EMPLOYMENT REPORT
The employment report was bad, as private payroll employment only rose 83,000. Moreover, the household survey showed a drop in employment of -350,000.
The unemployment rate fell. But that is because the – 350,000 fall in household survey was offset by a -652,000 drop in the labor force. A labor force contraction is really bad news as it implies public confidence in the availability of jobs deteriorated.
Moreover, the average workweek on private nonfarm payrolls fell 0.1 to 34.1 hours.
As a consequence of modest employment gains and a drop in the workweek the index of aggregate hours worked only rose 0.1%. However, the three month growth rate of hours worked did expand t0 3.3% (SAAR), almost exactly the same as last month.
In addition, average hourly earnings also fell and the year over year growth in average hourly earnings fell to 1.7% . The drop in workweek also caused the gain in average weekly earnings to tick down as well. Average hourly earnings growth is now where it bottomed in the 1986 and 2004 wage cycles– the lowest gains in this series since it was first recorded in 1967.
Regardless of how it is calculated, the current gap between employment and the long term trend of employment is at post WW II record levels.
Then: Bush + Gingrich + Debt = FAIL
Now: Obama + Pelosi + More Debt = FAIL
What next?
You really want to know? There is a major bad smell the world over that lots of people in governments are trying to override. Ain’t gonna happen!
Change we can Believe In!
Spencer,
Thanks for the information! Even worse than what I’ve read.
Islam will change
CoRev
The only way this administration could get anything done to improve the economy is to first replace about a dozen republican senators.
The reason the Obama stimulous was too weak was the structural deficit that Bush created.
Many liberals were saying this at the time.
So what do you think the adminisration should do.
Cut payroll taxes so it will be cheaper for firms to produce more goods that they can not sell?
Where is PGL and his epic posts on the jobless recovery when you really need him?
Spencer,
O and the Obots had a full year of absolute power, and we got a Stimulus package that didn’t work, and Health Care Bill nobody wants, and now it is Republican’s fault?
How can the Stimulus Package be too small, when they have only committed 45% of it after 18 months?
What in the hell was all the B.S. before the election about “We are the ones we have been waiting for & Yes we Can” if your asking us what they should do?
Typical…….and people wonder why we call it the Mommy Party? Democrats are merely Republicans with Reason and Accountability stripped away!
Jimmy Carter where are you?……..I miss you {never thought that was ever going to come out of my mouth}
Spencer stop the BS!!!! This administration has had control over the direction that the economy should be going. It is an abject failure. You know it and the voters know it, and unless there is a miracle, they will tell you so in Nov.!
You said: “The reason the Obama stimulous was too weak was the structural deficit that Bush created.” I will repeat. Bush was just flat unlucky. It was you who told me that the average time between recessions is six years. Had he had that time, your statement would have been even more ludicrous. Don’t make me break out that ole chart!
As to what we should be doing: 1) stop the attacks on capitalism and businesses. Unless of course you are getting the economy you want. Those attacks are leading to huge uncertainty in the economy. Few business managers will make any investments because they don’t know what harmful legislation will be next. 2) Incentivize businesses to make capital investments. Y’ano those tax incentives that allow them to quickly write off new investments. 3) Allow the Bush tax cuts to sunset. 4) Keep discretionary spending rates at the revenue increase rates. 5) As the revenue begins to increase make a promise (or legislate) to keep spending rates below the revenue rate of increase. 6) As we come out of the current recession, reduce sopending a few points lower than the revenue rate of increase.
Oh, why are we still sitting on >50% of the stimulus? Wasn’t stimulation of the economy as important in 2009 as being reelected in 2010 and 2012? Let me say it for you, even again. “It was all Bush’s fault.” Isn’t that what CBO said?
I’m positive I did not tell you that the average time between recessions is six years because I do not agree with that statement and never have.
From W II to about 1980 it was about four years and since 1980 it has been about 10 years.
Yes, that might average out to 6 yers, but that would be like the six foot analysts who drowned fording a river that had an average depth of three feet.
As for your five points I happen to agree with all of them except the first one.
Now, how about letting us know how this administration can get the republicans in the senate to allow that to happen.
As soon as we pass Healthcare, we will pivot to jobs, jobs, jobs.
I will remind you folks what I have been saying. This administration has been doing little to alleviate the pain and suffering. In deed they appear to exacerbate it. Is it deliberate????
(Updated to correct typos and improve thought.)
Spencer, IIRC, it was you, but who knows how this ole man’s brain syapses are working. Regardless, you made my point even more important. Bush, if he had 4-5 additional years of positive economic growth, would have been forced to cut taxes, again.
It is sad that the/your animosity aimed at business can not be quelled. It is not a positive.
What’s amazing is the blindness toward the shift in policy benefactors between the parties. This administration is helping super-rich folks like G. Soros, Fannie and Freddie, academia, state and local Govts and the labor unions. While the republicans try to help, businesses, resources (discovery and development), energy generation, and the general populace by via taxes.
Stimulating which of these two sets are more positively impactful on the eocnomy? So, Spencer, your disagreement with my point one shows why this economy has not significantly improved, and why this stimulus has not worked.
How many more Americans do you (the Dems) need to hurt, before you propose a reasonable solution, THAT THE REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE CAN GET BEHIND. Claiming it’s all the Repubs fault is disingenuous. Prorpose something that they can agree to, and stand back. NO ONE WANTS THIS RECESSION TO HURT MORE AND LAST LONGER THAN NEED BE. I think, except for some current leaders.
That was really, really foolish. There was no absolute power. There is also no such thing as Republican reason and accountability in this century.
Is it animosity towards business to recognize that the modern American corporation (Notice that I am not speaking of anything but the large publicly held companies.) has absolutely no interest in creating jobs in this country so that providing them with capital by tax cuts will make no difference at all to our job situation? Is it hostile to business to point out the fact that if provided with the kind of stimulation suggested by the conservatives here the only thing they’d do with the money is invest it in oddball financial instruments that contribute almost nothing to jobs and to expanding overseas operations? Of course there are those who want the recession to hurt more and last at least until after the elections in November. The conservatives on this board should know since they worship them.
I don’t think the planners in DC are saying “Hmmm…let’s keep unemployment high until after the election in order to lose seats in the midterm elections.”
The statement about who are the major benefactors of each parties policies by Corev is handwaving election talk. I think other things in the economy are happening that DC is only somewhat aware and certainly myopic about, and that the media doesn’t know how to report accurately.
That doesn’t mean handwaving election talk is not occurring from many viewpoints.
I and/or this administration are not antagonistic towards business.
I’m antagonistic towards government policies targeted at shifting resources from the middle class to business and/or the wealthy.
Dan, I asked the question last week, at what point does election talk become acceptabel in your mind. You are using the term as a pejorative, but fail to discuss their associated policy points.
Care to discuss whether my “…the major benefactors of each parties policies…” is verifiable?
Care to comment on the successes with special consideration for the metrics of success of this current administration?
Dan, I asked the question last week, at what point does election talk become acceptable in your mind. You are using the term as a pejorative, but fail to discuss their associated policy points.
Care to discuss whether my “…the major benefactors of each parties policies…” is justified?
Care to comment on the successes with special consideration for the metrics of success of this current administration?
Jim:
Separate Financial Services, or banks, from publicly held companies. These are two distinct parts.
Spencer, this was my point 1 to which you disagreed. “1) stop the attacks on capitalism and businesses. Unless of course you are getting the economy you want. Those attacks are leading to huge uncertainty in the economy. Few business managers will make any investments because they don’t know what harmful legislation will be next.”
Then this is what you latest response was: “I and/or this administration are not antagonistic towards business.
I’m antagonistic towards government policies targeted at shifting resources from the middle class to business and/or the wealthy.”
I dunno, but that does not logically follow any flow, and does not relate to the origianl point. You have done that to my comments several times in the past days. You also did it at Econbrowser, for which you had to back track.
It appears your biases are overloading your thinking.
CoRev:
I am not going to agree to that point either.
If by capitalism you mean greater freedom for GS to invest money in CDS by borrowing cheap money, since they were classified as a bank, I would agree to such occurring. GS, and others as well, have to decide whether they are banks or investment firms. We are so anti-capitalism, the US has allowed GS and other investment firms to have access to Fed cheap loans (the same access as depository institutes) by declaring themselves as banks under TARP. I don’t support this type of capitalism as it has not created value in the past through the utilization of Labor. It is entirely Capital Appreciation.
If you truly mean businesses which provide a service or a product, the Government has taken steps to support them and future tax increases do not touch upon those which have been declared the greatest job creators . . . Income <$250,000. Furtermore, this Congress and Administration has put in place programs to retrain a populace such as Michigan Works, has given tax credits to companies that hire people unemployed longer than 6 months, etc. However, greater profits can be made through the creation of financial instruments which do not involve Labor intensive products or services. The policy has been a shifting of productivity gains from Labor to Capital since the eighties which is hardly “anti business or anti-capital capital.” Tax policy has favored the minority of the taxpaying population at the higher income strata also . . . from Labor, Middle Class, or those taxpayers making <$250,000 to 2-3% of the taxpayers making >$250,000 of which <1% make >$1 million. Since 2001, the income shifted for this few million taxpayers has been ~$2 trillion and yet job creation has been mediocre and Particpation Rate continues to slide.
The attacks on capitalism when it comes to financial services (not tellers) is rightfully placed. If we want more labor intensive service and product producing jobs than the
emphasis has to be placed on business employing Labor.
I would contend that the truisms of businessmen themselves are in flux, no matter government policy.
Also, business interests are quite complex, and by business interests what is meant most of the time are the big multi national business…what to do with the more diverse small businesses, which afterall is where most of the jobs are, is most often left unacknowledged and ignored deliberately. Part of this is no pithy sayings to report.
Yes, there has to be room for election material. Many blogs have shifted already to more politically oriented stances along with their regular material. Some have always been idealogically driven, and simpilify material to promote their biases even when they know how shallow the posts are as professionals.
Elections are here as a reality.
I also think there is a shift by industry and business from being identified with financial type only.
I think the report was kind of trivial. They had been calling for losses related to the Census bureau. With those losses accounted for, there was a modest increase. I’d rather it go up, than down, even modestly.
http://keepingupwiththejones.es/blog/?p=41