OK, Millennial, It's Time To Register To Vote In Hitherto Unseen Numbers!

It turns out that launching memes against a different generation, like the young sprats did with 'OK, Boomer' last year, is vastly easier than putting your own generational house in order.  That includes tossing your hat into the ring and getting politically involved-  thereby demonstrating you have the spunk,  moxie and insight to go to the mat when it counts.  That time is now, as we face the most critical election (and political crisis)  in U.S. history.  The question on everyone's mind is: 'What are the youthful potential voters going to do about it?'  

Are they going to sit back, pout, and express dismay at the candidate choice (in Joe Biden) and not vote, or even register? Or will they come to their senses and grasp that their own lives and futures are as much on the line as the rest of ours? And hence, we simply cannot afford the luxury of demanding some nebulous emotional rapport with a candidate before one deigns to cast a ballot.  Especially if the only option to take down Trump is to verily put on our big boy pants and VOTE - for Biden!  The issue then is existential, and I'd wager, especially for the millennial and Gen Z contingent.

The issue of millennial 'bad breaks' and likely hard futures came up in Gerald Seib's recent column - 'Young Voters Catch Another Bad Break', WSJ, April 21, p. A4).  Seib noted how the young fell into a terrible bit of back luck with "the worst recession since the Great Depression"  - which prevented having any chance getting the jobs originally promised. Not to mention being "loaded with student debt because the system encouraged you to do that." 

All of which is true, as well as dashing any hopes of buying a car, buying a house or having children along the way.  Yep, that sucks, big time! But as I see it, the youngsters have two choices: 1) Throw themselves a big pity party on how life and terrible luck dealt them a lousy hand, or 2) Get up and start fighting for a better future. And btw, that must be one in which the monster Trump is gone, if you are to have any remote chance at all. 

Hence, we in the older generations issue the challenge:  'OK, Millennial!'  

So what is the main way to start fighting back, owning your pain but vowing to do better?  Well, it starts with registering to vote, and then actually going out to vote for the coming November 3 election.  And for Joe Biden, not the moral reprobate Trump! Here's a first clue: staying home is not an option and neither is voting a 3rd party candidate,  especially as Justin Amash has graciously bowed  out.

What is disturbing so far is the lack of evident younger generation energy and  participation in the primaries.  As I wrote in my March 11 post:

"The lack of interest of the Young also contributed to Bernie's demise as he himself put it last night

"Let me tell you the bad news, to be honest with you, young people vote at much lower rates than older people. That is the facts. I hope all of the old people vote, that’s great, but I want young people to vote at the same rates.”

So what happened to all the young voters, the Millennials and Gen Z's who were supposed to turn out?  Well, they clearly believed the effort wasn't worth their time or energy, or perhaps there were too many hurdles - such as obtaining the  right IDs to be able to vote.  But what most of us (older voters) don't want to hear now is any more whining from the young uns about their student debt, oldsters getting all the benefits,  having to move back in with mom and dad, and so on.  

 But  if you don't vote, don't participate, you don't get to complain - or say "OK, Boomer."

A highly disturbing observation of Seib's regarding potential  youthful voters is the following:

"Before the coronavirus hit, the shocks millennials already had endured had left them feeling 'somewhat detached from the political system' says Democratic pollster Celinda Lake".

By contrast, despite the fact that Boomers in the 1960s endured the shocks of three major political assassinations (JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr.) and the Vietnam War, we became more energized politically and registered to vote. 

Seib goes on (ibid.):

"Indeed, a report by the GQR  polling organization prepared early this year for NextGen America found that a majority of voters under the age of 35 were 'unenthusaistic' about voting in 2020.  Adding: 'A Basic dislike of politics keeps many from voting."

This is well nigh unbelievable to most Boomers, many of whom actually participated as "Freedom Riders" in the mid-60s:  going by rental bus into Klan-infested areas of Mississippi and Alabama to register black voters at great risk to themselves.   So to now learn that a major segment of the young voting block is "turned off" and "unenthusiastic" just doesn't cut it. It reeks of weakness or at least lack of any resilience.   In the more generous latter case, it echoes what I wrote in my November post 'OK, Boomer', quoting college psychologist Linda Bips:

"Many of today’s students lack resilience and at the first sign of difficulty are unable to summon strategies to cope. The hardship can be a failing grade on a test, a cut from the team, or a romantic  breakup. At the first sign of trouble many become unable to function and persevere. Often they even anticipate difficulties and their anxiety alone paralyzes them."

For his part, Seib recognizes that if the young demographic could awaken from their stupor and inertia (or lack of resilience) they could well be a force to be reckoned with, as he writes:

"If they do show to vote, it's clear they will be a force for the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden."

Pointing out that in a WSJ- NBC poll the young voters favored Biden over Trump by a "whopping 23 point margin". 

But that only translates into power if the votes are actually cast. Mere responses to polls don't count.   Millennials  now have a chance to show us Boomers they are much more than mere mouth, chutzpah and catchy memes. Also, that they have the resilience and pluck to stand up and be counted as genuine citizens as opposed to whiners, wimps and losers.  Besides, a generation seeking to change its fortunes - say reducing mounting student loan debt and having government work for you not against you - means voting. Not staying on the sidelines because you "dislike" politics.   As Democratic Pollster Celinda Lake told Seib:

"You can't see a big role for government if you don't take part in picking the government."

And as I wrote in my November, 'Ok, Boomer' post:

"Want to convince me you've "flipped the script"?  Then put down the cell phones and project your power in the real world. "

Projecting power now in this real world, means getting to the polls on Nov. 3rd (or using mail in ballots if that choice is available) and  playing a role in getting rid of Trump. Because if that doesn't happen, the pain and shocks Millennials experience now will be like a day at the beach compared to what will be in your future - hell, all our futures.

Sitting this election out is not an option. Voting for the Democratic candidate offers the chance to show the younger generations have finally become adults.

See Also:

2020 Elections | Donald Trump

Mission Imperative: Come November, Trump Must Go

by Michael Winship | May 13, 2020 - 5:50am | permalink

Excerpt:

"There must be one mission above all, one goal supreme: Vote this monster out of the White House. And along with him, tow to the nearest dump the clown car of malefactors who gave him license to cripple our republic.

Donald Trump’s defeat and the defeat of those in Congress who have enabled him with nary a word of protest are Priorities Number 1 through 100. Focus. Don’t be diverted by ideological hairsplitting and intraparty squabbling. Drive this creature and his army of creeps, leeches and miscreants back to the wet market from which they came."

Yield Curve Inversion Occurs - But Is Anyone Paying Attention?

Fed chief Jerome Powell and yield curve for March 25, 2019 (from T. Rowe Price Investor Bulletin, December, 2018)

For some time now, over the past 4 months, I've warned of potential yield curve inversion and how it's often signaled recession or massive downturn  I noted recessions tend to occur once the "flat" yield curve becomes "inverted" - with short term (e.g. 2 -year)  bond rates higher than long term (e.g. 10 year) rates. As a recent T. Rowe Price Investor Bulletin warned (p. 4) this condition has transpired before each of the past nine recessions dating back to 1955.  Hence, while it isn't a 100% absolute predictor, it is a significant historical marker..

The T. Rowe warning - assuming one can take it as such - is (ibid.):

"The yield curve is not flat yet ...but it could be by next March if the Fed maintains its 0.25 percent per quarter pace of rate hikes and the 10-year Treasury continues to meet resistance above the 3.0 percent level.  Starting the historical average 16-month clock from the spring of 2019 would raise the specter of a major downturn by 2020."


Interestingly, last Thursday we learned (WSJ, 'Treasury Yields Tumble After Fed Restraint', p. B12)  that "the yield on the two year Treasury notesettled at 2.402% on the day before compared with 2.471 % Tuesday. This marked the biggest one day slide since the start of the year, according to Dow Jones Market data."

 Given what happened March 21st, it shouldn't have been totally surprising the yield curve might actually have inverted on Friday - March 22nd - which it did.   One of my favorite go-to financial forecast sources, James Mackintosh in the Wall Street Journal wrote:   

"The market’s most reliable recession indicator is finally flashing red. With the Treasury yield curve inverting on Friday—the 10-year yield fell sharply to be lower than the three-month for the first time since 2007—is it finally time to prepare for an economic downturn?”

Good question! I believe so, as I've written before given I suspect the correlations over time (see graphic are almost as reliable as sunspot activity curves in predicting large flares.   It is therefore of interest to inspect the yield curve for March 25th, with Treasury bills designated along the abscissa, e.g. with bond terms from less than five years to 30.  Note also the curve behavior and how it changes with the specific bonds.


Look carefully and you will see the evidence for yield curve inversion, rates, hence the freak out for may. Subsequently economist and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote the following in a tweet:


Mackintosh, for his part, has always been somewhat agnostic on the value of the yield curve as forecaster of recession. He writes, for example:

The yield curve might be less reliable than its recent U.S. history suggests. It has a terrible record internationally, for instance. It flat-out hasn’t worked in Japan, also has a poor record in the U.K. and in Germany provided no advance warning of the 2008 recession, the worst since reunification. At the moment the curve isn’t inverted in any of them thanks to superlow or negative interest rates, even though all are struggling with greater economic troubles than the U.S.


In other words, one needs to bring to bear skepticism as to the historical evidence.

But then in subsequent text  we behold some very crucial points:

“Previous inversions took place at much higher short rates — 5 or 6 percent, versus 2.5 percent now.”

He continued: “So this inversion actually reflects a worse outlook for the economy than the number itself suggests. Again, it’s not a direct read on the economy; it’s a read on what the average bond investor thinks is happening to the economy. But still not encouraging.”

We should also bear in mind what Mackintosh wrote back on July 3, 2017, as regards the assumption that bear markets only come with recessions, i.e.:

"Investors believe that bear markets only come with recessions, and so reassure themselves that there is no sign a recession is imminent, repeating the mantra that 'economic cycles don't die of old age'. Unfortunately, this is both wrong and useless.

First, 20 percent drops happen outside recessions, as in 1987 and 1966. Second, economic cycles can be killed by a financial crash, and as the late Hyman Minsky pointed out, the longer a financial cycle goes on, the more likely it is to turn to excess and end badly. Worse, there is no reliable method of forecasting a recession, so even if it were true that only a recession can end a bull market, that isn't a lot of use to investors."

Put aside yield curve inversion, as yields fell and the curve merely flattened, "investors punished bank stocks ... A flatter yield curve hurts banks stocks because it narrows the gap between what lenders pay on deposits and lend on loans- a spread known as the net interest margin."  (WSJ, Mar. 22,  p. B10 ).  What especially bothered me even earlier (than seeing the yield curve inversion) was reading WSJ columnist Greg Ip's March 21  warning piece:

The Fed's New 'Normal' Looks Worrisome - WSJ

https://www.wsj.com › Economy › U.S. Economy

And how we needed to be wary of the Fed's sudden dovish inclination. Quoting Mr. Ip, which I believe is important to get the context:

"The Federal Reserve now believes its monetary policy is back to normal. That should worry you.  If this is normal then the Fed has precious little ammunition for when economic conditions again turn abnormal."

Ip then goes on to note that since 2005 the Fed had been 'normalizing' monetary policy by raising interest rates and shrinking its bond holdings."  (From the quantitative easing or QE policy.)

But:   "This week it declared the process all but done"  Adding to this,  the Fed big wigs see "no more rate increases this year"  and "they will stop shrinking the balance sheet".   This is nothing short of mind boggling, given almost $4 trillion of toxic bond assets remains on its balance sheets.   Even by September the bond balance will only be down to $3.5 trillion or 17 % of GDP.

Also, ceasing to increase interest rates puts the screws to millions of senior savers - who'd been saddled with pathetic low rates for over a decade. As one of the few segments of the ordinary citizen financial demographic with money to spend, this is not a sound move.   Ip also warns  (ibid., this is all from the original print version, not the digital update):

"Should the economy stumble again, the Fed won't have much ammunition with which to respond."

Well, unless it resorts to the "negative interest rate'"  route which the Swiss also attempted with adverse results, and millions actually stuffing money (cash) under their mattresses. I mean, who the hell wants to keep it in the bank and lose $$?

But perhaps there is method to the Fed's madness. As James Piereson writes ('How Debt Makes The Markets Volatile',  Feb. 28, p. A17):  "Stocks are becoming more sensitive to interest rate hikes because the global economy is over-leveraged."

Something I've also addressed before, in conjunction with IMF warnings and : 

"Vitor Gaspar, the director of fiscal affairs at the  IMF, singled out the U.S. for criticism, saying that it was the only advanced country that was not planning to reduce its debt pile - with the recent tax cuts keeping public borrowing high.  

The fund urged policymakers to stop 'providing unnecessary stimulus when economic activity is already pacing up' and called on the U.S. to 'recalibrate' its fiscal policy and increase taxes to start cutting its debt." 

So no, the GOP-Trump tax cuts - which effects are driving millions crazy now in terms of low or  no tax refunds -  did not help the situation. Assorted experts have estimated $1.5- 2 trillion in added deficits. And as the WSJ's Gerald Seib put it (Feb. 19, p. A4): "As the accumulated debt rises, the bill to pay the interest on the debt rises too."   See e.g.

Brane Space: IMF Debt Warning Ought To Send Chills Through Every ...

brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/04/imf-debt-warning-ought-to-send-chills.html

As 

With New Revelations On Trump's "Compromise" Dems Can't Bail Even If Their Polling Goes South

"Remember, the Democrats offered Trump $25  billion for a wall if he would do DACA, but President Miller decided that wasn't going to be what he wanted.  And let's bear in mind there's something deeply wrong with Steven Miller. Maybe someday he will have a relationship with a live human woman. He's just this dark and weird figure who wrecks this idea of Trump's that he's this master negotiator...At this point the motivations for the Democrats to compromise are basically zero."  Republican strategist Rick Wilson last night on 'All In'.

As most of us suspected, and another reason we applauded Nancy Pelosi and the Dems spitting on Dotard's recent shutdown proposal, we've since  learned there were many additional odious demands not appearing in the media. Most of these, we've  also since discovered, originated in the brain of Trump's chief Nazi Steven Miller. You know, the Joseph Goebbels look -alike and wannabe, e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgypWo0DCps

 As I noted in my Jan. 19 post on why Trump's alleged "compromise" proposal was a sham:  "it shouldn't take a Mensa member to figure out Trump is simply using this bottom basement pseudo deal in a PR photo op to put pressure on the Dems. This is in the hope it will alter the public opinion polls."   Now we have further confirmation of how true that was in the wake of  "fine print" additions revealed as part of this asinine effort - which emerged yesterday.   

What are they?    

1)  The bill now revealed in full would bar children from Honduras, Guatemala,  and El Salvador from seeking asylum in the United States.

2) Instead of (1) they'd now have to apply for asylum from abroad, despite the fact there is absolutely no system set up for them to do that. 

 In other words, "President" Stephen Miller and his assistant (Donnie Dotard) have concocted a scheme wherein there is a separate asylum process for children from Central America.  Indeed, enabling such a travesty would take the nation back to before it passed the Refugee Act in the first place.  To remind readers, that was in the World War II era when we actually turned ships laden with children - seeking escape from the Nazis - back to the seas because too many demanded the number of Jews be capped.  That disgrace is now part of our sorry history but Miller, Trump, Coulter and Co. want to revive it.


Gerald Seib ('Wall Marks Deep Divide For Americans', yesterday,  p. A4) put the focus on why Dems cannot deal in good faith with the irascible lunatic occupying the White House.  Seib  noted a settlement a year ago that "would have provided substantial funding for border security alongside legal status for  young immigrants brought here as children. But Mr. Trump backed away  from the deal after his most hard line supporters balked it"

Those would include the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and the Fox and Friends imps as well as others.  More or less the same lot that got him to bail on the continuing resolution approved barely two months ago that would have kept the gov't open. Point being- certainly by me and the Dems - is no sensible person can negotiate with such a mercurial baboon whose stance changes depending on what the Reich screech crowd demand.  As Chris Hayes put it last night on his 'All In' show:

"With breadlines for federal workers growing, Democrats desperately want to get the government back on track. But they are dealing with a  president who is simply not a trustworthy partner. You cannot make a deal with him because he will hide the truth, and he will lie and he will change his mind over and over again. That is why we are suffering through the longest shutdown in history.  That is why when it comes to immigration in particular the only way to deal with this president is to defeat him."

In other words, we're left to try make deals with  a bombastic cretin who has no mind of his own - far less any self-awareness- and who constantly defers to Limbaugh, Coulter et al.- even as he mounts his own incessant prevarications, distortions, exaggerations.  Not a good national policy!

Now in retrospect we see where Seib got it wrong was when he added (ibid.):  "Then, when Mr. Trump offered a more modest version of the same deal over the weekend, both his most ardent supporters and Democrats rejected it."

The problem is we've seen in the past 24 hours it was not a "more modest deal" but an atrocity in which the veneer of "compromise" snookered many pundit, but toxic elements were buried inside.  These included radical provisions - as pushed by Herr Miller - that would have drastically restricted asylum if accepted.  After  reading the bill, legal specialist Gabriel Maier wrote: "This will (and should) get zero votes from Democrats.  This is not the compromise that Trump described"  

But I had already (in my Jan. 19th post) referred to the Trump offer as "not worth an ounce of doggie lickspittle" .  That was even before knowing about the poison pills buried within, because I also suspected we weren't being told everything and more ghastly aspects awaited. 

The new revelations also exposed yesterday's WSJ editorial ('Pelosi's Dreamer Pawns') as codswallop,  claiming in reference to Trump's proposed offer: "Isn't this something Democrats want, or at least profess to? Do they want a deal to reopen government and offer new security for more than a million immigrants or do they want to use them as pawns against Trump?"

Clearly the WSJ editors need to read their in-house columnist William Galston's piece (Trump's Pinned To A Wall Few Americans Want', WSJ,  p. A15, Jan. 17) especially his end remark:

"The art of the deal isn't bludgeoning everyone else into submission. It's providing them incentives to give you what you value most."   

What Trump should be valuing most is not his  nutso  fantasy "wall" but his whole economy (as financial guru Steve Rattner said on 'Morning Joe' this a.m.)  as well as the stock market he constantly brags about.  But the fool would rather self-destruct because of  the bad names some hardline Right wing nuts called him. And this dolt is supposed to be a world leader? He's a world embarrassment! No wonder they're glad not to see him in Davos this week for the World Economic Forum.


And make no mistake this shutdown's ripple effects grows more serious by the day as it is now affects some 1 in 5 Americans.  In addition, the government is "flying blind" in terms of economic data.  That is, the shutdown of critical agencies is impeding the flow of data that would actually gauge how big the daily or monthly hit is. ('The U.S. Economy Is Flying Blind',  WSJ, Jan. 19, p. B12).  Thus: "Think of it as the forecasting equivalent of flying through a storm without instruments."

This is why many economists are predicting Trump's shutdown as well as his trade war will lead to a major recession by the end of next year if not sooner.   So never mind the deliriously deluded op-ed('The Shutdown Won't Stop Growth', p. A13)  in today's Journal written by a nincompoop  (Harold Furchtgott-Roth) who clearly leaves out the 4 plus million gov't contract workers  from his calculations, and the repercussions their lack of spending also has. And bear in mind, none of them will be getting any back pay!

Nonetheless,  as Gabriel Maier put it, no Dem in his right mind can sign on to this latest iteration of Dotard's non-compromise, not now not ever. And that means even if the poll results currently supporting the Dems go South. Again, the shutdown weapon can't be handed to this deranged asshole and de facto terrorist to use in any future negotiations such as the upcoming debt ceiling.  So the shutdown will have to go on until Donnie Dotard breaks, gives in, comes to his senses.  Or grasps that there will be no specious deal that just hands him a 'W' with no accountability of his own.

What Seib did get eminently correct in his column is that the nation is bitterly divided, but based on perceptions of reality, e.g.

"Trump's supporters want him to not merely build a wall but draw a line against changes they dislike - a line other Americans find out of step with reality."

In fact, those "other Americans" translates to an overwhelming  majority - nearly 73% according to a poll on whether the "wall" is worth a federal shutdown, as given on MSNBC this morning. That means we who value reality are going against core Trumpies - barely a a quarter of the population - who don't.  We cannot let that minority prevail, and that's another reason this shutdown will go on until those denying reality yield - even if it means a lot of pain for too many innocent people.

See also:

Donald Trump

Trump Is Wounded, Bleeding, and Destined for a Steadfast Demise

by P.M. Carpenter | January 21, 2019 - 7:23am | 

The Dark Side Of That Unemployment Report: A Labor Shortage Leaving Many Businesses Adrift

Crabbers, e.g. crab processors, at a plant in Maryland. Most MD crab processing businesses are critically short of workers - thanks to Trump's draconian immigration controls, and his miserly "lotto" program for issuing H2B visas.

The glowing unemployment report released yesterday -  only 3.8 percent unemployment,  or the lowest seasonally adjusted rate in nearly 17 years  -  which naturally has Trump bragging and exaggerating.  The truth, however, is that his draconian immigration policies - especially to do with H2B visas and available foreign guest workers - have many businesses in near panic.  And we haven't even gotten to his 25 %  steel tariffs, enacted against allies like Canada, the EU and Mexico yet.

Let's get it out right now: This nation's economic growth - which Donnie J. Dotard so often brags about, especially the stock market  - is on the verge of circling he drain thanks to his tight- fisted, even cruel immigration -labor policies.  From home construction, to agricultural crops (harvesting) to landscaping, to wait staff and cooks, the nation is reeling from a lack of enough workers.

WSJ columnist Gerald Seib ('Immigration Debate Misses Economic Reality',  May 22, p. A4) summarizes the issues nicely:

"The American birthrate has slowed dramatically...hitting a thirty year low. At the same time, Alaska fisheries, New Hampshire restaurants, and Maryland crab processors all say they are critically short of workers. Farmers say they need thousands more workers and some production is moving overseas for lack of labor.   There are 6.6  million job openings in the U.S. which means for the first time in history there are enough openings to provide a job for every unemployed person in the country."

One of the largest, emerging unemployed contingents is the legion of new college grads. But ...will they take the jobs available? Say in construction, landscaping, agriculture, short order cooks at restaurants or even janitors there?  I doubt it, which perhaps others also know given the op-ed piece  by Tyler Bonin appearing on Tuesday (WSJ,  'My Advice To Grads: Start Mopping', A17) admonishing new grads:

 "There is a time to be bold but also a time for humility. A task once considered beneath you could be the key to your success.Do the job nobody wants, because believe it or not, somebody appreciates it. Volunteer to learn and to provide value to others."

Of course, the new grads' student loan schedule and amounts to be paid off may be a tad more than a $10 an hour job mopping floors at Safeway can provide.    But let's get real, the spectrum and number of jobs going begging is far in excess of what all this year's college grads could fill.

In Thursday's WSJ  ('Housing Shortage Shadows Rural Areas', p. A3) we read, for example,  how the labor shortage, especially in construction, is adversely affecting new home starts. Hence,  if the housing supply remains low it means the demand will continue to drive up prices. (Like here on the front range in Colorado, with the median home price in Denver now $529,000.)  We further learn, e.g. for a town in Ohio:

"The labor shortage is so bad  that the chamber of commerce goes from town to town to recruit workers."

With one member noting: :"The fear is that if we don't solve this in some way we're going to lose big employers."

Even the WSJ editorial writers entered the fray three days ago ('A Miserly 15,000 More Visas')   referencing how the  H2B visas "allows businesses to hire foreign guest workers for busy seasons" and congress had given the Trump  administration  authority to issue as many as 69,000 more visas to meet employer needs.

And yet the Department of Homeland Security has handed out "a mere 15,000 extra H2B visas this summer."

Adding:

"The 15,000 won't come close to meeting the demands across the country from resorts, fisheries, landscapers and restaurants among many other industries."

The most choice aspect was the editor's reference to the Trump "restrictionists" who claim "more foreign busboys or crab pickers will replace Americans when employers can't come close to finding enough Americans."

In other words, the dumb Trumpies are - as the Journal notes - seeking to protect mythical American jobs (i.e. that Americans won't take) at the expense of business viability and economic growth, e.g.

"Mr Trump says he wants the economy to grow by 4 percent or more but it won't happen if employers can't find enough workers."

This isn't just  aimless conjecture either. In the case of Maryland crabbers, we've learned for the first time the demand for crab processors in eastern Maryland was so high that the "U.S. had to award them by lottery". ('Crab Country Craves More Visas', WSJ,  May 12-13, p. A3).   The problem? Under this absurd system some companies - like G.W. Hall - got all the workers they requested, but other companies got zilch, zero, none.   In the words of Bryan Hall, quoted in the piece, referring to another owner:

"It's not right for me to have the girls and not him" referring to Russel Hall owner Harry Phillips.

The farm labor shortage is just as critical,  as reported in the WSJ editorial 'Exporting Jobs Instead of Food' (May 18, p. A14), e.g.

"The farm labor shortage is growing more serious as the overall U.S. jobless rate falls. The Labor Department says about half of the 1.2 million or so workers employed in agriculture are undocumented and if they were deported the shortage would become a crisis.."

The editorial concluded that the "U.S. farm labor shortage is driving production overseas,"

The labor dearth is equally parlous for construction. As per a Denver Post piece (May 13, 'Help Wanted As Applicants Are Scarce', p. 8B):. Quoting Michael Smith who runs the Colorado Homebuilding Academy:

"We've got a labor shortage. Labor is not keeping up with the change in the demand, unfortunately."

The need for more construction workers becomes self-evident when it is realized that by 2025 there will be approximately 100,000 open positions in construction and special trades but barely one fourth of the workers to fill them. Most of the projected open positions are driven by the population explosion along the front range with many would-be Denver residents  now looking to Colorado Springs for homes (and a long, e.g. 65 minute, commute).

What about getting native born Americans to get out there and get their hands dirty? (The Labor Dept. and DHS insist if employers in the short- staffed areas pay more, more Americans will take the jobs. Personally, I doubt it.)

One Maine employer - Bob Smith, owner of Sebasco Harbor Resort in Phillipsburg, quoted in the Denver Post 4 days ago, said:

"People say you should give these jobs to Americans. If you can find 'em then that's great. The only Americans we can find to do the work right now are in Puerto Rico."  (As U.S. citizens Puerto Ricans face no travel restrictions so can work wherever and as long as they want.)

On learning of all this, Janice fumed, asking why the hell enough Americans can't be found for the jobs going begging - from crabbers in Maryland to construction workers in Denver.. "You mean to tell me there are no able -bodied guys to do this work?"  Not really, hon!

Look, college grads are not  running up to Baltimore to process crabs nor are they going to go for construction jobs in Denver or Miami. And they certainly aren't going to California to help harvest oranges, prunes or whatever.  They believe, having shelled out tens of thousands for college, they are at least entitled to an indoor, office job complete with a/c even if it is done as a temp or volunteer. Especially if they had the likes of Sting (at Brown) or Hillary (at Yale College) delivering the commencement address.

Older workers are also out of the work game, like the two of us. As William Galston noted in his own WSJ piece three days ago ('Can America Grow Like It Used To?'):

"Two thousand was the last year in which the entire baby boom generation was of prime working age, and 2019 will be the first year in which none of it is. ...American men experienced the largest decline in labor participation rate of any OECD country."

Adding:

"There is no sign of a new baby boom on the horizon"

This despite Galston trying to make the case to "raise the aggregate level of work in our society."

Not even mentioned yet are the million or so (estimated) young folks who have joined the F.I.R.E. ('Financial independence, retire early') movement, aiming to cash out their chips, cubes and lockers by the age of 40 - to go globe trotting, or write blogs.  (I will have a special post next week on this movement, and how these ambitious young Turks plan to achieve that early retirement).

The point is, with all these labor participation subtractions, no economy can grow unless there are compensating additions. If it isn't coming via new births (irrelevant since these workers are needed now) then it must come via immigration. And yet the reactionary Trump bunch are cutting their noses to spite their faces. As Gerald Seib pointed out (ibid.) they are now cutting the LEGAL immigration numbers as well as the illegal, by as much as "260,000 slots per year or 25 percent".  Seib quotes the Cato Institute:

"This would be the largest policy driven reduction in legal, immigration since the racially motivated acts of the 1920s."

Galston, Seib and the WSJ editorial writers are in agreement that the fruit of this misplaced, ignorant policy position - based on bigotry - will only wreak economic havoc and dislocation as well as much lower growth,  possibly even recession. Trump should enjoy his high stock market for now, because it won't last much longer.  Especially, after he's now also declared a trade war with our allies including the EU, Canada, Mexico -  by slapping a 25 percent tariff on steels and 10 % on aluminum -  using a national security pretext.

Don't think this is any kind of biggie? Check out yesterday's WSJ 'Business and Investment' section (p. B9) on how these tariffs are roiling shares of manufacturing stocks. This is given that those companies will be most sensitive to the tariff retribution of the targeted nations- -when it comes. And it surely will: Canada is set to impose a $12.8b hit starting on July 1st.

Trump, aka Dotard, can boast all he wants of his "terrific" unemployment numbers, but as we see, he is still capable of self-destruction (including of his base) by shooting from the hip in reactive measures (via trade tariffs and immigration policies)  that are not conducive to this country's economic well being.