Monday, April 20, 2009

Something to Teaparty about.

Current U.S. employment growth is below the levels of the 1950's -- not just in percentages -- in real numbers.

Employment growth when divided by Population growth, to create a percentage statistic, is a meager 19.57%. This means that there has only been one job created for every five persons (16 and older) entering the workforce since Dec. 31, 1999.

How can we bring in over one million legal immigrants per year, if we can't create enough jobs to employ our own children? If this isn't a depression, the government seems hell-bent to create one.

The reason we Teaparty is because our Representatives appear to represent citizens of other countries and Global Corporate Citizens.

Population Growth = 11,516,000
Employment Growth = 7,215,000 (62.65%)

Population Growth = 19,449,000
Employment Growth = 13,862,000 (71.27%)

Population Growth = 30,811,000 (Depression in Mexico)
Employment Growth = 21,224,000 (68.88%)

Population Growth = 20,865,000
Employment Growth = 17,685,000 (84.76%)

Population Growth = 21,667,000
Employment Growth = 16,998,000 (78.45%)

2000's (Mar. 2009)
Population Growth = 26,254,000
Employment Growth = 5,137,000 (19.57%)

Avg for previous 1950'- 1990's = (73.20%)
Avg. employment growth for 2000's should/would have been: = 19,218,994

Employment Shortfall 2000-2009 (March) = 14,081,994

From David Ricardo. On Wages

The market price of labour is the price which is really paid for it, from the natural operation of the proportion of the supply to the demand; labour is dear when it is scarce, and cheap when it is plentiful. However much the market price of labour may deviate from its natural price, it has, like commodities, a tendency to conform to it.

It is when the market price of labour exceeds its natural price, that the condition of the labourer is flourishing and happy, that he has it in his power to command a greater proportion of the necessaries and enjoyments of life, and therefore to rear a healthy and numerous family. When, however, by the encouragement which high wages give to the increase of population, the number of labourers is increased, wages again fall to their natural price, and indeed from a reaction sometimes fall below it.

When the market price of labour is below its natural price, the condition of the labourers is most wretched: then poverty deprives them of those comforts which custom renders absolute necessaries. It is only after their privations have reduced their number, or the demand for labour has increased, that the market price of labour will rise to its natural price, and that the labourer will have the moderate comforts which the natural rate of wages will afford.

Source Data:
BLS CPS Downloaded on 4/20/2009

Formula: Each decade represents EOY Dec XXX9 to EOY Dec XXX9
Example: Decade of 1950's = Dec 1949 to Dec. 1959.

Series Id: LNU00000000

Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Population Level
Labor force status: Civilian noninstitutional population
Age: 16 years and over

Series Id: LNU02000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Age: 16 years and over

1 comment:

Pete Murphy said...

This decline in per capita employment is a great observation! I think you may be interested in a new economic theory that links falling per capita employment to rising overpopulation.

I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled "Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America." To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.

This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management. Our policies that encourage high rates of population growth are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.

But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.

The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight third world countries - India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China - as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050.

If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit either of my web sites at or where you can read the preface, join in my blog discussion and, of course, purchase the book if you like. (It's also available at

Please forgive the somewhat spammish nature of the previous paragraph. I just don't know how else to inject this new perspective into the overpopulation debate without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.

Pete Murphy
Author, "Five Short Blasts"