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.

(Marketwatch)   U.S. adds 200,000 new jobs in December. "We're hiring like it's 1999". Difficulty: "We're still paying 1999 wages"   ( marketwatch.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Late-2000s recession, new jobs, Unemployment, Business cycle, Employment, labor market, United States, World War II  
•       •       •

793 clicks; posted to Business » on 02 Jan 2018 at 10:50 AM (28 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-01-02 10:11:48 AM  
I honestly have to wonder what the price level was at that time, and then show the growth to Congress, and ask all of them why, if the price level has gone up, the level of the minimum wage has not kept pace.
 
2018-01-02 10:33:31 AM  

harleyquinnical: I honestly have to wonder what the price level was at that time, and then show the growth to Congress, and ask all of them why, if the price level has gone up, the level of the minimum wage has not kept pace.


It hasn't kept pace since sometime last century, even if then.
 
2018-01-02 10:55:54 AM  
"The U.S. is about to end 2018on one of the most remarkable hiring streaks in American history."

I knew I drank a lot on New Year's Eve...did I really sleep through the whole year?
 
2018-01-02 11:05:58 AM  

harleyquinnical: I honestly have to wonder what the price level was at that time, and then show the growth to Congress, and ask all of them why, if the price level has gone up, the level of the minimum wage has not kept pace.


That's what I love about these disinflation days man, the real minimum wage keeps buying more but nominally it stays the same rate, heh heh, yes it does.

assets.pewresearch.orgView Full Size
 
2018-01-02 11:06:22 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-01-02 11:07:38 AM  

darthstormer: "The U.S. is about to end 2018on one of the most remarkable hiring streaks in American history."

I knew I drank a lot on New Year's Eve...did I really sleep through the whole year?


Someone set the wrong parameter for this computer generated article.
 
2018-01-02 11:07:45 AM  
Businesses will spend their extra tax savings on buying new minions, not on paying existing minions more.
 
2018-01-02 11:13:11 AM  
Actual article: Later this week the government is expected to report the economy added around 200,000 new jobs in the final month of 2017.

The new hires report typically comes out first or second Friday of each month. The 200k is not an official number.

// and it generally gets adjusted over the next two months anyway as more data come in.
 
2018-01-02 11:25:48 AM  
Or phrased another way, "More jobs were created in each of the following years, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, than were created in 2017."

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES00​0​0000001?output_view=net_1mth
 
2018-01-02 11:29:37 AM  
1999 wages?  Sign me up - $100/hr with 1.5x overtime and an average of 55 hours a week!

Hardware geek riding the collapse of the DotCom wave.
 
2018-01-02 11:36:14 AM  

dionysusaur: 1999 wages?  Sign me up - $100/hr with 1.5x overtime and an average of 55 hours a week!

Hardware geek riding the collapse of the DotCom wave.


I was still in college in '99 and was making easily twice what I get now hourly....doh
 
2018-01-02 11:52:58 AM  

bighairyguy: Businesses will spend their extra tax savings on buying new minions, not on paying existing minions more.


I think what you'll find is that businesses will either sit on the cash or distribute it to investors; they will only hire more people if they need to increase production in order to meet increased demand forecasts. This is the general problem with 'supply side' economics; companies don't produce more just because they can, they produce to profitably meet demand.
 
2018-01-02 11:54:39 AM  
It's progress.
 
2018-01-02 12:04:01 PM  

dionysusaur: 1999 wages?  Sign me up - $100/hr with 1.5x overtime and an average of 55 hours a week!

Hardware geek riding the collapse of the DotCom wave.


I was thinking of the $125/hr for Fortran and COBOL consulting I was doing for all the Y2K patches that were needed.
 
2018-01-02 12:24:49 PM  
And? We've been adding 200k+ new jobs a month for at least 5 years now.

But no doubt the deplorables will claim that Trump finally reversed Obama shedding 6 million jobs a year.
 
2018-01-02 12:45:34 PM  

bighairyguy: Businesses will spend their extra tax savings on buying new minions, not on paying existing minions more.


nope, they won't even do that. Money goes in an offshore account and to the shareholders.
 
2018-01-02 01:31:02 PM  

dionysusaur: 1999 wages?  Sign me up - $100/hr with 1.5x overtime and an average of 55 hours a week!

Hardware geek riding the collapse of the DotCom wave.


No shiat.  I was getting paid overtime.  Paid!  Big ass bonii every year and hefty raises.  1999 was great.  2000 was not.
 
2018-01-02 01:45:18 PM  
So I was actually curious to see what my old job I had in 1999 paid. I was basically a manager at a theme park. Based on glassdoor, the job itself has a high end that pays what I made an hour (13 bucks) with a low end of 9-10 bucks. A kid born when I was working there who would now be old enough to have the same job I did will either be making the same or less.
 
2018-01-02 02:20:03 PM  

jgbrowning: Or phrased another way, "More jobs were created in each of the following years, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, than were created in 2017."

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES000​0000001?output_view=net_1mth


true, but is is a bit easier to add $200K when unemployment is at 7% compared to when it is at 4%.

If jobs can keep up this pace with the low unemployment, that should put quite a bit of upward pressure on wage growth.  At least that is what the 'glass half-full' side of me says....
 
2018-01-02 02:29:45 PM  
And when the tax cuts kick in when I get my review next year the boss will totally make it rain on my check. HA!
 
2018-01-02 02:40:44 PM  

HeadLever: jgbrowning: Or phrased another way, "More jobs were created in each of the following years, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, than were created in 2017."

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES000​0000001?output_view=net_1mth

true, but is is a bit easier to add $200K when unemployment is at 7% compared to when it is at 4%.

If jobs can keep up this pace with the low unemployment, that should put quite a bit of upward pressure on wage growth.  At least that is what the 'glass half-full' side of me says....


Ha! No. The upper management will complain they can't find anyone for their open spots. Wage increases will never be considered.
 
2018-01-02 02:55:52 PM  

dionysusaur: 1999 wages?  Sign me up - $100/hr with 1.5x overtime and an average of 55 hours a week!

Hardware geek riding the collapse of the DotCom wave.


Exactly.... That was the peak of the bubble.....
 
2018-01-02 03:18:00 PM  

HeadLever: jgbrowning: Or phrased another way, "More jobs were created in each of the following years, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, than were created in 2017."

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES000​0000001?output_view=net_1mth

true, but is is a bit easier to add $200K when unemployment is at 7% compared to when it is at 4%.

If jobs can keep up this pace with the low unemployment, that should put quite a bit of upward pressure on wage growth.  At least that is what the 'glass half-full' side of me says....


Your discounting population growth.
 
2018-01-02 03:24:40 PM  
"Now hiring, all shifts" signs are everywhere in my little flyover land state. Difficulty - you have to have some actual skill or training. Welders, for example, are in high demand, as are HVAC techs and certified auto mechanics and computer techs. And wages are fairly good, even for entry level food service - which means they get better applicants. So if you have no skills or training or education...
 
2018-01-02 03:43:44 PM  

jayphat: The upper management will complain they can't find anyone for their open spots. Wage increases will never be considered.


That is a related problem but not quite the same.  The company that offers a bit more in wages will be able to hire much better over those that don't.  They might be able to even poach some of their competitor's better employees.  If you don't pay up, you may be left behind.

It is happening like crazy right now in the sector that I am in.
 
2018-01-02 03:56:12 PM  

mcreadyblue: Your discounting population growth.


The unemployment rate is a metric of all people within the labor force and is independent of population growth. In addition, the number of people in the labor force has only increased about 3.7% in the past decade.

Population growth (within the workforce) has a pretty small impact on the nominal number of people finding/losing jobs when you are discussing a time frame of 5 to 10 years.   Now, if you are talking about a 30 or 50 year time frame, that would be more significant.
 
2018-01-02 03:56:31 PM  
There is always a bump in December because companies hire temporary workers for the holidays.
 
2018-01-02 04:43:57 PM  

HeadLever: mcreadyblue: Your discounting population growth.

The unemployment rate is a metric of all people within the labor force and is independent of population growth. In addition, the number of people in the labor force has only increased about 3.7% in the past decade.

Population growth (within the workforce) has a pretty small impact on the nominal number of people finding/losing jobs when you are discussing a time frame of 5 to 10 years.   Now, if you are talking about a 30 or 50 year time frame, that would be more significant.


I'm saying job growth must increase at the same rate as population growth to have no impact on unemployment.

200,000 seems like a large number, but the US population increased by 2,432,381 from 2015 to 2016.  Almost exactly 200,000 a month.
 
2018-01-02 05:56:42 PM  

mcreadyblue: HeadLever: mcreadyblue: Your discounting population growth.

The unemployment rate is a metric of all people within the labor force and is independent of population growth. In addition, the number of people in the labor force has only increased about 3.7% in the past decade.

Population growth (within the workforce) has a pretty small impact on the nominal number of people finding/losing jobs when you are discussing a time frame of 5 to 10 years.   Now, if you are talking about a 30 or 50 year time frame, that would be more significant.

I'm saying job growth must increase at the same rate as population growth to have no impact on unemployment.

200,000 seems like a large number, but the US population increased by 2,432,381 from 2015 to 2016.  Almost exactly 200,000 a month.


Incorrect as the unemployment figures only account for the fraction of the population that is actually in the labor force.  Right now a huge bubble of that labor force is looking to exit over the next few years. These baby boomers as they retire will keep the labor force numbers pretty depressed, especially if you try to compare that labor force to the population as a whole.
 
2018-01-02 06:27:04 PM  

dionysusaur: 1999 wages?  Sign me up - $100/hr with 1.5x overtime and an average of 55 hours a week!

Hardware geek riding the collapse of the DotCom wave.


Ok but you've gotta use AOL for your pron.
 
2018-01-02 07:57:58 PM  
There's plenty of new jobs, I know alot of people working two of them .
 
2018-01-02 08:35:59 PM  
And the wealth gap widens.
More and more of society's wealth in fewer and fewer hands.
We all know it can't be sustained indefinitely.
 
2018-01-02 09:13:35 PM  

southernmanblog: "Now hiring, all shifts" signs are everywhere in my little flyover land state. Difficulty - you have to have some actual skill or training. Welders, for example, are in high demand, as are HVAC techs and certified auto mechanics and computer techs. And wages are fairly good, even for entry level food service - which means they get better applicants. So if you have no skills or training or education...


where are the better applicants coming from?  once you hired all the people ABLE to do HVAC tech, what then when you still have a drought of applicants?

Or are we to understand that every employer is offering higher wages and finding applicants in town and no one is left jobless since everyone is qualified for the new wages?
 
kab
2018-01-02 09:50:08 PM  
Meanwhile at GE....
 
kab
2018-01-02 09:54:36 PM  

BEER_ME_in_CT: bighairyguy: Businesses will spend their extra tax savings on buying new minions, not on paying existing minions more.

nope, they won't even do that. Money goes in an offshore account and to the shareholders.


No no man.... tax cuts drive demand.  Study it out.
 
2018-01-02 10:47:10 PM  
This is my favorite topic to point out the complexity of the garbled knot of the socioeconomy. The same people who complain about stagnant working class wages and the increasing gap between the 1% and the 99% are the same people who celebrate globalization and immigration. It's ok if you want to do both of those things, but I challenge you to have the intellectual maturity to acknowledge that they are competing priorities that are in direct conflict with one another and must be held in a thoughtful balance.
 
2018-01-02 10:54:04 PM  

Hyjamon: where are the better applicants coming from?  once you hired all the people ABLE to do HVAC tech, what then when you still have a drought of applicants?


Train them up yourself.  That is about only two choices.  Hire the skilled workforce or make them skilled by training them.
 
kab
2018-01-03 12:15:12 AM  

Tommy Moo: The same people who complain about stagnant working class wages and the increasing gap between the 1% and the 99% are the same people who celebrate globalization and immigration.


I seriously doubt that.
 
2018-01-03 12:18:25 AM  

HeadLever: Hyjamon: where are the better applicants coming from?  once you hired all the people ABLE to do HVAC tech, what then when you still have a drought of applicants?

Train them up yourself.  That is about only two choices.  Hire the skilled workforce or make them skilled by training them.


...but if I train them they may go somewhere else paying more once they learn the skills...

It is as if life has become some convalescence of an effervescent floating around a strange eddy of ether. Where the bubble never escapes the eddy's grasp; instead always flirting with the whirling vortex at its core; inviting inevitable demise.

truly the worse timeline
 
2018-01-03 02:47:40 AM  

southernmanblog: "Now hiring, all shifts" signs are everywhere in my little flyover land state. Difficulty - you have to have some actual skill or training. Welders, for example, are in high demand, as are HVAC techs and certified auto mechanics and computer techs. And wages are fairly good, even for entry level food service - which means they get better applicants. So if you have no skills or training or education...


...you're a trumper?

/not you, the people with no skills or education
 
2018-01-03 09:44:08 AM  

HeadLever: Hyjamon: where are the better applicants coming from?  once you hired all the people ABLE to do HVAC tech, what then when you still have a drought of applicants?

Train them up yourself.  That is about only two choices.  Hire the skilled workforce or make them skilled by training them.


Remember when employers used to train and pay trainee wages instead of demanding skilled labor accept  trainee wages?
 
2018-01-03 12:21:57 PM  

ThighsofGlory: Remember when employers used to train and pay trainee wages instead of demanding skilled labor accept  trainee wages


Yeah, our company offers classes and trains our employees in present day.  I go to several confrences each year that is packed with people from various companies (both private and governmental) that are there for training and networking.  We are not alone in this regard.

And those companies that offer skilled labor trainee wages generally does not fill their positions or retains their employees very long.  If a company does this, they generally don't stay in business very long.
 
2018-01-03 03:25:02 PM  

ThighsofGlory: Remember when employers used to train and pay trainee wages instead of demanding skilled labor accept trainee wages?


Training cuts directly into bottom line numbers.  That shows up on the quarterly report, which immediately shifts stock price.  The purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value.  Spending money on training is directly contrary to this goal in the near term.

No go.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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