Bloomberg describes it with words like “slowing” and warning"
.
.
And the Fed may have to cut rates as a result.
.
.
.
CNBC called it “Less than expected.”
.
.
And the Fed may have to cut rates as a result.
.
.
.
Here is what happened:
The “B Tables” (a survey of employers) reported 142,000 jobs were added, (full-time part-time combined). That is today’s top-line number.
The “A Tables” (a survey of households) reported 168,000 jobs were added. (full-time part-time combined), but also reports the number of people employed “part-time for economic reasons” increased 264,000.
264k minus 168k equals a loss of 96,000 full-time jobs.
No wonder the Fed is pointing to this report as a reason to cut rates.
So, if the first version says the economy lost 96,000 FT jobs i Aug,
what will the 2nd and 3rd versions say?
2 Likes
I don’t make too much of parallels like these.
To me such parallels don’t say “See! We are repeating it! It’s happening again.”
Instead they say “Same pattern means we cannot rule out a repeat.”
To be fair those surveys are from completely different sources and have vastly different measures of employment - importantly, one being a household count of people working and the other being a count of employers paying people.
1 Like
Yes, every month for decades the BLS has included survey A (households) and survey B (employers) in the monthly jobs report. Every month for decades the two surveys have tracked each other (confirmed each other if you will.) As far as I know they still do.
Survey A provides information such as
“Where were you born” and “do you work two jobs” and “are you employed full-time or part-time.”
Survey B provides information such as
“What field is this company in, tech, communications, manufacturing. etc.?”
It is survey A that shows the bad jobs picture for persons born here and the bad jobs picture for full- vs part-time.
It is survey B that shows us the retail hiring but the tech sector is laying-off.
From JOLTS, we get a hire rate that remains almost double the quit rate and over 3x the layoff rate. And there are 7.6M job openings for almost that exact number of unemployed persons.
By almost every labor market metric it’s early 2019 all over again - but in this case the Fed has 700 basis points of cushion. I’m just not sure those Fed bullets have the power they once did.
Last time I looked at jolts this is what I saw:
and I commented
“In 25 years, we’ve NEVER had an increasing stock market without corresponding job growth.”
2 Likes
It just goes to show how more and more detached the stock market is from the overall economy.
2 Likes
How many of the new jobs were filled by illegal aliens and how many US citizens lost jobs? It’s the new factor in the equation of our corrupt DC establishment government that must be examined to get down to the actual truth about employment.
1 Like
What do you think going on?
For me this is disturbing…I’m not sure we ever had anything like this except maybe early 1980’s
1 Like
Fact 1:
In the entire 25 years of JOLTS it has never happened before.
Fact 2
It is happening now.
Hypothesis:
Current policy is causing it.
When the Fed vastly increases the money supply it is in effect saying
“Deploy your capital now. Now, now now!”
When the border is wide open despite vast amounts of capital being deployed (malinvestment) it creates little or no benefit for current job seekers.
EX:
Biden hands $1b of our money to Cummins inc (a $40b market cap company)
Cummins uses it to build a robot-manned factory employing only 80 humans. . . but the stock holders will still reap a great benefit.
I’m looking at it between Main Street verse Wall Street…looking back it was in nineties.
Just thinking out loud here…certainly Main Street is hurting right now.
1 Like
That’s my take on it too.
But I cannot confirm it actually happened in the early 80s because apples-to-apples data does not go back that far.
What do I think is happening? See my answer to Eagle above.
That number hardly gets talked about and not just illegals but legal migrants who come into work for a discounted rate. I had read somewhere that 70% of the jobs in the UK that were created was filled by legal migrants.
At some point the citizens will need to be addressed or they will just brace for further division.
1 Like
It is interesting what pops up on a google search…
The economic and societal impacts of immigration in the UK are significant. According to the Office for National Statistics, migrants contribute approximately £83 billion to the UK’s economic output annually.Apr 15, 2024
Immigrants make up over 19% of the US workforce as of June 2024 — over 32 million out of a total of 169 million — and participate in the labor force at a higher rate than native-born workers, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
Supply and demand of labor.
1.) Currently, if a person leaves his country because he is poor, enters a new country, then commits fraud by saying “The regime is hunting me, I need asylum,” is that a “legal” migrant?
2.) If such a person is currently called “illegal,” will renaming his status help Americans find more jobs or get better pay?
3.) Does renaming one’s status affect the wage/job market at all?
