spendius wrote:c.i. wrote-
Quote:The construction industry lost 22,000 jobs during the month, while factory payrolls plunged by 46,000, despite an improving export picture.
You would expect that with continuously improving efficiency.
If 68,000 jobs were lost in those sectors and only 4,000 lost overall it means there has been a transfer of occupation for 64,000 jobs. Doesn't it. Presumably into "don't get your hands dirty" occupations.
I was curious about Spendius' comment above. How is it that 68,000 jobs were lost in construction/manufacturing but the overall job loss was only 4,000? I did a Google search (U.S.Department of Labor Employment August 2007). The result is a mind-boggling display of numbers.
It appears to me that the 64,000 difference went into the service sector, some of which is decidedly not "don't get your hands dirty." Health-care services for the aging baby-boomers is a growth sector as is general retail; notably, I think I saw, in the food services area. I may be wrong about that.
If you dig deeper into the various tables in the Labor Dept's report, the jobs lost in construction had an hourly wage of $20.84 and manufacturing $17.26 while the jobs created were more in the $13.00 range (I neglected to write that number down).
One month's numbers are not all that telling, but what was a bit of a shock was that many "experts" had expected the number to be +100,000 in August, not -4,000. August also didn't include all of the employees in the mortgage lending business who got pink slips and will show up in September. On the bright side, the dollar slid again so our manufactuing could get a bump. And most assuredly, I think, the Fed will lower interest rates by .25 on 9/18.
P.S. I have no interest in getting into the spitting matches that yall engage in here. But I note that the Flower-Power bus will be collecting Liberals for a trip to OK to watch Okie bale hay. Tie-dyed shirts and sandals will be the uniform, and they will only be able to stay at your house for a couple of days.
