Chart: US long-term unemployment 1967-2011
from David Ruccio
Between the third quarter of 2009 (when the recovery is said to have begun) and the third quarter of this year, the percentage of workers who had been jobless for a year or longer nearly doubled from 16 percent to 31.8 percent. The number of workers who have been unemployed for a year or longer has jumped, during the same period, from 2.5 million to 4.4 million.
source [pdf]
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
RWER 26,369 subscribers
Regular Contributors
follow this blog on Twitter
Top Posts- last 48 hours
- Prepare for a surge in global inequality
- Memo to self
- Corporate reckoning
- Even in the face of coup attempt, NYT continues propaganda for upward redistribution through trade
- Why everything we know about modern economics is wrong
- “Capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor”
- Garbage-can econometrics
- Fooled by randomness
- Corporate power and the future of U.S. capitalism
- Debt and deficits, yet again
Real World Economics Review
The RWER is a free open-access journal, but with access to the current issue restricted to its 25,952 subscribers (07/12/16). Subscriptions are free. Over one million full-text copies of RWER papers are downloaded per year.
WEA online conference: Trade Wars after Coronavirus
Comments on recent RWER issues
————– WEA Paperbacks ————– ———– available at low prices ———– ————- on most Amazons ————-
WEA Periodicals
----- World Economics Association ----- founded 2011 – today 13,800 members
Recent Comments
- Craig on Why everything we know about modern economics is wrong
- Ikonoclast on Even in the face of coup attempt, NYT continues propaganda for upward redistribution through trade
- JD on Even in the face of coup attempt, NYT continues propaganda for upward redistribution through trade
- Ikonoclast on Memo to self
- Meta Capitalism on Corporate reckoning
- Meta Capitalism on Garbage-can econometrics
- Meta Capitalism on Memo to self
- Meta Capitalism on Memo to self
- P S BAKER on Memo to self
- Econoclast on Memo to self
- deshoebox on Why everything we know about modern economics is wrong
- Yoshinori Shiozawa on Why everything we know about modern economics is wrong
- Yoshinori Shiozawa on Corporate reckoning
- ghholtham on Why everything we know about modern economics is wrong
- davetaylor1 on Why everything we know about modern economics is wrong
Comments on issue 74 - repaired
Comments on RWER issues
WEA Online Conferences
—- Forthcoming WEA Paperbacks —-
———— Armando Ochangco ———-

Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan

————— Herman Daly —————-

————— Asad Zaman —————

—————– C. T. Kurien —————

————— Robert Locke —————-

Guidelines for Comments
• This blog is renowned for its high level of comment discussion. These guidelines exist to further that reputation.
• Engage with the arguments of the post and of your fellow discussants.
• Try not to flood discussion threads with only your comments.
• Do not post slight variations of the same comment under multiple posts.
• Show your fellow discussants the same courtesy you would if you were sitting around a table with them.
Most downloaded RWER papers
- Trade and inequality: The role of economists (Dean Baker)
- Why some countries are poor and some rich: a non-Eurocentric view (Deniz Kellecioglu)
- Global finance in crisis (Jacques Sapir)
- Green capitalism: the god that failed (Richard Smith)
- The state of China’s economy 2009 (James Angresano)
- What Is Neoclassical Economics? (Christian Arnsperger and Yanis Varoufakis)
- The housing bubble and the financial crisis (Dean Baker)
- Debunking the theory of the firm—a chronology (Steve Keen and Russell Standish)
- New thinking on poverty (Paul Shaffer)
Family Links
Contact
follow this blog on Twitter
RWER Board of Editors
Nicola Acocella (Italy, University of Rome) Robert Costanza (USA, Portland State University) Wolfgang Drechsler ( Estonia, Tallinn University of Technology) Kevin Gallagher (USA, Boston University) Jo Marie Griesgraber (USA, New Rules for Global Finance Coalition) Bernard Guerrien (France, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) Michael Hudson (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Frederic S. Lee (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Anne Mayhew (USA, University of Tennessee) Gustavo Marqués (Argentina, Universidad de Buenos Aires) Julie A. Nelson (USA, University of Massachusetts, Boston) Paul Ormerod (UK, Volterra Consulting) Richard Parker (USA, Harvard University) Ann Pettifor (UK, Policy Research in Macroeconomics) Alicia Puyana (Mexico, Latin American School of Social Sciences) Jacques Sapir (France, École des hautes études en sciences socials) Peter Söderbaum (Sweden, School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology) Peter Radford (USA, The Radford Free Press) David Ruccio (USA, Notre Dame University) Immanuel Wallerstein (USA, Yale University)
One should also factor in the consideration that being unemployed today is dramatically more life threatening (in so many ways…) then it was in the late 60s. Aside from cash economies and electronic tracking, the government “brokerage” control over people’s survival strategies has intensified and the capital intensive service sector has grown so path dependent that losing your job has extended liabilities that reach into membership identity itself. This frightful chart has implications that are far reaching for society; perhaps more than any time in history. There simply is no coherent safety net in community or extended family connectivity. The market has become a sink or swim ocean, and for some that will be an ocean of irreconcilable (and irrecoverable) loss and despair. This in an environment where social service and medical psychological support is threatened by the class structured template of austerity policies.
The way to deal with structural long term unemployment is to institute a basic guaranteed income for all, a financial floor that has no cracks in it.
This will also help create a steady minimum cash flow in the economy which benefits everybody.
And where are you going to get all that money from?
The problem is not where you get the money from: you [at the moment the banks] print it simply by authorising credit. The problem is to prevent it disappearing into the black hole of stock exchange speculation, gambling, fraud and commissions.
Casting people on the scrap heap is a certain way to generate massive social problems and finally armed rebellion.
There are way far too many people for the number of “normal” jobs available.Immigration must cease and natural increase curtailed.The export of jobs through the globalization greed machine has to be stopped and the process reversed.
Meanwhile,a relable and adequate income guarantee as a safety net is absolutely necessary.A job guarantee scheme which employs surplus labour on public works at a basic living wage is needed to give the cast offs a sense that they are a necessary and valuable part of the community.Alienation is the mortal enemy of the individual and society.
First point agreed. Second point: nonsense! Export/import of people, jobs, machinery and resources can be controlled, the necessary work can be shared instead of being done by a few overworked slaves, and the population – starting with politicians and educators – can be sent back to school to learn how PID control systems work so they can set up and teach people how to use the information feedback arrangements necessary for people to be able to see the need for and how to coordinate and control their communal child-bearing. Third point (a) a reliable and [more than] adequate income guarantee: absolutely! (b) a job guarantee on public works for cast-off labour at a basic income? Hold on a minute. Who is counting who as the cast-offs?
I suggest we cast off all those sods renting out and gambling with pubic money in the banks and stock market casinos and let them do public service for a pittance. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
In the heat of responding to Podargus on the (agreed vital) issue of population control, my control of language seems to have failed somewhat! Here’s a better version:
“The population – starting with politicians and educators – can be sent back to school to learn how PID control systems work, so they can set up and learn how to use information feeedback arrangements letting them see the need for and how to control their communal child-bearing”.
It seems to me, having practiced the science of control, that knowing one’s town’s population target, death rate and pregnancies already intended in the current year, are the key pieces of information necessary for communally responsible family planning. Our “authorities” -still trained, Podargus, in the classical tradition of “carrot and stick” – are not yet seeing the need to make them publicly available.
The point of the three [Proportional, Integral and Differential] feedbacks is that, given a child-birth target, in the short term births need to be Proportional to the difference between that and death rate – all of which need to be known. In the long term the target is likely to need adjusting to account for accumulating (mathematically Integrated) excess
or shortfall ted (so mathematically Integrated) or changed (Differentiated) in light of changing opportunities.
Groan! Is it my old age or the system not completing my editing processes? In any case the last sentence should haven read:
“In the long term the target is likely to need adjusting to account for accumulating (mathematically Integrating) excess or shortfall, or changed (Differentated) in light of changing opportunities.”