This paints a pretty stark picture. Has any else noticed an increase in unsolicited calls from head hunters and job offers? I am wondering if it's me or a leading indicator?
I have - e-mails more than calls, but still.
Time-lapse map of unemployment rates by U.S. county during recession
11–20 of 44 posts
Re: Time-lapse map of unemployment rates by U.S. county during recession
#12Did we really need those jobs in the first place? I don't mean whether each individual was benefiting from the income from his or her job. Collectively, were the jobs a net benefit or drag on the rest of us?
Sounds very much like a "everyone for themselves" attitude to me. Which seems to be one of the bad things about the US.
Re: Time-lapse map of unemployment rates by U.S. county during recession
#13[deleted]
Re: Time-lapse map of unemployment rates by U.S. county during recession
#14[deleted]
Bureau of labor statistics, at the bottom - which is what I think you're asking for. If you meant the actual county maps, they're from the USGS and you can get digital versions here: http://www.nationalatlas.gov/mld/countyp.html
Re: Time-lapse map of unemployment rates by U.S. county during recession
#15Did we really need those jobs in the first place? I don't mean whether each individual was benefiting from the income from his or her job. Collectively, were the jobs a net benefit or drag on the rest of us?
Could you define what you mean by 'benefit/drag'? It sounds like you're suggesting that many jobs were at companies with externalities that ultimately cost the economy more than the revenues generated, but that seems a very broad characterization.
Output is still down on a year ago, so it's not like productivity has gone up and all those jobs were examples of inefficiency.
Re: Time-lapse map of unemployment rates by U.S. county during recession
#16Did we really need those jobs in the first place? I don't mean whether each individual was benefiting from the income from his or her job. Collectively, were the jobs a net benefit or drag on the rest of us?
Sounds very much like a "everyone for themselves" attitude to me. Which seems to be one of the bad things about the US.
Not at all. If those jobs were a net loss (and I have no idea about that), then finding something for those people to do which benefits everyone more is a win, both for "us" and "them".
Re: Time-lapse map of unemployment rates by U.S. county during recession
#17Did we really need those jobs in the first place? I don't mean whether each individual was benefiting from the income from his or her job. Collectively, were the jobs a net benefit or drag on the rest of us?
There was a NY times post here a little while ago showing the current unemployment rate broken down by age, gender, race, and education.
Unsurprisingly, the difference in education was enormous. It's not too large a logical jump to say that some of the existing unskilled jobs were waiting for automated replacement.
Well, that's one of two options I'm pondering. The other is that the economy's split into a very literate, "wired", and economically-stable educated class, and a second "unwired" and economically-unstable class. I don't want to say illiterate as much as doesn't-read-terribly-much: television news, product information from salespeople, etc. People who phone or walk in for customer service, use cash and other forms of nonelectronic payment, shop nearly exclusively at brick-and-mortar stores, etc. Essentially, an entire, nearly-closed economy of people who both want human interaction for business and work as the human actors for the businesses that hire them. If we look at the economy through this dichotomy, it appears only one of the two fell.
Re: Time-lapse map of unemployment rates by U.S. county during recession
#18Did we really need those jobs in the first place? I don't mean whether each individual was benefiting from the income from his or her job. Collectively, were the jobs a net benefit or drag on the rest of us?
Sounds very much like a "everyone for themselves" attitude to me. Which seems to be one of the bad things about the US.
I think what @lvecsey meant was that many Americans have jobs that exist only because of the liquidity in the financial markets. That is, without access to credit, or resources from investors, many companies in the US would not be able to pay their employees. So what he is really asking, I assume, is whether or not the debt or investment resources were being well spent on those positions? My honest answer would be I don't know.
That said, the double whammy that we take on a lot of jobs is pretty interesting. Clearly a non trivial number of Americans have jobs that are net losses for them individually, since they use credit card debt to get by, and net losses for the larger economy since access to credit provided by the financial markets is the only thing that makes their paychecks clear.
It makes you wonder, if access to credit were to dry up tomorrow, what would that look like? Who would still have a job?
I don't know, it's just interesting brainstorm material.
Re: Time-lapse map of unemployment rates by U.S. county during recession
#19I don't think this animation adds anything to out understanding of what has been happening: unemployment has increased everywhere, with about the same amount.
Re: Time-lapse map of unemployment rates by U.S. county during recession
#20Did we really need those jobs in the first place? I don't mean whether each individual was benefiting from the income from his or her job. Collectively, were the jobs a net benefit or drag on the rest of us?
well.. without jobs people can't pay for water/food/shelter, so yeah.. we need those jobs. Unless you want to throw in on the heating bill?
Without an income people can't pay for their living expenses.
However, that doesn't mean the work those people are performing for that income is actually necessary to anyone else. The question is: through easy and cheap credit, was the economy paying a bunch of paychecks to some people in exchange for unnecessary labor?
If I hire a guy to dig a hole in the morning and fill up the hole in the afternoon, the guy I hired very well may need his job, but his job isn't anything anyone needs done. When my line of credit runs out, I'm going to lay that guy off. The question is: how much of the economy pre-recession consisted of people getting paid for more convoluted but equally unproductive labor?
Perhaps a better metaphor: if I hire a guy to do all my long division, when my line of credit runs out, I'm going to lay that guy off and buy a calculator. How much of the economy consisted of (often unionized) long-dividers running their employers into bankruptcy until their employers had to buy calculators?
An economy has to produce wealth to survive, not just distribute it to people in exchange for mere effort.