The June Jobs Report!

[Value Buy]

84,000 new jobs in June.........
Just yesterday Goldman Sachs upped their number up to 120,00 new jobs. Oops.

This is not a good report. Again.
The economy is not improving, and America expects answers as to why, from our President, Unless you are on the Federal gravy train of unending Government handouts.
I expect this is more fallout from Obamacare, and our industrial producers refuse to higher more people.
Industry would rather pay overtime to the present workforce rather than raise their entitlement costs.

[Virgil Showlion]

Wikipedia says that 1,042,625 people (87,000 per month) obtained permanent resident status in the US in 2010.

Assuming immigration rates are the same this year, the US therefore has a brand new 3,000 people on the street hunting for jobs in June alone.

[Deleted]

Jul 6, 2012 9:09:58 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

The economy is not improving, and America expects answers as to why, from our President, Unless you are on the Federal gravy train of unending Government handouts.
I expect this is more fallout from Obamacare, and our industrial producers refuse to higher more people.
Industry would rather pay overtime to the present workforce rather than raise their entitlement costs.

No, industry would rather employ the Chinese, Indians, Indonesians and illegal immigrants. Funny thing about capital is that it tends to gravitate where it can get the greatest return, the biggest bang for the buck, if you will.

If even a fraction, a mere fraction, of the outsourced jobs where repatriated and paid “a living wage”, the unemployment rate would be in the 2 to 3 per cent range, and allowing for people who are in between jobs, that would essentially constitute full employment… a chicken in every pot! Or for the vegans out there, all the tofu you can stomach. lol

[djAdvocate]

Jul 6, 2012 9:09:58 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

84,000 new jobs in June.........
Just yesterday Goldman Sachs upped their number up to 120,00 new jobs. Oops.

This is not a good report. Again.
The economy is not improving, and America expects answers as to why, from our President, Unless you are on the Federal gravy train of unending Government handouts.
I expect this is more fallout from Obamacare, and our industrial producers refuse to higher more people.
Industry would rather pay overtime to the present workforce rather than raise their entitlement costs.

what is the breakdown of private -vs- public sector?

[workpublic]

i heard 95000 this morning.

and 125000 enter the workforce each month,

the US therefore has a brand new 3,000 people on the street hunting for jobs in June alone.

so i think it's more like 40000

[workpublic]

I thought the government could not create jobs

it can kill them and/or create them by policy. you know that. ;-)

[workpublic]

www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=offshored%20&pq=how%20many%20people%20enter%20the%20workforce%20each%20month&cp=24&gs_id=1id&xhr=t&q=offshored+jobs+returning&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=offshored+jobs+returning&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=21c0595ad86507f8&biw=1280&bih=934

If even a fraction, a mere fraction, of the outsourced jobs where repatriated and paid “a living wage”,

i think you meant off shored?

a "living wage" for me is between $20 and $25 an hour with benefits.

[skweet]

"If even a fraction, a mere fraction, of the outsourced jobs where repatriated and paid “a living wage”, the unemployment rate would be in the 2 to 3 per cent range, and allowing for people who are in between jobs, that would essentially constitute full employment… a chicken in every pot! Or for the vegans out there, all the tofu you can stomach. lol "

If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts when they hopped.

[workpublic]

and if elephants could fly we'd all be looking up. ;-)

[Deleted]

Yes, I meant “off shored”.

As a for instance, just one company, Apple, for just one product, the iPhone…”The Chinese factory where most iPhones reach final assembly employs 230,000 workers.”

Yes, I would agree that a “living wage” is in the $20 - $25 per hour range with benefits.

[Value Buy]

Oops.
I guess I was wrong on the number.
It is 80,000 and unemployment remained at 8.2%
firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/06/12597906-first-thoughts-stalled-another-disappointing-jobs-report?lite

Even Chuck Todd at MSNBC is looking worried.
Meanwhile the President is in Poland Ohio, is looking tired and hot explaining his early years of vacation travel with Grandma and mom visiting Howard Johnson's with the highlight being the vending machines and the pool.
And here we thought he was in Indonesia with poppa........

As the crowd chants Four more year, four more years.....
Not going to happen, people, not going to happen.......

[Value Buy]

Jul 6, 2012 10:05:35 GMT -5 workpublic said:

and if elephants could fly we'd all be looking up. ;-)

I think in this case, you mean Donkeys.

[djAdvocate]

june is typically a weak job growth month. july, august, and especially september tend to be better.

[Deleted]

Jul 6, 2012 10:05:35 GMT -5 workpublic said:

and if elephants could fly we'd all be looking up. ;-)

I'd be carrying a sturdy umbrella too.

[skweet]

Jul 6, 2012 10:14:08 GMT -5 Robert not Bobby said:

Yes, I meant “off shored”.

As a for instance, just one company, Apple, for just one product, the iPhone…”The Chinese factory where most iPhones reach final assembly employs 230,000 workers.”

Yes, I would agree that a “living wage” is in the $20 - $25 per hour range with benefits.

Yes people prefer Apple products that are affordable. Apple needs to make a profit to be a viable business. Labor inputs are cheaper in Asia than the US. So what is your point? What are your solutions? US labor cannot demand $20-$30 per hour, if the world labor market demands less, when the consumer of the end product demands a cheaper price. Simple competition mathematics.

[fairlycrazy23]

Jul 6, 2012 9:26:55 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I thought the government could not create jobs, and should just get the heck out of the way?
Of course we have at least two million more jobs than we would have if Obama took Romney's advice and let GM fail.......

We can't know that.
If GM making a product that someone wants, then someone would still be making it.
And GM should have went through the legal bankruptcy process, this doesn't mean GM would be gone.

[cme1201]

Of course we have at least two million more jobs than we would have if Obama took Romney's advice and let GM fail

GM did fail, they did file for bankruptcy and were restructured. The main difference being that Washington determined the restructuring instead of following the legally established court role.

Washington allowed Chrysler to be sold piecemeal in their bankruptcy yet never a peep in that regard.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

GM did fail, they did file for bankruptcy and were restructured. The main difference being that Washington determined the restructuring instead of following the legally established court role.

Nothing is ever mentioned about the billions in bondholder cram-downs affecting milllions of middle class mutual fund holders(ie: iras's, 401ks, pension funds, etc), whose funds held GM Debt.

[Deleted]

Yes people prefer Apple products that are affordable. Apple needs to make a profit to be a viable business. Labor inputs are cheaper in Asia than the US. So what is your point?
___________________________________________


My point is that companies refusing to hire at greater rates has little or nothing to do with whatever perceived costs are associated with “obamacare”, as the OP, opined.

There are structural and labor market issues at play in the context of a globally interdependent economy.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

GM's union recovering after stock sale

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/25/gms-union-on-road-to-recovery-after-stock-sale/print/
¡¡
Taxpayers and investors not as fortunate as UAW

By Patrice Hill

The Washington Times

7:24 p.m., Thursday, November 25, 2010


General Motors Co.'s recent stock offering was staged to start paying back the government for its $50 billion bailout, but one group made out much better than the taxpayers or other investors: the company's union.

Thanks to a generous share of GM stock obtained in the company's 2009 bankruptcy settlement, the United Auto Workers is well on its way to recouping the billions of dollars GM owed it ¡ª putting it far ahead of taxpayers who have recouped only about 30 percent of their investment and further still ahead of investors in the old GM who have received nothing.

The boon for the union fits the pattern established when the White House pushed GM into bankruptcy and steered it through the courts in a way that consistently put the interests of the union ahead of many suppliers, dealers and investors ¡ª stakeholders that ordinarily would have fared as well or better under the bankruptcy laws.

"Priority one was serving the interests of the UAW" when the White House's auto task force engineered the bankruptcy, said Glenn Reynolds, an analyst at CreditSights. The stock offering served to show once again how the White House has handsomely rewarded its political allies, he said.

The union's health care and pension trust fund earned $3.4 billion through the sale of one-third of its shares in GM last week. Analysts estimate that it would break even if it sells the remaining two-thirds of its shares at an average price of $36 ¡ª close to where the stock traded shortly after the offering hit the market. GM shares closed at $33.45 on Wednesday.

For taxpayers to break even, by contrast, the stock would have to rise to at least $52 and by some estimates as high as $103 ¡ª levels that would take years to achieve.

In any event, after selling one-third of its shares last week, the U.S. Treasury has agreed not to sell any more of its GM stock for another six months, while the union fund is free to keep selling its shares.

Through the offering, the Treasury recouped $13.7 billion of its $49.5 billion cash infusion in GM, with another $1.8 billion possible by the end of the year. GM is repaying another $9.5 billion in loans from the Treasury, but that still leaves taxpayers a long way from breaking even.

Union claims ordinarily do not receive such special treatment in bankruptcies.

The generous share of GM stock given to the union trust fund under the White House deal puts it not only ahead of the Treasury but on a par with secured creditors such as banks, which normally receive the most favorable treatment from bankruptcy courts.

[Deleted]

”The Chinese factory where most iPhones reach final assembly employs 230,000 workers.”

Surely there is a typo in this statement.

[skweet]

Jul 6, 2012 11:36:57 GMT -5 Robert not Bobby said:

Yes people prefer Apple products that are affordable. Apple needs to make a profit to be a viable business. Labor inputs are cheaper in Asia than the US. So what is your point?
___________________________________________


My point is that companies refusing to hire at greater rates has little or nothing to do with whatever perceived costs are associated with “obamacare”, as the OP, opined.

There are structural and labor market issues at play in the context of a globally interdependent economy.

Fair enough.

Not to be argumentative, honestly I see and cede your point. As far as Obamacare is concerned the law, itself, creates a minimum $460 Million savings by not paying the insurance penalty tax on 230,000 US employees. Greater savings, if they, hypothetically, chose to insure the employees. Without the law, it doesn't make sense for Apple to employ US laborers, the law just makes the decision that much easier.

[Deleted]

Jul 6, 2012 12:00:41 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

”The Chinese factory where most iPhones reach final assembly employs 230,000 workers.”

Surely there is a typo in this statement.

Hard to believe, but there is no typo.

An eight-hour drive from that glass factory is a complex, known informally as Foxconn City, where the iPhone is assembled. To Apple executives, Foxconn City was further evidence that China could deliver workers — and diligence — that outpaced their American counterparts.

That’s because nothing like Foxconn City exists in the United States.

The facility has 230,000 employees, many working six days a week, often spending up to 12 hours a day at the plant. Over a quarter of Foxconn’s work force lives in company barracks and many workers earn less than $17 a day. When one Apple executive arrived during a shift change, his car was stuck in a river of employees streaming past. “The scale is unimaginable,” he said.

For full article

www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

[djAdvocate]

12 hours a day gets you $17. and we wonder why we have 8% unemployment. candidly, i am surprised it is not higher.

the US economy is doing great, if you think about it.

[Phoenix84]

Jul 6, 2012 12:30:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

12 hours a day gets you $17. and we wonder why we have 8% unemployment. candidly, i am surprised it is not higher.

the US economy is doing great, if you think about it.

I was thinking the same thing DJ. With such cheap labor abroad, I'm surprised more companies haven't moved offshore, and the U.S is still among the world's top manufacturers.

The fact is Americans expect better working conditions than most abroad. There's nothing wrong with this, but it's something we need to face. If we want to command high wages and maintain our standard of living we have to do something that warrents those high wages. Education is key.

I don't think we should try and egage in a race to the bottem with third world countries, but focus on creating products and services that are uniquely American and can demand the higher costs. Innovation and education will help.

Just thinking aloud, I wonder if Americans would be willing to live in company barracks.

[Deleted]

230,000 workers. Holy cow....


With respect to jobs, I think job growth will pick up after the election cycle. Lot of uncertainty right now, and businesses don't like that.

[Deleted]

"I was thinking the same thing DJ. With such cheap labor abroad, I'm surprised more companies haven't moved offshore, and the U.S is still among the world's top manufacturers."

Labor cost per hour is but one factor in the cost to produce a product and bring it to market. There is also skill, productivity, transportation, product quality, raw materials, energy, etcetera.

[Phoenix84]

"Labor cost per hour is but one factor in the cost to produce a product and bring it to market. There is also skill, productivity, transportation, product quality, raw materials, energy, etcetera."

Yes, another thing that makes the U.S attractive to business is the relative stability of the government. In a lot of third world countries there's always political instability and a civil war going on.

[Phoenix84]

It's easy to see why China's suicide rate is so high. If I was a factory drone working 12 hours a day, six days a week on an assembly line and returned to my tiny crackerbox dorm room every night to just get up and do it again the next day. I'd probably off myself too.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 6, 2012 13:09:07 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jul 6, 2012 12:30:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

12 hours a day gets you $17. and we wonder why we have 8% unemployment. candidly, i am surprised it is not higher.

the US economy is doing great, if you think about it.

I was thinking the same thing DJ. With such cheap labor abroad, I'm surprised more companies haven't moved offshore, and the U.S is still among the world's top manufacturers.

The fact is Americans expect better working conditions than most abroad. There's nothing wrong with this, but it's something we need to face. If we want to command high wages and maintain our standard of living we have to do something that warrents those high wages. Education is key.

I don't think we should try and egage in a race to the bottem with third world countries, but focus on creating products and services that are uniquely American and can demand the higher costs. Innovation and education will help.

Just thinking aloud, I wonder if Americans would be willing to live in company barracks.

well, there was a TIME when the US was sort of a second to third world backwater. this was in the early industrial era. i don't really think we want to go back there, so the question then becomes what kind of jobs do we need to do that demand the wages we expect?