| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| shoot me a PM, I'll show you goods!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
The real economy
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/05/06/why_fridays_jobs_report_was_ominous_100301.html
Friday's "Employment Situation" report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) wasn't just bad, it was ominous. We're going to discuss what was ominous about it, and what progressive economic policies have to do with all of this. However, first, let's look at why the report was not good news.
While most pundits have focused on the BLS Establishment Survey, which reported that 165,000 payroll jobs had been created during April, the Household Survey* numbers told a much different story.
Total employment rose by 293,000 during April, but part-time jobs increased by 441,000. As a result, full-time jobs declined by 148,000.
The number of "full-time-equivalent" (FTE) jobs** only increased by 73,000. This was not enough to keep pace with the growth of our working-age population, so the "FTE jobs ratio" (the number of FTE jobs per 100 working-age Americans), fell.
While the "headline" (U-3) unemployment rate declined by 0.1 percentage points to 7.5% during April, the broader U-6 rate increased by 0.1 percentage points (to 13.9%). The even-more-comprehensive "SGS Alternative" unemployment rate also rose by 0.1 percentage points, equaling its record high of 23.0%, a level it first attained in December.
The April jobs numbers describe a mass replacement of full-time workers with part-time employees, coupled with a fall in the length of the average workweek. This happens to be precisely what you would expect, given the perverse incentives baked into Obamacare, which took effect on January 1.
OK, so that's why Friday's BLS report was bad. Now, let's look at why it was ominous.
During April, the FTE jobs ratio fell for the fifth month in a row, to 53.09. The earliest warning signal for every recession since 1955 (the first year for which the data is available) has been a significant, sustained decline in this ratio.
As of April, the fall in the FTE jobs ratio from its local peak was only 0.11. This is not yet a strong indicator of an impending recession. Only one of the recessions since 1955 (that of 1970) was presaged by this mild a decline, and there were eight instances during the past 50 years where the FTE jobs ratio declined by this much over five months, and the economy did not fall into recession.
This having been said, there also has never been a case where the FTE jobs ratio fell for five months in a row and a recession did not follow. So the recent decline is definitely something to be concerned about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Seriosuly Steve...youre posting an article by Louis Woodhill from May of 2013? Two years ago? Guess what? almost all of the metrics from that report have reversed. Please dont tell me you just watched Rick Santelli interview Woodhill on CNBC then Googled his name and found this old article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
BLS January 2015 report. Good news or bad news, you be the judge.
| Quote: | Household Survey Data
The unemployment rate, at 5.7 percent, changed little in January and has shown no net change since October. The number of unemployed persons, at 9.0 million, was little changed in January. (See table A-1. See the note at the end of this news release and tables B and C for information about annual population adjustments to the household survey estimates.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for teenagers (18.8 percent) increased in January. The jobless rates for adult men (5.3 percent), adult women (5.1 percent), whites (4.9 percent), blacks (10.3 percent), Asians (4.0 percent), and Hispanics (6.7 percent) showed little or no change. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
In January, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was essentially unchanged at 2.8 million. These individuals accounted for 31.5 percent of the unemployed. Over the past 12 months, the number of long-term unemployed is down by 828,000. (See table A-12.)
After accounting for the annual adjustments to the population controls, the civilian labor force rose by 703,000 in January. The labor force participation rate rose by 0.2 percentage point to 62.9 percent, following a decline of equal magnitude in the prior month. Total employment, as measured by the household survey, increased by 435,000 in January, and the employment-population ratio was little changed at 59.3 percent. (See table A-1. For additional information about the effects of the population adjustments, see table C.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged in January at 6.8 million. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)
In January, 2.2 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by 358,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they
had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 682,000 discouraged workers in January, down by 155,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.6 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in January had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Not Bad...Note: the report is for the Household Survey, not the Establishment Survey. In this report the long term unemployed was reduced by almsot a million people, which is a recent trend. The private sector is adding more jobs now, than at any time since 1998. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| His legacy will be forever compared to that of Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who, like Obama, thought the radical guys were the junior varsity. Chamberlain's bad guys were called Nazis, and they WERE the JV in the sense that they wanted to kill only all the Jews in the world, not 7 billion non-ISIS-freaks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
