OC Job numbers for August

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
graphrix_IHB

graphrix_IHB

New member
<p><a href="http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/oran$PDS.pdf">Did anyone see the jobs numbers?</a></p>

<p>Construction -2400 YOY. Every sector in construction saw losses.</p>

<p>Finance and Insurance sector -5300 YOY.</p>

<p>Health Care and Social Assistance +4000 YOY. These are not doctors and I would like to know how many ambulatory services employees it would take to buy a median priced home in OC.</p>

<p>Professional, Scientific and Technical Services +1600 YOY. Uh this sector was supposed to be our big growth sector. </p>

<p>Retail is a very good economic indicator and it was down for the third straight month on a YOY basis. The last and only time that has happened was 1992. I do not care how bullish you are this is not a good sign.</p>

<p>Full-service restaurants were down YOY and for the month.</p>

<p>Overall job growth was 0.2% and with only four months left for the year it doesn’t look like we will see that awesome 1% growth so many predicted.</p>

<p>Unemployment grew by 17.6% YOY.</p>

<p>Another interesting lowlight is educational services declined by 400 jobs YOY. Just last month the EDD was saying how this is due to a seasonal adjustment. But that adjustment ends in August. I would imagine that this will get adjusted at the end of the year but still it is weird.</p>
 
Thanks for the info - how does the 4.2 percent unemployment rate compare to the numbers we saw in the early 90s during the last real estate down cycle? Obviously, we're not at that level, but I know one theory as to why the re market won't tank too bad is because we're not seeing unemployment numbers like before.
 
I wonder how out-migration is impacting the unemployment numbers? If you lose people at the same rate you lose jobs, the unemployment numbers do not look bad, but the number of households decreases and with it the demand for housing.
 
<p>caliguy,</p>

<p>Aug 90 the rate was 3.7% and by Aug 91 it was 5.5%. Here is something I just noticed this is only the second time going back as far as 1990 that the unemployment rate increased from July to August and that was in 2001. By the way really like your blog. You are doing a great job on South County.</p>

<p>IR,</p>

<p>I am looking into that. YOY the labor force only grew by 5300 and I would imagine that could get revised. Did you notice on the 2006 census numbers for Irvine they were hacked back from the 2005? The dept. of finance uses the census numbers and I am curious if they will revise their population and housing stock numbers to match. No need to worry about the budget even though you used numbers that were revised lower. </p>
 
<p>As for professional/Technical services, well as a engineer for the last 15 years now, I can say that CA is just a wee bit too expensive. I've seen 3 companies go down because they just cannot be competitive with the people back east (bible belt and midwest states). We even have people from my own company starting a satellite operation back in texas because its SO expensive here. They have HUGE offices and space for peanuts compared to Irvine.... And this is a place that's suppose to be in a growth mode. I do see things swinging back the other driection though, this is because of the last few places i've work the average ... A.V.E.R.A.G.E age has been 47-53. So at least 30% of our population is at or near retirement age. Its going to get ugly here soon because this country is just not reinforcing getting a technical degree....</p>

<p>-bix</p>
 
<p>bix,</p>

<p>Not only that but we are going to have a very serious age gap in workers in the next ten years. Either the boomers will have to keep working or we are going to have to start doing employment raids in other states. We do not have enough highly skilled and highly educated younger people coming here. And we do not have the large growth of educated and skilled immigrants despite what some people say. They are actually going to other states more than ever. I need to remember where I found that and get the link. </p>
 
Are 1099 RE employees included??? I doubt it. If they are getting this info from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it will just pertain to W2 employees.
 
<p>1099 are included in the civilian labor force data which includes employed and unemployed. They are excluded from the industry data and that is why there are 42,300 more employed than there are in the total industry or non-farm payroll. They just do not know what industry they are in. It is done by survey so if someone who is 1099'd and not working they should say so. </p>

<p>Is there a margin of error that could make the numbers worse? Of course and they got lazy and revise the data at the end of the year and not the following month like they use to. Watch the civilian labor force numbers this will tell a lot if the margin of error is changing. </p>
 
<p>Honsetly I don't think there are too many 1099 people around. But then again, there are quite a few people here who are wealthy enough to 1099 it and pay for the taxes at their leisure.... oh well...</p>

<p>-bix</p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top