Where is the US economy headed?

@plainoldme,

pom, Don't let that bother you; it's the same childish minds who can't challenge what you post, and that's the only recourse they have left. Kid stuff.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

I know what a post is but what is this thing about a negative 1. How do you know it is that number and why would it make any difference to you if some coward dosent have the guts to face you, so to speak, and prove that your wrong?

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

You now have a "negative 1." I always get negative votes, but that's because there are so many children on these boards; just ignore them.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Oh, it doesn't bother me. I prefer the brickbats of the right to their pats on the back. Their disrespect means I am thinking well, acting ethically and actually accomplishing something for the country.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

What is going on here with those odd little spacemen like characters and post numbers rather than names?

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

April 1st. Its April fools day in the U.S.. I know, its always april fools day but we only celebrate it on April 1st.

0 Replies

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/04/march-employment-report-216000-jobs-88.html

March Employment Report: 216,000 Jobs, Unemployment Rate drops to 8.8%

Good news...

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

DELL is opening an office in Santa Clara with some 500 workers.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

The jobs report may sound good on the surface, but most of the new jobs are in the service industry where it doesn't pay enough to eek out a living. Here's a NYT report.

Quote:

Many Low-Wage Jobs Seen as Failing to Meet Basic Needs

A study on economic stability says many jobs today are unlikely to cover fundamentals like housing, utilities and food.
By MOTOKO RICH
Published: March 31, 2011

Hard as it can be to land a job these days, getting one may not be nearly enough for basic economic security.

People rely on food banks, like the Community Food and Outreach Center in Orlando, Fla.

The Labor Department will release its monthly snapshot of the job market on Friday, and economists expect it to show that the nation’s employers added about 190,000 jobs in March. With an unemployment rate that has been stubbornly stuck near 9 percent, those workers could be considered lucky.

But many of the jobs being added in retail, hospitality and home health care, to name a few categories, are unlikely to pay enough for workers to cover the cost of fundamentals like housing, utilities, food, health care, transportation and, in the case of working parents, child care.

A separate report being released Friday tries to go beyond traditional measurements like the poverty line and minimum wage to show what people need to earn to achieve a basic standard of living.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Fake, meaningless news...

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

C.I. It seems to me that Rich is confusing several different issues in the article that came out a day before the employment numbers released today.
He argues that the economy is adding jobs, albeit at a slow rate but at wages that people can't live on
The private sector added 200K jobs in March.
Professional and Business services accounted for 78K
Factories 17K
Retailers 18K
Financial services 6K
Education & Health 45K
Leisure & Hospitality 37K
The average pay rate remained flat at just under $23/hour.

Is he suggesting that all new hires should come in at a much higher minimum wage? A "living wage," as it were. Would business be able to add jobs under that scenario and still compete in the global market? Or is he suggesting that, somehow, the government could lower the "cost of living?"

Finally, I have been trolling through the BLS numbers today. I would respectfully suggest that people interested not give much credence to what they hear in a 30-second soundbite on the mainstream media or the talk shows.
I would like to hear from H20 about how the numbers are "fake."

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

If you believe anything waterman says than my estimate of your intellagence has gone way down!

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

I suspect Rush told him the data is fake. I am curious as to the rationale behind that. I'll bet that there are known Alinsky socialists in the BLS.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Massachusetts always had enough jobs to go around, but, they were poorly paying service sector jobs. Not only is the hourly rate $8.50, most service sector companies do not hire full time workers below the managerial level.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

rjb, If the average pay is $23/hour, the annual income would be $47,840. Some will earn less, and some more, but it would depend on where they are earning their salaries/wages. That would net out at about $3,000/month income at a 15% tax bracket for FIT. I'm not sure how many can survive on that income in most of the big cities - especially for those earning less than the average.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Of course, little splash fails to realize that the people he idolizes are behind the movement to a service economy.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

rjb, If the average pay is $23/hour, the annual income would be $47,840. Some will earn less, and some more, but it would depend on where they are earning their salaries/wages. That would net out at about $3,000/month income at a 15% tax bracket for FIT. I'm not sure how many can survive on that income in most of the big cities - especially for those earning less than the average.

Is that based on a 40-hour work week, though? Many (millions) are classified as 'involuntary part-time' workers and their numbers rose slightly this month over last.

5 Answers from Today's Jobs Report

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Yes, it's full time which means getting paid for 2080 hours.

You also bring up an important point; many will work part time, and many will not get any benefits. Even all levels of government are reducing hours and laying off by the thousands. Unemployment numbers produced by the feds begin to lose all meaning.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I think I will challenge that, Tak.
I see average pay per hour as being weekly pay divided by hours worked on one of the sources I use.
I may be wrong, of course.
The average work week is listed as being stuck at around 32 hours amongst people wanting to work 40 hours. That is going to be a drag on reducing unemployment.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

rjb, The reason I use 2080 (40x52) hours is the simple fact that that's the number used for full time employees to prepare budgets. Overtime pay were based on hours worked in a day (over 8 hours), and the level of the employee. Those hours includes sick, holiday, and vacation hours, and they may differ for different employees based on seniority. However, I must make it clear that the 40 hour per week were the standard when I worked over a decade ago, and do not know the trends about reduced hours that is still considered full time in today's labor market.

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know