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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (289384)	6/1/2006 9:57:42 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577894

Employment and wage rate growth has not been very strong. In most recoveries since the 70s employment growth lagged economic growth, and wage growth lagged employment growth, by more than they did in earlier decades. I don't know why but the fact that its happening now isn't a surprise and is not an indicator that the recovery will not be sustained. Finally, you come up with something that has a certain legitimacy to it........in the two latest expansions, job growth has been slower than normal. Its believed that technology keeps improving worker productivity, meaning less workers are needed later in the recovery. However when you compare job growth under the Clinton recovery and job growth under the Bush recovery, the latter's performance comes up a poor second: "FACT — JOB GROWTH UNDER BUSH LOWEST SINCE WORLD WAR II: Even since the 2003 tax cuts, job growth has been historically weak, growing at less than half the average rate for similar periods in comparable post-war recoveries. [Center for American Progress, State of the Economy, 1/26/06]" thinkprogress.org There are better sources providing detailed data but I don't have time to look for them.

To: TimF who wrote (289384)	6/2/2006 12:39:40 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577894

Payroll Growth Stalls With 75,000 New Jobs biz.yahoo.com If you think this is typical of job growth at this stage of an expansion, you are wrong. And its not just that job growth is weak this month; its just that its very inconsistent from month to month. Last month's total was a revised downward of 126k.....remember 150k is needed just to meet the growing labor pool......the month before was over 200K....which was typical of the Clinton years. The totals jump around so much from month to month, there is concern the feds are manipulating the numbers per White House instructions. That, of course, is dangerous talk and probably isn't true but its hard to understand what is happening in the job market given this up and down from month to month.