Monday, August 7, 2017

How are Jobs and Wages Doing?

As Trump claims that he is making a big difference...  I find the following links and quote interesting.


CNN We Still Have Jobs Problem
CNN Money How is the Economy
Politico Jobs Growth at 1 Million


"The pattern of job growth in 2017 remains essentially the same as in 2016. According to the Labor Department, an average of 184,000 jobs per month have been created this year, compared to 187,000 in 2016. If you eliminate January, when President Barack Obama was still in office, the monthly average is a somewhat lower 179,000.


House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) called the report “solid” and said, “Our economy is making steady progress with more people entering the labor force and continued job creation.” But he cautioned that the report “also shows too many Americans are still having a hard time finding good-paying jobs, getting a raise, and providing for their families.” " Politico Piece

42 comments:

John said...

Now here is something amazing... A CNN Poll that confirms that the majority of citizens do not trust information disseminated by the WH. That increases my faith in our citizens... Even half of the Republicans question the statements...

"The poll finds widespread doubts about the veracity of information coming from the White House. Only a quarter of Americans (24%) say they trust all or most of what they hear in official communications from the White House, while more (30%) say they trust "nothing at all" that they hear from the President's office. (Even among Republicans, only about half say they can trust most of what they hear from the White House.)"

John said...

I keep thinking Trump would be doing much better if he would stop complaining, lying and bragging, but that seems hard for him.

Sean said...

What we're seeing (for good and for not as good) is a continuation of the Obama economy. Given that the President and Congress haven't passed any meaningful legislation, I'm not sure what else we would expect.

John said...

I agree for the most part, however I do not want to discount the power of hope. And it does seem that Trump and Crew are turning back the knobs on Obamas regulatory over reach

John said...

And his efforts to downsize Federal Headcount is a great start.

Sean said...

If Trump is doing such an awesome job, then why isn't job growth accelerating? The last six months of job growth were worse than the comparable time periods in 2014, 2015, and 2016. If anything, it points to concerns about what exactly Trump is going to do.

"And his efforts to downsize Federal Headcount is a great start."

How is that going to improve jobs and wages?

John said...

Please remember that it was easy to add jobs in 2010 since things were a disaster and a lot of people were available... Now that we are getting closer to full employment it will become more challenging and we should expect a slow down. Hopefully then wages will start to increase.

Please note that I never said Trump was doing an awesome job, in fact I questioned his claims in the post.

As for making the Federal government more lean and effective. That hopefully will lead to less wasteful spending and lower taxes. Which of course leads to more money in the pockets of citizens like you and me.

As long as the Public Sector continues to reward employees based on time served and degrees instead of performance, I am happy to keep chopping away at their palace...

Some Food for Thought

John said...

Sean,
Now I know you are smart, so please give this some thought.

What incentive does our massive bureaucracy have to work hard at being highly effective, automating, eliminating redundant departments, removing poor performers, etc?

Private companies are highly motivated to cut costs, improve quality, make sure best employees are rewarded / motivated, improve productivity, implement unpopular changes, etc.

How do you see this happening across our federal, state and local governments with their hundreds of individual overlapping departments?

Sean said...

"Please remember that it was easy to add jobs in 2010 since things were a disaster and a lot of people were available... Now that we are getting closer to full employment it will become more challenging and we should expect a slow down. Hopefully then wages will start to increase."

1.) I didn't compare to 2010.
2.) Conservatives (and The President) have been telling us (at least until January 20, 2017) to ignore the official unemployment number and look at other unemployment measures that show more slack in the labor market. Just holding y'all to the standards you held Obama to.

"As for making the Federal government more lean and effective."

There's a difference between cutting employees and becoming more lean and effective. If there's actually effort put into making government lean and effective, great. If it's just cutting headcount for the sake of cutting headcount, not so great.

"As long as the Public Sector continues to reward employees based on time served and degrees instead of performance"

Over 70% of federal government employees are non-unionized.

Sean said...

"What incentive does our massive bureaucracy have to work hard at being highly effective, automating, eliminating redundant departments, removing poor performers, etc?"

The bureaucracy doesn't create itself -- it gets created (at the Federal level) by Congress. So pointing the finger at some clerk in the Commerce Department who -- gasp! -- gets a pension instead of a 401(k) is missing the point completely.

"Private companies are highly motivated to cut costs, improve quality, make sure best employees are rewarded / motivated, improve productivity, implement unpopular changes, etc."

I think you have an idealized view of how the private sector really works. Every single company I have worked for -- be it a small family-owned business up through Fortune 100 retailers -- has waste, has hemmed-and-hawed over tough decisions, has done things that work against employee productivity and motivation. Businesses make horrible, inefficient, and stupid decisions *all the time*.

John said...

I only used 2010 to explain the concept. Same applies between all years to some extent.

I agree, that is why I am questioning Trump's patting himself on the back.

A Corporate Turn Around "Villain" explained the process to one of my MBA classes. You start with a 10% across the board budget cut... Every company he got involved with could absorb that... Then you watch where problems are starting to arise and then apply another 10% cut... Finally you start to add head count and spending back where it is really needed...

Here is an interesting piece. What is your source for the 70% number? Does it include the military?

And you avoided answering my questions...

John said...

I agree... "Businesses make horrible, inefficient, and stupid decisions *all the time*."

But if they make more bad than good... They go bankrupt...

Not so with our government... It just keeps growing...

By the way, I am not pointing the finger at any particular employee. I am noting that their system is set up like a monopoly which usually leads to excessive waste and costs which must be paid for by the customers in high prices, low quality, poor performance, etc. (ie GM before Honda made them change)

Sean said...

"And you avoided answering my questions..."

Actually, I did. I don't think you understood my answer.

Sean said...

"I am noting that their system is set up like a monopoly which usually leads to excessive waste and costs which must be paid for by the customers in high prices, low quality, poor performance, etc."

By what metrics have you determined that government service are high priced, low quality, and poor performing? Or is that just a determination based on your ideology?

John said...

Easiest Example:

After 50 years of a War on Poverty, and extremely large expenditures on Public Education. A significant number of citizens:
- have little education and/or skills
- are dependent on government aid
- are living in single parent households

As I asked before... What incentive does our massive bureaucracy have to work hard at being highly effective, automating, eliminating redundant departments, removing poor performers, etc?

Why do you fight so hard the concept that any huge diverse organization with fuzzy goals, millions of employees, large budgets and little accountability will operate ineffectively and inefficiently?

Sean said...

Are those failures the fault of the bureaucracy, or are they the result of other societal changes? Are all of these issues the responsibility of government? For instance, to what extent is dictating family structure the responsibility of government? The number of single parent households has risen across the industrialized world -- and countries like Ireland, Canada, and the U.K. are within a few percentage points of us on this metric per the OECD.

John said...

I mean even the politicians and voters are in on it... The never ending desire for "pork" projects in their district, as well as services ... As long as someone else is paying for them.

John said...

You know my view... Government making it easy for people to separate and still maintain an okay quality of life... Enabled them to do so. They did not have to work to save their marriage or go live with their Parents / Relatives, they just applied for aid and avoided most judgment, guidance, coaching, etc...

Please remember that many of those OECD comparison points made the same mistake... They just kept feeding the dependent folks, and they kept multiplying like something that I will not mention...

John said...

Then of course the failure to educate millions of kids per year... If single payer healthcare worked as well, millions of people will die pre-maturely at greater expense.

Sean said...

"Then of course the failure to educate millions of kids per year."

At what point in history would you suggest that government screwed up education?

Sean said...

"The never ending desire for "pork" projects in their district, as well as services "

There's plenty of "pork" floating around in the private sector.

Sean said...

"Please remember that many of those OECD comparison points made the same mistake."

OK, give me a country that's doing it right and show me how their approach is working better in practice.

John said...

Sean,
We tax payers invested literally TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars over the last 50 years so that the government could ensure all of our citizens were educated and self sufficient. How do you think they have done?

Remember that the path to hell is paved with good intentions...

As for my favorite country... Maybe the USA before the war on poverty began...

John said...

Poor people had to rely on older and/or more successful family members, and charity.

Both were more likely to try to educate and pressure that person than our current "it's not your fault" welfare system...

Sean said...

History betrays your talking points.

In 1940, prior to WW2, less than half of children completed eighth grade. Today, well over twice that number complete high school. Back then, only about 75% of school-age children were actually enrolled in school. Today, before the drop-out age anyway, it's essentially universal. Our illiteracy rate is 1/10 of what it was then, and for all of the complaining is 7th in the world.

That's not to say we don't have problems in public education today -- but let's not pretend that government came in and screwed it up.

John said...

I am not saying that they have failed totally...

I am saying that the government has not succeeded...

And yes the government policies and payments did result in some very negative unintended consequences.

If you want to see the positives of our more Liberal society, please be brave enough to acknowledge the down sides.

John said...

If you doubt me... Please review the report cards for our most expensive districts in our very liberal state.

Laurie said...

Good job, John, not finishing the reference comparing poor people to animals. I am going to stick to the topic about jobs and wages with a K Drum link about wages:

Chart of the Day: Middle Class Incomes vs. the Rich, 1946-2014

I believe the median income should go up and the super rich should pay more taxes. We could use some tax revenue for infrastructure which would help middle class jobs.

Can't decide what to add about education subtopic except educating low income ELL (learning English) students is very difficult.

Sean said...

"please be brave enough to acknowledge the down sides"

Your ignorance of history makes it difficult to have these conversations with you. Without the investment we made in public education, lots of people didn't get educated. Can we do better? Yes! But don't pretend that government involvement ruined a good thing. It didn't.

You assert that things were better before we did started these programs. Is that really true? You complain about people not working, yet the percentage of people in the labor force has *increased* since the advent of the modern welfare state. Where's the evidence that people are just relying on the largesse of government? With most of the programs, it's *impossible* for them to do so, something which gets pointed out to you constantly but never sinks in. You literally can't collect unemployment indefinitely or spend year after year after year on food stamps. The "T" in TANF stands for Temporary, for cripes sake. And the benefits collected under these programs are not allowing one to live a life of luxury.



Laurie said...

from NYT piece Drum Links:

Our Broken Economy, in One Simple Chart

"It’s true that the country can’t magically return to the 1950s and 1960s (nor would we want to, all things considered). Economic growth was faster in those decades than we can reasonably expect today. Yet there is nothing natural about the distribution of today’s growth — the fact that our economic bounty flows overwhelmingly to a small share of the population.

Different policies could produce a different outcome. My list would start with a tax code that does less to favor the affluent, a better-functioning education system, more bargaining power for workers and less tolerance for corporate consolidation.

Remarkably, President Trump and the Republican leaders in Congress are trying to go in the other direction. They spent months trying to take away health insurance from millions of middle-class and poor families. Their initial tax-reform plans would reduce taxes for the rich much more than for everyone else. And they want to cut spending on schools, even though education is the single best way to improve middle-class living standards over the long term.

Most Americans would look at these charts and conclude that inequality is out of control. The president, on the other hand, seems to think that inequality isn’t big enough."

Sean said...

"Please review the report cards for our most expensive districts in our very liberal state."

Funny, both of those districts produce results on ELL learners comparable to your (or my) suburban district -- they just have a whole lot more of them.

John said...

Sean,

An Interesting read.

"Time limits. While states can set their own time limit policies, they cannot provide cash assistance from federal TANF funds for longer than 60 months to a family that includes an adult recipient; however, states can exceed the 60 month limit for up to 20 percent of their caseload based on hardship. Federal law does not impose a time limit on “child-only families” (those with no adult receiving benefits) or on families receiving assistance funded entirely with state MOE funds.

Most states have set time limits of five years on TANF- and MOE-funded assistance, though time limits in about one-third of the states are shorter. States generally provide exceptions and exemptions for some groups of families meet specific criteria, allowing them to receive assistance beyond the time limit Some states continue benefits to the children in a family even after the parent reaches the time limit."

And Child Only Calcs

John said...

From the people I have met who live on the "largesse" of our government... It does not take much to encourage them to not go to work? These are folks who dislike working, are pretty immature and have little in the way of ambition.

If you give them healthcare, some food money, etc they are pretty okay with scraping by with part time jobs as long as they get to sit around and do their thing...

Sean said...

Yeah, nothing you have posted fundamentally contradicts what I said regarding TANF being temporary. Some states in recent years have applied time limits to the child-only cases as well.

"From the people I have met who live on the "largesse" of our government."

We have actual data that tells us what is going on so we don't have to rely on anecdotes, political cartoons, or YouTube videos.

John said...

Please feel free to doubt your senses...

Here is an Interesting Report

John said...

Maybe that is why rural folks are more Conservative, they actually know and interact with folks who on the government programs... Whereas to Liberals those folks are data?

Sean said...

"Whereas to Liberals those folks are data?"

I know people who are on these programs, too, but the difference is I'm aware enough to know that what I see is a minuscule fraction of what is actually going on. You remind me sometimes of a person I know who told me the economy was fine during the last recession because his stock portfolio (which consisted of two stocks) was holding up fine.

Sean said...

"Here is an Interesting Report"

It's fascinating that this report -- produced by Congressional Republicans -- talks a lot about the Moynihan report when discussing poverty. Conservatives love to talk about Moynihan's concern for the state of black families. They don't love to talk about what Moynihan saw as the causes of the increase in black single-parent households (racism in the form of slavery, reconstruction, and Jim Crow principally) nor the solutions he advocated (more expansive welfare and public works programs to boost the economic fortunes of black families). Moynihan notably voted against the 1996 welfare reform bill because he feared the most vulnerable would be hung out to dry by the law.

John said...

Personally I see using a combination of analysis and real life observation as the best way to get a factual view of the situation.

I agree that a great many of the people on welfare need it, however I also acknowledge that it is harming many others in ways they just do not understand. Dependency and co-Dependency are terrible for both the Dependent party and Those who strive to save them against their efforts.

John said...

Sean,
I assume you disagree with this Paper.

What is your rationale?

Sean said...

I don't doubt that welfare does discourage marriage to an extent. And I would agree that programs should be restructured to eliminate the "marriage penalty" found within. However, I don't think that welfare is necessarily the most prominent cause of the increase in single-parent households. Broader societal changes (seen all across the industrialized world) have a stronger impact, IMO.

John said...

The challenge with knowing what caused those... "Broader societal changes (seen all across the industrialized world)"

If all the countries you are observing have been growing their welfare systems... It may be the root cause of much of our dependency...

My simplistic view is that previously there were significant consequences to irresponsible actions:

- Go face your Parents or Other family members and beg for help. Then be forced to change / improve to continue earning assistance.

- Go face your Local Charity members and beg for help. Then be forced to change / improve to continue earning assistance.

- Work harder to maintain that marriage. Put up with more of your spouses flaws.


Now one just has to fill out a form and some nameless faceless bureaucrat cuts you checks. No judgment, little peer pressure, etc... Little pressure to really change / grow.

Not good in my opinion.