Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Heinz Blasnik- Views You Can Use -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ild who wrote (2226)	6/9/2003 1:58:59 PM
From: ild	Respond to of 4907

For the May report, the Bureau of Labor implemented changes in statistical methods, which could cloud interpretations of the report. In an annual "benchmark revision," the department updated its payrolls data from April 2001 forward. The department changed the way it calculates payroll data and expanded the number of job categories. The results showed that job losses this year were not nearly as steep as previously thought. The Labor Department said businesses cut 131,000 jobs since the beginning of the year compared with a previous estimate of more than half a million. (Okay, so I just lost a little faith in that report). Average hourly earnings rose five cents (0.3 percent to $15.34 in May. The average work week was unchanged at 33.7 hours. I guess the market advanced on the report since the economy did not lose as many jobs as analysts had expected. I have a whole range of issues with the context of this report. Firstly, the fact that corporations are still not adding to their labor force tells me that the quality of the earning reports is not as one would expect. Instead of growing that bottom line as a result of business expansion, corporate American is using a dwindling labor force to meet those "Street consensus" figures. Until Corporate America has made its current crop of laborers as "efficient" as humanly possibly and sees a build in demand (and backlog), new workers will not be added to the assembly line. A decline in non-farm jobs "less than expected" should not signal anything more than the increased potential for a Federal Reserve rate cut (a level that is currently at a 42-year low). Those that are still fortunate to have a job were rewarded by a 0.3-percent rise in their hourly compensation: a mere pittance for the abuse of one's body and soul. Despite the ticks in wager, the average work week remained static, an indication that even those with jobs are not putting in more hours. This number needs to rise as an indication that new hiring will be right around the corner. I probably would not have come out so hard on the employment number if I would have heard it on some other circumstance. From - Al Schwartz (aschwartz@sir-inc.com)

To: ild who wrote (2226)	6/9/2003 3:11:16 PM
From: Perspective	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4907

You're not wrong. However, every deflationary impetus will be met by an overwhelming inflationary response from the Fed. They will be able to destroy the currency where Japan has failed because (and I never thought I'd say this) we're not Japan <gulp>. With our immense dependence on imported goods, current account deficit, and government deficits, we can succeed in collapsing our currency and creating inflation where Japan has not. I believe Japan has failed to staunch deflation precisely because they are a nation of savers, and not heavily dependent upon imports. I must point out, succeeding at destroying your currency amounts to succeeding at a game of losing, but it is "success" nonetheless. BC