^Because we don't make anything anymore. Too much information age.

^Because we don't make anything anymore. Too much information age.

 

So true. That is why the economy is struggle to gain momentum without a housing recovery and will continue to do so. We are more and more a country of home building and consumption of goods.

Can't argue that.

 

Economic realities have crippled the middle and low income classes.

Another problem is companies want the biggest bang for their buck and as much as they can. They don't believe in slow growth even though they are making profits. I guess you can blame stockholders(mostly the 1%) for that.

Fund managers too. They manage a huge portion of the world's assets. And they like growth, especially in more aggressive funds.

^Because we don't make anything anymore. Too much information age.

 

So true. That is why the economy is struggle to gain momentum without a housing recovery and will continue to do so. We are more and more a country of home building and consumption of goods.

 

Heh.  This is a popular perception, but it's a long way from accurate.

 

Manufacturing employment is down, but manufacturing output has risen steadily over the years.  The manufacturing jobs of the 1960s are not going to come back for the same reason that the agricultural jobs of the 1860s are not going to come back--we simply don't need as large a share of the population in manufacturing anymore.

 

The manufacturing revolution of the past 30-50 years may well turn out to be just the tip of the iceberg, too.  A couple of years ago, I laughed when someone first used the phrase "3D printer" around me.  I'm not laughing anymore.  It's entirely possible that there will be almost no formal light manufacturing sector in another 20-30 years--anywhere in the industrialized world.  The technology that already exists is very impressive, and has moved beyond the lab into commercial deployment (albeit still limited).  In 2030, we may be manufacturing our iPad 9's in our homes.

I'm just waiting for my 'matter replicator'

 

"After each recession since World War II, housing has helped lead the subsequent recovery.

 

Time to find another way.  Time to stop infating the bubble (only to see it burst again) and come up with something more sustainable.  In fact, I would argue that the post-WWII housing boom is going to be a major drag for some time to come.  Think of all the bland, aluminum sided, stick frame structures which were erected then.  Certainly not timeless homes which will be passed down through the generations.  They will devalue.  The neighborhoods were turn to slums.  Not too far from now, we may need to bulldoze entire neighborhoods to clear the blight. 

I'm just waiting for my 'matter replicator'

 

If Apple announces the iMake at some point in the near future, I'm so there ...

The last number was revised upward (as always) which shows this week's number having a small drop. Next week this weeks number will be revised upward and the game will repeat itself, just as it has been for a very long time now.

 

U.S. jobless claims remain elevated

Expectations for a decline fail to materialize

 

"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The number of Americans who applied for jobless benefits remained elevated for the third straight week, suggesting potential weakening in the U.S. labor market.

 

Jobless claims fell by 1,000 to a seasonally adjusted 388,000 in the week ended April 21, the U.S. Labor Department said Thursday. Claims from two weeks ago were revised up to 389,000 — the highest level since the first week of January — from an original reading of 386,000."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-jobless-claims-remain-elevated-2012-04-26

 

Pending home sales at 23-month high in March

 

"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Contract signings to sell existing homes reached a 23-month high in March in an indication of a rebound in activity in the housing market, a trade group reported Thursday."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pending-home-sales-at-23-month-high-in-march-2012-04-26?link=MW_story_insert

^ In other words, they are cooking the numbers.

I'm just waiting for my 'matter replicator'

 

If Apple announces the iMake at some point in the near future, I'm so there ...

 

Well, we've got 2Pac holograms now so they may not be that far off.

I win.

 

The UK is buckling down on spending, too.  I'll make a bet with you, LK: Assuming that the US keeps dishing out the stimulus cash under Obama and PM Brown in the UK manages to hold the discipline necessary to maintain his austerity budget, the UK's growth will be higher than America's, both in terms of employment and GDP, over the next two years.  Taking me up on it?

 

UK Economy in Double-Dip Recession:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17836624

Hah!  First, you never took me up on it.  Second, I wrote that *before* the shellacking of the Democrats in the 2010 elections.  It's true that we've continued to run deficits since then, but they're a lot less than they would have been under unified Democratic control of the political branches.  That said, I'll admit I'm surprised at the UK's results.

I can hear the chant. QE3, QE3, QE3, QE3. If the FEDs goal is to keep interest rates at very low levels, for the next 2 or 3 years, they will have no choice but to buy a lot of the US issued debt.

 

Business spending drop limits U.S. growth to 2.2%

GDP misses economic estimates after surprise from business sector

 

"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The U.S. economy downshifted in the first quarter as business and defense spending fell, raising fears the expansion could lose traction in coming months.

 

In its first estimate Friday, the Commerce Department said gross domestic product rose at a 2.2% annual rate between January and March, slower than the 3.0% pace in the prior three months. Economists polled by MarketWatch had expected a 2.7% growth rate."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/business-spending-drop-limits-us-growth-to-22-2012-04-27

 

So what were the main factors to the GDP number. Consumer consumption, inflation, warm weather and a reduction in savings. Not very sustainable.

 

More on the US GDP growth figures from Paul Ashworth at Capital Economics:

"First-quarter GDP growth was driven principally by a 2.9% increase in consumption, which was markedly stronger than expected. But with real personal disposable incomes rising by only 0.4% annualised, households were only able to increase their spending at that pace by running down their saving rate, to 3.9% in the first quarter from 4.5% in the quarter before. The unseasonably warm weather may have contributed to that decent gain in consumption, but it is also worth remembering that gasoline prices were rising rapidly over the first three months of the year."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/debt-crisis-live/9230373/Debt-crisis-live.html

 

A quick look at what is going on across the pond economically. Add in the new political issues in France and the Netherlands and things are starting to look more and more shaky.

 

Eurozone Retail Sales Plunge at Strongest Pace Since Late-2008;

"German Retail Sales Plunge Into Contraction; French Retail Sales Plunge at Record Pace; Record Job Losses, Record Retail Plunge in Italy"

 

"Plunging to its second-lowest level on record in April, the PMI hit 41.3, down from 49.1 in March. The latest figure signaled the largest monthly fall in retail sales across the single currency area since the depths of the global financial crisis in November 2008 (40.6)."

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/04/eurozone-retail-sales-plunge-at.html

 

S&P Cuts Spain to BBB+; Outlook Negative

"Standard & Poor's Ratings Services today said it lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the Kingdom of Spain to 'BBB+' from 'A'."

http://www.streetinsider.com/Credit+Ratings/S%26P+Cuts+Spain+to+BBB%2B%3B+Outlook+Negative/7378240.html

Hah!  First, you never took me up on it.

 

I most certainly did. It's right there in this thread.

 

Second, I wrote that *before* the shellacking of the Democrats in the 2010 elections.  It's true that we've continued to run deficits since then, but they're a lot less than they would have been under unified Democratic control of the political branches.  That said, I'll admit I'm surprised at the UK's results.

 

Closest you'll ever get to admitting being wrong, I suspect. What is it about facts that you libertarians hate?

The equation is so simple. . . gas prices were up in the second quarter . . . and growth came in low. That has been the story more or less for the last 4 years.

Chicago PMI slows to 29-month low in April

 

"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Chicago PMI dropped in April to 56.2% from 63.3% in March to reach a 29-month low, as gauges for production and new orders slowed dramatically, ISM-Chicago said Monday."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/chicago-pmi-slows-to-29-month-low-in-april-2012-04-30?link=MW_latest_news

Insight: Falling home prices drag new buyers under water

 

"(Reuters) - More than 1 million Americans who have taken out mortgages in the past two years now owe more on their loans than their homes are worth, and Federal Housing Administration loans that require only a tiny down payment are partly to blame."

 

"It is a sobering indication the U.S. housing market remains deeply troubled, with home values still falling in many parts of the country, and raises the question of whether low-down payment loans backed by the FHA are putting another generation of buyers at risk."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/26/us-usa-housing-negative-idUSBRE83P12E20120426

The U.S. housing market remains deeply troubled?  It wasn't deeply troubled when it cost high 6 figures to buy a halfway decent McMansion in Boomtown USA?

 

If our 'free market' is such a prisoner to the housing industry, it's past time to get it off the tit and let the market self-correct.  That is what it is supposed to do, no?

Since when do we have a free market. Face it,  economic intervention is sometimes a necessity.

 

The U.S. housing market remains deeply troubled?  It wasn't deeply troubled when it cost high 6 figures to buy a halfway decent McMansion in Boomtown USA?

If our 'free market' is such a prisoner to the housing industry, it's past time to get it off the tit and let the market self-correct.  That is what it is supposed to do, no?

 

AMEN!  Sad part is these people have been conditioned to want bigger houses, with more "space" and a bigger yard.  when in reality, and I'm a hypocrite, they don't use all of that space, nor are they able to properly furnish the home nor do they maintain their yards.

 

It's a case of:

^^I agree, but not when the economic intervention is nothing more than reattaching the car window with duct tape.  The housing bubble got us into a bind.  The bubble is deflating as it should and all we keep hearing about from the talking heads is that we need to reinflate it because 'that is the way it has always been done' 

^^I agree, but not when the economic intervention is nothing more than reattaching the car window with duct tape.  The housing bubble got us into a bind.  The bubble is deflating as it should and all we keep hearing about from the talking heads is that we need to reinflate it because 'that is the way it has always been done' 

 

Ditto this ... with the exception of agreeing with TBideon's argument that economic intervention is sometimes a necessity, of course. :evil:

 

More accurately, intervening in a market to prevent the failure of firms and business models that would otherwise fail is never a necessity.  This is not like the SEC intervening to compel disclosure of information regarding publicly traded companies' balance sheets, income, and cash flow.  This isn't like the EPA intervening to restrict the discharge of pollutants into the commons.

Airlines utilize completely broken, money draining business models, but they have and do require subsidiations, because we would be far worse off without them.

 

Same with the Post Office (just imagine transaction costs if it were fully privatized)

 

Sometimes you just need to eat it. Even for broken business models

 

And the previous month was revised lower.  :wink2:

 

Hiring slows as ADP reports 119,000 new April jobs

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/slowdown-in-recent-hiring-adp-2012-05-02

 

 

U.S. manufacturing growth picks up in April

ISM’s index shows increase in new orders, employment

"The Institute for Supply Management said Tuesday its survey of senior executives in the manufacturing sector rose to 54.8% from 53.4% in March, the highest reading since June 2011."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-growth-picks-up-in-april-2012-05-01?link=MW_story_insert

 

 

Euro-zone unemployment hits new euro-era high

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/euro-zone-unemployment-hits-new-euro-era-high-2012-05-02

 

 

Euro-zone manufacturing PMI confirms April drop

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/euro-zone-manufacturing-pmi-confirms-april-drop-2012-05-02

 

 

The European Recession Spreads

"There was no good news out of Europe today, which makes it like most days over the past two months. On top of labor strikes due to austerity, changes in leadership of some countries based on new elections and troubling GDP data, new Markit research shows that European purchasing managers index reached a 34-month low of 45.9. Markit reports that there were “Production declines across big-four economies for first time in the year-to-date.”

 

As he reviewed the data, Chris Williamson, chief economist at Markit, said: Manufacturing in the Eurozone took a further lurch deeper into a new recession in April, with the PMI suggesting that output fell at worryingly steep quarterly rate of over 2%.

 

Although several of the weakest national economies suffered very large PMI drops, the most troubling data came from Germany. Its PMI reached a 33-month low of 46.2, which puts it back to mid-recession levels."

Read more: The European Recession Spreads - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2012/05/02/the-european-recession-spreads/#ixzz1tiuWKX1j

Interesting comments from Feldstein, who was the chair of the National Bureau of Economic Research until 2008, on Bloomberg News. He discusses the recent GDP number and how the FED is pumping a new bubble in the stock market that ultimately will bust. We have become and economy of bubbles, tech bubble, housing bubble, stock market bubble.

 

Feldstein on the U.S. economy:

 

"We are not doing very well. The economy is just coming along at a snail's pace. The first quarter numbers that we just got last week were not very good at all. The GDP number was 2.2%. That was a disappointment, but you know, it was all automobiles. 1.6 out of the 2.2 was motor vehicle production. So, people were catching up after not being able to buy them the year before. So, this is a very weak economy. The payroll employment numbers, we are going to get some new ones in April. Let's hope they are better than March where it fell by half. The stock market is, I think, responding to the Fed. I think the real danger is that this is a bubble in the stock market created by low long-term interest rates that the Fed has engineered."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/nbers-martin-feldstein-bashes-deplorable-us-economy-says-bernanke-has-engineered-another-stock-

It's a case of:

 

I think this argument should surface in the student loan debacle as well.  How many college students are living in an upscale apartment with nicer finishes than homes most of us live in?  Driving newer cars?  Going on spring break & vacations and running up bar tabs, all on student loans?  Better yet, how many are studying some obscure subject like philosophy or musical therapy with next to no chance of getting a job?

 

Want to graduate with little or no debt?  Here's how

1.  Take your first two years of general eds at local community college & live at your parents while working at least part time

 

2.  Go to main campus for Junior & Senior year at a state school.  Ohio State & the MAC schools offer great programs in everything from education to engineering to premed.

 

3. Live in a cheap place even if it's an old dumpy house with 5 other roommates.  Study at the library & work part time.

 

Following these rules, I think it would be very hard to graduate with more than a $200/mo payment which could be paid off while working at the mall if you couldn't find a full time job in your field.

That makes sense to us as grown-ups and we as adults wouldn't mind that. But I bet a lot of 20-year-old kids would just quit college under that kind of austerity and boredom. Of course that's their problem, not ours.

Previous number revised up again. Nice drop for this week, should be interesting to see what the revision shows.

 

U.S. jobless claims drop 27,000 to 365,000

"Applications for benefits decline for first time in one month"

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-jobless-claims-drop-27000-to-365000-2012-05-03-835590

 

Planned job cuts up 7% in April: Challenger

"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Planned job cuts rose 7.1% to 40,559 in April, according to outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. That's also 11.2% higher than April 2011. Year-to-date, planned job cuts are up 9.8%."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/planned-job-cuts-up-7-in-april-challenger-2012-05-03

 

April same-store sales are soft at big retailers

"NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Big retailers delivered disappointing sales for April, with Macy's Inc., Target Corp. and Saks Inc. all falling short of expectations that were set low to compensate for a lack of Easter buying as the holiday fell early this year."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/april-same-store-sales-are-soft-at-big-retailers-2012-05-03

 

ISM services index slows to 5-month low in April

"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The Institute for Supply Management said its services sector index in April dropped to 53.5% from 56.0% in March to mark the worst reading since December."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ism-services-index-slows-to-six-month-low-in-april-2012-05-03

The employment situation in the US is starting to deteriorate noticably again.

 

U.S. economy gains 115,000 jobs in April

Unemployment dips to 8.1% as more people stop looking for work

 

"The unemployment rate fell slightly to 8.1% from 8.2%, but the decline stemmed mainly from an increase in the number of people who stopped looking for work. Some 342,000 people dropped out of the labor force to mark the second decrease in a row, the Labor Department said Friday."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-economy-gains-115000-jobs-in-april-2012-05-04

 

Here is some details of the data. Not good at all. Nothing a little QE3 can't help.

 

People Not In Labor Force Soar By 522,000, Labor Force Participation Rate Lowest Since 1981

"It is just getting sad now. In April the number of people not in the labor force rose by a whopping 522,000 from 87,897,000 to 88,419,000.  This is the highest on record. The flip side, and the reason why the unemployment dropped to 8.1% is that the labor force participation rate just dipped to a new 30 year low of 64.3%."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/people-not-labor-force-soar-522000-labor-force-participation-rate-lowest-1981

 

Also.

 

"...full time jobs dropped to 114,478 from 115,290, an epic drop of 812,000 in full time jobs which was the biggest since... March 2009! The offset? Why a surge in part-time jobs of course, which increased by 508,000 in the month of April."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/two-scariest-charts-todays-nfp-report-or-real-new-part-time-normal

Are you sure that all of these people out of the labor force are discouraged and not wanting to work any longer?  Do these numbers take into account that we are in the heart of the baby boomer retirement curve, with literally thousands of people retiring every day?

Are you sure that all of these people out of the labor force are discouraged and not wanting to work any longer?  Do these numbers take into account that we are in the heart of the baby boomer retirement curve, with literally thousands of people retiring every day?

 

Good question.

 

Our population continues to grow in the US so the amount of people that should be in the workforce should not shrinking (even with the boomers). The Y generation that is now coming into the workforce is actually larger than the boomer population. For every boomer that does retire we have 1+ 'Y-generations' workers ready to replace that job number. We should be seeing a growth in the workforce not the reverse. On top of this issue we have fewer boomers retiring then what was expected. This is why 1 out of every 2 college grads are either under-employed or unemployed. Plus, we also have millions of Americans that are available to work that are unemployed.

 

I believe these issues actually make the workforce numbers even worse than they appear on the surface.

^Isn't the population growth in the United States driven almost entirely by immigration?  Our birth rate is either right at or right below the amount necessary to maintain the population, as explained in this link.  http://www.susps.org/overview/birthrates.html

 

Given that's the case, and that the birth rate in the 1980s/1990s was below replacement level--when Gen Y would have been born--I'm not sure how the "y" generation is larger than the boomer generation.  I accept it may well be the case, just not getting my head around the math. 

I make no claims about that website, by the way--just the first that came up. 

Also, everything I've seen (in my admittedly brief google searches) indicates that the "Echo Boomers" are the largest generation since the baby boomers.  I've seen some that put the numbers as roughly equivalent, but nothing saying that there are more than the baby boom generation.  And since the consensus seems to be that there are about 80 million baby boomers (for 1946-1964) and that we seemed to have averaged about 4 million births, on the high end, in the 1980s (http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/babyboom.htm), I don't see how that Generation Y group could be bigger than the baby boomers. 

 

(In fact, it seems we went from a birth rate of 3 million people in 1980 to around 4 million in 1990.  Most of the sources seem to peg the Gen Y/Millenials at 1980-1995, but even if you include up to 2000, I still don't see any way that group is bigger than the Baby Boomers.  http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/babyboom_2.htm

 

Unless you are counting immigrants (undocumented) in your totals. 

This the data being use by the regional mpo in the Denver Metro area. These are national stats.

 

'Boomers'

Population 76 million

Born between 1946-1964 (late 40s to mid 60s)

Source: http://www.bbhq.com/bomrstat.htm

 

'Gen Y'

In 2009 represented 25% of the population

90 million strong in 2030

Born between 1979-1994

 

Whatever source or data point you look at, I think if you add the Gen Y population, immigration, the unemployed and a slower number of boomers that are retiring, you easily have more incoming workforce than retiring workforce at this time. Which should mean an increase in workforce participation not a large decrease.

 

As you can see the majority of the boomers are still in the workforce (which means they should have little impact on the workforce number at this time) and a noticable chunk of the Ys should also be in the workforce (even if they are just part time while in college, etc).

The only way on earth there were 90 million people born between 1979 and 1994 who get counted as part of Gen Y is if you count immigrants, and even then it's not even going to come within, at best, about 15 million people. 

 

Did you look at the data that you linked to?  If you add up the births between 1979 and 1994 on that page, you get 61,315,000 members of Gen Y.  Even taking the 76,000,000 boomer number at face value (which I think is low), there are still 15,000,000 fewer Gen Y members out there. 

 

Quite frankly, there is no way your quoted figure of 90 million Gen Y members is supportable--either now or in the future.  If you're saying that the other alleged 30 million members of Gen Y (1979-1994) currently do or will in the future consist of immigrants, I don't think that's connected to reality.  The total estimated number of illegal immigrants in the US is around 11 million--with really top end (unsupported) estimates at 20 million.  And obviously not all of those are going to be born between 1979 and 1994.  And all the estimates seem to agree that that number is actually falling. 

 

I also don't buy your statement that there are far more people entering the work force for the first time.  Latest estimates indicate that about 10,000 boomers are retiring every day.  That means 3.65 million people leaving the work force every year, which is within 400,000 people of covering even the biggest years of the Gen Y "boom."  Which means that, for the relation of the baby boomers to Gen Y, you need to add, essentially, 400,000 jobs a year total to cover people coming into the work force, based on birth rate (putting aside immigration for the moment).  (Also, just FYI, the "unemployed" would not be considered to be "entering the workforce."  They're already in it.)

 

I get that you post economic data with a skeptical eye.  It's good and needed.  But your contentions about the size of the work force and particularly the relation between the baby boomers and Gen Y are unsupportable. 

Also--again based on your website's figures--that 61 million Gen Y'ers in 2009 was not 25% of the US population.  It would be 20%, pretty much on the nose, which is actually not that big a segment when you consider a life expectancy of between 75 and 80 and break down the generations into 15 or 16 year segments. 

On your one question, yes that was including immigrants, that is why it is a 2030 numbers. Maybe it would be better to not focus on what numbers are right or wrong etc. What I would like to focus on is the 'big picture'.

 

Let assume that 10,000 baby boomers are actually retiring every day (I think that estimate is not playing out because of the economy, but let go with it.)

 

Retires

365*10,000=3,650,000 retires every year

 

New Workers

Incoming workforce per month is 150,000=1.8 million new workers needing a job each month

 

Current unemployed by official US BLS data

12.7 million

 

Total available for work

So in this year alone we have 14.5 million workers available to enter the workforce

 

If we add no new unemployed to this number and no more new workers coming of age to work (after year one) we could fill all the vacant baby boomer jobs for the next 3 years straight.

 

So the workforce participation drop (to a 30 year low) is not due to a lack of workers/boomers, it due to a lack of available jobs. Which is one of the main topics I have tried to focus on in this thread. These numbers also don't take into consideration the unemployed that have fallen off the offical government unemployment list (know as the U6 number, which is much bigger). (Example - Like the 342,000 that just vanished off the recent numbers).

 

I would be happy to hear a different explanation of why the workforce participation rate is dropping if you have one. Always glad to have a different point of view on this thread. But, I think we can safely say its not do to the lack of available workers or a shrinking workforce capacity.

The MSM is starting to talk about how the jobless claims numbers always seem to come in low for the first headline than are quietly revised up later to make the next headline look better.

 

Is the government cooking the books on job numbers?

 

"ELIZABETH MACDONALD, FOX BUSINESS: You know, we are seeing some weird things coming up in the jobs numbers, Greta. And you know, we're taking a dispassionate, kind of clinical look at the jobs numbers and we're seeing some kind of oddities that even Wall Street shops from both sides of the aisle are finding, as well.

 

Take the first-time jobless claims -- in other words, people who are filing for unemployment for the first time. For 59 of the last 60 weeks, those numbers have been revised higher after the fact. So what that means is, is when you have the present week's number and you compare it to the prior week's number, it looks great because that prior week's number was revised higher."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/05/03/government-cooking-books-job-numbers#ixzz1uE2t44qT

On your one question, yes that was including immigrants, that is why it is a 2030 numbers. Maybe it would be better to not focus on what numbers are right or wrong etc. What I would like to focus on is the 'big picture'.

 

Let assume that 10,000 baby boomers are actually retiring every day (I think that estimate is not playing out because of the economy, but let go with it.)

 

Retires

365*10,000=3,650,000 retires every year

 

New Workers

Incoming workforce per month is 150,000=1.8 million new workers needing a job each month

 

Current unemployed by official US BLS data

12.7 million

 

Total available for work

So in this year alone we have 14.5 million workers available to enter the workforce

 

If we add no new unemployed to this number and no more new workers coming of age to work (after year one) we could fill all the vacant baby boomer jobs for the next 3 years straight.

 

So the workforce participation drop (to a 30 year low) is not due to a lack of workers/boomers, it due to a lack of available jobs. Which is one of the main topics I have tried to focus on in this thread. These numbers also don't take into consideration the unemployed that have fallen off the offical government unemployment list (know as the U6 number, which is much bigger). (Example - Like the 342,000 that just vanished off the recent numbers).

 

I would be happy to hear a different explanation of why the workforce participation rate is dropping if you have one. Always glad to have a different point of view on this thread. But, I think we can safely say its not do to the lack of available workers or a shrinking workforce capacity.

 

Well, my problem is that every time you claim to be focusing on the big picture, you are using numbers, but those numbers aren't supportable.  In fact, even here, you claim to want to talk about the big picture...and you then go right back into numbers. 

I don't think your immigration number makes any sense.  You said there would be 90 million Gen Y'ers in the workforce in the US--are you saying that we are going to get 30 million immigrants born between 1979 and 1995 coming to the US between now and 2030?  That we're going to get as much immigration as half of what you are calling a "boom" generation? 

The MSM is starting to talk about how the jobless claims numbers always seem to come in low for the first headline than are quietly revised up later to make the next headline look better.

 

Actually, it is reported quite frequently, especially at Fox.  Regardless, the trend is what matters and what smart economist pay attention to.  The trend is still positive, no matter how much one can nitpick at the way the smaller samples are released.  Fox, Zerohedge, etc. will highlight the inconsistencies, but conveniently leaves out any explanation.  The most basic explanation is that the initial release is based on preliminary data from the states, not the DOL cooking the books.  When the states update their data, as they are required to do each week, additional claims are added.  The fact that we have a lot of reactionary investors who latch on to the initial release is just a convenient consequence produced by the free market.

The MSM is starting to talk about how the jobless claims numbers always seem to come in low for the first headline than are quietly revised up later to make the next headline look better.

 

Actually, it is reported quite frequently, especially at Fox.  Regardless, the trend is what matters and what smart economist pay attention to.  The trend is still positive, no matter how much one can nitpick at the way the smaller samples are released.  Fox, Zerohedge, etc. will highlight the inconsistencies, but conveniently leaves out any explanation.  The most basic explanation is that the initial release is based on preliminary data from the states, not the DOL cooking the books.  When the states update their data, as they are required to do each week, additional claims are added.  The fact that we have a lot of reactionary investors who latch on to the initial release is just a convenient consequence produced by the free market.

 

This is not historically the norm for this number to always be revised upward (take a look). Please don't take this comment as a political comment because I used fox news. I firmly believe the republicans would have the same thing done. Matter of fact this may not be about the republicans or democrats. This maybe about those that hold the purse strings.

 

While the number may still be above zero its clearly declining and 115,000 new jobs is not enough to take care of the incoming workforce. In other words we added to the unemployed last month.

 

Add in that we lost 812,000 full time jobs and replaced many of them with 508,000 part time jobs and you have employment going in the wrong direction. You also have the little issue of the 342,000 that 'disappeared' from the stats as well.

 

I consider all these things not a positive move. It just takes moving past the headline and politics.

On your one question, yes that was including immigrants, that is why it is a 2030 numbers. Maybe it would be better to not focus on what numbers are right or wrong etc. What I would like to focus on is the 'big picture'.

 

Let assume that 10,000 baby boomers are actually retiring every day (I think that estimate is not playing out because of the economy, but let go with it.)

 

Retires

365*10,000=3,650,000 retires every year

 

New Workers

Incoming workforce per month is 150,000=1.8 million new workers needing a job each month

 

Current unemployed by official US BLS data

12.7 million

 

Total available for work

So in this year alone we have 14.5 million workers available to enter the workforce

 

If we add no new unemployed to this number and no more new workers coming of age to work (after year one) we could fill all the vacant baby boomer jobs for the next 3 years straight.

 

So the workforce participation drop (to a 30 year low) is not due to a lack of workers/boomers, it due to a lack of available jobs. Which is one of the main topics I have tried to focus on in this thread. These numbers also don't take into consideration the unemployed that have fallen off the offical government unemployment list (know as the U6 number, which is much bigger). (Example - Like the 342,000 that just vanished off the recent numbers).

 

I would be happy to hear a different explanation of why the workforce participation rate is dropping if you have one. Always glad to have a different point of view on this thread. But, I think we can safely say its not do to the lack of available workers or a shrinking workforce capacity.

 

Well, my problem is that every time you claim to be focusing on the big picture, you are using numbers, but those numbers aren't supportable.  In fact, even here, you claim to want to talk about the big picture...and you then go right back into numbers. 

 

So which of the numbers that I used in this example do you not agree with? I only used official data and your own number of boomers retiring. So if you agree with these official numbers, please explain why the workforce number is at a 30 year low. Because its pretty clear its not because the amount of available workers is currently declining.

Just when you think they have run out of ammo they find a new bullet. They have three monetary tricks (at minimum) they can/are still using. Print, keep rates historically low, and confuse the system.

 

And is India joining the parade of economic issues? Either the Chinese are becoming more environmentally concerned or the slow down in China is more severe than being report by the goverment stats.

 

Xie: Emerging markets to shadow U.S., Europe

Commentary: Europe, U.S. have run out of monetary tricks

 

"BEIJING ( Caixin Online ) — Industrial production is stalling in India, and its credit rating may be downgraded to junk. Power consumption in China has slowed to about half of last year’s level, while consumer price inflation remains stubbornly high.

 

It’s obvious the world’s largest emerging economies are no longer in a position to carry the global economy through tough times, as they did during the “recovery” years of 2009-’11. And that spells trouble for the United States and Europe."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/emerging-market-woes-to-shadow-us-europe-2012-05-07

March U.S. home prices see first climb since July

 

"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- U.S. home prices edged up 0.6% in March, the first monthly rise since July 2011, according to CoreLogic. That represents a year-on-year fall of 0.6%."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/march-us-home-prices-see-first-climb-since-july-2012-05-08

A quick look across the pond where things are getting a little rocky again.

 

Investors seek safety as fears of Greece euro exit spark sell-off

 

"Leader of left-wing Syriza party says Greeks voted against the "barbaric bailout" and austerity pledges are "null and void", while British 10-year borrowing costs drop to historic lows."

 

"And it isn't just Samaras who believes that refusing to follow through with austerity promises would be bad news. Joerg Asmussen, a German member of the ECB board, has used a newspaper interview to warn France and Greece to stick to their fiscal commitments. Speaking to Handelsblatt he said:

 

I expect France to implement the fiscal pact unchanged. In addition, I expect the new government to respect the promise to reduce the public deficit next year below the three-percent (of GDP) mark.

 

It must be clear to all that the fiscal pact - supplemented with a growth passage - must not be weakened in its substance.

 

It must be clear to Greece that there is no alternative to the agreed restructuring programme if it wants to remain a eurozone member."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/debt-crisis-live/9250673/Debt-crisis-live.html

Everything is just fine, nothing to see here, move along now.

 

Spain nationalizes No. 4 bank as crisis deepens

 

"The decision announced Wednesday night came after investors sent Spanish government bond yields soaring and stocks plunging. They are concerned Spain may be forced to ask for a bailout like those taken by Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

 

Earlier Wednesday, Spain's financial markets were shaken as investors worried about the fallout from Greece's political crisis and awaited details of the Spanish government's next move to shore up its banking sector.

 

Spanish banks are largely frozen out of international capital markets and have been hobbled in their abilities to provide credit to businesses and consumers."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/05/09/spain-bankia-debt-crisis.html?cmp=rss