The President has been making the GOP look foolish and defeatist. Not good in an election year. Ever since he took over the government, Republicans have been saying the government is not good and the President's policies are worse. I believe Mr. Obama is about to be put on Mount Rushmore. Thank Senator McConnell for his efforts.
1
How is it possible to reconcile employment growth with virtually every other economic metric pointing down; record low cargo ships, declining rail car loads, collapsing commodities - not just oil, all of them, high inventories, financial stress in almost every sector, PMIs negative, even the Atlanta Fed says growth below 1%. None of this is consistent with more jobs.
3
I see from the comments posted before mine that my cynical reaction was the norm. I flinched at the two images used with this piece. First was construction, arguably first among boom and bust sectors—on fire today, ashes tomorrow. But then comes a manufacturing photo. Anyone looking to manufacturing for new jobs should set expectations very low. Manufacturers have been automating their processes for decades, and recent globalization added urgency. After all, robots are even cheaper than low-paid American workers and not prone to unionization.
Going forward, America will have to address many serious structural issues. How to have our people meaningfully employed at more than poverty wages is one of the most important.
And one small but very sore point: Mr. Irwin must not look at prices when he shops, for indeed there was inflation last year, and it was substantial, at least low double-digit level. The official systems we have for measuring it are unrealistic, to say the least, more like bordering on absurdity.
Going forward, America will have to address many serious structural issues. How to have our people meaningfully employed at more than poverty wages is one of the most important.
And one small but very sore point: Mr. Irwin must not look at prices when he shops, for indeed there was inflation last year, and it was substantial, at least low double-digit level. The official systems we have for measuring it are unrealistic, to say the least, more like bordering on absurdity.
1
The percentage of working age males who are unemployed has tripled since 1972 from 5% to 15%. Nonsupervisory wages as a percent of GDP have fallen from 52% to 42% during this same period. This represents $1.7 trillion/yr being "redistributed" from worker paychecks to executives and business owners or over $1,000/month for every full time worker. No wonder workers are becoming more tribal, polarized, irrational and willing to follow a demagogue.
Any meaningful reform must serve to restore worker pay and participation. Nothing less will do. Ultimately business owners will need to opt for half a loaf or find themselves with nothing left but the crumbs of a failed economy.
Any meaningful reform must serve to restore worker pay and participation. Nothing less will do. Ultimately business owners will need to opt for half a loaf or find themselves with nothing left but the crumbs of a failed economy.
6
Have the employment ratios been credibly adjusted for all the boomers who retired, early or not, and won't be back?
1
That is a different ratio, and it's also lower. They also do those 16-64 only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_ratio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_ratio
1
The Upshot seems to be making a common mistake in economic analysis. The Fed raised the discount rate because it looks like most of the unused capacity in hiring is gone. Once the slack is out of the rope, competition for workers will finally return to the hiring field. The Upshot seems to be assuming that the economy will not adapt at all to this change.
There are two obvious ways a corporation or service provider with unfilled job slots can increase capacity in such a scenario. First, pay the workers more, not only to hire new ones but to keep the ones you have already. Second, raise worker productivity by providing them with better tools, techniques, and infrastructure. If you can do the latter, you can pay people more without sparking inflation.
I know that worker productivity has hit a level spot during the recession, but I haven't heard a really convincing argument why that can't happen in the future. If you think of workers like a commodity, then workers were dirt cheap and in unlimited supply. When oil was dirt cheap and in unlimited supply, nobody tried very hard for energy efficiency. When the price rose, people found how to do more with less.
There are two obvious ways a corporation or service provider with unfilled job slots can increase capacity in such a scenario. First, pay the workers more, not only to hire new ones but to keep the ones you have already. Second, raise worker productivity by providing them with better tools, techniques, and infrastructure. If you can do the latter, you can pay people more without sparking inflation.
I know that worker productivity has hit a level spot during the recession, but I haven't heard a really convincing argument why that can't happen in the future. If you think of workers like a commodity, then workers were dirt cheap and in unlimited supply. When oil was dirt cheap and in unlimited supply, nobody tried very hard for energy efficiency. When the price rose, people found how to do more with less.
"I know that worker productivity has hit a level spot during the recession"...
I read that article in the WSJ ("Sputtering Worker Productivity.....") and it is as though they are blaming the American worker for the economic doldrums. You are correct,never mind, the lack of infrastructure and technological reinvestment, never mind the decreasing job benefits, and never mind the government paying so many people to do nothing. But worker productivity, really? Blame the worker? Corporations sock away their profits and management pay themselves well. Seems we are back to the turn of the century (20th) and the old union hall is the enemy. Now, back to work!
I read that article in the WSJ ("Sputtering Worker Productivity.....") and it is as though they are blaming the American worker for the economic doldrums. You are correct,never mind, the lack of infrastructure and technological reinvestment, never mind the decreasing job benefits, and never mind the government paying so many people to do nothing. But worker productivity, really? Blame the worker? Corporations sock away their profits and management pay themselves well. Seems we are back to the turn of the century (20th) and the old union hall is the enemy. Now, back to work!
5
The numbers appear solid, but why, then, do things not feel as robust and solid as they did in 2007? I am employed, but I question my job security, and when I look at job listings, there aren't a lot of other positions open for my field and level of experience.
2
On my way to work at the University of Iowa, I am able to apply for many jobs. Walmart is hiring at $9 per hour and McDonalds is also hiring at $9 per hour not to mention several gas stations in our area. In fact, I can not recall a single advertised job opening for more than $12. Is the Great Recession over in Iowa? Is there real job growth? No. The average employee make less than she/he did 10 years and the trend seems downward. Yes, there is a new class of Americans -the employed under employed. The few making the most and most making nearly nothing at all. Does this economic trend remind one of other eras in history? Boom or Bust? Ashes and dust is my answer.
6
Real unemployment remains above 10%, wages for the bottom three quintiles remain flat, and the last two recoveries have been accurately described as "jobless recoveries" - sorry to intrude on the inappropriate jubilation.
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distr...
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distr...
4
2015 began w 62.9% of the population participating in the labor pool and ended w 62.6% participating. Great year?
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
3
The baby boomers have/are retiring!
1
I agree that next year will have a difficult time beating these numbers.
The 2015 jobs numbers are great.
Even NYC has an all-time high employment to population ratio ...
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-18/midwest-and-plains-stat...
Source: Bloomberg
The 2015 jobs numbers are great.
Even NYC has an all-time high employment to population ratio ...
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-18/midwest-and-plains-stat...
Source: Bloomberg
Hum, remind me how many jobs did Republican Bush create during the 8 years of the last Republican administration?
1
It's time to stop looking at job creation and look at wage creation. Using job creation as a metric of economic health is very misleading.
Using such a metric would have indicated that 18th century employment in the southeast was very high and the economy robust. It was for some. The problem is the benefits went to the plantation owners, while the slaves got nothing.
Same now.
Using such a metric would have indicated that 18th century employment in the southeast was very high and the economy robust. It was for some. The problem is the benefits went to the plantation owners, while the slaves got nothing.
Same now.
15
I got lost in the recession after being let go a while after graduating in 2011. I've been unemployed for a while. Unfortunately I know that Republicans will block a bill to give tax credits to employers to hire and retain the longterm unemployed. So excuse me if I view this article, or the headlines (which is what most people will read) with a grain of salt.
I understand the Times painting the numbers with a rosy brush, because I believe Republicans have employed a strategy of obstruction so that THEIR president can fix the economy. But now that I've grown older and more cynical, I wonder if obstruction of the middle class economy has become the right-wing norm. Perhaps this is a longterm strategy of plundering the wages and power of anyone who is not a billionaire-millionaire.
I guess I'm a drop in the bucket compared to the Murdochs, Adelsons of the world.
I understand the Times painting the numbers with a rosy brush, because I believe Republicans have employed a strategy of obstruction so that THEIR president can fix the economy. But now that I've grown older and more cynical, I wonder if obstruction of the middle class economy has become the right-wing norm. Perhaps this is a longterm strategy of plundering the wages and power of anyone who is not a billionaire-millionaire.
I guess I'm a drop in the bucket compared to the Murdochs, Adelsons of the world.
2
A few commenters have bemoaned the unwillingness of employers to entertain the notion of hiring middle-aged workers. Those workers will be welcomed back into the work force when employers are forced to choose: Pay higher wages or accept workers who have been out of the work force for several years? That will happen when the available pool of younger employees is mostly exhausted. I believe that is what we're seeing right now: 400,000 people re-entering the work force in December.
Unfortunately, job growth depends more upon demand than it relies on the available pool of workers. And demand will most likely fall this year as China devalues its currency, regardless of how awkwardly or orderly the decrease proceeds.
Unfortunately, job growth depends more upon demand than it relies on the available pool of workers. And demand will most likely fall this year as China devalues its currency, regardless of how awkwardly or orderly the decrease proceeds.
2
It doesn't get much better than this. We've now had something like 70 months of straight job creation and contrary to the assertions that keep getting repeated by people at threads like these most of these jobs have been full time. All the regional feds have been reporting tightening job markets for months which is one of the reasons the Fed chose to raise rates. Real wages are going up at 2.5%, inflation is on the floor, auto sales are at a record, and the consensus for GDP growth in 2016 is 2.8% (the average since the war has been 2.7%). This is Goldilocks both in absolute US terms and relative to rest of the world.
5
This article has veered so far from the truth. It seems that all publications want to convince themselves and the American people that this jobs report was very good. The truth is there's no wage pressure. Job participation is at it's lowest level in thirty years, and out of the almost 500.000 jobs that were added in the past two months, only 19,000 jobs went to people between the ages of 19-54. This tells us that the jobs were part time, and low wages.
Why do the newspapers and our politicians want to insist that the jobs market is so rosy? Among other things they want to justify the Feds raising rates so the too big to fail banks can make more money and by the way there was no increase in people's savings after the Fed hiked interest rates last month.
The stock market is not buying this. I even heard a number of people on CNBC of all places stating that rates should not have been raised.
Why do the newspapers and our politicians want to insist that the jobs market is so rosy? Among other things they want to justify the Feds raising rates so the too big to fail banks can make more money and by the way there was no increase in people's savings after the Fed hiked interest rates last month.
The stock market is not buying this. I even heard a number of people on CNBC of all places stating that rates should not have been raised.
10
While I agree that the job market has improved tremendously, I'm laughing cynically about this piece.
Labor participation is lower? Boomers are withdrawing from the workforce and have to be enticed back? That might be true for some, but the real story is age discrimination and the fear that older, highly qualified workers won't fit into the org chart or will demand too much salary.
Take my experience, for example:
-30+ years of success in private sector management positions and in running my own consulting business.
-2 Ivy League masters degrees, including a finance MBA.
-Personable; described by others as having strong emotional intelligence and management skills.
-Number of interviews in past 18 months: 2 (despite applying for numerous jobs in my areas of expertise). Yes, my CV has been done professionally.
So, what am I doing to fill my time (because I can't job hunt 24/7): serving on federal advisory boards and successfully chairing/writing policy studies on finance topics. This work has been stimulating and kept me active, but it is all pro bono.
Believe me, I'd return to work in a flash at a salary comparable to many 30-40 somethings.
There's clearly a disconnect here.
Labor participation is lower? Boomers are withdrawing from the workforce and have to be enticed back? That might be true for some, but the real story is age discrimination and the fear that older, highly qualified workers won't fit into the org chart or will demand too much salary.
Take my experience, for example:
-30+ years of success in private sector management positions and in running my own consulting business.
-2 Ivy League masters degrees, including a finance MBA.
-Personable; described by others as having strong emotional intelligence and management skills.
-Number of interviews in past 18 months: 2 (despite applying for numerous jobs in my areas of expertise). Yes, my CV has been done professionally.
So, what am I doing to fill my time (because I can't job hunt 24/7): serving on federal advisory boards and successfully chairing/writing policy studies on finance topics. This work has been stimulating and kept me active, but it is all pro bono.
Believe me, I'd return to work in a flash at a salary comparable to many 30-40 somethings.
There's clearly a disconnect here.
24
@fran soyerny:
Re: "This number was 76.1 in November 1984, when Ronald Reagan won 49 states running on a platform of a jobs recovery."
Regarding the 25-54 EMRATIO being higher now, than near one low point during Reagan: So what? As Paul points out, there were fewer women in the work force at that time. But many families could *afford* to have one spouse stay home, since wages were high enough. That is no longer true. So, a 25-54 EMRATIO dropping from 80.0 in January 2008 to 74.8 in December 2009, is a dramatic drop, obviously correlated with the removal of a trillion dollars per year in housing related activity (Demand) from the economy.
Paul asserts that an EMRATIO above 80 is no longer "normal", but has nothing to back that up, other than it hasn't yet returned to that level.
I assert that the low EMRATIO correlates with unemployment due to a lack of demand in the economy.
The only way to find out who is right, is to keep adding demand to the economy, until wages start rising, and labor shortages appear. The people in power do *not* want to do this - including Obama. The status quo (high inequality, high real unemployment and poverty in inner cities) is just fine with them, until they get a consequence - like being removed from power.
Painting a rosy picture to support the guy you think is on your side (such as Obama), is counterproductive in terms of getting actual improvements.
Re: "This number was 76.1 in November 1984, when Ronald Reagan won 49 states running on a platform of a jobs recovery."
Regarding the 25-54 EMRATIO being higher now, than near one low point during Reagan: So what? As Paul points out, there were fewer women in the work force at that time. But many families could *afford* to have one spouse stay home, since wages were high enough. That is no longer true. So, a 25-54 EMRATIO dropping from 80.0 in January 2008 to 74.8 in December 2009, is a dramatic drop, obviously correlated with the removal of a trillion dollars per year in housing related activity (Demand) from the economy.
Paul asserts that an EMRATIO above 80 is no longer "normal", but has nothing to back that up, other than it hasn't yet returned to that level.
I assert that the low EMRATIO correlates with unemployment due to a lack of demand in the economy.
The only way to find out who is right, is to keep adding demand to the economy, until wages start rising, and labor shortages appear. The people in power do *not* want to do this - including Obama. The status quo (high inequality, high real unemployment and poverty in inner cities) is just fine with them, until they get a consequence - like being removed from power.
Painting a rosy picture to support the guy you think is on your side (such as Obama), is counterproductive in terms of getting actual improvements.
Using the data for ages 25-54, (negating effects of retirees) we are still well below full employment.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060
In April 2001, 25-54 EMRATIO peaked at 81.9 with no hint of wage (let alone price) pressure - meaning *still* not at full employment.
In Dec 2015, it was at 77.4 - same as November, and 4.5% lower than previous peak. Jobs are outpacing population growth, but not by much. It would take decades to reach full employment at this rate - a rate which is unlikely to be sustained due to lack of demand.
We would need decades of a tight labor market / full employment for wages and wealth to recoup lost ground. A much higher minimum wage would be a good start to fixing that in the short term.
Looking at the situation with rose colored glasses isn't smart, if you really want to improve things, rather than just defend the status quo.
Interest rates have been trending downwards for decades. Since 1990, the only times near full employment have been due to unsustainable bubbles, superimposed upon secular trend of ever widening gap between demand and supply. Even at bubble peak in 2000, with headline unemployment below 4%, we still had low inflation, meaning *less* than full employment.
The present rate of job creation is not only inadequate, it likely represents a cyclical peak in a long term downward trend - which was caused by policy changes that need to be reversed.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060
In April 2001, 25-54 EMRATIO peaked at 81.9 with no hint of wage (let alone price) pressure - meaning *still* not at full employment.
In Dec 2015, it was at 77.4 - same as November, and 4.5% lower than previous peak. Jobs are outpacing population growth, but not by much. It would take decades to reach full employment at this rate - a rate which is unlikely to be sustained due to lack of demand.
We would need decades of a tight labor market / full employment for wages and wealth to recoup lost ground. A much higher minimum wage would be a good start to fixing that in the short term.
Looking at the situation with rose colored glasses isn't smart, if you really want to improve things, rather than just defend the status quo.
Interest rates have been trending downwards for decades. Since 1990, the only times near full employment have been due to unsustainable bubbles, superimposed upon secular trend of ever widening gap between demand and supply. Even at bubble peak in 2000, with headline unemployment below 4%, we still had low inflation, meaning *less* than full employment.
The present rate of job creation is not only inadequate, it likely represents a cyclical peak in a long term downward trend - which was caused by policy changes that need to be reversed.
6
The 25-64 EMRATIO has been in a long term downtrend for about 15 years, after peaking in 2000. Look at the graph since 1960.
1960 65.8%
1970 70.2%
1980 75.1%
1990 80.2%
2000 81.8%
2005 79.2%
2010 75.1%
current 77.4%
During the 1980s, the ratio exceeded the current ratio for the first time, as women entered the workforce. This changing trend peaked during the Clinton administration. During the 1980s and 1990s most of the jobs were at S&P500 companies, but since then essentially all of the job growth has been at smaller companies or sole proprietorships. A larger portion of the 25-64 yo population is in school, or starting businesses themselves, or working for cash in the gray economy. It is very unlikely that the EMRATIO can exceed 80% in this changed environment. The current EMRATIO is likely to top 78%, but unlikely to exceed the 80% level anytime soon, due to changes in peoples' career plans since the 1980s.
I look at many of the people I know, and see they aren't counted in the workforce. Myself (investor), my son (real estate renovation), my wife for six of the last ten years (went back to school for a PhD), a friend who is a caregiver in her early 40s going to school for two years to improve her position, one relative working in the gray market, another relative who provides financial guidance pro bono full time (has an MBA from a top business school), a young man who guides fishing trips for cash, and so forth. All aged 25-64, and a big change from the 80s.
1960 65.8%
1970 70.2%
1980 75.1%
1990 80.2%
2000 81.8%
2005 79.2%
2010 75.1%
current 77.4%
During the 1980s, the ratio exceeded the current ratio for the first time, as women entered the workforce. This changing trend peaked during the Clinton administration. During the 1980s and 1990s most of the jobs were at S&P500 companies, but since then essentially all of the job growth has been at smaller companies or sole proprietorships. A larger portion of the 25-64 yo population is in school, or starting businesses themselves, or working for cash in the gray economy. It is very unlikely that the EMRATIO can exceed 80% in this changed environment. The current EMRATIO is likely to top 78%, but unlikely to exceed the 80% level anytime soon, due to changes in peoples' career plans since the 1980s.
I look at many of the people I know, and see they aren't counted in the workforce. Myself (investor), my son (real estate renovation), my wife for six of the last ten years (went back to school for a PhD), a friend who is a caregiver in her early 40s going to school for two years to improve her position, one relative working in the gray market, another relative who provides financial guidance pro bono full time (has an MBA from a top business school), a young man who guides fishing trips for cash, and so forth. All aged 25-64, and a big change from the 80s.
4
Paul,
Re: "A larger portion of the 25-64 yo population is in school..."
More people in school is an *effect* of lack of jobs - not a cause. Kids unable to find jobs continue school. Biggest job growth is in low skilled jobs.
Re: "It is very unlikely that the EMRATIO can exceed 80% in this changed environment."
That "changed environment" is the problem - chronic lack of demand.
In 2000, U3 averaged 4% for the year, without inflation. That is a huge change from the 1960's, when inflation would occur at much higher U3 numbers. The effective value of NAIRU is much lower now, because workers are more desperate - lower wealth among lower quintiles, less savings, less job security. That has only become worse since 2000, meaning we need much more demand to get to full employment, and NAIRU is likely much lower than 4%.
Yes, EMratio was lower in the 1960's due to fewer women in the work force. That was only feasible because the wages of working men in lower quintiles were high enough to allow families to survive on one income.
Should be no problem having lower EMRATIO's going forward - just make sure that workers are paid enough that one spouse can stay home.
Regarding "changed economy": There were changes in *policy* which created this situation. The assumption that "there is nothing we can do" is being used to justify inaction on behalf of workers.
Re: "A larger portion of the 25-64 yo population is in school..."
More people in school is an *effect* of lack of jobs - not a cause. Kids unable to find jobs continue school. Biggest job growth is in low skilled jobs.
Re: "It is very unlikely that the EMRATIO can exceed 80% in this changed environment."
That "changed environment" is the problem - chronic lack of demand.
In 2000, U3 averaged 4% for the year, without inflation. That is a huge change from the 1960's, when inflation would occur at much higher U3 numbers. The effective value of NAIRU is much lower now, because workers are more desperate - lower wealth among lower quintiles, less savings, less job security. That has only become worse since 2000, meaning we need much more demand to get to full employment, and NAIRU is likely much lower than 4%.
Yes, EMratio was lower in the 1960's due to fewer women in the work force. That was only feasible because the wages of working men in lower quintiles were high enough to allow families to survive on one income.
Should be no problem having lower EMRATIO's going forward - just make sure that workers are paid enough that one spouse can stay home.
Regarding "changed economy": There were changes in *policy* which created this situation. The assumption that "there is nothing we can do" is being used to justify inaction on behalf of workers.
1
This number was 76.1 in November 1984, when Ronald Reagan won 49 states running on a platform of a jobs recovery.
Are you saying that Obama's record on jobs, as defined by the labor participation rate ( your measure ), is better than Ronald Reagan's ?
Are you saying that Obama's record on jobs, as defined by the labor participation rate ( your measure ), is better than Ronald Reagan's ?
How many of these jobs include healthcare benefits?
How many of these jobs are NOT service jobs, which pay minimum wage?
How many of these jobs are full-time?
How many of these jobs pay a living wage?
How many of these jobs will be there when the economy tanks later this year?
What's the REAL unemployment number? Not 5%. Not 10%. Not even 15%.
It's more like 20%.
How many of these jobs are NOT service jobs, which pay minimum wage?
How many of these jobs are full-time?
How many of these jobs pay a living wage?
How many of these jobs will be there when the economy tanks later this year?
What's the REAL unemployment number? Not 5%. Not 10%. Not even 15%.
It's more like 20%.
26
Hello Delving, Legitimate questions, all around.
Per BLS data,
Since December 2009, full-time workers have increased by 12.0 million.
Since December 2009, part-time workers have decreased by 120 thousand.
In 2014, 3.9% of workers were paid minimum or sub-minimum wages, down from 4.9% in 2009.
U6 unemployment (including marginally attached workers and part-time workers who would like more hours) was 9.9% this month, down from 17.1% in 2009.
Per TheJobGap.org,
52% of new jobs pay a living wage.
Per BLS data,
Since December 2009, full-time workers have increased by 12.0 million.
Since December 2009, part-time workers have decreased by 120 thousand.
In 2014, 3.9% of workers were paid minimum or sub-minimum wages, down from 4.9% in 2009.
U6 unemployment (including marginally attached workers and part-time workers who would like more hours) was 9.9% this month, down from 17.1% in 2009.
Per TheJobGap.org,
52% of new jobs pay a living wage.
1
@JohnK:
"52% of new jobs pay a living wage."
Which means 48% don't.
"52% of new jobs pay a living wage."
Which means 48% don't.
4
52% of new jobs pay a living wage--so 48% don't. Wow.
If the job market is so great why aren't our salaries increasing. There ought to be a real shortage of applicants out there with employers tripping over each other to hire the most qualified people. And there are plenty of qualified people of all ages looking for jobs. Many are unemployed because employers don't want to pay them for their skills. Employers don't want to train them in anything. Employers don't want anyone who has a family, a handicap, or if they are over the age of 40, or if they have more than a few years experience.
Many of the jobs that are being added are temporary, contract work, or minimum wage. Many potential workers are so discouraged that they've stopped looking. As a 57 year old woman who happens to have a job (and was fired from one just before turning 55), I know that if I lose this job I will probably not find another one. Why? Because I will be considered useless, stupid, technologically challenged (although I'm in IT), incompetent, etc. Frankly, what I see happening is the crumbling of our consumer economy. Employers don't pay us enough, fire us whenever they want to be leaner (and then lose customers), and have us working overtime with no pay (salaried or hourly whichever is more convenient for them), and then drop us when we burn out.
But this is America, land of oppression and the obsequious politician who sees nothing wrong with grinding the peasants into the ground. Easier to put his foot in their mouths to silence them.
Many of the jobs that are being added are temporary, contract work, or minimum wage. Many potential workers are so discouraged that they've stopped looking. As a 57 year old woman who happens to have a job (and was fired from one just before turning 55), I know that if I lose this job I will probably not find another one. Why? Because I will be considered useless, stupid, technologically challenged (although I'm in IT), incompetent, etc. Frankly, what I see happening is the crumbling of our consumer economy. Employers don't pay us enough, fire us whenever they want to be leaner (and then lose customers), and have us working overtime with no pay (salaried or hourly whichever is more convenient for them), and then drop us when we burn out.
But this is America, land of oppression and the obsequious politician who sees nothing wrong with grinding the peasants into the ground. Easier to put his foot in their mouths to silence them.
34
I graduated from college in 1982, when the unemployment rate was in double digits and the economy was in awful shape. However, like every other economic cycle, those jobs eventually came back...and they were "real" jobs, full-time with benefits.
That's the difference with the current job "recovery"; with few exceptions, the positions that are being added are part-time, temporary, have no benefits, and pay a laughably bad wage. Good luck building a life or a family with that.
That's the difference with the current job "recovery"; with few exceptions, the positions that are being added are part-time, temporary, have no benefits, and pay a laughably bad wage. Good luck building a life or a family with that.
5
Good news on employment rising...now how about those flat wages, no paid maternity/paternity leave, poor benefits, no job security and exponentially-increasing healthcare premiums?
11
Because so many jobs are part-time the US is not yet close to what economists mean by full employment. Only when wages start growing because of labor shortage can we claim full employment has been reached.
16
Good job numbers, low inflation, low energy prices......IMHO: America is the engine that can. I just wish more of our workers were paid a living wage and we had national health insurance.
9
We need to dig down further into the jobs data because the real unemployment rate is substantially higher than the 5% reported and the type of jobs we have gained do not match what we lost.
Since the end of the recession we have created a great many low wage, low skill jobs in fast food, retail, call center and customer service and other such industries. We have outsourced high paying jobs overseas, reducing the number of IT workers for example (as the Times has noted in previous articles.)
We have also left older Americans who lost jobs, those aged 50 and above on the sidelines, scraping by on contract, freelance and temporary work. We count part-timers unemployed; we also count those working 2 and 3 low paying jobs as employed.
This creates a false picture of success.
Since the end of the recession we have created a great many low wage, low skill jobs in fast food, retail, call center and customer service and other such industries. We have outsourced high paying jobs overseas, reducing the number of IT workers for example (as the Times has noted in previous articles.)
We have also left older Americans who lost jobs, those aged 50 and above on the sidelines, scraping by on contract, freelance and temporary work. We count part-timers unemployed; we also count those working 2 and 3 low paying jobs as employed.
This creates a false picture of success.
26
Given the complete abdication or, more accurately, the avowed, active and continuous obstruction, of Congressional Republicans responsible for fiscal policy, leaving not only the heavy lifting but ALL of the lifting to the Fed and the Administration, the performance of the national economy in fostering job creation and a respectable GDP has been surprisingly good.
11
Multiple jobs at a fraction of the pay post 2008 is cause for celebration of mediocrity and failed admistrative policies is your thing. 2 decades of failures in leadership doesn't excite me.
8
The jobs data will put Republicans in a quandary: Will they continue to bash Obama about his "poor" job-creation record while they continue to offer no alternative? Or will they stop bashing Obama while continuing to offer no alternative? Whichever tack they decide to take, they are sure to characterize it as a "courageous" decision.
9
If this was a great year for jobs, I would hate to see a bad one. You did a great article just days ago about older women just giving up looking for work, now it's a great year. And if a Republican wins, you will no doubt change the narrative to tell us how bad things are.
This is a lackluster economy despite low gas prices. What happens when they inevitably rise?
This is a lackluster economy despite low gas prices. What happens when they inevitably rise?
33
What planet was this written on?
I was going to say, it was a great year unless you are female and perceived as middle aged. And since my age is there for all to see without even paying for it; I will never get to meet anyone so they can see I am not some doddering old lady who needs remedial mouse training.
Companies are constantly complaining there is a skills shortage. And I am not talking about NASA level skills. What they are bemoaning is the lack of "basic computer skills." If that's true, they have not interviewed me and it is all on my resume. I mean Pivot Tables, SPSS statistical software and a host of other Office Applications besides Excel which I don't list because it looks stupid IMHO. Then there are proprietary databases like SAP, Innovative Millennium and a billion others it took me five seconds to learn. Like I mean, after playing with it for a few hours I knew more about it than my coworkers who had been using the software 20 years.
So the Job Market was great in 2015!!!!!!! Oh Boy!!!!!!!!!!!! Lets break out the champagne!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was going to say, it was a great year unless you are female and perceived as middle aged. And since my age is there for all to see without even paying for it; I will never get to meet anyone so they can see I am not some doddering old lady who needs remedial mouse training.
Companies are constantly complaining there is a skills shortage. And I am not talking about NASA level skills. What they are bemoaning is the lack of "basic computer skills." If that's true, they have not interviewed me and it is all on my resume. I mean Pivot Tables, SPSS statistical software and a host of other Office Applications besides Excel which I don't list because it looks stupid IMHO. Then there are proprietary databases like SAP, Innovative Millennium and a billion others it took me five seconds to learn. Like I mean, after playing with it for a few hours I knew more about it than my coworkers who had been using the software 20 years.
So the Job Market was great in 2015!!!!!!! Oh Boy!!!!!!!!!!!! Lets break out the champagne!!!!!!!!!!!!!
14
I agree that older workers, especially women, are discriminated against/viewed warily by employers. I'm 61 with excellent credentials and good computer facility and social media skills (and look 10+ years younger than my chronological age). 2 interviews in the past 18 months, despite a strong (and professionally written) CV. And not ready to be put out to pasture, despite being discouraged by corporate America.
6
Hello Shonuff, Especially in tech, it is hard for both older men and women to get hired. The "joke" in Silicon Valley was that 40 was an old age for a manager, and 35 was an old age for an engineer. The sad truth is that age discrimination exists, and like all discrimination, results in an immense waste of talent and energy.
6
My question is: How many Americans who currently aren’t working can be coaxed back into the work force when employers are so choosy over they want to be called in for an interview and who they should pass on? I am among one of those many people who is long term unemployed, but want a job. I am upset when I did not get called in for the next round after having had a phone interview. I admit that it was the first interview that I had at all last year, but it was one where I got any type of interview. I believe the reason why I did not make it to the next round in the intervieew phase is because I have been unemployed for quite some time. Anything beyond six months gives reasons for why employers immediately reject people such as myself. If they would only call us in for an interview and hear from us, then we could get a chance to sell ourselves to the prospective employer.
The article did not focus on this problem. It is a major issue and should have been addressed.
The article did not focus on this problem. It is a major issue and should have been addressed.
36
Hey man, have you tried "starting your own business"? Anything that could help you explain that gap in your resume.
you could just say that business went down and that now you are looking for a job. ezpz
you could just say that business went down and that now you are looking for a job. ezpz
2
Well, if you're starting to get nibbles, things are looking up. At the height of the recession, no one would have interviewed you. As the supply of workers diminishes, then employers will have to start considering whether they can use the long-term unemployed.
Remember, employers thing of potential workers in broad categories rather than as individuals. If they are not considering the long-term unemployed, you won't get in the door no matter how good you are. If they decide to take a look, then you will have a chance.
Good luck!
Remember, employers thing of potential workers in broad categories rather than as individuals. If they are not considering the long-term unemployed, you won't get in the door no matter how good you are. If they decide to take a look, then you will have a chance.
Good luck!
Job growth was considerably slower than the pace of 2014. How exactly does this equate to blockbuster?
As for baby boomers retiring, yes, they are, but their labor force participation rates have actually been rising, while the rates for prime age workers have been in decline. So baby boomers ( a large cohort) are having a downward pressure on the overall rate of participation (because of their size and despite their increased participation rate) but this does not shine much light on what is happening with those not in retirement age or school age years.
As for baby boomers retiring, yes, they are, but their labor force participation rates have actually been rising, while the rates for prime age workers have been in decline. So baby boomers ( a large cohort) are having a downward pressure on the overall rate of participation (because of their size and despite their increased participation rate) but this does not shine much light on what is happening with those not in retirement age or school age years.
10
The gross job growth number seems meaningless unless it is accompanied by numbers about wage level, minimum, entry or good median wage, and the work participation of the potential work force.
17
I do not understand why the press repeats the economic opinion that job creation of a rate of less than three million a year is great news when we are not even keeping up with the number of people graduating from high school a year, 3.3 million. Whether they postpone job hunting to go to college or not, we need to find them all jobs eventually. And do not we have to add the number of immigrants of working age coming into the country as well?
22
andrea: You are repeating a common Republican propaganda meme based on some mathematical sleight of hand. We can actually calculate the number of NEW jobs needed to match working age population growth, by looking at population growth and existing numbers of jobs.
The number of jobs in these reports are non-farm payrolls, and stands at about 143 million, so with population of the US standing at 322 million (about 44% working covered in the jobs report out of the entire population, including children, retirees, undocumented workers, incarcerated, disabled etc.). Please notice that Mr. Irwin likely removes some of this population, such as children under the age of 15, to bring the percentage working to about 60%.
Each year the entire population increases by about 3-4 million, so to hold the number at jobs steady at 44% of the entire population, we need to increase the number of jobs by about 1.5 million. Your estimate of 3.3 million assumes that EVERYONE in the population must work, including children, retirees etc.
Job growth reported at about 120k per month is sufficient to match population growth, so job growth over 200k is quite high, and unsustainable over the long haul. This is the point of this article.
The number of jobs in these reports are non-farm payrolls, and stands at about 143 million, so with population of the US standing at 322 million (about 44% working covered in the jobs report out of the entire population, including children, retirees, undocumented workers, incarcerated, disabled etc.). Please notice that Mr. Irwin likely removes some of this population, such as children under the age of 15, to bring the percentage working to about 60%.
Each year the entire population increases by about 3-4 million, so to hold the number at jobs steady at 44% of the entire population, we need to increase the number of jobs by about 1.5 million. Your estimate of 3.3 million assumes that EVERYONE in the population must work, including children, retirees etc.
Job growth reported at about 120k per month is sufficient to match population growth, so job growth over 200k is quite high, and unsustainable over the long haul. This is the point of this article.
3
I'm not sure what the source of your 3.3 million number is, but I was just looking at a Department of Education report that puts this number at about 4.0 million. This compares to roughly 3.6 million boomers turning 65 each year, who will be leaving the work force. I've heard economists use 70,000 per month as the replacement amount needed to keep unemployment in a steady state, which is roughly .8 million per year. This suggests working age immigrants on the order of .4 million (without regard to their dependents). Not all HS grads immediately enter the work force and not all boomers immediately retire at 65, the the net numbers add up.
2
I guess I could have made the point more simply, by pointing out that each year about 1.7-1.8 million jobs are left open by people retiring or dying. So the number of NEW jobs needed to accommodate 3.3 million HS grads is about 1.5-1.6 million.
1
There isn't a Republican running for president who shows a real concern about the hollowing out of the Middle Class. They are all against raising the minimum wage - including the front runner - the billionaire posing as an "Everyman" Donald Trump.
15
The minimum wage? Last time I worked at a minimum wage job, I was bagging groceries at A&P in 1967.
3
People will continue to pat themselves--and this system--on the back by citing irrelevant statistics such as "growth" and "job gains." They will ignore the fact that we live in a paradigmatically different economy from 1968, where wages and productivity were in a commensurate relationship.
But, as we all know, these job numbers mean very little if they're low wage (which they mostly are--check the BLS stats). This is especially true when one lives in a country that demands you pay a second mortgage each year for the privilege of health care and when higher education has increased at 4x the rate of inflation.
What we have is a global convergence of wages, coupled with a sick economic system based on rent-extraction and financial coercion. Forget the ticky-tack job numbers debate. We're going to need to start having serious conversations about global capitalism itself.
But, as we all know, these job numbers mean very little if they're low wage (which they mostly are--check the BLS stats). This is especially true when one lives in a country that demands you pay a second mortgage each year for the privilege of health care and when higher education has increased at 4x the rate of inflation.
What we have is a global convergence of wages, coupled with a sick economic system based on rent-extraction and financial coercion. Forget the ticky-tack job numbers debate. We're going to need to start having serious conversations about global capitalism itself.
38
Vanadias: Actually jobs have trended toward more full-time jobs versus part-time jobs in recent years, and household incomes recovered substantially from the Great Recession. The latest real median household income tracked by monthly by an investment advisory service is within 2% of the record high set in late 2001 (google "November Median Household Income at a New Post-Recession High").
Examining the breakdown of household incomes by quintiles adds more clarity. The top two quintiles have already hit record high household incomes, and the middle quintile should hit a record high this spring, putting over 60% of households at record incomes. The bottom quintiles have been hammered, particularly by austerity measures (budget cutbacks) adopted by many state governments during the recession in the name of "balanced budgets". Most economists view cutting government expenditures and employment in a recession as terrible economic policy. Yet many state governments did exactly this.
I agree that "unregulated free market capitalism" doesn't work in many sectors of our economy (healthcare, agriculture, energy, defense, education, transportation, natural resources such as water and forestry). These sectors work better if managed to optimize performance in meeting stakeholder needs. We should transition from "suppliers first" economic policies to "customers first" policies. I suggest government regulated private sector entities should manage these sectors.
Examining the breakdown of household incomes by quintiles adds more clarity. The top two quintiles have already hit record high household incomes, and the middle quintile should hit a record high this spring, putting over 60% of households at record incomes. The bottom quintiles have been hammered, particularly by austerity measures (budget cutbacks) adopted by many state governments during the recession in the name of "balanced budgets". Most economists view cutting government expenditures and employment in a recession as terrible economic policy. Yet many state governments did exactly this.
I agree that "unregulated free market capitalism" doesn't work in many sectors of our economy (healthcare, agriculture, energy, defense, education, transportation, natural resources such as water and forestry). These sectors work better if managed to optimize performance in meeting stakeholder needs. We should transition from "suppliers first" economic policies to "customers first" policies. I suggest government regulated private sector entities should manage these sectors.
4
I appreciate your nuanced reply, Paul. But I checked this article, and they use absolute, not real, dollars--which is the power of the wage against inflation. The data are very clear on this trend: overall real median household income has declined since the Great Recession (and it is down 7% from its peak in 1999, an approximate decline of .5% each year). Real health expenditures, however, have risen 2%-6% 'every year' since then. (If you want to check my source I'm using the St. Louis Fed website).
And you're probably right that the upper quintile is doing better, although I didn't check these data. But that's precisely my point: if the upper quintile is doing better, and the lower four quintiles are stagnating or worsening, that's a real problem for an economy that makes ideological claims to "broad based prosperity," and that still believes in the mantra that "a rising tide lifts all boats." It clearly doesn't.
And you're probably right that the upper quintile is doing better, although I didn't check these data. But that's precisely my point: if the upper quintile is doing better, and the lower four quintiles are stagnating or worsening, that's a real problem for an economy that makes ideological claims to "broad based prosperity," and that still believes in the mantra that "a rising tide lifts all boats." It clearly doesn't.
6
It doesn't have to match it unless you want the continued cycles of booms and busts. Healthy upticks or moderate downticks in employment is a good thing as opposed to bigger swings in either direction.
However, Americans are their own worst enemies. They will do everything in their power to elect idea bankrupt, demagogic pols. to insure that false big upswings in the economy will come followed by crashes.
It is the nature of the beast...
However, Americans are their own worst enemies. They will do everything in their power to elect idea bankrupt, demagogic pols. to insure that false big upswings in the economy will come followed by crashes.
It is the nature of the beast...
11
Spot on!
1
The Baby Boomers are retiring because they are getting older. This point is essential to any discussion of labor force participation rates.
9
If this is true, how come the largest bump in labor force participation has gone to people 65+? And, as a corollary point, how come labor force participation continues to drop for prime age workers between 25-55?
6
Also fewer full-time students take part-time jobs, electing to concentrate on school instead. With more students than ever, relative to school-age population, this causes a decline in LFPR. The trend of students to pass on part-time jobs and use student debt instead, is a major factor in the LFPR change from 2000 to 2015.
1
I am a boomer and I do not retire for another 13 years if I am lucky....which at this rate I won't be.
2
We are at the inflection point for Income Growth to happen naturally.
A few years ago, the WSJ projected labor shortages by 2018. I see signs that is already occurring today in certain skilled sectors like education and construction.
With the Baby Boom retirement at 10,000 a day, more "employment" in the cash economy and many unsuited to steady work because of addiction and other health issues, don't expect a big jump in labor force participation.
(Local contractors paying $25 an hour tell me they can't find workers who will show up more than 2 days in a row)
Education is still a big driver of employability and a large part of our potential workforce suffers from decades of under achievement and low high school graduation rates.
And age discrimination is a growing problem, especially for those who might have to care for aging parents.
With the Baby Boom retirement at 10,000 a day, more "employment" in the cash economy and many unsuited to steady work because of addiction and other health issues, don't expect a big jump in labor force participation.
(Local contractors paying $25 an hour tell me they can't find workers who will show up more than 2 days in a row)
Education is still a big driver of employability and a large part of our potential workforce suffers from decades of under achievement and low high school graduation rates.
And age discrimination is a growing problem, especially for those who might have to care for aging parents.
16
LFPR has been declining for decades, due to increased number of retirees (graying of the population), full-time students electing to use student debt instead of part-time jobs, a reversal in the trend of either women or men who stay home as the homemaker, and a larger number of entrepreneurs trying to start businesses or taking cash gigs in the gray economy. The LFPR even includes investors (like me), who make money from capital gains, instead of receiving salaries or wages. All of these decisions are consistent with maximizing lifetime income, optimizing tax strategies, and increasing personal satisfaction, and lead to a declining LFPR.
Take myself and my son as an example. I left the workforce to run my investments in the 1990s. My son at age 31, has only received a salary two years in the last decade. Neither of us is counted as employed in the LFPR. Yet this year we both worked 50-60 hours per week on his latest real estate purchase, my startup business (long-shot), and managing our wives investments (both are employed). I doubt my son will ever work for a salary/wage again.
Its a new age, and a new economy, and the LFPR shows that.
Take myself and my son as an example. I left the workforce to run my investments in the 1990s. My son at age 31, has only received a salary two years in the last decade. Neither of us is counted as employed in the LFPR. Yet this year we both worked 50-60 hours per week on his latest real estate purchase, my startup business (long-shot), and managing our wives investments (both are employed). I doubt my son will ever work for a salary/wage again.
Its a new age, and a new economy, and the LFPR shows that.
13
Some truth to what you are saying-- more are self-employed-- but the BLS counts the self-employed in the household employment numbers. You and your son-- with 50-60 hours of work per week-- are self-employed, whether or not you are being compensated.
1
More and more jobs for the same pay (adjusted for inflation) as 40 years ago. "The bad news in the report, if you can call it that, was that average hourly earnings were unchanged," as the story mentions. The productivity gains all go to the top and the hollowing out of the middle class continues. It's no wonder that consumer demand is stagnant. When productivity increases are not shared, life for most Americans is a rat-race in which they (the rats) just run around and around and never get anywhere.
35
If management paid for the systems and tech that provided the boosted efficiencies then what share of the gains are in any way owed to the workforce? There are still only 24 hours in a day and 7 days in a week.
2
Your analysis is short-sighted. People who cannot support themselves are inclined to overturn the status quo. Think about France in 1789 and Russia in 1917. Not good for property owners and investors.
3
Oops-- this was intended to be a response to Leave Capitalism alone, below.