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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tradelite who wrote (78764)	6/3/2007 6:30:49 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 306849

I just chose 1993 arbitrarily since I didn't want to include the 91 recession, and I didn't want to include "the bubble". In the 7 year period (the 90s after the early recession)- 1993 was the 3rd lowest job creation year, behind 95 with only 1833K jobs and 99 with only 2.059 million jobs. So right in the middle to the low side. But if you like, we can average the 93-99 period for a non-recession typical period then......... the average 93-99 is: (2478+3583+1833+2811+3129+2735+2059)/7= 2.661 Million jobs per year in the period 93-99 (higher than my 1993 baseline). The thing is Tradelite, 1993 was practically 15 years ago and not a bubble year. We were coming off a recession, nothing exceptional, I don't recall anybody calling out what an incredible boom we were in then..... and yet we created almost 2.5 million jobs that year. That was typical 15 years ago. The fact is in this decade we lost the ability to create jobs. We still create some but not as many as we used to. The government is trying to create some kind of illusion that things are as great as always when their own statistics contradict it. Steven Roach refers to this as "global labor arbitrage" and he is right, imho. Not a catastrophe just something to be aware of and manage. The reason I posted this is as a rebuttal to LongIslandGuy's comments that the job market is on fire. It is not on fire. We have a lot more people and we are creating a lot less jobs. of course there are always hard to fill positions here and there, almost all of which can be remedied with rising pay which has also been nonexistant in this decade.

To: Tradelite who wrote (78764)	6/3/2007 7:07:52 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 306849

The BLS technical note at the bottom of my previous post makes it pretty clear they changed the methodology behind the stats at that time. The BLS figures I posted also make it pretty clear that the U.S. didn't create hundreds of thousands of jobs "every single month" in the 1990s, either. I don't know what to say about "changing methodologies". Seems like every time the government tries to cover something up they "change methodologies". OK, maybe somebody changed methodolgies and that is the whole problem with jobs, I don't know. But on your point that we "didn't create thousands of jobs every month in the 90s"........... your post indicates we DID. From your post: 1994 March 456K <--- WOW 1994 April 267K <--- another wow 1994 May 191K 1997 April 323K <---- combined with May this makes 230K/mo 1997 May 138K 1999 April 343K 1999 May 11K -------------------- I don't know what you are trying to show, but what you are showing is that we almost NEVER had a consecutive period where we created less than 150K jobs/month in the 90s. In this decade, our recent 157K jobs growth number was some kind of exception to the upside. The stats clearly bore this out on the BLS site. And with regards to the bubble jobs, I agree with you. We shouldn't rely too much on jobs created in the late 90s........ except, in this decade we had a huge number of government pork jobs, with the creation of homeland security and other useless beaurocracies in DC that created the same kind of bogus jobs as we had in the 90s, just this time the taxpayer paid for them. I don't know how to tell how many pork jobs were created vs. 90s bubble jobs, maybe they cancel each other out.