What planet is Paul Krugman from?

[StreetScooby 5]

I read this article. The thought that struck me is now that the US is making it much more difficult to migrate, Canada seems to have become a preferred place.

We are all engines of karma

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Well, if all the people that wanted to come to the US were allowed to, I think the population growth numbers would be different.

The US has very low migratory population growth because the (legal) immigration is pretty limited.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 3,114]

>Where are you getting that government employment is going down?

See attached.

[Southern_Man 0]

OK, the O.P. asked where Krugman was making his assertions. I located this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-climbin_n_501788.html

Note that it is from HuffPo but is not an opinion piece--it is a report from OECD. I didn't have a chance to look at the underlying report and I would also want to see other studies (which Huffpo also references some) but Krugman is clearly not making it up out of thin air. The takeaway quote:

The report finds the U.S. ranking well below Denmark, Australia, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany and Spain in terms of how freely citizens move up or down the social ladder. Only in Italy and Great Britain is the intensity of the relationship between individual and parental earnings even greater.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[StreetScooby 5]

Can I ask where you got this from?

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,114]

From PoliticalCorrection.org. The accompanying text:

=======================
As The Private Sector Adds Jobs, Budget Cuts Continue To Limit Economic Growth
October 07, 2011 10:15 am ET — Alan Pyke

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports today that the private sector added 137,000 jobs in September, while the public-sector workforce shrunk by another 34,000. That's a continuation of a long trend, in which budget cuts lead to public employee layoffs that shrink the overall monthly job growth number. The chart below, updated with today's report, illustrates the steady contraction of the public sector and the expansion of the private economy since the Recovery Act actually began to reach the economy in early summer 2009. Since that time, the private sector has seen a net gain of 1.4 million jobs; if public-sector employment had just held steady, without any hiring or firing, the economy would have grown by about 2 million jobs over this period. Instead, budget cuts have eliminated 572,000 government workers on net.
============================

[StreetScooby 5]

Had to track down the article I last read about the employment numbers. John Crudele has been writing alot about unemployment reporting for years now. Here's his latest article:

Rosy report a ruse

Here's the article...

Some day, the government is going to put out a good economic report and I’ll be able to say, “Yeah, that really is a good report.”

This isn’t that day.

Everyone, of course, would be thrilled if 243,000 jobs were actually created in the month of January. Hallelujah!

Remember, we are talking about the month when companies go into hibernation because of bad weather and temporary Christmas jobs end. Jobs aren’t created in January. They are lost.

Yet there it is in the Labor Department release yesterday — “total non-farm payrolls rose by 243,000 in January and the unemployment rate decreased to 8.3 percent.”

A lie? Political manipulation? Or maybe it’s just that most people don’t understand what they’re looking at. The answer is the latter.

Those 243,000 jobs are the total after seasonal adjustments.

The question you should be asking is, what’s the un-tampered-with number before the adjustment?

Glad you asked. The Labor Department reported a loss of 2,689,000 jobs in January.

Seasonal adjustments are intended to smooth out holiday bumps like that. But because of the depth and unusual nature of the nation’s Great Recession, those seasonal adjustments are being skewed.

Here’s how it works: In January 2010, as I said, there was an actual, unadjusted job loss of 2,858,000 jobs.

To make it simple, the government computers were expecting a bigger unadjusted loss than the 2,689,000 jobs because last January’s decline was 2,858,000.

Why weren’t there as many job losses this January? Very likely because the weather throughout the country is a lot milder this year than during the past two Januarys.

A loss of jobs that isn’t as bad as expected turns into a job gain. Does that mean there really are 243,000 new jobs out there? Absolutely not.

Let’s say there are rumors in your company that 300 people are going to be laid off. Instead, management decides to fire just 200.

Two hundred people, of course, have lost their jobs. But, adjusting it for expectations, 100 people didn’t get fired. Using this analogy, the government would say that, on an expectation-adjusted basis, 100 jobs were created.

That’s sort of what happened in the January employment report because of seasonal adjustment.

The numbers themselves shouldn’t be changed because continuity from year to year is important for comparisons. But people should be alerted when seasonal adjustments are screwing with the numbers.

Someday things will be better. Maybe even in our lifetime.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/rosy_report_ruse_LsXHVA9epmxGzTBHeOW6WP#ixzz1m0eSCxz3

We are all engines of karma

[charlie5 0]

Quote

Quote

Canada’s population grew by 5.9% between 2006 and 2011, up slightly from 5.4% for the previous intercensal period of 2001 to 2006 (Figure 1).

Just happened to coincide with the election of a Stephen Harper, a conservative leader and since then the conservatives taking over the house of commons and repealing many of the previous liberal policies, hell they even opted out of the freaking Kyoto protocol and have a much more aggressive energy exploration and export policy than we do.

Their economy is growing and healthy.

Compare that with the direction we've been going.

The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

what is wrong with establishing that individuals within or between your cosmetic divisions also have different needs?

Nothing at all.

Though I am for instance happy that our local schoolboard decided to figure out why such a large group of portugese kids kept dropping out of high school.

They found a cultural reason that is likely responsible and it has allowed them to address Portugese parents specifically to try and address this.

I really don't see an issue with such programs, nor do I see how being blind to group differences would yield a better solution.