The next time he proves anything will be the first time.
223,000/5.4%
- Thread starter Sope Creek
- Start date
Lol! how did the "out of labor force" numbers look? How did wage growth look for non-management positions? How does consumer debt look and where is that consumer debt concentrated?
I understand why you are headline grabbing because most people don't like to read the fine print. This economy is a joke, isn't creating good long term sustainable jobs with benefits, and certainly isn't helping the middle class.
I ask you to really look into the numbers. The trickle down effect of QE never led to quality job creation but it created a lot of paper wealth. We're living in a society of haves and have nots and the middle class is taking a beating. If the economy were so strong wouldn't the FED raise interest rates? Do you really believe the unemployment rate looks this good? Really?
young people get hired as bartenders or servers while workers over 55 as a percentage of labor force is at an all time high.
I don't use the same classifications as CO, but skilled and semi-skilled labor has been a huge issue in manufacturing. We've talked about the imbalance of technically skilled graduates coming out of two year colleges (tech schools) vs. demand for these types of employees. Many CEOs and COOs indicated this issue over the past couple of years, as manufacturing activity rebounded.
One sample is:
http://www.enterpriseminnesota.org/...tate_of_Manufacturing_Invterview_Schedule.pdf
And another:
http://crossroads.newsworks.org/ind...ingly-hard-to-come-by-in-manufacturing-sector
I cannot find anything but the following, though I did see the headlines indicating this.
Well, here's the thing, though. Broad patterns of employment showed high levels of slack in pretty much every sector. Lots of highly skilled economists worked very hard to establish a skills mismatch without much luck,
But if businesses were losing money because they couldn't find enough skilled laborers to produce the desired output, why didn't we see wages being bid up in skilled sectors? Why didn't we see employers training people to produce the output that would have profited them?
My answer to these questions is that the real problem was inadequate demand, and not a skills mismatch, because the market would have responded to a skills mismatch.
That's absolutely right. The reason I know you're right is because 20 years ago I took an Econ 101 course. It's obviously not a required course to run for election.
You did for certain positions, even though the segment is somewhat narrow in the context of general employment. In an effort to normalize financials, my team dug deeply within a client's W2 database and I witnessed several pay increases that outpaced the average or median pay change. Specific areas were production manager, quality control and engineering.
Wage gains were also offset by losses in other areas where there was oversupply of labor during the downturn (construction, trucking). As was implied, low skill or unskilled labor was (and still is) one of the issues facing the recovery, since the supply outpaces demand. I acknowledge that it could be that, given my geographic location, anecdotal evidence supports Upper Midwestern trends and not those of other areas of the country. I will also point out that there are a vast amount of places seeking to hire low skilled positions in our metro area, particularly retail and restaurants.
These highly skilled economists are also the same ones that, collectively, have failed to predict booms and busts. Just because an economic model says something doesn't necessarily mean that something is accurate. If multiple CEOs and COOs are telling us that labor fulfillment is a challenge to their business due to skills mismatch, I have to take them at their word.
I don't. If it can't be shown in data, the subjective perceptions of CEOs and COOs are no better than the subjective perceptions of anyone else.
I understand what you are saying but I think there comes a point in your life where you just have to accept the fact that you may be losing a little money just so you can keep some money safe (safe as possible at least). When you are in your 60s and 70s you don't have much time to recover if you have a big downturn.
