Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › OT: September 2012 Jobs Report “Very Suspicious”
- This topic has 117 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
an.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 7, 2015 at 10:45 PM #782742February 7, 2015 at 11:02 PM #782744
CA renter
Participant[quote=utcsox][quote=CA renter][quote=SK in CV][quote=poorgradstudent]Looks like unemployment is finally starting to catch up in what has been a largely jobless recovery.
[/quote]
Largely jobless? Something like 12 million private sector jobs in the last 5 years, and more than 5.5 million in the last 2 years is jobless?[/quote]
But most of those new jobs are in lower-paying sectors than the ones that disappeared during the recession. It probably feels pretty “jobless” when people are making around half of what they were making just a few years ago. We know a few people who are literally making that much less![/quote]
From the from the BLS: “In January, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 12 cents to $24.75, following a decrease of 5 cents in December. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.2 percent.” With CPI that is under 2%, there has been some real wage growth.
Persons working part time for economic reasons and long term unemployed (> 26 weeks) are still much higher than historical data. However; they are both trending down rapidly. We might see some real wage growth in 2015 if the recovery continue.[/quote]
Yes, and it’s good to finally see that after ~5 years of rising prices and stagnant/declining wages. We still have a long, long way to go before workers’ wages catch up to their purchasing power from years ago.
————–
But after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today.
A similar measure, “usual weekly earnings” of employed, full-time, wage and salary workers, tells much the same story, albeit over a shorter time period. In seasonally adjusted current dollars, median usual weekly earnings rose from $232 in the first quarter 0f 1979 (when the series began) to $782 in the second quarter of this year (the most recent data available). But in real terms, the median has barely budged over that period.
What gains have been made, have gone to the upper income brackets. Since 2000, usual weekly wages have fallen 3.7% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution, and 3% among the lowest quarter. But among people near the top of the distribution, real wages have risen 9.7%.
February 8, 2015 at 8:12 AM #782753Anonymous
GuestThese “purchasing power” statistics are mildly interesting but mostly academic. The middle class really had more purchasing power in 1973?
Let’s ask the commonsense question:
What are examples of things that ordinary folk were buying in 1973 that they cannot afford today?
February 8, 2015 at 8:50 AM #782754
Rich ToscanoKeymaster[quote=harvey]These “purchasing power” statistics are mildly interesting but mostly academic. The middle class really had more purchasing power in 1973?
Let’s ask the commonsense question:
What are examples of things that ordinary folk were buying in 1973 that they cannot afford today?[/quote]
February 8, 2015 at 9:32 AM #782759scaredyclassic
ParticipantThat is by far the sexiest thing I have ever seen on the intertubes.
February 8, 2015 at 10:18 AM #782762GuestAwesome!
50/50 blend, of course!
But it doesn’t answer my question, because now I can’t afford not to have one of those.
February 8, 2015 at 4:53 PM #782765utcsox
Participant[quote=svelte]And for added enjoyment of those Republican mouthpieces out there…
[img_assist|nid=20557|title=Reagan vs Obama SP500 growth|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=639|height=330][img_assist|nid=20556|title=Reagan vs Obama Unemployment Rates|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=631|height=341][/quote]
[img_assist|nid=20558|title=Public Sector Payroll Jobs: Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=700|height=330]
Reagan actually created a lot of public sector jobs for the first 72 months in the office. Obama, the job destroyer, lost tons of public jobs for the same 72-months window.
February 8, 2015 at 5:37 PM #782766
svelteParticipant[quote=utcsox]
[img_assist|nid=20558|title=Public Sector Payroll Jobs: Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=700|height=330]
Reagan actually created a lot of public sector jobs for the first 72 months in the office. Obama, the job destroyer, lost tons of public jobs for the same 72-months window.[/quote]
Caught you red-handed spinning the data, mofo!
I notice that you didn’t show the graph right above the one you posted:
[img_assist|nid=20560|title=Private Sector Job Creation By President – Feb 2015|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=972|height=634]
Your eyes had to glance at it before they saw the graph YOU inserted…you PURPOSELY slanted the data!!!
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2015/02/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html
So…the full story is that while Obama and Reagan had BOTH created private (not Government!) jobs at roughly the same rate, only *Reagan* added GOVERNMENT jobs!
And you spin that to insinuate Reagan’s record is better by omitting data!
Either you believe Big Government is a great thing, or you are so full of BS you stink.
Go back to your corner and think about what you’ve done, young man. I wouldn’t trust anything I hear from you.
February 8, 2015 at 6:01 PM #782768ParticipantJumpsuits rock! We wear them every Saturday for our disco Saturday nights! 😉
February 8, 2015 at 6:07 PM #782769Participant[quote=svelte][quote=utcsox]
[img_assist|nid=20558|title=Public Sector Payroll Jobs: Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=700|height=330]
Reagan actually created a lot of public sector jobs for the first 72 months in the office. Obama, the job destroyer, lost tons of public jobs for the same 72-months window.[/quote]
Caught you red-handed spinning the data, mofo!
I notice that you didn’t show the graph right above the one you posted:
[img_assist|nid=20560|title=Private Sector Job Creation By President – Feb 2015|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=972|height=634]
Your eyes had to glance at it before they saw the graph YOU inserted…you PURPOSELY slanted the data!!!
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2015/02/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html
So…the full story is that while Obama and Reagan had BOTH created private (not Government!) jobs at roughly the same rate, only *Reagan* added GOVERNMENT jobs!
And you spin that to insinuate Reagan’s record is better by omitting data!
Either you believe Big Government is a great thing, or you are so full of BS you stink.
Go back to your corner and think about what you’ve done, young man. I wouldn’t trust anything I hear from you.[/quote]
Relax. This was supposed to be funny. LOL.
February 8, 2015 at 6:12 PM #782770svelteParticipant[quote=utcsox]
Relax. This was supposed to be funny. LOL.[/quote]Give me a break! I may have been born at night, but not last night!
February 8, 2015 at 6:13 PM #782771Participant[quote=harvey]These “purchasing power” statistics are mildly interesting but mostly academic. The middle class really had more purchasing power in 1973?
Let’s ask the commonsense question:
What are examples of things that ordinary folk were buying in 1973 that they cannot afford today?[/quote]
Most definitely. Back in 1973, a single-earner family of four, with the single earner working in construction/plumbing/electrical/auto mechanics could live in a safe, clean neighborhood in a SFH in LA. They could own two affordable cars, too. Today, even a two-income family in those same industries, or something similar, would not be able to live in that same house or neighborhood.
Watch Elizabeth Warren’s lecture about the collapse of the American middle class:
February 8, 2015 at 6:24 PM #782772an
ParticipantAre these chart adjusted for population size? How about GDP growth, isn’t that a better metric than S&P appreciation? How about income inequality? How about the % of the population on food stamp and welfare? What about labor participation rate? What about the fed pumping money and fed fund rate being at 0% affect S&P appreciation? What about the deregulation of the banking sector under Clinton? Doesn’t that also affect the volatility of the stock market? How about real income growth? S&P appreciation tells me richer people are getting even richer. Is that your point?
February 8, 2015 at 6:28 PM #782774Participant[quote=svelte][quote=utcsox]
Relax. This was supposed to be funny. LOL.[/quote]Give me a break! I may have been born at night, but not last night![/quote]
I don’t think anyone will seriously argue that one president record is superior because it created more government sector jobs especially one that is known to shrink the size of the government. I thought that was obvious.
February 8, 2015 at 7:22 PM #782776Participant[quote=AN]Are these chart adjusted for population size? How about GDP growth, isn’t that a better metric than S&P appreciation? How about income inequality? How about the % of the population on food stamp and welfare? What about labor participation rate? What about the fed pumping money and fed fund rate being at 0% affect S&P appreciation? What about the deregulation of the banking sector under Clinton? Doesn’t that also affect the volatility of the stock market? How about real income growth? S&P appreciation tells me richer people are getting even richer. Is that your point?[/quote]
The point to bring this thread back is to look back things that were said in 2012. Was BLS faking the number? Was the tax increase and Obamacare prevent business to hire? Was the “real inflation” rate as high as 10% if you factor in food cost?
I think the answer is pretty obvious. Of course, now we want to talk about something else….
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.