Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest #1Stunner

April Jobs Report

Recommended Posts

In the Boise area, some business job postings required an MBA, but offered under $20/hr. I'm sure the Facebook posts are legit, but that doesn't mean everyone on UI can get a suitable job easily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Maji said:

In the Boise area, some business job postings required an MBA, but offered under $20/hr. I'm sure the Facebook posts are legit, but that doesn't mean everyone on UI can get a suitable job easily

Construction, light manufacturing, entry trade jobs, cooking, customer service, etc. --- none requiring even a BA.  HS diploma not really mattering at this point.

Moar Mexicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, grandjean87 said:

Construction, light manufacturing, entry trade jobs, cooking, customer service, etc. --- none requiring even a BA.  HS diploma not really mattering at this point.

Moar Mexicans.

Right, but is the market really ultra tight if an MBA graduate settles for something in trade or cooking? Now, if it's by choice, that's different entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Maji said:

Right, but is the market really ultra tight if MBA graduates have to settle for something unrelated in trade or cooking? Now, if it's by choice, that's different entirely.

Of course, there's no one single labor market.  I've seen a lot of classic underemployment over the years (the episodes of Micron and HP downsizing chiefly among them here).  Electrical engineers waiting tables.  I'm not up on the labor market for recent MBA grads.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, grandjean87 said:

Of course, there's no one single labor market.  I've seen a lot of classic underemployment over the years (the episodes of Micron and HP downsizing chiefly among them here).  Electrical engineers waiting tables.  I'm not up on the labor market for recent MBA grads.  

Using it as an interchangeable example. I wouldn't say I'm an expert on the MBA grad labor market either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Maji said:

I think I mentioned, somewhere, the growth in lower-wage employment and slight gains in wages (?) that accompanied last week’s jobs report.  $300 supplemental doesn’t seem like much, but it probably matters more in Payette, Idaho than NYC.  When you also have those long secular labor force participation trends maybe it is a bit of a factor in places?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, grandjean87 said:

I think I mentioned, somewhere, the growth in lower-wage employment and slight gains in wages (?) that accompanied last week’s jobs report.  $300 supplemental doesn’t seem like much, but it probably matters more in Payette, Idaho than NYC.  When you also have those long secular labor force participation trends maybe it is a bit of a factor in places?

You did, iirc. Your take here is reasonable. I'd expect that UI is having some impact, I just don't see it as the main cause for the disappointing report

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maji said:

Helping businesses was good, but this:

 

The government forces businesses to close without any option and then pays people to not work even though they have options and somehow these are in any way the same. Look at the big brain on Carl.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

The government forces businesses to close without any option and then pays people to not work even though they have options and somehow these are in any way the same. Look at the big brain on Carl.

It's common sense that businesses would've seen reduced demand even without mandates. It happened in countries without strong mandates or lockdowns. There was even a study confirming this. Heck, apparently I posted a topic about it. Restrictions had a slight impact, but weren't the main cause

Here's the link:

https://www.nber.org/digest/aug20/consumers-fear-virus-outweighs-lockdowns-impact-business

Also: I don't believe his point is that PPP was bad. And if your stance that government restrictions harmed businesses, surely that extends to individual consumers too -- at least prior to accounting for stimulus efforts, which actually increased disposable income. But the same concept applies to businesses receiving support from the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maji said:

It's common sense that businesses would've seen reduced demand even without mandates. It happened in countries without strong mandates or lockdowns. There was even a study confirming this. Heck, apparently I posted a topic about it. Restrictions had a slight impact, but weren't the main cause

Here's the link:

https://www.nber.org/digest/aug20/consumers-fear-virus-outweighs-lockdowns-impact-business

Also: I don't believe his point is that PPP was bad. And if your stance that government restrictions harmed businesses, surely that extends to individual consumers too -- at least prior to accounting for stimulus efforts, which actually increased disposable income. But the same concept applies to businesses receiving support from the government.

My point is comparing subsidizing the forced closure of non-essential businesses to subsidizing unemployment when there are job openings by the millions is not in any way the same thing. He sounds dumb when one of these things is so obviously not like the other one.

Millions of people were put out of work and stayed out of work for months because of government forcing businesses to close. The fall of demand was going to hurt no matter what, but because of PPP many of those businesses are still around to have those 7 million job openings go unfilled this month.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Arnon-et-al-conference-draft.pdf


7E5003E1-A197-449F-9D5D-629CBAAC7D3E.jpeg.e3f8ea15c08b9bfe524e7e08bcbfdeaf.jpeg

Figure 15 shows the impact of NPIs on employment. We estimate that the policy response to COVID-19 reduced employment by an average of 3 million between early March and the end of May – 13% of the total fall employment. Almost half of this decline was attributable to non- essential business closures, 30% to stay-at-home orders, and 22% to school closures. Notably, business closures account for a much larger share of the decline in employment than of the fall in contact rates (48% vs. 22%), while the opposite is true of stay-at-home orders (30% vs. 50%). This suggests large cost-benefit differences across the different NPIs.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Maji I get and agree with your point that many people tend to favor handouts to corporations and business owners vs workers even when it's the same damn conditions and the same damn money. 

that said... the government caused businesses to close and people to lose jobs and supported them both. now the continued support just for workers is (arguably) causing businesses to face a labor shortage. There is not as much cognitive dissonance here as the first case. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s no way we’re cutting benefits with this government. So what do you think of Sasse’s proposal here.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/ben-sasse-signing-bonuses-06bd63fd-aac8-490d-9247-443e7bbf696d.html 

How it works: Individuals who secure a job by July 4 would receive a bonus equal to 101% of two months of the federal enhanced unemployment benefit. Payments would be delivered in multiple installments.

The money is already spent and any extra needed to cover any remainder would seem to be peanuts compared to an economy that starts getting out of the gates.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Millions of people were put out of work and stayed out of work for months because of government forcing businesses to close.

Millions of people were put out of work because a pandemic caused widespread fear, reducing aggregate demand. Millions of people remained out of work because COVID-19 fears persisted, extending the economic disruption

2 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Figure 15 shows the impact of NPIs on employment. We estimate that the policy response to COVID-19 reduced employment by an average of 3 million between early March and the end of May – 13% of the total fall employment. Almost half of this decline was attributable to non- essential business closures, 30% to stay-at-home orders, and 22% to school closures. Notably, business closures account for a much larger share of the decline in employment than of the fall in contact rates (48% vs. 22%), while the opposite is true of stay-at-home orders (30% vs. 50%). This suggests large cost-benefit differences across the different NPIs.

From the study I linked:

Quote

By comparing counties with and without restrictions, the researchers conclude that only 7 percentage points of the 60 percentage point overall decline in business activity can be attributed to legal restrictions. Most of the decline resulted from consumers voluntarily choosing to avoid stores and restaurants. The results were similar regardless of whether differences in restrictions arose because neighboring counties within a commuter zone shut down at different times or because some counties shut down while their neighbors did not. Consumer traffic began to decline before legal restrictions were imposed and was closely correlated with the number of local COVID-19 deaths.

The researchers also find that to avoid crowds, consumers shifted from larger to smaller establishments. Comparing business traffic in January with that during the week of April 12 — the low point for economic activity in the sample — they found that activity was down 70 percent at establishments in the top quintile in size for their industry, compared with 45 percent for those in the bottom fifth. The shift away from larger businesses was more pronounced in communities harder hit by the disease.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument you're making -- that ending both fiscal stimulus and restrictions would force people back into work -- mirrors the argument Trump made. I don't agree with that assessment. It would've increased business activity somewhat, but there still would've been a massive reduction in business activity driven by consumer fear, and that consumer fear would've cost many, many jobs. It would've ruined many lives as well. The pandemic was an extraordinary circumstance that necessitated an unorthodox response.

A changing macro environment preceded the direct payments and supplemental unemployment insurance. Not the other way around. It was a response, not the cause.

@thelawlorfaithful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maji said:

"Millions of people were put out of work because COVID-19 fears reduced aggregate demand, and millions of people remained out of work because COVID-19 fears continued impacting aggregate demand" is a more accurate summary to me.

From the study I linked:

 

Buddy, I read the study. I read it so I know they were measuring shelter in place orders and not closure of essential businesses, while at the same time using essential businesses like grocery stores and gas stations in their aggregation. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...