Upshot, what happens if a President Trump does bring back all this lost manufacturing? Does the price of goods skyrocket because we pay higher wages or does all the new work available pay a pittance and we have a labor force that needs to be subsidized by the federal government?
4
Automation is making "work " an anachronism.
IMHO thats the real issue.
IMHO thats the real issue.
5
A better question would be how many appropriate jobs can our economy create. Try thinking almost every "retired" person could use some more money and there are plenty that could work. Many continue to go to college because they can't get a decent job, many high school students would work if jobs were there for them. Lots of room for expansion, if opportunities were there.
9
The federal reserve is supposed to raise interest rates so that wage inflation doesn't become significant. Republican and Democratic politicians mostly seem fine with this, but wage inflation, especially at the low end of the wage scale, is what we need to lift people out of poverty and the need to work multiple jobs. Democrats will be more likely to support wage inflation. Wage inflation at the low end of the wage scale will also make it more attractive for employers to hire illegal immigrants to undercut citizen workers and suppress wage inflation, so border control needs to be part of the plan if we are to see wage inflation at the low end of the wage scale. Republicans will be more likely to support border control, but they are such slaves to business elites who profit from keeping wages low that they will not really address this problem. Maybe bomb-thrower Trump will shake things up (I wouldn't vote for him in a million years, but someone needs to upend the status quo).
4
Wage inflation for low capability employees will result in them being unemployed or replaced by automation.
6
This is a misleading article as many factors greatly differ in many areas of the U.S. depending upon skilled and unskilled labor. Due to the baby boomer generation retiring daily, many have dropped out of the labor force. Also many people have put two part jobs together to fulfill their needs. Detroit is at 10% unemployment.
2
@Janis
Ridgewood, NJ
It's not misleading. It's looking at a national picture not a regional one. The US economy has thousands of moving parts. They don't all behave in exactly the same way all the time.
Ridgewood, NJ
It's not misleading. It's looking at a national picture not a regional one. The US economy has thousands of moving parts. They don't all behave in exactly the same way all the time.
4
The number of those working part-time jobs who would rather be working full time is down a million from last year.
1
I’ve no doubt that highly educated individuals are in great demands for their talents, for an example, those in the fields of automation production design, A.I., computer programming ,robotics and many more. The problem is not with the highly skilled, but with the low or no skilled. Most unemployed, under-employed and those earning stagnant wages are replaced by machines or means of automated production permanently. The official unemployment rate of 4.9% hides the portion of unemployed from the statistics, who’s dropped out the job market as though they were somehow still employed. The real unemployment rate is a factor at least of two, possibly more, higher than the official figure.
Automated productions in a capitalist system are the most ruthless job killers. Unfortunately, capital while seeking higher and higher profits transforms more human-labor-powered productions into robotics-powered. Machines have once and for all defeated man. And there is no return any more. Donald Trump did not seem to understand the machine vs. human warfare when he railed against those capitals that sent jobs overseas.
How to settle the matter with the ascendance of automation over labor? Capital must cede its unruly power to common good.
Automated productions in a capitalist system are the most ruthless job killers. Unfortunately, capital while seeking higher and higher profits transforms more human-labor-powered productions into robotics-powered. Machines have once and for all defeated man. And there is no return any more. Donald Trump did not seem to understand the machine vs. human warfare when he railed against those capitals that sent jobs overseas.
How to settle the matter with the ascendance of automation over labor? Capital must cede its unruly power to common good.
9
Or we need many fewer humans and only very competent ones.
3
"The real unemployment rate is a factor at least of two, possibly more, higher than the official figure."
You know, sometimes the voices in your head just lie.
Do you have any evidence to support this unlikely claim?
You know, sometimes the voices in your head just lie.
Do you have any evidence to support this unlikely claim?
1
sadly most of these positions are once again low paying jobs in the service sector that require continued dependence on food stamps. This has been the trend for years as the manufacturing base continues to disappear in this country. Carrier air conditioning is a case in point. If the Fed Reserve raises interest rates based on this then we will see the economic growth continue to be zero or near zero and more business close there doors since consumers will be unable to afford to spend or become homeowners.
9
companies use immigration to lower wages. Wages stagnated immediately after 1965 immigration act and no longer rise with increases in worker productivity. productivity gains are kept by "buyers of labor" (wall street investors, business owners, stockholders, CEOs) rather then by "sellers of labor" (employees/workers). Google BLS graph on hourly wages versus employee productivity for an amazing charge that proves wages immediately stopped increasing with productivity after 1965 immigration act. Basic Econ101 supply and demand at play. Big business uses immigration to make the rich richer while enslaving the middle class.
7
Don't blame Wall Street, business owners, stockholders or CEOs. Employees/workers have all the political power to refuse "buyer of labor" in the democratic society. The problem is that employees/workers don't exercise their political power in direct for a long time. Large number of Trump supporters are unfortunately those employees/workers that are comically or tragically confused.
3
In an economy with an ever growing labor supply, thru immigration, there is no need for companies to pay anybody but the bare minimum. Supply and demand applies to people too.
8
So, if things are so great out here, explain the Trump and Sanders phenomenon. Maybe things are great for some people in some places. But income stratification continues apace. The rich get richer, while the poor are stacking sandbags against a river of despair.
This is not a stable, tenable situation, this violent concentration of wealth. It will all fall apart soon enough.
This is not a stable, tenable situation, this violent concentration of wealth. It will all fall apart soon enough.
24
Bernie Sanders is no phenom nor doing well. Trump is because the Republican candidates suck. Nothing more or less.
9
Sanders isn't a phenom at all either. He is struggling pretty bad outside certain groups which would have voted for him in 2000.
4
Hey Spengler, tell us how your really feel....
Stop posting such succinct posts. Their making everyone else look long winded gas bags.
Stop posting such succinct posts. Their making everyone else look long winded gas bags.
1
Mr Irwin
Many Americans live in a world where, at any moment, they can be replaced by someone younger, willing to work for less.
That is behind the falling wages you report.
Many Americans live in a world where, at any moment, they can be replaced by someone younger, willing to work for less.
That is behind the falling wages you report.
19
falling, wages aren't. the 3 month average is 2.5% and they have been getting revised upwards lately at a alarming(and annoying) persistence. Even February's "decline" was because of a surge of late seasonality in construction. That will reverse in March.
Your trying to hard and trying to make points to support a dialect. Stop.
Your trying to hard and trying to make points to support a dialect. Stop.
3
We run construction crews in Ohio, WV, SC, NC, FLA, & PA. We're starting to have trouble finding workers.
7
Unless you have skills of course you can be replaced, not only by another human but by automation.
1
With all the guesswork and ramblings here one has proven that economics is certainly not a science!
2
Once again a journalist refers to "average hourly earnings" which is a stunningly meaningless term. If one person earns a million dollars a year and nine others are destitute the "average" is a reasonable $100,000. The median, on the other hand, is zero.
Compounding the error is the reference to "hourly" earnings. Countless workers who should be paid by the hour are now on 'salary'. These folks seldom get the overtime pay they deserve.
A more accurate metric is needed to describe the median annual pay rate of all employed workers.
Compounding the error is the reference to "hourly" earnings. Countless workers who should be paid by the hour are now on 'salary'. These folks seldom get the overtime pay they deserve.
A more accurate metric is needed to describe the median annual pay rate of all employed workers.
18
You're missing the point here. The metric has very precise meaning and comes from the data source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Average hourly earnings is a statistic that gives an idea of labor costs (not necessarily individual earnings). It is defined by the BLS as follows: "Average hourly earnings, excluding overtime-premium pay, are computed by dividing the total worker payroll for the industry group by the sum of total worker hours and one-half of total overtime hours. No adjustments are made for other premium payment provisions, such as holiday pay, late-shift premiums, and overtime rates other than time and one-half. Average hourly earnings excluding overtime are calculated only for manufacturing industries."
You are asking for a different statistic, which is more useful in defining individual compensation, but less useful (in my opinion) for describing the overall state of the economy.
The BLS and the Census Bureau both have excellent data sets publicly available that would help answer your question, but that's not (again in my opinion) the point of this article.
Average hourly earnings is a statistic that gives an idea of labor costs (not necessarily individual earnings). It is defined by the BLS as follows: "Average hourly earnings, excluding overtime-premium pay, are computed by dividing the total worker payroll for the industry group by the sum of total worker hours and one-half of total overtime hours. No adjustments are made for other premium payment provisions, such as holiday pay, late-shift premiums, and overtime rates other than time and one-half. Average hourly earnings excluding overtime are calculated only for manufacturing industries."
You are asking for a different statistic, which is more useful in defining individual compensation, but less useful (in my opinion) for describing the overall state of the economy.
The BLS and the Census Bureau both have excellent data sets publicly available that would help answer your question, but that's not (again in my opinion) the point of this article.
7
He's asking for median annual income, totally legit question.
3
Why is the 'overall state of the economy' more important than the actual conditions encountered by its participants?
Reminds me of a front-page article Harvard Magazine ran over a year ago expounding the economic benefits of a tax on carbon emissions. The authors lauded the additional economic growth produced by such a tax. Only near the end of the piece did they note, in an offhand way, that all the projected benefits would accrue to the wealthy and most folks would lose.
But, from atop the Ivy Tower, increased inequality is scarcely relevant.
From the perspective of the 'working class' (i.e. people who actually get things done) the economy sucks -- regardless of its 'overall state'.
The majority of voters -- especially white males -- are angry for good reason. Their economic conditions have scarcely improved in the past 40 years. In 2008 BLS (or IRS) produced a report showing that white male workers were earning less than they did in 1973. And things have not improved.
Many of my friends here in West Virginia work their butts off to earn, at best, $40k per year. If you add up all the Federal and state taxes, gas and excise taxes, medical expenses, license fees and other government-mandated fees (E.G. car insurance) these good people pay around 40% of their gross income for government-related expenses.
Try as I might I cannot discover what percent of their gross income the top 0.1% pay. Bet it's less than 40%.
Reminds me of a front-page article Harvard Magazine ran over a year ago expounding the economic benefits of a tax on carbon emissions. The authors lauded the additional economic growth produced by such a tax. Only near the end of the piece did they note, in an offhand way, that all the projected benefits would accrue to the wealthy and most folks would lose.
But, from atop the Ivy Tower, increased inequality is scarcely relevant.
From the perspective of the 'working class' (i.e. people who actually get things done) the economy sucks -- regardless of its 'overall state'.
The majority of voters -- especially white males -- are angry for good reason. Their economic conditions have scarcely improved in the past 40 years. In 2008 BLS (or IRS) produced a report showing that white male workers were earning less than they did in 1973. And things have not improved.
Many of my friends here in West Virginia work their butts off to earn, at best, $40k per year. If you add up all the Federal and state taxes, gas and excise taxes, medical expenses, license fees and other government-mandated fees (E.G. car insurance) these good people pay around 40% of their gross income for government-related expenses.
Try as I might I cannot discover what percent of their gross income the top 0.1% pay. Bet it's less than 40%.
17
I'm missing the math. If the labor force grew by 1.5 million over the last three months but employment only climbed by some 680,000, how is unemployment over that period essentially unchanged? Sounds like it should be climbing. Is there some seasonality factor here to one of the stats and not the other?
3
Hello Jpriestly - You're right, the numbers don't make sense together. The labor force growth comes from a different survey (CPS) than the job growth figure (CES). The two surveys are known casually as the population survey and the establishment survey. The establishment survey is very large, and usually provides more accurate numbers than the smaller population survey. The population survey counts the number of employed people, and for the last three months says that 1.630 million more people are employed, enough to keep up with the growth in the labor force. Obviously this is different from the 680 thousand positions counted in the establishment survey. From month to month, the two surveys sometimes do conflict; over time, they tend to point in the same direction.
5
Thank you!
The labor force grew but employment grew more. Look at the totals, not NFP. Not your best effort. Sloppy.
1
A fact that keeps getting lost in the labor force participation rate is the method and count used to calculate it. It includes every non institutionalized person 16 or older including retirees. The data in the 21 st century is affected by the retiring baby boomers, and accounts for roughly one half of the decline in the participation rate from 2006 to 2015. But don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions.
3
It would also be impacted if more and more people went to college, and stayed longer before graduating. Sound like any country you know?
jonathan, correct. Those listed as students are also included in the "work force" but not working so essentially high school students 16 or older and all college students also reduce the participation rate.
It does??? News to me, and of course most of those retired who could work would like to do so. Another 15K per year would come in handy for some part time work.
Well over three million teenagers graduate evey spring. Why is 242 thousand jobs a month considered "robust?" It does not even provide employment for new job seekers entering the market.
NYT editor: Because a lot of people retire every year, too.
NYT editor: Because a lot of people retire every year, too.
3
10,000 boomers retire every month.
1
@Edward - It should be a lot more than that. If there are 164 million in the workforce aged between 18 and 65, we should expect about 3.2 million workers of each age. Naturally, there are more young workers than older workers, but there should still be close to 3 million people hitting age 65 every year.
Yes somewhat because there are no decent opportunities. Plenty would continue to work part time.
"Booming" economy? Where? I swear... All Econ-talking heads should be made - every year, to spend three weeks out here in the real world. Stop looking at polls, reports, surveys, statements by CEOs and come... Out... Here. Come look at store front vacancies in middle to upper middle class strip malls that have been vacant for well over 18 months... Speak to the approximately 70% adjunct college profs (i am one) who have been seeing a huge drop off in college enrollments as students begin to realize that the American Dream they were sold is a lemon and refuse to add more debt - prolonging their indentured servitude. Come out here and see elderly LOTS of elderly having to work to scrape by... Old men pumping gas or bagging groceries... MORE - ask people out here how many jobs they have. In my house - multi-generational there are three adults and we're working SIX jobs between us. Talk to our friends and family to find that if this isn't a 'statistical' norm it sure is a very REAL 'norm' in our lives.
America's 'boom' economies since the 80s have ALL been driven solely on CHEAP CREDIT. The last 'boom' nearly ended us. As soon as Wall Street can figure another way to 'boom' the economy it will 'doom' us.
America's 'boom' economies since the 80s have ALL been driven solely on CHEAP CREDIT. The last 'boom' nearly ended us. As soon as Wall Street can figure another way to 'boom' the economy it will 'doom' us.
44
Sorry Jim, not buying here. Help wanted signs counted in store windows yesterday in Santa Barbara...12. Min. pay $14.50 hr. Freeways jammed, lines in stores long.
1
That is where you live and may not apply elsewhere.
1
Very well said, Jim Harrison. Maybe instead of visiting countries in the Middle East our Congress people should visit different cities and neighborhoods around the country and have a cup of coffee with some American families.
9
Think about it for a moment:
MORE people are joining the labour force at FALLING wages.
The most straight forward explanation is that their alternative support, from unemployment insurances to food stamps have run out, and they are now willing to take lousy jobs.
Is that good news ?
MORE people are joining the labour force at FALLING wages.
The most straight forward explanation is that their alternative support, from unemployment insurances to food stamps have run out, and they are now willing to take lousy jobs.
Is that good news ?
33
I think that you are treating 'them' as a single lump. In reality, people were tossed out of the labor force in great numbers in 2009, 2010, etc. They long, long, long ago ran through their unemployment insurance.
I think that great numbers of the unemployed who are joining the labor force are doing so because they can get a job.
I think that great numbers of the unemployed who are joining the labor force are doing so because they can get a job.
7
Well over three million teenagers graduate evey spring. Why is 242 thousand jobs a month considered "robust?" It does not even provide employment for new job seekers entering the market.
5
@andrea - Possibly because an equally large number of workers reach retirement age every year and retire.
The American Society of Civil Engineers give a D- rating to the state of our infrastructure. They estimate a $3.6 trillion cost to repair America and bring it up to a better standard. There is enough work and need in our effort to Repair America for more people than we have. This is not just some make do work. This is vitally necessary for America to move into the future with any semblance of what we are, of what we are supposed to be.
To fix America is a win-win-win for each and every American. There would be so much to do, and at a time when money is basically free, that there would be a lack of enough workers for this important and long ignored work.
But there is great obstruction from the GOPers. They have stood in the way of each and every attempt to fix America. Maybe now since they are in meltdown mode we can get some work done on the infrastructure front. Much needed work for more workers than we have. How can we say no?
To fix America is a win-win-win for each and every American. There would be so much to do, and at a time when money is basically free, that there would be a lack of enough workers for this important and long ignored work.
But there is great obstruction from the GOPers. They have stood in the way of each and every attempt to fix America. Maybe now since they are in meltdown mode we can get some work done on the infrastructure front. Much needed work for more workers than we have. How can we say no?
41
Get in line, we need to build the wall first. And if Mexico complains, it's going to be ten feet higher.
5
Excellent point. It is beyond understanding why an economy which is 2/3rds driven by consumers would spend 90% of its 'economic recovery' funds on banking.
Oh, wait. Could it be because we put bankers in charge of the economy?
Perhaps President Sanders will have the wisdom to entrust the economy to an engineer, architect, construction worker or anyone who actually builds economic value instead of people who play with money.
Oh, wait. Could it be because we put bankers in charge of the economy?
Perhaps President Sanders will have the wisdom to entrust the economy to an engineer, architect, construction worker or anyone who actually builds economic value instead of people who play with money.
22
Sure, and taking your argument to the next step, why don't we have bankers design our bridges, have our economists build houses, and have entertainers run for president (oh, wait...).
1
We need either Guaranteed Basic Income (also known as Welfare for All) OR a big infrastructure program (starting with lead paint removal) OR BOTH.
Len Charlap is right, paying people to do something or to learn something is more productive than simply giving them money. But giving everyone money at least levels the playing field a bit. Today, the wealthy are given a lot of money for doing NOTHING. Treating everyone like the rich would at least be more fair.
The only politician who wants to do any of this is Bernie Sanders. To see what should be done watch Comedy Party Platform on YouTube and Benton-Comedy2, each under 3 minutes. Send a buck to Sanders. Invite me to speak. It's morning in America!
Len Charlap is right, paying people to do something or to learn something is more productive than simply giving them money. But giving everyone money at least levels the playing field a bit. Today, the wealthy are given a lot of money for doing NOTHING. Treating everyone like the rich would at least be more fair.
The only politician who wants to do any of this is Bernie Sanders. To see what should be done watch Comedy Party Platform on YouTube and Benton-Comedy2, each under 3 minutes. Send a buck to Sanders. Invite me to speak. It's morning in America!
15
Instead of a guaranteed income, which encourages sloth, how's about a government guarantee of a good-paying job? After WWII the Full Employment Act made that a law. And it helped produce the Interstate Highway System, amongst other benefits.
6
Great idea, Richard, but the Republican party is trying to shrink government at all levels- local, state and federal.
2
I'm ready to work.
Where are the jobs?
And I live in the fantastic employment "hot house" of the SF Bay Area.
In our area, age discrimination is RAMPANT.
If you are under age 45, chances are you *will* be hired and fast.
If you are over 45, over 50, close to 60, uh, not so much.
A premium is put on youth, but we in the over-45 group continue to wonder why.
Older workers aren't necessarily more "expensive" than younger workers, but faulty assumptions are made by hiring managers and HR.
Why not really talk with and ask us about what we can do for you, what we want to do, how much we want to make? We don't often get that far in the process!
Many of us would now love to be team members. Not managers. Not directors. Not VPs. Not CEOs. And we DO know how to work "across demos" and get great work done. If you're sensitive about making Millennials work with "people old enough to be their parents," step outside and get some air. Time to radically change your opinions and get a grip.
And those young workers you're hot to get? The moment they set up their desk, they are looking for the next job. We know you won't keep any of us -- young or old -- all that long these days. But older workers may want 2 to 5 years with you anyway. And that'd work for both parties. But you don't ask.
We're here, experienced, energetic, and ready to work. Hire us!
Where are the jobs?
And I live in the fantastic employment "hot house" of the SF Bay Area.
In our area, age discrimination is RAMPANT.
If you are under age 45, chances are you *will* be hired and fast.
If you are over 45, over 50, close to 60, uh, not so much.
A premium is put on youth, but we in the over-45 group continue to wonder why.
Older workers aren't necessarily more "expensive" than younger workers, but faulty assumptions are made by hiring managers and HR.
Why not really talk with and ask us about what we can do for you, what we want to do, how much we want to make? We don't often get that far in the process!
Many of us would now love to be team members. Not managers. Not directors. Not VPs. Not CEOs. And we DO know how to work "across demos" and get great work done. If you're sensitive about making Millennials work with "people old enough to be their parents," step outside and get some air. Time to radically change your opinions and get a grip.
And those young workers you're hot to get? The moment they set up their desk, they are looking for the next job. We know you won't keep any of us -- young or old -- all that long these days. But older workers may want 2 to 5 years with you anyway. And that'd work for both parties. But you don't ask.
We're here, experienced, energetic, and ready to work. Hire us!
72
Age discrimination is awful here in the Twin Cities as well. I am a female who is age 58 and laid off last year with just a few months of severance. No jobs in my field here but most hiring managers think anyone over 50 has one foot in the grave and the other on a golf course. I was asked by one potential client (trying to find contract work) if I was "a $1 a year" consultant. Then the guy bantered enough not saying what he would pay for weeks on end till I named a price (that I made consulting ten years ago) and he of course said he only wanted to pay half of that. I am trying to be hired on a regular basis if I could find regular work that was less than full time but steady I would consider it. But just occasional work doesn't pay more than unemployment and it takes away from time I can spend looking. The longer I am unemployed the worse it is so I need to use time now to my advantage. It is no handout and only a few hundred dollars a week.
We keep hearing how difficult it is to find employees but if one is over 50 and a woman you are invisible. Spouse is working but only able to find contract work. And our adult kids who are mildly disabled are working but have student debt and pay is fairly low.
I intend to work for another ten years if I could find a job. We cannot afford to work at WalMart. We have no pensions and are too young for Medicare or social security. I will keep trying but it is discouraging.
We keep hearing how difficult it is to find employees but if one is over 50 and a woman you are invisible. Spouse is working but only able to find contract work. And our adult kids who are mildly disabled are working but have student debt and pay is fairly low.
I intend to work for another ten years if I could find a job. We cannot afford to work at WalMart. We have no pensions and are too young for Medicare or social security. I will keep trying but it is discouraging.
44
Great points, there are many so called "retired" who would be happy to work, have marketable skills, and don't require health insurance or full time work either.
6
Your situation is no different than it has been for centuries. The problem for you is that when you were younger, you didn't bother to recognize it.
Stop pretending that this is a new phenomenon. The only thing new here is that you are getting older.
Stop pretending that this is a new phenomenon. The only thing new here is that you are getting older.
3
Mr. Irwin and Readers: The recession of 2008 had a devastating impact on the retirement savings accounts of many individuals then nearing retirement age. Their market losses were so great and unexpected that many of these individuals were reluctant to reinvest in equities markets after the Great Recession. Many of these individuals have defined contribution retirement plans; where the retirement benefit is contingent on the gains of individual investment decisions, made in investing these funds, by the retiree. Since the recession of 2008, many retirees have probably reduced their retirement withdrawals to make a reduced principal retirement amount last over the given expected retirement period. Thus, as more retirees try to become reconciled to these reduced withdrawals, many may become dissatisfied with their household budgets, and reenter the labor force. The retirement withdrawal reductions' effect on retirees' budgets in combination with a more robust economy may help to explain why a large pool of workers is available to hire; and this hiring can be done while, in general, wages continue to stagnate.
[JJL; March 4, 2016 12:43 p.m.; Greenville, NC]
[JJL; March 4, 2016 12:43 p.m.; Greenville, NC]
5
Mr. Irwin and Readers: If I may add this brief note to my original post: For February (2016) according to the DOL's data, not only did average hourly wages fall in February versus January, but also average weekly hours worked also fell. Both wages and hours are vital in computing average weekly wages. In February, the average hourly wage was $25.35 with an average 34.4 hour work week. So, in February, weekly wages were $872.04, computed as follows: [($25.35/1hour) x (34.4 hours/1 week) = $872.04/1 week]. For January, DOL's data show: average hourly wages were $25.38, with an average hourly work week of 34.6 hours. Thus, in January, weekly wages averaged $878.15, computed as follows: [($25.38/1 hour) x (34.6 hours/1 week) = $878.15/1 week]. Given December's (2015) average weekly wage of $871.47, and January's (2016) weekly wage increase to $878.15, February's (2016) decline to a weekly wage of $872.04 represents a loss of -91% of January's increase in weekly wages, with only +9% of January's weekly wage increase sticking through February.
[JJL; Friday, March 4, 2016 1:55 p.m.; Greenville, NC]
[JJL; Friday, March 4, 2016 1:55 p.m.; Greenville, NC]
2
'...Over the last three months, that number totals 1.52 million, the highest it has been in 16 years...'
Never fear, if wages start to rise, our government, at the behest of their corporate donors, will open the immigration floodgates even wider, until wages drop, just as they have done for the past 40 years.
Never fear, if wages start to rise, our government, at the behest of their corporate donors, will open the immigration floodgates even wider, until wages drop, just as they have done for the past 40 years.
13
On the other hand, since the 'native' population doesn't want to have enough babies to maintain their own population levels, we have relied on immigrants to keep our numbers up. In fact, we are better off as immigrants lower the average age of the population--compare the US to Italy or France or even Germany.
Immigrants also use taxpayer-provided services at a lower rate than the 'natives'; start up more businesses on average; and long-term immigrants are awarded more patents than the average 'native' population.
In short, we have done very well by immigrants.
Immigrants also use taxpayer-provided services at a lower rate than the 'natives'; start up more businesses on average; and long-term immigrants are awarded more patents than the average 'native' population.
In short, we have done very well by immigrants.
11
Perhaps it's because U.S. citizens are increasingly finding it incredibly expensive to have children, rather than not "wanting" to have children?
I live in the Boston area (where I'm from) and rents are increasingly expensive, as is daycare. Add to that the likelihood that both parents usually have to work in order to support the family, and then you have the demands of the jobs that the two wage earners have, who still have to fit in raising their child/children.
My sister and husband were only able to have children because they rent from a family member at a reasonable monthly rate and the family members also provides them with *free* childcare so they fortunately don't have to worry about how to afford daycare costs.
Sorry, as far as your point about immigrants using less taxpayer services, I tend to doubt it since "taxpayer services" includes much more than simply welfare.
I live in the Boston area (where I'm from) and rents are increasingly expensive, as is daycare. Add to that the likelihood that both parents usually have to work in order to support the family, and then you have the demands of the jobs that the two wage earners have, who still have to fit in raising their child/children.
My sister and husband were only able to have children because they rent from a family member at a reasonable monthly rate and the family members also provides them with *free* childcare so they fortunately don't have to worry about how to afford daycare costs.
Sorry, as far as your point about immigrants using less taxpayer services, I tend to doubt it since "taxpayer services" includes much more than simply welfare.
8
We don't need to keep our population up, and automation coupled with working longer could and should fuel our economy.
4
Until we don't have such large number of working poor; until wages can support a family; until, dare I say it, manufacturing (making real things) is back, our economy is still decoupled from the economy of the people.
20
Dont forget to add: until we are happier paying more for less. Higher wages as part of a "made in America" economy would indeed raise family incomes, but also raise prices. We would have to re-program the American consumer, and reset middle class expectations. People talk about how good things were in the 1950's (or 60's or 70's), but perhaps forget what material goods the average family could afford, from house size to number of cars and TV's.
Kudos to Obama...he has successful put the patient (the US economy) into stable condition while still recovering after the great recession of 2008.
If you want the heady days of the Wall St casino action where everybody were becoming house of cards millionaires then by all means return to the glory days of yesteryear when Obama leaves. Elect a republican (or even a democrat) who wants to return to these days.
However, don't blame anybody but yourself when the house of cards collapse like it did in 2008...
If you want the heady days of the Wall St casino action where everybody were becoming house of cards millionaires then by all means return to the glory days of yesteryear when Obama leaves. Elect a republican (or even a democrat) who wants to return to these days.
However, don't blame anybody but yourself when the house of cards collapse like it did in 2008...
26
The rise in the labor force participation rate shouldn't come as a surprise, and the return of formerly sidelined workers to the workforce, should, if anything, give further ammunition to those opposing further rate hikes by the FOMC. U.S. economic growth has clearly not yet brought the employment rate below the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. Given that, inflation sparked by rising wages should not arise until a much greater percentage of sidelined workers have returned to workforce and employers have started increasing wages to retain their workers.
That Neil Irwin actually has to write that the FOMC may shoot the recovery in the foot by raising rates only emphasizes how foolish the December rate hike was and how misguided further rate hikes would be at this time.
That Neil Irwin actually has to write that the FOMC may shoot the recovery in the foot by raising rates only emphasizes how foolish the December rate hike was and how misguided further rate hikes would be at this time.
19
Why aren't wages rising?
The answer to this question is that there is still not enough money flowing into the private sector. When a federal worker gets fired and goes to work at McDonald's, that hurts the private sector just as much as when a private sector worker does.
Where does real money come from? Well either it comes from a positive trade balance which we haven't had since 1976 or it comes from the federal government via deficit spending. (it doesn't the economy any good to pay Tom $100 to cut the White House lawn if it gets taxed back to the government.)
The federal deficit has been cut 75% since 2009 which is exactly the wrong thing to do. That's your reason for the slow recovery.
The answer to this question is that there is still not enough money flowing into the private sector. When a federal worker gets fired and goes to work at McDonald's, that hurts the private sector just as much as when a private sector worker does.
Where does real money come from? Well either it comes from a positive trade balance which we haven't had since 1976 or it comes from the federal government via deficit spending. (it doesn't the economy any good to pay Tom $100 to cut the White House lawn if it gets taxed back to the government.)
The federal deficit has been cut 75% since 2009 which is exactly the wrong thing to do. That's your reason for the slow recovery.
13
Large corporations are sitting on billions in cash, refusing to spend it (whether that be on higher wages or investing in the growth of the company). We need to look at why this is happening. I think it is a broader problem than just trade imbalances.
20
Wages are not increasing because there is little to no measured inflation and a surplus of workers. Especially the surplus of labor.
5
First those corporations have a fiduciary duty to use resources for their owners. That means not paying taxes for nothing, not paying wages for nothing, and not investing for nothing. When and if we reform the taxes on these amounts and have opportunities in the US then and only then will this money return. Simple!!!
2
Employment is up, and there's "a rise in pay for American workers thanks to very low inflation." But the Republicans will never acknowledge this important and positive development because it happened on President Obama's watch.
How frustrating for the rest of us that they refuse to see all of the good our president did -- and would have done were it not for their obstruction -- in the past seven years.
How frustrating for the rest of us that they refuse to see all of the good our president did -- and would have done were it not for their obstruction -- in the past seven years.
32
"Presumably people who dropped out of the labor force around retirement age..." Nice use of One-PerSense terminology. "Dropped out"? Nope. Laid off and replaced by a cheaper employee. (Younger, or an h-1b visa holder, or their job outsourced altogether.) That term implies choice.
But I still see an awful lot of seniors still working in minimum wage jobs that shouldn't still be working. There's the "greeter" at the Big Box store bundled up in a warm coat, wearing an oxygen tank who barely can see or hear you let alone say hello. Whoever came up with this job description (a Walton?) probably is sitting by a pool in a warm climate reading this.
But what I hear from my post retirement age, still-working, hairdresser is how she's trying to find a place to live for less than $1000 a month before she retires. (Good luck.)
The One Percent is squeezing the life out of us. The reason the laws were changed was to allow retirees to continue working so the pols could get away with not raising Social Security benefits, not to enrich seniors lives. They succeeded. But that means fewer jobs for the young, too.
In an economy where the only jobs left for the lower and lower middle classes are sevile, that's despicable. If you're going to talk about the unemployment rate, tell us what kinds of jobs are increasing and what jobs are decreasing. Because, I don't see the lower and middle classes doing well, but I only see the affluent doing great. Everyone else? I see serving.
But I still see an awful lot of seniors still working in minimum wage jobs that shouldn't still be working. There's the "greeter" at the Big Box store bundled up in a warm coat, wearing an oxygen tank who barely can see or hear you let alone say hello. Whoever came up with this job description (a Walton?) probably is sitting by a pool in a warm climate reading this.
But what I hear from my post retirement age, still-working, hairdresser is how she's trying to find a place to live for less than $1000 a month before she retires. (Good luck.)
The One Percent is squeezing the life out of us. The reason the laws were changed was to allow retirees to continue working so the pols could get away with not raising Social Security benefits, not to enrich seniors lives. They succeeded. But that means fewer jobs for the young, too.
In an economy where the only jobs left for the lower and lower middle classes are sevile, that's despicable. If you're going to talk about the unemployment rate, tell us what kinds of jobs are increasing and what jobs are decreasing. Because, I don't see the lower and middle classes doing well, but I only see the affluent doing great. Everyone else? I see serving.
71
I thought Walmart did away with Greeters several years ago, the one I shop at doesn't have any. The problem isn't the one percenters, it is that we need better social security, just as Bernie says. Whether we can afford it or not, we need all the things Bernie supports. The Progressives of the 1890's had a long list and it took until 1938 to get them passed.
2
The choice is in whether a laid-off worker continues to look for a job, and is thus counted as still in the labor force, or stops looking and thus "drops out." Gotta know what the words mean before you start rounding on people for using them.
3
Or better said are lucky to still be working and have a job. Many elderly people would love to have some more money and have skills to boot.
1
-Your point is muddled as to why people stay on the sideline waiting for wages to increase and when they do they enter the market they suppress the average wage...Confusing...
2
I find the basic economic rubric, "the intersection of labor supply and labor demand functions determine labor price", the answer to your concern. This is so basic that it hardly bears repetition.
3
And yet we're to believe that immigrants, legal or not, do not suppress wages?
7
Yeah, I don't think they are necessarily waiting for wage increases (though that is probably part of it) as much as they are just waiting for the slack in the labor market to be removed, because a lot of them are probably less desirable employs: older, criminal record, etc.
2
I was impressed by Farhad Manjoo's suggestion to establish a Universal Basic Income (A plan in case robots take the jobs: Give everyone a paycheck. New York Times, 2 March 2016). I was more impressed that this was published in the New York Times and in the Technology section.
I read: "... Imagine the government sending each adult about $1,000 a month, about enough to cover housing, food, healt care and other basic needs. [Universal Basic Income] would be aimed at easing the dislocation caused by technological progress...."
I read: "... Imagine the government sending each adult about $1,000 a month, about enough to cover housing, food, healt care and other basic needs. [Universal Basic Income] would be aimed at easing the dislocation caused by technological progress...."
10
Me too. But can you ever see that getting through the Koch brothers/Walton/Icahn corporate/political juggernaut? The only way we do that is if we elect the right president (Sanders 2016) and if we amend the Constitution to reform campaign financing and end legal political bribery.
11
I know a whole bunch of young people who can get by readily on 1000 a month playing video games on their parent's couch. Is that really what we want?
1
So do you agree with Stephanie Kelton, Bernie's economic advisor, that the federal government should guarantee a decent federal job to all those who need one or paid training for such a job? They could fix roads and bridges, help teach small classes, etc.. This would allow the government to eliminate most present forms of welfare.
This is better than just giving everyone money because it gets stuff done that will help the economy long term. Think interstate highways.
This is better than just giving everyone money because it gets stuff done that will help the economy long term. Think interstate highways.
8
It's politically expedient to call for ever more more people in our already overpopulated country, after all, business, politicians, and the left and right with their narrow self serving agendas have much to gain. However, long term it isn't good for average workers, citizens or taxpayers, and the environment which will be degraded by an ever growing unsustainable population putting demands on it that it cannot hope to accommodate.
It's long past time when we need to acknowledge that the economy, the environment, our lifestyle and population are all interconnected no matter how non pc this may be.