Forum Thread
(Lake Martin Specific)
111,143 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 7:30:23 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,605 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,169 messages
Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
Lake Martin Photo Gallery





    
Name:   water_watcher - Email Member
Subject:   I won't mention the dismal jobs report
Date:   4/6/2012 9:57:42 AM


I feel for those looking for work under the failed Oblamer policies.   Very very sad.  We need leadership and a pro business president to get this economy moving.   

Another 167,000 people stopped looking for work. 

There are fewer people employed today than when Oblamer took office ... how can he even stand up and try to claim any success.





Name:   copperline - Email Member
Subject:   I won't mention the dismal jobs report
Date:   4/6/2012 1:51:33 PM

Always more sides to a complicated coin…..

8.2% Unemployment: An Exceedingly 'Meh' Jobs Report for March

By Derek Thompson / Atlantic.com

Apr 6 2012, 9:50 AM ET

After three straight months of wicked job growth, March disappointed with 120,000 new workers. But the unemployment rate ticked down to 8.2%, the lowest rate since the first month of Obama's presidency.

The economic Twitter world, which lately has thrilled to the employment surveys released at 8:30 AM every first Friday of the month, spent this Good Friday morning tweeting out variations on a theme of "huh." The Washington Post's Neil irwin's might just have won the morning with some basic meta-analysis: "Overall take on jobs report: Meh." Meh, indeed.

Here are four ways to think about Meh March.

interp 1: Okun's Law strikes back. For the last few weeks, some economists have puzzled over how the economy could create 200,000+ jobs a month with only modest GDP growth. According to "Okun's Law," employment growth and GDP growth like to hold hands. You don't see one get too far ahead of the other. This jobs report brings the two in line. Perhaps the broadest, simplest interpretation of today is that the recovery is still real and still weak, just as we thought before this morning's report.

interp 2: This report is wrong ... ish. These reports are subject to major revisions. in August 2011, as you might recall, we created zero jobs. At least, that was the breaking news on the first Friday of September. Two months later, it turned out that we created 85,000 jobs in August. That's some margin of error. Eighty-five thousand jobs is exactly the difference between today's 120,000 figure and consensus expectations of a strong 200k month. These numbers are written in editable pixels, not in stone.

interp 3: Things are quietly getting worse. After three straight positive months of job creation, worker participation rate fell surprisingly. The employment-population rate fell again, too. in other words, even though we are in a recovery, a shrinking percentage of our country is looking for work or employed. We want a recovery where the unemployment rate falls thanks to job creation, not labor force dissipation.

interp 4: Things are quietly getting better. Take the long view. Average monthly job creation in the last quarter is greater than 200,000. Average monthly job creation in the last six months is nearly 190,000. That's a recovery, people. it's still the best 12 months of job growth in the last five years. The most important sectoral drag on employment, which has been government losses, is slowing sharply, and manufacturing is still expanding more than 30,000 jobs a month.





Name:   copperline - Email Member
Subject:   I won't mention the dismal jobs report
Date:   4/6/2012 7:13:27 PM

i started to try to write a post about how much the unemployment numbers were affected by reductions in government spending, as various community agencies, local governments, and contractors have seen Fed dollars pulled back.   Looking at headlines today, even Republican officials in Alabama are beginning to worry about what the impact of the coming govt cutbacks will be.   More to come on that later, i think.

i didn't get very far on the first question, but i did come up with something else interesting.  These numbers from the US Office of Personnel Management.

 

 

Years in office

Fed employees at beginning of term

Fed employees at end of term

Change

(Republican)

Change

(Democrats)

Jimmy Carter (Dem)

4

2,883,000

2,875,000

 

-8000

Ronald Reagan (Rep)

8

2875000

3,113,000

+238,000

 

Geo. Bush i

(Rep)

4

3,113,000

3,083,000

-30,000

 

Bill Clinton

(Dem)

8

3,083,000

2,703,000

 

-380,000

Geo. Bush ii

(Rep)

8

2,703,000

2,756,000

+53,000

 

Barack Obama

(Dem)

4

2,756,000

2,840,000

(at end of 2010)

 

+84,000

Republican administrations have been in office for a total of 20 years & show a net increase in Federal non-military employees of 261,000.

Democrats have been in office 16 years, responsible for a net decrease of 304,000 employees during those terms.

By the end of 2010, the United States government STiLL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

We have 35,000 fewer nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.

This makes me think that GOP’s execution of their rhetoric and their particular claim to be the ‘party of smaller government’ just isn’t an accurate description of what they’ve been doing.   

Believe it or not, hob, i don't care for statistics much either... but we have to live with them!





Name:   copperline - Email Member
Subject:   I won't mention the dismal jobs report
Date:   4/6/2012 10:17:39 PM

You're right, the number of unemployed folks what the thread is about... I should have posted this separately.   Like WW, I am concerned about what happens to those people... that's real people behind that statistic who are in trouble.    It seems to me there is a real disconnect between having so many people looking for jobs and so many employers saying they are having trouble filling openings, and I don't understand it.





Name:   Talullahhound - Email Member
Subject:   I won't mention the dismal jobs report
Date:   4/7/2012 9:42:06 AM

I think there is a skills/education gap.  Some of the people who have been laid off don't have the skills for the jobs that employers want to fill, especially in high tech and the skilled trades.  Also,  a lot of people are unwilling to move to where the jobs are.  Other jobs are low paying and people don't want them. Some people have an unrealistic sense of what they are worth in the job market. 



Name:   Barneget - Email Member
Subject:   I won't mention the dismal jobs report
Date:   4/7/2012 6:37:11 PM

My memory has flaws but I seem to recall the rapid expansion and adoption of computers and networks in the 90's. That may have had an impact on the head count reduction, although it seems that was offset by the expansion of contractors. Hound may want to share more insight on the contractor impact.. The Bush 43 response to 9/11 brought us DHS, and moving airport security contractors to TSA employees.



Name:   copperline - Email Member
Subject:   I won't mention the dismal jobs report
Date:   4/7/2012 7:50:13 PM

That seems likely.   To me, that's why reduction in education/job skill training funding may be a really bad idea for the economy.   I don't know what we can do about relocating massive numbers of workers whose jobs have left their region and reformed elsewhere.   We aren't that mobile a society anymore.   The new "Oakies" can't flee the dust bowl and move to an under-populated west coast this time.



Name:   Talullahhound - Email Member
Subject:   I won't mention the dismal jobs report
Date:   4/7/2012 9:02:29 PM


A lot of people seem to think the jobs will come to them.  No one likes to leave the place where they are settled, but sometimes it is a necessity. 

You are preaching to the choir about the cuts to education and job training.  I'm appalled. 



Name:   Talullahhound - Email Member
Subject:   I won't mention the dismal jobs report
Date:   4/8/2012 4:07:36 PM

When I look at Copperline's chart, I can pretty much tell you what was going on in the Defense Department at that time. The Reagan years brought us the modernization and ramp up of the military and it's capabilites. Also the beginning of the war on drugs, which led to the expansion of the DEA, among others. The Clinton years brought us a draw down in government jobs, under "reinventing" government, and drove a lot of government jobs to contractors. I think the average person would be shocked at how many contractors are in the government -- some offices, you can't tell the contractors from the govt civilians. They are not allowed to be in "policy making" positions, yet the work they do is in fact, often the policy making with some govt officials stamp on it. (BTW, in my experience it is not cheaper to hire contractors. It's just the color of the money. And there is no cap at present on how much a contractor can be paid in salary.) Bush 43, had the war on terror and expanded government jobs particularly in the area of intelligence and the creation of Homeland Security. Of course, during the Carter years, there were a lot of job freezes on government hiring. I don't think just looking at the numbers tell the whole story though. Another thing is the increase in the grade structure. The increases in the number of GS-13, 14 and 15, as well as the SES ranks. As people retire, you might think that they would start to reduce the grade structure and bring down the average salary. But, I don't think that will happen for a variety of reasons. Instead of adjusting the pay scale to account for a better educated, more professional workforce, you will continue to see that expansion of high grades. And I haven't seen an effective program yet to curtail it -- particularly in Washington, but in other places around the country as well.



Name:   MrHodja - Email Member
Subject:   I won't mention the dismal jobs report
Date:   4/8/2012 4:45:14 PM

I'll have to give a strong second to Hound's comment about Government and contractors.  I work for a defense contractor and can tell you that I am often surprised at the number of folks who dress and act as if they were Government but in fact are contractors.  Seems to be especially bad in large meetings.  An awful lot just say "I am with XYZ military organization", rather that to say "I am ZYX contract support to XYZ military organization".  

As to pay, yes and no.  On Cost Plus contracts the Government pays whatever the cost is -- and some can get away with large salaries.  However, at least in my case, the Government project engineer has considerable influence over the charges through the proposal process.  While not a hard and fast rule the government manager can choose not to use a certain contractor if the contractor doesn't play ball and keep the high rollers off the task.  On fixed price contracts the government chooses the best value proposal, and if the contractor wants to use folks making exorbitant salaries it comes out of the contractor's pot, not the government's.

And as to contractor labor cost versus government, sometimes it may apparently cost more to hire a contractor, but having contract support with, say, a unique set of skills or patent on some technology the government needs, it might be cheaper to hire the contractor than try to hire a government person with a skill set that is rarely used or do the research necessary to build a widget that a contractor has available off the shelf.

In previous years it was like pulling hens teeth to get new government positions approved.  But the current environment is quite different, with organizations hiring and doing in-house what contractors used to do for them because they didn't have the organic capability to do it themselves.



Name:   Talullahhound - Email Member
Subject:   I won't mention the dismal jobs report
Date:   4/8/2012 7:22:19 PM

I agree with you that in some cases it is better to hire a higher price contractor with a specific set of skills. My experience is exactly the same -- of being in meetings with a mix of government people and contractors and no distinction being made. In fact, contractors were providing the Services "position" with no indication that they were not government employees. Supposed to be a no-no, but it became impossible to enforce. The military departments just didn't have enough govt employees to do all the work that needed to be done. In one case in my old organization, we paid a premium for intelligence analysts, then had them on board for 3-4 months and they were not able to perform the work because they didn't have the appropriate level clearances. They had been Pre-screened and their background check paperwork submitted, but at the day the contract started, they didn't have the clearances. Upon further inquiry, we were told that the number of people with that level of security clearance just weren't available, and if they were, we couldn't afford them within the amount of the contract. The theory behind "reinventing government" in terms of contract employees was that the saving would take place because they would only be kept as long as their specific skills were needed, and then they could be let go. Unfortunately, it doesn't really work like that in reality. They become entrenched in the organization and new tasks are found for them to do when the original task goes away. When I moved to one job, I had 5 administrative support contractors, 3 of whom no one was sure what they did. Over a period of time, I was able to pare them down to the 2 that were really needed; but it was with consternation on the part of my staff, who had gotten used to them performing "personal services" which is another no-no. On the whole, I don't really have a problem with using contractors. We had a some that were just excellent and a few of them were later hired as government employees. But, it can be like any other hires -- some are excellent and provide high quality work and others aren't as effective.







Quick Links
Lake Martin News
Lake Martin Photos
Lake Martin Videos




About Us
Contact Us
Site Map
Search Site
Advertise With Us
   
www.LakeMartin.com
THE LAKE MARTIN WEBSITE

Copyright 2024, Lakes Online
Privacy    |    Legal