Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 366 posts

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#241

Post by RayVR »

darth_avocado wrote: post #65
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even the good old GDP per capita covers your case. Absolutely not. If corporate revenue increases, but wages stay the same, GDP per capita goes up, yet the workers aren't any better off. All that extra money is being absorbed by the ones at the top. Median disposable household income is probably the best measure.

> Median disposable household income is probably the best measure If I used to make $78k as a full time IT employee, but now have to work two jobs to make $78k, I still have same household income but I’m considerably worse than before. A combination of hours worked, wages earned and household debt together would paint a much more accurate picture.

Whatever metric or scenario you can think up, I guarantee governments, think tanks, private data companies, or universities are already tracking (or attempting to)

There is a huge quantity of data about the US.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#242

Post by ghushn3 »

danans wrote: post #232
underlipton wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless workers unionize and demand higher wages. High-prestige work as an escape hatch from poverty has failed, and that may be a good thing. When people accept that dirty or "unskilled" labor has to be done, and that it deserves a living wage as much as any educated position, we'll be stronger as a country. Perhaps we'd even see, with the influx of people who haven't yet accepted being stuck in monotonous, menial la…

> Unless workers unionize and demand higher wages. This is at odds with > Perhaps we'd even see, with the influx of people ... because that influx of people will increase labor supply, lowering unions' bargaining ability. Unions primary leverage is their ability to withhold labor (AKA a strike). > ... who haven't yet accepted being stuck in monotonous, menial labor and with an outsider's perspective, a renewed emphas…

> ... because that influx of people will increase labor supply, lowering unions' bargaining ability. Unions primary leverage is their ability to withhold labor (AKA a strike).

Plenty of big unions out there, and plenty of places where growing base actually strengthens the union, since they can afford to do more for members in the event of a strike. People will back their union if their union is fighting for them.

> Innovation and efficiency creation happen as the result of capital investment,

That's one way innovation and efficiency occur, for sure. Plenty of other ways. Most of human history innovation and efficiency gains were done without capital. Not all money is capital, and not all non-monetary resources are capital either.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#243

Post by root_axis »

ajmurmann wrote: post #12
psunavy03 wrote: post #6

We really need better ways of measuring economic health. I could lose my six-figure job, turn around, and get hired on as a server at Applebee's for minimum wage, and the "unemployment" rate would stay the same. Not to mention that it doesn't include those not actively looking for work. Either way, "full employment" doesn't mean much unless you take into account whether people are actually able to live a stable lifes…

We have good metrics. The problem is the media seems to only ever look at one of them at a time but we need to look at several at once to get a more complete picture. Your scenario would be called out by median household income, or better median disposable household income. Even the good old GDP per capita covers your case. Workforce participation also can be valuable instead of or in addition to unemployment numbers…

> the public discourse either lacks motivation, understanding or incentive to take a proper look.

Indeed. Almost always in these discussions people have already made up their minds about the state of the economy and will just cherry-pick whatever metric best justifies their case (typically that the economy sucks).

There's never been a time in my life where people weren't complaining about how the economy is terrible and how that's clearly obvious if you just look at the real numbers.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#244

Post by thayne »

jjk166 wrote: post #210
thayne wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that's a very different scenario from people getting laid off to reduce labor costs. Not necessarily. People could be laid off to reduce labor costs, in order to distribute more wealth to those at the top. And since the average is national, it doesn't even have to be at the same company. People could be laid off from company A, because A is unable to compete with company B that has a smaller head count, but pays th…

> People could be laid off from company A, because A is unable to compete with company B that has a smaller head count, but pays their execs more. This is exactly the scenario I was describing - this is not a sign of a cooling economy with rising unemployment or underemployment, this is a sign of firm B outcompeting firm A. It might be interesting in its own right, but it's very much not what unemployment is meant to…

> This is exactly the scenario I was describing - this is not a sign of a cooling economy with rising unemployment or underemployment

It could be. What if B is outcompeting because they have offshored labor, or using new technology that reduces demands for labor. Not that those things are necessarily bad, but just because the total productivity is increasing doesn't necessarily mean everyone is better off.

My point is that the situation described can happen without a change to the average income, and average income isn't a good metric for watching changes in wealth inequality.

> but it's very much not what unemployment is meant to be tracking.

I never said it was.

> Tons of such metrics are frequently discussed. Things like ratio of CEO to employee pay and income percentages are given all the time

IME, such things are talked about much less than unemployment, especially in relation to politics and policy.

And I think part of the reason for that is because it is easy to understand, and it is easier to control with policy than other metrics, since the government can just create new jobs and provide incentives to create jobs, even if those jobs are lower paid than the jobs that were lost.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#245

Post by danans »

ghushn3 wrote: post #242
danans wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless workers unionize and demand higher wages. This is at odds with > Perhaps we'd even see, with the influx of people ... because that influx of people will increase labor supply, lowering unions' bargaining ability. Unions primary leverage is their ability to withhold labor (AKA a strike). > ... who haven't yet accepted being stuck in monotonous, menial labor and with an outsider's perspective, a renewed emphas…

> ... because that influx of people will increase labor supply, lowering unions' bargaining ability. Unions primary leverage is their ability to withhold labor (AKA a strike). Plenty of big unions out there, and plenty of places where growing base actually strengthens the union, since they can afford to do more for members in the event of a strike. People will back their union if their union is fighting for them. > I…

> Plenty of big unions out there, and plenty of places where growing base actually strengthens the union, since they can afford to do more for members in the event of a strike.

Union membership is strictly bound by the number of jobs.

Unions, especially in the private sector, cannot directly control the number of jobs. At best they can negotiate the percentage of union jobs at a facility or site.

An influx of non-union labor into an industry where unions already don't represent much of the labor force weakens a union's bargaining position.

The unions could try to attract those non-union workers to the union by explaining the protections that come from labor organizing, but if people are desperate enough for work, they likely won't want to rock the boat by joining a union.

Adding to that, in the US at least, the labor protections functions of the Federal government are being systematically undermined.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#246

Post by whatareyouon »

psunavy03 wrote: post #6

We really need better ways of measuring economic health. I could lose my six-figure job, turn around, and get hired on as a server at Applebee's for minimum wage, and the "unemployment" rate would stay the same. Not to mention that it doesn't include those not actively looking for work. Either way, "full employment" doesn't mean much unless you take into account whether people are actually able to live a stable lifes…

There are six kinds of unemployment stats the US tracks (below). Nothing sounds specific to underemployment by skills specifically (maybe u-6?). That would probably come from other metrics, like quintile income distributions shifting downwards?

You didn't ask, but just in case (from an internet search):

U-1: Long-term unemployed

* Definition: People unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percentage of the civilian labor force.

* Purpose: Measures persistent unemployment.

U-2: Job losers and temporary workers

* Definition: People who lost jobs or completed temporary jobs, as a percentage of the labor force.

* Purpose: Captures recent layoffs and temp contract ends.

U-3: Official unemployment rate (headline rate)

* Definition: Total unemployed as a percentage of the civilian labor force.

* Purpose: This is the standard "unemployment rate" reported in news and economic discussions.

* Limitations: Doesn’t count discouraged workers or part-time workers wanting full-time jobs.

U-4: Unemployed + Discouraged workers

* Definition: U-3 plus discouraged workers (those who want a job but stopped looking because they believe no jobs are available).

* Purpose: Adds a layer of marginal attachment to the labor force.

U-5: Unemployed + All marginally attached workers

* Definition: U-4 plus all others marginally attached to the labor force, not just discouraged workers.

* Marginally attached workers: People not currently working or looking for work but who want a job and have looked in the past 12 months (but not the past 4 weeks).

U-6: Broadest measure

* Definition: U-5 plus part-time workers who want full-time jobs (i.e., involuntary part-time workers).

* Purpose: The most comprehensive measure of labor underutilization, including: Discouraged workers, Marginally attached workers, and Underemployed part-timers

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#247

Post by zzgo »

giantg2 wrote: post #145

I'm about to lose my job too. The job market looks terrible.

I've been unemployed for months. In the last couple of weeks, I've been rejected for jobs as a pool cleaner, shelf stocker, and a state job requiring me to check multiple email accounts and watch security cameras. I've also recently been rejected as an overnight courier and software tester.

Whatever you imagine the job market to be like, I assure you it's worse.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#248

Post by dmoy »

hx8 wrote: post #109
elzbardico wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't matter. You still have the debt. If you lose your job in a depression, odds are no much other people will be in the market to buy your home.

The amount of equity you have in your home matters. Most recessions do not take 20% off home values, so people with conventional loans are pretty safe. Even the Great Depression just cut valuations about 35%. If you lose your job in a depression there will be plenty of people willing to buy assets at a discount. If you have equity in your home then your position will be net positive. About half of all mortgages have…

That kinda works in the abstract, but it's pretty risky for any individual house. If your house was somehow a representative slice of all US housing, sure maybe it won't drop 35%.

But if you owned a house in Detroit from 2003-2010 it might have dropped 70-80%. Or, more on point for many on HN, if you own a house in the Bay Area worth $2-$3M with 25% equity, and the tech job market collapses, then you might get completely wiped out.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#249

Post by ActorNightly »

danans wrote: post #40
jimbokun wrote: post #31

> But the contraction was capped by payroll expansions in goods-producing roles across industries such as manufacturing and mining. All together, goods-producing positions grew by 32,000 in the month, while payrolls for service roles overall fell by 66,000. Is this tariffs working as intended?

If your metric is "more/better jobs", then yes tariffs are a failure. But in a roundabout sense ... yes they are working. At least if the goal is to discipline and squeeze labor, and return leverage to employers. Part of the goal of the tariffs (and other non-tariff related policies) seems to be to reset leverage at all layers of the labor markets, pushing higher skilled and paid workers into lower skilled and paid m…

>At least if the goal is to discipline and squeeze labor, and return leverage to employers.

The goal originally was for Trump to become the center of attention worldwide. This is pretty much the only reason tarrifs are in place.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#250

Post by guywithahat »

realo wrote: post #71

For completeness, I would suppose those are USA jobs... Not Canadian or EU or South America or SouthEast Asia etc etc jobs. Is it too early to link that bad economic performance with the catastrophic management style of their current administration?

They're US numbers, and they're from a private HR firm, not government numbers. It doesn't mean they're not meaningful, but they are a biased sample towards large companies using the HR software in US employment
Post reply on HN