Market Currents
Initial Jobless Claims: 388K vs. 375K consensus (prior week revised to 389K from 386K)....
-
Thursday, April 26, 2012, 8:32 AM ETInitial Jobless Claims: 388K vs . 375K consensus (prior week revised to 389K from 386K). Continuing claims +3K to 3.31M.
Other date
Latest Macro Articles
This news story has 79 comments:
Should I be happy about the 3 year trend or should I concern myself with week over week rounding errors? Is the 3 year trend a "fluke"
The 3 yr trends are not pretty.
http://bit.ly/uuVuaL
Employment to Population Ratio:
http://bit.ly/uosUSn
This one is key:
http://bit.ly/yQP7uw
The long term trend here should worry everyone.
http://bit.ly/AyUwv0
We need nonfarms in the 400k range each month, and we need claims in the 300k range. This would signal real recovery and people getting some serious jobs. When they get jobs they think they can depend on, then they will buy houses. When that happens, the real estate will shore up, and when that happens bank balance sheets will shore up. When their capital is no longer threatened, the regulators will back off, and the banks will start lending again. The numbers now don't indicate that scenario. They indicate a malaise for 10 years.
Is 65 a significant number anymore? Full social security doesn't kick in until 67 and since many savings instruments only pay a pittance, if possible those hitting 65 try to hang on for a 'little' while longer.
http://bit.ly/I8aIsF
Lol, that's why "jobless claims" are useless statistics.
Average net worth of 65 and over was $232,000
http://bit.ly/I0Sz4F
Only 17% of people retiring in 2011 have savings, not including primary residence, over $250k.
http://bit.ly/z14azL
Labor force participation rate men 16-64 (non-retirees):
http://bit.ly/IAoJTQ
and women 16-64:
http://bit.ly/I8JC4I
Retirees participation in workforce +65 (the one of 2 trending positive metric):
http://bit.ly/I8JC4K
NILF and want job now:
http://bit.ly/IAoMiy
Youth are getting hammered:
http://bit.ly/I8JBxI
Unemployment level of new entrants into workforce..highest ever:
http://bit.ly/IAoKac
The assumption that job growth is quality (living wage) jobs is pure farce. Bachelors and higher is the same as Associates and HS diploma. The real disturbing trend...less than HS education has seen a +10 yr RISE in employment.
HS degree:
http://bit.ly/Ac4tSd
Associates:
http://bit.ly/An6HNg
Less than HS...the other long term 'positive' trend:
http://bit.ly/ypzAvs
The long term trends do not support your claim.
It's nothing fancy. Takes about 20 minutes to cycle through the graphs. The trends are not new...the amazing thing is how much they have been ignored. Something had to break.
What makes me chuckle is the claims of 'recovery'. $trillions injected, interest rates forced down, and at best, the present low status is maintained. This should be terrifying everyone. Obviously this tact is not working....we are at the cross roads....yes purely my opinion.
How does anyone expect to live on that?
Others - probably just resign themselves to a life of living barely above the poverty line on Social Security.
But you are right. I don't know how people will make out.
http://reut.rs/JIEFRy
http://bit.ly/sRT8KC
"Between 2008 and 2009, revenues dropped 2.6 percentage points, from 17.5 percent of GDP to 14.9 percent--3.1 percentage points below the historical average of 18 percent. Meanwhile, outlays grew 4.3 percentage points, from 20.7 percent of GDP to 25.0 percent--4.2 percentage points above the historical average of 20.8 percent.
Additionally, in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, the CBO predicted 2010 outlays to be $2.457 trillion,[5] whereas actual outlays were $3.456 trillion - a $1 trillion under-prediction of spending. CBO predicted 2010 revenues to be $2.946 trillion, whereas actual revenues were $2.162 trillion - a $0.784 trillion over-prediction of revenues. "
http://bit.ly/JIEFRE
"According to the CBO, about a third of the decline in the rate of participation is due to factors other than the economic downturn...about 10k retirees reach 65 per day."
Clearly participation rate among the 16-64 crowd is dropping while 65+ is rising. Retiree age people aren't retiring thus fewer retirees are going NILF. The new entrants into the workforce is the bulk of NILF along with those formerly employed, now unable to find work (length of time unemployed still staggeringly high).
Know a recent engineering grad who was offered a job at Miller Brewery - they had only 80 people running a three shift bottling line - and the people they hired mostly trouble-shot the "robots". How many would it take to run the line 20 years ago? 200 people?
Yes, perfect storm of changing demographics and technology - a huge problem no administration can solve - not even a really smart benevolent despot (my favorite form of government).
That despot would need to be omniscient, instead of "really smart". Only when an individual has perfect knowledge about production, can that individual not be a threat. After all, if you have perfect knowledge about production, the society that you control would have nothing you don't already have. Anybody else will always have incentive to think of their survival over those they are supposedly to "take care of".
Look at the Fed. Supposedly by putting the experts in charge of the economy, all our problems were supposed to go away. But even these experts are constantly at each other's throat over their mistakes.
Gov can only regulate the things with which it has to the tools to regulate. Gov has been given a grant of force by the populace, thus gov can regulate with regards to force and fraud. The only way a gov could regulate a market is if it could be given some special grant of superior market knowledge.
Now think about that. If people in the gov knew more about the markets than everyone esle in the market, think about how much that information would be worth. It would be worth far more than BBs $189k a year salary. It would be worth trillions. Since you don't see a massive flow of gov employess moving to the markets to make trillions, the only conclusion is that they don't have special market knowledge. As such, they can't regulate pricing issues since they are blind to prices.
Expect more malaise.
I'll mostly agree with that. The time for action was 20+ yrs ago....but hey, hindsight is always 20/20. The issue I have with 'administrations' (previous and present) as well as the majority of press, talking heads, Fed, major economists etc.....is the 'all is well' meme coming out of everyone's mouth. I would much rather have a straight forward 'we are in a problem...and it is going to get substantially worse if we don't take action now'...talk. That would be several rather uncomfortable and unpopular actions, but short term pain and anger now, will go a long way towards future success. Simply put...the US govt lacks the political will to do much of anything. The 2 party system is a failure locked in stagnation allowing a banking structure (the Fed et al) and cronyism to bleed this country down. Both parties are responsible...but the biggest culprit is the electorate failing to hold those in office accountable. Instead it is reduced to a sporting event with the fans (electorate) cheering for their team to win regardless of cost while the stadium is crumbling beneath their feet.
Sorry my friend, your material life is up to you. It is up to all of us.
First of all the PR (overall) is on a 10+ year declining trend.
http://bit.ly/Kv8U2r
Second, I never claimed the 65+ PR is declining. This demographic is becoming the dominant one and for those that retire from full time work but maintain part time/consulting work (increasing trend)...those still count toward the PR, but status change also counts towards the NILF stats because they are considered underemployed.
This I absolutely agree with.
"Not in the labor force (Current Population Survey)
Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary."
http://1.usa.gov/IASjLr
If they have a job…even part time…they are counted as employed..not NILF.
Not sure what you mean by underemployed…that suggests they wish they had full time work…which is completely different (U6).
Those wanting to work part time (non-economic reasons) on purpose actually trended down in the last 4 yrs. and we are at late 1990s levels.
http://bit.ly/IjfDZd
This goes against the CBO claims.
So lets look at this a different way (because I'm irritatingly stubborn). Employment to population ratio.
This has only been broken out since mid 2008…
men 16-64:
http://bit.ly/IjfDZf
men +65:
http://bit.ly/IjfFQX
Women 16-64:
http://bit.ly/IjfDZj
Women + 65
I was unable to find this…which seems strange since women typically live longer than men and I would think have a greater impact. I would like to see this metric.
My point wasn't that you were claiming the 65+ participation rate was declining, but rather they are NOT contributing as much to NILF as you believe, but rather those who had lost their jobs previously and new entrants into the workforce.
So we are seeing retirees stay in the workforce and thus counted (yes even part time), yet the total employment to population ratio has dropped to mid 1980's levels.
http://bit.ly/IjfFQZ
So there is no confusion…per BLS definition.
Employed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees;
http://1.usa.gov/qB0QOL
http://bit.ly/IERTgn
http://nyti.ms/IoM0bE
…perhaps I'm not seeing what you are…the participation rate (which is different from the labor force or the civilian non-institutional population) is the lowest since 1992?
Yes, I agree this isn't a NEW trend…but it isn't improving.
There is a large cohort block 15-29 yr olds..~21% of population (exceedingly high unemployment rate) deriving from the large cohort block of 40-54 yr olds (~21.4%). These 2 population blocks (42.4 % of total population (15-54 yr olds) far outweigh the baby boomers+ (55-+85 yrs olds….which occupy 24.3% of the total population…true boomers..55-64 occupy 11.6% of population…(boomer are equal to ~half the 15-29 cohort group or 40-54 cohort)….something no one is talking about. This suggests the population decline between 15 and 54 is minimal……this should scare everyone. In other words..the 40-54 cohort group, conservatively should be 30% larger than the boomers).
Additionally..there is another upcoming big block (probably from the professional moms holding off on kids) 19% of the total population 14ys and under (with a spike at the 5yrs and under group at 7% at total). Demographically put…the population cohort spikes are compressing to sooner and sooner. This will cause a huge influx of new entrants into the workforce…the group with the highest unemployment rate and lowest participation/employment to population ratio (in some cases since the data has been kept).
Put plainly…every retire age person could leave the workforce…even part time…and it wouldn't be enough. This is a population (with technology) dynamics problem. It is classic over population with looming large upcoming population cohorts that will need even more resources…. Imagine we get slammed with not 1 cycle of boomers, but repeated cycles with fewer years apart.
See the problem?
CPS Table 1 can be found:
http://1.usa.gov/KmZVv5
Hey, we are all human, so yes, we need regulations, and laws. To bad humans make the laws and regulations, and enforce them.
http://bit.ly/Jz8V3J
52 week moving average of NSA jobless claims drops 339 to 392,712...
at the non seasonally adjusted numbers...the real numbers...
The Kim il Sung media will accept that and move on... look over there, Romney has a hoist in his garage !
NY +3,352 Layoffs in the transportation, food service, and educational industries.
CA +3,060 Layoffs in the service industry.
GA +2,179 Layoffs in the manufacturing, construction, and wholesale trade industries.
FL +2,048 Layoffs in the agriculture, construction, services, trade, and manufacturing industries.
NC +1,923 Layoffs in non-classifiable establishments and the textile, construction, business, and amusement and recreation industries.
CT +1,312 No comment.
NJ +1,145 Layoffs in the transportation and warehousing, accommodation and food service, administrative, government, and health care and social assistance industries.
Now we are seeing some more data that is consistent. Doesn't mean they are right but the probability is increasing with every week that claims increase. The claims increases are also around the reference week so the monthly payroll number is liable to be weak.
I'm also watching weekly retail sales slow as well. Some other recent indicators like durable goods, industrial production, imports etc. have been weak... every time an indicator come in weak, it strengthens ECRIs call, every strong indicator makes it less likely. Right now, the ECRI call is on a roll.
Yep, Planned Parenthood has been very successful.
http://bit.ly/JIuy11
Call it whatever you want, but if you "think" the economy is recovering..Great! If you don't Great!..but the statistics show a very long down trend in the labor particaption rate(25yrs/college grads)... So there are less people working now, then in 1990(when adjusted for population growth)