Posts
Click to enlarge.
@#$%!
Click to enlarge.
@#$%!
Click to enlarge.
@#$%!
Short-Term
Click to enlarge.
@#$%!
Click to enlarge.
@#$%!
Click to enlarge.
@#$%!
I watched CNBC this morning. Just before the numbers came out, Mark Zandi claimed that employment growth was averaging about 150k per month for the past 2 years (which would have been June 2010 to June 2012 based on when he said it). This statistic was repeated more than once by those who were listening to him. Being the natural skeptic, I opted to double-check his numbers. This is what I saw.
2010-06-01: 130,021,000
2012-06-01: 133,088,000 (as originally reported in July)
Net Change: 3,067,000
Average Change per Month: 127,792
I could understand rounding it to 130,000 per month. It takes seriously rose-colored glasses with a 4x optical zoom to round it to 150,000 per month though. That said, I'm fairly sure that he has a pair. How else can one explain the following?
January 4, 2011
The Wisdom of Mark Zandi
As long as we make those adjustments within the next few years, Zandi says, we'll work our way back to a sustainable position in 5-7 years. - January 4, 2011
It's been over a year and a half. How are we doing?
"I caught the falling knife," Zandi said of his recent home purchase. - October 25, 2007
In hindsight, it would appear that his Vero Beach knife got roughly 50% cheaper over the next 4 years.
And lastly, I would love to ask Mark Zandi the following question.
If this is the best job growth we can get during an economic expansion then what will it be during the next economic contraction?
Perhaps he would claim that the tide will never go out again. Wouldn't that be a hoot.
August 3, 2012
MaxedOutMama: Well, Dang
In short, I suspect the tide is going out and that there are some missing Speedos under the water.
See Also:
40.2 Million Missing Jobs
Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: All Employees: Total nonfarm
7 comments:
Mark,
that you as always for the chart porn. I so appreciate the break-outs. I live in Manhattan and have family upstate, and I am well aware of the disconnect. Here, the money is still moving, but there is a level of bitching that I have never heard before. A surgeon acquaintance has a kid at NYU...25k per semester, exclusive of board. Kid is at home. Another friend is encouraging her daughter to withdraw from Brown, and got to Fashion Institute of Technology (a state school-who knew) and pursue jewelry design...the idea being that it's a marketable skill...being a lawyer like her mom is now a dead end.
These are well-to-do folks, but not the 1%...and certainly more comfortable than most Americans, but the sense of unease, even here, can be heard.
fried,
I'm thinking of founding CPU (Chart Pornographers United). Here's the slogan.
Charting megaflops since 2007.
What can I say? I can't resist a pun.
Or perhaps I am in slightly better spirits because my girlfriend has a part-time job now. It doesn't pay much but it does come with health insurance (that actually covers her expensive medical condition).
In any event, there should be more chart porn appearing soon. Just need to think up a random economic data series and chart its demise. How hard can that be? Sigh.
thanks for pointing out the discrepancy on the jobs numbers claimed by Zandi. it's caveat emptor when it comes to MSM
Reporting.
It is very sad, and it goes to the problem with trying to raise lower incomes. This much labor slack is a recipe for reduced real wages.
MaxedOutMama,
I think it can be seen in my girlfriend's situation.
She's 42 and going back to school to become a nurse. She's got a part-time job right now (so she's not technically unemployed). They won't let her work more than 25 hours per week or she'd lose her grant.
If she's working, then someone else isn't. She calls people in the hopes that they will donate blood. She's overqualified. It doesn't require a college degree. It's the kind of job that the people in your recent post would have if she didn't have it instead.
Sigh. Sigh. Sigh. Sigh.
Re the GF's job, you raise an important point...health benefits should really be counted in wage statistics. That would give a much more accurate picture of employment costs.
Someone in the 25-34 age group is much less likely to need health care; so the expected value to them is lower than your example.
Scott,
It gets even uglier if one factors in the employer paid health care costs of the typical Chinese factory worker. That's probably close to $0.
Post a Comment