Hell in a Handbasket

I have time, these days, to read the newspaper in depth. I have had such time for a few years now, but having others around, and being part of getting the children fed, dressed and out the door to school (even though I rarely ever took them to school myself), provided enough interruption that often I did little more than glance at the front page, read my favorite comic strip (Get Fuzzy) and then get on with my day.

I'm not sure it's a good thing, though, to read the paper in depth. Today's Oregonian headlined with news that a) the hydrological patterns of the Pacific Northwest aren't following climatologists' models, b) Yippee! the recession is over, but we're not getting out of it soon, and c) unemployment is going up and up and then stands to go up some more.

A. Mystifying scientists is the new data that -- while "climate change" is supposed to bring more heat to the Pacific Northwest, thus bringing us even more rain and less snow -- the fluctuations are already more extreme than predicted. That is, when we have a dry spell, as we have had for two years now, it is really really dry, drier than the dry spells we had 45 years ago. Less snow in the mountains means less melt-off, which means drier rivers. And apparently the land is sucking up more water than it used to, for not-entirely understood reasons (among the proposed causes is a suggestion that the old growth forests have been largely replaced with new, fast-growing -- which means, water hogging -- young forests). In future, as things heat up (literally and figuratively) even though the average amount of precipitation is supposed to stay the same, we'll have deeper droughts, more often -- leading to hard decisions about who is to get the meager water available: the farmers or the salmon.

In this state, in the middle of a recession? I wouldn't start counting my salmon eggs.

At least that means more work for people who make those decisions (government, usually), and thus, lawyers with specialties like The Family Woman. It's an ill wind and all.

B. This will have been in your papers, too: Ben Bernanke assures us that the Great Recession is over (well, probably). Oh yeah, and by the way, we are moving into a period of "jobless recovery". Is that akin to,

"Good news, Mr. Doe! Your broken leg is healing! You won't be able to walk for an indefinite period of time (in fact, as far into the future as we can see) but rest assured: you will soon be all healed.

Oh, and I almost forgot to mention -- your insurance company is dropping your coverage."

C. Oregon's unemployment rate jumped to 12.2% in August -- that is, 235,000 Oregonians are currently out of work and looking for work. This number does not include those who are out of work but have given up looking for work (officially known as "discouraged" workers). Had they been included, the unemployment rate would be 14.8%. Nor does it include workers who would like to work full-time, but who have settled for part-time (which would rise the ranks of "unemployed or underemployed" to 23.3%. The national equivalent, for perspective, is 16.6%.

But wait, it gets better: when the Great Recession ends (see point B), currently discouraged people will become encouraged, and start to apply for jobs again -- which will drive up the unemployment rates (because they'll be counted as "unemployed" then, rather than "discouraged"). So the numbers will go up before they go down.

I suppose I have just re-joined the ranks of the unemployed after being discouraged between March and May, underemployed in May and June, and then discouraged again for July and August. I am looking for jobs now, but very few seem even remotely appropriate/possible/interesting, so my encouragement may not last very long. These seem good categorical distinctions, in theory, but for practical purposes, I'm not so sure.