248,000 jobs created in US last month; 947,000 in last 3

[DinoDoc]

Touche'.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by el freako


You say that I have not used the proper terms, well what terms would you like me to use? - Adult population and Working Age Population are the accepted terms worldwide, so how could you get confused about what I write as opposed to what I mean?

I suggest that the confusion arises not because I have not used the proper terms but because you do not understand what the proper terms are.

Which was my original contention about you. Now we've reached the typical impasse where both participants agree that the other doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.

But, still: prove that the subset of Americans known as "adults" is equal to the subset of Americans known as "working age." Since this is our impasse, and you're the one arguing that it is so, prove it.

According to every source on my bookshelf "working age" is defined as an able-bodied (and minded) person between the ages of 15-64. Unless we're undergoing a massively brutal (and completely silent) eugenics program, I fail to see how that is equivalent to the subset of "adult" Americans, which is generally defined as the complete (no qualifications for "able-bodied") set of Americans aged 18 or over.

And in regards to nationality in the use of these terms, let me point out that the UK Department of Work and Pensions defines "working age" as

Working age is 16-59 for women and 16-64 for men.

Cite: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/ofa/indicators/indicator-18.asp

And I'm unaware of British efforts to murder the elderly, so I guess those non-working age adults are still kicking around.

Same thing with the EU, which defines working age as 15-64: http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/about_2751.htm

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Some people have lives.

no we don't! or else we wouldn't be posting here!

[el freako]

Originally posted by JohnT


Which was my original contention about you. Now we've reached the typical impasse where both participants agree that the other doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.

Yes so now we need to try to break the impasse.

Originally posted by JohnT
But, still: prove that the subset of Americans known as "adults" is equal to the subset of Americans known as "working age." Since this is our impasse, and you're the one arguing that it is so, prove it.

Well you see it's statement's like that that confuse me and make me wonder if you know what you're talking about - I never argued that they were the same, indeed you seem to have agreed with me about this:

Originally posted by JohnT
You never equated the two and I never said you did.

Now you do appear to be saying that I equate the two.

What I am saying is that your assumption that the fall in the ratio of employment/adult population being caused by more retirees does not stand up to inquiry. That was why I brought up Working Age Population - because it excludes the retired so we can check to see if that makes a marked change in the figures.

If I actually quote the data itself maybe you can see the point I am making:

1974, Employment as % of:
Adult Population: 58.0%
Working Age Population: 62.4%

1984, Employment as % of:
Adult Population: 59.7%
Working Age Population: 65.5%

1994, Employment as % of:
Adult Population: 62.5%
Working Age Population: 70.1%

2004, Employment as % of:
Adult Population: 62.2%
Working Age Population: 70.4%

You can see that my initial point stands, that employment growth has been much slower, relative to both the adult and working age populations. over the last decade (actually the break occurs in 1990) than it was before - to claim that the reason for this is a greater number of retirees is just plain daft.
Indeed the effect of more retirees is less marked in the period 1994-2004 than in the preceeding two decades, during 1974-84 the share of over 65's in the adult population rose by 1.8 percentage points, during 1984-94 it rose by 2 percentage points but over 1994-04 it rose by only 0.7 percentage points.

[JohnT]

Last attempt:

In post A you referred to the complete number of "adults" with no qualifiers re: "working age".

In post A1 I responded to your post by (essentially) saying that not all adults work.

In post B you amended your position to include only "working age" adults, but still decided to blast me for responding to what you wrote w/o having the intellectual honesty to even admit that by changing your wording you've changed your position, even though the evidence is still in existence in this thread.

It's sort of akin to my daughter saying she doesn't have a full diaper when she just reeks of ****. It's an obvious lie, the evidence against her statement is right there, but she still insists. As do you:

What I am saying is that your assumption that the fall in the ratio of employment/adult population being caused by more retirees does not stand up to inquiry.

It was never my "assumption" because it wasn't my argument to make. I just (AGAIN!) responded to your poorly worded initial post on this subject and (AGAIN!) you decide to be rude because I insisted that your post was poorly worded. My only position for this entire "debate" is that if you are going to talk about working age adults then state that you're talking about working age adults. Because the following doesn't:

One thing that is interesting about these employment numbers is the ratio of employment to adult population.

End of discussion.

[el freako]

So, what exactly did you mean when you posted this:

Originally posted by JohnT

However, the "adult population" includes a vastly increased number of retirees that didn't exist in the thirties. The ratio will decrease as the baby boomers retire in increasing numbers over the years, keeping up with the trend that started a decade ago.

As it was in response to:

Originally posted by El Freako
One thing that is interesting about these employment numbers is the ratio of employment to adult population.

This has not changed at all (at 62.2%) during the last three months and is now below the level it was 10 years ago (something that hasn't happened since the 1930's).

When you add to that the fact that Labour force participation is still falling it does not look like a genuinely strong recovery in the job market yet.

How can you be doing anything but implying that the reason the ratio has not changed is because of more retirees.?

Then, when I use a different measure that excludes retirees so that we can see if the effect of retirees is significant you complain that somehow I have amended my position whereas to anyone with a scientific mind it would be obvious that I was trying to isolate the effect of retirees on the data.

The reason I used 'adult population' to start with is because it is (to reiterate) because it is the measure used by the BLS and anyone casually looking through the thread can easily go and check to see the data.

It was only when you attempted to cast doubt on the validity of my statement by mentioning retirees that I then used working age population to show that including or not including retirees makes no difference to the validity my initial statement.

Originally posted by JohnT
My only position for this entire "debate" is that if you are going to talk about working age adults then state that you're talking about working age adults.

That's where you made your error, at first I wasn't talking about working age population - I was talking about the 'non-institutionalized adult population' that the BLS uses.
As I have said several times before I only brought up Working Age Population to show that your statement about retirees had no bearing on my inital assertion.

I think that you have just misread my posts and then assumed that they were poorly worded, maybe in future you should actually check to see if this is the case?

[Adam Smith]

A few points to throw in to this discussion.

First, people need to remember that presidents have much less control over the economy than they claim credit or are given blame for. Most of the variation in economic output can be attributed to replacement of long-lived capital goods (i.e., business cycle) or exogenous shocks (e.g., OPEC, 9/11, crop failures). Presidents have little control over the first, and essentially no control over the second. About all your can really do as president is screw things up with bad policy. Robert Solow explained this to Clinton at the start of his first term and Clinton, to his credit, listened to Solow and resisted his basic urge to meddle.

Second, current unemployment rates are near the low end of recent historical record. I do not think it is reasonable to compare current rates to rates in the 1990’s, which benefited from a number of supply-side factors the combination of which is not likely to be repeated any time soon. These factors include the peace dividend, opening of trade agreements, computer-induced productivity, good harvests, and lack of OPEC discipline.

Third, labor force participation is endogenous when looked at from a household perspective. We all know about discouraged workers who drop out of the workforce in downturns, causing unemployment to be understated. Therefore the converse must also true: more people jump into the workforce when times are good, resulting in an overstatement of the unemployment numbers. On the other hand, some people may drop out as the economy recovers. If mom took a job when dad got laid off, she may quit that job when dad goes back to work. There are a multitude of opposing trends here. I don’t know how labor force participation “should” behave as the economy improves, and I am inclined to label it a short-run phenomenon and not worry about it. In fact, most growth models, which look at the economy over the long run, view labor force participation as a constant or determined entirely by exogenous demographic factors.

Fourth, I don’t think that BLS wage and benefit data are a good indicator of how working families are doing. The distinctions between hourly and salaried employees and between employees and contractors are becoming more blurred over time. Witness, for example, the recent flap about overtime pay rules in the US. Wage and benefit data are becoming less representative of workers as a whole.

Lastly, what I would really like to see are reliable projections of what the deficit will be. Employment is up, which should boost tax revenues and reduce money spent on unemployment benefits. But at the same time, the dollar has declined (which makes it more costly for foreigners to hold US debt) and interest rates are about to go up. My gut feeling is that we are still going to be stuck with these deficits for a long time, which means that we are still chewing up capital for use as daily consumption. This is not good in the long run.

[Drake Tungsten]

Hiring Plans Near Boom Levels-Survey

By Anupama Chandrasekaran

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. companies are gearing up to create jobs at rates not seen since the height of the 1990s boom, a survey released on Tuesday showed, adding to evidence that job growth will keep the U.S. economic recovery rolling.

Following two months of strong government payroll reports, the survey is a boon to President Bush (news - web sites) in the run-up to elections and will likely confirm expectations that the Federal Reserve (news - web sites) will raise U.S. interest rates at the end of June as it moves to beat off emerging inflation.

Thirty percent of polled U.S. employers plan to add to their payrolls in the July to September period, the survey by Manpower Inc. showed. That is up from 20 percent a year earlier and 28 percent in the April to June period.

The survey hit its highest level of 35 percent in 2000, powered by the Internet-fueled boom.

Far fewer companies now plan to lay off employees, the survey showed, making the net year-over-year increase in employers planning to create jobs the largest in the history of the Manpower survey, which was started in 1976.

The survey, by the world No. 2 staffing company, polls 16,000 U.S. employers and is adjusted for seasonal spikes and dips. It is monitored by many economists for indications on corporate hiring sentiment.

"It is at levels that were in place pre-recession," Manpower Chief Executive Jeffrey Joerres said in a telephone interview. "As more stability is occurring in demand, they (companies) look at their future saying, 'I am feeling good.' They have gotten off the fence to start hiring."

The survey comes as job-growth begins to catch up with U.S. economic expansion, scotching talk of a 'jobless recovery' and bolstering Bush's claims that his policies create jobs, a key election battleground.

U.S. employers added a larger-than-expected 248,000 jobs in May, according to the Labor Department (news - web sites), following 346,000 in April and 353,000 in March. The 947,000 jobs created in the March-May period make it the strongest three-month stretch in four years.

The solid rate of job creation also makes it more likely that the Fed's policy-makers will ratchet up U.S. interest rates from current 1958 lows when they meet June 29-30.

The quick change in employers' outlooks comes as demand surges for products and services.

The percentage of companies that do not foresee changes in their workforce fell to 59 percent from 65 percent a year earlier and 62 percent in the second quarter. The percentage of employers intending to shrink their workforce fell to 6 percent from 9 percent in the year-earlier quarter, unchanged from the second quarter.

"If you look at the overall atmosphere, we still have geopolitical issues, we have an election year," Joerres said. "But companies are looking at their own business and saying, 'even with the noise I have to do something to expand my business."'

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1895&e=4&u=/nm/20040615/bs_nm/economy_manpower_survey_dc

Cue GePap...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Another job well done cut and paste man.

[Drake Tungsten]

I do good work as long as I don't have to do any of the research, analysis or writing...

[DanS]

Thanks for your thoughts, AS. I agree that presidents nowadays shouldn't get much credit or blame for the state of the economy, but inasmuch as they do, the political consequences will follow. I do think that presidents talking up or talking down an economy does have some impact, if only small. I don't remember Clinton getting involved one way or the other, though. He seemed to leave it to his Treasury Dept.

Like you, I would like to see a firmer grasp taken of the budget. Both Bush and Kerry have said that they will cut the deficit in half in the next four years, which is only half as much progress as seems possible and worthwhile now that the economy is in firm-footed expansion. Unfortunately, both candidates are being very unambitious on the issue. I would have thought that Kerry would steal the issue, but he hasn't. Kerry must calculate that no voters care about deficits.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Another job well done cut and paste man.

-givent hat that article says nothing on the point of the thread, the predicted political boost to Bush from these news.

Another botched job rom cut and paste man....

[DanS]

It was reported today that industrial production was up a rather robust 1.1% in May. That likely will push up manufacturing employment in the upcoming figures and help Bush in Ohio, where he was trailing by a couple points.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


-givent hat that article says nothing on the point of the thread, the predicted political boost to Bush from these news.

Another botched job rom cut and paste man....

Given that the OP was merely a posting of employment news/data and a harmless side note from DanS indicated this will likely mean good news for Bush, I think Cut an Paste Man's piece was very much in keeping with the thread.

You'll likely want to read much more into that as an eternal pessimist, err..... liberal tho'.


Yay, Cut an' Paste Man!!!

[DanS]

Here's an editorial from the Washington Post regarding Kerry's gloom-mongering on jobs and the economy. If Kerry can't convince the Washington Post of the gloom, then he's not taking the right tack.

Jobs and Mr. Kerry

Saturday, June 19, 2004; Page A22

THE FUROR OVER "offshoring" of jobs to countries such as India, so pronounced during the Democratic primaries, seems to have faded. With good reason: Last week the Labor Department published the first government effort to quantify the impact of offshoring, which tentatively suggested that it may be responsible for just 2.5 percent of the job losses in the first quarter of this year.


Moreover, job creation, which appeared surprisingly weak a few months ago despite strong economic growth, is now healthy -- and statistical revisions suggest that it was robust as far back as March and respectable in January -- just when the gloom from the Democratic primaries was at its fiercest. After suffering a net loss of 2.7 million jobs between March 2001 and August 2003, the economy has gained 1.4 million jobs.

Now comes the next round of political gloom-mongering. Sen. John F. Kerry, the victor in the Democratic primaries, has been telling voters this week that although job creation may have recovered, wages are the real problem. "In the last year, wages have gone down, and prices have gone up," the candidate told an audience on Tuesday. Actually, hourly wages for non-supervisory workers have risen this year by 2.2 percent as of May, so they kept pace with consumer price inflation. Precise statements about whether the new jobs being created pay more or less than average are not possible, because it takes months for these data to be assembled. But it is possible to say that new job creation, which in the early stages of the recovery was concentrated at low-paying employers such as restaurants, has now broadened to include manufacturing and other sectors where wages are higher than average.

If Mr. Kerry's message seems exaggerated now, it will seem even less convincing soon. Job markets recover in three phases: As the economy picks up, employers ask workers to put in extra hours; when they've exhausted that option, they hire new workers; when new workers become hard to find, labor scarcity pushes wages upward. We are now well into the second stage and may be entering the third.

In any case, there is not much that President Bush -- or a President Kerry -- can do to influence this process. On Friday, Mr. Kerry proposed an increase in the minimum wage, and this could help; but it would only reach workers at the very bottom, and if this policy were pushed too far, it could slow new job creation.

Mr. Kerry has clearly decided that voters want him to feel their pain, and he's willing to deliver what his audience expects from him. This may be sound politics, but it distracts from the serious criticisms of Mr. Bush's record that an opponent should be making. Mr. Bush's tax cuts have created a fiscal crisis far bigger than the nation appears to understand. Fixing it will require a style of leadership that faces tough choices -- which is not what Mr. Kerry is providing.

As said above, I've always thought Kerry had an opening on the deficit. But he has declined this opening by proposing to only match Bush's deficit cutting proposals. I can't figure out why.