Unemployment rate (U-3) rises 0.2% to 4.9% (1 Viewer)

[DA60]

However, the establishment survey says 287,000 more Americans were employed in June.

But the Household survey (what the official unemployment rate is based on) says only 67,000 more Americans were employed in June.

Employment Situation Summary


Thoughts?

 

[Kushinator]

Gains in service related employment continue to underscore the lack in productivity growth. Typically, manufacturing related to capital goods (think machines and equipment) drives both wage growth and and hours worked. We see the post-industrial information economy as this huge enforcer of productivity, but what does this sector really provide? More opportunities for leisure, and not necessarily production. While this increases our population's standard of living, it doesn't show up in the numbers that reflect economic growth.

 

[chuckiechan]

A simple example of why the country is suffering is here:

For example:
A tree in the forest is worth nothing.
There are wages to cut it, wages to ship it, wages to process it, and wages to drop it on the dock in Seattle. There are taxes paid and mark ups taken every step of the way. To Canada.

And since this tree is in Canada, we don't get the benefit of employment and taxes until it hits the dock in Seattle.

Or lack of productivity is due to only having the ability to take a mark up and wages from the dock to the finished product, rather from the forest to finish.

This example applies to everything we import that we can make ourselves efficiently.

EDIT: When do refugees become unemployment figures if they are not employed?

 

[Carjosse]

A simple example of why the country is suffering is here:

For example:
A tree in the forest is worth nothing.
There are wages to cut it, wages to ship it, wages to process it, and wages to drop it on the dock in Seattle. There are taxes paid and mark ups taken every step of the way. To Canada.

And since this tree is in Canada, we don't get the benefit of employment and taxes until it hits the dock in Seattle.

Or lack of productivity is due to only having the ability to take a mark up and wages from the dock to the finished product, rather from the forest to finish.

This example applies to everything we import that we can make ourselves efficiently.

EDIT: When do refugees become unemployment figures if they are not employed?

I do not think you understand how economics nor manufacturing works. In manufacturing you would use that tree combined with some glue, metal, and fabric then sell it for 3x what those things cost and the US gets all the revenue form the manufacture and sale of that product which itself may be exported. It is not a question of whether it can be produced efficiently, it is whether it can be produced cost-effectively. Then there is the fact manufacturing only makes up a small part of the economy, the service sector makes up most of the economy and does not rely on what you are trying to talk about.

On refugees if the US is similar to Canada, they count them immediately.

 

[Carjosse]

Gains in service related employment continue to underscore the lack in productivity growth. Typically, manufacturing related to capital goods (think machines and equipment) drives both wage growth and and hours worked. We see the post-industrial information economy as this huge enforcer of productivity, but what does this sector really provide? More opportunities for leisure, and not necessarily production. While this increases our population's standard of living, it doesn't show up in the numbers that reflect economic growth.

What? More opportunity for leisure is created because we can reach the same amount, if not more of production using the same or reduced resources. You can employ 10 people in a factory to produce the same amount 100 used to.

 

[Kushinator]

Or lack of productivity is due to only having the ability to take a mark up and wages from the dock to the finished product, rather from the forest to finish.

This example applies to everything we import that we can make ourselves efficiently.

EDIT: When do refugees become unemployment figures if they are not employed?

Protectionism actually reduces productivity, as mutually beneficial trade allows us to consume outside our productive capacity. Furthermore, the creation of the ancillary jobs and industries that
are only possible because of the said outcome.

Those parroting protection of the current populist movement lack the exposure to economic education that's required understand this reality.

 

[chuckiechan]

Actually, I do. I wanted to keep it basic and clean for non business people to understand.

Earlier in the century, we mined the ore, made the steel, rolled and formed it, and made cars from it. If we use "value added", we value added every step of the way from mine to showroom, and every step included a profit margin, wages, and taxes. Those jobs paid well. Now, we are taking mark up's starting at the dock from products shipped in from China. We have exported 1/3 of a product's productivity.

I did not want to go "deep".

 

[chuckiechan]

Protectionism actually reduces productivity, as mutually beneficial trade allows us to consume outside our productive capacity. Furthermore, the creation of the ancillary jobs and industries that
are only possible because of the said outcome.

Those parroting protection of the current populist movement lack the exposure to economic education that's required understand this reality.

The reality is a trade balance should be zero, and there should be no deficits. This should be a goal. That is not what is happening now.

 

[Kushinator]

What? More opportunity for leisure is created because we can reach the same amount, if not more of production using the same or reduced resources. You can employ 10 people in a factory to produce the same amount 100 used to.

But is this leading to increased employment in the high productivity manufacturing sector, and greater consumption of capital goods?

I'm explicitly referring to total factor productivity. Gains in leisure, and other instances in quality of life don't typically show up in quantitative growth metrics such as GDP.

 

[Carjosse]

But is this leading to increased employment in the high productivity manufacturing sector, and greater consumption of capital goods?

I'm explicitly referring to total factor productivity. Gains in leisure, and other instances in quality of life don't typically show up in quantitative growth metrics such as GDP.

10 high-productivity jobs > 100 outsourced jobs

 

[Kushinator]

Normative rants lacking positive analysis will continue to fail; both in communicating content and understanding reality.

 

[Kushinator]

10 high-productivity jobs > 100 outsourced jobs

Really?

Why is it that these high productivity jobs lead to greater gains for the owners of capital, while not replacing, on a net basis, the income it has substituted?

Strictly speaking, just because we have become more productive doesn't mean the income lost by 90 workers is replaced by those 10.

 

[Carjosse]

Really?

Why is it that these high productivity jobs lead to greater gains for the owners of capital, while not replacing, on a net basis, the income it has substituted?

Strictly speaking, just because we have become more productive doesn't mean the income lost by 90 workers is replaced by those 10.

Any amount of income is better than none. With the 100 jobs that were previously outsourced there was no income but with the new high-productivity manufacturing there is at least 10 receiving incomes that are most likely high-income. Even if you disagree with it there is nothing you can do about it. Though the service economy will still be the main engine of the economy.

 

[Kushinator]

Actually, I do. I wanted to keep it basic and clean for non business people to understand.

Earlier in the century, we mined the ore, made the steel, rolled and formed it, and made cars from it. If we use "value added", we value added every step of the way from mine to showroom, and every step included a profit margin, wages, and taxes. Those jobs paid well. Now, we are taking mark up's starting at the dock from products shipped in from China. We have exported 1/3 of a product's productivity.

I did not want to go "deep".

As early in the 20th century, we went from bathing in manually transported and heated water, to turning a knob. We went from using a portion of our food supply to get to and from, only to push a button and a pedal.

Our lives are now mostly improving on the basis of qualityof leisure, not necessarily in the time it takes to subsist (quantity of leisure). As stated, these gains cannot be measured in conventional growth metrics.

 

[apdst]

Obama can only cook the books for so long. The unemployment rate inevitably had to rise.

 

[Kushinator]

Any amount of income is better than none. With the 100 jobs that were previously outsourced there was no income but with the new high-productivity manufacturing there is at least 10 receiving incomes that are most likely high-income. Even if you disagree with it there is nothing you can do about it. Though the service economy will still be the main engine of the economy.

I'm not disagreeing with anything, just explaining what's happening, and how it is negatively impacting conventional growth metrics.

 

[Kushinator]

Obama can only cook the books for so long. The unemployment rate inevitably had to rise.

You can continue to post in partisan ignorance, or you can do yourself and all of us a favor and just not post in threads to which you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion.

 

[apdst]

You can continue to post in partisan ignorance, or you can do yourself and all of us a favor and just not post in threads to which you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion.

Obama gave us the worst GDP growth in history and the lowest labor participation rate in 36 years.

Those are facts.

 

[Kushinator]

Obama gave us the worst GDP growth in history and the lowest labor participation rate in 36 years.

Those are facts.

Obama had nothing to do with it. That is a fact. You continue to peddle in partisan ignorance.

 

[apdst]

Obama had nothing to do with it. That is a fact. You continue to peddle in partisan ignorance.

Right! It's NEVER his fault...lol!

 

[Carjosse]

Obama gave us the worst GDP growth in history and the lowest labor participation rate in 36 years.

Those are facts.

Well the participation rate actually peaked in the late 90s and has been declining ever since. But it is still far above where it was in the 50s and 60s during America's economic boom. Then according to this graph all GDP growth has done is become less erratic and that trend started in the mid 80s. This would be due to a shift in the economy away from manufacturing.

 

[Kushinator]

Right! It's NEVER his fault...lol!

The topic of this thread isn't about who we want to blame for an overall slowdown in conventional growth metrics. You've achieved your goal in expressing partisanship lacking in any substance. Congratulations!

Now go away.

 

[Kushinator]

Then according to this graph all GDP growth has done is become less erratic and that trend started in the mid 80s. This would be due to a shift in the economy away from manufacturing.

While it is true that growth has been both lower and less volatile, it has more to do with how we measure it, and how much more industrialization is captured by the conventional metrics created during that era.

 

[Kushinator]

I would also like to point out that the OP neglected to comment on the decline in U6.

 

[apdst]

The topic of this thread isn't about who we want to blame for an overall slowdown in conventional growth metrics. You've achieved your goal in expressing partisanship lacking in any substance. Congratulations!

Now go away.

The topic is the unemployment rate rising. The reason for that rise is a part of the topic