Slashdot Mirror
There Are More Jobs Than People Out of Work, Something the American Economy Has Never Experienced Before (cnbc.com)
The jobs market has reached what should be some kind of inflection point: there are now more openings than there are workers. From a report: April marked the second month in a row this historic event has occurred, and the gap is growing. According to the monthly Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey released this week, there were just shy of 6.7 million open positions in April, the most recent month for which data are available. That represented an increase of 65,000 from March and is a record. The number of vacancies is pulling well ahead of the number the Bureau of Labor Statistics counts as unemployed. This year is the first time the level of the unemployed exceeded the jobs available since the BLS started tracking JOLTS numbers in 2000. As of April, the total workers looking and eligible for jobs fell to 6.35 million, a decrease from 6.58 million the previous month. The number fell further in May to 6.06 million, though there is no comparable JOLTS data for that month. Under normal circumstances, the mismatch would be creating a demand for higher wages. However, average hourly earnings rose just 2.7 percent annualized in May, up one-tenth of a point from April. Further reading: Why Nebraska has an amazing jobs market but nobody is moving there.
So why are headhunters still calling me up and trying to lowball me on software developer contracts? With H1B Visas getting shut down, they should be especially short on software engineers, shouldn't they?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Right, I'll be over here holing my breath waiting for wages to finally go up.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
There are anywhere from a few million to tens of millions depending on the accounting who just gave up on finding a new job and are not counted anymore.
Labor pool stats are just relative to what we call a proper labor distribution anyway. If 10m millennial women suddenly dropped out of the workforce over a decade to be stay at home wives**, they'd probably call them unemployed. When men who did jobs that were outsourced give up, they call them participants in a ghost economy we won't^H^H^H^H^Hcan't measure Because Reasons.
(**bwahaha you don't think corporate America welcomed a massive influx of women into the workplace out of "repentance for sexism," do you? They found religion on "equality" because adding tens of millions of working women to the economy crippled the ability of the men and lower class women to negotiate with them a la wages.)
If that were true, salaries would be rising significantly faster than inflation. And should have been rising since the end of the last recession (roughly 2012ish, when you account for the people who lost jobs in 2008 getting re-hired).
Salaries aren't doing that.
for corporations doing poorly to advertise for nonexisting jobs. I recall back in the 1990s, when a local company called Traveling Software, kept advertising for positions after they had laid off over 60% of their workforce --- and surprise of surprises --- they never bothered to fill any of those advertised-for positions.
Labor demand is high, so salary is how the companies will compete for labor.
That's the theory. But so far it isn't happening. Wages are barely keeping pace with price inflation. Economists don't really understand why. With tight labor markets and loose monetary policy, inflation should be roaring. But it isn't.
Ignoring the U6 column on the labor statistics again?
I bet so. Howzabouts all the people - especially us 60+ - experiencing age discrimination who aren't even being counted any longer?
First, there are plenty of people for these jobs but the government doesn't consider them "looking" because they haven't actually looked for a job in the last week or so. It's why the unemployment numbers aren't really that accurate.
Second, and this has been going on for decades, employers will put up fake jobs in that the position doesn't exist, but the employer wants to get a feel for who is out there and what they want in pay.
Third, as the most recent jobs numbers showed, the largest portion of job creation is service jobs. i.e. low wage positions. One could argue that an increase in service jobs is a reflection of a growing economy, it could also mean that automation is taking away some of the more manual jobs which pushes down employment for those who would have done those jobs, thus revealing the only job growth is at your local Kwik E Mart rather than a production line. Since one can't live off those wages, they don't bother applying for such jobs.
While the numbers indicate more jobs than people looking, as the con artist would say, they're fake.
You've been ingesting too much Fox News. They've been lying about California's economy for years.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...
I guess the idea that high taxes and reasonable regulations work pisses off the Ayn Rand-ites, so they have to constantly say that it's failing? That's some serious cognitive dissonance. You should probably get your head out of your ass.
http://www.latimes.com/busines...
I don't respond to AC's.
Something tells me these numbers are being manipulated. If things really were that good, employers would raise wages. You'd have fast food places offering $20/hr to flip burgers if they needed the labor that badly. Also, including every "job" regardless of full/part time status and suitability is misleading. No one who spent a reasonable effort getting a college degree wants to be working a minimum wage retail job. If all the jobs advertised were professional jobs, or even high-paying factory work this would be an actual story.
One other problem especially in the tech and IT fields is the huge mismatch between employers/employees and the absolutely crappy hiring/headhunting process. Employees lowball their offers, headhunters have zero clue about the jobs they're advertising, and there's a massive fetish for anyone under 30. God help you if you're in your mid-50s and end up on the wrong end of an offshoring/outsourcing. The 28 year old MBA in HR is going to assume you're a dinosaur and immediately pass you over.
It's sure better than 10+% unemployment, but let me know when employers are offering solid, well paying, stable full time work. You can't expect anyone with a family to want to string together 3 part time gigs plus some Uber driving on the side. It's great for the unattached, but a bad way to encourage stable home lives for people.
Let's see how these trade wars, financial and environmental deregulation, consumer protection gutting, etc. pan out first before we assign the "pretty decent job" title to him. The state of the nation doesn't turn on a dime. For good or bad, the momentum from previous administrations has a rather significant reach into the next. Unless your definition of "pretty decent job" translates to "hasn't caused nuclear winter," we've some wait and see to do.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Proof isn't the problem, the problem is the Republicans not impeaching him despite it all.
Proof is a problem, in that there is none. There is a lot of hearsay, but no proof. Can't impeach without proof.
But then what? Have you thought what happens if Trump is impeached? Do you think there will be a do over in the election or that Hillary will be carried in on a gold throne? No you get Mike Pence, think about that for a moment.
You progressives so worried about what Trump might do, you never think about what removing him will do. Trump is a political outsider. He spends most of his time fighting his own congress. Pence will not have that problem. He is a political animal, and knows how to get things done. He has the contacts and clout to pull it off. Plus he is thinks he is on a mission from god to put gays back in the closet and women back in the kitchen. He will set our country back 30 years.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Depending on who runs the numbers under Obama the national deficit rose by 7 to 10 trillion dollars.
No, you are wrong! At least get the terms "deficit" and "debt" right. The federal deficit will be $985 billion in 2019 (estimate). Deficit is completely different than debt, and using those terms wrong make you look ignorant. Here are several charts that show the historical and current deficit numbers.
For people who are too lazy to look it up:
National debt: total amount of money we owe.
National deficit: amount we are adding to the debt (this year).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
First, millennials are sneered at if they want a living wage without having a degree. Have to better yourselves to be employed, doncha know.
Next, millennials are sneered at for not being clairvoyant to pick the exact degree that will be in demand when they graduate (You Are Here).
Finally, don't forget to sneer at those millennials for "taking on student loans they couldn't afford".