Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    from


    (snip)"While we already presented the explanation for the dramatic drop in today's unemployment report (almost entirely driven by the surge in part-time jobs for economic reasons, hardly a thing to be proud of as more and more full time jobs, especially those on Wall Street, are a thing of the past, while the transition to a part-time worker society has been documented extensively in the past here), there is another number that is by far the most perplexing in today's NFP dataset: that showing the employment of workers in the 20-24 year age category (both seasonally adjusted and unadjusted). See if you can spot the outlier in the chart below.





    The chart above shows the sequential change in Non-Seasonally Adjusted jobs for the 20-24 year old cohort (aka those who normally are in student age) into the month of September going back to 1980, as represented by the Household Survey.

    We have shown just 22 years of data, but believe us: in this data set, the September NSA jobs change has been negative every single year since the beginning of data collection. Except for 2012 (and considering the surge in temp-jobs for economic reasons, one can be certain that if indeed correct, all these young people obtained primarily part-time jobs, if any)."(snip)

    (snip)"Cutting to the chase: the September surge in Seasonally Adjusted jobs give to 20-24 year old is the biggest in decades. This is on top of the only positive NSA increase in 20-24 year old jobs in history.

    How does one explain this stunning discovery? RBS's Richard Tang, who noted it first, provided one explanation:

    While we cannot be certain, the back-to-back gains in September 2011 and September 2012 could reflect a decision by younger workers to remain in the workforce rather than pursue a higher education. Given how difficult it is to get a job in the current environment, more young workers may be choosing to hold on to the jobs they already have. In fact, this does seem to be the case during periods of weakness/recessions. The last time we had back-]to-back September gains in employment in the 20-24 year old cohort even approaching what we have seen in September 2011 and 2012 was in the 2000-2001 period. Prior to that, it was in 1984-85. In any case, the unemployment rate for 20-24 year olds plummeted from 13.9% in August to 12.4% in September, the lowest reading since November 2008. The 1.5 percentage point drop in September matched the sixth-largest monthly drop going back to 1948.

    A valient effort but one thing remains outstanding: the record amount of student loans outstanding, and defaults, which as we explained last Friday, is indicative of one thing: everyone is doing their best to avoid the labor market in this worst possible time for jobs and is hiding instead in the "safety" of a Federally funded college education. This explains not only the record amount of student loans outstanding, well over $1 trillion in total, and over $900 billion just Federally funded.

    So somehow in September, in addition to all the other discrepancies in the labor report, we have one more to add: that of the Schrodinger Student: one who is both in college and piling up student loans on one hand, yet on the other hand entering the work force in the month of September, a time when historically every single month in recorded history has seen an exit from the labor force for the 20-24 year old cohort."(snip)

  2. #2
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    I think Jack Welch was off base when he accused the DOL of cooking the books or manipulating the numbers. The folks at the BLS are apolitical number crunchers.

    That being said, the latest Household Survey is highly suspect. How does an economy growing at 1.3 % sudddenly create 500,000 to 800,000 new jobs in a month ?
    How do so many 20-24 year olds suddenly find jobs ? Past growth in employment ; the typical monthly range according to the Household Survey was almost never more than .10 %.

    Most analysts have labeled this as a statistical quirk or glitch. Most likely the October numbers will settle at reasonable i.e. "normal " levels.

  3. #3
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    ^^^ true ... but fortunately for President Obama, any 'corrections' to this month's record shattering BLS estimate will come too late to impact the upcoming election.

    As to the non-political nature of the BLS ...

  4. #4
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    I join with Larry Kudlow and the other responsible adults who recognize that the numbers are generated by computer models based on SURVEYS. The Payroll Survey polls about 150,000 businesses and organizations of various sizes. The Household Survey polls about 60,000 households. Every once in a while there is a quirky month. In time the figures are adjusted and revised. Real trends in employment are borne out over time and statistical quirks fade out.

    To his credit, Romney has dealt with the numbers as they are and has confined himself to collateral attack. It is very mischievious for some on the lunatic fringe to question the bona fides of these numbers without proof that somebody, somewhere is queering the pitch. The same people who produce these numbers for Obama produced the numbers when Bush The Dumber was President . Without proof that somebody , somewhere is deliberately adding garbage to create a "GIGO" program we'd all be a lot better off explaining the numbers in legitimate ways.

    In reading the commentary on this latest report I noted something fascinating : According to "Krugie" and his fellow travelers in Creative Economic Writing like Dean Baker, the number of new jobs we need to keep pace with population growth has dramatically declined. When Bush The Dumber was President , we supposedly needed 200,000 new jobs per month to keep pace with population growth and keep unemployment stable. Starting in about 2011 that number started dropping. Dramatically. Now it is as low as 90,000 new jobs per month. With a population of 315 million ?????? That number means that only about a million people or so are joining the labor force every year. Who believes that ? We get roughly 1 million graduates from four-year colleges per year alone ! Add in those getting graduate degrees and those getting associate's degrees. Now add in trade school grads and those who leave the military every year. I haven't even started counting high school grads and legal immigrants. While they have continually lowered the number ( by an amazing coincidence as more and more Obama appointees take their seats on the Board of Governors ) the Fed still says we need 120,000 new jobs per month. That is 1,440,000 new jobs per year compared to 1,080,000 according to Krugie , Dean Baker et. al.

    Why is the number shrinking ? Because the Baby-Boomers are retiring in increasing numbers thus lowering the overall Labor Participation Rate. That works in the abstract but conveniently forgets the backlog of unemployed college grads and ex-military. I haven't even gone near the quality and pay rates of the jobs that these groups are getting. And it conveniently ignores the discouraged workers. In another thread I described them as "non-persons" and for BLS statistical purposes, they are.

    The consensus among Wall St. and corporate economists is that we need about 150,000 new jobs per month. Just splitting the difference between the high and low estimates means we need to add 120,000 new jobs per month or 1,440,000 per year.

    My point is very simple - There IS some fishiness about the employment numbers but it is NOT coming from the BLS.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 10-09-2012 at 08:37 AM.

  5. #5
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    ^^^ most 'professional commentators' agree with you. Here's an alternative assessment for these latest, and highly irregular, BLS jobs data which offers a plausible explanation for the huge increase in part-time jobs while still acknowledging that the BLS numbers may be accurate ...


    (snip)"Some stated the 582,000 surge in part-time workers was a seasonal thing based on teachers going back to work. I do not buy that explanation either because the surge in part-time workers and the decline in the unemployment rate were seasonally adjusted.

    One likely explanation is an outlier and the data will be revised lower soon enough (or the previous month's of weakness up). There is a second possible explanation although the timing as to precisely when it would matter is uncertain.

    Obamacare is so huge and transformative, its effects will be felt far beyond just the healthcare sector; its tentacles of government control and penal taxes will permeate and affect the entire U.S. economy.

    According to the Heritage Foundation – a Washington think tank – Obamacare’s employer mandate will increase the cost of employing a single minimum-wage employee by $3,588 per year. The employer burden is even greater for minimum-wage employees with a family; in that case, the extra cost will be $11,026 per year.

    You might think that one way around this problem would be for employers to offer unskilled workers cheaper health insurance with higher deductibles. Think again. Obamacare has a non-discrimination provision that says that if an employer offers health insurance, all full-time employees must be offered the same “minimum essential benefits” and at a cost that is no higher than 9.5% of the employee’s household income. Bottom line: there is no escape for employers of full-time workers.

    The only solution is for employers to eliminate full-time employment positions for unskilled workers earning near minimum wage. Since businesses need unskilled workers for certain functions, employers will only offer temporary and part-time positions to these poor workers because temporary and part-time jobs are exempted from Obamacare’s employer mandate provisions.

    Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor and now a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, came to a similar conclusion:

    If an employer offers insurance, but an employee qualifies for subsidies under the new health care exchanges because the insurance premium exceeds 9.5 percent of his income, his employer must pay $3,000 per worker. This combination of penalties gives businesses a powerful incentive to downsize, replace full-time employees with part-timers, and contract out work to other firms or individuals.

    Businesses can reduce costs by hiring part-time workers instead of full-time workers. A firm with 85,000 full-time workers and 7,000 part-time workers that does not offer health insurance would pay a tax of $170 million. By keeping the number of hours worked the same, and gradually reducing full-time workers and increasing part-time workers, until the firm reaches 17,000 full-time workers and 92,000 part-time workers, the tax is reduced to $34 million. If the firm abandons full-time workers altogether, admittedly an unlikely option, but useful for illustration, the tax is reduced to zero."(snip)

    from


    How likely is this ? Well, we do know that this 'structural shift' away from full time workers toward part time workers is admittedly being experimented with by Olive Garden, Red Lobster, etc. which employ hundreds of thousands of unskilled workers. See Is it possible that we are already seeing some number of near minimum wage full time jobs morph into a much greater number of near minimum wage part time jobs which add up to the same number of total unskilled labor hours worked ? That transition would certainly lower the official unemployment number, along with lowering the paychecks ( and erasing the existing employee benefits ) of the former full time unskilled workers being forced to transition to part time status.
    Last edited by Melonie; 10-10-2012 at 02:53 AM.

  6. #6
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    The nonsense continues : November's employment numbers include 146,000 "new" jobs and a reduction of the unemployment rate to 7.7 %. Meanwhile the Labor Participation Rate has dropped to 63.9 %. According to CNN we need 150,000 new jobs per month just to keep pace with population growth. I'm sorry but these numbers just do not work. If anybody thinks they do, please enlighten me.

  7. #7
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    A - very few Americans actually care what's 'under the hood' in regard to Official Gov't Unemployment numbers. All they care about is the headline.

    B - even if they did care, relatively few Americans would understand the significance of a large percentage of jobs created in the past 5 months being public sector jobs paid for with US taxpayer money ( or more accurately, borrowed Chinese money that future US taxpayers will have to repay with interest )

    C - even if they did care, relatively few Americans would understand the significance of the Official Gov't Unemployment numbers being estimates ( with the rosy pre-election september and october unemployment estimates now being revised upward ... as noted on 'page 99' of course )

    C - even if they did care, relatively few Americans would understand the significance of a large number of the private sector jobs being added this month were part time / low pay rate retail, while private sector job losses this month were full time / high pay rate manufacturing, financial services, etc.
    Last edited by Melonie; 12-08-2012 at 03:20 AM.

  8. #8
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    Plus you can add that our Labor Participation Rate is now LOWER than that of GREECE !

  9. #9
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    An update for January on US unemployment - the 'under the hood' facts are far different from the 'seasonally adjusted' BLS estimates ... from


    (snip)"While it is enticing to fall for the same old trick of reading the "quantitative", or headline, jobs data, driven entirely by the Establishment Survey, which as the BLS itself showed today, is nothing but mere noise based on seasonal adjustments and population estimates which is revised at least once a year based on new and improved exit assumptions, below we show the actual unvarnished truth contained in today's jobs reports.

    Recall that in our pre-NFP post we pointed out something critical: "an even more disturbing trend is the conversion of America into a gerontocratic worker society, where the bulk of jobs are handed out to those 55 and over, which puts all young workers, not to mention college graduates, at a major disadvantage relative to far more experienced older workers." And sure enough, a quick update of the jobs by age-group change in January based on Household Survey data, the same data that showed that the unemployment rate actually rose from 7.8% to 7.9% (to give Bernanke more runway for QEternity as we predicted in December) shows that in the past month, 115,000 jobs were.... lost?

    Indeed, as the chart below demonstrates, based on BLS data which breaks down jobs gains and losses granularly by age group, in January there was a total of 115,000 jobs losses, with the biggest losses once again concentrated in the 20-24, and 25-54 age groups, a total of 205,000 job losses, offset purely by job gains in the 16-19 age category: hardly the "quality" of jobs worth writing home about.





    And another perspective: in January jobs in the 20-24 age group declined by a total of -99K, while even America's aged workers, those 55 and over, saw their first sequential jobs loss of 16,000 jobs, since July 2012. In Total, some 2.8 million jobs in the 20-54 age group have been lost since january 2009, offset by 3.95 million gains in the 55-69 age group.(snip)






    While there are many that decry author Tyler Durden, he is in fact very good at separating spin from facts. And the non seasonally adjusted facts are that, outside the 16-19 age group's gain of part time near minimum wage zero benefits jobs, every other age group saw employment decline in the month of January.

    I will also point out the obvious, that guys aged 20 through 54 comprise some 90%+ of strip club / adult webcam customers.

  10. #10
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    ^^^ and the above doesn't factor in the fact that 169,000 additional Americans dropped out of the 'labor force' in the month of January !!!


    (snip)"(CNSNews.com) - The number of Americans not in the labor force grew by 169,000 in January, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest jobs report.

    BLS labels people who are unemployed and no longer looking for work as “not in the labor force,” including people who have retired on schedule, taken early retirement, or simply given up looking for work. There were 89 million of them last month. (snip)

  11. #11
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    another update ... an 'under the hood' analysis of today's apparently rosey February unemployment numbers ... from


    (snip)"When it comes to government data, every silver lining has a cloud. Sure enough even today's NFP number, which on the surface was quite acceptable, had its share of thorny issues.

    Those who track the quality composition of the jobs, as opposed to just the quantity, will know that the part and full-time jobs breakdown has long been a major issue. And not unexpectedly, in February according to the Household Survey, the number of full-time jobs declined by 77K from 115,918 [ 000 ] to 115,841 [ 000 ]. The offset: a jump in part-time workers which rose from 27,467 [ 000 ] to 27,569 [ 000 ] or 102K. Part-time jobs, for those who are unaware, are "jobs" only in the broadest of definitions.

    But the most surprising development in February from a quality standpoint was that the number of multiple job-holders rose by a massive 340K, which just happens to be a record. One wonders: how many actual people got new jobs, as opposed to how many qualified single individuals ended up getting more than one job in February in order to boost that much needed weekly income to sustainable levels."(snip)





    ... the skewed number of interest of course is the number of part-time jobs being added versus the number of full time jobs that were lost. Indeed the gov't numbers make an assumption that every additional part time job is returning an unemployed person to the work force. However, as the author points out, it is just as likely that ... with heating bills coming due, with lower take-home pay thanks to January's increase in SSI taxes, with rising prices for food and energy etc. ... some number of those added part-time jobs were actually taken by Americans who already had other part-time jobs. If that is the case, then the number of unemployed persons who returned to the work force could be far lower than the gov't's totally best case assumption.
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-08-2013 at 09:53 AM.

  12. #12
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    Everything I am reading and hearing is that there has been a huge increase in the number of people holding two and even three jobs. Almost all are part-time. Most, but not all, are low wage. NONE have benefits, especially health care. It is an explanantion for why in many areas the number of "new" jobs has gone up but so has the unemployment rate. Obviously , most of the new jobs are part-time and are being filled by the already employed. There was an article on this very point in y-day's Albany Star-Gazette.

  13. #13
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    Here are the latest DOL stats on multiple jobholders :

    7.26 million people collected more than one paycheck last month. Up from 6.92 million in January. N.B. - This is AFTER the Christmas season employees are usually laid off meaning retailers hung on to more temporary hires than usual. The increase of 340,000 such workers is the largest in 16 years. The rate of multiple employment rose from 4.8 % to 5.1 %.
    Last month, the economy added 236,000 jobs and unemployment dropped from 7.9 % to 7.7 %.

    The fields showing the largest job growth were : bookkeepers ; computer technicians; office administrators ; food service workers; retail workers and personal care professionals. Most of the latter three categories were PART - TIME. One of the largest job growth fields was "dog-walker " ! I am not making this up.

  14. #14
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Here are the latest DOL stats on multiple jobholders :

    7.26 million people collected more than one paycheck last month. Up from 6.92 million in January. N.B. - This is AFTER the Christmas season employees are usually laid off meaning retailers hung on to more temporary hires than usual. The increase of 340,000 such workers is the largest in 16 years. The rate of multiple employment rose from 4.8 % to 5.1 %.
    Last month, the economy added 236,000 jobs and unemployment dropped from 7.9 % to 7.7 %.

    The fields showing the largest job growth were : bookkeepers ; computer technicians; office administrators ; food service workers; retail workers and personal care professionals. Most of the latter three categories were PART - TIME. One of the largest job growth fields was "dog-walker " ! I am not making this up.
    Construction had one of the largest growths in the report and is typically full time: http://dailyreporter.com/2013/03/08/...o-7-7-percent/

    why did you omit it?. Why didn't you include a link to your source?. Wages and hours worked was up as well.

  15. #15
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    Construction had one of the largest growths in the report and is typically full time: http://dailyreporter.com/2013/03/08/...o-7-7-percent/

    why did you omit it?. Why didn't you include a link to your source?. Wages and hours worked was up as well.
    Sigh. My numbers come from the United States Department of Labor. If you don't like their numbers, please take it up with them. Anyone and everyone is free to access their web-site and get the numbers.

    We have been emphasizing multiple job holders; very few of whom work in construction.

    Btw, the DOL revised its "new job" numbers for December, 2012 and January, 2013. December new jobs were revised up from 190,000 to 219,000. That increase was erased by the decrease in January's numbers from 157,000 down to 119,000.

  16. #16
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Sigh. My numbers come from the United States Department of Labor. If you don't like their numbers, please take it up with them. Anyone and everyone is free to access their web-site and get the numbers.
    I don't have any problem with your numbers, just your presentation of the data to try to back up YOUR desire to show things are bad. If you include ALL the information and things are bad, then there is no issue. If you are going to omit large parts of relevant information because it conflicts with your desire- then it is inaccurate. Is it really that big of a deal to put the link up of the page you are citing as almost everyone else does on this site as a courtesy.?

    We have been emphasizing multiple job holders; very few of whom work in construction.
    No, we've been discussing the report as a whole. The fact that a huge gain of workers in construction where part-time and multiple job holding is rare is pertinent to the discussion and the implication of the report.

  17. #17
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    actually, the increase in construction jobs is directly related to Hurricane Sandy damage. It is ultimately being financed by some $60 billion worth of unbudgeted new US gov't borrowing and money printing to fund gov't backed insurance payouts plus 'grants', combined with private insurance companies liquidating their bond holdings to make insurance payouts. Yes those construction jobs are there today, and yes some portion of construction worker paychecks will be spent into local economies. But it's doubtful that any of the tax revenues being collected from those construction workers are 'new' dollars ( since most of the construction worker's paychecks originates with tax dollars ). However, like Louisiana several years ago, those construction jobs will evaporate once whatever portion of the damage that will actually wind up being repaired / rebuilt has been repaired / rebuilt.

    Or put another way, Hurricane Sandy related construction work bears strong resemblance to 'stimulus' jobs !!! They are primarily funded with taxpayer money ( granted some portion of private insurance money exists as well - but how much of that actually stems from taxpayer bailout funds a la AIG ??? ), and the jobs will disappear once the allocated taxpayer money has been spent. If you wish to discuss the unemployment numbers as a whole, that fact can't be omitted.

  18. #18
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    ^^

    Really Mel?, I didn't realize Texas got hit by Hurricane Sandy:

    "The DFW area saw new home construction increase by nearly 50% in the fourth quarter from one year ago. Builders started 4,549 homes in the area – the largest fourth quarter start in five years. Builders have had a hard time keeping up with the demand in 2012, and the strong surge is expected to accelerate in 2013"
    http://www.rmdfw.com/justthefactsblo...th-50-Increase

    or Orlando:

    "Builders started work on an average of 18 houses a day in the four-county Orlando metropolitan area during the fourth quarter, according the home-construction analytics firm. Those 1,643 single-family home starts constituted a 47 percent increase from a year earlier. Housing starts for the whole year were up even more sharply — 53 percent — from 2011, as work started on 6,297 houses in 2012."
    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...ew-home-market

    The fact is that new home construction is up in many areas in the US. There is almost no new construction as result of Sandy, they are still waiting on permits and permission to build on the homes that have been destroyed. What there is a lot of is repair work and that is being largely handled by people that were either employed or have come with companies that were already employed. The increase in construction jobs is very much a national trend and is independent of Sandy.

  19. #19
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    I am trying to just report the facts as best I can. I am a total lame when it comes to linking but I have cited the source which is easily accessible for any and all who are interested.

    Here are some more numbers from the latest DOL report : Full time jobs for February are down 77,000. Part time jobs are up 102,000.
    170,000 became employed for the first time while 350,000 aged 16-24 left the work force by entering or re-entering school.

    Who got hired in February ? It wasn't college graduates. They had a net loss of employment. The typical hiree was over 25 with less than a H.S. diploma.

    Btw, I am not surprised by new home starts in the Dallas - Ft. Worth area but Orlando is a surprise. There were ghost towns in that area not too long ago.

  20. #20
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    Who got hired in February ? It wasn't college graduates. They had a net loss of employment. The typical hiree was over 25 with less than a H.S. diploma.
    or ... as alluded to above ... the methodology of the official stats attempts to count a person who was already working at one part time job starting to work at a second part time job as one less unemployed person - which is not actually the case.


    Builders started 4,549 homes in the area ( Texas )

    work started on 6,297 ( Orlando ) houses in 2012
    (snip)"Starts for structures with at least two units fell 24% in January to a rate of 277,000. Meanwhile, starts for single-family homes ticked up 0.8% to a rate of 613,000, the highest rate since July 2008."(snip) from

    again trying to head off skewed numbers, yes housing starts were up in Texas and Florida. Arguably, this is a direct offset to housing starts that didn't take place in California or Illinois or whatever high tax rate state that former residents were leaving to move to Texas and Florida. Note that while 4,500 or 6,300 housing starts makes for a happy local headline, in the grand scheme of things 6,300 versus 613,000 is a 'drop in the bucket' - how many new single family housing starts do you figure there were in Detroit to average out against Dallas ?.

    And new single family homes is just a small slice of construction jobs. Apartment construction is way down. Commercial building construction is WAY way down. We don't seem to be building all that many roads and bridges now that all of the 'stimulus' funds has been spent. So that brings us full circle back to the $60 billion worth of Hurricane rebuilding.

  21. #21
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    or ... as alluded to above ... the methodology of the official stats attempts to count a person who was already working at one part time job starting to work at a second part time job as one less unemployed person - which is not actually the case.




    (snip)"Starts for structures with at least two units fell 24% in January to a rate of 277,000. Meanwhile, starts for single-family homes ticked up 0.8% to a rate of 613,000, the highest rate since July 2008."(snip) from http://articles.marketwatch.com/2013...tch-structures

    again trying to head off skewed numbers, yes housing starts were up in Texas and Florida. Arguably, this is a direct offset to housing starts that didn't take place in California or Illinois or whatever high tax rate state that former residents were leaving to move to Texas and Florida. Note that while 4,500 or 6,300 housing starts makes for a happy local headline, in the grand scheme of things 6,300 versus 613,000 is a 'drop in the bucket' - how many new single family housing starts do you figure there were in Detroit to average out against Dallas ?.

    And new single family homes is just a small slice of construction jobs. Apartment construction is way down. Commercial building construction is WAY way down. We don't seem to be building all that many roads and bridges now that all of the 'stimulus' funds has been spent. So that brings us full circle back to the $60 billion worth of Hurricane rebuilding.
    Your data is old and your premises are off the mark. Construction is up pretty much nationwide. Almost none, if any of the $60Billion from the Fed. has been allocated. Also a lot of that $60 Billion is for large infrastructure type projects and things designed to keep Sandy type damage from occurring again.

    "To further drive home that point, builders have added 151,000 jobs in the past five months. These numbers show that this is the best hiring increase since the housing market began its plunge seven years ago.

    The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which released the jobs report Friday, showed the gains equally split between residential (+17,000) and nonresidential specialty trade contractors (+15,000). Nonresidential building construction also added 6,000 jobs. Residential trade contractors include plumbers and electricians.

    There is other good news for the housing market and for electrical distributors. A drop in foreclose rates is leading to more business for builders. Home mortgage rates are low and in January builders filed for the largest number of building permits in five years."


    Significantly more construction firms are planning to add new staff than plan to cut staff while demand for many types of private sector construction projects should increase this year according to survey results
    http://www.tedmag.com/news/news-room...w-rebound.aspx

  22. #22
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post

    again trying to head off skewed numbers, yes housing starts were up in Texas and Florida. Arguably, this is a direct offset to housing starts that didn't take place in California or Illinois or whatever high tax rate state that former residents were leaving to move to Texas and Florida. Note that while 4,500 or 6,300 housing starts makes for a happy local headline, in the grand scheme of things 6,300 versus 613,000 is a 'drop in the bucket' - how many new single family housing starts do you figure there were in Detroit to average out against Dallas ?.
    You're making stuff up again. New home sales are up in California.

    http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_226...ern-california

    Demand is up for new homes going for over one million dollars.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...y-expands.html

    -snip-
    At Lambert Ranch, an Irvine, California, housing development where prices start at $1 million, just two of 98 homes are unsold since the project opened in May.

    The builder, New Home Co., is opening 14 neighborhoods in California this year for buyers who want to seize on low interest rates amid a scarce supply of homes for sale.

    “Everywhere we are, we can see it,” Larry Webb, chief executive officer of Aliso Viejo, California-based New Home, said in a telephone interview. “Talk about pent-up demand.”
    -snip-

    According to your ideology, anyone in California who could afford million dollar homes would be leaving the state for low-tax Texas or Florida, yet people are lining up to buy such homes. How do you explain this?

  23. #23
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    how many new single family housing starts do you figure there were in Detroit to average out against Dallas ?..
    Funny you should ask:

    "Metro Detroit home construction expected to jump in 2013"

    "Last month, the Home Builders Association of Michigan forecast 13,928 new home permits in the state for 2013, up from nearly 10,440 permits in 2012"

    "Permits to build new single-family homes this year is forecast to rise 35 to 40 percent from 2012 levels, according to a report by the Home Builders Association of Southeastern Michigan"
    http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2.../BIZ/302130421

    Apartment construction is way down.
    You better tell these guys:

    "Jump in apartment construction helps housing numbers"
    http://www.argusleader.com/article/2...ousing-numbers

    and these guys:

    "An Increase in New Apartment Construction"

    Much like other large markets across the country, Houston is almost at maximum capacity for apartment rental homes and rates have increased over the past two years. The key driver in this construction increase is that job markets in the southern and western United States seem to be improving, and thus young professionals are seeking apartment rentals in these markets
    http://blog.dwellworks.com/2013/01/0...-construction/

  24. #24
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    According to your ideology, anyone in California who could afford million dollar homes would be leaving the state for low-tax Texas or Florida, yet people are lining up to buy such homes. How do you explain this?
    A. some Californians simply love California culture, and have so much money that staying in California is 'worth' an extra $100,000+ to them ... some of my acquaintances feel this way. But ...
    B. those same California acquaintances shelter their incomes via ownership of tax free Cal muni bonds, by ownership of green business partner shares that generate tax credits, by ownership of million dollar houses with huge mortgage interest and property tax write-offs etc.


    again skewed numbers. Nobody said that there aren't pockets of demand for single family homes. And obviously the top 5% of American earners are doing better than ever. But the fact is that the 98 California luxury homes actually built still constitutes a tiny drop in the bucket compared to nation wide numbers in the 600,000 range. As to Michigan's 'forecast' ( from a biased source ), I'll believe it when I see it.

    Now when you get to Houston and an increase in apartment construction, the article specifically states the reason why ... improving job markets in the soutwestern states. So commercial and industrial construction are most likely also happening big time in Texas. However, as I pointed out above, much of this is offset by falling apartment construction, falling commercial and industrial construction etc. in other states, as businesses and the young professionals working for those businesses migrate to Texas from business-unfriendly, high tax rate states in other parts of the country.

  25. #25
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - The Strangest Number in Today's Job Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    A. some Californians simply love California culture, and have so much money that staying in California is 'worth' an extra $100,000+ to them ... some of my acquaintances feel this way. But ...
    B. those same California acquaintances shelter their incomes via ownership of tax free Cal muni bonds, by ownership of green business partner shares that generate tax credits, by ownership of million dollar houses with huge mortgage interest and property tax write-offs etc.
    You're assuming that high-income California residents can move to a low-tax state and earn the same income. For many California residents, that is not true. Software developers and engineers working for high-tech firms such as Google and Apple would probably earn far less money if they took a similar position for another firm in one of the low-tax states. For some of those people, it would cost them $100k a year to live in a low-tax state instead of California.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    again skewed numbers. Nobody said that there aren't pockets of demand for single family homes. And obviously the top 5% of American earners are doing better than ever. But the fact is that the 98 California luxury homes actually built still constitutes a tiny drop in the bucket compared to nation wide numbers in the 600,000 range. As to Michigan's 'forecast' ( from a biased source ), I'll believe it when I see it.
    Do you really think that one developer has people lining up to buy high-prices houses, while the rest are sitting on huge unsold inventory? From the other article I linked to:

    http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_226...ern-california
    -snip-
    The Southland's housing market is heating up as prices have popped to their highest level in six years, new home sales are increasing and foreclosure activity is on the wane, according to reports released Tuesday.

    In the Los Angeles metro area, home prices increased 10.2 percent in December from a year earlier, according to the S&P Case Schiller Home Price index.

    That L.A. gain was substantially stronger than the nation's progress, a 6.8 percent average gain for 20 major markets, such as Atlanta, Minneapolis and Seattle, tracked by the index.
    -snip-

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-06-2011, 10:41 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-10-2010, 04:48 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-06-2010, 09:53 PM
  4. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-24-2008, 10:15 AM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-14-2006, 09:25 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •