One more point on the jobs report before I stop perseverating on it. The number of jobs created was around 250,000. The number of people who were no longer counted as unemployed because they had stopped looking for work was 300,000. That means that if you hail the decrease in the unemployment rate from 7.8% to 7.7% you are objectively endorsing the increase in the number of discouraged workers as the solution to our problems. Discouraged workers were a more significant factor than more jobs.
Also, the number of jobs created is less than the increase in multi-job workers:
“The number of multiple jobholders rose by 340,000 this month, to 7.26 million — a rise larger than the headline rise in payrolls. Which means that one way of looking at this report is to say that all of the new jobs created were second or third jobs, going to people who were already employed elsewhere.”
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/03/08/the-stagnation-behind-the-excellent-jobs-report/
But, when you take a more comprehensive, detailed view of the jobs report then you fail to get the ‘positive’ rush promoted by the reduced UE number.
Generally, people just don’t want to spoil good news by the injection of facts and figures that may alter the sweet flavor of what they are being governmentally-fed.
I should note that whoever is in power ignores the workers dropping out of the workforce. Florida Governor Rick Scott has touted FL’s lower UE rates as a sign of the success of his initiatives (which were mainly cutting UEC). However, most of the drop in UE rates here, as elsewhere, have been because of people dropping out of the workforce.
Shorter: It’s a multilevel bipartisan jerk-fest.
Without referring to charts and graphs, I tend to look around me and talk to business people as to how our economy is faring.
What I’m seeing, at least here locally, is a rash of businesses going out of business. My husband was reading a column yesterday listing the ones calling it quits, and he was astounded by it’s length. There are more vacant store fronts, car dealerships that have pulled out of town — it’s a little unnerving.
New businesses, who do dare to risk private capital, have equally dour perspectives/experiences. One husband and wife cafe owner, in business for a year, are struggling to make ends meet. The huge amount of bureaucracy they had to comply with, for over a year before opening, caused their eatery to begin on financially weaker footing than originally penciled-out. Last week we went to a Mexican restaurant that had been operational a mere 10 days. The owner was waiting on tables, and he told us the same thing — that the regulations to open took twice as long as he was told they would, and the extra cost has financially strapped him. Frustrated and angry would describe how he felt about such government intrusion.
It seems to me that government is talking through both sides of it’s mouth. On one side they call for individuals to unleash their money into business investments, creating employment opportunities which would directly help the economy. Then on the other side they clamp down on anyone who does venture into the entrepreneurial lion’s den, making it all but impossible to survive. When it comes to bigger industries dealing with energy, there the government, via the EPA, is actively engaged in making them become all but extinct.
Confusing, isn’t it.
Confusing, isn’t it.
Ignore what they say, and watch what they do.
“When it comes to bigger industries dealing with energy, there the government, via the EPA, is actively engaged in making them become all but extinct.”
zerohedge had an interesting piece on Buffets desire to corner the rail market and Obama’s stalling on the Keystone pipeline.
Heh. That little fair marketer, Warren.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-09/meet-new-us-petroleum-pipelines
Check it out. In addition to understanding supply and demand, and a good business model, Mr. Buffet understands rent seeking, monopoly power……….and the necessity of good PR to attain the latter two.
And in final Jeopardy “what are the two easiest ways to filthy lucre? Your answers in question form please.”
“When it comes to bigger industries dealing with energy, there the government, via the EPA, is actively engaged in making them become all but extinct.”
We are at recent record levels of oil and gas production. The number of oil rigs at work bottomed at about 250 in 2000 and is now up to about 1,000, with the big increase starting about 2009. The usual rejoinder is that leases are down for offshore drilling and on federal lands. As far as offshore goes, if you follow Hamilton (and his commenters) it looks as though Brazil was willing to pay higher than going market rates to acquire rigs for their find. That coupled with the big drop in natural gas prices, has decreased offshore drilling.
I am less certain about why drilling on federal lands is down. I do know that they are only drilling on about 1/3 of the permits they have acquired. If they are only drilling on that small of a fraction already, does that really suggest they dont have adequate access?
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/01/13/13greenwire-two-thirds-of-federal-oil-and-gas-drilling-per-13123.html
Steve
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Since we are talking government intervention, and energy has been invoked. This link deals with the same topic I mentioned awhile back – the lifecycle carbon footprint of electric cars vs gas powered. And we haven’t even talked battery disposal.
Heh. Bravo governmento.
Drew, you beat me to the punch. While you were posting that comment, I was drafting a post on that very article.
Dave
As an investor almost exclusively in manufacturing businesses, and knowing how energy intensive so many manufacturing businesses are, this is a topic that draws my attention like flies on……well.
I simply do not understand the cross purposes of the left at times. Well, actually, I do when it comes to blind ideology or “hurray for our side.” They want “good paying manufacturing jobs” but also want to kill cheap energy to look chique. (my words)
I don’t come across this global warming is a myth worldview lightly. Its not political. I may not be a climatologist or cosmologist, but I’m steeped well enough in science to know codes of conduct for peer review, scientific method and shaky data. (Check that – crappy data) This global warming thingy is a travesty. A pure travesty.
Even if you were to conclude that AGW had some basis in fact you would have to admit it is a very long term and third or fourth order effect. And a sensible person would prioritize, and ask “do I need a vibrant manufacturing component in my economy right now, given our economic and budget realities, or should I declare the sky is falling?” If my objectives is the financial and social health of the nation my priorities, it seems to me, would be the former. If I simply needed a thinly veiled excuse to regulate for power and extract taxes, the latter.
I think everyone knows where I stand. And I do think that sometimes these issues serve as, if not IQ tests, tests of a degree of worldliness.
(TO BE REPOSTED IN DAVES LOMBORG POST)