Matt Darling writes today that although the unemployment rate is low, the length of unemployment spells has gone up. This is probably true over the very long term, but it doesn't really seem to be true over the past couple of decades:
I didn't put in trend lines since it would have made the chart too busy, but all of them are absolutely flat. I'm not sure there's really much to see here.
Good news....
Judge shopping might be back on because Mitch says rules are for pussies
"That statute says in pertinent part, 'The business of a court having more than one judge shall be divided among the judges as provided by the rules and orders of the court.' That's it. It neither prohibits nor encourages district-wide assignment of cases and leaves the issue to the individual district courts to sort out according to their rules and procedures."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-take-aim-new-move-judiciary-curb-judge-shopping-rcna143405
I was having a hard time making sense of how his scatter plot in the first post made his point. Yeah, long term unemployment goes up during recessions and long slow recoveries, but that is not what is happening right now.
Last year spouse needed to find a new job (lsy offs). Took 2 months. This year spouse needed to find a new job (company folded, dec of last year) 4 months and counting.
It's been true over the last year.
Kevin
Take a look at the civilian labor force participation rate over say the last 30 years or so and you will see "the issue"
We are down over 5% from the height in 1996 - 2000
And the numbers include 16 year olds and excludes military, and those who are institutionalized
5% doesn't sound like much but when you look at it from a standpoint of its the entire population, then it become clearer as to whats happening
The all time high was an anomaly and shouldn't be the be the standard. Compare instead to the historical average-- we are only slightly lower than that today.
The all time high was an anomaly and shouldn't be the be the standard. Compare instead to the historical average-- we are only slightly lower than that today.
Aleks
historical averages are OK in SOME context but in this case it's moot.
not only are boomers leaving the workforce (if they haven't left already) but there are fewer 16 year olds than there were 30 years ago.
our "work force" is shrinking and immigration both legal and illegal, will not make up for that
I fail to see why any of that means we should use an anomalous high point rather than the average.