House of Eratosthenes

Measured in growth, the American economy has outperformed those of Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan — every Group of 7 developed nation except Canada, according to The Associated Press’ new Global Economy Tracker, a quarterly analysis of 22 countries representing more than 80 percent of global output.

Yet the U.S. job market remains the group’s weakest. U.S. employment bottomed and started growing again a year ago, but there are still 5.4 percent fewer American jobs than in December 2007. That’s a much sharper drop than in any other G-7 country. The U.S. had the G-7’s highest unemployment rate as of December.

I’m not talking about America having a high unemployment rate compared to other countries. I’m talking about this so-called “research” people do, in which they find there is some significant difference between life in the U.S. and life abroad…they flesh it out, to such an extent that you’re pressed to come to a conclusion that there must be something different about the people who live here.

And then — they stop. They don’t define the difference. They don’t even offer a possibility. They just sort of drop it out there, like a stink bomb.

I remember Bowling for Columbine which did some of this. United States has this awful murder rate, because we’ve got “all these guns lying around.” But what makes us this way? Michael Moore spent the entire movie building up this question, and from what I recall, never provided an answer.

Just used it to ambush Charlton Heston at the end, that’s all.

And what makes the American corporate executives such awful, terrible people that they lay people off, and refuse to hire them back, when their counterparts overseas are engaged in different behavior? Again…no answer is proposed. They gather all the statistics necessary to form the differential, they say “look how awful America is” and then that’s as far as they go. To the intellectually honest, the “why?” question gels naturally assuming the data are found to be accurate, and sound. But these are not intellectually honest people; they aren’t trying to reach an audience of intellectually honest people.

So the stink bomb sits.

Canada and Germany have actually added jobs since the recession ended in June 2009.

U.S. companies aren’t acting the way economists had expected them to.
:
In the past, when the U.S. economy fell into recession, companies typically cut jobs but often kept more than they needed. Some might have felt protective of their staffs. Or they didn’t want to risk losing skilled employees they’d need once business rebounded.
:
The result is that productivity — output per workers — has typically decelerated or even dropped as the economy has weakened.

Japan and Europe have been following that script. At the depth of the recession in 2009, productivity shrank 3.7 percent in Japan and 2.2 percent in Europe.

The United States has proved the exception. U.S. productivity growth doubled from 2008 to 2009, then doubled again in 2010, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

At least, it remains an open question until paragraph…I don’t even know what. Four fifths of the way down the page.

Japanese, European and Canadian companies are less inclined to purge employees. Their customs, labor regulations and unions discourage aggressive layoffs. [emphasis mine]

Oh-KAY…so now it comes out. The laws are different. Other countries have laws on the books that “discourage aggressive layoffs”.

Now, laws do not “discourage” things, as anybody who’s ever lived under a law can tell you. A law is a law is a law — it says you can’t do something. If the law prohibits you from doing something you wouldn’t be doing anyway, then the law is entirely irrelevant. It only comes into play when it proscribes against something you would otherwise do…or compels you to do something you otherwise would not do.

So these other countries — according to the article — have all these onerous, labor-friendly laws that tell their businesses to do things the businesses would not otherwise do. Which puts the kibosh on the idea anyone might have formed that foreign company executives might be more inherently compassionate than American company executives…or, at least, that said compassion differential explains the unemployment problem in the U.S.

Oh and what’s that other thing? The foreign businesses, according to the article, are less productive. So these other countries are struggling under the bulwark of a bunch of looney liberal labor laws, and as a direct result of this their businesses are less productive. According to the article.

Is that the point you were trying to make, Paul Wiseman of MSNBC? Because whether that is or is not the case — that’s what your article says.

But there are other things the article does not cover. Like, for example: When those foreign businesses do manage to make some money so they can keep “workers” on the payroll sweeping the floor or painting the walls; how do they make that money? From where does it come?

A variety of places, of course — not the least of which is exports to the United States. It just seems to me that might be a good thing to point out. Because, someone just might read Mr. Wiseman’s article and get it in their head that what we need to do, is make the United States more like the other countries. Whether that’s part of what Wiseman intended or not (haha!).

Just raising the possibility that, as one learns a few more facts about the situation, it just might emerge that this isn’t such a hot idea after all, when all’s said & done.

But I’m so glad we have a democrat President, so we can read this stuff-that-has-no-name about “What’s the deal with America that makes it such a toxic cesspool of human sin?” Rather than a bunch of that other stuff that has no name…about that Republican President meanie-cow and his buddies in the oil business, and how they’re jointly and singularly responsible for every single rejection letter flying through the mail right now. It’s just amazing how the blame shifts when there’s another party in charge, isn’t it?

Here are a few ideas … anyone else want to chim in? I lie the first and last ones, particularly

• Chasing rabbits over a cliff
• Shooting missiles in the air
• Analyzing the …
• Open-ended navel-gazing
• Argument to nowhere
- philmon | 03/31/2011 @ 08:38
“like”. Not “lie”.
- philmon | 03/31/2011 @ 08:39
Oh, and I can tell you why American companies aren’t hiring. The spectre of the “Universal” Health Care law. And impending inflation.
- philmon | 03/31/2011 @ 08:46
Another reason companies aren’t hiring is that they do not need additional staff at these levels of production. Democrats seem to think that companies exist to be jobs programs, not to turn a profit.
- HoundOfDoom | 03/31/2011 @ 09:13
Now, laws do not “discourage” things,

Take Philmon’s point. Obamacare isn’t preventing companies from hiring people but it sure is discouraging them from doing so.
- Duffy | 03/31/2011 @ 09:19
Big Government people … Social Democrats and their twin brothers the Fascists especially — really do see businesses as jobs programs. That’s why they ultimately want to run them.
- philmon | 03/31/2011 @ 09:24
Obamacare isn’t preventing companies from hiring people but it sure is discouraging them from doing so.

Yup, I probably could have worded that more artfully. The laws do have the effect of discouraging things, in fact some are designed specifically for this purpose (must pay surcharge on cigarettes, can’t put a soda pop machine in or near a school…).

But the point I was making was about the actual mechanics. I don’t believe any of those other countries have a labor law on the books that can be translated to “big companies can’t lay off large numbers of people too quickly, unless they’re really, really, really super-duper sure there is no other alternative, and even then they should feel real bad about it.” That isn’t a rule. The effect might be to discourage. But the actual implementation of it is a boolean: You’re allowed to do it or else you are not, period.

Point being that if doing something makes you a good person, but then there is a rule imposed on you that closes off the option of not doing it…then, when you follow that rule all you’re showing about yourself is that you are capable of following rules. The action loses all of the power it might have once had to convince people of your inner personal goodness, since now it’s just a baseline obligation you have and you’re doing the “adequate” thing, not the wonderful awesome thing, of meeting this obligation you’re supposed to meet anyway. (Thing I Know #389).
- mkfreeberg | 03/31/2011 @ 10:18
And then — they stop. They don’t define the difference. They don’t even offer a possibility.

Because they don’t know…or the answer they’d like to give would offend even their liberal readership.

Michael Moore spent the entire movie building up this question, and from what I recall, never provided an answer.

Because he hasn’t the foggiest clue, or once again, the only answer he’s equipped to provide is that we’re all a bunch of violent savages over here. I suspect that wouldn’t go over too well even with the morons who go to his stupid movies.

Oh, and I can tell you why American companies aren’t hiring. The spectre of the “Universal” Health Care law. And impending inflation.

That, and they have no idea what else this president is going to suddenly and arbitrarily attempt to impose on them – a ginormous tax increase, another slew of expensive regulations? Some American companies are sitting on literally hundreds of millions of dollars in liquid assets but aren’t hiring or otherwise using that money to expand. Why? Because they want to be sure they have enough cash on hand to weather any additional storms that BozoBama might try to put them through.
- cylarz | 04/01/2011 @ 19:40

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

American Companies Not Hiring Even Though They Can Afford ItThursday, March 31st, 2011

American Companies Not Hiring Even Though They Can Afford It
Thursday, March 31st, 2011