confluence.

Well, that and I’m not sure what to do at this point and that I’ll continue to blog here for the time being. I was accepted last month at the Financial Times, I still have an association with some folks at FDL, and who knows?  My life is in a state of flux, anyway.  So, we go from file cabinet to active blog over here at Sky Dancing.

I’m an issues person, so this will be an issues blog and open to all view points  as long as they follow some guidelines. (Merci to Lambert of Corrente for some suggestions here.)  I don’t care if you disagree with me or others.  Just be civil.  That means no name calling, no bullying, and no endless repetition of the same points that no one agrees with. Of course, I don’t want comments that repeat “memes”.  That means if it’s something every one else is arguing because it some kind of winger spin, I’m not going to allow that to dominate a thread.    Also, I don’t expect comments to be ‘dogwhistles’ for racists, xenophobes, homophobes or sexist jerks.  If you think your snark may be mistaken for something serious, then just label it snark font so those of us that can be snark-impaired get it.

Until, I get some sense of things, carry on!!!  Make it work!!!  (h/t to the fabulous Tim Gunn).

Politics may be ugly business but discussing it should never be an excuse to Bully

Posted: October 27, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | 63 Comments

I’ve taken a hiatus from blogging for a few weeks because of the tone of many posts and comments I’ve read recently at The Confluence.  Many are something  that I wish to be no party of or to.

There are few circumstances that cause me to go off on people.  I do not support incessant repetition of  hateful memes that scapegoat minority groups for the issues confronting our nation and our world.  I’ve always felt and articulated that an Obama Presidency would not deliver what it promised and was not going to be what it was portrayed during the 2008 campaign. His substantial shortcomings have nothing to do with his multi-racial genetics. (I believe I’ve been more-than-correct on that assertion.)  I’ve also tried to represent a clear liberal criticism and an alternative voice to the miserable policy that was enacted over the last two years.  Recent Democratic policy was symbolically labeled but short content-wise on substantive positive change in the direction that I feel is necessary for the future of our children and neighbors in this country. It continues to enable and enrich the few at the cost of the many.

Additionally, this is not 2008.  It is late 2010 and there is no point to waxing  on or ranting on about what coulda, shoulda, mighta been.

In no way should my words be taken then or now as approving any Republican take-over of government or a denial that the Tea Party is overtly right wing and full of racist, homophobic, and xenophobic elements.  I do not hate our government even though many things it does are ill-conceived and ill-enacted.  That I even feel the need to say this is because I’ve feel my words have been surrounding by too much behavior and words by folks that think differently and I wish to disassociate myself completely with that sentiment.

I’ve seen overt bullying in threads at a time when the consequences of bullying should be more than obvious to even the most obtuse individual. No one’s personal life has been without challenge recently. Not even mine. However, I have tried not to bring the stress of my every day life and the emotional chaos that surrounds the disassembling of higher education in Louisiana by a consummate right wing Republican Governor and ultimately the disappearance of my job there to you. I also have tried not let my dismay at the blogosphere or the Democratic party fester into something ugly.

I’ve watched folks brought over by my Tweets and Facebook posts poked and prodded into leaving simply because they feel differently.   All criticism of things Clinton or Obama are not necessarily part of a derangement syndrome.  Some things are honest substantial differences based on distinct opinions on policy and issues.  I have never tolerated name calling or bullying. I have always been fully committed to establishing a ‘be nice or leave’ zone.  I do believe when there is a difference of opinion not based on the blatant spin memes of interest groups, one can disagree without denigrating another human being or humiliating them to the point they angrily respond so then the bully self-righteously claims victory in the argument.  I’ve seen way too much of this activity during this political season. I’m tired of anger. There is no future in it and it creates a hostile environment for free thought and discussion.

I am–at heart–an issues oriented independent.  Since the so-called Reagan Revolution, I’ve had a horrible time identifying any Republican with whom I agree on any issue other than a few old-timers who have been jackbooted out of positions by the virulent anti everything rank and file.  I vote Democratic most of the time by default, but never without full knowledge that what I am getting is probably not what I really want.  This has especially been true in the age of the Obama cult.  Hopefully, Democrats are seeing the follies of their ways of the last two years.  My one little vote and voice have never been part of a critical mass and I don’t see this changing any time soon.

That being said, I enjoy the company of  like-minded.  Yet, I abhor the bullying of the self-righteous and the intolerant no matter how like-minded on issues they may be.  Since I committed to posting at TC, I have posted with complete regularity and have tried to take the high road when ever confronted with difference of opinion or thought. I try to start a conversation; never trying to find some ultimate correctness.  A right wing shill is still a right wing shill even if they occasionally strike a point.  I also actively question the group think of the self-labeled progressive movement.  I do not defend this either.  I try to stick to issues and I have tried to bring in different viewpoints in the hopes of stimulating discussion when relevant.  I have never sought to weed out people or question their fitness for the blog.   I rarely front page right wing hysterics and only do so as a way to provide various viewpoints.  My heavy handedness was relegated to removing bullies that name call and correcting angry people who shriek memes endlessly.  After you say the same thing about three times and some one still disagrees, posting the same argument over and over isn’t going to change the direction of people’s feelings.  I hope those actions were noticeable.   I have never questioned people’s decisions on whether they were right for the blog or the blog was right for them.  I’ve tried to maintain that as a frontpager and later as an editor. That being said, I’ve noticed a distinct change in overall tone recently that has caused me to question my commitment to frontpaging at The Confluence.  There is stuff going on that makes me want to ignore thread-after-thread-after-thread.

I was going to try to keep this self-questioning off the front page, but by now, my absence must be noted and questioned by a few.  I’m still in tumult.  For those of you that have enjoyed your reprieve from my voice, you’ll be happy to hear that so far, I’ve not really had a change of heart. I’ve had some discourse with fellow front pagers so this isn’t going to surprise most of them.  I’ve made a commitment to post a Tuesday morning news thread and I’ve kept that commitment.  I just want you all to know that the community here is always what’s kept me here because many of you and  your wisdom has meant so much to me over the last few years.  I have to figure out if I can keep coming here and contributing under some of the current circumstances.  There is enough stress in my personal life without coming here to find discussion threads laced with behavior that makes me feel very uncomfortable.  I hope you all understand that this is difficult for me and I’m not taking my decision-making and feelings or yours lightly at all.

I’m uncertain what response I will receive for this by any one at this point but I’m prepared to live with the consequences.  Whatever that means. Hopefully, this was short and to the point and conveyed how I feel.  This was extremely hard for me to write. I just felt I needed to get it off my chest and clear the very thick air around me.

Mrs. Clarence Thomas asks Anita Hill to Apologize

Posted: October 20, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: SCOTUS, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , | Comments Off on Mrs. Clarence Thomas asks Anita Hill to Apologize

Clarence and Virginia Thomas

This is unbelievable:

In a voice mail message left at 7:31 a.m. on Oct. 9, a Saturday, Virginia Thomas asked her husband’s former aide-turned-adversary to make amends. Ms. Hill played the recording, from her voice mail at Brandeis University, for The New York Times.

“Good morning Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas,” it said. “I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband.”

Ms. Thomas went on: “So give it some thought. And certainly pray about this and hope that one day you will help us understand why you did what you did. O.K., have a good day.”

What possible explanation could there be for this? Was Virginia Thomas:

A. Drunk?

B. Temporarily insane?

C. Sick and tired of Clarence obsessing on what happened and whining about it constantly?

D. ______________________________________ (Fill in your own wild guess)

What do you think?

Religion: force for good or not?

Posted: October 16, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off on Religion: force for good or not?

I thought I’d front page this since I posted it on an earlier thread and it’s generated some interesting discussion. The Economist has weekly debate sessions where there are two sides asked to give arguments pro and con for a statement. Then, the readers are asked to weigh in. It’s always fun to read the comments from “the floor”. This week’s motion was:

Throughout history and across the globe religion has been a cause of peace and violence, tolerance and inflexibility, charity and selfishness. Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa all found inspiration in their religious beliefs—as did Osama bin Laden, Baruch Goldstein and Jim Jones. This mixed history invites the question of whether religion, on the whole, is a cause of good or ill. Is faith dangerous, inspiring the fierce defence of dogmatic views, often leading to conflict, intolerance and regression? Or is it beneficial, compelling people to pursue moral, virtuous and productive lives? It can be both, of course, but at the end of this debate we must decide whether a world without religion would be a better place to live.

Sam Harris of Project Reason argued against the motion. Mark Oppenheimer, Beliefs’ columnist for the New York Times, author of “Wisenheimer” and a lecturer at Yale, supported the motion that that religion is a force for good in the world. Seventy Five per cent (including me) agreed with Sam Harris. Here is his major argument.

The important question is whether religion is ever the best force for good at our disposal. And I think the answer to this question is clearly “no”—because religion gives people bad reasons for being good where good reasons are available.

This is Oppenheimer’s major point.

Religion responds to a deep, satisfying human need for ritual. And it often organises the human quests for ethics and meaning. To think about the common good, the purpose of life and how to live, it has proven useful to use religious stories or theology.

My current favorite (albeit against our constitution) comment from the peanut gallery is this one.

Dear Sir,

Now that it has been clearly established by a majority vote that religion is not a force for good, the question naturally arises whether its most extreme organized forms and practices, along with their propaganda material (religious literature), should be banned be law, much like the Church of Scientology is already banned in Germany on grounds of being anti-constitutional (ferfassungsfeindlich) and much like some political organizations are not allow to establish themselves there, like the Nazi party.

If an organized religion is found to be fundamentally at odds with certain universal values such as democracy, freedom of speech and human rights, should it not be declared unlawful?

I wonder if The Economist is willing to organize a debate on that. It should be interesting.

This is obviously a magazine that wouldn’t have much appeal to most Americans. But it was an interesting debate all the same. I’ve been watching “God in America” which is one of those PBS mini-series that’s considered a must see. It’s been difficult for me to watch the banishment of Ann Hutchings, the speeches of William Jennings Bryant, and some of the seriously warped messages of Billy Graham which are the sources of all those “In God We Trust” messages on our currency and such.. On the other hand, I’ve learned about the reform movement in Judaism and Issac Mayer Weiss and that was not a difficult watch for me at all. It was intriguing.

I always hate to bring these things up because the minute I say I don’t believe in any god, I’m immediately seen as attacking some one’s self esteem or belief system. Oppenheimer’s closing statement is typical of what most folks say when defending beliefs.

Religion is not just a set of truth claims; most religious people are not literalists—they recognise that much of what their scriptures teach is metaphorical. Many people are in fact atheistic; they love and practise religion, despite not believing in God.

Indeed, much of the point/count point discussion in dealt with the love of rituals rather than a complete buy in for the detail of the religious law and stories. Granted, that doesn’t included fundamentalists like Reverend Pat Robertson, Mullah Omar, or Rabi Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron. Even within religions, there are sects that are nearly or literally at war.

An equally interesting observation comes from debate moderator, Roger McShane.

Mark Oppenheimer says that he and his opponent are talking past each other. He claims that Sam Harris concentrates solely on the worst aspects of religion without acknowledging its positive attributes—the traditions, the rituals, the joy it has created. Yet he concedes Mr Harris’s arguments “about the crimes of religion, the dubiousness of their truth claims, etc”, and then makes the counter-intuitive claim that many religious people “are in fact totally atheistic; they love religion, and practise religion, despite not believing in God”. Mr Oppenheimer, for example, celebrates the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah despite not believing in the literal truth of the Hanukkah story.

What to make of this case for the fun of tradition without the burden of faith? In his earlier statement, Mr Harris wrote, “Yes, we need (or, at least, want) ritual. But do we need to lie to ourselves about the nature of reality to have it?” Mr Oppenheimer’s answer is an adamant “no”. But what is religion without belief? Is it really possible to distil what is “fun” about religion without all the extra baggage? When we look to religion for meaningful diversions instead of divine guidance, are we not admitting that secularism is the superior force for good?

The moral superiority of secularism gains support from Mr Harris. He concedes that there are plenty of peaceful and reasonable religious people, but this is only because they “don’t take the divisive nonsense in their holy books very seriously”. Indeed, the forces of reason and moderation within religion tend to come from outside it. He observes, “When the Catholic Church finally recognises the unconscionable stupidity of its teachings about contraception, as it one day must,” all credit will go to “tidal forces created by a larger, secular concern for human well-being.” So too have moderate Muslims learned to ignore much of what the Koran teaches. “To say that such adherents are now the ‘true’ Muslims is to blindly hope that a faith can be best exemplified by people who are in the process of losing it.”

So, I thought I’d give this a front page so every one could discuss it. So, as you know, I’m a student of Buddha, and as such I do not believe in a ‘creator god’ or whatever you choose to name it. I adhere to the practices and tenets of Vajrayana Buddhism (nyingma lineage) but as such, I believe clinging to anything, including my own practices and rituals, to be a deterrence to a better me and a better humanity. That’s the best I can do in terms of a disclaimer. It seems the more I try to say, yes, I’m an atheist and I do not believe in invisible beings, the more some people find offense.

Please be nice.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →