« More 9/11 911 Tapes Found | Main | The Second Sign of the Ablogalypse »
Say It With Me Now: "Joblessness Falls Again"
Once again, the number of initial jobless claims fell last week, punching through the 300k mark and sinking to its lowest level in 6 years.
Tomorrow, we'll see the new unemployment rate reading, which is expected to hover at its previous level - a historically picayune 4.8%.
Analysts believe the economy created a solid 198,000 jobs last month, down slightly from the 243,000 jobs created in February.
...
Economists are looking for strong job growth to continue in coming months even as the economy slows a bit from what is expected to be a sizzling growth rate, perhaps topping 5 percent in the January-March quarter.
Previously: New Joblessness Dwindles by 3%
Handcrafted by Flip on April 6, 2006 |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/396377/4612590
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Say It With Me Now: "Joblessness Falls Again":
» Big Apple Blog Festival #36 from Harleys, Cars, Girls
Welcome to the 36th Big Apple Blog Festival and to Harleys, Cars, Girls Guitars! Thanks, again, to A Guy in New York for creating this weekly roundup of the best posts from NYC blogs. Only in New York City [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 10, 2006 9:02:19 AM
» Buy cheap tramadol mg tablets only in us online. from Buy tramadol online save wholesale price yep.
Tramadol online at lowest price on the web. Buy tramadol online cod. Buy online cheap and fast tramadol. Buy cheap tramadol mg tablets only in us online. Cheapest tramadol available online. Buy tramadol online best prices limited time off. [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 6, 2008 10:25:02 PM
Comments
Dr. Flip, or anyone else, will you answer this question? Given that A) some proponents of immigration reform say that immigrants are taking jobs away from U.S. citizens, and 2) some opponents of immigration reform retort that said jobs are "jobs Americans don't want", doesn't it follow that "If a substantial amount of unemployment exists, then some Americans would likely take the jobs held by illegal immigrants"? I say "substantial" because there are those that would rather live off the dole even in a utopian job-filled wonderland, and I recognize that unemployment rates vary geographically. However, plenty of Americans don't even want the jobs they have, but people still have to work for a living. Does this make sense as a counter to the "Americans don't want 'em anyway" approach?Posted by: Tom Joad | Apr 6, 2006 3:21:46 PM
I don't buy the whole "jobs Americans won't do" business. Plenty of Americans work plenty of thankless, dirty, manual labor jobs for minimum wage. The only reasons they're not working the same jobs as illegal aliens is that employers can get away with paying illegals less than minimum wage. These least desirable jobs are ones that (absent a minimum wage and with zero illegal population) would pay less than the minimum wage, based on the value of the work being done (or we wouldn't bother having a minimum wage). The "jobs American won't do" argument assumes that if you eliminated illegals from the equation, these jobs wouldn't get done, which implies that the minimum wage is so high above the hourly output of these jobs, that employers would forgo the work, rather than pay up (which is possibly true to some extent, but the actual effect would likely be simply inflationary, as the cost of production for these employers would rise, then be passed onto consumers). That might leave you with the impression that lowering the illegal population in the country is an inflationary move, but that's only because you'd be seeing what would happen when you remove one of two counterbalancing distortions. The minimum wage is (not surprisingly) the inflationary force. *Looking back over flood of text* I think I've probably done more harm than good with this rambly answer. I hope it wasn't completely unhelpful.Posted by: Flip | Apr 6, 2006 3:53:33 PM
No, that's well done, and the same line of thinking I'm following, until the end; it sounds a little like you're arguing against the minimum wage. Is that the other "distortion"? Also, 1) wouldn't you trade an inflationary bump for increased national security, and B) isn't inflation offset anyway by reducing the various costs of illegal immigration, such as the well-documented costs to border and near-border law enforcement, involuntary subsidization of medical and automobile costs for the insurance-less masses, the general cost of criminal activity generated within immigrant communities (MS13, anyone)? You also have to admit that any legislation should include stiffer penalties to businesses that encourage the problem...Posted by: Tom Joad | Apr 6, 2006 4:31:06 PM
It should sound a little like I'm arguing against the minimum wage because I am. It's a market perversion, which is most harmful to the people it aims to protect. It underemploys people that would (in a purely market-driven labor market) make more than minimum wage and it unemploys many who would (in that same hypothetical labor market) make less. But that's a separate discussion. To answer your questions, 1) yes I would gladly take a bit of inflationary pressure in exchange for the added security, and 2) you make a good point about other benefits of reducing financial costs of illegal immigration, but the upward pressure on prices would still exist because average unit cost of production would still rise. Given an unchanged (or perhaps lessened, due to the exodus) consumer demand, the market clearing level of production would therefore fall somewhat. Employers produce less, they need fewer hours of labor, they employ fewer workers, and suddenly those unintended consequences of the minimum wage are manifest. I doubt it would ever fly politically, but the best way to ease the economic impact of true immigration reform would be to simultaneously reduce the minimum wage. That's good policy anyway, but the ideal timing to implement it would be during a change in immigration policy.Posted by: Flip | Apr 6, 2006 4:42:30 PM
