Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Five cautionary signs in the April jobs report   (talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, American Action Forum, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, ITG Investment Research, Heidi Shierholz  
•       •       •

1183 clicks; posted to Business » on 05 May 2014 at 9:37 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



29 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-05 09:03:49 AM  
New payrolls added: 288,000
New payrolls added which did NOT involve a job in which the employee must wear a hairnet: 3,259
 
2014-05-05 09:45:13 AM  
Don't forget that there's about 300,000 boomers retiring per month.  Not sure how many of those jobs are being filled with younger employees or just ended.
 
2014-05-05 09:58:03 AM  
Wait, I thought teh librul media doesn't report on anything that looks bad for 0bummer?
 
2014-05-05 10:05:14 AM  
New

Langston: New payrolls added: 288,000
New payrolls added which did NOT involve a job in which the employee must wear a hairnet: 3,259


Let's not forget that another 800,000 people are no longer being counted in the statistics because they've either giving up looking for a job or lost their unemployment benefits.
 
2014-05-05 10:13:02 AM  
I'm not anywhere close to a conservative, and even I believe the current optimism in the job market is partisan hyperbole.

Wages aren't even moving with inflation anymore, and with exception to some niche fields of work there aren't exactly a lot of well paying jobs floating around out there. Republicans are largely correct in their assessment of a perpetually deflated job market, their conclusions as to why are completely wrong, but they're at least right about something.
 
2014-05-05 10:43:04 AM  

MayoSlather: Wages aren't even moving with inflation anymore, and with exception to some niche fields of work there aren't exactly a lot of well paying jobs floating around out there. Republicans are largely correct in their assessment of a perpetually deflated job market, their conclusions as to why are completely wrong, but they're at least right about something.


How does this make the numbers released by the BLS "partisan hyperbole"? Do you think the BLS is exaggerating the numbers?
 
2014-05-05 11:06:02 AM  

MayoSlather: Wages aren't even moving with inflation anymore, and with exception to some niche fields of work there aren't exactly a lot of well paying jobs floating around out there. Republicans are largely correct in their assessment of a perpetually deflated job market, their conclusions as to why are completely wrong, but they're at least right about something.


But if you mention the bolded sentence, Republicans call you a lazy, entitled child who hates the free market.
 
2014-05-05 11:15:38 AM  

qorkfiend: MayoSlather: Wages aren't even moving with inflation anymore, and with exception to some niche fields of work there aren't exactly a lot of well paying jobs floating around out there. Republicans are largely correct in their assessment of a perpetually deflated job market, their conclusions as to why are completely wrong, but they're at least right about something.

How does this make the numbers released by the BLS "partisan hyperbole"? Do you think the BLS is exaggerating the numbers?


No, I'm not arguing the data itself but more the context of the data.
 
2014-05-05 11:28:14 AM  

qorkfiend: How does this make the numbers released by the BLS "partisan hyperbole"?


FTA: The survey of businesses showed 288,000 more jobs. Yet the household survey, in calculating unemployment, found that 73,000 fewer people had jobs.   Why did the unemployment rate sink? Because 806,000 fewer people were in the workforce. Many retired or ended their job hunts. And fewer-than-expected people began looking for work.

This sounds...  "unskewed."
 
2014-05-05 11:41:38 AM  
If we've gotten this much success with half the country doing everything they can to stop job growth, imagine what we could do without them?
 
2014-05-05 12:30:59 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: But if you mention the bolded sentence, Republicans call you a lazy, entitled child who hates the free market.


The problem is wages =/= cost of hire.

It's a lot more expensive to hire somebody today than it was 20 years ago.
 
2014-05-05 01:03:39 PM  

MugzyBrown: Sergeant Grumbles: But if you mention the bolded sentence, Republicans call you a lazy, entitled child who hates the free market.

The problem is wages =/= cost of hire.

It's a lot more expensive to hire somebody today than it was 20 years ago.


What is often dismissed is the secondary and tertiary effects of wealth inequality. It has profound effects on small business, which is often the core argument of those citing there isn't enough money out there for them to hire people at higher wages.
 
2014-05-05 01:17:39 PM  

GoldSpider: qorkfiend: How does this make the numbers released by the BLS "partisan hyperbole"?

FTA: The survey of businesses showed 288,000 more jobs. Yet the household survey, in calculating unemployment, found that 73,000 fewer people had jobs.   Why did the unemployment rate sink? Because 806,000 fewer people were in the workforce. Many retired or ended their job hunts. And fewer-than-expected people began looking for work.

This sounds...  "unskewed."


Uh, no, it's how you calculate the U6 unemployment rate, as opposed to the "official" U3 rate.

For example, because I have a career that pays me well, my wife is able to be a stay-at-home mom. She doesn't have a job. She's not employed. And only a moron- or someone who wants the numbers to paint a picture that matches a pre-determined reality- would try and count her as an unemployed individual.
 
2014-05-05 01:34:57 PM  

Catsaregreen: Let's not forget that another 800,000 people are no longer being counted in the statistics because they've either giving up looking for a job or lost their unemployment benefits.


There are more reasons than one for that.  I personally know two Boomers in their early 60s with decent savings who quit working pretty much as soon as Obamacare finally got rolling this January (i.e., they didn't have to have an employer-based plan to get a group-rated plan).  While exceptional, it's a common enough story to affect the labor participation rate by several tenths-of-a-percent, like we've seen the last two quarters.
 
2014-05-05 02:10:56 PM  

Gonz: GoldSpider: qorkfiend: How does this make the numbers released by the BLS "partisan hyperbole"?

FTA: The survey of businesses showed 288,000 more jobs. Yet the household survey, in calculating unemployment, found that 73,000 fewer people had jobs.   Why did the unemployment rate sink? Because 806,000 fewer people were in the workforce. Many retired or ended their job hunts. And fewer-than-expected people began looking for work.

This sounds...  "unskewed."

Uh, no, it's how you calculate the U6 unemployment rate, as opposed to the "official" U3 rate.

For example, because I have a career that pays me well, my wife is able to be a stay-at-home mom. She doesn't have a job. She's not employed. And only a moron- or someone who wants the numbers to paint a picture that matches a pre-determined reality- would try and count her as an unemployed individual.


Oddly enough, U6 is ALSO down significantly.  In fact it's down about 1.5% from last year.   http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
 
2014-05-05 03:01:14 PM  

MugzyBrown: The problem is wages =/= cost of hire.

It's a lot more expensive to hire somebody today than it was 20 years ago.


Bullshiat.
The change has more to do with a globalized labor force than it has to do with the local cost of hiring. But I'm sure you're ready to blame it all on some elusive regulations.
 
2014-05-05 04:23:11 PM  
When I start seeing employment ads fill a page or help wanted signs in stores, I will believe the economy is getting better.
 
2014-05-05 04:30:32 PM  

bojon: When I start seeing employment ads fill a page or help wanted signs in stores, I will believe the economy is getting better.


News print is dying. If I were hiring, I certainly wouldn't call the local paper to put up an ad.
 
2014-05-05 04:36:57 PM  

bojon: When I start seeing employment ads fill a page or help wanted signs in stores, I will believe the economy is getting better.



http://pueblo.craigslist.org/jjj/
 
2014-05-05 05:42:04 PM  

Lando Lincoln: News print is dying. If I were hiring, I certainly wouldn't call the local paper to put up an ad.


As someone who now works in print news, and whose wife just got a great new job out of the paper I work on, I'm getting a double kick.

/Used to work on cell phone software
//That got outsourced to Eastern Europe
///Print may be dying, but at least they can't outsource my job
 
2014-05-05 05:42:25 PM  

Catsaregreen: NewLangston: New payrolls added: 288,000
New payrolls added which did NOT involve a job in which the employee must wear a hairnet: 3,259

Let's not forget that another 800,000 people are no longer being counted in the statistics because they've either giving up looking for a job or lost their unemployment benefits.


That's just the difference between U3 and U6 numbers, which typically move with each other with a simple multiplicative factor. I haven't checked recently, but are you saying they no longer track with each other and there's something different about this administration's reporting of unemployment than past ones?
 
2014-05-05 07:57:18 PM  
But the number of millionaires and multi-millionaires is at a new record. With that many new job creators, prosperity is surely just around the corner.
 
2014-05-05 08:37:12 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: MugzyBrown: The problem is wages =/= cost of hire.

It's a lot more expensive to hire somebody today than it was 20 years ago.

Bullshiat.
The change has more to do with a globalized labor force than it has to do with the local cost of hiring. But I'm sure you're ready to blame it all on some elusive regulations.


Ever tried to comply with regulations? They're not elusive. They are around every goddamn corner.
 
2014-05-05 09:14:32 PM  

YixilTesiphon: Ever tried to comply with regulations? They're not elusive. They are around every goddamn corner.


The elusive ones being the ones that are making hiring anyone too expensive, the so-called job killing regulations that every one seems to agrees exist but can never seem to point to.
Instead, we get this or that "job creator" biatching that they can't put the same stuff that's in yoga mats into sandwich bread, and somehow, everyone is quite okay with what jobs might be killed by regulating such things.
 
2014-05-05 10:55:29 PM  

enry: Don't forget that there's about 300,000 boomers retiring per month.  Not sure how many of those jobs are being filled with younger employees or just ended.


you mean from the buggy whip factory?
 
2014-05-05 10:57:35 PM  

bojon: When I start seeing employment ads fill a page or help wanted signs in stores, I will believe the economy is getting better.


this.
 
2014-05-05 11:58:52 PM  

Langston: New payrolls added: 288,000
New payrolls added which did NOT involve a job in which the employee must wear a hairnet: 3,259


You are having zee little giggle, no?

Just in case you're serious...

Hiring last month was broad-based and included higher-paying jobs: Manufacturing gained 12,000, construction 32,000. Professional and technical services, which include accounting and engineering positions, added 25,100 jobs. The number of government jobs grew 15,000, mostly at the local level.

Source:  http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/05/02/unemployment-rate-drop s -percent-added-april/HRC96jBrX4DrZXPxK29rbP/story.html
 
2014-05-06 12:02:05 AM  

MayoSlather: I'm not anywhere close to a conservative, and even I believe the current optimism in the job market is partisan hyperbole.

Wages aren't even moving with inflation anymore, and with exception to some niche fields of work there aren't exactly a lot of well paying jobs floating around out there. Republicans are largely correct in their assessment of a perpetually deflated job market, their conclusions as to why are completely wrong, but they're at least right about something.


Que?

One sour note: Average hourly pay was unchanged at $24.31. Average wages have risen just 1.9 percent in the past 12 months, just above the annual inflation rate of 1.5 percent.

Source:  http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/05/02/unemployment-rate-drop s -percent-added-april/HRC96jBrX4DrZXPxK29rbP/story.html
 
2014-05-06 12:03:18 AM  

MugzyBrown: Sergeant Grumbles: But if you mention the bolded sentence, Republicans call you a lazy, entitled child who hates the free market.

The problem is wages =/= cost of hire.

It's a lot more expensive to hire somebody today than it was 20 years ago.


Business revenues are also a lot higher than they were 20 years ago.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report