A nation forsaken

There are 15.9 million people unemployed in the Euro area of sixteen nations and 23 million in the wider EU27.  In America there are 14.6 million unemployed or on temporary work but who would like full time employment (This is the U6 measure of US unemployment) and in Japan there are 3.3 million.

Making a total, in the financially driven and ‘advanced’ world, of 41 million people.  That is a nation forsaken.

Those on the right will be quick to say these are the feckless and bike-less (British joke) who could get a job if they could only get out of bed, draw the curtains, get on their bike or catch a bus and go to where the jobs are. So let’s look at that point of view and do so in the nation where that attitude is most often and most vociferously expressed, America.

So who are the ‘unemployed by choice’ and how many of them are there?  Well, back in 2007 unemployment (the narrower U3 version) was 5% in America. And that 5% unemployment held pretty much steady from 1990 all the way until the start of ’08.  That 5% is about 7.5 million Americans who we are going to say, for the sake of this argument,  are the social parasites the right wing always claims are the people dragging us down.

In fact if we look a little bit closer we find that of that 7.5 million, nearly 7 million of them were actually short term unemployed.  They were part of a churning number of people losing and getting work.  Only 645 000 or 0.65 million of them were long term ( a year or more) unemployed.  So if you really want to point your finger at those who stay on welfare even in ‘good’ times, its less than half of one percent.

But for the sake of keeping the right wing with us, lets pretend that the whole 5% unemployed of 2007 are the people too lazy to work , who would rather live off welfare.

But what about what happened next? From the beginning of ’08 unemployment rose from 5.5% to the 9.8% it is now.  Another 6.45 million Americans lost their jobs. Can we, even by this uber right wing argument, really claim that the extra 4.3% of Americans who lost their jobs since ’08  are feckless parasites?  Well if they were so feckless surely they would have been lazing around before ’08.  Why wait to be lazy? It seems clear to me that even by this right wing argument, the extra 6.45 million Americans who have lost their jobs and are likely to lose their homes as a result, are NOT the feckless and work shy. They are the victims of the bankers free market melt down.

But they are still the ones going to be punished.  2m million of them will lose their unemployment benefits from November unless the now Republican House of Representatives votes to extend benefits beyond the present 99 week maximum.

Right wingers always splutter about how if people can’t find a job after 99 weeks then they must be feckless and so on.  99 week is  a long time.  Just under two years.  Just less than this recession has been going on.

Since the start of the bankers’ crisis the long term unemployed (a year or longer) have gone up from that core of 0.6 million work-shy in 07 to 4.5 million today.  4 million Americans who until early 08 used to work everyday, did not suddenly become parasitic spongers.  They are people who used to work, would like to work, have looked for work, are looking for work, but cannot find any.  And yet come November  extremely wealthy and privileged Americans of both major parties will more than likely cut them adrift.  The wealthy will watch as the poor drown in debts and joblessness they did not create, cannot stop and do not deserve.  While those who damn them will pay their accountants to find ways of minimizing their taxes as does our own UK Chancellor, George Osborne (a verminous little lion if ever there was one), who avoids about 1.5 million pounds of tax.  See here for details.

That is the picture, using numbers from the Bureau of Labour and the ILO.  The situation is not very different here in GB.

From 2000 to 2008 unemployment averaged around 5.5%. In ’08 it rose to 8%.  In Ireland it rose to 13%, in Spain to 20%.  This nation of working men and women had their livelihoods wrecked by the actions of a small class of the super wealthy who live and work apart from the rest of us, in a luxury system of financial apartheid.

I just wanted to talk about the flesh and blood now that all the talk on the television and newspapers will be about banks and money.  It is this robbed and forsaken nation who we should be helping and should be talking about.

Our leaders stand shoulder to shoulder when it comes to printing up hundreds of billion of dollars and euros in order to protect the banks and ‘the system’.  But when it comes to spending a fraction of that for the victims of the banks and their systemic carnage, it seems we can barely spare a dime. We begrudge the poor and uncomprehending every nickle and feel free to call them worthless and lazy.

Their children will grow up in a land of want of ignorance. A land we have built for them.

9 thoughts on “A nation forsaken”

  1. Hi Golem,

    One issue with unemployment has been troubling me for some time, and that is the apparent inability of the MSM and, consequently, of the jabbering masses to distinguish between "full" employment and "optimum" levels of employment.
    There seems to be an assumption that the ideal state of affairs would be for everybody to be employed , all of the time. From my limited research (like yourself, I am no economist!) it would appear that an optimal level of employment, leaving room and opportunity for some manoueverability and flexibility in the labour market, would be somewhere in the region of 3-5%.
    If I have guaged this correctly, it would appear that, in order for a structured economy to function efficiently, some 3-5% of the available workforce can expect to find themselves unemployed at the best of times!
    It might be argued that, instead of castigating the unemployed as workshy and feckless, we might owe some of them a favour for shouldering a neccessary burden! Try selling that to a MSM with a nice line in demagoguery.

    It should be noted, however, that no two economists seem able to agree on a figure for optimal unemployment. Keynes seems to favour zero; at the other end of the scale, 14% is touted. Bloody economists… a plague on all their houses!

    http://www.eoearth.org/article/Theories_of_unemployment#gen4

  2. Golem XIV - Thoughts

    Hello Jim,

    3-5% is about right. If employment ever got near to full those who own businesses would start to cry shortage. The one time we would HAVE to have a national wages policy is if we had full employment. How else would they keep wages low? The lower unemployment gets the harder it is to keep wage costs down.

    During the last decade we had 5% unemployment but the government couldn't encourage east european workers to come here fast enough.

    Optimal employment for those who employ is high enough to mean there is a ready supply of workers to fill the shoes of anyone who demands a raise, but not so much that anyone suggests increasing taxes.

  3. While I greatly appreciate your argument & realize that the numbers you use are for the sake of looking at things from the far right side of the aisle, let it be known that the real number of un- & underemployed is much higher. The U6 measurement for September in the US was 17.1%

    "U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force"(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm)

    That is to say, there are far more than 41 million people hurting. But you already knew that.

    Just as one example, Obama could've declared a moratorium on mortgage foreclosures. But he didn't. Instead he talked about measures that could be taken to ensure the viability of the bankers. He is concerned with the financial well-being of bankers, not human beings (for, as we know, bankers are not human.)

  4. From befuddled toper to blinkered academic: American presidents are certainly varied.

    One thing that is difficult to determine about White House statements and speeches – are the American people hearing the President or his advisers? It would be wonderful if the President suddenly deviated from the prepared speech and spoke his mind – the shocked stares from his team would be worth a few more points on his popularity scale.

    Simple, honest gestures build bridges and stop a nation from rioting.

  5. If Obama spoke his mind it would probably be something like when Reagan made a joke about launching nuclear missiles toward the USSR. He's no idiot, like Bush, but I hope you're not implying that there's a left-ish liberal inside him yearning for freedom to speak its mind. And I don't think you are.

    Obama so tightly controls his mouth he's probably forgotten what it feels like to speak off the cuff. I doubt there's a lot going on inside his head, anyway. The myth about him being a brainiac scholar are way over the top. He's no dummy, but he's hardly the genius his apologists like to portray him as.

  6. Hi DopeAddict

    Thanks for that. It's always good to get American feedback on this blog – it keeps everybody focused on the real issues, rather than mouthing off about cultural differences like a yappy dog, the mascot of 51st staters.

    Hey 24K, I believe 'Foundation X' is a major importer of absinthe. A few bottles are always behind the Lords' bar. Their premium brand is 'Bullion', which gives off a golden hue, rather than the traditional iridescent blue. Obviously, the meeting arranged with Foundation X is to ensure that the Christmas party is well supplied.

    What do you think Ozzy?

    Goin' home, late last night
    Yeah Suddenly I got a fright
    Yeah I looked through the window and surprised what I saw
    Fairy boots were dancin' with a dwarf, all right now!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *