US employment
Den senaste statistiken visar att arbetslösheten steg kraftig till 6,5%.
Två viktiga faktorer har spelat roll för uppgången .
Ena är att det är mer fördelaktig för firmor och säga upp folk än och minska arbetstimmar för att varje arbetare har fast kostnad.
Statistiken visar tydlig att average weekly hours var stabil vid 33,6 ,vanligvis brukar hours worked sjunka kraftig under lågkonjukturer ,divergensen mellan stigande arbetsköshets siffror och arbetstimmar ,visar att firmorna söger upp folk fortare än de sänker arbetstimmar ,som är en anledning till varför arbetslösheten steg så kraftig .
En annna faktor är förlängning av så kallade unemployments benefits som har uppmuntrat folket och säga att de söker jobb bara för att ta nytta av den nya regeln och fortsätta och få bidrag.
Eftersom sysselsättningssiffor är laging indikator då är det naturlig med tanke på situationen att siffrorna är dåliga och kommer och vara det ett tag till men det beräätar inte om den kommande återhämtningen .
Inlägget är redigerat av författaren.
#1 Läs om inlägget,det är som en vicous cycle varje gång du läser den då hittar du nåt nytt.
"Markets are nevU.S. Unemployment Rate Climbs to 14-Year High of 6.5%
Nov. 7 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. unemployment rate rose to the highest level since 1994 as companies slashed payrolls, setting the stage for the steepest economic decline in decades and a tough start for Barack Obama?s presidency.
The jobless rate rose to 6.5 percent in October from 6.1 percent the previous month, the Labor Department reported today in Washington. Employers fired 240,000 workers after a loss of 284,000 in September, the biggest two-month slide since 2001.
"We?re heading for a deep recession -- banish the word mild from your vocabulary -- it?s big, it?s bad and it?s broad-based," said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts.
U.S. Unemployment Rate Climbs to 14-Year High of 6.5%
Nov. 7 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. unemployment rate rose to the highest level since 1994 as companies slashed payrolls, setting the stage for the steepest economic decline in decades and a tough start for Barack Obama?s presidency.
The jobless rate rose to 6.5 percent in October from 6.1 percent the previous month, the Labor Department reported today in Washington. Employers fired 240,000 workers after a loss of 284,000 in September, the biggest two-month slide since 2001.
"We?re heading for a deep recession -- banish the word mild from your vocabulary -- it?s big, it?s bad and it?s broad-based," said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts.
er wrong - opinions often are"
Ännu mer saker som tackvare felaktiga räknesätt eller helt medvetet för att få det att se bättre ut än vad det är. Här är lite nfo om detta från Chris Martenson
This data fits in with the general theme of this recession being unlike any in recent memory. In my estimation, the job losses are just getting started, and we can fully count on another 12-18 months of increasing losses.
I reserve the possibility that the total number of losses could be far worse than any prior recessions, for two reasons. First, this is the largest credit bubble ever to burst, so this means the bottom will be lower than any prior events. The second reason is that the US is now an 80% service-based economy. Those jobs are easy come, easy go, so the number of them that "go" could be a real shocker.
And, of course, these numbers would have been a lot worse if the venerable Birth-Death model at the BLS had not added (yes, that's right, added) an additional 71,000 jobs back onto the sampled losses.
This is beyond preposterous. Certainly by now, if this were an honest mistake of honest statistical modelers, they would have admitted publicly that their model is clearly broken and in need of repair.
I am certain that we've been in recession since February, and yet, during that time the BLS job modelers have added 1,180,000 jobs to the official landscape.
The Birth-Death model, despite negative GDP, negative spending, negative industrial output, and negative hiring activity, has not recorded a single losing month from February onwards. How is that even remotely possible? Perhaps they should rename it the Birth-Birth model?
As a sanity check, note that the model has added construction jobs in each and every month, without exception, despite the largest fall-off in residential construction ever on record.
One wonders what is in this model? If I were building such a model, I would use inputs such as "spending activity" and "units built/shipped" as my drivers.
I strongly suspect that their "model" is little more than this formula: (prior amount of jobs) x (some factor.
At any rate, after subtracting out these mythical 71,000 jobs for October, the reported number would have been -311,000 jobs.
Worst of all, I suspect that all 1,180,000 jobs added by the Birth-Death model are in error and will have to be removed from the official numbers in the future.
This constant fibbing to ourselves about the true state of affairs is harmful because it prevents accurate diagnosis and treatment of what ails us.
"Markets are never wrong - opinions often are"
Visa sida
Ogilla! 3
Gilla!
#0
De har helt enkelt inget att göra! ;)