Quantcast

Will the job market improve?

L.A. Times 2013/02/01 16:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The U.S. economy added 157,000 new jobs in January and the unemployment rate ticked up to 7.9%, the Labor Department said Friday. The job creation was below analyst expectations of 165,000 and down from a revised 195,000 in December. The unemployment rate ticked up from 7.8% in December.

The pace of job creation is consistent with moderate growth and could ease concerns that the economy’s unexpected contraction in the final three months of last year was a sign another recession could be near.

job creation

Read More: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-jan...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • CorrectOpinion 2013/02/01 19:06:49
    No
    CorrectOpinion
    +20
    The truth here is that we are increasing the number of people who need jobs FASTER than jobs are being added. It will get worse. And Taxation in Ca. will make Ca suffer more than other states.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Pearlie Momi♥Patriot Warrior♥ 2013/02/27 07:59:11
    No
    Pearlie Momi♥Patriot Warrior♥
    Hell NO !!!!!! Obama keeps spending...NO JOBS,and things are getting worse....Thanks to Obama..
  • "Abe" 2013/02/11 23:09:34
    No
    "Abe"
    Under the Obama administration - when pigs fly~~!! IMHO

    when pigs fly
  • questionsparks 2013/02/09 17:57:46
    Yes
    questionsparks
    It may never be as at the point it was when it was at it's peak but that doesn't mean it can't ever improve. I mean at some point you go so low that there's only one direction to go but up.
  • skowcog 2013/02/09 00:54:13
    No
    skowcog
    I dont' see it yet.
  • Moodybloo70 2013/02/06 17:55:57
    No
    Moodybloo70
    Of course not. The focus of Obama destroying the USA in favour of Islam. If you doubt me, investigate his policies and ignore the media.
  • Dave0626 2013/02/06 17:24:17
    No
    Dave0626
    With the increased taxation of ObamaCare on the Private Sector, along with the strangulation of the Free Market System via absurd regulations...new employment will be few and far between.
    ...Only in the ever increasing expansive, Government Sector will the employment growth be evident. But of course the media is unlikely to touch upon this 'delicate issue' of which sector is showing the most employment increases. The Socialist objective is for ALL to work FOR the Gov't., OF the Gov't., BY the Gov't.
    And those that can't will be known as Proles :
    Noun 1. prole - a member of the working class (not necessarily employed);
    Or 'dogsbody' - a worker who has to do all the unpleasant or boring jobs that no one else wants to do.
  • Incognito 2013/02/06 16:47:59
    No
    Incognito
    +3
    Automation=jobs lost / Outsourcing= more American jobs lost / Obama's health care plan=more part time jobs created / Obama's Cap and Trade = more businesses cutting back on employees hours and/or layoffs / population growth=more demand for jobs / more college graduates=more demand for higher paying jobs / more demand for jobs for over-qualified people=lower wages
    dees illustrations obama dees illustrations obama dees illustrations obama
  • taitaFalcon23 2013/02/06 16:11:58
    No
    taitaFalcon23
    infrastructure includes the educational system that pays for the new employment that will come with new business models we don't even have yet because we're stuck on post WII nostalgia
  • david abe 2013/02/06 16:02:44
    No
    david abe
    No- labor participation is going to continue to shrink despite statistical anomalies and "dead-cat" bounces.
  • obama needs to go 2013/02/06 14:48:30
    No
    obama needs to go
    No one with any cents is hiring, why? Cause we have a president who is hell bent on punishing the productive! So everyone is going to ride his term out as is and hope another demoRat doesn't win again in 2016!
  • dispatcher 2013/02/06 14:24:23
    No
    dispatcher
    most of these jobs were in government not in the private sectors.. This is why the unemployment rate shall continue to rise..
  • JustMe 2013/02/06 12:18:00
    No
    JustMe
    Just look around if you need proof
  • MOMMA THOMAS 2013/02/06 10:35:43
    Yes
    MOMMA THOMAS
    I HOPE SO!
  • TheR 2013/02/06 03:35:34
    No
    TheR
    +1
    Why? The American Public and Private Sector, which includes all the Politicans in Government have no clue about living and building toward The Modern Age.

    The Oil Consortium and Military Complex have delivered us all into The Age of Decline.

    This includes getting an Education, which is only affordable if you break the Law and go to Prison.

    unpayable US debt

    Prisoners study in Prison
  • DavidK 2013/02/06 02:39:40
    No
    DavidK
    +1
    Who's kidding who....... the REAL numbers including those who have quit looking, are much higher. besides, who cares about jobs with no benefits? or part time? Get real. Our Country is failing fast and the liberal media iis sugar coating it all.
  • jeane 2013/02/06 02:22:49
    No
    jeane
    +1
    Not with Owebama and gang on the job.
  • bpf 2013/02/06 00:47:17 (edited)
    No
    bpf
    What most if not all the Left-wing News media fail to say is that the so-called jobs are either low-paying, not full time or not the field in which the person may be experienced in.
    Also the amount of people who just gave up and stopped looking has increased causing the rate to be false reading of the true numbers.
  • Patrick Henry~PWCM~JL 2013/02/05 23:22:55
    No
    Patrick Henry~PWCM~JL
    +1
    Especially after Oblundercare takes full effect...
  • calvin236 2013/02/05 22:46:06
    No
    calvin236
    +1
    Too many people, too little jobs. Most fields and/or businesses have too many people in them or the jobs lost are not replaced and a huge hole is left.
  • John 2013/02/05 21:44:19
  • Stix 2013/02/05 21:28:54
    No
    Stix
    Our nations priorities have changed from job creation to gay marriage, gun control and more tax revenue...jobs are no longer a problem.
  • lisa Stix 2013/02/06 12:14:38
    lisa
    Your exactly right! Why aren't we talking about the economy? Because Obama doesn't know what to do to fix the mess he made. SO instead lets get everyone all upset over their rights being violated, that should keep em all busy for the next 4 years and off his (Obama's) ass.
  • Emanon 2013/02/05 20:44:45
    Yes
    Emanon
    +1
    It is getting better,just not as fast as needed to sustain constant rate of growth... but net gains is better than net loses in any situation.
  • DavidK Emanon 2013/02/06 02:40:09
    DavidK
    NOT this type of gain........
  • Emanon DavidK 2013/02/06 03:00:00
    Emanon
    +1
    As I said in my exchange below, we are gaining more than we are losing, is it fast enough, no, not by a long shot. But as long as there are no net negative job loses, it is moving in the right direction.
  • DavidK Emanon 2013/02/06 03:08:09
    DavidK
    +1
    No its NOT! Lower paying jobs, part time jobs and jobs that have no benefits are NOT the kind of jobs Americans want. More people than ever before are working 2 or even 3 jobs to make ends meet. How is creating these kind of jobs "moving in the right direction"?
  • Emanon DavidK 2013/02/06 03:23:25
    Emanon
    +1
    The problem with "lower" wages, is not really lower wages but really not adjusting for inflation.. if you look at average wage from 1980 to 2010 when you adjust inflation you will see that they are not making that much.. in fact lower middle class average income have decreased in the past few decades.

    Moving in the right direction is not losing several hundred thousand jobs a month as we were after the markets crashed - now we have a net positive job numbers of around 100K or so a month, is that fast enough? No, in order to keep up with the aging population and growing population we need to start seeing 150-200K monthly,

    The population grows by 2M on average per year, so you need to try to create at least that many jobs to meet up with population growth - - in a better market, 250-300K monthly jobs would be ideal.. but as long as you have no net negative job loses, it is in the right direction.

    If you wish to address the pay scale, then perhaps support the raising of the minimum wage, or invest in things that would have a rippling net job gains on the market - or reform the system to make it more business friendly without doing what has been tried and failed. Many a thing can be done... which way you wish to go of course is a matter of personal opinion.
  • DavidK Emanon 2013/02/08 05:01:24 (edited)
    DavidK
    As a employer of hundreds of employees, I can tell you how it works. To maintain current spending costs and maintain current wages, companies will now have to adjust to make this happen. Layoffs keep everyone elses wages the same but less employees. Cutting hours back will also keep wages steady. Cutting benefits because of working less hours helps also. So Obviously we are NOT headed in the right direction. Many of my now part -time employees needed to get second part-time, no benefit jobs to make ends meet. This explains a lot of that increase you talked about. Same wages, yet no benefits. How's that better for America?!?!?!?
  • Emanon DavidK 2013/02/08 06:04:51
    Emanon
    I am well aware, how it works, sir. Yet your premise is, with due respect, still fault in its inception of the continuous notion that cuts is all that is necessary, be it the cutting of hours, benefits, or jobs in order to maintain your personal business. Yet we are speaking of the system overall, overall, as my comment stated several times, that we are moving in the right direction, but not quick enough. As long as you have a net positive jobs gains vs a net negative job lost that is moving in the right direction.

    That is your opinion that we are not heading in the right direction, you are entitled to that opinion, sir, yet just because you do not believe we are, does not make it an objective fact.

    Yet, sir, you act as if this is something new, look at the employment trend for the past 30 years, you see an that worker productivity has increased greatly, but worker pay has been rather stagnate during this time or have actually been lower for the lower middle class. There is two ways of addressing this problem, there is the austerity method within government and business of just thinking cutting will solve the issue, even though it rarely does - -then there is the broadening of the base mode of production which more often than not works every time.

    I shall attempt to tackle eac...































    I am well aware, how it works, sir. Yet your premise is, with due respect, still fault in its inception of the continuous notion that cuts is all that is necessary, be it the cutting of hours, benefits, or jobs in order to maintain your personal business. Yet we are speaking of the system overall, overall, as my comment stated several times, that we are moving in the right direction, but not quick enough. As long as you have a net positive jobs gains vs a net negative job lost that is moving in the right direction.

    That is your opinion that we are not heading in the right direction, you are entitled to that opinion, sir, yet just because you do not believe we are, does not make it an objective fact.

    Yet, sir, you act as if this is something new, look at the employment trend for the past 30 years, you see an that worker productivity has increased greatly, but worker pay has been rather stagnate during this time or have actually been lower for the lower middle class. There is two ways of addressing this problem, there is the austerity method within government and business of just thinking cutting will solve the issue, even though it rarely does - -then there is the broadening of the base mode of production which more often than not works every time.

    I shall attempt to tackle each of your points and then am sure in your reply you will have something to day and then I will attempt to address those as well.

    Layoffs in general are not the issue, in a great market or a terrible one you will have layoffs, layoffs as a percentage of hired people in market can either be good or bad. In an unstable market where you are losing around 20% vs what you are gaining, or rather of the average job gains of 120K a month, we generally get 20-30K of fired/laid off people.. this can make the market more unstable - - In a good economy where the number is more like 1:10 ratio of fired/laid off vs hired it does not affect the system that much.

    Of course, it also depend on the field in which you are speaking of. Many fields, particular labor fields have been decreasing rapidly as technology increases and requires less human hands - - which can lead them one of two ways, go back to training to fix, and operate these machines aka adapt to an ever changing market, go into a field in which they can utilize their skills or fall out of the market. The latter of the three of course makes the market unstable as people fall out of it and their ability to spend is hit.

    Your second premise, can be remedied same as with the first one, you can either cut employee hours to attempt to save time and money, or you can find some way to broaden your base with more jobs, more work with the current available employees to keep the pay steady without having to cut hours - - admittedly growing of a business, especially in a soft market as we have now has its risks - - but also has its rewards, especially with technology and networking companies today finding niches in the market that their competitions may not have thought of, or catering to a local market and attempting exclusivity in a general locale.

    While mid-point scenario would mean laying off some workers or cutting workers, worse case scenario is cutting even more workers, and best case scenario the business grows without great out on a limb fielding of the market - - especially since initial response would not require much capital in its initial stage but can still yield great benefits.

    Cutting of benefits can have a double edged, effect, it may save the company some overhead initially but long term effects particularly of state costs and thus them passing these costs onto the businesses makes it worst for everyone. It of course depending the percentage of worker benefits to the business, and how much can be saved while still maintaining some - - of course depending on your field of business, as well as you saying you are an employer with hundreds of employees that would sound an optimal place on a scheme of things that should have been factored in on the long term of business plans - - but if not, or if the market and/or your field took a hit that you did not prepare for then it would either be a benefits cuts or layoffs due to a lack of initial planning or unexpected hits to your market.

    Especially if you are in one of the key markets effected by the system crashes.

    You will forgive me if I do not see why the random continuous capitalizing of “NOT” is somehow supposed to mean something else.

    Your last point, which reiterated your previous point, stands the same, to you we are not moving in the right direction – to me we are moving in the right direction but not quick enough to meet population growth. As of now we have a average net positive job creation rate of 100K a month, that is only 1.2M a year, which is better than the several million lost a year after the market crashed - - thus my point of moving in the right direction. A Net positive job creation rate for the market is a lot better than continuous net loses.

    Now, also as stated in the previous comment that it is not enough to meet market demand – in a good market you would be expected to see 150-200K monthly net job increased, which at 150K would still put us 200K for the year needed to meet population growth, yet at 200K a year that would mean we not only met but surpassed population jobs as a percentage of increase for that year.

    In a better market you will see 250-300K which means a greater broadening of the base, jobs, productivity and less burdening from certain programs that pay out to them.

    Now, what must be addressed in this country is the division of labor, as well as the minimum wage and pay… we have adjusted everything up for inflation – welfare, social security, medicare, Medicaid, defense, congressional pay, etc etc etc yet minimum worker salary has not been adjusted for such.

    While, I have a few ideas on how to broaden the base on a national level, utilizing the production of local areas and the rippling effect generally found around certain areas of jobs - -but I am quite anxious to hear your view of getting the market back on track.

    I know you wish to cut, cut, cut – which is fine, some reform is necessary, some cuts must be made, to the extent on the cuts is where we may differ. But with those cuts, might I ask what would you invest in? Or what laws, if it were up to you would you pass? Either reforming our tax laws, regulatory laws, tax incentives for “in-sourcing” etc

    Sir, you are a spike in part time employment after the market crashed, since we are still in a soft market, it is no surprise that people take on several part time jobs - - the largest financial crisis since the great depression was only 6 years .. took the great depression over a decade to pass and that was with heavy public and private partnerships and investments- - will such happen now, that I do not know.

    I am heading off now, only got on for a moment to check a file - - but will certainly address your comment tomorrow and hopefully we can wrap this up by then so it does not go on and on for weeks on end.

    Have a good night, sir.
    (more)
  • DavidK Emanon 2013/02/08 08:01:09
    DavidK
    So what your saying is that my CPA's, accountants and advisors are wrong? I've been profitable for over 40 years and our Company has yet to show a loss since 1976. I trust my people and the decisions they make for the success of our Company. Like Obama, you have never owned, operated or been resposible for such a venture. If you think for a second you make any sense in your post, let me assure you, you haven't.
    In Obama's second term, I quit drawing a paycheck. I did this against my advisors, bankers and Board of Directors advice. I did it however, believing that my personal loss would save a few jobs. All I did was to mask a problem that we all saw coming that produced no positive outcome. I am STILL not recieving a paycheck, ( I don't need to anyways) and will continue to do so although its meaningless to any of our employees. I save on my personal taxes, (and yes, corporate taxes as well) as you must expect and actually I'm further ahead in the long haul.
    Because of the new OBAMACARE rules, I will no longer be able to insure ALL of my full time employees. I have also cut back hours and now double shift employees ( 2 part-time jobs) to avoid the cost of high rising healthcare coverage. Many full timers are now working two jobs within the company, with NO benefits. Others a...


    So what your saying is that my CPA's, accountants and advisors are wrong? I've been profitable for over 40 years and our Company has yet to show a loss since 1976. I trust my people and the decisions they make for the success of our Company. Like Obama, you have never owned, operated or been resposible for such a venture. If you think for a second you make any sense in your post, let me assure you, you haven't.
    In Obama's second term, I quit drawing a paycheck. I did this against my advisors, bankers and Board of Directors advice. I did it however, believing that my personal loss would save a few jobs. All I did was to mask a problem that we all saw coming that produced no positive outcome. I am STILL not recieving a paycheck, ( I don't need to anyways) and will continue to do so although its meaningless to any of our employees. I save on my personal taxes, (and yes, corporate taxes as well) as you must expect and actually I'm further ahead in the long haul.
    Because of the new OBAMACARE rules, I will no longer be able to insure ALL of my full time employees. I have also cut back hours and now double shift employees ( 2 part-time jobs) to avoid the cost of high rising healthcare coverage. Many full timers are now working two jobs within the company, with NO benefits. Others are paying for them with the Company still paying high premiums to keep them insured.
    One other way my company has done business is by trading in precious metals back and forth to several international companies, seeing as the US dollar (world currency) is worthless by 2007 standards. I'm not about to indulge the details about our methods further, but be rest assured we have it totally under control and Obama and his "liberal agenda" will NOT harm or cause this Company any harm, just a lot of grief and termoil.
    The sad reality is that only the top 5-10% of Americans will survive OBAMAMANIA and the rest will have to pick up the pieces once Obama and the liberal agenda groups are gone. The rich will always remain rich and the poor will remain poor. Barry (robinhood) Obama is not on our side or yours. Dumb bastard can't even get his Democratic controlled congress to back him! So what does he do? Abuses his executive order to override them all.
    Now last but not least, why is it not one of you Obama supporters can tell us why you voted him in for a second term? How has he advanced our economy? I challenge you to answer without sounding naive............
    (more)
  • Emanon DavidK 2013/02/08 16:22:06
    Emanon
    If it is possible in future replies to place some space between your paragraphs, it looks like one long run on sentence thus quite difficult to tell where/which particular paragraph and new idea you are responding to vs … just answering everything as one. Now onto your points.

    Without you saying what your CPA, accountants and advisors have said to you, it would not be prudent for me to say whether or not they may or may not have been correct. Perhaps in your future replies, with respect to this specific exchange what did they specifically said regarding ways to increase revenue at a business - - or were you referring to the original point of this post of the job market?

    Saying you trust your people has very little to do with the market as a whole - - I cannot speak to what Obama has or has not done in the private field. But currently I do work for myself, and own my own business- I do love, sir, how you can assume something about someone because they have a different opinion than yourself, it is truly entertaining. I also enjoy how some of the top economists, left and right have spoken of the very things spoken of in my views, of cutting employees or finding alternative ways to increase revenue by venturing into new markets and expanding business - - but you say that makes no ...





























    If it is possible in future replies to place some space between your paragraphs, it looks like one long run on sentence thus quite difficult to tell where/which particular paragraph and new idea you are responding to vs … just answering everything as one. Now onto your points.

    Without you saying what your CPA, accountants and advisors have said to you, it would not be prudent for me to say whether or not they may or may not have been correct. Perhaps in your future replies, with respect to this specific exchange what did they specifically said regarding ways to increase revenue at a business - - or were you referring to the original point of this post of the job market?

    Saying you trust your people has very little to do with the market as a whole - - I cannot speak to what Obama has or has not done in the private field. But currently I do work for myself, and own my own business- I do love, sir, how you can assume something about someone because they have a different opinion than yourself, it is truly entertaining. I also enjoy how some of the top economists, left and right have spoken of the very things spoken of in my views, of cutting employees or finding alternative ways to increase revenue by venturing into new markets and expanding business - - but you say that makes no sense. You can look at more left leaning economists like Paul Krugman, or Reagan’s former economic advisor Bruce Bartlett, both have great books on how to get the market up and running again but very different views overall how to do them.

    I tend to be a pessimist by nature, and often prepare for the worst case scenario, but I tend not to tie my business to whichever bought and paid for politician happens to be the White House, whether or not I agree with him [and maybe one day her] on certain issues, my business plans, as well as my volunteerism does not stop because the president changes.

    The majority of small businesses and corporations, overall said they would make minor adjustments due to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - - what you call Obamacare – most of the OH NOES, OBAMACARE STATEMENTS I have seen, have been rated as false, mostly false, pants on fire etc by fact check with very few being mostly true, true etc. I have read the bill, which if you have read the entire bill, which if you are a slow reader and just read 50 pages a day will take you about a month and the half… but 100 pages could get you done just over 3 weeks… but it is worth the read to see the difference between the partisan nonsense set out and the facts.

    I am just surprised that you seem to tie your business to whomever is president, I ask you sir, if the two proposals in 1993 from Republicans with the individual mandates had passed, would your business be doing much worse or better now?... as well as if you were in one of the several states which already has similar programs, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Vermont or the city of San Francisco, would your business be doing a lot worst now?

    Though since you eluded that you sell metal, if we started fixing our bridges, roads, etc … even Minnesota, the state in which you place as your location when asking the federal government for money to do such said it would produce jobs. Would that not help your company if it can guarantee the best price? You claim you have hundreds of employees - - while I admit some doubt on that, either way, it would seem that investment in building of structures would only help your business if you can compete in the market.

    Speaking of the rich, since you brought them up, do you not also have an issue with the economic inequality that is happening?

    As Bernie Sanders said, which has been rated as true by several fact checking sites “in the year 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income," . .. . "The top 1 percent earned 23.5 percent of all income--more than the entire bottom 50 percent. That is apparently not enough. The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent has nearly tripled since the 1970s. In the mid-1970s, the top 1 percent earned about 8 percent of all income. In the 1980s, that figure jumped to 14 percent. In the late 1990s, that 1 percent earned about 19 percent."

    So in 1970s, the richest people only made 8% of all income, then they made 14%... then they made 19% and now 23.5%. Since the pie is not infinite, that then means that middle and lower class people have less and less of this revenue stream to divide amongst themselves, does this not also worry you speaking of the market in general.

    I must ask sir, you went on and on about just your business, but your business is not the market as a whole, so to say that your business may be stressed, so that means the market is getting worse is not utilizing the market. It is looking at your business and applying it to the market as the only model. Are we gaining more jobs per month than we are losing? Yes, …. After the market crashed we were losing several hundred thousand jobs per month… now we have a net positive job production of 100K or so… as stated, that is not the ideal and to keep up with population growth it needs to jump to 150-200K and ideally 250-300K but that will take years.

    Well Democrats control the Senate, they do not control “congress” which would imply they have a majority in both house and senate. I am not a democrat, nor a Republican.

    As far as why I voted for him for a second term, I voted for him because I looked at his records and what he has voted for and against in the past, as well as the things he supports. I also looked at Romney’s views on many things. Had it been moderate Mitt, vs Obama, I may have taken a closer look at Romney. But I support and agree with his views that we need much more investment in education, which he has increased the federal education budget little by little over the past few years [though honestly, I want the Jeb Bush education reform plan but I do not see that passing the house], I also like his views on energy and investing in renewable energy resources, without this hm short sided idea of ONLY OIL!!!!! An across the board energy strategy. We can look at the Texas model, sure, Texas uses oil, - - yet Texas hasmore Wind Energy farms than any state in America – Gov. Perry said over the next decade he will try and increase greatly their wind farms because it saves the state money – though for some reason, even though renewable energy is saving their state a ton of money the two Republican senators from Texas in the senate continuously votes down renewable energy.

    I also agree with President Obama’s views on energy, while he opted for an individual mandate as was the Republican idea in the 90s, and the Heritage foundation back in 1989 wrote an entire health care reform piece about it.. I personally prefer single payer – like every other industrialized western country. His views on defense are also in tune with my own, that we can slim our defense budget without compromising safety, also spoken of by Colin Powell - - a trillion dollar annual defense budget when budget, wars, etc are factored in can be curtailed. I agree with his views on social issues, especially gay marriage, and abortion.

    I am not naïve, sir, I understand that the power of the laws are expressed though the congress, but you asked some of the reasons why I voted for him, and I gave a few - - All in all I agreed with him more than Romney [Even though as far as the Republican candidate I preferred Jon Huntsman]

    Well I do not look for a president to be on “my side” the days of Republicans I respected and enjoyed are pretty much long gone, we do not have Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and though I may have disagreed with him on some things, I greatly respected Goldwater. We no longer have Democrats like FDR, Kennedy, Johnson or a strong progressive grass roots campaign to get around some issues… so I do what I do, no matter who is president it will change very little my day to day.

    Now, if we can get back to the market overall, looking solely at your business, without speaking of the market overall does not show how the market is getting better or worse by your claim. If we will discuss the job market, which this is about, the job market overall, not just your business which was mostly spoken of in your reply.

    As always, I will answer your comment when I see it and will try to wrap this up by tomorrow night as not to drag this into the next week.
    (more)
  • beavith1 2013/02/05 19:23:09
    No
    beavith1
    +2
    not a chance.

    we're living through a slow motion dead cat bounce.

    and we're on the back side of the trajectory.
  • Georgia50 beavith1 2013/02/05 19:33:51
    Georgia50
    +2
    You always did have a way with words!
  • beavith1 Georgia50 2013/02/05 22:24:53 (edited)
    beavith1
    +2
    ;-)

    i didn't come up with 'the dead cat bounce.' that's an old econ expression.

    kind of shame it has to be resurrected...
  • sbtbill beavith1 2013/02/05 20:48:03
    sbtbill
    In one sense I agree with you. Robotics are the wave of the future. That will bring factory jobs back to the US but not improve employment. Business consolidation reduces the need for office workers. That doesn't create jobs. Within businesses greater computerization with more reliable computers reduces the number of people needed. That isn't good for reducing the unemployment rate.

    We are in a predicted situation that means we are moving toward higher and higher unemployment simply because only the well educated are going to be able to get a job.

    We have ended seniority that means that in jobs that require physical ability people stop being able to make rate and work sometime between 45 and 60. Walmart greaters don't make enough to live on.

    We need to reorganize values to take into account that 1/2 the population is going to be unemployable by the end of this century.
  • beavith1 sbtbill 2013/02/05 22:30:07
    beavith1
    +1
    part of what drives job creation is business inputs. thanks to things like shale gas, the cost of energy from gas and the cost of chemical feedstocks has plunged. energy specific industries like plastics and steel are running back.

    automation will shrink the necessary headcount, but we can see growth, but it'd require Obama and the democrats to encourage even more access to energy.

    and that's something that i'm pretty sure that we won't see.

    information is a vast industry and growing that may be immune to that potential shrinkage. its early yet to be sure.

    half? i never really thought of you as a negative nelly.

    our employment problems are strictly self inflicted...
  • Bill 2013/02/05 17:46:15
    No
    Bill
    +2
    LOL 157,000 Jobs added in January.
    Here are the jobs lost for 3 weeks in January according to the Department of Labor.
    http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/...
    Initial Claims (SA) Jan. 26th 368,000 Jan. 19th 330,000 Jan. 12th 335,000

    That's 1,033,000 jobs lost in 3 weeks. That's 876,000 jobs lost in 3 weeks compared to 157,000 jobs gained in 4 weeks. Why is this good?
  • Emanon Bill 2013/02/05 20:43:56
    Emanon
    +1
    I mean no disrespect sir, but do you know how to read an unemployment insurance weekly claims?

    It is not each week that is how many people lost their job, it is each week how many insurance claims were made.

    You have to file an unemployment weekly claim each week. To read it you look at the numbers and look for a plus or minus over that time period...

    Looking just at the wees you have given us..

    January 12th as a baseline, 335K weekly jobless claims.

    Then for the next week you see if that number went up or down
    If it went up then you deduct the previous week and see how many "new" claims" are being made, if it went down that means people either found a job faster than the rate of lost them for that week.. not of the overall system

    Okay, using January 12th as a baseline 335K weekly jobless claims -- -unemployment insurance

    January 19th 330K claim
    a decrease of 5,000 claims, meaning one of two things, 5,000 people found employment - - or 5,000 people's unemployment insurance ran out.. Either way, no net job lost

    January 368K .. deducting the previous week's 330K .. you saw a net job lost for that week by 38K ...

    So for those weeks you show, there was a job lost of 33K jobs, thus an increase.by 33K in the unemployment insurance weekly claims.from your numbers

    For the Month Trend..
    Week 1 -...















    I mean no disrespect sir, but do you know how to read an unemployment insurance weekly claims?

    It is not each week that is how many people lost their job, it is each week how many insurance claims were made.

    You have to file an unemployment weekly claim each week. To read it you look at the numbers and look for a plus or minus over that time period...

    Looking just at the wees you have given us..

    January 12th as a baseline, 335K weekly jobless claims.

    Then for the next week you see if that number went up or down
    If it went up then you deduct the previous week and see how many "new" claims" are being made, if it went down that means people either found a job faster than the rate of lost them for that week.. not of the overall system

    Okay, using January 12th as a baseline 335K weekly jobless claims -- -unemployment insurance

    January 19th 330K claim
    a decrease of 5,000 claims, meaning one of two things, 5,000 people found employment - - or 5,000 people's unemployment insurance ran out.. Either way, no net job lost

    January 368K .. deducting the previous week's 330K .. you saw a net job lost for that week by 38K ...

    So for those weeks you show, there was a job lost of 33K jobs, thus an increase.by 33K in the unemployment insurance weekly claims.from your numbers

    For the Month Trend..
    Week 1 - [335K] [Base]
    Week 2- [330K] [-5,000 = =Net 5K]
    Week 3-[368k] [+38K - 5K Net = 33K new claims for the week]


    If you can give me the first week of january then I can make it a bit more accurate.

    Thus 157K jobs created, minus the 33K new unemployment insurance claims for that month means a net 124K jobs created that month when you deduct the minor increase in weekly unemployment claims.

    That very link says
    "States reported 2,112,559 persons claiming EUC (Emergency Unemployment Compensation) benefits for the week ending January 12, an increase of 418,762 from the prior week. There were 3,007,696 persons claiming EUC in the comparable week in 2012. EUC weekly claims include first, second, third, and fourth tier activity. "

    That there are nearly a million less claiming Emergency Unemployment or people whose unemployment ran out and require extensions.

    Not trying to rain on your parade, sir, just was unsure if you knew how to read the unemployment chart... weekly claims are not all new people as you seemed to have thought..

    Good day to you, sir.
    (more)
  • Bill Emanon 2013/02/05 20:59:02
    Bill
    Thanks for the info. I appreciate it. I'll look into it. However, I NEVER filed a weekly unemployment claim. I filed once, back in 2001, and got 13 weeks out of it. Then there was a 13 week extension. Then it was over. That was in Florida. Maybe things have changed.
  • Emanon Bill 2013/02/05 21:45:31
    Emanon
    +2
    The way "weekly" claims work is just once a week you check in [generally calling a toll free number - also state that each state runs their system differently but all claims are processed by the DOL for the weekly numbers]] to say you are still unemployed and thus your benefits continue. Failure to check in generally means you will not get a check for that week which can mean either you have found a job or .. just did not meet the deadline to call in.

    On your link it says as I said that there was 38K new claims, yet that from the previous month claims overall decreased by 70K .. but as stated in my comment above on this.. as long as we are making more jobs than we are losing it is moving in the right direction.. but it needs to pick up - - on that I believe we agree.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 16 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/25 13:30:03

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals