Slog Comments
The Jobs Report: 157K
1
As more and more people start to re-enter the workforce after giving up for a long time unemployment will keep ticking up for awhile before it starts to drop again.
There is a huge glut of workers who aren't working (or working part time) who aren't counted in the unemployment numbers.
There is a huge glut of workers who aren't working (or working part time) who aren't counted in the unemployment numbers.
3
@1 Darn, I was gonna say that... Yeah, the more positive things look, the more people try to reenter the workforce, and the worse the stats end up. That's because the stats only include people who are looking for work.
My smarter half worked for the English civil service before moving here. Their statistical methods were much more honest, imho. The unemployed got "the dole" pretty much without limit back then. (Not sure how it is now.) And everyone on the dole got counted as unemployed every month.
Our methods here time-limit the payout of unemployment insurance and then you have to pretty much keep going to your state employment office for placement assistance, even though you're not receiving unemployment, to not be tossed out of the statistical pool.
I've always wondered if the BLS has any way of counting job-seekers who don't stay active with a state agency and only seek jobs through private agencies and classified ads. I suspect not.
My smarter half worked for the English civil service before moving here. Their statistical methods were much more honest, imho. The unemployed got "the dole" pretty much without limit back then. (Not sure how it is now.) And everyone on the dole got counted as unemployed every month.
Our methods here time-limit the payout of unemployment insurance and then you have to pretty much keep going to your state employment office for placement assistance, even though you're not receiving unemployment, to not be tossed out of the statistical pool.
I've always wondered if the BLS has any way of counting job-seekers who don't stay active with a state agency and only seek jobs through private agencies and classified ads. I suspect not.
4
@2 Perhaps, but the "tech bubble" was driven by overheated interest in one sector. It was most apparent in the Nasdaq average, which I don't think is getting up near its high of 5132 anytime soon. It's currently trading around 3159 at the moment.
The S&P 500 is much more broadly based, is very dependent on actual corporate earnings, and is fairly moderate when measured in price/earnings ratio, historically. Also, although it may be nearing its previous high, that's without adjusting for inflation.
No, I don't think we're approaching crazy-time just yet, although we could still have a major market drop in the next few months if the fucking House keeps trying to take the economy fucking hostage to their screwy austerity ideas.
The S&P 500 is much more broadly based, is very dependent on actual corporate earnings, and is fairly moderate when measured in price/earnings ratio, historically. Also, although it may be nearing its previous high, that's without adjusting for inflation.
No, I don't think we're approaching crazy-time just yet, although we could still have a major market drop in the next few months if the fucking House keeps trying to take the economy fucking hostage to their screwy austerity ideas.
5
@2: High stock prices do not alone make a bubble, you need irrationally high valuations (e.g., internet stocks in the late 90's, real estate in 2007).
6
As older people, especially women, continue to lose govt jobs, especially military, they will become unemployed and show up in the stats. As private enterprise picks up, they will reenter the work force, even if officially retired.
Get rid of the four-fold increase in H1-B visas and start hiring people who are Americans and the unemployment rate will go down.
@2 @5 there is a Finance bubble in the US. There was a housing construction bubble, but both should be at normal 5 percent GDP levels, as opposed to the 15-20% finance bubble or the 20% construction bubble.
Get rid of the four-fold increase in H1-B visas and start hiring people who are Americans and the unemployment rate will go down.
@2 @5 there is a Finance bubble in the US. There was a housing construction bubble, but both should be at normal 5 percent GDP levels, as opposed to the 15-20% finance bubble or the 20% construction bubble.
7
". . while job gains come from a survey of employers."
Yup, and we can always believe those employers, huh?
Like all the private equity leveraged buyout doods who claimed new jobs with every purchase, when they are in actuality destroying and/or offshoring said jobs.
Will in Seattle prattles: "..there is a Finance bubble in the US."
Negative, sonny, the consumer-based economy has long since been dismantled, and what is left transformed to a fantasy finance-based economy.
(And try learning how to read the GDP, also!)
Quit repeating everything you hear or read, and try thinking for yourself for a change!
Yup, and we can always believe those employers, huh?
Like all the private equity leveraged buyout doods who claimed new jobs with every purchase, when they are in actuality destroying and/or offshoring said jobs.
Will in Seattle prattles: "..there is a Finance bubble in the US."
Negative, sonny, the consumer-based economy has long since been dismantled, and what is left transformed to a fantasy finance-based economy.
(And try learning how to read the GDP, also!)
Quit repeating everything you hear or read, and try thinking for yourself for a change!
8
@3 " the more people try to reenter the workforce"
That is the same tedious corporate media bullcrap over and over again: unemployment has been running 20% to 30% since 1999.
Learn to do arithmetic, sonny.
That is the same tedious corporate media bullcrap over and over again: unemployment has been running 20% to 30% since 1999.
Learn to do arithmetic, sonny.
9
@8 It's a lot closer to U-6 on the BLS workforce underutilization measure of their Employment Situation report, which is 15.4%, raw, without the "seasonal correction" applied. On the plus side, 12 months earlier it was 16.4%, but it's still way damned high.
Arithmetic, I can do, but I prefer not to make up my own facts. That tends to void any calculations.
Care to cite where you found the "20% to 30% since 1999" assertion? Any idea of its basis, or the methodology and credentials of the source?
Curious minds would like to know.
Arithmetic, I can do, but I prefer not to make up my own facts. That tends to void any calculations.
Care to cite where you found the "20% to 30% since 1999" assertion? Any idea of its basis, or the methodology and credentials of the source?
Curious minds would like to know.
Comments (9) RSS