🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug27.190016.23474@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <BtJvys.2zv@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug25.151711.11213@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>>If we had rampant unemployment I might be a bit more worried. 
>
>>  Were there supposed to be smiley's here?     I think we *do* have 
>>  rampant unemployment.  Japan's unemployment rate is 3.2%.  Our official
>>  unemployment rate is 7.8% and that only counts people who show up 
>>  at the state employment office regularly.  It also doesn't reflect all
>>  the former high-wage, good-job workers who are now flipping burgers
>>  and driving cabs.  

>Well, let's take it from the top.
>
>1.  If you want to use numbers for comparison, you have to use the
>same number.  Japan's 3.2 doesn't include people who have given up
>either.

  Actually I have no idea how they count their unemployed or even
  whether they offer unemployment compensation.  The bottom line is that
  there has been an acknowledged labor shortage in Japan for 2 decades.


>2.  How many former high-wage people are flipping burgers?  If they
>are really that desperate then why aren't companies hiring them for
>salaries half-way between their former wages and burger flipping wages
>to do the high-wage work?

  See the Fortune issue ("Jobs Drought" cover story) I cited for
  the numbers.     Mr. Friedman's question here displays a woeful 
  naivete about the real world.   I'm not saying it's rational,
  but this is the way it is at most companies:  most companies have
  a concept of what a job should pay, based on how they pay other
  people to do the same work, or what they perceive the industry 
  numbers to be like.  It is *very seldom* the case that you can 
  apply for a job and offer to do it for, say, half the advertised
  wage or salary in order to give yourself a competitive advantage
  over other applicants.   A lot of my friends are facing this problem
  now: they are experienced hardware or software engineerswho are used
  to earning $50K-$60K a year.  They see less experienced people being
  hired for, say, $40K.  But if they offer to do the same job for 
  say, $35K, (and remember the company is getting a more experienced 
  worker in the deal) so they can have a job, they get turned down
  with excuses like "over-experienced", "you wouldn't be happy doing
  entry level work", etc.   

>3.  7.8% unemployment, although higher than we would like, is hardly
>rampant unemployment.  Your problem is that 12 years of Regan/Bush has
>spoiled you.

  I say if you have millions of people who want to work for a living
  and can't find work then it's "rampant".  I don't know what Reagan/Bush
  had to do with this -- the national unmployment rate during the 80's
  was *higher* than it was during much of the 50's and 60's:

  year    '50 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87  
    %     5.0 5.5 4.5 4.9 8.5 7.1 7.6 9.7 9.6 7.5 7.2 7.0 6.2
  (source: BLS)   


>If everyone else's unemployment rate is higher than ours then why is
>ours "rampant"?

  Where did I say "everyone else's was higher"?   I said many European
  countries have higher rates to illustrate that big government approaches
  such as those proposed by Clinton, and several posters here don't work
  to correct unemployment.

  Check out Business Week Aug 10, pg 48-56, and July 20 pg 60-67 for
  more depressing news about the jobs picture, future prospects, and
  the economy in general.
     
                   ----------------------------------

  BTW, recently a poster here suggested that US personal debt was
  declining.  According to Business Week, average household debt
  was $3250 in Q1'89 and in Q1'92 it was $4000.  Unfortunately they 
  didn't go into any details on these numbers.


---peter