What's Inside of the Jobs Data

[Anonymous]

I was reading about the jobs report, and the WSJ had this graph.



Much has been made of the first graph, although a lot of it is due to an aging population and more recently fewer teens searching for jobs.

But the real issue is clear in the bottom graph. All sectors are trending up except construction. And that means that our jobs problem is still a result of the overbuilding we did during the real estate bubble. To any thinking person, the problem is clear: the construction industry is not going to grow again until we need more housing and commercial real estate. But we have so much excess inventory that's not going to happen.

The problem is that no government solutions are going to fix that, unless we start importing potential homeowners and businesses with a need for lots of office space. We are going to be stuck waiting it out, until we burn through the excess that we built up in the boom.

[jsteele]

One government solution to fix the lagging construction industry is infrastructure spending. Let's repair and/or build bridges and fix roads. We built all kinds of school in Iraq, why not build a few in the US? DC has countless water mains blowing up. Why not hire guys to dig holes and put in new pipes? They can un-combine the run-off and sewage systems while they are at it. There are any number of projects that would be useful and employ construction workers.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:One government solution to fix the lagging construction industry is infrastructure spending. Let's repair and/or build bridges and fix roads. We built all kinds of school in Iraq, why not build a few in the US? DC has countless water mains blowing up. Why not hire guys to dig holes and put in new pipes? They can un-combine the run-off and sewage systems while they are at it. There are any number of projects that would be useful and employ construction workers.

The GOP is all about jobs. Until it comes time to actually do something that might work, and then they're back to cutting spending.

[Anonymous]

We already spent a trillion dollars in stimulus infrastructure. The govt can't handle money. It's just too stupid of an entity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We already spent a trillion dollars in stimulus infrastructure. The govt can't handle money. It's just too stupid of an entity.

And, although only a fraction of that went toward jobs, it stopped the hemorrhaging that was occurring when Obama came in, if I recall correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We already spent a trillion dollars in stimulus infrastructure. The govt can't handle money. It's just too stupid of an entity.

We spent 1/3 of it on a tax cut. I think that was pretty stupid.

[Anonymous]

How did it go to stopping the job loss without infrastructure
? What other jobs were produced ? Why would you spend it on anything else? At least we get infrastructure ! What a bunch of lying idiots. No more money for them to waste. They are done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How did it go to stopping the job loss without infrastructure
? What other jobs were produced ? Why would you spend it on anything else? At least we get infrastructure ! What a bunch of lying idiots. No more money for them to waste. They are done.

From Wikipedia: "The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions." I don't think the job problem was foreseen to be as bad as it turned out, so other aspects of the economy were addressed as well.

I think two points are important. First that Krugman predicted that the amount of the stimulus was woefully inadequate and that Obama should have fought for more. Second, that the only "cure" for joblessness the GOP was willing to discuss was cuts in taxes and spending, which are their cures for anything that comes along; their actions give me no reason to believe joblessness is anything more than a campaign issue for them.

I admit that I see the whole thing through liberal eyes, and I have no proof that a truly progressive solution would have worked. But I certainly would deny that such a solution has been tried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was reading about the jobs report, and the WSJ had this graph.



Much has been made of the first graph, although a lot of it is due to an aging population and more recently fewer teens searching for jobs.

But the real issue is clear in the bottom graph. All sectors are trending up except construction. And that means that our jobs problem is still a result of the overbuilding we did during the real estate bubble. To any thinking person, the problem is clear: the construction industry is not going to grow again until we need more housing and commercial real estate. But we have so much excess inventory that's not going to happen.

The problem is that no government solutions are going to fix that, unless we start importing potential homeowners and businesses with a need for lots of office space. We are going to be stuck waiting it out, until we burn through the excess that we built up in the boom.

I think you are a little bit too enamored with those trend lines. I don't know how many jobs there are in each sector. And I don't know how steep the trend line needs to be in order to accommodate the new job seekers each year (the HS and college graduates seeking employment). It is interesting to note that the construction sector experienced its low point a good year after the other sectors. It seems to be off the low now but not exactly booming, at least in terms of employment. I know the DOW has been doing well, and the stock market in general has been decent these past few years. I believe that residential construction has been a good subsector this past year. Heavy construction has been more of a mixed bag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was reading about the jobs report, and the WSJ had this graph.



Much has been made of the first graph, although a lot of it is due to an aging population and more recently fewer teens searching for jobs.

But the real issue is clear in the bottom graph. All sectors are trending up except construction. And that means that our jobs problem is still a result of the overbuilding we did during the real estate bubble. To any thinking person, the problem is clear: the construction industry is not going to grow again until we need more housing and commercial real estate. But we have so much excess inventory that's not going to happen.

The problem is that no government solutions are going to fix that, unless we start importing potential homeowners and businesses with a need for lots of office space. We are going to be stuck waiting it out, until we burn through the excess that we built up in the boom.

I think you are a little bit too enamored with those trend lines. I don't know how many jobs there are in each sector. And I don't know how steep the trend line needs to be in order to accommodate the new job seekers each year (the HS and college graduates seeking employment). It is interesting to note that the construction sector experienced its low point a good year after the other sectors. It seems to be off the low now but not exactly booming, at least in terms of employment. I know the DOW has been doing well, and the stock market in general has been decent these past few years. I believe that residential construction has been a good subsector this past year. Heavy construction has been more of a mixed bag.

I'm not "enamored". To answer the first question, it's easy enough to see how many jobs are involved: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm and the drop in construction jobs is significant. As for the second, construction drops off a little slower because projects with construction loans get completed even after the downturn, because the developer is already in the hole for the real estate and has no choice but to go forward, and the loans are already in place.

The Dow is doing well, but construction is still down.