Re: [PEN-L:9179] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
Michael Perelman wrote: Very interesting. Does this mean that more manufacturing jobs are going abroad and that service jobs are safer than manufacturing? Certainly, it is not a growing interest in safety. Richardson_D wrote: BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997 Workplace injuries fell in 1995 to their lowest rate in nearly a decade, says BLS, according to an item in The Wall Street Journal's "Work Week" column (page A1). A total of 6.6 million injuries and illnesses were reported that year, the latest for which statistics Well, I guess I'm supposed to chime in here. I haven't seen the latest data yet, but when I do the first thing I'll do to it will be to adjust for industrial composition. One thing works in favor of an optimistic interpretation, however: safety is countercyclical, so if accidents go down while unemployment holds steady, that's good news. Raw safety numbers should be approached carefully Peter Dorman
Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
Richardson_D wrote: Contrary to popular belief, average pay has steadily risen in the last 25 years, according to a report by American Enterprise Institute economist Marvin H. Kosters. [etc.] This is brilliant! If you don't like what the data say, adjust them three or four times to achieve the desired result. Reminds me of a friend's experience as a research assistant when he was in grad school. When he brought back the experimental results to the prof, the prof said, "These are bad data. Come back with better data." Doug
Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
Contrary to popular belief, when Humpty-dumpty used words they meant whatever he wanted them to mean. Also contrary to popular belief, Procrustes' bed could accomodate guests both tall and short. Marvin Koster gives everyone a pay boost by defining average pay in a most peculiar way. Whew is right! FYI Marvin Kosters (Item 2) was Bush's 1992 nomination for Comm. of Labor Stats. The nomination wasn't acted on since the office has a fixed term of 4 years. Whew! Dave Contrary to popular belief, average pay has steadily risen in the last 25 years, according to a report by American Enterprise Institute economist Marvin H. Kosters. Kosters said incomplete and in some cases inaccurate data have given the false impression that average American workers are falling more and more behind. AEI is a nonprofit research organization, supported by businesses and foundations Kosters said a major mistake analysts have made in charting wages over this 25-year period is using average hourly wages from the BLS payroll survey. Using this measure, average real earnings appear to have deteriorated during the past quarter century Compensation - including benefits and bonuses as well as wages - is a more accurate and complete measure of how workers are faring, he said. The average earning series covers only production and nonsupervisory workers. Other government data series measure changes in hourly compensation, which includes benefits as well as wages. The Employment Cost Index is also a better data series, Kosters said. The average hourly earnings series leaves out more skilled, highest paid employees Adding to the misconception of falling real wages, Kosters said, analysts often deflate the average hourly earnings by a rise in the CPI-U. Instead, Kosters adjusted the compensation data by the CPI-U minus 0.5 percentage point each year He justified this reduction of 0.5 percentage point by pointing to the opinion of many economists that the CPI-U overstates inflation Kosters said he chose this reduction because this is about the extent of reduction in the CPI-U caused by a series of improvements BLS made and will make in the data series. Also, Kosters said he wanted to avoid controversial opinions of the CPI advisory panel, which led the group to say the inflation measure overstates inflation by 1.1 percent. With these suppositions, Koster said inflation-adjusted wages have risen by 10 percent in the last 25 years and compensation has advanced by 15 percent While Kosters believes wage inequality has widened in the last 25 years, he added the broadening has been caused by an increased premium on education (Daily Labor Report, page A-6). Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ knoW Ware Communications Vancouver, B.C., CANADA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 688-8296 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
re: FW: BLS Daily Report
Are people really talking about the US economy entering a "New Era"? The last time those words were used was during the optimistic phase of the 1920s. The "New Economy" is nicer in that it avoids the historical connection, but in essence it's the same thing. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html "A society is rich when material goods, including capital, are cheap, and human beings dear." -- R.H. Tawney.
[PEN-L:12574] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
Overtime persists at near-record levels, and many workers are chafing.
Manufacturing overtime reached a record average 4.9 hours a week in
March and April, slipped, and climbed again -- to 4.8 hours in August,
the Labor Department says. Many companies want to avoid hiring that
could mean layoffs later. Others shun training costs ("Work Week,"
Wall Street Journal, page A1).
Winners and Losers:
Assuming time-and-a-half pay for overtime, 4.9 hours a week would add about
18% to gross earnings. However, because the extra pay would be taxed at a
higher marginal rate and because fewer fringe benefits would apply, the net
gain in compensation would amount to just 10%. Figured on an hourly basis,
the 10% increase in net compensation spread over a 12.5% increase in weekly
hours represents a 2% _decline_ in net hourly compensation.
An unmentioned part of the equation is that the use of overtime helps
companies avoid wage increases by limiting the competition for scarce labour
resources.
No wonder many workers are chafing.
Regards,
Tom Walker
^^^
knoW Ware Communications
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(604) 688-8296
^^^
The TimeWork Web: HTTP://WWW.VCN.BC.CA/TIMEWORK/
[PEN-L:11968] FW: Error Condition Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1997 The Labor Department announced a schedule for the release of databases under its new Occupational Information Network (O*NET) -- a system for collecting, classifying, and disseminating information about requirements and characteristics of occupations and workers. The network is intended as an automated replacement for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles According to the Labor Department, the database contains hundreds of "information units" that cover job requirements, worker attributes, and the content and context of work The first version of the database is expected out in December 1997 and will be made available to the general public By early 1998, the agency hopes to have O*NET products available on the Internet through America's Job Bank. The job bank's links to O*NET will include the most important aspects and requirements of occupations included on the database. After completing the test phase, the Labor Department hopes to have in place by 2000 a new, extended database that includes all occupations in the proposed new Standard Occupational Classification (Daily Labor Report, page A-8). U.S. trade deficit in goods and services narrowed to a better-than-expected seasonally adjusted $8.16 billion in June, with exports climbing to a record high and imports falling for the first time in eight months, the Commerce Department reported (Daily Labor Report, page D-1)_The U.S. trade deficit narrowed sharply, but the politically sensitive deficits with China and Japan both widened ...(Washington Post, page E3; Washington Times, page B9)_The U.S. trade deficit narrowing indicates that the economy may be growing faster than analysts had assumed (New York Times, page D1; Wall Street Journal, page A2). The gap between the rich and the poor in 401(k) plans is growing, says The Wall Street Journal (page C1). A study released by KPMG Peat Marwick shows an enormous difference between participation rates among highly paid and lower-paid workers: 90 percent of highly paid employees contribute to their 401(k) plan, compared with only 64 percent of all workers with such plans The KPMG findings are remarkably consistent with the latest-available government figures, which show that 90 percent of people earning $75,000 or more participate in their company plan, compared with 67 percent of all workers offered such plans There's also a gap between the high-paid and low-paid when it comes to having a chance to contribute to a retirement plan in the first place. The Labor Department's 1993 Current Population Survey shows that 70 percent of the 2.2 million workers earning more than $75,000 are offered a plan, while only 10 percent of the 15 million workers earning under $10,000 are offered a savings plan. In between these two extremes, accessibility to retirement plans falls steadily with income Forty-two percent of companies of various sizes have telecommuting arrangements, according to a 1996 study of 305 American business executives by the Olsten Corporation, a Melville, N.Y., staffing services company. That figure is up from 33 percent in the 1995 study. But the companies surveyed said that only 7 percent of their employees ever telecommute -- a number that has held steady for four consecutive annual surveys A sociology professor at Illinois Institute of Technology and author of "Transition to Telecommuting" says there are two basic reasons why telecommuting has not taken hold to the extent anticipated: Employees have unrealistic expectations, and employers are afraid of losing control Dr. Charles Grantham, president, Institute for the Study of Distributed Work in Walnut Creek, Calif., bases his research on independent studies coupled with market data from BLS, according to The New York Times (Aug. 17, page F1). He breaks the numbers down this way: Some 9 to 14 million American workers are telecommuters, defined as those who work from their homes on a regular basis (at least 2 days a week) for an outside company. From 10 million to 12 million are home-based workers, or those who run businesses from home. Some 12 million to 16 million are independent contractors who work for multiple companies In an op-ed page column, "The Age of Leisure," George F. Will says that Robert Fogel, one of the University of Chicago's Nobel Prize-winning economists, estimates that, "since 1880, the time devoted each week by the average American male head of household to nonwork activities has risen from 10.5 hours to 40 hours, while time at work has been cut nearly in half, from 61.6 to 33.6"
[PEN-L:10492] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
I have both a procedural and a substantive response to Bill's post. I
also must apologize for the delay in responding -- I only work on this
during the week.
On procedure, the Daily Report is not intended simply as a publication
vehicle for BLS data. It is rather an internal post with, it seems to
me, 3 goals: (1) Publish the half dozen or so most important numbers
we produce every month so that we all will be aware of what other
divisions are doing, at least at the very highest level; (2) search
the major U.S. press for references to BLS data and echo them back to
us; and (3) forward some of the more interesting economics and labor
news and comment. I forward the Daily Report to the list as in
interesting capsule reference to some of the more interesting news for
us.
The item referred to below seems to fall into the third category.
There are no BLS statistics specifically referenced, and I believe
that the consumption data comes from the Census Bureau Current
Population Survey.
As to what it means, it was written by a member of the Wash. Post
Business page staff -- it should not be taken as deep economic
analysis. As far as I can tell, the author notes that the Dow or the
SP or some other stock market average is up by 52% over the relevant
period. This factoid is only relevant to consumption inasmuch as some
of the stock is held by U.S. residents either directly or through
mutual funds and other financial intermediaries.
I agree with what seems to be Bill's political point, that wealth
generated by Wall Street is highly concentrated and that most families
have hardly noticed this purported increase in their wealth. Indeed,
I recall reading recently that personal bankruptcies are once again at
record levels.
As to the economic question posed by the Post writer, i.e., why has
savings gone up and consumption down, there are several possible
explanations:
1. Random noise in the data;
2. Time lags, the gap between the realization that paper wealth has
been created and the planning and execution of spending plans;
3. Demographics -- the U.S. has an aging population and the need for
retirement planning has recently been much emphasized in the press.
It is because questions like this are characteristically ignored that
I do not take the Post Business page as serious economic analysis. I
forward it to the list, warts and all, in the hope that we may all
keep up with the U.S. economy a bit better.
Dave
--
Sent: Friday, May 30, 1997 12:40 PM
Subject:[PEN-L:10436] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
I have a question on this BLS data:
On Fri, May 30, 1997 at 07:10:37 (-0700) Richardson_D writes:
BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, MAY 29, 1997
...
Consumer spending has been the driving force behind the U.S. economy
over the past year, but, ironically, American families haven't been
spending very much of the wealth generated by the soaring U.S. stock
market. In the past, when financial wealth increased rapidly, elated
consumers typically could be counted on to spend so much that the
nation's personal savings rate would fall For some
not-well-understood reason, consumers have boosted their spending
much
less than expected in response to the 52 percent rise in the value of
their stock and mutual fund shares over the past two years. Consumer
spending hasn't gone up even as fast as disposable personal income,
so
that the personal savings rate went up instead of down, as it did in
the past under similar conditions ("Trendlines," Washington Post,
page E1).
Is it "ironic" that "American families" don't take part quite so much
in the "soaring U.S. stock market" as the very wealthy? Does the BLS
correct or even notice this? When they say "financial wealth
increased rapidly", do they refer to 1) gross; 2) average; 3) median?
That is, does the reference to "the 52 percent rise in the value of
their stock and mutual fund shares" refer to a 52 percent rise in the
stock market, or is it *really* a measure of the rise in the stock
prices that "consumers" own? If the BLS is measuring wealth using 1)
or 2), I don't see how this paragraph is useful at all, though I may
be totally off-base.
Bill
[PEN-L:10436] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
I have a question on this BLS data:
On Fri, May 30, 1997 at 07:10:37 (-0700) Richardson_D writes:
BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, MAY 29, 1997
...
Consumer spending has been the driving force behind the U.S. economy
over the past year, but, ironically, American families haven't been
spending very much of the wealth generated by the soaring U.S. stock
market. In the past, when financial wealth increased rapidly, elated
consumers typically could be counted on to spend so much that the
nation's personal savings rate would fall For some
not-well-understood reason, consumers have boosted their spending much
less than expected in response to the 52 percent rise in the value of
their stock and mutual fund shares over the past two years. Consumer
spending hasn't gone up even as fast as disposable personal income, so
that the personal savings rate went up instead of down, as it did in
the past under similar conditions ("Trendlines," Washington Post,
page E1).
Is it "ironic" that "American families" don't take part quite so much
in the "soaring U.S. stock market" as the very wealthy? Does the BLS
correct or even notice this? When they say "financial wealth
increased rapidly", do they refer to 1) gross; 2) average; 3) median?
That is, does the reference to "the 52 percent rise in the value of
their stock and mutual fund shares" refer to a 52 percent rise in the
stock market, or is it *really* a measure of the rise in the stock
prices that "consumers" own? If the BLS is measuring wealth using 1)
or 2), I don't see how this paragraph is useful at all, though I may
be totally off-base.
Bill
[PEN-L:9271] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report Consumer Surveys
Laurence Shute wrote: Can anyone tell me why the thin Conference Board consumer survey (5 or 6 questions?) is used so much, instead of the more extensive Michigan survey? As far as I know, they tell almost exactly the same story, though the Conference Board measure may be a bit more volatile. I can think of at least two reasons why the CB attracts more attention. One, it comes out earlier in the month. Two, the CB is more media friendly. And ever since Greenspan said he's watching the "jobs plentiful"/"jobs hard to get" subseries for a hint of the revival of working class confidence, the CB release is getting closer-than-usual attention. The "jobs plentiful" series is near a record high, and the "jobs hard to get" figure is at a record low (numbers begin in 1978). Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:9269] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report Consumer Surveys
Pen-L, Can anyone tell me why the thin Conference Board consumer survey (5 or 6 questions?) is used so much, instead of the more extensive Michigan survey? Larry Shute Consumer confidence remained strong in March, edging down 0.4 percentage point, the Conference Board reports Consumers are optimistic about the current business situation, as well as the prospects for six months from now (Daily Report, page A-4; Washington Post, page C12; New York Times, page D5; Wall Street Journal, page A2).
[PEN-L:9220] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
Hi Michael -- Actually it does not mean anything in particular about the composition of output. The frequency of injuries has been falling steadily since 1992 in both goods and services. No reason is given for the decrease. The news release can be found on our web site at http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/oshnews.htm. Dave Richardson BLS -- Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 1997 6:07 PM Subject: [PEN-L:9179] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report Very interesting. Does this mean that more manufacturing jobs are going abroad and that service jobs are safer than manufacturing? Certainly, it is not a growing interest in safety. Richardson_D wrote: BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997 Workplace injuries fell in 1995 to their lowest rate in nearly a decade, says BLS, according to an item in The Wall Street Journal's "Work Week" column (page A1). A total of 6.6 million injuries and illnesses were reported that year, the latest for which statistics a -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9179] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
Very interesting. Does this mean that more manufacturing jobs are going abroad and that service jobs are safer than manufacturing? Certainly, it is not a growing interest in safety. Richardson_D wrote: BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997 Workplace injuries fell in 1995 to their lowest rate in nearly a decade, says BLS, according to an item in The Wall Street Journal's "Work Week" column (page A1). A total of 6.6 million injuries and illnesses were reported that year, the latest for which statistics a -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8865] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. -- =_NextPart_000_01BC2D67.DCD836D0 Perhaps these things appear lest we forget who is the govt. REALLY represents. After one works here for a while the desensitization approaches 100% -- I do not remember reading the lines you quoted. Dave -- Sent: Monday, March 10, 1997 1:10 PM Subject:[PEN-L:8862] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report At 9:03 AM -0800 3/10/97, Richardson_D wrote: Recent changes to the home page -- /http:www.dol.gov/ -- include addition of two new "hot buttons," one for teen safety, the other for the Family and Medical Leave Act (Daily Labor Report, page A-10). Isn't that just so revoltingly Clinton? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html -- =_NextPart_000_01BC2D67.DCD836D0 b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQmAAQAhMTJEOTNCRTUzNzk5RDAxMTg4OEUwMDIwQUY5QzAz gAQAAgIAAgABBIABACoAAABSRTogW1BFTi1MOjg4NjJdIFJlOiBGVzogQkxTIERhaWx5IFJl cG9ydADPCwEDkAYAcAYAABgDAC4AAEAAOQDAmLCNkS28AR4AcAABKgAAAFJFOiBb UEVOLUw6ODg2Ml0gUmU6IEZXOiBCTFMgRGFpbHkgUmVwb3J0AgFxAAEWAbwtkY2f 5TvZE5k3EdCIjgAgr5wDCwAGEHDxUD8DAAcQ1AIAAB4ACBABZQAAAFBFUkhBUFNUSEVT RVRISU5HU0FQUEVBUkxFU1RXRUZPUkdFVFdIT0lTVEhFR09WVFJFQUxMWVJFUFJFU0VOVFNBRlRF Uk9ORVdPUktTSEVSRUZPUkFXSElMRVRIRURFU0VOU0kAAwAQEAADABEQAQIBCRAB AgQAAP4DAAAUBwAATFpGdfC4VV7/AAoBDwIVAqQD5AXrAoMAUBMDVAIAY2gKwHNldO4yBgAG wwKDMgPGBxMCg7ozEw19CoAIzwnZOxX/eDI1NQKACoENsQtgbvBnMTAzFCALChLyDAGyYwBAIFAE kBHAcAQgtHRoB5BlG1ELgGcEIGkbIHBlCsFsB5AFQHczG6ACEHJnEgAc4GhvBiAEABtSIGdvdnQC LgfwRUFMTFkg3RYAcBYAEfACMHMegBNwWwGABJAgAiAboHcFsGv/BCAbcBYAHRIcIB2BAxAbog8b oA2wH2EAkHRpemG/IqACIBwiA2AA0BtxIBkggDAlIC0tIEkiIPkdsG5vBUAWAAeABtAgEdkWAGFk G+Ed82wLgAeRYnkIYCBxdSTACYAuwwqFCoVEYXZlJ1wK9JEmQDE0NALRaS0p0+cM0CnTC1kxNgqg A2AgAP5jBUAkMCx2CocrKwwwK/b6RgNhOi1+K/YMgiggCGAdJeBICfAggARwW1NNsFRQOmQbcDGj QAqwyQMAeC4FoG1dLR8uLS8GYAIwL18wa00CIGRhfHksBdAKwBGwI9E4ADFoOTk3I9A6GSAa0E0z M48uLVRvNc823HVs7yKgC1AboBYAYwUgCJAfgT0gMGYmMRzAOY80nnViDmosMTuvMGtbUEVOAC1M Ojg4NjJdJQfwZUGgRldBoEJM1wXwKDADEHlEQXAVoSh/LwsoFCIMASv2QQVAOTpLGTATcE0kIDA4 I/AgNDMvGSAvOOA4AFJpyRGyZHMCIF9EHOAsAqo6J1w+RFBjH3EgEbF7GQAHkXQdsB4CHaAHgCD3 RnAdUCQiL0cNGqEMYBXgYyv1KaBua2Qg0AJAcJQ6d1DwLiSAbC4eQe9Obiv2JCILgGMKQA2wS7bv JaAlsCLjPsF0IIAkoAfRZiIdoAVAYnUCQAIgczwsIiAzITIgAAnwIHP8YWYSADfxHgIkwCDhHRLj S7YeAkZhbUUyAHBQgM5NCYBKIAdAIEwcYChQqxNwLEEuWzEoRRRMAaAvBbFFdDgATeNBKkAwKeEn TUlzbicFQBtgItC4IGp1HMFKgB8BdgbwtyKgGQBFQUMmQVYRPydc/yfGMUEnXCz3YakxdkZFWpCf AYBEwF8QJlIEIE9iEfAecihQWJYYMDlAVyA47jUGAD8mB8JZIJEHsB7wgSPhMjQtMzIxOPCIVVNB RkUrMS1pgHAyLTg3aVAp8AHQII9foEogG6BqWjMxMzjweGZheEZFJQBFIUGgPPtOf0+PIG2CTSAy TwNwUb/tLBQ+RkUc8GJtz27fUGdMLy9Q8jLnL35wli9QTEJPX02SLlCgbf91QXHfcupF3xmfK/Z7 VRUhAgB+MwA2AAADACYAAAIB+T8BHgDcp0DIwEIQGrS5CAArL+GC AQAuHgD4PwEVU3lzdGVtIEFkbWluaXN0cmF0b3IAAgH7PwEe ANynQMjAQhAatLkIACsv4YIBAC4eAPo/AQAAABUAAABTeXN0ZW0gQWRt aW5pc3RyYXRvcgBAAAcwwK0SSZEtvAFAAAgwgEx3xZEtvAEDAA00/T8AAAIBFDQBEAAA AFSUocApfxAbpYcIACsqJRceAD0AAQUAAABSRTogAAsAKQAACwAjAAACAX8A LmJscy5nb3Y+AAANxw== -- =_NextPart_000_01BC2D67.DCD836D0--
[PEN-L:8862] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
At 9:03 AM -0800 3/10/97, Richardson_D wrote: Recent changes to the home page -- /http:www.dol.gov/ -- include addition of two new "hot buttons," one for teen safety, the other for the Family and Medical Leave Act (Daily Labor Report, page A-10). Isn't that just so revoltingly Clinton? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:8645] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
Wow! All you need to to do increase productivity is to contract out. You can have the same sales for fewer employees. People pay for this sort of advise! Proof of rising U.S. productivity -- Want more evidence that U.S. productivity gains are badly understated? Than look at the growth of real sales per employee for companies in the Standard Poor's 500-stock index, advises economist Edward Yardeni of Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Inc. Adjusted for the GDP price deflator, sales per employee closely paralleled productivity growth in the nonfinancial business sector from 1977 to 1987, reports Yardeni. But from 1987 to 1995, they surged at an average annual pace of 4.7 percent, compared with an anemic 1.1 annual rise in nonfinancial corporate productivity. The dramatic increase in sales per employee, says Yardeni, helps explain why the pickup in real wages hasn't boosted inflation. "Employers are simply getting more pay for being more productive" (Business Week, Feb. 17, page 25). -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8647] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
At 5:57 PM -0800 2/16/97, Michael Perelman wrote: Wow! All you need to to do increase productivity is to contract out. You can have the same sales for fewer employees. People pay for this sort of advise! Proof of rising U.S. productivity -- Want more evidence that U.S. productivity gains are badly understated? Than look at the growth of real sales per employee for companies in the Standard Poor's 500-stock index, advises economist Edward Yardeni of Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Inc. People like Yardeni are paid $2 mill a year to come up with stuff like this. Anything to keep the bonds stocks moving off the shelves! Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:8482] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
At 7:30 AM -0800 2/6/97, Richardson_D wrote: Women, meanwhile, have been increasing their workforce participation, and their real wages have been climbing. And they now dominate voter turnout on Election Day And all I can say, having scrutinized far too many exit polls for my mental health, is thank god for that. If it were up to my fellow white men, we'd be in even worse shape than we are now! Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:8056] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
At 6:41 AM 1/2/97, Richardson_D wrote: BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1996 A growing number of Americans believe the economy is in good shape; even so, the number concerned about their own jobs has not changed significantly in the last year, says a New York Times article by Steve Lohr (Dec. 29, page A1). Their anxiety is not unfounded. A recent report by the Labor Department showed a high rate of layoffs from 1993 to 1995, even as unemployment was extremely low with millions more jobs created than were wiped out. An analysis by The New York Times of the Labor Department figures found that the number of people laid off in 1995 rose to nearly the peak reached in 1992, right after the last recession Layoffs have become a durable fixture of today's economy, occurring steadily in good times and bad... This will no doubt earn me further denunciations for vulgar apologetics, but there are more contradictions between such reports and other BLS data. The chart below shows the yearly averages for the unemployment rate, the percentage of the workforce employed part-time for economic reasons (former name: involuntary part-time, i.e. want full-time work but can only find part-time), the percentage of the labor force experiencing a bout of unemployment at any time during the year, the ratio of that number to the unemployment rate, and predicted values for the share with an experience of unemployment. The predictions are linear regresssions each with two independent variables - the first pair, the unemployment rate and the part-time for economic reasons; the second, the unemployment rate and the share of the workforce experiencing a layoff. Two things stand out from the recent numbers: the decline in the ratio of the experience of unemployment to the overall unemployment rate, and the regressions' overprediction of the experience of unemployment number for 1995. So why, if there are all these layoffs, are these things happening? Shouldn't the regressions be underpredicting, and shouldn't the ratio be higher? The unemployment rate for 1989 was higher than 1995's, but the experience of unemployment number was lower. What is going on here? Two things that seems to be happening are that there are fewer people leaving jobs voluntarily (Jacques Derrida, call in with a sous-rature definition of voluntarily, s'il vous plait), and fewer new entrants to the workforce. If anyone can reconcile these apparent contradictions, please let me know. part-time exper of exper of predicted values unempl for econ unempl unempl/ ratereasons dur year U UPTecon Ulayoff 1958 6.8% 5.7% 17.9%261.8% 16.3% 1959 5.5% 4.4% 15.3%280.3% 14.8% 1960 5.6% 4.7% 17.2%309.4% 14.7% 1961 6.7% 5.2% 18.4%275.5% 16.4% 1962 5.5% 4.2% 18.2%328.1% 15.1% 1963 5.6% 4.0% 16.7%295.9% 15.4% 1964 5.2% 3.7% 16.2%313.5% 14.8% 1965 4.5% 3.2% 14.1%312.8% 14.0% 1966 3.8% 2.6% 13.0%343.5% 13.1% 1967 3.8% 2.9% 12.9%335.8% 13.0% 12.9% 1968 3.6% 2.5% 12.4%348.8% 12.7% 12.4% 1969 3.5% 2.6% 12.5%356.5% 12.6% 12.3% 1970 5.0% 3.1% 15.3%307.1% 14.9% 14.8% 1971 6.0% 3.4% 16.3%273.9% 16.4% 15.5% 1972 5.6% 3.3% 15.5%276.5% 15.9% 14.5% 1973 4.9% 3.0% 14.3%293.3% 14.7% 13.5% 1974 5.6% 3.5% 17.9%318.4% 15.7% 15.1% 1975 8.5% 4.6% 20.2%238.6% 20.1% 20.6% 1976 7.7% 4.2% 19.1%248.2% 19.0% 17.4% 1977 7.0% 4.1% 17.9%254.2% 17.9% 16.1% 1978 6.1% 3.8% 15.9%262.7% 16.3% 14.9% 1979 5.8% 3.8% 15.8%270.3% 16.0% 15.2% 1980 7.2% 4.5% 18.1%252.5% 17.8% 18.4% 1981 7.6% 4.9% 19.5%256.1% 18.3% 18.2% 1982 9.7% 6.5% 22.0%226.4% 20.9% 21.9% 1983 9.6% 6.7% 19.6%204.3% 20.6% 20.3% 1984 7.5% 5.8% 17.4%231.6% 17.4% 17.0% 1985 7.2% 5.5% 16.7%231.9% 17.1% 16.8% 1986 7.0% 5.4% 16.2%231.5% 16.8% 16.3% 1987 6.2% 5.0% 14.3%231.1% 15.6% 15.3% 1988 5.5% 4.7% 12.9%234.4% 14.6% 14.6% 1989 5.3% 4.3% 12.9%244.9% 14.5% 14.4% 1990 5.5% 4.5% 14.7%266.3% 14.8% 15.1% 1991 6.7% 5.4% 15.7%233.0% 16.3% 16.5% 1992 7.4% 5.7% 15.8%
[PEN-L:7998] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
At 6:17 AM 12/31/96, Richardson_D wrote: 2nd item. While ATT conducted a major down sizing this year, it has now hired enough people so that employment over the year is unchanged. This reminds me of the perennial story of the guy who was downsized out and then offered his old job back as a temp, i.e. without benefits. My hazy memory recalls that he worked for ATT in Basking Ridge. Does anyone have solid information on the down sizing-rehiring phenemenon? The New York Times had a story a couple of weeks ago quoting the BLS as saying something like a million people work under such arrangements. If I remember right, it was based on the displaced worker survey, and said 17% of the displaced were rehired by their old employer under some contingent arrangement. I'm amazed at how contingent work in general gets so much ink, but at least in the U.S. doesn't seem all that pervasive - under 5% of employment, and something like half of those are happy with their contingency. And the ILO's latest annual report says there's no significan rise in contingent work around the world, except in countries that recently legalized it. Is officialdom lying to us, or are journalists (and Stanley Aronowiz) following that old dictum: "simplify exaggerate"? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:6375] FW: Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
Hi Eugene -- Thanks for your interest in these posts. The Daily Report is an internal Bureau of Labor Statistics document. I forward it to the list because 1. It has a high information content regarding the economy. 2. Sometimes there are references to useful analyses. 3. Sometimes there are statements from the ruling class or our political opponents that we would do well to be aware of. I do not, nor does BLS, endorse anything in these reports. Dave Richardson -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [PEN-L:6342] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report Date: Tuesday, September 24, 1996 3:52PM Richardson, in sending the useful BLS DAILY REPORT quotes the following: In the national effort to move millions of welfare recipients into the work force over the next few years, the key challenge is not likely to be a lack of jobs, says The Washington Post (Sept. 22, page A1). For the most part, experts are convinced that the American economy can create the 2 million or so jobs for those who will be required to find work under the new welfare law. Nor will the problem be that adults on the welfare rolls, most of whom are women, can't compete for those jobs. Generally, case workers and state welfare agencies say that, although women on welfare typically have poor job skills and little education, most can still find at least an entry-level position The central issue most apt to stand in the way of true welfare reform is figuring out how to help these workers keep a job over a sustained period of time. What communities ... are finding through programs already in place is that many welfare recipients lack the kinds of basic resources, training, and practical experience that help middle-class workers weather the challenges of the workplace, everything from a credit card to use when the car battery dies to the "soft skills" that communicate a positive attitude and help employees deal with day-to-day office politics and workplace conflicts The Post says that the challenge of finding jobs and keeping them has been made much more difficult by the large-scale suburbanization of new employment and uses BLS figures on employment and unemployment in some cities, counties, and metropolitan areas If the economy can't create enough jobs for the massive number of unemployed now, why are these "experts" so convinced?And who are they?
[PEN-L:6342] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
Richardson, in sending the useful BLS DAILY REPORT quotes the following: In the national effort to move millions of welfare recipients into the work force over the next few years, the key challenge is not likely to be a lack of jobs, says The Washington Post (Sept. 22, page A1). For the most part, experts are convinced that the American economy can create the 2 million or so jobs for those who will be required to find work under the new welfare law. Nor will the problem be that adults on the welfare rolls, most of whom are women, can't compete for those jobs. Generally, case workers and state welfare agencies say that, although women on welfare typically have poor job skills and little education, most can still find at least an entry-level position The central issue most apt to stand in the way of true welfare reform is figuring out how to help these workers keep a job over a sustained period of time. What communities ... are finding through programs already in place is that many welfare recipients lack the kinds of basic resources, training, and practical experience that help middle-class workers weather the challenges of the workplace, everything from a credit card to use when the car battery dies to the "soft skills" that communicate a positive attitude and help employees deal with day-to-day office politics and workplace conflicts The Post says that the challenge of finding jobs and keeping them has been made much more difficult by the large-scale suburbanization of new employment and uses BLS figures on employment and unemployment in some cities, counties, and metropolitan areas If the economy can't create enough jobs for the massive number of unemployed now, why are these "experts" so convinced?And who are they?
[PEN-L:5547] RE: FW: BLS Daily Report
Does anyone know if I can ever subscribe to any of the distribution list (if any) from the BLS directly? Thanks! -- Sent: Monday, August 05, 1996 9:52 AM Subject: [PEN-L:5543] FW: BLS Daily Report BLS DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, AUGUST 2, 1996 RELEASED TODAY: EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- Nonfarm payroll employment increased in July, and the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 5.4 percent. The number of payroll jobs rose by 193,000 over the month, led by a gain in the retail trade industry. Average hourly earnings declined 2 cents in July, following a sharp rise in the prior month COMMISSIONER'S STATEMENT -- Nonfarm employment increased by 193,000 in July, somewhat below the average monthly pace of job growth in the second quarter of this year (273,000) The unemployment rate was little changed After a robust June, the manufacturing sector slowed down considerably in July, with factory jobs declining, the National Association of Purchasing Management reports (Daily Labor Report, page A-11; Washington Post, page A1; New York Times, page D1; Wall Street Journal, page A2USA Today, page 1B). New claims filed with state agencies for unemployment insurance benefits declined by 29,000 to a seasonally adjusted 292,000 for the week ended July 27, the smallest number of new claims since February 1989 (Daily Labor Report, page D-27; The New York Times, page D1; The Wall Street Journal, page A2). In "The Rigors of Poverty," Gene Koretz of Business Week (Aug. 5, page 20) says that a new study details the hardships Writing in the "Monthly Labor Review", a team of researchers uses survey data to detail many of the differences. Although poverty is defined by income, the gap between the poor and others still seems stark, says Koretz. In 1993, the family income of the average poor person was $8,500, roughly a sixth of the average income of other families. Welfare households averaged $12,680 He cites several findings from the study in the May MLR and says that such statistics tell only part of the story. To measure the overall economic pressures felt by the poor, the researchers created an index based on such hardships as being evicted, having gas or electricity turned off, lacking food, living in crowded housing, and having no refrigerator, stove, or phone On page C1, The Wall Street Journal says the markets stage a rally, but brace for jobs report A table points out that the monthly release of employment data has roiled the bond and stock markets more often than not this year. Listed in the table are the dates of various BLS employment situation releases, the news that each carried, and the market reaction. DUE OUT NEXT WEEK: National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 1995 (Thurs., Aug 8) Producer Price Indexes -- July 1996 (Fri., Aug. 9)
[PEN-L:4179] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
Richardson_D wrote: "For Richer, For Poorer: An Election-Year Primer" was an article in Sunday's Washington Post (page H1) by Steven Pearlstein. Pearlstein says that, depending on which set of statistics you believe, Americans' income has either been largely stagnant for two decades or has risen smartly; he charts wages, household income, wages and benefits, per capita income, and after-tax income The article gives a brief primer for evaluating these claims and counterclaims as the issue takes center stage in the election year debate, by looking at seven areas: (1) Compensation vs. Wages. One of the statistics most frequently cited by the pessimists is that the wage of the typical American has declined 7 percent since 1973 after adjustment for the rising cost of living But there are big problems with this wage series. Even the people who collect the numbers at the Labor Department concede that it is based on a survey of an out-of-date sample of the work force that relies too heavily on hourly production workers. And by measuring only cash wages, the median wage series ignores the fact that employees have been receiving a greater share of their compensation in the form of tax-free fringe benefits. But broader compensation data ... have their own shortcomings If the value of compensation is the market price of the services provided -- for example, health insurance -- then this clearly overstates the increase in income. The "contribution" of employers to employee health insurance premiums have gone WAY UP, much faster than wages have risen in nominal terms, but the value of what has been purchased has declined --- The only way to deal with this would be to deflate the compensation percentage related to health insurance by general medical inflation as opposed to the CPI. Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:4193] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
Mike Meeropol wrote: If the value of compensation is the market price of the services provided -- for example, health insurance -- then this clearly overstates the increase in income. The "contribution" of employers to employee health insurance premiums have gone WAY UP, much faster than wages have risen in nominal terms, but the value of what has been purchased has declined --- The only way to deal with this would be to deflate the compensation percentage related to health insurance by general medical inflation as opposed to the CPI. The value to the worker is the money wages he saves by not paying himself, so I think the market cost is the right number. The real purchasing power of labor compensation in money terms would reflect the use of a proper price index which would include medical price inflation. Even if you value the fringes at cost, Larry Mishel has shown (and will show again in the upcoming State of Working America) that labor compensation has still stagnated from a distributional standpoint. Fringes are distributed disproportionately to higher income and wage levels, as you must know. Consumer note: Pearlstein is not one of our more incisive economics reporters.
[PEN-L:3946] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
Dave Richardson posted the following bit: Among the books reviewed by Business Week (April 22, page l5) is "The Case Against Immigration" by Roy Beck, Washington editor of "The Social Contract", a quarterly that deals with immigration issues. Aaron Bernstein's review (Bernstein covers workplace issues for Business Week) is titled "Huddled Masses Yearning for Your Job?" The nub of Beck's case is: Large immigration flows have a tremendous impact on U.S. labor markets. And the pain has been felt by the bottom half of U.S. workers, whose wages have declined for 2 decades. Meanwhile, employees have benefitted from cheaper and plentiful labor. George Boyes, Harvard University, and others conclude that immigration has been responsible for up to a quarter of the increased pay gap between high- and low-skilled workers. And new arrivals may have been responsible for up to half of the collapse in the wages of high school dropouts since l973, other studies have shown. Beck also argues that immigration may play a role in overall U.S. wage stagnation. Sluggish productivity growth since l973 has been a central factor in holding down pay. However, productivity may have been affected by the surge in immigration that began in the l970s. At the same time, baby boomers and women flooded the market, boosting the supply of labor. This held down the growth of capital investment per worker, sapping gains in efficiency. "Congress picked a terribly inappropriate period of U.S. history to be increasing the number of U.S. workers through immigration," Beck writes. Coyle: I haven't read Beck's book but I did attend a lecture he gave locally. He is a very clever and effective speaker and also dishonest and deceitful. He has a number of tricks of exposition and debate that lured his audience into concluding that immigrants are a fearful threat to their livelihoods and environment. The books/articles blaming immigrants for the failure of the economy serve a familiar political purpose. I look forward to the strong rebuttals that I know can be put forward.Gene Coyle
[PEN-L:3360] RE: FW: BLS Daily Report
GIGO. Maybe the BLS should be properly funded so it can survey a larger sample and get their margin of error down. I welcome comments on that remark. Nancy Breen NIH -- From: pen-l Subject: [PEN-L:3359] FW: BLS Daily Report Date: Thursday, March 14, 1996 6:39AM BLS DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1996 "Missing: 3.1 Million Jobs" is the lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal, which revisits the "fateful payroll survey numbers that set off Friday's 171-point rout" At issue is the payroll survey's seasonally adjusted measure of new jobs created in February One factor, the Journal says, is, simply, "the question of whether the figure is accurate: Many components of that payroll data are merely the best guess of Labor's economists. They can't survey all companies, so they make what is referred to as a `bias adjustment,' which means they do a guesstimate. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has an excellent record, but given the size of the Friday surprise, how much should one rely, or trade real money, on a figure that is -- as this year's payroll data are -- 80% surmise?" Later, however, the editorial uses payroll figures to show how much greater growth was during earlier recoveries "A spooky market tracks economic data to look for clues on the economy" is the subject of a Wall Street Journal article (page C1) that also includes the payroll data. It says that most economists believe the jobs data were distorted by bad winter weather and the shutdown of some statistics-gathering departments of the federal government. Manufacturing activity among firms in the Southeast slipped in February, with declines posted in production, orders, shipments, and employment, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta reports (Daily Labor Report, page A-12). DUE OUT TOMORROW: Producer Price Indexes -- February 1996
[PEN-L:3325] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
Don't you just love those financial markets? Employment rises more than expected, so Wall St decides there won't be an interest rate cut soon, and bond and share prices fall back - sufficiently to cause a weekend of panic over here in the UK about a repeat of the 1987 crash! Hugo Radice [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:379] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report, Sept. 5 and 6
Bought into it? They are selling it! On Thu, 7 Sep 1995, James Devine wrote: U.S. has bought into the so-called free trade system hook, line, and sinker. As Cardenas of Mexico puts it: there's no such thing as free trade. Someone pays for it. Of course, the issue of free trade is more complicated, but I have to go teach... in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
[PEN-L:378] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report, Sept. 5 and 6
U.S. has bought into the so-called free trade system hook, line, and sinker. As Cardenas of Mexico puts it: there's no such thing as free trade. Someone pays for it. Of course, the issue of free trade is more complicated, but I have to go teach... in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
[PEN-L:392] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report, Sept. 5 and 6
On Thu, 7 Sep 1995, James Devine wrote: U.S. has bought into the so-called free trade system hook, line, and sinker. As Cardenas of Mexico puts it: there's no such thing as free trade. Someone pays for it. I don't know if anyone has ever put it quite this way (it's a natural tho'), but I once came up with: "Free Trade' is to macroeconomics as `Free Lunch' is to micro..." Used it as a tagline in the Fidonet... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal + if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig + more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm -- Those who would give up essential Liberty, Benjamin Franklin to purchase a little temporary Safety, Pennsylvania Assembly deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Nov. 11, 1755 -- Jim Jaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[PEN-L:5860] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
On Fri, 14 Jul 1995 10:39:38 -0700 Richardson_D said: [among other things] Business Week's cover story (July l7) is "Wages: They're Stagnant, While Profits Are Soaring. Are We Headed for Trouble?" The accompanying article (page 54) says that weak wage growth is sapping demand: Corporate profits are at a 45-year high, unemployment is low, and productivity continues to climb. Wages, however, are not keeping pace, holding down income growth, consumer spending, and the overall economy. Does this seeming defiance of the laws of supply and demand signal a structural change in the economy? The Business Week article is useful, warning that "it could spell trouble for corporations and politicians alike" if workers got together. Also, that "the burden is likely to fall on the political system to educate and contain an increasingly distressed workforce." If only the left understood as much as the bourgeoisie! Question: the article (p.56) states that the "healthy" productivity gains since 1991 are due to "those stiff measures" like layoffs, lower wages, etc. But the related editorial says that it's time for the Fed to stimulate more growth because with productivity so high, there's little risk in economic stimulus; implication being that unless this is done there'll be unrest in the "middle class" -- i.e., that same distressed workforce. Is this assessment of the productivity gains accurate? And if so, isn't it something of a contradiction to propose that productivity achieved by screwing the workers will be maintained if the bourgeoisie eases up on them? Walter Daum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
