Category Archives: jobs

Another Thought on Economic Mobility

Posted on by
Reply

Gerald Auten and Geoffrey Gee wrote about “Income Mobility in the United States: New Evidence from Income Tax Data.”  It’s an extensive paper; I’m abstracting a couple of points in this post [emphasis added].

  • More than half of taxpayers…moved to a different income quintile over this period [1996-2005]. About half…of those in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005.
  • Median incomes of taxpayers in the sample increased by 24% after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two–thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period.  Furthermore, the median incomes of those initially in the lowest income groups increased more in per centage terms than the median incomes of those in the higher income groups.  In contrast, the real median incomes of taxpayers who were in the highest income groups in 1996 declined by 2005.
  • The composition of the very top income groups changed dramatically over time.  Less than half…of those in the top 1% in 1996 were still in the top 1% in 2005.  Less than one–fourth of the individuals in the top 1/100th% in 1996 remained in that group in 2005.

Those evil 1%-ers not only had trouble staying in the 1%, a significant fraction of them were erstwhile bottom%-ers.

Taking economic mobility—income changes—relative to all taxpayers, Auten and Gee found this:

  • About 56% of taxpayers…in the lowest income quintile in 1996 had moved to a higher quintile by 2005.  While 29% moved up to the second quintile, nearly as many (27.4%) moved up two or more quintiles and 4.5% moved all the way to the top quintile.
  • More than twice as many middle–income taxpayers moved up to a higher income quintile…as dropped to a lower one[.]

Thomas Sowell had this comment on the matter three years ago:

Only by focusing on the income brackets, instead of the actual people moving between those brackets, have the intelligentsia been able to verbally create a “problem” for which a “solution” is necessary.  They have created a powerful vision of “classes” with “disparities” and “inequities” in income, caused by “barriers” created by “society.”  But the routine rise of millions of people out of the lowest quintile over time makes a mockery of the “barriers” assumed by many, if not most, of the intelligentsia.

And now comes President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party colleagues decrying exactly that static income inequality folderol in the middle of their failed economic recovery and the outcomes of their failed social control policies.  Truly, they are desperate to change the subject in this election year.

A Short Lesson

Posted on by
2

…in employment history, presented pictorially.

Notice that: the share of working-age Americans had started to fall the year before the Panic of 2008, and it started to fall sharply a few months prior to the Panic’s official start.  Those are economic lags working through the system.

The problem is, the share of potential workers actually working has remained static at its historic low of roughly 58.5% ever since.  That’s not economic lag, that’s failed economic policies over the last several years.

Filibusters and the Senate

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) blew up the Senate filibuster with his manufactured claim of Republican obstructionism and with his Senate rules-breaking move to eliminate it (for now only regarding Presidential nominees) with a (Democrat only) majority vote.

Yet Republican-led (note that: not the Republican satrapy, as Reid views his Senate to be for Democrats) House passed 200 jobs- and economy-related bills in 2013 and some dozen that were passed with 250 or more votes—i.e., with considerable Democrat (that would be bipartisan, for those Progressives following along at home) voting support.

The Democrat-ruled Senate?  An immigration bill and a farm bill.  A budget, but only under the embarrassment of having Senators’ pay withheld if they didn’t pass one.  Under real pressure, a sequester bill (that originated with President Barack Obama) and a natural disaster relief bill.

Indeed, of the 70-ish bills Obama signed last year, 56 originated in the House, and all of 16 came from Reid’s fiefdom.

The rest of those 200 House-passed bills?  Reid wouldn’t even let them come to a vote.  There are, for instance, 40 explicitly jobs-related bills that Reid refuses to allow the Senate even to discuss.  Of the Senate-originated bills, Reid wouldn’t let the minority party even offer amendments.  Under Senate rules, there are only so many amendments allowed to be proposed for a bill.  Reid routinely, and universally, “filled the tree” with his own or those of his trusted lieutenants, Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY) and Senator Dick Durbin (D, IL).

There is the filibuster.

Friday’s Unemployment Numbers

Posted on by
Reply

The unemployment rate declined from 7.0% to 6.7% in December, while total nonfarm payroll employment edged up (+74,000)….

However, 347,000 Americans gave up and stopped trying to find work in this December of the fifth year of President Barack Obama’s failed recovery.  Had they kept looking, December’s unemployment would have remained at 7%.  Had the labor force participation rate—which includes those looking for work and still unemployed, mind you—matched December 2012’s rate of 63.6% instead of last December’s 62.8%, December’s unemployment figure would have been 7.7%.

Instead, nearly 2 million Americans have been pushed out of our labor force by Obama’s failed economics.

That’s the last year.  The graph below, from The Federalist, illustrates the failure over the last five years:

The red line in this graph starts in June 2009, the month in which the Panic of 2008 officially ended, and the present “recovery” began.

Emergency Unemployment Insurance Extension

Posted on by
Reply

The existence of unemployment insurance payments means, especially for the low-skilled, that the change in income for taking a job ranges from slightly negative to slightly positive.  This is what underlies much of the argument against unemployment insurance payments of any duration.

That’s only background to the present situation, though.  There are two more, and more important, considerations surrounding the present push by President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) to extend emergency unemployment insurance payments.

One is these Democrats’ refusal to allow job training requirements to be attached to any such emergency unemployment insurance payment extension.  This criterion would cull those who are just using the payments to live on.  See the work requirement attachments and their results during/after the Clinton years.  Seethe work requirement attached to TANF when it replaced AFDC.  But the work training requirement has an additional direct benefit.  The training will help these low-skilled workers get better jobs, not just return, of necessity, to the same type of job.

One is these Democrats’ refusal to pay for this extension with spending cuts anywhere else, but only with continued borrowing: this is an emergency, and “we’ve never paid for emergencies.”  Actually, we do pay for emergencies, if only by borrowing against our children’s and their children’s futures.  Which we’ve already done, to the tune of $17+ trillion.  And this sort of unending wealth redistribution is exactly the sort of thing against which Madison warned us in the 3rd Congress.

Which brings up a third consideration.  This “emergency” has been going on for five years.  The demand to extend emergency unemployment insurance payments in this emergency situation is a clear admission that the economic policies of Obama and his Senate cronies are a dismal failure, even if none of them have the integrity or courage to say so out loud.

Plainly, this is just crassly naked vote pandering and an attempt to distract honest Americans from the disaster of Obamacare and Obama’s failed economic and jobs policies.  And from his failed, retreat-oriented foreign “policies.”

It’s also insulting to honest Americans.