blog roll

"Hamas Bringing Back Crucifixion"..., 2009-01-03 07:44:25 | Main | well that's another fine appointment you've gotten us into..., 2009-01-07 13:41:14 labor demand and immobility: While I was on vacation in the internetless wilds of Minnesota for the past couple of weeks it occurred to me that UofC economist Casey Mulligan's evidence (rising productivity numbers during protracted job losses suggests reduced labor supply, rather than falling demand for labor) that "a significant part of [this] recession [is] a reduced preference for working" would be entirely consistent with the labor immobility you'd expect and see from the millions of households that have gone into negative equity on their mortgages (over 8 million at the beginning of last year, up to 12 million last month). That is to say: there's no discernible distinction between workers who can't/won't move to where jobs are because they're locked into their own little slice of the deflated housing bubble and workers who have decided to take a voluntary hiatus. Except: we know that a significant proportion of the workforce is locked in, and that rising un and under-employment claims run contrary to the claim that workers would rather just loaf around the homes they're locked into. A very nasty pickle, if you ask me. :: posted by buermann @ 2009-01-05 15:09:08 CST | link Comments: I could move to where there's significant demand for my labor, more than there is where I live, if I were willing to impose considerable, wrenching costs and dislocation on those beings quaintly known as my "family" and "friends". My taxable income would go up. So would the official measurement of my productivity. There's no denying that. At least on paper. To the acculturated sociopaths in the economics profession, the wrenching costs and dislocations are a matter of perspective. Sentimentalism. Things I could overcome, and the quaint beings could overcome, if it weren't for our "reduced preference" for working. "Any man who is not a radical at 20 has no heart. A man who is not a cynic at 50 has no mind." Ha! Well, I'm still a radical. More so than I was at twenty. And I have a theory: my reduced preference for working will eventually catch on and as a consequence of this the immense brains in the economics profession will be eventually be faced with the grim prospect of honest labor. I hope, and I think you'll share this hope, that the supply of them will create a demand for reeducation facilities. posted by Zomg @ 2009-01-08 00:19:52 | link Galbraith the Elder had obvious things to say to the same effect, as eloquently with longer paragraphs, and that hasn't changed in the 50 intermediate years one iota. All due doubt to the data points, Mulligan has been overlooking the obvious explanation for his little quibble for longer than one cares to respect, or I care to at any rate, to make mildly insulting insinuations on statistical generalities' overpaidness, as we might all applaud a healthy preference for greater leisure, if it were evidenced by the data. You remember being twenty? Shit dude, I wasn't drinking enough then. Everything between 18 and 24 is like a black hole of sobriety interlaced with the occasional bottle of cheap red wine, learning dick and doing less. And ain't that what the economics "profession" is doing right about now? All spam and no eggs. posted by buermann @ 2009-01-08 01:36:30 | link Wasted years, wasted years... I was a stakhanovite :'-( sucking my tea from a damp cloth. posted by Zomg @ 2009-01-08 08:34:22 | link go ahead, express that vague notion Name: Email: Homepage: Comment your turing test: