Jeffery

The Dayton connection is that machine shops in Dayton made the turbines for those flour mills.

"wide Dayton streets": [/img]

^ Old stuff and theses. Also specialized non-fiction. For example I just finished this book, which mixes local and social history: he struggles of the civil rights movement were not limited to the Deep South. Althought states like Alabama and Mississippi receive the most attention from historians, civil rights leaders were active across the country, challenging racial stereotypes and working to end discrimination in cities large and small. Louisville, Kentucky's unique status as a border city between the North, South, and Midwest presented local civil rights leaders with an opportunity to pursue their agenda, and their efforts that would foreshadow the future direction of the national movement. Gateway to the South: The Civil Rights Movement in Louisville, Kentucky 1945 - 1980 fills a needed void by focusing on four decades of Louisville's civil rights history. Using a wide variety of primary and secondary sources, including oral history records of movement participants, Tracy E. K'Meyer connects the movement in Louisville to related movements in other cities in the region and across the nation. Gateway to the South offers insight into how America's race relations got to where they are today, and clues to their future direction. ...it was published by a university press, and these publishers usually specialize in the things I like to read.

I fit in more with that Generation Jones concept. Nominally a baby boomer, but also the generation that gave you punk/new wave/early alternative.

But wait, theres' more! Since this is a manufacturing state, here is some news for the Rust Belt: Industrial production increased at an annualized rate of 11.8 percent in January, following increases of 8.2 percent and 7.0 percent in December and November, respectively. As of January, the 12-month growth rate in industrial production was up 0.9 percent, its first positive reading after nearly two years of declines. Manufacturing production jumped up 12.6 percent in January, following a virtually flat (−0.9 percent) reading in December. Both durable and nondurable goods production surged in January, rising 18.4 percent and 8.7 percent, respectively. Moreover, the release noted that output for all the major durable goods industries rose during the month, except for furniture and related products. Manufacturing production is now up 7.7 percent over the past three months, outpacing its year-over-year growth rate of 1.7 percent. Mining output rose 8.9 percent in January, rebounding from a slight 1.8 percent dip in December. Utilities production increased 8.3 percent during the month, follow an out-sized (and cold-snap induced) 108.4 percent gain (6.3 percent nonannualized) in December. Capacity utilization continued to improve in January, rising from 71.9 percent to 72.6 percent. New orders for manufactured goods outpaced expectations in December, rising 1.0 percent, after a 1.0 percent increase in November. Much of the unexpected strength came from an upward revision to durable goods orders, revised up from a 0.3 percent increase to 1.0 percent in December. The 12-month growth rate in new orders has pared its losses since reaching a cyclical low of −23.4 percent reached in April, and now stands at 3.6 percent (its first positive reading since September 2008). Orders for nondefense capital goods excluding aircraft jumped up 2.2 percent in December, after surging 3.2 percent in November, though is still down 1.0 percent on a year-over-year basis. Shipments increased 1.9 percent during the month, posting its fourth consecutive gain, while inventories ticked down a slight 0.1 percent after a 0.2 percent gain in November.

...yeah its been noted that male unemployment has been quite high this recession. But you are also correct about the GDP coming back out of negative territory...from the Cleveland Fed site: The final reading for 2009 real GDP growth was −2.4 percent, slightly ahead of December’s Blue Chip consensus forecast. The consensus estimate for 2010 growth ticked up 0.1 pp in January to 2.8 percent, while no quarter in 2010 is currently forecasted to top 3.0 percent. According to forward-looking forecasts, real GDP growth is first expected to reach its long-run trend again in the fourth quarter of 2010. January’s survey also started a forecast for 2011 growth and that value came in at 3.1 percent. Overall, these forecasts match the overwhelming concern that a recovery from the current recession will be a slow one. The Fed analyses continues, backing away from Rosey Scenario: A deeper look into the larger-than-expected growth for the fourth quarter of 2009 shows what some economists have been calling an “inventory blip.” When looking at the final sales of domestic products—which is just GDP less the change in inventories—it shows that demand for domestic goods grew only 2.3 percent. Comparing this to the third quarter numbers, what appears to be a 3.5 pp quarter-to-quarter increase in GDP translates into only a 0.8 pp increase in final sales. The picture turns even bleaker in looking at a measure of domestic demand for domestic goods, or final sales to domestic purchasers, which nets out exports and imports. In this case, there is a 0.5 pp drop from third-quarter to fourth-quarter sales, and final domestic sales grew only 1.8 percent. Effectively, this means that there is a more muted return to demand. Growth through 2010 should reflect such a soft return, as forecasters are predicting growth rates closer to the long-run average in all four quarters of the year. Source ..in other words, a weak recovery.

That "boomerang kids" article that C-Dawg posted reminds me of the 1980s recession, the early Reagan years, when there was a lot of the same thing happneing (to me, for example). In fact this is looking like a bad version of the early 1980s economy.

And large numbers of males out of work (already 20% of males aged 25-54 are not working) leads to civil unrest. Thats what we have the police and National Gaurd for. I wonder if we are more in an 1870s era, where there was a financial crisis that led to a decade of joblessness (and labor unrest). It also led to "an army of tramps", which I guess means more homelessness.

Hmmm...I recently read "In Search of Whitopia". I usually only read nonfiction, but most of it is pretty obscure.

Being a history buff I get a kick out of these long-range time series from the BLS (though since I lived through a lot of this history its more nostalgia). Anyway, here is a time-series that starts in the 1950s, but I start counting in 1960 for clean decade-to-decade comparison. This is people who are working part time but would prefer to work full time. The BLS has this by month, but I aggregate to an annual average. One again the big spike in 2009 is noticeable compared to the highs & lows for the past 40 years. Stripping away the decade lines one sort of sees eras of involuntary part-time work. The low numbers of the postwar prosperity into the 1970s, then the growth of part-time work (or, involuntary part time work) during the Reagan/Bush era, which represented sort of a high plateau for this kind of employment. The Big 80s was a time of 6% unemployment and also apparently a lot of short hours. This was followed by the “dot-com’ expansion, when, presumably, there was more full time work, then the increase in involuntary part time work in the 2000s (though not quite to 1980s levels, until the recession blew the roof off). I recall reading at I think the Cleveland Fed site that the part time numbers in this recession are due in part to employers cutting back hours, moving away from 40 hour weeks, vs. people hiring into new part time jobs. Another BLS number that goes back to the late 1940s is the Employment-Population Ratio. The E-P Ratio (for short) is the number employed divided by the non-institutionalized population over 16 years old, times 100. So, the higher the number the more of this working age population is employed, the lower the fewer. I start counting in 1950 for the following chart. One can see how this number is affected by the business cycle. Taking the ranges and averages one can also see the number rising from a low plateau to a high plateau. Meaning more and more of the working age population was actually working during the past 20 years than in the 1950s & 1960s ,.. with the 20 years between 1970 and 1990 being an era of recalibration. This growth has been attributed to women entering the workforce. The reasons for this can be debated. I note that based on the yearly averages the rise past the 1950s/60s high range was in the later 1970s, when the economy was experiencing stagflation and real wages were starting to stagnate. So I speculate that two-earners became a necessity to ensure a household living wage, or at least to maintain a middle-class standard of living. There is also the more conventional explanation that due to cultural influence of feminism women started to self-actualize, leading them into the world of work. Probably both explanations work. Perhaps they also support one other, too; a symbiotic relationship between ideology and necessity? Yet, on top of all that, it is a testament to the robustness of the US economy that enough jobs were being generated during the past 30 years to accommodate this increased female participation as well as population growth due to immigration and natural increase. Then the number crashes in this recession, falling down to early 1980s levels, indicating a massive drop in working age people actually working. This is just stunning. And that’s a lot of what I find unbelievable in these numbers; the drops are off a cliff, the jumps are skyrockets, the ratios swing wide. It's so extreme.

He is talking about employment, not economic growth.

More likely, at the Federal level, there will be draconian cuts before taxes go up, since the politics of the situation would favor cuts. We are already seeing that. The state and local situations would be actual defaults since the revenues aren't there any more to support extensive local and state governements.

Here’s a good article from the NYT on the rise of long term unemployment and it’s consequences, which appears to be the next economic issue now that we seem to have bottomed-out in the recesssion: The New Poor The article notes there are some negative feedback loops operating in the economy causing this… And the Times has this nifty set of graphs. The first one is particularly interesting as it shows how long term unemployment is approaching singularity, fulfilling Karl Marx’s prediction of capitalism creating a “reserve army of the unemployed” The BLS has a great long-term data set, starting in the late 1940s, for average weeks of unemployment by month and year. I aggregate the data to provide average weeks of unemployment by year, and then graph these for the postwar era, starting in 1950. Note the 15 week line. One can see this line gets crossed more and more frequently, until by the 2000s, 8 out of 10 years have average unemployment durations of over 15 weeks, indicating perhaps that its increasingly tough to find work (on average) as the decades roll by. Another way to look at this is by decade. Here is the same time frame, but with high/low ranges for each decade plus an average (red line) Note how things “recalibrate” in the 1980s, with the 30 years before 1980 having one type of range and average, (more or less, there is a slight rise over the decades), and the years after 1980 having a longer average periods of unemployment. But, this chart omits the recession year of 2009. Adding that in we get this… ...perhaps we are seeing yet another “recalibration” to another regime of even longer average unemployment durations? Or perhaps 2009 is just an anomaly? Anyway, the duration of unemployment number looks like it's in uncharted waters based on the past 60 years of numbers.

Comfest is amazing. The political content and no corporate sponsorship alone sets it apart.

OK, I was past there today. This is part of that Gateway Quarter gentrification effort. It looks pretty quiet now.

I came back to start a band of course/ Saw her walking thru the Crystal Court/ She made a scene by the revolving doors/ She's gonna walk around and drink some more/ So we walked across that Grain Belt bridge/ Into a bright new Minneapolis... The Hold Steady: Party Pit.

Im thinking this was one of those streets I walked during my OTR visits, and I remember it being mostly vacant, or at least seeming that way.

The Emotional Health is interesting; all of Ohio ranked low. ...just check out the comments section of the Dayton Daily News (and perhaps the Enquirer, too)

wow, i didnt know there was such variety in these pronounciations. The Dayton thread was a suprise too.

I was thinking plenty of available OSU co-eds in Cols?

Clevelands' lookin' good!

The Daily Beast ranks the best and worst cities to find love, 1 to 104. #1 is Long Beach. #104 is Lexington. Population cut off is 200,000. Here’s the Ohio ones on the list (explanation of categories at the link): #25, Cleveland, OH Singles: A+ Social life: A+ Emotional health: F Marriage: D Divorce: B Romantic hotspot: Gusto! Ristorante Italiano #44, Cincinnati, OH Singles: C Social life: A Emotional health: F Marriage: A Divorce: F Romantic hotspot: Barresi's Italian American Restaurant #55, Toledo, OH Singles: A+ Social life: C Emotional health: F Marriage: B Divorce: D Romantic hotspot: Mancy's Steaks #83, Akron, OH Singles: C Social life: B Emotional health: F Marriage: F Divorce: C Romantic hotspot: New Era Restaurant #93, Columbus, OH Singles: F Social life: C Emotional health: D Marriage: F Divorce: A Romantic hotspot: The Refectory

I am loving this town just from these pix. That corner burger place belongs on a CD or album cover. This place...please don't tell me those bikes have snow tires! lol....

I love this shot. It's so noir, but the lighting is great, and they used to make Hamms there, too (From the Land of Sky Blue Waters, if y'all remember the animated commercial)