What is wrong with this article in terms of economics? It discusses 3 high-end Layoffs, 2 of which were professional Mechanics, while the Last was an experienced Specialist. The focus was actually on a mid-level Management, who was being qualified for extended upper Management after sustained low-level Store management. All Three had dedication to specialized Work Skills in Industries where there had been a definite Downturn in Sales. All came from Industries requiring extensive Job skills, further demanding a high-end Cost to hire qualified Applicants as Re-Hires. The Jobs generate high Training Costs for Employees, and in Industries employing Personnel likely to find other Work with subsequent loss of specialized Experience in the Tasks involved. It shows that Business is getting badly Spooked, and are adopting Measures which will incur huge Re-tool Costs to get back to normal operations.
Mike Shedlock places his own Take upon the article, along with provision of a table which gives the relative shape to the real Unemployment. He uses Pictures to describe the difference between Now and the 1930s. One great difference lay in the level of Employment generated by State and Local Government itself; an amount is excess of 16 million Jobs. This, combined with the federal Employment, makes Government an important industry in economic stability; the Problem being excessively high Wage scales, the high level of Underemployment in governmental Jobs, the early Retirements, and the excessive Retirement packages offered by Government. Government activity becomes a major part of the Problem because of these characteristics, creating a new Class of preferential Welfare. I am just sketching here, but I imagine that this Underemployment raises overall Underemployment by 30%.
Everyone has to read this Post from Greg Mankiw. He is one of the finest Economists in the Country, and I just love it when he turns to individual issues; always an expression of debatable constraints which can be humorous. His analysis works out that the Marginal Dollar he earns Today will net him $4.81 after 35 years under the McCain Tax plan, or $1.85 after 35 years under the Obama Tax plan. I am not doubting any element of what he defined. Certain qualifications should be mentioned about the analysis: the Marginal Dollar Greg assumes has no permanent relationship to his statistical Income, that Income based as it is on tenure and personal investment decisions on his part; all of which would alter little with removal of the Marginal Dollar. Greg could imagine the component elements to attain that Marginal Dollar requires his, and his only, great Expertise; but economically, there is the Thought there are alternate Subscribers of that Marginal Dollar, who may or may not have equivalent Expertise, and would find that Marginal Dollar of greater Need and Desirability. The interesting element here states that as the Need and Desirability grows for the Seekers, there is a manifestation of lower Tax rates so that the Employment to attain that Marginal Dollar will attain higher value–both in immediacy and in the long-term. I would advise Greg to play with his kids more! lgl