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 : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (3419)	4/2/2004 11:18:37 AM
From: redfish	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116555

"With hours worked falling and average workweek falling" I thought that part of the report was curious. Seems to me the most probable explanation is increase in part time jobs vs. full time (otherwise how could a larger number of people working result in fewer hours worked?).

To: mishedlo who wrote (3419)	4/2/2004 11:24:00 AM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Respond to of 116555

from the wires - Reuters reports a 'tech problem' caused wrong time stamp on labor data story

To: mishedlo who wrote (3419)	4/2/2004 11:31:27 AM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

It is a strong report. But the question is: Is it sustainable? First, we had 72K grocery workers added back to payrolls (the exact impact is not clear), and we had 70K construction workers added. I think construction will have negative jobs for the remainder of the year. (Maybe the next few months will add some, but nothing like 70K). As you noted, average hours worked declined from an already low level (very unusual for rising employment). Real hourly earnings also were flat (or declined slightly). I do not think this is sustainable. IMO, that is the key.