244,000 may be better than -900,000 but one of the problems seems to be that 244,000 isn't even close. From what I've been reading 175,000 of these "jobs" were directly attributable to the Birth/Death Ratio (i.e., pie-in-the-sky) and the another 60,000 or so were the part-time jobs created by McDonalds - a one-time shot. That leaves somewhere around 14,000 to 20,000 real jobs. When it comes right down to it, for all practical purposes it feels damn close to -900,000.

There's interesting convergence, more of it everyday, among intelligent social and economic critics. I think EP tends also to be a part of that convergence - toward insisting on the necessity of international capital flow controls.

In May 6 article titled The IMF's Switch in Time at Project Sydicate, distributed also through truthout.org, economist Joseph Stiglitz approves leadership of Strauss-Kahn at IMF, specifically the IMF turn-around in favor of international capital flow controls and away from IMF's long-standing willy-nilly 'capital-market liberalization' policy.

1. Stiglitz uses the term "Great Recession"

2. Financial deregulation in U.S. was prime cause of 2008 global crisis, and capital-market liberalization spread the crisis outward from the U.S.

3. Thanks to the crisis, we can now state with certainty that free and unfettered markets are neither efficient nor stable. For efficiency in setting prices, look at the real-estate bubble; and, for stability, look at currency exchange.  (I would example of the Flash Crash and similar little-understood instability of all financial markets. Of course, it's always about 'isolated incidents', each of them a one-time event   )

4. Iceland helped itself out of the collapse by policies that include  imposing capital controls

5. Federal Reserve policy of “quantitative easing”    has assured the demise of the ideology of unfettered markets. Liquidity created by the Fed hastened the demise of the ideology of unfettered markets. With America's credit pipelines clogged and regional banks faltering, money flowed (flew?) out of the U.S. into "emerging markets".

6. Stiglitz notes about capital flows that money goes where markets think returns are highest, but that may not be where returns in fact are highest 

That last point reminds me of the old saw that "people vote their pocket books." No, they may think (or rationalize) that they are voting their pocket books - very different from effectively voting in you own economic or financial best interest. 

My take on the growing awareness of the insanity of the faith-based ideology of global market liberalization   , is that something's got to give. We cannot make the needed reforms within the WTO system, and the sooner we get real about reforming our 'fast-track' past, the better off we'll be. Our "switch in time" needs to be a turn-around in the "fast track" trade policy.

A prime benefit of an across-the-board tariff policy (accompanied with an end to the U.S. system of trade preferences and patchwork subsidies) will be that it will bring about a break - a show-down - with the WTO quasi-judicial system.

If we play this right, a new U.S. could find allies everywhere. We (U.S.) have an opportunity to take the lead in global reform. Or not, in which case, we (U.S.) will be doomed to the nether end of history.

For now, my only strategy is to reject and ridicule the 'okeydoke'.  That's where EP    comes in, calling it like it is, including ugly naked behinds at the Imperial Court.

When we turn the corner in Afghanistan or with unemployment?

What event will come first: the last infantryman will leave Afghanistan or the last person laid off in 2007-2010 will get a new fulltime job? [For extra bonus points, give year for your predictions.]

These people, it's pretty ridiculous, there is other research, extensive, which clearly shows major exodus of U.S. jobs through offshore outsourcing.

It's like they have denial agendas. Of course nothing is pure in terms of total jobs losses and the implosion of the real estate market has had a huge effect...

but to me, this must go against their religion to try to deny this is a major factor in U.S. jobs, wages.

Thank you for working with calculator and spreadsheets. That's work! Important work.

I would just note that part of the whole stats analysis thing is that effects of population increases and patterns of those increases (baby booms, etc.) are delayed by many years. Even in the case of immigration of adults, even for H1B visas, the downstream effects are largely unpredictable and difficult to track. It's guessing, regardless of how hard we work with spreadsheets. We are in a period of tremendous social instability and, therefore, of demographic instability.

I think that at this time even basic mortality tables (the ones based on stats collected for reality not for limited legal purposes) are subject to relatively radical changes.

Life insurance is just one part of the picture. Overall, re-insurance of any type has become a risky game.

Keep it up 4OKEY and I'm gonna have to rig up something here which promotes comments to some sort of special post status. ;)

I must wonder, how many official Democrats are hip to this never ending labor arbitrage through manipulation of immigration, covered under some sort of B.S. of discrimination (if one wants to have a controlled and enforced immigration system then of course that one is a racist xenophobe).

Silicon valley, right now is spending millions, all in their attempts to labor arbitrage, offshore outsource even more and get their glorified corporate controlled unlimited global migration, controlled by them in reality, agenda through.

Positively disgusting.

This is from January, where I ran though one method to figure out how many jobs are needed to keep up with population growth, Exercises for the Reader.

I'm going to try to update this soon and dig out a few more assumptions that the economists are making when determining these monthly estimates.

My beef is fundamentally the noninstitional popopulation is based on estimates, but is off of the 2000 Census base numbers.

I think that's a little statistically nuts and is also due to the lack of funding to the BLS and Census to tighten up the accuracy of this base metric.

Anyway, I ran through a bunch of calculations on that post. I just came up with 98,000 or so jobs on a month by month basis to keep up with population growth but that is the lowest number I've ever cranked, so I need to check myself for errors.

Fun, fun. BLS always has me whipping out my calculator and spreadsheets.

Having apologized, I respectfully suggest that my proposal to enforce systematic violation of immigration law through application of the existing RICO statutes is (could be and should be) a realistic approach. I would like to see more popular support and greater reporting on this group of RICO cases. I would also like to see more attention to the SCOTUS Anza case as another recent example of how the working people of America are regularly screwed by the SCOTUS -- comparable to the Citizens United case. (In theory, the Court is supposed to be impartial!)

U.S. Attorneys around the country have not picked up on the RICO option for enforcement. (The requirement for confirmation by the Senate assures nominees that can be depended on not to upset the expectations of major contributors to senate campaigns.)

Possibly the only case of a public prosecutor getting involved in a criminal RICO complaint was when the popularly elected county board (supervisors or commissioners) of an Idaho county hired an attorney to assist the County Attorney in preparing criminal RICO complaints against local businesses that were believed to be making that county an attractive source of jobs for allegedly illegal workers, with related governmental problems and expenses. I don't have the details, but it may have been related to Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit Co., 301 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2002).

This is the situation despite the fact that in 1996, Congress specifically amended immigration law to include RICO application in immigration cases. The law authorizes use of RICO by state as well as by federal prosecutors (U.S. Attorneys). However, as noted, prosecutors have failed to pick up on this option.

There have been some efforts made in isolated cases by groups of legal workers (U.S. citizens or 'Green Card' residents) who resent discrimination against U.S. citizens. I have seen this discrimination myself, in Hood River and The Dalles, Oregon, in the 1970s, when corporate employers refused to hire experienced legal farm labor in order to hire ONLY illegals. (So much for the idea that "Americans won't take the jobs"!)

Here are some links about the cases and history of efforts to apply RICO in immigration cases:

Article on I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification, including discussion of RICO

Pioneering litigation by attorney Howard Foster on behalf of U.S. citizens suffering discrimination by corporate employers favoring illegal workers

2010 LexisNexis article ("Learning From RICO: Immigration Enforcement through Employer Accountability")

It should not come as a great surprise to anyone that the SCOTUS has acted to squelch the clear intent of Congress and of the people! At least that's how things stand now as far as class-action suits under RICO by legal employees (or former employees) and antitrust suits by employers suffering unfair competition from employers who violate the law. For RICO case, see Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. (2006). Resourceful attorneys following the lead of Howard Foster  have explored ways to advance cases in state courts, using state anti-trust statutes; and, this line of litigation may still be viable.

PDF written for employers worried about the trend

There is also available an excellent, thorough and unbiased summary (46 pages)  of the current situation:

PDF (2010 Doctoral Thesis by Megan Martha Reed, J.D., Washington and Lee University School of Law)

Also, see 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)

No appology necessary, but thanks. Yes, I do think differently than most, and proud of it. Yes, I do think in the extreme because conventional thinking is basically a stalemate and non-productive. At present, considering the dire dark situation this country is in, extreme thinking and measures are needed to right the sinking ship. We've all seen and heard what the so called "conventional thinking and wisdom" has lead us to. Basically, the conventional thinking has sent us into a downward economic spiral that may take decades to recover from. I'll spare you the long list of woes presently resting at our doorsteps. But, to make it short and sweet, we're in very very bad shape as a nation, and as a people.

Yes, you can take everything that I say at face value, everything. The "kid glove" soft approach hasn't worked, and won't work. We need to introduce the hard-line method of dealing with the multitude of problems facing this nation, and do it in a hurry. Trying to be gentle and kind has proven to get us nowhere except deeper in the socioeconomic mire of debt, poverty, and dependency.

Yes, I agree that some of my thinking and solutions are extreme, and maybe a little on the unrealistic side. But, unrealistic only to the point that most are content with long-standing approaches and methods. Few are willing to step outside the box in order to approach problems from a different avenue. Radical change scares folks, and thus the reason that what we're seeing is old approaches to new problems. The dynamics of global economics has changed almost every nation on Earth. We can't solve today's problem with ancient remedies.

As far as our judicial branch of government is concerned, it's a rigged system fueled by the same vices and lack of morals that government in general is fueled by. The list includes greed, influence, power, egos, and self-centered benefit. In America, your freedom is your luck, and not the constitutional guarantees that we were taught in school. Many innocent American citizens are presently sitting in our jails and prisons as we speak. It's not uncommon to hear several times a year that someone is released after serving over ten years for a crime they didn't commit.

Thanks again for the appology, though it wasn't necessary. Now that you've explained your position, it's obvious that I totally misunderstood you. I also appologize for that. Have a great day my friend.