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

261–270 of 366 posts

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

#261

Post by gruez »

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…

>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.

I can't keep track of how many times how "X" is some sort of dastardly ploy to oppress workers, only for (different?) people to argue that "not X" also oppresses workers, with plausible sounding stories for both sides. Last time it was work from home. Is is a dastardly plot to subjugate workers by exposing them to international competition, and dehumanize them by making every interaction mediated by a glowing rectangle? Or is return to office a dastardly ploy by the capitalist class to regain leverage, by forcing workers to waste time commuting, getting distracted in open concept offices, and buying overpriced lunches?

The same is true for Tariffs. In the 2010s it was not unpopular for leftist types to say how globalization was a disaster for the American middle class, and how it only enriches capitalists. Now you're saying that tariffs were actually some sort of 5d chess move by the capitalist class to crash the economy, so they can subjugate workers? Nevermind that the capitalist class seemed pretty against the tariffs, given how much stock market dropped, and only recovered after Trump walked back on his tariffs. That's not to say something is wrong just because there's a plausible sounding argument for the opposing side, but it does mean you need to do more legwork to prove your point than to tell a nice story.

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

#262

Post by gruez »

danans wrote: post #212
pqtyw wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> imagine a former software engineer taking a lower paid job as an IT admin Is the implication that the software engineer lost his job because of the tariffs? Because all other things being equal (which they are obviously not) tariffs would increase the demand for labor in an non-export driven economy like the US. > seeking lower cost Well they certainly aren't supporting increased tariffs if that's what they want.

> Is the implication that the software engineer lost his job because of the tariffs? Indirectly, it's quite possible for a software engineer to lose their job due to tariffs if they lead to reduced profits to their company due to higher supply chain costs. Most software engineers don't work at Google, Meta, and their ilk. Many work in sectors affected by tariffs. > Because all other things being equal (which they are…

>Indirectly, it's quite possible for a software engineer to lose their job due to tariffs if they lead to reduced profits to their company due to higher supply chain costs. Most software engineers don't work at Google, Meta, and their ilk. Many work in sectors affected by tariffs.

Source? My prototypical software engineer is someone working for a SaaS, or similar services based company (eg. insurance company or bank), not someone developing software for a car company or metal parts shop.

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

#263

Post by dclowd9901 »

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.

This entire thread is nothing if not a perfect indicator of how difficult it is to get an good/accurate gauging of employment health.

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

#264

Post by lmm »

relaxing wrote: post #85
jljljl wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This metric of underemployment is captured in U-5 and U-6 in the BLS statistics. It's less common to report, but in the aftermath of the financial crisis I remember hearing more about it. You can construct a chart in FRED that covers it: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1JWGw

[flagged]

If the analysis in the public discourse doesn't capture what matters, that's a problem, and that some more obscure report contains useful information is only a minor mitigation. If anything I'd say highlighting that obscure report is a perfect example of nerds using their abilities to contribute to the public discourse.

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

#265

Post by seanmcdirmid »

gruez wrote: post #261
danans wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. I can't keep track of how many times how "X" is some sort of dastardly ploy to oppress workers, only for (different?) people to argue that "not X" also oppresses workers, with plausible sounding stories for both sides. Last time it was work from home. Is is a dastardly plot t…

Welcome to the world of grayscale where almost anything is never a clear win or loss. If Trump’s ideas sounded like clear losses why would he win, if they were all clear losses why would he have so many people against him? The parties aren’t at a 50-50 split by chance, American politics pushes division in the electorate where about half think the idea is bad and about the other half thinks the idea is great.

The parties definitely shift over time as well, with moderates pushing for more trade and far left and right pushing against, we just see the far right in form control of the red side while the blue side is still moderate.

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

#266

Post by hopelite »

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…

I agree, among the many things that need way better measurements, chief among them besides unemployment, being economic preference, is an alternative to the nonsensical GDP.

But regarding unemployment, another absolutely bizarre fact of that measure of whether people have a means of producing in order to be compensated and become consumers, is the fact that is an American citizen loses his job and cannot find one after 90 days… poof, he’s not counted and therefore the unemployment rate increased. Furthermore, if now a foreign person comes into the USA, whether legally or internally, and is employed, the unemployment rate decreases, and it is not really captured that the lower wage the foreigners are willing to take, also further undermines all other wages.

Frankly, we should really be assessing why the heck we are even allowing ourselves to be managed as a vector in a database of numbers like some widget. The only real reason the ruling class cares about the “unemployment rate” is primarily to gauge whether they need to put more bodies on the fire to suppress wages and keep the anxiety and stress of the peasants competing high enough to keep profits maximized.

If it was actually “we need high skilled workers, the ruling class would have done things a long time ago to foster developing high skilled workers over the last 30+ years that they’ve been complaining about that while just using it as an excuse to fall back onto their old ways of importing brown people to suppress wages and to serve them and their decadent lives. “Who will cut our grass and raise our children” they cry out, just like when their slaves we’re taken from them.

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

#267

Post by dclowd9901 »

ajmurmann wrote: post #166
shafyy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even better one: real wages, and income and wealth inequality.

Why does wealth inequality matter? If my real wealth doubles and Elon's real wealth doubles, inequality went up, yet everyone is tremendously better off. I think we are using inequality as a very bad proxy for poverty but we have much better metrics for that. I suspect people just dislike it for emotional reasons. I want to point out that Sweden has more billionaires per capita than the US. Yet everyone is fine with…

Lots of leaps of logic here. I'm certainly not fine with Sweden having a higher disparity of wealth but I don't live in Sweden so I can't effect much change there. We're also ignoring how many safety net benefits Sweden provides its population, ostensibly because it reasonably taxes its wealthy. If Swedes are ok with their situation, it's probably because it's being handled adequately.

The issue with disparity is it's a reflection of the unfair conditions of compensation. Elon Musk's employees make him that money, not Elon. He could make all of his employees multi-millionaires overnight by granting more generous stock plans commensurate with the money they've made the company. Reasonable profit sharing plans basically ensure this, but since companies all collude to not grant them, we see them as relatively rare in the working world. The state should be requiring companies to grant profit sharing. Not gonna bike shed it here, but it needs to be done yesterday.

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

#268

Post by hopelite »

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…

I’m just going to pile on by suggesting you really concern yourself with looking into why GDP is absolutely not a good measure. You may want to start with the fact that the economist that developed GDP has long been outspoken against how it has been used and wished he had never developed it.

The fact that the government printing money and then squandering it on some thing useless makes the GDP go up, should be your first clue.

I don’t think you are a great success in life if you take on debt from organized crime, spend it on hookers and blow, and then tell everyone how rich you are based on how much you spent, i.e., squandered.

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

#269

Post by hopelite »

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.

AND you’ve reduced unemployment by not just one, but two jobs. Success! /s

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

#270

Post by hopelite »

giantg2 wrote: post #145

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

I hope you have saving to draw on. It’s been very bad for folks AB’s it’s only going to get worse from here.

I know people who don’t have to work so they have all but stopped even trying since they are just enjoying a kind of mid life retirement and working on whatever the heck they want to, including mental health and those projects they put on the back burner.

Post reply on HN