Biggest jobs drop in nearly 4 years

[itfitzme]

The jobs destruction stems from Democrat enviro-wackos who do stupid shit like turn off the water to the entire California Central Valley destroying over 100,000 jobs instantly. Those jobs left the country & food prices rose for everyone. Higher food prices feeds inflation reducing the amount of stimulus quantitative easing the Fed can do.

That would be all great except, a) where is the data for reduced water deliveries to the central valley? b) where do you come up with 100,000 jobs c) through the recession, deflation was the issue, food prices did no rise. (unless you have something that shows that rising food prices were not reflected in the average cost of living)

 

[KissMy]

The jobs destruction stems from Democrat enviro-wackos who do stupid shit like turn off the water to the entire California Central Valley destroying over 100,000 jobs instantly. Those jobs left the country & food prices rose for everyone. Higher food prices feeds inflation reducing the amount of stimulus quantitative easing the Fed can do.

That would be all great except, a) where is the data for reduced water deliveries to the central valley? b) where do you come up with 100,000 jobs c) through the recession, deflation was the issue, food prices did no rise. (unless you have something that shows that rising food prices were not reflected in the average cost of living)

You must be living under a rock.

 

[itfitzme]

Wait, we talking jobs here---

--or Obama's recovery?

Right, as soon as control of the house changed hands, the economy went into recession. That is down right magical.

It's not that hard for someone to see what they want to see here. Getting back to jobs we got the employment beginning its fall back in '06. How could anyone forget that 2006 was the year that six US ports were sold to Dubai!!!



--any you thought it was the housing bubble...

It shouldn't be hard to get, if you've been following what I've been saying, is that the peak of employment was back before 2000 when both the labor force participation rate and the employment rate began it's long downward trend. What is interesting is that net exports always fall ahead of the recession. So in order of significant changes.

LF Peaks................Jul-97
Net Exp Falls..........Jan-00
Emp Peaks.............Jul-00
Official Recession....Mar-01

Since '97, the very nature of the economy has shifted to something different then is was in the previous decades.

Bush admin and Greenspan did the best they could, with what tools and theories they had at hand, in attempting to keep the economy propped up. I am not familiar with the full Fed role, aside from it's lack of concern with the housing bubble. Still, we are all well aware that the Bush admin began a process of increasing government expenditures and decreasing taxes as the economy came out of the previous dot com bubble.

And it appears that this fiscal stimulus drove the housing bubble. The government just stimulates the economy. The markets do what they want, and what the markets found was house flipping, mortgage backed securities, and "financial engineering", in the form of security default swaps begin the primary derivative instrument.

The beginning of the housing bubble collapse wasn't necessarily at the exact same time that the recession began. Bankruptcy laws were tightened up in '05.

Like I said, net exports begin to fall off before the recession begins. And net exports began to fall off in October of 2005. That was the initial indicator of the onset of the Dec-'07 recession. It had a bit of a repreve in July of '06, before falling into the recession.

The peak in the nominal median and average housing prices are just a national aggregate. In real dollars, median prices presented an initial peaking in April of '06. And obviously, local markets would have peaked and began falling before the national aggregate peaked.

What is more indicative, if we can pick it out of the data, is when the market began to decelerate (drops off), rather then when it peaked. It is the point of deceleration that is a better marker. For instance, the recession began, not on consumer credit peaking, but on consumer credit decelerating. That is when demand stops increasing steadily. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to pick out the point of deceleration out of the noise. But just roughly, by inspection, the housing market began to decelerate back in late '05.

So this whole housing thing really began back in late '05, only finally cascading into failure by late '07.

But my real interest, as marked by the employment and labor force ratios, is how the economy has changed since both peaked in the '97-'00 time frame. That is when everything changed. Not just employment but also the structure of the labor force. Gas prices, in real dollars, began to rise then. Specifically, it was December of '99 that real dollar prices changed from a decade of being flat to rising. They rose and fell back before rising steadily in Feb of 2002.

My point is that employment really began to fall back in the '97-00 time frame, not in '06. '06 was just a secondary collapse when the housing bubble, which has sustained the economy for a good half decade, finally gave up the ghost.

The late '07 peak of median average housing prices was just the final gasp of a decline that began in '05.

And I bet you thought the housing bubble collapse began in '07.

 

[itfitzme]

The jobs destruction stems from Democrat enviro-wackos who do stupid shit like turn off the water to the entire California Central Valley destroying over 100,000 jobs instantly. Those jobs left the country & food prices rose for everyone. Higher food prices feeds inflation reducing the amount of stimulus quantitative easing the Fed can do.

That would be all great except, a) where is the data for reduced water deliveries to the central valley? b) where do you come up with 100,000 jobs c) through the recession, deflation was the issue, food prices did no rise. (unless you have something that shows that rising food prices were not reflected in the average cost of living)

You must be living under a rock.

No, I'm living in a world of data and facts. And every statement that I make is based on actual data, that I have checked and double checked.

I went to the Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific region, hoping I might find some hard data to back up your statements. I couldn't. But, seeing as you made them, I figured you surely can.

You, on the other hand, given the opportunity to back up your bs, fail to, instead revealing your underlying mental process of ad hominum attacks.

 

[expat_panama]

...It's not that hard for someone to see what they want to see here. Getting back to jobs we got the employment beginning its fall back in '06. How could anyone forget that 2006 was the year that six US ports were sold to Dubai!!!



--any you thought it was the housing bubble...

It shouldn't be hard to get, if you've been following what I've been saying, is that the peak of employment was back before 2000 when both the labor force participation rate and the employment rate began it's long downward trend...

My bad, I was joking about housing and my serious point was how easy it is to "see what we want to see" with these numbers. This doesn't make the numbers useless, it just means we always need to be open to the entire picture and accept that facts can appear with contradictions.

 

[itfitzme]

...It's not that hard for someone to see what they want to see here. Getting back to jobs we got the employment beginning its fall back in '06. How could anyone forget that 2006 was the year that six US ports were sold to Dubai!!!



--any you thought it was the housing bubble...

It shouldn't be hard to get, if you've been following what I've been saying, is that the peak of employment was back before 2000 when both the labor force participation rate and the employment rate began it's long downward trend...

My bad, I was joking about housing and my serious point was how easy it is to "see what we want to see" with these numbers. This doesn't make the numbers useless, it just means we always need to be open to the entire picture and accept that facts can appear with contradictions.

I missed the smile when you said it.

I agree, there are far more coincidences than there are causes. And it is easy to find some coincidence to present as causal.

 

[edthecynic]

U.S. Job Creation Nears Four-Year High

U.S. Job Creation Nears Four-Year High
Job Creation Index at +20, up from +18 in March
by Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist
PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's Job Creation Index increased to +20 in April from +18 in March. Net new hiring is now at its best level since July 2008 and is near +26 -- the highest score Gallup has recorded since tracking began in January 2008.

 

[KissMy]

U.S. Job Creation Nears Four-Year High

Just keeping up with population growth is not good enough. There is way to much idle labor that is a waste of productive resource. Unless we efficiently use our productive workforce, we are being held back. We are paying people to sit idle. This turns the workers into dependants who are going on disability at record rates.

It's the jobs stupid!

 

[KissMy]

The jobs destruction stems from Democrat enviro-wackos who do stupid shit like turn off the water to the entire California Central Valley destroying over 100,000 jobs instantly. Those jobs left the country & food prices rose for everyone. Higher food prices feeds inflation reducing the amount of stimulus quantitative easing the Fed can do.

That would be all great except, a) where is the data for reduced water deliveries to the central valley? b) where do you come up with 100,000 jobs c) through the recession, deflation was the issue, food prices did no rise. (unless you have something that shows that rising food prices were not reflected in the average cost of living)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFJfviDPVrc"]California Water Shut Off! pt1[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjWPGg4fhKg&feature=relmfu"]California Water Shut Off! pt2[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUcRv4bCoAY&feature=relmfu"]California Water Shut Off! pt3[/ame]

 

[itfitzme]

U.S. Job Creation Nears Four-Year High

Just keeping up with population growth is not good enough. There is way to much idle labor that is a waste of productive resource. Unless we efficiently use our productive workforce, we are being held back. We are paying people to sit idle. This turns the workers into dependants who are going on disability at record rates.

Well, in absolute numbers, it would always be a record. Population grows.

The BLS CPS has (Not In Labor Force - With Disability Age 16 years and over) along with (Not In Labor Force - With Disability Age 65 years and over). So I subtracted them. The data only goes back to June '08.

A 0.27% increase in (Not In Labor Force - With Disability Age 16 to 64) to (Civilian Population), from June '08 to April '12. Unadjusted BLS CPS data set.

It kind of looks like it shifted from an average rate of 4.1% up to an average rate of 4.3% in September of 2010. That is a 0.2% change in the average.

Is a 0.2% increase record rates? Well, it's more than before, so that would be a record.

So there is the problem, 0.2% of the civilian non institutionalized population 16+ has applied for disability because job growth is just keeping up with population growth.

The thing is, disabled is disabled.

 

[itfitzme]

The jobs destruction stems from Democrat enviro-wackos who do stupid shit like turn off the water to the entire California Central Valley destroying over 100,000 jobs instantly. Those jobs left the country & food prices rose for everyone. Higher food prices feeds inflation reducing the amount of stimulus quantitative easing the Fed can do.

That would be all great except, a) where is the data for reduced water deliveries to the central valley? b) where do you come up with 100,000 jobs c) through the recession, deflation was the issue, food prices did no rise. (unless you have something that shows that rising food prices were not reflected in the average cost of living)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFJfviDPVrc"]California Water Shut Off! pt1[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjWPGg4fhKg&feature=relmfu"]California Water Shut Off! pt2[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUcRv4bCoAY&feature=relmfu"]California Water Shut Off! pt3[/ame]

I don't watch video. It isn't hard data.

 

[pinqy]

The jobs destruction stems from Democrat enviro-wackos who do stupid shit like turn off the water to the entire California Central Valley destroying over 100,000 jobs instantly. Those jobs left the country & food prices rose for everyone. Higher food prices feeds inflation reducing the amount of stimulus quantitative easing the Fed can do.

That would be all great except, a) where is the data for reduced water deliveries to the central valley? b) where do you come up with 100,000 jobs c) through the recession, deflation was the issue, food prices did no rise. (unless you have something that shows that rising food prices were not reflected in the average cost of living)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFJfviDPVrc"]California Water Shut Off! pt1[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjWPGg4fhKg&feature=relmfu"]California Water Shut Off! pt2[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUcRv4bCoAY&feature=relmfu"]California Water Shut Off! pt3[/ame]

The Central Valley has always been bad. Look at the UE rates going back to 1990

 

[rdean]

More proof Republicans are intentionally trying to ruin the economy?​

 

[itfitzme]

The jobs destruction stems from Democrat enviro-wackos who do stupid shit like turn off the water to the entire California Central Valley destroying over 100,000 jobs instantly. Those jobs left the country & food prices rose for everyone. Higher food prices feeds inflation reducing the amount of stimulus quantitative easing the Fed can do.

That would be all great except, a) where is the data for reduced water deliveries to the central valley? b) where do you come up with 100,000 jobs c) through the recession, deflation was the issue, food prices did no rise. (unless you have something that shows that rising food prices were not reflected in the average cost of living)

The Central Valley has always been bad. Look at the UE rates going back to 1990

I find the statement, "turn off the water to the entire California Central Valley" a bit of an exageration. And, I tend to believe that the "100,000 jobs" is also an unfounded exaggeration.

Still, the idea of reduced supply to the Central Valley increasing cost of water resulting in increased costs or decreased employment remains theoretically valid.

So here are a few notes on this idea. From what I have found, the issue begins at about May of 2009. There was, simultaneously, the following confounding issues

a) The Central Valley was severely hit by the housing bubble collapse. The FCIC report makes mention to the excitement surrounding increased housing in Fresno and other Central Valley regions during the bubble.

b) There was a drought. (Unconfirmed)

c) There was a decrease in water deliveries through the Delta. This gets all technical and requires an understanding of how the whole water delivery process works. Data is available from Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region

There are some 9 reports for water deliveries to the Central Valley.

Central Valley Project Diversions (Table 21)
Friant-Kern Canal Deliveries (Table 22)
Madera Canal and Millerton Lake Deliveries (Table 23)
San Joaquin River and Mendota Pool Deliveries (Table 24)
Delta-Mendota Canal Deliveries (Table 25)
San Luis and Cross Valley Canal Deliveries (Table 26)
Tehama-Colusa Canal Deliveries (Table 27)
Sacramento River Deliveries (Long-term contracts) (Table 28)
Sacramento - San Joaquin Valley - Streamflow Data (Table 29)

One issue is that, while decreased deliveries may be apparent, it isn't clear if this is due to decreased demand, reduced deliveries due to increased prices, or whether other sources were found to offset decreased deliveries due to the fish thing.

All in all, there are more sources of water to the Central Valley than just the one impacted by the whole environmental fish thing. Trying to figure out the exact impact would take some expertise. It tends to suggest that the fish thing isn't a major effect.

d) There was a national increase in unemployment as a result of the national recession.

e) National unemployment peaked in October of '09. From the graph, the majority of the central valley peaked close to the same time, with El Centro peaking much later.

f) Increased food prices (unconfirmed and frankly confounded by the next issue.)

g) Fed management of core inflation to a yearly target, at 1.5% for 2010. So, in the final measure, there doesn't seem to have been an increase in food prices. Perhaps digging into the details and seeing if food prices increased disproportionally to other things might be a useful consideration.

h) Deflation had ended by Jan '09. CPI inflation was at target, on a yearly basis, since. On a monthly basis, it spiked in Jun '09. It also peaked at a monthly annulized rate of 12.4% in march '11. In between, it was well within the target range. At best, that single Jun '09 spike, to 10.8% monthy annualized rate has potential. But then we have it returning to normal up to the March '11 spike which then suggests that the Jun '09 spike was simply coincidental. There is no clear increase in unemployment in the Central Valley that seperates the decrease in water supply from the national housing bubble collapse.

So there are a few considerations.

Basically, the cascade of causal events would be;

The central valley housing collapse was part of the national housing bubble collapse. These drove national unemployment and reduced demand. Locally, the central valley housing collapse drove central valley unemployment. Then, simultaneously, we have the drought and decreased deliveries further depressing the local economy of the central valley. This, then, helps to drive increased food prices which further exacerbate the economic conditions. In the mean time, the Fed is actively managing inflation to keep it on target.

It is a bit difficult to differentiate the final magnitude on the national economy when there is a cascade of multiple causal conditions on a point issue.

This point, "Higher food prices feeds inflation reducing the amount of stimulus quantitative easing the Fed can do." is interesting, even academically. I am not convinced it is true. The idea of increasing the money supply is that the increase in M goes towards increasing Q. If the mechanism exists, that by increasing M, Q will increase, then a shortage in food supply, along with increased prices would be seperate. It would seem, simply, that a larger increase in M would be necessary to offset the effective losses.

Obviously, how much P and Q increase due to an increase in M is a matter of proportions, depending upon the state of the economy. An increase in M doesn't all go towards one or the other. Still, in general, under our oversimplified theory, I am not left with the impression that "inflation reducing the amount of stimulus quantitative easing the Fed can do" is a major factor.

From a national standpoint, a decline in production in Ca would be picked up by an increase in production elsewhere. Agriculture has been highly efficient and shortages are not an issue. I wouldn't expect that we would see a major decline in quanity in the details of the GDP accounting. If, in fact, there was an effect, at most, we would see an increase in relative pricing of food to other products, a shifting of money from other products to food products. Then, the increase in money supply would go towards stimulating other production activity which is well below full output due to a lack of labor utilization.

The idea is reasonable, in theory. The problem is that it comes down to a matter of magnitudes of effects carrying through a cascade of causal relationships that are confounded by other simultaneous events. In practice, this tends to make the final effect far less.