Ïîïóëÿðíûå ñîîáùåíèÿ

среда

The unemployment rate has fallen to its lowest level since July 2008 — to 5.8 percent — the Labor Department said Friday. And October marks the ninth month in a row that job growth has exceeded 200,000.

But if you ask Americans about the economy, they're still mostly not impressed.

The headline unemployment rate and payroll numbers are just one piece of the labor picture. But if you add in other numbers, you can get a fuller view of the labor market.

Here are five key underlying numbers economists are closely watching for signs of improvement:

The first is wages. Linda Barrington, executive director of the Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University, says they've been inching up, barely.

"Wages and inflation are sort of going hand in hand and have been since the recession, so people aren't feeling like they're getting ahead, even if they have a job," she says.

Your Money

Five Reasons Why Your Financial Outlook Just Got Better

Part of the reason that wages aren't going up is that there are just so many underemployed people. As long as there are large numbers of applicants for each available job, employers won't feel the pressure to boost wages.

Barrington says the next key number — the long-term unemployment rate — is still high.

"You know, when you see the longer-term unemployment numbers, those are people who have not given up, who continue to look for work, who want to work," she says. "But for some reason an employer isn't seeing what they're bringing as valuable enough to hire them."

Those are the people who are hanging in there. Then there are the people who've just given up. They aren't even a part of the jobs picture. That brings up the labor force participation rate, which Juli Niemann, an analyst with Smith Moore & Co. in St. Louis, says is also a problem.

"A lot of people are giving up," she says. "They're not even in the numbers; they're not in the count. They've been looking for jobs for so long and can't find the jobs that they're simply not even trying anymore. And that is why you see this [unemployment rate] number below 6 percent looking better than it really is."

Niemann says there have also been structural changes in the economy — especially in manufacturing. Many people have been replaced by technology, and workers are a lot more productive.

"We do more, better for less, so they can't go back to jobs similar to what they had previously nor can they find them out there," Niemann says.

Another important number gets at why people aren't feeling so great about the economy despite the solid job growth. It's what's called the quit rate, which is essentially the rate at which people are quitting their jobs.

The quit rate is still relatively low. Economist Tara Sinclair, with the jobs website Indeed, says we actually want more people quitting their jobs.

"The reason it's a good thing for people to be quitting their job is because that suggests that they're optimistic about their labor market choices," she says.

Economy

Drop In Unemployment Raises Debate On Optimal Rate

And there's the number of people who have part-time jobs but would rather be working full time.

"That number is still very elevated, which suggests that even though the employment numbers look pretty good, if people aren't getting the type of job that they want there's still room for improvement," Sinclair says.

Nevertheless, economists consider the headline number good news.

Beth Ann Bovino, chief economist at Standard and Poor's, says we sometimes forget that 9 million people lost their jobs in the recession and it took a long time to get them back.

"I know we've still got further to go," she says. "I'd love to open that bottle of champagne, but I don't want to do it too quick. But I have to say every time I see 200,000-plus job gains, I feel like we're making one step ahead."

When these underlying numbers get significantly better, that's when people finally start to feel better about the economy.

labor market

job growth

unemployment rate

Jobs

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday takes up the thorny question of what kind of gerrymandering is acceptable, and what kind is not. The court is being asked to decide whether a 2010 state legislative redistricting in Alabama overloaded some districts with black Democrats on the basis of race or party.

Voting rights cases scramble politics and race. In this case, it is the Democrats who are crying foul because of what they call unconstitutional quotas. In contrast, conservative Republicans, usually critics of racial considerations, this time are defending government classifications based on race.

In the 1990s, the conservative Supreme Court majority, in a series of decisions, ruled that if a redistricting plan is motivated predominantly by racial considerations, it is unconstitutional. Those decisions came in cases brought by conservative Republicans who objected to the Justice Department's attempt to expand the number of majority black or Hispanic legislative districts under the Voting Rights Act in the South.

"Now, the tables are turned," says election-law expert Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine. "It's the liberals and Democrats that are trying to use the racial gerrymandering claim to stop Republicans from packing reliable Democratic minority voters into a smaller number of districts."

Case in point: Alabama, a state rife with ironic political twists and a history of overt attempts to suppress the black vote.

In 2000, Democrats controlled the state Legislature, and the redistricting process. They used their power to create districts with black majorities under the Voting Rights Act, while at the same time putting enough reliably Democratic black voters into majority white districts so that white Democratic candidates could build black-white coalitions and have a chance of winning.

Law

Supreme Court Case Tests Status Of Jerusalem

By 2010, Republicans controlled the Legislature, and they set about consolidating the black vote into existing majority-black districts. Under the plan, about one-sixth of all eligible black voters were moved from majority white state Senate districts to majority-black districts. The result was that in some of those districts, the black majority increased to over 70 percent. At the same time, the majority white districts got whiter, and more safely Republican.

The redistricting came after the 2010 Census showed population shifts that made some existing districts way too big in population terms, and others too small. The Republicans tried to equalize the size of the districts. They also tried to maintain the same number of majority-black districts, but now contend that under the Voting Rights Act, a simple majority of black voters in those districts was not enough.

"The state cannot diminish the ability of black voters to elect their candidate of choice, for example, by making a district that was 65 percent black into a district that is 51 percent black," says Alabama Solicitor General Andrew Brasher, who is defending the law at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Democrats disagree, and contend that the GOP plan calls for unconstitutional racial quotas. Richard Pildes, one of the lawyers representing the challengers to Alabama's redistricting, argues that, "Alabama admits it used these racial quotas, but says 'the Voting Rights Act made us do it.' We say the Voting Rights Act does not require that, and therefore you had no legitimate reason to use racial quotas. Period."

One example of the dispute is the Senate district representing Montgomery County, Ala. It was a majority-black district that was underpopulated. To fix that, the Republican redistricting plan moved out white residents who had lived in the district for years, and moved in 16,000 new voters, all but 36 of whom were black. The result was that the district became 75 percent black and the neighboring district similarly more white.

Law

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Health Law Challenge

"That's where statistics can lead you wrong," says Alabama's Brasher. Those changes might have "correlated with race," he contends, but they "were not driven by race." The districts were redrawn to make one an urban district and the other a suburban-rural district, he says.

Then, too, there is the argument, made by the state, that the reason it had to make majority-black districts blacker is that it was compelled to do so under the Voting Rights Act. As early as 2010, however, Alabama was attacking the Voting Rights Act in court, and in 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling in an Alabama case, struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional.

That presents this question: Is the voting rights law still valid as applied to the 2010 redistricting, a plan that will be in place until 2020?

The state says it is entitled to rely on the provision even though it has been struck down. "The court for years and years held that the Voting Rights Act was constitutional, and there was no reason for the legislators engaged in this redistricting process to presuppose that five members of the court were going to hold that [this section of the law] was unconstitutional," argues Brasher.

On the other side, lawyer Pildes contends that even if the state can rely on the law as it was in 2010, the law did not then and does not now justify the "racial straightjacket [of] quotas" that Alabama imposed in this redistricting.

Ultimately, the question is this: Did Alabama's Republican-dominated Legislature rely predominantly on race or on partisanship when it was redrawing its districts? For the past 25 years, the court has drawn a line between permissible redistricting, based on partisanship, and impermissible redistricting, based on race. Election expert Hasen argues that, sometimes, they are the same thing.

"Especially when we're talking about the South, where African-American voters are voting for Democrats at above 90 percent, it's artificial to talk about race and party being completely separate," he says.

Similarly, the white vote is overwhelmingly Republican. In 2012, for instance, 84 percent of the white vote in Alabama was cast for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, while 95 percent of the black vote went for Barack Obama.

It's All Politics

Justice Ginsburg Revises Texas Voter ID Dissent, Then Announces It

The current Supreme Court conservative majority has pushed aggressively to eliminate government classifications based on race, contending that they are no longer needed to remedy past discrimination. As Chief Justice John Roberts has said, "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

The question faced by Roberts and the court now is whether Alabama's redistricting plan is in fact based on racial quotas, or whether it's based on nothing more than partisanship, and thus may remain in place.

The court's decision could have ramifications beyond redistricting. Some of the same principles apply in election law cases that involve everything from voter ID requirements to restrictions on absentee ballots and early voting.

Everyone knows Sen. Mitch McConnell had a great election night in Kentucky last week. As for the state's other Republican senator, Rand Paul, that's a different matter.

That's because while McConnell was cruising to a big re-election win on his way to becoming Senate majority leader, things did not go so well for Paul. He was hoping Republicans, who already control the Kentucky Senate, would also take over the state House — a result that would grease the path for a state law allowing him to run for both re-election and the presidency at the same time.

But that failed to happen. And the Democrats who are still in charge of the state House are disinclined to pass a law to help Paul.

Kentucky's Democratic House speaker Greg Stumbo refused to take up the two-ballot-spots-at-once bill earlier this year because it was designed for a single person, in violation of Kentucky's constitution. "There's only one guy who's talking about holding onto his Senate seat and also running for United States president," he told NPR.

Kentucky law prohibits a candidate from running for two different offices at once. Republican Sen. Rand Paul is running for re-election and is also exploring a bid for president. Kentucky Legislature hide caption

itoggle caption Kentucky Legislature

With Stumbo still in control, Paul may eventually have to choose between running for the White House and holding onto his Senate seat.

Officially, keeping the Senate seat remains Paul's only goal at this moment. "Sen. Paul is 100 percent focused on his re-election," says spokesman Dan Bayens — even as Paul openly discusses his interest in running for president.

Paul's situation is similar to, but much more difficult than, those facing other Republican senators thought to be considering a 2016 presidential run.

Ohio law, for example, allows Sen. Rob Portman to run for both offices simultaneously. In Florida, the qualifying deadline for U.S. House and Senate seats isn't until May 6, 2016 — meaning Sen. Marco Rubio would almost certainly know whether he was going to be the GOP presidential nominee before he had to file for re-election. Since Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was just elected in 2012, he doesn't have a conflict — he's not up for re-election until 2018.

The deadline for House and Senate candidates in Kentucky is Jan. 26 — six days before the Iowa caucuses, according to the Republican National Committee schedule. Kentucky law states that a candidate cannot appear twice on the same ballot — meaning Paul could either run for Senate or for the presidency but not for both in the Kentucky primary.

Paul and his supporters, though, have already thought of a partial workaround: Change Kentucky's Republican presidential nominating contest from the May 17 primary to a caucus in mid- to late March. That way, Paul could still file for the Kentucky primary ballot in January, appear on (and presumably win) the Senate primary in May — all the while pursuing the presidential nomination.

Paul discussed the possible logistics of a presidential caucus with Kentucky Republican Party chairman Steve Robertson for a half-hour at McConnell's victory party last week, Bayens confirmed.

Switching from the primary to a caucus would not require a change to Kentucky law, but would require ratification by state and local party committees. If the party does want to switch to a caucus, it would likely need to start the process by October 2015.

Of course, should Paul ultimately win the presidential nomination (or accept the vice-presidential nomination), Kentucky law would at that point force him to give up his run for re-election, said Stumbo, with no ability for Kentucky Republicans to replace him on the ballot. "The Democratic candidate would win the seat," he asserted.

The statute in question allows for a candidate's replacement by the party only in the event of death or incapacitation — which, Stumbo said, means physical or mental incapacitation. "Some of us might agree that he's incapable of holding public office, but I'm not sure a court would say that meets the letter of the law," Stumbo said.

Correction Nov. 11, 2014

An earlier version of this story stated that Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is not up for re-election until 2016. In fact, he is not up for re-election until 2018.

2016 Republican presidential nomination

Rand Paul

Only twice in American history has a son followed his father into the presidency. The first was John Quincy Adams. The second, George W. Bush, has now written a biography of his father, George H.W. Bush. It's called 41: A Portrait of My Father.

The 43rd president of the United States traces the life of the 41st from his youth in New England through his entry into the Texas oil business, combat during World War II, party politics, diplomacy, the White House, retirement — and skydiving.

In a wide-ranging interview with Morning Edition's David Greene, former President George W. Bush discusses his father's life and legacy, and their relationship. He also addresses some of the major decisions of his own time in office, and the possibility of a third President Bush, if his brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, decides to run in 2016.

i i

George H.W. Bush holds a young George W. in New Haven, Conn., in April 1947. Getty Images hide caption

itoggle caption Getty Images

George H.W. Bush holds a young George W. in New Haven, Conn., in April 1947.

Getty Images

Interview Highlights

DAVID GREENE: What do you think when people compare the two wars [in Iraq] and say that your father's approach was wiser?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I can understand that, and I ask them to read the book and —

You can understand that?

Yeah, I mean, I think — sure — I think people can, you know, I can understand the comparisons between he and me. I mean, it's — it's a way to do things. I don't agree necessarily that wiser or not wiser, because the situation was different and in many ways more complex.

ON JEB BUSH'S POSSIBLE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL RUN

I mean, the environment is what it is. You don't get to rewrite the environment, and so Jeb has to think about whether or not he wants to be president, just like Hillary Clinton has to think about whether she wants to be president. Some guy at one time said to me, "You know, I don't like the idea of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Bush." I said, "Oh, OK." I said, "How do you like the idea of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton?" And the point is that these may be the two best candidates their party has to offer.

ON RELATIONS WITH RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN

I did work to get Ukraine and Georgia to have a process to get into NATO, and Putin didn't like it. The truth of the matter is, Putin doesn't like much of what the United States does these days.

But would your father have done that, or do you think he would have said, you know, 'I need to be more careful about provoking Russia'?

Yeah, I don't think — I think at some point in time he would have recognized — I don't know. You know, he wasn't there. And it's obviously a different time and a different period and a different leader. It seemed like to me, and in many ways Gorbachev recognized that the Soviet was doomed — and it seems like to me at times Vladimir Putin was to restate the Soviet, reinstate the Soviet.

41

A Portrait of My Father

by George W. Bush

Hardcover, 294 pages | purchase

Purchase Featured Book

Title41SubtitleA Portrait of My FatherAuthorGeorge W. Bush

Your purchase helps support NPR Programming. How?

Amazon

Independent Booksellers

Nonfiction

History & Society

Biography & Memoir

More on this book:

NPR reviews, interviews and more

ON HIS FATHER'S LIFE NOW

He's joyful. Ninety years old. He can't walk, but he sure can laugh and smile, and he is — the basic things of life make him very content: his wife, Barbara, his children and his grandchildren.

ON THE FAILINGS OF HIS FATHER'S 1992 RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN

I was very disappointed, not in him, but in the process. And he gave, he did give a flat speech [at the 1992 Republican National Convention], and it frankly wasn't full of many interesting ideas. It was kind of defensive. And there's a couple of lessons there about this moment. One is, is that if you're gonna give a big speech, get it written early and get used to it.

Get comfortable with it?

Get comfortable with it, because it enhances the delivery. And secondly, that if you expect to win political races, you better have strong policy platform. And they were playing — they were kind of playing small ball at this point, and presidents have got to have bigger agendas.

John Quincy Adams

Saddam Hussein

Vladimir Putin

George H.W. Bush

George W. Bush

Hillary Clinton

Blog Archive