Help Wanted Index Down 1 point in April.

[section321]

Unfortunately, Shrubby seems to be presiding over a jobless recovery just like pops. The help wanted index in April was 38, one point below the reading of 39 in March.

The turly telling number is the year over year change: The index was 37 one year ago. And remember, one year ago was a month after the Iraq invasion.

For those of you who like details, here's the link:

http://www.conference-board.org/economics/helpwanted.cfm

[mhr]

1. This Is Not News For Those Of Us Looking For Work - It's Still Slim Pickin

eom

[papau]

2. So why is that fact not mentioned by media?

sigh...

:-)

Plus after-tax corporate profits rose a tepid 1.4 percent in the January-March period, weakest profit performance since the first quarter of last year, when earnings fell- plus the faster pace of inventory building was the factor behind the upward revision to GDP. Businesses added to stocks at a $28.2 billion annual rate, well above the $15.3 billion pace estimated a month ago. In all, restocking added three-quarters of a percentage point to first-quarter economic growth - and of course government spending was slightly stronger than first reported.

[Cocoa]

3. this is what people see

they turn to the Sunday jobs section, look at how pathetically small it is and say "Is that it?"

The Clinton years weren't that long ago, with their fat multi-section jobs sections.

[section321]

4. Too true. I've always scanned the jobs section as a guage to economic...

activity.

It continues to be very slim. In 2000 (arguably a overheated labor market) the LA Time jobs section was two thick sections. It hasn't been two sections at all since Shrub was selected.

This story helps to put a number on what we all see. It reminds me of when Bush I was running for re-election. There was all this talk of a recovery but everyone knew there were no jobs.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. Interesting. Employment has steadily gone up the past 10 years

with a slight dip in the totals centered in 2002

1994 121966 122086 121930 122290 122864 122634 122706 123342 123687 124112 124516 124721
1995 124663 124928 124955 124945 124421 124522 124816 124852 125133 125388 125188 125088
1996 125125 125639 125862 125994 126244 126602 126947 127172 127536 127890 127771 127860
1997 128298 128298 128891 129143 129464 129412 129822 130010 130019 130179 130653 130679
1998 130726 130807 130814 131209 131325 131244 131329 131390 131986 131999 132280 132602
1999 133027 132856 132947 132955 133311 133378 133414 133591 133707 133993 134309 134523
2000 136561 136599 136668 137264 136611 136923 136516 136701 136908 137124 137316 137632
2001 137790 137581 137738 137275 137063 136842 137091 136314 136869 136447 136234 136078
2002 135715 136362 136106 136096 136505 136353 136478 136811 137337 137079 136545 136459
2003 137447 137318 137300 137578 137505 137673 137604 137693 137644 138095 138533 138479
2004 138566 138301 138298 138576

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls (Request the 2nd form on the list- "Civilian Employment")

[mhr]

6. Employment Goes Up Because Population Grows

That's not the point of the want ad index.

At any given time it measures the availability of jobs.

That fact that total jobs goes up is irrelevant.

If there are not enough jobs for available job seekers then there is a problem.

If the want ad index declines then the pool of open jobs is stable or declining.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. I realize that

and also that it is a raw number devoid of qualification- that is- how many jobs were lost and then replaced by a lower paying job, etc....

[TahitiNut]

8. Wrong.

You say "steadily" yet if you compare the numbers in 2002 to the numbers in 2001, you'll see declines in the first seven months compared to the same months in the prior year. Likewise, comparing 2001 to 200, you'll see declines in the last 5 months.

One would expect, merely on the basis of population growth, increases on the order of 2.4 million jobs. The average annual rate of jobs growth over the past 50 years has been more than 2%.

We don't see that. We see losses and very anemic growth in the last three years.

Since you seem to prefer "Seasonally Adjusted" figures ...

[mhr]

9. TahitiNut - Thanks For The Clarification

eom

[section321]

10. Nice graph. Kinda says it all....

We're definitely below trend. This should be the basis of Kerry ads wheen he talks about jobs.

I can see it now...

<SHOW GRAPH WITH REAL AND TREND EMPLOYMENT MOVING UP FROM 1941>

<VOICE> Throughout the post WWII period, employment has steadily gained as our economy has prospered.

<GRAPH LINES START TO DIVERGE IN 2001, ZOOM IN>
<VOICE> However, all that change when George W. Bush became president. This unprecendented failure to create jobs has hurt Americans accross the nation.
<SHOW PICTURES OF PEOPLE OUT OF WORK AND SAD>

<VOICE> American workers can't afford 4 more years of George Bush's failed industrial polices.

[TahitiNut]

12. It's amazing (sad) how many people can't read a graph.

Since my undergraduate major was mathematics, it's something I often forget. It comes almost naturally for me, after decades doing analytical work, to get a picture of such trends. I'd forget if it weren't for the number of times I just get blank stares when I show folks thsee things.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. that trend line can't continue to curve more steeply upwards

it's not realistic. At some point it has to stop approaching vertical.

[TahitiNut]

14. That's a typical (2nd order) population growth curve.

For a overview of human population growth, and the checks and balances, you might wish to read something like http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Populations.html where it says:

Exponential growth cannot continue indefinitely. If the current world value for r (1.3%) remains unchanged, the world population would grow from its current 6.3 billion to 43 billion over the next 147 years (2150).

* Will it? Probably not.
* Could the earth's resources sustain such a population?
* If not, how large a human population can live decently on this planet?

There, you'll also see ...

You might note that the population of the world is around 6.3 billion right now.

On edit: The employment growth curve, while clearly based on population growth, will probably not behave similarly to the population growth curve as population encounters limiting events. Indeed, depending on the nature of such event(s), the employment growth may accelerate out of necessity. :shrug:
That, however, is pertinent to a far longer time interval than we're concerned with, so the trend is valid. If you're interested, you might research the term "Malthusian catastrope" for some interesting reading.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

11. Hey, this is not my "bag" (economics)

I was just looking for some info. and quickly found that stat.
Thanks for the help.