Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Jobs Dropped By 33,000 In September, Likely Due To Storms (npr.org)

Posted by msmash on from the where-we-are dept.

An anonymous reader shares an NPR report: The U.S. economy shed 33,000 jobs in September, according to the latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, while unemployment fell to 4.2 percent. The September payrolls drop broke a nearly 7-year streak of continuous job gains. But economists caution that the drop is likely representing the short-term consequences of bad weather, not a long-term shift in the job market. Before this report, the economy had added an average of about 175,000 jobs per month; the unemployment rate has been at 4.3 or 4.4 percent since April. Job growth in September was expected to be lower than usual because of the effects of several devastating hurricanes. Economists did not generally predict an actual decline, but a not-so-stellar report was widely anticipated.

56 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. The Hillary Recession is coming! by IAteFatCashews · · Score: 1, Funny

    The long overdue Hillary Recession is finally coming. The end is neigh!

  2. ...and in a month or two... by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given that the hurricane-stricken areas are in semi-tropical places where construction can (and probably does) happen year-round, I'm betting that there will be a massive boom in construction jobs coming in the next month or two, and lasting maybe 6 months or more. Someone's gotta rebuild all that stuff, after all...

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:...and in a month or two... by Solandri · · Score: 1, Informative

      Broken window fallacy. If there hadn't been any storms, the money those places will now have to spend on repairs would've been spent on other business instead. So that construction boom comes at the cost of other business jobs. i.e. There's no net increase in number of jobs, it's just that money has been siphoned away from other jobs to pay for construction jobs.

      Also see opportunity cost. Like most people, you are incorrectly calculating opportunity cost by comparing to a vacuum (construction repair jobs vs nothing). A correct analysis compares the benefits of construction vs what was given up to pay for that construction.

    2. Re:...and in a month or two... by wiggles · · Score: 3, Informative

      fallacy fallacy fallacy.

      Fatcats don't hoard money - they invest it, creating further economic activity. The money doesn't leave the economy unless somebody sinks it into gold, art, or real estate.

    3. Re:...and in a month or two... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Reading fallacy. This entire chain is pointless, because Solandri started it all by not reading. OP didn't say there was going to be a big economic boom because of this. He said there was going to be "a massive boom in construction jobs". He labelled a specific area that was going to have a boom.

      Solandri's post was the equivalent of saying it's a fallacy that there was a dotcom boom or a housing boom or any other boom, because if those hadn't happened the money would have just been used somewhere else.

    4. Re:...and in a month or two... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Informative

      I never stated that hurricanes were good for the economy, nor did I recommend destruction in order to stimulate said economy. I merely stated that a frigton of temporary jobs would come of it, and why.

      QED: I posted no fallacy here.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re:...and in a month or two... by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      The money doesn't leave the economy in any of those cases, either. It just changes hands.

    6. Re:...and in a month or two... by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The money doesn't leave the economy unless somebody sinks it into gold, art, or real estate.

      Money spent on gold, art, and real estate stays in the economy. The guy you paid for the gold, art, or real estate now has a bunch of money he can spend on things.

      What matters is the overall productivity gain from what the money was spent on. That's why Enron's scam of selling the same equipment back and forth multiple times between two of its divisions didn't actually generate money. It inflated the accounting books, but because there was no productivity gain per transaction, it did nothing to help the company. For an economic transaction to be beneficial to the individual/company and the overall economy, it has to have a net productivity gain. The store which sells a hammer has to sell it for more than they paid for it (and to stock it). The carpenter who buys the hammer has to be able to use it to increase his carpentry business sales by more than he paid for the hammer.

      Gold is pretty bad in that respect because it doesn't do anything (unless you're using it to plate electronics for corrosion resistance). And in fact buying it for decoration can be a net negative on the economy since it drives up the price for gold used for productive purposes (like anti-corrosion plating). Art can be good if exhibiting it generates additional economic activity (people wanting to make/buy more art, people traveling to view it). Real estate can be good if you build something on it that generates more economic activity, or preserve it to allow something to continue to exist which generates or protects economic activity (e.g. land for anti-flood dikes).

    7. Re:...and in a month or two... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Construction is economically bad. That is less money that could be spent on other things. For a middle income family a $25,000 repair bill means no new cars, toys, investments, etc for 2 years.

      Construction jobs pay shit and the money goes to Mexico mostly anyway. I am not racist but live in Texas. Construction is no longer a middle class job here.

      FYI these replaced workers are the ones who voted for Trump for obvious reasons

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    8. Re:...and in a month or two... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Depends on their deductible, really. Typical is something like $2.5-$5k or so.

      A $25k deductible tells me this is either one very stupid (or rather, a stupidly skinflint) homeowner, or some massively shit insurance. Bumping to a $5k or $10 deductible and banking that cash in savings I can understand, but $25k? damn...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    9. Re:...and in a month or two... by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Economically there is no advantage to randomly destroying infrastructure and an apparent "construction boom" resulting from a storm

      That's true, but the point was that the jobs "shed" in September will be replaced quickly. The economy is still growing very nicely.

    10. Re:...and in a month or two... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Investments are done with the sole goal of earning the investor a profit. Economic activity is not a requirement for investing. This is why fatcats have like no other time in history been fueling one speculative bubble after another. Here's a quick recap of the past 20 years: the Dotcom bubble, oil bubble (remember when gas was almost 4 bucks a gallon), the housing bubble, the gold bubble. We are in a stock market bubble right now.

      I thought we were in a student load bubble...

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    11. Re:...and in a month or two... by ixidor · · Score: 2

      tell that to Apple's i dunno 200 Billion horde...

    12. Re:...and in a month or two... by Gryle · · Score: 1

      Two questions: 1) How are you defining middle class? 2) What do you consider construction jobs? General contractors who do their own work? Project managers? Architects? Day-laborers?

      I still maintain contacts with some folks I know in Texas who are involved in light (domestic) construction. No one's getting filthy rich, but they've put kids through college and no one's going hungry. I'll grant that day-laborers are a different story, but qualified and competent skilled workers (electricians, concrete men, carpenters, roofers, etc) make decent wages.

      I'd estimate at least 50% of construction, in terms of money made, is remodeling of some kind, not repair work. This can be anything from deciding your backyard needs a patio or a deck to upgrading your kitchen with new cabinetry and fixtures to adding a new room to the house. Remodeling is generally only done by people with enough disposable income, so in that sense construction can be economically good.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    13. Re:...and in a month or two... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      bullshit.
      spending is spending whether its invested or spent on consumer goods.

      the richer people are, the the smaller a % of their income or wealth they spend.
      poor people spend 100% (or greater, thanks to credit) of their funds, ie, every dollar.
      the top 1% spends on average only 32 cents of every dollar.

      in total, the majority of funds in teh economy, driving demand and driving job creation, come from the bottom 90% of americans.
      not the rich. and hte rich DO hoard their money. their spending is not the engine of hte economy, and they dont create jobs out of hte good ness of their hearts.
      it is done in response to consumber demand for goods beyond their current ability to provide. thus they create more jobs to meet that demand.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  3. Storms? by argStyopa · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Aren't we pretty sure it's Trump's fault?

    Or the Russians?

    Or Global Warming. Ah...that works "storms" = global warming. NOW I can fit this news into my preconceived worldview.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Storms? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      The Unemployment Rate this year since January has been 4.8%, 4.7%, 4.5%, 4.4%, 4.3%, 4.4%, 4.3%, 4.4%, 4.2%. Jobs dropped by 33,000 but unemployment went down...? FAKE NEWS!!!

      Seriously though, what? Labor force participation rate went up from 62.9% in August to 63.1% in September. Labor force went from 160,571,000 to 161,146,000. Number of employed went from 153,439,000 to 154,345,000. Where do you see 33,000 jobs reduced?

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    2. Re:Storms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah, if you have no legitimate argument...resort to name calling.

      1) The link between AGW and tropical storm intensity is in no way certain.

      https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
      "It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity."

      2) If anyone in power had found even a shred of evidence of any collusion between Trump and the Russians, the MSM would have made sure everybody on the planet knew and Trump would be hanging from a yardarm.

    3. Re:Storms? by will_die · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yet the actual scientists who study hurricanes and forecasted last year that this years hurricanes would be worse than recent norms say it the warming is caused by El Nino not global warming.
      The people who are saying it was caused by global warming are the people who are paid to raise the fear level about global warming.

    4. Re:Storms? by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing from this:

      "People who have jobs but weren't paid during the survey period don't count as "employed" in the BLS statistics. That would include, for instance, a restaurant worker who is paid hourly and could not work for an extended period because of a storm."

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    5. Re:Storms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      el nino = pacific ocean.
      hurricanes = atlantic ocean.

    6. Re:Storms? by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Aren't we pretty sure it's Trump's fault?"

      That's just Twitter storms.

    7. Re:Storms? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yet the actual scientists who study hurricanes and forecasted last year that this years hurricanes would be worse than recent norms say it the warming is caused by El Nino not global warming.

      You better check that again. Wrong ocean.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Storms? by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      There is no El Nino this year. El Niños actually reduce the intensity of Atlantic hurricanes through increased wind shear and other effects. Actual climatologists were alarmed this year by extremely high (probably the record high) heat content and temperature of seawater in Atlantic. Meanwhile, global temperatures are rising: https://www.wunderground.com/c...

    9. Re:Storms? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yes but the BLS statistics show an increase in jobs and an increase in labor participation rate.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  4. Re: Don't worry ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can you really blame us for voting him in? I mean this is a guy who has a hurricane machine since he obviously caused the bad weather this article is talking about. Would you want to vote against someone with a hurricane machine? We had no choice!

  5. Re:A shit storm of incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ok. I'm holding my breath for exactly that. I'm sure it will happen any day now.

    Yep. Any time now.

    ...

  6. I Blame by dcw3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Plug in your political affiliation and start pointing fingers now...

    Democrat
    Trump
    Climate Change
    Misogyny
    Russia

    Republican
    Obama/Clinton
    Abortion
    Snowflakes
    BLM

    Or maybe, instead of picking sides, and listening to the talking heads, we could just for a moment stop and realize that "the other side" isn't all evil/crazy, and that they just see things through a different lens that we should try to understand instead of listening to our individual echo chambers.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
    1. Re:I Blame by iprayfatcashewd · · Score: 1

      Republican
      Obama/Clinton

      Funny. The Wall Street Journal had a recent article that Obama is/was "too conservative" for the Democrats. I've always thought Obama and Clinton were moderate conservatives.

    2. Re:I Blame by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the other side isn't evil or crazy, but that doesn't mean that climate change isn't real, that Donald Trump isn't a sexist asshole who literally bragged about sexually assaulting women, and that he very likely collaborated with Russia in if not illegal, certainly questionable ways. And of course, there are Republicans out there who are willing to stand up to him, but that doesn't make Trump less bad.

      Every Presidential election since I was old enough to care except this one, I've sent time arguing with people that it wouldn't be terrible if the candidate from the major other party they were opposed to won. I didn't do that where Trump was concerned, because he really is that bad. It is true that people are often much too willing to assume that the politicians they dislike are somehow absolutely awful, but it doesn't mean that that doesn't sometime genuinely occur.

    3. Re:I Blame by Solandri · · Score: 2

      If just 10% of the energy people spent on blaming others with different political affiliation was instead spent on work, growing a business, or starting a new business, most of the problems we complain about would disappear on their own.

      The entire reason we developed representative government with elected officials is so we would only need to take a few days out of our lives every couple years to worry about politics. Instead of having to learn the minutiae of every political issue every day so we can make an informed decision about all of them, we choose a few people to do it for us. That frees us up to do our regular productive jobs the rest of the time. But instead of using that free time to get more work done or for recreational activities, for some odd reason we use huge portions of it to follow what our elected officials do and argue with each other about the rightness or wrongness of it. That's not our job. That's the job of the politicians we elected. We made those elected offices so everyone wouldn't have to waste time dealing with all that stuff.

      Do your research before the elections and vote your conscience. Follow up on it just enough to make sure the people you voted for are doing what you expected them to do, and so you're prepared for the next election. Otherwise, get on with your life. That's how the system was designed to work. If you feel strongly enough about politics that you must follow it every day, then you should probably be running for office. And if the electorate decides you aren't suitable for office, go back to your regular job.

      Do you want to know the best way to heal the political divisiveness currently afflicting the country? Get to know some people with different political opinions. Go on vacation together, go hiking with them, play some sports with them, go to a concert together, take your kids to the park together, go fishing together. Discuss anything but politics. You'll find that you're both regular people, and you have a lot more in common with each other than differences. And when a divisive political issue comes up, your imagination won't be working with a vacuum so it can run wild and cast the other guy as evil incarnate so it's OK to punch him, throw things at him, shoot him, or even think it's OK that he's been shot.. He'll be the neighbor you hang out with - a real person with a life just like you who has his own personal reasons for disagreeing with you, just like you have your own personal reasons for disagreeing with him. And maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to sit down and have a civilized conversation about how best to resolve or live with our differences, instead of calling each other stupid/crazy/evil and doing everything we can to impede each other.

    4. Re:I Blame by hawk · · Score: 1

      >The entire reason we developed representative government with elected officials is so we would
      >only need to take a few days out of our lives every couple years to worry about politics.

      No, that just isn't correct.

      Britain developed it much by accident.

      Coming out of the feudal period, the king couldn't simply impose taxes; Parliaments were about getting the consent he needed for those/

      Over time, Parliament came up with a "grievances before revenues" policy in which they wouldn't approve the revenues until the king met their other concerns. Over the years, this became legislation, and Parliament ultimately took the leading (now exclusive) role.

      The Prime Minister arose when the king discovered he couldn't govern without a majority in Parliament--and over time shifted from Lords to Commons.

      It is relatively recent that more than about 5% of Britain can vote for Commons.

      In the US, representative government was not chosen for its own value, but as the most likely way to secure our liberty: its the means, not the ends.

      hawk

    5. Re:I Blame by tbannist · · Score: 2

      I've always thought Obama and Clinton were moderate conservatives.

      You only think that because they are moderate conservatives.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  7. Re:well... by Layzej · · Score: 1

    Less immigration possibly?

  8. Re:Or.. by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    The Gulf cost is a major area for US Oil Refineries. Being hit by a Hurricane is not good for them.

    Also there isn't any noticeable trending decline in the US Oil and Gas industry. It may not be a big boom like it was a few years ago, but the US is a major Oil producer (and consumer)

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  9. Re: Don't worry ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wait what? Hurricanes are caused by global warming now? What caused Hurricanes Andrew, Betsy, and Camille then?

    We've been lucky to have a long stretch without any major hurricanes hitting the US. So I guess any hurricane now has to fit the agenda?

  10. still waiting by micahraleigh · · Score: 1, Informative

    Still waiting for slashdot to post an article about the growth rate surpassing 3% as described in that nasty conservative rag USA Today:
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/09/28/u-s-economic-growth-revised-up-3-1-rate-q-2/711674001/
    That 3.1% growth was higher than anything under Obama, as confirmed by far, alt-right Nazi organization politifact:
    http://www.politifact.com/illi...

    Oh snap, they're MSM and left wing hacks respectively

    1. Re:still waiting by werepants · · Score: 1

      Still waiting for slashdot to post an article about the growth rate surpassing 3% as described in that nasty conservative rag USA Today:

      https://www.usatoday.com/story...

      That 3.1% growth was higher than anything under Obama, as confirmed by far, alt-right Nazi organization politifact:

      http://www.politifact.com/illi...

      Oh snap, they're MSM and left wing hacks respectively

      Is that news for nerds, stuff that matters? This story is marginal, and that one would be no better.

    2. Re:still waiting by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Obama is making the economic growth rate HIGHER a year into the Trump administration than it ever was during his administration?

      Fascinating. I didn't realize economic growth was such a delayed thing or he was still pulling the strings in secret. Too bad the voters probably won't pick up on that.

  11. Re:Construction gigs by jabuzz · · Score: 1

    Duh, it's October now. These are historical figures for September. What's happening today means jack shit for what happened last month.

  12. Re: Don't worry ... by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Insightful

    wave after wave of Hurricane due to global warming

    Whew! It's a good thing we haven't been having any global warming for so long, with that huge stretch of no major hurricanes of any kind landing in the US despite the climate alarm industry telling us year after year that THAT year was going to be the one with a huge number of record hurricanes. During which we got exact none. Year after year. Or was it that global warming was WORSE decades ago, when there were more storms landing then during all of those recent years? Gotcha.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  13. One for every occasion by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Let's get in the wayback machine and go back to May 4, 2012.

    https://twitter.com/realDonald...

    You will notice that in this tweet, Donald Trump is complaining about a labor force participation rate of 64.3%, and that there should be 300,000 new jobs per month.

    Last month, the labor force participation rate was 63.1% and the economy lost 33,000 jobs.

    Before you say, "but, hurricanes!", let me remind you that before last month, there were 83 consecutive months of job growth in the US. The longest uninterrupted period in US history. There was a little storm called "Sandy" that hit the Northeast in October of 2012...and we still had job growth. The labor participation rate was higher then, too.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  14. 84 months of growth by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    We are finally finally seeing rising wages after the sevre Great Recession eliminated so many jobs.

    33,000 lost is no biggie in the grand scheme. Now if we loose more next month then I will worry as it shows a trend of contraction

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
  15. 10K baby boomers retire every day. by cnaumann · · Score: 1

    A loss of 33K jobs in a month is pretty much in the noise level.

    1. Re:10K baby boomers retire every day. by tomhath · · Score: 1

      There was a net decrease of 33K jobs, compared to the net increase of ~175K that would have been expected without the storms. How many people enter the workforce, change jobs, or retire isn't the issue here.

  16. Re: Don't worry ... by Layzej · · Score: 2

    Wait what? Hurricanes are caused by global warming now?

    Here's what has happened over the last few decades: "it is virtually certain that intense tropical cyclone activity has increased in the North Atlantic since 1970."

    Here's what we expect with global warming:

    Although projections under 21st century greenhouse warming indicate that it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed and rainfall rates, there is low confidence in region-specific projections of frequency and intensity. Still, based on high-resolution modelling studies, the frequency of the most intense storms, which are associated with particularly extensive physical effects, will more likely than not increase substantially in some basins under projected 21st century warming and there is medium confidence that tropical cyclone rainfall rates will increase in every affected region. - http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm...

    Rainfall is what caused most of the damage this year AFAIKT, so that seems in line with our expectations for a warmed world, though these are early days and large impacts are not anticipated until later in the century. Possibly this was just bad luck. Possibly the impact was enhanced by global warming. Either way it's probably it is something we should learn to get used to.

  17. this doesn't include Puerto Rico by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Neither Puerto Rico nor US Virgin Islands are part of this measure.

    It's far worse.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  18. Re:Dow Jones up 27% in less than one year. by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

    Not particularly; I also don't think that the short term growth of the stock market is the only metric of how things are going; I personally do quite well from the current stock market, that doesn't mean that there aren't serious problems with this administration.

  19. Re: Don't worry ... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    There sure are a lot of weasel words in that IPCC quote.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  20. Re:well... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    Unemployment is calculated based on the number of people eligible for unemployment insurance. Just because someone exhausted their UI benefits or simply gave up looking for a job it will lower the government "unemployment" rate. They're not employed, they just are no longer counted.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  21. Re: Don't worry ... by Layzej · · Score: 1

    Words like "confidence" and "Likely" have very specific meanings here: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/suppor... . Of course we want them to communicate the level of certainty on each item. Where there is uncertainty there is risk as things may be better or worse than we anticipate. If we know with certainty what we are in for then we can plan for it.

  22. Re: Don't worry ... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    not really

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  23. Thunderstorm by stooo · · Score: 1

    >> US Jobs Dropped By 33,000 In September, Likely Due To Storms

    It's likely to be caused by this storm : http://droit-public.ulb.ac.be/...
    Does this storm have a name already ?

    --
    aaaaaaa
  24. Re: Don't worry ... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    did you just "other" me?

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  25. Unemployment elsewhere: by iq145 · · Score: 1

    This'll make you feel better, or worse... Afghanistan 35%, American Samoa 50%, Kenya 42%, Senegal 48%, Yemen 35%, Syria 40%, Zimbabwe 95%

  26. Re: Don't worry ... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    Wow, that's a lot of work to go to in order to completely and deliberately miss the point. The followers of St. Gore were telling us (the domestic, US audience) that we here in the US, especially on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, would be experiencing year after year of increasingly huge, increasingly frequent hurricane landfalls. Followed of course by the complete absence of such. But sure, go ahead, pretend you weren't noticing when the guy getting rich selling carbon offsets from his mansion didn't harp on such things endlessly, to a fan base of swooning alarmists intent on leveraging those predictions for political power and cash distribution programs.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.