• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

phattonez said:
Malinvestment in higher orders of production means that employees have to shift from capital goods to consumer goods to meet the prevailing time interest. As long as government is trying to prop up an arbitrary time preference, unemployment will continue. The reason higher orders of production are affected more than lower orders is explained by Austrian Business Cycle Theory. It is the only theory that explains why capital goods are always hit harder in a recession than consumer goods.
Click to expand...

ABCT is bunk, and lacks empirical support. Your hatred towards econometrics does not invalidate this fact.
 
imagep said:
The increase in hourly productivity during the recession might explain that, well at least thats my best guess.

How would you explain that?
Click to expand...

fredgraph.png


So much for that theory.
 
Kushinator said:
Yep. It makes sense as well! People are less likely to spend money on real estate when the risk of losing your job increases rather dramatically. We are less likely hold back spending on retail purchases, you know... because they typically do not require financing in the tune of 3 times your yearly income to purchase. You are beginning to grasp at straws.
Click to expand...

You realize that construction employment fell before the recession started, right?
 
phattonez said:
And government is less biased than companies?
Click to expand...

No, not less biased than companies in aggregate, but certainly less bias than companies who have a something to gain by trying to intice people into purchasing the products that they make.

I sell tshirts. If I said that there was going to be a huge shortage of tshirts next year and that you should stock up on them today, wouldn't you suspect that I was being biased?

Our government has people of all ideologies in it, if they were trying to distort facts in one direction or the other, then people in government who have alternative ideologies would be crying foul. Government agencies don't produce perfect reports, but generally I trust them more than sources that have obvious political or self serving motivations. I can't imagine why the government would tell us that we needed more or less welders than what they really expect we will need. There's no political motive for them to do that. They aren't in the welding or anti-welding business.
 
imagep said:
Our government has people of all ideologies in it, if they were trying to distort facts in one direction or the other, then people in government who have alternative ideologies would be crying foul. Government agencies don't produce perfect reports, but generally I trust them more than sources that have obvious political or self serving motivations. I can't imagine why the government would tell us that we needed more or less welders than what they really expect we will need. There's no political motive for them to do that. They aren't in the welding or anti-welding business.
Click to expand...

All government employees are biased in favor of their existence.
 
Kushinator said:
You would have a point if they continually stated that skilled trades were highly demanded, but they do not (this trend began in 2008). Why don't you tell me what would be an acceptable source criteria and i will (just this once) provide one that meets your criteria.
Click to expand...

Skilled trades are in high demand in country's where they exploit their natural resources and create energy. Canada is desperate for tradesmen and is advertising internationally.

Canada has opportunities for skilled American workers - Fox 2 News Headlines
 
phattonez said:
Also hit hard.

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

Ya, everything was hit hard. But utilities were hit much less hard than say, residential construction, yet it is most likely 1000's of times more capital intensive.
 
Kushinator said:
Yep. It makes sense as well! People are less likely to spend money on real estate when the risk of losing your job increases rather dramatically. We are less likely hold back spending on retail purchases, you know... because they typically do not require financing in the tune of 3 times your yearly income to purchase. You are beginning to grasp at straws.
Click to expand...

If spending was the cause, then you would expect a fall in spending to precede the fall in construction employment. Yet take a look.

fredgraph.png


They fall at the same time!
 
phattonez said:
fredgraph.png


So much for that theory.
Click to expand...

That pretty much reflects what happend in my business during the recession. My first reaction was to hand onto my employees, because I hoped for a short recession. I blew through nearly all of my savings paying people to sit around. As I saw my savings dwindle, and also my expectations, I started cutting employees, and searching for ways to become more productive, and my sales/labor dollar increased.

Now note that at the beginning of the recession, productivity per work hour was at about 107, and today it is at 116 or so. Thats nearly a 10% increase in productivity since the beginning of the recession. There should be no wonder why employment hasn't had a better recovery when on average we are producing 10% more in the same amount of time.
 
phattonez said:
All government employees are biased in favor of their existence.
Click to expand...

Sure, but no government employees are in the business of producing welding equipment or hammers.
 
phattonez said:
If spending was the cause, then you would expect a fall in spending to precede the fall in construction employment. Yet take a look.

fredgraph.png


They fall at the same time!
Click to expand...

Why would anyone expect a fall in construction spending before a fall in spending on construction employees? It's virtually the same thing, and yes, they should rise or fall at nearly exactly the same rate.

Again, I think I am missing the point of this entire argument, maybe even the entire thread.
 
imagep said:
That pretty much reflects what happend in my business during the recession. My first reaction was to hand onto my employees, because I hoped for a short recession. I blew through nearly all of my savings paying people to sit around. As I saw my savings dwindle, and also my expectations, I started cutting employees, and searching for ways to become more productive, and my sales/labor dollar increased.

Now note that at the beginning of the recession, productivity per work hour was at about 107, and today it is at 116 or so. Thats nearly a 10% increase in productivity since the beginning of the recession. There should be no wonder why employment hasn't had a better recovery when on average we are producing 10% more in the same amount of time.
Click to expand...

You have no correlation though. This is the same increase in productivity that we've had through the 2000s. What then is causing unemployment to remain so high?
 
The BLS predicts the employment rate for welders to experience little or no change, and if it does change, it may decline 2% between 2008 and 2018. Increased automation and advancements in productivity and efficiency will contribute to the reduced need for manual welding. For this reason, the BLS also predicts job prospects will be better for those trained in the newest welding technologies.
Click to expand...

Master Welder: Salary and Career Facts
 
imagep said:
Why would anyone expect a fall in construction spending before a fall in spending on construction employees? It's virtually the same thing, and yes, they should rise or fall at nearly exactly the same rate.

Again, I think I am missing the point of this entire argument, maybe even the entire thread.
Click to expand...

If A causes B, then A must precede B.
 
imagep said:
So did home construction. And your point is?
Click to expand...

That if you're just going to blame spending in general, then:

A) All industries should be equally affected.
B) Decreases in spending should precede decrease in production/unemployment.

Neither of those things are true.
 
drz-400 said:
For perspective

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

In defense of utilities, that's not nearly as speculative as construction, which would explain why it was the least affected. In effect, when you produce energy, you are producing a consumer goods. It is higher orders of production (to be more technical) that are most affected, and generally that's the more capital-intensive industries. In other words, whatever is furthest away from consumers is affected the most.
 
phattonez said:
You have no correlation though. This is the same increase in productivity that we've had through the 2000s. What then is causing unemployment to remain so high?
Click to expand...

The median household income hasn't increased as much as during the 2000's (I don't know, that's just a guess).

Seriously, the 10% increase in productivity in just four years is huge. Here is another chart showing what I am talking about
chart-of-the-day-output-per-hour-of-all-persons-2005-2010.gif


Also, the labor participation rate dropped during the entire 2000's, even before the recession.

Increases in productivity are simply happening at a faster rate than increases in demand. Chart out the trend for another 50 or 100 years and our labor force participation rate may be down to almost nothing.
 
phattonez said:
That if you're just going to blame spending in general, then:

A) All industries should be equally affected.
B) Decreases in spending should precede decrease in production/unemployment.

Neither of those things are true.
Click to expand...

The Bush Housing bubble was the cause of the rise and fall of construction spending and employment. Where were you in 2002-2007? On Mars?
 
phattonez said:
That's not little change. That's huge. A 5% change over a typical 62.5% means that 8% more people are unemployed than are typically employed. Nearly 1 in 10 people who would be working are not.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Not employed is not the same as unemployed. While the emp-pop ratio has gone down and the labor force participation has gone down, the percent of people who do not want to work has gone up. Not a complete offset, but you can't use changes in labor force % or emp-pop % to talk about how many people would be working.
 
Grant said:
It seems you don't quite understand. What you mentioned will still be studied and analyzed. The other is just a simple formula used in demographics to determine the future costs of public programs and how they will be paid. Roght now the boomers are going to need a lot of young people there to pay for their pensions, medical expenses and so forth. Will these expenses be covered by those who are working and paying taxes is an important question. This research also has implications in immigration also.
Click to expand...

So I'm at a loss as to why you think any changes need to be made or what you think isn't covered under current methodology. Like I said, a broad outline of what you have in mind would be useful.
 
pinqy said:
No it doesn't. Not employed is not the same as unemployed. While the emp-pop ratio has gone down and the labor force participation has gone down, the percent of people who do not want to work has gone up. Not a complete offset, but you can't use changes in labor force % or emp-pop % to talk about how many people would be working.
Click to expand...

What's the fundamental change, then? You say age? Explain why unemployment among 20-24 year olds is at 13.7%.
 
Helix said:
recovery is still slow and exceptionally delicate.
we aren't out of the woods yet.[/
QUOTE]

There is NO recovery, there WAS no job growth.

Just stop and think for a second. What if 4 years into a Republicans term we Cons were parroting some ridiculous diatribe about a "recovery" if there had been a record shrinkage in the labor pool and a record number of people dependent on govt services ??

No, we're sinking...STILL.. and no amount of twisted job reports or GDP numbers from a highly corrupt White House will change that.

And the worst is yet to come as liberals scoff at us Cons when we mention the debt because to them its a "non-issue".

Lets see if its a non-issue when interest rates increase and we cant even afford to service our debt as millions more depend on Govt asistance that WON'T be there or millions more line up in unemployment lines.

You people did this. Those who ignorantly re-elected a man who's the least qualififed person in every room he walks into.

Your solution to replacing a President who had integrity and was qualified and who you called an idiot, liar, chimp, etc was to elect AN ACTUAL LIAR AND A IDIOT......
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom