Posted on 12/09/2003 10:17:58 AM PST by dead
The American economy is destroying jobs, and that's a good thing.
It is in destroying jobs that the economy improves and makes it possible for the standard of living of all Americans to increase. This constant churning means that even a "stagnant" American job market is extremely dynamic, and that the ranks of the unemployed are not necessarily the dispossessed of the earth, as Democrats tend to portray them.
Keep this in mind as Congress gears up for a debate on whether unemployment benefits should be extended beyond their normal six-month term for the fourth time in the past two years. Democrats will attack anyone opposing this extension as a heartless extremist attempting to trample on the poor. But an extension of benefits might, perversely, prolong unemployment, and it will serve to dampen the dynamism of the American economy, which is its greatest asset.
In any given year, roughly 10 percent of all jobs in the American economy are destroyed, while an equal number rises up to take their place, according to the latest Economic Report of the President. The trick, of course, is to create more jobs than are lost. Since 1980, according to Michael Cox of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, "Americans have filed 106 million initial claims for unemployment benefits, each representing a lost job." But during the past decade, the economy has still added a net 40 million new jobs.
Even when the economy isn't creating net new jobs, as has been the case recently, it's creating new jobs. Payroll employment was stagnant last year. But between 3.5 million and 5 million workers entered new jobs each month in 2002. Even during a "jobless recovery," the majority of workers looking for jobs in any given month is different from those workers seeking jobs the next month.
Since 1970, the median duration of unemployment has been 6.6 weeks when the economy is growing, and 8.2 weeks immediately following a recession. In roughly 40 percent of cases, the period of unemployment is five weeks or less. So the unemployed aren't a single class of people, but a group constantly changing as people cycle in and out.
In many cases, job turnover — although painful — is a very good thing. It is by switching jobs that people learn new skills and find a better match for the skills they already have, thus earning higher wages. A typical young worker has seven jobs during his first ten years in the job market. A third of that worker's wage growth will occur when leaving one job for another.
Public policy should be leery of anything that discourages this churning in the job market. (Otherwise, four out of 10 of all Americans would still be working on a farm, as we were a century ago.) Because unemployment benefits essentially subsidize unemployment, they can have this effect, encouraging people to stay unemployed instead of jumping back into the job market.
One study shows that each additional week of unemployment benefits increases the time a person spends unemployed by a day. Indeed, the unemployed are twice as likely to find a job in the week before their benefits expire than in the weeks prior. Makes you go, "huh," doesn't it?
People respond to incentives. Experiments in a few states have shown that giving a re-employment bonus to the unemployed speeds up the time it takes them to find a new job by roughly a week. Europe has longer and more generous unemployment benefits than the United States — and also chronically higher rates of unemployment.
So, as the economy begins to purr and the unemployment rate dips, the last thing the government should do is give people a disincentive to join in the great roiling American job market. Opposing an extension of unemployment benefits isn't heartless, but an act of well-placed faith — in the dynamism of the American economy and in the resourcefulness of its workers.
— Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.
Now I'm going back to WW2online where I will pretend that every gerry I see is a nazi spell checker.
Cite an example. I took credit for the misspellings. I merely stated that I didn't proof my postings, and it is considered bad manners to criticize posts for that reason. I am employed, and have been for more than thirty years. It was other folks, like yourself, who escalated all of this to personnel attacks upon the presumed quality of my work, all without reviewing actual samples.
Assume I'm seeking the constructive criticism. To which of the following to you refer? (These are all of my "first sentences" in the entire thread.) Where do I attempt to place blame on anyone else?
Me too. Except the recent ones.
On the other hand .... I've been an engineering programmer for thirty years and know a number of languages including C, C++, Pascal, FORTRAN, Forth, COBAL, APL, RPG, not to mention assembler for about fourty processors
Yeah? When buggy whips began obsolete, they didn't start importing them from abroad.
Because the new "hamberger turner" jobs offset the statistics.
It is common practice to type for postings without extensive proofing.
It is considered bad manners to criticize postings for spelling.
My, my. You must think engineers are stupid.
I think I owe you additional comments. I have implied admission of guilt in being an atrocious speller.
You'd be surprised how stupid most people seem to me, particularly those who get hung up on trivialities.
I guess you are under the impression that posting on FR demands the same level of perfection as the work I submit to my employer.
They don't. This company spent $2,000,000 on outsourcing to India.
You attack me without pondering my responses to the issues.
Aha!! Not a programmer, are you?
Oh yeah. I forgot that Wal-Mart was a major supplier of communications and defense infrastructure
After thirty years of writing software, you presume to be informing me of something?
Boy, if you and Miss Spelling Bee would consult the posting rules for this forum, you would find that criticism for spelling in not considered good manners.
Heh heh. I just had to fix one of my typos in the build. ;-D
Cite an example. I took credit for the misspellings.
The only point I ever tried to make relating to spelling is that I don't spend much time proofing these postings. My work is a differnt story.
Look again, oh great editing sear. See lines 5, 6, and 16. So now we see your posting efforts are not perfect. I'd bet my last dollar that you are very good with QA inspection.
Dude I'm a typical engineer: I don't give up until the job is done.
Look again at your last two posts. You blamed your failure to spot your "pay dirt" on imagined "crafty editing" on my part. Yet, I honestly copied the first line of each of my posts for your inspection. You are guilty of what you accuse me: Sloppy workmanship and rejection of criticism. You can't take the heat!
You could have let it all go by giving me the same benefit of the doubt I gave you. You chose instead to keep stomping. Thanks for walking into my ambush.
BWAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAA!!!
I gloat, sure enough. Now it is "good riddance"
Another moronic mistake. *sigh* Darn spell checker nazi's can never get it right.
Just goes to show how much you know.
Check their website where they quote: With 2001 revenues of $85.9 billion and more than 300,000 employees worldwide, IBM is the largest IT company on the planet
Yep. You're right. I messed up that big-time. I have no idea how I turned 10% and 40% into typing one and four million.
The time period for the review I was referring to was 1992-1993. Past a certain age/point, they just kept people around and hired new college graduates for new jobs.
Yeah...there was no one on the space vehicle where "inch" got spelled "cm". :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.