Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

Many mid to senior executives who have been laid off in the last few years are (1) taking care of aging parents (2) selling real estate (3) working as "consultants" with too little work (4) following up on old dreams (5) spending the equity in their homes or retirement accounts. It's pretty dismal from the vantage point of this Bay Area executive recruiter. The real disappointment is that under a different president the US would have seen an upsurge in investment in areas such as energy efficiency, environmental clean-up (with China as a future customer) and so forth. That type of innovation might have led to some real jobs.

I am not always sure what I am in this respect. (In a parallel political world, I believe both Professor DeLong and I could be fellow moderate Republicans.) But what I know is that I prefer opportunity -call it "freedom"- over no opportunity (especially over relevant choicea.) I think I am pretty standard in this respect, and I don't think this is a epsilonesque empirical matter. I think you could be framing this issue better, Dear Professor DeLong.

If we're talking about real job creation, can't we compare Bush to his immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton? We didn't have any trouble finding out if people were employed or not then, did we?

Lots more cash jobs are out there. My brother is a house painter, and employs two other guys, and they only accept cash. He of course pays no taxes on any of the three.

It seems to me that Wessel was offering an answer to the question that was asked, not the one Brad no doubt felt should have been asked.

In my limited experience, it is the populace that blame the foreigners, most (but not all) politicians just pander to that prejudice.

Finally, the answer "economy is not generating very many new jobs...demand growth has not been strong enough to stay ahead of it" is a self-evident, but meaningless answer. So 4 - 2 = 2. How is that useful or prescriptive? Let's parse that last sentence. What you are saying is "Hang on, it will probably turn out all right in the long run". But who pays the mortgage in the short run?

Jeex Bradley. Where's your "faith"?

Actually, he forgot Poland, er, Ebay.

anon,

Cash jobs are no way to grow an economy... Besides the fact it starves the government of needed revenue, if your brother's employees fall off the roof and he's not paying workers comp, who's going to pay for the lost wages and medical bills?

What's worse, its a classic race to the bottom. Your brother can undercut the competitor who is stupid enough to actually pay his taxes.

Don't forget ebay. Lots of money to be made seelling stuff on Ebay. 400,000 people who might as well not work because they make so much money on Ebay.

Also, don't forget organs. Lots of money to be made selling your kidney (and don't forget the kids') on faqs.org.

http://www.faqs.org/qa/qa-10366.html

Don't forget ebay. Lots of money to be made seelling stuff on Ebay. 400,000 people who might as well not work because they make so much money on Ebay.

Also, don't forget organs. Lots of money to be made selling your kidney (and don't forget the kids') on faqs.org.

http://www.faqs.org/qa/qa-10366.html

beowulf,

I never said it was right to avoid taxes, but if my brother did pay taxes, he'd be paying his workers a lot less.

Just think of social security, which would be 15% right there.

Also, it helps one of his guys to avoid paying his child support too.

Where's the 4.5 million? Ugh, another person with a static worldview. I'll lecture the obvious, as the obvious has been obviously forgotten.

The unemployed are transitory. To "find" the unemployed one must adopt a more dynamic mindset than looking under rocks.

The "4.5 million" are not people who either A) found better things to do or B) have been unemployed since Bush took office. The 4.5 million is not a demograph but a blunt statistic that's causally derived from the unemployment peroid endured by each ex-worker.

And -- yep, sure enough, the stats say the wait between jobs has lengthened greatly during Bush's term.

I apologize for starting working in September after three years hiatus: I really didn't want to give Bush a boost in his employment figures of even one worker. However, I had to switch careers and take a 50% pay cut to be a teacher. I suspect that sort of thing is typical of much of the re-employment. Things are still pretty grim here in MA.

I went to work aftr 3 years at at 75% pay cut.

So I also gave Bush's numbers a boost.

The guy that avoids the SS tax is not only defrauding the govt and society about taxes, paying his empolyees 15% less than going rate(at least) but is setting himself up for legal and blackmail troubles. One of his 'employees' turns him in for the IRS reward, he can lose it all or if the 'employee' is nice, he gets to pay for silence. He will not be able to fire the employee or otherwise piss him off for that fear.

More common is individual who gets under the table cash. That can be done for years without detection.

"What's worse, its a classic race to the bottom. Your brother can undercut the competitor who is stupid enough to actually pay his taxes."

Is that like an Indian doing my old IBM job? What taxes do they pay? Social Security?? Health care?? Retirement????

Either you people believe in camparative advantage or yoou don't. If it is good enough for Indian labor it is good enough for painters.

"What's worse, its a classic race to the bottom. Your brother can undercut the competitor who is stupid enough to actually pay his taxes."

Is that like an Indian doing my old IBM job? What taxes do they pay? Social Security?? Health care?? Retirement????

Either you people believe in camparative advantage or yoou don't. If it is good enough for Indian labor it is good enough for painters.

What about demographic trends? We are getting older as a country. During the Clinton years, the 65+ age group grew slowly, due to low birth rates in the late 1920s and early 1930s. This is beginning to change. Surely these developments must have some effect on labor participation rate, etc.?

Besides Jim Vines good points, you can't even assert this:

>but if my brother did pay taxes, he'd be paying his workers a lot less.

No, he has to pay them enough so they won't go somewhere else, like McDonalds. And he'd only be paying 7.2% extra, they'd have to kick in the other half themselves.

Which would be a good idea if they did so, because ain't nobody gonna hire a 75 yr old house painter. And at the bottom of the income scale, these guys are never going to get the return on your savings that SS gives them.

I remember reading someone (Krugman?) who said that a lot of this was that a lot of people have gon on disability as a form of long-term unemployment coverage.

I remember reading someone (Krugman?) who said that a lot of this was that a lot of people have gon on disability as a form of long-term unemployment coverage.

I remember reading someone (Krugman?) who said that a lot of this was that a lot of people have gon on disability as a form of long-term unemployment coverage.

" or B) have been unemployed since Bush took office."

That would be me. Laid off in March of 01, interviews pretty much stopped happening in September of 01. I've only had about four interviews since then. (Incidentally, of the 5 interviews I had in 2001, 2 of the companies laid off staff or shut down soon after, possibly 3.)

For the last year and a half or so, on the rare occasions a headhunter calls, they ask me to send them an updated resume. When I explain that my resume *is* up to date, it seems to get a little awkward for them as they back out of the call.

Knock on wood, crossing fingers, I should have a phone interview next week for a job that dovetails nicely with the niche that most of my experience is in (OS X/Objective-C programming), which is a very rare thing.

I was hired for a $10/hour part-time programming job in my town, but the next day, before I could start, I was unhired because the person I was to replace had decided to stay after all. That was in early 2003.

Revealed preference suggests that the decline in labor force participation is the consequence of poor economic conditions. However you choose to categorize them as in or out of the labor force, the discouraged, the early retirees, those raising families, or continuing their education, these people worked in 2000 but stay home now. Anyone pointing to recent falling unemployment rates as proof of labor market vitality is trying to lie with statistics.

I was laid off from my 100k+ engineering job in april 2003. My job went to China. I am studying woodworking at the local community college in hopes of creating an income from a skill that can't easily be exported.

If there were real jobs available again I would take one in a minute.

I was laid off from my 100k+ engineering job in april 2003. My job went to China. I am studying woodworking at the local community college in hopes of creating an income from a skill that can't easily be exported.

If there were real jobs available again I would take one in a minute.

I can't speak for everyone obviously, but I know that after going through bankruptcy, my wife and I find that my salary, plus her income from being an in-home daycare provider to one other child is just a little bit more than enough to get by on these days.
From anecdotal evidence talking to the lawyer who handled our case, and a couple others when we were asking around before filling, 2003 at least saw a jump in the number of filings. If that's true, who knows how many people are in our situation where suddenly relieved of a pile of debt, they find that one or one-plus-a-little-on-the-side is enough to live on ? Maybe then the truth is somewhere between the two parties.
Certainly my wife would like to have a decent paying job, but the average cost of daycare for our 2 year old daughter in this area is 180 to 200 a week, for an 8 to 5 schedule. We live far enough outside the city that any job in the area able to give 8 to 5 is likely going to be a low paying register job giving a little over 200.00 a week; most of this would go for daycare, the rest probably for gas and sundries getting to and from work, so aside from getting out of the house, benefits pretty much = zero.
And from a purely emotional POV, it's nice for at least one of us to be able to be with our little girl as she is growing up.

I was laid off from my 100k+ engineering job in april 2003. My job went to China. I am studying woodworking at the local community college in hopes of creating an income from a skill that can't easily be exported.

If there were real jobs available again I would take one in a minute.

I was laid off from my 100k+ engineering job in april 2003. My job went to China. I am studying woodworking at the local community college in hopes of creating an income from a skill that can't easily be exported.

If there were real jobs available again I would take one in a minute.

"Also, it helps one of his guys to avoid paying his child support too. "
>>
And you are saying that this is a *good* thing? Please explain how enabling deadbeat fathers to shirk their responsibilities is a positive feature of cash payments. Perhaps I am missing something.

Hi Me,

>>Is that like an Indian doing my old IBM job? >>What taxes do they pay? Social Security?? >>Health care?? Retirement????

A typical Indian whom you are talking about doesnt sit in USA and do your IBM job. Instead IBM comes running to India and opens copious offices and lures the Indian and he simply goes to work there.

An Indian sitting in India and doing work
need not pay SS, healthcare to US govt ??

Personal feeling :-
As long as there is someone in the world who can do the job cheaper *comparatively*, it will go to him.

I can't speak for everyone obviously, but I know that after going through bankruptcy, my wife and I find that my salary, plus her income from being an in-home daycare provider to one other child is just a little bit more than enough to get by on these days.
From anecdotal evidence talking to the lawyer who handled our case, and a couple others when we were asking around before filling, 2003 at least saw a jump in the number of filings. If that's true, who knows how many people are in our situation where suddenly relieved of a pile of debt, they find that one or one-plus-a-little-on-the-side is enough to live on ? Maybe then the truth is somewhere between the two parties.
Certainly my wife would like to have a decent paying job, but the average cost of daycare for our 2 year old daughter in this area is 180 to 200 a week, for an 8 to 5 schedule. We live far enough outside the city that any job in the area able to give 8 to 5 is likely going to be a low paying register job giving a little over 200.00 a week; most of this would go for daycare, the rest probably for gas and sundries getting to and from work, so aside from getting out of the house, benefits pretty much = zero.
And from a purely emotional POV, it's nice for at least one of us to be able to be with our little girl as she is growing up.

Possibly the 4.5 million missing workers are wind-surfing. Likely they are wishing they were working. Rather than puzzling over the missing workers, and crediting the Administration with fiscal policy that has had a sufficient effect stimulating demand to assure the well being of workers, look to the anemic wage and benefit increases from the beginning of the recession in 2001. Though many households are doing quite well, this is not a pleasing time for millions of middle and lower income households.

I wish I were working. I've been an unemployed software engineer for 2.5 years now. I'm doing some work but it pays about 1/2 of minimum wage.

Life really sucks for me.

I'm voting for Kerry because Bush has no plan or desire to change anything. He thinks everything is great.