Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Sabri Oncu wrote: Hey, I also hired a few science Ph.Ds from very respectable schools for boring programing jobs (Ravi would know what I mean if I say they were required to write FORTRAN programs) for about $50K. i see what you mean, but fortran is a pleasure compared to what a lot of software was written in back in the days: cobol! ;-) with the downturn in the economy strange things such as salary bargaining have cropped up: i heard a story the other day from a friend, who was earning in the six figures doing the trendy new stuff (SAP or some such), that at a recent interview, towards the end, he was given an option to beat the minimum salary that previous candidates had been willing to take! a recent issue of business week published various upbeat predictions (including one from the dean of columbia's b-school) about how mba's are going to be back up, in order to make up for the fact that b-school graduates are doing poorly: the data mentioned in the article mentioned as low as 60% recruitment rates for fresh top b-school graduates, and the disappearance of 5 figure sign-on bonuses etc. the best way to stay above the water and keep up with a yuppie lifestyle, at this point, seems to be to either biotech or somehow position oneself in the defense pipeline... --ravi
Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PEN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:24781] Re: BLS Daily Report Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 16:19:02 -0700 From today's BLS daily report: Education increases income, says USA Today, in its page 3B box showing median household income, based on education. According to it, households in which there is a professional degree have an income of $100,000; those with a doctorate degree, $97,325; households in which there is a Masters degree have an income of $74,476; those with a bachelor's degree $64,406; households with an associate degree, $49,279; those with some college, no degree, $44,149; households that include a high school graduate, $35,744; households with an education consisting of ninth to 12th grade, $21,737, and households that include someone with below a ninth grade education, $17,261. Income is based on 1999 data from the U.S. Census and the College Board. Here is an anecdote from a former hiring authority: Not that long ago, I was asked to hire a few recent graduates for some data entry jobs. Without exception, the ones I hired were very smart young fellows with bachelor' s degrees from respectable universities like UC Berkeley, Brown, Tulane and the like. What these young fellows with degrees in economics, physics, mathematics, engineering and the like were making were about $25,000 or so. Most of these young men and women accepted the jobs because they were interested in some experience that would help them go to an MBA program. Now, how does this compare to the above mentioned $64,406 for the median household with a bachelor's degree? What kind of a household is this median household and how relevant it is to look at the median in this context? By the way, you don't need degrees in those areas for data entry, nor you have any hope to save enough to apply for an MBA degree at a decent school here in Berkeley, unless your family has the means to support you. So most of these young men and women were stuck with boring jobs with nowhere to go. Hey, I also hired a few science Ph.Ds from very respectable schools for boring programing jobs (Ravi would know what I mean if I say they were required to write FORTRAN programs) for about $50K. Something is wrong with this USA Today picture or was I working at a firm/firms from Mars? Sabri The income is by household, not individual. I´d be interested in seeing disaggregations of this data by college major, college attended, GPA, etc. What explains the large difference between some college attended, bachelor´s degree and associate degree? Sabri mentions that he hired econ, math, and physics majors for data entry for $25,000 a year, which raises the question:what is the median income for useless (I know that they are not actually useless and many intelligent people choose to study these fields, but they are not immediately marketable or apparently much in demand by business) undergrad majors such as these? _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
You wrote: The income is by household, not individual. I know. Of all the ones I hired, only one of the PhDs was married but his wife did not work so his income was his household income. That means all of the incomes I mentioned were household incomes since, with the exception of him, my guys were also single individual households. As far as useless degrees go, we had an unmarried English Ph.D. in the accounting department of one of the firms I worked at, so she was a single individual household too, and she wasn't making half of $97,325 (the median income for a household with a PhD according to USA Today) for sure. I have seen anthropology PhDs working for less than $20K in documentation departments, sociology PhDs working for less than $30K in quality assurance (testing software for bugs) departments, what have you. You cannot imagine how boring this software testing is, whether the tester is a sociology PhD or not. Well. I would say, there is no point of studying anthropology, sociology, English, mathematics, physics, music and the like. We all need Business Administration degrees. I particularly recommend an MBA. Sabri
RE: Re: RE: BLS Daily Report
RE It's not easy to read the tenure numbers - tenure could rise in a weak job market, as people hold on to what they have, and fall in a strong one, as they feel confident about changing jobs The national numbers don't show that much of a change between 1983 and 2000 And I believe I read recently that whereas firms for many years tried to layoff older and higher paid workers (who tended to have long tenure) they often now target younger/less skilled (who tend to have lower tenure) Eric
Re: Re: RE: BLS Daily Report
Well Manitoba and other Canadian provinces seem intent on training nurses to export to the US. Poorer provinces, such as Manitoba, also pay to train nurses who consequently migrate to richer provinces such as Alberta. We do the same thing with doctors. Our local rural hospital has 2 doctors from South Africa and 1 from Poland. Saskatchewan is noted for its lack of Canadian trained doctors in rural areas. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 4:39 PM Subject: [PEN-L:21814] Re: RE: BLS Daily Report The nurses do not exist in those numbers. He is grandstanding -- unless we can kidnap nurses from elsewhere. On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 02:28:26PM -0800, Devine, James wrote: so what does pen-l think of the following? California hospitals will need 5,000 more workers to meet proposed minimum nurse-staffing levels released Tuesday by California Gov. Gray Davis. Davis' plan requires a minimum of one nurse for every five patients in medical wards -- and fewer patients per nurse in labor and delivery, emergency rooms and critical-care units. (The New York Times, page A15). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: BLS Daily Report
The nurses do not exist in those numbers. He is grandstanding -- unless we can kidnap nurses from elsewhere. On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 02:28:26PM -0800, Devine, James wrote: so what does pen-l think of the following? California hospitals will need 5,000 more workers to meet proposed minimum nurse-staffing levels released Tuesday by California Gov. Gray Davis. Davis' plan requires a minimum of one nurse for every five patients in medical wards -- and fewer patients per nurse in labor and delivery, emergency rooms and critical-care units. (The New York Times, page A15). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: RE: BLS Daily Report
it also encourages hospitals to kick patients out. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Michael Perelman writes: The nurses do not exist in those numbers. He is grandstanding -- unless we can kidnap nurses from elsewhere. so what does pen-l think of the following? California hospitals will need 5,000 more workers to meet proposed minimum nurse-staffing levels released Tuesday by California Gov. Gray Davis. Davis' plan requires a minimum of one nurse for every five patients in medical wards -- and fewer patients per nurse in labor and delivery, emergency rooms and critical-care units. (The New York Times, page A15).
Re: Re: RE: BLS Daily Report
Michael, It is interesting that last week in Winnipeg there was a 'job fair' where hundreds of American hospitals sent recruiters to entice Canadian (Manitoban) nurses to the US, Texas and North Carolina were particularly prominent. We have just re-introduced a two-year registered nurse training program to address the nurse shortage here and the American states were sending up recruiters to lure our recent graduates away with signing bonuses, moving and living allowances, etc -- simply because apparently the US is unwilling to pay to train its own supply of nurses. In other words, pure exploitation of the public education system of its colonies. Have you people no shame? ;-) Paul Phillips, Economics University of Manitoba Date sent: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:39:35 -0800 From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:21814] Re: RE: BLS Daily Report Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The nurses do not exist in those numbers. He is grandstanding -- unless we can kidnap nurses from elsewhere. On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 02:28:26PM -0800, Devine, James wrote: so what does pen-l think of the following? California hospitals will need 5,000 more workers to meet proposed minimum nurse-staffing levels released Tuesday by California Gov. Gray Davis. Davis' plan requires a minimum of one nurse for every five patients in medical wards -- and fewer patients per nurse in labor and delivery, emergency rooms and critical-care units. (The New York Times, page A15). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: BLS Daily Report
State revenue forecasts came in below expectations last year, so retrenchment has already begun. As state legislatures begin convening I suspect they will take a pessimistic view of revenues (which probably are a lagging indicator anyway) and move accordingly. There is little indication the Feds are going to help them out, so if the forecasts of recovery by summer are wrong, the U.S. could be pretty deep in doo-doo. mbs I have noticed that a number of forcasters have noted the less than expected rise in unemployment indicates that the economy is beginning to rebound from the recession. But if one of the reasons that the rise in unemployment was due to the increase in government employment, how much of that is at the state level which, due to requirements for balanced budgets, means that curtailment of employment will occur if the recession cuts into state revenues. In other words, is the recent increase in public employment sustainable, or will subsequent cuts to state revenues reverse the procedure and lead to falling public employment? Anybody got any ideas? Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
William S. Lear wrote: On Wednesday, January 2, 2002 at 09:10:51 (-0500) Richardson_D writes: BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 31, 2001: Mass layoff events totaled 2,699 in November resulting in job losses for 293,074 workers while 350 of those events were directly or indirectly related to the September 11 terrorist attacks, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The total number of layoff events and the total number of persons affected were the highest for any November on record since the data series began in 1995. After the September 11 attacks, BLS added a new classification -- non-natural disaster -- for use in the quarterly reporting of extended mass layoffs. Those events involved nearly 104,000 workers between September 15 through November 11, BLS reports (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). How exactly do they determine that a layoff was directly or indirectly related to the 9/11 and not directly related to the employer's need for an excuse? ftp://146.142.4.23/pub/news.release/mmls.txt Impact of the September 11 Attacks After the events of September 11, BLS added a new code for reason for layoff, 'non-natural disaster,' for use in the quarterly reporting of extended mass layoffs (those lasting more than 30 days). This allows for the identification of workers separated from companies as a direct or indirect effect of situations such as the September 11 attacks. BLS also implemented interim reporting of extended mass layoffs in order to analyze the layoff impact of those attacks on a more timely basis. In the 10 weeks following the September 11 attacks (the weeks ending September 15 through November 17), employers reported 350 events involving 103,781 workers separated as a direct or indirect effect of the attacks. Thirty-one states reported extended mass layoff activity related to the September 11 incidents. However, 69 percent of these events and 64 percent of the associated separations occurred in just six states--California, Nevada, New York, Illinois, Texas, and Florida. Among the workers laid off because of the terrorist attacks, 42 percent, or 43,795, had been employed in the scheduled air transportation industry. An additional 29 percent, or 30,399 workers, had been employed in hotels and motels. Thirty-one percent of the employers reporting extended mass layoffs related to the attacks indicated they anticipated some type of recall.
Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
This looks bad, very bad. It's a good article, though. One crucial thing that leaps out it that it wasn't fixed exchange rates weren't the problem. The exchange-rate regime simply changes the form of a crisis. Further the E. Asian banks and financial systems didn't completely recover from 1997, as the article makes clear. The problem is of capital adequacy, which suggests that these banks will go 'rupt when the world recession deepens. With the US, Japan, and Euroland doing so poorly, E. Asia will sink. This will bounce back to depress the US further. A wild ride... Warning signs Oct 25th 2001 From The Economist print edition Asia's slump could once again strain the region's financial system The economic news from East Asia gets worse by the day. Singapore is suffering its worst recession for almost 40 years: real GDP fell by 5.6% in the year to the third quarter. Taiwan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Thailand and the Philippines are already in or close to recession. How vulnerable is Asia to another financial crisis? In 1997 pegged exchange rates, high foreign-currency borrowing and weak bank supervision left many Asian financial systems horribly vulnerable to a sharp fall in exports and capital outflows. Most of the region's economies now have flexible exchange rates, current-account surpluses, large foreign reserves and sounder banking systemsall of which suggests that another crisis is unlikely. But a new report by Sun-Bae Kim at Goldman Sachs in Hong Kong reaches a more sobering conclusion: not only is Asia suffering a more severe economic shock than it did before the crisis of 1997-98, but its financial system is, overall, no stronger than it was then. One gauge of the size of the economic shock hitting the financial system is the slowdown in the rate of growth of nominal GDP. This is a proxy for the capacity of the economy to generate cash flow, from which debts must be serviced. Most economies have seen a much sharper fall in nominal growth over the past year than leading up to the 1997 crisis (see chart). In Malaysia, the year-on-year rate of nominal GDP growth has fallen from 20% in early 2000 to minus 2% in the second quarter of this year. How bad this cash-flow shock is depends upon the level of private-sector debt, and upon how many of the outstanding loans are already non-performing. In East Asia as a whole, private-sector debt is smaller in relation to GDP than in 1997, but non-performing loans now amount to 15% of GDP, up from 11% before the 1997 crisis. If the economic shock is bigger, do financial systems have thicker buffers than in 1997? They certainly look healthier today on various measures of liquidity. In 1997 foreign lenders triggered a liquidity crunch by refusing to roll over loans. Today, the foreign borrowing of the financial system amounts to 30% of foreign-exchange reserves, down from 70% in 1997. On various measures of solvency, however, many Asian financial systems look wobbly. The average capital-adequacy ratio of the banks is slightly lower than at the end of 1996. Ratios of government debt to GDP are much higher today than in 1997, leaving governments less able to bail out banking systems again. Public-sector debt has risen from an average of 28% of GDP at the end of 1996 to 45% of GDP today. The worrying conclusion is that although Asia's financial system is less vulnerable to a sudden liquidity crisis, there is a risk of a deeper, more drawn-out deflation, exacerbated by domestic debtsimilar to that in Japan. China alone looks better placed than in 1997: the economic shock currently hitting China is milder than in the lead-up to the previous crisis, when deflation was more severe. Nor does its financial system look significantly more exposed (thanks largely to a currency that is only partially convertible). Goldman Sachs reckons that the most vulnerable financial systems are in Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and Indonesia. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine NTMail K12 - the Mail Server for Education
Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Tom Walker wrote: Doug Henwood wrote, remember, the U.S. economy has expanded for about 75% of the time since the end of WW II That sounds like an underestimate to me. All I've got handy is annual GDP figures for Canada, 1962-99. They show 3 years out of 38 contracting. Assuming those 3 minus years contracted for 4 consecutive quarters and throwing in another 12 quarters of contraction for good measure, leaves about 85% expansion. This crude reckoning corroborates the guess I made before cranking up my spreadsheet. I wouldn't expect the U.S. record for the entire post wwII period to be worse. I hadn't checked my numbers in a while, but you're right - it's close to 85% (using the NBER monthly dating). From 1854-1919, it was just 55% of the months in expansion. But I should point out that if you walk out in the rain, you are probably not getting hit by raindrops on more than 15% of your body surface at any one time. That 15% can get you awful wet. Numbers that are least accurate at turning points are like brakes that work most of the time except for sudden stops or on steep hills. So let me see if I've got this right - the BLS shouldn't use a more accurate technique because there's a one in ten chance it will be briefly inaccurate? Turning points, after all, are even briefer than recessions themselves - we're talking about a few months out of many years. And they produce plenty of other numbers - e.g. the household survey and the unemployment claims figures - which do give an accurate and almost-real time picture of what's going on. Doug
Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/11/01 05:34PM - remember, the U.S. economy has expanded for about 75% of the time since the end of WW II, though you'd never know that by reading PEN-L - CB: What percentage of the time before WWII did the U.S. economy expand ?
Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Rob Schaap wrote: All very nice, except the BLS Report told us yesterday of ... a little secret in the employment report that you should know about. The Labor Department said payroll employment fell 114,000 in June. What it did not tell you is that this reported change includes a bias adjustment factor that adds about 160,000 jobs a month. This bias factor is basically picked out of thin air, and is supposed to capture employment in newly started firms that Labor misses in its survey. In other words, Labor doesn't know how many new hires occurred at new companies, so it assumes a number. In its June report, it continued to guess that it missed 155,000 new hires. The problem is, that when the economy slumps, so do new business start-ups. A good indicator of new business starts is the Conference Board's index of help-wanted advertising. This index has plummeted back to levels last seen at the end of the 1990 recession. Which little statistical fib might mean these fatter consumer wallets will be counteracted by the fact there are fewer of them. This is not a fib. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, where this article originally appeared, predictably spun it as a bunch of lying incompetents in the governemnt picking numbers out of the air, but that's not fair. The BLS imputes this number because they've found over the years that it's more accurate most of the time, because in expansions - remember, the U.S. economy has expanded for about 75% of the time since the end of WW II, though you'd never know that by reading PEN-L - their employer survey underestimates actual job growth, for just the reason mentioned, startup firms not covered by their survey universe. It's an entirely reasonable thing to do, and has proven more accurate than the raw survey number over the long term. It's wrong at turning points; it underestimates job creation early in recoveries, and overestimates it at peaks and early in recessions. But that's not most of the time (which you'd never know from reading PEN-L). Doug
Re: Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
G'day Doug, It's wrong at turning points; it underestimates job creation early in recoveries, and overestimates it at peaks and early in recessions. But that's not most of the time (which you'd never know from reading PEN-L). Fair enough. But we have had evidence for well over a year (in productivity, profits, capacity utilisation, business start-ups, and equity markets) that we could be recession-bound. So BLS is right to warn us. Perhaps it should have done so in the words you use above. But I reckon my question stands, don't you? Cheers, Rob.
Re: Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Rob Schaap wrote: Which little statistical fib. . . Doug responded: This is not a fib. I generally have a lot of respect for the data produced by the BLS. They do a very good job at trying to figure out what is going on in the economy. They occasionally do introduce adjustments to take care of biases but these adjustments are generally very well motivated. However, casual users of BLS data often fail to noted some of the details behind the series the BLS generates and, so, often misuse/misunderstand these series. For instance the BLS reacted very well, and appropriately, to the attacks made against the CPI a few years ago. They didn't do anything to their series just to respond to the political pressure put on it by congress. Eric
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Nurses are distinctly underpaid in relation to their responsibilities -- in the hospital, they are the ones who keep you alive. maggie Jim Devine wrote: I have no complaints about PAs. When I was on the HMO, the doc's office assigned me to the PA (since they treated me as a second-class citizen). Then I went on the Preferred Provider plan and got the doc himself. He's fine, but too much into prescribing pills as a solution to all ills. I'm back on the HMO now (I've got to cut costs!) so I'm a second-class citizen again (I get sent out to get my blood checked for cholesterol rather than having it done in-house), but I wouldn't mind seeing the PA again. Many nurses complain about the high pay that PAs get, though. At 08:17 PM 02/27/2001 -0600, you wrote: Yeah, but Physicians Assistants make more, on average, than nurses and can go into practice for themselves. Also, at least for women, PAs often provide better care than MDs -- for ex., PAs are midwives and provide routine gynecological care. I went to a PA for years instead of a gyno, and she pulled me through a couple of problems the gynos couldn't identify. Also, PAs are frequently trained in abortion and can provide services in a doctors office in many places where there are absolutely no other service providers available. maggie coleman Jim Devine wrote: Some nursing jobs have been taken over by Physicians' Assistants, who are basically low-paid MDs. At 12:17 PM 2/26/01 -0800, you wrote: Part time nurses under temporary contracts are doing quite well, although hospitals are downgrading many traditional nursing jobs to have non-professionals take over. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Also, full time nurses work short staffed and forced over time on a routine basis. My mother was just is for cancer surgery and the night nurses worked 12 hour shifts all the time. maggie coleman Michael Perelman wrote: Part time nurses under temporary contracts are doing quite well, although hospitals are downgrading many traditional nursing jobs to have non-professionals take over. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Yeah, but Physicians Assistants make more, on average, than nurses and can go into practice for themselves. Also, at least for women, PAs often provide better care than MDs -- for ex., PAs are midwives and provide routine gynecological care. I went to a PA for years instead of a gyno, and she pulled me through a couple of problems the gynos couldn't identify. Also, PAs are frequently trained in abortion and can provide services in a doctors office in many places where there are absolutely no other service providers available. maggie coleman Jim Devine wrote: Some nursing jobs have been taken over by Physicians' Assistants, who are basically low-paid MDs. At 12:17 PM 2/26/01 -0800, you wrote: Part time nurses under temporary contracts are doing quite well, although hospitals are downgrading many traditional nursing jobs to have non-professionals take over. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
I have no complaints about PAs. When I was on the HMO, the doc's office assigned me to the PA (since they treated me as a second-class citizen). Then I went on the Preferred Provider plan and got the doc himself. He's fine, but too much into prescribing pills as a solution to all ills. I'm back on the HMO now (I've got to cut costs!) so I'm a second-class citizen again (I get sent out to get my blood checked for cholesterol rather than having it done in-house), but I wouldn't mind seeing the PA again. Many nurses complain about the high pay that PAs get, though. At 08:17 PM 02/27/2001 -0600, you wrote: Yeah, but Physicians Assistants make more, on average, than nurses and can go into practice for themselves. Also, at least for women, PAs often provide better care than MDs -- for ex., PAs are midwives and provide routine gynecological care. I went to a PA for years instead of a gyno, and she pulled me through a couple of problems the gynos couldn't identify. Also, PAs are frequently trained in abortion and can provide services in a doctors office in many places where there are absolutely no other service providers available. maggie coleman Jim Devine wrote: Some nursing jobs have been taken over by Physicians' Assistants, who are basically low-paid MDs. At 12:17 PM 2/26/01 -0800, you wrote: Part time nurses under temporary contracts are doing quite well, although hospitals are downgrading many traditional nursing jobs to have non-professionals take over. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Some nursing jobs have been taken over by Physicians' Assistants, who are basically low-paid MDs. At 12:17 PM 2/26/01 -0800, you wrote: Part time nurses under temporary contracts are doing quite well, although hospitals are downgrading many traditional nursing jobs to have non-professionals take over. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Michael Perelman wrote: Marc Linder seems to lead several lives. Remember Anti-Samuelson. He's a law prof at the University of Iowa, who seems to publish a book a year. He co-authored a history of Brooklyn that came out about a year ago, and Void Where Prohibited, which uses restrictions on workers' freedom to take pee breaks to talk about employer control of time on the job. Excellent stuff. Doug
RE: Re: BLS Daily Report
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Charles Brown Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 12:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:2089] Re: BLS Daily Report [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/20/00 12:08PM BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2000: -clip- The percentage of young Americans holding summer jobs fell again this year, due to the strong economy, expanded summer-school programs and the growing popularity of unpaid internships, the Labor Department said (The Wall Street Journal's Work Week feature, page 1). (( CB: Gee, I wonder why UNpaid internships are popular. Are they popular with the interns ?
RE: Re: BLS Daily Report
sure. if your family is wealthy enough so that you don't care about money, they're a way to build your resume. They're a way to use family and other connections. In effect, it's a way that the class origins of the privileged are preserved. mbs (( CB: Gee, I wonder why UNpaid internships are popular. Are they popular with the interns ?
Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
These figures sound like an underestimate. I thought the figure in the latest edition of State of Working America was an additional 250 hours a year, with couples in $30,000-$75,000 range averaging 3800 hours annually. Time pressures like these mean that it is ever harder to maintain the myth that the family can stand alone, as an autonomous social unit. No wonder that for the first time in a generation, the U.S. electorate seems somewhat more receptive to an expansion of social programs. Joel Blau Timework Web wrote: > The average American employee works just 2 more hours a week than in > 1982, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But Randy E. Ilg, a > senior economist at the Bureau, says that figure probably understated > the problem because women have been surging into the work force, and > their generally shorter hours appear to have pulled down the average. > Only in the workweek statistics by households does the increase jump off > the page . . . Aside from the 2 hour figure "understating the problem", it is the only time in -- what? -- over 150 years that average annual hours INCREASED over more than a decade. It is an unprecedented reversal of what had been until recently an inexorable trend. Seen in that light, an increase of "just" 2 hours a week is extraordinary. More light will be shed on this issue by the forthcoming book _Working Time: International Trends, Theory and Policy Perspectives_, edited by Lonnie Golden and Deborah M. Figart, from Routledge in November 2000. I will gladly forward a table of contents to anyone who's interested. Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant 215-2273
RE: Re: BLS Daily Report
Is this Black hole a metaphor , or is it mathematically exact analogy ? CB In either the July or August Federal Reserve Bulletin, they do sound pretty scared about the trade deficit. Also the latest issue of Foreign Policy has a piece by Martin Wold titled "The Mother of All Meltdowns" http://foreignpolicy.com [the essay ain't on the site unfortunately]. Also, does the Krueger report go into the whole ergonomics controversy over carpal tunnel and repetitive strains [litigation that was first broughtforward by a NYTimes writer if I recall correctly]? Ian == __The current account deficit -- the broadest measure of the U.S. trade gap -- hit yet another record high last quarter. But there is little evidence so far that it is hurting the U.S. economy or the dollar, according to The Wall Street Journal (page A2). The Labor Department said that over-all import prices climbed 0.2 percent in August, after remaining unchanged in July. The price of petroleum imports rose a moderate 0.6 percent in August, after dropping 1.6 percent in July and soaring 10.6 percent in June. __Lurking in the middle of an otherwise perfect American economy is a black hole in the form of an enormous trade deficit -- more than $400 billion (4 percent of the gross domestic product) and still rising, as the Commerce Department reports. In astrophysics, a black hole sucks everything, including light, into them, and nothing ever gets out. Everyone -- from Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan to public and private analysts in the rest of the world -- worries that, like a real black hole, the trade deficit will cause America's current economic success to simply disappear. In fact, Congress is so worried that it established a U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission to investigate the dangers and how they might be avoided. The commission [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/18/00 03:33PM BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2000: Today's News Release: "Producer Price Indexes -- August 2000", indicates that the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods decreased 0.2 percent in August, seasonally adjusted. This index showed no change in July and increased 0.6 percent in June. The index for finished goods other than foods and energy edged up 0.1 percent in August, the same rate as in July. Prices received by manufacturers of intermediate goods fell 0.2 percent, following a 0.2 percent advance a month earlier. The crude goods index decreased 1.5 percent, after falling 1.1 percent in July. With little fanfare, the workplace has become a safer place to be, writes Alan B. Krueger, Bendheim Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, writing the "Economic Scene" in The New York Times (page C2). Since 1992, the number of work-related injuries and illnesses has fallen 25 percent, to 6.7 per 100 full-time workers from 8.9. This unexpected improvement translates to at least a $125 billion annual lift for the economy. The decline in injuries is remarkable because it reverses a historical pattern discovered by Robert S. Smith of Cornell in 1972: Injuries usually rise when unemployment falls because work intensity increases and many inexperienced workers are hired. Yet the tightest labor market in a generation has coincided with the lowest work-related injury and illness rate since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started tracking it. The decline does not appear to be a mere reporting phenomenon. Although studies have found that employers tend to under report injuries about 10 percent, the under reporting appears constant over time. Also, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries -- which are unlikely to be underreported -- indicates a 13 percent drop in the fatality rate since 1992. In response to escalating costs, some states tightened eligibility standards for benefits and restricted employees' choice of medical providers in the 1990's. But a new study by Leslie Boden of Boston University and John Ruser of the Bureau of Labor Statistics suggests that only a small share of the decline in injuries and illnesses can be traced to these factors. Probably a more important effect of ballooning workers' compensation insurance costs is that many managers recognized that occupational injuries had a significant effect on the bottom line. Instead of viewing injury costs as unavoidable, they developed safety programs to cut risks. The 1990's investment boom in new and safety plants and equipment probably abetted this effort. The United States current account deficit the broadest measure of foreign trade, widened to a record in the second quarter as imports outpaced exports, the Commerce Department says. The deficit rose 4.6 percent, to $106.14 billion in the second quarter, surpassing the earlier record of $101.51 billion set in the previous quarter. The widening was driven primarily by a rise in the deficit for goods.
RE: Re: BLS Daily Report
Thanks for this, I've forwarded it to the crashlist but without attribution: in future do you want me to forward it in your name, or would you like me to sub you to the List? Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList I have subbed you to my new list, LongWave2000, where we will discuss the reversion of the market indices to their pre-existing long run growth trends, notwithstanding the minor hiccups of the past ten days. mbs
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: BLS Daily Report
Mark Jones wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: Hmm, well last I checked, which was year-end 1999, the SP 500 was at 2.9 times its long-term trend price (long-term defined as since 1871). So just going back to the trendline would take the index down by 2/3, to a Dow-equivalent of 3735. And, as any student of Robert Shiller knows, trend overshoots on the high end are usually followed by trend overshoots on the low end, Dow 2000 isn't an unlikely target. That's why you're calling it LongWave2000, right? But the other day you wrote that 'the worst is over', no? Short-term, I meant. I think the great bull market (1982-2000?) is basically over, though. Doug
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: BLS Daily Report
Doug Henwood wrote: I think the great bull market (1982-2000?) is basically over Bull markets aren't usually followed by plateaux, are they? My infamous bet with poor Max was also based on a back-of-envelope calculation that the Dow would logically fall to 3k. BTW, even that would not mean 'the end of capitalist civilisation as we know it', as other soi-disant marxists reproach me wrongly for arguing. I can't say I wouldn't get my pleasure from which the pain in the City though, not to speak of wall st. What _does_ interest me is to speculate about/analyse the consequences and implications for the world [dis]order. Mark Jones
Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Hey, Paul, haven't you heard? We can't afford the social insurance programs we've had in the past. Because of decades of capital accumulation and increasing GDP/capita, our societies have become poorer. Anyone who doesn't know this hasn't been reading the papers or watching TV. Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anyone tell me why the US economy, reputably the strongest and most vibrant (in terms of technological improvement) in the world, is increasingly forced to dragoon its aged to work in order to maintain the minimal (frequently poverty level) standard of its senior citizens? Is this the equivalent of child labour in the Third world? Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba The Social Security retirement age will increase for 150 million working Americans beginning this month, the Social Security Administration said. The increase in the full retirement age begins with individuals born in 1938, whose normal retirement age will be 65 years and 2 months. The age increases in two-month increments for workers born between 1939 and 1943 until the retirement age reaches 66 and remains there for all workers born through 1954. For those born after 1954, the retirement age begins to increase again in two-month increments until it reaches age 67 for those born in 1960 or later, the SSA said. The increase in the retirement age was included in the Social Security Amendments of 1983 (Daily Labor Report, Jan. 25, page A-8). DUE OUT TOMORROW: Employment Cost Index -- December 1999
Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Child labor? Not quite. The narrow-gauged answer is that unlike most social insurance systems, the American social security system is supposed to be self-financing--i.e. it is supposed to be financed from payroll taxes alone and not take money from general revenues. This means that in the last three social security "crises"--1977, 1983, and the late 1990s, the conservative drift of social policy has tried to push back the retirement age, as the only way to make the fund self-sufficient. From a broader perspective, however, you're more on the mark, because what you are seeing is obeisance to the market, and the increase in the number of hours worked per year among all Americans regardless of age--up about 250 hours per year since about 1970. Joel Blau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anyone tell me why the US economy, reputably the strongest and most vibrant (in terms of technological improvement) in the world, is increasingly forced to dragoon its aged to work in order to maintain the minimal (frequently poverty level) standard of its senior citizens? Is this the equivalent of child labour in the Third world? Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba The Social Security retirement age will increase for 150 million working Americans beginning this month, the Social Security Administration said. The increase in the full retirement age begins with individuals born in 1938, whose normal retirement age will be 65 years and 2 months. The age increases in two-month increments for workers born between 1939 and 1943 until the retirement age reaches 66 and remains there for all workers born through 1954. For those born after 1954, the retirement age begins to increase again in two-month increments until it reaches age 67 for those born in 1960 or later, the SSA said. The increase in the retirement age was included in the Social Security Amendments of 1983 (Daily Labor Report, Jan. 25, page A-8). DUE OUT TOMORROW: Employment Cost Index -- December 1999
[PEN-L:12961] Re: Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
If someone said that "high school" is affordable to most Americans that would probably be found quite unacceptable. Why is it that the state's obligation to provide education to everyone who can benefit does not extend to post-secondary education?University should be free, as it is in Cuba. I don't know what the situation in Europe is but I expect in many countries tuition is less than in the US or paid for by the state. In the former USSR it seems to me I recall that students used to complain about their living expenses! Cheers, Ken Hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tuition might be affordable, but in my classes I would guess the typical student works 15 to 20 hours a week. This outside work has increased enormously in the past two decades and represents the chief cause in the decline in what we can teach in a typical semester. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:12952] Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
William S. Lear wrote: Is there information available as to the increases in tuition at various levels over, say, the past 20 years? See http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/Digest97/d97t312.html. Full listing of tables is at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/Digest97/listtables.html. Doug
[PEN-L:12951] Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Tuition might be affordable, but in my classes I would guess the typical student works 15 to 20 hours a week. This outside work has increased enormously in the past two decades and represents the chief cause in the decline in what we can teach in a typical semester. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:12798] Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Jim Devine wrote: Does anyone know what the theory is that the new definition of the poverty line is based on? is this based on Patricia Ruggles' research? Among others. See http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/povmeas.html. Doug
[PEN-L:8997] Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Jim Devine wrote: In what way was the 1997 Asian economic crisis a "great tonic" to the US economy? Is it because the price of US imports fell? That, plus massive capital inflows (ca. $1 trillion since 1995). How much real recovery is there in Asia? or is it just financial markets and banks that are doing better there? Korean industrial production has been rising for several months, and officialdom (including U.S. pundits in the category) is worried that things are mending too quickly for the kinds of "radical reforms" that are "needed." Still, recoveries from deflations tend to be weak and subject to many false starts. How long can the US keep having such large balance of trade (and current account) deficits? Is there some sort of natural limit to US foreign borrowing? Nothing natural about it. Doug
[PEN-L:3276] Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
William S. Lear wrote: Dave, any way you can turn off the Microsoft crud that always follows the text? I don't get any Microsoft crud at the bottom of mine. Maybe Eudora's smart enough to repress it. Doug
[PEN-L:2986] RE: Re: BLS Daily Report
It would be interesting to know what the composition of this NAS panel is. Any friends of EPI? Peter Dorman Next month, a newly appointed committee convened by the National Academy of Sciences will begin a 2-year study of a wide range of issues related to cost of living indexes . . . Katherine Abraham is a friend of ours. Zvi G, who was on the Boskin Commission, was the only one of that group who betrayed significant ambivalence about the output of the Commission. I don't know who else is on the panel. mbs
[PEN-L:2416] Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Tom Walker wrote: RELEASED TODAY: Median weekly earnings of the nation's 96.2 million full-time wage and salary workers were $541 in the fourth quarter of 1998. This was 5.9 percent higher than a year earlier, compared with a gain of 1.5 percent in the CPI-U over the same period. ... Four and a half percent is quite an astonishing increase in real median weekly earnings. The three-year increase in real weekly earnings for all of 1998 - 7.0% - is the highest since the BLS started the all private workers series in 1964, eclipsing 1973's previous record of 6.2%. For manufacturing workers, the 1995-1998 figure was 6.1%, which is lower than the golden age numbers, but still the highest since the early 1970s. Longer hours contributed a lot to recent performance, though; real hourly earnings for all private sector workers were up just 1.9% from 1995 to 1998; in the late 60s/early 70s, the figures were in the 4-7% range. Doug
[PEN-L:2005] Re: Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
G'day Ellen and Jim, Jim writes: IMHO, the strength of the US stock market first and foremost reflects the strength of the US profit rate I get confused here. Many 1998 annual reports within the Fortune 500 pointed at DECLINING profits, no? And might we not be conflating 'core business' performance with profits made on the stock markets? I mean, if a firm spends a heap on buy backs ( other stocks, too, I s'pose) on a roaring Wall St, simply because of CEO stock options and the fact that making the widgets of yore doesn't offer the returns you can get from shares - why, wouldn't profit statements actually be reflecting Wall St (and a bubble at that) rather than underpinning it? Sorry if this is crap. I just gotta know, that's all. Cheers, Rob.
[PEN-L:2003] Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Ellen quotes: BLS DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1999 The prevailing view at the three-day meeting of the American Economic Association was that high stock prices probably reflect the economy's actual strength and not a speculative bubble that could burst. ... In the minds of many economists, the stock market serves mainly as a gauge of the real economy and a stimulus for spending. Ellen writes: Over the last few days, I have been looking over data on wages, exports, bankruptcies, etc. in the former so-called emerging markets. International capital, it seems, is really putting the screws to the laboring classes in Asia and South America. Asian assets are on sale at rock-bottom prices; commodity prices are so low, they're practically giving them away. Is this not the triumph of capitalism? Little wonder the Dow hit 9500. IMHO, the strength of the US stock market first and foremost reflects the strength of the US profit rate, with the speculative bubble being present but secondary. Orthodox economists tend to conflate what's good for capital (the profit rate, a high stock market) with what's good for the people (the GDP and its distribution, with limited negative environmental impact, etc., etc.) So it's natural that they would make this mistake. The question is whether the high US profit rate will persist given the mess that the rest of the world is in, not to mention the dynamic problems the result when an economy enjoys (and suffers from) a high and rising profit rate. (See my 1994 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY paper, on-line at: http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/subpages/depr/D0.html or /Depr.html) Can the "triumph of capitalism" (or more accurately of some sectors of US capitalism) persist? It didn't after 1929, the previous period of similar capitalist triumphalism. So the question is: are we currently in the historical analogy of 1929 or of 1927? Ellen, it was good to see you at the convention! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:2007] Re: Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Jim Devine wrote: Ellen writes: Over the last few days, I have been looking over data on wages, exports, bankruptcies, etc. in the former so-called emerging markets. International capital, it seems, is really putting the screws to the laboring classes in Asia and South America. Asian assets are on sale at rock-bottom prices; commodity prices are so low, they're practically giving them away. Is this not the triumph of capitalism? Little wonder the Dow hit 9500. IMHO, the strength of the US stock market first and foremost reflects the strength of the US profit rate, with the speculative bubble being present but secondary. Orthodox economists tend to conflate what's good for capital (the profit rate, a high stock market) with what's good for the people (the GDP and its distribution, with limited negative environmental impact, etc., etc.) So it's natural that they would make this mistake. The question is whether the high US profit rate will persist given the mess that the rest of the world is in, not to mention the dynamic problems the result when an economy enjoys (and suffers from) a high and rising profit rate. (See my 1994 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY paper, on-line at: http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/subpages/depr/D0.html or /Depr.html) Can the "triumph of capitalism" (or more accurately of some sectors of US capitalism) persist? It didn't after 1929, the previous period of similar capitalist triumphalism. So the question is: are we currently in the historical analogy of 1929 or of 1927? It seems, though, that US capital has found ways to benefit from the mess in the rest of the world. GE, for example, made huge purchases in Asia, which it had been eyeing and organizing for some time but had found them too expensive. The capital goods are so cheap now that even if it takes years for Asia to recover, GE will make out like bandits. And their stock will continue to soar. It's the old maxim about a crisis causing consolidation of capital, but the winners and losers were already mapped out before the crisis started. If we believe that profit rates equalize across sectors, then this banditry should create rising profitability in the US by raising the opportunity cost of investing. This would not preclude shrinkage in the "real" sector; in fact, it might even encourage it. Cheers, Tavis
[PEN-L:2008] Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Gosh, well I didn't get to any of those sessions where people were being so pollyannaish about the US stock market. OTOH lots of us have gotten burned predicting imminent collapses, etc., that have not happened, or were followed more than compensatory runups, as in the second half of last year. Nevertheless, I note that yesterday's Financial Times reports that the US $ has hit a recent low against the Japanese yen, partly triggered by comments by E. Seikekabaru (sp?), known as "Mr. Yen", that the US stock market is overvalued and that the US economy will shortly slow significantly. He used the term "bubble." Of course he could be wrong and this is January, when the "January Effect" of unusually rapidly rising stock prices frequently happens. But then October is often a time of unusual declines and this last one saw a record runup. Oh well, we shall just have to wait and see. Good to see a number of you in New York. Barkley Rosser On Thu, 07 Jan 1999 09:45:19 -0800 Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ellen quotes: BLS DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1999 The prevailing view at the three-day meeting of the American Economic Association was that high stock prices probably reflect the economy's actual strength and not a speculative bubble that could burst. ... In the minds of many economists, the stock market serves mainly as a gauge of the real economy and a stimulus for spending. Ellen writes: Over the last few days, I have been looking over data on wages, exports, bankruptcies, etc. in the former so-called emerging markets. International capital, it seems, is really putting the screws to the laboring classes in Asia and South America. Asian assets are on sale at rock-bottom prices; commodity prices are so low, they're practically giving them away. Is this not the triumph of capitalism? Little wonder the Dow hit 9500. IMHO, the strength of the US stock market first and foremost reflects the strength of the US profit rate, with the speculative bubble being present but secondary. Orthodox economists tend to conflate what's good for capital (the profit rate, a high stock market) with what's good for the people (the GDP and its distribution, with limited negative environmental impact, etc., etc.) So it's natural that they would make this mistake. The question is whether the high US profit rate will persist given the mess that the rest of the world is in, not to mention the dynamic problems the result when an economy enjoys (and suffers from) a high and rising profit rate. (See my 1994 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY paper, on-line at: http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/subpages/depr/D0.html or /Depr.html) Can the "triumph of capitalism" (or more accurately of some sectors of US capitalism) persist? It didn't after 1929, the previous period of similar capitalist triumphalism. So the question is: are we currently in the historical analogy of 1929 or of 1927? Ellen, it was good to see you at the convention! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1988] Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Doug writes: Ok, the adjustments to the CPI so far have lowered it by 0.4 points, and here we've got another 0.2. It looks like the Boskinites have won. Last time I said that, people disagreed, but I'm going to say it again. Not to minimize the bad news concerning this reestimation, but the good news, as Dave Richardson pointed out awhile back, is that lower measured inflation rates mean that the Fed is less likely to get pressured to step on the brakes. BTW, Doug, I didn't see you at the economics convention. I still owe you a beer (or four). I guess I'll have to send you a cyber-beer. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:1992] Re: Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Jim Devine wrote: Not to minimize the bad news concerning this reestimation, but the good news, as Dave Richardson pointed out awhile back, is that lower measured inflation rates mean that the Fed is less likely to get pressured to step on the brakes. I'm way out of touch here in southwestern Virginia this week, but it sounds like the Fed is worried about the stock market, now that the crisis period in Asia is fading. The president of the Atlanta Fed gave a speech the other day that evoked bubblish fears, though in that careful way Fedsters do. BTW, Doug, I didn't see you at the economics convention. I still owe you a beer (or four). I guess I'll have to send you a cyber-beer. 'Cause I'm way out of town this week. How's the convention? I heard there was a party for the Long Term Capital guys. Doug
Re: [PEN-L:1576] Re: Re: Re: BLS Daily report
On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: In response to Tom's question below, I suspect that the Bank of International Settlements may be correct in so far as they go. The norm is not for a company to remove jobs via direct investment in a facility abroad. Outsourcing is a more likely route. Outsourcing need not involve direct investment. Besides, the Bank statement is unclear if t would even pick up the direct investment that leads to outsourcing. For example, GM wants to outsource an auto part. I invest in a shop in Bolivia to make the part, but not direct investment links the change to GM's laying workers off. Well how about this? The table shows total employment in U.S. motor vehicles and equipment up 265,000 from Jan 90-Nov 98 - or 216,000 looking at just production workers alone. In parts and accessories, the numbers are +167,000 and +130,000. After declining from the 1970s into the early 1990s, motor vehicles have increased their share of total employment since. Another point - though lots of people generalize about "globalization" trends from the auto industry, it represents well under 1% of total employment. Over 7 times as many people work in finance as in motor vehicles; 10 times in health, 20 times in government, and 22 times in retail. Doug Even services are "globalized". however, overseas shares of output, employment, etc. to total national output, employment, etc. is still very small. In other words, the whole question of globalization has been perhaps overblown. Anthony D'Costa EMPLOYMENT IN U.S. MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY motor MV vehiclesparts equipment accessories --total total produc total produc employment 1/70 879 683 382 30671,018 1/80 852 627 388 30490,729 1/90 737 540 373 290 108,946 2/92 804 616 414 327 108,077 11/98 1,002 756 539 421 126,775 change to 11/98 from -- number 1/70 +123 +73 +157 +114 +55,757 1/80 +150 +129 +151 +117 +36,046 1/90 +265 +216 +167 +130 +17,829 2/92 +198 +140 +125 +94 +18,698 percent 1/70+14.0%+10.7%+41.1%+37.3%+78.5% 1/80+17.6%+20.6%+38.9%+38.4%+39.7% 1/90+36.0%+40.0%+44.7%+45.0%+16.4% 2/92+24.6%+22.7%+30.2%+28.8%+17.3% % of total 1/70 1.24% 0.96% 0.54% 0.43%100.0% 1/80 0.94% 0.69% 0.43% 0.33%100.0% 1/90 0.68% 0.50% 0.34% 0.27%100.0% 2/92 0.74% 0.57% 0.38% 0.30%100.0% 11/98 0.79% 0.60% 0.43% 0.33%100.0%
[PEN-L:1574] Re: Re: BLS Daily report
In response to Tom's question below, I suspect that the Bank of International Settlements may be correct in so far as they go. The norm is not for a company to remove jobs via direct investment in a facility abroad. Outsourcing is a more likely route. Outsourcing need not involve direct investment. Besides, the Bank statement is unclear if t would even pick up the direct investment that leads to outsourcing. For example, GM wants to outsource an auto part. I invest in a shop in Bolivia to make the part, but not direct investment links the change to GM's laying workers off. Tom Kruse wrote: We read: BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1998 [snip] Outflows of foreign direct investment from rich to poor countries are having only a limited negative impact on employment in source economies, according to the Bank for International Settlements. ... "Fears that jobs are being destroyed in the industrialized countries when multinational enterprises invest in low-wage countries are only in part supported by the evidence," according to a working paper prepared by the bank. ... The authors point out that because of the low degree of substitution between employees in parent companies and their affiliates abroad, even where there may be some displacement of home-country workers due to Foreign Direct Investment, "such effects are likely to have been only moderate" ... (Daily Labor Report, page A-9). Comments anyone? This would seem to really challenge the "exporting manufacturing and other good jobs" thesis of globalization. I suppose we'd first need to know what "only in part" means. And what exaclty does substitution mean? That the overseas worker directly substitutes the US worker? What if in the transfer of the production process innovation occurs, eliminating a one-to-one correpsondence between jobs before in the US and jobs after overseas? Any insights? Tom Tom Kruse Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-4) 248242 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:1576] Re: Re: Re: BLS Daily report
Michael Perelman wrote: In response to Tom's question below, I suspect that the Bank of International Settlements may be correct in so far as they go. The norm is not for a company to remove jobs via direct investment in a facility abroad. Outsourcing is a more likely route. Outsourcing need not involve direct investment. Besides, the Bank statement is unclear if t would even pick up the direct investment that leads to outsourcing. For example, GM wants to outsource an auto part. I invest in a shop in Bolivia to make the part, but not direct investment links the change to GM's laying workers off. Well how about this? The table shows total employment in U.S. motor vehicles and equipment up 265,000 from Jan 90-Nov 98 - or 216,000 looking at just production workers alone. In parts and accessories, the numbers are +167,000 and +130,000. After declining from the 1970s into the early 1990s, motor vehicles have increased their share of total employment since. Another point - though lots of people generalize about "globalization" trends from the auto industry, it represents well under 1% of total employment. Over 7 times as many people work in finance as in motor vehicles; 10 times in health, 20 times in government, and 22 times in retail. Doug EMPLOYMENT IN U.S. MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY motor MV vehiclesparts equipment accessories --total total produc total produc employment 1/70 879 683 382 30671,018 1/80 852 627 388 30490,729 1/90 737 540 373 290 108,946 2/92 804 616 414 327 108,077 11/98 1,002 756 539 421 126,775 change to 11/98 from -- number 1/70 +123 +73 +157 +114 +55,757 1/80 +150 +129 +151 +117 +36,046 1/90 +265 +216 +167 +130 +17,829 2/92 +198 +140 +125 +94 +18,698 percent 1/70+14.0%+10.7%+41.1%+37.3%+78.5% 1/80+17.6%+20.6%+38.9%+38.4%+39.7% 1/90+36.0%+40.0%+44.7%+45.0%+16.4% 2/92+24.6%+22.7%+30.2%+28.8%+17.3% % of total 1/70 1.24% 0.96% 0.54% 0.43%100.0% 1/80 0.94% 0.69% 0.43% 0.33%100.0% 1/90 0.68% 0.50% 0.34% 0.27%100.0% 2/92 0.74% 0.57% 0.38% 0.30%100.0% 11/98 0.79% 0.60% 0.43% 0.33%100.0%
[PEN-L:1579] Re: Re: Re: Re: BLS Daily report
In response to Doug's points below, I would begin by saying that the motor vehical industry is very cyclical. I suspect that the increase in employment in the sector has to do to the conversion to sport utility vehicles. I did not generalize from the auto sector. I only used it to illustrate a point. Finally, the small share motor vehicles illustrates how pervasive the de-industrialization has been. The (more than) compensating growth in the service sector, has not created the same type of jobs, as you well know. I would like to know if I was correct in my initial point about the accounting for outsourcing. Doug Henwood wrote: Well how about this? The table shows total employment in U.S. motor vehicles and equipment up 265,000 from Jan 90-Nov 98 - or 216,000 looking at just production workers alone. In parts and accessories, the numbers are +167,000 and +130,000. After declining from the 1970s into the early 1990s, motor vehicles have increased their share of total employment since. Another point - though lots of people generalize about "globalization" trends from the auto industry, it represents well under 1% of total employment. Over 7 times as many people work in finance as in motor vehicles; 10 times in health, 20 times in government, and 22 times in retail. Doug EMPLOYMENT IN U.S. MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY motor MV vehiclesparts equipment accessories --total total produc total produc employment 1/70 879 683 382 30671,018 1/80 852 627 388 30490,729 1/90 737 540 373 290 108,946 2/92 804 616 414 327 108,077 11/98 1,002 756 539 421 126,775 change to 11/98 from -- number 1/70 +123 +73 +157 +114 +55,757 1/80 +150 +129 +151 +117 +36,046 1/90 +265 +216 +167 +130 +17,829 2/92 +198 +140 +125 +94 +18,698 percent 1/70+14.0%+10.7%+41.1%+37.3%+78.5% 1/80+17.6%+20.6%+38.9%+38.4%+39.7% 1/90+36.0%+40.0%+44.7%+45.0%+16.4% 2/92+24.6%+22.7%+30.2%+28.8%+17.3% % of total 1/70 1.24% 0.96% 0.54% 0.43%100.0% 1/80 0.94% 0.69% 0.43% 0.33%100.0% 1/90 0.68% 0.50% 0.34% 0.27%100.0% 2/92 0.74% 0.57% 0.38% 0.30%100.0% 11/98 0.79% 0.60% 0.43% 0.33%100.0% -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:449] Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
At 09:38 AM 8/3/98 -0500, you wrote: BLS DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, JULY 31, 1998: ... __Until the beginning of last year, compensation had remained fairly flat during an otherwise broad expansion of the economy. The rise in compensation is now accelerating -- especially for workers in industries such as financial services and business consulting. ^^ ^^ ... Am I just a purist crank about words, or what? I can understand how you might be upset about the misuse of words (though it seems to be the major indoor sport these days in business, government, academia, etc., so to complain too much seems almost like King Canute calling on the sea to recede). What's more interesting to me is the _economics_: the oft-trumpeted recovery of real-wage growth is not mostly for Joe Jill Sixpack out there in manufacturing and services -- but for people who work in those sectors most closely tied to the stock market bubble. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html "Dear, you increase the dopamine in my accumbens." -- words of love for the 1990s.
[PEN-L:452] Re: Re: BLS Daily Report II
quoth valis: Just what _is_ revolution, anyway, when vocabulary has become the means of production? I dunno. Ever since Dr. Atkin's "Diet Revolution" and similar abuses of the word, I try to avoid unnecessary use of the word. There's too much hype already. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html
