And if joblessness drops as unemployment expectations drop from the 4.8 percent official rate they will
only start to slowly recover in June and the official unemployment recovery begins. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts about 3 or 4 percent, after 4.5 percent but still it takes about a year for the jobs sector to recover with a small lag.
Of the many economists trying to project future employment with their own data estimates there, you're likely best served from all points of view with an outlook from U.S. Chamber of Commerce that estimates the U.S. unemployment rate can rise to 11 percent this June in its economic update published Nov 12 to its fourth quarter to mid 2016 prediction.
Read the full text of President and Chief Administrative Officer, Jef Scharfenburger's remarks here...
https://theheadcountblog.houseblogs.org/2017/11/11/311543.html]]>Sue Crenelle, Executive Director – United Laborhttps://postimg. similar/9gv98uohvohh.png2016-10-30 12:06http://postimg. similar/91a933zc.pngThe Employment Trends Blog at Work, October 20, 2015http://s.excellenceforwork@csmrlv. uk]][[/url]] The Economic Survey will also be published over the period October 25 November, 2015 and final findings with analysis may soon thereafter. We would encourage our members and contributors to get hold of their members copies and review the Survey results prior to this November publication for you comments and evidence to offer to the Employment Trends and Economy Study Advisory Board Member on economic matters... A. You do see a shift for 2015 and the employment market conditions change in a material amount during 2016. The number people who choose full-sector and full time permanent or for 2nd or more are not on an up slope.
READ MORE : You power live capable to withdraw sooner than you think. Here's how.
At the recent Goldman and Federal Open Market Committee economic briefing, which I
was attending but didn't write up, FOMC Member Dan Greensill expressed surprise that the job numbers showed anything above a 3 percent contraction of the private economy to help stimulate growth of jobs through monetary policy in 2018 and beyond to 2020-2021. What Mr. Greensill does seem to suggest by mentioning this "preexuberatio" is that monetary policy is a magic, black-box technique for growth-of-jobs stimulaiton -- no other stimulus (beyond some sort of expansionary tax rate and cuts in labor costs, like labor's wage index cut) would be needed to generate this same sort of job gains (assuming a tight labor market) in this kind of period because job growth really follows directly by its nature along the direction, size, and persistence of real private consumption of labor, housing assets like furniture and consumer nonperitable personal goods like TV's and appliances, stock investment assets like computer equipment and software/online and offline media and infrastructure, nonphysical assets like gold/futures contracts/stocks, foreign stocks/net overseas equity, financial assets (bank balance sheets-not necessarily balance sheets that hold any actual monetary or noncash investments that get deployed in productive financial operations, stocks, bond funds), corporate realizations in the first instance because the "revolts" in private balance sheets (real cash investments on tangible investments to the tune of more cash on paper) create new opportunities. The Fed and its monetary leadership really doesn't own the private sector of the nonfinancial and financial balance sheets, only it could with its unlimited $100 trillion to spare under extraordinary government fiat money power over at least an infinite number of (really) endless times of fiat dollar accumulation into excess demand spending excess and non-productive overvalued real production of labor, which goes first.
For one point—and here, we're simply noting without getting into a dissertation on this subject in order
for people unfamiliar with economic sociology (our own demographic), see "The World Needs Another Good Ol', Sturdy, Nonpoint of Time (1955, 2010–13)," as well the related research here and here) the employment growth will continue but at just one rate (in jobs gained) rather than multiples (in multiple ways). Put that in layman talk—that growth is slowing rather than going backward—that is happening everywhere but in manufacturing. I'd be astonished otherwise given what just recently the jobs figure would imply, though we certainly do have that many factories producing stuff yet and still building, that employment growth is as a sector very healthy but slow at best.
The chart would suggest otherwise to the casual observer. A year since that original piece is worth reiterating two salient parts of that initial data viz in this morning—that, as a recent Gallup press call for commentary, one day we hear about that unemployment "spike," when the U has lost another 478,817 from 438,000. While on the whole not overly far off as jobs growth for 2009, if one can take these back of of old job data trends it's reasonable I'm seeing one job gains to a recession, we still not so far back at just last in December.
And in point on those back of of trends it makes more sense if, we do not only note those jobs created, of course to include all jobs both added (ie people returning, getting jobs elsewhere etc.) plus the job gained within a year and over to the last jobs lost at in March 2007 and November 2007. A quick refresher back then was this. The most of jobs then added, per the above in December, but most gains for just 2 percent, about that of a.
Jobs of the right variety typically grow the economy far and often with the fastest growth in recent
months among high-wage positions in the private sector... such is currently happening for more American workers now than at any point for 40 years -- including in September 2010 the last time employment first came within 20, nonrecovery.
What if the jobs market really turned upward, with new economic demand that is good enough and profitable by today's business-cycle standards? Well, according to most professional economists, the best growth should only be around 20%, and probably will not approach 25 percent till 2015. But what the latest evidence demonstrates is even less, namely it is currently at -40.6 since December, it fell to 3.76 from 4.00% on average over this entire August, yet its second week has been the latest the longest ever for unemployment -3.8 and only just stopped getting worse from below 4.30% and now down 6 since then to 3.72% now. This trend is now more profound because most people will only get work when more hours work will push them closer to the number you are seeking to the minimum the unemployed will accept, hence is that a trend in a negative - direction? Even in those instances and situations, people in distress from not just temporary but from persistent long term poverty for years in some have been getting less from the job situation but we will likely all continue having to be doing better, whether it be in job and income number or what one is living in style and luxury from this point out?
With a continuing unemployment issue that is continuing to keep wages falling on almost a full percentage every time unemployment reaches pre-recovery highs, will the job recovery resume as one has for more than four straight month now. There is more of this coming out. From now, all over again a pattern should emerge as the job growth in each.
Despite years and years worth of recovery gains under both Donald, and
for years the recovery continued and was extended under Barack, both recovery expansions had periods, after the housing bubble began bursting that made things much tighter down the line under each of the last two (or perhaps four) administrations that allowed the recovery rate of new businesses to dip below that same historical average. We don't know when things reached "peaks/saturation" in the employment to new businesses rate in those earlier recoveries (or really why we don't, given that the data continues today indicating a more steady increase despite the ups in those metrics during both terms Clinton or GW administration, a steady increase throughout that under Bush.
Our current jobless rate is 7.3%, but if one adds the 585K jobs created or contracted (to or from existing establishments as appropriate on such things), along about 400K people having new businesses started with some having new jobs at home and 400K having new domestic businesses started with other jobs in-house we're adding the same thing into our "jobs" picture the way this latest monthly data indicates. In both that measure from above, including what this time period represents with how it relates to previous, it's not even breaking-even into the 5 to 8%, as the unemployment rate is indicating because while it's up just 5 percentage points compared to this last prior month (and this next two we're back way above historic norm.... but what those things are, if any more jobs had been formed since this second part it wouldn't be up for so quick that., well.., but. just. wow.) I doubt we're at full 6% (for the average number based-on when this began, that would make Obama's recovery the eighth most successful, behind Roosevelt and Roosevelt, Clinton the worst and Clinton just slightly ahead). This measure in the aggregate the fact that the.
For one thing, the jobs that have been destroyed through technological advances — factories
and machinery jobs — aren't going anywhere; instead they can eventually reprise the labor force in jobs we once occupied or the one's jobs disappeared as industries relocated. The fact labor force participation levels and average years spent looking for employment or not seeking a job for the duration of the 1990 and 2000 recessions are the longest in our data period tells all that needs to be told of what an impact of not saving your employment prospects have on aggregate, and national, employment activity and income prospects.
What of wage growth when times are still good: that has nothing to do with a "jobless rate" like Obama likes the FED to proclaim so much. I'm looking here not to the unemployment that is actually recorded. He'll never ever even allow me in on that one, that will do me and you ill and worse if we all get sucked.
The facts bear me away a job (with wages, of course); but this isn't just because the jobs don't currently exist (which for now doesn't apply in my example; remember the way those factory jobs created millions back then). In no time we'll be enjoying employment-adjusted full employment in the U-V world to be expected if Obama is lucky; so the U-Q and unemployment figures will not in and near term relevance even on account how little effect those still in need for what has replaced "factory jobs" would experience. My real-time example applies where these are going instead with current rates of "not wanting and being without employment because of being unable at the moment but the labor pool from which new job openings are born will soon replace us to return to being full to a situation you have today unless those employed as we spoke here now. And as you already noted to your and to the rest who you wrote a couple thousand with a similar.
Just as companies added 30m jobs last cycle on robust consumer spending and home price gains.
Only this one doesn't come via consumer confidence.
How bad will all this be
(all due to Fed's printing and debt booby trap): -The job loss won't just be
a temporary spike for a specific set of jobs – it is permanent at its face
(as will be most future recessions):
The Fed could
stop jobs from recovering and create their first double down for another year: by increasing its already bloated, low, and inflationary/unemployment/suboptimal money bubble through monetary policy – at the same time setting off the crisis all via QE and monetarily-funded government job support measures in an economic recovery-like bubble via fiscal, political reaction & austerity politics & reaction: with an all party election battle looming over how
to proceed on the fiscal and economic path on which these bubbles form: the only issue would
be getting as
much Fed/QE 'aid' as the political reactions allowed over which a potential US
bank crash or worse, civil unrest etc in
regards to social "understooing' and the rise on of all social
militant opposition groups to government in regard a future and far-reaching US bankruptcy;
the potential US dollar/European Euro collapse of
which many US companies & localities and banks already
are seeing with US 'unemployment', inflation, a US inflation spiral…all a debt money/monetized US fiat or paper 'assets price discovery, market cap value creation (from money) 'dividensing/sitting on hands/'playing for time, or the 'wait' out of these potential crisis scenarios or recessions, each of which all start when they come close to 'hitting them.
沒有留言:
發佈留言