Unemployment to hit 10.4? “Wonderful. Simply wonderful.”
Except it won’t, and if it does, it won’t be.
I mean no offense to you, ACG, and I fully agree that RedState is full of major pains, but:
Sarcasm. Learn it.
Haha, thanks for the preamble :). And I understand their frequent sarcastic tone, but I don’t think this is it. Remember, this is the site that literally celebrated Obama losing the Olympics, and blew out of proportion any liberal “I told you sos” about Iraq.
I’m really not sure how you missed the sarcasm in that post.
The much bigger problem though is that while yes, there is going to be a slow move towards new hiring, companies are going to be extremely cautious about doing so. There are a lot of question marks created by the administration’s policies. One is healthcare and how this will affect businesses. Will they have to insure all employees? How much will it cost? What will the fines be if they don’t? A second issue is cap & trade which is going to really hurt some companies. They are trying to build models for how it will play out in 1, 2, 5, 10 years but it’s very tough. You don’t want to be stuck with a bloated payroll when carbon taxes are draining your profits by 10% per year. There are also less credible rumblings from DC like a ‘war tax’ or additional tax increases on businesses. But these still breed fear in business. My company has been on a hiring freeze for over a year. We aren’t even thinking about ramping up again. But we are also extremely conservative. So…I don’t expect much of anything to come from this job summit. The economy will slowly bounce back but it will be a long time before it reaches the levels we saw just a few years ago.
Improvements in employment rates tend to lag about 12-18 months after the general economy, anyway. It’ll probably be up to another year or so before we see things get better.
The leading indicators are sending interesting results. Temp hiring is up, which usually suggests hiring is about to commence, but the average hours worked in a week is still hovering around 33. What this seems to mean is that companies are going to rely on temp labor as long as possible before adding to their permanent payrolls. This is what my company is doing. Temp labor gives us greater flexibility as demand from our customers moves up and down. We can cut a temp literally at a moment’s notice, which means we don’t pay for them a second longer than we have to. Plus, no benefits! When we add an employee it is an automatic $10,000 addition to our benefits expense, plus their pay. We want to avoid that whenever possible.
Companies typically move away from temp labor when volume gets so big that quality suffers without permanent employers. But smart companies will mitigate that risk as long as possible. That will be when the workweeks start to go up. When you see that, hiring is about to start.
Aaaaaaaaaand unemployment is way down:
Next stop, above zero?
You should read the whole article Ames:
““It is like a patient after having collapsed with a heart attack sitting up and taking a breath—nothing more than that,” Mr. Sinai said. “Things are getting better, but a one-month respite, frankly, means nothing in the context of the worst labor market ever seen since the 1930s.””
Throughout the country, a large number of employees are working fewer hours than they would like because many companies are operating below capacity and have resisted adding staff until orders turn up and the incipient recovery seems likely to endure. Indeed, a broader measure of unemployment fell in November to 17.2 percent, from 17.5 percent in October. This broader measure covers not only those seeking work but those whose hours have been cut and those too discouraged to look for work.
The number of Americans facing long-term unemployment, which includes people who cannot find work for 27 weeks or more, has been at record highs in recent months, reaching 5.6 million in October. It was more than 5.9 million people in November, or 38.3 percent of those unemployed. Once hiring resumes, those workers are likely to be among the last to land jobs.”
Yes – the bleeding seems to be slowing down. But actual unemployment only fell by .2%. We have a long way to go.
y the way, where are all those ‘green’ jobs we were promised?
Cherrypicking the “but it’s not perfect yet” section is fun, isn’t it?
Ames – I don’t think you read anything more than the first paragraph. Have you ever actually worked for a corporation? Do you understand how hiring, payroll, etc work? Do you know what a Profit and Loss Report is? The only cherry-picking was in saying that unemployment is down, which, again, if you want to claim a decrease of .2% be my guest. The article was about job loss i.e layoffs.
Oh, most of those are in Europe or China right now. Vestas, Gamesa, Enercon, Q-Cells, Suntech, etc.
I guess you’ll catch up eventually. ;-)
Yeah – I heard Obama wants to hire a bunch of people to winterize homes. Yay!
Green jobs will never materialize until we put a serious effort into power transmission and other related infrastructure.
Probably. However, I think many of the existing green companies consider the US quite a promising area in the coming years, both for production and sales.
For instance, Vestas (which produces wind turbines) is expanding their production in the US at the moment with a new plant in Colorado. So it’s not much yet, but it is coming.
I actually have afriend who lives in Colorado and is training with Vestas in Denmark at this moment.
The US is certainly a promising area – but we have to do more to facilitate green energy. I just don’t see a strong enough push for it at the moment.
A federal (and therefore nationwide) renewable energy/portoflio standard would require utilities supply a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources and would go a long way to convincing international companies that we, as a nation, are committed to wind/solar/etc. and that moving operations here would be a sound investment.
Building transmission is a massive undertaking that’s in the national interest, so I don’t know why we’re not dumping federal money into it almost like an FDR-style make-work program. Unfortunately, that’s socialism.
I think a mandate for utilities would meet a lot of opposition. I’ll use my state as an example. We don’t have the geography for wind turbines or the consistent sunlight for solar. Hydro-electric works here in some areas, but environmental groups scream about dams and I think river-based hydro-electric is never going to be strong again (ocean-based is a whole other issue). We’re a coal state. We’re going to use it. If you mandate something different you will drive up rates for consumers to the point where you start to really hurt lower and middle class utility customers.
I propose using green energy wherever possible. This means mainly out west. Build the infrastructure to support it and then if there is ever an excess, maybe they could sell it to places like my state to offset coal.
As for an FDR-style program, I’d live to see it but it’s nearly impossible today. Public employee unions, red tape, environmental impact studies. You can’t do that stuff today. Sad but true.
to 17.2 percent, from 17.5 percent in October. This broader measure covers not only those seeking work but those whose hours have been cut and those too discouraged to look for work.
So, unemployment properly measured already exceeds 10.4% by 65.3%, which puts the lie to “it won’t [hit 10.4%]” unless you accept the official deliberately-undercounting rate.
As to whether or not it’s a wonderful thing for unemployment to increase… a post-industrial economy is all about the service sector, which consists of employing people to do useless busy work. Demonstrating that useful work continues to be done without employing people in the service sector may help put an end to the post-industrial economy and move the US back to the industrial economy, which would be a good thing since the economy would have a stable foundation of worthwhile activity.
Also, seeing as unemployment is caused by there being more people than the economy needs (otherwise there’d be jobs for them) it’s another symptom of overpopulation: there’s no jobs for the surplus people because they’re surplus. If unemployment gets high enough and lasts long enough, there’s a chance it could lead to mass suicide or starvation, which could help reduce overpopulation… granted, that’s very uncertain, and targeted population cuts or the removal of artificial population growth-encourating factors would both have fewer negative side effects so it’s only debateably a good possibility, but it’s a possibility.
Why does RedState hate America?
(more sarcasm!) :)
Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 674 other followers