On the last business day of June, the number of job openings increased to 5.9 million

[jonny5]

JOB OPENINGS AND LABOR TURNOVER – JUNE 2020

The number of job openings increased to 5.9 million on the last business day of June, the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics reported today. Hires decreased to 6.7 million in June, but was still the second highest
level in the series history. The largest monthly increase in hires occurred in May 2020. Total separations
increased to 4.8 million. Within separations, the quits rate rose to 1.9 percent while the layoffs and
discharges rate was unchanged at 1.4 percent. These changes in the labor market reflected a limited
resumption of economic activity that had been curtailed in March and April due to the coronavirus
(COVID-19) pandemic and efforts to contain it. This release includes estimates of the number and rate
of job openings, hires, and separations for the total nonfarm sector, by industry, and by four geographic
regions.

Job Openings

On the last business day of June, the number of job openings increased to 5.9 million (+518,000) while
the rate was little changed at 4.1 percent. Job openings rose in a number of industries with the largest
increases in accommodation and food services (+198,000), other services (+69,000), and arts,
entertainment, and recreation (+34,000). Job openings decreased in construction (-70,000) and in state
and local government education (-26,000). The number of job openings increased in the Northeast and
Midwest regions. (See table 1.)

Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary

So given thats there millions of job openings, do we really need to keep borrowing money to pay people not to work? Just look at your local job board and youll find thousands of employers hiring. Maybe not the job you want or need NOW, but a job that pays until you find a better one.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

IIRC a lot of the country shut back down in July... So the June numbers may be a little dated.

 

[jonny5]

IIRC a lot of the country shut back down in July... So the June numbers may be a little dated.

Job openings never really went down below 5 million though even during the worst of the shut down.

JOB OPENINGS AND LABOR TURNOVER – APRIL 2020

Job Openings

On the last business day of April, the number of job openings declined to 5.0 million (-965,000).

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Job openings never really went down below 5 million though even during the worst of the shut down.

Even it those 5 mil job opening were filled, which won't and can't happen, never has and never will.. But lets say all 5 mil get filled.. What do we do with the 15+ mil that will still be unemployed? In June there were 21 mil unemployed..

 

[99percenter]

Trump is faking numbers. True unemployment is 30%

 

[Jason Warfield]

So given thats there millions of job openings, do we really need to keep borrowing money to pay people not to work? Just look at your local job board and youll find thousands of employers hiring. Maybe not the job you want or need NOW, but a job that pays until you find a better one.

And you will find in that same report that most are part-time jobs that do not have benefits like health and cannot pay enough to pay the bills. And if most people are taking what they can get and working two or more jobs...then there are still millions unemployed because there aren't enough jobs to go around.

Not to mention that while there was job creation in July, it fell to 1.8 million jobs of the same type. Not good news.

 

[jonny5]

And you will find in that same report that most are part-time jobs that do not have benefits like health and cannot pay enough to pay the bills. And if most people are taking what they can get and working two or more jobs...then there are still millions unemployed because there aren't enough jobs to go around.

Not to mention that while there was job creation in July, it fell to 1.8 million jobs of the same type. Not good news.

Actually, while theres a good chunk of retail, theres an even bigger chunk of professional, healthcare, education jobs available.

Retail 800,000
Professional and business services 1.2 million

But a job is a job. Someone working any job means we dont have to borrow as much money to pay them to stay home. Which means I dont have to pay as much taxes to pay it all back. The idea is to get people OFF welfare.

 

[jonny5]

Even it those 5 mil job opening were filled, which won't and can't happen, never has and never will.. But lets say all 5 mil get filled.. What do we do with the 15+ mil that will still be unemployed? In June there were 21 mil unemployed..

We cross that bridge when we get there. Lets get these jobs filled first.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

We cross that bridge when we get there. Lets get these jobs filled first.

You're expecting we get to 0% unemployment which is impossible, before you want to help the 15 million who no fault of theirs, can't get a job?

That's cold.

 

[jonny5]

You're expecting we get to 0% unemployment which is impossible, before you want to help the 15 million who no fault of theirs, can't get a job?

That's cold.

No.

af

 

[Drawdown]

So given thats there millions of job openings, do we really need to keep borrowing money to pay people not to work? Just look at your local job board and youll find thousands of employers hiring. Maybe not the job you want or need NOW, but a job that pays until you find a better one.

I never trust those "available jobs" numbers, but no we should have ended the booster payment on unemployment when we did. Trump screwed up diverting money from FEMA to pay for those.

 

[HonestJoe]

So given thats there millions of job openings, do we really need to keep borrowing money to pay people not to work? Just look at your local job board and youll find thousands of employers hiring. Maybe not the job you want or need NOW, but a job that pays until you find a better one.

There are thousands of people actively looking for work too. Why not demand the employers hire them all first? It might not be the employee they want or need now, but it's an employee until they find a better one.

 

[jonny5]

There are thousands of people actively looking for work too. Why not demand the employers hire them all first? It might not be the employee they want or need now, but it's an employee until they find a better one.

If a business is receiving welfare because of lack of employees, thats not a bad idea.

 

[HonestJoe]

If a business is receiving welfare because of lack of employees, thats not a bad idea.

What businesses are receiving "welfare" because they lack employees?

I was trying to get you to realise how ridiculous the idea of any random unemployed person being expected to fill any random available job was, ignoring things like qualifications, skills, basic ability, location or working hours.

 

[jonny5]

What businesses are receiving "welfare" because they lack employees?

I was trying to get you to realise how ridiculous the idea of any random unemployed person being expected to fill any random available job was, ignoring things like qualifications, skills, basic ability, location or working hours.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Also, strawman. I never suggested random person fill ANY random job. I said theres lots of jobs for random person, even if they arent the right one, right now. Ie, IT professional could go work as a barrista until they get an IT job. Which is better for the rest of us, than them being on unemployment.

Our employment problem is not that there are jobs and no people to fill them.

 

[HonestJoe]

I said theres lots of jobs for random person, even if they arent the right one, right now. Ie, IT professional could go work as a barrista until they get an IT job. Which is better for the rest of us, than them being on unemployment.

The point is that there aren't that many because it isn't always as simple as you make it out to be. To take your example, barrista isn't an unskilled job and requires soft skills for customer interaction. Why would a coffee shop owner hire an IT professional, pay to train them up as best they can, regardless of whether they have the soft skills at all, in the knowledge that person is going to just leave the moment they get a job in their field job?

That kind of thing is possible, and does already happen, in a lot of cases but there are lots of valid reasons why it doesn't happen in a lot of others, which is why there has always been open vacancies and active job seekers at the same time.

 

[jonny5]

The point is that there aren't that many because it isn't always as simple as you make it out to be. To take your example, barrista isn't an unskilled job and requires soft skills for customer interaction. Why would a coffee shop owner hire an IT professional, pay to train them up as best they can, regardless of whether they have the soft skills at all, in the knowledge that person is going to just leave the moment they get a job in their field job?

That kind of thing is possible, and does already happen, in a lot of cases but there are lots of valid reasons why it doesn't happen in a lot of others, which is why there has always been open vacancies and active job seekers at the same time.

Unless youre saying there arent any jobs for any of the 50 million people on welfare, we dont have a disagreement. Theres lots of jobs. There lots of people who need jobs. Thus theres lot of money that can be saved on handouts by those people getting those jobs.

 

[rahl]

Unless youre saying there arent any jobs for any of the 50 million people on welfare, we dont have a disagreement. Theres lots of jobs. There lots of people who need jobs. Thus theres lot of money that can be saved on handouts by those people getting those jobs.

What you keep ignoring, and what completely destroys your position, is that just because a job is available, and a person is unemployed looking for a job, that doesn’t mean that person is qualified for said job.

 

[HonestJoe]

Unless youre saying there arent any jobs for any of the 50 million people on welfare, we dont have a disagreement. Theres lots of jobs. There lots of people who need jobs. Thus theres lot of money that can be saved on handouts by those people getting those jobs.

You're acting as if nobody is trying to do that already. The problem is that you're ignoring all the complications and limitations like the ones I listed. Just because you have a 1000 jobs and a 1000 unemployed people doesn't mean you'd be able to fill all of those jobs with all of those people.

 

[jonny5]

You're acting as if nobody is trying to do that already. The problem is that you're ignoring all the complications and limitations like the ones I listed. Just because you have a 1000 jobs and a 1000 unemployed people doesn't mean you'd be able to fill all of those jobs with all of those people.

Youre acting as if we CANT do that, or anything. Im arguing we can. That there are lots of jobs and lots of people filing for unemployment who could work in those jobs instead.

 

[HonestJoe]

Youre acting as if we CANT do that, or anything. Im arguing we can. That there are lots of jobs and lots of people filing for unemployment who could work in those jobs instead.

I'm not saying nothing could be done, only that the easy and direct things are already been done. Highlighting that there are a bunch of job openings and a bunch of unemployed people and just telling people to look for those jobs doesn't achieve anything that isn't already happening and you've not offered any ideas beyond "look for a job".

It is likely that there are steps which could be taken to improve the situation but they're not as simple as you're trying to make out. You really need to acknowledge that a lot of available jobs won't be suitable for a lot of job-seekers and vice versa, regardless of how flexible everyone involved is.

 

[Kushinator]

Ie, IT professional could go work as a barrista until they get an IT job. Which is better for the rest of us, than them being on unemployment.

This post goes to show just how ignorant those on the right have become.

No... it's not better for the rest of us. An IT worker needs to learn how to be a barista, which takes time and resources. Instead of utilizing their skill set, they downgraded to learning how to operate a coffee shop. Meanwhile, someone without many marketable skills has one less barista job opening, and is more likely to be unemployed.

The economically rational thing to do is for the IT worker to receive unemployment benefits until they are able to find a job in a field for which they are qualified so that a person with limited skills can train for a position they are more suited for. Long term, they learn / grow and the IT worker eventually find another IT job.

Our employment problem is not that there are jobs and no people to fill them.

You sure do not tire of posting extremely partisan ignorance!!! The problem is there are only 5 million jobs and 15 million + people out of work.

The OP is utter trash.

This concept would be covered in an introductory macroeconomics course....

 

[What if...?]

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Also, strawman. I never suggested random person fill ANY random job. I said theres lots of jobs for random person, even if they arent the right one, right now. Ie, IT professional could go work as a barrista until they get an IT job. Which is better for the rest of us, than them being on unemployment.

Our employment problem is not that there are jobs and no people to fill them.

What the current model will result in is those around median, who generally have more resources but more bills, will displace people with lower qualifications who will quickly end up homeless.

 

[jonny5]

I'm not saying nothing could be done, only that the easy and direct things are already been done. Highlighting that there are a bunch of job openings and a bunch of unemployed people and just telling people to look for those jobs doesn't achieve anything that isn't already happening and you've not offered any ideas beyond "look for a job".

It is likely that there are steps which could be taken to improve the situation but they're not as simple as you're trying to make out. You really need to acknowledge that a lot of available jobs won't be suitable for a lot of job-seekers and vice versa, regardless of how flexible everyone involved is.

I dont think the easy and direct things have been done. I can go find someone right now in my city who isnt working, and find a job for them. My solution is stop enabling them not to work.

 

[HonestJoe]

I dont think the easy and direct things have been done. I can go find someone right now in my city who isnt working, and find a job for them. My solution is stop enabling them not to work.

Could you do that for all the unemployed people or just one? A system has to work for the whole, not just the easy cases. That second statement isn't a solution, it's rhetoric.