Record Number of Jobs Available (1 Viewer)

[MrWonka]

Job openings rise to a record high - AOL

I found this interesting. While hiring was a bit slow the last couple months there are actually a record number of Job openings available in the United States right now. The problem in this country seems to be not so much that there are no jobs, but that the jobs aren't a good fit for the people that are looking for them. Either because they don't pay enough, or because the workers aren't qualified. I guess I'd like to see a better break down of this information to see what else might be causing that.

 

[Critter7r]

"There were a record 5.788 million job openings in the US in April, according to the latest Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS).

Economists had forecast that there were 5.675 million job openings during that month, according to Bloomberg. The number of openings in March was revised down to 5.670 million from 5.757 million.

Hiring slowed, as the total number of hires fell slightly to 5.1 million and the rate [rate of what?] edged down to 3.5% from 3.7%."

So .... 5.675 million jobs available and 5.1 million people hired? Is a half-million job openings going unfilled in a month a huge deal?

Or am I reading that wrong?

I'm not "in" financial circles, so forgive me if "the rate" is some rate that I should know the meaning of.

 

[MrWonka]

"There were a record 5.788 million job openings in the US in April, according to the latest Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS).

Economists had forecast that there were 5.675 million job openings during that month, according to Bloomberg. The number of openings in March was revised down to 5.670 million from 5.757 million.

Hiring slowed, as the total number of hires fell slightly to 5.1 million and the rate [rate of what?] edged down to 3.5% from 3.7%."

So .... 5.675 million jobs available and 5.1 million people hired? Is a half-million job openings going unfilled in a month a huge deal?

Or am I reading that wrong?

I'm not "in" financial circles, so forgive me if "the rate" is some rate that I should know the meaning of.

Yeah, that is a bit of a jump there. I assume they're referring to the rate hiring, meaning the number of jobs filled to jobs open. So last month 3.7% of jobs that were open got filled, and this month only 3.5% got filled. It's an AOL article. Not exactly the best place for this information, but I didn't see it any where else.

 

[DA60]

Since January, America has lost 6,000 full time persons employed - but gained 566,000 part time jobs.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

It's pretty obvious that the quality of jobs being created since January are lousy.

 

[mmi]

Since January, America has lost 6,000 full time persons employed - but gained 566,000 part time jobs.

A stupid lie from someone who doesn't know how to interpret BLS data to save his life. And much worse, here he is repeating it after I already exposed it for the stupid lie that it is.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...gain-4-7-a-post1065945297.html#post1065945297

>>It's pretty obvious that the quality of jobs being created since January are lousy.

Completely unsupported. No valid evidence is being offered.

 

[katzgar]

Since January, America has lost 6,000 full time persons employed - but gained 566,000 part time jobs.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

It's pretty obvious that the quality of jobs being created since January are lousy.

when you cherry pick stats to create a fairy tale you forget the rest of us can use the internet to find actual facts.

 

[code1211]

Job openings rise to a record high - AOL

I found this interesting. While hiring was a bit slow the last couple months there are actually a record number of Job openings available in the United States right now. The problem in this country seems to be not so much that there are no jobs, but that the jobs aren't a good fit for the people that are looking for them. Either because they don't pay enough, or because the workers aren't qualified. I guess I'd like to see a better break down of this information to see what else might be causing that.

Where I work, we seem to be seeing an increase in the "churn" at the lower wage jobs.

The higher wage jobs are pretty stable.

Seems like the dividing line is in the $40K range.

 

[Moderate Right]

Job openings rise to a record high - AOL

I found this interesting. While hiring was a bit slow the last couple months there are actually a record number of Job openings available in the United States right now. The problem in this country seems to be not so much that there are no jobs, but that the jobs aren't a good fit for the people that are looking for them. Either because they don't pay enough, or because the workers aren't qualified. I guess I'd like to see a better break down of this information to see what else might be causing that.

Can you say, "Obama has destroyed the better paying jobs with his liberal anti-business policies so that only lower paying part time jobs are the only ones being created"?

 

[MrWonka]

Can you say, "Obama has destroyed the better paying jobs with his liberal anti-business policies so that only lower paying part time jobs are the only ones being created"?

Actually it seems to be more likely here that the jobs are TOO good and TOO high paying such there aren't enough skilled workers to take them. If it was only lower paying jobs that they can't find people for then raising the minimum wage to entice people would be a good choice.

 

[mmi]

Can you say, "Obama has destroyed the better paying jobs with his liberal anti-business policies so that only lower paying part time jobs are the only ones being created"?

Sure, but I wouldn't, cuz it's nothing more than … (yawn) another stoopit RW lie. You keep barfin' 'em up and I'll keep C & Ping the refutations.

In Mar 2010, employment in professional and business services was 16.5 million, and it's now expanded to 20.1 million, a 22% increase. Overall private sector employment is up from 107.4 million to 121.8 million, a 13.4% increase.

So those on-average higher-paying jobs have been substantially overrepresented in the employment gains achieved over the past six years. One in four of the new jobs added during that period are in business and professional services.

What did Obummer do to "destroy the better paying jobs"? I'd say the answer is obvious — he didn't do anything to destroy higher-paying jobs." They were, in fact, created.

In 2015, there were 870K workers paid the MW, and 1.7 million paid less than that. In 2010, there were 1.8 million paid MW, and 2.5 million paid less. So the number of very-low-wage employees fell by forty percent over that period.

On the question of part-time vs. full-time employment, FT is up 12.6 million since Dec 2009, while PT is up 457K. So ninety-six percent of the jobs added over that period are full-time.

Once again, you have absolutely no idea what yer talking about.
​

 

[Mr Person]

Job openings rise to a record high - AOL

I found this interesting. While hiring was a bit slow the last couple months there are actually a record number of Job openings available in the United States right now. The problem in this country seems to be not so much that there are no jobs, but that the jobs aren't a good fit for the people that are looking for them. Either because they don't pay enough, or because the workers aren't qualified. I guess I'd like to see a better break down of this information to see what else might be causing that.

And likely also because of the vast number of people made ineligible by criminal convictions, even something like a drunk and disorderly from ten years ago, which result from the fact that we are some kind of world leader in criminalizing things.

 

[jonny5]

Actually it seems to be more likely here that the jobs are TOO good and TOO high paying such there aren't enough skilled workers to take them. If it was only lower paying jobs that they can't find people for then raising the minimum wage to entice people would be a good choice.

Then you would have less jobs to be open. We could also reduce welfare to make work more necessary. After all, 38% of the country is choosing not to work.

 

[Critter7r]

Then you would have less jobs to be open. We could also reduce welfare to make work more necessary. After all, 38% of the country is choosing not to work.

All those damn college losers and retired idiots!! We should FORCE them to work and boost the economy!!

 

[jonny5]

All those damn college losers and retired idiots!! We should FORCE them to work and boost the economy!!

Not force to work, but rather stop taking from those who do, helping them not to. Also, most non workers are 24-54, not retired.

 

[_Sal]

more jobs available?

it's probably that Muslim Obama's fault

 

[coldjoint]

more jobs available?

it's probably that Muslim Obama's fault

Our economic situation is the direct result of Obamas policies and his endless regulations. It is not good, and the new jobs are low paying and part time.

 

[_Sal]

Our economic situation is the direct result of Obamas policies and his endless regulations. It is not good, and the new jobs are low paying and part time.

well then rejoice because his time is almost done, you survived and soon it will be President Trump and he will make it all better

 

[Critter7r]

Not force to work, but rather stop taking from those who do, helping them not to. Also, most non workers are 24-54, not retired.

Source?

How about a source and some analysis on the 38%, too.

 

[mmi]

stop taking from those who do, helping them not to.

Taking what from whom?

>>most non workers are 24-54, not retired.

There are 3.87 million unemployed 25-54, and 23.6 not in the labor force, a total of 27.47 million. (source)

The total civilian noninstitutional population is 253.2 million, and the civilian labor force is 158.5 million, leaving 94.7 million not in the labor force. (source)

So 29% of "non-workers" are 25-54, which looks to me like less than "most." And how do you know whether or not some of those are retired?

We all know about the endless RW efforts to talk down the economy, and one that's been spread around in recent months is something described as "a report from the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee." I cannot find it anywhere online, which seems curious, but it got puked up by the lying, RW media hate machine on Sept 26, 2014 when an article discussing it appeared in the Weakly Low Standard noting that "one in four Americans 25-54 is not working."

There are 97.9 million Americans 25-54 (source), and 27.47 million of them are not working, so the percentage is actually 28%. But how many of the 23.6 million not in the labor force say they want a job? 858K, or 3.6%. There were 751K in Q1 2006 at the height of the housing bubble, which was 0.5% of the labor force. Last month's total is … 0.5%.



To summarize, the 25-54 cohort is having no more trouble finding work now than they were ten years ago when we were headed for the cliff.

38% of the country is choosing not to work.

Yes, and to play this broken record one more time, the great majority — 94% … don't want a job. (source)

the new jobs are low paying and part time.

From #10:

In Mar 2010, employment in professional and business services was 16.5 million, and it's now expanded to 20.1 million, a 22% increase. Overall private sector employment is up from 107.4 million to 121.8 million, a 13.4% increase.

So those on-average higher-paying jobs have been substantially overrepresented in the employment gains achieved over the past six years. One in four of the new jobs added during that period are in business and professional services.

In 2015, there were 870K workers paid the MW, and 1.7 million paid less than that. In 2010, there were 1.8 million paid MW, and 2.5 million paid less. So the number of very-low-wage employees fell by forty percent over that period.

On the question of part-time vs. full-time employment, FT is up 12.6 million since Dec 2009, while PT is up 457K. So ninety-six percent of the jobs added over that period are full-time.​

 

[coldjoint]

Taking what from whom?

>>most non workers are 24-54, not retired.

There are 3.87 million unemployed 25-54, and 23.6 not in the labor force, a total of 27.47 million. (source)

The total civilian noninstitutional population is 253.2 million, and the civilian labor force is 158.5 million, leaving 94.7 million not in the labor force. (source)

So 29% of "non-workers" are 25-54, which looks to me like less than "most." And how do you know whether or not some of those are retired?

We all know about the endless RW efforts to talk down the economy, and one that's been spread around in recent months is something described as "a report from the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee." I cannot find it anywhere online, which seems curious, but it got puked up by the lying, RW media hate machine on Sept 26, 2014 when an article discussing it appeared in the Weakly Low Standard noting that "one in four Americans 25-54 is not working."

There are 97.9 million Americans 25-54 (source), and 27.47 million of them are not working, so the percentage is actually 28%. But how many of the 23.6 million not in the labor force say they want a job? 858K, or 3.6%. There were 751K in Q1 2006 at the height of the housing bubble, which was 0.5% of the labor force. Last month's total is … 0.5%.

View attachment 67203563

To summarize, the 25-54 cohort is having no more trouble finding work now than they were ten years ago when we were headed for the cliff.



Yes, and to play this broken record one more time, the great majority — 94% … don't want a job. (source)



From #10:

In Mar 2010, employment in professional and business services was 16.5 million, and it's now expanded to 20.1 million, a 22% increase. Overall private sector employment is up from 107.4 million to 121.8 million, a 13.4% increase.

So those on-average higher-paying jobs have been substantially overrepresented in the employment gains achieved over the past six years. One in four of the new jobs added during that period are in business and professional services.

In 2015, there were 870K workers paid the MW, and 1.7 million paid less than that. In 2010, there were 1.8 million paid MW, and 2.5 million paid less. So the number of very-low-wage employees fell by forty percent over that period.

On the question of part-time vs. full-time employment, FT is up 12.6 million since Dec 2009, while PT is up 457K. So ninety-six percent of the jobs added over that period are full-time.​

Youi can find those numbers easier than businesses can hire, and you know it. Your post is smoke and mirrors.

 

[mmi]

You can find those numbers easier than businesses can hire, and you know it.

Well, they are easy to find, but you don't seem to be offering anything to refute them.

>>Your post is smoke and mirrors.

In what sense? You said that "the new jobs are low paying and part time." And I can understand yer feeling that way — that nonsense is peddled 24/7 by the lying RW hate media. But in fact part-time employment has remained almost flat, while full-time employment has expanded substantially. Now I don't have data on the wage breakdown of all the new jobs added since the end of 2009, but I'd say I've shown that at least a significant number of them don't appear to be low-wage.

Those professional and business services jobs currently have an average wage of $25.34, compared to an overall private sector average of $21.49. We've added …

• 991K construction jobs, and that industry has an average wage of $25.80
• 32K mining and logging, despite the recent downturn, that average $27.31 (the number added if ya go back to the fall of 2014 was around 235K)
• 436K in wholesale trade, $24.21
• 7K in utilities, $34.88
• 7K in information, $29.86
• 512K in financial activities, $26.13
• 2.84 million in education and health services, $22.44

So of the 14.5 million jobs added since Dec 2009, 8.5 million, or 59%, are in industries that pay wages above the private-sector average. (There are more that are above-average; I picked the ones that are significantly more than the overall private-sector average of $21.49, although I may have missed some.) If the oil patch hadn't been hit as it has in the last eighteen months, the numbers would be even better.

Anyway, I'm not offering this as some kind of definitive analysis. It could be that employers have, over the last six-and-a-half years, replaced a lot of higher-paying jobs within these industries with lower-paying ones. My guess is that that hasn't been a major factor. And certainly I'm using data from broad industry categories and only "average" wages. There's not enough detail to draw any strong conclusions. And of course millions of jobs have been added in lower-wage industries:

• 1.6 million in retail trade, $15.05
• 2.5 million in leisure and hospitality, $12.82

All I'm saying is I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that "the new jobs are low paying." And I don't see how they could be part-time. On wages, the two million or so that I haven't included are in the range of around $18.50 to $22.50, so I figure they don't have much of an effect on this question.

We Obummer supporters aren't saying everything is rosy, and even the Negro himself isn't saying that. But if you listen to liars like Limpblow, Handjob, Blech & Associates, you'd think the only workers hired since 2009 are at restaurants and retail outlets. They don't use smoke and mirrors — they just shamelessly lie to yer face.

To give ya an off-topic example, Handjob has been chirping for a couple of weeks about Hellory's plan for "a 550% increase" in the number of Syrian refugees that will be allowed to immigrate to the US. He never gives actual numbers, and I've known why — because they're relatively small. So I now hear that the proposal is for 11K, which means Obummer has been processing all of two thousand. You may think any is a bad idea, but Handjob pulls this crap all the time to mislead folks. If he's talking, you know he's lying, same with the rest of that crew. Why not debate the facts and stop misrepresenting them.

 

[274ina]

There are no jobs. Its just there propaganda..................

They need to keep the lies flowing.............

 

[jonny5]

Source?

How about a source and some analysis on the 38%, too.

People who are not in the labor force&#58 why aren't they working? : Beyond the Numbers: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

In 2014, 87.4 million people 16 years and older neither worked nor looked for work at any time during the year. (See table 1.) Of this group, 38.5 million people reported retirement as the main reason for not working. About 16.3 million people were ill or had a disability, and 16.0 million were attending school. Another 13.5 million people cited home responsibilities as the main reason for not working in 2014, and 3.1 million individuals gave “other reasons.”

Retired is indeed the single largest reason, but there are 52 million aged 16-64 choosing not to work (ie. not unemployed)

 

[Critter7r]

People who are not in the labor force: why aren't they working? : Beyond the Numbers: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"In 2014, 87.4 million people 16 years and older neither worked nor looked for work at any time during the year. (See table 1.) Of this group, 38.5 million people reported retirement as the main reason for not working. About 16.3 million people were ill or had a disability, and 16.0 million were attending school. Another 13.5 million people cited home responsibilities as the main reason for not working in 2014, and 3.1 million individuals gave “other reasons.”

Retired is indeed the single largest reason, but there are 52 million aged 16-64 choosing not to work (ie. not unemployed)

So when you say things like ....

Then you would have less jobs to be open. We could also reduce welfare to make work more necessary. After all, 38% of the country is choosing not to work.

... to make it sound as if 40% of the country is just a bunch of lazy bums sucking up welfare, it's not really true because half of those lazy bums are retired, and the other half are in school, disabled or staying home to raise children. It is not a distortion of the statistics to NOT show those people as "unemployed" because classifying them as such implies that they want to be working when in fact, they do not.

The number of "unemployed" is (and correctly so) a measure of the people that want to find work but are unable to do so, not simply the number of people that aren't working. The number of people that choose to not work and have the means to live without a job should be seen as a positive, not a negative.

 

[Casper]

Job openings rise to a record high - AOL

I found this interesting. While hiring was a bit slow the last couple months there are actually a record number of Job openings available in the United States right now. The problem in this country seems to be not so much that there are no jobs, but that the jobs aren't a good fit for the people that are looking for them. Either because they don't pay enough, or because the workers aren't qualified. I guess I'd like to see a better break down of this information to see what else might be causing that.

More jobs does not equate to Quality jobs, it is not a good thing if someone has to work 2 jobs to get enough money to pay the bills.