Is the Jobs Market Improving or Not?"
Posted on 06/05/2013 7:11:37 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Traders confused: is the job market improving, or not?
Markets were volatile again today, this time on signs that the jobs market may not be as strong as some hoped. A report on private sector employment by ADP was weaker than expected, as was an employment gauge released as part of a survey of purchasing managers in the services industry.
That is causing some to consider lowering their estimates for Friday's critical May jobs report.
This is confusing, because Fed officials have been talking about tapering their purchases of bonds as the job market improves.
So which is it? To add to the confusion, we got the Fed's Beige Book today, and Fed officials sounded a bit more optimistic about the economy, noting gains in autos sales, real estate,and bank lending, and also noting hiring gains in several districts.
It's true that if the job growth does not materialize as the Fed envisions, they can simply continue their program of buying bonds...or even increase it. But the enthusiasm with which some Fed officials are pushing the tapering talk is causing some alarm...the Dallas Fed's Richard Fisher even went as far to say that the 30-year rally in bonds was over. Strong words.
If that wasn't enough to worry about, the markets are again being held hostage to the dollar/yen trade. After weakening for almost seven straight months, the yen has been strengthening the past two weeks, and did so again today.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
My study using the government figures supplied online reveal we are 40 million jobs short of where we should be right now, by traditional standards.
Tack on to that the number of folks who are working jobs making much less than they used to, and we could be talking about half our work force either making far less than they used to, or out of work completely.
I agree with your take on it. The quality of jobs out there is worse than it used to be.
Sorry Jim. Hope things get better for you. I hate to see this.
Is this a math test or verbal? /s
“The equities market is fickle, in the short term. Always has been — always will be. Explaining day to day moves with precision is a fool’s errand.”
One thing that has been consistent is that companies’ stocks soar when they replace American workers with cheaper ones overseas. Using that as a gauge, a strong stock market would indicate a horrible job market for Americans.
“Tack on to that the number of folks who are working jobs making much less than they used to, and we could be talking about half our work force either making far less than they used to, or out of work completely.”
Anyone I know that lost a job and found another doing the same thing is making much less money doing it; salaries/benefits are being reduced to the “new normal” (falling to meet the rising costs of overseas labor).
“Traders Confused: Is the Jobs Market Improving or Not?” Let me help you out here fellas NO it is not improving now go back and push the fake Dow up another few thousand points.
Invisible unemployed, invisible persecution, invisible famine, invisible deaths. This is how communism works its dirty deeds.
If we had a sane government, we would have a full employment policy.
Instead we have policies that benefit Big Business and Big Government. Everyone else is getting screwed.
Plenty of people on this site worship big business. But when companies get big enough to force policy to their advantage at the expense of everyone else,that is no longer free enterprise.
The overseas pressure is real, but don’t forget, when there are 40 million people out of work and there are, the labor is cheap and they can lower wages accordingly.
You’re on to something there. I agree.
Speculators speculating on speculative actions based on news of possible speculative action in the near term
Yep Job Market is improving in my little town. McDonald's is hiring.
Of course 4 businesses have permanently shut their doors in town so far this year taking about 45 jobs with them but Mickey Dees needs three workers so by Obama Job Counting Standards we have a net gain of 5 jobs in town. (I am using Obama Math, 3 jobs equal 5...)
I don’t think we ever should have shifted our jobs overseas. It was a pathetic sham foisted off on the public, and it is destroying our nation.
In January of 2013 we had 134,839,000 people employed in the United States, government and private sector combined. We also had over 40 million fewer jobs than we should have when traditional 40 year growth rates are evaluated and the figures are extrapolated out. We should have around 175 million people employed today.
The jobs growth rate over the last 12 years was 1.73%, when it has traditionally been 28.79% for that period of time.
This means we have 23% of our potential work-force without jobs at all. We also have tens of millions of people working for a lot less wages than they were five years ago.
What’s really strange is that the government doesn’t complain about loss of tax revenues. And you know those losses must be massive. What’s up?
This nation was grabbed by the neck and choked almost to death.
Some of it is corporate policy. Most of it is a government that allow the corporate people to do what they did, no actually enticed them to do it.
What is wrong with this picture? Frankly, a hell of a lot.
What is wrong with this picture? Frankly, a hell of a lot."
Truth. And Corporate Policy is a result of market conditions. And, if your government sets up a situation where it is more beneficial to operate Outside of the USA then Corporate Policy will naturally evolve to fit those conditions.
Further add in the fact that more jobs are also lost to automation each year as machines and robotics get more and more capable of doing the job a man can do and you have the employment situation we have today.
No amount of new legislation can fix the problem. Any half-ass looney Government plan will just make matters worse short of eliminating heavy taxes and/or cutting back on the mountain of needless regulations the Government places on Business in the USA. And we all know Government NEVER does that no matter which party is in charge.
I’ve never been fearful of automation, but I know it is a factor. IMO if you got automation, you’ve also got a lot of people who service the automation equipment. The jobs may shift, but at least there are still jobs.
You may put a guy out of work at a plant, but then he can service the robotics. I still think there are plenty of jobs people can do if our manufacturing came back here.
Let me explain why I say this. Payroll is not always the most costly of components of the end product. Let me give you a simple example.
People always say picking lettuce with foreign labor is the only reason a head of lettuce doesn’t cost $10 to $20 bucks per head. That’s is an idiotic comment.
The cost of picking lettuce is a minor cost in the overall scheme of things. Farmers pay for labor and all factors concerning planting, maintenance, watering, and picking.
Then a middle-man purchases the lettuce and adds in his cut. Then the lettuce is sold to a super market and it adds in it’s mark-up.
In truth, labor is not the biggest cost of the product, from the field to your table. Generally it’s the distribution and profit factors that weight in.
If a guy gets paid $4.00 an hour to pick 200 heads of lettuce, just how much does it add to the head of lettuce if he is paid $20.00 and hour instead.
This adds $16.00 to the picking of those 200 heads of lettuce. And if you divide out the additional cost of those heads of lettuce, you only increase the cost by at most $0.80 cents per head.
And what taxes are we collecting on the $4.00 per hour wages? Zip! And then we have to give them government support, schooling, medical care, housing... Seriously, this makes sense?
Frankly, we’re being jerked around here. With modern production lines, you’re not saving all that much money when you ship stuff off to China to be manufactured. And when you consider shipping there and back, and other costs, it’s simply not worth it to put people out of work here.
When you put people out of work here, it costs our society in countless ways.
They can’t support themselves
They can’t raise decent children
They can’t pay income taxes
They can’t afford medical care
They can’t support the local economy by purchasing
They can’t support the state with taxes
They can’t support the county with taxes
They can’t support the municipality with taxes
And then they have to take money from the government
Pretty soon you see, massive federal budget deficits, states upside down in debt, counties and cities struggling to make ends meet. You see schools underfunded. You see areas in cities deteriorating.
This is what we have seen coast to coast. Tell me the movement of jobs off shore was a great idea.
You wouldn’t believe the multiplier effect on our economy.
If we just consider the trade deficit value alone, taken out of our economy, it would cause trillions of dollars in lost spending in the United States.
You tell me if you think this nation would be better off if spending was increased across our country in local communities to the tune of $3.5 trillion dollars per year.
Take 20 of our largest cities. Could they be benefited by an extra $250 million dollars per year? What about moderate sized cities? Could they be benefited by $100 million dollars in increased spending per year. What about 250 other communities? Could they be helped with $25 to $75 million more commerce per year?
I didn’t do a tally on all this, and it may be off by a bit, but I think you get the point. With that kind of increase the commerce each of these areas would be employing more people, and the government entities would be getting the financial support they needed.
Sadly, our government allowed this to happen. They are strangling the middle class. It simply has to be on purpose.
I cannot understand why.
I’m sure you already knew this. Sorry if it sound argumentative and directed at you. It’s just something that I think about from time to time. It really sucks IMO.
IF that is the way it worked BUT it isn't BECAUSE. the next guy in the chain figures his overhead and profit and adds a percentage to the cost of goods
And if you raise the cost of a head of lettuce 80 cents then the next guy in the chain is going to add at least 10 percent or more to that cost. Now the head of lettuce is 88 cents. then the next guy in the chain adds his profit margin and overhead costs even if it is only 10 percent then the head of lettuce is now 97 cents rounding up. Then if the end seller to to the consummer adds 10 percent then the head of lettuce is now a 1.07 But we both know with all the regulations and costs of employees and now the added cost of Obamacare its more than 10 percent each step of the chain. Now look at the same scenario if its 20% instead of 10. And guess what its neither ten or 20. Usually much more because each level has a good bit of overhead and much of it is based on transportation costs. You are dragging lettuce clear across the country that is not cheap. That is why the claim that lettuce prices would climb dramatically are not only true they are inevitable. Especially being it is a perishable product.
Wrong!
Driving them across country would not change.
As for the increased markups along the line, tell you what, if paying an extra buck twenty-five makes it so you can’t afford lettuce, you’re in the wrong line of work.
I would actually like to pay enough for a head of lettuce to employ a fellow citizen.
Doesn’t bother me at all.
I for one am SHOCKED that the MSM and Nancy Pelosi are not using the slogans:
“Recovery for Wall $treet but not Main Street”
“McJobs”
“Homeless problem”
As for the increased markups along the line, tell you what, if paying an extra buck twenty-five makes it so you can’t afford lettuce, you’re in the wrong line of work."
I'm guessing you've never run a business.
The point is it won't be a buck 25. it will be much more.
If My risk goes up then my reward goes up.
If a head of lettuce costs a buck at the source. and the next guy in the chain must risk a buck-plus to make a profit the costs go up exponentially. That is why pointing out that an 80 cent rise at the source shouldn't make much of a difference is an error, because it in fact makes a huge difference.
that is why with your example the cost of a head of lettuce at the source for picking is around 2-3 cents a head.
Now look at the end price usually around a buck a head.
So add the same markup and what do you get if a head of lettuce that used to cost 10 cents at the source (3 cents for the picker 7 cents for the farmer to make a profit.) Now is bumped 80 more cents. Even if the Farmer stays at the same 7 cents per head cut (BTW he won't because his risks have skyrocketed) then you add the same gross markup that is now in place you get lettuce at 8.70 a head BUT that won't be accurate because costs at each phase will skew the end price even more starting with the farmer.
Your asking the farmer to pay a guy over 10 times more to pick a head of lettuce then he himself will make on the transaction. Guess what, the farmer is not going to incur all that extra risk and not get a a much greater reward. And that is the nature of Capitalism and why your example is wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.