By Steve Eggleston

It’s been a few months since I’ve been writing, and the occasion of the 8th anniversary of the beginning of the Great Recession seemed an appropriate time to return to the ranks of the punditry. I jumped into the middle of a Twitter mini-discussion over the part-time portion of the workforce, specifically the apparent paradox of 319,000 more people working part-time for economic reasons on a seasonally adjusted basis last month than in October while 765,000 fewer people were working part-time for economic reasons on a seasonally-adjusted basis (746,000 fewer on a not-seasonally-adjusted basis) last month than in November 2014. Something Charles Franklin said sent me into this particular tangent of comparing the current level of part-time work to the recent past.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, as part of the Current Population Survey that measures unemployment, estimates the number of people working part-time, both the total number and those working part-time for economic reasons. Indeed, the latter is the last part of the broadest measure of unemployment and underemployment, the U-6 measure. Unlike most portrayals in the press, it is not a measure of part-time, or full-time jobs. Rather, it is the number of people who, at however many jobs they have, are working less than 35 hours per week for part-time status, or at least 35 hours per week for full-time status.

I do have a word of caution on the seasonal adjustment of the part-time measure of employment, especially the economic reason portion. More often than not, a wild swing in one direction is followed by an essentially-equal swing back. The November rise in the number of people working came after drops of 447,000 in September and 269,000 in October.

With that noted, I decided to calculate the percentage of the employed who were working part-time and the percentage who were working part-time due to economic conditions since the current version of the CPS began in 1994:

Part-time

Part-time economic reasons
Click the images for the full-size versions

In short, while things have been improving, there is still quite a ways to go to get back to where we were before the Great Recession on the employment front.

by baldilocks

As I said in Part One, Thomas Sowell outlined the two visions of human nature: constrained and unconstrained.

People with the constrained vision of human nature believe that this nature is fixed, flawed and that all humans act with self-interest in mind. And because of innate self-interest, we should be free to pursue it, but conversely, because of innate fallibility, there should be some constraints on human behavior which keep us from encroaching on the self-interest of others.

Example: those of us who subscribe to God’s newsletter acknowledge that, since the Fall in the Garden of Eden—man in naturally sinful (flawed)—and, following from there, it is the ultimate in self-interest to accept Jesus the Christ as one’s Lord and Savior. We are interested in not going to Hell for our sins and, therefore, we try to do what God wants us to do and one of those is to love one’s neighbor as self: a constraint on human behavior which keep us from encroaching on the self-interest of others.

It isn’t surprising, therefore, that people who hold the unconstrained vision of human nature are often atheists—though, allowing for incomplete thinking on personal principles, not always. (Belief in a Higher Power than humanity is, by nature, a constrained vision of human nature.) Under this philosophy man is his own agent and possesses all of the tools to become perfect and to perfect his species.

And the key feature to this vision is that as long at the goal is deemed virtuous, there is no moral constraint–or any other kind–on the means of attaining a particular goal. Does the phrase by any means necessary ring a bell?

Example: the notion that “all men are created equal” often falls by the wayside for those with this view. To them, there are some set of human beings which are inherently better than others—physically, mentally, emotionally, morally and spiritually–and those “others” are a drain on those who are “better.” This is the part of humankind which requires perfecting.

Obviously, racial supremacist ideology falls in this category and nearly every systematic mass killing conducted by a governmental entity ever recorded has been presented as an attempt to improve upon the peopling of a given society—especially those which have occurred in the last century or so.

Let’s go with abortion. Some of the most head-turning justifications for abortion which I’ve heard are in regard to the disproportionately high rate of abortion among black women. Many pro-choice/pro-abortion advocate even acknowledge that abortion is the killing of human beings, but will say “it’s better than being born poor” or “it’s better than being born in a racist, sexist society,” or something similar.

The foundation of that thinking is that blacks are (allegedly) unable to escape penury because of our genetic make-up and, therefore, we will always be discriminated against because of our race and/or sex. We are inferior—implies the person with the unconstrained vision—so it’s better to cull succeeding generations and to do it as often as possible. It’s all for the improvement of humankind.

More in Tuesday’s post.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel, tentatively titled, Arlen’s Harem, will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.baldilocks

Please contribute to Juliette’s Projects JOB: HER TRIP TO KENYA! Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>

Habris:  We are outnumbered. Unless you aid us, we shall all be killed.
Aukon:  Then die. That is the purpose of guards

Doctor Who State of Decay 1980

Michael Corleone: If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it is that you can kill anyone.

The Godfather Part II 1974

It is said that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality, the corollary being of course that as long as a liberal does not have to deal with unpleasant realities, they will have no reason to remove oneself from their beliefs.

This explains the streak of liberalism in the very very rich. Once you reach a particular level of wealth there is very little for you to actually fear, the basic needs that everyone has, food, shelter, safety, medical care, are taken care of while the things that add to life: companionship, sexual desire (there is nothing that makes you more attractive to the opposite sex than wealth, if you don’t believe me ask Summer Redstone), entertainment, prestige are available with very little effort or at a price that can be afforded.

It also explains the liberalism of those in particular jobs, a tenured college professor for example has a secure job for life. While they don’t have the lifestyle of the very rich barring massive stupidity the basic needs will be set and many of the things that add to life come with the job at no additional charge.

This extends to a lesser degree to people who have jobs they can’t be fired from (think government bureaucracy) , pols and the press at the highest levels who thanks to their position and connections have entrée to many of these things. The big variable for them are the approval of those above them who have the power to take these things away.

This is the thing you must understand before anything else when you look at the left’s reaction to San Bernardino.

Many of us on the right are completely perplexed by their reaction. From the pushing of gun laws that would be totally ineffective against the problem to pushing of a “workplace violence” meme to the avoidance of naming Islamic Terror their memes are, to they eyes of us conservatives, a completely illogical reaction.

This is not the case.

The mistake that conservatives make here is looking at the situation though our eyes and value systems which makes such reactions seem warped. If however you look at this through the eyes of a comfortable liberalism it all makes perfect sense.

In the safe space of liberalism, all of these events are things that happen to other people. The only way they become your problem is if you make it your problem. So how do you keep it from being your problem? Change the subject

Make this a “guns” issue along or a “workplace violence” issue. These are things that have no connection to the liberal world. Thus it doesn’t affect their status quo.

After all if the issue is guns, then as people either with bodyguards or working in a place with a guarded building the removal of weapons from others doesn’t affect them. If the issue is workplace violence, again that doesn’t phase them, they see themselves as not being in such an environment themselves.

But more important than this is the concept of doing all that can be done to avoid giving offence to radical Islam even to the point of promising to prosecute those who defame Islam.

Again this is completely rational.

It’s one thing to critique the NRA, the Catholic Church pro-lifers, the tea party and the GOP because for all the left’s protestation to the contrary, they know that none of these groups can affect their comfortable lives, let alone harm them.

Islam is the great barrier breaker, if a person has decided to kill you and more important doesn’t care if they live through the attempt then all bets are off.

Suddenly the reporter is in danger on every assignment, suddenly the professor is insecure in their classroom, suddenly for the celebrity every entrance and exit to an event is a choke point to be ambushed in. Even the swankiest restaurant is not safe, remember the fanaticism of Islam is not restricted to the poorest of the poor.

In other words they have something to lose, and they certainly aren’t going to risk the comfort they possess to fight a threat that likely isn’t going to be able to get them anyways, particularly if you are a secular progressive who isn’t expecting anything better after this life.

So they attack climate change, or shared bathrooms or guns or any other made up threat and not speak of radical Islam expect to denounce those who warn of the danger:

Pam and those who warn of Radical Islam are Fiver calling for help for those caught in a snare. Her detractors are Cowslip the head of the snared warren. To oppose radical Islam requires a courage they don’t have and to openly admit appeasement acknowledges a cowardice they can’t bear. Much easier to not talk about it and preserve their illusion of dignity.

Much better to remain in the comfort of their walls both physical or mental, after all it’s unlikely the Islamist will get around to them in their lifetime if they just keep their mouths shut.

Update:  This fyi also explains the liberal reluctance to take on the gangs in the city, why put yourself at risk when it’s only poor blacks and Hispanics that will vote for you anyway who will die?

Update 2: If you want to see the end result of the “Kill me last” caucus meet the “rape me last” caucus.

****************************************************************************

The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2015 is $22,000 and to date we’re only at $5300

Given that fact I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.