[Class War in America] Rolling Stone Calls Spade a Spade

[Invictus ChiKen]

Now someone correct me if I am wrong. But a book I read by a Mr. Jim Hightower claims after so many months of being unemployed the government simply removes one from the unemployment list.

In addition he also states that the government agency is constantly assuming jobs are being added that they don't know about. Hence the unemployment percentage is artificially kept low.

A bit like how in Orwell's 1984 the production of boots was always said to be hitting record highs yet people never seemed to get them.

[SirNitram]

Now someone correct me if I am wrong. But a book I read by a Mr. Jim Hightower claims after so many months of being unemployed the government simply removes one from the unemployment list.

In addition he also states that the government agency is constantly assuming jobs are being added that they don't know about. Hence the unemployment percentage is artificially kept low.

A bit like how in Orwell's 1984 the production of boots was always said to be hitting record highs yet people never seemed to get them.

Yes. There was an extension of jobless benefits in a recent economic bill, but even then, there is still only a window where you are allowed to collect. If you have not secured full employment by the end, you are basically told to suck it.

[Darth Wong]

Care to explain why it's a strawman? If ten people making $50,000/yr lose their jobs but one Wall Street investment banker increases his income by $750,000, does this or does it not represent an improvement in GDP, and hence positive growth and an improving overall economy according to you?

It represents growth. Growth is "only" good if all other things have been held equal, which clearly they have not.

And yet we hear on a regular basis that it is impossible to have a recession without two consecutive quarters of negative growth, which says to me that despite your denials, economists do define their terms in such a manner as to make growth their Holy Grail and everything else irrelevant. If growth is good, then it is assumed that we're on the right track, despite any and all objections that might be raised.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Who says the term "recession" is bad, except for the fact that society at large associates it with bad things because our society is set up for indefinite growth? The term is defined arbitrarily, but that doesn't mean that all economists think GDP growth is all that matters. That's why there's all kinds of indexes like GDP/per capita, HDI, Gini index, etc., etc. Of course all of what I just said would probably get you harangued by Republican Reagonomists as Marxian economics. The problem is the academic and research atmosphere in the U.S. is dominated by people who worked in corporate sector. All kinds of professors are retired officers and consultants for pro-U.S. countries or very large business corporations. And what do you expect to get from them? The ideal way to organize production and meet demand in a society for everyone?

[Darth Wong]

Who says the term "recession" is bad, except for the fact that society at large associates it with bad things because our society is set up for indefinite growth?

The fact that economists are so quick to remind people that we're not in a recession every time they hear someone saying the economy sucks. Seriously, every time you hear people talking about problems with the economy, it's pretty much inevitable that some economist will show up, touting some numbers which tell him that everything's A-OK. And of course, those are the important numbers, not like the stupid unimportant numbers which fly in the face of that, like unsustainable personal debt loads or declining median income or steadily increasing ratio of middle-class living costs to middle-class income.

[Terralthra]

Now someone correct me if I am wrong. But a book I read by a Mr. Jim Hightower claims after so many months of being unemployed the government simply removes one from the unemployment list.

In addition he also states that the government agency is constantly assuming jobs are being added that they don't know about. Hence the unemployment percentage is artificially kept low.

A bit like how in Orwell's 1984 the production of boots was always said to be hitting record highs yet people never seemed to get them.

There's a difference between eligible for unemployment insurance payments and actually unemployed. What are typically reported month-to-month are new unemployment insurance claims, but the percentage of population figures are arrived at via statistical sampling and asking whether or not people are employed, not unemployment claims.

[Eulogy]

Who says the term "recession" is bad, except for the fact that society at large associates it with bad things because our society is set up for indefinite growth?

That kind of society is like cancer; it will keep growing until its host collapses and thus brings the tumour down with it.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The fact that economists are so quick to remind people that we're not in a recession every time they hear someone saying the economy sucks.

That's because recession is well defined (though arbitrarily), and "the economy sucks" is not. This isn't excusing right wing economists whose ideology takes a front seat before rigor, or whom are cynically trying to cheer people up in order to influence the economy or are speaking for their handlers and employers, not about the actual characteristics.

Another is the Outside Context issue. These guys have grown up, been educated, gained experience during the 20 year boom squeezed out of financial instruments, deregulation, increasing public and private debt loads, speculation, and cutting the wealthy classes' taxes that the fact that flat or declining middle class purchasing power is the quintessential variable, much less long term concerns like the economy being warped by fundamental resource accessibility constraints or environmental factors is completely outside their experience and area of expertise. There are a lot of budding biophysical economists and others of a more theoretical and left wing bent, but they don't get to be Treasury Secretary because they never worked on Wall Street for an investment bank. And what does one expect to hear from them?

And of course, those are the important numbers, not like the stupid unimportant numbers which fly in the face of that, like unsustainable personal debt loads or declining median income or steadily increasing ratio of middle-class living costs to middle-class income.

See above. Not all economists are the ones you see on CNN. Stas Bush is a trained economist, and learned economics in Russia. Do you see him as a frothing supply-side Reagonomist?

[K. A. Pital]

Some paradigms of modern economics, especially the one about "economics is "just" the science of using constrained resources with maximum effect/profit" has severely impacted economics and also limited it's field of view.

Many scientists now speak out, at least here in Russia, that economics is becoming an isolated science with huge numbers of mathematical models of profit optimization, but it more and more ignores areas like politics, questions of political stability, environment and social factors.

However, you won't get high positions by criticizing the way modern economists are trained - so the loudest voices heard and the most decorated names speaking out are not the end of all economic science.

And the fact that paid talking heads appear on TV and say everything is A-OK speaks more about the quality of American media and their preferences in dealing with economic problem issues on-air... most likely than about the real stance of economic science.

The fact that economic credentials are easier to get than hard sciences credentials simply means that there's a huge number of accredited people who get to spew bullshit, unlike say Global Warming or Cretinism, where 'fake' doctors or outright lobbyists mostly speak up. It's bad, but it doesn't mean economics should not be studied. It will reform, under the pressure from reality.

[Broomstick]

Yes, how dare I believe that a 5% unemployment rate is acceptable.

ONLY if the remainder who are employed are actually fully employed - that means people who need/want full time work actually HAVE full time work (as opposed to me, who wants/needs full time and so far, after 10 months, have only been able to obtain part time) and that people get paid enough to live on. Newsflash: you can't live on just minimum wage. At least not around here.

Otherwise, the "5% unemployed rate" cheers are bilgewater and hide the very real economic distress a LOT of people are in right now.

The 5% unemployment rate thing has been around for ages, and the definition of unemployment hasn't changed. Moreover, less than 5% of Americans currently work for minimum wage (IIRC, it was closer to 1.5%), so the criticism that one cannot live on it is irrelevant. Realistically, the people making the minimum wage are teenagers and others who aren't trying to live off of it.

You haven't tried looking for a job lately, have you?

May I also remind you that the "mere" 1.5% you dismiss is, out of a population of 300 million, some 450,000 people. That's a LOT of people. Why are you so quick to dismiss the notion that some of the ARE trying to live off it? Most of the drones behind the counter at my local fast food shops are NOT teenagers these days. But hey, absolute numbers are beside the point as long as the percentage numbers stay small...

Here's the situation on the ground, shithead: people get laid off from a nice corporate job with good benefits. They struggle on unemployment for months, then get a new job which probably does bring in more than minimum wage BUT it's significantly less money than before AND there are no benefits and a lot of the new jobs are part time or "temp" work that, even when full time, brings shit benefits if any. That's not growth for those people, that's a... let's call it a "personal recession". Even if the economy as a whole is growing, if you have enough people having personal recessions then I would argue there is a serious problem here.

Think about it - part time employment doesn't count as unemployment, but it's not, outside of economic circles, considered "real" employment because most of the time you can't live on it, even if you're making more than minimum wage per hour. So an influx of part time jobs to the economy will drive down that unemployment figure to the magic 5% but it does NOT indicate all is right with the world. Temporary full time employment may boost the magic number, too, but it also makes it very easy to shed workers at any time - and they know it. It totally removes economic security from workers and their families and anyone who thinks that doesn't affect their choices about money is a fucking retard. Stripping of health benefits is having an enormous impact on our nation that is largely being ignored both in the official political debates and the folks at the top of the heap. People who wind up with pay cuts don't count as unemployed, either, but the financial impacts to their family may be just as great as if they lost their job.

All this crowing about "Unemployment is only X percent!" ignores these other, uncomfortable facts. Which is why so many normal people regard economists as full of shit.

[Master of Ossus]

Now someone correct me if I am wrong. But a book I read by a Mr. Jim Hightower claims after so many months of being unemployed the government simply removes one from the unemployment list.

In addition he also states that the government agency is constantly assuming jobs are being added that they don't know about. Hence the unemployment percentage is artificially kept low.

I don't know what you mean by "unemployment list."

It's nonsense that the unemployment rate has anything to do with any number of assumed jobs in the economy--it's done using a sampling system by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the non-institutionalized population over the age of 16. They literally go to thousands of houses every month and ask people whether or not they've worked in the last week or so, or if not then if they've taken any steps to be employed, and then the national rate is tabulated by weighting the raw data to reflect the underlying population of the country (since the raw data has other goals, too).

[Master of Ossus]

And yet we hear on a regular basis that it is impossible to have a recession without two consecutive quarters of negative growth, which says to me that despite your denials, economists do define their terms in such a manner as to make growth their Holy Grail and everything else irrelevant. If growth is good, then it is assumed that we're on the right track, despite any and all objections that might be raised.

And, yet, the last official US recession never saw negative growth. The NBER defines "recession" more broadly precisely in recognition of issues that you have advanced.

But, moreover, the term "recession" has been latched onto by the populace when it refers to a specific series of economic criteria that are related to.... growth in the economy.

You assume that recessions are the ONLY period in which economists believe that the economy is doing poorly, but this is not true. Most economists view recessions as essentially unavoidable, and attempt only to mitigate their effects on the populace and the country. Economists also study many, many other problems with the economy, including unemployment, unequal income distribution, inflation, etc.

[Darth Wong]

The fact that economists are so quick to remind people that we're not in a recession every time they hear someone saying the economy sucks.

That's because recession is well defined (though arbitrarily), and "the economy sucks" is not.

That's exactly the problem I'm talking about; economists make up these terms which really aren't that important, and then act as if they are. Why should anyone give a shit whether we don't meet the technical definition of a recession?

This isn't excusing right wing economists whose ideology takes a front seat before rigor, or whom are cynically trying to cheer people up in order to influence the economy or are speaking for their handlers and employers, not about the actual characteristics.

Another is the Outside Context issue. These guys have grown up, been educated, gained experience during the 20 year boom squeezed out of financial instruments, deregulation, increasing public and private debt loads, speculation, and cutting the wealthy classes' taxes that the fact that flat or declining middle class purchasing power is the quintessential variable, much less long term concerns like the economy being warped by fundamental resource accessibility constraints or environmental factors is completely outside their experience and area of expertise. There are a lot of budding biophysical economists and others of a more theoretical and left wing bent, but they don't get to be Treasury Secretary because they never worked on Wall Street for an investment bank. And what does one expect to hear from them?

Yeah, but that's like saying that engineers who work for car companies should be incapable of grasping that their products aren't good for the environment. If economics had half the educational rigour that its practitioners think it has, this wouldn't be happening. They should still understand the problems being discussed by people outside the big-money community. Instead, these fuckers act as if the entire economy must be viewed through the lens of a Wall Street investor.

And of course, those are the important numbers, not like the stupid unimportant numbers which fly in the face of that, like unsustainable personal debt loads or declining median income or steadily increasing ratio of middle-class living costs to middle-class income.

See above. Not all economists are the ones you see on CNN. Stas Bush is a trained economist, and learned economics in Russia. Do you see him as a frothing supply-side Reagonomist?

Fair enough, I'm speaking primarily of the joke that is "economics" in America.

[Darth Wong]

And yet we hear on a regular basis that it is impossible to have a recession without two consecutive quarters of negative growth, which says to me that despite your denials, economists do define their terms in such a manner as to make growth their Holy Grail and everything else irrelevant. If growth is good, then it is assumed that we're on the right track, despite any and all objections that might be raised.

And, yet, the last official US recession never saw negative growth. The NBER defines "recession" more broadly precisely in recognition of issues that you have advanced.

But, moreover, the term "recession" has been latched onto by the populace when it refers to a specific series of economic criteria that are related to.... growth in the economy.

You assume that recessions are the ONLY period in which economists believe that the economy is doing poorly, but this is not true. Most economists view recessions as essentially unavoidable, and attempt only to mitigate their effects on the populace and the country. Economists also study many, many other problems with the economy, including unemployment, unequal income distribution, inflation, etc.

Ahh, so all of the times economists have pointed out that we're not in a real recession over the last year ... they did that just to educate the populace on the importance of economics terminology definitions? It had nothing to do with trying to convince the population that the economy wasn't actually that bad?

[Master of Ossus]

Ahh, so all of the times economists have pointed out that we're not in a real recession over the last year ... they did that just to educate the populace on the importance of economics terminology definitions? It had nothing to do with trying to convince the population that the economy wasn't actually that bad?

Again, the CNN economists aren't real economists--even their business and financial analysts have rarely even studied the field (and very few, if any of them, actually understand it).

Moreover, it's completely legitimate to put the problems of individual households in context of a larger economy, since even during very good economies there are still people who are struggling (indeed, I cannot realistically envision a time in which this will not be the case).

[Master of Ossus]

You haven't tried looking for a job lately, have you?

May I also remind you that the "mere" 1.5% you dismiss is, out of a population of 300 million, some 450,000 people. That's a LOT of people. Why are you so quick to dismiss the notion that some of the ARE trying to live off it? Most of the drones behind the counter at my local fast food shops are NOT teenagers these days.

Newsflash: the minimum wage is so low that most drones behind the counter at your local fast food shops are NOT working for minimum wage.

In addition, who said anything about the population, you moron? We're talking about the labor force, which is not the same thing (it's more like 150 million people), and there are a lot more than 450,000 teens in the labor force.

Here's the situation on the ground, shithead: people get laid off from a nice corporate job with good benefits. They struggle on unemployment for months, then get a new job which probably does bring in more than minimum wage BUT it's significantly less money than before AND there are no benefits and a lot of the new jobs are part time or "temp" work that, even when full time, brings shit benefits if any. That's not growth for those people, that's a... let's call it a "personal recession". Even if the economy as a whole is growing, if you have enough people having personal recessions then I would argue there is a serious problem here.

Geez. I've never, ever, in my entire life, heard anything remotely similar to this. This, obviously, changes my entire world view. Let's all turn communist.

Think about it - part time employment doesn't count as unemployment, but it's not, outside of economic circles, considered "real" employment because most of the time you can't live on it, even if you're making more than minimum wage per hour. So an influx of part time jobs to the economy will drive down that unemployment figure to the magic 5% but it does NOT indicate all is right with the world. Temporary full time employment may boost the magic number, too, but it also makes it very easy to shed workers at any time - and they know it. It totally removes economic security from workers and their families and anyone who thinks that doesn't affect their choices about money is a fucking retard. Stripping of health benefits is having an enormous impact on our nation that is largely being ignored both in the official political debates and the folks at the top of the heap. People who wind up with pay cuts don't count as unemployed, either, but the financial impacts to their family may be just as great as if they lost their job.

Virtually everyone is getting things like paycuts (or, in my case, basically missing an annual bonus that's often represented an extra 30-50% of my annual salary). Should I count as being "unemployed" or "under-employed," by your standards? The problem with defining unemployment to mean anything other than what it actually means is that there are legitimate gray areas in what it means to be employed or unemployed. I agree with you that the figure isn't perfect--I would modify it, if I had the chance, but in absence of a clear reason to change it the continuity with the current figure is more important because it puts things in easier context for everyone else.

As for the criticism on healthcare, economists are actually studying that issue pretty extensively. The fact that public policy planners don't care about it at all is not a reflection of what economists in this country and others are actually doing.

All this crowing about "Unemployment is only X percent!" ignores these other, uncomfortable facts. Which is why so many normal people regard economists as full of shit.

I'm sure that the image isn't helped by the fact that the CNN "economists" don't actually have clue what they're talking about, but saying that normal people don't understand something is about the softest criticism that anyone's ever come up with on this website. Normal people regard anyone studying anything related to evolution as being full of shit.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That's exactly the problem I'm talking about; economists make up these terms which really aren't that important, and then act as if they are. Why should anyone give a shit whether we don't meet the technical definition of a recession?

You act like there is a index or number out there waiting to be described or discovered which accurately and will typically reflect "people are unhappy" and "shit sucks." They agree on a definition by convention because then at least everyone is technically talking about the same thing. Sure this is correlated with a bunch of possible economic causes and situations, but what are you looking for? You're never going to get some reductionistic determiner of public unhappiness due to the economy, other than polling them (which they do). What do you want them to do? Just make up a number?

Yeah, but that's like saying that engineers who work for car companies should be incapable of grasping that their products aren't good for the environment. If economics had half the educational rigour that its practitioners think it has, this wouldn't be happening. They should still understand the problems being discussed by people outside the big-money community. Instead, these fuckers act as if the entire economy must be viewed through the lens of a Wall Street investor.

They are not engineers, Mike. They're entire professional and intellectual outlook is different, and they're not organized or held to common professional standards like engineers, which in any case would be difficult to enforce.

So what's your solution? Reorganize economics along engineering lines?

Fair enough, I'm speaking primarily of the joke that is "economics" in America.

So what do you want to do about it? Do you think people who are not trained as economists can do just as good a job of advising public policy as those who are not?

[Broomstick]

I am actually financially better off than many people six figure incomes merely because I don't have a massive debt burden.

Having recently entered six-figure territory, I can attest that - unless your aim is to receive a violent, mechanically-assisted ass-raping at the hands of the IRS - you're virtually obligated to assume debt loads that you may not even particularly want to assume, in order to offset your tax burden.

Pretty damned perverse.

OK, I've been puzzling over this one a couple days.

A tax bill is a one-year affair - you pay it, and it's done, end of that particular obligation.

Debt lasts - a mortgage is a 20 year commitment, as just an example

Seems to me you're choosing between an ass-raping by the IRS vs. an ass-raping by the bank. If you're paying out money either way, whether you want to or not, why don't you just pay the damn taxes and be done with it, rather than assuming debt you don't want?

Not saying the YOU fall into this category, but I'm constantly amazed by people who'll do anything to avoid paying taxes, then bitch about the streets being shit and there not being enough police and so on - where do they think the money to pay for that comes from? Oh, right, they're idiots....

[Broomstick]

Newsflash: the minimum wage is so low that most drones behind the counter at your local fast food shops are NOT working for minimum wage.

And on what do you base that? What they pay in YOUR area, 2,000 miles away from where I live? Or did you bother to actually ask about wages, in person, in Griffith and Gary and Highland Indiana as I have been doing?

Are you even aware that for the wait staff in our local restaurants (the sit down kind) it is actually legal to pay them less than minimum wage, under the assumption the difference will be made up in tips? You've already admitted that you can't live on minimum wage, yet we have people who earn even less than that. That is a seriously fucked up system.

In addition, who said anything about the population, you moron? We're talking about the labor force, which is not the same thing (it's more like 150 million people), and there are a lot more than 450,000 teens in the labor force.

YOU said, and I quote:

Moreover, less than 5% of Americans currently work for minimum wage

You said "Americans" in general. Not "adults", not "working people", not "non-institutionalized people under 65" or whatever qualification you care to put on it now - I took you at your word. If you don't like that, be more specific in the future.

And, in any case, why is it OK to pay someone shit wages just because they're a teenager? If they're working they should be paid at the same level as anyone else, and someone 18 or 19 years old may need a decent income just as much as an older adult.

Virtually everyone is getting things like paycuts (or, in my case, basically missing an annual bonus that's often represented an extra 30-50% of my annual salary). Should I count as being "unemployed" or "under-employed," by your standards?

How DARE you compare the loss of your bonus to my loss of an entire fucking paycheck! How DARE you!

Have you ANY empathy at all, you monster? Do you not comprehend the difference between losing a BONUS (however generous it may be) and LOSING ALL INCOME? Not to mention losing health insurance! You still have yours, right? I don't.

That, asshat, is your main problem - you have NO empathy whatsoever. You never acknowledge that behind those numbers you so blithely manipulate are real people who are really suffering. You don't even acknowledge with something as pathetic as "well, it sucks to be them, doesn't it?"

I'm sure that the image isn't helped by the fact that the CNN "economists" don't actually have clue what they're talking about

No, but unfortunately for YOU that IS what the average person sees as an economic. Sucks to be you, huh? Yours isn't the only profession to suffer from PR, problems of course, but waving your hands saying "But, really, most of us aren't like that!" doesn't cut it when the average Joe's entire experience is to the contrary.

[Colonel Olrik]

n my case, basically missing an annual bonus that's often represented an extra 30-50% of my annual salary). Should I count as being "unemployed" or "under-employed," by your standards?

If you have to count with that bonus to put food on the table and provide a house for your children.. yes?

[Edi]

n my case, basically missing an annual bonus that's often represented an extra 30-50% of my annual salary). Should I count as being "unemployed" or "under-employed," by your standards?

If you have to count with that bonus to put food on the table and provide a house for your children.. yes?

And he still manages to be totally disconnected from the differences between losing 30-50% and losing 100% of income. Un-fucking-believable.

[Ender]

I've been stayoig out of this because right now I'm just an economics student with a single semester under my belt. But this is too rich.

And on what do you base that? What they pay in YOUR area, 2,000 miles away from where I live? Or did you bother to actually ask about wages, in person, in Griffith and Gary and Highland Indiana as I have been doing?

Various national indexes evaluate this which are easily consulted. You do realize that the argument is a decaf version of anti-intellectualism, right? That those braniancs in their ivory towers don't know what it is like to work in the trenches with all the good god-fearing blue collar men, so they don't know what they are talking about.

Are you even aware that for the wait staff in our local restaurants (the sit down kind) it is actually legal to pay them less than minimum wage, under the assumption the difference will be made up in tips? You've already admitted that you can't live on minimum wage, yet we have people who earn even less than that. That is a seriously fucked up system.

Can you demonstrate that the average tip wage results in them still getting less then minimum wage? In my experiences I made more, which validated the practice, but that is only 1 persons anecdotal evidence.

In addition, who said anything about the population, you moron? We're talking about the labor force, which is not the same thing (it's more like 150 million people), and there are a lot more than 450,000 teens in the labor force.

YOU said, and I quote:

Moreover, less than 5% of Americans currently work for minimum wage

You said "Americans" in general. Not "adults", not "working people", not "non-institutionalized people under 65" or whatever qualification you care to put on it now - I took you at your word. If you don't like that, be more specific in the future.

Yes, how dare he assume you know what you are talking about. Unemployment has a definition based off specific standards. If you are going to talk about unemployment, it is assumed that you know what those standards are. If you do not have the framework to interpret the data, then the data is useless. This is no different from anything else.

And, in any case, why is it OK to pay someone shit wages just because they're a teenager? If they're working they should be paid at the same level as anyone else, and someone 18 or 19 years old may need a decent income just as much as an older adult.

So bereft or a logical argument, we get an appeal to emotion. Cool. If you want to discuss the minimum wage, a better idea would be frame your argument around the CPI, cost-push inflation, and other factors that come into play with a change in the minimum wage.

Virtually everyone is getting things like paycuts (or, in my case, basically missing an annual bonus that's often represented an extra 30-50% of my annual salary). Should I count as being "unemployed" or "under-employed," by your standards?

*snip more Bommstick histrionics*
Oh good, I was worried for a second you would participate in a thread without flipping the fuck out. If you are done, would you actually like to address the point that there is a distinct difference between being unemployed and low wages?

No, but unfortunately for YOU that IS what the average person sees as an economic. Sucks to be you, huh? Yours isn't the only profession to suffer from PR, problems of course, but waving your hands saying "But, really, most of us aren't like that!" doesn't cut it when the average Joe's entire experience is to the contrary.

Are you really trying to base a counter argument off of stereotypes?

[The Dark]

Yes, but there are also people far better off than you are, and in the cruel mathematics of economists, their great wealth cancels out the suffering of poor people, so everything is A-OK!

Yes, thank you for the strawman.

Care to explain why it's a strawman? If ten people making $50,000/yr lose their jobs but one Wall Street investment banker increases his income by $750,000, does this or does it not represent an improvement in GDP, and hence positive growth and an improving overall economy according to you?

I can't speak for Ossus, but one thing I was taught in my economics courses was to never rely on a single statistic - in this case, the mean per capita income would increase, but median would decrease. A competent economist would note that there was growth, but that it was directed towards the upper class and was leading to a widening wage gap.

Instead, these fuckers act as if the entire economy must be viewed through the lens of a Wall Street investor

That's because most of them were trained in departments that were combination Business & Economics, and most of those departments are run by Business, with Economics as a sideshow. It's like those scientists who dispute global warming (like Lindzen, or Dr. Singer) that are funded by the petro companies. There's a similar incestuous relationship between the big-name economists and Wall Street - the companies sponsor economists who say things they like, so they become the big names. The little guys who actually do an honest job have a much harder time breaking in to the industry (I'm not working as an economist, despite having been awarded as the most promising graduate from a respected college).

Think about it - part time employment doesn't count as unemployment, but it's not, outside of economic circles, considered "real" employment because most of the time you can't live on it, even if you're making more than minimum wage per hour.

That's a type of underemployment called "involuntary part-time workers." It's usually not reported because neither the government nor the media care about it - it's a more complex idea than working or not working, and they don't believe their spoon-fed drones want to hear about it. From a purely analytical perspective, it's due to labor markets not clearing and labor not being perfectly mobile - some people live in areas where there's more labor supply than demand, and vice versa, but they don't automatically move to balance the market. From a personal perspective, I was there three years ago, and it sucked. I was only employed part-time for 8 months, and made about $7k for my work during that time. Unfortunately, as of yet there's no real theory on how to prevent this; the number of variables is ridiculously large, and some of them include human behavior, which is not perfectly predictable.

[Darth Wong]

Care to explain why it's a strawman? If ten people making $50,000/yr lose their jobs but one Wall Street investment banker increases his income by $750,000, does this or does it not represent an improvement in GDP, and hence positive growth and an improving overall economy according to you?

I can't speak for Ossus, but one thing I was taught in my economics courses was to never rely on a single statistic - in this case, the mean per capita income would increase, but median would decrease. A competent economist would note that there was growth, but that it was directed towards the upper class and was leading to a widening wage gap.

Speaking of the wage gap, it has been steadily widening for 30 years, right through periods when virtually all the economists seemed to agree that the economy was in great shape. That's another example of what I'm talking about.

Instead, these fuckers act as if the entire economy must be viewed through the lens of a Wall Street investor

That's because most of them were trained in departments that were combination Business & Economics, and most of those departments are run by Business, with Economics as a sideshow. It's like those scientists who dispute global warming (like Lindzen, or Dr. Singer) that are funded by the petro companies. There's a similar incestuous relationship between the big-name economists and Wall Street - the companies sponsor economists who say things they like, so they become the big names. The little guys who actually do an honest job have a much harder time breaking in to the industry (I'm not working as an economist, despite having been awarded as the most promising graduate from a respected college).

It doesn't help that there is no standard of conduct. Illuminatus Primus earlier asked if I was suggesting that economists should be regulated like engineers. I would have to say "yes". They have a significant impact on national policy, and yet they are pretty much free of any licensing requirements or the possibility of a disciplinary hearing, unlike doctors and lawyers and engineers. Any ideologue "think tank" can hire highly qualified economists to spout whatever bullshit they want, and there is no penalty for anyone.

[J]

That's because recession is well defined (though arbitrarily), and "the economy sucks" is not. This isn't excusing right wing economists whose ideology takes a front seat before rigor, or whom are cynically trying to cheer people up in order to influence the economy or are speaking for their handlers and employers, not about the actual characteristics.

Another thing to note is that recessions are sometimes identified in hindsight based on data other than the 2 quarters of negative growth rule of thumb. Years after the downturn is over the economists go over all the sets of revised data and declare that yes, the downturn was indeed a recession even though the GDP never shrunk for 2 consecutive quarters.