Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 202

Thread: Payrolls Climb More Than Forecast, U.S. Jobless Rate at 5.5%

  1. #191
    Educator WallStreetVixen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York City/London
    Last Seen
    06-04-15 @ 11:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    715

    Re: Payrolls Climb More Than Forecast, U.S. Jobless Rate at 5.5%

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I'll add briefly to your point about the demand for positions, as there is a broader context. There was also an increase in the supply of positions (job openings) especially from 2013 and afterward. For a quick sketch, the JOLTS data showed 3.612 million openings in December 2012, 3.914 million openings in December 2013 and 5.028 million openings in December 2014. The number of openings increased notably as household deleveraging finally ended in 2013 as revealed by data among the Federal Reserve's Financial Accounts report, among other sources.
    Job openings increased all throughout the recovery... The economy went from a 1.6% job openings rate to 3.5% in December, the highest its been since 2001. I really don't see where you think was game changer between.

    Aside from that, your timeline doesn't make any sense.



    Households stopped deleveraging in July - Sept 2013, the third financial quarter. Last time I checked, that's not the end of 2013. Around that time, the jobs opening rate was 2.7%. Fast forward to April 2014, when the jobs opening rate breached key resistance levels of 2.9. That's two full financial quarters after the deleveraging occurred.

    Considering the timeline, whatever you think happened, didn't. Especially when you consider the contraction in Q1 and the rebound in the Q2, which wasn't much better than Q3 2013 during the deleveraging period. My timeline makes much more sense. Government failed to extend emergency benefits, people lost their benefits and were forced to look for work. There is a significant correlation of this occuring, especially when you look at hires from JOLTS, along with the job openings rate.

    The end of household deleveraging contributed to an increase in aggregate demand, certain sectors could no longer accommodate that increase in demand via productivity gains, and the demand among employers for labor (supply of positions for potential employees) picked up as evidenced in the JOLTS data. Of course, some of the data is still subject to revision, but it appears that the revisions would need to be fairly large to materially change the general themes noted above.
    I'm sorry, but that's really not how it worked at all. There was also no evidence that aggregate demand picked up. None.



    Average growth for 2014 falls inline with average growth for the entire economic recovery, which is 2.3%. Along with the boost in the final two quarters from spending is more is slightly better than the average spending the economy has experienced within the last 5 years. Other than that, there is no acceleration in economic growth, or consumer spending. You, for whatever reason, believe that the deleveraging resulted in an increase in aggregate demand. This didn't end up happening. People also thought that the savings from lower gas prices would also translate into more spending in the economy. This also did not come to fruition.
    Last edited by WallStreetVixen; 03-09-15 at 08:37 PM.

  2. #192
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,122

    Re: Payrolls Climb More Than Forecast, U.S. Jobless Rate at 5.5%

    Quote Originally Posted by Chainsaw View Post
    Since the liberals have a made it comfortable to ride the entitlement deadbeat-wagon, more Americans are doing just that rather than working,......ie so the jobless rate drops. Do you REALLY think that is a benefit to society? The job participation rate is at a 40 plus year low, it is even worse for women and minorities, food stamps, welfare and all the other entitlements have historical high usage, both in numbers and percentage of population. Is that REALLY progress in the mind of a progressive grubercrat?
    This is so off base I'm not even sure where to begin. Do you really think living on welfare is an alternative to working? Do you know anyone that lives on welfare or food stamps? Have you ever read any of the diaries of people that tried to do this?

    Panera CEO Will Spend This Week Living on a Food Stamp Budget - DailyFinance
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20130...t-list-large_0
    The ‘SNAP Challenge:’ The claim that food stamp recipients get by on $4.50 a day - The Washington Post
    SNAP/Food Stamp Challenges Food Research & Action Center
    Congressional Food Stamp Challenge
    Food Stamped : A Documentary Film by Shira & Yoav Potash
    https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...1131519AAeqHTA

    Sorry, but the American safety is thread bare.

    As to the labor participation rate, clearly you have no clue what it is and what it means. Its changes are not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing. They are often just a demographic thing. So, unless you have a particular component of the Not in Labor Force number that bothers you, citing the aggregate number or aggregate change is simply throwing numbers around you do not understand.

    You obviously did no research on this subject prior to your posting, so consider my cross-references my personal hand-out to you; sort of intellectual welfare. Now, don't get dependent on this, as most of us in this community would like to see you do your own work.

  3. #193
    Educator Chainsaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Last Seen
    10-04-16 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    790

    Re: Payrolls Climb More Than Forecast, U.S. Jobless Rate at 5.5%

    Something stinks in that jobs report

    Just drill into the numbers.
    The Gruber-crat is strong in this one!

  4. #194
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Payrolls Climb More Than Forecast, U.S. Jobless Rate at 5.5%

    Quote Originally Posted by WallStreetVixen View Post
    Job openings increased all throughout the recovery... The economy went from a 1.6% job openings rate to 3.5% in December, the highest its been since 2001. I really don't see where you think was game changer between.
    Both the rate of employment growth and number of job openings picked up, especially later in the recovery. My point is that one saw both supply and demand-side factors involved in employment outcomes e.g., falling unemployment rate.

    Households stopped deleveraging in July - Sept 2013, the third financial quarter. Last time I checked, that's not the end of 2013.
    I wrote "ended in 2013" not "end of 2013."

    There was also no evidence that aggregate demand picked up. None.
    If one looks only at quarterly fluctuations, the volatility can hide the improvement that has taken place. If one looks at annual Real Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) one finds the following year-to-year growth:

    2010 1.9%
    2011 2.3%
    2012 1.8%
    2013 2.4%
    2014 2.5%

    Moreover, the annualized growth in real PCE from since the beginning of 2013 Q3 (through 2014 Q4) has been 2.8%.

    In sum, the evidence that the end of household deleveraging contributed to an increase in aggregate demand is available so long as one cuts through the quarter-to-quarter volatility. Other factors are also involved.

    (For those interested in running the numbers, the data can be found here: http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?req...00&910=x&911=0)

    For those interested, the following is a good paper on household deleveraging: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1643.pdf. Although the paper goes beyond the impact of deleveraging on economic activity/consumption/labor market changes, it has some relevant information. It states:

    As we have shown in the last section of the paper, it seems that the extent of leveraging by households has indeed been correlated with economic performance across US states. In particular, high deleveraging states have experienced much sharper boom-bust cycles in house prices and increases in delinquency rates, while the labour market also had a worse performance. This topic remains a theme to be explored in future research.

    You, for whatever reason, believe that the deleveraging resulted in an increase in aggregate demand.
    The data shows it. The recent literature acknowledges it.

    P.S. Nice blog.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 03-10-15 at 12:18 AM.

  5. #195
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Payrolls Climb More Than Forecast, U.S. Jobless Rate at 5.5%

    Quote Originally Posted by Declan View Post
    Sure Eastman-Kodak is an example of that, but it really doesn't address the issue on the consumption side. Would me buying a bag of chips at 3% profit for Kroger for $1 be better or worse for the economy than me buying a pack of firecrackers for $1 at a 20% profit to the head shop.
    While there may be shortcomings when personal utility, among other factors, shapes demand for various products/services, overall, a market economy where consumers freely make their own choices is vastly more effective across a broad range of measures than any alternative. This does not mean that there aren't limitations e.g., externalities. But overall, the economy is better (larger, more products/services, etc.) than what would be seen under any alternative that has been devised to date.

  6. #196
    Guru
    Declan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 04:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    4,670

    Re: Payrolls Climb More Than Forecast, U.S. Jobless Rate at 5.5%

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    While there may be shortcomings when personal utility, among other factors, shapes demand for various products/services, overall, a market economy where consumers freely make their own choices is vastly more effective across a broad range of measures than any alternative. This does not mean that there aren't limitations e.g., externalities. But overall, the economy is better (larger, more products/services, etc.) than what would be seen under any alternative that has been devised to date.
    Sure, but still doesn't address the issue. Let me try to rephrase it, does it matter what we spend our money on as long as we are spending it on something, and if so, how do we plan for that? (I'll give you a clue to why I ask: leaky buckets)
    If I blow the conch and they don't come back; then we've had it. We shan't keep the fire going. We'll be like animals. We'll never be rescued.

  7. #197
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,122

    Re: Payrolls Climb More Than Forecast, U.S. Jobless Rate at 5.5%

    Quote Originally Posted by Chainsaw View Post
    Something stinks in that jobs report

    Just drill into the numbers.
    No question job numbers are multi-faceted, with some good news, some bad news, some troubling trends and some encouraging trends. Economic reports are complex.

    I took issue with your rant that people are comfortable on welfare and that the labor participation rate, in and of itself, was some type of indictment on a soft economy.

    No question that the U-3 is improving, but I do believe the U-6 number is more telling. I do believe the labor market is tightening (I see it first hand, as hiring qualified people is really hard for me right now, in a state where unemployment is under 4%), but that wages are stagnant (but that is 30 year trend, nothing new). I do question how strong our recovery really is.

    I do not agree, however, that people are not in the job market because they would rather be on welfare. I generally think that is an ignorant position, for those that hold it. I also believe 90% of the people on this board have no clue about what the labor participation rate means and what constitutes "Not in the Labor Force". In spite of that ignorance, many of those 90% seem to have an opinion on something they are woefully uneducated about.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 03-10-15 at 12:36 AM.

  8. #198
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Payrolls Climb More Than Forecast, U.S. Jobless Rate at 5.5%

    Quote Originally Posted by Declan View Post
    Sure, but still doesn't address the issue. Let me try to rephrase it, does it matter what we spend our money on as long as we are spending it on something, and if so, how do we plan for that? (I'll give you a clue to why I ask: leaky buckets)
    The issues of redistribution and inequality are beyond the scope of what I was discussing, even as they would make a worthy policy debate.

  9. #199
    Educator WallStreetVixen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York City/London
    Last Seen
    06-04-15 @ 11:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    715

    Re: Payrolls Climb More Than Forecast, U.S. Jobless Rate at 5.5%

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Both the rate of employment growth and number of job openings picked up, especially later in the recovery. My point is that one saw both supply and demand-side factors involved in employment outcomes e.g., falling unemployment rate.
    That's nice, but none of which had to do with any household sector delivering or an increase in aggregate demand.

    I wrote "ended in 2013" not "end of 2013."
    The timeline doesn't match up regardless.

    If one looks only at quarterly fluctuations, the volatility can hide the improvement that has taken place. If one looks at annual Real Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) one finds the following year-to-year growth:

    2010 1.9%
    2011 2.3%
    2012 1.8%
    2013 2.4%
    2014 2.5%

    Moreover, the annualized growth in real PCE from since the beginning of 2013 Q3 (through 2014 Q4) has been 2.8%.

    In sum, the evidence that the end of household deleveraging contributed to an increase in aggregate demand is available so long as one cuts through the quarter-to-quarter volatility. Other factors are also involved.
    If one looks at annual PCE, that person will be lumping in the deleveraging quarters from Q1 - Q2 2013. If one looks at quarterly variations (which is what you're supposed to do), you can actually find the point of divergence, which doesn't exist.



    That makes your rhetoric statistically invalid and it doesn't make much sense either way. Compounded growth is not going to detail how big of a contribution PCE made to aggregate demand, which is none. It is only going to tell you that personal consumption grew in one year, at an annaulised rate, from the previous year. The contributions made to aggregate demand in 2014 was 1.7, which falls in line with PCE average since the expansion started.



    (For those interested in running the numbers, the data can be found here: http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?req...00&910=x&911=0)
    What exactly are you supposed to be showing here? Dig into what data?

    For those interested, the following is a good paper on household deleveraging: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1643.pdf. Although the paper goes beyond the impact of deleveraging on economic activity/consumption/labor market changes, it has some relevant information.
    Why bring it up if it has absolutely zero to do with anything discussed here? Just for a quote?

    It states:

    As we have shown in the last section of the paper, it seems that the extent of leveraging by households has indeed been correlated with economic performance across US states. In particular, high deleveraging states have experienced much sharper boom-bust cycles in house prices and increases in delinquency rates, while the labour market also had a worse performance. This topic remains a theme to be explored in future research.
    The paper only considers one factor when considering labor market health: the unemployment rate. That is hardly an indicator of a worsening/improving labour market, especially if you're not even going to discuss employment growth.



    The data shows it. The recent literature acknowledges it.
    You're very mistaken on both counts. The data shows there was no overall growth in the contributions to aggregate demand, aggregate demand has not accelerated and it is very unclear whether or not delivering had anything to do with it. You even stated that your own source has little to do with the impact of deleveraging on aggregate demand, consumption or employment, so I don't know what you think it is supposed to be 'acknowledging.'
    Last edited by WallStreetVixen; 03-10-15 at 01:16 AM.

  10. #200
    Educator Chainsaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Last Seen
    10-04-16 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    790

    Re: Payrolls Climb More Than Forecast, U.S. Jobless Rate at 5.5%

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    No question job numbers are multi-faceted, with some good news, some bad news, some troubling trends and some encouraging trends. Economic reports are complex.

    I took issue with your rant that people are comfortable on welfare and that the labor participation rate, in and of itself, was some type of indictment on a soft economy.

    No question that the U-3 is improving, but I do believe the U-6 number is more telling. I do believe the labor market is tightening (I see it first hand, as hiring qualified people is really hard for me right now, in a state where unemployment is under 4%), but that wages are stagnant (but that is 30 year trend, nothing new). I do question how strong our recovery really is.

    I do not agree, however, that people are not in the job market because they would rather be on welfare. I generally think that is an ignorant position, for those that hold it. I also believe 90% of the people on this board have no clue about what the labor participation rate means and what constitutes "Not in the Labor Force". In spite of that ignorance, many of those 90% seem to have an opinion on something they are woefully uneducated about.
    Then forget about the job participation rate, which includes everything from lazy working age a-holes, to the retired, but regardless, it is at a 40 year high, both in numbers and percent of pop. Just look at the growth in entitlement programs enrollees if that makes you feel more warm and fuzzy.

    It term of my experience hiring, I too see some issues. Too many idiots with visible tatoos/body art. Too many people that when they hear when there will be random periodic drug tests, walk out. Too many aholes who think they are entitled to be able to work only when they want to work. Too many idiots with undergraduate or graduate degrees in worthless studies. If half of the kids in the nearly worthless liberal arts programs, were in math, engineering or science the US would not have to import some many foreign workers.
    The Gruber-crat is strong in this one!

Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •