1. Job growth varies. You can't look at just two data points, you need to look at 4, 5, 6, and spot a trend.
It's like looking at the ocean level. Now you're at the top of a wave, a second later you're 15 feet lower. "Damn, the ocean level's dropping 15 feet per second, at that rate the ocean level'll be down 900 feet in a minute! In 12 minutes we'll be sitting on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean!"
Meanwhile, the boat next over goes from trough to crest, 15 feet, in a second, and radios back, "Screw that, the sea level's going to be 900 feet higher in a minute, within 10 minutes Denver's going to be underwater!"
You need the average.
Job growth is pretty flat. For all the changes from month to month it hasn't actually changed much for the last what, 4, 5 years?
That's even overlooking that these numbers aren't "preliminary" in the sense that they've incorporated all the data that they have; on the other hand, they're still "preliminary" in that they're based on still-incomplete data and that number can go up or down based on more complete data about June that they'll have in August, September, and October.
2. That unemployment is up is a very good thing. It's not because there are more people not working. It's because some of the people not working have rejoined the labor force, which is defined not just as those employed but those seeking employment. In other words, Cousin Fred who gave up looking for work three years ago has decided maybe he should start looking again. That's good.
3. Wage growth isn't up ... Applying the insights from 40 years ago isn't working. The theory's leading to false predictions. Sometimes theories are wrong. Sometimes the assumptions cease to hold. They missed something, apparently something important. Back to the whiteboard. Don't know what's up with that. But expect a lot of theories, all supporting the preconceived views of the economists, to have been out by last month.
4. It's interesting that there's a lack of qualified workers. But ultimately it's a useless observation except as political fodder, without the observation itself getting some qualifications. The question is, "What does 'qualified' mean?" Are we talking trouble finding petroleum engineers or trouble finding somebody to stock shelves? Is it the same shortage in NYC as in Lawrence, Kansas or Bend, Oregon?
I teach school, and last year they really goosed some retirees' incomes by saying "you get your full retirement plus your full pay for working". Did the district *want* to pay more than an additional $30k for each of these teachers? No. They couldn't find any to hire at my school.
At the same time, the Lowe's manager was complaining that he couldn't find cashiers or people to stock the shelves--strictly low-qualification jobs. He interviewed over a dozen, he said, and said, "The kids don't know how to deal with me, how could they deal with customer's. They slump, they dress poorly, they check their phones instead of answering a question, and when you ask them to pay attention, 'Fuck you, this is my friend texting me'."
I've seen 'help wanted" signs on some businesses for a year now. Apparently $11/hour isn't a living wage for a 16-year living at home.
So what's the distribution of unfilled jobs by geography and by trade? Without that, it's a vaguely interesting comment--a shortage of workers--but past that, not so meaningful.
= new reply since forum marked as read
