Don't look at these long-term and youth unemployment numbers if you like good news
Will we, at last, have recovery in our time? That's the question in Europe, where the once omnipresent threat of euro implosion has given way to a sense that things are finally getting better. This era of good feelings even has a portmanteau: crexit. Yes, crexit. As in, "crisis exit". It's true enough, but not nearly enough. In other words, the euro crisis is over, but the economic crisis remains.
This emerging Euro-triumphalism is mostly a story about European Central Bank (ECB) chief Mario Draghi and the Baltics. Draghi single-handedly ended the panic in sovereign debt markets when he promised to do "whatever it takes" to save the common currency, while the Baltics have shown there can be growth after austerity. But there's a "but". Draghi hasn't been able to get the ECB to do anything as the euro zone, including Germany, has fallen back into recession, and the Baltics, despite their recent growth spurts, are still far below their pre-crisis peaks due to the depths of their tight money and tight budget induced slumps. Europe's real economy is still, mostly, in really bad shape -- as you can see from these terrifying numbers that Jonathan Portes highlights from the latest European Commission report. These are the new scariest charts in Europe. At least for now.
Europe's definition of "long-term unemployment" is twice as depressing as our own. In the U.S., you have to be out of work and looking for a job for six months to count as long-term unemployed. In Europe, it's 12 months. But it's not just how they define long-term unemployment that's depressing -- it's their levels of it, too. As you can see in the chart below that compares long-term unemployment rates across Europe in 2007 and 2011 (the latest year for which we have figures), it's really a tale of two continents. The PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain) and Baltics are getting crucified on a cross of euros, euro-pegged currencies, and austerity. Everybody else is doing fine to meh.
Think about it this way. Roughly 1 out of 11 people in the workforce have been unemployed for a year or more in the worst-hit countries. That's even worse than the U.S. unemployment rate overall. Big economies like France and Italy are trending in the wrong direction, with growth reversing.
That brings us to our second scariest chart. The young have taken a big part, though certainly not all, of the jobless hit -- even in the continent's better-performing economies. The reality isn't quite as bad as the stories you may have heard about half of all Greek youths being out of work, since those numbers don't account for kids in school or training programs, but it's still bad enough. As you can see in the chart below, the percent of youths (defined as aged 15 to 24) who are neither working nor in school nor receiving some kind of training is still high enough to cause serious worry. Outside of Germany, it's edged up everywhere, if not outright spiked. It's not a good time to be young in Latvia. Or Ireland. Or Greece. Or Spain. Or Italy.
The toxic combination of careers deferred and discontinued for long periods can create what economists call "hysteresis" -- permanent damage to the economy. There's a stigma to being out of work for too long, or starting a career too late, that is difficult to overcome, short of an economic boom. Patting yourself on the back when so much remains to be done defines down success so far that failure becomes impossible -- and so will genuine success, in the future.
Europe's policymakers need some Rooseveltian, if not Churchillian, resolve in the face of mass unemployment. In other words, aggressive ECB bond-buying and fiscal expansion in the countries that can afford fiscal expansion (which will spillover into the countries that cannot). Anything less is just appeasement of inflation hawks and deficit scolds intent on winning a phony war against phantom opponents.
In a rare move, rank-and-file GOP lawmakers have joined with Democrats to force a vote on legislation reviving the Export-Import Bank.
It has taken nearly five years and the resignation of a speaker, but moderate Republicans in the House have taken their most aggressive step to undermine the influence of hard-right conservatives in the party.
A group of more than 50 GOP lawmakers joined nearly the entire Democratic caucus to force a vote on legislation reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, the 80-year-old federal lending agency that shuttered when Republican leaders refused to renew its charter. The bipartisan coalition on Friday introduced the bill through a discharge petition, a rarely-used procedural mechanism that allows lawmakers to bypass both committees and the leadership to call up legislation signed by a majority of the House. It’s a maneuver that was last executed 13 years ago and only five times in the last eight decades, lawmakers said.
Even in big cities like Tokyo, small children take the subway and run errands by themselves. The reason has a lot to do with group dynamics.
It’s a common sight on Japanese mass transit: Children troop through train cars, singly or in small groups, looking for seats.
They wear knee socks, polished patent-leather shoes, and plaid jumpers, with wide-brimmed hats fastened under the chin and train passes pinned to their backpacks. The kids are as young as 6 or 7, on their way to and from school, and there is nary a guardian in sight.
A popular television show called Hajimete no Otsukai, or My First Errand, features children as young as two or three being sent out to do a task for their family. As they tentatively make their way to the greengrocer or bakery, their progress is secretly filmed by a camera crew. The show has been running for more than 25 years.
“Wanting and not wanting the same thing at the same time is a baseline condition of human consciousness.”
Gary Noesner is a former FBI hostage negotiator. For part of the 51-day standoff outside the Branch Davidian religious compound in Waco, Texas, in 1993, he was the strategic coordinator for negotiations with the compound’s leader, David Koresh. This siege ended in infamous tragedy: The FBI launched a tear-gas attack on the compound, which burned to the ground, killing 76 people inside. But before Noesner was rotated out of his position as the siege’s head negotiator, he and his team secured the release of 35 people.
Jamie Holmes, a Future Tense Fellow at New America, spoke to Noesner for his new book Nonsense: The Power of Not Knowing. “My experience suggests,” Noesner told Holmes, “that in the overwhelming majority of these cases, people are confused and ambivalent. Part of them wants to die, part of them wants to live. Part of them wants to surrender, part of them doesn’t want to surrender.” And good negotiators, Noesner says, are “people who can dwell fairly effectively in the areas of gray, in the uncertainties and ambiguities of life.”
In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.
Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense. Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress. In February, Laura Kipnis, a professor at Northwestern University, wrote an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education describing a new campus politics of sexual paranoia—and was then subjected to a long investigation after students who were offended by the article and by a tweet she’d sent filed Title IX complaints against her. In June, a professor protecting himself with a pseudonym wrote an essay for Vox describing how gingerly he now has to teach. “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me,” the headline said. A number of popular comedians, including Chris Rock, have stopped performing on college campuses (see Caitlin Flanagan’s article in this month’s issue). Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke.
Meanwhile, the mood at the conference has been decidedly less complimentary, with several geneticists criticizing the methods presented in the talk, the validity of the results, and the coverage in the press.
No defensible moral framework regards foreigners as less deserving of rights than people born in the right place at the right time.
To paraphrase Rousseau, man is born free, yet everywhere he is caged. Barbed-wire, concrete walls, and gun-toting guards confine people to the nation-state of their birth. But why? The argument for open borders is both economic and moral. All people should be free to move about the earth, uncaged by the arbitrary lines known as borders.
Not every place in the world is equally well-suited to mass economic activity. Nature’s bounty is divided unevenly. Variations in wealth and income created by these differences are magnified by governments that suppress entrepreneurship and promote religious intolerance, gender discrimination, or other bigotry. Closed borders compound these injustices, cementing inequality into place and sentencing their victims to a life of penury.
Some of Charles Schulz’s fans blame the cartoon dog for ruining Peanuts. Here’s why they’re wrong.
It really was a dark and stormy night. On February 12, 2000, Charles Schulz—who had single-handedly drawn some 18,000 Peanuts comic strips, who refused to use assistants to ink or letter his comics, who vowed that after he quit, no new Peanuts strips would be made—died, taking to the grave, it seemed, any further adventures of the gang.
Hours later, his last Sunday strip came out with a farewell: “Charlie Brown, Snoopy, Linus, Lucy … How can I ever forget them.” By then, Peanuts was carried by more than 2,600 newspapers in 75 countries and read by some 300 million people. It had been going for five decades. Robert Thompson, a scholar of popular culture, called it “arguably the longest story told by a single artist in human history.”
In the 1990s, Friends, The X-Files, and Seinfeld all acknowledged the web—some more awkwardly than others.
If the sitcom Doogie Howser, M.D. hadn’t been canceled in 1993, the show’s creators apparently planned to have their precocious protagonist quit medicine to become a writer.
And probably a blogger, right? I mean, Doogie started keeping a digital diary in 1979—totally an early adopter.
This is the sort of thinking that comes from hunting for the earliest TV-show reference to the Internet, a search that leads deep into the grungiest, cheesiest corners of 1990s television.
Even as dial-up Internet connections went mainstream, television representations of the web lagged. Computers appeared on television mostly as props, boxy monitors sitting dark on desks. The arrival of Internet represented a huge cultural shift, but it was barely a plot point in the 1990s—with some exceptions.
A six-month investigation found a decade of sexual harassment complaints against famous astronomer Geoff Marcy to be credible.
Geoff Marcy is a superstar astronomer, by any measure. He is a major figure in the exoplanet revolution, which has transformed our view of the universe so profoundly, that some have compared it to the revolution kicked off by Copernicus. Many of the first thousand planets observed circling other stars were detected by teams Marcy led. When history books about early 21st century science are written, Marcy's name will be in them. Indeed, many wondered whether his name might be called earlier this week, when the Nobel prizes were announced.
Instead, Marcy found his way into the news for a different reason. Yesterday, BuzzFeed published details from an investigation conducted by the University of California, Berkeley into repeated complaints that Marcy sexually harassed students:
Ben Carson is wrong to say armed Jews could have stopped Hitler. But so are those who compare Europe’s refugee crisis to the same period.
How about a pact: If the political right in the United States ceases invoking the Holocaust to justify gun laws that enable the killing of innocents, as Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson did on Thursday, the left quits invoking the Holocaust as justification for migration policies that could make the Europe of the future even less hospitable to its remaining Jews than the Europe of today.
The claim that the Jews of Europe could have stopped the Nazi Holocaust if only they’d possessed more rifles and pistols is a claim based on almost perfect ignorance of the events of 1933 to 1945. The mass murder of European Jews could proceed only after the Nazis had defeated or seized territory from three of the mightiest aggregations of armed force on earth: the armies of France, Poland, and the Soviet Union. The opponents of the Nazis not only possessed rifles and pistols, but also tanks, aircraft, artillery, modern fortifications, and massed infantry. And yes, Jews bore those weapons too: nearly 200,000 in the Polish armed forces, for example.