Job numbers don't really matter. They flucuate up and down constantly, and have to be balanced by the state of the economy as a whole. If you take a look, historically, job numbers are actually UP, even with the small dip recently seen. It's just the free market doing it's thing.
*** REMINDER: THIS IS NOT MY OPINION - I'M PRETENDING IT IS SOMEONE ELSE'S ***
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
What spin are you looking for here? The jjobless rate has consistently fallen for the last 3 months to 4.6% - 5% is considered full employment so basically anyone that wants a job has one. Average hourly wages are up to $16.84 last month, a 4 percent increase from September 2005, the fastest wage growth in more than five years.
Is it the relatively weak 51,000 jobs added in September that worries you? It shouldn't, labor analysts released a preliminary finding that the economy may have added 810,000 more jobs than previously tallied in the 12 months that ended in March so thre are a lot of jobs floating around.
Housing has slowed down, the pace it's been going really is unsustainable so the construction industry is going to go through a downturn I imagine. It's all cyclical and right now most of the economy is peaking - the Dow Jones industrial average hit new records on three consecutive days last week.
the stock market has consistently risen. it's whaT IT DOES. (caps oops)
doing surveys, i find that jobs & the economy are among the top 3 issues most people pick. (most surveys ask several choices along these lines)
what does this mean? this means that both reps ad libs better have talking pints regarding jobs & the economy.
when folKs go to find a JOB THAT WILL ADEQUATELY PAY THE BILLS, THEY DON'T READ THE wsj OR GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC REPORTS. (dang caps key and 1-handed typing) they read the want ads. they read their bills.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What spin are you looking for here? The jjobless rate has consistently fallen for the last 3 months to 4.6% - 5% is considered full employment so basically anyone that wants a job has one.
The unemployment rate reported and the 'augmented employment rate' are different things - a 5% augmented unemployment rate is considered full employment. The augmented unemployment rate is apparently over 9% (I didn't check it myself but was in a search result..).
See this page for a description of the augmented unemployment rate.
quote: Average hourly wages are up to $16.84 last month, a 4 percent increase from September 2005, the fastest wage growth in more than five years.
And if wages dropped to 0$ and then climbed to .01$ you would have infinite wage growth. Yet somehow I don't think we would consider that a good thing. How do real wages compare to their historic rates or historic average (not compared to a particular point in time to make a current value look good/bad) is the real point of interest.
quote:Getting out of the statistical weeds, the news here is that the U.S. has a very tight labor market -- which is now translating into significant wage gains. Over the past 12 months wages have climbed by 4%, which is the biggest gain since 2001 and which economist Brian Wesbury points out is higher than the 3.3% average annual wage growth of the last 25 years.
Most of the media has ignored all this and instead focused on the disappointing 51,000 "new jobs" number from the establishment survey for September. But even in that survey, the jobs number for August was revised upward by 62,000 and the U.S. jobs machine continues to roll out an average of about 150,000 additional hires each month. Even the loss of residential construction jobs in September, due to the housing market slowdown, was nearly matched by payroll gains in commercial construction.
This boom in employment started in August of 2003, roughly coincident with the economy's growth acceleration in the wake of the Bush Administration's 2003 tax cuts on dividends, capital gains and in the top marginal income rate on the highest earners.
quote:Getting out of the statistical weeds, the news here is that the U.S. has a very tight labor market -- which is now translating into significant wage gains. Over the past 12 months wages have climbed by 4%, which is the biggest gain since 2001
I link LR just showed that this claim is just a matter of picking a couple of data points to paint picture that's somewhat brighter than reality. The US Dept. of Labor report that he linked shows that the increasing CPI has been eating up any wage gains that have occured.
From the report:
quote:Average weekly earnings rose by 4.2 percent, seasonally adjusted, from August 2005 to August 2006. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly earnings increased by 0.3 percent.
The formatting is crap, so it is unclear what numbers go to what, but my first impression is that the 9% number I found above is high - looks like 8% seasonally adjusted for Sept 2006, versus 9% 2005 Sept. Which is a great news. However, there was also a note "Beginning in January 2006, data reflect revised population controls used in the household survey."
Sometimes revised population controls have substantial impact, and sometimes not. So it is unclear whether or not we can compare 2005 and 2006 data.