Payroll numbers out for December

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
W

WINEX_IHB

New member
And they stink. While unemployment is still low, there were only 17,000 jobs created last month.





What kind of personal experiences are people having here? Personally, I have had a surge of recruiters contacting me the last several weeks, and I don't even have a fresh copy of my resume on the job boards.
 
<p>Unexplained raise in RE jobs.</p>

<p>As I stood outside the Labor Department this morning, fighting to speak through the freezing temps, and cursing the reporter who usually covers that beat but who is busy freezing himself in New Hampshire today, I couldn’t help but think that the numbers played out before me had to be wrong. I know, I know, how can a government report be wrong?? </p>

<p class="textBodyBlack">The trouble is in my neck of the woods: real estate. According to the December Jobs report, the real estate sector added 5,400 jobs in the month and is even above the number for December of 2006. How can that be, when real estate agents are fleeing the business? According to the National Association of Realtors, membership has dropped just 2 percent from its peak in August of 2007, but that’s membership only.</p>

<p class="textBodyBlack">I heard from the NAR’s chief economist earlier this week that a quarter of all real estate agents in California didn’t even make a sale in 2007, so I’m guessing a lot of those NAR members aren’t actually working. </p>

<p class="textBodyBlack">I called the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and they say that number doesn’t even include mortgage brokers; they fall under Financial Services. I was thinking that maybe the surge was all that new staff needed to help folks refinance, but no. I emailed David Lereah, who used to work for the NAR but went corporate last year. All he could surmise was it might be real estate jobs related to foreclosed properties. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/22505383">www.cnbc.com/id/22505383</a></p>
 
<p><em>Since 1949 the unemployment rate has never risen by this magnitude without the economy being in recession.<em>— John Ryding, Bear Stearns</em></em></p>

<p><em>Retail trade employment was down by 24,000 in December following an increase in the prior month. Over the year, employment in retail trade was essentially flat.</em></p>

<p><a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm">That is straight from the BLS</a>. If retail jobs are down in December, then this is a sign that things are much worse than we know. I will look it up later, but I do not think retail has had a down December since the 90s recession.</p>

<p><em>About 1.3 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) were marginally attached to the labor force in December. These individuals wanted and were available to work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Among the marginally attached, there were 363,000 discouraged workers in December, up from 274,000 a year earlier. Discouraged workers were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them. The other 981,000 persons marginally attached to the labor force in December had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.</em></p>

<p>If you add the 363k discouraged workers, the unemployment rate is 5.2%. If you add the 1.3m marginally attached, the unemployment rate is 5.8%


</p>
 
Effenheimer, what you are hearing would match what I am observing. I do things with databases in the defense marketplace.
 
<p>I don't expect it to last, however. I learned the hard way that I'm not recession-proof.</p>

<p><em>"How can you possibly question a government statistic"</em></p>

<p>Exactly. Either you are <strong>with</strong> the government or <strong>against</strong> the government in the fight against rising unemployment statistics. </p>
 
<p><strong>U.S $ INDEX (NYBOT:DX). </strong>Boink.</p>

<p><img alt="" src="http://quotes.ino.com/chart/intraday.gif?s=NYBOT_DX&t=l&w=5&a=2&v=s" /></p>
 
Effenheimer, I remember how the last recession was, and though I was able to stay employed, I did have to take a hit on the rates I charged clients to do so.





But the last recession was unusual in that it was led by the sudden freeze in corporate spending after the binge at the end of the 90s. Whereas the coming recession is led by the collapse of consumer spending and write downs of investments.





For the most part, corporate balance sheets are healthy.





Though I don't consider anyone to be recession proof (especially Ben Bernanke), the project I am engaged on is rather large and as long as defense R&D budgets don't get demolished, I should be alright.
 
<p>Well, with all of this I expect some of us to have a healthy concern about keeping our current job and already reducing or downgrading our discretationary expenses and working on a backup plan, because if the consumers are reducing their expenses is going to hit the companies and there's going to be a domino effect.</p>

<p>Yes, S&P500 cos. had an stellar 2007 with record revenues and profits but the expectations changed in the summer of last year.</p>

<p>And I can't blame a CEO, CFO of a company to start with a hiring freeze and reduce contractors, then after doing some review of the "cost structure", reduce headcount, don't they always disclose the layoff news in this way?</p>

<p>Since 2001 when China entered the WTO and other isolated or closed countries adopted free market economies, we're in a global world, so what's different from the past is that now the US is engaged in a global market, that was not the case in past recessions, where the economy depended more in the local market.





The devaluated US dollar is the only weapon that the government has to help the economy. </p>
 
<i>"For the most part, corporate balance sheets are healthy."</i><p>

I think year 2008 will be the year we find out that many of the paper assets on corporate balance sheets are worthless, and we find out corporate balance sheets are analagous to the emperor's clothes.
 
Barry over at the Big Picture has a short but sweet rant on this: <a href="http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/01/overstated-jo-1.html">Overstated job growth, and understated inflation</a>.





<p>They Dow is down ~250, Nasdaq down almost ~100 as I type this.</p>

<p>As the excuses and <em>mea culpas </em>roll out over the next few weeks, pay close attention to the following nonsense: </p>

<p><em>Its not our fault; We relied on BLS for NFP data, and its apparent now it was wrong. The CPI data out of the government was also incorrect, that was where we were led astray. </em></p>

<p>What bullshit. </p>

<p>We have been pounding the table -- here, in print, and on the tube -- for several years. There is no excuse for ignoring the obviously flawed data series. You had to be living in a different world of to buy into that. </p>

<p>There was an alternative universe where the Job growth was robust , inflation benign, the Housing bust irrelevant, and the credit contagion contained. This universe was populated with pollyannas, perma-bulls, overtly political economists, and Wall Street cheerleaders. </p>

<p>In this alt. universe, Retail is fine, the economic boom was caused by the 2003 tax cuts (not Fed cuts), and the core rate of inflation was all that mattered. </p>

<p>This was Goldilock's house -- only today, she got her foreclosure notice . . .</p>

<p>I just can't stop laughing about that last line.


</p>
 
Rocker, for what it's worth, I believe that people have to prepare for the unexpected regardless of what the economic tea leaves are reading. Also, for what it is worth, there is absolutely no chance that the job I do will be shipped overseas. Nor is it possible for me to be replaced by an H1B. But while I am fortunate to be in a field that pays well, and have also positioned myself correctly within that field, there never are any guarantees in life. That's why I believe that living well beneath my means and debt free is the only way to go.
 
<p>Winex,</p>

<p>You are correct, there are no guarantees. I left Orange County and California in 1993, because it was almost impossible to find a job that paid more than minimum wage. Even prior to Clinton's election, the politicians were proclaiming a "peace dividend" and gutting the defense budget, closing bases, and shuttering whole R&D programs under the assumption that the end of the Cold War meant the end of huge defense spending. I can easily see events repeating themselves, especially in SoCal.</p>

<p>While we are currently at war, given the current stance of all the Democratic Presidential candidates and the likelyhood that they will control the White House and both houses of Congress this time next year, I would caution anyone in the defense industry to be extremely prepared for sudden unemployment. Especially if the economy does tank and tax revenues begin to drop; I don't see the Dems cutting domestic spending in the face of a deep recession but, in order to "balance" the budget and keep in line with their political philosophy, I easily see them raising taxes, recalling any active military forces, and restricting defense spending to 1996 levels. Even if the Dems pull another Kerry this year, controlling the House and Senate will be enough to force a drastic reduction in defense spending and that will force a choice to be made between R&D and the active forces currently deployed.</p>
 
Nude, I am relatively new to this area. I came here for the project that I am on, and have only been here for about 2 1/2 years. But I have read about what happened here during the 90's. Also, I spent all but 6 months of the Clinton administration in defense and can't tell you how many layoffs I survived.





I am somewhat of a news junkie, and realize that there is a contest going on in the Democrat primaries to see who can promise that they will surrender to Osama bin Laden the fastest. I also recognize that despite the pounding that al Qaeda has taken in Iraq, the possibility of a change in administration leading to a surrender in Iraq means that the enemy is going to try to hang on as long as possible. But I also realize that if we do surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq, it won't be long before we have a replay of 9/11 in the United States.





If you look at the history of defense spending under Clinton, it appears that while the Democrats are anti-defense, they appear to be more against spending to maintain current forces than they are against R&D. If that is the case again, then the impact on my program should be minimal. If that isn't the case, both the size and sunk cost of the program I am working on makes pulling the plug difficult. Also, while we will have a new president next year, the first budget that president submits to Congress won't come into effect until October 1, 2009.





But still the same, there are no guarantees. And if the defense environment turns ugly again and I'm not able to survive, then I'll adapt accordingly. I'm prepared to do whatever it takes to do so. I am in defense because I find the work interesting, and feel that what I do is necessary to help my country. But if I had to go to the civilian sector, having an MBA and working to create technology that people see on the Discovery channel aren't bad things to have on the resume.
 
I'm not sure how much defense spending affects OC, the bigger contractors are in LA



I don't see how the jobless numbers in OC wouldn't start climbing a lot very soon.



10% of jobs in OC are in state or local gov, local gov's get their funds from the state which is now facing a 14b shortfall, many of these jobs will have to go to balance the budget.



8% of OC jobs are in construction... looks like at least a 20% cutback here



then 1/2 the realtors will need to find new work because sales volumes wouldn't support them, not to mention cutbacks in the financial services sectors which has already been underway.



I'll bet U-hauls will be leaving SoCal again soon.
 
<em>"the possibility of a change in administration leading to a surrender in Iraq means that the enemy is going to try to hang on as long as possible."</em>





I get the distinct impression you are a core Republican. al Queda in Iraq will hold out as long as possible no matter the political conditions in the US. Bush could be declared dictator for life and al Queda will hold out in Iraq.





<em>"But I also realize that if we do surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq, it won't be long before we have a replay of 9/11 in the United States."</em>





Does that come from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck?





<em>"it appears that while the Democrats are anti-defense,"</em>





Ditto above.





I don't mean to be critical. It is just an observation. I am politically neutral. I am not sure if you see how tilted to the Right you are.
 
IR> I get the distinct impression you are a core Republican.





You are correct.





IR> al Queda in Iraq will hold out as long as possible no matter the political conditions in the US.





Yes and no.





You don't win wars by killing people, taking territory, and/or destroying buildings.





You win a war by destroying all hope that the enemy has. Surrender comes when it is clear that the only rational thing to do is stop fighting. As long as there are timelines for troop withdrawl being floated, hope is kept alive. Political conditions in the US can either create or destroy any hope that the enemy has.





WINEX><em>"But I also realize that if we do surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq, it won't be long before we have a replay of 9/11 in the United States."</em>





IR>Does that come from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck?





None of the above. It comes from Osama bin Laden. If you read the text of his fatwas from 1996 and 1998, it will become very clear to you that he has declared war on the United States, and that a large part of the reason he was emboldened to the point of blowing up 2 US embassies in Africa, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the USS Cole, and attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon was because of how we reacted to a little bit of trouble in Somalia. If we allow Osama bin Laden to have an even bigger success, do you really expect him to act any differently than he has in the past?





WINEX><em>"it appears that while the Democrats are anti-defense,"</em>





IR>Ditto above.





Really, there is no other objective conclusion that can be drawn.





Are you aware that US forces were training with blanks at the end of the 90s because we didn't spend the money to supply them with live ammunition?





Or that we only had something like 39 Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missiles when President Bush took office because we didn't spend the money to replace weapons used when President Clinton used his favorite form of foreign policy? (Lobbing a handful of cruise missiles at Iraq or Afghanistan in reaction to world events, then pronouncing the latest crisis resolved)





Or if you want a macro look at the field, just look at the defense budgets overall during the holiday from history of the 90's. I spent the majority of that decade in the night vision industry and even though it was a very strategic niche, I can't begin to tell you how many layoffs I saw because of budget cuts.





IR>I don't mean to be critical. It is just an observation. I am politically neutral. I am not sure if you see how tilted to the Right you are.





No worries here. And yes, I do realize that I am a conservative. (From a previous conversation with you on the subject, the best way to summarize my viewpoint is that while I do like President Bush, my biggest disagreements with the administration are all related to spending)
 
I have issues with the Bush foreign policy, particularly the insistence of the use of force in most situations even when diplomacy would be more cost effective. A strong military is fundamental to an effective foreign policy, but the frequent use of military is not. Our military is already by far the strongest in the world. Does it need to be even larger and stronger? That is the debate. Democrats can favor a smaller military and still maintain our overwhelming force advantage. I can't say this is their policy, as I don't know if they even have one. I can see why you would favor Republican administrations if your livelihood is defense. Republicans have never seen a weapon system they didn't want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top