Not working, and not looking for work

Whenever I read anything about the unemployment rate in this country, it usually includes the caveat that the official statistics for unemployment only include people who are looking for a job. There follows a comment to the effect that the true unemployment rate is actually higher, because people who have gotten discouraged and quit looking for a job are not counted.

I can never quite figure out how that works. If you've "gotten discouraged" and "quit looking for a job," the implication is that you have no income, and you are not actively seeking income. The implication of the articles I read is that there are a lot of these people.

What do they eat?

I wake up hungry every morning. Furthermore, approximately six hours after my last meal, I can predict that I will be hungry again. As far as I can tell, we are all in the same boat.

Now, there may be some hunter-gatherers living out in the bush in Alaska who provide all their subsistence from foraging, but the rest of are getting our calories in the form of groceries from the supermarket. That takes money.

I'm also addicted to electricity. When I turn that switch, I for sure want the lights to come on. Okay, maybe I can get by without the lights, but by God that TV better come on. Now the discouraged people without jobs might be able to get off the electrical grid. All it takes is adopting the lifestyle of a medieval peasant. But I can't think of any way that somebody can beat their own metabolism.

And yet we are supposed to believe that large numbers of people are dropping out of the labor force. I just wonder how they make that work.

The Shores of Tripoli

Remember the Powell Doctrine? This was the set of principles to guide the use of military force, developed by General Colin Powell out of his experience in Viet Nam. There were basically three tenets to the doctrine; actually more like three tests to be met before using military force.
1. Can the mission be accomplished with military force? Don’t look for political solutions to be imposed by soldiers.
2. Are we going in with overwhelming force? Once the shooting starts, you better have enough guns to finish the job.
3. Is there a defined exit strategy? Once you have committed to the use of force, how are you going to extricate your troops? Democracies make poor occupying powers.

The first Gulf War was a classic application of this doctrine. We kicked the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and then we went home. The countervailing examples are Iraq and Afghanistan, of course. Nine years later we are still trying to build stable democratic societies so we can get out.

To show that we never seem to learn from our mistakes, consider the military involvement in Libya. Part of the mission seems clear enough, and militarily feasible: our war aim is to end the regime of Moammar Gadhafi. But who do we want to end up in charge over there? Our policy is a little vague on that score, since we don’t seem to be able to identify exactly who the rebels are.

As an aside, in a classic bit of Orwellian Newspeak, our military intervention has been labeled “a humanitarian mission.” Sure, because nothing says you are overflowing with the milk of human kindness like firing off 160 cruise missiles.

Although the NATO forces have complete air supremacy, the Gadhafi regime has not obliged us by folding up their tents and moving into exile. We control the skies, but the regime is reextending its hold on the ground. So we’re in a shooting war, but we haven’t committed the forces required to win.

Finally, what is our exit strategy? Since we don’t have any ground forces committed, we could just end the mission and send the planes and ships home. But after shooting at Gadhafi, what do we do then? If we leave him still in charge, doesn’t that make the humanitarian problem worse? After all, now that the rebels have announced themselves, I don’t think he’ll be satisfied with a live and let live policy.

The time to think about these issues is before you commit military force. Instead, our policy was based on optimistically assuming that the regime would quietly surrender, or go into exile, or some undefined happy outcome. Happy for us, that is. Not so great for Gadhafi or his family.

From where I’m sitting, the situation in Libya looks like a fiasco unfolding in slow motion.

Government Shutdown Averted!

I didn't look at the news much this weekend. As I matter of fact, I pretty much ignored outside events from Thursday afternoon until Sunday night. So I jumped directly from headlines about an imminent government shutdown to headlines that the crisis had been temporarily averted. The Republicans and Democrats had come up with a compromise to keep the Federal government running, at least on a short term basis. My thought was "Crisis? What crisis?" In my average day, I don't interact with the Federal government. It could have been shut down over the weekend, and I would not even have noticed. It makes me wonder: how long could I have gone without the Federal government in operation before it impinged on my life? One way to answer that question is to hope that it would be a good long time before I noticed the lack. In the week of brinkmanship leading up to the final compromise, the media was full of stories about how bad it would be if the shutdown happened. In the television coverage I saw, the unanimous position was that a shutdown would be a Very Bad Thing. But when you really examine the stories, they mostly boil down to this: the National Parks would have to close down for the duration. Oh, the humanity! I went to Yosemite National Park last summer. It was terrific. Not going back this year, though. I don't want to argue that we don't need a central government, and we need to fund the operations of that government. But in determining the level of that funding, there is some instructional value in realizing that it would take awhile to miss it if it was gone.