Today the Labor department reported the unemployment rate is now 10.2%, a depressing psychological barrier to a grim economy. But what I don't understand is why the MSM and the government continue to push this figure. If they wanted to be really honest about unemployment, we would have been "celebrating" the true double-digit rate back in 2008 by looking at the U-6 rate. That's the rate I hope is used more and more.
As the link states, the U-6 rate is really anybody who doesn't have a full-time job that wants one, even those who gave up looking for a job. This is what we're dealing with. It's really 17.5% unemployment.
The U-3 rate is used purely for political reasons. I see no other relevant reason why this is the rate du jour. You would think the MSM would jump at the U-6 rate since they love a depressing and dramatic story.
11/06/2009
11/05/2009
How does one start a policy institute?
I have been contemplating on advancing my academics for some time now. It's been a battle between two very different directions. I won't get into the detail, but I've come to the decision. As this blog shows, I'm fascinated by public policy so it is natural that I would want to pursue something along those lines. Public Administration with a focus on public policy seems an avenue that will help me become more confident in presenting my ideas. But what excites me the most is the prospect of learning to effectively research and present data to support the policy ideas.
We all have wonderful ideas that we believe will help in some way. But it needs more than an idea, it needs a stepping stone. The foundation of that step needs to be sturdy enough to handle some abuse. In the debate arena, an idea needs to hold up against all scrutiny. Using empirical data via research is key to withstand the assaults. Thus, learning the theories and ideas about data gathering is required of me to effectively become a policy institute (can it just have one person???). Hopefully I will soon step backing the academic world to move this institute forward.
Once that becomes a reality, I'll need some fellow data miners (who love numbers and stats, obviously) who want to join together to push out common ideas. Who knows where it ends up, but I would be proud to say that I tried to make a difference in the world.
We all have wonderful ideas that we believe will help in some way. But it needs more than an idea, it needs a stepping stone. The foundation of that step needs to be sturdy enough to handle some abuse. In the debate arena, an idea needs to hold up against all scrutiny. Using empirical data via research is key to withstand the assaults. Thus, learning the theories and ideas about data gathering is required of me to effectively become a policy institute (can it just have one person???). Hopefully I will soon step backing the academic world to move this institute forward.
Once that becomes a reality, I'll need some fellow data miners (who love numbers and stats, obviously) who want to join together to push out common ideas. Who knows where it ends up, but I would be proud to say that I tried to make a difference in the world.
From my Notes: The Judiciary nomination process
Back in July, I Noted this during the Sotomayor nomination process:
The problem with the Judiciary nomination process is that it has now become so political with the misguided focus on the nominee's ideology versus the strength of the nominee's impartiality.
Now, I believe there is room for Senators to question a nominee's belief system as it is impossible for said nominee to be completely unbiased. A nominee is nominated because the President believes the person in question is aligned similarly with the President's views, so even before the debate begins, ideology is already at play.
Democracy at play.
Elections have consequences. When the people vote for their representatives, I would assume it is because they agree with the majority of that politicians views (at least that's what I hope is the case; they're will always be wedge issue voters though).
Because of this, the will of the voters needs to be upheld. The minority has the weaker position of a vote. So to see the minority consistently hold up the nomination process is very undemocratic (or maybe it's the rules not and the Senator is just playing the game). The focus should be on impartiality. The main criteria should be, "Can this person effectively suspend his or her own viewpoints while holding court?"
How to effectively measure this is something I'm still wondering about.
The problem with the Judiciary nomination process is that it has now become so political with the misguided focus on the nominee's ideology versus the strength of the nominee's impartiality.
Now, I believe there is room for Senators to question a nominee's belief system as it is impossible for said nominee to be completely unbiased. A nominee is nominated because the President believes the person in question is aligned similarly with the President's views, so even before the debate begins, ideology is already at play.
Democracy at play.
Elections have consequences. When the people vote for their representatives, I would assume it is because they agree with the majority of that politicians views (at least that's what I hope is the case; they're will always be wedge issue voters though).
Because of this, the will of the voters needs to be upheld. The minority has the weaker position of a vote. So to see the minority consistently hold up the nomination process is very undemocratic (or maybe it's the rules not and the Senator is just playing the game). The focus should be on impartiality. The main criteria should be, "Can this person effectively suspend his or her own viewpoints while holding court?"
How to effectively measure this is something I'm still wondering about.
Letter to Senator Specter
Dear Senator Specter,
I am writing in regards to the 1st time homebuyers extension that is currently being addressed in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. I understand that you are not on this committee but I would like to address a concern.
If the current form of the bill becomes law, it allows current homebuyers to receive a tax credit for purchasing a new home if they have lived in their previous home for 5 or more years.
Admittedly, this would be for my benefit, but I believe that it would be a much stronger bill if it was amended to reduce the 5+ year requirement to 3+ or 4+ years. Based on some quick research, mortgage rates were extremely low during late 2004 and early 2005 (http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/30/real_estate/weekly_rates/index.htm) & (http://mortgage-x.com/general/national_monthly_average.asp?y=2004) thus many new homeowners, including myself, took advantage of this during that time period. Because the proposed extension bill deadline is April 30, 2010 for a new home, those homeowners will not benefit under the current requirement.
I understand that this will add additional cost to the bill since it opens the door for more qualified taxpayers to take advantage of it, but I feel that it still carries the spirit of the bill in helping the housing sector get back on its feet, which translates to a stronger recovery.
If you are in agreement, could you or your staff pass this request of lowering the 5+ year agreement to 3 or 4 years to Senator Dodd for consideration to amend the current form of the bill. I believe this will create a sound financial opportunity for those consumers who knew when to take advantage of a good opportunity three or four years ago to continue the dream of homeownership.
I am writing in regards to the 1st time homebuyers extension that is currently being addressed in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. I understand that you are not on this committee but I would like to address a concern.
If the current form of the bill becomes law, it allows current homebuyers to receive a tax credit for purchasing a new home if they have lived in their previous home for 5 or more years.
Admittedly, this would be for my benefit, but I believe that it would be a much stronger bill if it was amended to reduce the 5+ year requirement to 3+ or 4+ years. Based on some quick research, mortgage rates were extremely low during late 2004 and early 2005 (http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/30/real_estate/weekly_rates/index.htm) & (http://mortgage-x.com/general/national_monthly_average.asp?y=2004) thus many new homeowners, including myself, took advantage of this during that time period. Because the proposed extension bill deadline is April 30, 2010 for a new home, those homeowners will not benefit under the current requirement.
I understand that this will add additional cost to the bill since it opens the door for more qualified taxpayers to take advantage of it, but I feel that it still carries the spirit of the bill in helping the housing sector get back on its feet, which translates to a stronger recovery.
If you are in agreement, could you or your staff pass this request of lowering the 5+ year agreement to 3 or 4 years to Senator Dodd for consideration to amend the current form of the bill. I believe this will create a sound financial opportunity for those consumers who knew when to take advantage of a good opportunity three or four years ago to continue the dream of homeownership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)