It's a Global Depression — You heard it here ninth.

Not that I'm an economics expert, but just wanted to let you know that the economic situation we find ourselves in now is, how to put it, a Depression. A Global Depression.

I can speak authoritatively as a member of U-6, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) definition of  pretty completely comprehensive "under-" and unemployment. Just bookmark the report, which is updated monthly. That is, the link doesn't change; just the numbers do. U-6 runs at about twice the so-called "official" unemployment rate, though the "official rate" for December, 2008, is set at 7.2%, while the U-6 is at 13.5%, uncharacteristically less than double. (2 x 7.2 = 14.4%, 0.9% greater than U-6 for the month. These figures will be updated for January, 2009 this coming Friday, Feb. 6, I believe.

So far as I know, there are no "official figures" for what would be the most relevant measure of all in the realm of jobs, incomes & "real life," and that is: How many Americans have a job at which they earn an income sufficient to support a family. This amount of income is sometimes called "a sustaining wage" or a "living wage." That is, an amount of money equal to the expenses that a normal person or family would need in his or her part of the country, to pay for food, clothing, shelter, medical, transportation. It is generally about three to four times what the federal government calls "the poverty level." 

Whenever you hear any government official talk about "jobs created," the relevant question is this: How many jobs created actually pay "a living wage," or "a sustainable wage?" In other words, could one wage-earner support a family on that salary?  If the answer is "No," then it is actually not a real job. One might call it "a work opportunity." And then set out to calculate just how many "work opportunities" you would have to avail yourself of to bring home a living wage, a sustaining wage. My rule of thumb is that it takes at least three of these "work opportunities" to add up to a living wage. So any new jobs figures can safely be reduced by at least two thirds to come up with a number for "real jobs."

You surely have noticed by now that all such "new jobs" announcements by the likes of folks in the former administration never went into detail about what the jobs paid, AND what types of jobs they were--like room service, feeding molded burgers onto the char-broiler chain conveyor. (By the way, you only have to eat one Big Mac a day to get half your saturated fat requirement and half your salt requirement (1,o40 milligrams). How the hell do they get so much salt into "two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a Sesame Street Bun"?)

Another way to put it is this: What the federal government defines as a "poverty line"--below it, you're living in poverty, above it, you're not — is a number so ridiculously low, so out of touch with reality, that it is a meaningless number.

Fortunately, virtually every single federal "safety-net" program uses that meaningless number as the basis for its aid calculations. It is a number designed not to help citizens, but rather to LIMIT help to citizens.

If federal assistance to the poorest of our poor were NOT limited, there would, supposedly,  not be enough money to pay welfare to our multi-national corporations. The ones who out-source our jobs, our manufacturing capacity (even our critical military manufacturing capabilities--because it's not really about providing security for US citizens, it's about providing exorbitant wages and perquisites, bonuses, jets, $1 million office suites, etc, for the bankers and such who have brought on this Global Economic Depression). (I mean, is this a sick, sick, sick system, or what?  And we're not prosecuting these so-called "bankers" for fraud, theft, etc., when they take "our" "bailout" money and give themselves billions of dollars in bonuses? Are we finally just going to have to move into the banks ourselves and live there, surrounding the executives and questioning their every move, signature, phone call, trip to the bathroom? It seems to me that this is what we will have to do. These boys (and maybe some girls) are just plain thieves, yeggs, robbers, bandits, crooks. But I digress.)

Here are the definitions the Bureau uses, which are interesting to think about. 

The "official" unemployment figure (which was politically settled upon, basically, as a figure which would cause the least agitation among the population (my opinion, of course) is the number of persons who have been out of work for 15 weeks or longer (U-1), plus job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs (U-2), equals "total unemployment," or U-3, the "official unemployment rate," "as a percentage of the civilian labor force." 

The "official" unemployment rate runs at about half of what I call the "real" unemployment rate--the one that the BLS calls U-6.

The first question these definitions prompt is: In what category does the BLS count those people who have not "just lost their jobs" and have been out of work for less than 15 weeks?

U-6  is defined as: "Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers." For December, 2008, that's 13.5%.

Here is the "lesser-included" definitions note from BLS: 

NOTE: Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. 

For more information, see "BLS introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures," in the October 1995 issue of the Monthly Labor Review. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data. Seasonally adjusted household data have been revised to reflect updated seasonal adjustment factors.

Sphere: Related Content