> BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, AUGUST 20, 2001:
>
> Some 47 states experienced manufacturing job losses in July, but the other
> sectors continued to expand payrolls modestly across all regions,
> according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unemployment rates topped 6
> percent in three jurisdictions: Alaska with 6.2 percent, Oregon with 6.1
> percent, and the District of Columbia with 6.2 percent. But in more than
> half of the states, jobless rates remained below the national average of
> 4.5 percent. Rates in these 29 states ranged from 2.6 percent in North
> Dakota to 4.4 percent in New York and Wisconsin. Manufacturing was the
> only broad industry to post job losses in nearly every state.
> Construction employment grew in 42 states and the District of Columbia in
> July. Also, there were widespread gains in services jobs, with 46 states
> and the District reporting such increases (Daily Labor Report, page D-8).
>
> In part because of employee complaints, and in large part because of the
> economic slowdown, companies are scaling back on hours and offering
> workers more flexibility in their schedules, says Sarah Schafer writing in
> The Washington Post (August 19, page H5). The move represents a radical
> change from a year ago, when the U.S. economy was still growing smartly.
> Then, worker burnout was common and many unions had begun fighting with
> management over the issue of forced overtime -- requiring employees to
> work extra hours or be fired. "The economic slowdown has eased the
> pressure on overtime because, as we saw last year, the way many employers
> were achieving increased productivity was not by hiring new people, but
> forcing current employees to work longer hours," says a professor of
> public administration at American University. "I sense less pressure, and
> therefore a happier, more satisfied workforce. Of course that's for those
> who do have jobs." By contrast, productivity-- which measures output per
> hour worked --grew at an unexpectedly strong 2.5 percent rate in the
> second quarter of this year because employers produced slightly more goods
> and services while cutting back on worker hours according to government
> figures released earlier this month. When the effects of layoffs and
> reduced work schedules are combined, the number of hours worked fell 2.4
> percent in the April-June period, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported.
>
> How can the deepest slump since the last recession, in 1990-91, be leaving
> the job market in such relatively good shape? Federal Reserve
> policymakers, who meet tomorrow to consider their seventh interest rate
> cut this year, have an acute interest in the answer, writes George Hager
> in USA Today (page 4B). Consumers who have jobs spend money, and the fate
> of the economy over the next few months depends almost entirely on
> consumer spending, he says. Even though annual economic growth has slowed
> to less than 1 percent and revised figures could push growth in the
> April-June quarter to zero or less, that's nothing compared with the
> winter of 1990-91, when the economy posted back-to-back contractions,
> shrinking 3.2 and 2 percent. That was a recession; so far, this is just a
> slowdown. Back then, construction jobs were hard hit. The surprisingly
> strong housing market has prevented that this year. "We haven't seen the
> cyclical downturn that's typical in construction," says Tom Nardone, chief
> labor force statistician for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Back then,
> the labor fore was growing about 2 percent a year. Now, growth is down to
> about 1 percent a year. Princeton University economics professor Alan
> Krueger says one reason is that the smaller "baby bust" cohort is entering
> the labor force now. Urban Institute economist Robert Lerman adds that
> the entrance of women into the workforce appears to have peaked.
> Retirees, students and others who joined the workforce when jobs were
> plentiful may have opted out now that jobs are shrinking. While there
> have been layoffs, they're nothing like those of a decade ago, says the
> chief economist for Prudential Securities. In 1990-91, 1.9 million jobs
> were lost. This year, just 259,000 jobs have disappeared since March.
> Fed policymakers expect unemployment to climb as high as 5.25 percent by
> next year. That would be modest compared with historical highs and
> probably still low enough to keep consumer spending healthy.
>
> Forget lavish stock options and cool benefits, write Karen Alexander, Los
> Angeles Times
> (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-000067565aug20.story?coll=la%2Dheadlin
> es%2Dbusiness). A growing number of engineers are simply looking for a
> steady paycheck. Even though the jobless rate for the nation's 2
> million-plus engineers remains exceedingly low -- 2 percent in the second
> quarter -- that's double a year ago, according to the Bureau of Labor
> Statistics. And by most indications, the unemployment figure is likely to
> creep higher in the coming months. The last time the U.S. engineering work
> force shrank significantly was in the early 1990s, during the economic
> slump and defense downturn. For recent graduates and veterans, the
> weakening demand from "new economy" firms is being made up by brisk hiring
> at more established companies. Overall, electrical and computer
> engineers, especially those specializing in software and design and
> development, continue to be in high demand and are enjoying record salary
> increases. Federal data indicate that the typical engineer earned more
> than $1,100 a week last year, but full-time electrical engineers working
> in their primary area of specialty will be pulling in nearly double that
> this year, according to a recent survey by the Institute of Electrical and
> Electronics Engineers.
>
> Sputtering demand for American-made goods and the mounting strength of the
> U.S. dollar widened the U.S. trade deficit to $29.4 billion in June,
> according to a government report released Friday that reflected the ripple
> effects of the global economic slowdown. Imports and exports both dropped
> because of economic weakness at home and abroad, but exports fell more,
> causing the trade gap to widen. That's a reversal from the boom times
> before the U.S. slowdown, when imports and exports were rising. But even
> then the trade deficit grew, because Americans' appetite for imports grew
> faster than exports. Imports slipped 0.6 percent, to $115.4 billion, in
> June, while exports slid 1.9 percent, to $86 billion (The Washington Post,
> August 18, page E1; Daily Labor Report, page D-1; The New York Times,
> August 18, page B2).
>
> The latest trade figures show the U.S. suffering at the hands of the
> global slowdown, which likely spells more bad news for both the
> beleaguered dollar and the domestic economy. The best hope now is that
> some of today's problems might actually slow seeds for recovery down the
> road, writes Nicholas Kulish in The Wall Street Journal (page A2).
> Economists waiting for improvement in the trade deficit to forestall a
> sharp downward revision in second-quarter U.S. growth were disappointed by
> Friday's figures. The trade gap widened, with exports sinking faster than
> imports. Now market watchers expect last quarter's gross domestic product
> growth figure of 0.7 percent to be scaled back, finishing barely in
> positive territory at best, and likely to drop just into negative
> territory. That would mark the first quarter of contracting for the U.S.
> economy in a decade.
>
> A key gauge of future U.S. economic activity crept higher for the fourth
> straight month in July, suggesting that some improvement may lie ahead for
> the economy. The New York-based Conference Board says its Index of
> Leading Economic Indicators rose 0.3 percent to 109.9, the same amount it
> rose in June. The increase met analysts' expectations. "The signal from
> the...index, in terms of its depth and breadth, is that economic
> conditions, sluggish through the entire first half of the year, could
> begin to make way for a better economy this fall," said Conference Board
> economist Kenneth Goldstein. The index is closely watched because it
> indicates where the overall U.S. economy is headed in the next 3 to 6
> months. It stood at 100 in 1996, its base year (Lisi de Bourbon,
> Associated Press, http://www.nypost.com/apstories/V8830.htm;
> http://www.boston.com/dailynews/232/economy/Leading_indicators_rise_for_fo
> :.shtml;
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-economy.story?coll=chi%2Dbusine
> ss%2Dhed.
>
> The average American now can expect to have 9.2 jobs between the ages of
> 18 and 34, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Washington Post,
> page D1).
>
>
> DUE OUT TOMORROW: Employment and Unemployment Among Youth -- Summer 2001
>
application/ms-tnef
