From NY Post: The unemployment rate sank to 3.7 percent in September — a 49-year low — despite job growth that slowed sharply last month as Hurricane Florence depressed restaurant and retail payrolls, the feds said Friday.
The Labor Department’s closely watched monthly employment report also showed a steady rise in wages, suggesting moderate inflation pressures, which could ease concerns about the economy overheating and keep the Federal Reserve on a path of gradual interest rate increases.
President Trump hailed the low unemployment rate in a Twitter post. “Just out: 3.7% Unemployment is the lowest number since 1969!”he wrote.
Economists also welcomed the news. “The acceleration in job gains this year is extraordinary in an environment where firms are having great difficulty finding qualified candidates,” said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Amherst Pierpont Securities.
Nonfarm payrolls increased by 134,000 jobs last month, the fewest in a year, as the retail and leisure and hospitality sectors shed employment. But data for July and August were revised to show 87,000 more jobs added than previously reported.
The economy needs to create roughly 120,000 jobs per month to keep up with growth in the working-age population. “The weaker gain in payrolls in September may partly reflect some hit from Hurricane Florence,” said Michael Pearce, senior economist at Capital Economics in New York.
“There is little in this report to stop the Fed continuing to raise interest rates gradually.”
Economists polled by Reuters had forecast payrolls increasing by 185,000 jobs in September and the unemployment rate falling one-tenth of a percentage point to 3.8 percent.
Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said on Tuesday that the economy’s outlook was “remarkably positive” and he believed it was on the cusp of a “historically rare” era of ultra-low unemployment and tame inflation.
The US central bank raised rates last week for the third time this year and removed the reference in its post-meeting statement to monetary policy remaining “accommodative.”
The Labor Department said it was possible that Hurricane Florence, which lashed South and North Carolina in mid-September, could have affected employment in some industries. It said it was impossible to quantify the net effect on employment.
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
Inquiring minds want to know: Forward to what, where?
In his opinion essay for Politico, May 21, 2012, Keith Koffler asks: Under Obama, the unemployment rate soared above 8% and has stayed there. Forward to 9%? Under Obama, the national debt has risen by some $5 trillion. Forward to $6 trillion? The economy grew by only 2.2% in the first quarter of 2012. Forward to 1%? Opposition to Obama’s signature achievement, “Obamacare,” runs roughly 10 points ahead of support. Forward to more unpopular programs? […] The only reassurance Americans might get from being told to move “forward” is that Obama has not been clear about where he wants to go. Take a look at Obama’s campaign website. There’s almost nothing about what he intends to do during a second term. Certainly, the president has no plan at all for reforming entitlement spending, the key to reining in the deficit and putting the economy on firm footing. As southern Europe sinks into the Mediterranean beneath its debt load, Obama will move us “forward” into a world of ever increasing red ink. “Forward” is not just a sign of presidential hubris. It’s a Freudian slip, a revelation of the left-leaning instincts of the most liberal president this country has ever had. The slogan is the distillation of the faith of liberals that all forward movement is progress, that new ideas, ethics and programs are enlightened because they are new; that old beliefs must always be cast off so that modern thinking can advance society into a brilliant future.
It’s the thinking that leads Democrats to believe in a nation in which everyone has health insurance, billions should be spent developing exotic fuels and everyone gets higher education.
Conservatives, by their very nature, question the benefit of “forward” — asking how much it will cost. They question whether the ideas from those prodding us “forward” aren’t going to have unintended consequences that turn visions of paradise into nightmares. They ask whether a government that mandates utopian projects like universal health care will then start mandating something more egregious. They want to know whether the programs to perfect everyone’s lives will bankrupt the country. The Obama campaign’s call to move “forward” will backfire — in that it inadvertently throws into relief the ideological choice that confronts the electorate. Do we, as our debt climbs unfettered into the stratosphere, continue moving “forward” with the costly plans of a liberal president? “Obamacare’s” cost, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates when it was passed, would be close to $1 trillion. The White House declared that it had responsibly “paid for” the program with spending cuts and tax increases. Left out was that all those savings will no longer be available to bring down the deficit. The suggestion was that “Obamacare” was cost free. Not at all. The president continues to propose moving us “forward” with various pricey social engineering schemes — like lowering subsidized college loan rates, helping homeowners refinance at current mortgage rates and providing tax credits for investments in “clean energy manufacturing.” Unlike President Bill Clinton, who recognized the public disenchantment with the grand plans of his first term and retrenched by signing election-year legislation to reform welfare, Obama continues to press his agenda undiluted. Now his mistake has been distilled into a slogan more likely to repel voters than rally them.
H/t our beloved Miss May. ~Eowyn
Message to the State Controlled Media and American sheeple mind-numbed with American Idol, DWTS, and porn:
The Economy Is Not Improving.
The Economy Is Getting Worse.
The reason why the unemployment rate has dropped to 8.1% in the latest report released last Friday is this: The government’s jobless rate is not actually a measure of unemployment.Instead, the so-called jobless rate is merely the number of Americans who apply for unemployment benefits. This means that the official unemployment rate does NOT include millions of Americans who are unemployed but who do not qualify for unemployment benefits because they:
Were self-employed; or
Have exhausted their unemployment benefits; or
Have given up looking for work and have dropped out of the labor force entirely.
This is the reason why the official rate of unemployment has “dropped” to 8.1%:
More Americans have dropped out of the labor force and thus no longer qualify for unemployment benefits.
Tyler Durden reports for ZeroHedge, May 4, 2012, that in April the number of people not in the labor force rose by a whopping 522,000 from 87,897,000 to 88,419,000.
This is the highest on record.
The reason why the unemployment dropped to 8.1% is that the labor force participation rate just dipped to a new 30 year low of 64.3%.
These two graphs are the evidence (click graph to enlarge):
If the embedded link to ZeroHedge doesn’t work, here’s the link to the cached copy of the article:
Jeff Cox of CNBC.com reports on June 17, 2011 that the Misery Index of Americans is at a 28-year high, of “a nausea-inducing” 12.7% — a number not seen since 1983.
First compiled by economist Arthur Okun during the soaring inflation days of the 1970s, the Misery Index is derived from adding the unemployment rate (currently at 9.1%) and the rate of inflation (3.6% for annualized inflation).
Since our government “conveniently” does not include food and gas prices in the rate of inflation, if those were included, America’s real inflation rate is actually much higher than 3.6%.
To be fair, Obama in 2008 never did say what exactly it is that we “can” do, nor did he specify who “we” are.
Last Friday, the Obama administration trumpeted that the economy is reviving because of the alleged decline in unemployment and concomitant increase in the number of new jobs. But according to Gallup, the U.S. unemployment rate actually rose to 10.3% at the end of February. Worse still, most of the new jobs are in the low-pay “hamburger flipper” sector.
Here are excerpts from Zachary Roth’s March 9, 2011 article for Yahoo! news, “Jobs Returning – But Good Ones Not So Much“:
• Lower-wage industries — things like retail and food preparation — accounted for 23% of the jobs lost during the recession, but 49% of the jobs gained over the last year, a recent study (pdf) by the National Employment Law Program found. Higher-wage industries, by contrast, accounted for 40% of the jobs lost, but just 14% of the jobs gained. In other words, low paying jobs are increasing as a percentage of total jobs, while high-paying jobs are on the decline.
• Meanwhile, the percentage of those working who have part-time jobs and want full-time ones surged in mid-February to 19.6% — almost as high as it was a year ago before the recovery began, according to Gallup numbers. That suggests, of course, that a large number of the new jobs created over the last year are part-time.
• And a recent Wall Street Journal analysis found that even though productivity rose 5.2% from mid 2009 to the end of 2010, wages increased by just 0.3%. That means only 6% of productivity gains were shared with workers. In past recoveries, that figure has averaged 58%. This time around, far more of the gains went to shareholders, in the form of profits, which are at record levels.
In other words:
The Obama administration’s rosy picture about the economic recovery is a lie.
The structural change in the U.S. economy which has been going on for some time now even before the present recession/depression struck in 2007 is real and our government is unable/unwilling to do anything about it. The structural changes include:
The outsourcing export and loss of manufacturing jobs;
The movement down of those workers to lower-paying low-skill low-education “hamburger flipper” jobs; and
The socio-political consequence is a diminishing middle class that bodes ill for democracy’s future.
Conservatives shy away from this, but the miniscule 0.3% wage increase despite a 5.2% increase in labor productivity means that American workers are being screwed by their corporate masters. Remember what the late Christopher Lasch warned us in his prescient book, Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy:
There is a new global elite — comprised of multinational business corporations, Hollywood and pop music, news media, and professionals (bankers, traders, investors, lawyers,) — who are not nationalists because they make their living in/from a global market. The Americans among them have U.S. citizenship but don’t really care about America or the American people. They have more in common with their cohorts across the world. That is where their hearts are, and it’s not America.
Last Friday, the Obama administration crowed that economic recovery is picking up speed! The unemployment rate has fallen to 9% from 9.8% in just two months! – the steepest two-month decline in unemployment in a half-century, since the Eisenhower administration! More than half a million people found work in January!
Before we sing “kumbaya,” Gallup has more sobering statistics. According to Gallup, based on telephone interviews with approximately 30,000 adults, U.S. unemployment rate (those who are not employed, even for one hour a week, but are available and looking for work) is really 10% and the underemployment rate (those who are employed part time, but want to work full time) is as high as 19.2%.
Something is very wrong with the American economy. Here’s an article asking where are the 15 million jobs that were supposed to have been created in the past 10 years but weren’t. In theory, as American corporations outsource export low-skill labor-intensive manufacturing jobs, the displaced American workers acquire more education and move into higher-skill, higher-pay, tech-intensive jobs. But that didn’t happen — and economists don’t really know why, nor are politicians paying attention.
The article is long but well worth your read! ~Eowyn The Phantom 15 Million
By Jim Tankersley – National Journal – Jan 21, 2011
America’s jobs crisis began a decade ago. Long before the housing bubble burst and Wall Street melted down, something in our national job-creation machine went horribly wrong. The years between the brief 2001 recession and the 2008 financial collapse gave us solid growth in our gross national product, soaring corporate profits, and a low unemployment rate—but job creation lagged stubbornly behind, more so than in any economic expansion since World War II. The Great Recession wiped out what amounts to every U.S. job created in the 21st century. But even if the recession had never happened, if the economy had simply treaded water, the United States would have entered 2010 with 15 million fewer jobs than economists say it should have. Somehow, rapid advancements in technology and the opening of new international markets paid dividends for American companies but not for American workers. An economy that long thrived on its dynamism, shedding jobs in outdated and less competitive industries and adding them in innovative new fields, fell stagnant in the swirls of the most globalized decade of commerce in human history.
Even now, no one really knows why.
This we do know: The U.S. economy created fewer and fewer jobs as the 2000s wore on. Turnover in the job market slowed as workers clung to the positions they held. Job destruction spiked in each of the decade’s two recessions. In contrast to the pattern of past recessions, when many employers recalled laid-off workers after growth picked up again, this time very few of those jobs came back.
These are the first clues—incomplete, disconcerting, and largely overlooked—to a critical mystery bedeviling a nation struggling to crawl out of near-double-digit unemployment. We know what should have transpired over the past 10 years: the completion of a circle of losses and gains from globalization. Emerging technology helped firms send jobs abroad or replace workers with machines; it should have also spawned domestic investment in innovative industries, companies, and jobs. That investment never happened—not nearly enough of it, in any case. If we can’t figure out why, we may be doomed to a future that feels like a long jobless recovery, no matter how fast our economy grows. “It’s the trillion-dollar question,” says David E. Altig, senior vice president and research director for the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, where economists are beginning to explore the shifts that have clubbed American workers like a blackjack. “Something big has happened. I really don’t think we have a complete story yet.”
THE LOST DECADE
We certainly didn’t see it coming. At the turn of the millennium, the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicted that the U.S. economy would create nearly 22 million net jobs in the 2000s, only slightly fewer than the boom 1990s yielded. The economists predicted “good opportunities for jobs” and “an optimistic vision for the U.S. economy” through 2010.
Businesses would reap the gains of new trading markets, the projection said, and continue to invest in technologies to boost the productivity of their operations. High-tech jobs would abound, both for systems analysts with four years of college and for computer-support analysts with associate’s degrees. The manufacturing sector would stop a decades-long jobs slide, and technology would lead the turnaround. Hundreds of thousands of newly hired factory workers would make cutting-edge electrical and communications products, including semiconductors, satellites, cable-television equipment, and “cellular phones, modems, and facsimile and answering machines.”
“U.S. companies … are privatizing the gains of globalization.” —Howard Rosen, Peterson Institute
…When the job market peaked in 2008 on the eve of the financial crisis, the manufacturing sector had already shed 5 million workers since the decade began, with more layoffs to come in the Great Recession. Politicians, particularly those in the Rust Belt, decried the losses. Hardly anyone, meanwhile, noticed the more damaging shortfall in the national jobs picture: Every major occupational group was running far behind the 2010 job-growth projections—often to the tune of 2 million jobs per group. The forecasters said that the economy would create 22 million jobs over the next 10 years. At the decade’s economic peak, though, that number stood at only 7 million. Job growth in the 2000s was the lowest of any decade ever recorded by the federal government, stretching back to the 1940s. As a result, workers were extremely vulnerable to the tidal-wave recession that washed away all of the decade’s meager gains….
The national population grew faster than the labor force; in 2008, about 63 percent of working-aged Americans held a job, down from 65 percent in 2008, reversing decades of improvement in the employment-population ratio. Real middle-class incomes fell from 2000 to 2007—from a median of $58,500 to $56,500 another first in U.S. record-keeping.
It’s easy to see today why such alarming numbers went so undetected. The national unemployment rate stayed persistently low, between 4 and 6 percent, until the financial crash. Voters tend to associate the jobless rate with the strength of the economy. But the rate was low not because the economy was adding a lot of jobs, but because fewer people were joining the workforce—specifically, fewer women.
Female workers poured into the labor pool during World War II and steadily throughout the decades that followed. In the late 1990s, that trend began to end with about three in five women in the workforce. The phenomenon was a mathematical blessing for the unemployment rate, which measures the percentage of eligible workers who want to find jobs but can’t. When women’s employment demand stopped increasing, the economy didn’t need to create as many new jobs to keep the jobless rate low. Blinded by low unemployment, lawmakers and economists overlooked two crucial warning signs of the nation’s deteriorating economic health. One was the percentage of working-aged men—the traditional backbone of the U.S. labor force—who held a job. The other was the number of jobs being created each month. Throughout the 2000s, both numbers nose-dived.
…American companies had adopted a more cold-blooded attitude toward recessions, one that fit the new model of globalization and automation. Technology made it easier to lay off your 100 least-effective workers and ship their jobs to India, or to replace them with a software program that made your remaining workforce dramatically more productive.
OFF SCRIPT Here is how the evolving global economy is supposed to work: Mature economies with high living standards, such as the United States, ship some of their lower-skill jobs to developing countries where wages are lower. The costs of the outsourced goods and services go down, and the buying power of the developing countries goes up. American firms reap higher profits, which they invest in developing higher-value products that can’t be made elsewhere and sell them to increasingly flush consumers at home and abroad. Laid-off American workers find jobs in the innovative industries that result. That story has almost entirely come true for corporate America, whose record profits spurred strong GDP growth throughout the 2000s, but not for workers. “A lot of people have been displaced due to technology and outsourcing,” says Mark Thoma, an economics professor at the University of Oregon who writes the popular Economist’s View blog. Those workers have often settled into worse jobs than the ones they lost, he adds, if they have found work at all. “That’s not really what’s supposed to happen.”
…Lawmakers have still barely touched the question—they are too focused on taxes, regulation, and government spending, policy areas that hardly any economist has suggested as explanations for our lost decade of job growth. Researchers are just starting to piece together the evidence, and no one can yet finger the culprit.
EDUCATION AND INVESTMENT Perhaps, some economists theorize, the United States isn’t creating innovative jobs because its workforce isn’t up to the challenge. For probably the first time in history, our young adults are no better educated than their parents. Nearly all our international rivals, in developed and developing economies alike, continue to make generational leaps in college graduation. Brainpower is still our comparative advantage with the rest of the world, but the advantage is shrinking.
“It is the best educated and those with the highest skills that derive the most benefits from a globalizing economy,” says Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a research fellow at the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics who studies global labor markets. “As the U.S. workforce becomes relatively less skill-intensive vis-à-vis the entire world, the broader benefits of the global economy, both in terms of job creation (and national well-being), are going to decline.” Mounting evidence suggests that educational stagnation has already socked American workers, particularly men. David Autor, the associate chairman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s economics department, makes the case in a series of recent papers that globalization has effectively “hollowed out” much of the country’s middle-skill jobs—assembly-line, call-center, and bookkeeping occupations, for example—and replaced them with a computer or a lower-paid foreign worker. Those types of jobs typically required technical training but not necessarily a college degree. As the jobs disappear, the workers who held them are generally pushed into lower-skill, lower-paid occupations such as retail or janitorial services, because they lack the education to compete for higher-wage, higher-skill jobs such as engineering.Autor is pioneering the research into what he calls the “polarization” of American jobs into low- and high-skill camps, but even he isn’t sure whether his findings explain our national jobs crisis or result from it. “I don’t have a simple answer,” he wrote in an e-mail recently. “I think the prosperity in the 2000s, even prior to the crisis, was quite ephemeral, bordering on illusory. I’m not sure that’s a result of polarization per se. But it is a mystery why the good times ended” at the turn of the century. The completed circle of losses and gains from globalization, he added, is “what is supposed to happen in the long run. But it requires investment, adjustment, adaptation.”
Mention of that requirement raises another leading theory for our job-creation woes: American companies aren’t investing enough in domestic innovation and the jobs it should create.
One baffling aspect of the current recovery is why U.S. companies continue to sideline nearly $2 trillion in cash instead of using it to buy equipment or hire workers. That hoarding turns out to be a piece of a decades-long investment puzzle. American corporate spending on nonresidential plant equipment—factories and equipment, not houses or shopping malls—has fallen to its lowest rate as a share of the economy in 40 years. Businesses aren’t investing in American workers, either. The major productivity gains of the fledgling recovery, and in the 2000s in general, came largely from companies producing more with fewer employees. The simple truth is that American firms are either returning the spoils of globalization and technology to their shareholders, spending them on new projects abroad, or both. “Globalization isn’t the problem,” says Howard F. Rosen, a labor economist and visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute. “U.S. companies are investing in plants and equipment, just not in our borders.… They are privatizing the gains of globalization. That’s really it. They’re our gains!”
Policymakers, Rosen adds, must learn why that is happening. “What motivates investment?” he says. “How do we stimulate investment? I personally think we should use that question to judge every economic policy that we do.” This is not an academic exercise. The mystery of why 15 million jobs never materialized could haunt our economy for the foreseeable future.
MORE LIKE EUROPE?
…What if the Peterson Institute’s Kirkegaard is correct when he says, “There is a significant risk that we wander aimlessly into a situation where U.S. labor markets … end up becoming much more European than they were before,” less dynamic, less innovative, with persistently higher unemployment. “That’s not a description that I use lightly,” he says, “because that’s a very, very bad outcome.”
It’s worth noting, as we look back at the last decade’s job projections, that American workers aren’t making many answering machines or modems. They’re also not making cell phones—even the market-moving cell phones that forecasters couldn’t conceive of 10 years ago.
A recent paper by researchers at the Asian Development Bank Institute concluded that the iPhone, one of the United States’ top innovations of the past decade, actually contributes nearly $2 billion to our trade deficit because it is almost entirely produced and assembled in Asia…. Maybe Apple’s greed is at fault. Maybe the government is to blame for not making the industrial climate more hospitable to Apple and other job producers. The harsh reality is that workers, companies, and lawmakers all need to readjust if we ever hope to rev up the job-creation machine again. SOME POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
Some free-market economists say that we could encourage more domestic investment by cutting corporate tax rates, although it’s fair to note that the jobs breakdown of the 2000s coincided with hefty tax cuts under President Bush. Still, liberal and free-market analysts alike have argued for a sweeping reform of America’s corporate tax code—one that would reduce rates while eliminating many deductions and provisions that give companies incentives to spend their global profits outside the United States. More narrowly, groups such as the Association for Financial Professionals have urged Congress to lower America’s tax rates on repatriated income, to levels closer to international competitors. Some liberal economists say we should consider more direct industrial policy to force investment in innovative fields such as clean energy, to match China, Germany, and other competitors, or we should further curb foreign trade until the international playing field is more level in areas such as currency. Thoma, of the University of Oregon, says he has been lately rethinking whether the situation demands more pronounced government income redistribution to help those whom globalization has hurt the most. Nearly all the economists interviewed for this article called education a key piece of any solution, and some were alarmed by the potential fallout from state and local budget shortfalls that could lead to cuts in primary, secondary, and higher education. As middle-skill jobs disappear in the United States, some experts recommend new policies to push more students into college or vocational school in order to swell the future ranks of highly skilled workers. Implementation could include more federal college aid or even a requirement that students complete a year of higher education after high school.
Others say that the government should revamp its approach to unemployment benefits, linking payments to job retraining in an effort to shift workers from disappearing fields….
It may be that Washington must take bolder steps to encourage higher-risk, higher-reward investments by companies flinching at the violent churn of the global economy…. Policymakers just now seem to be tuning in to the mystery of our changing situation. Before we can fix our jobs machine, we must figure out what broke it. As several economists noted, anyone who says they’ve solved the problem is lying. This article appeared in the Saturday, January 22, 2011 edition of National Journal.