> BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2001:
>
> Two Federal Reserve Board economists say 2.7 percent, or 4 million
> members, of the work force switched employers in an average month in 1999.
> The study, by Bruce C. Fallick and Charles A. Fleischman, using data from
> the Bureau of Labor Statistics, argues that previous measures of so-called
> employment-to-employment flows, which dwarf the number of people moving
> from employment to unemployment, were based on limited data. The study
> also says only one-fifth of workers look for new work while at their old
> jobs, though the study could miss those who begin looking just days before
> they jump. The two economists plan to further study whether the business
> cycle has an effect on the number of workers who make a switch.
> Agriculture, construction, retail and private household services have high
> switch rates, the study says (The Wall Street Journal "Work Week" feature,
> page A1).
>
> About 45 percent of the nation's 1.2 million temporary-help agency workers
> say they would prefer a more traditional work arrangement, says a Bureau
> of Labor Statistics survey of about 37,500 households (The Wall Street
> Journal "Work Week" feature, page A1).
>
> In trying to figure out whether the economy will go into a recession -- or
> might already be in one -- there are two helpful rules. Unfortunately,
> they completely contradict each other. Rule no. 1: At least since 1970,
> the economy has never had a recession when the housing market was strong,
> says economist Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors. And despite a
> drop-off in sales of new and existing homes in April from near-record
> levels in March, housing is still quite strong by historical standards.
> If this rule governs, we're not in a recession yet -- nor likely to go
> into one anytime soon. Rule no. 2: The economy has almost never avoided
> a recession when the Labor Department's monthly employment report showed
> back-to-back net job losses. That has happened just 12 times since 1950,
> according to First Union economist Mark Vitner, and except for the four
> times when there were strikes, weather, or other anomalies were the cause,
> it was a signal that the nation was in, or about to be in a recession.
> Alas, it has just happened again. Labor Department figures showed
> back-to-back job losses in March and April. And it looks as if May might
> also show a loss, when the number is released Friday. Vitner says
> upcoming jobs reports will rival those seen during the last recession in
> 1990-91, making it likely that what we're enduring is either a full-blown
> recession or something just about as ugly. So far, though, the economy
> hasn't met the usual rough definition of a recession, which is at least
> two consecutive quarters of sub-zero growth (George Hager, in USA Today,
> page 4B).
>
> The U.S. economy grew at only a 1.3 percent annual rate in the first three
> months of the year, substantially lower than the 2 percent rate first
> estimated, the Commerce Department reported yesterday. Most of the
> downward revision was the result of a much larger decline than previously
> estimated in stocks of unsold goods, a drop that clipped almost 3
> percentage points off the rate of growth of the gross domestic product,
> after adjustment for inflation. In the fourth quarter of last year, the
> economy grew at a 1 percent annual rate. The largest contributor to growth
> in the first quarter was consumer spending, which increased at a 2.9
> percent pace. Many forecasters expect economic growth in the current
> quarter to be no better and perhaps worse than in the first quarter.
> While the effect of declining inventories is likely to be much smaller,
> consumer spending appears to be increasing more slowly now than it did
> earlier this year, and an increase in the U.S. trade deficit may hurt
> growth as well. Separately, Commerce said yesterday that orders for
> long-lasting goods such as automobiles, machinery, and computers fell 5
> percent in April. Analysts said the report underscored the current
> weakness in business spending for such equipment (John M. Berry, in The
> Washington Post, May 26, page E1; The New York Times, May 26, page B3).
>
> Disappointing data are undercutting the case for a rapid recovery. A key
> indicator of productivity slumped to its lowest level since the recent
> productivity boom took off in the mid-1990s. That came on the heels of a
> downward revision of first-quarter gross domestic product, an extremely
> weak durable-goods report and a substantial drop in existing-home sales.
> Pretax profit margins for nonfinancial corporations were squeezed to 10
> percent in the first quarter from 10.5 percent in the first quarter of
> 2000 and a recent peak of 12.2 percent in the second quarter of last year,
> according to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis. The
> last time margins were so narrow was the first quarter of 1994, around the
> time economists believe a fundamental change in the economy began, raising
> the productivity potential. Many economists, most notably Federal Reserve
> Chairman Greenspan, consider profit margins a good measure of
> productivity, or corporate efficiency (The Wall Street Journal, page A2).
>
> Consumers' faith in the economy rebounded in May after a sharp April drop.
> They were choosy shoppers in April, spending on services, but cutting back
> on big-ticket items, such as cars. The Commerce Department reported today
> that consumer spending rose by 0.4 percent in April, following a 0.2
> percent increase in March. In another report, the New York based
> Conference Board said its Consumer Confidence Index rose to a greater than
> expected 115.5, up from a revised 109.9 in April. The bounce back
> underscored increased optimism about jobs and the future of the economy.
> Many economists expect that when the government releases the employment
> report for May on Friday, it will show that the jobless rate edged up to
> 4.6 percent (Associated Press,
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/businessnews/article/0,2669,ART-520
> 76,FF.html; http://www.latimes.com/wires/20010529/tCB00V9843.html;
> http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/16774p-310277c.html).
>
> Millions of teenagers nationwide are expected to land a traditional summer
> job not much further than one town over this summer. It's a countertrend
> from the tail end of the late 1990s, which saw teenagers armed with tech
> skills and comparable ambitions pursuing high paying work, often in a
> different state. Last year alone, 120,000 teens held computer-related
> jobs, up from 58,000 in 1996. But companies across the country are
> beginning to trim internships and special programs, experts say. An
> accompanying chart, whose data is attributed to the Bureau of Labor
> Statistics, shows the most common occupations among 16- to 19-year-olds as
> being cashier, 13.7 percent; stock handler and bagger, 5.7 percent; cook,
> 5.6 percent; wait staff, 4.2 percent; sales worker, 3.4 percent;
> food-counter worker, 3.3 percent; bus boy, 2.5 percent; janitor and
> cleaner, 2.9 percent
> (http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/05/29/p15s1,htm).
>
> DUE OUT TOMORROW: Employment and Unemployment in Metropolitan Areas: April
> 2001
>
application/ms-tnef
