223,000/5.4%

[Sope Creek]

Jobs numbers for April were good and in line with expectations . . .

. . . the winter dip apparently was related to the port strike on the west coast and weather . . .

. . . and as a result the equity markets are broadly higher in the US, following strong gains globally.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...elease-jobs-growth-numbers-for-april/?hpid=z1

 

[toastedbread]

Jobs numbers for April were good and in line with expectations . . .

. . . the winter dip apparently was related to the port strike on the west coast and weather . . .

. . . and as a result the equity markets are broadly higher in the US, following strong gains globally.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...elease-jobs-growth-numbers-for-april/?hpid=z1

It's all low wage work. I don't this headlines a fundamentally strong economy.

 

[mjvcaj]

I'm not complaining, but I'm sure someone will start crying about lack of equality in this thread.

 

[Sope Creek]

It's all low wage work. I don't this headlines a fundamentally strong economy.

Are those political issues? I'm asking not in disagreement with your statement, but rather to see what your view is on whether those points are appropriately addressed to government. If so, how does government ensure that the work available in the economy is higher wage work?

In growing a "fundamentally sound economy", which comes first, higher wages or structurally full-employment? Regardless what your answer is, does that "goal" affect your thinking regarding immigration policy? If so, in what way?

 

[Sope Creek]

I'm not complaining, but I'm sure someone will start crying about lack of equality in this thread.

Yeah, I thought about that, but opted for the high road in starting this thread . . . we'll see how long that maintains.

BTW, 5.4% is pretty good stuff . . . IIRC, economists are now thinking that 5% is structurally full-employment. If that's true and we're near "full" employment, then any additional acceleration in economic activity may allow a lot of folks to move out of under-employment and/or generate real income gains. Or it could spur additional capital investment where technology and automation can replace cheap labor.

Or both.

Toss in some infrastructure fiscal stimulus and what would you have?

Currently I'm 70% in equities . . . I'm thinking - and hoping - that the elevator is still going up.

 

[mjvcaj]

Yeah, I thought about that, but opted for the high road in starting this thread . . . we'll see how long that maintains.

BTW, 5.4% is pretty good stuff . . . IIRC, economists are now thinking that 5% is structurally full-employment. If that's true and we're near "full" employment, then any additional acceleration in economic activity may allow a lot of folks to move out of under-employment and/or generate real income gains. Or it could spur additional capital investment where technology and automation can replace cheap labor.

Or both.

Toss in some infrastructure fiscal stimulus and what would you have?

Currently I'm 70% in equities . . . I'm thinking - and hoping - that the elevator is still going up.

I'm entirely in equities and don't see a reason to be in anything else right now (public market-wise).

I would expect that people are already moving out of under-employment. Wage growth improved, though still lags behind expectations in many cases. But, the trend is certainly positive.Capex spending is a concern and was part of the drag on the economy in Q1. My sense is that things have picked up some, but to no higher than 3% annualized growth. The strong USD is still hurting exports considerably.

Sounds like the market is up do to the good, but not great news?

"It's a nice 'Goldilocks' report. We haven't had one in awhile," said John Canally, economist and market strategist at LPL Financial. "The people worried about the first quarter being more than transitory were happy. People worried about the Fed hiking in June, those people were happy."

"I think this argues they don't move in June," Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi said of the Fed. "I just can't see them going with this kind of job growth, and average hourly earnings didn't look that great either. I think they wait a little longer. I think this should help the markets out, at least (stocks) staying at these record highs for the next couple of months."

 

[Sope Creek]

I'm entirely in equities and don't see a reason to be in anything else right now (public market-wise).

You might if you were 60.

 

[mjvcaj]

You might if you were 60.

Don't you view bonds as more risky than stocks, considering they are directly tied to the Fed's interest rate policy?

 

[davegolf]

Where does the 92.898 million of potential workers not in the workforce fit into the discussion. Is the number relevant or should our concern only be with the unemployment rate.

 

[Sope Creek]

Where does the 92.898 million of potential workers not in the workforce fit into the discussion. Is the number relevant or should our concern only be with the unemployment rate.

 

[Sope Creek]

That's up to each of those 92.898 million potential workers to figure out. A rising tide can float a lot, if not all, boats. It's up to the owner to be sure that the boat is in the water and that the boat gets to the owner's preferred destination.

 

[toastedbread]

Are those political issues? I'm asking

not in disagreement with your statement, but rather to see what your view is on whether those points are appropriately addressed to government. If so, how does government ensure that the work available in the economy is higher wage work?

In growing a "fundamentally sound economy", which comes first, higher wages or structurally full-employment? Regardless what your answer is, does that "goal" affect your thinking regarding immigration policy? If so, in what way?

Don't know, but STEM and Medical can't find workers. The job gains are people making peanuts taking 2 and 3 part time jobs. A lot of full time positions have been replaced by part time. Productivity gains and tech are erasing jobs. If you don't have the skills you will be working for peanuts flipping burgers.

Well we need to raise VISA quotas for STEM workers I presume?

The little guy is getting squeezed with modernization and I don't see it improving. We will have a top 10% and then no middle class over time. I don't think there is anything the govt. can do about this save a wealth transfer/tax.

 

[toastedbread]

Don't you view bonds as more risky than stocks, considering they are directly tied to the Fed's interest rate policy?

As I understand, historically the best portfolio is 100% stocks? Perhaps 80/20 if you are risk averse and older.

 

[Sope Creek]

As I understand, historically the best portfolio is 100% stocks? Perhaps 80/20 if you are risk averse and older.

The blend of stocks/bonds/cash needed is different depending on how much one has to invest, how much cash one needs to have on hand and when one needs that amount of cash. For a 20s something saving for retirement, 100% cash makes sense because that's historically been the best way to maximize investment returns over periods longer than 15 or 20 years. For a 90 year old, not so much because any significant drop in investment balances because of bear markets could really impinge the cash available for needed expenditures.

At 60 a blend commonly recommended is 60% stocks and 40% bonds, if you're looking at retiring at normal retirement age (66 years 2 mos). I'm weighted a little more heavily in equities right now because I think bonds' returns are tepid and there's still some upside to this market . . . and may have until IU1's warnings about inflation for the last several years finally are backed by facts.

 

[Sope Creek]

Don't you view bonds as more risky than stocks, considering they are directly tied to the Fed's interest rate policy?

Only if you plan on selling them . . . if you hold them until maturation, there's no downside except (a) opportunity costs of investing in something more risky/rewarding, and (b) low returns.

When you get closer to actually using the cash that the investments represent, you get a little more constrained about risk/reward . . .

. . . that I'm 70% in equities rather than the recommended 60% tells you that I'm pretty bullish.

 

[toastedbread]

The blend of stocks/bonds/cash needed is different depending on how much one has to invest, how much cash one needs to have on hand and when one needs that amount of cash. For a 20s something saving for retirement, 100% cash makes sense because that's historically been the best way to maximize investment returns over periods longer than 15 or 20 years. For a 90 year old, not so much because any significant drop in investment balances because of bear markets could really impinge the cash available for needed expenditures.

At 60 a blend commonly recommended is 60% stocks and 40% bonds, if you're looking at retiring at normal retirement age (66 years 2 mos). I'm weighted a little more heavily in equities right now because I think bonds' returns are tepid and there's still some upside to this market . . . and may have until IU1's warnings about inflation for the last several years finally are backed by facts.

The second part is based upon a 120 year rule... but as I've read there is an increasing trend toward more allocation in equities. Also, there are other options besides bonds if you need regular cash distributions.

 

[mjvcaj]

The blend of stocks/bonds/cash needed is different depending on how much one has to invest, how much cash one needs to have on hand and when one needs that amount of cash. For a 20s something saving for retirement, 100% cash makes sense because that's historically been the best way to maximize investment returns over periods longer than 15 or 20 years. For a 90 year old, not so much because any significant drop in investment balances because of bear markets could really impinge the cash available for needed expenditures.

At 60 a blend commonly recommended is 60% stocks and 40% bonds, if you're looking at retiring at normal retirement age (66 years 2 mos). I'm weighted a little more heavily in equities right now because I think bonds' returns are tepid and there's still some upside to this market . . . and may have until IU1's warnings about inflation for the last several years finally are backed by facts.

My point is, people are concerned about valuation and a potential bubble arising from QE. If you look at equities vs. bond prices, the evidence clearly points towards bonds being more risky than equities. The maximum downside is always lower, but the risk/reward is much worse, since equities are going to benefit by improving earnings and search for yield in an inflationary environment (assuming we ever see this again).

 

[mjvcaj]

Where does the 92.898 million of potential workers not in the workforce fit into the discussion. Is the number relevant or should our concern only be with the unemployment rate.

The share of Americans with jobs or looking for work remains weak historically. The labor-force participation rate rose to 62.8% from 62.7% last month, a sign of progress but still near the lowest level since the late 1970s.

 

[Sope Creek]

My point is, people are concerned about valuation and a potential bubble arising from QE. If you look at equities vs. bond prices, the evidence clearly points towards bonds being more risky than equities. The maximum downside is always lower, but the risk/reward is much worse, since equities are going to benefit by improving earnings and search for yield in an inflationary environment (assuming we ever see this again).

When you talk about risk, you're talking about the loss of valuation of the principle amount of investment, right? I agree, but that risk is mitigated with bonds if you hold to maturity. The other risk - opportunity cost of potentially higher returns from other investments - is what you accept when your investment horizon is shorter. It's not something you need to worry about because your investment horizon is 25-30 years+, but if your horizon is 7 years, another Great Recession would KILL your retirement plans.

 

[Sope Creek]

The share of Americans with jobs or looking for work remains weak historically. The labor-force participation rate rose to 62.8% from 62.7% last month, a sign of progress but still near the lowest level since the late 1970s.

The population is aging, dave. We're in the midst of the greatest reduction in workforce because boomers are retiring daily, many quite comfortably.

 

[mjvcaj]

The population is aging, dave. We're in the midst of the greatest reduction in workforce because boomers are retiring daily, many quite comfortably.

It sounds good in theory, but I worry that the amount of boomers retiring at earlier ages are not fully prepared to change their lifestyle to accommodate a longer average life span.

 

[davegolf]

The population is aging, dave. We're in the midst of the greatest reduction in workforce because boomers are retiring daily, many quite comfortably.

How much of the good numbers were jobs for the recently admitted immigrants not a bad thing glad they are working just curious.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It sounds good in theory, but I worry that the amount of boomers retiring at earlier ages are not fully prepared to change their lifestyle to accommodate a longer average life span.

That also sounds good in theory

But I worry that we have low numbers of young people working or if they are working, doing so in low wage occupations. We have huge shortages of skilled manual labor and huge oversupply of low and semiskilled labor. There a number of reasons why we have gotten into this fix and most of them are in the democratic liberal playbook.

 

[Sope Creek]

That also sounds good in theory

But I worry that we have low numbers of young people working or if they are working, doing so in low wage occupations. We have huge shortages of skilled manual labor and huge oversupply of low and semiskilled labor. There a number of reasons why we have gotten into this fix and most of them are in the democratic liberal playbook.

OK, you've stated your conclusion about the "liberal playbook". Prove your case.

BTW, I think your position if full of crap. There are lots of skilled and underutilized electricians, but there are shortages of plumbers (at least in the north Atlanta suburbs) . . . I wonder why? GRIN

 

[mjvcaj]

but there are shortages of plumbers (at least in the north Atlanta suburbs) . . . I wonder why? GRIN

Sope clogs the toilet too often?

 

[Sope Creek]

It sounds good in theory, but I worry that the amount of boomers retiring at earlier ages are not fully prepared to change their lifestyle to accommodate a longer average life span.

Oh, they're not prepared . . . but that's because of (1) housing stock's huge escalation in prices over their lifetimes (they should have cashed out and traded down when they could have; they don't need the big houses anyway), and (2) they spent their money on conspicuous consumption rather than saving/investing it. What used to be retirement - a couple of years in a rocker on the front porch - is now "supposed" to be 25 years of golf and world travel, plus world class health care. It's a nice idea . . . but not all that realistic, frankly, for the vast majority. It never has been . . . and the idea that it's "supposed" to be that way is the disconnect.

I'm a boomer, but I'm not all that sympathetic to those who've maxed their credit cards their whole lives and now bemoan having to ratchet down their lifestyles . . . .

 

[davegolf]

Just got a news alert 100% new jobs went to foreign born women. I doubt that but interesting alert.

 

[mjvcaj]

Just got a news alert 100% new jobs went to foreign born women. I doubt that but interesting alert.

Where do you come up with this stupid crap?

 

[dahldc]

Just got a news alert 100% new jobs went to foreign born women. I doubt that but interesting alert.

I don't know where you get your "news" alerts but I suggest getting something different.

That's not interesting, it's down right stupid and meant for low information people like yourself that run with it and call it news.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

OK, you've stated your conclusion about the "liberal playbook". Prove your case.

BTW, I think your position if full of crap. There are lots of skilled and underutilized electricians, but there are shortages of plumbers (at least in the north Atlanta suburbs) . . . I wonder why? GRIN

Can't prove an opinion

But I can support it. Consider, irresponsible immigration policy which has depressed wages and deprived millions of young people jobs, destruction of the social and financial structure of many cities through irresponsible fiscal policies which inhibits re-development of cities, horrible performance of schools through more irresponsible yielding to teacher union demands, short-sighted national emphasis on "green" jobs and the elimination of "dirty" jobs, an irresponsible 2009 stimulus that directed billions of dollars away from creating "manly" jobs, irresponsible health care reform that encouraged burdensome employer-supplied care and placed onerous burdens on individual proprietorships and other small businesses just to cover pre-existing conditions. There is more.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Jobs numbers for April were good and in line with expectations . . .

. . . the winter dip apparently was related to the port strike on the west coast and weather . . .

. . . and as a result the equity markets are broadly higher in the US, following strong gains globally.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...elease-jobs-growth-numbers-for-april/?hpid=z1

It's a sad fact, but once adjusted for inflation/cost of living, American workers are making roughly the same as they made in 1979-1980. Although American workers have increased production by roughly 64% since that same time. Wages for working class Americans have been stagnant for 35 years. Typical workers are making 8%-10% more over the last 35 years while CEO pay has gone up 937% over the same period.
I know that's not what you're talking about, but that's what bothers me when I hear about jobs.
I hate this new format and don't often post links. You can find all this and more on the EPI's websites.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It's a sad fact, but once adjusted for inflation/cost of living, American workers are making roughly the same as they made in 1979-1980. Although American workers have increased production by roughly 64% since that same time. Wages for working class Americans have been stagnant for 35 years. Typical workers are making 8%-10% more over the last 35 years while CEO pay has gone up 937% over the same period.
I know that's not what you're talking about, but that's what bothers me when I hear about jobs.
I hate this new format and don't often post links. You can find all this and more on the EPI's websites.

Why do think that is true?

I blame free and open immigration. It's time to stop kidding ourselves about the alleged economic benefits of liberal immigration. It means more money for the fat cats and more votes for the democrats. Meanwhile it screws everybody else.

 

[Sope Creek]

Can't prove an opinion

But I can support it. Consider, irresponsible immigration policy which has depressed wages and deprived millions of young people jobs, destruction of the social and financial structure of many cities through irresponsible fiscal policies which inhibits re-development of cities, horrible performance of schools through more irresponsible yielding to teacher union demands, short-sighted national emphasis on "green" jobs and the elimination of "dirty" jobs, an irresponsible 2009 stimulus that directed billions of dollars away from creating "manly" jobs, irresponsible health care reform that encouraged burdensome employer-supplied care and placed onerous burdens on individual proprietorships and other small businesses just to cover pre-existing conditions. There is more.

Just real quick: Immigration, schools, and the stimulus = IT'S BUSHES FAULT.

What "dirty" and "manly" jobs have been eliminated? I don't know of any . . . .

BTW, the lowest performing schools are ALL LOCATED IN STATES WHERE TEACHERS UNIONS ARE OUTLAWED.

Oh, and Obamacare is working out exceptionally well on a macroeconomic basis . . . and I for one and very pleased with the burdens on employers to cover pre-existing conditions.

You sure can't prove your opinions . . . because they're unsupportable.

Page . . . two . . .

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Just real quick: Immigration, schools, and the stimulus = IT'S BUSHES FAULT.

What "dirty" and "manly" jobs have been eliminated? I don't know of any . . . .

BTW, the lowest performing schools are ALL LOCATED IN STATES WHERE TEACHERS UNIONS ARE OUTLAWED.

Oh, and Obamacare is working out exceptionally well on a macroeconomic basis . . . and I for one and very pleased with the burdens on employers to cover pre-existing conditions.

You sure can't prove your opinions . . . because they're unsupportable.

Page . . . two . . .

Obamacare is working out on a macro-economic basis?

What the hell does that mean?

 

[davegolf]

I don't know where you get your "news" alerts but I suggest getting something different.

That's not interesting, it's down right stupid and meant for low information people like yourself that run with it and call it news.

I am not saying the veracity of this report is correct don't have time to check the Bureaus statistics. "All the net job gains among females since the beginning of the recession have gone to foreign-born women, according to data released Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Since the beginning of the recession in December 2007 to April 2015, 1.37 million more immigrant women are employed — from 9,041,000 in December 2007 to 10,413,000 in April 2015.

Native-born women, on the other had saw net employment decline by 143,000 in that same timeframe. From 59,322,000 in December 2007 to 59,179,000 last month."

 

[NPT]

Don't you view bonds as more risky than stocks, considering they are directly tied to the Fed's interest rate policy?

What about short term bonds...aren't you safer there? I know your return won't be as good but if you're older and want to try to minimize risks what do you do?

 

[davegolf]

Looking at the numbers around where I live the female employment increase can be attributed to the hospitality and food chain industries. Low paying and minimal skill requirements.

 

[Rockfish1]

Can't prove an opinion

But I can support it.

Your opinion is "supported" by unsourced factual claims that you've pulled out of your ass. Which is to say that it's unsupported. So, apparently, no you can't support it.

 

[Rockfish1]

Why do think that is true?

I blame free and open immigration. It's time to stop kidding ourselves about the alleged economic benefits of liberal immigration. It means more money for the fat cats and more votes for the democrats. Meanwhile it screws everybody else.

Shorter CO. Hoosier: "Notwithstanding all of the studies that say I'm wrong, I blame brown people."

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

BTW, the lowest performing schools are ALL LOCATED IN STATES WHERE TEACHERS UNIONS ARE OUTLAWED.

All caps and everything so I guess we're supposed to believe that's indisputably true? I don't think so. Here's a list of the 20 lowest performing public schools in America and I don't think teachers unions are outlawed in any of the states in which they're located. Definitely not in Pennsylvania, DC, New York or Ohio where several are located.