Lies, damned lies, and statistics: Spanish and Greek youth unemployment much lower than reported

One of the most commonly cited Eurozone crisis statistics over the past several years has been youth unemployment, which in hard hit countries such as Spain and Greece has been reported to be as high as 50%.

In a recent post over at Project Syndicate Steven Hill dissects Eurostat's unemployment rate methodology and comes up with markedly different figures:

Unemployment estimates also are surprisingly misleading – a serious problem, considering that, together with GDP indicators, unemployment drives so much economic-policy debate. Outrageously high youth unemployment – supposedly near 50% in Spain and Greece, and more than 20% in the eurozone as a whole – makes headlines daily. But these numbers result from flawed methodology, making the situation appear far worse than it is. 

The problem stems from how unemployment is measured: The adult unemployment rate is calculated by dividing the number of unemployed individuals by all individuals in the labor force. So if the labor force comprises 200 workers, and 20 are unemployed, the unemployment rate is 10%. 

But the millions of young people who attend university or vocational training programs are not considered part of the labor force, because they are neither working nor looking for a job. In calculating youth unemployment, therefore, the same number of unemployed individuals is divided by a much smaller number, to reflect the smaller labor force, which makes the unemployment rate look a lot higher.

So what we have here is a simple division problem: the unemployment numerator is accurate, but the labor force denominator has been fudged.

What are the real youth unemployment figures in countries like Spain and Greece?

The youth unemployment ratio – the number of unemployed youth relative to the total population aged 16-24 – is a far more meaningful indicator than the youth unemployment rate. Eurostat, the European Union’s statistical agency, calculates youth unemployment using both methodologies, but only the flawed indicator is widely reported, despite major discrepancies. For example, Spain’s 48.9% youth unemployment rate implies significantly worse conditions for young people than its 19% youth unemployment ratio. Likewise, Greece’s rate is 49.3%, but its ratio is only 13%. And the eurozone-wide rate of 20.8% far exceeds the 8.7% ratio.

Certainly these much lower youth unemployment figures are still a matter for serious concern. And as Hill notes later in his post it is likely that at least a significant portion of young people who are in school are there because they cannot find work.

There is, however, a substantive difference between the 50% shock headline figures and the real picture of youth unemployment, and this difference may explain why we have not seen a full-on revolution in countries like Greece or Spain (at least not yet).

The final question is why has the media only reported the much larger youth unemployment figures and not the arguably more meaningful, lower youth unemployment ratio? Certainly the larger figure is much more sensational and attention grabbing.

At the risk of sounding conspiratorial, another way of asking this question is who benefits by reporting the larger figure? Undoubtedly larger figures aid the narrative of the pro-bailout and pro-stimulus, anti-austerity contingent. 50% youth unemployment sounds pretty drastic, and drastic times call for drastic measures.

As they say, "never waste a good crisis".

Young People CAN and ARE Making a Difference in Europe

Getting more young people (and women) into positions of political power is a good thing.

Alexis Tsipras, leader of Syriza

Whether you agree or disagree with the politics of 37-year old Alexis Tsipras, the leader of a leftist-Greek coalition which surprised in the weekend election, he has demonstrated that not every member of the next generation is politically impotent.

While this blog probably would not be characterized as far left-wing, we do celebrate seeing someone under-40 years of age achieving political success.

Bravo, Alexis!

Will the Next Decade Be Dominated by America?

'Tis the season for predictions and STRATFOR's George Friedman has come up with a whopper.

The first chapter of his new book has been posted here. The main provocative claims is that the American 'Empire' will continue to be dominant over the next decade.

Will it? Here are a couple comments on Friedman's chapter:

First, I would take some issue with simplifying the Great Depression down to having originated in Germany. The role of Germany in the Great Depression does actually deserve more popular credit than it receives, but the scholarly consensus would not agree with Friedman's assertion that its "roots" reside in Germany.

Second, on his main argument, the IMF is projecting that China's economy will surpass the U.S.'s (on a purchasing power parity basis) in just five years in 2016. The EU economy is already larger than the U.S.'s. and has blocked U.S. mergers (e.g., GE's attempted acquisition of Honeywell).

Yes Europe has problems, and yes China may be experiencing the Mother of All Bubbles. But for Friedman to argue that the U.S.'s relative power in the next decade will be anything like it has been over the past 20 years seems incredibly optimistic and naive. The U.S. would appear to be at a significant cyber-warfare disadvantage compared to China at present (Update: within a few hours of this post STRATFOR's website was hacked and private client data posted on the internet). The U.S. has also failed to demonstrate that it can keep the nuclear weapons genie in the bottle in potentially hostile parts of the world. China is developing its first world class navy in 600 years. In short, examples abound of the U.S.'s relative power weakening.

Friedman writes about the U.S.'s need for a regional strategy. One interesting and rarely discussed possible outcome of the fiscal crunch facing America is the potential for unprecedented regional infighting inside the United States. For example, how difficult is it to imagine Texans questioning whether their tax dollars should continue subsidizing Maine, Oregon and Vermont? Or Californians funding Sarah Palin's Alaska?

(click to enlarge)

This is the exact argument which is taking place in Europe right now between Germany and Greece. Yes, there are large differences between American and European social cohesion. But I would not be surprised to see growing regionalization within the U.S. as a key emergent theme in the years to come. In the absence of existential external threats the justification for an extremely powerful and centralized U.S. federal state is more open to question.

Overall, Friedman's chapter is written from the perspective of an all-powerful emperor and not from one bearing witness to the paralysis which has gripped Congress in recent years. I'm also not sure he has a firm grasp on some of the social-demographic shifts which are emerging nor the current economic/financial situation.

In short, this chapter seems more a treatise on how Friedman would prefer to see the world than how it actually is.

Recommended links

1. Is there a shadowy plot behind gold? (FT)

2. Ray Dalio video interview (Charlie Rose). Ray doesn't have the most compelling television presence, but as the world's largest hedge fund manager he's clearly doing something right. Here is an interesting earlier read from the New Yorker on him and his firm, Bridgewater.

3. Eurozone summit - despair and backbiting in the corridors of power (Telegraph)

4. Steve Jobs Was Willing To 'Rip Off' Everyone Else... But Was Pissed About Android Copying iPhone? (TechDirt)

5. Michael Pettis Talks China (Infectious Greed)

6. €1.5bn Dexia loans used to buy shares in...Dexia (FT)

7. Generation X Doesn’t Want to Hear It (Emptypage)

QOTD from World's Largest Currency Trader, John Taylor: "The euro is going to hell"

Here are some other highlights:

So why should the U.S. dollar appreciate in such a horrid environment? As the world's reserve currency, Taylor says, the dollar has become a reverse indicator of the globe's economic health. "Whenever things are good in the world, [the] currency goes down," since there's ample liquidity. But when the rest of the globe is doing poorly, there's no liquidity and therefore the U.S. dollar is worth more. "That is the most important thing to know about foreign exchange nowadays–it is kind of backwards," he says. 

Greece's default is more a matter of when than if, he says, as the Greek citizenry won't support the austerity measures necessary to stay in the euro zone. There will be a referendum this autumn on some of the recent changes, and the outcome could upend the fiscal cuts already decided upon, Taylor warns. 

He now sees the euro trading between $1.37 and $1 over the next 18 months—nearer to the top side "if the Fed does its best at ruining our currency, and the euro manages to survive somehow." The world is pretending the European debt crisis is fixed, he adds—necessary if you are trading short term, but "long-term, a debt deal isn't going to work. The euro is going to hell. Every time they do things to fix it, it gets deeper and deeper." 

Are there any other currencies worth paying attention to? Taylor is positive on the commodity-based ones, such as the Australian and New Zealand dollars, despite their run-up. "We use commodities to forecast currencies," he notes. For instance, Norway's krone is a function of the price of oil, which he thinks is a solid long-term bet on the next growth cycle. In five years, he says, "we could see oil at $500 a barrel. I would be a buyer on dips of oil." 

Among Taylor's influences is the 1991 book, Generations, by historians William Strauss and Neil Howe, which identifies longer-term cultural and demographic cycles in American life. "Every 80 years, we go through a deleveraging cycle," he says. "It's hard to measure, but that's where we are now. It has to do with the period 2010-20, compared with 1930-40." The so-called Millennials, who were born between 1980 and 2000, "will be the ones to save us, but they'll have no money, no entitlements," says Taylor.

Full article here. 

Evil on Display: Anders Brievik and Insane Acts Committed by Sane People

Perhaps it would be easier to understand the horrific Norwegian killings if they were committed by someone with a history of mental illness and/or violence.

Or perhaps we could more quickly file away this tragedy into a tidy, little mental compartment if the killing was conducted by someone with far less skill and fewer economic advantages.

And perhaps over time more details will emerge to reveal a picture of someone with a history of hate or unsound mind.

But early portraits painted by people who knew him suggest a rather disturbing alternative, which is that Anders Brievik was a seemingly 'normal' Norwegian.

From one of his classmate friends of four years:

I do not know what drove Anders. But, unfortunately, I do not think he is crazy. It would have created a comfortable distance between us if I thought he was. Nothing I know about him from our school days or what I have read in his so-called manifesto suggests that. Rather, he is cold, intelligent and calculating. The Anders I knew was not a monster. 

And as the saying goes, he was not an island. He was product of our society. He was one of us.

Sadly, There is Nothing New Here

If in fact he is a sane, even likeable person as some suggest, who also can kill without concern for those he slaughters, what are we to make of Anders Brievik?

Any student of history is well aware of the unfortunate reality that people like Brievik are nothing new. Many, particularly here in Europe, had hoped the ideologies which fuel Brievik-like personalities, capable of inflicting immense harm to a great number of people not personally known, had been buried decades ago. But the carefully orchestrated supernova of violence conducted by Brievik reminds us that this flame has not in fact gone out yet.

In the wretched corner of history occupied by the Brieviks of the world resides Nazism, which, for better or for worse, has received the lion's share of attention. I say for better or worse because the Nazi-like crimes committed under Stalin, Mao, and others often do not receive the same level of emphasis as those committed under Hitler.

Some who studied the Nazi leadership on trial at Nuremberg stated that the single most important personal quality which contributed to the ability of these humans to try and exterminate Jews (and others) was a lack of empathy. In place of a sense of caring about individuals and collective humanity, which exists in varying degrees in the vast majority of us, instead resided a bottomless black hole devoid of the ability to feel what others feel.

Harm-justifying venom can be easily poured into such minds. Rather than rejecting ideas which you and I would find unconscionable, harming others can seem logical. Seemingly sophisticated moral philosophies, justifications, and ends-means rationalizations enable such people to shoot kids "not just once, but twice, to be sure".

The Anti-Change

Brievik's bomb and gun shots were basically an attack on change. Put simply, Brievik didn't like the way things were going in Norway and decided to effectively sacrifice his freedom of movement for at least 20+ years-to-life (Norway doesn't have the death penalty) to let the world know about it.

For those who don't have the time or inclination to read his 1,000+ page 'manifesto', the change he lashed out against goes by the name of globalization. Brievik would probably prefer that we refer to it as multiculturalism, but globalization and multiculturalism are inextricably linked. Reductionist arguments which try and isolate multiculturalism from globalization are idiosyncratic and counter-productive.

The purpose of this post is not to debate the merits of globalization, but it was interesting to note the stark contrast between Brievik's hate for Norway's immigrants with a recent talk on the contribution of immigrants to Britain's intellectual history. One quarter of Britain's Nobel prize winners were born abroad, as were a large number of America's. Is freedom of movement what the Brieviks of the world would have end, or are they ok with allowing just the Albert Einsteins in?

What is Evil?

Norwegians are hurting badly from this heinous crime and asking how one of their own could commit such an act. Some would like to see the whole episode go away and also deny Brievik the publicity and attention he seeks. From the lack of headlines of late on the BBC and other respectable news agencies it would seem that some clearly understand the essential role of the media to his carefully calculated plan. Hats off to media leaders who recognize this and have taken appropriate action. But what about those who are still trying to gain more information and understand why this happened?

Outside of the religious world people often scoff at whether the imprecise, black-and-white concept of 'evil' is useful. But what other word comes close to giving this its proper name?

Leave it to the shrinks to classify and rationalize empathy-devoid personality types. For the rest of us 'normal' people the word evil will suffice.

Chart of the Day: Generation U

Perhaps its time to rename Gen Y as Gen U, as in Generation Unemployed.

Not surprisingly, the PIIGS occupy five of the top seven spots in this primarily European country sample. Chronically unemployed young males are often a key ingredient in social unrest and revolution.

Source: The Economist