Yea sure, like there x many unemployed in the UK (whatever the number is) apart from those living on the streets, in hospital or on some benefit which makes them 'not unemployed' in the bureaucratic sense, in prison and all the rest because they don't count right? There are lies, 'spin', damn lies and statistics and we all know how the unemployment figures can be fiddled.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The US Recovery
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by snapper View PostYea sure, like there x many unemployed in the UK (whatever the number is) apart from those living on the streets, in hospital or on some benefit which makes them 'not unemployed' in the bureaucratic sense, in prison and all the rest because they don't count right? There are lies, 'spin', damn lies and statistics and we all know how the unemployment figures can be fiddled.Trust me?
I'm an economist!
Comment
-
Score one for Trump? Yet to see the particulars. Could be window dressing or could be the real deal.
"Reshaping their trade relationship, the U.S. and China have revealed a new 10-point package that will see the latter open its market to American companies and agencies. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the import/export deals on beef, poultry, natural gas, agriculture, financial services and biotechnology will help reduce the massive trade deficit with Beijing."
From Seeking Alpha news feed.To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
Comment
-
Originally posted by snapper View PostYea sure, like there x many unemployed in the UK (whatever the number is) apart from those living on the streets, in hospital or on some benefit which makes them 'not unemployed' in the bureaucratic sense, in prison and all the rest because they don't count right? There are lies, 'spin', damn lies and statistics and we all know how the unemployment figures can be fiddled.
"Not working" is not the same thing as "unemployed." Unemployment needs a consistent, useful measurement and definition, so we can target economic policy accordingly. So various people who dropped out of the labor force for any reason and are no longer looking for work are not "unemployed." You have to actually be looking for a job in order to get a job, and that's the figure we target.
Our unemployment figure is quite low. This suggests that we are at, or near, full employment. So we are not going to begin massive stimulus programs, which will have little affect besides driving up inflation.
Our other labor market indicators tell us the same story:
1. Quits are up. People are voluntarily leaving their jobs. That means they think they can get new, better paying jobs.
2. Jobless claims are down. Companies are not laying people off like they used to.
3. Wage growth is there.
4. Labor cost growth is there.
All our indicators tell us that we are nearing full employment. There's been a decline in the labor force, but more stimulus is not going to affect that."The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck
Comment
-
Originally posted by GVChamp View PostOur unemployment figure is quite low. This suggests that we are at, or near, full employment. So we are not going to begin massive stimulus programs, which will have little affect besides driving up inflation.
We probably will get a large fiscal stimulus, because the Trumpeting GOPers want to further line the pockets of their big-money donors. Taking money from the many to redistribute to the few -- basic GOPer philosophy over the past 35 years -- and doing so in a way that ramps up the fiscal deficit -- again, GOPer 101 -- is always going to be "stimulating."
It might well drive up inflation in normal times, but the on-going recovery from the 2007-09 economic disaster has left us with very little that is normal.Trust me?
I'm an economist!
Comment
-
Economists are puzzled about why incomes aren’t rising — but workers have a good hunch
By Pedro Nicolaci da Costa
Economists are often wringing their hands over why, despite a continuous eight-year economic recovery, workers’ wages remain largely stagnant, extending a trend that began some three decades ago.
Yet anyone who has applied for a job in the last couple of years knows that, while the US unemployment rate is historically low at 4.4%, the labor market isn’t exactly bustling.
Companies have become a lot more reticent about making new investments in the wake of the Great Recession and during the weak economic recovery that has followed it. That includes investing in people, and the hiring process has become slower and more onerous.
It also means wage increases have become even harder to come by.
The recession caused lasting damage to the job market which still resonates to this day. Steven Partridge, vice president for workforce development at Northern Virginia Community College (NOVA), says the crisis created what he calls "degree inflation" in job requirements — a trend correlated with stagnant and sometimes falling incomes as workers lost their jobs and considered themselves lucky to take lower-paying ones.
In other words, because applicants were so desperate and the pool was so wide, the bar for hiring became unrealistically, and often unnecessarily high. The trend has abated, but not fully receded.
"The downturn made everyone push up their education requirements,” Partridge told Business Insider.
Several job market indicators point to underlying weakness — high levels of long-term joblessness, low labor force participation and, yes, a distinct lack of wage growth.
Albert Edwards, market strategist at Societe Generale, deserves credit for doing something that’s rather rare on Wall Street — admitting he was wrong, specifically about the prospect of imminent wage increases.
"Talking about wrong, I have to put my hands up. I have been expecting US wage inflation to roar ahead over the past three months to well above 3%, yet every data release has surprised on the downside," he wrote in a note to clients.
"Wage inflation, as measured by average hourly earnings, has actually leveled off at close to 2-1⁄2% while wage inflation for ‘the workers’ is actually slowing! Strictly speaking, the workers are defined (by the BLS) as those who are not primarily employed to direct, supervise, or plan the work of others. Hey, that's me!"
Fed officials have also struggled to understand the absence of wage increases. In a recent research brief from the San Francisco Fed, staff economist Mary Daly and co-authors reflect on what they see as a surprising trend.
"Standard economic theory tells us that wage growth and unemployment are intimately linked. Wage growth slows when the unemployment rate rises and increases when the unemployment rate falls," they write. "The experience since the Great Recession has been very different."
"This slow wage growth likely reflects recent cyclical and secular shifts in the composition rather than a weak labor market. In particular, while higher-wage baby boomers have been retiring, lower-wage workers sidelined during the recession have been taking new full-time jobs," they said. "Together these two changes have held down measures of wage growth."
Their explanation provides little comfort in the face of the depressed labor market many Americans still face, especially lower-income and minority families.
The Fed authors also suggest a factor in low income growth that might ring true to those families: " As long as employers can keep their wage bills low by replacing or expanding staff with lower-paid workers, labor cost pressures for higher price inflation could remain muted for some time."
As suggested in that last excerpt, labor’s bargaining power vis-a-vis employers is probably at least as important as unfavorable demographics in explaining slow wage growth. It will take a substantially stronger economy to tilt that balance back in workers' favor. Link
__________________
Something I've been saying for years. This "recovery" is nothing of the kind for your average working stiff.“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by TopHatter View Post[
__________________
Something I've been saying for years. This "recovery" is nothing of the kind for your average working stiff.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
Something I've been saying for years. This "recovery" is nothing of the kind for your average working stiff.Last edited by tbm3fan; 21 May 17,, 05:25.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tbm3fan View Postand out here we have a news article one week ago about how Google and Facebook are paying summer interns $8000/month. No wonder the pay scale of some (roughly 20% in tech) has so distorted the cost of living for the majority in the Bay Area. There are a few places where $100,000 is considered poverty level.
https://news.research.stlouisfed.org...cators-series/
Quits nearly at pre-crisis levels.
Nearly: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DHIDFHQTRT
Vacancy-to-unemployment blew right past pre-crisis levels: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DHIDFHVTUR
Vacancy duration at unprecidented highs: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DHIDFHMVDMTrust me?
I'm an economist!
Comment
-
Those wage increases are not adjusted by CPI. CPI has been much more muted during the recent recovery than during past business cycle recoveries. You can't see it too well, but the right-hand % is wage growth after accounting for CPI. The left hand is the year. I bolded the last few years of each cycle.
Year Jan Average CPI Inflation Real Wage Wage Growth
1964 2.5 31 1.30% 8.064516129
1965 2.58 31.5 1.60% 8.19047619 1.56%
1966 2.68 32.5 3.00% 8.246153846 0.68%
1967 2.79 33.4 2.80% 8.353293413 1.30%
1968 2.94 34.8 4.30% 8.448275862 1.14%
1969 3.12 36.7 5.50% 8.501362398 0.63%
1970 3.31 38.8 5.80% 8.530927835 0.35%
1971 3.52 40.5 4.30% 8.691358025 1.88%
1972 3.8 41.8 3.30% 9.090909091 4.60%
1973 4.03 44.4 6.20% 9.076576577 -0.16%
1974 4.26 49.3 11.10% 8.640973631 -4.80%
1975 4.61 53.8 9.10% 8.568773234 -0.84%
1976 4.9 56.9 5.70% 8.611599297 0.50%
1977 5.26 60.6 6.50% 8.679867987 0.79%
1978 5.66 65.2 7.60% 8.680981595 0.01%
1979 6.14 72.6 11.30% 8.457300275 -2.58%
1980 6.57 82.4 13.50% 7.973300971 -5.72%
1981 7.19 90.9 10.30% 7.909790979 -0.80%
1982 7.72 96.5 6.10% 8 1.14%
1983 8.06 99.6 3.20% 8.092369478 1.15%
1984 8.38 103.9 4.30% 8.065447546 -0.33%
1985 8.61 107.6 3.50% 8.001858736 -0.79%
1986 8.85 109.6 1.90% 8.074817518 0.91%
1987 9.02 113.6 3.70% 7.940140845 -1.67%
1988 9.29 118.3 4.10% 7.852916314 -1.10%
1989 9.65 124 4.80% 7.782258065 -0.90%
1990 10.02 130.7 5.40% 7.66641163 -1.49%
1991 10.38 136.2 4.20% 7.621145374 -0.59%
1992 10.65 140.3 3.00% 7.590876693 -0.40%
1993 10.93 144.5 3.00% 7.564013841 -0.35%
1994 11.21 148.2 2.60% 7.564102564 0.00%
1995 11.49 152.4 2.80% 7.539370079 -0.33%
1996 11.87 156.9 2.90% 7.565328235 0.34%
1997 12.29 160.5 2.30% 7.657320872 1.22%
1998 12.79 163 1.60% 7.846625767 2.47%
1999 13.27 166.6 2.20% 7.965186074 1.51%
2000 13.75 172.2 3.40% 7.984901278 0.25%
2001 14.29 177.1 2.80% 8.068887634 1.05%
2002 14.76 179.9 1.60% 8.204558088 1.68%
2003 15.22 184 2.30% 8.27173913 0.82%
2004 15.5 188.9 2.70% 8.205399682 -0.80%
2005 15.9 195.3 3.40% 8.141321045 -0.78%
2006 16.42 201.6 3.20% 8.14484127 0.04%
2007 17.09 207.3 2.90% 8.24409069 1.22%
2008 17.74 215.3 3.80% 8.239665583 -0.05%
2009 18.4 214.5 -0.40% 8.578088578 4.11%
2010 18.89 218.1 1.60% 8.661164603 0.97%
2011 19.3 224.9 3.20% 8.581591819 -0.92%
2012 19.57 229.6 2.10% 8.523519164 -0.68%
2013 19.94 233 1.50% 8.557939914 0.40%
2014 20.4 236.7 1.60% 8.618504436 0.71%
2015 20.81 237 0.10% 8.780590717 1.88%
2016 21.32 240 1.30% 8.883333333 1.17%
2017 21.83 244.3 1.80% 8.935734752 0.59%
CPI overstates inflation regardless, and you can see that the wages of non-supervisory workers is doing better, post-CPI adjustment, than most other business cycles.
EDIT: There's a better looking graph, but it's all private workers (not excluding supervisory). Also weekly and not hourly, but it points to the same general point.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881900Q
Also, supervisors and managers are important parts of the economy. We aren't talking "CEOs," we're talking almost a fifth of workers. Mostly middle management. They are an important labor cost and an important part of the economy.Last edited by GVChamp; 22 May 17,, 17:22."The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck
Comment
-
GVChamp,
CPI overstates inflation regardless,
Why oh why won’t they go back to the good old 1970s definition of CPI?
After all, aside from the fact that they are totally obsolete and irrelevant to the cost of living in the 21st century, what’s wrong with
Rotary dial home landline phones,
Betamax cassettes,
Hamilton Beach popcorn poppers,
Benson & Hedges cigarettes,
Roadrunners, Rancheros and, let’s not forget the
AMC Pacer.
That’s what a CPI should look like in 2017!
[/sarcasm]
Try these graphs:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LEU0252881600ATrust me?
I'm an economist!
Comment
-
I don't have a problem with that graph, but the article is specifically calling out wages for non-supervisory workers. I didn't find any series like that in the FRED databases, so I had to back into my own.
Either way, the reason wage growth looks lower is just because the overall inflation is lower. Wages are rising faster than they were in most prior recoveries. There's not a lot of evidence we have much labor slack left and wages are increasing to reflect that."The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck
Comment
-
Originally posted by GVChamp View PostI don't have a problem with that graph, but the article is specifically calling out wages for non-supervisory workers. I didn't find any series like that in the FRED databases, so I had to back into my own.
Either way, the reason wage growth looks lower is just because the overall inflation is lower. Wages are rising faster than they were in most prior recoveries. There's not a lot of evidence we have much labor slack left and wages are increasing to reflect that.
It took me all of 20 seconds to find nonsupervisory wages data.
Average Hourly Earnings of Production and Nonsupervisory Employees: Total Private
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AHETPI
Average Hourly Earnings of Production and Nonsupervisory Employees: Manufacturing
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES3000000008
Average Hourly Earnings of Production and Nonsupervisory Employees: Construction
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AHECONS
Just type "nonsupervisory" into the search engineTrust me?
I'm an economist!
Comment
-
Comment