The simple explanation is that people just give up looking for a job and find some other way to make do - going back to school, cobbling together odd jobs or one-off consulting projects that fly below the radar, limping along as a one-income household instead of two. The coping strategies are as varied as the people who implement them.

The inescapable conclusion is that the job market stinks. Bush is the first president to preside over a net loss of jobs since Hoover. And so far I haven't seen any evidence of any attempt to correct this problem, other than snake oil and wishful thinking.

Reason #6: People lose their jobs at roughly the same time as they are "burned out." They take that opportunity to spend more time taking care of family members (kids, parents) do more volunteering, etc. I know LOTS of people like this. It's actually the upside of two career couples--every so often one of them gets to take an unpaid "sabbatical." But it reaks havoc with the numbers.

"The simple explanation is that people just give up looking for a job."

That is incorrect. Those people would fall under the category of "discouraged workers." Mathematically, discouraged workers are not a large contributor to the drop in the labor force participation rate.

Also, in your attack on Bush for having the worst jobs record since Hoover, you're arguing apples and oranges by citing the payroll survey in a discussion about subsets within the household survey. Labor force participation rates have absolutely nothing to do with the payroll suvey. Since the end of the recession, employment according to the household survey has increased by more than 2 million.

The real reason for the unemployment? You guessed it:

Frank Stallone.

I agree with Kelli. I have heard that the number of stay at home moms has increased significantly (20%, IIRC) in the last few years. If this is correct, it likely is a significant part of this drop.

Larry,
"Those people would fall under the category of "discouraged workers.""

I thought discouraged workers where a mathematical leftover:
=working age population - (workers+unemployed).

If this is correct, then by definition, there is more discouraged worker (pop is going up, workers don't increase much and unemployment is down).

The household survey numbers are definitely less all-encompassing than any nation-wide data.

This just confuses me more. I have been told that the official 'unemployment rates' essentially only track those who are in their 6 month period of 'unemploymant benefits' and that once those expire, one is no longer officially 'unemployed'. Is this not correct? I have been mailing resumes, making phone calls, and attending those meetings for 3 years now. I have no income, but want to work. My 'unemployments benefits' ran out in 2001. Am I still unemployed?

It has gotten to the point that I never trust any statistic that I hear, because it never seems to really measure what it purports to measure (or what some asshat academic is claiming it measures).

Correct me if I got this wrong,

In the household survey, rkm would be unemployed. You'd tell them that.

In the nationwide statistic, rkm does not register, neither employed, nor unemployed. You are thus either self-employed or you stopped looking for work (even though you are neither).

Discouraged workers are not "leftovers." They are a separate and distinct category. "Nationwide" statistics? Both employment surveys are "nationwide." The difference is that the household survey polls households, while the payroll survey polls established businesses.

The unemployment rate is derived from the household survey. If you are in the labor force, want a job, and don't have one, you're unemployed.

While I realize that many of these people may rather be working, I believe a majority are choosing not to work, yielding great benefits to the well-being of their families and communities. In my case, and in that of many families I know, the career of one spouse has finally advanced to the point that, with careful budgeting, it's possible to live on one income. And it sure is a less-stressful lifestyle for families with children.

Many of us are educated professional women who can reasonably expect to return to the work force in some capacity in the next few years, but in the mean time, our still-employed husbands are working longer hours than ever, and it just makes sense to divide the responsibilities in this way.

uh clem,

If you don't think that increased spending and tax cuts are legitimate efforts to boost the economy and aid job creation, what kind of economics di you study?

These kind of statements are just evidence of an irrational hatred.

rkm, my bad, Larry is correct.

This website explains how unemployment is defined from a 60,000 household survey.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Note that:

Persons also are counted as employed if they have a job at which they did not work during the survey week because they were:
On vacation;

Ill;
Experiencing child-care problems;
Taking care of some other family or personal obligation;
On maternity or paternity leave;
Involved in an industrial dispute; or
Prevented from working by bad weather.

You can quickly see that unemployed people who answer that take care of their parents are then counted as employed...

All the evidence points toward the conclusion that the household numbers are more accurate:

-- the unbelievable productivity numbers are just that, unbelievable. If you use the household numbers, productivity numbers would fall toward more realistic levels.

-- structural changes in the economy. More women are staying whom by choice. Many are working as part time consultants and independent contractors so they don't show up on the payroll numbers.

-- businesses ramping up production after rescession start by adding contractors. They don't add payroll until they are sure the upturn is definite.

-- A big trend in all businesses is shedding activities which are not part of the core business. e.g. The cafeteria workers are now employed by a small business instead of the company. Parts suppliers are spun off as separate entities.

All this tells us that the traditional payroll survey is not keeping up with structural changes in the economy.

When my wee wifey was home taking care of her mother, we received the economic benefit of not having the inheritance spent on nursing home expenses. Turned out that she found a calling, and is now employed as a geriatric nursing aide, a trade with a continuing serious labor shortage.

I have spent my entire working life below the radar of the establishment survey, working for small startup companies, thru local small staffing firms, and, early on, out of the State labor market.

As a "discouraged worker" over 50 who lost his
Silicon Valley job mid-2002, I'd love to see this
so-called job creation reach the likes of me.
I'm exhausted of worrying that my later years will
be spent in poverty as my life savings dwindle away.

- michael

I'm with Michael. I'm 'only' 45, but got 'downsized' in early 2001 and have been pounding my head against the wall since then. I am not worried about retirement anymore (I already know that if I live long enough to be there, I'll be eating Alpo and sleeping in a cardboard box). I am worried about whether I can get a job in the next few months (before what was going to be my retirement money is exhausted) or if the wife will end up feeding the family on my life insurance proceeds. I see a lot of other highly educated, formerly hard working people at the networking meetings and such that are over 2 years of looking.

Stan
"A big trend in all businesses is shedding activities which are not part of the core business. e.g. The cafeteria workers are now employed by a small business instead of the company. Parts suppliers are spun off as separate entities.

All this tells us that the traditional payroll survey is not keeping up with structural changes in the economy."

I don't get it. In your example, the small business cafeteria workers would be picked up as easily as the cafeteria workers in the payroll survey.

"Alpo... cardboard box... living now on life savings..."

I know where you're coming from, KRM. Same story. Ph.D. and 25 years in automation. My work is now done in India. Savings half gone. A contract or two every now and then. It's been a good time for half a century, but I'm not going to live in a box...

Brad DeLong discusses the household vs. payroll survey question here. Highlights:

When not in spin mode, the knowledgeable say: trust the establishment survey much more than the household survey. That's what the Commissioner of Labor Statistics says (Kathleen Utgoff. 2003. Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics before the Joint Economic Committee. U.S. Congress, September 5.) That's what CBO says (Congressional Budget Office. 2003. The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office.). The payroll (establishment) survey is the one that Wall Street reacts to--and they have an incentive to get it right. The payroll survey has a much bigger sample--600 times the sample size, in fact--there's much less statistical noise in it.

When in spin mode, people lie like rugs and say whatever is politically convenient.

Another way to look at it is along the following lines. There are always some people who tell the household survey interviewers that they are working, but whose putative employers tell the payroll survey people that they aren't on the payroll. Such people are, to put it politely, "marginally attached" workers.

Meanwhile, just to add to the anecdotal information, I would mention that I was one of the people "working as part time consultants and independent contractors" -- during the four months I was between jobs in 2001-02, and scraping by on whatever freelance work I could find. Same with the woman my department hired a year later, who had been essentially (but perhaps not technically) unemployed for eight months. Same for a close friend of mine who is coming up on three years without steady work.

(Note: The middle three paragraphs of my post are all quoted from Brad DeLong. The last paragraph is mine.)

The nice thing is, when Bush is removed from office in November -- in no small measure due to the lack of job growth in the economy -- his supporters will no doubt claim that according to the household survey, he was reelected. :-)

Here's the real reason for the disparity:
Small business. Start ups.

Which, by the way, also explains the problems the unions have right now; the biggest growth is in non-union jobs.

Which in turn is what explains the panic among the Democrats. The symbiotic relationship between the Unions and the Democrats is something of a running joke... and the Beck ruling still gets ignored.

Hmmm... I'm in the same boat as several other posters: 50 years old, career finished, not much to look forward to but a decline into poverty and then the bullet.

What's that about, I wonder? It's pretty clear to me that businesses, as a general rule, won't hire technical workers over 50 or even 45.

Yeah, I see people posting along the lines of Well in the new pardigm you have to keep re-inventing your skills etc. But I've always done that. It doesn't matter if I can turn lead into gold, if I'm over 50 I'm not going to get hired, period.

Sure, I'm not as productive as I was at 30, but A) I'm much more than half as productive, and I'd work for much less than half of what I used to make, and B) There is, I think, some value to having lots of experience in the field, and maturity.

Also, it's not like Well, if we hire this 45-year-old guy, we'll be stuck with him as he ages. Because who works 10-15 years for the same company anymore? There's always a downturn and a layoff after a few years, right?

So in pure business terms it doesn't make sense. This is a strong predjudice. I do believe that many if not most business would prefer to fail than hire workers 50 and over.

I guess it's emotional. Maybe people feel uncomfortable having people who are old than they are working under them; it'd be like bossing your dad around. I don't know.

"Small business. Start ups."

Riiiight. Bithead read the posts around. Do they scream entreneurship rules,
or
this is one jobless recovery ?

They read recovery and entreneurship.
If you care to try, that is.

Personaly, I'm 46, and doing IT support; have been for around 20 years. And know what? My company's been hiring. So too has the financial services company I'm currently contracted to. The point being, of course that the picture you paint isn't the universal one, or even that it relects the majority of cases.

Oh, and my wife as it happens, also works at a bio-tech startup, having just started there last year... and she's 45.

Savvy?

Look, this continued discussion about the payroll versus household survey is bogus. As Delong as commented upon the payroll survey is more reliable. As the oldman has written about the payroll survey has been declared by the Fed to be more reliable, and changes in it have been made such that:

"redesign of the payroll survey, which among other improvements allows new samples of employers to be drawn more frequently, has likely improved the survey's coverage of startup businesses."

This job market is historically anomalous and weak. Hand waving to the otherwise won't remove that fact.

Let's not forget how economic pressures might be making labor participation less rewarding. Tough job market? Go to school longer or go to grad school.Job not paying enough to make investment of time versus daycare a net gain? Stay home and take care of the kids. As jobs dry up, for any given couple it is less likely that both will receive good job offers in the same location. The alternative to splitting up is one partner taking a hit on their career. Got a parent you need to take care of because they're sick or just need assistance? Downshift your career or move back home for a while.

Families are not infinitely flexible. This is doubly true with the social support networks of insurance, community, and government assistance programs becoming increasingly under seige. The airy propositions of those who propose ever more productive, ever more flexible, ever more capable (all without government investment to encourage this) workers frankly are offering nothing but fantasies.

People are people. Human nature doesn't change. The idea that you can have a population with every member of the family working (teenagers, grandparents, parents, etc.) - all continuously working, all continuously relocating nationally seeking work, all continuously reducating to seek work, and all without a social safety net and chasing ever more elusive jobs with ever diminishing payoff for the investment in each changeover is ludricuous.

Frankly the oldman is betting that the very same people who suggest this would crumple in trying to do so themselves.

Dear Bithead,

First, I'm happy things are great for you and your wife.

Second, I didn't really paint a picture: I relied on the payroll data supplemented with the testimonials here.

Your wife=payroll survey employed.
You= payroll survey employed.

You claim that the people missed in the payroll survey equal some great entrepreneurial renaissance. Your own experience can't even serve as a countertestimonial. I remain unconvinced, and Oldman's strange 3rd person post has a point.

When we're talking about labor force participation we need to talk about economic pressures creating something euphemistically called downshifting.

Some would call this a good idea. However from a macroeconomic point of view it is at least short term a problem. This is because "downshifting" includes less consumer spending, lower productivity because you work less or choose less stressful careers, and accepting a lower standard of living in order to live a simpler lifestyle. Downshifting is what people call it when they get sick of working harder for less and decide to spend more time doing their hobbies and with their families instead of getting ahead.

I would suggest that this includes all sorts of phenomena, including lower female workforce participation as Kelli notes above and the various choices I've outlined above.

I have a question. Not being an economist I am curious if the measure of jobs (growth, number, etc) is an absolute measure or an index like the measure of the monetary supply?

If it is an absolute measure then it would seem relevant to compare the number of jobs lost and created. If it is an index then doesn't it only tell us trends?

Sorry if this is elemental but I think the distinction matters to the debate.

It sounds like if people can't even agree on the numebers then how can you determine if they point o a "problem" or not? Even worse, how can you suggest a solution?

My company, a large forune 500 manufacturer, is most definitely hiring. We have an Elelctrical Engineer position that we can't seem to fill no matter what we do.

We have also hired on all of our contractors that wanted full-time jobs (a lot don't).

Our company has been doing very well for the last year, after a big slowdown and minor resizing starting in 2001.

About a year ago I started getting calls again from head hunters, something that had stopped completely for more than 2 years.

The suppliers that I deal with in the industries that lead recoveries (long leadtime tooling for various production manufacturing) have told me that for at least a year their business has been booming.

My brother who was laid off for a year and a half as an engineer in the telecommuncations industry(during which time he spent being Mr. Mom to his newborn daughter) was just hired back by his old company, in his old job, working on the same project that was cancelled. The reason he didn't find permanat work (he did work some part time stuff in data procesing) was that he didn't want to move and he didn't want to take a pay cut. There were numerous opportunities he could have taken during that time. He wasn't interested in a job that didn't have everything he wanted.

These are all anecdotal, but they are all signs that hiring is under way and is coming in greater numbers.

Hmmm.

1. I think all statistics are complete BS.
Frankly I don't trust any statistic. IMHO the only thing to do is wait until June to see how the job market develops. IMHO, as a conservative Republican, that 2004 will see the worst job market of the last 40 years and that this issue will be a stake-in-the-heart for the GOP in November. If Bush loses, it'll because of this.

2. If I were unemployed and had time on my hands I'd do the most sensible thing.

I'd get into politics!

You're voters. You've got plenty of knowledge and skills. Become activists. What the hell, what else do you have to do during the daytime? Watch soap operas? Write letters, visit politicians in their offices. Become a real f-ing pest. Organize all the other unemployed people you know and try to form grass-roots organizations. Connect these organizations and become a lobbying organization. You don't need money, you need voting power.

The worst that'll happen is that you'll have something to do. The next worst is that you'll become an absolute nightmare for those bastards that laid you off. You know your former employers and their business practices. You know the industries involved. Business are always trying to get this law or that regulation changed or passed. Become a permanent fixture in those proceedings. Become the grit in the gears.

Now what could be better than that?

For starters, nobody knows which employment survey is the most accurate.

The payroll survey is a great a survey for determining payrolls. The question that is nagging a lot of people who follow this issue is a question of whether or not payroll jobs are becoming a declining share of total employment due to structural changes in the economy.

The fact of the matter is that we just don't know. That having been said, both surveys need to be taken into account. As far as painting a total picture of the employment situation in this country, the answer most likely lies somewhere in between the two surveys.

"Note that:

Persons also are counted as employed if they have a job at which they did not work during the survey week because they were:
On vacation;

Ill;
Experiencing child-care problems;
Taking care of some other family or personal obligation;
On maternity or paternity leave;
Involved in an industrial dispute; or
Prevented from working by bad weather.

You can quickly see that unemployed people who answer that take care of their parents are then counted as employed..."

I think this is a misinterpretation of that statement. In the payroll survey, if you have a job but happen to be sick or away from work on the day in which BLS surveys your employer, you do not show up in the survey. The household survey does not work this way. If you're gone for a week for vacation, illness, etc., you are still counted in the survey. It does not mean that "taking care of one's parents" automatically makes you employed.

Oldman, I'm delighted to see that you have a blog now! I've added it to my bookmarks.

Democratic governments can't control employment anymore than they can interest rates. If they could, they would.

If we were slaves in a kingdom with an agricultural surplus, we could all eat gruel and be put to work building pyramids.

Let me just second (or third) Oldman's point about the myth of an infinitely flexible workforce. In addition to the reasons he lists for people being reluctant to automatically move to find work let me add one more: property. We are, after all, a nation in which most of the net worth of working and middle class individuals is held in our houses. If the plant closes down and several hundred houses go on the market at once, what happens to property values? No econ degree needed for this one. Case in point: my hometown of Syracuse. Try selling your house there these days. No wonder Edwards is concentrating on Upstate NY and other such depressed regions for super Tuesday.

Kelli
Your point is excellent. I went from gainfully employed (at almost 6 figures) to zero with virtually no warning and the investments and pension plan all had to be tapped at the market trough. I think my net worth dropped about $300,000 (and sits at about one tenth of what it was). It is not really possible to plan for crap like that.

It is also difficult to ramp up a new career (no assets to fund or time to acquire another doctorate and still have any earning period to build assets that woulfd support retirement.

I used to resent welfare queens and their myriad children living off my 60 to 80 hours a week. Hey guys, it looks like my come uppance will be becoming one of them and living off your dime (unfortunately, it sucks more than I thought it would).

In response to the comments, Boortz puts my feeling well:

Jobs .. and the economy. Those seem to be the issues that are driving many, if not most, of those who are supporting the Kerry candidacy.

First of all ... I'm going to repeat this simply because it makes the whiners so unbelievably angry. Listen up. They're not your jobs! The jobs belong to the employers .. not to you! You have job skills and, presumably, a willingness to work. Your task in a free economy is to get out there and find some employer with a job who needs your skills ... and strike a deal.

If you do not have the particular set of job skills that an employer needs, or if you have priced your labor out of the marketplace, guess what? It's not the employer's fault. The fault lies with you. Either develop a new set of job skills that are actually in demand, or adjust your pricing. The employer knows what he's looking for. If you're not it .. it's your problem, not his.

Now ... you say you're going to vote for a Democrat this year because of jobs? You mean to tell me that you're going to vote against George Bush this year because you don't have a set of job skills that are in demand in our free marketplace? Yeah .. that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

Tell me. Just what do you want the president to do? You information technology people.

Tell me. Just what do you want the president to do? You information technology people out there .. just what are you demanding? Do you want companies to stop outsourcing IT jobs to India? OK ... tell me how to do that. These companies aren't shipping parts overseas and completed products back. All they do is ship information overseas by phone lines or the Internet. Then that information is modified and shipped back the same way. What do you want the government .. the president to do? Do you want some federal law that prohibits companies from transmitting information overseas by the Internet, having that information transformed or modified, and then shipped back? And tell me just how do you enforce that law? Does that law then apply to you also if you seek information from a company that is located overseas, thus depriving a domestic company of your business?

I'll be interested in the answers given to these questions and statements.

Bithead... OK fine, good for you. I "Savvy" that you're employed. What else am I suppoed to "Savvy"? That this proves you're better than me, or what? Anyway:

A) There are many many exceptions to the general trend, of course. If you're good, and lucky, and interview well, and network well, and live in the right place or can move, and... did I mention lucky?

B) You're 46, your wife is 45... and she just got hired... if she gets laid off in five years, she's going to find it a lot harder to get a job... any job... ever. Same for you. Just wait and see, spud.

C) As for you... you're 45, and you're doing IT support? You haven't made management? You poor sap. Haven't you ever heard of up or out? In five years you're going to be a squeegee guy.

They're not your jobs! The jobs belong to the employers...

Hmmmm well. A job's not an object, doesn't really "belong" to anyone... capital and labor negotiate an agreement. Capital and labor both have a role to play, or should. But I would say this: although individual jobs are the result of individual negotiatians, the economy as a whole has to provide jobs to support the life of the people. If this isn't done by the individual companies, it will perforce be done some other way.

Savvy?

Economics training makes me second the thoughts offered by Theodopolous and bithead. Some of the commenters seem to want a WPA for techies. Just what would we build?

OTOH, the attitudes of the people who've taken command of the large companies drive me towards the dark side. That is, the outrageous salaries and bonuses for zilch economic performance that the equestrian set who sit on each others'board reward each other with is just intolerable to both employees and shareholders. It makes me want to vote for a war Democrat who would work for corporate reform.

A WPA for techies? Why not? As for what they would do, how about fiber-based broadband Internet access for America? Currently our Internet service consists of a crazy-quilt of obsolete dialup modems, DSL (an unreliable hackjob) and DOCSIS cable (better, but far from optimal). Broadband is as essential a public utility in the 21st century as electricity was in the 20th. Bring on the Rural Broadbandification Administration!

The jobs belong to the employers .. not to you!

Please email that slogan directly to President Bush. As a Democrat, I'd dearly love to see him take that one out on the campaign trail. :-)

Bithead
Take off the blinders or read the posts a bit more carefully. The unemployed posters aren't all in IT, they are in many fields. They aren't all pricing themselves out of the market, but employers do not want to consider people who appear to be stepping down or to be 'overqualified'(God forbid they should hire anyone that might perform too well), because they 'will leave the moment that the mythical job recovery kicks in'. I will admit that I don't want to work at McDonald's, do lawn maintenance or park cars (but I don't speak spanish or croatian, so I'm not qualified for the later two in any event). I can't even get interviews for entry level wage positions in my field despite 20 years experience. I hear the same thing from others in my age range (which you are entering now).

Don't delude yourself about the lack of job market, you're likely to be in this boat within the decade and the sort of arogant thinking you're showing now may be dangerous.

(Chuckle!)

A) There are many many exceptions to the general trend, of course. If you're good, and lucky, and interview well, and network well, and live in the right place or can move, and... did I mention lucky?

Luck has little to do with it. It's called 'sticking with it'. It far easier, I suppose to blame others for being unemployed. Many do.

) You're 46, your wife is 45... and she just got hired... if she gets laid off in five years, she's going to find it a lot harder to get a job... any job... ever. Same for you. Just wait and see, spud.

I doubt it, for many reasons... about equal to the times we've been told that.

Funny thing; it never seems to happen that way.

C) As for you... you're 45, and you're doing IT support? You haven't made management? You poor sap. Haven't you ever heard of up or out? In five years you're going to be a squeegee guy.

And, whoever said I wasn't in management?

This discussion only serves to further my points as regards some people always looking for the darkest side possible. It's easier for them, that way. Being a victim, after all, is invariably more palateable than forcing one's self to recognize and act on the intrinsic contraditions within one's own ruling philosphy, and blaming one's own actions and choices.

I will admit that I don't want to work at McDonald's, do lawn maintenance or park cars (but I don't speak spanish or croatian, so I'm not qualified for the later two in any event

Am I alone in recogizing the inherrent racism involved with this statement, I wonder? Is this what's driving the left today, I wonder?

(Chuckle!)

Oh ha ha, it's hilarious isn't it.

Luck has little to do with it. It's called 'sticking with it'.

Oh man. You see this all the time, don't you? Bill James wrote about this: I can hit .330 not because I was blessed with good reflexes, but because I have character, you see.

People don't want to say, hey, I'm lucky. They don't even want to say, hey, I'm just smart (because after all that's just the luck of the draw too). No, it's because I have character. I can stick with it when those people with no character just fold up. Oh, how fortunate the mirror that gets to reflect my countenance!

It's only human nature, I suppose. Among the smug and mediocre, that is.

I doubt it, for many reasons... about equal to the times we've been told that. Funny thing; it never seems to happen that way.

It's hasn't happened that way you, you idiot, because you're not (quite) old enough yet. The strange thing is, it's not like you're 25. You're at the edge of, already entering, the danger area, and you're still blind.

And, whoever said I wasn't in management?

OMG, so much the worse for you then. Let's see, if you're a typical IT manager... you're costing the company a salary of high-five or six figures, you don't remember how to actually do anything anymore, and your main value is that you now how to get things done in your company, mainly because you know old Ted down in purchasing and old Jim down in accounting and so forth. Oh, and you're an egregious blowhard, but we already know that.

Damn but you are in a precious position. I'd tone down the smugness if I was you. It won't go over so well when you're asking your new "clients" if they'd like to Supersize it.

Oh man. You see this all the time, don't you? Bill James wrote about this: I can hit .330 not because I was blessed with good reflexes, but because I have character, you see.

Talent, in the end, is only 10% of staying employed. Luck, perhaps another 10%. The rest is drive and desire.

I don't deny that first 20% is needful, but they can usually be over-ridden, eventually, by the latter 80%.

We all know (and love bitching about) people who are underqualified, talent-wise for their positions. (Chuckle.... in my own experience, they tend to become managers...) Talent, then, has little to do with it.

They simply stuck to it, and were as a result in the right place at the right time.

"Luck" as you call it is simiilarly over-estimated. Have I been turned down for a position in the past? Sure have. Matter of fact I was out of the game for around 6 months at a clip a few years ago.... which is what caused my transition to IT in the first place.... which resulted in my income being around double what I was making in my previous career.

And "smug" is a term most often used by those who have given up, to refer to those who didn't.

By the way, found this while doing my morning go-round:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0222franciosi0222.html

Here is a way you can create high-paying jobs here in the United States:

When you eat in a restaurant, leave the waiter a 200 percent tip. The new high price of dining out might cause you to enjoy it less frequently; and if everyone else follows your example, the net effect on the restaurant industry will be mixed. There will be fewer waiters, but those who do have jobs will be handsomely rewarded.

This line of reasoning is similar to that offered by those on the left and the right who are raising an outcry about outsourcing. Their zeal in trying, as they see it, to preserve high-paying American jobs will end up hurting the competitiveness of American companies, slow productivity growth, and in the end hurt our standard of living.

An interesting read.

Actually what I found most amusing lately is just how subsidized education is in India. I was astonished to find out that, pre-1991, the annual tuition for an CS or engineering degree was $10 a year. After 1991 it rose to the majestic sum of $440 per year.

Gives a new twist to the whole discussion doesn't it.