Lets make it up
As we go along, no jobs end of..
The US is still buzzed with its July 4th hangover, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics is open for business, delivering some good news: over the past three months, despite government job cuts, private-sector employers added enough jobs to keep pace with population growth. According to the June jobs report, the US economy added …
As we go along, no jobs end of..
4th of July - the date Americans celebrate giving up the English language.
It's Pay Cheques....
"delivering some good news: over the past three months, despite government job cuts, private-sector employers added enough jobs to keep pace with population growth"
Really! Government job cuts! Private hirings! Oh miracle. Unfortunately....
The impressive Michael Mandel of BusinessWeek recently (October 2009) crunched the numbers for job growth over the last 10 years, and the results, shall we say, don't look good.
He calls it a "lost decade for jobs" in the United States. I call it a disaster. Consider his graph depicting the percent change in private-sector job growth over time. ....
We find a traditional pattern for private-sector job growth that, although volatile (following the business cycle), remains within a 20–30 percent band for the 30-year period starting in 1971. However, this period is followed by an ominous decline in the 2000s, which approaches zero job growth by May of 2009. What's going on?
Mandel doesn't say, although he points out that the real story is somewhat worse than the data suggest. Throughout the 2000s, there was significant growth in public sector jobs, doubling that of the private sector in absolute terms. Mandel adds that, of the private-sector jobs created during this time period, most were in the "HealthEdGov" sector, meaning that these jobs — technically private — would not have existed without government spending.
The situation is troubling, to say the least. From May 1999 to May 2009, private-sector employment increased by only 1.1 percent — the lowest rate of job growth since the 1930s. This reflects structural problems within the US labor force that have increased in severity during this decade....
No it's not gonna be fixed by the end of the year.
I work in a major Semiconductor plant and we are hiring large amounts of Moroccans. Barely speak English. Once doesn't speak English at all and is being trained by the other Moroccans. They are showing up as workers at the local stores too.
Of course my employer is a major supporter of the Gang of Eight Immigration "reform" bill.
AC for obvious reasons.
The US government have been lying about US unemployment for years by deceptively reclassifying lots of people as not unemployed; the actual jobless rate in the US is at least 20% and climbing according to ShadowStats! The previous UK Labour government were notorious for doing this, and I bet the current government are also doing so!
This is very like many governments lying about the actual (substationally higher) percentage rise in the cost of living, which lots of stupid people call 'inflation'; inflation actually means the growth in the quantity of currency for, M0 to M?, maybe even including Derivatives.
Adding to the real jobless rate is the jump in the number of people in the US that receive government assistance of one form or another. Some research groups put the percentage of working aged people receiving government aid at 25% and growing. Most of the growth has occurred in the last 5-6 years and is accelerating. Be afraid.
Infernoz, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks several unemployment rates. The U3 rate is the one that gets broad coverage in the media; the U6 rate is the one that a plurality of people would probably consider more representative (since it also covers e.g. part-time workers who want full-time work but can’t find it, unlike the U3 rate). The U3 rate gets the media attention because (1) it’s comparable to the unemployment rates of other nations [its definition comes from the International Labour Organization, and allows apples-to-apples international comparisons] and (2) it’s generally significantly lower than the U6 rate.
Regarding the definitions of inflation, I’ll quote #6 from the OED: Great or undue expansion or enlargement; increase beyond proper limits; esp. of prices, the issue of paper money, etc. Defining inflation as a rise in the cost of living (i.e. prices) is just as valid as defining it as a rise in the money supply. Calling people stupid for using the former definition is just as misguided as would be calling someone stupid for using the word substationally where substantially had been intended.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017