This morning, the BLS released its monthly jobs report, showing that the economy added just 73,000 new jobs last month—well below the 104,000 that forecasters had expected—and that unemployment rose slightly, to 4.2 percent.
How fucked is that if you think about it. There are more jobs, but less employed people? I know the answer is that pay is so low, many people hold multiple jobs, but touting this as an achievement is perverse.
More important, the new report showed that jobs numbers for the previous two months had been revised down considerably after the agency received a more complete set of responses from the businesses it surveys monthly. What had been reported as a strong two-month gain of 291,000 jobs was revised down to a paltry 33,000.
Ah… I infer that with the daily economic and social chaos and confusion caused by this administration, many businesses had no idea if their own outlook was good or bad. The ones less affected would respond positively, right away so earlier data may have extrapolated from that.
Based on reporting, it looks like the BLS didn’t have the staff to do the legwork anymore after the purge of the federal government, so they used various models to “guesstimate” the totals for May/June.
I feel like there are more senior job openings, but fewer entry level and mid level. At least with software, I’m seeing a lot of senior and “founding” posts. Maybe the Internet spy machine just thinks I should go for senior only, but I’d take mid level.
Same in my profession, it’s all manager jobs with no staff, i.e., do all the work yourself. I’m senior level but not qualified to manage, so I just took a barely above entry level position in a vaguely related field for 1/3 of my previous salary. But there’s a $5k signing bonus… because it’s a very undesirable job with high turnover.
I think the key is that population growth is around .6% right now. So that’s over $2m a year, or rather 171,000 people per month.
So assuming there were an average rate of retirements and kids getting older… id imagine any number less than 171,000 new jobs a month will result in higher unemployment over time.
Maybe someone can point out why I’m wrong there. Could be missing something
How fucked is that if you think about it. There are more jobs, but less employed people? I know the answer is that pay is so low, many people hold multiple jobs, but touting this as an achievement is perverse.
And the BLS official who published the numbers was fired because orangeboi didn’t like the numbers. Yes, really.
And look at the next couple of sentences:
Ah… I infer that with the daily economic and social chaos and confusion caused by this administration, many businesses had no idea if their own outlook was good or bad. The ones less affected would respond positively, right away so earlier data may have extrapolated from that.
Based on reporting, it looks like the BLS didn’t have the staff to do the legwork anymore after the purge of the federal government, so they used various models to “guesstimate” the totals for May/June.
I feel like there are more senior job openings, but fewer entry level and mid level. At least with software, I’m seeing a lot of senior and “founding” posts. Maybe the Internet spy machine just thinks I should go for senior only, but I’d take mid level.
Same in my profession, it’s all manager jobs with no staff, i.e., do all the work yourself. I’m senior level but not qualified to manage, so I just took a barely above entry level position in a vaguely related field for 1/3 of my previous salary. But there’s a $5k signing bonus… because it’s a very undesirable job with high turnover.
Thanks, Cheeto Mussolini!
Actually, the answer is that job growth isn’t keeping up with population growth.
I think the key is that population growth is around .6% right now. So that’s over $2m a year, or rather 171,000 people per month.
So assuming there were an average rate of retirements and kids getting older… id imagine any number less than 171,000 new jobs a month will result in higher unemployment over time.
Maybe someone can point out why I’m wrong there. Could be missing something
The only thing I can think that skews the data is that everyone is born but not everyone retires, so I’m not sure you can just say those cancel out.
100k is the number usually cited for this. Not sure how that calculation is done, though.
Watch some new term be invented like “underemployed” to represent people who don’t have enough jobs to survive.
Sorry to make you sad