Isn't that sentence saying that there were 1.957 million more people with jobs? 
Posted on 01/30/2004 6:36:34 PM PST by litany_of_lies
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:41:46 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- The job market is considered the biggest indicator of the health of any economy and one of the most important determinants of economic policymaking.
What do you do when it's unclear how the job market is doing?
That's a question U.S. economists are asking as data and anecdotal information on the labor market increasingly tell different stories.
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
Of course the one ALWAYS reported in the press is the one that makes Bush look worse. Why not give both (or actuallly all three) equal weight?
And am I the only person who thinks there may be too many Clintonista holdovers from DOL?
This is more accurate. They are really high paying jobs too i.e. McDonalds, Walmart, Costco.
Those are not small firms and self-employed, as you know.
It certainly sounds like some of these surveys need to be evaluated for accuracy.
The benefits numbers are no longer valid because benefits have run out for a large percentage of the unemployed--perhaps eighty percent of the total.
The rest of the data is based on surveys--telephone calls; semi-anecdotal interview information; no hard numbers anywhere in the series.
Apparently intentional on the part of the government statistic managers. Companies that intend to lay off employees are required to give 60 days notice; the notice must be filed with a government agency in Department of Labor. The aggregate layoff numbers were hard data giving informative guidence about the employment market.
Since adoption of the law requiring the notice and filing, such notices have been published. Last year, Dept of Labor has terminated the publication of the layoff numbers, making the aggregate numbers essentially not available anywhere. Why would they do that? Difficult to conceive of any reason other than management of unfavorable statistical employment data.
Forget Bush--what is the true state of the economy? Most of us who study these numbers believe they are being massaged to demonstrate that employment is better than the actual state of the jobs and employment markets. Certainly there is no reason for Dept of Labor to stop publishing lay off data other than to conceal layoffs and thereby make things appear better than they are in fact.
Isn't that sentence saying that there were 1.957 million more people with jobs?
Now now...we all know that only dems would do that. And it would certainly be attacked by the party lowalists here if a dem administration did it.
That NEVER happend under Clinton. </sarcasm>
Right, that was my point.
1,000 jobs added in December. When will January figures be out?
Anyway job-promising economists are like the guy who sat on the wedding bed all night and told his wife how good it was going to be.
I look not at statistical figures, but newspaper reports. All I see are thousands laid off. I don't see reports of thousands hired [at least not by private industry in this country]. No good jobs = no good recovery for the W-2 crowd.
As to "layoff" numbers not being published, since it's only a "50 or more" number, it doesn't tell me nearly as much as the new claims for unemployment report does, so I don't really miss it.
Forget Bush--what is the true state of the economy? Most of us who study these numbers believe they are being massaged to demonstrate that employment is better than the actual state of the jobs and employment markets. Certainly there is no reason for Dept of Labor to stop publishing lay off data other than to conceal layoffs and thereby make things appear better than they are in fact.
I think the question as to which direction the manipulation, if any, is going is wide open at this point. It's just as likely to be that Clintonista holdovers are playing with the numbers as Bushies. Or it could simply be that the whole thing is FUBAR, which for the gubmint wouldn't exactly be unheard of.
I hadn't heard that...do you have a link??
Not to challenge you, but doesn't (no pun intended) Challenger, Gray and Christmas, the Outplacement firm track these, just as a few years ago a private individual, whose name escapes me, did until he met an untimely death from a sudden Heart Attack?!?
Go figure. Still interesting because the financial press stopped reporting this number--why did they do that. I had not heard the story about the Challenger, Grey guy.
As litany points out in #13, the origination of the data was a liberal bill intended to make it more difficult for companies to lay off large numbers of employees in plant closings without jumping through several hoops, one of which was filing of the notice with Dept of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics then accumulated the notice data and published it and it is that publication that Dept of Labor stopped because it did not want to paint a bad employment picture.
With respect to the balance of litany's #13 post, I respectfully disagree. 50 is a small number--the layoff notice is important and the cummulative layoffs, period to period are one of the meaningful numbers in assessing the employment picture. That is why Labor stopped publishing.
The new claims data is not very meaningful because a large part of the employable are not employed and have been unemployed so long that benefits have run out and they are not eligible to file again. The total unemployed data is not meaningful either--the numbers for that release are obtained by telephone survey completely under the control of the reporting agency.
In fact, the Metzenbaum Act filings are one of the few pieces of hard data that provide real information about the state of the economy. Another is state and local tax receipts--that data is not accumulated by any formal process either but you can get it on your own by looking at state treasurer sites and local government sites; the other piece of meaningful data is federal tax receipts. All this information, properly tabulated paints a less than positive picture of the current state of the economy.
Again, not in any way the fault of Bush. The economy started to contract in the fourth quarter of 1999, a year before the election. In my view the contraction was generated by monetary policy (the fed). In 1996, the economy began to weaken and to support the Clinton political position, Rubin (Secretary of Treasury) and Greenspan embarked on a policy of expanding the money supply.
Way the fed expands money supply is add and cheapen the cost of bank reserves; incentivizing lending by the banks; in turn increased borrowing by consumers, business, government, and real estate purchasers. From 96, economy expands because of the punch provided by additional borrowed liquidity until the punch affect worked its way through the economy; then the economy rolled over (late 99).
Now you can't get the economy turned around because debt service on existing debt consumes all available liquidity--none available for new consumption; or for investment; or for new government projects. Not enough available in the real estate market to turn the economy around but no collapse yet.
Same condition caused the Great Depression of the 1930's. During the 20's, fed expanded debt through the stock market margin debt process. End result same as we will see soon. Nothing to blame Bush for as far as the condition is concerned.
But Bush and Treasury ought to recognize the condition as it really exists and develop policies to deal with the real underlying problem--too much debt.
In fact, the Metzenbaum Act filings are one of the few pieces of hard data that provide real information about the state of the economy.
I don't agree that this is "hard data," because I see a lot of holes:
- the "notice" is of an impending action that will (but hasn't) taken place.
- It could be a layoff that won't occur until 3-6 months from now.
- Over that period of time, it may occur gradually (10% let go in week 1, 10% in week 2, etc.) or it may be all at once (plant shuts the doors and lets everyone go at the end of Day 90).
- (This may be the most important one) During the closing period, many of the workers may voluntarily find jobs elsewhere even before they're let go, meaning the "layoff" really didn't cause any unemployment for those people. Ultimately, the number of people let go who couldn't find jobs or who even eventually became unemployed can be a lot fewer than those indicated as laid off in the legal notification. In the extreme, it can mean NO unemployment. If everyone let go from the shoe factory takes a job at the new steel processor in the area, the "layoff" turned out to be a negative at all.
- Occasionally, favorable events take place in the market that cause the layoff not to occur, or not to occur to the same extent as predicted (especially with partial plant closings).
- Occasionally, state and local gubmints take actions through tax concessions and the like to avert the layoffs.
- (referred to in another post) Some of the workers start their own businesses, meaning they are self-employed (hopefully with success, but often not).
Some of these holes may well be covered in the reporting process, but I doubt that all of them, or even most of them, are. Meanwhile (this is what Howie Metzenbaum really wanted when he concocted this bill), the local news reported the layoff and everyone got their chance to take a shot at evil big business, even if things didn't turn out as badly as anticipated.
By contrast, the "new claims" number is a very hard one based on actual new claims filed (and therefore actual benefits to be paid beginning within a week or two).
I don't have any problem with the idea that the long-term unemployed, discouraged workers, and perhaps even the under-employed (working part-time when preferring fulltime) need to be reported on and given more visibility than currently takes place (and if they can be seen as reliable, because they are some difficulties in getting these figures right). Unfortunately, I don't see this happening until an extraordinary and extended prosperity takes place. This is bad news both parties would rather avoid. Clinton could have done this in 1997 or 1998--in fact it would have been pretty smart, because the long-term unemployed issue is a bigger problem now than it was then, and it could be fodder for the libs now if it were more visible.
Of course, you can correct me if I'm wrong. As to what percentage of people let go because of lack of work the 50-plus number is, I'd have to concede that it's probably 80-90, unless companies are consciously trying to lay off in numbers smaller than 50 at a time to avoid the reporting requirements.
Mega, Mega, MEGA Thanks!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.