SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sig who wrote (125742)3/7/2004 10:58:12 PM
From: Sam  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Why is our unemployment rate under 6% while Germany is around 12% ?

Because we count unemployment differently from the Germans. In fact, we even count unemployment percentages in a different way than we count how many jobs are created or lost each month. Germany has a much stronger safety net for their unemployed, makes it much easier to remain so. Plus of course German companies have a harder time laying off people, so they have more incentives to make sure they need someone before hiring them.

In the US, once people report that they have "stopped looking" for work, they no longer count as unemployed, no matter what reason they give for stopping. Our "real" rate of unemployment is certainly higher than 6%, though whether it is as high as 12% I don't know. I doubt it. But it doesn't count "underemployment." I'm not sure really how to count that, someone probably has a way, if anyone reading this has heard of it, please tell.

I have heard it said that while losing some jobs, we have actually gained up to 2mm that are not being counted

If this were demonstrably so (even weak demonstrable), somehow I suspect it would be front page news.



To: Sig who wrote (125742)3/7/2004 11:05:43 PM
From: Bilow  Respond to of 281500
 
Hi Sig; I hope you're not being serious when you list the great jobs we're retaining in the US: "cosmic ray capture, measurement of gravity waves. SETI."

I wonder where you copied this list from. It must be from something that has nothing to do with the question at hand because these are examples of scientific studies that have exactly nothing to do with GDP, either now or in the future. To the extent that work in these areas is being retained in the US (and that extent is rather limited), this is only because the US is wasting money on them. These are not new technologies being developed.

-- Carl



To: Sig who wrote (125742)3/8/2004 12:23:49 AM
From: Sam  Respond to of 281500
 
FYI, see bolded paragraphs below.

Job Growth Anemic in February
Reuters Friday March 5, 4:45 pm ET

By Tim Ahmann

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy added a paltry 21,000 jobs last month, according to a surprisingly weak government report on Friday that turned up the heat on President Bush as he seeks re-election.

The February jobs report from the Labor Department was the latest in a string that have fallen far short of expectations, dashing hopes employment would soon turn decisively higher.

"The job market is stuck in a cycle of inertia," said John Challenger, head of the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. "The fact is, we are going to have to get used to slow job creation in this country."

The details in the report were uniformly bleak.

Private-sector employment showed no gains. Government hiring was the only reason the nonfarm payroll count rose.

In addition, job creation in December and January was weaker than previously thought, by a combined 23,000 jobs.

While the unemployment rate held steady at 5.6 percent, that was only because many people stopped looking for work. Employment as measured by a survey of households plummeted.


Chris Low, chief economist at FTN Financial, said the report was "unambiguously ugly." Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors called it "terribly disappointing."

Wall Street firms had forecast a February gain of 125,000 jobs and the market reaction was swift and sharp.

The dollar weakened against most currencies and U.S. Treasury bond prices shot up, sending interest rates down sharply, on the view the Federal Reserve would hold borrowing costs steady for a long time.

In the stock market, expectations of steady interest rates helped temper concern over the lack of jobs. The blue chip Dow Jones industrial average closed up 7 points at 10,595, but the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite Index dipped 7 points to 2047.

Economists warned consumer spending could falter, once a burst of tax refunds was spent if jobs did not turn up.

"The risk of an economic slowdown later this year has increased, persuading businesses to be extra cautious about hiring people," said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo & Co. in Minneapolis.

JOB LOSS POLITICS

Democrats reacted almost as swiftly as the markets, blasting Bush for the 2.2 million jobs lost on his watch.

"At this rate the Bush administration won't create its first job for another 10 years," Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said in a written statement.

The Bush administration released a forecast last month that looked for average job growth of about 300,000 a month this year -- a forecast that looks increasingly pie-in-the-sky.

"The numbers ... reinforce our view that it would be a terrible mistake to raise taxes on American families and American businesses that are working to create jobs," Treasury Secretary John Snow said, referring to Kerry's proposal to roll back tax cuts for the wealthy.

An average of just 42,000 jobs have been created each month in the last three months, down from the 79,000 average of the prior three months. Economists say gains near 150,000 are needed each month just to keep pace with labor force growth.

In addition, the report showed pay gains have slowed, while the average length of time workers who had lost jobs stayed unemployed climbed to its highest level since January 1984.

Construction employment tumbled 24,000 in February, while the factory sector shed 3,000 workers, the 43rd straight monthly drop. The service sector also proved unexpectedly weak, creating just 46,000 new positions.

Economists were hard-pressed to explain why job growth had fallen far short of expectations yet again, although some said poor weather may have played a role. For the most part, however, they cited the ability of businesses to boost output without taking on new workers.

Analysts said the Fed would not bump up overnight interest rates from their current 1958 low of 1 percent until robust jobs creation finally takes root.

A Reuters poll on Friday of 23 major Wall Street firms found six had pushed back their rate-hike forecasts. Ten firms expect the Fed to sit tight until next year and six expect no increase until the fourth quarter of this year. Only one clung to call for a June hike, down from four in an earlier poll.

Some economists said the relative dearth of hiring more than 27 months into an economic recovery was unprecedented.

"We are in uncharted territory," said David Rosenberg, chief North American economist at Merrill Lynch.

biz.yahoo.com