What is a sequester?

a way to scare people.

I thought it was the only way to actually cut spending.

they aren't cutting spending.

From the first post to this post.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1365112002

On the bright side, the Holder Justice Department did consider investigating and prosecuting financial fraud at the largest institutions but figured they were too big to jail.

http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources...=CBRE9271ABU00

I forgot to alert you of my sarcasm.

Lightening the mood a tad:

America's plan to resolve the situation in North Korea:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1365130633

not a bad plan.

The BEST plan

This is a phenomenal article about the current state of the US and its future prospects.

A Statesman's Friendly Advice - WSJ.com

Copy pasta? I was not finding enough value in the WSJ subscription so I let it lapse.

I was trying to but for some reason it is not allowing me to view the article on my work computer when I am logged in. Hopefully Brain can oblige because I know he has a subscription too. If not I will do it when I get home.

The fallacy of small datasets.

Somewhere in this thread I posted an image of essentially the same thing, but going all the way back to the 1940s or so. In this context, the high employment of the late 90s / early 00s appears to be an anomalous bubble. Ah, here we are:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1365182285

Source for data: CPS Tables

You can see how after WWII, the employment rate dipped below 54% for the only time in this range, as a bunch of former soldiers re-joined the "civilian labor force" and had trouble finding jobs. Then the data re-equalized (presumably as a result of women who had taken jobs during the war exiting the labor force and raising children), and things settled down for a while.

Between 1948 and 1984, the E:P ratio moved back and forth across a relatively narrow range. Given that this period includes both the "golden age" period of the 1950s and early 1960s, as well as the "shitty" period of the late 1970s, we might consider a ratio in the range of 55-60% to constitute "normal".

Between 1983 and 2000, the ratio grew dramatically. This might reflect the fact that the overall demographic in the US was changing during this time, with many women of the baby-boom generation entering the workforce for the first time, as well as a higher ratio of adults of working age to adults of normal retirement age.

Now, the baby boomers are starting to retire in large numbers. At the same time, the fact that they tended to produce fewer children per couple than their parents means that fewer new adults are entering the workforce to take their place. The ratio of people of retirement age to people of "traditional" working age is rising.

And then, of course, you have the concept of "surplus labor." During the 1990s in particular, we saw a dramatic upswing in the creation of entirely new job categories which, if we're totally honest with ourselves, didn't really contribute much to the overall economy. You can only have so many people employed as "canine dietary consultants" and "corporate image specialists" before your economy starts to look like something Douglas Adams would have written about.

In other words, it appears that we are currently returning to normal.

The fallacy of reading a conclusion into bare data posted by someone else.

Did I offer any commentary on the chart?

To most the conclusion is implied. That chart is framed in a way to elicit a certain reaction. Please clarify your intention....

No.

Source data (both charts and Excel) available from the BLS here:
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1365188421

[Double post]