From the BLS. A second month of good employment news!
Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 288,000 in April, and the unemployment rate was about unchanged at 5.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. The April in- crease in payroll employment follows a gain of 337,000 in March, and job growth again was widespread. In April, employment rose substantially in several service-providing industries, construction continued to add jobs, and there was a noteworthy job gain in durable goods manufacturing.
Very nice to see...
But I really would like to see some growth in the employment-population ratio to make me happy...
Posted by DeLong at May 7, 2004 06:42 AM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postBrad -- do you have figures on the employment to working age (able to work and willing to work) ratio? I've seen the debate, but don't know where to go to get the denominator ...
Posted by: Ennis on May 7, 2004 06:48 AMWhere did you, and other economists, first hear that the employment/population ration had decreased in the first place? All I've heard is second-hand reports that labor force participation has decreased, and all I've seen is the usual BLS "jobs added" and "unemployment" numbers which do not reflect that.
Posted by: James S. W. on May 7, 2004 06:56 AMPlease note that being able to work and being willing to work are two very different states and your numbers will be meaningless unless you make careful distinctions and measurements of these states.
I think our society would be much better off if more mothers stayed home to care for their children.
Adrian CSE
Posted by: Adrian Spidle on May 7, 2004 07:21 AMEnnis and James,
Try this for starters:
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab2.htm
Posted by: K Harris on May 7, 2004 07:22 AMI'm surprised at how little commentary one sees on the devaluation of the US dollar under Bush. Krugman has a column on the price of oil this morning -- with nary a mention of the fact that the price of oil is exactly where Americans hoped it would be after Iraq, at least when you look at it in Euros. It's only in US dollars that the price has gone all to hell.
In the same vein there are articles around saying that outsourcing to India is not as big a golconda as everybody hoped, because Indian prices are rising. Again nobody seems to notice that it's the opposite: the US dollar has gone through the floor.
George Bush: destroyer of the world's confidence, and underminer of the US dollar.
Congratulations Adrian - you win the stupid comment of the day, and its still early.
Posted by: me on May 7, 2004 07:24 AMGo here for charts showing the percentage of the working age population employed, they're a few months out of date (though I'll probably provide a new one over the weekend).
http://www.la-mancha.net/archives/000057.html
Posted by: Ian Welsh on May 7, 2004 07:27 AMLots of growth in jobs to abuse Iraqi prisoners. Bush has delivered on his promises.
Posted by: Jesus H. Christ on May 7, 2004 07:37 AMDavid L-J,
If the dollar had not fallen in response to 1% Fed funds rates, something would have been terribly wrong. Just about any trade weighted dollar index you look at is back in the range of the early 1990s - not completely off the charts. The Bush team certainly cheered the dollar"s decline, but the Fed would have had a considerably harder job if the dollar had not weakened. The rule of thumb is that the dollar firms ahead of the Fed hiking rates (which it has), then cools off again once rate hikes get underway. So we may end up back toward the weaker end of the recent range later this year.
Posted by: K Harris on May 7, 2004 07:49 AMJobs are always welcome. It would be nice to see some growth in real wages (particularly given all the prod'y growth), or at least an end to declining real wages.
Posted by: Adam on May 7, 2004 08:02 AMK Harris: Thanks; I was about to try and tackle that point. Fed prints more dollars relative to euros; price of dollars goes down. Pretty simple, really, and a whole lot better than some alternatives I can think of.
Why do most of the commenters seem edgier than usual this morning?
Posted by: Chris on May 7, 2004 08:21 AMAdrian Spidle wrote, "I think our society would be much better off if more mothers stayed home to care for their children."
So does that mean you think workfare for single moms is a bad idea?
Posted by: liberal on May 7, 2004 08:46 AMHow about a different view of mothers working.
Mothers were the last source of high quality labor business could draw into the labor force to keep the supply of labor high and wages low.
I doubt that it is not just a concidence that
real wages of labor peaked about the time women started entering the labor force in large numbers and has been moveing irregularly down since then. In other words, womens lib was a capitalist plot to keep wages down. How about those apples Adrian.
This employment confirms that productivity growth has slowed and that we are now in a late cycle environment where inflation and interest rates rise. Within the report the growth rate of payroll employment is now higher than the growth rate of survey employment -- a normal cyclical development that has often signaled this shift in the environment. Moreover, the report also shows that it looks liked average hourly earnings growth has bottomed. Both the three month growth rate and y/y growth of average hourly earnings moved up significantly. It makes me feel better because my wage equation was calling for average hourly earnings to bottom.
The price of oil is just below $40, almost exatly where it peaked almost 25 years ago in 1979-80.
If we are at a long term peak in the world oil supply why is the real price far below where it was 25 years ago?
Posted by: spencer on May 7, 2004 09:29 AMThe price of oil is just below $40, almost exatly where it peaked almost 25 years ago in 1979-80.
If we are at a long term peak in the world oil supply why is the real price far below where it was 25 years ago?
Posted by: spencer on May 7, 2004 09:30 AMThe price of oil is just below $40, almost exactly where it peaked almost 25 years ago in 1979-80.
If we are at a long term peak in the world oil supply why is the real price far below where it was 25 years ago?
Posted by: spencer on May 7, 2004 09:30 AMWell, if we're at a peak, that'd make sense. Assuming that the current/near-future price of oil is based primarily on current/near-future availability.
Posted by: Barry on May 7, 2004 10:05 AM"I doubt that it is not just a concidence that
real wages of labor peaked about the time women started entering the labor force in large numbers and has been moveing irregularly down since then. In other words, womens lib was a capitalist plot to keep wages down. How about those apples Adrian...
Posted by spencer"
LOVE IT! Another major component to consider is that real wages were being reduced by absurdly high marginal tax rates so that Moms had to go to work in order to continue the advance of their family's financial condition.
Adrian
Posted by: Adrian Spidle on May 7, 2004 10:10 AMExcept the wage data I used was pre-tax.
Posted by: spencer on May 7, 2004 10:21 AMConvergence to third world wages, I mean globalization probably has nothing to do with reducing real wages though.
Posted by: me on May 7, 2004 10:45 AMI believe I found the item you are all looking for:
http://www.thesportcatalog.com/cgi-bin/dpsmart/indexdp.html?L+hmg+dzkd8409
"Convergence to third world wages, I mean globalization probably has nothing to do with reducing real wages though.
Posted by me"
REGRESSION TO THE MEAN is an enemy to us all.
Adrian
Posted by: Adrian Spidle on May 7, 2004 11:15 AMCrikey, Spidle, you again?
Get away from me, kid, you bother me.
As for the jobs, hurrah -- it's about freaking time. Also, check the BLS's broadest measure of unemployment vs the headline number:
broad/headline
Mar01 7.3/4.3
Mar02 9.4/5.7
Mar03 10.0/5.8
Mar04 9.9/5.7
Apr04 is now 9.6/5.6 -- a bigger move for the broad number than the headline.
FD: I am still long yield calls, though I think the easy money has been made.
Posted by: wcw on May 7, 2004 11:40 AMAdrian prides himself as an economic savant, but the actual level of Adrian's economic knowledge is that he thinks marginal tax rates were what drew women into the workplace.
Me? I think Adrian should stay home with the kids, who would keep him to busy to post here.
Posted by: howard on May 7, 2004 11:43 AM"Me? I think Adrian should stay home with the kids, who would keep him to busy to post here.
Posted by howard"
I might take you up on it. I obviously failed bringing up my 36 year old son who got multiple degrees from Cornell and U of W and grew up into a damned pinko like all you guys. (Maybe that's why I'm so angry with all of you.)
However, I have a wonderful chance to do it right this time with my beautiful, brilliant and dangerous 9 year old daughter (Brad's neice, by the way).
She's dangerous because she just got her yellow belt. I've already guided her into a proper understanding of the Libertarian Republican view of the world.
We've agreed that our plans for her life are to make sure she gets all the knowledge, abilities and experience needed to prepare her to seek and achieve the Presidency of the United States of America.
YOU WAIT AND SEE...
Adrian the Proud
Posted by: Adrian Spidle on May 7, 2004 11:57 AMspencer wrote, "If we are at a long term peak in the world oil supply why is the real price far below where it was 25 years ago?"
I assume it's because oil recovery technology is far better and more productive than it used to be.
Also, it sounds like you think the market should price oil in a manner that reflects scarcity rent. Why should that be?
Posted by: liberal on May 7, 2004 12:07 PMAdrian might be surprised that during the 1990s the GOP Congresss decided that women would be better off working than staying home with the kids. Clinton signed a bill after some concessions. What do you think welfare reform was all about, Adrian? Welfare reform means women cannot stay at home and collect a welfare check, women must leave their kids with ? and get a job. Welfare reform is the pride of the GOP Congress and an integral part of the GOP Contract on America.
Posted by: bakho on May 7, 2004 12:17 PMFed BLS should come up with a new category:
Farming-Related Non-Farm Support Staff Payroll
Somebody has to run all those Feed-'n-Seeds!
Meantime, w/ crude oil hovering at $42/BBL,
West Coast gasoline over $2/gal, and reformed
diesel about to hit trucking and agribusiness
in the shorts, Fed BLS needs another category:
Oil-Related Non-Farm Business Failure Payroll
Or lack thereof. By OCT, it'll be a ghost town
in the Corn Belt, the Soy and the Cotton Belt.
Bush needs to put a transaction tax on CBOE
food commodities futures trading PDQ. You see?
If folks are, as is being reported, deciding
between groceries and gasoline, agribusiness
is about to catastrophically go bankrupt.
The New American Dust Bowl
Posted by: Tante Aime on May 7, 2004 12:20 PM"What do you think welfare reform was all about, Adrian? Welfare reform means women cannot stay at home and collect a welfare check, women must leave their kids with ? and get a job. Welfare reform is the pride of the GOP Congress and an integral part of the GOP Contract on America.
Posted by bakho"
As long as you lefties think welfare recipients deserve to stay home with their kids while middle class moms - who would love to stay home with their kids - have to work, you will be out of power on the sidelines.
Why don't you put such a plank in your platform. That will really help you.
Adrian
Posted by: Adrian Spidle on May 7, 2004 12:36 PMSo Adrian, i trust this means that you don't agree with your original assessment on why women work: high marginal tax rates.
Since the middle class isn't particularly afflicted with high marginal tax rates, and those are the women you now seem concerned about.
Actually, though, has it crossed your mind that maybe, just maybe, these women want to work?
Posted by: howard on May 7, 2004 12:56 PM"Actually, though, has it crossed your mind that maybe, just maybe, these women want to work?
Posted by howard"
Howie, maybe you just haven't yet figured out that women are complex creatures with CONFLICTING desires. Hopefull you'll find out some day.
BTW it's the reduced income of their loving spouses (not marginal tax rates bt themselves) that pressures them to work.
I know some like to work, but there's a continuum of desire among women so I only speak of them statistically not personally.
Adrian who really loves his wife, daughter and Mom
Posted by: Adrian Spidle on May 7, 2004 01:23 PMEmployed Number of Electrical Engineers, Computer Scientists Declines, Unemployment Rate Increases from Fourth Quarter '03 to First Quarter '04
http://www.ieeeusa.org/releases/2004/050404pr.html
Posted by: Jon H on May 7, 2004 01:32 PMbakho wrote, "What do you think welfare reform was all about, Adrian?"
I beat you to that one.
Adrian Spidle wrote, "As long as you lefties think welfare recipients *deserve* to stay home with their kids while middle class moms - who would love to stay home with their kids - have to work, you will be out of power on the sidelines." [Emphasis added.]
Love that word "deserve."
Posted by: liberal on May 7, 2004 03:23 PMjust great...another asd,fgh minimum wage service industry jobs...great...that doesn't mean much to me or my friends who are out of work.
rt
This new hiring trend is actually just a vast right wing conspiracy to get Bush reelected so the rich can keep their tax cuts. After the first of the year there will be a huge explosion of layoffs. Is it possible?
Posted by: John Jason on May 7, 2004 05:03 PMAdrian is not being internally consistent. Either women should stay home and take care of the kids or women should work.
So you either pay women welfare checks to stay home and look after their kids or you force them to work. Which is it Adrian?
Or is this a class warfare argument? One set of rules for the leisure class. Another set of rules for working Americans?
Spencer must know that the mid 70s saw the introduction of the CAFE standards and other energy saving measures. If one looks at gasoline consumption in the US, it peaked in the early 80s, then dropped to about 75% of peak. It did not reach peak levels again until 2000 (which is when we saw big increases in gasoline prices). Oil prices are a function of supply and demand. Reduce demand....
Posted by: bakho on May 7, 2004 08:38 PM Nobody seemed to notice that manufacturing jobs ended a 41 month decline. It wasn't much of an increase (and it could be revised next month) but it ended a pretty long losing streak, no?
And March employment numbers were revised up (~25k).
Things are getting better. They are.
Seems like trying to blow up a very flat, fully punctured, non-repaired and unfixable tire.
Must be those Iraqi photos stealing the show, no?
The word is there's more to come. Cheer up! -that was Rumsfeld.
So that could mean anything.
The Telegraph reports
“Mothers are rejecting equality in the workplace and prefer the idea of becoming full-time housewives - but not ones who actually do housework……
And what we're seeing is a serious gender divide regarding women in the workplace. This time around, it is the women who want to stay at home and the men who want to keep them in the offices and factories."
So perhaps the low employment to population ratio is an individual choice not a bush policy failure?
Buy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system.
Posted by: click here on May 27, 2004 05:16 PMBuy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system.
Posted by: directv on May 28, 2004 04:27 AMgo to WWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM for great deals!
Posted by: click here on May 29, 2004 07:52 AMGet WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!
Posted by: debt relief on June 1, 2004 10:15 AMWWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM
Posted by: creditcard debt on June 5, 2004 08:25 AMGet WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!
Posted by: click here on June 7, 2004 11:15 AMGet www.all-debt-consolidation.org help with your credit problems here!
Posted by: click here on June 13, 2004 11:27 PMOnline Casino Directory
Posted by: online casino on June 23, 2004 05:43 AMBuy Viagra online! its easy click here today.
Posted by: order viagra on June 28, 2004 11:06 PMBuy Viagra online! its easy click here today.
Posted by: Viagra on July 13, 2004 11:51 AMhttp://www.officialdarajoy.com/wwwboard/messages/3502.html http://www.officialdarajoy.com/wwwboard/messages/3502.html
Posted by: click here on July 18, 2004 07:23 AMyou can play blackjack here! http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com
Posted by: online blackjack on July 20, 2004 04:07 PMonline casino
If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide is designed to give you a basic overview of the game concept and rules. After reading this guide you should be in a god position to play poker. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers.
Posted by: online casino on July 26, 2004 01:35 PMI love tramadol even though
I have no idea what it is. And this sentence is just filler.
Check out these sites for online casino action!
internet casino http://www.casino.150m.com
blackjack http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com
online casino http://www.online-casino-i.greatnow.com
online casino http://www.gambling.greatnow.com
roulette http://www.roulette.greatnow.com
slots http://www.slots.0catch.com
video poker http://www.video-poker.owns1.com
texas holdem http://www.poker-i.150m.com
online casino
If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers. You can also play blackjack online fo free!
Posted by: online casino on July 30, 2004 02:28 PM3839 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com
Posted by: Viagra on August 7, 2004 08:16 PM8901 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?
http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com
5250 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com
Posted by: online poker on August 10, 2004 09:01 AM3707 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com
Posted by: cialis on August 10, 2004 10:57 AM7352 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com
Posted by: online poker on August 15, 2004 05:07 PM1834 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com
Posted by: play blackjack on August 17, 2004 10:09 AM