Obama's Dilemma: Proving the Negative

The job report came out today, and although it's better than anticipated, jobs are still being lost. Although people with an understanding of how the economy works make a valid arguement that bailing out the banks and the stimulus package have helped reduce the rate at which unemployment increases, its a tough sell to prove that. I remember this administration carefully promising that the stimulus wouldn't magically decrease unemployment, but keep us from falling into the abyss of a new depression. However, as man average people see it, we spent much money and are still losing jobs. This is a problem for Obama. I personally believe its folly to think any president can reverse an economic crisis into an economic expansion in a single year. I know people may think he's the one, but that's just buying into the branding his campaign threw at us. I frankly am surprised the economy isn't worse, it makes me worry that these banks are up to their old tricks again!

An analysis of the job numbers: Don't be fooled by pundits and reporters. The job situation is much worse than it looks. It is getting better than it was, but to overall unemployment numbers counts people who go from full time professional careers to flipping burgers as "employed". However, the data to dis-aggregate these two is actually contained in the report itself, it's not hidden, its just reporters won't or can't read the whole report. The U-6 series statistic which measures "Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers" increased from 12.6% November 2008 to 17.2% November 2009. This is a huge increase, and it is still steadily increasing. Replacing the 1.6 million manufacturing jobs in this country with McJobs isn't a solution anyone could be happy about. *Go One-Sided Free Trade!*

Here is the full report:

Part Time Employment: There was a 3.2 million increase in the number of people working part time since November last year for economic reasons, because of slack work conditions or because of business conditions. There was also a half a million people increase in the number of people who could only find work part time. The way the U-6 measure takes into account part time employment.

Reasons for not being in labor force: This number is also telling, since those defined to be "not in labor force" are not employed yet are not counted towards the unemployment figure. Who are these people who are not in the labor force? The increase in the number of people from this November to last November is stark, 253,000 people reported they are not looking for jobs because they feel discouraged. Also, the number of people not in labor force increased by three million since November 2008. This is why the U-6 series unemployment measure went up so much.

The summary of the findings is that if you look at the offiicial measure, the unemployment picture is turning the corner. However, a more nuanced look at what new jobs are replacing the jobs that were lost, and how people stop being considered unemployed because they are so dispirited that they just don't want to look any more gives a different picture.

Can We Leave his Secretary out of This?

I know Republicans hate this guy because he's black, I mean a Marxist Democrat (whatever that maens), but lay off his secretary. Seriously, there's a difference between being loyal opposition and being a douchebag. Where's the supoena for the guy who cleans his trash can?

Scared of the Economy...hold a Job Summit.

It sounds fancier if you call it a job summit, than getting everyone on your side together and holding a job fair. Like the ones in your high school auditorium. Apparently, two days after sending a sizable deployment of troops unbecoming of a peace prize laureate, he apparently has a flash of inspiration that the voters don't really care as much about his predecessors middle eastern military quagmire as the considerable challenge of coming up with a serviceable excuse why daddy's loss of his job has inexplicably considered with Santa forgetting where their house is. My point is, why not build a bunch of new roads and infrastructure projects? If were going spend all this money we might as well improve our roadways, power grid, and harbors. It may not make immediate jobs, but it will make the country better. I also believe that Geithner looks like a Romulan.

Pic 1: Geithner

Pic 2: A Romulan

Some Ought to Make a Law...and They Are!

In France, they are putting forth legislation that would require digitally altered advertisements to require a disclaimer that these images were digitally altered. Obviously, the advertising business and photographers disagree with this saying its completely wrong headed. However, having worked in a mental institution, and being a rational, living thinking being, I feel this is a good idea. It was bad enough when women were comparing themselves to models with eating disorders, now they have to compete with feminine images of beauty who are machine made beautiful. Young girls get really screwed up because they don't look like this unrealistic and unobtainable version of beauty used to sell products. I have seen it happen to women in the past, and even more recently it has been affecting males more and more as well (yes, this actually bothers me even more because of its novelty). I think the kung-fu style ultimate attack of this fake beauty is cgi-megan fox in the second Transformers movie. Apparently she transforms into a hotter chick? The point is that between air brush, photoshop, CGI, and worst of all models with eating disorders our compass to how people should look is a dashboard compass spinning out of control.

Evolution of Beauty: Dove's Real Beauty Campaign Short Film: (Fantastic, shows the process of fake beauty). Thanks to Yana from economicsoffashion
Photoshop disasters (How bad and pervasive photoshop is in our landscape).

Afghanistan Part Deux:

The graveyard of empires, or as it is more commonly called, Afghanistan, probably can't be turned around in 18 months. At least with what we have been doing so far. I would like to think Obama may change our strategy from what we have been to what he and McChrystal call the "hearts and minds strategy". Obviously wiping Afghans out as brutally as possible doesn't work, as shown by the Russians. Also, the English strategy of invading Afghanistan then leaving behind a small contingent in a poorly defended fort similarly didn't work.

If we are serious about improving the living conditions of Afghans an perhaps building them some economy? The big question is how do we rebuild a septic system much less a economy while fighting a well-integrated insurgency? The more successful the insurgency is at destroying the economy, the more they disenfranchise people with the government. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. My idea, bribe the heck out of some of the "Taliban" groups. The idea of the "Taliban" as one cohesive group is a myth, these groups don't even interact with each other. My favorite term, its an open-source insurgency.

My personal pick for best op-ed on Afghanistan: Eugene Robinson.

Coverage of Obama's Speech on the Radio:

Yesterday I provided some analysis for Obama's speech about Afghanistan on Voice of America. Essentially, I believe that he's pulling a Gorbachev. He's sending in more troops, so he can pull out of the country. Obama repeatedly echoed the refrain "Afghan responsibility", and made it clear that if the Afghans do not meet the milestones we put out for them, we will withdrawal support and then it will be their fault. So its sort of a perverse incentive system, they fail to meet they don't do what we want, we leave. What's more, we want to leave, so we really don't want them to achieve the goals we set out for them. I personally am glad were going to be getting out in 18 months unless Karzai goes. If that changes, I can support this war again.

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.mediafire.com%252F%253Fjczwetlrrqd&h=96e462c40193484d1c29637b384bdd11&ref=nf