Employment Situation Summary+248 (includes guess "Birth of jobs" of +195

[papau]

Pretend part time jobs up 195 of the 248 - and part time up 500+ -so full time jobs must have dropped?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm for June 4 release of increase in jobs of 248

and Birth Death model - the guess made of jobs not reported but existing - below and is at 195.

http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm

2004 Net Birth/Death Adjustment (in thousands) Supersector Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Total -321 115 153 270 195

[mhr]

1. Created Out Of Whole Cloth Based On Assumptions

The BLS has no clue if these jobs actually exist. To Be more precise, the BLS "assumes" that any economic growth creates jobs. So the BLS takes the growth and invents jobs. There is no verification that these jobs actually exist.

In other words it is a process ripe for political manipulation.

In the real world, many professional types are now listing their extended unemployment as self employed. The bulk of these people are no more self employed than the man in the moon.

I know many people that are using this ploy to keep the resume from looking so bad.

The BLS uses this phenomena to their advantage to claim that hundreds of thousands of people are now working for themselves and hence new jobs have been created.

Totally bogus!

[Frodo]

3. Isn't it amazing though

how this part of the process only cam into question when you stopped liking the numbers?

[mhr]

5. Frodo - It Is Not A Matter Of Not Liking The Numbers

You fail to comprehend that those of us looking for work understand all to well that good professional jobs DO NOT EXIST.

It is marvelous Frodo that you are such a wonderful and great person and that you are employed through some cosmic grace.

It is not so wonderful that you show such callous disregard for people equally talented as yourself that cannot find employment.

Seems that you are the one giddy because the numbers support your warped world view that all is well.

I stand as witness that it is not - unemployed four years here!

[Frodo]

8. Actually, I adjust my "world view" to the numbers.

You seem to look at all of the numebrs through your "world view".

Both have potential pitfalls. I am "deluded" if ALL of the sources of data are wrong/crooked. You may bend "truth" to suit your own personal situation.


You continue to respond to reports by implying that they are wrong because YOU don't have a job. If you GET a job tomorrow, will that mean that any negative reports must be lies?

[mhr]

13. I Adjust My World View To Ground Truth In Dallas, TX

With 2000 Resumes out the door.

The professional job market is dead.

If I get a job tomorrow for starvation wages it still does not change the fact that the professional job market is dead.

It only reflects Bush economics at play.

I am happy that if tomorrow you lose your job and have to take a McJob you will still be giddy and jumping for joy since your charts - in your eyes - are validated.

Flipping burgers is not my idea of existence.

Maybe you would be satisfied with that life.

[Frodo]

18. No.

But if I DO lose my job tomorrow I won't assume that it impacts the overall economy or is a sign of anything bigger than one bank buying out another.

I won't question a report that says that the "initial filing" figure for that week went down from 335k to 330k just because I am one of the 330k. The only way my one measly little data point calls larger number into question is if they say "nobody got laid off last week" when I KNOW the number is at least "1".

[kysrsoze]

14. Sheesh, Frodo. I've seen lots of opinion posts from you and

it's amazing how you're always right and everyone else is mistaken. This latest post was subjective, callous and unnecessary. Your posts often pick away at peoples' logic. There are a lot of people out there who are angry about the economy and rightly so. I AM employed and I still don't see indicators that the number of jobs is growing. Here are just a few of the items which give me this opinion.

1. My company of 150K people is NOT hiring - only contractors and they just got rid of a bunch.

2. I've heard of one person I know actually getting a job in the last 6 months, while I've heard of at least four people losing their jobs.

3. I've yet to come into personal contact with anyone who thinks the job market is good, Republican or Democrat. These aren't people on DU.

4. Continued layoff announcements in manufacturing, retail, airlines, etc. These are hard to ignore.

These posters are right - these jobs numbers are ESTIMATES based on ASSUMPTIONS, and this is the "seasonal" hiring season. I think you should lighten up on people a bit.

[Frodo]

17. Yes. And?

And everyone who disagrees with me ALSO thinks they're always right and I'm always mistaken.

Welcome to the real world (especially online).

1) My company isn't hiring either (at least not other than replacements)

2) No comparison for me, most of the people I know have new jobs in the last several months... the old company doesn't exist anymore.

3) Can't help you there. I don't think it's "good" (yet) either. It's REMARKABLY BETTER than it HAS been for the last 3+ years, but it has quite a ways to climb to get to "good". I'm worried about my job and I'm still not comfortable that I can walk right out and get another one tomorrow.

4) Layoff announcements like that happen in the BEST of times too. How do YOU think we get 300k new "initial filings" each week even in a good week? Dozens of little "3000 layoffs" and "250 layoffs" articles just add up to a very small piece of the 300-350 THOUSAND people who lose their jobs EVERY WEEK.

The question is "how do these layoffs compare to previous years?" and "How many people are getting hired at the same time?"

[mhr]

19. And The Answer Is We Do Not Know Because The Data Is Estimated

Per the BLS on the Birth/Death model,

"The most significant potential drawback to this or any model-based approach is that time series modeling assumes a predictable continuation of historical patterns and relationships and therefore is likely to have some difficulty producing reliable estimates at economic turning points or during periods when there are sudden changes in trend."

The BLS is pulling straws out of thin air and many want to cling to the straw numbers as if they were ground truth, which they are not!

[PROGRESSIVE1]

6. Re-Select Bush 04'

:eyes:

[Frodo]

9. No thank you.

Because things are going to get a lot better over the next couple years. Might as well have our guy take credit for it.

And if we can correct a couple budget problems we might even avoid the worst effects due near the end of that term.

If, on the other hand, you think that there is nothing we can do to avoid a horrible crash... then by all means put the guy back in. Might as well put blame where it is due.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

21. What happens if people percieve things as getting better?

What does Kerry do then?

The best that * can do is to break even in terms of job gains/losses.

[papau]

7. Frodo I left a post in the "moved" and repeat below

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet (for total non-farm)

Series Id: CEU0000000001Not Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: Total nonfarmIndustry: Total nonfarmData Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1994 110730 111308 112283 113364 114376 115171 114227 114535 115591 116217 116827 116861 114291
1995 114551 115213 115972 116803 117523 118243 117008 117268 118180 118780 119017 119015 117298
1996 116315 117252 118056 118890 120017 120681 119642 119931 120673 121383 121842 121815 119708
1997 119269 120125 121007 121979 123052 123701 122709 122770 123770 124673 125063 125196 122776
1998 122636 123405 124121 125159 126240 126902 125833 126069 126874 127652 128052 128215 125930
1999 125462 126445 127158 128305 129176 129906 129039 129093 129867 130804 131262 131403 128993
2000 128763 129428 130526 131525 132481 132998 131777 131785 132450 133007 133372 133308 131785
2001 130433 131098 131690 132094 132800 133179 131686 131613 131871 132072 131880 131491 131826
2002 128602 129069 129672 130257 131023 131404 129959 130044 130559 131227 131346 130933 130341
2003 128248 128660 129148 129781 130520 130830 129481 129512 130135 130924 131071 130862 129931
2004 128190 128786 129816 130975(p) 131914(p)
p : preliminary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Series Id: CES0000000001Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: Total nonfarmIndustry: Total nonfarmData Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1994 112473 112665 113133 113490 113829 114139 114498 114801 115155 115361 115786 116056
1995 116377 116588 116808 116971 116962 117189 117260 117538 117777 117926 118070 118210
1996 118192 118627 118882 119047 119376 119647 119875 120078 120296 120534 120826 121003
1997 121232 121526 121843 122134 122396 122642 122918 122911 123417 123756 124063 124361
1998 124629 124814 124962 125240 125641 125846 125967 126322 126543 126735 127020 127364
1999 127477 127873 127997 128379 128593 128850 129145 129338 129525 129947 130242 130536
2000 130730 130876 131369 131677 131908 131883 132043 132015 132104 132134 132317 132441
2001 132388 132492 132507 132236 132237 132087 131972 131831 131564 131203 130871 130659
2002 130494 130404 130447 130379 130381 130406 130295 130306 130259 130342 130305 130096
2003 130190 130031 129921 129901 129873 129859 129814 129789 129856 129944 130027 130035
2004 130194 130277 130630 130976(p) 131224(p)

Combined with Houshold change in part-time of over +500 for month and 676 for year (19004 - 19680)


and combined with birth/death model increase of 412 plus 375 or 787 over 12 months

all lead to my conclusion fewer full time workers - and about 47000 jobs per month increase over past 12 months before you remove effect of of increase in birth/death model guesses over 12 months and 204224 over 12 or 17000 new jobs per month after you remove the seasonal adjustment increase over 12 months (under the theory that over 12 months seasonal adjustments should be zero compared to change in raw numbers).

Series Id: LNU02032194Not Seasonally AdjustedSeries title: (Unadj) Employment Level - Persons At Work 1-34 Hours, Economic Reasons, All IndustriesLabor force status: EmployedType of data: Number in thousandsAge: 16 years and overHours at work: 1 to 34 hoursReasons work not as scheduled: Economic reasonsWorker status/schedules: At work part time

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1994 5235 4857 4987 4538 4649 5063 4841 4417 4017 4132 4368 4408 4625
1995 4848 4567 4566 4245 4351 4740 4749 4553 4217 4092 4335 4410 4473
1996 4320 4597 4569 4299 4175 4577 4646 4407 4012 3973 3860 4352 4315
1997 4541 4419 4277 4244 3891 4258 4279 4036 3638 3602 3768 3869 4068
1998 4299 4042 4011 3649 3602 4033 4025 3508 3112 3086 3159 3455 3665
1999 3815 3594 3703 3316 3281 3641 3537 3238 2948 2832 3045 3332 3357
2000 3574 3343 3360 3064 3171 3400 3308 3151 2893 2874 3287 3302 3227
2001 3732 3481 3394 3163 3315 3977 3725 3326 3835 4035 4125 4467 3715
2002 4564 4514 4225 4018 3942 4251 4352 4249 3929 3965 4160 4385 4213
2003 5135 5061 4784 4609 4409 4798 4870 4377 4455 4394 4682 4833 4701
2004 5270 4764 4868 4411 4427


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Series Id: LNS12032194Seasonal AdjustedSeries title: (Seas) Employment Level - Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All IndustriesLabor force status: EmployedType of data: Number in thousandsAge: 16 years and overHours at work: 1 to 34 hoursReasons work not as scheduled: Economic reasonsWorker status/schedules: At work part time

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1994 4947 4677 4890 4752 4836 4816 4505 4359 4332 4472 4468 4440
1995 4550 4397 4451 4428 4513 4489 4436 4513 4580 4462 4489 4434
1996 4022 4420 4429 4464 4327 4312 4358 4391 4382 4372 4025 4365
1997 4189 4242 4112 4396 4032 3998 4040 4049 4004 3973 3962 3848
1998 3922 3866 3859 3775 3727 3766 3796 3537 3448 3433 3339 3420
1999 3449 3425 3550 3443 3393 3411 3350 3286 3279 3153 3225 3283
2000 3202 3168 3231 3183 3281 3204 3142 3214 3216 3188 3472 3248
2001 3328 3278 3279 3280 3438 3779 3553 3403 4247 4454 4337 4403
2002 4061 4221 4101 4156 4104 4070 4159 4362 4334 4350 4350 4330
2003 4572 4711 4662 4758 4610 4615 4661 4498 4896 4800 4880 4788
2004 4714 4437 4733 4574 4665


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Series Id: LNU02032200Not Seasonally AdjustedSeries title: (Unadj) Total At Work in Nonagricultural Industries, Worked 1-34 Hours, for Noneconomic Reasons, Usually Work Part TimeLabor force status: EmployedType of data: Number in thousandsAge: 16 years and overIndustry: Nonagriculture industries (0369-9590 & 9890)Reasons work not as scheduled: Noneconomic reasonsWorker status/schedules: At work part time, usually work part time

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1994 17278 17782 17687 17682 17273 15326 14600 14311 17251 17988 18634 18311 17007
1995 17584 18164 17739 17663 17443 15453 14940 14468 17649 18016 18113 17882 17093
1996 16933 17846 17870 17690 17277 15825 14910 14866 17530 17995 18751 18307 17150
1997 17879 18342 18338 18562 17993 16162 15102 14839 17506 18392 18708 18946 17564
1998 18202 18693 18736 18204 18411 16595 15528 15229 18378 18896 19305 19270 17954
1999 18352 18964 18841 19181 18568 16629 16049 15870 18490 19081 19193 19143 18197
2000 18874 19497 19236 19213 18550 16571 15957 15777 18480 19323 19729 19943 18429
2001 18709 19764 19188 18839 18660 16684 16191 16138 18689 19163 19432 19527 18415
2002 18294 19115 19007 19474 18955 17346 16572 16364 18858 19071 19452 19332 18487
2003 19005 19032 19158 19431 19004 17570 16535 16821 18924 19265 19911 19246 18658
2004 18910 19327 19276 19263 19680


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Series Id: LNS12032200Seasonal AdjustedSeries title: (Seas) Employment Level - Part-Time for Noneconomic Reasons, Nonagricultural IndustriesLabor force status: EmployedType of data: Number in thousandsAge: 16 years and overIndustry: Nonagriculture industries (0369-9590 & 9890)Reasons work not as scheduled: Noneconomic reasonsWorker status/schedules: At work part time, usually work part time

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1994 16996 17019 16978 16819 16856 16755 17070 17149 16959 17052 17277 17113
1995 17299 17352 17023 17150 17052 16885 17370 17221 17383 17140 16841 16792
1996 16632 17005 17131 17128 16919 17273 17247 17592 17314 17157 17499 17217
1997 17539 17459 17564 17623 17649 17662 17438 17439 17322 17577 17515 17816
1998 17868 17808 17923 17621 18028 18097 17916 17786 18205 18095 18141 18078
1999 17979 18033 18066 18249 18228 18220 18427 18428 18316 18273 18128 17928
2000 18501 18526 18493 18325 18260 18178 18217 18190 18269 18523 18631 18713
2001 18361 18843 18526 18421 18379 18238 18374 18452 18434 18414 18348 18413
2002 17983 18340 18410 18616 18642 18804 18732 18592 18570 18391 18343 18353
2003 18710 18353 18580 18571 18653 18930 18651 19016 18633 18628 18752 18367
2004 18636 18691 18693 18664 19220

[Frodo]

11. Hmmm.

I'm still working on the previous point. I don't see the differential between the adjusted and non-adjusted that I think you were pointing out. I get (May-May) 1.351 Million (net) vs. 1.394 Million (net).

I think you went June-May on one and May-May on the other. Because the "seasonal adjustment" probably gets prett big as summer approaches, that one month difference can really throw you off.

Am I missing some of what you were asking?


On the point listed here - where are you getting your "PT +500" for the month?


On edit - Hey! I got a post pulled! I feel like one of the club now! I thought all I said was "don't mess with the moderators". But maybe I typo's a curse word in there or something?

[papau]

22. You are correct - I pulled a number from a wrong col. :-(

the seasonal adjustment seems ok.

so I am back to a little under 600000 new jobs in a year if the increase caused by the birth death program is removed (1.3 less 0.8, or 564,000 new jobs over 12 months)

12 birth/death months are 164 -83 124 33 45 30 62 -321 115 153 270 195 which total 787.

[papau]

24. Part Time over year is +603, birth/death is +787, and jobs are +1300

Since birth/death only applies to B series it can not be part of the part-time number from the A series

So I have a full time job decrease over the past 12 months - right?

For part time I add 4610 and 19073 to get 23683 to compare with current year 4665 plus 19621, or 24286 - giving a 603 increase in part time over 12 months. - per the household series A

[Frodo]

25. No. I really don't think so.

You might have missed it before. I ask again. "Where does the PT number come from???"

Which report? Which category?

If it comes from "Table A-5. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status ", then NO, you can not use the data for that calculation. That is not a report of the number of "part-time" workers in the economy because LOTS AND LOTS of those "part-time" workers are FULL-TIME employees who worked less than 35 hours during some week this month. It could be for weather or scheduling, or taking time off without vacation, or holiday's that are unpaid, or cyclical operations like construction, or unpaid sick leave, or FMLA, etc etc etc. So it varies wildly from month to month completely independantly of how many people have "part time" jobs. You can see movement in the hundreds of thousands in that number without a single change in the data you are looking for (i.e. "how many of these "new" jobs are Full-Time???")

[papau]

28. OK - it is Table A-5 - but over a year would not all the noise drop out?

Or at least we could say it dropped out if yearly numbers for april and march are similiar? (not that I know this to be true - I am just trying to find wisdom! :-) )

In any case "LOTS AND LOTS of those "part-time" workers are FULL-TIME employees who worked less than 35 hours during some week" would be an item that would have a history - either by direct questionair or by sampling - there should be something that quantifies it

and even if not, the "seasonal adjustment" should correct for noise in the series.

Absent data that indicates full time jobs did not go down - which means a showing that part time did not increase and that birth/death did not add more jobs than the total job increase, I do not think it a strech to say we have fewer full time jobs - after all the A series is not that reliable - so we only use it for its reliable part time number ....

now the above works with the GOP and our media - why can't I get you to accept it ????? (granted if household is unreliable, the part time versus full time numbers and their changes are not too usefull - but my logic is as good as anyone's logic who is saying that full time jobs increased in the past year - and bases that on the A series).

:-)

[Frodo]

30. OK.

"would be an item that would have a history - either by direct question air or by sampling - there should be something that quantifies it"

No, because this number isn't INTENDED for the use you are putting it to. They're trying to measure all of the people who are getting paid less than full-time and why. It isn't intended to measure how many people are designated as "FT" employees when hired. You WANT to be able to look at a "net job creation figure" and make a rational judgment about the QUALITY of those jobs. They just didn't have that in mind when creating that dataset.


And seasonal adjust doesn't solve the problem because lots of these factors aren't really "seasonal".


Just look at the example I gave you before. Just using your methodology with these numbers, last month's FT job creation was absolutely PHENOMENAL, right? I mean, PT employment went DOWN by around 200k on top of 350k "net new jobs".... or did it? Do we REALLY believe that there were 550k FT jobs created in one month? That's equal to the single best month Clinton ever had! I just don't buy it.

I've got a baby due in a couple months. If I take off a couple weeks of unpaid leave beyond whatever "paternity" leave I get (I've got to look into that soon) - did I REALLY go from FT to PT back to FT? Did the number of jobs "created" get impacted AT ALL by this movement?

[papau]

31. Last 3 months data below

The seasonally adjusted job gain has been 353, 346, and today's 248?

The birth death increase for each month was 153, 270, 195

part time series is

4714 4437 4733 4574 4665
18905 18900 19006 19000 19621
24286 23574 23739 23337

404 -165 712

So last 3 months adjustments to get "full Time are

195 + 404 so 248 becomes lose 351 full time

270 -165 so 346 becomes gain 241 full time

153 + 712 so 353 becomes lose 512 full time

[Longhorn79]

15. jobs around

My previously unemployed best friends just got hired last week at Lexis-Nexis and NCR as IT and information managers, respectively. My wife just got hired by a bank in accounting because they got too busy; they needed to create her job. Jobs are available for those qualified. (Although, I admit to basing this assumption on the same error that you are basing yours on: what's happening around me, individually)

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moderator]

4. Please edit your subject line

The title of the article/press release must match your subject line. Please do this as soon as possible.

[mhr]

10. Papau, Do You Have Handy All The "Created" Jobs Since January

In other words, can you list by month the "birth/death" jobs since the beginning of the year.

It would be interesting to see this total versus the "real" jobs over the same period.

Seems the ratio is running 3 to 1.

[papau]

12. Over a year: 412 added in 04, 375 in 03 for total 787,000 over a year

http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm

CES Net Birth/Death Model


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In 2004, the CES sample includes about 160,000 businesses and government agencies drawn from a sampling frame of Unemployment Insurance tax accounts which cover approximately 400,000 individual worksites. The active CES sample includes approximately one-third of all nonfarm payroll workers. The sample-based estimates are adjusted each month by a statistical model designed to reduce a primary source of non-sampling error, the inability of the sample to capture on a timely basis, employment growth generated by new business formations.
There is an unavoidable lag between an establishment opening for business and its appearing on the sample frame and being available for sampling. Because new firm births generate a portion of employment growth each month, non-sampling methods must be used to estimate this growth.
Earlier research indicated that while both the business birth and death portions of total employment are generally significant, the net contribution is relatively small and stable. To account for this net birth/death portion of total employment, BLS is implementing an estimation procedure with two components: the first component uses business deaths to impute employment for business births. This is incorporated into the sample-based link relative estimate procedure by simply not reflecting sample units going out of business, but imputing to them the same trend as the other firms in the sample.
The second component is an ARIMA time series model designed to estimate the residual net birth/death employment not accounted for by the imputation. The historical time series used to create and test the ARIMA model was derived from the UI universe micro level database, and reflects the actual residual net of births and deaths over the past five years. The ARIMA model component is updated and reviewed on a quarterly basis.
The net birth/death model component figures are unique to each month and exhibit a seasonal pattern that can result in negative adjustments in some months. These models do not attempt to correct for any other potential error sources in the CES estimates such as sampling error or design limitations.
The most significant potential drawback to this or any model-based approach is that time series modeling assumes a predictable continuation of historical patterns and relationships and therefore is likely to have some difficulty producing reliable estimates at economic turning points or during periods when there are sudden changes in trend. BLS will continue researching alternative model-based techniques for the net birth/death component; it is likely to remain as the most problematic part of the estimation process.
The table below shows the net birth/death model adjustment used in the published CES estimates since the establishment of the most recent benchmark level for March 2003.



2003 Net Birth/Death Adjustment (in thousands)
Supersector Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Natural Resources & Mining -1 1 1 0 1 1 1 -1 0
Construction 13 35 28 -8 16 9 8 -7 -8
Manufacturing -15 5 5 -29 6 3 -7 3 1
Trade, Transportation, & Utilities -4 21 18 -19 17 17 13 17 18
Information -3 4 0 -4 2 0 -1 3 3
Financial Activities 9 8 6 -11 8 4 14 7 13
Professional & Business Services 61 32 21 -22 31 15 18 10 9
Education & Health Services 32 6 -4 -20 14 12 26 10 7
Leisure & Hospitality 29 72 83 40 24 -29 -27 -14 15
Other Services
7 8 6 -10 5 1 0 2 4
Total
128 192 164 -83 124 33 45 30 62



2004 Net Birth/Death Adjustment (in thousands) Supersector Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Natural Resources & Mining -4 0 1 0 1
Construction -66 7 27 38 39
Manufacturing -38 4 7 3 8
Trade, Transportation, & Utilities -61 9 22 19 23
Information -5 5 2 2 3
Financial Activities -12 10 9 16 7
Professional & Business Services -95 27 31 66 26
Education & Health Services -6 15 10 37 11
Leisure & Hospitality -24 33 37 80 71
Other Services -10 5 7 9 6
Total -321 115 153 270 195
Note: There is no net birth/death model adjustment for the government supersector.




Last Modified Date: June 4, 2004

[mhr]

16. Thanks, I Think This BLS Statement Sums Up Why These Numbers

Should be treated with a high level of suspicion.

"The most significant potential drawback to this or any model-based approach is that time series modeling assumes a predictable continuation of historical patterns and relationships and therefore is likely to have some difficulty producing reliable estimates at economic turning points or during periods when there are sudden changes in trend."

As an engineer with dozens of math classes behind me, steady state models are not accurate when conditions change. Yet many here and elsewhere treat these numbers as ground truth.

[papau]

20. Amen - teaching math is not an option mhr? - high schools are

looking in my area - especially the lower paying private schools!

[mhr]

23. Not Certified, I Know Three Teachers That Cannot Find Jobs In DFW

Most of the schools here have extreme budget shortfalls and do not have the funds to hire teachers.

This trend is being played out nationally as many certified teachers cannot find employment.

[bain_sidhe]

26. "assumes a predictable continuation of historical patterns"

This is the key weasel phrase... because we already KNOW that "historical patterns" AREN'T being continued... to wit (from the Economic Policy Institute http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_05272004):

When do workers get their share?
Despite recent good news on employment growth, the current economic recovery, now approaching its third year, remains the most unbalanced on record in respect to the distribution of income gains between corporate profits and labor compensation. Essentially, rapid gains in productivity have been translating into higher corporate profits without increasing the wage and salary income of American workers.

The chart below shows growth in corporate profits and total labor compensation (the sum of all paychecks and employee benefits in the U.S. economy) over the last 12 quarters; measuring profit growth since the peak of the last recovery in the first quarter of 2001.*





One more important point:

Most of this growth in total labor compensation has been accounted for by rising non-wage payments, like health care and pension benefits. Rapidly rising health care costs and pension funding requirements imply that these higher benefit payments are not translating into increased living standards for workers, but are rather just covering the higher costs of health care and pension funding. Growth in total wage and salary income, the primary source of take-home pay for workers, has actually been negative for private-sector workers: -0.6%, versus the 7.2% gain that is the average increase in private wage and salary income at this point in a recovery. (emphasis mine)

[sadiesworld]

27. JK should pull that chart out at every campaign stop.

[papau]

29. I agree - that chart defines GOP greed

:-)