Essay pertaining to this discussion just posted today at EPI: "U.S. labor market starts 2012 with solid positive signs but fewer jobs than it had 11 years ago" http://www.epi.org/publication/labor-market-starts-2012-solid-positive/
Why is it more bleak than is actually the case? If more people want jobs because they need to make money, and there are less jobs to be had, isn't it worse?
' Was a good article. Re: your comment, fewer jobs than 11 years ago, and with how many new job seekers since then?
People don't want a certain number of jobs per household, they want a certain income per household. The fewer jobs it takes to reach that income, the better. Example: Family with only one earner making $80K annual in construction. Wife is a homemaker with 2 children, 14yo and 17yo. LFPR counts that household as 100% participation. Father loses 1/3 his income as people stop building, so they agree his wife will look for work as will the 17yo daughter. Wife finds part time work even though she wants full time, and daughter hasn't managed to find anything yet. So instead of one worker with a reduced income we now have two partially employed and one completely unemployed. In reality, two of those people are only temporarily in the work force until things improve. So yes, fewer jobs or reduced income is bad, but not as bad as the LFPR suggests. It magnifies things. Which sounds worse to you? 1) Due to the recession, I know a guy who lost 1/3 of his income. 2) Due to the recession, I know two people who became part time and another who can't find work at all. In reality, the household income is actually higher in #2.
We are so far into a "make work" economic era it's not funny. Imo this is not something the private sector and free market can address. Retail and hospitality cannot absorb everyone, especially if many persons need to take two of those jobs to pay their bills. Either we pass out food for nothing, or we pass out food for workfare, or we get social chaos. I assume most folks don't want the first or the last solution. Can you think of another solution, maybe along the lines of "and then a miracle occurs", aka a new industry suddenly springs up?
I certainly see where you are going, but I would argue that two people (the wife and the 17 year old) would not be entering the workforce unless they were sure they could procure a job. IE, the wife wouldn't all of a sudden go "I'll head to the career fare and go down to the unemployment office and take out a job seeker ap" I think they'd just go "I'll head down to the local Publix and bag groceries" and they'd get it. You imply some giant statistical distortion I don't think truly exists.
Yes, I think you look to restriction of foreign capital outflow and jobs. You change the tax code to welcome corporations hiring locally and tell companies "hey, you want to partake in the US market and access our consumers? Then x% of your jobs need to be local based." We have the largest consumer base in the world as a percent of GDP expenditures. That, in itself, is an asset. And we should use it.
Then you weren't paying attention. If you were making $80k but now make $60k, that is less income than you making $60k and your wife working part time. Unless your wife is losing money by working.