U.S. Economy Loses 4000 jobs in August -- Reporters fail to report real story...

Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
A week-and-a-half ago reporters lamented the loss of 4000 jobs in the U.S. economy. However, what few reporters mentioned, possibly because they were completely unaware of it, is that the United States economy needs about 150,000 new jobs, preferably solid middle class jobs, every month merely to keep pace with the nation's population explosion. So, in reality, the U.S. economy lost about 154,000 jobs relative to population growth.

How could reporters miss that crucial fact? Did anyone read any news reports or hear any reporters mentioning that the nation also needs jobs to keep up with population growth? Is it that reporters are unaware of it because economists (who should know better) are purposely misleading them by failing to mention this key fact, or is it that reporters are concerned about setting off a panic amongst the public?

A great op-ed by former U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury to the Reagan Administration Paul Craig Roberts describes the nation's economic situation:

American Economy: R.I.P.

In the 21st century the US economy has ceased to create jobs in export industries and in industries that compete with imports. US job growth has been confined to domestic services, principally to food services and drinking places (waitresses and bartenders), private education and health services (ambulatory health care and hospital orderlies), and construction (which now has tanked). The lack of job growth in higher-productivity, higher-paid occupations associated with the American middle and upper middle classes will eventually kill the US consumer market.

How do Americans pay for it?

They pay for it by giving up ownership of existing assets?stocks, bonds, companies, real estate, commodities. America used to be a creditor nation. Now America is a debtor nation. Foreigners own $2.5 trillion more of American assets than Americans own of foreign assets. When foreigners acquire ownership of US assets, they also acquire ownership of the future income streams that the assets produce. More income shifts away from Americans.

How long can Americans consume more than they can produce?

American over-consumption can continue for as long as Americans can find ways to go deeper in personal debt in order to finance their consumption and for as long as the US dollar can remain the world reserve currency.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Topic Title: U.S. Economy Loses 4000 jobs in August -- Reporters fail to report real story...

Topic Summary: Actually, the U.S. economy lost about 154,000 jobs relative to population growth--not reported.

So I was lied to and have to update by Economy jobs thread?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
What traditionally happens in August in regard to job numbers?

School starts.

Closing in on the end of the fiscal year for many companies.

Is this really anything out of the ordinary for August year-over-year? Nor do I think one month demonstrates any sort of trend so it's a bit early to begin predicting the downfall of the US economy based on a single month of data.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,861
68
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
...150,000 new jobs, preferably solid middle class jobs, every month merely to keep pace with the nation's population explosion....
Thats an OLD number (like pre y2k), and its highly innacurate. I dont know why people keep clinging to it (oh wait ya I do)

"Population growth" and "Available workforce growth" are two very different things, the first is *almost* always growing, while the later has been shrinking for a few years now, at a faster and faster rate every year. Baby boomers are currently retiring at a rate faster than the population can produce new workers, and wont even hit thier peak retirement pace until 2010-2015.

Thew monthly job numbers are also always misrepresented. The numbers come from the BLS's total payroll amount. Meaning they dont have a clue as to what the actual jobs created/lost numbers are, just what the total sum is. If you say payroll decreased by 4k last month, it could mean 500k new jobs were created, and 504k people retired/quit/laid off/fired. Or any other combination that = -4k.

 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
...150,000 new jobs, preferably solid middle class jobs, every month merely to keep pace with the nation's population explosion....
Thats an OLD number (like pre y2k), and its highly innacurate. I dont know why people keep clinging to it (oh wait ya I do)

"Population growth" and "Available workforce growth" are two very different things, the first is *almost* always growing, while the later has been shrinking for a few years now, at a faster and faster rate every year. Baby boomers are currently retiring at a rate faster than the population can produce new workers, and wont even hit thier peak retirement pace until 2010-2015.

Thew monthly job numbers are also always misrepresented. The numbers come from the BLS's total payroll amount. Meaning they dont have a clue as to what the actual jobs created/lost numbers are, just what the total sum is. If you say payroll decreased by 4k last month, it could mean 500k new jobs were created, and 504k people retired/quit/laid off/fired. Or any other combination.
You get best post with tasteslikechicken runner up.

 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Is this really anything out of the ordinary for August year-over-year? Nor do I think one month demonstrates any sort of trend so it's a bit early to begin predicting the downfall of the US economy based on a single month of data.

The August report is not an isolated incident; we've had a couple years worth of bad jobs growth data. What I found interesting is that as I was listening to NPR reports and other news reports about the August figures, none of them mentioned the need to keep pace with population growth. So, I wonder, were they merely ignorant or were they purposely trying to keep from contributing to setting off a panic?
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: Train

"Population growth" and "Available workforce growth" are two very different things, the first is *almost* always growing, while the later has been shrinking for a few years now, at a faster and faster rate every year. Baby boomers are currently retiring at a rate faster than the population can produce new workers, and wont even hit thier peak retirement pace until 2010-2015.

I don't buy it. There has been talk about how the Baby Boomers are going to retire and open up gobs of jobs for over a decade now and it hasn't happened. Back when I was a science graduate student years ago, I remember all sorts of press rah-rah in the science magazines about how older professors would eventually retire and open up jobs for the horde of postdocs (low wage PhDs who work as gypsy scientists/slaves) who were waiting for them but the population of people hoping to get those jobs far exceeded the number that could possibly open up.

Also, with the collapse of the value of many people's portfolios in the dot.com crash and now with the bursting of the real estate bubble, many of those Baby Boomers are going to have to keep working for a while.

Furthermore, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the long-awaited Baby Boomer retirement ends up being swamped out by the population explosion that the nation has suffered over the past three decades.

Thew monthly job numbers are also always misrepresented. The numbers come from the BLS's total payroll amount. Meaning they dont have a clue as to what the actual jobs created/lost numbers are, just what the total sum is. If you say payroll decreased by 4k last month, it could mean 500k new jobs were created, and 504k people retired/quit/laid off/fired. Or any other combination that = -4k.

At issue is the net number. Of course the government's statistics aren't going to be completely accurate, but assuming that they aren't being reckless in collecting and reporting them and that they aren't trying to lie, presumably they are a reflection of the state of the job market and the economy.

 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

I don't buy it. There has been talk about how the Baby Boomers are going to retire and open up gobs of jobs for over a decade now and it hasn't happened. Back when I was a science graduate student years ago, I remember all sorts of press rah-rah in the science magazines about how older professors would eventually retire and open up jobs for the horde of postdocs (low wage PhDs who work as gypsy scientists/slaves) who were waiting for them but the population of people hoping to get those jobs far exceeded the number that could possibly open up.

if they would stop buying 300-500k homes and 50k cars they could retire.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

I don't buy it. There has been talk about how the Baby Boomers are going to retire and open up gobs of jobs for over a decade now and it hasn't happened. Back when I was a science graduate student years ago, I remember all sorts of press rah-rah in the science magazines about how older professors would eventually retire and open up jobs for the horde of postdocs (low wage PhDs who work as gypsy scientists/slaves) who were waiting for them but the population of people hoping to get those jobs far exceeded the number that could possibly open up.

if they would stop buying 300-500k homes and 50k cars they could retire.

That really has nothing to do with what the OP posted except to "strengthen" his argument (if they don't retire, they are taking up a spot in the workforce).

(Oh, and I'm not for or against the OP in this thread as I don' t know enough to know exactly what will happen with the future job market or wages, just a little pointing out! :D )

By the way OP, as long as the government/fed is adding money at an annual rate of 12% to the economy, it's going to be hard to stop growing the economy (or inflation for that matter). As long as the money is being thrown around, someone somewhere will hire someone else. That 12% per annum is from CNBC (live TV, no link).

 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Here's the BLS report:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Check out the unemployment rate change from July to August for teenagers.

Nothing to see here.

Ahh... but we see the same occurrence in 2006, and we still saw an increase of 128,000.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.rel...y/empsit.09012006.news"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.09012006.news">ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/ne..........09012006.news</a></a>
Yup. The BLS reports "Seasonally Adjusted" statistics to avoid such confusion.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So lots of doom and gloom, but where are the unemployment numbers? Still well below 5%. So who cares? At 4.6% unemployment, losing 154k jobs is just about trivial.

Do you believe those unemployment numbers? The published unemployment numbers are bogus!

The government's unemployment numbers:

1. Fail to account for people who have "dropped out of the workforce" because they became so fed up with looking for a job that they stopped looking.

2. Don't take underemployment into account, such as people who work part-time or who are significantly underemployed and involuntarily-out-of-field.

3. Don't take into account people who would like to work but decided to retire because they couldn't find any worthwhile jobs.

4. Don't take into account stay-at-home spouses who would like to work but decided to stay at home because they couldn't find anything worthwhile.

Furthermore, the unemployment numbers are NOT a measure of job quality. The unemployment numbers don't tell us what percentage of the population is employed at solid middle class jobs with benefits. Thus, it's possible that 90% of the "employed" people could be working third world poverty jobs. After all, people in third world countries do have jobs.

You're trying to cite the bogus unemployment numbers as evidence of a healthy economy? Laugh. What a noob.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
The government's unemployment numbers:

1. Fail to account for people who have "dropped out of the workforce" because they became so fed up with looking for a job that they stopped looking.

2. Don't take underemployment into account, such as people who work part-time or who are significantly underemployed and involuntarily-out-of-field.

3. Don't take into account people who would like to work but decided to retire because they couldn't find any worthwhile jobs.

4. Don't take into account stay-at-home spouses who would like to work but decided to stay at home because they couldn't find anything worthwhile.

Furthermore, the unemployment numbers are NOT a measure of job quality. The unemployment numbers don't tell us what percentage of the population is employed at solid middle class jobs with benefits. Thus, it's possible that 90% of the "employed" people could be working third world poverty jobs. After all, people in third world countries do have jobs.

You're trying to cite the bogus unemployment numbers as evidence of a healthy economy? Laugh. What a noob.
Do you really think that bolding random crap in your post makes you more right? Do you think that regurgitating this trite crap is useful? Where are your numbers on unemployment? Why do you think someone underemployed should count as being unemployed when they are not unemployed? There is a difference between not having the job you would like to have and not havin ga job at all. If I want to be an airline pilot, maybe I shouldn't have studied engineering. Does that mean that I should be considered unemployed if I'm an employed engineer? I don't think so, but according to your list up there, it looks like I should be. Hmm. Guess I'm just a noob.

You threw out one largely irrelevant data point, which is questionable at best, and I submitted one from the definitive source which is at least qualitatively correct. Why don't you give us your estimate of the true "unemployment" with some evidence to back it up?
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Do you really think that bolding random crap in your post makes you more right?

No, but it adds emphasis and makes the key points easier to find for people are quickly scanning through the thread.

Do you think that regurgitating this trite crap is useful? Where are your numbers on unemployment?

I'm not sure anyone has the real numbers, but I'm pretty certain that the alleged 4.7% is far too low based on my observations of the world around me and all of the newspaper headlines I've read about mass layoffs and whatnot over the years. Also, having such a low uenmployment rate defies the logic of global labor arbitrage--when you send millions of jobs overseas, when you fill jobs at home with foreigners on work visas and with illegal aliens, it has to have a negative effect on the employment rates of Americans.

Why do you think someone underemployed should count as being unemployed when they are not unemployed?

I'm not exactly sure how the underemployed and poverty-wage-employed should be counted. I wanted to point out the fact that people who are severely underemployed can be counted as employed to back up my point that the unemployment numbers don't tell us about the real state of the job market or the economy.

If we had ideal numbers, then we would know what percentage of Americans are employed at various income levels. We might then consider the number of people who are completely unemployed plus the number who are employed in poverty wage jobs and treat it the way we currently treat the unemployment number.

There is a difference between not having the job you would like to have and not havin ga job at all. If I want to be an airline pilot, maybe I shouldn't have studied engineering. Does that mean that I should be considered unemployed if I'm an employed engineer?

I would say "No" because the airline pilot is still earning a good income. In general usage, the term "underemployed" also implies that one who is underemployed is earning a significantly lower income that what he would earn if he were properly employed.

I don't have an estimate of the percentage of working-aged Americans who are either involuntarily unemployed or working in poverty wage jobs, but I suspect that it's a high number, at least 20%.

Regardless, I've made a solid case that the use of the "unemployment number" as a measure of the health of the nation's economy and job market is fallacious for reasons that you haven't and can't refute.

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
I am a little confused here (as would be expected when dealing with wishy washy liberals, as Dave?s thread pointed out)

We have had very low unemployment for years. And during this entire time you liberals ignored that fact.

But the second we see a month with negative job growth you guys are all over it. Why is it you only care about the numbers when they are bad?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am a little confused here (as would be expected when dealing with wishy washy liberals, as Dave?s thread pointed out)

We have had very low unemployment for years. And during this entire time you liberals ignored that fact.

But the second we see a month with negative job growth you guys are all over it. Why is it you only care about the numbers when they are bad?

Because the numbers the Bush Administration has been putting out have been bogus since day 1.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
I'm not sure anyone has the real numbers, but I'm pretty certain that the alleged 4.7% is far too low based on my observations of the world around me and all of the newspaper headlines I've read about mass layoffs and whatnot over the years.
So your anecdotal experience supercedes the government agency whose sole job it is to compile these statistics? And I'm the noob? K.
Also, having such a low uenmployment rate defies the logic of global labor arbitrage--when you send millions of jobs overseas, when you fill jobs at home with foreigners on work visas and with illegal aliens, it has to have a negative effect on the employment rates of Americans.
Ah, so now we get to the heart of the matter. You've decided that outsourcing and illegal immigration imply a high unemployment rate, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. This is what doctors like to call "jumping to conclusions." Why not try letting the evidence dictate your conclusions rather than vice versa?
I'm not exactly sure how the underemployed and poverty-wage-employed should be counted. I wanted to point out the fact that people who are severely underemployed can be counted as employed to back up my point that the unemployment numbers don't tell us about the real state of the job market or the economy.
But you were the one who came in this thread and tried to use employment as some indicator of economic flux. Now you're saying the exact opposite.
If we had ideal numbers, then we would know what percentage of Americans are employed at various income levels. We might then consider the number of people who are completely unemployed plus the number who are employed in poverty wage jobs and treat it the way we currently treat the unemployment number.
Why would you do that? If I have a job, I'm not unemployed. Period. By definition. If you want to start a new "underemployed" index, by all means do so. But you can't call someone with a job unemployed - it's just wrong.
I would say "No" because the airline pilot is still earning a good income. In general usage, the term "underemployed" also implies that one who is underemployed is earning a significantly lower income that what he would earn if he were properly employed.
I have a masters degree in engineering and I make $18,200/year. Am I underemployed? Underpaid maybe, but certainly not underemployed (grad student :p). Your problem is that you want to use labor statistics as an indicator of economic health, but now you've given numerous reasons as to why that's a bad idea. Instead, you've switched to your anecdotal evidence and tried to pass it off as the one true indicator of the state of things. That's just not how it works.
I don't have an estimate of the percentage of working-aged Americans who are either involuntarily unemployed or working in poverty wage jobs, but I suspect that it's a high number, at least 20%.
Don't forget to wash your hand before you eat. In fact, you should probably wash all the way up to your elbow after pulling something like that out of your ass.
Regardless, I've made a solid case that the use of the "unemployment number" as a measure of the health of the nation's economy and job market is fallacious for reasons that you haven't and can't refute.
Yes, that's your point now that you edited your OP that originally said the exact opposite. Isn't that convenient?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am a little confused here (as would be expected when dealing with wishy washy liberals, as Dave?s thread pointed out)

We have had very low unemployment for years. And during this entire time you liberals ignored that fact.

But the second we see a month with negative job growth you guys are all over it. Why is it you only care about the numbers when they are bad?

Because the numbers the Bush Administration has been putting out have been bogus since day 1.
Dave. I'd personally like to thank you for your diligent efforts in this forum to help calibrate the measuring stick of sanity.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,350
7,427
136
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am a little confused here (as would be expected when dealing with wishy washy liberals, as Dave?s thread pointed out)

We have had very low unemployment for years. And during this entire time you liberals ignored that fact.

But the second we see a month with negative job growth you guys are all over it. Why is it you only care about the numbers when they are bad?

Because the numbers the Bush Administration has been putting out have been bogus since day 1.

As Dave said, it's all about Bush. ;)
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am a little confused here (as would be expected when dealing with wishy washy liberals, as Dave?s thread pointed out)
Typical Bushbot, blame the "liberals". I think it's likely a genetic problem. ;)


We have had very low unemployment for years. And during this entire time you liberals ignored that fact.

But the second we see a month with negative job growth you guys are all over it. Why is it you only care about the numbers when they are bad?
Why? Because you're making it up. That the reported unemployment rate is deceptive has been an issue for years, especially once the Bush administration started flogging it to distract attention from the loss of jobs. It has been brought up here virtually every time we've discussed employment and unemployment.


Edit: By the way, I'm not going to take the time to dig it out tonight, but if one cares to dig through the BLS stats, they do now report on the number of people who are available for employment and want a job but are not reported as unemployed since they haven't applied for any jobs in the last four weeks. The BLS also provides one facet of underemployment by reporting the number of people who have only a part-time job but want full-time employment. To the best of my knowledge, BLS does not attempt to report people who are underemployed, i.e., not working in their field or working in a less lucrative job than they'd worked previously (e.g., a former manufacturing worker who is now working at Wal-Mart).
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If the unemployment rate is deceptive then what is the actual unemployment rate, without the alleged Bush Co. BS?
See my edit. I've read that if we measured unemployment the same way industrialized European countries do, our reported rate would be in the 8% - 10% range. I cannot verify that, however.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Does the report also take the unemployable into account? I know we'd like to think that everyone can hold down a job but there is that small minority.

Anyway, if we had 8% to 10% unemployment wouldn't that mean for all of us in here that at least a few people that we know would be unemployed, on average, assuming each one of us knows at least 30 people? (and that's hopefully an underestimate) How many people do you know who are unemployed and are actively looking for a job?