April Job Numbers Appear Improved... Are They Really?
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
The April job reports are out. The good news is unemployment fell to a four year low, certainly at year six in Obama's Presidential tenure strikes a positive note. Or does it? At the same time the number of people employed part time rose as well as strong indications are showing the Affordable Care Act (ACA aka ObamaCare) will have a long term negative impact on the USA economy.
The following is an interesting analysis and one that certainly has some credibility.
I report, you decide...
The Charts... (click to enlarge)
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
The April job reports are out. The good news is unemployment fell to a four year low, certainly at year six in Obama's Presidential tenure strikes a positive note. Or does it? At the same time the number of people employed part time rose as well as strong indications are showing the Affordable Care Act (ACA aka ObamaCare) will have a long term negative impact on the USA economy.
The following is an interesting analysis and one that certainly has some credibility.
AEI - US job growth in April beat economist expectations as nonfarm payrolls rose 165,000, and the jobless rate fell to a four-year low of 7.5%. But the report contained worrisome signs that President Obama’s health care reform law is hurting full-time, high-wage employment.
While the American economy added 293,000 jobs last month, according to the separate household survey, the number of persons employed part time for economic reasons — “involuntary part-time workers” as the Labor Department calls them – increased by almost as much, by 278,000 to 7.9 million. These folks were working part time because a) their hours had been cut back or b) they were unable to find a full-time job. At the same time, the U-6 unemployment rate — a broader measure of joblessness that includes discouraged workers and part-timers who want a full-time gig – rose from 13.8% to 13.9%.
What’s more, there wasa 0.2 hour decline in the length of the average workweek. This led to 0.4 percentage point drop in the index of average weekly hours, “equaling the largest declines since the recovery began,” notes economist Dean Baker of Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Let’s see, more part timers and fewer hours worked. Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin says what we’re all thinking: “This is not good news as it reflects the reliance on part-time work. … the decline in hours and rise of part-time work is troubling in light of anecdotal reports of the impact of the Affordable Care Act.”
Anecdotal reports like this one from the Los Angeles Times: “Consider the city of Long Beach. It is limiting most of its 1,600 part-time employees to fewer than 27 hours a week, on average. City officials say that without cutting payroll hours, new health benefits would cost up to $2 million more next year, and that extra expense would trigger layoffs and cutbacks in city services.”
Now, there is the possibility that government furloughs are affecting the length of the workweek. (Though at the same time, steady if unspectacular private-sector job growth shows the Fed may be continuing to effectively offset any negative sequestration impact.) Here is JPMorgan on the subject:
Government shed a trend-like 11,000 jobs last month, a number which bore little evidence of a meaningful sequestration impact. Similarly, it is hard to directly link the decline in the average workweek to furloughed government workers, as the workweek only measures private industry hours. It’s conceivable the decline in the workweek may be related to the Affordable Care Act, but a simpler explanation is that it had jumped two ticks in the prior two months, and through the month-to-month noise is just settling into a stable trend.
We’ll see. But the combo of data and anecdotes should at least raise red flags about how health care reform could be permanently altering the structure of the American labor market. {Read More}
I report, you decide...
The Charts... (click to enlarge)
Via: Memeorandum
Obamacare has changed the landscape a bit, but it's hardly a job killer. I haven't seen any proven correlation to substantial job losses, or even a slowing of job growth because of it. I've seen some nonsensical charts, though.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, there is and will continue to be an increase in growth of part-time service sector jobs because of the 30 hour rule. This isn't great news, but it's not a negative deviation from what was already happening in this country for years now. Behemoths of the food and retail sectors are hiring more and at an increasing rate.
Long before Obamacare, the big chains "insurance" plans were really just discount plans, not coverage of anything, really. They don't even meet the minimum standards of Obamacare. Now the employees will mostly get Medicaid, which is better than the discount plans anyway, and costs the chains only a little more than they were already paying a head.
And then there's the vast numbers of employees at these chains who always opted out of the discount plans anyway. Now they can be covered.
So, it's a mixed bag, but it tells a fuzzy, up-and-down story on the jobs front. And most of the jobs effected aren't very good anyway.
The big boom that's coming right now is the retirement of the Baby Boomers. It is going to have a tremendous impact on jobs, and all sorts of other aspects of our lives. As the Boomers retire, the best paying jobs in the country will be vacated, and there will be fewer younger people to fill that vacuum, and more competition for the best talent, and higher wages and salaries for Gen-X and Y, and the Millennials.
This is in fact going to happen. Yes, the Boomers are going to suck out a lot of money, but they're going to leave more. It's a fact. After all, there are more of them and they control a disproportionate, understandably by their longevity, per capita share of the wealth. It's just arithmetic. Obamacare is just a stone in the pond. The retiring of the Baby Boomers is a boulder. And if we're smart, we'll put that money to use actually growing the country, like the Boomers parents did. Or, we could keep acting like spoiled, stupid Boomers, and watch the country continue to stagnate with lousy service-sector jobs for all.
JMJ
Obama's healthcare plan does indeed contains an atrocious provision to discourage employers from letting workers work more than 30 hours a week, and it will surely have an impact over time of cutting many workers' pay by 1/4.
ReplyDeleteVery few of those workers were working 40 hrs, dmarks. What we're going to have is more poor people with two jobs.
DeleteJMJ
Please explain how the ACA has forced part-time employment up. Part-time employment has been on the rise since before Obama became president. Corporations are taking advantage of the high unemployment and saving money by hiring part-time only. The rise in part-time employment is a cost savings from hiring full-time employees and has nothing to do with the ACA.
ReplyDeleteI published a viable perspective anon. I said specifically as much as well as adding "you be the judge."
DeleteI am aware this trend and its beginnings preceeded Obama. As well as ObamaCare MAY have the effect of accelerating the trend.
I need not explain further. However, you may want to explain PRECISELY why the article I posted is invalid. If you can.
"...certainly at year six in Obama's Presidential tenure strikes a positive note."
ReplyDeleteClearly you meant in the 4th month of Mr. Obama's 5th year?
I did. It was late after a tiring day and I rounded the wrong direction. Good catch, thanks Shaw.
DeleteThe obvious is staring Anon in the face: "The rise in part-time employment is a cost savings from hiring full-time employees and has nothing to do with the ACA."
ReplyDeleteObamacare (I find it hard to call it the ACA without laughing since it has caused healthcare prices to soar) includes a specific provision to clobber business that pay people to work more than $30 hours a week. Obamacare makes this costly. So, of course there are indeed cost savings from avoiding the Obamacare "fine".
RN: You are right, of course. Now, if you were to bet, do you think Obamacare is/will make this existing problem worse? Better? Or really have no effect?
I believe the ACA will have the effect of exacerbating an already unfortunate reality.
DeleteThere are better alternatives, the Swiss Healthcare System comes to mind.
There have only been 2 sharp economic downturns in U.S. history that haven't been followed by a sharp economic recovery; the Great Depression under Hoover (Mr. "I increased federal spending by 49% in 3 years") and FDR and this current malaise under Bush and Obama. I would strongly argue that it (the fact that both were responded to via an interventionist government) is hardly a coincidence.
ReplyDeleteWhat other response is there? Would private corporations do better? Would they even try? To do nothing would make things worse. We no longer have true capitalism, or free markets, so why expect those agents to fix the problem?
DeleteYep, we no longer have true capitalism, agreed. Thanks to government intrusion in the market and a myriad of regulation, some reasonable and some ridiculous.
DeleteSo Anon, are you arguing for freer markets our increased government intrution and subsequent regulation?
Thus, we have had "normal business cycle" recessions (economic downturns followed by a sharp economic recovery) and two depressions (or non-normal business cycle recessions).
DeleteAs far as "recovery" goes...well the stock market, GDP, and corporate profits have recovered quite well during this current current "non-normal business cycle recession" but jobs and wages have not.
Jobs and wages are a domestic economy issue while the stock market, or in particular, the S&P500 is international; thus the disconnect between corporate health/stock market health and domestic economy health (jobs and wages).
"Today, U.S. companies conduct almost as much business overseas as they do in the U.S. Close to 50 percent of production, sales, and profits are from overseas business, and the amount paid in foreign taxes is more than that paid in U.S. taxes."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickferri/2011/08/14/going-foreign-with-the-sp-500
The current US economic system cannot create jobs because most corporations invest and create jobs where their future is and the US is a mature market with low growth.
That could change if our government would create something like the German SME's. In Germany SME's (small and medium enterprises) accounted for 50% of the value of their GDP while in the USA the S&P 500 (our 500 largest companies) accounted for 94% of our GDP.
But then again, like the Swiss Healthcare plan, we won't seek out European solutions to our problems.
If we put every cent we give to huge corporations, in small businesses, we would be much better off. Whenever the mind set is we are correct no matter how it is bankrupting us, I know we are stuck in an unchangeable situation. Like a drunk, we will have to hit the gutter hard before we change our ways, and no, we have not hit the gutter hard enough yet.
DeleteThe Great Depression wasn't a great depression until Hoover started mucking it up. The economy was actually recovering in 1930 and it wasn't until the dude (Hoover) started mucking around in the private sector (increasing spending by 49% in 3 years, increasing the top marginal tax rate by 152%, instituting voluntary price fixing, passing Smoot-Hawley, etc) that the situation truly went downhill. FDR of course continued with this Tomfoolery and it is argued that his unit banking laws were probably the final blow. Compare this to the Depression of 1920 and 21 in which Harding took the exact opposite approach (cutting spending and delivering more to the private sector) and in which we actually went from 12% to 2% unemployment in less than 24 months.......And your a little behind the times, Toa, 65-70% of the new jobs that we've been creating recently are small business jobs. And the best way to help them is by creating a lesser regulated economy (in NYC it costs $500,000 to start a new cab company, for instance).
Deletedmarks, go find some evidence for your claim that Obamacare has caused costs to rise. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up, or just repeating some sideshow AM radio guy. And you don't know anything about business. It costs these employers far less to not cover than to cover, and most of the employees weren't covered enough anyway. How does that raise their costs???
ReplyDeleteYou don't know what you're talking about.
Obamacare is going to have some impact (and remember, we've only felt it so much so far, not nearly enough to "clobber" anyone). But it really hasn't changed the overall healthcare landscape, let alone the broader economy. It's hard to tell yet what it's consequences will be. Obamacare could lead to something better in the future, but as it is, it's hard to imagine it making all that much of a difference in most people's lives. The biggest myth of Obamacare is that it was some radical, far-reaching, game-changing law.
JMJ
dmarks, go find some evidence for your claim that Obamacare has caused costs to rise. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up, or just repeating some sideshow AM radio guy. And you don't know anything about business. It costs these employers far less to not cover than to cover, and most of the employees weren't covered enough anyway. How does that raise their costs???
ReplyDeleteYou don't know what you're talking about.
Obamacare is going to have some impact (and remember, we've only felt it so much so far, not nearly enough to "clobber" anyone). But it really hasn't changed the overall healthcare landscape, let alone the broader economy. It's hard to tell yet what it's consequences will be. Obamacare could lead to something better in the future, but as it is, it's hard to imagine it making all that much of a difference in most people's lives. The biggest myth of Obamacare is that it was some radical, far-reaching, game-changing law.
JMJ
dmarks, go find some evidence for your claim that Obamacare has caused costs to rise. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up, or just repeating some sideshow AM radio guy. And you don't know anything about business. It costs these employers far less to not cover than to cover, and most of the employees weren't covered enough anyway. How does that raise their costs???
ReplyDeleteYou don't know what you're talking about.
Obamacare is going to have some impact (and remember, we've only felt it so much so far, not nearly enough to "clobber" anyone). But it really hasn't changed the overall healthcare landscape, let alone the broader economy. It's hard to tell yet what it's consequences will be. Obamacare could lead to something better in the future, but as it is, it's hard to imagine it making all that much of a difference in most people's lives. The biggest myth of Obamacare is that it was some radical, far-reaching, game-changing law.
JMJ
I posted all three in the hopes you realize I don't sit by the computer or smart phone 24/7. Eventually I get to releasing all comments. Well almost, with the exception of trolls whose only purpose is disruption and or character asassinatiom.
DeleteYou know who you are TROLLS...
Jersey: Check healthcare costs before it was passed, and now. Then get back with me. Three times if necessary. You will see quite a difference.
ReplyDeleteAs for the cost to employers and the punishing for having them work more than 30 hours, you yourself said three times how it costs them not to cover. So they cut hours back to 30 to avoid the penalty.
I didn't even mention the provision in Obamacare to punich companies for hiring more than 50 people, and the special punitive tax on healthcare equipment makers which forces them to do a combination of foring their workers, offshoring, downsizing, and sharply raising the costs of their products. I guess I can see some reason for Obamacare having a punitive tax to hound tanning salons out of business. But why treat healthcare equipment makers as an industry to destroy also??
Obamacare is already quite radical and game-changing as it forces people to buy a very expensive product they might not need or want. And these unintended consqeuences, mention above, make it far worse.
Pelosi, one of the worst legislators ever, told the American people that Obamacare should be passed before we discuss what is in it. David Conyers, one of the laziest legislators ever, told us that he voted for it without bothering to read it. How can this be good law?
And yes, Jersey, to make it more clear, by your own description Obamacare punishes employers for having people work more than 30 hours a week: the situation where they have to weigh a high cost of coverage vs a penalty for not covering. Surely you saw that, you typed it 3 times. By cutting hours back to no more than 30 a week, the employer avoids both the cost and fine. The rock and the hard place.
ReplyDeleteRespectfully, I do know what I am talking about.
You never know what you are talking about Dmarks (Mr. there were WMD's in Iraq). The rise in medical costs were predicted before Obamacare and after Obamacare was enacted, the rise in costs as were predicted. What was also predicted was the fact that unless all States participated, it would not work, so Republican majority States refused to join in and the ACA is not working as it should, as predicted by experts who stated it would not work if all did not participate. Just another obstructionist move by Republicans to make Obama look bad, no matter how it hurts America.
ReplyDeleteAnon said: "Mr. there were WMD's in Iraq)"
DeleteStill insisting on your lie? The Wikileaks article, one of many sources, even has photos. You are proving yourself to be a crazy person who "makes shit up" just for effect. Do everyone a favor and sit down and shut up on the Iraq WMD issue before saying anything about it again. Your intentional ignorance on this is tiring, "Mr So Stupid I'm Surprised He Can Spell Iraq".
Sure, I can post extensive paragraphs from many of these undispited sources, but why bother to further humor intentionally ignorant idiots who are too lazy do research anything.
"You never know what you are talking about Dmarks"
"The rise in medical costs were predicted..."
Yes, by OPPONENTS. Those pushing the law said the costs would go down. They STILL say it:
http://www.healthcare.gov/blog/2011/08/bringingdowncosts082911.html
"What was also predicted was the fact that unless all States participated, it would not work,"
Never mind that fact that it won't work no matter who participates. It is conceptually flawed, and already costs a lot more than it was sold for. Besides, those claiming "it won't work unless everyone is in it" are themselves granting massive numbers of excemptions from it:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/01/06/how-many-businesses-are-exempt-the-final-number-of-obamacare-waivers-is-in/
Your attempted lie to blame Republicans for Obamacare failing due to not everyone in it completely fails also with the proof that the Obama administration is excempting large numbers of people willy-nilly
" Just another obstructionist move by Republicans to make Obama look bad, no matter how it hurts America."
In this case, the only thing making Obama look bad is his own policy. Something that the Republicans have rather consistently opposed. Sorry, nice try trying to blame someone's huge mistakes on anyone other than the person who made them. But it completely failed.
Once again you prove you have no idea what you are talking about on any subject you raise, from Iraq to healthcare.
You know what else hurts, anon, the fact that numerous exemptions have been handed out to Obama's union buddies and a whole host of other well connected politicos.
DeleteWill: and that sends the message that Obamacare is punitive, and something to punish your enemies with and not your friends.
DeleteUnion exemptions are nothing compared to whole States opting out, since it's the type of program that only works if all are participating. Since the program has not even been fully implemented, it's hard to accept the right's allegations that ACA is responsible for all it is accused of; and of course there are no facts to back up those allegations since the program is not fully implemented yet. Whatever negatives are showing, it's showing the old and current medical system flaws. .
Delete"Union exemptions are nothing compared to whole States opting out, since it's the type of program that only works if all are participating."
Delete1) This is only a scare tactic to try to force peolpe to join
2) If it only works if all are participating, why is the Administration exempting large numbers of people? Contradiction!
"Whatever negatives are showing, it's showing the old and current medical system flaws. . "
How convenient. The program is rather conceptually flawed, but any time anything goes bad you blame the previous situation, rather than the program causing the problems.
Sorry, not buying it. Nor is the public:
"Just 15% say they fell more positively about ObamaCare over the past year vs. 40% that have grown more negative. Fifty-one oppose the law while 39% support it. Independents are opposed 62%-29%."
News from just 4 hours ago. Note how wildly unpopular it is with the middle: 62% of independents opposing to 29%. We are not talking about a predictable dislike of it by conservatives.
It is not surprising, with its negative incentives, including one of the highest tax increases on the middle class in history (one thing I had not mentioned recently). Sorry, the using of lies, deception, and bully tactics such as "it won't work unless everyone is in it" are falling flat and driving people off.
Unless Democrats get on board in dismantling Obamacare, or at least kicking some of the nastier fangs off it, Republicans can and will successfully use this issue for mid-term gains.
A cautionary tale. Back when they started Medicare in the '60s, the projected costs for the program by 1990 were $12 billion. The actual costs were closer to $100 million. They were off by more that 800%!!! This whole notion of Obamacare somehow being able to bend the cost curve is probably bull.
DeleteHardly good news...
ReplyDeleteCue up that old Peter, Paul and Marys song...
Where have all the Workers gone?
http://www.epi.org/blog/missing-workers/
Even the left is pointing it out:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/04/missing-workers-44-millio_n_818314.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/02/1206237/-Uncounted-missing-workers-continue-to-make-economy-appear-healthier-than-is-actually-the-case
The president's "jobs" strategy rests entirely upon people getting so fed up they stop looking for work.
If we had the same workforce as before the recession, unemployment would be double digitis.
Barack Obama: Worst. Jobs. President. Ever.
The only jobs the president can create are federal (work program) jobs. To blame Obama for lack of hiring by corporations is a convenient but false allegation. Federal work programs would help just as they did 80 years ago, but were not the total answer. Another false claim is that WW II solved our financial problems; maybe that's why Republicans are so war hungry.
DeleteWe agree!
DeleteNow if only Obama would admit that he can create no jobs, we'd be on the path to the truth. But every time unemployment creeps down because another discouraged, disgusted cohort leaves the workforce for good, he takes credit for it.
Silver: looking at employment numbers, Obama has cost the nation hundreds of thousands of jobs. The question of whether not he can create any is answered by looking at how he has only lost a massive amount.
DeleteNow to address this: "The only jobs the president can create are federal (work program) jobs."
DeleteSince he can also destroy jobs by overtaxing businesses and over-regulating, and otherwise encouraging businesses to shut down or go off shore, the inverse follows. If the President backs off on these job-destroying policies, it can be said that he creates jobs. Or at least create the environment for job growth during his term.
"To blame Obama for lack of hiring by corporations is a convenient but false allegation."
There is a lot of truth to this blame, actually. We can start with Obamacare, which even has a penalty to punish companies for hiring more than 50 employees.
"Federal work programs would help just as they did 80 years ago, but were not the total answer."
They are not even an answer at all. More busy-work at the expense of already-overtaxes citizens and workers. And for what? Jobs that the ruling elites think need done, as opposed to jobs that are part of an economy based on real demand and necessity.
"Another false claim is that WW II solved our financial problems; maybe that's why Republicans are so war hungry."
I addressed this lie before. But I did forget to mention that even in your example, your very false claim blows up: FDR was the war-hungry person in the WW2 period, and he was a very liberal Democrat.
"....maybe that's why Republicans are so war hungry."
ReplyDeleteThey aren't. So there goes another wild-eyed careless claim.
Do you ever read a history book?
DeleteOh yes... Vietnam.... bombing Bosnia...etc etc etc. All started by Democrats. I can give you a list of quotations of Democrats hungry for war in Iraq too, if you want more recent history. Some are by the presumptive Democratic nominee for 2016.
DeleteOf course, your reading comprehension is poor, as you have proven... cough... Wikileaks... cough.
WW1 and Wilson I would also add.
DeleteTotal crickets when I ask Anon to read Wikileaks. A decent person would apoligize for lying about Iraq. But yet again, he always has lied about Iraq. Makes me wonder if he is stuoud, crazy, or paid to lie.
ReplyDeleteWikileaks is your legal authority? No wonder you are so confused. Bush never started a war against a country that never attacked us? Bush never took 500, 000 troops to the Middle East? Yes, that's two separate Bush's, and Nixon never bombed Cambodia and extended the Vietnam war 6 years after he promised to end it? You truly are the most dishonest person in the blogosphere, and just a nasty ass hole as a general character. No wonder you find a home at RN. I do respond, but RN refuses to post my responses. I'd be surprised if he prints this one, because it's ok for his hate filled buddies to name call and insult, but let anyone else respond in kind to his buddies and forget it. Typical for an anti-Semite Jew hater.
ReplyDelete"Bush never started a war against a country that never attacked us? "
DeleteCorrect. You are making crazy stuff up just to cause controversy. It is a point of historic fact that Bush started neither war, and both involved countries that attacked us (forcing some sort of retaliation). While rational people such as RN disagree that the aggression from these terrorists warranted the response that happened, I have yet to see him lie about the events.
"Bush never took 500, 000 troops to the Middle East?"
I am not aware of the numbers of troops he took over there in retaliation. Regardless, it is not a contorversy
"Nixon never bombed Cambodia and extended the Vietnam war 6 years after he promised to end it?"
Now you are being so addle-brained. While you lied about Bush in the start, you are saying something that is true about Nixon. However, it is a deceptive attempt to mislead: JFK and LBJ were the ones that Vietnam war started under.
"You truly are the most dishonest person in the blogosphere"
Your silly insult is just a silly insult, as your definition of "dishonest" appears to be "person who is smarter than Anon and is able to check the facts and correct it when Anon makes crazy shit up"
"and just a nasty ass hole as a general character."
Snickers
"I do respond, but RN refuses to post my responses."
You are a complete troll, and have so far kept repeating the same fiction about Iraw and WMD, and when presented with overwhelming proof, you keep lying as if the ghost of Saddam himself were paying you.
"I'd be surprised if he prints this one"
He did. It showed how clueless and mean you are. No one can possibly be as stupid as you are. Either you are lying about current and historic events for the hell of it, or you have learned all your knowledge of history and politics from Bazooka Joe comics.
"....an anti-Semite Jew hater...."
Someone forget to give Anon his morning lithium? Perhaps RN won't approve my comment. He wants no troll feeding. But yes, I couldn't resist speaking some truth to Anon, who is a blog commenting equivalent to a chimpanzee in the zoo whose main way of communicating is flinging poo... a hypocrite Anon who complains about "insults" but is such a nasty liar and so mean and insulting about politicians including GWB that he belongs on a secret-service watch list. Not to mention antisemitic ranting.
I ask that no one respond to aNon's hate filled bigoted comments. Aside from being pathetic "it" is delusional and is merely looking for the relevancy that has apparently alluded it, likely since birth.
ReplyDeleteThank you in advance for your consideration. I really don't want this troll fed here.
The Management
Rational Nation USA
Don't respond, just read his Jew hate on his own blog.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteCosta: That is true. In several ways, Obamacare has policies to encourage American companies from employing Americans, or employing them full-times. This forces companies to seek various alternatives, such as offshoring (along with firing people and cutting back their hours).
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd on this note, I leave this post. No one is posting any comments related to the subject of April jobs figures, and I don't think the newcomer here has at all.
ReplyDeleteRest assured that comments that attact a commenter's character WILL BE removed.
DeleteWhile I cannot. sit by my computer 24/7 monitoring comments ( I occasionally miss one) when on rare occasion this happens it will. be rectified.