Posted on 07/03/2003 6:42:34 AM PDT by Starwind
U.S. June nonfarm payrolls fell 30,000
Thursday July 3, 8:32 am ET
WASHINGTON, July 3 (Reuters) - U.S. Labor Department seasonally adjusted jobs data. In 1,000s, Change June May (Prev) April (Prev) in Nonfarm Payroll -30 -70 -17 -22 unch Jobless Rate (Pct) 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.0 Earnings, Hours of Private, Non-Farm Production workers: . June May (Prev) April (Prev) Avg Weekly Hours 33.7 33.7 33.7 33.7 33.8 Manufacturing Hour 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.1 40.4 Overtime Hours 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.1 Earnings/Hour (dlr 15.38 15.35 15.34 15.30 15.29 Pct change 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 unch Non-Farm Month-On-Month Payroll Changes by Industry (1,000s): . June May April Total Private -31 -32 -1 Goods-Producing -40 -16 -40 Construction 16 25 40 Manufacturing -56 -44 -79 Service-Providing 10 -54 18 Trade/transp/util -32 -29 -17 Wholesale Trade -9 -8 -3 Retail -13 -17 5 Transp/warehousing -9 -3 -18 Information -10 -9 -2 Financial activitities 9 16 26 Real estate/rental 4 3 10 Professional/business -3 -2 9 Temporary help svs 38 44 -5 Leisure/hospitality 22 -17 -7 Government 1 -38 -21 Aggregate Weekly Hours Indexes, Seasonally Adj. (1982=100) . June May April Total Private (pct change) unch -0.1 -0.2 Manufacturing (pct change) -0.4 -0.1 -1.4 Total Private (index) 98.7 98.7 98.8 Manufacturing (index) 94.7 95.1 95.2 Note--The indexes show total aggregate hours of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by industry. Pool of available workers Seasonally adj in mlns . June May . 14.026 13.742 Pct change . 2.1 4.1 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY-Civilian Employment, Seasonally Adj. (Monthly change in 1,000s): . June May Workforce 611 12 Employed 251 -200 Unemployed 360 212 JOB LEAVERS June May Total 893 772 As pct of unemployed 9.7 8.6 FORECAST: Reuters survey of U.S. economists forecast for June: Unchanged for U.S. non-farm payrolls 6.2 pct jobless rate +0.2 average hourly earnings 33.8 hours in average workweek HISTORICAL COMPARISONS/NOTES: U.S. JUNE JOBLESS RATE HIGHEST SINCE MATCHING 6.4 PCT IN APR'94 The nonfarm payroll data is based on a survey of employers and the jobless rate is based on a survey of households. Click (USLD01) for full text of employment report.
All economic logic says that the combination of the tax cuts + higher productivity at some point equals a lot more jobs. But when?
Well actually they're not. Revenues are falling quarter over quarter as are GAAP profits. They're "productive" only by definition that fewer workers are doing more work (driven by layoffs). Pro-forma reports (and 'beating lowered expections' would have you think they're growing but *most* companies have been declining for 3+ years - when factoring in all debt including pensions.
What they are NOT doing is expanding production.
Yes, there is no demand and an oversupply of capacity.
All economic logic says that the combination of the tax cuts + higher productivity at some point equals a lot more jobs.
The tax cuts don't affect business much and most people will likely see their cuts offset by increased state & local taxes, or the AMT, and rising living costs - food, energy, health care - none of which the BEA/BLS includes in their CPI reporting - go figure.
Productivity does not make companies hire. Sales and production makes companies hire - but sales and production are declining for lack of demand, companies have 26% over supply of capacity, and the consumer is so heavily in debt that they won't be buying much beyond food & rent for the foreseeable future. The only way companies get their 'earnings' in line with their 'price' with falling demand is to cut costs - the biggest of which is people so more layoffs and offshore outsourcing.
Say's law says that at some point, yes, productivity DOES generate growth.
I disagree on the profitability. Seems to me that the companies are all coming in at or ahead of expectations.
Natural Gas prices are jumping - structural delivery as well as supply constraints. Even Greenspan pointed it out when he last testified.
Seems to me that the companies are all coming in at or ahead of expectations.
LOL! Yes - EXPECTATIONS. Analysts lower their expectations because companies warn or guide lower and so the 'bar gets set low'. Then the company beats the lowered expectation and everybody is impressed. But go read the GAAP 10Q's and K's - many/most are losing money hand over fist.
Then they give lowered guidance for the next quarter or rest of the year (citing the "challenging climate" and the expectations' cycle repeats. It is challenging and tough. But bottom line, sales & revenues are declining and have been for 3 years or more.
Now, like the famous "Phillips Curve," I suppose any law it is eventually possible for it to change. But until then, experience has shown that this is a constant.
And natural gas isn't the guage most people go by on energy . . . ESPECIALLY IN THE SUMMER!
higher disposable income is offset by higher (make that record levels of) debt; the higher productivity these days is coming from the reduced cost (or increased hours) of offshore workers; and consumer confidence has fallen of late and when it was higher - it was higher for expectations 6 months out (consumers were believing there would be a 2nd half recovery), they were cautious and tight-fisted for the near term.
= growth at some point.
LOL! - the second half recovery? That point?
And natural gas isn't the guage most people go by on energy . . . ESPECIALLY IN THE SUMMER!
Regardless of what you think most people use as an energy guage, more to the point is what people pay when they turn on the A/C - ESPECIALLY IN THE SUMMER!
Natural Gas is what drives a significant portion of power generation at utilities. Adamselene235 follows this industry closer than I, perhaps he'll add a few details for you.
You really do seem to miss the basics of econ. It is irrelevant if higher disposable incomes are, in your flawed thinking, "offset by higher levels of debt." It is irrelevant if the ability to buy is consumed in immediate dollars or borrowed dollars. The ability to buy still has increased, hence, the production will eventually increase to follow.
You and willie are pretty funny. I think WWF has a tag team thing they could work out with you two: "The Gloomsters."
Soaring natgas prices to boost U.S. utility bills
Thursday June 26, 11:24 am ET
By Chris ReeseNEW YORK, June 26 (Reuters) - Soaring natural gas prices, and rate hikes are combining to hike consumer's utility bills, and rates are likely to continue climbing, utilities say."Everybody is going to be paying more for electricity and a lot of that is due to the higher natural gas prices," said Tom Williams, a spokesman for Duke Energy Corp. (NYSE:DUK - News).
Natural gas-fired generation meets about 20 percent of U.S. power needs and gas prices are nearly double what they were at this time last year, with expectations they will only continue higher.
Those higher fuel costs are usually passed directly on to the consumer.
"We do have to charge through to the customer when the cost of fuel goes up," said Julie Hans, spokeswoman at Progress Energy Inc. (NYSE:PGN - News), which sends power to over 2.8 million customers in North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida.
Earlier this month Progress asked the North Carolina Utilities Commission for a 2.2 percent increase in overall revenues to recover a fuel cost shortfall and to meet expected fuel increases in the near future.
The hike, which would take effect October 1, 2003, would boost the average residential power bill, based on 1,000 kilowatt hours of use, by $1.53 to $85.94 per month.
While this may not sound like much, fears of a natural gas shortage are expected to help push power prices even higher.
NATURAL GAS SHORTAGE?
Gas, touted through the 1990s as the clean-burning, abundant fuel of the future, now could be on the brink of a supply shortage as production has failed to keep up with rising demand and a cold winter drained the amount of gas in storage.
U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham on Thursday said the U.S. Energy Information Administration will begin issuing monthly data on imports of natural gas and conduct new surveys of domestic gas production to keep consumers and producers supplied with the information necessary to make decisions about consumption and production.
Separately, he said that a record weekly record of increasing natgas stocks was a positive sign but "I don't think that anybody should think we're out of the woods yet." Energy analysts generally agree gas prices will average $5.50-6.00 per million British thermal units in 2003, nearly double the 2002 average of $3.30 per mmBtu.
Those prices could continue to soar if a hot summer forces utilities to draw heavily on natural gas generation, cutting the amount of gas that can be stored to use in the winter to heat homes and businesses.
UNRELENTING RATE HIKES
Increasing demand and dwindling supplies are the basic ingredients behind increasing demands to hike rates so that producers can recapture their higher costs. Several major producers have already instituted requests for rate hikes.
All of the companies emphasized that they do not make additional profits as a result of the higher rates, but merely pass on the fuel cost on a dollar-for-dollar basis to the consumer.
Duke Energy subsidiary Duke Power sends electricity to about 2 million customers in North and South Carolina. The company recently asked for higher power rates in both states to cover rising fuel costs.
Florida Power & Light also recently asked to increase rates due to what it called "unrelenting pressure from high natural gas prices."
The FPL Group Inc. (NYSE:FPL - News) subsidiary said an average 1,000 kilowatt hour monthly residential bill would rise to $86.73 from $81.60 beginning July 31 and lasting through December, when the fuel cost portion of the bill will again be reviewed.
The company said about 32 percent of its power was generated by natural gas in 2002, while about 6 percent came from coal, 18 percent was generated by oil, 24 percent from nuclear plants, and 20 percent was bought from other power generators.
Austin, Texas-based Austin Energy said it will boost its fuel charge for the first time in nearly two years due to the higher gas prices and a prolonged outage at the South Texas 1 nuclear plant.
Austin Energy said their base electric rates have not increased since 1994, but the new fuel charges will represent about a 3 percent to 4 percent increase in the typical residential bill in July, to be followed by a 3 percent to 5 percent rise in November and another 5 percent to 10 percent increase in January, 2004.
It is irrelevant if the ability to buy is consumed in immediate dollars or borrowed dollars. The ability to buy still has increased,
Do you even have a credit card?
Borrowing incurrs interest charges which increases the debt service which reduces disposable income. A dollar borrowed buys less than a dollar earned, and any spending on borrowed money is limited by the ability to make payments - which is pretty near maxed out for most people. Further, the income increase (much of which is imputed and assumed by the BEA & BLS statisticians) is only about .3% - less than either the CPI or interest charges.
I saw the same exact dire warnings about energy prices, if you will recall, in 2002 . . . and nothing happened. Course, like most people at DP&L, I'm on level billing. Maybe at the end of the year my bill will go up, but it hasn't in some time. It's actually fallen.
Then there's that little thing called nuclear, which supplies much of Cincinnati's power.
That is very, very region-dependent.
Here, in the Pacific Northwest, where we are typically penalized for abuses of energy contracts in other parts of the country, my bill has doubled, even though I have spent about $2000 a year on energy conservation improvements.
Even here, the rates depend greatly on what county or power district you are in.
How much of this is "purely" the economy, and how much is actually idiot regulations from the socialists states up there?
No, but the NW is a special case because of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), which owns at least 31 dams. I guess you could say that those dams were built under "socialist" programs, but most people here are real happy to have the dams (except for a few salmon worshippers -- the rest of us want salmon, too, but aren't willing to believe their junk science and take out the dams. BPA has spent huge amounts investing in technology to preserve the salmon).
I believe I am correct in saying that the dams (including Grand Coulee, the best known) would not have been built under private initiatives, at least at that time.
Since the advent of NW hydroelectric power rates in the NW have been lower than most of the country. This has resulted in some disputes with other states and other federal agencies over the years. But in the last couple of years, propelled by the Enron fiasco, rates in the NW have adjusted to close the gap with averages across the country.
Some local utilities have raised rates twice in the past year, as the BPA wholesale rates have risen. A few utilities have made matters worse for themselves by starting large generation projects, such as gas turbines, during the "shortage" in 2001. These projects still must be paid for even if their output is not needed.
I am a bit of a power bear, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of that output is needed within 5 years.
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.